I think that the Republicans are bending too far over backwards over this:
“All legislation currently scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives next week is being postponed so that we can take whatever actions may be necessary in light of today’s tragedy,” said House majority leader Eric Cantor in a statement.
The House was scheduled to vote on a repeal of Obamacare this week.
What “actions” would those be? Resurrecting her from her sickbed? So, if she’d come down with the flu, or got stuck in a blizzard, they’d postpone a vote for one representative? Of the other party? I hope this pays off politically, because from a precedent and policy standpoint, it’s really dumb. It’s senseless to me to shut down the entire House because it’s missing one out of 435 members.
Bob, to get a reasonable health care reform bill passed, they will need the support of a few Democratic Senators and the White House. It isn’t totally unreasonable to begin that negotiation with a show of strength in the House. What else is likely to bring Obama to the table besides the threat of being overruled in 2013 (if he survives his own re-election fight) by a 2/3 Republican majority in each house? I know you’ve said they should come up with a brilliant plan first, then start to gather votes, but my impression is that practical politics works the other way around.
Anyway, this is above my pay grade. I don’t know how politics work, so I avoid judging the complex maneuvering they undertake beforehand. I judge only by the results afterward. If, indeed, this all comes to naught, then I’ll admit you were right and the Republicans wasted time. But it’s too early to judge right now. And, forgive me if I point out from your point of view — as a supporter of the vile health care law — you have strong practical motives to present it as unassailable right now, and efforts to overturn it as entirely quixotic, even if that isn’t quite accurate.
Setting aside entitlement reform, who says there’s a better solution to be had at the federal level?
Indeed.
Negotiate from a position of strength? Uh, let me don my best “aw, shucks” wide-eyed innocent Bob-1 routine and tell you in my best thorazine-induced NPR Mr. Rogers voice why that’s…uh, a bad idea…
I recommend “Getting to Yes” by Roger Fisher.
Given that there are much better texts on the subject, why?
“Are you really saying that McConnell couldn’t peel off at least four of them?”
After years of being routinely forced to get 60 votes in the Senate to pass bills, it would be surprising if the Democrats didn’t insist on the same on something that both sides agreed was important.
A show of strength seems like something you do only when it isn’t already utterly obvious. Roger Fisher’s approach helped me make productive proposals in the past, but I’m not some expert on negotiation, and I’d like to be better at it. Titus, what books (or school of thought) do you recommend?
But it isn’t obvious, is it, Bob? There’s quite a difference between every single Republican voting for a bill, and even one or two defections. With a visible defection or two, you’ve got to start thinking that some of the least willing votes were barely willing at that — and you’re motivated to divide that caucus further. Unanimity among 260 individuals carries a significant and impressive weight of conviction.
I mean, tell me you’re not a teensy bit worried about the 4 Democrats that peeled off of Pelosi’s rump? Doesn’t that suggest there might be two or three more, if things were jiggered around a little for them? Doesn’t it suggest a Democratic Senator or two might be swayed by some artful compromise? You know it does. That is probably part of what’s got you worried. That same worry is now eating at the heart of Obama — and that’s perhaps why they did it.
After years of being routinely forced to get 60 votes in the Senate to pass bills,
Sounds like the Senate of the 90’s. Ever heard of that inflamatory rhetoric metaphor, “The Nuclear Option“? BTW, from the link… I love this smarmy line:
The nuclear option is not to be confused with reconciliation, which allows issues related to the annual budget to be decided by a majority vote without the possibility of filibuster.
But it isn’t obvious, is it, Bob?
Carl, no disrespect but why the hell are you asking him that? It has all been explained to him at the 4th grade level over and over ad-nauseum. He is clearly just beating himself… somewhere. What the hell is the point? Do you see some interesting pathology that I’m missing?
Because he possesses a wider audience than the recalcitrant Usual Suspects. Like I’ve said before – it’s like having the Washington Generals on the premises.
The Republicans don’t need a brilliant Five Year Plan to put in Obamacare’s place, but if they hope to get some defections from Senate Democrats they do probably want to have *something* other than a plain repeal. Senate Democrats of all people should have learned that “I voted for it before I voted against it” plays lousy at election time.