To date, by rather passively responding to Republican attacks and falsehoods, Obama been an enabler of their tactics and strategy--- similar to Neville Chamberlain and others in the 30's who enabled the initial success Adolph and Benito.

This is breathtaking. Frumin is an unelected bureaucrat. Are the democrats seriously going to have this man force Obamacare on the American people?

How dumb are you Al? Did you not even read the post? The stupidity of the right never ceases to amaze.

Maybe Republicans are trying to bully Frumin before he's even asked to rule on anything; maybe Republicans are trying to cast doubts on his integrity now so they can attack him later.

Yes. And Politico is, as ever, at their service.

More stunning than Bunning, innit?

"And then try to remember the fact that Trent Lott firing the former parliamentarian was considered largely a non-story at the time, and that GOP use of reconciliation was deemed routine."

Some random thoughts this am - since hearing about Charlie Rangel's problem I was wondering -
1. Has Sessions resigned?
2. Has diaper Vitter resigned?
3. Has Sanford resigned?
4. Do repubs have differences with ethics when it is a repub in trouble?
Also I read this morning that crazy lady Bachmann is learning to like the census!

Here is how the NYTimes reported Trent Lott's "dismissal" of the parliamentarian in 2001:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/08/us/rules-keeper-is-dismissed-by-senate-official-says.html?pagewanted=1

thanks for the link, Luther. Pretty low key reporting of the event. Can't imagine that happening now.

Frumin was appointed in 2001 by the Repubs after Lott fired the last parlimentarian who didn't agree with them. Curious, isn't it?

Nate, Al is a parody. Welcome to PA!

All this just reflects the Democrats' incompetence at politics. We all know the Republican talking points, because they all go out and spread them with great efficiency. But how many know that the Republicans fired the parliamentarian for ruling against them on reconciliation?

I'm starting to become more cynical, wondering if some Democrats are allowing the Republicans to block everything on purpose. It seems hard to believe that they are as stupid as they often appear to be.

Interesting thing about what is going on here. Senate Republicans are giving speeches about stuff that will be in the second bill, stuff to fix the first bill. But the fiction in their speeches is that there is only one bill.

When the House passes the already passed Senate bill, no Republicans will have voted for it.

Next comes the budget bill. It will contain lots of Republican ideas, stuff which will improve the law already passed. And the Republicans will very likely vote against this bill also. They will vote against fixing the law they hate, vote against their own ideas becoming law. In essence, they will be voting both against and for everything the second bill fixes in the first.

But the second bill also protects as many Democratic Senators as possible, up to 9, if they can't vote for it. Fortunately these Senators can always say that the original bill was just fine, and they already voted for it, so they do no additional damage by voting against the second bill.

Republicans will still be left with the distinction of being 100% against the first and second bills. This will make it even more difficult for them to run on a partial repeal of the original bill, since their chance at that will have already passed by.

Not sure how they talked themselves into such a situation.

Reconciliation = Partial Repeal

Think about this: Obama will include a number of Republican ideas in the Reconciliation bill, partially repealing some of the stupid stuff as well. For instance: special deals to Florida, Nebraska and Louisiana.

If Republicans were planning on using partial repeal as a campaign issue, they are pretty much screwed: either the vote for the HCR fix bill and remove or weaken the campaign issue, or they vote against and have to explain why they didn't fix it when they had a chance.

"Think about how intense the media scrutiny would be..."

And, it will only be that intense because the GOP has been so successful with the tactic in the past, i.e., the refs in the media have been well worked over through the years by incessant hanky clutching over the liberal press by the GOP.

I would be surprised if Alan Frumin would rule in such a way as to contradict the Robert Byrd (D-WV), current sitting U.S. Senator and architect of the reconciliation process who is on the record as being against using reconciliation to pass healthcare. Alan would go down in history as the man responsible for destroying the traditions of the Senate and setting the stage for Republicans to abuse the heck out of the process once they gain power. Say goodbye to Senate comity: http://tinyurl.com/yjmfxem

I love the faux outrage about "firing" the parliamentarian. Robert Dove served under the GOP from 1981-1987, then got "fired" by Robert Byrd when the Dems took over the Senate, when Frumin was given the job. Then, in 1995 after Republicans took over again, Dove was reinstated (note: both men stayed in the office; neither was terminated). GOP Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott then reinstated Frumin (the Democrats' choice) in 2001, making him the only parliamentarian ever appointed by both parties. Wow, what a partisan war.

*********
Reconciliation = Partial Repeal

Think about this: Obama will include a number of Republican ideas in the Reconciliation bill, partially repealing some of the stupid stuff as well. For instance: special deals to Florida, Nebraska and Louisiana.

***********

Think about THIS ... if partial repeal is an acceptable use of the reconciliation ... then TOTAL Repeal is to.

Which means if the Republicans regain control of House, Senate, and Presidency in 2012?
Usage of Reconciliation to repeal the whole bill won't be outrageous.

Use reconciliation to "fix" ... you open the door to a future Republican majority to use reconciliation to "kill".

And don't give me if they do that you would love it because there goes their majority.
The dems are prepared to lose THEIR majority to get it in.
This would just bring it back to where it stands and you gotta start the whole shibang all over again, in 2017.

Here is what your column does not address - what if you thought (as I did) what Lott did was reprehensible, independent of the merits of the bill involved - I think the only intellectually honest position is to oppose it now.

Would your response be that the ends justify the means, or, we'll never get anything done if we play by the rules and they don't? But wasn't the sense that the Republicans were out of control one of the key reasons why Dems took back Congress in 06?

Don't underestimate how successful this strategy might be. The Republicans can't govern but they understand how to play politics far, far better than the Democrats ever will.

This is something to watch.