By John Wilkes from Eyesonobama.com:
had Democrats taken the health care bill through the budget reconciliation process- where use of the filibuster is forbidden by Senate rules- they would have only needed 51 votes. They could easily have jammed the legislation down the throat of the other party and the American people who elected them. But they didn't. If anything, Democrats in the health care fight have reaffirmed to the American people their commitment to bipartisanship.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had an interesting quote a few months back on bipartisanship, as President Barack Obama was earning widespread acclaim for his appointment of a surprising number- despite a strong mandate for Democrats in the 2008 contest- of Republican advisers to his cabinet and executive office. "The public wants bipartisanship," the former Illinois Congressman and Clinton staffer said. "We just have to try. We don't have to succeed."
The health care fight, despite Democrats' efforts to secure support from Republicans, has turned into the very knockdown political battles majority parties tend to avoid by steamrolling the other party and pushing their legislation through by any means necessary. And it didn't have to be. But Because Congressional Democrats and the White House wanted a bill that they could present to the public that reflected a broad range of views, opinions, and honest debate, they went through the typical legislative process, which requires a 60-vote minimum to invoke cloture, snipping any opportunity for Republicans to filibuster the bill. With Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts still away from his Senate business in the midst of discussion of his own marquee issue, Democrats theoretically only have 59 votes.
But had Democrats taken the health care bill through the budget reconciliation process- where use of the filibuster is forbidden by Senate rules- they would have only needed 51 votes. They could easily have jammed the legislation down the throat of the other party and the American people who elected them. But they didn't. And Bush Republicans who were in the majority during the years of narrowly divided Congressional power from 2000 to 2006 chose that route frequently. What's more is that if Democrats had gone straight to the budget reconciliation instead of seeking GOP backing first, they likely would never have had the PR nightmare this has become, the will-it-or-won't-it pass ping pong match.
Sadly misinformed town hall protesters claim that Democrats have dictatorially pushed the legislation through Congress (hence, the references to Hitler and Nazi Germany). But if anything, Democrats- in making concessions, granting time delays, and permitting extensive debate on the subject- have reaffirmed to the American people their commitment to bipartisanship.
And again, they probably didn't need to. Voters gave Democrats and their agenda a clear mandate back in 2008, upping what had been strong majorities in both chambers of Congress to a near-supermajority in the House and a flat out supermajority in the Senate, not to mention the White House.
For their part, Republicans have done nothing to meet Democrats anywhere in the middle, which is fine: Democrats promised to seek bipartisanship, but they can only go so far. If Republicans refuse to work with Democrats on behalf of their constituents, they'll have to answer to them at election time. But the campaign wing of the national Democratic Party has to point that out as clearly as possible, and legislators must continue to push for the change they promised on the trail, even if it means not compromising every key piece of landmark legislation to appease obstructionist Republicans.