Bingaman Says Health Bill Vote Maneuver Is OK (NM)

The Albuquerque Journal ^ | August 25, 2009 | Michael Coleman

[CedarDave]

Sen. Jeff Bingaman said Monday that he would support using a controversial budget maneuver called reconciliation to pass a major overhaul of health care policy this year if the Senate can't reach a bipartisan deal.

The New Mexico Democrat, speaking to an audience of about 200 at a forum in Albuquerque, said he would prefer to pass a bill supported by both Democrats and Republicans. But he said he would vote to use the annual budget reconciliation bill — which requires only 51 votes in the Senate and is not subject to a filibuster — if that is the only way to get a health care bill approved. It takes 60 votes to cut off debate on a normal bill in the Senate and move to a floor vote.

Bingaman, a member of the so-called Gang of Six crafting the Senate Finance Committee bill, has said in recent weeks that Senate Democrats probably can't muster the 60 votes needed to pass a regular bill with a public option, or government-run health insurance.

Democrats hold a 60-40 advantage in the Senate, but Bingaman said not all 60 Democrats are likely to support the public option or even privately run group health care co-ops.

Bingaman has said he personally prefers a public option, but the finance committee group has been considering privately run co-ops as an alternative.

"If we are unable to do it any other way, (the reconciliation bill) is an option," he said. "Clearly, I would support that if that's the only way we can act."

[CedarDave]

Elsewhere in the article:

A show of hands revealed that a large majority of the audience supported a public option. A show of hands revealed that a large majority of the audience supported a public option.

Read the reason in the post below.

[CedarDave]

From Pro1's post on the NM board:

I have stepped in from attending the Bingaman event down town. That meeting was a total sham. It was deliberately crafted to suppress good and pointed questioning of grave flaws in the legislation.

A few of our folks got in and observed that Bingaman supporters were given unreasonable and manipulative access in structuring the content of the meeting. Attendees were broken up into groups that discussed issues, a “spokesman” was elected to speak for the group and when it finally got to where questions were asked of Bingaman, the content and delivery of questions was so watered down that they were a dishonest representation of the actual question. The meeting was a total fraud.

I was again outside and we stayed until 5PM. Due to the weather and the intentional scheduling of the meeting during the middle of a work day at the beginning of the week, there was not a lot of attendance of sign people. About 15 max.

I got interviewed several times but as I have observed the 6PM news coverage the slant supporting Bingaman became obvious. 4 showed my sign with me holding it for less than 2 seconds. No one would have been able to read it. Again a fraud.

[Jet Jaguar]

BTTT

[CedarDave]

And from a FR e-mail I received, authors name redacted; the technique used by radicals to achieve "consensus" is revealed:

Pro 01. Thanks for that info. What you observed is called “The Delphi Technique” in action. It’s been long used by very competent and professional radical “Community Organizers” to manipulate groups of people into agreeing with predetermined outcomes that they would not otherwise support by presenting the appearance of “consensus”.

I’ll guarantee the people you saw are well-schooled in it, and were assigned to conduct it in a manner that would lead the discussion towards their pre-determined outcome.

Here’s an eye-opening link on it. http://www.learn-usa.com/transformation_process/~consensus.htm

The best thing to do is mount a concerted effort to defeat it covertly. There are clear directions on that process at the link. Please realize that for all of their appearance of whacked out chaos, the hardcorps left is radically dedicated, and deadly serious about what they are doing and what they want. We are not up against a dysfunctional “Ad-Hocracy” here. If they are already “Delphi’ing” little Town Halls in NM, then they are well-organized, and getting moreso every day. Fight fire with fire.

[CedarDave]

NM list PING!

[CharlesWayneCT]

So they would “prefer” to reach a compromise with the Republicans, but if they can’t, he is fine with changing the rules and just putting out their own plan.

In other words, he has no interest in “compromising” with Republicans. Because the only reason they would have to do this with 51 votes if if they refused to compromise with the Republicans (and their own Democrats, many of whom apparently refuse to support the measure).

[savedbygrace]

Yup. There are posts in the FR archives going back 10 years or more about the Delphi Technique.

Bingaman is a sleezeball for using it.

[CedarDave]

I was invited and attended a couple of NM First Forums in the early 90’s. At that time I was naive about what was going on and led down the road to “consensus” as it “felt good” to come to a conclusion all of the diverse panelists agreed upon. Sort of like the way the UN does business — lots of hot air but no action (unless it is against freedom loving countries).

[tal hajus]

Dingaman was my senator for several years.Thankfully I now have Inhofe and Coburn.

[Buckeye McFrog]

which is exactly what we all said would happen when McCain and his Gang of 14 refused to go nuclear on judges

[PRO 1]

You are dead bang right on about the Del-Phi Technique. It was used more prevalently in earlier years but as the goods on the technique and its intended purpose was exposed publicly, the use of it diminished. Its latest revival is emblematic of the intents of the users. Its expressed intent by the design of the mechanics on how it is to be executed, pretends to be receptive of “other ideas” so the false claim can be made that “they” have solicited other ideas and discussed them.

However, due to the structure, the “moderator” or the “elected spokesman” for the group can easily water down and diminish any content that would serve to be counter to the entity that called the meeting.

When you add the element of “stacking the deck” as was done by Bingman’s Senate office in having all requests for attendance to be asked for via their website and filtered by his senate office staff, one could easily craft a predetermined outcome. A simple voter data base or donor data base search of attendance requests granting approval to attend based on the “D” or the $ is a simple in-house filter for them. They already lied about their snail and email traffic being supportive of Obama-care. What's another lie to them.

The “request” for Bingman to be present at this meeting due to the prescribed topic was done by an organization named New Mexico First. An organization started by Richardson and his supporters (all Democrats) as a shell or a prop of legitimacy to push other State projects like the Rail Runner etc...

This meeting was a put-up job from the start to give Bingman the appearance of legitimacy or distance from the meeting's method content extending to him plausible denyability. “He wasn't responsible for the meeting's content or structure, it was someone who ‘invited’ me”. This was the entire play on the public.

When you commit a fraud or you knowingly participate in a fraud, that makes you party to the fraud whether you like it or not.