I sent Steve's healthcare memo strategy to the White House. I think they got it.

specific instructions as to why, exactly, to proceed

You mean "how," right?

It seems most of your posts concerning HCR end with the phrase, "by next week." John Cole's lexicon refers to any proposed Iraqi solution as a "Friedman Unit" meaning something conclusive in the sext six months. Frieman Units go on forever. Maybe you need to coin a "Reid-Pelosi-Administration Unit."

Sigh...I fear this "ping pong" game between various House and Senate committees have been going on for too long already. TNR's Jon Chait reports both Dem and GOP observers agree it *will* be possible for Republican Senators to offer an indefinite number of amendments after all. It has never been done before, but the procedure seems technically legal and Jim DeMint has already promised he'll use it if Harry Reid tries to go the budget reconciliation route. Even worse, GOP lawmakers are probably correct when assuming there won't be any Republican defections whereas nervous Senate Democrats probably will cave in, sooner rather than later.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/gop-health-care-loophole

Unless the House comes to its senses and simply approves the existing Senate Bill as it is (warts and all), I just don't think health care reform will survive.

MARCU$

Why do you keep saying things like 'ideally this wouldn't be necessary?' As if Presidential leadership is optional. Presidential leadership is always essential. Necessary. It is unfathomable, inexplicable that it has been deployed so sparingly in this critical issue.

About this "indefinite number of amendments" tactic, be sure the c-span cameras capture this obstructionist action. Does it take 60 votes to end discussion and take a vote on each one? Good grief, these A-Hole Rethugs are masters at the art of bringing this once mighty nation to its knees.

> About this "indefinite number of amendments"
> tactic, be sure the c-span cameras capture this
> obstructionist action.

Sigh, these folks don't *care* if they seem shamelessly obstructionist on C-SPAN cameras.

All they care about is what the GOP base thinks.

MARCU$

...pass a reconciliation fix, send that to the Senate for approval,...

Well, darn, that seems so simple. After all of this, it should be clear that the Senate approving anything is not simple at all.

Once they see what the House wants to 'reconcile,' I'm sure we'll see the usual suspects (e.g., Lieberman, Nelson, the Maine Twins) crawl out and seek the spotlight once again, holding the nation hostage to their whim.

When you are following the lead of Roger Ailes, Frank Luntz and Rupert Murdock, and your base believes to the very core of their beings that the present government is illegitimate and Democrats are evil "socialist, communist, fascists" because that is what they are being told daily by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and their foxy friends, you have very little room to do anything but obstruct. Obstruction is just about all Republicans can do. It is our job to marginalize the obstructionists, and the only way we do that is to relentlessly tell the truth.

The economy is getting a little better, but the jobs aren't returning as fast as needed. We need to focus on a new jobs bill, probably one that is energy related. We also need to focus on banking reform and a new round of credit card reform.

There are lots of things that need to be done. Democrats have to work hard to do them. They actually need to achieve results whereever possible.

The real danger is that we don't have a program in place to transition away from stimulus packages.

I heard a congressman tell the president the other day that one of his consitituents asked him how she could get her own lobbyist. The Democrats have to take that challenge on. They have to clearly announce that the Democratic party and Democratic representatives aregoing to fulfill the role of lobbyist for rank and file Americans. In that role Democrats have to succeed.

Things look bad for Democrats but they look worse for Republicans.

Yeah, and the Senate will certainly CHANGE whatever the House sends over, and then "ping-pong" back the changed bill, with the stern pronouncement that "this is the best that can be done, and you'll just have to take it or leave it." This in turn will further enrage the House, and the whole thing will stall while everybody "cools off" ... again.

Later, rinse, repeat.

As for "infinite amendments," germaneness is at the heart of reconciliation, and I'm sure the Parliamentarian will be able to rule amendments out of order faster than the DeMint staff can draft them. If Reid REALLY wants to get this thing done -- and if he has 50 votes -- then I'm guessing it can be done.

PTFB?

Why the WH is so shy about stating its plan? The dispute is between the House and Senate Democrats, who are all grown-up adults. The House would like the WH to tell the Senate to do what the House wants them to do. The Senate would like the WH to tell the House to do what the Senate wants them to do. Further each chamber has Democratic members who think it in their interest to appear to be resistant to Barack Obama. And finally, if this thing does fail, every Democratic member of either chamber wants Barack Obama to get the blame, not themselves. By stating a specific plan in public, BO steps into the role of the scapegoat for its failure. And once the scapegoat has been established, then it is more likely that the effort will fail. Obama's public refusal to tell them what to do is actually the only thing keeping this alive right now.

The meme about Mr. Obama "not showing enough leadership" on HCR is just nonsense. Obama has from the beginning provided a broad outline of the goals he wanted for HCR. At the same time, White House staff has daily worked hand in glove with legislators to forward efforts to reach those goals. That's the way this is done.

Had Mr. Obama come forward with a list of specifics, we would be, at the very best, no farther along. In addition, the inevitable changes and compromises in those specifics would have given Republicans a much longer laundry list of Obama "failures" to point to.

The self-serving, knee-jerk sneering about Obama's leadership that some progressives are buying into is shallow, inaccurate and contemptible. Worse, it plays right into the hands of conservative bidding to block progressive change.

These clowns might actually accomplish something in spite of themselves. I'll believe it when I see it. The only thing that gives me confidence is Pelosi, because she's proven that she can in fact get things done without compromising everything out of existence.

'The self-serving, knee-jerk sneering about Obama's leadership that some progressives are buying into is shallow, inaccurate and contemptible. Worse, it plays right into the hands of conservative bidding to block progressive change.'

In my view, this is nonsense. Administration officials have no problem playing hardball with the whip when it came to other issues they cared about like the Bernake nomination. They seem singularly unwilling to hurt anyone in the upper chamber's feelings when it comes to this issue. And that is where the problem lies. Please don't try to tell me that the President has no leverage over these goofballs.

Pelosi's position looks ridiculous. The House by itself can force the issues by passing the Senate bill and an amendment that corrects key differences from what the House already passed. Then the progressive Representatives will be on record voting for what they want, they will have at last finally have done something that significantly reforms the system and provides genuine relief to millions of at-risk people, and all the pressure to more or less match the improvements the House made will be placed on the Senate. That pressure will only grow more and more enormous with time.

It looks like Pelosi, probably with Obama's concurrence, is trying to protect her caucus from having to finally take a stand. Yet the House going first is the only way anything is going to happen. It's also the only way Democrats are not going to be destroyed by their most ardent supporters sitting on their hands in November.

But with Pelosi loudly declaring the public option to be dead -- despite its having received her previous vocal support, a majority vote in the House and alleged majority support in the Senate from non-Blue Dogs -- and with Obama doing nothing but mouthing generalities (and urging a resolution "this year"), it sure looks like the fix is in. The question is what the fix is and why it is there, especially when it is threatening to undo all the accomplishments of 2006 and 2008.

"The House by itself can force the issues by passing the Senate bill and an amendment that corrects key differences from what the House already passed."

What about Pelosi saying "I don't have the votes," don't people understand? Her Dems, and she has scads of them, outnumber the Republicans, but they don't trust the Senate AND they won't all bite the bullet and vote yes to pass the Senate bill. They actually want to KEEP their jobs, and their constituents will fire them if they vote for it.

Also, as for Obama taking charge, he managed quite nicely when his union buddies were gonna be taxed that 40% for their caddy plans. Within a day, he got them their big fat exemption. So much for "hands off." That exemption was the straw that broke the camel's back. Brown winning in Mass was the gunshot that killed the camel.