Skip to main content

You know there are a lot of creative excuses and interpretations of what the Senate can do these days, whether it’s that only Democrats must follow the Byrd rule and only Republicans can use reconciliation or that our Senate Majority Leader and our popularly elected President were always powerless and had to bow to big bad Joe Lieberman. When progressives talk about Harry Reid not using his power as Senate Majority Leader in this community sometimes you get a condescending comment about not knowing the Senate rules or "how things work in the Senate" because Lieberman would supposedly of filibustered the Senate Organizing Resolution if it was decided to strip him by Reid (if he was a real leader) or a separate vote if requested which Lieberman would have a right to still doesn't equate with the Senate Rules directly.

The Senate is merely rubber stamping the decisions of the deliberations between the Senate Majority Leader, Minority Leader, and the majority and minority party, though the bill would have had to pass the Senate and that is where the argument comes in though it does not have precedence here looking back and I will explain why.

Simply speaking had Reid of been assertive and if the president wanted to pressure Lieberman after a mandate of an election, the Senate Organization Resolution would have passed the Senate even if Lieberman’s chair was stripped away beforehand in Committee thus sealing it with the passage of the Resolution, because opposing it then was essentially pointless, as all precedents from the preceding Congress would remain in tact with a net loss for Republicans.

Republicans weren't interested in whatever Majority Leader Reid's decision on Lieberman was, they were trying to play for a better ratio of Republican members on all committees. They realized stalling the last Senate Organizing Resolution favored Democrats and so they eventually backed off because they didn't want any of their members in jeopardy or stuck out of limbo. They had no reason to support Lieberman even if he did filibuster the resolution back then.

So what if it was filibustered last time by Lieberman? One, who asks this question to get out of pressuring a Senate Majority Leader to use their real power of influence here, isn't really paying attention to what an Organized Resolution entails completely and the timing associated with stripping chairmanships. I remember people here decrying progressives because we didn’t give a shit about having Lieberman in the caucus and we wanted him kicked out in the last Senate Organizing Resolution. We actually wanted leadership there from the Democratic Majority Leader and we expected voiced opposition to Lieberman for back stabbing us from our president whom was also back-stabbed. You know why? Because there was no pressure towards Lieberman whatsoever even though it was the right time to strip him whether anyone likes it or not and none of our leaders were able to look ahead like progressives were.

The middle of the commode caucus here all fear mongered over what would happen if we lost Lieberman’s vote. Guess what? As I have indisputably shown we could have kicked him out and stripped his chair away with little or no repercussions whatsoever including any filibuster threat from Lieberman who didn’t give one.  Former Democratic Senate staffer Martin Paone, you know, an actual Senate expert in what we call reality, agrees as I show you below. It looks like all of you whom were crying 60 knew about as much about the Senate as Evan Bayh does, diddly squat. So let me refer to someone who actually knows the Senate rules and what they are talking about, shall we?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

According to Paone, "the time to take a chairmanship away is when everybody is being appointed [at the beginning of the new Congress]. Everybody has an investment in that resolution. In order for everybody to benefit, that resolution has to pass. It's much more difficult to cherry pick in this fashion, to take one Senator's chairmanship, at a later date."

Asked if Bayh understands this complexity, Paone said "I'm sure he probably doesn't. There aren't that many people up there who do. It's not every day you want to change a chairmanship. And since the Hatfield matter never materialized, I think that shows why it's not as easy as some might think."

Yeah, I don’t think the enablers here saying that Obama and Reid did everything they could for the public option HCR they said they would or understand such complexity either. So every time I made this point it was absolutely correct with absolute precedence and now because of those who erroneously made the excuse about filibustering a Senate Organizational Resolution in the beginning of the 111th Congress didn’t know what the hell they were talking about and they still don’t. That’s what is called embarrassingly dropping the ball and those making excuses for this really need to get a clue.

And so now that you are educated about this you know every one of you who wanted Lieberman back then agrees with Evan Bayh, so essentially you really don’t know the rules after all. It's proven.

FACT: We wouldn’t be in this position now if this stupid decision wasn’t made and if the enablers applauded this decision and want to act like our leadership did everything they could. To do so is pure belief of parliamentary procedure that is not based in reality. Don’t make me laugh when you make this assertion while demonstrably not having a freaking clue about the Senate Rules or when the right time to make the decision to take away a chairmanship.

And now because of your Machiavellian dance of BS it will be even harder now to take Lieberman’s chair away when the next Senate Organization Resolution comes up as per the last linked article stating quite clearly for anyone willing to acknowledge reality. There are about half of this community that does acknowledge reality, but half are still living in Democratic campaign "08" dream world that they need to wake up from. I truly do hope these delusional dynamics change soon.

"It takes a Senate resolution to change a chairmanship, and that resolution could be subject to a filibuster," Paone told the Huffington Post. Put simply, under Bayh's proposed scenario, Republicans would have every reason to filibuster a new Senate resolution taking Lieberman's chairmanship away if he was proving an effective antagonist of President Obama.

Paone noted that a similar game of political chess played out in the Senate's recent history. "We had a similar situation in the past with a Republican moderate senator, Mark Hatfield from Oregon, who voted the wrong way in the eyes of [former Sen. Rick] Santorum and others on the constitutional amendment on a balanced budget," Paone said. "There were rumblings they wanted to take his chairmanship away. But the ranking member on the committee was [Democratic] Sen. Robert Byrd, who wrote Hatfield a nice note saying, 'if they ever try to take your chairmanship away, I'll make sure we [Democrats] will filibuster such a resolution."

Lieberman has now proven himself an effective antagonist against Obama, so it will be much more likely now that a Senate Organizational Resolution is filibustered. So as I have always said, there wasn’t the right pressure applied to Lieberman and his chair should have been taken away with a resolution that would have absolutely passed the Senate cementing the decisions made already and influenced by the Majority Leader and our President at the start of this Congress.

That is a pretty damaging scenario half of this community who enabled this failure (unlike the activist half holding feet to the fire) have gotten us into, but there is some slight hope. Recent history shows that even the threat of taking Lieberman’s Committee seat away even without the Senate Organizations Resolution might work though our leadership failed absolutely, including President Obama, in anticipating what we knew Lieberman was going to do and to strip him when the Resolution could have passed the Senate with no question. Let’s hope this can work for us when Lieberman tries to block other meaningful legislation with his deficit fetish, as thanks to these creative unrealistic excuses for Harry Reid, it’s probably the only hope we have for real legislation with teeth. (Lieberman will continue to want to punish everyone who voted for Lamont which is what this is about for him now that he is emboldened thanks to the enablers I speak of. These are facts.)

Though I disagree with him and his Dutch fetish among other things on HCR that don't seem to be a realistic, Ezra Klein is right here on this point backing up what I said:

That's Steve Benen, describing the dynamic in the Senate. As I've said before, I think a lot of folks imagine this as a negotiation, in which both sides want to get to yes, and so everyone is involved in a complex game to signal their comfort with failure in order to strengthen their ultimate bargaining position. But that's not an accurate depiction of the process.

If this is comparable to any form of negotiation, it's a hostage negotiation. The hostage-takers might not prefer to kill the kid, but there's definitely some upside to killing the kid, as it strengthens them in future negotiations. Conversely, the people on the other side of the phone don't want the kid to die, but also don't want a situation in which hostage-taking is encouraged. Generally, you try and resolve that by killing or capturing the hostage-takers, but that's not really an option here, with the closest analogue being a kamikaze primary challenge against Blanche Lincoln, which would come too late to affect health-care reform anyway.

Here are the Senate rules outlining exactly how Harry Reid could influence and shape this process via his duties as Majority Leader. The President could apply pressure as well as he was elected with a mandate and with that comes the bully pulpit. Reagan used his mandate to destroy the working class, and if Obam wanted to he could resurrect it, but I had my doubts as soon as Goldman Sachs/Citi-bank+corp+Travelers Insurance company=CitiGroup employees filled the Treasury. Leaving that aside, he could of actually talked to Lieberman about the public option in the first place which he didn’t.

It’s important to understand the actual rules of the Senate and the right time to use your power to strip Chairmanship away as well as the sway of a Senate Majority Leader before making erroneous excuses for him.

http://www.llsdc.org/...

Because of the importance of committee work, Senators consider desirable committee assignments a priority. The key to securing favorable committee slots is often said to be targeting committee seats that match the legislator’s skills, expertise, and policy concerns. After general elections are over, one of the first orders of business for Senate leaders is setting the sizes and ratios of committees. Although the size of each standing committee is set in Senate rules, changes in these sizes often result from inter-party negotiations before each new Congress. Senate party leaders also negotiate the party ratios on standing committees. Determinations of sizes and ratios usually are made before the process of assigning Senators to committees.

Once sizes and ratios of standing committees are determined, a panel for each party nominates colleagues for committee assignments. Senate Republicans primarily use a Committee on Committees for this purpose, although the Republican leader nominates Senators for assignment to some standing committees. Senate Democrats use a Steering and Coordination Committee to nominate Democrats for assignment to all standing committees. The processes these panels use are distinct. Republicans rely on a seniority formula to make nominations, while Democrats make nominations on a seat-by-seat basis, considering a variety of factors.

The processes also have many common features. After the general election, each panel solicits preferences for committee assignment from party colleagues, then matches these preferences with vacancies on standing committees. Senate rules,
along with party rules and practices, guide the work of the Committee on Committees and the Steering and Coordination Committee. Senate rules, for instance, divide the standing and other Senate committees into three groups, the so-called "A" "B" and "C" categories. Senators must serve on two "A" committees and may serve on one "B" committee, and any number of "C" committees. Exceptions to these restrictions are sometimes approved by the Senate. Both parties place further limitations, for example, by generally prohibiting two Senators from the same party and state from serving on the same committee. The nominations of each of these panels require the approval of the pertinent full party conference and ultimately the Senate. Approval at both stages usually is granted easily, because of the debate and decision-making earlier in the process.

Specific rules regarding Senate membership on and appointments to nonstanding committees vary from committee to committee, but party leaders usually are included in the process.

The power of a Majority Leader I cite whether in the Senate with Bill Frist in the past or the House with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay comes from using the same types of Committee threat precedents comes into play with absolute relevance and results, but this time for progress.

So cowering in fear and making excuses for Obama and Reid at every turn is not excusable for those that do it and implying the innocent bystander fable is showing an ignorance of the rules and recent history as to what I am talking about which is absolutely clear and has absolute precedent. Harry Reid and President Obama did almost nothing to pressure Lieberman when they had the chance just as I said. We should threaten chairmanships still just in case we can get the same results Bush and Bill Frist did for our side, even though it is a bit of a long shot at this point even after 2010.

As digby says, we have now lost a huge symbol of liberal strength and political power because of this non public option HCR bill.

Ezra believes that if the votes aren't there for a decent public option then the horse trading should be around getting something good in return for giving up the public option rather than negotiating the terms of the public option. That would make sense if the public option were just another feature of the health care bill. But it is not. It is the central demand of the liberal base of the Democratic Party in this rube goldberg health care plan and has long since gone way beyond a policy to become a symbol.

Perhaps that is wrong on policy grounds. People will argue about that forever. But that doesn't change the fact that it is no longer a matter of policy but rather a matter of political power. And to that extent it cannot be "bargained away" for something like better subsidies, even if it made sense. "Bargaining away" the Public Option is also the bargaining away of liberal influence and strength.

And more on that point, this sets a precedent and our weak kneed leadership across the board will now be a walking moral hazard  as eloquently illustrated by John Aravosis and it’s something we are all going to have to think about whether we like it or not. We lost the first big fight which sets this precedent for climate change, another stimulus we desperately need, or auditing the Fed to find out whether our capital is working for us or swimming in the shadow banking sector here and overseas.

And there's another reason political experts are more upset about the capitulation to Joe Lieberman than some so called policy experts. Political experts know a thing or two about moral hazard - the concept in economics that says that if you cover someone's ass, they'll make the same mistake over and over again. If we let Democrats get away with being weak, with refusing to lead on health care reform, with refusing to defend and fight for the President's own campaign promises, and instead settle for a mere shadow of what he promised, and what we could have had, then we should not be surprised when the same capitulation happens on immigration, climate change, gay rights, and every other issue that someone out there cares about. Any parent can tell you what happens when you reward bad behavior.

(I mean, hey, being 4/5ths a man is better than only being 3/5ths a man, isn't it? And on gays in the military, how about we only let half of you serve openly, but we segregate you in separate barracks - I mean, George Bush would never have gone even this far, would he? And finally climate change - if we delay the destruction of mankind for 300 years instead of the current trajectory of, say, 150 years, I'd call that a victory.)

If you don't want Democrats to ever keep their promises, if you want Barack Obama to sell out your constituency from the git-go and undercut your effort to hold him to his promises every step of the way, then please do heartily endorse this health care reform "compromise." I'm sure the bill helps some small fraction of Americans somewhere, maybe. But I know that it's going to screw my people when our issue comes up for a vote, and it'll screw yours too.

I don’t think this is real reform on policy either, like I don’t think the ACES bill is real reform, nor will I think the Kerry Boxer climate change legislation will go far enough. Nor do I think this administration is really going to enact true financial regulation unless they support Maria Cantwell’s Glass Steagall bill with John McCain (Uh oh! I guess we better shun it then!), but Giethner is now pushing Sheila Bair out of the equation and Bernanke is going to cause another intentional recession on top of this one to combat inflation during a deflationary like spiral with the support of the President and some of his enablers.

I know, the truth hurts, and so deal with it and then and only then will you feel better. I think you’d better come up with some better excuses next time. And to the other half of principled kossacks, I love you and keep fighting.

Originally posted to priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:08 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (10+ / 0-)

    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

    by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:08:47 AM PST

    •  Speaking of excuses, this poor excuse for a diary (15+ / 2-)

      is more of a desperate rant than anything meaningful.

      God has no religion. - Gandhi

      by OIL GUY on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:17:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

        •  agree (5+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright, TooFolkGR, OIL GUY, Tortmaster, Norbrook
          Hidden by:
          AnnaMolly

          uprated

          Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

          by glynis on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:36:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  THREE snarky comments and not one jot ... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            priceman

            of substance among them.  And so the stampede always begins ... SIGH.

            I hope you're all proud of yourselves for saying nothing but saying it with such panache and such mindless unity.  You must all be very popular around here.  

            Tell me.  How does it feel to be HR'd?  And for absolutely nothing?  

            Now maybe you know how others feel when you do it to them.

            ... defragmenting the attic ...

            by AnnaMolly on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:12:41 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  p.s. That's two more HRs than the entire total (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              priceman

              of HRs I've EVER used here.  This self-righteous, pseudo-progressive stuff is getting pretty darn tiresome.  

              ... defragmenting the attic ...

              by AnnaMolly on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:14:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Project much? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AnnaMolly

                Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                by glynis on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:49:29 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Not hardly. I don't even have a position on the . (0+ / 0-)

                  substance of the argument.  I just came over to take a peek at the diary because I've seen the diarist in other settings and respect his opinion generally. I'm talking only about the discourse around here, which started when you and your friends hi-jacked his attempt to conduct a conversation about it.  

                  ... defragmenting the attic ...

                  by AnnaMolly on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:07:30 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  what your self righteousness missed (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AnnaMolly

              is that we UPrated a commenter who we felt was wrongly HR'd.  

              We didn't HR anybody.  

              Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

              by glynis on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:52:55 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sheesh.That was the whole point. It was wrong ... (0+ / 0-)

                and I freely admit it.  I've never done it to anyone before, except once when someone used some pretty foul language to criticize Keith Olbermann.  I did it just to make the point that YOU were also wrong, but you don't seem to get that.  What you did happens all the time around here.  And with all due respect, I didn't miss the point.  It's pretty clear.  You and your friends callously dismissed someone's diary by summarily labeling it worthless.  You didn't personally HR anyone; your part was merely to "uprate" -- i.e., validate --someone else who called the diarist worthless, but without giving a single, solitary reason for doing so.  And don't try to excuse it by saying that it was "just an opinion."  Not one of you stated any substantive opinion whatsoever.  I wanted you to see how it feels to be on the receiving end of that.  Calling someone worthless rolls so trippingly off the tongue ... until it happens to you ... doesn't it?  None of you have standing to lecture anyone else about "abuse."  

                But maybe you and your friends will think twice next time about dissing people's legitimate efforts without making any effort of your own to contribute to the discourse.  And then again, from the amount of self-reflection I'm seeing from you and your friends, I highly doubt it.  Your "yeah, well" comment says it all.  

                Nothing at all.  

                ... defragmenting the attic ...

                by AnnaMolly on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:05:08 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I was wrong? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  AnnaMolly

                  to uprate someone because they were inappropriately HR'd?

                  I'm not following your reasoning for HR'ing me at all.

                  My reason for doing so was agreeing that he was being inapproriately HR'd because someone didn't agree with his opinion.

                  that is HR abuse.  And when that happens other's typically will Uprate because of it.  Not because they necessarily agree with the opinion.  

                  We don't think that person's opinion, just because someone disagrees, should be hidden.

                  Perfectly acceptable reason to Uprate.  I made it clear why I was Uprating.

                  Nobody is "lecturing" about abuse.  What we're doing is following the standards that this site has set for HR abuse.  Don't like it, take it up with the site administrators.  

                  Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                  by glynis on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:13:38 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I've explained this elsewhere. By uprating (0+ / 0-)

                    you didn't defend against the HR, which I still believe was valid, based on what I see done to "trolls" around here generally.  You validated a "trollish" comment that had contained only personal insult and no substance, and was only meant to label and demean the diarist.  

                    Or are you defending THAT as a legitimate form of discourse?  

                    ... defragmenting the attic ...

                    by AnnaMolly on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:24:43 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

          •  I'm sorry you got hit by this unjustified HR (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AnnaMolly

            abuse. I don't know why these people insist on taking this course of action. Perhaps they have no rational arguments to offer, but I thank you for taking a donut on my behalf.

            God has no religion. - Gandhi

            by OIL GUY on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:04:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  LOL. No rational arguments from you or your crew (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AnnaMolly

              Like you offered one. You have zero ability for critical thinking which is why you just said, "This diary sucks. Go team go."

              That's desperate and devoid of substance.

              I'm not a fan of group think, which was behind every one of your reccs and those like you.

              It's pathetic.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

              by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:23:26 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  actually not (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AnnaMolly

                we UPrated because we thought his comment was inappropriately HR'd.

                He's entitled to his opinion.  Just like you are to yours.  You don't HR because you disagree.

                Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                by glynis on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:54:50 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  What, exactly, WAS the opinion, again? (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  priceman

                  Restate it for me, please.  In terms of substance, not snark, that is.  Or can't you?  

                  ... defragmenting the attic ...

                  by AnnaMolly on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:09:05 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  if you want to HR for snark (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    AnnaMolly

                    then many many comments would be HR'd.

                    Snark is not included as HR'd by the site administrators.

                    Just because you or anybody else didn't like the snark doesn't mean it should be HR'd.

                    Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                    by glynis on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:15:30 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No, I HR'd for snark coupled with complete ... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      priceman

                      lack of substance, which serves no legitimate purpose in this case but to undermine the diarist.  

                      Besides, I said it was WRONG, just like your friends' approach was wrong, and your validating that approach was wrong.  

                      And don't patronize me.  I didn't "misundestand."  Just exactly what did you "uprate" if it wasn't a snarky insult without any substance that had no legitimate purpose?  I understood that CLEARLY.  

                      ... defragmenting the attic ...

                      by AnnaMolly on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:22:18 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If you are disagreeing (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        AnnaMolly

                        then why are you recc'ing comments of mine that you are disagreeing with?

                        That makes no sense to me.  

                        Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

                        by glynis on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:28:06 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I know it doesn't. Because you seem to (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          priceman

                          distinguish no difference between respectful substantive disagreements employing genuinely witty discourse and mean-spirited personal attacks that serve no legitimate purpose, prevent legitimate discourse, and contain cheap insults that anyone can make.  

                          But achieving status with the Kos in-crowd is not my goal, so I bid you good fortune and have a nice day.

                          ... defragmenting the attic ...

                          by AnnaMolly on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:35:38 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

            •  And there you go again ... another (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              priceman

              personal attack on "these people."  You don't know me.  Believe me, you don't know me.  Not even close.  Tell me.  Did it ever occur to you to have an actual idea?  Or to be in any manner self-reflective?  Did it occur to you that you might have ticked me off all on your own merits?   I've seen too many diaries here get wrecked by exactly what you did -- you come in, thoughtlessly and self-righteously pronounce them worthless because you don't agree with them, get a few equally clueless lemmings to follow you, and then move on .... who exactly ARE you anyway, that you believe "you people" have the right to pass judgment in that way?  Or that "you people" somehow have a lock on the truth?  

              It's YOUR course of action that you ought to question.  Just once.  Go back and re-read your first comment and the two that followed yours.  Then tell me what they're worth.  Except to -- deliberately, it appears -- cause pain to a very good person who is just trying to be heard.  If that's somehow considered worthy conduct around here, then you ought to question that.  

              ... defragmenting the attic ...

              by AnnaMolly on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:21:24 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  no problem (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AnnaMolly

              I've seen a ton of HR abuse going on.  I think you're right about why they are doing it.

              Coalition does not equal unholy alliance--Deoliver47

              by glynis on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 06:48:11 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  And I don't know to whom you are referring ... (0+ / 0-)

                as "they," but if that isn't passing yet another judgment on someone you don't know, I don't know what would be.  Like I said, I only came over here to peek because I respect Priceman's opinion and was interested to hear what he had to say, and I found this sorry excuse for discourse, starting with your friends' unfounded attack on the diarist.  I've seen way too much of this, believe me.  I'm done, as of right now.  

                ... defragmenting the attic ...

                by AnnaMolly on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 10:18:21 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  Awww (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Norbrook, AnnaMolly, dibsa

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

        by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:36:51 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  No substance to back up your claims (0+ / 0-)

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

        by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:08:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, Ya' Just HAD to Bring (7+ / 0-)

      "this" up, huh? ;)

      Photobucket

      Dems, get some guts, or we'll KICK YER BUTTS!

      by CityLightsLover on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:33:38 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  priceman, are you seriously asking (9+ / 0-)

      us to believe that Obama and the democrats in congress should have gotten into a pissing match over Joe LIEberman chairmanship smack dab in the middle of this HCR debate?

      Have you seriously thought about the spectacle that would have created? The huge distraction? The fun the media and the RW would have had painting Obama as vindictive?

      I really don't think you've thought this through.

      Additionally, I would love for us to settle this reconciliation debate once and for all.

      Here are the arguments I've heard thus far:

      For:

      - Bush got his bills through with only 51 votes - Tom Harkin says we have 55 votes for the public option - We could have split the bill up and passed the public uption with budget reconciliation

      Against:

      - HCR is not budget-related. You can't use reconciliation - Kent Conrad is against the public option and if you use reconciliation, his committee is the one that would write the bill - Reconciliation is temporary. The legislation would expire after 5 years

      I feel that if we can get this whole billed passed y reconciliation, let's do it. If we can get the public option passed via reconciliation let's do it. Even if it's only temporary. By the time the benefits are set to expire, the system would have proven effective and Americans would demand that it become permanent law.

      But, I'm no expert on senate rules, so I have a few questions:

      1. Is it true that Kent Conrad is against the public option? if this is true and if it's true that his committee would have to write any bill that goes through reconciliation, then what are we arguing about?
      1. Who are the 55 Senators Tom Harkin claims are for the public option? Does anyone know who they are? Have they gone on record confirming this? Should we just take Mr. Harkin's word for it?
      1. Who are the 50 senators (Joe Biden would make 51 and he's a given) who would agree to reconciliation?
      •  This fallacy has to stop (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnnaMolly
        - HCR is not budget-related

        According to whom? Not Medicare trustees or statistics on health care inflation. this si where the criticism of my interpretation of the Bryd rule is absolutley false and you could say the Senate parliamentarian won't recoginze all of helath care aas budgetary even though he should, but I think as I have shown below whether some like it or not, HCR is budgetary, the solvency fo Medicare depends on whether we do this right. The public option is budgetary.

        Also the main point is that we missed our opportunity and are now paying for it because we didn't take away Lieberman's Homeland Security chair or kick him out of our caucus.

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

        by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:51:11 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is that if you use reconciliation... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, Clem Yeobright, Norbrook

        ...that's it. You have to pass something that can pass through reconciliation (i.e., only budget-related things) that's going to be strong enough to make up for the fact that you're not going to be able to pass any regulations on the private insurance industry, since that's not budget-related at all. You can't ban rescission through reconciliation, you can't set up the exchange through reconciliation, you can't mandate <20% overhead for private insurance through reconciliation. Basically, going through reconciliation means you're screwing everyone on private insurance - and you're going to need to pass something strong enough to make up for that.</p>

        Which probably means you'd need a really strong public option - probably with an optional buy-in for every single American.

        Somehow, I don't think we have Harkin's 55 votes for that, particularly not in reconciliation where we'd lose one or two Senators (Byrd, Bayh) on process alone.

        Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

        by mistersite on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:08:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's still up to the states even with OPM (0+ / 0-)

          in a lot of ways though it still depends on what bill we are going for.

          States can make up for it until then, but with no public option there is nothing to build on.

          My questions remain relevant too. Rescission is still base don "fraud" and conditional probability.

          states are broke and insurance commissioners will not have the resources to take on monopolies.

          Basically here is my problem with your analysis.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

          by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:15:50 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your problem with my analysis... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Clem Yeobright, OIL GUY, Norbrook

            ...has absolutely nothing to do with my analysis. You didn't address my point at all, which was that if you do go with reconciliation, you're basically going to screw anyone who's using private insurance - and whatever public option you do pass through reconciliation has to be much, much stronger than anything the House or Senate got anywhere near passing in order to compensate. You'd probably need to allow everyone to buy into it - which, of course, is much more sweeping than the public option that ended up in the House bill nor out of the Five Families in the Senate.

            Do you think you have 55 votes for that? 50? 40? I don't think you do.

            Call Congress and demand 2 Senators, 1 VOTING Rep, and full home rule for DC citizens. Anything less is un-American.

            by mistersite on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:21:18 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

              I do agree that the public option was too weak and should fo been open to everyone, but even th chnace to bold on soehting would be worth passing the bill. Your fantasy of cost control and regulation with the many loophole in MLR and rescission that will continue is a flaw in your analysis.

              not to mention the only way the whole meme about "something to build on" is if there is a federal program like SS.

              I don't think many people understand these CBO predictions either. The CBO makes predictions going form year to year by current law, whihc is why their baseline predictions are wrong a lot of the time.

              Your false belief that these monopolies are going to be regulated is quite a problem. A public option can be amended in the future to Medicare +55 whihc the House capitulated on.

              This HCR cannot be significantly built on and our GDP will not significantly go down as far as health spending outcomes looking at our nation versus others.

              I do believe we have at least 50 votes.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

              by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:40:01 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Your questions are off the mark (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nandssmith

          1.  Is it true that Kent Conrad is against the public option? if this is true and if it's true that his committee would have to write any bill that goes through reconciliation, then what are we arguing about?

        Yes, and that's why one didn't pass the Finance committee but then Reid put one in after? Did you pay attention?

          2.  Who are the 55 Senators Tom Harkin claims are for the public option? Does anyone know who they are? Have they gone on record confirming this? Should we just take Mr. Harkin's word for it?

          3. Who are the 50 senators (Joe Biden would make 51 and he's a given) who would agree to reconciliation?

        By process of elimination you can tell whihc Senators are going to support a public option, what most of Americans wants, except for those that do not care or about Ted Kennedy's legacy. Why do you think the HELP Committee had one? Wyden would of voted for one as well as Rockafeller etc.

        Only Lincoln, Landriueu, Nelson, Conrad, among others have publicly made a stink about it.

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

        by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:21:35 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  IMO (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman

        the entire HCR process has already been a "spectacle".

        And many, many portions of HCR are, indeed, budget related.

        Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by nandssmith on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:22:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nandssmith

          That is a reality based comment.

          Medicare trustees also agree with you as privatization I suckling off 44 years of success because of our inefficient system.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

          by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:33:53 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It is the very lack of a spectacle (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman

        that puts the progressive agenda at risk for a generation.

        Have you seriously thought about the spectacle that would have created?

        If this works out, moderation will rule the day for the foreseeable future and it will be very difficult to move in the direction of more robust health care reform.   It will help some without health care, but it will leave many behind and that is a shame. And there will be very little anyone can do about it because Democrats decided their argument was important enough to fight over in an attempt to at least move the Overton window.  It will also cement the fact the Progressives should never have a seat at the negotiation table.  Ever...because they don't back up their demands, meaning they should legitimately be summarily ignored.

        Look at how difficult it is to raise taxes now that Democrats have essentially ceded the court to Republicans on this issue.  And now they are being held accountable for deficits, when new revenue is apparently not an option.  That is the result of short term politics.

        This is what happens when you don't stand up and fight.  

        If it doesn't work out, the public will see a bill celebrated by all Democrats and opposed by Republicans as failing miserably.  I suspect that won't work out too well either.  

        Sometime a spectacle is needed.  And it doesn't have to be outlandish.  For instance, simply canceling the summer recess would have shown some fight with the added bonus of knocking out the town hall strategy.  If this is crisis, why not act like it.

        Lieberman being booted would have also shown strength.  And it would have created a reasonable political strategy to keep the base energized. "We Need 60".  Now the excuse has been removed (which does make some of these compromises more reasonable for a certain point of view.)

        What Democrats don't understand is there is a time and place for kabuki.  Republicans understand this well. While they seem silly doing it, they have long term goals in mind while Democrats seem to only consider the here and now.

        All of that being said, if Obama is telling the truth, and this was exactly the bill he wanted, contrary to earlier public statements, the strategy was brilliant.  Put something on the table you are willing to negotiate away and use it as the ultimate bargaining chip.  That is real negotiation.  Reid did it when he put it in his bill, and it was clear at the time.  He had to have something to allow conservadems outside of SFC to get their pound of flesh. I would give credit where credit is due.  

        But the only problem is I strongly disagree that public option was not a worthy consideration.  It also comes at the cost of creating a sense that Democrats don't stand up and fight for what they believe, even when the public is on their side.  That is simply about as bad of a place to be politically as one can imagine, especially when the fruits of the Democratic legislation won't be realized for years.

        Democrats are simply lucky that they have so many gerrymandered seats.  

        Turning the economy around will be the most definitive in the short term.  But the long term ramifications of seemingly "giving up" are serious.  And Democrats know this, which is why the "insurers are fighting this" meme is being pushed so hard.  Democrats have always been viewed as the party with more weakly held views, and the fight for the signature issue has done nothing to dissipate that view.  Those are the long term consequences or worrying about the short term media reaction...to use your own words.

        The fun the media and the RW would have had painting Obama as vindictive?

        If you want your soldiers to fight for you in the future, you have to fight for them in the present.  There are many soldiers in the field, not a loyal as those on this website (including those of us that disagree with the strategy used here), that will take this as not fighting back.  The question is how many.  

        I am not against all health care reform, I am just against dumb health care reform!

        by justmy2 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:46:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Public tantrums, for example. (6+ / 0-)

    They didn't go there. Nor did they pray for Republicans to miss the vote.

    So I guess you're right, they didn't try "everything," and your point is proved: I can't say they did.

    Now let's raise the bar: Did they do everything that made sense long-term? That's more debatable, and the answer is ... we'll see.

    "If you don't stick to your values when they're tested, they're not values. They're... hobbies." -- Jon Stewart, Jan. 22, 2009

    by pat208 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:13:43 AM PST

    •  My point is proved but that's somewhat fair (0+ / 0-)

      Now let's raise the bar: Did they do everything that made sense long-term? That's more debatable, and the answer is ... we'll see.

      I think this is fair, though I disagree. We are now on a path of moral hazard.

      Public tantrums don't have anything to do with it. It's using the power of the Senate Majority Leader to put his caucus in line.

      The cost of not taking Lieberman's chair away is in the billions as we will see with no true reform passing the Senate in my view.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:54:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think you have a common misunderstanding... (8+ / 0-)

    of reconciliation...perhaps this link will help...

    http://www.rules.house.gov/...

    In the Senate, total debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours, although the actual time for consideration of the omnibus package often exceeds this time limit set in the Budget Act. Motions and amendments may be offered and considered without debate at the end of this time period. There are also restrictions on the content of a reconciliation package and on the amendments which may be offered to it. For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material, would cause deficit levels to increase, or that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program, is not in order. The Budget Act also maintains that reconciliation provisions must be related to reconciling the budget. For example, section 313 of the Budget Act, more commonly known as the "Byrd Rule", provides a point of order in the Senate against extraneous matter in reconciliation bills. Determining what is extraneous is often a procedural and political quagmire navigated in part by the Senate Parliamentarian. The Byrd Rule and other points of order in the Budget Act may only be waived in the Senate by a three-fifths vote. Furthermore, the Budget Act prevents reconciliation legislation from being filibustered on the Senate floor.

    So unless you are reconciling a budgetary matter that has no policy implications...reconciliation is subject to the fillibuster (three-fifths vote)...that would include the PO...

    In the commonly cited case of the GWB tax cuts that is precisely what reconciliation was made for...reconciling number differences between the house and senate bills with no actual policy implications...they are all still tax cuts...

    Obama - Change I still believe in

    by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:21:50 AM PST

    •  So health care is not budgetary? I don't think so (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnnaMolly, nandssmith

      For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material, would cause deficit levels to increase, or that contains recommendations with respect to the Social Security program, is not in order.

      The Bush tax cuts increased the deficit more than any of the health care bills. Where was the point of order? I don't think you even read what I linked to regarding reconciliation, so let me remind you.

         In addition to needing only 51 votes to pass, floor debate is limited to only 20 hours. Adding amendments that are unrelated to the bill are also prohibited. These rules are intended to speed up the legislative process and prevent opponents from gumming it up with deliberate procedural dawdling.

         So how did health-care reform fall under reconciliation?

         If deficit reduction is the original purpose for using reconciliation, how did a health-care bill get involved? Simply put, Democratic leaders made it about controlling spending and at the same time created a path to push the bill through if they realized they couldn't find 60 votes to pass it the traditional way. It's an escape hatch, of sorts.

         From President Obama on down, Democrats have long proclaimed that a key component of fixing the economy was reining in health-care costs -- "bending the cost curve," as they like to say. Equally importantly, Obama's only line in the sand thus far has been that any health-care bill cannot "add one dime" to the deficit. (Ding, ding. Did someone say "deficit"?)

         So when Congress passed its budget earlier this year, it included "reconciliation instructions" for the Senate Health and Finance Committees to produce legislation that reduces the deficit by $2 billion. So in simple terms, as long as long as the bill that could cost as much as $900 billion can find a way to make an extra $2 billion to put towards reducing the deficit, reconciliation can be used.

         While Republicans argue that the Democrats' health-care plan is as much as about social policy and big government, there is a fiscal component. Reconciliation has also been used in a similar ways by Republican leaders to restructure social programs like welfare reform.

         Indeed, reconciliation has been used with tax cuts, student loans programs, the creation of a children's health insurance program, and it even played a part in the implementation of digital television when coupons were provided for the purchase of converter boxes.  

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:34:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is you that interpret the Byrd rule... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew, Clem Yeobright, Hawkjt, numberzguy

        selectively...it is not just reducing the deficit but also...

        There are also restrictions on the content of a reconciliation package and on the amendments which may be offered to it. For example, any amendment to the bill that is not germane, would add extraneous material,

        I know you choose to ignore the germane portion of this rule.  What that means is that since the PO is not in the Senate bill currently, it is not germane to the bill, so any Senator would object and then it would be subject to the fillibuster.  The leadership did run these past the parlimentarian and was told that the PO would not be germane and would be subject to a 3/5s vote...

        All those examples you cite are not policy disputes but are budgetary differences...

        I know you were not in the meeting with the parlimentarian and nor was I, but what we do know is that the leadership did ask and was specifically re-buffed on the PO...

        Here is some more detailed analysis of the Byrd Rule...

        http://www.law.harvard.edu/...

        Senate committee budget reconciliation procedures do not diverge considerably from normal Senate committee procedures. Each Senate committee with reconciliation instructions receives the guidelines and scoring instructions from the Senate Budget Committee. These committees usually hold hearings on the matter and then follow Senate procedural rules in reporting out the matter, including a majority necessary for a quorum and a majority vote necessary for passage out of the committee. If the committee does not follow the Senate procedural rules it is subject to a motion from the floor to prevent consideration which would require a three-fifths majority to overturn.
        After the committee markup the bill either goes to the floor, or to the Budget committee if they are multiple committees assigned reconciliation instructions.  Senate rules vary from House rules in that the reconciliation measures put to the
        Senate floor can only be of one of the three main types of measures (spending, revenues, debt limit)
        unless it is a conference report. This increases the likelihood that a Senate committee – especially Finance given its exclusive jurisdiction over taxation issues – will report straight to the floor and not through the Senate Budget Committee.

        The Senate is stricter than the House...and if one Senator objects (which would have happened) then a 3/5ths vote would have been needed which Sen Lieberman would not have agreed to...

        Obama - Change I still believe in

        by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:51:03 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's like the ontological proof of god, dvogel (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, dvogel001, Hawkjt

          If this floats the guy's boat, you haven't a chance of persuading him.

          Sometimes it's easier to just go around a speed bump than to go over it, I think ...

          Deoliver47 was right and deserves some apologies

          by Clem Yeobright on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:58:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Only the Senate parliamentarian decides (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AnnaMolly, nandssmith

          and you can't break the Byd rule this way. Why do you think the Bush tax cut sunseted? Because again, they increased the deficit more than any of the HCR bills.

          You can't selectively break the Byrd rule. Whetehr the public option is in the bill now matters not, the public option lowers the deficit, and the Bush tax cuts still increase it, still breaks the Byrd rule, still never shoudl of passed in any form, if you respect the rule.

          thanks for the post:

          Interestingly the purpose of the budget reconciliation process seems to have shifted over time. From FY 1981 through FY 1999 the budget reconciliation process resulted in net decreases in the deficit over baseline budget projections every year a budget reconciliation bill was passed10. During these years the budget reconciliation
          process was consistently used to reduce spending or raise revenues, and often for both.
          However from FY 2000 until the present every budget reconciliation process has resulted in a net increase in the deficit over baseline projections, sometimes in amounts dwarfing previous budget reconciliation process11. This shows how the budget reconciliation process has been used for tax cuts in the past decade instead of deficit reduction12.

          Proves my point.

          Selective creative excuses for breaking the rule do not fly IMO.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

          by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:01:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Again you miss the point... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Clem Yeobright

            that the PO after Lieberman successfully stripped the PO from the compromise brought to the floor...the PO was no longer germane to the bill...budgetary issues aside...

            Obama - Change I still believe in

            by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:07:12 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  This point undemines the process of reocncialtion (0+ / 0-)

              because you go back to every committee before this happened, thus making this point false. Reconciliation has always involved going back to every committee.

              So that is simply not true.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

              by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:12:16 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  On a side note... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          it might have been possible if a PO passed in the Senate bill (even a limited one) that reconciliation could have been used...which is why I believe that Lieberman fought so hard to take it out completely during negotiations with Sen Reid and he would not have agreed to bring it to the floor for exactly that reason...Lieberman may be a jerk...but he is a smart jerk...

          Obama - Change I still believe in

          by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:05:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The point is that is is not... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        one of the appropriations bills in the normal course of business...

        Obama - Change I still believe in

        by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:52:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You do know the budget Committee (0+ / 0-)

          meets with the Appropriations Committee to decide this, right?

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

          by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:25:04 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            that is not the point however...almost anything can be objected to in reconciliation as not being germane...the fact that the Democrats did not object in the past is not relevant either...

            Obama - Change I still believe in

            by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:27:17 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The bills were written for this process (0+ / 0-)

              the fact that the Democrats did not object in the past is not relevant either...

              It's absolutely relevant, because one thing you are sadly mistaken about was that the Bush tax cuts didn't break the Byrd rule. they absolutely did and our party should of had the guts to raise a point of order.

              No matter what you say, you cannot break the Byrd rule in some areas and  not in others as I have shown this contradiction even in the links you provide.

              Really the whole bill shoudl be interpreted to fit within the Byrd rule, because the deficit reduction was why it was passed historically in the first place. the germane thing is a parliamentary gamer we have let our party be plaid on and it's about time we ended this game. Our fiscal future depends on it.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

              by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:45:05 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  While I understand your argument... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright

        and certain things like reconciling budgetary numbers to reduce the deficit would be germane...the PO itself is extraneous to the Senate bill and would be objected to on those grounds alone...

        Obama - Change I still believe in

        by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:55:00 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The PO reduces the deficit (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nandssmith

          and your argument is based on the fact that it was taken out of the bill even though it was written for reconciliation in Committee. It seems we will both have to ask the Senate Parliamentarian what this all means. He decides.

          I don't agree with this:

          the PO itself is extraneous to the Senate bill and would be objected to on those grounds alone...

          Reconciliation also means going back to every committee to what the bill was before it was tampered with.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

          by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:29:40 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Even if you are right... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            and the PO could have been done that way the rest of the bill (which would have been subject to the fillibuster like no pre-existing conditions would have to be stripped out...

            So what do you think the chance of all the insurance company regulations and consumer protections would be if reconciliation would have been used for that...my guess...is nothing would have passed until 2010 elections...

            If that is what you are arguing for...it is possible but not likely to have worked...

            Obama - Change I still believe in

            by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:39:35 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I am right in this scenario (0+ / 0-)

              It's not likely to happen, but this is exactly why it will take 10 months. It will go back from committee to committee.

              So what do you think the chance of all the insurance company regulations and consumer protections would be if reconciliation would have been used for that...my guess...is nothing would have passed until 2010 elections...

              If that is what you are arguing for...it is possible but not likely to have worked...

              My thoughts are I wish Alan Frumin would interpret our whole health sector monster as fitting within the Byrd rule including the consumer protections and insurance regulations.

              the states can make up for till 2010 as whether they are actually enforced still have some state jurisdiction anyway, this is nto a true national exchange with good enough enforcement mechanisms yet in the age of starind state budgets to relaly matter. States cannot fight huge monopolies in court at this time.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

              by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:50:37 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Now that is laughable... (0+ / 0-)

                My thoughts are I wish Alan Frumin would interpret our whole health sector monster as fitting within the Byrd rule including the consumer protections and insurance regulations.

                Let me know what you are smoking...I definitely want to try some...

                Obama - Change I still believe in

                by dvogel001 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:09:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  It's not likely, no (0+ / 0-)

                  but Johnathan Cohn has said he would argue that as well.

                  But I'm not a fan of creative interpretations of the Byrd rule even with your noble attempt at it.

                  The waste from our health care system all relates to budgetary matters as people go to the emergency room and don't get the care they need causing continuing cost inflation.

                  How you define budgetary means nothing in the end and it's ultimately germane in the end whether it's defined that way or not.

                  I don't think you'll find many Medicare trustees that would say our for profit system is destroying Medicare by sucking off of it through advantage and part D.

                  But hey, at least you tried to engage me substantively at first.

                  Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

                  by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:23:49 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

  •  Is this your only issue? (6+ / 0-)

    Yes, they could have threatened and punished Lieberman. But where would Mr. Ego have been on climate control, immigration reform, DADT, DOMA, etc? Is this the only issue?

    Sometimes you have to take the long view. Obama certainly must.

    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

    by MrMichaelMT on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:27:13 AM PST

    •  Lieberman has a deficit fetish (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nandssmith

      He wants revenge for Lamont which is his main reason for opposing reform and now he is a kid who is out of control and Ben Nelson wanted a pony too.

      I think Lieberman won't be there for another stimulus whihc is exactly what we need; probably the most important thing.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:42:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Notable exception: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman

        Lieberman has a deficit fetish

        For wars, invasions, and foreign meddling in general, Lieberman can't spend our tax money fast enough.  And accountability doesn't mean a damn to him, then -- he's happy to write blank checks to his and Cheney's private contractor buddies, even when they get U.S. soldiers killed.  

        Fox "News" = Republican PRAVDA.

        by chumley on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:21:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Exactly. He lies about the public option doing it (0+ / 0-)

          as well which is proven wrong by the CBO. And this contradiction you noted.

          he will use his liar fetish to deny any new stimulus when we need to pass another one or our police future as Democrats is not good. Our future, period.

          I don't like any deficit fetishes even based on real deficits in a deflationary spiral as we are teetering on still.

          Had the Dems actually ended the war and had lading Dems supported Lamont all the way, things might of been different in many ways on many issues.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

          by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:27:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Reported yesterday (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      priceman, AnnaMolly

      that many Dem senators are asking the President to drop climate control (cap and trade), so it's really irrelevant where "Mr. Ego" would be on this issue.

      I agree with the diarist that Obama/Reid made a big mistake by catering to Lieberman.

      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King, Jr.

      by nandssmith on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:29:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. Lieberman once said ... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman

        he favored a public option.  Whatever he says, could anyone possibly trust him on Cap and Trade ... or anything else?  There's something about him that's no longer right.  If he's such a loyal democrat who just happens to disagree about health care, then why didn't HE stand aside on this "one issue," instead of forcing HIS viewpoint on everyone else?  I'll tell you why.  He's pushing an agenda all his own, and he doesn't give a hill of beans for you, the democratic party, or anything except himself and his agenda.  And he wouldn't be at all grateful to those who mindlessly defend him out of some misguided hope he might vote a different way on some other issue, anymore than he cares about the citizens of his own state (the majority of them) who disagree with him on HCR.  

        ... defragmenting the attic ...

        by AnnaMolly on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:36:37 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  That's Bayh (0+ / 0-)

        Senator from a "soft coal" state, who would block that one--him and Dorgen.

        Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.

        by MrMichaelMT on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 03:35:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  They didn't try busting caps in asses... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Hawkjt

    WHY NOT?

  •  F*ck you (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Clem Yeobright, Hawkjt
    Hidden by:
    nandssmith

    I know, the truth hurts, and so deal with it and then and only then will you feel better. I think you’d better come up with some better excuses next time. And to the other half of principled kossacks, I love you and keep fighting.

    With this garbage that only those who believe going after Obama makes sense politically are the 'principled' ones.   You could do this shit for the next seven years and you'll do NOTHING to help any progressive causes.  You'll just get to feel sanctimonious.  It helps no one but you.  And it doesn't really help you.  Get a therapist or something but stop shitting on people who want to make things better.  

    Why don't people just utilize the word use?

    by Sun dog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:50:13 AM PST

    •  HRable comments don't make your point (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      nandssmith

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:03:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, sometimes they do (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew

        because if this comment is 'HRable' then so is the diary.  Telling people here that they're unprincipled is beyond obnoxious and counterproductive.  

        It seems ironic that you would respond like that to a comment that intentionally uses over the top language and your sig line is a quote from George Carlin.  That just seemed kind of funny to me.  

        Why don't people just utilize the word use?

        by Sun dog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:15:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There's no obscenities from lack of substance (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nandssmith

          You may not like my point, but I backed it up.

          This comment is is garbage devoid of any substance.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

          by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:24:08 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  ? (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Clem Yeobright

            It's devoid of any substance?  Well your comment is like helium.  Nanny nanny boo boo.  But just saying my comment doesn't exist doesn't actually make it not exist you know.

            This is silly.  I thought it pretty obvious that the F*ck you to the diarist was meant as strong punctuation to point out the fact that there is a really lame and underhanded insult here to anyone who embraces a different political strategy.  Those damn 'obamabot' apologists that are being slammed here.  As though we need more of this crap that intentionally sets the division between 'bots' and 'principled people' as you are doing.  It's trollish garbage because it will never accomplish any of the goals shared by the people of this site.  It's probably the best way to derail energy of progressives and a lot of wingnuts understand that.  

            Why don't people just utilize the word use?

            by Sun dog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:33:15 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I never used that term and you know it (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AnnaMolly

              I don't think Obamabot is helpful or Obama hater.

              You must really think my critique is true to get all bent out of shape over a comment that has absolute relevance.

              I made the claim and I backed up the claim. throwing off obscenities and not debating the substance behind the claim pretty much proves my claim correct.

              Those damn 'obamabot' apologists that are being slammed here.  As though we need more of this crap that intentionally sets the division between 'bots' and 'principled people' as you are doing.  It's trollish garbage because it will never accomplish any of the goals shared by the people of this site.  It's probably the best way to derail energy of progressives and a lot of wingnuts understand that.  

              BTW, do you think you're an Obamabot apologist?

              Nothing in this diary is trollish. Your comment was and so is this one.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

              by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:59:30 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  give me break (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, AnnaMolly

                I know, the truth hurts, and so deal with it and then and only then will you feel better. I think you’d better come up with some better excuses next time.

                That's playground language, pushing someone in the chest, nanny nanny boo boo.  And then you follow it up with this gem;

                And to the other half of principled kossacks, I love you and keep fighting.

                As though this isn't just divisive, clannish garbage.  What's your point here?  All this effort to put the blame on people who actually supported reform but had to deal with the realities of Senator Lieberman and Senator Nelson and EVERY GOP senator and every other Democratic senator willing to blow it up to get some piece of action for their state or some constituency.  

                We agree that we wanted stronger reform.  We agree that there is loads of blame to go around.  But I don't understand why the bulk of that blame isn't going to the entire GOP that fought tooth an nail against it or those specific Democrats who intentionally derailed it.  Instead you work to to keep a fight going about how people feel about the president.  

                Again, look at the language you used in your close there and tell me that wasn't a type of 'fuck you' to a lot of people on this site who bug you.  I used that language because I believe it's the language being spoken here by you.  

                Why don't people just utilize the word use?

                by Sun dog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:23:00 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I really don't care how you interpet language (0+ / 0-)

                  Your stupid BS ad hominem comes from a place of a weak minded nature.

                  I was directly talking about those who made the excuse that Lieberman was going to filibuster the Senate Organizations Bill and that there was supposedly nothing we could do.

                  I was right. you can't handle it so you  say "Fuck you." whihc is and ad hominem. Again, I laid out the substance as to why I made that assertion which still stands. there was no real leadership here. That was a relevant to point to make and many like you are in denial about that. I don't resort to childish ad hominems. Take it however you want to take it, but you are full of shit.

                  It was point, substance to back up point. The fact that you didn't reference anything but that at the end, which would provide a backdrop for it speaks volumes.

                  Liek the fact that our party's lack of leadership is why we are in this position, not because of the GOP. I cited precisely why and you ignored it while spouting ad hominems.

                  That's childish. That's weak minded. You have absolutely nothing and it's pathetic. It's fucking pathetic.

                  Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

                  by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:33:53 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is hilariously ironic (0+ / 0-)

                    Your stupid BS ad hominem comes from a place of a weak minded nature.  That's childish. That's weak minded. You have absolutely nothing and it's pathetic. It's fucking pathetic.

                    I'd say you reap what you sow.  And I'm not sure you know what 'ad hominem' means either.  

                    Why don't people just utilize the word use?

                    by Sun dog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 01:55:24 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Let me deconstruct your leap of logic. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      AnnaMolly

                      An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person" or "argument against the person") is an argument which links the validity of a premise to an irrelevant characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.

                      Your arguments were assumptions directed at my person on what you perceive as directly personally insulting to you, even though I backed up every point I made which has to do with the debunked excuses about how Obama and Reid "did everything in their power."

                      That's not personal, you made it personal. The fact that you fell back on an argument like that is something that happened. You did go after me using your flawed perception of what this diary is in your mind which is shown to be weak from lack of substance pointed out.

                      Your flawed perception of what you perceive this diary to be is something you actually conveyed, so I am going by your argument and pointing out that it's strictly ad hominem and not based on anything else, like I based every single point I made in this diary on substance which you did not bring up. that's relevant to me thinking it's BS and thinking it's pathetic, because it's not a real argument and your behavior is shown by your actions I am pointing out like I did beforehand. That's based on substance relating to your behavior and not you or what I perceive you to be, unlike your judgment towards me.

                      So it's not an irrelevant belief or characteristic about you I pointed out, it's relevant to the conversation and your direct behavior with your troll like HR worthy commentary..

                      So don't even try to pretend I don't know what ad hominem means or that this is ironic as it should be expected considering your childish behavior. That's what irony is, the difference between what actually happens and what is expected to happen considering the circumstances.

                      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

                      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 04:42:44 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  This shows you didn't read the diary (0+ / 0-)

                  As though this isn't just divisive, clannish garbage.  What's your point here?  All this effort to put the blame on people who actually supported reform but had to deal with the realities of Senator Lieberman and Senator Nelson and EVERY GOP senator and every other Democratic senator willing to blow it up to get some piece of action for their state or some constituency.

                  If you read you would know it didn't have to be a reality. Lieberman could of been contained and in that Ben Nelson would also if been more contained instead of emboldened. You're believing the e excuses given by Harry Reid without remembering the power he has had the power the President has as if he would of intervened more most agree that would of made a much betetr difference in the long haul.  So it wasn't a reality, it's your perceived reality when interrupted bluntly, you can't handle it and scream obscenities like a child.

                  We agree that we wanted stronger reform.  We agree that there is loads of blame to go around.  But I don't understand why the bulk of that blame isn't going to the entire GOP that fought tooth an nail against it or those specific Democrats who intentionally derailed it.  Instead you work to to keep a fight going about how people feel about the president.  

                  No, you don't want stronger reform, you want whatever the President tells you you want. It's evident by your childish ad hominems in place of real arguments you didn't read and yet make as if i haven't counted them. I'm glad I wrote this diary, to shove in the face of everyone else that makes these BS arguments at the detriment of progress everywhere. What did you think the GOP was goign to do?

                  We have 60 Democratic votes in our caucus and the bulk of this diary is criticizing those Democrats, but it's even worse when you have the power to stop enabling them and yet you continue. This support of that practice is mindlessly following the President who tells you Harry Reid did everything he could and I destroyed that argument whihc is why you have absolutely nothing but stupid BS insults like "fuck you." That's what we call a crutch to someone with no argument and no substance.

                  Everything I said was completely accurate and backed up by facts, even the sardonic comments who mock those that deserve to be mocked; those that don't pay attention; those that do not do their won thinking and all want to belong to a team. Those like you and your crew.

                  Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

                  by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 10:51:02 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

    •  Inappropriate hr (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Clem Yeobright

      You're just playing teams there nandssmith.  This comment was in response to a very intentional insult from the diarist.  The diary itself is nothing but a useless insult to a large population on the site.  It was a Fuck you to a lot of people even if the diarist danced around it the slightest bit.  And that's pretty much all it was.   So for you to hr this comment and not the diary is pretty hypocritical.  You're not hr'ing an hr'ble comment.  You're just taking sides.  

      Why don't people just utilize the word use?

      by Sun dog on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:55:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Read the FAQ (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnnaMolly

        ad hominem and ignoring the direct linked substance of my diary, including the senate rules speaks volumes of ignorance.

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

        by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:06:59 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  How the fuck do you know what Reid tried? (5+ / 0-)

    In the 12 months 12 FUCKING MONTHS that they worked on this bill, and in the 4 FUCKING MONTHS since the Senate finished the conference reports, probably a lot was tried.  Do you know what Reid did in private with Lieberman, Nelson, Lambeaux, Lincoln, Bayh, and others?

    No, you don't and you wrote this idiotic diary anyway.

    •  Pass the eye-wash. (0+ / 0-)

      Do you know what Reid did in private with Lieberman, Nelson, Lambeaux, Lincoln, Bayh, and others?

      "If you don't stick to your values when they're tested, they're not values. They're... hobbies." -- Jon Stewart, Jan. 22, 2009

      by pat208 on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:53:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It shows how naive and small minded (4+ / 0-)

      the fake Obama critics are, they have their mind made up already that Obama is a sellout so they make shit up.

      Tell me how this diarist could have known what transpired between Reid and Lieberman or Obama for that matter. Of course he has no clue so he parrots the usual Obama bashing talking points.

      "This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected". -Barack Obama

      by indepenocrat on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 06:59:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Absolutely - it is 11 dimension chess (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, Hawkjt

        That "11 dimension chess" crap is thrown out as a satiric testimonial to complexity in legislation.  However, there is a lot to this.  

        There are many bills that Obama wants to pass.  We NEED finance reform, and energy legislation, and a number of other bills that I am not aware of.  

        Until the filibuster is reformed, we are stuck with what we have, which is Lieberman as Vote # 60.

        •  So do you really think this precedent will do it? (0+ / 0-)

          since you and many others didn't even read the diary, allow me to repost here.

          And there's another reason political experts are more upset about the capitulation to Joe Lieberman than are policy experts. Political experts know a thing or two about moral hazard - the concept in economics that says that if you cover someone's ass, they'll make the same mistake over and over again. If we let Democrats get away with being weak, with refusing to lead on health care reform, with refusing to defend and fight for the President's own campaign promises, and instead settle for a mere shadow of what he promised, and what we could have had, then we should not be surprised when the same capitulation happens on immigration, climate change, gay rights, and every other issue that someone out there cares about. Any parent can tell you what happens when you reward bad behavior.

          Yeah, 11th dimensional chess. I would say we're losing that game.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

          by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:51:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You suggest that we simply not pass the bill (0+ / 0-)

            That's your basic suggestion.  

            Or exactly what is your suggestion?  In fact, if you read this diary, it's basically whining without substance.  There are NO novel or even conventional suggestions on how to get Lieberman to vote for a more liberal bill.  

            Exactly HOW would Reid force Lieberman to cooperate?  Take away the chairmanship?  What then on other bills?

            I sure wish people would play 2 moves ahead.

            •  I suggest reconcilation (0+ / 0-)

              what you speak of is eocnomci illiteracy and political illitercay. Moral hazard. Your enabling of false equivalencies are what hs gottne us to this point.

              This diary is full of subsnatce that back up every point I made, chessmaster hack.

              It helps to read a diary beofre syaing thigns like this which relaly makes all of your commentary void:

              Threatening Lieberman's chair might work(and I laid out nuemrous historical exmaples), but taking saway his chair would of put us in a better positon and Lieberman would not of enabled Nelson among others to take away women's access to reproductive services in this exchange.

              Your lack of reading and reading comrpehension and eoncomic relaites and potlical relaiites speak volumes.

              We have given Lieberman with your help, a reason to water everything down that we want in the future.

              So the end doesn't justify your BS.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

              by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:14:06 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah, that's why I worked for him in the GE (0+ / 0-)

        he wasn't my first choice, though and I now see why and that my worries were correct.

        this is not a deal of point/counterpoint. I made all my points and backed them up with substance.

        You are throwing out vague generalizations to cover your worship of a personality.

        1. Obama lied about never campaigning on a public option.
        1. Reid said he never got rid of the public option.
        1. Neither of them used their power to keep Lieberman in check thus proving me right.

        Lieberman admits Obama never talked to him about a public option and Russ Feingold confirmed it.

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

        by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:05:46 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Yes, he cowered to their demands (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      justmy2

      even though the country is firmly behind a public option he had in the bill once.

      If Reid was going to go this route he shoudl of been honest instead of that BS that was peddled here about how the public option really wasn't dead. Reid only cares what these small groups of Senators want and that's undemocratic, even in the Senate where most Senators want what the people want, except the weak kneed leadership; the pint of this diary.

      Everything I said in this diary is backed up by facts.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:03:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The stupidity of making one move at a time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Hawkjt

    In chess and go and other strategy games, you quickly learn that each move must be considered not in terms of what it does, but what will then come.

    In the case of Lieberman and Nelson, this pretty painfully obvious lesson that most should have learned in 4th grade seems to be ignored.

    There is the health bill.  There is the energy bill.  There is the finance reform bill.  There are bills about other stuff.  WE NEED LIEBERMAN AND NELSON ON BOARD FOR ALL OF THESE.

    MORE CRAPPY COMPROMISE AHEAD, FOLKS.  

    If Lieberman's chairmanship was removed, why would he cooperate on ANYTHING?  

    I sure AS FUCK wish that more people played chess.  Politics in the Senate requires thinking about this bill and the other bills.  If you think about 1 bill only, that's all you will pass.

    •  "He's playing 11th dimensional chess" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnnaMolly, nandssmith

      We're still here are we? Still?

      I don't see how any of these bills doesn't get watered down enough to not make a difference as I explained and the stimulus passed with 61. That is the more important point and legislation for the future. Any watered down climate bill like Lieberman's will not really make a difference in time.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:08:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I see some of those that disagree with you (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman, AnnaMolly

        are resorting to the personal insults, as I have seen happen on so many other threads the last few days.

        Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King, Jr.

        by nandssmith on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:35:13 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's happening a lot lately. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          AnnaMolly, nandssmith

          Notice how very few of the conservations involve the substance of the diary.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

          by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:05:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, I noticed that. And you know that's exactly (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            priceman

            what I hate about Kos.  The self-righteousness that takes the place of substance and serious discourse, and in fact is cultivated by the use of conventions such as HR'ing people and recommending comments.  It's nothing but high school.  People don't like what you say, but it's too much trouble to actually confront it, so they just call you names.  You're a lot braver than I would be, Priceman.  

            ... defragmenting the attic ...

            by AnnaMolly on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:56:58 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You hit the nail on the head, AnnaMolly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              AnnaMolly

              It's nothing but high school.  People don't like what you say, but it's too much trouble to actually confront it, so they just call you names. You're a lot braver than I would be, Priceman.  

              Thank you, AnnaMolly. I half expected it, but not this bad though I guess the primaries tempered me into being able to deal with all this high school crap.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

              by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:28:16 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  He didn't try the FDL gambit (4+ / 0-)

    Push your queen and both bishops out to rank 6 and let them be captured by pawns. It really messes up the pawn alignment for the opponent, and who knows? he may fall out of his seat laughing and crack his head on the floor.

    Deoliver47 was right and deserves some apologies

    by Clem Yeobright on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:04:16 AM PST

    •  When you want to study reality and history let me (0+ / 0-)

      know.

      You're still on the 11th dimension chess bit whihc I think is hilarious.

      So you hate FDL. What the hell dos that have to do with anything?

      Nothing. Nada.

      You basically convinced yourself that giving up all your important chess pieces was not only beneficial, but essential to win the game.

      Another substanceless comment.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:15:36 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This has been covered and covered and covered (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Clem Yeobright, numberzguy

    and covered and covered and covered and covered.

    Granted at many different degrees of sincerity and willful ignorance.  But, it has been covered.

    The Republican Party, courting the female vote for 2010 by clubbing us over the head and dragging us back to the polling place.

    by truesteam on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 07:18:36 AM PST

  •  Enough of this already! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mark Warner is God
    •  If this were a bash Jane Hamsher diary (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AnnaMolly

      it would probably be on the recc list, but I guess sustenance and stern points along with some sardony is not welcome or it's not hateful enough in the right direction for a lot of people.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:30:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  All of this is for very nearly nothing... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman

    If  a powerful group of  Democrats and the entirety of the Republicans are bought and paid for by lobbyists...they'll keep their hands off of any possible strategies that would (a) remove an obstructionist Lieberman from his chairmanship and (b) use reconciliation for the parts of HCR that would have affected the budget.

    Obama/Reidwould have had to be able to "buy" them back before the Finance Committee met by forcing them to allow the Single Payer folk a seat at the table and dissuade each and every Teabagger from doing what they did in order for this to work ...and evidently there wasn't anything worth the lobbyists bucks except the lobbyists bucks.

    Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can't get the last two without a public option

    by imfunnytoo on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:59:53 AM PST

    •  That is a good point. We need campiagn finance (0+ / 0-)

      reform as what you speak is why the Obama administration made the big pharma deal in the beginning because they have the deepest pockets.

      Still it would be nice if our leaders sued the power for change that they promised.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

      by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:16:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  A parting gift to all my dissenters (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AnnaMolly

    This is what your moral hazard and sycophancy has brought us. Better step up that multi-dimensional chess, because unless we are able to pus for a second stimulus we are most likely going to be in a period of contraction in 2010.

    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

    by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 11:00:21 AM PST

    •  Agreed as to the multi-dimensional chess ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      priceman

      It doesn't matter how many levels you think you can play on if you lose.  As republicans have successfully demonstrated over the past year, sportsmanship counts for absolutely nothing in the public policy debate.  

      My sympathies.  Like I said, you're a LOT braver than I would be.  ;)

      ... defragmenting the attic ...

      by AnnaMolly on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 08:04:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Another good point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        AnnaMolly

        It doesn't matter how many levels you think you can play on if you lose.  As republicans have successfully demonstrated over the past year, sportsmanship counts for absolutely nothing in the public policy debate.  

        Indeed, if you let the other player move the knight anywhere, it really doesn't matter or if they knock the whole board over and just say No and make demands.

        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin

        by priceman on Mon Dec 28, 2009 at 09:30:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, all I know is ... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman

          that republicans are the ones who probably cracked their heads open when they fell on the floor from laughing so hard.  Democrats handed this to them, and they didn't even have to risk their Queen.  If you really want to win, you don't start the game by castling.

          ... defragmenting the attic ...

          by AnnaMolly on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 04:27:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site