Schumer: Idea That Grassley And Enzi Are Negotiating In Good Faith “Pretty Much Gone”
I’m surprised this one passed unnoticed, because it’s a pretty stark declaration from a key Dem leader that bipartisanship is dead.
A Republican forwards video of Chuck Schumer on The Ed Show last night directly attacking GOP Senators Mike Enzi and Chuck Grassley, saying that the notion Repubs are negotiating in “good faith” is “pretty much gone.”
“The idea of having Grassley and Enzi negotiate in good faith is pretty much gone,” quoth Schumer, adding that a bipartisan solution is not “likely to happen now.”
Schumer’s reference to Robert Gibbs was to his crack at the press briefing yesterday about Enzi . But Schumer went farther than Gibbs, effectively endorsing the idea that bipartisanship should start its own end of life consultations, because it’s a goner.
Republicans will likely jump on the comment as proof that Dems have decided to abandon Repubs at the negotiating table. Liberals will greet it as an acknowledgment of reality. But it’s still unclear how much of this talk from Schumer and Harry Reid is genuine determination to go it alone if necessary and how much of it is bluffing and posturing.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
O I think that decision has been made. They’re just preparing the way, now.
Yes, the game plan seems pretty clear by now. Next week Obama (finally) states his core requirements for h/c reform. He re-brands all of the non-controversial reforms as his own, he urges Repubs to come along. The Dems bluff is called and they pass a watered-down bill with minimal Repub support (all the while claiming Repub obstruction).
MKH puts it well:
“So, Obama sat back while most of the substantive legislative wrangling happened, spouted platitudes from the bully pulpit while a skeptical public imposed its will on his massive majorities, lost his chance at an abbreviated debate and an August vote, and went on vacation when things really got rough only to descend from the Martha’s Vineyard Mountain with tablets inscribed with the more reasonable consensus ideas Congress has been forced to consider since his own ambitious vision tanked so spectacularly.
“Stand back, look cool, don’t get too involved, wait for things to shake out, adopt eventual consensus as his own idea, claim victory. Yeah, nobody saw this coming, unless of course they had paid attention to his entire career.”
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/09/just_eight_months_into_his_pre.asp
Can we please quit engaging the trolls and arguing with each other in these comment threads? I enjoy the spirited discussions and learn from them, but heartily endorse ignoring our resident trolls altogether.
“Can we please quit engaging the trolls?”
Good golly, I hope that is not directed at me!
I heartily agree, msmolly.
I typically hate when people lecture about “Don’t Feed the Trolls”, but it has gotten ridiculous around here lately. A lot of the threads have gotten completely hijacked and a lot of good info is being lost in the chaos.
I, for one, look favorably on any indication that Democrats are abandoning Republicans at the negotiating table.
Democrats did win the last election, right?
I read somewhere this morning that Senate staff members are working on how to frame the bill so it can get through budget reconcilliation. It’s tricky I guess because there are many ways the repubs can both stall and weaken it.
It seems to me the Dems have realized there’s not much chance of bipartisanship. It would be tough for Grassley and Enzi to walk back their remarks of the last few weeks and difficult for dems to invite them back in.
Olympia Snowe is still at the table but she probably won’t be enough and the darn thing will be so watered down once she’s through with it that they’ll surely lose dem votes.
@LindaS: This is a pretty good article about the pitfalls of reconciliation.
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/56897-gop-objections-await-healthcare-plan
@sbj
Couldn’t the Democrats just appoint a go-along parliamentarian?
I’m not saying they should but I think that would allow them to run roughshod over Gregg’s motions.
@Belly: Now they wouldn’t do that, would they?
But no, that would not work too well. Because first the CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation would assess the budgetary impact of various measures. Then, the Senate Parliamentarian rules on the budgetary impact of a provision. He would not simply make the budgetary analysis by himself – he would be guided by the CBO and the cmte. If the parliamentarian found that the budgetary impact of a provision was negligible next to its larger purpose, Democrats would then need 60 votes to set aside that point of order.
Was it Grover Norquist, or Karl Rove, who defined “bipartisanship” as date rape? That pretty much says everything you need to know about the Repug party’s interest in collaboration.
So if they divide the bill and pass the public option through reconciliation then the insurance reform etc. that repubs said they support would be in a different bill. Wouldn’t it be pretty risky for the repubs not to vote on these consumer protections? I’ve heard so many agree that we need reform.
Mr. Sargent:
“I’m surprised this one passed unnoticed, because it’s a pretty stark declaration from a key Dem leader that bipartisanship is dead.”
They couldn’t even sell it to every Democrat, but it’s somehow the fault of Republicans not being bipartisan, huh?
Okay…I guess SOME folks will believe that.
“. But it’s still unclear how much of this talk from Schumer and Harry Reid is genuine determination to go it alone if necessary and how much of it is bluffing and posturing.”
By all means…go it alone! Have the courage of your convictions and pass the thing.
It’s a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President, you don’t need anyone from the GOP.
Just DO It!
What are you afraid of?
Oh…re-election. And THAT’S why those Dems in Congress who would like to STAY in Congress aren’t buying it.
And the GOP isn’t about to help y’all out of your jam.
@LindaS: “Wouldn’t it be pretty risky for the repubs not to vote on these consumer protections?”
Yes, this is the bill that will pass with bipartisan support, giving Obama a victory.
However, it will take some fancy bill writing to get the public option through the reconciliation process with enough votes:
“Gregg said the only way for the so-called public option to have the necessary budgetary impact to warrant procedural protection would be if the program were “very aggressive in setting rates, price controls and rationing,” an option that might cause conservative Blue Dog Democrats in the House to bolt.”
TPM has a good article:
“Though the caucus has reached an uneasy consensus around a public option that’s modeled in many ways after a private insurer, it may be necessary to make the public option more liberal, and thus, more politically radioactive, if it’s to overcome a number of unique procedural hurdles.
This is the needle Democrats may have to thread if they want a public option, and at the same time, want to bypass a Republican filibuster. And the key for them will be keeping conservative Democrats on board.”
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/going-it-alone-on-health-care-dems-face-tug-of-war-over-public-option.php?ref=fpb