There is another option. Reid could put the House Bill up for a vote and let the GOP filibuster until they ran out of gas, then pass the House bill by 51 votes.

I know this option is never considered, but I don't see why it is inherently more difficult than getting the House to pass the objectively crappier Senate Bill.

They will never try actually making them filibuster square1, that would require effort.

Interesting about this glitch, I heard Lawrence O'Donnell mention on Olbermann that there are 60-vote issues with reconciliation, i.e., that there are procedural votes that can be filibustered before reconciliation can be approved. I haven't heard anything about this before or since. That may be what the Congressional aides are talking about.

I also recently heard Doris Kearns Goodwin on the Daily Show from last week (the night of the SOTU) and even she was saying that the Dems should let the GOP filibuster and let them go on and on and not go to the bathroom, etc. She then went on to give examples from the 1960's with Civil Rights, Strom Thurmond, etc., where one filibuster went on for 35 days or some absurd number.

But in the end, it passed. I have never yet heard one elected Democrat explain why this is not an option.

Homer

The parliamentary rules of congress are as arcane- and irrelevant to the 21st C. - as the card game Whist. . .

Sen. Specter provided the 60th vote?

I think they're taking the right approach. Sounds like they want to have all their ducks in a row vis a vis the parliamentarians before making any noises on this. When they finally make their move, they want no surprises, and they'll want to move quickly. The silence on this issue is a blessing, so long as it's not permanent.

I worry less about the policy than the politics. They'll have to sell this thing hard, fast and relentlessly. I disagree with the idea that since it's unpopular according to polls today, they should just give up. The fact is that this GIVES people stuff they didn't have before. That's almost always popular.

McArdle likens this to Bush's attempt at Social Security reform. But that kept things the same for the everyday guy, except it was no longer social nor secure. In reality it took stuff away. We can argue whether it's good policy or not, but it's terrible politics. No meaningful constituency was clamoring for it outside of Wall Street. This is different.

...then pass the House bill by 51 votes. -square1

I find it too far a leap of faith to assume the House version would get 50 votes from the Democratic caucus.

There is another option. Reid could put the House Bill up for a vote and let the GOP filibuster until they ran out of gas, then pass the House bill by 51 votes.

Ha! OPEC will run out of gas before Republicans ever do.

Seriously though, the problem with making them actually filibuster (if I'm remembering this correctly) is that Senate rules would force Dems to keep almost every member there the entire time for a quorem or something, while only the Republican speaking would need to remain. And they could do that indefinitely. Meanwhile, we'd have Republicans spewing non-stop about how evil Obamacare is, as evidenced by their desire to talk endlessly to stop it, as well as how evil Dems are for making this unending rant continue. They'd insist that they didn't WANT to filibuster, but those damn Democrats left them with no choice, and that they were doing it to save our liberty.

And so they'd be pulling a Mr. Smith routine on us, and the media would play along and insist that we were the bad guys. And the only thing that would make them stop is if their base suddenly went sane and asked them to stop; and that's NEVER going to happen. So they'd get to obstruct all Senate business, have a soapbox to attack us from, while we looked like evil jerks. And once we capitulated (and we WOULD capitulate), we'd look like the biggest losers in the world.

Yeah, that sounds like a FANTASTIC plan. When do we start?

Or...the House can just pass the Senate bill, which would then put pressure on the White House to push for reconciliation - because reconciliation is the only way the White House brokered deal with the unions regarding the "Cadillac tax" will get into the bill.

Also, this seems odd: "The Senate can't, however, approve changes to legislation that hasn't been signed yet (in order to fix a law, it has to be a law)." The Senate already passed a bill, they'd simply be amending it (one would think).

The House should take the bull by the horns and force the issue on everyone: pass the bill, also pass a proposed amendment that comes as close as possible to what is expected to pass in the Senate on a reconciliation vote, and let political pressure force the Senate to pass it or a close facsimile. The House did not wait for some unenforceable commitment, or a legally ineffective amendment to a non-existing law, in order to pass its version of the basic House bill, and there is no compelling urgency of timing for putting amendments that will not take effect for a couple of years anyway.

This seems so obvious as a path to getting what the majority wants it makes one believe someone in the Democratic leadership does not want this to happen for some reason. I hope that's not the case.

If we had a leader in the Senate, he could forge an informal agreement between the two houses for an amendment package, with a MAD provision that explicitly brings down the full force and fury of the party down upon anyone who changes their vote.

The would mean getting a side agreement with 50 senators, who could pass the amendments with Biden's additional vote. Unfortunately, it seems that a number of senators don't believe there are negative consequences from going against the Democratic party. I can't imagine why. /snark

Wait a second, Arlen Specter said what?! My SSRI must be working..

The Senate could pass a ham sandwich if they could get 60 votes. ALl they have to do is write up the bill, laying out which text would be changed and in what way, pass it, and then the president signs the original bill first (which is then immediately law), and then the amending bill.

I'm still not sorry for all the times I called Specter a lying, flip-flopping sack of shit, and I'm still expecting him to completely reverse himself by tomorrow afternoon. He waited pretty late to grow a spine.

one filibuster went on for 35 days or some absurd number...But in the end, it passed. I have never yet heard one elected Democrat explain why this is not an option.

That was the Civil Rights Act, and the reason that it was "an option" in 1964 is because at the time there was not one of the two parties who was determined to force a filibuster for every possible procedural matter. It the Senate had to wait, say, ten days for every cloture vote for every possible (it takes about a day or two right now even without the "classic filibuster") they could pass maybe one bill in a session.

With respect, Dr. Biobrain - I couldn't disagree more.

You say the Senate Republicans would/could "go all Mr. Smith" on us. Really? Who's gonna do that?

Let's take a look at their bench:

Lieberman? Bwahahahahaha. Bring it, Droopy Dawg.
Saxby Chambliss? Even if you could understand his cracker ass, he's just smart enough not to get his fat face on TV. I don't think so.
Sam Brownback? Might MIGHT last 8 hours.
Coburn? That crazy racist cracker? Besides being clinically retarded, he's wrapped up in that Ensign thing. No credibility.
John Kyl? See above.
Lindsey Graham? 50/50 whether he'd even show up, and I pick the "under" on whether he'd last more than 10 hours.
DeMint? 8-10 hours of unfiltered South Carolina Crazy. Mmmm. That's good Crazy.
Thune? He'd come off like Pimply-Faced Teen from The Simpsons.
Bob Corker? Might possibly sound sane. Might last 12 hours. MIGHT.
Cornyn? Not a bright man. Or charismatic. Tall, though.
Hatch? His singing voice gives out in four.
McCain? Physically couldn't last four hours. Intellectually, couldn't last 45 minutes. (Of course, that's never stopped a U.S. Senator.)

Basically you're looking at 48-to-72 hours of Wall-To-Wall Desperate, Sad And Crazy. Doesn't sound anything like Mr. Smith. Sounds more like Mr. Crazy-Ass No Rationale-Having Corporate Kiss-Ass Senator getting called out on his bullshit and not having the intestinal fortitude, intellectual rigor or physical stamina to back it up. More importantly, you're 48-to-72 hours away from crushing the opposition. Why wouldn't you do this?

Yeah, well, Specter doesn't have a spine; what he does have is a primary challenger.

"...while only the Republican speaking would need to remain." Doctor Biobrain @ 5:16 PM.

You might wish to check on that. If the only Republican forced to remain in the Senate was the one speaking, whenever a quorum call was made, the Democrats would win.
During a filibuster, the ONLY persons required to be in the chamber are the President of the Senate/President Pro Tem and the senator speaking. However, if/when a quorum call is made, THEN all senators are required to be on the floor within a stated period of time. If I remember my "Roberts'" clearly, a request for a quorum call can be made at any time, by any senator.

Urban Legend said what I was thinking. The House is trying to negotiate a better deal while the Senate is wishing they never made an offer. The House only has leverage by passing the Senate bill because even the Senate doesn't want to go to the voters with their bill. My take is that Pelosi is the only Democratic leader with the guts and savvy to still make HCR happen. She will be my hero forever if she pulls this off.

For those interested, here's the link explaining why the non-stop talking filibuster can't happen:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

As for Strom Thurmond's famous filibuster, (which lasted for 24 hours, not the 35 days posted above); the reason he actually spoke for 24 hours is because he wanted to. It was a political stunt that helped him personally with the racist vote, but he didn't have to do it. And the eventual bill had 60 votes anyway; Strom was just being a jerk. The reality is that there is no practical way to defeat a filibuster beyond getting sixty votes.

Homer,

"I heard Lawrence O'Donnell mention on Olbermann that there are 60-vote issues with reconciliation, i.e., that there are procedural votes that can be filibustered before reconciliation can be approved."

Only a debatable motion is subject to filibuster. Motions to proceed for consideration (vote) are not debatable.

Any Senate Democrat that brings up a debatable motion should be caned like Senator Charles Sumner.

"...Today, the minority just advises the majority leader that the filibuster is on. All debate on the bill is stopped until either cloture is voted by three-fifths (now 60 votes) of the Senate. Some modern Senate critics have called for a return to the old dramatic endurance contest but that would inconvenience all senators who would have to stay in session 24/7 until the filibuster is broken."

Sounds like a great fucking idea to me. Who's the majority again?

Everyone already knows the Democrats do not want universal health care or the current system reformed in favor of the working class citizen, it is nothing more than a ruse, to trick people into supporting them, much like the republicans trick the religious right into voting for them to over turn abortion rights or the second amendment and those who support gun rights.

They are just not going to do it at all, no matter how big of a majority they hold. They are willing to say they support those ideas and have their hand out for a donation.

As I said above breaking a filibuster the way it was meant to be broken is just too much effort.

Why should they give two shits about anyone else they already have their government funded health care locked in for life for themselves and their family.

I left a comment to this effect on another post, so forgive me if this is familiar, but, as someone tired of all the self-defeating sniping on the Left about how to save HCR, I have a modest proposal. Actually, it mirrors one of the more dyspeptic remarks one regularly hears these days - that we activists should stop giving our time and money to the Democratic Party until it responds to the base constituency that got it where it is. Why not simply circulate the following pledge:

"I, X, an active supporter and donor to Democrats and/or the Democratic Party, hereby pledge that I will no longer give any money or time to the Party, its representatives or its candidates until such time as the Congress completes work on a bill making possible health care coverage for all Americans."

Think of the advantages:

-The Democrats are going to lose massively in November if they fail to get the active participation of their base. Passing universal health care is really the only way to win back some excitement for the possibilities of real change. This pledge sends that message loud and clear. Nothing like a real threat to concentrate the mind of the politician!

-Given the megaphone for the Right's message, it might provide an effective counter-balance to it, a counter-balance that, with sufficient mass, could get the Party's attention. They need the base. If they don't listen, we could hit them where it hurts, in the pocketbook and at the doorstoop: and they know that!

-I wish that we could get several million supporters to fill the National Mall, but the current mood of disillusionment, despair and anger augurs ill for any such effort: why not take advantage of that mood and offer a "mass action" in its spirit? Bet we could find lots of people willing to make a "not-one-damned-cent-of-my-money" pledge! Let's channel the anger.

-Angry as its tone, the pledge really proposes no action out of line with the health of the Party: if universal health care doesn't pass this congress, not only will IT be on the back burner for a generation but so will the Democratic Party. Indeed, my prognosis is that, failing universal health care this year, it will be the DEMOCRATS and not the Republicans who first splinter into two or more parties. I certainly am ready to bolt a Party that can't pass such a bill with the big majorities in both houses that we currently enjoy. And I'm much more of a "loyal Democrat" than many others on the Left. Once again, best to let our representatives and senators know what they're facing!

-Need I mention that the pledge circumvents the major splits on the Left about what to do (or at least MOST such splits!). I don't care how they do it, or when they do it - if they start over and pass Ron Wyden's bill, single payer, or the Senate's bill with reconciliation (and all the subsidiary sniping about which house is to blame for the impasse now). The pledge is also neutral in the "let's do some more popular stuff first (jobs, financial reform)" debate: so long as they don't let it slide so that it DOESN'T get done - a real danger in the current environment. Just get it done!

Please feel free to pass along the pledge!

If they can't find a reconciliation path, then I think the best thing is to put the Conference bill to the Senate for a few weeks of filibuster. As the jackasses bray, a campaign to educate people to the worthwhile, popular components of it could be undertaken. This could also serve as the beginning of a campaign against the filibuster.

At least the Democrats could go to their base and reasonably ask for their votes this November.