Dems Look at Bypassing Senate Health Care Vote

[Bob Hubbard]

By whatever means possible, they will pass it, regardless on its legality, efficiency, effectiveness or if anyone actually wants it.

Dems Look at Bypassing Senate Health Care Vote

 

[Sukerkin]

As an outsider, reading the undoubtably biased Fox article did not strike me as anything unusual in the skullduggerous world of politics. What am I missing?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Congresses approval rating continues to drop as this drags on.
They are pulling all stops out to gain a win in the for-grabs seat formerly head by the late Ted Kennedy.
If that seat goes to the GOP, they'll put into motion plans to basically shut out not only the GOP but any DNC members who might also vote against it.
It's an any means necessary movement.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

As an outsider, reading the undoubtably biased Fox article did not strike me as anything unusual in the skullduggerous world of politics. What am I missing?

That this article was written by an Associated Press writer.

 

[Carol]

Indeed. This is a newswire story, not a Fox News story

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9586898

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9D9OKGO0.htm

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1996333,CST-NWS-hcare18.article

http://www.kmph.com/Global/story.asp?S=11837102

 

[Sukerkin]

I must be dense as I still don't see that what they are 'up to' is any different from political business as usual? Or at least not enough to arouse newsworthy comment.

 

[Carol]

A few things...

This is a bill that will be a nationalizing/federalizing/government takeover of 1/7th to 1/5th of the U.S. Economy. This is not a trivial matter. Given our economic tie-ins to the rest of the world, this will be a bill that, if it passes, will be felt around the world...one way or another.

A bill becomes a law by the legislative process, which includes the houses of Congress doing the appropriate vote. If this is somehow pushed through without the procedures being followed, this could very well be unconstitutional.

Another is, it may be politics as usual to deny the voice of the people in many places, but that doesn't make it right. I don't think Massachusetts is going to roll over and play dead because Congress tries to strong-arm the vote away from their new Senator (if he's with the wrong party).

While I'm not personally a Republican (and haven't been since 2001), there are some Republicans that I support. I worked on Mitt Romney's campaign when he ran for governor of Mass.

At the time, if a replacement senator was needed, that was determined by gubernatorial appointment. When Sen. John Kerry ran for president, an emergency bill was put through the Massachusetts State House to change the procedure to a general election, out of fear Sen. Kerry would win (vacating his seat), and that a Republican governor would appoint a Republican senator.

Despite the obvious political toying, this was a measure that I supported, even though it wasn't what "my guy" wanted. I think the democratic process belongs in the hands of the people, even if I don't agree with the majority of the people around me.

Here again, I think the democratic process belongs in the hands of the people, whether or not I agree with who is going to Washington.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Suk, it IS business as usual, just more obvious than usual.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

A bill becomes a law by the legislative process, which includes the houses of Congress doing the appropriate vote. If this is somehow pushed through without the procedures being followed, this could very well be unconstitutional.

If I read the article correctly, the procedure would be legal. If the House accepts the Senate version of the bill, then a rereading and subsequent vote is not needed in either chamber of Congress and it could go straight to the President's desk for signature. The only question is whether or not the House will accept the bill as-is, when they had clearly desired to reach some important compromises on it, and had been promised that certain things would happen that way.

Another is, it may be politics as usual to deny the voice of the people in many places, but that doesn't make it right. I don't think Massachusetts is going to roll over and play dead because Congress tries to strong-arm the vote away from their new Senator (if he's with the wrong party).

I suspect that this time around, the electorate will remember and those responsible will pay the price at election time.

At the time, if a replacement senator was needed, that was determined by gubernatorial appointment. When Sen. John Kerry ran for president, an emergency bill was put through the Massachusetts State House to change the procedure to a general election, out of fear Sen. Kerry would win (vacating his seat), and that a Republican governor would appoint a Republican senator.

Hah! I didn't know that! Hoist on their own petard as it were! Funny!

Here again, I think the democratic process belongs in the hands of the people, whether or not I agree with who is going to Washington.

I think that this is a very interesting year, politically. The majority of people in the US do not want this bill to become law now, and the Democrats are only now starting to notice that they may not be reelected for their bull-headed support of the President's agenda no matter what the wishes of their electorate are. I continue to pelt my Congressional members with emails telling them that if they continue to support this, they will not get my vote when they run for reelection - this is a single-issue vote for me. Vote for health care, lose my vote for you, period, end of story. I realize they don't care much for one vote, but if they hear that from enough people, and if a few Democrats get tossed out of seats thought safe, I think the message will have been sent.

I'm not all that happy with the idea of putting Republicans back in power; I don't think they're very smart, very good, or have even learned their lessons yet. But this Democratic stranglehold on the Senate has to end.

 

[Carol]

I don't support the idea of putting the Republicans back in power either, I'm just looking for more of a balance.

Massachusetts was largely a one-party state for most of the time I lived there. It's not a healthy political environment, which is what I think the Bay Staters are seeing with this coming election.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I don't support the idea of putting the Republicans back in power either, I'm just looking for more of a balance.

Massachusetts was largely a one-party state for most of the time I lived there. It's not a healthy political environment, which is what I think the Bay Staters are seeing with this coming election.

Well, let me put it this way. I would never live in MA, no matter what the job or what it paid. I cannot abide by the way the majority there want others to live their lives. It's certainly their choice, but equally mine to never set foot in that state.

 

[Carol]

Well, let me put it this way. I would never live in MA, no matter what the job or what it paid. I cannot abide by the way the majority there want others to live their lives. It's certainly their choice, but equally mine to never set foot in that state.

I know many folks that said that. Took me 20 years to leave though. :lol: