Listen to what our "representatives" are saying. Pelosi on reconciliation:
Chris Dodd on the irrelevance of the process:
“What you call a complicated process is called a simple majority,” Ms. Pelosi said. “And that’s what we’re asking the Senate to act upon.”
Democratic leaders said Republican intransigence could help them round up the votes of wavering centrists in their own caucus. Republicans adamantly oppose the health care bill, as well as the use of any parliamentary shortcuts.
Got it. The end justifies the means.
Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and an architect of the Senate health bill, said he was “not a great fan” of using the budget reconciliation procedure.
“But,” Mr. Dodd said, “the issue trumps the process. Would you drop doing health care altogether because you do not like the process? I don’t think so.”
Dodd on starting from scratch:
“That may be an appropriate answer for a narrow constituency,” he said. “But it just does not make sense for most people, who have watched their rates go up in the last year.”A narrow constituency? Really?
Use of the procedure is “in the Republican tradition,” Mr. Hoyer said. In any event, he said, Senate rules requiring a 60-vote majority to cut off a filibuster “are impeding the work of the American people.”Again, really? They're clearly, deliberately flouting the will of the people. But their words don't matter. Andy McCarthy explains it all for you:
I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that "reconciliation," if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That's the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership's statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I'm glad Republicans have held firm, but let's not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine and all it entails about government control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you've calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state. [. . .]Read the whole thing. Disturbing and dead on.
They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. [. . .]
For Republicans, it won't be enough to fight this thing, then deride it if Democrats pull it off, and finally coast to a very likely electoral victory in November. The question is: What are you going to do to roll this back? What is your plan to undo this?
Linked at Michelle Malkin (buzzworthy)
Most recent posts here.