Thanks Dan…that’s real actual Hope.

Burris, Brown, Franken, and Sanders will obviously be told on the QT that the Public Option will be put back in later, that this is the Camel’s Nose in the Tent.

They can’t be that doctrinaire.

The preferred option, imho, is for the WH and Reid to nail Snowe and Collins and work on Blanche.

Collins and Blanche will probably fold up faster than a three-card monte dealer being chased by the Transit Police if she’s given the right inducements.

I just don’t see the Socialist Four voting to kill Barack’s Big Ambition.

Some of them must be good people with an open mind?

During a campaign the air is full of speeches – and vice versa. ~Author Unknown

Blanche Lincoln has already sealed her defeat next November.Ben Nelson has until 2012 and could recover, but if he runs against someone strong could lose.
Landrieu has more time, until 2014. That´s an eternity in politics. Maybe we should do the samething to her like we did to Pomeroy except instead of sending fake dog poo, send condoms instead. Any comments?

I appreciate your insight as usual…

- As Section 9 says, I can’t see anyone from the left voting to filibuster the bill. There is zero chance that a Sanders or a Brown would do that isn’t there?

- Is filibustering every amendment worthwhile? If some Stupak-like amendment is offered, we are back in the situation in the House where the debate was over leaving it out as a supposed poison pill. Could the GOP shoot itself in the foot if they try to filibuster a “good” amendment? And if the GOP stalls on the “bad” amendments, will the Democrats do the same on the “good” ones? Does filibustering an amendment hold up the bill or does it just kill the amendment? (Maybe that’s the crucial point. I’m assuming the latter.)

- Reid hopes that a Snowe or two will cross over. Let’s say that doesn’t happen, and it comes down to needing all 60 Democrats. And let’s say that the lefties won’t block it, and it comes down to Nelson, Lieberman, and Lincoln. Is there ANY chance you can see that these people can be convinced to pull a copout of “This is so important that it deserves a full vote, so I will vote to end cloture but then will vote against the bill because I have these concerns…” regardless of what they promised earlier? I could see Lincoln liking that option, but it’s much harder to see Nelson or Lieberman folding like that.

And you’re right… it doesn’t feel like we’re winning. I’m so cynical about these kamikaze bastards, I’ve been feeling resigned that there’s no way they don’t figure out a way to worm this through with all 60 of their guys on board. And yet I have to believe that won’t happen, because if they get this through the entire country is literally going to stop, and fracture.

It is easier to overcome a tough political vote if you have something to bring home to the voters. All they have to do is throw in $300 mil for each senator who is on the fence. Feels like this is going to pass.

How much of this can be undone down the road? If it does pass and is implemented, it will likely be with us forever, right? Or are there things that could be done by a Republican president and congressional majorities between 2012 and 2014, or whenever it would take effect?

I wouldn’t be so quick to assume Senators Lieberman and Sanders, and others currently expressing opposition, can’t all be bought off by dirty dingy Harry with our tax money – after all, I DON’T SEE THE AMOUNT OF PUBLIC OUTRAGE BEFITTING THE “LOUISIANA PURCHASE”!!!

PLEASE, ANY CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS ON THE BLOG? AT WHAT POINT CAN A CAUSE AGAINST REID FOR OUTRIGHT BRIBERY AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS BE MADE TO STICK?

ARE THE SENATE AND ITS SENATORS IN PARTICULAR IMMUNE FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL IMPEACHMENT CLAUSES?

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_2_5.html

Impeachment Clauses (original English text)

Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside; And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgement in Cases of Impreachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Article 3, Section 1

. . . The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour. . . .

I sometimes wonder whether Obama’s election came at a time when their were still enough Americans who believe in America to turn back socialism, and in the process re-instill to future generations the greatness of our democracy. Had we been allowed to remain complacent another dozen years who knows if the will to oppose a takeover by the state would exist. The Democrat’s health care legislation, (I can’t call it reform, because it’s not), started out as an effort to get it passed before losing the consent of the governed. It is rather amazing that having lost that consent Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic party power structure insist upon its passage. The Democrats have awaken a sleeping giant: the majority of Americans that oppose this legislation. But being awake is not enough. We must be filled with a terrible resolve.

Things look pretty discouraging right now, but there is always hope and I do hope your analysis is correct.

If no Republican crosses over, and Lieberman keeps his word and doesn’t vote for cloture, Democrat Senators will count the votes and see the bill can’t be passed. Won’t that open the floodgates for the moderate Dems to vote against this monstrosity? No single Democrat wants to take the fall for this if they’re truly close to 60, but once that’s off the table, I could see a huge number jumping ship.

If there’s no chance they get to 60, I wouldn’t be surprised if 10 Democrat Senators end up voting against it, similar to the situation with amnesty where they couldn’t even get over 50 when the final vote actually came down.

The ideal scenario for Republicans would be if every Democrat votes for it, but Lieberman ends up killing it. All those Democrats will then have to back to their conservative states and explain their vote.

…my proclivity is not to bank on failure. Just one quick breeze around the internet and you will find a plethora of people who said there would not be 60 votes on cloture.

In addition, I seem to remember that banking on failure of the opposition (while curiously trying to be more like them) seems to have been a dead-end road for Republicans over the past few years.

I understand the legislative hurdles and have numerous friends on the Hill who feel passing this legislation is a bridge too far. So I embrace the spirit of what you are saying- just not the message.

We have thus far underestimated the fundamental conviction of Democrats to proceed against the collective will of our populace. To Democrats, this is war and worth the battle casualties- provided in the end they win. We should know the enemy by now and be willing to have our offensive battle plan ready. Proceed as if they will be victorious, don’t hope they drown in the river.

“The Plan”, you say? That would berestating the Republican alternative, ad nauseum. It should be package into small, easily understood pieces to show we have a plan that works for all Americans which does NOT destroy our healthcare system, result in confiscatory levels of taxation, destroy small business, force people to buy healthcare (or go to jail), take away healthcare choices from people and turn them over to the government and ultimately ruin the greatest healthcare system on the planet.

Show them we can LEAD and win.

I’m worried because they’ve already gotten far closer than I figured they would and I hope we’re not fooled again….the closer they get the more likely it is that they’ll destroy it themselves with the infighting…but what worries me is that I would have thought the infighting would already have destroyed this.

Kind of makes me wonder how the Dems keep their members in line on this….maybe there is a file cabinet somewhere with pictures of congressmen in bed with dead girls…or little boys…because I’m seeing Dems voting against their own best interests…there has to be either huge money buying their votes…or prison or worse to threaten them!

The “Big Tent” analogy isn’t the correct one…the correct one is a MAGNET…we need to be a MAGNET that draws these independents in who are sick and tired of what’s going on in Washington—Fred Thompson

bill of a 2007 (I believe). It passed cloture with 64 votes and was considered on it’s way to passing. The president supported it, McCain and much of Congress did. Then the public started melting the phone lines and the bill quickly died. We can do the same to this new monstrosity.

Even though there may be some hope… I keep calling my Senator’s office and encourage everyone to do the same. Strength is in numbers. They need to see that we want debate and that their actions will have a consequence.

Surprisingly (if we look back to January 1, the Senate Republicans have learned to stick together, and use their 40-person minority to force every single Democrat to vote in favor of the Obama agenda. Unlike in the House, where they can rotate the pain, allowing Democrats in moderate districts (notice how I did not say “moderate Democrats”) to sometimes vote against, as long as they can get their 218.

They are in for some extremely hard choices in the upcoming battle. I don’t know that we will win, but I like our chances. And win or lose, the elections of 2010 will be the Waterloo (better, the Gettysburg) of the Democrats in both Houses.

I wish it were so, but the Democrats can certainly play hardball. I’m worried they’ll wind up giving health care to millions of people!

I hope Mr. Perrin is correct like everyone else, but the problems are:

1. Dems will N O T allow BIG BRObama to fail. So something will pass: it is a matter of the degree of destruction to America it will cause.

2. Every Senator has a price – or so it seems, and that includes moron Republican senators from Maine.

3. The Republican plan has no publicity and no “face” to convey it to the public as a logical, cost-conservative, and effective alternative to the 2,000 page monster of the Dems.

Clearly this is got to be a good example of democratic partisan politics at it’s worst. The more we can see of it, the more it should be obvious that the deals made will undermine any legitimate claim that the bill will save money. It should also lead to a conclusion. Anything the legislature touches is ripe for pork barrel additions and back room deals. Which means

Under ObamaCare getting treatement will take an act of congress.
Literally.
Without congressional funding there will be no money for treatment. What pork and deals will it take to get that through congress? How much time?
More than we can afford,
More time
more expense
and too many funds for clinics on the other side of those bridges to nowhere.

But of course, Saul Alinsky would love it

WmCraig

History will tell us that 97% of all legislation that clears the threshold on Saturday night becomes law.

First and foremost, we must keep in mind that we are dealing with collectivists on an ideological level. That an individual politician seem to be voting against his own interests is, unfortunately, of little consequence to someone who puts the collective above all. The collective, in this case, being not America, but the Democratic party.

Passage of this bill, which taxes the most productive to redistribute wealth to the least productive, will create a permanent government-dependent class that will overwhelm the rest of the country. Social security and medicare accomplished a portion of that with the seniors voting block. Now the collectivist have a rare opportunity to herd another large group of voters into their sphere of influence. Once this dependent class is created, the Democrats will control the country, despite any temporary set back they may experience in 2010 and 2012.

So I fully expect the Democrats to unify around whatever emerges from the Senate debate. They will vote for nationalizing health care because it IS in their collective interest even if it is against their individual interests.

Our only hope is that one or more of the Democratic senators resort to more individualistic behaviors and votes their parochial interests. But I’m not betting on it.

Hersey’s point was that everyone can be purchased if only you can discover their currency and that doesn’t always involve dollars and cents.

My fear is that some of these Senators, like Ben Nelso (or Snowe on the committee vote) can be bought for next to nothing.

at clinics across America to expose the “DIE-QUICKLY” (Dems: ‘Rep plan: Die Quickly’ – counter to “Death Panels” – EPIC O-FAIL again — baseless Welfare Reform attacks repeat) is indeed the DEMOCRAT OBAMAOCARE MODEL over the Mammography scandal (+Mammography scandal – Mammography scandal – Obamaocare will kill women)…. To let the world know Obamaocare will kill women. This was a tactic of Libs during Reagan with AIDS DIE IN sessions claiming Reagan was killing people —- HOROWITZ IS RIGHT IN THAT THIS IS FAIR TURNAROUND AS THESE SHOCK TACTICS GET COVERAGE!

This was on today’s Glenn Beck show and no video available yet. Me or someone will bring it out once it is!

I believe Lieberman when he says he won’t support it with the public option in it.

So, they will change it however they need to in order to get him, or Snowe / Collins to support it in order to advance it.

My question for you is, once they have changed the wording of the bill such that Lieberman and / or others are satisfied that it is not equivalent to the public option, and all that is left is to get the left-wing senators like Sanders, etc. to support cloture – do you really think the liberals are going to help Republicans kill the entire bill, the centerpiece of Obama’s agenda, just because it doesn’t contain a “public option” in so many words?

Same thing in the House – do you really think the liberals are going to help kill the final bill if it includes Stupak?

In reality, these liberals are just posturing to get the most liberal bill they can right? I mean, they are going to vote for whatever can pass at the end of the day right?

part that I have the biggest problem with — they need 60 votes just to get to vote on any change they try to make.

Then, what are they going to change the wording to?

Yes, I think there are some liberals who will stand on principle over the public option, because their view is the bill has slowly and slowly gotten watered down to where they think it is worse than nothing.

Getting things done in the Senate is much different than the House, and the Republicans not allowing changes to the immigration bill is how it died. BTW, I guess you have seen the front page of Drudge.

“Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: “I’m going to be stubborn on this.”

Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a “public option,” or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won’t vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.

Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? “The answer is no,” he says in an interview from his Senate office. “I feel very strongly about this.” How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won’t be used unless private insurance plans aren’t spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

From the Wall Street Journal:

“Yet he still thinks that, somehow, health legislation will get done, probably not by Christmas but early next year. “At the end of the day,” he says, “I feel strongly health-care reform will pass the Senate and the Congress.”

See:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

I would love to share your optimism about Obamacare, but the Democrats have the majority in the Senate. They will pass this behemoth by hook or crook. If the Republicans take back control of either side of Congress in 2010, the bill will be difficult to repeal, PR wise.

I think the Democrats so far have been proceeding on the idea that polling will somehow get a little bit better. They may have convinced themselves that if people see things moving forward they’ll start to see the bill as inevitable and resign to it – or Obama would be able to make some speeches and turn things around. or something…

It’s not happening. Rasmussen has support for Obamacare at 38% – a new low. Opposition is back to 56% with 43% strongly opposed. There’s got to be some point where public backlash reaches critical mass and there will just be no way for the Democrats to save face. If 60% of the public opposes the bill and only 35% support it I just don’t see them passing this bill. They got away with an extremely unpopular TARP bill but only because there was a belief that something had to be done immediately -there’s no such urgency for a program that won’t take effect til 2013.

It will get to the point where the abuse of power is so blatant it just can’t be gotten away with- besides that the Obama administration is infuriating Americans by trying the terrorists who planned 9/11 in New York City – while they are openly stating their intentions of using the trial as a propaganda opportunity. This is anecdotal – but the fury among my Facebook friends has reached a new height.

Rasmussen has Obama’s approval rating at only 46%a with an approval index of -13 (negative double digits for 9 days running) if his numbers fall much lower, moderates won’t have much negative consequence for opposing him.

Dan, you continue to suggest that we have the upper hand with regard to healthcare, but they have the majority, and lest you already forget, they got the votes to start debate.

None of the senators you mention are opposed to the plan itself, just pieces of it.

People called this bill dead on arrival. Well, it arrived, and it’s kicking. You were wrong then, why should we believe you now?

We are literally holding up Western Civilization until 2010 elections can take the teeth out of this Socialist steamroller. Hold fast, and communicate, Conservatives. The calls to Congress and the Tea Parties are having an enormous effect!

The demos are just volunteering to build the “gallows” and are working like mad, to gold-plate it….

It’s almost reassuring, that they are sooooo party-agenda oriented, they cannot see the stoooopidity of their actions. Their actions are going to backfire into their faces.

There is much more about this bill that is horribly anti-competitive. You should be highlighting many of its provisions that will cause us to have fewer choices. Not just the Death Panel and Public Option items.

Ask a Liberal to give you 5 reasons in favor of the Public Option; then shoot them all down.

This bill micro-manages health insurers. The reporting requirements are draconian and will cost them more money to produce. No other industry is to be as heavily regulated as this one. Yet!

The beauty of the dems controlling all of government including having a filibuster proof majority is that they have no where to hide.They can try to blame the GOP but the reality is that the dems should be able to pass anything they want with no GOP votes. The dems will also have to take responsibility and blame for any legislation they pass rather then hiding behind the skirts of whatever Republican is President.They passed the failed “stimulus” which has resulted in 10.2% unemployment and climbing. Cap and trade with higher energy bills for consumer, that’s dem legislation. Phoney health care with higher premiums, higher taxes and lower quality. If passed its courtesy of the dhimmirat party.

It is depressing though, when you spend hours faxing them and they proceed to vote for it anyway and the senator in Colorado says he will vote for it – he’s losing anyway. It’s also depressing when you have to depend on 4 or 5 so-called “moderates”. Out of 60 dems, only 4 or 5 are “moderates”???

There’s something seriously wrong with this when senators aren’t afraid of their constituents.

I see the list of all the bad things in the bill, like abortion-funding, however, I’ve only seen a couple of people complaining about the illegal immigrant coverage in the billl. Is it just that abortion-funding is the ‘issue of the day’ right now?

if I understand correctly the way the filibuster process works, and maybe someone already stated this in all the posts above, the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster are what occurred Saturday, Nov. 21. Now Reid only needs a simple majority of 51.

If I am mistaken, please let me know, I’d like to have hope again for the bill’s defeat.

will still be there, when we kick them out, many will just become lobbyists, encouraging the same ole horses__t. we need a newly elected Congress to pass a bill, that would deny them, The newly unemployed from becoming, lobbyists, for at least two election cycles. and an afterthought,
Major Democrats refer to the democratic agenda, while conservatives want to preserve America as our founders envisioned. smaller government , more personal freedoms, fiscal responsibility, etc.
Be responsible for yourself,
Support our troops,
because they are the political football in the D.C. Game.

One Old Dog