Mutiny in Scrutiny? [Pelosicare DOA at Senate]

NRO ^ | 11/08/09 | Jeffrey H. Anderson

[WOSG]

I think the Blue Dogs and others with doubts decided to take the chicken-#hit option, and vote for the bill in the House to please the Rat leaders, while crossing fingers and toes that the Senate would kill or substantially modify it. This way, as long as it’s ultimately killed, they think they can maybe have their cake and eat it too - stay off Pelosis $hit list while keeping their jobs.

That didnt work in 1994 and wont work in 2010. History repeats itself.

[CapnJack]

Anderson is delusional. The senate plans out there already are very similar.

This excrement from the house will be molded a tad to reconcile with the senate's version and by the time you are sitting down to turkey and stuffing it will be signed the zero.

[Kenny]

I’m going to call my Republican office tomorrow to talk about launching a national campaign against this mess.

That’s the only way we’ll stop it.

[goldstategop]

I said that last night when hysterical Freepers yelled "all is lost!" Lots of contentious bills pass the House. Very few of them make it into law. That's been true throughout the history of this country.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

[MIchaelTArchangel]

We need to be certain senior citizens realize it is the Democrats who want to take one half trillion, that's with a "t", from Medicare to fund this abomination.

[verga]

It would have been even more shocking to have heard that, even after a full-court-press by the White House, the bill would pass by only five votes — meaning that if just three of the 435 members had changed their minds, it would have changed the bill's fate. And it would have been shocking to have heard that 39 Democrats would jump ship

Okay reality Check here: The bill was going to pass no matter what. Pelosi allowed those 39 to jump ship so that they could use this for cover when it comes time for re-election. Madam Botox would not allow a vote to happen unless she knew exactly where everyone stood. that is why it took as long as it did, she and Obozo had to twist arms, bribe, and threaten all they could. Read the article about the Lone RINO that voted for the bill.

[sarge83]

Never underestimate the ability of our Big Tent, win at all costs, RINO loving senators to screw us over and sell us out. You know the usual crew of backstabbers are not to be trusted: Snowe, Collins, Graham, McCain???

[Verginius Rufus]

Does the bill have to be voted on again in the House after the conference stage? If not, the anti-abortion language can be dropped at the conference stage and the bill be sent to Obama. Rangell and Waxman yesterday refused to promise that the anti-abortion language wouldn’t be removed at the conference stage.

[yongin]

The Senate will not pass the Stupak amendement.

The big question: Will Stupak vote for ObamaCare again if his amendement is dumped?

[freespirited]

Does the bill have to be voted on again in the House after the conference stage?

Yes it does. But it doesn't have to go through the standard committee process again. From the conference committee the bill would go straight to the house and senate floors.

If not, the anti-abortion language can be dropped at the conference stage and the bill be sent to Obama.

No can do.

[freespirited]

The big question: Will Stupak vote for ObamaCare again if his amendement is dumped?

If I had to put money on it, mine would be on NO. He sounds truly adamant. He will not vote for anything that allows taxpayer money to be used for abortions.

He's not the only RAT who takes this position. Dozens of them do.

[Just mythoughts]

Remember B L A G O, and W H O outed him. This bunch requires anybody and everybody to ‘pay’ and then maybe they might get to ‘play’.

[Verginius Rufus]

Thanks for the information. Is the final vote in the Senate subject to filibuster (meaning the ‘Rats need 60 votes unless they try “reconciliation”)?

[randita]

I just read an article yesterday (can’t find it now) from a few days ago where Stupak said he will not vote for a bill that funds abortions. Childers said so as well. There are as many or more Democrats who will bolt if the bill doesn’t fund abortion as those who will bolt if it does. Pelosi can’t win either way.

Reid stated in August that with a public option, the bill is a non-starter in the Senate. I’m not sure how many Senators would vote against the bill if it didn’t have a public option and if those would be okay with a trigger.

If the Senate passes a bill with a public option trigger, can they reconcile that with the house? My bet is no. The CBC has said the bill must have a “strong” public option. But the CBC has a history of coming around when a lot of money is waved in their faces.

[freespirited]

Thanks for the information. Is the final vote in the Senate subject to filibuster (meaning the ‘Rats need 60 votes unless they try “reconciliation”)?

The conferees produce a conference report, and the proposed revisions go back to each chamber. IIRC, there is no opportunity to filibuster when there is a motion to take up the report. What happens instead is that opponents filibuster the report itself.

I guess it is possible that the RATS will try reconciliation. I believe it will be a complete mess. First, it will destroy any cooperation between the parties. Second, I dont believe that all of the bill's provisions qualify for reconciliation ... only those related to revenue and budget.

I believe the reconciliation route would jeopardize Reid's chances of re-election. So I have my doubts it will happen.