the minority party is hardly in a position to complain now.

Come on, Steve, you know better. Just because "they're in no position to complain" because they did it does not mean that they will not complain vociferously. It's what they do. Unless the MSM starts pointing out the hypocrisy of their complaints, though.

Good luck with that.

And after seeing how the GOP has used this very tactic, the minority party is hardly in a position to complain now.

Actually I think what you mean is "the minority party is hardly in a position to expect anyone to treat their complaints with any level of credibility." Which is correct, but probably won't stop the millionaire journalist-pundits from getting upset at anything that helps people making less than $75K a year.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) suggested on Tuesday that the lack of Republican support for Kathleen Sebelius' nomination to be Health and Human Services secretary is an early indication that the GOP may not be willing to work with Democrats on healthcare reform.

Gee, you think, Chuck? What is it going to take for thedem clowns to realize that the GOP buffoons have no interest in allowing dems to succeed with any of their plans?

If a comprehensive health care plan passes, who gets credit for it? The dems. So why would we expect GOP lawmakers to go along with it? Reconciliation is the only option.

Step 1: identify instances where Repubs used this very same process for major initiatives;

Step 2: spread the word both preemptively and in response to those same Repubs now calling such tactics "fascist" (or whatever ridiculous term they settle on in their bathhouse meetings)

Step 3: repeat step 2 about 500 times on every major news outlet.

And let's also remember that filibusters were never intended to be used as indiscriminately as they have been in the last decade.

The Republicans are irrelevant here. The Blue Dogs (and Byrd) will be the problem. We need to hold Dems' feet to the fire, letting them know that blocking Dem bills from an up and down vote is unacceptable.

"Any chance Democratic policymakers will pursue health care reform through the reconciliation process? There are some encouraging hints."

I don't like this line of thinking. The use of reconciliation is not the goal, it is merely a possible tactic to accomplish the goal of passing a bill this year. I would love to see 10-20 Republicans vote for a health care reform that allows all Americans to gain health security. Given the track record of the GOP, that may not be likely, but we should keep the door open at this point in the process.

A bipartisan bill is more likely to endure the test of time. Let's see if there are any GOP senators willing to play a constructive role in the creation of the bill before committing to reconciliation.

I am afraid that if we don't go the reconcilliation route, we will never get healthcare. There are too many powerful interests whose boat will be upset by a public funding answer to the problem. Our congress is not imune to these pressures, and I believe there are people in Congress right now on both sides of the isle who are praying for a way to take healthcare off the table. The sooner they take action, the better for all of us, and the longer they wait, the more the anti-healthcare factions will find their voice.

"Let's see if there are any GOP senators willing to play a constructive role in the creation of the bill before committing to reconciliation."

Yes, and republican Lucy won't pull the football away this time on Charlie Brown democrats. How many times do you need to be kicked in the nuts? Health care is too important to be left to the republican ass-clowns.

I'm a bit conflicted on this one, and I know the repubs have used the Reconciliation Process (RP) at will to pass their odious tax cuts for rich people and other wingnutty bills.

It just seems to me that dems should be able to pick up two votes from the NE three or some other repub with some reasonable compromising. I'm a firm believer in the filibuster and just because the right misuses it and has threatened to nuke it, doesn't mean dems shouldn't respect it's importance for minority rights. It's kinda like the torture question in the way of It's about us and not them.

That said, if it looks like all the repubs are going to get 100 percent tribal on any notion of national health care, I say RP, and RP with extreme prejudice.

James G.-- Republican Lucy doesn't have the ball; we do. If they won't play ball, we can ram a bill through with reconciliation. It just shouldn't be our first option. Reconciliation puts us at the mercy of the senate parliamentarian, among others.

We're better off negotiating first and attempting to find GOP co-sponsors. And yes, if they go 100%tribal on us, we go recon on them.

Reconciliation puts us at the mercy of the senate parliamentarian, among others.

I think you are misreading the Byrd Rule here. Under reconciliation, senators can bring up a point of order, claiming that a particular part of the overall bill is subject to a sixty vote waiver. But the alternative is that the entire bill is subject to a sixty vote cloture.

If the Republicans were the only obstacle to passing comprehensive health care reform, reconciliation might work. The Democrats are often their own worst enemy on such things, though.

Does anyone know who the two Repub Senators were who *did* vote for Sebelius? I found someplace that there were 10 in the Committee and that 8 of them voted no. Found the names of the 8 (in TP's Wonk Room). But not the 2 "traitors" who broke ranks...

The dems should just plan to have to use reconcilliation. The republicans have completely misused and abused the filibuster. They have attempted to obstruct at every step of the way on every issue. They are not honest brokers. We should just assume that they will try to obstruct healthcare and remove their ability to filibuster...fuck em. If Snowe, Collins and Specter come along with us, we should let them have input, but not water down the final product making it necessary to revisit later. I am not even sure if they are on Kennedy's or Baucus's committees, but I think Snowe is. But the main point is since republicans have obstructed everything, they don't deserve to share the credit for what will eventually be a really good program.

I think you are misreading the Byrd Rule here. Under reconciliation, senators can bring up a point of order, claiming that a particular part of the overall bill is subject to a sixty vote waiver. But the alternative is that the entire bill is subject to a sixty vote cloture.

Yes, but it also means that some poison pill amendments can get in, if the parliamentarian rules they are Germaine and only 51 votes are needed to pass them. I think.

Just reread the Byrd Rule and am totally confused, making my previous comment in-operable/:)

The Republicans are irrelevant here. The Blue Dogs (and Byrd) will be the problem. We need to hold Dems' feet to the fire, letting them know that blocking Dem bills from an up and down vote is unacceptable.

Posted by: Danp on April 22, 2009 at 3:15 PM

I believe Danp to be correct on this. Because any attempt to use reconciliation to pass health care reform will not get a single GOP vote in the Senate, I do not believe that a sizable number of the Dem Senators are going to be willing to pin their political futures on a 1000+ page bill that was written and put together by the liberal staff of the House and Senate Leadership.

Mr. Stuck - I must admit. I'm confused on that point as well. It sounds to me as though the presiding officer (with the advise of the parliamentarian) would rule on whether the amendment is germane. If it is, it would require only 51 votes, and therefore could be used to pass a poison pill. But it also seems that Reid has quite a bit of control over which amendments get to the floor.

Mr. Stuck - I must admit. I'm confused on that point as well

Arcane Senate Rules are as advertised. Arcane.

It sounds to me as though the presiding officer (with the advise of the parliamentarian) would rule on whether the amendment is germane. If it is, it would require only 51 votes, and therefore could be used to pass a poison pill.

Except on Tuesdays with a full moon in months with 31 days in even-numbered years.

I think a bipartisan vote for health care reform is important, but getting the reform is much more important.

I agree with what Schumer is saying and yes, it is sort of obvious. It's easy for all of Congress to understand where things stand. It's in the hands of the Republicans to help or be pushed aside. The filibuster rule/tradition is not a suicide pact and isn't in the Constitution. It's convention and doesn't over-ride the fundamental of majority rule. It's also been terribly over-used in recent years and Dems would have no trouble making that point to the public.

For more background on the confusing Senate arcana, I suggest the following from Ezra Klein:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fifty_vote_senate

Get Republicans on board.

Tell all 41 of 'em...

Give us an amendment proposal.
If we adopt it, you have committed to NOT just voiting for cloture, but voting for the bill.

We promise no amendments will be added after adding your amendment that weren't written by your Republican colleagues. If you don't like the final product, it's because your own party screwed you.

You need just 4 out of the 41 who want to have a stamp on the health care bill even if it's to eliminate one particular policy they hate, minor enough for Democrats to go along.

Accept every reasonable amendment.
If 10 out of 41 are sufferable, you get a health bill with perhaps 68-31 coming out.

Odds on, they'll go the budget reconciliation route.