Tomorrow's Vote in the House (vote postponed)

[Magox]

Agreed. There is a need. There are the means. There needs to be a bipartisan solution.

 

Glad to see that, it appears others such as grinreaper and a few others are open to this as well. The problem is there needs to be enough political cover for those that are willing to buck the the base of either party that are willing to compromise.

[Magox]

Mulvaney, current white house budget director, one of the founders of the Freedom Caucus, who I happen to believe is a very bright man, sounds off:

 

White House budget director Mick Mulvaney on Sunday lamented that the latest push to repeal and replace the Affordable Care act had failed because Washington was "lot more rotten" than the Trump administration had thought.

Though Mulvaney, a former South Caroline representative and House Freedom Caucus member, emphasized that there was "plenty of blame to go around" as to why the American Health Care Act did not get a successful vote, he said the winner was clear.

"I think what happened is that Washington won," he said. "I think if there's anything that's disappointing and sort of an educational process to the Trump administration was that this place was a lot more rotten than we thought that it was, and that I thought it was."

He added: "It's sort of the powers that be in Washington that won."

Mulvaney also expressed surprise and frustration that the hardline conservative Freeedom Caucus opted to continue their opposition to the bill.

"I've been here for six years," the OMB director said. "I know the Freedom Caucus. I helped found it. I never thought it would come to this."

 

 

 

 

That's the confounding thing about it all, all this vote did was advance the ball on over to the Senate. It would have been debated for months and guys like Cruz, Lee and Paul would have had ample opportunity to huddle together with the Freedom Caucus to try to make reasonable and realistic adjustments to the bill but rather than just let it die. Now as a result of their decisions, there is a very real possibility that one of three things will most likely happen. A) Trump and leadership cuts many of them out and looks to go the bipartisan route, which means the end product would be significantly less what they would have gotten if they had gone this route or B) The Freedom Caucus realizes that they overplayed their hands and are willing to negotiate in good faith and make concessions that they weren't willing to do so to begin with. or C) Obamacare stays with a few reforms to improve it.

 

Either way, The Freedom Caucus will end up getting a much worse bill than what they could have gotten.

 

There is no bill that can pass the house and Senate that the DC Conservative class of Heritage, Club for Growth and Freedom Caucus were pushing for.

 

I found this to be interesting.

 

in a conference room in the Rayburn House Office Building, the group met that evening and made a secret pact. No member would commit his vote before consulting with the entire group — not even if Trump himself called to ask for an on-the-spot commitment. The idea, hatched by Freedom Caucus Vice Chairman Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), was to bind them together in negotiations and ensure the White House or House leaders could not peel them off one by one.

Twenty-eight of the group's roughly three dozen members took the plunge.

Three weeks later, Republican leaders, as many as 25 votes short of passage, were forced to pull their bill from the House floor.

“This is a defining moment for our nation, but it's also a defining moment for the Freedom Caucus,” said group leader Mark Meadows about a week before the doomed vote was scheduled. “I don't think there's a more critical vote for the Freedom Caucus than this."

The unpublicized pledge sowed the seeds of Friday’s collapse of the Republican Party’s seven-year campaign to replace Obamacare with its own vision of health care reform. While Trump and leadership were able to win over some Freedom Caucus members, the parties to the pact refused to budge without a green light from their peers, despite receiving one concession after another.

Their resistance — along with the objections of a handful of moderates — stymied Trump and Ryan in the first major legislative gambit between the policy expert and political novice. The Freedom Caucus stared down its own commander in chief and won — delivering a black eye to his early presidency and potentially damaging the rest of his agenda.

“Democrats are smiling in D.C. that the Freedom Caucus, with the help of Club For Growth and Heritage, have saved Planned Parenthood & Ocare!” Trump tweeted Sunday morning.

“They [were] basically saying, ‘We’re going to find all the guys who support it, and we’re all going to hold hands and be a ‘no' on something,’” said a senior Republican source. “It’s ironic because these are the guys who say, ‘I don’t turn my voting card over to leadership. I am the only guy who controls my voting card.' But then they do this stuff, where they say, ‘I can’t because my group is a no.’

 

 

 

Their House colleagues are furious with them for, as Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) put it, “deserting the team.” Some top White House officials say they learned their lesson about trying to negotiate with the group.

“How can [Freedom Caucus members] go back and face their constituents if they’re the reason we didn’t get the most significant entitlement reform in a generation, if they’re the reason we didn’t keep our promise for repealing Obamacare?” Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) said shortly before Ryan pulled the bill. “It defies to me to understand where they’re coming from."

 

[grinreaper]

 

Glad to see that, it appears others such as grinreaper and a few others are open to this as well. The problem is there needs to be enough political cover for those that are willing to buck the the base of either party that are willing to compromise.

The problem is Ryan could reintroduce Obamacare and call it something else and the Dems would call it horrific. Their complete obtuseness is disgusting.

[Magox]

The problem is Ryan could reintroduce Obamacare and call it something else and the Dems would call it horrific. Their complete obtuseness is disgusting.

 

Current state of affair really sucks right now, Trump is seen as a wholly unacceptable partner to work with from the perspective of the Democratic party. The Democrats are about as red hot as the Republicans were in 2010. Their base is in no mood to hand Trump a victory, just like Republicans were with Obama., just that it is even worse now than then., which was pretty !@#$ing bad.

 

There really needs to be a one on one outreach to lots of Democrats in the house and Senate and talk with them, and see if there really is a compromise to be had. Also, if Trump is truly willing to work with Democrats than he needs to say publicly that he is willing to work with Democrats and spell out some of the popular things that Republicans are proposing and compromises that they are willing to make. Schumer and Pelosi have both stated that they are willing to work with Republicans, I think that they are full of ****, but he can call their bluff in a very public manner. There is a compromise to be had that can appease reasonable people from both sides of the aisle.

 

You can definitely introduce some market based reforms and keep the main tenants of Obamacare in place, such as financial assistance and covering people with Pre existing conditions. I don't think they should do that now, they need to try to get him a tax reform bill to pass, I don't think it will be as comprehensive as they had hoped because of this first bill failing, which took out nearly a Trillion dollars worth of cuts in that bill that would have helped fund the tax reform. The Freedom Caucus and a few others really screwed up the agenda for 2017 and now Trump and leadership will have to see how they can navigate around the carnage of the failed bill.

[grinreaper]

 

Current state of affair really sucks right now, Trump is seen as a wholly unacceptable partner to work with from the perspective of the Democratic party. The Democrats are about as red hot as the Republicans were in 2010. Their base is in no mood to hand Trump a victory, just like Republicans were with Obama., just that it is even worse now than then., which was pretty !@#$ing bad.

 

There really needs to be a one on one outreach to lots of Democrats in the house and Senate and talk with them, and see if there really is a compromise to be had. Also, if Trump is truly willing to work with Democrats than he needs to say publicly that he is willing to work with Democrats and spell out some of the popular things that Republicans are proposing and compromises that they are willing to make. Schumer and Pelosi have both stated that they are willing to work with Republicans, I think that they are full of ****, but he can call their bluff in a very public manner. There is a compromise to be had that can appease reasonable people from both sides of the aisle.

 

You can definitely introduce some market based reforms and keep the main tenants of Obamacare in place, such as financial assistance and covering people with Pre existing conditions. I don't think they should do that now, they need to try to get him a tax reform bill to pass, I don't think it will be as comprehensive as they had hoped because of this first bill failing, which took out nearly a Trillion dollars worth of cuts in that bill that would have helped fund the tax reform. The Freedom Caucus and a few others really screwed up the agenda for 2017 and now Trump and leadership will have to see how they can navigate around the carnage of the failed bill.

The R's allowed Obama to have his honeymoon and didn't fight him just to fight him, but objected to his actual agenda. His Supreme Court nominees were approved with a bipartisan vote. Look at what the Dems are doing with Gorsuch and tell me the Dems have one ounce of integrity.

[Magox]

The R's allowed Obama to have his honeymoon and didn't fight him just to fight him, but objected to his actual agenda. His Supreme Court nominees were approved with a bipartisan vote. Look at what the Dems are doing with Gorsuch and tell me the Dems have one ounce of integrity.

 

Sure, I agree with that, but that isn't really what I'm trying to get at. I'm just trying to figure out what a possible deal could look like. It's pretty clear to me that trying to get everything done in a purely partisan basis is not only unwise but nearly impossible. There are too many divisions within the GOP and not enough room for margin for that to happen. They need to try to get bipartisan consensus to pass things, plus the odds that a future Democratic party undoing such things become much less because it was done on a bipartisan basis. Things that are very important to people such as healthcare, if done on a partisan way is destined to be undone or at the very least dramatically changed.

[nkreed]

The R's allowed Obama to have his honeymoon and didn't fight him just to fight him, but objected to his actual agenda. His Supreme Court nominees were approved with a bipartisan vote. Look at what the Dems are doing with Gorsuch and tell me the Dems have one ounce of integrity.

Why is it always the D's lack integrity? How many open Federal judge positions are out there because of the R's refusal to work bipartisan(ly?)? I'm not looking to put one group in front of another, I'm just stating that it seems hypocritical to say it's all the D's fault and they lack any integrity.

[DC Tom]

Why is it always the D's lack integrity? How many open Federal judge positions are out there because of the R's refusal to work bipartisan(ly?)? I'm not looking to put one group in front of another, I'm just stating that it seems hypocritical to say it's all the D's fault and they lack any integrity.

 

It's because the Democrats are such blatantly obvious hypocrites.

 

Republicans are more subtle about it. But they're bigger !@#$s.

[snafu]

 

 

WIth Trump's tweet this morning and now Priebus saying this

 

 

 

 

 

I'm hopeful. This would indicate that they would look to cut out the purists and most intransigent of forces from both sides of the aisle. The way it should be.

 

 

If they'd only work on The third part of that jackass Ryan plan first -- like Obama should have done 7 years ago. That would be a good start.

[grinreaper]

Why is it always the D's lack integrity? How many open Federal judge positions are out there because of the R's refusal to work bipartisan(ly?)? I'm not looking to put one group in front of another, I'm just stating that it seems hypocritical to say it's all the D's fault and they lack any integrity.

You'll have to ask them. Did the R's filibuster to prevent a vote for these nominees?

[DC Tom]

You'll have to ask them. Did the R's filibuster to prevent a vote for these nominees?

 

Allow me to preempt...

 

"But the Republicans refused to even put the Garland nomination to a vote, which was unconstitutional!"

 

No, it's not. How the Senate "advises and consents" is exclusively up to the Senate; their only constitutional obligation is to physically accept the nomination from whoever couriers it from the White House.

[nkreed]

You'll have to ask them. Did the R's filibuster to prevent a vote for these nominees?

I see​, using any means possible is just bad form. Now I get it.

 

Allow me to preempt...

 

"But the Republicans refused to even put the Garland nomination to a vote, which was unconstitutional!"

 

No, it's not. How the Senate "advises and consents" is exclusively up to the Senate; their only constitutional obligation is to physically accept the nomination from whoever couriers it from the White House.

Nope wasn't even going there. I just really wanted to know why most everyone's stance is always D's are terrible. It's true that all politicians are terrible, just say it as it is. They all use whatever they can to fulfill their agenda.

[GoBills808]

 

Allow me to preempt...

 

"But the Republicans refused to even put the Garland nomination to a vote, which was unconstitutional!"

 

No, it's not. How the Senate "advises and consents" is exclusively up to the Senate; their only constitutional obligation is to physically accept the nomination from whoever couriers it from the White House.

The road to hell is paved with this kind of politithink.

[grinreaper]

Why is it always the D's lack integrity? How many open Federal judge positions are out there because of the R's refusal to work bipartisan(ly?)? I'm not looking to put one group in front of another, I'm just stating that it seems hypocritical to say it's all the D's fault and they lack any integrity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Kagan_Supreme_Court_nomination

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor_Supreme_Court_nomination

 

Please take note of the vote counts.

[Benjamin Franklin]

The problem is Ryan could reintroduce Obamacare and call it something else and the Dems would call it horrific. Their complete obtuseness is disgusting.

And the Reps would laud it. It's a stupidity roundup. Two parties are as dysfunctional as can be. I truly think there are cracks forming. It will get uglier before it gets better but some voices are speaking up. That's a good sign.

The R's allowed Obama to have his honeymoon and didn't fight him just to fight him, but objected to his actual agenda. His Supreme Court nominees were approved with a bipartisan vote. Look at what the Dems are doing with Gorsuch and tell me the Dems have one ounce of integrity.

McConnell said his party's primary mission when Obama got elected was to make sure Obama didn't get a second term.

 

And Merrick Garland might have a thought on the nomination process.

 

Let's not pretend any party is in the right here and putting us before party.

 

Yet we re elect congressman at a rate that would make a tenured professor jealous of their job security.

[DC Tom]

The road to hell is paved with this kind of politithink.

 

Tell it to the Supreme Court. They're the ones that decided that.

 

Note that I don't agree with the **** the Republicans pulled with Garland - it was juvenile, and their rationale of "The next president should fill the seat" was completely unconstitutional bull ****. But procedurally they were entirely within their constitutional rights to shelve the nomination without hearings or a vote.

[ExiledInIllinois]

"Thanks conservatives... You just kept Planned Parenthood alive!"

 

~Welcome to Grade 3, I will be your teacher. You can call me Mr. Donald.

[grinreaper]

And the Reps would laud it. It's a stupidity roundup. Two parties are as dysfunctional as can be. I truly think there are cracks forming. It will get uglier before it gets better but some voices are speaking up. That's a good sign.

 

McConnell said his party's primary mission when Obama got elected was to make sure Obama didn't get a second term.

 

And that was based on objections to his agenda.

And Merrick Garland might have a thought on the nomination process.

 

It was the Dems idea that the voters should choose which President gets to do the nominating.

Let's not pretend any party is in the right here and putting us before party.

 

Yet we re elect congressman at a rate that would make a tenured professor jealous of their job security.

[DC Tom]

"Thanks conservatives... You just kept Planned Parenthood alive!"

 

~Welcome to Grade 3, I will be your teacher. You can call me Mr. Donald.

 

That's a cutting observation, but better suited to come from some third-rate blogger than the POTUS.

 

 

It was the Dems idea that the voters should choose which President gets to do the nominating.

 

 

 

And it was a stupid !@#$ing idea then.

 

Let's not confuse "Hoisting the hypocritical Democrats on their own petard of cognitive dissonance" with proper governance of the country. The Republicans espoused a principle they knew was total bull ****, for no other reason than to poke the Democrats in the eye with it. As much as the Democrats may have deserved it, it still makes the Senate Republicans grade-A ****heads.

[Tiberius]

Guess Ryan's plan to voucherize Medicare has been stopped cold. Bad old Democrats!