Revolution In Massachusetts

[hblask 1]

Genius? Is this politically feasible?

The Democrats are considering just forcing the house to vote on the Senate bill. The problem is, after Coakley gets crushed today, most are saying they won't vote for it. One report I saw said that, even before today's MA race, the house vote is tied, at best. The house hates being bossed around by the Senate, so there may be a bit of spite. The only thing keeping this option alive is that Dem's know they are in trouble in November either way, so they may just pass it hoping to lock in a few votes.Oh, and I don't think Obama can just sit on a bill indefinitely. I think he has to sign it within a certain number of weeks or it is considered vetoed.

I don't understand why the republicans don't do that anyway. A simple bill that is easy to understand, they make the rounds on television really give it a pr boost, then make the democrats shut it down. Then do the next piece. There proposals will be simple to understand as opposed to the monstracity that is the democrat plan. Put the democrats in the position of being the obstuctionists. Too late now to do this. There is no way the democrats would support any of this in todays climate, but Newt got some of his contract with America through by doing this. Of course Clinton wisely took credit and the media followed suit, but who cares who takes credit. Get something done that helps the country then argue over who gets the credit.

The Republicans have been trying to get a bill out this way; so far the Democrats have refused to even let anything out of committee.

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

The Republicans have been trying to get a bill out this way; so far the Democrats have refused to even let anything out of committee.

This. My suggestion, like any that involves both sides, involves the willingness to listen to outside opinions by pelosi and reid. Soo... it's a ways off.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I believe something like that is the nuclear option.Edit: Except that it doesn't seem like it would need any non-democrat participation.

Reconciliation is different than what I'm suggesting. It's pretty confusing and I don't really understand it, but it's usually intended for budgetary matters, not for something as big as health care legislation. The other use of the term "Nuclear Option" involves making filibusters illegal.

Im sure a bill on the prez desk cant be altered without another vote.

I'm not saying alter the bill, I'm saying make a second bill while the first sits on Obama's desk.

Oh, and I don't think Obama can just sit on a bill indefinitely. I think he has to sign it within a certain number of weeks or it is considered vetoed.

I looked it up. It has to be signed within 10 days or it automatically becomes a law. If the 10th day is Sunday, it becomes 11 days. So, that's not really as much time as I had envisioned, but still time enough since they already have a bit of a head start (or at least should).

[Naked_Cowboy 0]

Reconciliation is different than what I'm suggesting. It's pretty confusing and I don't really understand it, but it's usually intended for budgetary matters, not for something as big as health care legislation. The other use of the term "Nuclear Option" involves making filibusters illegal.I'm not saying alter the bill, I'm saying make a second bill while the first sits on Obama's desk.I looked it up. It has to be signed within 10 days or it automatically becomes a law. If the 10th day is Sunday, it becomes 11 days. So, that's not really as much time as I had envisioned, but still time enough since they already have a bit of a head start (or at least should).

wait - if the president doesn't sign it, it still becomes a law if it just sits there? i thought it got automatically veto'd after a period, not passed.

[vbnautilus 48]

wait - if the president doesn't sign it, it still becomes a law if it just sits there? i thought it got automatically veto'd after a period, not passed.

The president has veto power, not make-it-law power. But the situation is slightly more complicated than LLY described. If he waits 10 days while congress in session it becomes a law. However, if congress adjourns before the 10 days are up, it does not become law. This is due to the wording in the Constitution: "… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. "

[85suited 0]

The president has veto power, not make-it-law power. But the situation is slightly more complicated than LLY described. If he waits 10 days while congress in session it becomes a law. However, if congress adjourns before the 10 days are up, it does not become law. This is due to the wording in the Constitution: "… If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law. "

thanks VB - learned something there

[85suited 0]

Brown is laying a beatdown here...

[hblask 1]

Coakley has conceded.Final vote:United States of America: 1Insane Socialist Utopian Fantasies: 0

[85suited 0]

Coakley has conceded.Final vote:United States of America: 1Insane Socialist Utopian Fantasies: 0

So true - time to watch the pundits say this doesn't matter

[Zealous Donkey 0]

The Democrats are considering just forcing the house to vote on the Senate bill. The problem is, after Coakley gets crushed today, most are saying they won't vote for it. One report I saw said that, even before today's MA race, the house vote is tied, at best. The house hates being bossed around by the Senate, so there may be a bit of spite. The only thing keeping this option alive is that Dem's know they are in trouble in November either way, so they may just pass it hoping to lock in a few votes.Oh, and I don't think Obama can just sit on a bill indefinitely. I think he has to sign it within a certain number of weeks or it is considered vetoed.The Republicans have been trying to get a bill out this way; so far the Democrats have refused to even let anything out of committee.

I am talking just have it written in pencill on a piece of paper and then putting on a full scale PR campaign. Tell the American people over an over again about the democrats refusal to let it out of committee.

[hblask 1]

I am talking just have it written in pencill on a piece of paper and then putting on a full scale PR campaign. Tell the American people over an over again about the democrats refusal to let it out of committee.

Yep, and this is a major failure by the Republicans. It would have been easy to destroy the Democrats on this, but the Republicans are too worried about clinging to power to take a stance.

[hblask 1]

So true - time to watch the pundits say this doesn't matter

So many of them have it wrong. Rachel Maddow just said it can't be a protest against fiscal irresponsibility, because the health care bill was totally fiscally responsible.Earlier Howard Dean said it was a protest against Bush. He quickly acted like he didn't say it and switched back to a message that makes sense.Some Democrats seem to have gotten the message: health care is dead.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Yep, and this is a major failure by the Republicans. It would have been easy to destroy the Democrats on this, but the Republicans are too worried about clinging to power to take a stance.

Amen. I wonder if the climate is right for a real third party challange. I don't know how bad the dems and reps have the rules rigged to keep this from happening but I am sure the obstacles are significant.. I can dream though.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

So many of them have it wrong. Rachel Maddow just said it can't be a protest against fiscal irresponsibility, because the health care bill was totally fiscally responsible.Earlier Howard Dean said it was a protest against Bush. He quickly acted like he didn't say it and switched back to a message that makes sense.Some Democrats seem to have gotten the message: health care is dead.

Surely at least a couple of democrats will abandon ship to try and keep their seat. The Independants aren't going for this at all. If Obama had any integrity he would.... well that point is moot.

[Pot Odds RAC 23]

Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!!

[dabetka 0]

Okay, so here's my idea.Let's say I'm a Democrat and I'm interested in passing health care. In the event that we lose a Senate seat, we no longer have our immortal 60 senators to block a filibuster. But, the Senate has already passed a health care bill. If the house votes in favor of that bill, it does to the President's desk and can be signed into law. The house is already saying that it may simply sign the senate version if they lose their 60th vote because that bill is better than no bill.Here's my idea. Have the house vote in favor of the senate bill. Send the senate bill to the President's desk to be signed into law. Obama will then leave the bill on his desk and not sign it, at least not at first. He will pocket veto the bill until a time of his choosing. Then, have the house and senate continue negotiations on how to consolidate senate and house bills. This means that, no matter what happens, a health care bill will be passed. So, filibustering negotiations does nothing, because there's already a bill on Obama's desk waiting to be signed. This will force Republicans and Democrats to get together to actually make a bill that is BETTER instead of worrying about getting 60 votes by one party and trying to sabotage the bill by the other party.In the event that the house and senate come together to make a better bill, Obama signs that and tears up the first one.Genius? Is this politically feasible?

Um...Genius if you really want to be elected out of office in '10 and '12. Not listening to the people is why the D's lost "Teddy's Seat" in the first place... Good luck winning in the future with doing more of the same.

[hblask 1]

Amen. I wonder if the climate is right for a real third party challange. I don't know how bad the dems and reps have the rules rigged to keep this from happening but I am sure the obstacles are significant.. I can dream though.

It's pretty much totally rigged. Remember in the last election when neither party got their candidates paperwork in on time in Texas? They both got on the ballot anyway. And the Libertarians in some other state (CT? MA?) was a day late because the office was unexpectedly closed, even though they had all the paperwork signed and notarized and everything? They didn't get on the ballot. It's almost impossible for a third party to succeed.

[nutzbuster 7]

BOOM!Man I love when I am wrong sometimes. I am sick of the decisiveness and the secret society elitist club like direction Washington has taken. I hope those bastards get the message, because there is only more of this coming. Absolute power running rough-shot over the country will not stand, no matter which party is in charge. This shit has to end.Let's hope this is the beginning of the end and the start of a move back to fairness and balance, a move back to get REAL health care reform, REAL economic healing, REAL compromise and bi partisan solutions and not the forced closed door agenda of a few thugs.I hope Brown wins with pride but leads with calm, humility and dignity.grats

[hblask 1]

A Democratic senator from VA (they didn't say which one) released a statement that this election was a referendum not only on health care, but also on the broken transparency promises. He called for the Democrats to open up the process and to suspend all voting on health care until Brown is seated.Holy crap.

[CaneBrain 95]

A Democratic senator from VA (they didn't say which one) released a statement that this election was a referendum not only on health care, but also on the broken transparency promises. He called for the Democrats to open up the process and to suspend all voting on health care until Brown is seated.Holy crap.

Jim Webb. He's as decent as a politician gets I think.

[vbnautilus 48]

A Democratic senator from VA (they didn't say which one) released a statement that this election was a referendum not only on health care, but also on the broken transparency promises. He called for the Democrats to open up the process and to suspend all voting on health care until Brown is seated.Holy crap.

I mean, that is a nice way to gain some political points with certain groups, but it really makes no procedural sense. The senate already passed the bill (by 10 votes I might add). Unless I'm misunderstanding something they can't very well stop legislation that was already passed because a single seat has changed after the vote -- nor should they.

[nutzbuster 7]

I mean, that is a nice way to gain some political points with certain groups, but it really makes no procedural sense. The senate already passed the bill (by 10 votes I might add). Unless I'm misunderstanding something they can't very well stop legislation that was already passed because a single seat has changed after the vote -- nor should they.

I thought this bill was all but passed as well, but the folks in the media are saying Brown could stop it somehow. No idea how that stuff works.I will chuckle at those tomorrow who will no doubt be saying to calm down and that this is not that big a deal. That kind of talk will only further insure an earthquake in November.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

.I will chuckle at those tomorrow who will no doubt be saying to calm down and that this is not that big a deal. That kind of talk will only further insure an earthquake in November.

What people tomorrow do you think will be talking about it not being a big deal?Do I get to make fun of you if people in general aren't saying it's not a big deal?

[SAM_Hard8 50]

OK so I was a little short on the percentage but Brown still won!Over/Under on how long it takes Limbaugh/Beck to call him a RINO?

[brvheart 1,752]

Thank you, Mass.