Monday, December 21, 2009
Over at NRO, Rich Lowry lists "five obstacles that still stand between Reid-Pelosi and a White House signing ceremony" of the health care bill.
While I am guessing that it will pass (and Lowry states that there is momentum for it within Congress), it will be interesting to watch how the House and Senate versions of the bill can get meshed into one bill, and the pretzel-like contortions certain Representatives and Senators will have to endure.
As for the 60-40 party line cloture vote in the Senate
Most Democrats in Congress are in a fever to adopt Healthcare -- like Spock in "pon farr" in the original Star Trek. Money is no object -- and they'll bribe whoever they need to, paid for with backdated checks.
If they do fail, it's likely to be over funding abortions. If you're religious -- or you think that enough of your constituents are -- it's hard to compromise on this. But the feminists in Congress won't be denied. Irresistible force meets immoveable object?
If the final version enables abortions it's a poison pill for the Democrats -- they'll lose a lot of moderate independent Catholic voters. Nancy is blind to this, but it's true.
Someone said Nebraska Governor Heineman was on the abc morning show saying he was rejecting Tax and Spend Ben's bribe. Said he didn't want the rest of America to pay Nebraska's obligations. I haven't seen it. If true, perhaps someone can post a link?
This corrupt bargain will end the careers of all it touches. The president hit a new low today, just like yesterday, in Rasmussen's daily Presidential polling, and that's just the beginning. Congress would be fortunate if some one of Lowry's list of desperation moves actually happen, and the bill fails.
Bill Kristol, who said last week that he thought the bill was unstoppable, today is saying he thinks the public outcry may be persuading House members that this bill needs to be defeated. As conference proceeds over the next month, we'll see if he's right. Today a House Democrat switched parties, and if that isn't an indication of the way the future is going, I can't think what is. (when was the last time a member of the majority switched to the minority anyway? Never?)
Jennifer Rubin nails the causes of today's hyperpartisan mood (hint, Obama doesn't come off well in the leadership department, like that's any surprise),
"How did we get to this point? Well, for starters, Obama, who ran on his determination to transcend partisan divisions, remained a passive and aloof figure when it came to the drafting and the details, allowing partisan passions to run wild. His sole concern was winning, not building a broad-based coalition for revolutionary legislation. Indeed, he contributed to partisan furies by labeling opponents as confused and misinformed and by repeating a series of partisan and baseless accusations against Republicans (the principal one — that they had “no alternative” — was easily disproved by the plethora of conservative plans and proposals). Obama had a reason for proceeding in this way — he wanted to rely on the muscle of large Democratic majorities to obtain the most liberal bill he could get."
"(when was the last time a member of the majority switched to the minority anyway? Never?)"
That was a very interesting question, so I checked. Andy Ireland, a Representative from Florida, switched from Democrats to Republicans in the summer of 1984 during a Democratic majority.
Other examples are listed here, though most switches by Congressmen seem to have followed defeats in primaries or otherwise occurred between terms.
Here's one more possible way to save us from DemocratCare, elect a Republican to fill "Teddy's seat". Very long shot, yes, but then at this stage so is every other opportunity we have to prevent this from happening.