Update: Hot Air believes VP Biden can shut down the amendment bomb process. However, Robert Dove, former Senate parliamentarian, disagrees:

Senators are also entitled to offer as many amendments as they choose during reconciliation. Though Democrats have a large enough majority to beat back GOP attempts to alter the bill, neither they nor the parliamentarian can limit the number of amendments introduced, Dove said.

A Senate insider agrees. The Vice President as President of the Senate can overrule the parliamentarian, but if the parliamentarian is not in a position to rule, the Vice President has nothing to overrule. What the Senate can do is invoke the Byrd Option, also known as the constitution option. This would effectively kill the filibuster period. Try getting 50 votes for healthcare after that. Such a move for sweeping legislation would have far reaching and disastrous consequences.

Whatever Dove said on MSNBC, it does not jive with his previous statements. Of course, being fired by Republicans in the Senate during the GWB years cause one to question anything Robert Dove says. However, note below what is NOT being said. Regardless of the process, the end result is to kill the filibuster. This would be a disaster for the country, and the Democrats are counting on the GOP to go spineless on this one. As I indicate below, that strategy may be working. Instead of buckling, the GOP needs to call their bluff or face the wrath of the public and watch electorate gains turn to losses.

Assume even for a moment that I and many others are wrong, the consequences for the VP pulling this stunt would also be disastrous. However, if the reader thinks about it, if the VP can do this, he IS effectively killing the filibuster – there is no difference. So the reality is the Senate can stop reconciliation by killing the filibuster. How they do that is of no matter, the end result and consequences will be the same and when we are in power the Democrats will face the same treatment. Just remember the gang of 14 and Senator McCain. He created that gang for a reason. Killing the filibuster would be a disaster and the Democrats know it. It won’t happen. Right now, my biggest concern is everyone is getting so worked up that Republicans will sense fear from their constituents and fold. Senator Kyl has already stated Republicans will not stall ObamaCare reconciliation with unlimited amendments. If we go weak, they go weak.

Forcing amendments (although I don’t think we will even get to this point) is a good strategy as one can force the Democrats to take difficult votes. I certainly hope McConnell is paying attention.

It would be in the Senator Kyl’s best interest to recall the GOP was exposed as wanting to put up a lackluster fight against ObamaCare so its passage would guarantee GOP gains in November. The Senator would also be best served to remember when a team of organizations exposed not only this GOP tactic but the betrayal of Senator DeMint by many in the Senate GOP when he tried to slow down ObamaCare by removing unanimous consent.

Roll over on reconciliation and see where that gets the GOP in November. The American people do not want ObamaCare so the Senate GOP had BETTER OBSTRUCT and use a little strategical thinking here or face the consequences. The gains in the electorate can disappear as quickly as they appeared. The narrative of GOP weakness is not an animal that needs feeding, especially given the excellent performance at the healthcare summit. Now is not the time to remove the spine. The same is true for us. It is time to present the facts and stand tall. If we lose this fight in the Congress, it is on to nullification and possible repeal (although the later will be difficult in the near term and even in 2013). That is not to say nullification is easy, but as a solution it offers the best long term survival of our country. If Washington is unwilling to listen, the states need to remove the purse strings except for those aspects of the federal government that require funding PER the constitution.

Also via Politico: The problem with reconciliation.

Also read Rule By Tyranny. Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) Thoughts on Reconciliation. If the architect of the process is vehemently against using it to pass sweeping legislation, don’t you think this needs national exposure? Why are the GOP talking heads so silent on this? Even the blogosphere, with few exceptions, is not reporting this. From a public relations perspective the words of Senator Byrd are pure gold.

Need to contact your Republican Senator to ensure they are on board with this process, or would you like to contact your Democratic Senator and tell them to say no to reconciliation? If so, look them up here.

——————–Original Post

Folks are getting pretty fired up over both the Redstate post concerning VP Joe Biden overruling the Senate parliamentarian during reconciliation and then this post from Hot Air stating that the Democrats are near a deal on ObamaCare ahead of the healthcare summit this month:

In other words, instead of bargaining with the GOP from scratch — as Boehner and Cantor initially insisted and as 57 percent of the public wants, per yesterday’s Zogby poll — The One’s going to do the opposite by walking in, pushing a fake deal in front of the GOP, and declaring before the cameras that America’s health-care problems can now be solved unless the “party of no” insists on further obstructionism. And if they do, of course, he’ll have no choice but to save America by ramming the bill through in reconciliation.

The thinking is that Democrats are going to use either standard reconciliation or what I like to call the nuclear option reconciliation described in the Redstate post. What many are forgetting is that even with a nuclear option reconciliation, the Republicans still have a trick up their sleeve. It is for this reason that I believe the threat of reconciliation is a bluff with the intent of getting the GOP to agree to something at the summit.

Falling for this trap would be foolish indeed. The GOP better hold its ground during this farcical summit and remain the party of no when it comes to ObamaCare, thereby implicitly daring the Democrats to attempt reconciliation.

The country demands it of them.

I doubt the Democrats have the guts or temerity to attempt a parliamentary trick if the end result is in doubt and the increased cost to their party come November beyond their ability to comprehend. The biggest mistake the GOP could make is to enable the Democrats to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat by delivering any overtures of bi-partisanship towards a bill which is blatantly partisan. The cost to the GOP in the mid-terms would be incalculable and any gains in the electorate erased before their eyes.

The GOP must follow up on the threat of using amendments to slow down reconciliation.

Both VP Joe Biden and the parliamentarian would be unable to stop this process:

Senators are also entitled to offer as many amendments as they choose during reconciliation. Though Democrats have a large enough majority to beat back GOP attempts to alter the bill, neither they nor the parliamentarian can limit the number of amendments introduced”, Dove said.

The Dove referred to in the quote is Bob Dove, Senate Parliamentarian until 2001.

As there is no limit to the amount of amendments that could be offered, the bill would be delayed and obstructed until it died the death of a thousand cuts.

Recently, the Tea Party polled better than both Republicans and Democrats in a generic ballot. Why? Because they are the party of no – no to ObamaCare, no to bailouts, no to fiscal lucre – no, no, no. Obstructionism in defense of liberty is no vice and cooperation in pursuit of tyranny is no virtue. Republicans better get the message.

Some good advice from Dr. Hunter:

Hey, Republicans, heads up, ears open, eyes on the prize: Object, Obstruct and Delay any effort by the White House and congressional Democrats to revive the death march toward nationalization of healthcare. And most importantly, don’t do anything to allow RhinoCare to be resurrected from the dead.

So throw up those amendments such as tort reform, buying insurance across state lines, and anything else painful for Democrats to vote on. Make them go on the record as being against common-sense reform as the GOP continues to amend, amend, amend until the bill is dead.

If the GOP plays its cards right, the Democrats not only do not get to shove their precious bill down our unwilling throats, but face an even greater slaughter in November for daring to usurp the will of the American public and trample on minority rights in the Senate. Get the popcorn.

Related: Does The Public Want A Public Option – No It Does Not

Of course, if all goes wrong, there is always nullification!. Actually, the only way to really stop the amendment bomb would be to invoke the constitution option (once known as the Byrd option), which would effectively kill the filibuster. While I don’t think the Democrats have enough votes even for reconciliation, a part of me hopes that, in the end, they go the filibuster killing route (highly unlikely). That would be a perfect start to begin nullification with a bang instead of a whimper and bring us back to constitutional governance where the states hold the power as opposed to a centralized federal government. What many do not realize is that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the constitution – it is the states. What fun!

Reconciliation, the public option, and Demcare revival

A Tortured History of ObamaCare. Dan Perrin has been a real rock during this entire debate. This is just one of many posts where he once again reassures us that ObamaCare is dead. However, just to be sure, keep up the pressure; Cut off its head, dismember it, scatter the body parts, and set them on fire before blasting them individually off into deep space.

It Lives!

Love it: NYT Admits Conservatives Are Right About Government Healthcare

UPDATE: News today at Hot Air via Townhall: Dem sources: Senate “fix” for ObamaCare could add another $300 billion to price tag; Update: Dems ready for reconciliation, says Kyl

Here is something most people don’t know: Senators already expressed their opinion that reconciliation should not be used to pass ObamaCare last year. Here is what most don’t know about the budget conference report for fiscal year ’09:

Dem leaders are looking into reconciliation, a parliamentary maneuver only requiring 51 votes, to shovel pieces of an unpopular healthcare bill through the Senate. The Senate rejected this approach to pass healthcare legislation last year TWICE (unanimously in one case and by a 79-14 margin in the second case). While provisions to require 60-votes should have been included in the Budget Conference Report that came out of the House and Senate conference on each chamber’s respective Budget Resolutions, they were not. The question is why, while the answer points to yet another duplicitous backroom decision that ignores not only the will of the entire Senate, but in today’s environment also ignores the will of the American people writ large by the voters of Massachusetts on a bill that 2/3 of the country does not want.

For a description of the United States budget process see here.

The United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget are responsible for drafting budget resolutions. Following the traditional calendar, by early April both committees finalize their drafts and submit it to their respective floors for consideration and adoption.

A budget resolution, which is one form of a concurrent resolution, binds Congress, but is not a law, and so does not require the President’s signature. The budget resolution serves as a blueprint for the actual appropriation process, and provides Congress with some control over the appropriations process. No new spending authority, however, is provided until appropriation bills are enacted.

Once both houses pass the resolution, selected Representatives and Senators negotiate a conference report to reconcile differences between the House and the Senate versions. The conference report, in order to become binding, must be approved by both the House and Senate.

The federal government’s fiscal year currently begins on October 1st and ends on September 30th of the next calendar year.

So the United States House Committee on the Budget and the United States Senate Committee on the Budget each create a Budget Resolution for amending and voting by the respective chambers. This is followed by a selection of conferees by each chamber who will then meet to hash out a single Budget Conference Report that each chamber will subsequently vote on.

Dr. Hunter, former policy advisor to President Ronald Reagan and President and CEO of the Social Security Institute writes the following:

The only way to defeat Reconciliation is to be prepared at a moment’s notice to pivot from a localized strategy precisely tailored to threaten targeted Democrats’ weak spots to a national campaign aimed not at the substance of ObamaCare so much as the fairness and political prudence of jamming something as enormous and contentious as healthcare reform down the throats of the American people with fewer than a majority of sitting Senators voting in favor of it. The strategy to defeat Reconciliation must be aimed at the Democratic Party as a whole questioning its judgment, prudence, fairness and wisdom. The task at this point will be to characterize Reconciliation as political thuggery, totally unacceptable in the American democratic process; to raise such national outrage at the strong-arm tactics of Reconciliation that Democrats understand the American People will not tolerate it and will throw them out of office at the first opportunity.

Here is a suggested framework on which to build a strategy against Reconciliation:

Senator Reid threatens to tie dissenting Senators’ hands behind their backs with procedural restrictions on amendments, gag them with strict limits on debate and pummel the long tradition of minority rights in the U.S. Senate by ramming ObamaCare through the Senate with a bare majority or even with fewer than a minimum 51 votes of sitting Senators, if necessary, by having Vice President Biden break a 50-50 tie.

The parliamentary maneuver Senator Reid would use to pass ObamaCare by less than a majority vote of sitting Senators is known as “Reconciliation.” Reconciliation is an extraordinary budgetary procedure designed specifically to ensure passage of an annual budget and avoid a stalemate leading to a complete shutdown of the federal government. Reconciliation was not designed and never intended to circumvent regular order in the Senate to ram through controversial and far-reaching legislation such as healthcare “reform.”

Democratic Senator Robert C. Byrd, one of the authors of the Reconciliation procedure and foremost authority on the history of Senate rules and procedure describes what happens under Reconciliation this way:

“Under reconciliation’s gag rule there are twenty hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend.”

This is political thuggery—political assault and battery upon the American People pure and simple. Senator Byrd best expresses why using Reconciliation to jam ObamaCare down America’s throat degrades the U.S. Senate and violates the spirit of our system of checks and balances:

“Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process…With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it…We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right…Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people’s healthcare.”

That is why Senator Byrd says, “I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation.”

What Majority Leader Reid is hiding from the American public is the fact that a huge bipartisan majority of Senators agreed with Senator Byrd, when they were writing this year’s budget resolution back in April, that Reconciliation should not be used to railroad ObamaCare through the Senate.

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Senate Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The DeMint motion to instruct conferees to insist on the 60-vote requirement for healthcare passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. But mysteriously the 60-vote rule was stripped from the resolution in the dead of night, behind closed doors and out of sight of the rest of the Senate and the American People. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, must have fallen asleep during the Conference Committee meeting because he allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

Now, Senator Reid stands on the flimsy excuse that the DeMint amendments are irrelevant because they were not in the final Budget Resolution Conference Report. But make no mistake, the 60-vote requirement—which was TWICE voted for by huge, bipartisan majorities in the Senate and did not affect the House—wasn’t in the final Budget Resolution Conference Report ONLY because Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad thumbed his nose at three fourths of his colleagues and took it upon himself contrary to the will of the Senate to unceremoniously strip their 60-vote rule out of the Conference Report.

With one-sixth of the U.S. economy at stake, the Senate should insist upon abiding by its own rule, which it TWICE adopted by overwhelming bipartisan votes. Why would Senator Reid insist upon using a provision the Senate TWICE agreed should NOT be used on healthcare because they knew it wouldn’t be right to pass a bill that divides the nation into feuding factions by a slim 50 votes?

Harry Reid’s argument that he is justified in jamming ObamaCare down America’s throat because there is no rule against it—actually because one rogue Senator took it upon himself to reverse the will and judgment of the entire Senate and eliminate a rule Senators thought was right and appropriate—is the pure sophistry of a tyrant.

The question is, what justifies the Senate in violating its own cherished norms and traditions? Why does Senator Reid refuse to abide by the 60-vote rule on healthcare the Senate TWICE voted to impose on itself by huge bipartisan majorities? Why does Senator Reid ignore the authoritative judgment of fellow Democrat Robert Byrd that it would be wrong, wrong, wrong to steamroller ObamaCare through the Senate under Reconciliation?

If Senator Kent Conrad had performed his duties correctly, then reconciliation would not even be on the table. An point-of-order amendment allows a Senator to raise a point-of-order objection and require adherence to the 60-vote requirement. Remember, this passed unanimously. The instruction-to-conferees amendment which passed 79-14 is supposed to require the Senate conferees insist the 60-vote rule be included in the final Budget Conference Report. Yet it was not.

This is not and never will be a parliamentary argument. However, from a PR perspective, the Democrats can be forced into a defensive posture and answer to the American public why – why do they feel the rest of us must follow rules while they can just chose to ignore them at a whim? It is this elitist “rules for thee but not for me” attitude that turns most of us off to Washington to begin with. The spirit of the 60-vote rule and minority rights they voted on in 2009 will not just disappear next year. The 2010 Budget Resolution from the Senate must contain the point-of-order amendment and the motion to instruct the Senate conferees that were stripped out the final Budget Conference report in 2009, effectively neutering the will the Senate. To allow this to continue in order to pass extremely unpopular legislation would be just one other example of elitists making up the rules and using disingenuous tactics to secure their ability to trample the will of the governed. We must insist they follow their own rules now as well as later in the next fiscal year. Just because somebody conveniently forgot to insist on the will of the Senate during conference with the House is no excuse not to adhere to self-imposed rules. Now is the time to display qualities of discipline and character – especially now. No more games, not more hiding, and no more dishonesty.

The American people have spoken. They are sick and tired of backroom deals, late night votes, broken promises of transparency, and now to top it all off the Democrats in the Senate are talking about using a procedure they agreed would not be used while allowing that will to be usurped by a committee chairman asleep at the wheel.

Fairness, abiding by the rules. Wake up Senator Reid – Americans hate backroom deals – they feed into the narrative of sneaky, shadowy, elitist weasels that is costing your party dearly and will continue to do so. The fact remains that it was the will of the Senate that reconciliation be taken off the table for this fiscal year and subsequently that will was ignored in conference. However, ignoring the will of a legislative body in a conference report does not nullify that will. A declaration cannot be summarily dismissed because somebody or some group decided not to champion a resolution even when instructed by a vote of 79-14 in the to do so. The Democrats, who have been backroom dealing and skulking in the shadows since this thing began, are about to ignore their own will if they follow through with reconciliation.

One is only as good as their word. Any Democratic Senator who now attempts to use this procedural trickery may be called a great asset by their progressive allies – maybe – but the rest of America will make it clear they were off by two letters and make their will known at the ballot box.

To pass healthcare legislation via this procedural bypass of minority rights, therefore impacting over 1/6 of our economy, would be the very definition of duplicity. It would be the very definition of audacity.

Related:

Breaking: Lincoln will oppose reconciliation

ObamaCare: Night of the Living Dead Bill

Reconciliation flip-flopper of the morning

Oh my: GOP ready to boycott ObamaCare summit?

Update: Why this is reaching a critical moment: Howard Dean, DFA, Launch Campaign Encouraging 51-Vote Health Care Bill. If we ignore the following, we do so at our country’s peril. This strategy will work.

Keep the following in mind as you read this post: FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON. You will see this again below.

In this post, I argue how the coup de grace is nigh for ObamaCare. I also point to this post that details Senator Jim DeMint’s amendments how they can be used to kill reconciliation. From the second post:

During deliberations on the Senate Budget Resolution earlier this year, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) introduced a point-of-order amendment that would require a 60-vote majority to pass “any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that eliminates the ability of Americans to keep their health plan or their choice of doctor (as determined by the Congressional Budget Office).” The Senate approved the DeMint Amendment unanimously.

Subsequently, before the Senate Budget Resolution went to a Conference Committee where differences with the House Budget Resolution were to be worked out, DeMint offered a motion to instruct the Conferees not only to insist on retaining the 60-vote provision in the final Conference Report but also to widen the scope of the provision to cover any provision and so forth that decreases the number of Americans enrolled in private health insurance while increasing the number enrolled in government-managed, rationed health care. The Demint motion to instruct passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 79 to 14.

As a matter of congressional comity, the House ordinarily would have been expected to accede to the Senate provision since it affected Senate rules that applied only to the Senate. Remarkably, Senate Budget Committee Chairman, Kent Conrad, allowed the Demint 60-vote requirement to be removed from the Budget Resolution in Conference.

One comment on first post linked above comes from jfxgillis:

G.J.:

To take them in reverse order, the motion to instruct simply isn’t operative anymore. The instruction was not in the Budget Conference Report but it passed anyway.

The other amendment appears to rely on a CBO finding that hasn’t happened yet on a bill that hasn’t had a floor vote yet.

The amendments only passed in the first place because they don’t matter.

Once again it is up to the grassroots to get involved and put serious pressure on the Senate concerning these amendments and make known our expectation that these amendments be adhered to because of the promise by unanimous vote in one case and a vote of 79-14 in the second. If we shame enough Democrats the possibility increases that votes will be lacking in the Senate even for Reconciliation. It is up to the us to pressure Republicans to make this an issue. Republicans, as we all know too well, are prone to rolling over and need prodding on a regular basis. To borrow a Texas phrase, it’s like herding cattle.

The amendments passed. Therefore, if the Senators wish to be seen as men and women of character, they should follow the rules they set out for themselves. No more rules for thee (you and me) but not for me (the elitist politicians). No more spineless non-responses and no more pompous attitudes. If the 9/12 DC march taught Republicans and Democrats anything, it is the grassroots is real, we are big, and we will vote.

The Senate insiders have tried all along to dismiss the DeMint provisions on technical grounds by ignoring the facts that got us to the current situation. The grassroots must be ruthless and relentless in pushing the Republicans to do the right thing. It is all about constructing the right narrative. If we start listening to excuses from insiders, our movement will be hijacked by the establishment (beltway insiders, including politicians of both parties), which is exactly what they will try to do. But hijacking the movement is less about elbowing for who gets credit than about herding us so we don’t rock the boat and make life uncomfortable for them. What they fail to realize is they are the cattle and we are the cowboys. We herd them, not the other way around.

First, by any stretch of the imagination any bill currently under consideration by the Senate satisfies the conditions set down in the original DeMint Amendment that passed by unanimous consent. I would love to debate anyone arguing otherwise.

We can argue all day whether or not CBO would rule otherwise but that gives up the fight before it even begins. The CBO doesn’t have to rule on anything since the provision has been stripped. I suspect my detractors response above has been talking to a Republican insider or is getting his information from one second or third hand.

Of course CBO hasn’t yet ruled whether or not a bill satisfies the DeMint conditions, because it is not law yet. But the pertinent point is that the DeMint Amendment is not law precisely because it was dropped unceremoniously in conference contrary to the will of the Senate as evidenced by a huge bipartisan majority (79 votes). How did that happen? The Senate Budget Committee Chairman who voted for the measure twice on the floor of the Senate and was under instructions from his Senate colleagues to insist on the Senate provision in conference turned his head.

The reader may be asking why Senator DeMint is not pushing this issue hard – after all they are his amendments. The answer is obvious – he knows his cowardly Republican colleagues won’t stand up and fight and he doesn’t think the grass roots can be mobilized by this kind of procedural argument, which seems to be confirmed by my detractor above. If we allow ourselves to get intimidated by the technical details and try to explain and discuss them so we pass the test as Senate parliamentarians, we will lose the American public. The parliamentarian test is another favorite technique used to keep strategy control firmly within the hands of the insiders. That is why we have to construct the narrative and control it from the outside rather than allowing the insiders to set the terms of the debate.

Republicans always allow themselves to be cowed. They know that as politicians they are a dreadful lot, their political skills leaving much to be desired. They reveal this inferiority complex by this kind of timid, overly cautious behavior. Well, sometimes cattle need prodding. We need to take up the issue and insist on it. We must put ourselves in the drivers seats. The Senate Republicans are our passengers, our guests, and it is we who must take them along for a ride – not the other way around. Then let the Democrats stand on technicalities after placed on the defensive. The American public will see right through them.

This is a very simple story. The Senate made a rule and then broke other rules in the dead of night to throw it in the garbage. This is the same way these jokers have destroyed the Constitution. The Senate passed a rule committing itself not to consider under Reconciliation any healthcare reform bill that satisfied certain conditions. It left it to CBO to determine whether the bill would satisfy those conditions but it is self evident that any bill currently under consideration does satisfy them. The Senate then instructed its conferees to insist on retaining that amendment in conference. The Senate Budget Committee Chairman betrayed his colleagues and acted contrary to their instructions. We know for a fact that it was he because the House conferees had no political purchase on the provision. It could only be stripped out with Conrad’s acquiescence.

Now someone wants to turn around and argue that the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply because it is no longer in the Budget Resolution and, oh by the way even if it were still in the Budget Resolution it wouldn’t make any difference anyway because CBO would not certify any current bill under consideration as satisfying the conditions established by the amendment. Of course the DeMint amendment doesn’t apply, but they had to cheat to strip it so that it wouldn’t apply — we should not allow ourselves to be conned into defending status quo rules when other rules and long tradition of the Senate had to be broken to get us to this status quo – this is so Republican. Instead, we should be arguing that the Senate should abide by the rule it adopted for itself anyway because it should still be in the resolution and would be in the resolution if the Democrats hadn’t played games and the Republicans hadn’t slept through them.

As for CBO, we must simply assert that the only way CBO could possibly not certify a bill as satisfying the conditions of the amendment is if they were being manipulated by the Democrats.

The Republicans have the rules and the politics on their side, and they have simply been unwilling to pick up the ball and run with it just as they were unwilling to fight ObamaCare and RHINOCare until we made it impossible for them not to. We have to stick the ball in their hands and push them out front so either they run with it or get crushed. We have to re-focus the debate on fairness, abiding by the rules. Oddly enough, Robert C. Byrd provides us the best arguments for not passing healthcare reform under Reconciliation. Just ask yourself this: If the situation were reversed, would the Democrats be wringing their hands and being so fastidious? One guess, and my bet is you will get it right. Why, because if you are reading this chances are you are smarter than most politicians. I know you, not personally, but I have met hundreds like you and color me impressed. For any mindless ObamaBots who are reading this, the answer is – of course not.

The establishment knows how to play the game and that is why they take us to the cleaners on a regular basis – in the past. Now its our turn. Spin cycle anyone?

It’s up to us, the grassroots. We can’t go all wobbly on America now.

The argument that the Senate would have rejected the entire conference report if it really wanted the amendment in is weak. First, it all happened so fast I am sure only a couple of Democrats realized it was gone. The Republicans voted against the Resolution anyway. This was a set up and we are falling into the trap they set. Finally, we have to make it clear that this was not a provision in dispute between the House and Senate, which would have given the “it-passed-anyway-without-it” argument more saliency; this was a provision the House didn’t care about and the Senate was on record by huge bipartisan majorities in favor of twice.

The American people will want to know why was it stripped to begin with? More importantly, why wouldn’t the Senate abide by its own rule? The House has no say in it. FORCE THE DEMOCRATS TO DEFEND IGNORING A RULE THEY AGREED TO. THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO GROUND TO STAND ON.

So how do you put the pressure on Republicans to make this an issue and subsequently push enough Democrats away from Reconciliation because the political stakes are too high? Copy this link (http://tinyurl.com/m6ywb7) and sent it out to everyone you know. Send it to the Tea Parties, make it viral, and continue to take back this country. Or feel free to use this material as you wish. Copy it, paste it, put it on your own blog. A good friend once told me of a quote by President Ronald Reagan.

There is no limit to what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets the credit.

Amen. I am not looking for recognition, instead I am looking for the day to arrive when I turn on my computer, go to my favorite blog or internet news site and read: Healthcare Reform Dies.

Can you imagine? This is a group effort, it is a grassroots effort. None of this would be possible without millions of disillusioned citizens taking their grievances to the government, or putting in their time going to rally’s, protests, marches, writing on blogs, and organizing local tea party chapters. This is truly an amazing time in the history of this country.

We did it on 9/12, we can do it again.

Kill ObamaCare. Hit the reset switch. Then we can do it right. Simple free-market solutions exist which can drive down costs without liberty destroying legislation that favors big government and/or big business and without the budget busting price tag attached to all these proposals. I live in Texas and the benefits of tort reform by itself are quantifiable and beneficial to both patients and doctors.

Update: Reader SteveL in the comments asks the question why only a few are taking up this issue? The answer lies in the post above – it is how the establishment has gamed the system. I reply that I have contacted major bloggers on the issue and have yet to hear back from them. Nobody is interested. However, should ObamaCare pass and later analysis indicates the above approach would have killed it, then at least I was on the right side of history. I have contacted some Tea Party groups, including the national chapter. It has only been a couple of days for the later, so I am still holding out hope.

In other news and opinion:

Does Anybody Actually Like the Baucus Health Care Bill?

Doctors Threaten to Go Galt if ObamaCare Passes

ACORN’s Comprehensive Ho-migration Reform

The Useful Idiots Are After Rush Limbaugh Now

President Obama: Back to Square One on Health Care

ObamaCare: Who loves the Baucus bill?

Coward-in-Chief

Gallup: Obama under 50% on Afghanistan, economy, health care, deficit

Obama’s solution on illegals and health care? Amnesty; Update: Video added

Rasmussen: ObamaCare hits highest disapproval rate yet

A few more myths from the White House

The mantra of the day: There were no attacks under George Bush after 9/11. Learn it, love it, live it.

For all his faults, George Bush did protect the homeland.

For all his faults, Obama continues to multiply the number of his faults. I quit counting.

As Obama continues to quickly move to a 9/10 mentality that President Clinton would be proud of, the President’s approval of Attorney General Eric Holder’s investigation of the CIA, combined with other political moves designed to weaken our national security and the ability of our intelligence community to gather information and protect this country, is a dereliction of duty of the highest order. Should any future attack on this country occur, there will be blood on the hands of not only Obama and Eric Holder, but any liberal in Congress who does not step up now and declare their own contempt for any action that strengthens our enemies while weakening this country thereby putting all of us at greater risk.

A resolution should immediately be put forward in the House and Senate condemning Eric Holder and the CIA investigation. Let there be a full accounting within Congress of those who stand for and against the safety of this country. That way, we can remember in 2010 and 2012 who is on the side of our enemies and who is on the side of America. And let this resolution be brought to the floor of both Chambers every single day until election day in 2010, and every single day after that until 2012. High Treason is at hand, and let it be recognized for what it is, for what Eric Holder and Obama are doing is providing aid and comfort to our enemies by pulling out the rug from under the CIA and all but muting their ability to protect us all. And make no mistake, the damage is already done and Attorney General Eric Holder should immediately be fired. Should we be attacked again, don’t look for American’s to rally around a President directly responsible for enabling the enemies of our country. Look for America to hold Obama accountable, for this is within his control to stop.

Obama is not Harry Houdini, and the American people are actually smarter than most of the liberals in Congress, as recently evidenced by the fact that many of us actually read HR3200. Try as he might, escaping the obvious is impossible not only for Obama, but for many Democrats in Congress to dense to realize that chaining themselves to the leftists of their party is actually not in their best political interests.

Jennifer Rubin writes in Commentary Magazine The Commander in Chief Hides, but nobody is fooled, for the attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president:

The president has been playing the “Look, Ma—no hands!” game for the better part of a week, denying responsibility for the decision to name a special prosecutor to go after CIA operatives interrogating terrorists overseas. Democrats are ignoring the whole thing, now dimly aware that this is not the sort of thing the public likes. Conservatives are furious and taking the president to task for his refusal to take responsibility for the decision—or fire Attorney General Eric Holder if this isn’t what the president wanted.

Michael Barone, recalling that Harry Truman sacked an attorney general, writes:

Obama administration spokesmen are portraying the president as unable to overrule Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to have a special prosecutor determine whether to prosecute CIA interrogators who were cleared by Department of Justice career attorneys back in 2004. “This was not something the White House allowed, this was something the AG decided,” a White House spokesman said. Utter nonsense. The attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president, and the president can determine that a prosecution would undermine the national security—a subject on which he has a wider perspective and a greater responsibility than the attorney general—and order that it not go forward.

[. . .]

If Barack Obama really meant it when he said that he didn’t want to see prosecutions of CIA interrogators for acts committed long ago, for which they were cleared long ago, he has a ready alternative: he can give Eric Holder the same treatment Harry Truman gave [his attorney general] J. Howard McGrath.

Newt Gingrich makes a similar suggestion. And Rep. Pete Hoekstra, ranking minority member on the House Intelligence Committee, is outraged that Holder is conducting his own war on CIA personnel—over the strenuous and entirely ignored objections of Leon Panetta. We are left wondering why the president prefers to hide, copping to managerial ineptness and timidity. This is no way to score points with the netroots and liberals on the Hill. They are expecting a robust series of investigations and prosecutions and can’t be impressed with the president’s timidity. (And he will come off the Martha Vineyard’s golf course eventually and face some questions about all this.)

So if Obama does not support the actions of AG Eric Holder, then its time for Mr. Holder to hear the words popularized by Donald Trump…”You’re fired”. Should Obama wish to pander to the left wing of his base then he will hear those very words himself in 2012, although in my opinion he already is beyond the point of redemption and each of us will be treated to his skulking out the back door of the White House in 2013.

Obama can also signal his intent to use the power of the Presidential Pardon for any convictions that result from the investigation. The problem with this approach is that it will be too late to reverse the serious damage to our national security by politically motivated assaults on its very infrastructure. And it would be weak – good luck finding twelve jurors to convict on the ground of the interrogations themselves. Sure, you may get a perjury conviction – maybe. So the entire show is obviously a political circus that puts everyone at risk. Play politics with my life and the life of those I love and you will have one very, very motivated voter. Sure you want to do that?

In a nutshell:

• The House and Senate should pass a resolution condemning the witch hunt Eric Holder is conducting. This resolution should be brought to the floor every day until the 2010 elections and, if necessary, everyday after that until the 2012 elections. Legislators serious about national security should immediately seek other solutions to put an end to this madness before our intelligence community is irreparably damaged.
• Obama should fire Attorney General Eric Holder. If he does not, then he is explicitly, not implicitly, allowing the investigation to continue as it is within his power to put an end to this.
• Unless Obama reverses direction on this and any other policies which continue to weaken our security then he is personally responsible for any attack within our borders or against American citizens abroad that could have been avoided with the policies in place under George W. Bush made now defunct under Obama.

In the days ahead, we will know who is for protecting American families and who is against it. Those against security will pay for their misplaced loyalties.

In other news and opinion:

Goodbye War In Afghanistan?. Go ahead Obama, piss on graves of over three thousand dead men, women, an children. Remember. Remember. Remember.

I saw this one coming: Republican Promises To Reverse Obamacare If GOP Wins In 2012. Encouraging to hear, but trust me, no guarantee. Keep the pressure up – I would rather see ObamaCare die this year. Trust me, it can be done.

Wackjob science czar to appear on David Letterman

Tom Ridge: Straight to the remainder bin

Monday morning quick hits: Gadhafi, Haditha, Dingy Harry & more

Ridge: Sorry, Just Trying To Sell My Book. Pinhead.

The Kennedy Watch

WaPo Asks: Is That a Recovery in Your Pants?. Using underwear as an economic barometer. Now I have seen and heard everything. I can just hear it now: “Wall street saw a sharp decline today after the release of the latest Tighty Whitey Index indicated men are going commando in a sure sign the economy is in big trouble.”

Cheney Wins. Of course he does. Never bet against a real man and a real American.

Harry Reid cheers unemployment in Las Vegas media!

Gibbs accuses Bush/Cheney of “underresourcing” the whitewashed war on terror

So liberals want to start using Senator Kennedy as the poster child for health care. Well, nothing like a good pictorial meme to replicate like a virus and stick in peoples mind. Still, I only have two of these, so if you have more, send them along and let’s start a collection.

In other news and opinion:

Team Obama denies politicizing homeland security. Insert laugh track.

Culture of corruption: Rangel edition

Liberal Paranoia and the Kopechne Effect

Betsy Markey Tells The Truth In Front Of Large Astroturf Audience

Huffington Post on Mary Jo Kopechne’s Death: “Who Knows– Maybe She’d Feel It Was Worth It”. Sick.

“One of his favorite topics of humor was indeed Chappaquiddick itself”; Update: Audio added

Congressional Research Service: ObamaCare will cover illegal immigrants

Spreading the Health (Care) Around

Read about ObamaCare from Peter Ferrara at The Heatland Institute: Rationing, Higher Taxes, and Lower Quality Care. The pdf of the entire study can be found here. Print it out, read it, move it forward. The report is a scathing and frank overview of ObamaCare. Peter Ferrara’s bio can be found on Limit Taxes:

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Institute for Policy Innovation, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School.

From The Heart Land Institute article introduction:

President Barack Obama and Congressional Democrats are rushing to enact legislation that would overhaul the way health care is financed and delivered in the United States. It would dramatically increase the role of government in virtually all aspects of health care. Such an initiative should be carefully studied to determine whether it actually solves problems in the health care arena or makes them worse.

National health plans similar to what President Obama is proposing have been adopted in other countries. They always start out promising universal access and free or reduced-price health care. But they end up with massive institutional bureaucracies whose purpose and function are to deny health care and medical services. Often they fail to control spending despite resorting to withholding care to politically weak groups.

President Obama insists that his plan to fundamentally restructure health care is needed to reduce costs. He has touted a report from his Council of Economic Advisors that specifies exactly how that would be done. That report, however, elaborates a policy of thorough government health care rationing achieved through government control of the financing and delivery of care.

This study will explain how the health policy changes President Obama and Congressional Democrats support would cause millions of Americans to lose their choice of doctors and insurance coverage, require that access to care be strictly rationed, and cause the quality of care to deteriorate. Despite all this sacrifice, nationalizing health insurance in America would require major tax increases, slow economic growth, and increase the national debt.

Part 2 of this study describes the Obama health plan as it is presented in legislation being debated in Congress. Part 3 explains how the Obama health plan would result in the loss of freedom of choice. In particular, it shows how you would not be free under President Obama’s plan to keep your current health insurance because employers would “dump”millions of people into a one-size-fits-all government-run program. Part 4 explains how the Obama plan would give government the power to ration health care, including the power to deny access to the elderly, who need it the most.

Part 5 explains how, despite rationing, the Obama health plan would increase health costs. Part 6 describes the intractable entitlement crisis America already faces based on the undeliverable promises made for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The Obama health plan would recklessly add yet another unfunded middle-class entitlement program, this one giving subsidies for families earning $88,000 per year and more.

Part 7 discusses the health policy reforms America should adopt, based on expanding patient power and choice in a market-based health care system. These reforms would provide a true health care safety net that would ensure no one suffers without essential health care while reducing costs and preserving those parts of the current health care system that work. Part 8 presents a brief summary and concluding remarks.

Today, Americans enjoy the best health care and medical services in the world, an important part of our high standard of living. President Obama has said “my view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.” But that is not what his plan would do. Instead, he would tear down what is good about the current system and replace it with old-fashioned and outdated socialized medicine policies adopted by other countries, reflecting their lower living standards. It would be a terrible mistake.

Move it forward.

Related: Read My Discussion With Lewis K. Uhler – How 5 Republican Senators May Hold The Future Of Healthcare In Their Hands. Lewis K. Uhler held many positions under Ronald Reagan and is the Founder and President of the Limit Taxes organization. I cannot express the importance of getting this information out there. Call Sean, Rush, or Glenn and get the message out not only of the information in the post concerning Mr. Uhler, but the above information from Peter Ferrara as well. Send it as a tip to your favorite mega-blogger.

Get. The. Word. Out.

In other news and opinion:

White House: You’re not un-American, but you are still corporate shills so just pipe down

Be careful: DOT inspector general challenges O’s stimulus spending.

Overflow crowd at Maryland town hall.

Obama Kabuki theater in Portsmouth; crowd chants “YES, WE CAN!;” little girl laments “mean things” on protest signs; O lies about single-payer supportin-portsmouth/

Correcting misinformation about ObamaCare

You have got to be kidding me. Obama: Government health care will be like, um, the post office.

More here (emphasis mine):

In a just-completed New Hampshire town hall meeting, President Obama stated that he never said he supported a single-payer health care system. But as clearly evidenced by this video, in 2003, he declared: “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care plan.”

Meanwhile, at another point of today’s town hall meeting, Obama was pushing back against the idea that the creation of a new government-run plan would drive private insurers out of business, and he said that UPS and FedEx were doing fine, but “it’s the post office that’s always having problems.” Oops!

The gaffe arose from the inherent contradiction of those arguing for the introduction of a government government-run plan. On the one hand, Obama and other supporters of the idea argue that we need to have a strong government plan to create more efficiency, drive down prices, and “keep private insurers honest.” Yet at the same time, they have to make it appear weaker to push back against those of us who argue that it will threaten private insurance and move us toward a single-payer system. So then you get statements in which Obama, in the course of arguing for a government-run system, takes a shot at the government-run post office.

And Obama makes our case for us. Case closed and thanks Barry!

Another Obamian slip.