Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Grassley: I Can’t Back Bill Now Because Dems Might Do Bill Without Me Later

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:05 AM
Original message
Grassley: I Can’t Back Bill Now Because Dems Might Do Bill Without Me Later
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/gr... /

Grassley: I Can’t Back Bill Now Because Dems Might Do Bill Without Me Later

The evidence that GOP Senator Chuck Grassley isn’t serious about negotiating a bipartisan health care compromise is beyond overwhelming at this point, but here’s still more.

As you may have heard, Grassley announced in a statement last night that he can’t support the health care bill that is expected from the Senate Finance Committee today, citing concerns about abortion and illegal immigrants. But I wanted to focus on this amusing nugget from Grassley’s statement:

“On top of all that, there’s no guarantee that a Finance Committee bill, even if it becomes bipartisan, will stay that way after it leaves the committee. An overriding issue for some time has been the fact that members of the Democratic leadership haven’t made a commitment to back a broad bipartisan bill through the entire process.”


Grassley’s position really appears to be that a key reason he can’t back the bill now is that Dems haven’t sworn a blood-oath not to do a bill alone later if no bill emerges that can get “broad” Republican support. This amounts to asking Dems to promise in advance to do nothing at all in the event that a “broad” number of Repubicans don’t agree to get behind some kind of compromise bill.

By this standard, in order to satisfy Grassley’s definition of true bipartisanship, Dems quite literally must cede all their power and leverage in advance, even as Republicans are refusing en masse to back any proposal that can reasonably be called a compromise. That really is Grassley’s position, with no exaggeration.

Update: To be clearer, what this really means is that in order to meet Grassley’s definition of bipartisanship, Dems must effectively hand over to Republicans total veto power over health care reform. It’s that simple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:08 AM
Response to Original message
1. Part of me is happy to see the Blue Dogs get punk'd again. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old Codger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:10 AM
Response to Original message
2. Hell
From what I have seen so far they already gave them veto power... they have their collective lips locked tightly on repug a**es...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lib2DaBone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
3. Translation...I'll be in the back room counting my lobbyist money"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kenfrequed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:17 AM
Response to Original message
4. Agreed
Baucus gang of six was designed to be as repuke friendly as possible and still they balked. I am more than happy to see this development as it indicates how intractable republicans are and underlines what a waste of time it is to try to seek compromise with them.

Hey blue dogs! If you are addicted to compromise so much why don't you come over and compromise with us progressives for a change!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 10:57 AM
Response to Original message
5. Come next election, I hope his assley is Grassley.
Along with Baucus.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 19th 2014, 05:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC