Dems Blast the “Tricky, Little-Known Maneuver” That Passed Obamacare (Reconciliation Schadenfreude)

Powerline ^ | 20 October 2014 | John Hinderaker

[11th_VA]

Former Secretary of Labor Bob Reich, on behalf of MoveOn, warns Democrats what will happen if Republicans take control of the Senate: they may use a “tricky, little-known maneuver” to “ram through” their “right-wing policies” with only 51 votes, instead of the 60 votes “usually required” in the Senate. Here he is:

Reconciliation

[mlo]

"compromise with Republicans and bring back a bill to the Senate that could garner a large bipartisan majority. Or they could ignore the election results in Massachusetts and pull an unprecedented legislative maneuver, essentially switching from regular order to reconciliation at the eleventh hour, thereby bypassing any need for Republican support."

I believe the article is incorrect. There was a threat to use Reconciliation, but in the end they just had the House vote on the version that had already passed the Senate, with 60 votes, and avoided using the Reconcilliation process.

[DJ MacWoW]

Where Would You Go Without FR.......

Click The Pic To Donate

Support FR, Donate

[Mygirlsmom]

LOL!!

[beelzepug]

It’s actually panty waist but I like your spelling better! ;^)

[DoughtyOne]

Yes, but in two years Cruz will.

[broken_arrow1]

If the RINOs take the Senate, it will be back to 60...maybe 70 for good measure!

[Red Badger]

What Harry Reid will do is if they lose the senate, then during the time between the election and before the new senate is sworn in, he’ll change the rules of the senate to forbid use of such rules as they have used....................

[RIghtwardHo]

Both sides hate Reconciliation when it suits them.

[jetson]

Ebola will break the already broken Obamacare before anyone does anything.

[sphinx]

I am reasonably confident that Boehner and McConnell would be fully ready to use reconciliation if they see a way forward. There are, however, two problems. Even if we win big this year, McConnell will have a very narrow majority in the Senate. The caucus is much more conservative than it used to be, but three or four weak sisters could still sell out the side. The left will give them every incentive to do so. Any Republicans who derail a big reconciliation bill will be MSM heroes of the week, and I'm sure they will get some tangible bones tossed their way as well in the way of home state projects. Obama can and will make this happen.

And even if the weak sisters hold firm and we pass an ideal reconciliation bill, Obama will presumably veto it. So we are right back to shutdown corral. This will get ugly. We need the signature of the president. So we need to take the Senate, hopefully this year, and hold the Senate in 2016 while electing a president.

The usual suspects will demand instant solutions which it is not in the power of Congress to deliver, and every tactical adjustment to arithmetical reality will be denounced as a sellout. Obama will spend the next two years poisoning the well and trying to set up a democrat win in '16. So: the great divide on the right will be between those who think 2014 is the endgame, and a shutdown is the solution, versus those who think 2016 is the endgame.

I don't like it, but 2016 is the correct call.

[GeronL]

Boehner and McConnell are weak sisters. I don’t have any faith that their idea of “forward” is the conservative one.

[hal ogen]

Will the Repubs prove that they are feckless morons by trying their vaunted “power sharing” strategy that they implemented last time they were in the majority? If they win the majority and do this, they are dead to me.

[MrB]

Nope, that is a distinct advantage that the left has over us -

they have no regard for rules or civility - the agenda is all that matters.

[generally]

Most game theory studies show that tit for tat is one of the best strategies. GOP needs to grow a pair and do it.

Very similar to what my dad taught me: Never hit first, but if someone hits you, hit back HARD.

[DoughtyOne]

My way of combating what the Democrats were doing, would have been to blast it out so loudly that they couldn’t have stood the heat.

When we do it too, it ensconces a new paradigm which sees both sides willing to live outside the rules. That’s a new reality, and quite dangerous.

As I said, I’m willing to get things back to normal, but we shouldn’t buy into lawlessness tit for tat.

We should get done what needs to be done, and put it on the record why, and then make a very big deal out of it when we swear off of it when things are corrected.

[ConservativeMind]

Wonderful! I am so sick of those Taboola lines.

[generally]

I’m not advocating lawlessness. Supposedly everything they did was legal. But they have no qualms about pushing the edge or doing things that previously weren’t illegal because no one would have considered it to be gentlemanly, etc. So either we play the game with the same rules, or we rescind any laws passed under the questionable rules and tactics used by the dems. And never, never, never agree to “just this once” (like the Reagan amnesty) or “we’ll do X if you do Y first” (like the Reagan amnesty). Liberals are not to be trusted under any circumstances because they have demonstrated exactly why many times over.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your take on it, expressed here.

[teeman8r]

Thanks for the correction... Slip of the auto correct...

[geologist]

GOD BLESS AND HELP AMERICA in this time of peril, in Jesus name, allow not for evil to be in charge, amen.