bring it on.

The fired parliamentarians were right, for what it is worth at this point in the history of the Senate.

But today's Senators are judged by a different standard than those of even twenty years ago. No longer can they merely vote against a measure unpopular with constituency groups and monied interests and get credit for it; now they must demonstrate they have done everything they can legally do to block the measure. During the 1950s and 1960s civil rights legislation was treated in this way, but civil rights legislation was as close to transcendantly important as legislation gets. Now the Senate treats drilling for oil in northern Alaska and reimbursement for end-of-life counselling in the same way.

The Senate has worked for most of its long history. It has worked when its members thought of themselves as Senators, not as pissant backbench Congressmen. That age might not be gone for good, but it certainly seems past right at this moment.

I'm kind of curious: Does anybody remember whether Democrats protested the suggestion that drilling should be passed by reconciliation?

Gregg's retiring. He doesn't give a rat's ass what you-or anybody else- thinks. . .

I am starting to think more and more that we are not going to get health care reform this year, with the way the GOP is willing to do things like this, the lack of support from Blue Dogs, etc.

Since the Obama administration is more effective as the Obama Campaign, what they need to do is start in December, when this fct becomes obvious, to campaign against the GOP and for reform. Put forward a solid bill, point out the Republicans won't vote for anything, and then the President campaigns across the country telling people if they want reform then they need to put their votes in the Senate - get rid of Republicans.

If they can do this right - and they do know how to campaign - they can pick up seats in the Senate, lower losses in the House, and be able to finally pass good reform in 2011.

Obama needs to tell that sonofabitch Emmanuel that it's not going to matter in 2012 who finances his campaign, he won't be winning if he doesn't win this in 2010. Emmanuel's bullshit on fudging things because he thinks he can get health insurance industry dollars and big pharma dollars to finance the 2012 campaign has to stop.

Can the Republicans stop work in the Senate with the "points of order" as Gregg suggests?

>Can the Republicans stop work in the Senate with the "points of order" as Gregg suggests?

The parlimentarian would have to agree. They can certainly slow things down.

Th, yes. At their own risk, but yes.

It would take about 3 days until the media narrative turned to painting the Republicans as obstructionists -- if only because the media would be bored by the story.

Can the Republicans stop work in the Senate with the "points of order" as Gregg suggests?

One of the more annoying things about the Senate is that it is actually pretty easy to shut down business even if its just one or a handful of Senators that wish to do so. That is also why the filibuster is so unnecessary. There are already about a million ways for the minority to bottleneck the system if they think it is important enough.

When the Republican threatened to get rid of the filibuster so that could ram their judges through a few years ago, I think it was Reid who pointed out that they could do that if they wanted but there were about 100 other procedural ways for the minority dems to simply shut the Senate down if it came to that.

It seems to me that there really should be more effort to reform the filibuster in a way that still makes it possible to use but which also makes it more difficult and politically costly to use. I have no problem with allowing the minority some latitude in being able to pushback on legislation that they think is particularly bad but it should be quite a bit more difficult to invoke than it is now.

Somebody clear this up: doesn't the Parlimentarian advise the Chair and it is the Chair that makes the rulings of what is and not in order? The Parlimentarian is not a Constitutional officer of the United States government -- but a staff person. His/her power must be derived from somebody else. How can the chair be legally obligated to follow the opinions of the Parlimentarian? Why didn't Cheney just rule the way he wanted to? Why the charade of firing the Parlimentarian?
I am confused.

The Senate Parliamentarian does advise the Chair. However, the Chair is normally dependent on the Parliamentarian, both because rulings from the Chair that violate Senate rules or precedents are subject to points of order and because the presiding officer of the Senate is rarely well enough versed in Senate rules to make even routine rulings on his or her own.

A Senate Parliamentarian contradicting the Majority Leader as to what a parliamentary tool (like reconciliation) might be used for would be, at a minimum, a severe embarrassment. When the Democrats regained the Senate majority after the 1986 election, then-Majority Leader Robert Byrd was so irritated at the Parliamentarian's contrary advice that he had the man fired. Within days, Republican Leader Dole put him on his own staff, ensuring that any parliamentary maneuvers Byrd attempted could not take the Republicans by surprise.

After the 2004 elections, the narrative in the mainstream media was that Americans voted for Republicans because of "values". It wasn't, as the press-titutes suggested, that American voters embraced Republican values like outlawing all abortions or cutting the taxes of millionaires to zero. It was that Americans perceived the Republicans as standing for something, and they perceived (justifiably) that Democrats were almost ashamed to take a firm stand on their beliefs.

So now Democrats have the opportunity to reverse that perception among independents.

For now they can point out how Republicans are unwilling to vote for anything to help solve the country's problems, whether it's health care, banking reform, or anything else.

But during the 2010 election cycle they need to emphasize that Republicans will say anything to gain a political advantage. Democrats need to run commercials that show Republicans in approving of reconciliation and then denouncing it. They need to show Republicans saying the filibuster is anti-democratic and then saying that it is the perfectly appropriate. Show Republicans supporting the "rule of law" and then saying that we should "look forward and not back."

That is, if the Democrats can get their heads out of their collective backsides and recognize that they are the only ones who are practicing "comity" and bipartisanship.

"It's tempting to think the Senate Republican caucus would pick someone to lead the fight who'd be slightly less embarrassing, but I'm quite certain they don't care."

Steve, it's not that they don't care. It's that they know their constituents don't care. They have found they can say anything they want and Fox News will broadcast it, embellish it with "Socialism" and the tea baggers will put it in crayon and ALL CAPS on their signs, along with Nazi symbols.

The truth does not matter.

I can't believe Republicans would be so stupid as to raise points of order to force procedural votes that would waste time like this.

And if they are, we should bury 'em -- which will take real preparation.

Basically, if the story is "Democrats demand up or down vote on a good thing on which reasonable people can disagree, Republicans use unreasonable rules cuz they deny there's a problem, have no answers and they're sore losers", we win.

But if the story is "Democrats bend rules to get their way", we have to take a major risk, that the media narrative won't scare off the House.

The House doesn't want to vote on a bill framed the Republicans' way. So we have to frame it OUR way. It's time to call some bluffs -- perhaps Reid should offer unanimous consent that the Republican alternative will get voted up or down first, provided it covers everybody and is revenue neutral, with Dick Armey's wise suggestion of a voluntary option for government-provided insurance. Give 'em a weekend to write the plan they promised in the spring -- then on Monday, stage a bit of Senate kabuki when the Democrats could simply let Republicans explain why they have no proposal, before moving on to the real legislation.

Or, I suppose, Republicans could object to having the chance to propose their own legislation.

This is one of those situations where the upside is vastly larger than the downside. Should the Senate pass a good reform bill this year with only a majority of ALL Democratic votes, and the House follow up, say by Christmas, with a similar bill passed with a similarly partisan vote -- there really aren't that many Democratic seats that will be vulnerable on those votes by Novemeber 2010, and all of those will be protectable with other issues.

And by 2012 and beyond, the value of the reforms should be evident -- and entirely to the credit of Democrats and the shame of Republicans.

Make fun of these guys, is the smartest course. And prepare for their pathetic attempt to claim credit for improving reform when it passes and works, too.

And Obama trusted this guy enough to offer him a cabinet position. What does that say about Obama's judgment?

Much as I loathe the Republicans and their boundless hypocrisy, I must ask, did the ball-less wonders on the other side of the aisle file points of order objections and take a hard look at their rights under reconciliation when they were the minority opposition party?