Andy McCarthy on the left’s gamble with reconciliation, and his take is not really surprising. The far left has always had the goal of remaking this country into some kind of Communist “paradise,” and reconciliation is the only way of taking that first big step. They see the handwriting on the wall. They see they will be losing power in November. But they also understand that once a behometh like ObamaCare is put in place its going to be very hard to take it back:
On Sean’s panel last night, when the conversation turned to how nervous Democrats supposedly are over what for now is teeing up like a very bad November, I felt like I was channeling Mark Steyn, Mark Levin, and Rush. That is, I think our side is analyzing this all wrong: Today’s Democrats are controlled by the radical Left, and it is more important to them to execute the permanent transformation of American society than it is to win the upcoming election cycles. They have already factored in losing in November — even losing big. For them, winning big now outweighs that. I think they’re right.
I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that “reconciliation,” if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That’s the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership’s statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I’m glad Republicans have held firm, but let’s not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you’ve calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.
Consequently, the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We’re wired to think that everyone plays by the usual rules of politics — i.e., if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftists who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that’s what everybody in their position does. But they won’t. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs. But I don’t think we should take much heart in this possibility. Those Democrats may well come to think they are going to lose anyway
Scary scary stuff folks and I’m not sure if we can do anything about it. Keith Hennessey says we can:
Senate floor debate on a reconciliation bill is limited to 20 hours. There is no limit on amendments that can be offered. This means that, after two full days of debate and amendments, twenty hours will have expired. Any amendments which are queued up (or are then offered) are then voted on, in sequence, with no debate (in theory)
~~~A well-disciplined Senate majority party can defeat every amendment with a simple majority by simply voting to table (kill) each amendment. This has a slightly different procedural and political feel than defeating the amendment but the same practical effect. Still, the minority can often use the vote-a-rama to force members of the majority party to take politically tough votes. I would expect vulnerable Senate Democrats to be looking to vote with Republicans on some of these votes to avoid political risks for their campaign. This should not be too big of a challenge for Leader Reid, since he needs to hold only 50 of 59 for each tabling vote. He can allow vulnerable individual Democrats to take a walk on particularly difficult amendments.
The novel twist this time would be the possibility of a Senate Republican filibuster by amendment during the vote-a-rama. Even a single Republican could, in theory, offer an infinite sequence of amendments to each word of the bill, never allowing Leader Reid to get to final passage.
But Norman Ornstein of AEI says it won’t work since they have the one, the only, Joe Biden: (h/t Hot Air)
“The vice president can rule that amendments are dilatory,” Norm Ornstein, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and one of the foremost experts on congressional process, told the Huffington Post. “That they are not serious attempts to amend the bill but are designed without substance to obstruct. He can rule them out of order and he can do that on bloc.”
“There are time limits,” Ornstein added. “It is not that they can keep doing it over and over again.”
As Ornstein added, there are potential downsides to the vice president wielding any of these two institutional powers. For starters, it further politicizes a process that is already being criticized as overly political. Moreover, it could spur serious discussion of whether the Obama administration is engaged in an institutional power grab and/or upheaval of Congress.
The silver lining to all these dire predictions is the simple fact that if Nancy can’t get the votes the whole thing goes down the drain.
Very important stuff going on here and one more reason to heed Mata’s call.
See author page
It destroys the Senate and makes the USA into a majoritarian democracy.
What the Left is asking for is civil disobedience on a massive scale. They’re going to get that and more. Perhaps they believe that they will prevail in any case. They really don’t understand the the determination and the fury that drives so many of us now.
Our job is to ensure that that the Left learns the lesson that the British did 235 years ago this April 19th. And that is that tyranny comes with a terrible cost to its perpetrators. The time will come to make them pay.
The writer of the rule says no go as he said when they tried it with Hillary-care.
Have we already reached the point, where a slight majority of politicians can hijack the government and do whatever they want against the will of the people. Elsewhere in the world, this is considered tyranny. Does a group of Elites now control the government? Have we lost our Freedom?
The irony is that even if the dems pass this bill, most of it is going to be torn apart and thrown out in the legal/political system before it takes effect four years from now.
I can’t decide if the left in the USA is just flat out insane or really being used by the likes of Soros and company to assist their financial warfare against the US. Most likely a combination of both.
By all means, heed Mata’s warning and call wavering House and Senate Democrats.
I find it difficult to believe that Dems will purposely blow up the Senate by putting Joe Biden in the Chair to overrule the Parliamentarian or to block GOP amendments. To do so would only create yet another public relations disaster for the Dems. Voters are already angry about the secret deals and special favors for unions, Nebraska, Florida, drug companies and all the rest. They are not going to tolerate a huge power grab by Biden.
I can’t see that Reid can get his 50 votes for this. The proces as outlined would dramatically change the Senate in ways that even those Senators who are in favor of the legislation passing would regret.
It’s not just that the Dems would lose control of the Senate in coming elections, but they would then be serving in a body where the longstanding tradition of showing at least some respect to the minority had been destroyed.