Skip to comments.Top Senate Democrat Outlines 'Nuclear Option' Strategy for Health Care
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 ...
Do they not realize the change that’s coming? They overplayed their hand. Its over for the DemocRATS.
If they shove healthcare in anyway I believe the revolt will be so bad they wouldnt know what hit them.
if they do it, mccain will be the laughing stock because when gop had the power they didn’t do it.
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.
Make our day, Obama-holes.
The fact that a creature like Durbin could be the #2 in the Senate points out how pathetic the RAT Party is.
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.
Why is it they have ‘nuclear option’ on health care, and a ‘medical diagnosis’ option on terrorism?
The iron-fist of the Democrats once again demonstrates its utter contempt for the consent of the governed.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Do it. Please.
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.
There’s a reason its called the “nuclear option” — because you are not supposed to use it.
There’s a reason its called the “nuclear option” — because you are not supposed to use it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like the more well-known nuclear option, it should cost every single one of them their jobs.
But we know that won’t happen.
If Brown wins in Mass, healthcare is dead in the House. Period.
I think the Dick Durbin is bluffing again.
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.
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.
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.
They can try but I don’t think if Brown wins that they will even be able to get 51 votes.
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".
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.
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.
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
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 ...
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.