posted
Looks like Massachusetts will temporarily have its first Republican senator in 30 years. There's some irony in the fact that Democrats in Massachusetts rushed to change the law to allow the special election, at the posthumous urging of Ted Kennedy, specifically to bolster the Democratic majority in the Senate. Looks like that backfired. Brown will be up for reelection when Kennedy's original term expires in 2012.
Brown has already pledged to oppose the Democratic-backed health care plan in Congress, and without the MA vote, there's virtually zero chance of the measure passing. So, Democrats have a little tree of options now. The first fork in the road is this: Do they go back to the drawing board and attempt to rewrite the measure into something Republicans can accept, or do they use alternative measures to pass the bill despite Republican opposition?
Let's assume that Democrats choose the latter option. There are a number of options available to them. The tree branches off here into another direction: Do they ram the legislation through before Brown is sat, or do they wait until after he takes his office?
If they push it through before he's sat, they have one or two options. 1. The House and Senate finish their closed-door negotiations quickly, and vote on the issue before he takes his oath of office. 2. The House votes to confirm an unamended Senate healthcare plan. If they do so, the measure goes right to Obama, and it never comes up before the Senate again. This is unlikely, given the enormity of the differences, and the outright hatred a lot of House Democrats have for the Senate plan. But, a version of this could still have legs...
If they wait until after he's sat, they almost have to use the reconciliation process, which is a parliamentary loophole that allows a measure to be passed by a simple 51 vote majority so long as it relates to the budget, rather than being subject to a filibuster. The problem with this plan, is that it requires them to start the entire process all over again. The bill would have to come from the Ways and Means Committee, where the money is, in order to be truly be considered a budget measure, which means it will be subjected to further scrutiny at all levels of Congress (subcommittee, committee, and full floor debate). This makes it unlikely to pass before the Spring, but when it reached a vote, its passage would be assured, and likely in a far more liberal format than at present. It would also allow a lot of fence sitting moderate Democrats to vote no while saving face (as well as ending a number of truly atrocious sweetheart deals that Ben Nelson, among others, shoehorned into the present Senate bill).
A modified form of this plan would be to have the House pass the Senate version of the plan now, with the promise that modifications would be made to bring it more in line with the House bill. That modifications bill could follow the reconciliation plan, and pass under the same conditions.
Regardless, if any of these options are used, Republicans are going to claim it's a subversion of democracy. They call anything involving the reconciliation process "the nuclear option" because it denies them their time-honored right (used by BOTH sides to the point of exhaustion over the last few decades) of stymieing legislation they don't like. The problem I see for Democrats is, if they use the option to pass legislation the people don't like, it's going to backfire in bad, bad ways. If they use it to pass legislation the people DO like, then the Republicans will find their claims fall on deaf ears. Knowing exactly what the Republicans will do, it would put the ball entirely in the Democrats' court to actually pass good legislation, knowing full well that bad legislation will kill them in two years, and possibly lose them the White House as well. That is, if they're smart enough to realize that, which isn't a given.
Should be an interesting couple of weeks. Get ready for Washington's Outrage-o-meter to red line and explode over the next month!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The worst thing Democrats could do is delay seating the new senator-elect until after the voting is completed for the health care bill. People all across the country would erupt in fury. They already see Democrats as arrogant. It would be interesting to see what position the other Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, would take if the senate pulled that kind of shenanigan. Harry Reid has just announced that Brown will be seated as soon as his paperwork is received. Whatever that may mean....
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The worst thing Democrats could do is delay seating the new senator-elect until after the voting is completed for the health care bill. People all across the country would erupt in fury. They already see Democrats as arrogant. It would be interesting to see what position the other Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, would take if the senate pulled that kind of shenanigan. Harry Reid has just announced that Brown will be seated as soon as his paperwork is received. Whatever that may mean....
Ron, I sincerely hope, for your sake, you never find yourself unable to afford necessary health care, in a country without a sufficient governmental support system to help you.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
My bet is they try to have the house pass the senate bill. Yeah, there are many in the house who are adamantly against it, but it's the most desirable option I see on the table. With Obama announcing his economic agenda which includes the bank-tax, the jobs bill, and other things at the State of the Union, I doubt he wants to let those priorities get bogged down with reconciliation or re-writing the bill entirely.
But I'm not an insider, so I have no clue what's going through the leadership's mind.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
He will be seated....he won fair and square.
I just don't think that it means what you think it does, Ron. Winning, not getting seated, of course. It wasn't a referendum on health care, it was an election between two morons, neither of whom I would have wanted to vote for if I was still living in MA myself.
I doubt any voters would erupt at it anyways, at least not in fury. Not in any serious numbers.
You see Dems are arrogant. I see Reps as ignorant fear mongers.
Not all, for sure, but most of the ones you'd probably like.
posted
Right now Webb, Warner, Bayh, Nelson, the other Nelson, Carnahan, and Lincoln are telling Obama drop this bill right now, drop it, pivot to something else, say whatever you have to, say this election changed your mind, say Haiti changed your mind, say George Bush stole all our pencils, but drop it! We're not taking anymore bullets for you on this. Add in Leiberman, Reid, and Boxer and you have a senate which will sprint away, not walk away, but bolt away!
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I doubt that as well. It may not pass, but it's still pretty important. Even if MA just borked us on it in the long run.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The worst thing Democrats could do is delay seating the new senator-elect until after the voting is completed for the health care bill. People all across the country would erupt in fury. They already see Democrats as arrogant. It would be interesting to see what position the other Massachusetts senator, John Kerry, would take if the senate pulled that kind of shenanigan. Harry Reid has just announced that Brown will be seated as soon as his paperwork is received. Whatever that may mean....
I think Conspiracy Theory 2.0 is burning out your mental RAM.
There has been zero talk of delaying seating Brown. I think when Reid says they are waiting for his paperwork, he means they are waiting for his paperwork. It usually takes about two weeks. That's bureaucracy, not a concerted effort to hold off seating him.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron is correct about one thing: the Democrats in Congress aren't very popular right now. The thing is, most people continue to think the Republicans are worse.
I don't know... Is there something about Massachusetts that makes Democratic candidates lazy...? This really was a tortoise-and-hare of a race.
The Democrats can try to push the bill through in the two-to-three week gap, but frankly, they've shown precious little ability to come to reasoned concensus up to this point, and I have little reason to believe something as simple as watching the whole agenda go to hell is going to be enough to light fires under the appropriate rear ends. I'm really rather disappointed with them.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ... and I have little reason to believe something as simple as watching the whole agenda go to hell is going to be enough to light fires under the appropriate rear ends. I'm really rather disappointed with them.
You'd think that should be enough. Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: They won't delay seating him.
No need to. Massachusetts law means that it will 2-3 weeks until he can be seated.
It is 2-3 weeks until the election can be certified. He can (and should) be seated prior to that time, as Ted Kennedy was when he won a similar special election 45 years ago.
I'm sorry for Dems existential angst (it's really not that bad, guys) but being a Republican in MA yesterday was like being a Red Sox fan in October 2004. Watching that map turn red wasn't something I'd imagined would happen for at least another 20 years. I'm not terribly fond of Brown (although I admire his work ethic and his somewhat moderate brand of Republicanism, he's too militaristic and corporate for my taste), but I'm still proud that he'll by my US Senator for at least the next three years.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It wasn't a referendum on health care, it was an election between two morons, neither of whom I would have wanted to vote for if I was still living in MA myself.
I haven't read or heard that it had nothing to do with healthcare, quite the opposite.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nothing like the classy Olbermann apologizing....
quote: Keith Olbermann told viewers on Tuesday's "Countdown that he planned to apologize for remarks made about Scott Brown, which included calling the Republican candidate "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”
"I'm sorry," Olbermann said. "I left out the word sexist."
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Nothing like the classy Olbermann apologizing....
quote: Keith Olbermann told viewers on Tuesday's "Countdown that he planned to apologize for remarks made about Scott Brown, which included calling the Republican candidate "an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, tea-bagging supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees.”
"I'm sorry," Olbermann said. "I left out the word sexist."
Did he back up those claims with evidence, or just made them outright? I only ask as most of those claims he makes about Brown, if true, would be statements of fact as opposed to insults.
Much as when one uses the term 'ignorant' and it is interpreted as an insult. Which it, as long as it's demonstrably true, is technically not.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He did have a response to that too, he said he made the statement and it is up to Brown to prove him wrong...
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: He did have a response to that too, he said he made the statement and it is up to Brown to prove him wrong...
Well that's silly. I imagine a quick google search would tell us whether, say, he made any racist or anti-homosexual comments, or was an ex-nude model.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well that's silly. I imagine a quick google search would tell us whether, say, he made any racist or anti-homosexual comments, or was an ex-nude model.
Would it? If he attended a Tea Party rally that makes him part of "the saddest collection of people who don't want to admit why they really hate since the racists of the South in the '60s insisted they were really just concerned about states' rights” according to Olbermann.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: They won't delay seating him.
No need to. Massachusetts law means that it will 2-3 weeks until he can be seated.
It is 2-3 weeks until the election can be certified. He can (and should) be seated prior to that time, as Ted Kennedy was when he won a similar special election 45 years ago.
The implication of something I read yesterday (and I don't recall where) was that it was no longer an option to seat him prior to certification. I was unclear as to precisely why.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: They won't delay seating him.
No need to. Massachusetts law means that it will 2-3 weeks until he can be seated.
It is 2-3 weeks until the election can be certified. He can (and should) be seated prior to that time, as Ted Kennedy was when he won a similar special election 45 years ago.
I'm sorry for Dems existential angst (it's really not that bad, guys) but being a Republican in MA yesterday was like being a Red Sox fan in October 2004. Watching that map turn red wasn't something I'd imagined would happen for at least another 20 years. I'm not terribly fond of Brown (although I admire his work ethic and his somewhat moderate brand of Republicanism, he's too militaristic and corporate for my taste), but I'm still proud that he'll by my US Senator for at least the next three years.
Ugh. I disagree with this man on SO much. Gay marriage, the economy, abortion rights. I don't want him as my senator. He seems the type of Republican that comes off as annoying and misinformed, and not the reasonable opposition they imagine themselves to be.
I didn't vote in the election because I'm still an RI resident, even though I've lived in Massachusetts for most of the past 5.5 years (but I want to become an MA resident after I pass my generals). Though I wouldn't have been able to vote yesterday in all likelihood, because I had a surprise appendectomy this week and have been out of commission.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: It wasn't a referendum on health care, it was an election between two morons, neither of whom I would have wanted to vote for if I was still living in MA myself.
I haven't read or heard that it had nothing to do with healthcare, quite the opposite.
I didn't say it had nothing to do with it. I said it wasn't the only reason he won. His opponent was a moron, and I could have won against her, possibly.
And I am not even a resident.
MA already HAS healthcare requirements, and policies in place. This won't change that. There were many problems with this race, and the healthcare issue was only one of them.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This seems like a good opportunity to improve the heath care bill...
How? The health care bill is the way it is because of all the compromises that had to be made to get Senators who don't want health care reform to vote for it*. How is having another Senator who doesn't want health care reform an opportunity?
*Not vote for it really. We (people who want health care reform) have plenty of votes to pass it. What we lack is enough votes to keep the anti-health care Senators (a minority) from preventing the bill to come to a vote at all.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This seems like a good opportunity to improve the heath care bill...
How? The health care bill is the way it is because of all the compromises that had to be made to get Senators who don't want health care reform to vote for it*. How is having another Senator who doesn't want health care reform an opportunity?
*Not vote for it really. We (people who want health care reform) have plenty of votes to pass it. What we lack is enough votes to keep the anti-health care Senators (a minority) from preventing the bill to come to a vote at all.
Brown has said he supports Health Care Reform (as do many Republican Senators), just not the reform in the current bill.
My hope is the Democratic leadership is sufficiently humble to jettison the bloated, inefficient bill they've written and look to the only proposal with real bipartisan support: the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
First of all, let me say that Scott Brown ran a BRILLIANT campaign. Students of political science will analyse this campaign, as they will President Obama's 2008 campaign, for years to come. He found a great mix between retail politics (A LOT of retail politics,) crafting an "outsider" image, while at the same time taking advantage of voters' distrust of national political issues. As radical as Ron's views normally are, he was right when he said Americans view the Democratic leadership in Congress as arrogant. Brown's campaign was able to tap into those feelings. Whether you agree with his genuineness or not, he was able to craft a great image.
quote: Ron, I sincerely hope, for your sake, you never find yourself unable to afford necessary health care, in a country without a sufficient governmental support system to help you.
The problem with this sentiment is (besides the fact that it didn't address a thing Ron actually said) is that I don't believe for a second that anything the Democrats pass will in reality have any effect whatsoever on this hypothetical situation. It's a sentiment that, by all accounts, most Americans share. There is little confidence in the ability of the current Democrat plan to make any real differences. There have been so many "compromizes" that the process itself has become corrupted.
Posts: 786 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Brian J. Hill: ...I don't believe for a second that anything the Democrats pass will in reality have any effect whatsoever on this hypothetical situation...
I think that's an odd thing to believe. Both the House bill and the Senate bill would subsidize health care for many people too poor (or too sick) to afford it on their own. I think that's one of the few good things about the Dems effort at reform.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ron, I sincerely hope, for your sake, you never find yourself unable to afford necessary health care, in a country without a sufficient governmental support system to help you.
The problem with this sentiment is (besides the fact that it didn't address a thing Ron actually said) is that I don't believe for a second that anything the Democrats pass will in reality have any effect whatsoever on this hypothetical situation. It's a sentiment that, by all accounts, most Americans share. There is little confidence in the ability of the current Democrat plan to make any real differences. There have been so many "compromizes" that the process itself has become corrupted.
This is how I feel about the issue as well. I think I've kind of given up thinking about it, though. It'll pass. It won't pass. Either way, I don't have confidence it will make much of a positive impact. I don't think it will hurt, either, but that's the best I can say about it.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This seems like a good opportunity to improve the heath care bill...
How? The health care bill is the way it is because of all the compromises that had to be made to get Senators who don't want health care reform to vote for it*. How is having another Senator who doesn't want health care reform an opportunity?
*Not vote for it really. We (people who want health care reform) have plenty of votes to pass it. What we lack is enough votes to keep the anti-health care Senators (a minority) from preventing the bill to come to a vote at all.
Brown has said he supports Health Care Reform (as do many Republican Senators), just not the reform in the current bill.
My hope is the Democratic leadership is sufficiently humble to jettison the bloated, inefficient bill they've written and look to the only proposal with real bipartisan support: the Wyden-Bennett Healthy Americans Act.
The problem with this is that it probably doesn't actually have the support it looks like it does right now. The Republicans have decided they want to do everything in their power to make Obama fail. And because our country is near impossible to govern with out some support from the other side - they can damned near succeed.
As soon as Obama throws his support to HHA - all the Republican support for it will evaporate. I guarantee it.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
How is the administration going to get House Democrats to vote for the Senate version of the health care bill as is? Democrats across the country have to be running terrified--not just scared. It would be political suicide for Representatives up for election this November to vote for a bill that the large majority of Americans are opposed to, and clearly was one of the major factors in Scott Brown taking the senate seat that used to belong to Ted Kennedy away from the Democrats.
The administration is not looking very influential these days. Despite the president's efforts on behalf of Democratic candidates, his party lost in upsets by large margins in special elections in three states now. What will happen in November when all House seats and 36 Senate seats are up for re-election? Democratic candidates may not even want the president to appear in their states to speak on their behalf.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How do we pass legislation without "compromizes"? The system is set up so that it is built on compromise. Even with a clear majority, legislators have to compromise with people who want something opposed to what they want. Most legislation is compromise. The country started with compromise. That is how it works - how it has always worked.
Getting the Declaration of Independence through the Continental Congress required compromise on the slavery issue. It was ugly, but it moved forward.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A national health care plan would be a good idea--but it has to be done right. The best, wisest course for government to follow is to start over again from scratch, and this time include Republicans in the process, so it is bi-partisan. It needs to be an open and truly transparent process, with no meetings behind close doors, no special deals to buy votes, no obvious rewards for political allies. Republicans have proposed an alternate plan, and Democrats should stop ignoring it.
It might be good to study the Massachusetts plan, which is said to cover about 98% of that commonwealth's citizens, and seems to be regarded with favor by people there. This is one reason why the voters there were opposed to the proposed national health care plan. The new Senator-elect, Scott Brown, said he voted in favor of that Massachusetts plan. So if a conservative Republican could vote for a health care plan, then most of them could, if it is really a good plan.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you want a different form of government entirely? Including Republicans (and recalcitrant Dems) in the process is how we ended up with a bad bill.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The best, wisest course for government to follow is to start over again from scratch, and this time include Republicans in the process, so it is bi-partisan.
Heh. If you recall, Ron, we tried that. The Republicans wanted nothing to do with it, even after all the best bits of the bills were cut out in an attempt to get them to cooperate.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The ex nude model is not really disputable. Cosmo is hoping he'll do a follow up now that he is a senator- kind of a then and now thing.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform. Because I do not think that the country would be well served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. Going forward, I hope there will be a serious effort to change the senate rule which means that 59 are not enough to pass major legislation, but those are the rules by which the health care bill was considered, and it would be wrong to change them in the middle of this process.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: It is 2-3 weeks until the election can be certified. He can (and should) be seated prior to that time, as Ted Kennedy was when he won a similar special election 45 years ago.
How many votes did Kennedy cast prior to his certification? How many might Brown be in a position to vote on were he seated immediately, without certification?
If Kennedy were seated when Congress was not in session, and cast not a single vote prior to his certification, and Brown were able to cast votes prior to his certification, do you still believe that comparing their situations to each other is fair?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a thread I posted, about halfway down the page, with a poem in it, the refrain of which became a proverb in Norway: "A picket don't stand forever, y'know". The Republicans will be back in power eventually, not this year perhaps, but almost certainly sometime in the next decade. Do you really want to let them pass legislation with 50 Senate votes? A safeguard works two ways. How much dreadful legislation were you very glad to see delayed during the Bush years?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, the Democrats are not as good at obstruction. We didn't take good advantage of the Senate rules. I have little hope that they will do any better in the future.
ETA: I would be happy if they just went back to making filibusters actual filibusters.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There's a thread I posted, about halfway down the page, with a poem in it, the refrain of which became a proverb in Norway: "A picket don't stand forever, y'know". The Republicans will be back in power eventually, not this year perhaps, but almost certainly sometime in the next decade. Do you really want to let them pass legislation with 50 Senate votes? A safeguard works two ways. How much dreadful legislation were you very glad to see delayed during the Bush years?
quote: The best, wisest course for government to follow is to start over again from scratch, and this time include Republicans in the process, so it is bi-partisan.
Heh. If you recall, Ron, we tried that. The Republicans wanted nothing to do with it, even after all the best bits of the bills were cut out in an attempt to get them to cooperate.
Really? Republicans wanted no part in it? Is this why they offered dozens of amendments? Or the reason they presented their own bill which was never heard in the Senate? Or perhaps wanting to be part of the process after it passed, even though they were shut out?
I read the daily digest on Congress.gov every single day to see exactly what was said in the chambers. Not one republican has said they did not want anything to do with reforming health care. What they say is "Lets do this right." "Let's not rush this." "This will affect 1/6 of the entire economy, we need to make sure we do this correctly."
I think they have tried to stand in the way of this bill because they feel it is the wrong way to go about it. I don't think they are against health care reform, just the bill that is currently on the table. I can't fault them for that. If the tables were turned and the Republicans were trying to pass a bill of this magnitude that the Democrats did not agree with, I fully believe they would do the same thing, because they would feel that it would be the right thing to do.
This is a classic play from both sides of the isle. Republicans whine that they were not included, and democrats whine that republicans wanted no part of it anyway.
Do I think Brown being elected is a referrendum on Obama or Health Care? Not really. Coakley was an utterly weak candidate and she really ran a horrible campaign. Brown really did run his campaign very well, and this is why he won.
What I do think though is that people are getting tired of hearing the same old excuses for everything wrong in this country. Blaming Bush for everything wrong in America is only going to take you so far before people start blaming YOU for it. We were promised certain things, and some of them have been kept, others broken. Not televising the Health Care bill on Cspan after the President said he would 8 different times hurt health care reform.
If you run on transparency, you better make sure you follow through. I don't think the reason why the bill is losing support so fast among the general population is because of the content of the bill, it is the method which is being employed.
Part of this could be republicans labeling themselves as victims of the big bad Democratic Party. Heaven knows people love the underdog.
Edit: I just read the quote by Barney Frank. What a great quote. The guy has class. They have all been very nice about the entire process and I think they are owed some kudos.
posted
"Nice". That is a problem when we are faced with stuff like, “If we’re able to stop Obama on [health care] it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How do we pass legislation without "compromizes"? The system is set up so that it is built on compromise. Even with a clear majority, legislators have to compromise with people who want something opposed to what they want. Most legislation is compromise. The country started with compromise. That is how it works - how it has always worked.
Getting the Declaration of Independence through the Continental Congress required compromise on the slavery issue. It was ugly, but it moved forward.
First things first, my apologies for the egregious spelling error on "compromise". I was in a hurry and forgot to proofreed.
If the compromise process that brought us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution bore any resemblance to what is called "compromise" today, then I would agree with kmb. But it doesn't. I used quotations around that word to emphasize that what is going on today isn't true compromise. It's vote-buying. This has a long tradition in both houses of Congress, under both parties' control. However, we're in a 24-hour news cycle, and it's much harder to sweep under the rug. Closed-door, backroom dealings simply aren't flying with the majority of the American public.
quote: If you run on transparency, you better make sure you follow through. I don't think the reason why the bill is losing support so fast among the general population is because of the content of the bill, it is the method which is being employed.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
