For those saying, "It's law, stop obstructing", I'm reminded of the words of Megan McArdle http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/03/the-future-after-health-care/37799/
Senator Coburn probably is considered a genius compared to his constituents in Oklahoma, the dumbest state in the union, but in the real world he's just another petulant foot-dragger.
Dumbest states are probably the ones that have the most number of illegal mexicans! Hard to learn when they're in school holding everyone back!
Please stop saying things like "Well, it's not like the Bush administration didn't do it". This does nothing to help change the future, and as cliche as it sounds two wrongs don't make a right. If we continue on this path of "well so and so did it so don't whine when this regime does it" we're just going to continue in a gigantic loop of stupidity with the same issues. This is what we call insanity.
More comments on this strategy, plus a quote from our very own Ron Wyden. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/...us-in-voting-to-ban-viagra-for-sex-offenders/ As an aside, I wonder what his former Grey Panther constituency would think about their Medicare funding this health care legislation. BTW, if this bill is so great, then why not vote for it even more resoundingly the next time it goes back to the House?
I tend to agree with this. Though getting on with more legislation like this isn't my idea of what's good for congress to be doing. If republicans want to do something about this law, they should focus on getting elected to the house and then refuse to fund any of it. In the meantime, they're looking a bit like sore losers. On the other hand, the upside for republicans is that it keeps the process and the bill fresh in the voters' memories, and they could make the case in the elections that they continue to respect the will of the people.
If these amendments keep the law from being enacted because it forces it to go back through the other house, is it possible that the GOP could keep this up through the mid-terms? If so, would they be able to potentially overturn the bill passage if they were able to win a majority in one of the houses?
I'm amazed at the hue and cry from those who talk about the Republican legislative tactics and who seem to be fine with using reconciliation in a manner so twisted that its Democratic author--Sen. Robert Byrd--has denounced its use for health care legislation. To paraphrase our coach, "You fuck with the rules of Congress, the rules of Congress fuck with you." And to be churlish about it, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves; they started it. They're the ones who decided they couldn't alter the bill to at least bring in someone like Olympia Snowe.
It doesn't. This isn't the bill, it's a set of "fixes" to the bill. The bill was passed and signed into law.
I think this is the first time genius and the Health Care Bill have been used in the same sentence by someone sane. Kudos Maxie
Pretty simple to vote no because all you need to do is pass a new law with these ideas after this one is signed, then the pubs would have to vote for it. Hence another vicrory for Obama, bipartisan even.
But first the Democrats have to vote against this measure, thereby allowing sexual offenders to receive ED drugs. "I was against it, before I was for it." It's turning John Kerry-logic on its head.
Yeah, the Republicans shouldn't try to slow down a government take-over of 15% of our economy. Get over it. Let the Dems move on to finding more things for the government to take over, and spend trillions of dollars on.
What the republicans can do is keep the issue alive a lot longer, and remind people what a horrible piece of shit the bill is and who voted for it, etc. If they don't, the voters have a short memory (probably less for this though). If the fixit bill doesn't pass by election time, the bill that was signed has a lot of things common folk don't like. Such as the bribery provisions. Realize that whatever the senate has passed, the house hasn't actually wanted to vote for, and vice versa. We may be in for a prolonged fight within the Democrat party until the right combination of bribes are found to satisfy enough of them to get the votes needed.
i don't understand why people make a such a huge deal about "flip flopping" and voting record in situations like this. as long as it can be reasonably explained, why does it matter?
"First I voted against funding the troops before voting for funding the troops." Nah, it didn't matter.
