Health Reform: 59 and counting... 60 Votes To Proceed To Debate

I can hardly wait for the inevitable and value-free responses that "everyone does it."
.
You won't hear that from us leftists.
.
Acceptance of the corrupt status quo isn't really a hallmark of liberalism, as I'm sure you must be aware.

Has anyone mentioned that the $100 million is for low income Americans?
.
Maybe, just maybe, the definition of "bribe" needs to be looked at a little more closely, because as I remember, being bribed implies...

It would be perfectly principled for Landrieu or any senator to vote to proceed, then for cloture, but vote against the final bill (which would presumably pass with fewer than 60 votes but more than 50). The Republican attempt to institutionalize the filibuster, to make all Senatorial business dependent upon a 60-vote supermajority, is utterly illegitimate.

To say that a vote to proceed, or a vote for cloture, is a vote for the bill itself is a damnable lie, and must be described as such.

53_3
.
The proposition of increasing Federal medical assistance by 50 percent for states for which the President has declared a disaster within the past seven years should be debated on its own merits.
.
I'd like to know how anybody knows with certainty that such a provision was included to buy Mary Landrieu's vote, but if we did know that, it would be corrupt, if not bribery in the legal sense of the word.
.
Of course something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong, and there's such thing as the spirit of the law.
.
It doesn't matter if the vote-buying is for a supposedly worthy cause. Assistance procured this way is illegitimate, and textbook poor governance.
.
You know in your heart that this is wrong, 53_3. We all do.
Also, we really, really need to make sure that tax-payer help provided to "poor people" under Democratic rule is done in the most above-board way possible, or we're in for another "welfare queen" debate --which we'll lose again during economic hard times for everyone but the wealthiest. Middle class Americans have to be on board with Federal assistance, otherwise we will be open to charges of patronage, favoritism and all the old accusations conservatives have used to drive wedges between have-somes and have-littles at our expense.
.
Plus, the end of the road for us is that DLC centrists like Landrieu use us to defend "helping the poor", and then betray us as soon as the dynamic I've described above runs its course. Remember DLC's Bill Clinton "ending welfare as we know it"? Remember how the centrists blamed liberals for Democratic losses, 53_3?

"The proposition of increasing Federal medical assistance by 50 percent for states for which the President has declared a disaster within the past seven years should be debated on its own merits."
.
I think in retrospect that this sort of assistance is best handled by avenues that were already in place (the Katrina debacle excepted). Point to you.
.
"I'd like to know how anybody knows with certainty that such a provision was included to buy Mary Landrieu's vote, but if we did know that, it would be corrupt, if not bribery in the legal sense of the word.
.
Of course something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong, and there's such thing as the spirit of the law.
.
It doesn't matter if the vote-buying is for a supposedly worthy cause. Assistance procured this way is illegitimate, and textbook poor governance."
.
Was it there before Landrieu changed her mind? Who inserted it, and when? These questions might help with answering that question.
.
"You know in your heart that this is wrong, 53_3. We all do."
.
A "bribe" is generally interpreted to be intended to benefit the recipient, "Vote buying" isn't really that much better a description, because others benefit, instead of the purchase price going to her. This isn't the same as corruption like losing $9,000,000,000 or Jefferson's $90,000, so using those terms risks keeping false equivalency alive. Point taken, though.
.
"Also, we really, really need to make sure that tax-payer help provided to "poor people" under Democratic rule is done in the most above-board way possible...otherwise we will be open to charges of patronage, favoritism and all the old accusations conservatives have used to drive wedges between have-somes and have-littles at our expense."
.
I think this is really the best argument against this practice of all of them. We've had 40 years of that, and America can certainly do without more.
.
"Plus, the end of the road for us is that DLC centrists like Landrieu use us to defend "helping the poor", and then betray us...Remember how the centrists blamed liberals for Democratic losses, 53_3?"
.
The best prevention for "betrayal", I think is to stop trying for 60 vote majorities, pass with less, campaign hard to keep FOXworld at bay, and let the blame pile up for those who filibuster.
.
Then, when cracks in the GOP wall appear, those particular centrists will be standing closest to the flood of complaints of obstruction.
.
Overall, though SZ, you've made your point.

I hate to rain on SZ's parade, but I remain with 53 on this one.
.
This isn't bribery in any sense of the word. People are acting like this is going straight into Landrieu's pocket. Bribery involves the subversion of someone's fiduciary duty. This was the exact opposite.
.
The woman represents Louisiana. She got something for Louisiana. She served her constituents. No apology needed. End of story.
.
I agree with SZ to the limited extent that this does reveal institutional defects with our legislative process -- what I previously referred to as the ugly sausage-making process. But poor governance is not corruption.
.
As for debating the provision "on its own merits", I don't even know what that means. It is one component of the overall bill which is about to be debated. Have at it.

THIS post by Digby illustrates what SZ is talking about, the failure to make straight-up liberal arguments/negate Reaganite framing of our discourse.
.
"Health care reform is extremely likely to pass in some form. But let's not kid ourselves that it's passing because the Democrats and the public have seen the light and understand that we need to be a more decent society. It's passing because medical industry has been greedy to the point where it's now unsustainable. That presented an opening for liberals to enact some policies they have believed in for a long time. But they didn't do it by making the liberal arguments straight up and have created some kind of strange hybrid system for which the best argument is that it might lead to opportunities for more reform. It's better than nothing. But it isn't liberal and it wasn't designed to be. And just in case, the powers-that-be stuck it to the pro-choicers to make sure nobody got the idea that it was."

Sqr1:
.
Legitimate, intelligent criticism of my arguments isn't raining on my parade, it's welcomed.
.
Thanks for reading and responding.

" .. A "bribe" is generally interpreted to be intended to benefit the recipient, "Vote buying" isn't really that much better a description, because others benefit, .."

Does the 'bribe' or "benefit" have to be monetary?
If not, then we may recognize a transitive nature to the 'bribery':
Sen Landrieu is reported to have said that she has the leverage and she will use it. And did she leverage it! Imagine a vote that costs $100M!
.

Sen Reid(A) has a need. Sen Landerieu's (B) price is $100M in the bill. A coughs up $100M in the bill and he get a vote from B.
The $100M go to the grateful citizens(C) who know that they owe it to B. Knowing that grateful C will benefit B with their vote, B graciously gives her vote(benefit) to A.
[ Presumably B would have received the same number of grateful votes from C if she had spent her own $100M.]

--> $100M ........................-->
A B C
<-----vote--......... <---votes---

A bought a vote(benefit) from B for $100M ('bribe' to be spent on B's C); [B phantomly passed the bribe to C and in return] B receives from C votes(benefit) worth $100M.
And all lived happily ever after.
[It is an idle Sat.]

cfukara:
.
I disagree with it. The end results are to entice her to vote that way, but first even SZ acknowledged that there is no proof that the item was inserted for her, which, I've mentioned, would be something to find out.
.
Once we are past that there still is no semblance of a bribe, because, as far as the word "bribe" is concerned, the implication is that the person being bribed gets the bennies. Jefferson was bribed. He got $90,000 cash for his own use. Not so with Landrieu. She (unless there is skulduggery at the trough*) won't get any benefit herself.
.
This is false equivalence at it's worst. How can this be on the same level as the K-street pigtrough or Haliburton, or Jefferson, for that matter.
.
*It would be sh!tty indeed if the HCIC piglets got to the trough first, leaving none of that money for those who might have really needed it. Now that would be a great example of corruption on a GOP scale.
.
SZ made several valid points, but this type of false equivalency ain't one of 'em...

" .. there is no proof that the item was inserted for (Landrieu), which, I've mentioned, would be something to find out. .."
True. A smoking gun may not exists - but our suspicions are strong.
Would "pork barrel" projects be considered "bribes" to win votes for the incumbent lawmaker in coming elections? Many of us would suggest as much - even if the lawmakers deny it.

You may recognize the Limbaugh approach to issues that are not settled in fact: Although we find now that BHO did not write ** * in his thesis still we can condemn him becasue we swear that he thinksalong those lines we alleged ..

My position is that IF at all the $100M was inserted in there to win Lindrieu's vote, then it may be considered a 'bribe' even if she will not physically take possession of the "bennies" - but received a benefit/something of value or firm assurance of a benefit to come.

---
" .. as the word "bribe" is concerned, the implication is that the person being bribed gets the bennies. .."

A more critical aspect may be that of "legality" or social acceptability - since we generally attach an anti-social connotation to the word.
[Case in point: Terror wreaked on Iraq villagers by our NATO allies is NOT termed an act of 'terrorism'.]

I would like to replace "bennies" with "something of value" or "consideration".The person being 'bribed' may not get the 'bennies' directly but may indirectly get a benefit/value that (s)he wouldn't get otherwise.
A vote is something of value to a candidate.

Another example:
In most cases, the highest spenders generally win elections in USA.
Suppose that I know that you want that ambassadorship real bad and it shall be my reward to the high spenders after my successful presidential campaign. It is illegal for me to directly receive and spend $10M from you on the campaign - yet it is legal for me to know that you directly and/or indirectly spent $10M on promoting my candidacy using various legal avenues.

Reports like these from the media do not help us get an angle on that "bribe" idea:
AP, Nov 22, 2009"It is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option," said Landrieu, who won $100 million in the legislation to help her state pay the costs of health care for the poor.

These comments from Sen Landrieu do not help either:
"I have leverage now, I'm using it to the best of my ability, "
What was she 'leveraging'? What was her strategy? What was being exchanged? What are the other 58 Dem senators who were not "leveraging" - doormats?

But this seems to absolve her: The $100M was not awarded solely to her voters - to re-elect her ...
"Reid included an extra $100 million in Medicaid funding for states hit by Hurricane Katrina, which includes Louisiana."

I like "leveraging", cfukara, that is much closer to the idea of what went on.
.
I'm not interested in just totally whitewashing this, but this is clearly not GOP-level K-street pigtrough stuff - and I want to avoid false equivalence here.

In order to get a lively debate the senators need to go to the open market to realize the cost and the restrictions that come with medical insurance. With unemployment so high I am sure that everyone will have the opportunity to insure themselves without the fear of being rejected.

This is an old topic, but I'm willing to bring it up again. Sure, both Democraps and Rethuglicans are totally incompetent, but that's why the Founding Sperm-banks came up with our current system of checks and balances. Our system is intended not so much to assist progress as to prevent rampant thundering backasswardness. As bad as things are, believe me they could have been much, much worse.

53_3:

The 49% approval rating Obama suffers right now isn't just due to right wing mudslinging, it's also due to others who are firmly in the Democratic camp feeling shortchanged by the administrations' strategy of sacrificing principles to get the superfluous 9 votes need to prevent filibuster

It really can't be put any better than that.

It's not all Dems that have done this, it's the leadership and New Democrat wing of the party.
.
Democrats who are serious about health care reform like Ron Wyden or Bernie Sanders aren't responsible for this mess, it's the Senate New Democrat coalition.

...is Sanders actually an independent, albeit a true left one, as opposed to fake ones like Holy Joe L. who's flirting with the R's?

deconstructiva:
.
As hilarious as it is (in a dark comedic way), Independent Sanders is the only Senate member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.
.
The centrists in the Democratic party have such a lock on the Senate that it's literally forbidden for them to be a member of the liberal caucus.

.. it will look very damaging .."

"look" is in the eyes of the beholder. Give me that bill!

" ..letting this bill pass will assure huge Democratic losses. Imagine passing a bill which raises taxes and insurance premiums .."

Hold on: In a few weeks, the bill will not look the same in detail as it does now ..
Don't be sure what the people will do 3 years hence: Surely in 2006 you had no idea which majority party or president the good Americans would have in 2009 ..

"it's literally forbidden for them to be a member of the liberal caucus."
.
SZ, do you have a link for that? I didn't find anything with a quick Google search.
.
It is interesting to note that Senator Brown and Senator Udall were both members of the caucus when in the House but they aren't as senators.

PNNTO:
.
That's a good call. I'm asserting something as fact, when it's inference.
.
Here's a link, though, to Time.com's "Election 2002: Why The Senate Is Now Back In G.O.P. Hands" ( link ).
.
Go to each page, and use the "find" feature to search for the word "liberal", and you'll have a sense of why I say "forbidden".

Thanks SZ, I wasn't trying to "fact check" you at all, I was actually curious.
.
Frankly seeing the two who were members of the caucus in the House and the not when they joined the Senate gives you plenty of evidence.

PNNTO:
.
No, no! Fact-check away!
.
We should be fact-checking each other as much as the journos (alright, we have better track records than the journos, so maybe we can take it a little easier on each other).

I can imagine the Republicans playing that rough if they had the simple majority in the Senate.

Reality does exist, but not in the minds of the WH, Pelosi, and Reid.
.
Not even during the Great Depression was there a string of 60 - 40 votes. There has never been a time in American history where that was accomplished (that I know of).

In 1987 there was a string of 7 cloture votes on a single bill, but the vote was 51 to 44. And they eventually gave up.

Again, not saying it's likely, but is seems like it could theoretically be done, especially with the right marketing spin.

I think that what they need to do is to put it up there, and let it get filibustered. To hell with them.
.
This is considerably different than 1987, 72% of Americans want HCR, and many of the 51% who are turned off by Obama aren't right wing crackheads.
.
Most are just Americans that are fed up with inaction.
.
Now, if the Party of No were to clog Congress instead of just the airwaves and the internet, what do you think might happen then?

Why are you blaming the right-wing popular base of the out-of-power Republican party?
.
Do you seriously believe that if the Democratic party were as accountable to its base as the Republicans are to theirs, we would still be debating any of this? Do you honestly think that the reason why we don't have the fundamental change we voted for is the fault of movement conservatives?
.
Who cares what the popular right thinks or doesn't think?
.
Look at the list of members of the Senate New Democrat Coalition:

Current senators
.
* Blanche Lincoln (AR, founder)
.
* Dianne Feinstein (CA, by 2001)
.
* Thomas R. Carper (DE, by 2001; co-chair from 2003)
.
* Joe Lieberman (CT, founder)
.
* Bill Nelson (FL, by 2001)
.
* Evan Bayh (IN, founder)
.
* Mary Landrieu (LA, founder, co-chair from 2003)
.
* John Kerry (MA, from 2000[7])
.
* Debbie Stabenow (MI, by 2001)
.
* Kent Conrad (ND, from 2000)
.
* Ben Nelson (NE, by 2001)
.
* Tim Johnson (SD, from 2000)
.
* Maria Cantwell (WA, by 2001)
.
* Herb Kohl (WI, from 2000)

and tell me again just how bad for America the stupid little tea-partiers are, again?

Those who seem to be unaware - nay, not bothered much, by the lot of the 35 million starving Americans seem to be concentrated in the group often referred to as the Republicans.

Hence my peeve.
I have previously expressed my impatience at the majority Democrats who, if they had been blessed/cursed with the same level of chutzpa as Republicans in the majority, we wouldn't be having the drawn-out circus in getting significant bills and confirmations passed.

…oh wait, I forgot. There's no “inner circle” but football analogies do apply here. For serious questions like HCR, those asked by the “first team” get answers / ideas way more often than from the “second team”. Just look at this thread. Can one of the varsity players ask KT and others here these same q's? Thanks, I'd appreciate it.

kathy:
.
This is a bad bill, there's no two ways about it.
.
Whether it's better or not than doing nothing is the debate, not whether this solves our health care problem --it doesn't.
.
Here's Matt Yglesias on Ron Wyden's plan, and why it can't be considered ( Link to Yglesias )

...the reason opening the Exchange will violate the pledge to prevent anyone from losing their current coverage is that existing employer-based pools will be destabilized if people are allowed to leave them.
.
A lot of companies that currently offer group insurance would find themselves unable to continue to do so if half their employees left the plan to join an Exchange plan. They would find themselves with no choice but to stop offering insurance coverage, start offering higher wages, and send all their employees into the Exchange.
.
This isn't a "problem" with Wyden's idea. It's a good idea. Severing the link between employment and insurance would be a good idea. Giving people more choice between insurance plans would be a good idea. Giving people more control over what proportion of their total compensation comes in the form of health insurance would be a good idea. But even though it's a good idea, it's a good idea precisely because it would destabilize current arrangements and there's very little political support for doing that.
.
...there's a totally non-mysterious reason why it's not included in any of the health reform packages approved by five different congressional committees—it's totally at odds with Barack Obama's repeated promise to avoid forcing anyone who currently has insurance to change their coverage. You just can't square Wyden's idea with Obama's promise. And though Obama's promise is substantively not a great concession to make, it's absolutely central to the White House's political strategy.

If we don't have the dollars of huge populations of Americans behind national-scale price negotiations with health care providers, we're going to continue to overpay for health care state-by-state, and the choices will always be between the interests of those whose coverage is adequate and the interests of those who can't get decent health care. There will be no "American" system, there will be the jealously guarded (yet shrinking) system for those who can afford health care, and the other system, which will be parasitic in the eyes of the former's members.
.
If we don't open up the Exchange to everybody, and give everyone the choice of participating, we won't have those huge blocks of dollars on a national scale.
.
The reason we don't have a plan with an open Exchange that allows Americans to choose how to get their health care administered is because the people who would leave their employers' insurance groups are being held hostage by those who would stay. The reason why that status quo half's interests are deemed above the other half is because "Change We Can Believe In" was just a slogan.
.
Why should Bernie Sanders, the only Senator literally independent enough of the Democratic Leadership Council's stranglehold on the Democratic Party to be a member of the Progressive Caucus vote for the Senate's piss-poor version of health care "reform"?
.
Thanks for reading and considering this, kathy.

Stuart - yes, this is not a good bill, but as far as I can tell it's still better than no bill, and can be built on as the years progress. Actually, I've heard Snowe's trigger is apparently better, but I haven't followed the argument about why.

I'm pretty sure Bernie's constituents (of which I am one) want this bill, and what's good for Joe Lie. is good for Bernie. Most everybody's constituents want this bill. But I'm not ill disposed to Bernie acting as a counterweight to Blanche Lincoln to get more for the poor.

Do I remember correctly that the reason the Dems are doing this on 60 vote margins is that if they proceed with reconciliation it's too easy to overturn? As it is, I'm discouraged that there's such a lag time before it goes into effect.

Stuart - the other question is whether there's enough to salvage in conference to get to the point where it's worth voting on a final bill.
.
also, sorry for forgetting that the paragraphs don't format in replies.

I don't know about intuition, but i'm hopeful.
Also nervous.

It can be done & it should be done & it is possible. But the obstinancy and gamesplaying and lack of message control never ceases to amaze me.

Herding cats, indeed.

…right now with a real economic recovery and private sector new jobs still far away, it's hard to imagine anyone in Congress turning down money / projects for their own states.

"Instead, you get the illiterati, the religious fantasists and the Ayn Rand jihad in unholy conjunction."
.
That is poetry man, I'm starting to weep with feeling...
.
Fortunately, juxtaposed against that trinity of Morlocks we have our principled progressives (i.e. guffaw, the democratic party leadership) carrying the torch to a brighter tomorrow. Ah, where's my hankie ... or a pistol.

juniusredivivus:
.
If we were to take Burkean conservatism at its word, and accept that his version of "reform" would be enough to satisfy popular liberal complaints --even, perhaps, the complaints of Thomas Paine, as he would have probably liked-- then it might be so that correction would conserve as he envisioned.
.
It seems, though, that the law of unintended consequences would be enough to keep Burke from, say, "correcting" something like American segregation, just as he wouldn't advocate for a reform of the privileges of nobility that might bring about equality before the law.
.
But I'm not actually speaking of conservatives when I say "acceptance of the corrupt status quo", I'm speaking of centrists.

juniusredivivus

"Instead, you get the illiterati, the religious fantasists and the Ayn Rand jihad in unholy conjunction."

I should say that Oregon JC is correct, that's poetry.
.
I put it this way:

The main practical characteristic that needs to be understood about Centrism and Centrists is that, if you are in any sense of the word a political activist --even to the extent that you comment on political blogs in your spare moments, or go to your bible-based church a real lot-- they don't like you. That's it in a nutshell: they don't like politically active people trying to control their own government. They don't trust you to make the right decisions that they, the technocrats should be making for you. They trust institutions; they trust themselves. They don't trust you. They don't think that you're up to the job that citizenship in a democracy demands. They think that you should be working and shopping instead.
.
It also happens to be that professional class Centrists are scared sh!tless by the tent-revivalists, costume survivalists, antebellum Confederacy nostalgists and latter day Know Nothings who make up the Republican base. This is because they're threatened by people and popular movements in general. That's why they love to equate us with the speaking-in-tongues Pentecostals in Sarah Palin's rural Alaskan church. They think that, Left or Right, we're all nuts, and should just be out shopping for more SUV's, like normal, low-information, suburban Americans (whom they empower to ruin our political discourse every four years).

I think the Objectivist contingency are a molecule in a mountain, and have largely joined the Paulites or retired to study for midterms, but other than that quibble, it's a beautiful turn of phrase.

Well, it seems to me that Burke would have had no problem with civil rights and certainly none with ending slavery. He campaigned for a number of what one could call progressive causes: the emancipation of Catholics, the removal of trade barriers with Ireland, the abolition of the slave trade and slavery and against the privileges and excesses of the rule of the East India Company in India. He also defended the American Revolution. So I would submit that he wasn't so much of a tepid reformer. He lost his seat in parliament over Catholic emancipation after all.
.
As for the Objectivists - yes, they are a minority, but they've managed to take quite a few positions of influence in government and the media (Greenspan, for example) and their impact is out of proportion to their actual numbers. You underestimate them at your peril. Moreover, the economic understanding that they preach, although badly flawed, is becoming something like GOP orthodoxy. Don't judge how dangerous they are by the spotty teenagers who think quoting Atlas Shrugged is a logical argument.

Despite Burke's strange support of the Americans, didn't Paine write "The Rights of Man" against him?
.
As far as the Randians go, their atheism, elitism and individualism won't ever find a real home in the Republican party, especially as it becomes more and more representative of and accountable to its popular base, instead of intellectual elites.

Stuart, you surely know that Paine was defending the French Revolution from Burke, who had sharply criticized it. That doesn't make Burke any less willing to consider genuine reform, as the partial list of causes he supported, which I have already given, should establish clearly. We can go a few rounds on this one, but I don't see you establishing that a principled Burkean conservatism would be incompatible with genuine reform.
.
As for the Randians and the GOP - it's abundantly clear that the Randians will never make common cause with the Democrats, and that a Randian third party is not a realistic prospect at this time. This pushes them into the arms of the GOP - and that's where you find Ron (and Rand) Paul. I would also point out that the majority of Randian commentators seem to gravitate to the GOP perfectly happily.

One other point on Burke - his support of the Americans was not strange. He saw them as Englishmen, seeking to regain their rights, which a misguided King and Parliament had attempted to take away from them. His position was not strange at all, but perfectly consistent with his philosophy.

Well, it seems to me that Burke would have had no problem with civil rights and certainly none with ending slavery. He campaigned for a number of what one could call progressive causes: the emancipation of Catholics, the removal of trade barriers with Ireland, the abolition of the slave trade and slavery and against the privileges and excesses of the rule of the East India Company in India.
.
Agreed. Burke understood there was in fact no tradition of certain races being oppressed. (Obviously racialization is old, but no single group has consistently been racialized as inferior. Burke had some awareness of the rich heritages of Asian societies in particular.) In addition, Jim Crow, and even slavery, were actually "revolutionary" departures for America; Slavery marked a sharp decline in the status of people of African descent in America, as did segregation in the wake of Reconstruction.
.
However, he would have condemned the emancipation of groups that actually were traditionally oppressed: Women and the poor.

Just remembered that we don't have to solely rely on predictions of what Burke would have done, we can also look at what he wrote and said.
.
From a scholarly introduction to some of his works: Finally, while Burke did not take much part in the movement to abolish the slavery of African blacks in the British colonies, he did write a document, Sketch of the Negro Code, that outlined a typically Burkean plan for the gradual amelioration and eventual abolition first of the slave trade and then of slavery itself. Once again, it shows Burke's genuine concern for politically oppressed peoples. He admired and defended aristocracy, but he did so as a man who truly believed that noblesse oblige.
...
But we must notice that Burke never proposed that government should support the poor in any of those instances. Even in regard to Negro slavery, his aim was gradually to abolish the slave trade and slavery while training the slaves to learn the social and economic skills necessary for freedom, to acquire property, and thus to be able to support themselves.
.
http://www.econlib.org/library/LFBooks/Burke/brkSWv4c0.html

rose83 - I am not sure what you mean by the emancipation of the poor. If you mean their enfranchisement, I suspect Burke would have argued that those who worked hard enough could earn the franchise. He certainly recognized the misery of the poor, and presumably the imperfection of the society in which they lived. l could see him as a social reformer, legislating for better treatment of workers. He gave qualified support to parliamentary reform, but was more interested in limiting royal power.
.
As for emancipating women - the idea was not put forward until Bentham in 1817, so we don't have direct evidence for Burke's view, but I would guess that, ultimately, Burke would have supported it, once he had been convinced of female equality. Obviously, we shouldn't make Burke out to be a modern liberal, but we should recognize that his conservatism is humane, balanced, pragmatic - and open to adjustment.

Have you ever wondered why we are talking about 60 for us over here?
.
And, have you further considered that over in FOXworld, they are not talking about 60 for them?
.
Two plus two, textee...

I don't think textee does liberal subjects like mathematics, economics, or logic. Her curriculum includes: emotive rhetoric, Sarah Palin The Redeeming Victim, and Ronaldus Magnus The God who became President, and Why God Hates Everyone Else.

textee:

Here is some relief that the doctor ordered: Close your eyse and repeat the following slowly: "WE'VE got 60! WE'VE got 60!"

Feels good, eh?

U r a commernist fer sayin' such noncents!

Don't you know that those 14 carrier groups are defending the right of Americans to be denied healthcare by the corporations who employ them for minimal wages? Don't you feel a tear in your eye and a lump in your throat at the sublime beauty of late period capitalism? Have you at last no decency?

Ah, Choska, that's the trillion $ question for American society to consider bar none. Naturally, it's the one wholly ignored in Versailles on the Potomac. Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich had the temerity to do so and were treated as loons by the serious men in the room.
.
The retiring Bill Moyers had much to say last night about our current war w/out end, illustrating painful connections between LBJ's decision to escalate and Obama's impending move.
.
Transcript:
.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11202009/transcript1.html

Pfff, if the uninsured wanted healthcare, they'd join the military, duh.

I think yogi is onto something here, but let me say this as a dyed-in-the-wool blue-eyed American*:
.
We love to blow things up! Or blast 'em.

*If I was stupider, and believed that was the only kind of American there was, I'd fit in with the GOP like a slug in a snake...

It'll make a change to have someone yelling "60th!" rather than "1st!".

She had some reasons - about 100 million of them, to be precise. Not that it will save her, and it's hard to argue that she deserves re-election.

"Also, would have upped the partisan temperature even more."
.
It's true, had they gone that route I bet the Democrats wouldn't have been able to get a single Republican vote to even proceed with debate.
.
Thanks for the part one response KT. While you say the real negotiations will be done in the leaders' offices will there be anything to glean from which conferees are appointed?
.
Or is that just reading tea leaves?

KT,
...uppped the partisan temperature still more...
.
Would it do much good to point out that there is not much difference between 211F and 212F?

…KT, thanks for answering. I appreciate it. Well, if recon won't work hopefully there are other ways to secure centrist votes. Reid kissing Landrieu for her vote is one thing and fine with me, but if he has to kiss Lieberman for the final vote, I'll move to Las Vegas and try to primary him myself. (I'm trying to find a pic of The Kiss; KT, hopefully you or your teammates caught the moment.)