Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Top Senate Democrat Outlines 'Nuclear Option' Strategy for Health Care
Foxnews.com ^ | Updated January 19, 2010 | Trish Turner

Posted on 01/19/2010 12:43:24 PM PST by ColdOne

A top Senate Democrat for the first time Tuesday acknowledged that the party is prepared to deal with health care reform by using a controversial legislative tactic known as the "nuclear option" if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate election.

Calling the state's special election "an uphill battle to put it mildly," Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said "there are options to still pursue health care" should Democrat Martha Coakley lose to Brown.

Congressional Democrats have been discussing several options, since a Brown win would break the party's 60-vote, filibuster-proof majority at a critical time for health care reform. Durbin, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, described a combination of tactics to get what his party wants out of health care reform.

First, he said the House could simply approve the Senate bill, sending it straight to President Obama's desk.

Then, Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as "reconciliation," a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 111th; bhohealthcare; democrat; democrats; durbin; healthcare; liberalfascism; nuclearoption; obamacare; rapeofliberty; reconciliation; socializedmedicine

1 posted on 01/19/2010 12:43:26 PM PST by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
If Brown wins in Mass, healthcare is dead in the House. Period.
2 posted on 01/19/2010 12:45:32 PM PST by gov_bean_ counter (Sarah Palin - For such a time as this)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

Do they not realize the change that’s coming? They overplayed their hand. Its over for the DemocRATS.


3 posted on 01/19/2010 12:47:00 PM PST by Blue Turtle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

If they shove healthcare in anyway I believe the revolt will be so bad they wouldnt know what hit them.


4 posted on 01/19/2010 12:47:23 PM PST by GoCards ("We eat therefore we hunt...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

if they do it, mccain will be the laughing stock because when gop had the power they didn’t do it.


5 posted on 01/19/2010 12:48:30 PM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoCards
If they shove healthcare in anyway I believe the revolt will be so bad they wouldnt know what hit them.

Agreed

6 posted on 01/19/2010 12:49:00 PM PST by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The real problem the Democrats will face now is time. Every day they don’t get health care legislation out, is a day closer to the November elections.


7 posted on 01/19/2010 12:49:12 PM PST by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Make our day, Obama-holes.


8 posted on 01/19/2010 12:49:24 PM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: socialismisinsidious


Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care daily digest PING LIST

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this daily digest ping list (one ping per day of links to pertinent articles).




9 posted on 01/19/2010 12:49:45 PM PST by socialismisinsidious ( The socialist income tax system turns US citizens into beggars or quitters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The fact that a creature like Durbin could be the #2 in the Senate points out how pathetic the RAT Party is.


10 posted on 01/19/2010 12:49:49 PM PST by Redleg Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter
If Brown wins in Mass, healthcare is dead in the House. Period.

Yep.

11 posted on 01/19/2010 12:50:14 PM PST by MozarkDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
"Then, Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as "reconciliation," a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with"

For what it is worth, "reconciliation" is not the nuclear option. They are two entirely different parliamentarian procedures.

Reconciliation is specifically spelled out in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. It is limited to bills that deal only with certain budget considerations. It is unlikely, because of the sweeping nature of this health care bill, that the Senate parliamentarians would allow budget reconciliation to be used on this bill.

However, that wouldn't theoretically keep the Dems from actually doing away with, even if only temporarily, the filibuster. This can be done using parliamentarian maneuvers and it is what is known as "the nuclear option". If they did this, it would change the complexion of the Senate for a generation, if not longer. The acrimony and hostility in the Senate, would quickly mirror what you have in the House, which is precisely NOT what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

I think that such a maneuver would be political suicide for the Dems, and I suspect that there are enough Dem Senators who would realize it. I'm not sure that they could actually get 51 votes using the nuclear option.

12 posted on 01/19/2010 12:51:55 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Why is it they have ‘nuclear option’ on health care, and a ‘medical diagnosis’ option on terrorism?


13 posted on 01/19/2010 12:52:27 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Yeah, force-feeding this unpopular pile of dog shit to the American people would be a great idea, Dick Turban. You do that...


14 posted on 01/19/2010 12:52:34 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The iron-fist of the Democrats once again demonstrates its utter contempt for the consent of the governed.


15 posted on 01/19/2010 12:52:56 PM PST by Obadiah (The corrupt MSM are dishonest information brokers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
None of the 'options' are good ones in getting the entire Bill passed.

It was unlikely that the Bill would have passed the House even if Brown didn't win, and after Brown wins, it is going to be virtually impossible.

16 posted on 01/19/2010 12:53:06 PM PST by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Why is it that the “nuclear” option meant something completely different during Bush’s years?

As I recall, the so-called “nuclear option” was moving forward with a cloture vote, something the democrats did without hesitation to get us where we are today.

Note to Michael Steele and any ranking republican:
If you ever gain the advantage again, NEVER AGAIN be afraid to play hardball with this pukes. They already have the media in the tank for them, you don’t and won’t ever get their help. Fight, damn it!


17 posted on 01/19/2010 12:54:32 PM PST by mattdono (My vote, 2012: Stop SPENDING my money. Stop SENDING my money. Stop TAKING my money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Why is it they have ‘nuclear option’ on health care, and a ‘medical diagnosis’ option on terrorism?

haha!

18 posted on 01/19/2010 12:54:32 PM PST by latina4dubya ( self-proclaimed tequila snob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: GoCards
If they shove healthcare in anyway I believe the revolt will be so bad they wouldnt know what hit them

Now just what do you think would happen. A couple seat changes next yr & we have this albatross bill passed. This bill MUST be defeated even if it means an all out revoltuion - taking it to the streets. This is a bill that "Turbin" Durbin-likes will determine whether you live or die in some instances. That is WAR.

19 posted on 01/19/2010 12:57:06 PM PST by Digger (If RINO is your selection, then failure is your election)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane
if they do it, mccain will be the laughing stock because when gop had the power they didn’t do it.

McCain has been a laughing stock for quite a while now. He ran as a Democrat Lite which gave the rest of really no choice at all.

With a little luck, he'll lose his primary election.

20 posted on 01/19/2010 12:57:33 PM PST by Retired COB (Still mad about Campaign Finance Reform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Dear Senator Turbin,

Do it. Please.

Sincerely,


TonyInOhio

21 posted on 01/19/2010 1:00:00 PM PST by TonyInOhio ( Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
If I recall correctly, the Senate bill - which originated in the Senate - contains at least one revenue-raising provision: the penalty "tax" on people who fail to buy insurance policies that make Pelosi feel all warm and fuzzy inside, which means that the Senate bill cannot be the ultimate bill because it didn't originate in the House, where all revenue-raising bills are required to originate according to cl. 1, sec. 7, Art. I of the Constitution.
22 posted on 01/19/2010 1:01:17 PM PST by Oceander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

I think these people are so out of touch with us, they are going to do it... They will just “double down” (as Rush says)

And none of them care a bit about our Founding Fathers..That is why they have to go.


23 posted on 01/19/2010 1:01:28 PM PST by ColdOne (:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

There’s a reason its called the “nuclear option” — because you are not supposed to use it.


24 posted on 01/19/2010 1:02:57 PM PST by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

There’s a reason its called the “nuclear option” — because you are not supposed to use it.


25 posted on 01/19/2010 1:02:57 PM PST by PMAS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

There is usually no major legislation that is passed during the election year. The Dems became arrogant and thought the American people would just swallow.

They are realizing now that they will commit political suicide if they pass this legislation. I would love for them to try to do it.


26 posted on 01/19/2010 1:10:03 PM PST by truthandlife ("Some trust in chariots and some in horses, but we trust in the name of the LORD our God." (Ps 20:7))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
NEVER AGAIN be afraid to play hardball with this pukes.///// That is correct..... For years they have been taking advantage of that fact..... Time to give as good as we get!!!
27 posted on 01/19/2010 1:13:54 PM PST by ColdOne (:^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
I'm not sure that they could actually get 51 votes using the nuclear option.

In 1967, when there were 68 Democrats and 20 RINOs in the Senate, VP Humphrey tried to use the nuclear option, and even with LBJ and HHH working full-time, they could not get 51 votes.

A US Senator is the most powerful legislator in the world, precisely because of the filibuster. Any Senator who votes for a nuclear option is reducing his own personal power, permanently.

28 posted on 01/19/2010 1:14:41 PM PST by Jim Noble (Hu's the communist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Reconciliation and Nuclear Option are not the same thing.
Reconcilitation is an existing process only for budget bills. Nuclear Option is an actual change of Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. They could do this and their left wing is starting to scream pretty loud for them to do so. Then they can spend the next 10 months cramming through everything on their wish-list, elections be damned.


29 posted on 01/19/2010 1:16:55 PM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

They’re going to lose a lot of “blue dog” votes.
They’ll lose them simply because of the “closeness” of this race, and a Brown win will double that fear.


30 posted on 01/19/2010 1:18:49 PM PST by MrB (The difference between a humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Like the more well-known nuclear option, it should cost every single one of them their jobs.

But we know that won’t happen.


31 posted on 01/19/2010 1:23:35 PM PST by wastedyears (If I'm going out, I'm going out like Major Kong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gov_bean_ counter

If Brown wins in Mass, healthcare is dead in the House. Period.

Yep.


32 posted on 01/19/2010 1:27:03 PM PST by CaptainMorgantown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

I think the Dick Durbin is bluffing again.


33 posted on 01/19/2010 1:32:25 PM PST by Baladas ((ABBHO))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Rats may consider the nuclear option to railroad health control through. But the Rats better consider the consequences when angry mobs come out swinging with the true intention of literally kicking their rats ass.

Shove me and I shove back.


34 posted on 01/19/2010 1:37:04 PM PST by o_zarkman44 (Obama is the ultimate LIE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oceander

IIRC, what Reid did to move the current Senate bill is to take an unimportant House bill that wasn’t going to be passed, and he edited out almost all the text and substituted all of the text for the current Senate bill. That’s also how they were able to have a floor vote on it without going through committee. (The 3 bills that they used to build the final Senate bill all went through committee, though.)

Therefore, it is already set up to be a reconciliation bill with regard to procedural matters. They still have to make some major edits, and under the Byrd Rule it cannot have any provisions longer than 10 years.

But I could be wrong.


35 posted on 01/19/2010 1:38:12 PM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
The Bank Robber's Dilemma: You've already handed over the note to the teller, claiming to be armed and demanding money. You hear sirens as a very large number of police cars responds to the bank's silent alarm. No matter what you do from this point, you're going to prison for a very long time if you're caught. Do you (1) take an extra minute to get the cash before you run for it, or (2) run for it immediately and risk decades in prison but with no chance of getting the loot but hoping the extra minute gives you a chance to get away in the confusion?

The Democrat Dilemma of 2010: You've already offended the vast majority of voters with a really stupid move, led by Obama and Pelosi. No matter what you do, there is a high probability that you will be voted out in November. Do you (1) try to push through the offending step toward socialism under the assumption that you can't make patriotic Americans any angrier than they already are, or (2) claim you never supported THAT bill and hope the dodge gives you time to get away in the confusion and not be blamed by your district's voters?

It's a close call, but I'm hoping the Dems will panic (assuming Brown has a large enough margin that fraud can't take the election from him) and kill this terrible "health care" bill.

36 posted on 01/19/2010 1:39:48 PM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
With a pussy in the WH, and an almost completely open southern border, and a totally incompetent 'national security' staff, I wish the dems would just shut up about nuclear options.


37 posted on 01/19/2010 1:46:12 PM PST by chuck_the_tv_out ( <<< click my name: now featuring Freeper classifieds)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

38 posted on 01/19/2010 1:51:31 PM PST by Bobalu (I AM JIM THOMPSON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
NOVEMBER 2, 2010


39 posted on 01/19/2010 1:56:56 PM PST by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

They can try but I don’t think if Brown wins that they will even be able to get 51 votes.


40 posted on 01/19/2010 2:05:54 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
'As I recall, the so-called “nuclear option” was moving forward with a cloture vote, something the democrats did without hesitation to get us where we are today."

No, the term "nuclear option" is a phrase coined by Trent Lott in the early part of this the last decade to describe a parliamentary maneuver that essentially would do away with the filibuster. The maneuver has been around since the advent of the filibuster - sometime in the early 1800's. To my knowledge, it has never been used in the modern era.

Lott was threatening to use it to get Bush's judiciary picks through the Senate confirmation process. Grahamnesty, and 15 other Senators (including McCain) came up with their "gang of 16", that essentially put the kibosh to Lott's "nuclear option".

41 posted on 01/19/2010 5:03:50 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

Thank you for the detail.

I guess, then, that using a method (reconciliation) to do something that was *never* intended to be used for a bill such as this, is worse than the nuclear option.

Sorry, I was incorrect on the citation. But, I think the point and the sentiment properly remains.


42 posted on 01/19/2010 5:14:39 PM PST by mattdono (My vote, 2012: Stop SPENDING my money. Stop SENDING my money. Stop TAKING my money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: mattdono
"Sorry, I was incorrect on the citation."

I was confused about the vernacular many were using, so last year, I actually looked up and read the relevant Senate rules and the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which specifies precisely what can and cannot be passed via the Budget Reconciliation process.

I don't think there's any way that they can pass this piece of crap - in its current form, either the House or the Senate versions - with the Reconciliation process. The Congressional parliamentarians just won't allow it. The only way to get it through the Senate is to go nuclear (assuming Brown wins, of course). I just can't see 51 Democrat Senators killing the filibuster. As some others have pointed out, the filibuster is what gives so many Senators their power. They aren't going to walk away from that.

Evan Bayh was interviewed on NBC tonight. He looked and sounded scared about Mass, and that was just based on the fact that the election is close, to say nothing of a Brown victory. He's not going to step into the breach for Obama, IMHO.

43 posted on 01/19/2010 5:23:24 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

my *guess* is that there will be dozens of Demagogues in the House who want to get re-elected yet see their prospects going down the tubes -— who will jump ship on the whole Obamacare fiasco and say that they support “reform” but could not support what was going to turn out from the current political process etc.

They’ll hope that by Nov. enough voters will have short memories or no memories, and believe that said Demagogue(s) was always a more “independent” thinker and not the lackey for Obama/Pelosi they seemed to be all through 2009.....

that’s probably the only hope for a lot of those clowns who are not in the “safe” liberal/socialist districts


44 posted on 01/19/2010 5:39:30 PM PST by Enchante (Martha Croak-y: Larry Bird = Lakers fan, Bobby Orr loves the Canadiens, &Tom Brady prefers the Jets)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
that’s probably the only hope for a lot of those clowns who are not in the “safe” liberal/socialist districts

Interesting concept: "safe liberal/socialist districts". I'm guessing a whole lot of libs are re-evaluating whether their own districts are still in that category. If Teddy K's state is not a safe liberal seat in the Senate ...

45 posted on 01/19/2010 6:13:45 PM PST by Pollster1 (Natural born citizen of the USA, with the birth certificate to prove it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Bump


46 posted on 01/19/2010 10:31:32 PM PST by Jet Jaguar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson