tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post3056113497385078386..comments2023-10-16T07:13:12.123-05:00Comments on A plain blog about politics: Pass Then PatchJonathan Bernsteinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-1595556715311575112010-02-05T10:19:25.433-06:002010-02-05T10:19:25.433-06:00Anon 10:08,
If the problem is Stupak, patch or no...Anon 10:08,<br /><br />If the problem is Stupak, patch or not, then the problem is the House, and that's where reform supporters should be looking.<br /><br />I don't know that the Senate would just roll over and pass whatever the House sends them in a reconciliation patch, but I do think that the House is (at least) no worse off if it passes the main bill first. After passage, the Senate has to act somehow, or else the Nelson deal remains the law of the land; right now, the Senate retains the option of not acting.<br /><br />So I think both your points are fair ones, but still don't shake the logic that reforms supporters should focus on getting the House to pass the bill first.Jonathan Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15931039630306253241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-74422755712109599202010-02-05T10:08:32.136-06:002010-02-05T10:08:32.136-06:00I actually wonder if the problem isn't Stupak....I actually wonder if the problem isn't Stupak. Recall that the house bill passed very very narrowly. It may well be the case that (as Pelosi says) there simply are not enough House votes for the Senate bill, patch or not.<br /><br />It's also a mistake to assume the house can easily get its way via reconciliation. There may not be, for instance, 50 senators in favor of cutting the excise tax (since they would need to raise the money somewhere else).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-7746871726977783072010-02-04T10:47:50.965-06:002010-02-04T10:47:50.965-06:00Jonathan has made his case and yet House Democrats...Jonathan has made his case and yet House Democrats just aren't accepting the logic of his position.<br /><br />How do we know? Because enough time has passed and Pelosi has not put the bill up for a vote. That action Pelosi backs up her contention that the Senate Bill alone cannot be passed, and I accept that Pelosi knows where the votes are. So House Dems are the problem.<br /><br />So what is the hitch? I suspect that enough House Dems have made their peace with the prospect of Dem health care failure. They are dug in and won't make the first move. It has gotten emotional.<br /><br />Time is not on the Democrat's side. A little time was needed for legislators to absorb the MA election blow, but not much. The bigger dynamic is that the public at large is impatient with how long health care has taken, and public HCR support continues to drop (check pollster.com). We seem to be at a now or never moment, and the House Dems are choosing never.<br /><br />Jonatahn's analysis says they are being stupid, and I cannot fault his logic. This won't be the first time people are stupid. It sucks, because the Dem lack of strategic intelligence contrasts rather poorly with the rather brilliant success of the Republican 'tease and delay and then all vote no' strategy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6926413038778731189.post-48345956608238381682010-02-04T01:10:22.225-06:002010-02-04T01:10:22.225-06:00How about a commitment strategy? -- Obama publicly...How about a commitment strategy? -- Obama publicly pledges to veto the Senate bill if the Senate doesn't pass the House patch. Hrm. That might make it worse. <br /><br />After today's Q and A performance I really think the centrist Dems would rather fail and be in the minority (or fail and be lobbyists). The 50th vote in the DW-NOMINATE rankings is smack in the unreliable Landrieu/Bayh/McCaskill belt.chrismealyhttp://chrismealy.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.com