McCain: No More Republican/Democrat Co-operation

[Sionnach Glic]

Democrats shouldn't expect much cooperation from Republicans the rest of this year, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned Monday.

McCain and another Republican senator decried the effect health reform legislation has had on the Senate, a day after the House passed the upper chamber's bill.

GOP senators emerged Monday to caution that the health debate had taken a toll on the institution, warning of little work between parties the rest of this year.

"There will be no cooperation for the rest of the year," McCain said during an interview Monday on an Arizona radio affiliate. "They have poisoned the well in what they've done and how they've done it."

The Senate is set to take up a bill under budget reconciliation rules that would make a series of changes to its larger health bill, which the House passed Sunday night and President Barack Obama expects to sign into law on Tuesday.

During the months of debate, Republicans have claimed they have been shut out of the process. Democrats, for their part, had invited some GOP participation in the debate, but said that many of the Republican ideas on the bill were meant to be dilatory, if not outright "obstructionist."

Cooperation between parties usually isn't paramount in election years like 2010, with senators jockeying for campaign positioning. But some GOP members said the character of the Senate had changed by virtue of the process used on the health bill.

"In my opinion, the institution of the Congress has been fundamentally harmed," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), pointing to the process Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) used to craft the final health bill.

Still, Gregg acknowledged that voters' concerns about the health bill and the processes used to pass it might have abated by November.

"There will be other events in this nation which capture the attention of the American people," he said Monday during an appearance on CNBC. "So it's very possible that people will not be as focused on this by next November."

Update, 3:17 p.m.: Reid spokesman Jim Manley released the following statement:

For someone who campaigned on 'Country First' and claims to take great pride in bipartisanship, it's absolutely bizarre for Senator McCain to tell the American people he is going to take his ball and go home until the next election. He must be living in some parallel universe because the fact is, with very few exceptions, we've gotten very little cooperation from Senate Republicans in recent years.

At a time when our economy is suffering and we're fighting two wars, the American people need Senator McCain and his fellow Republicans to start working with us to confront the challenges facing our country-not reiterating their constant opposition to helping working families when they need it most.

What a spectacular idea.

[Tyyr]

To a degree the Republicans have a point. Most of the bipartisanship was invitations to fall into line and agree with the democrats, not actually present ideas and debate. That said the Republicans were nothing but obstructionist. They did nothing to present their own ideas, own bill, own solutions, instead spending all their time crying about what the democrats were doing and how it was going to destroy the country. Neither side is innocent, both are assholes.

This though... I cannot believe I actually agree with Reid but this really is a grade school pout fit.

[Mikey]

"Take my ball and go home" is exactly what I thought of it, too, and McCain is the last person on the right of the aisle form whom I expected this.

Although, the watering-down of his "maverick" image began about 3 months before the presidential campaign, and finished with him as a simpering GOP lapdog, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised. The GOP could have taken this opportunity to really look like healers and rebuilders without too much effort... but, they decided to go this way instead.

[sunnyside]

Now hold on. While they should have explained it a bit more, there is a fundamental change here.

I don't know if those outside the US have been hearing much of the drama about the "reconciliation" process. But the issue is that through abuse of the vague area and some loopholes in the reconciliation process, here's how cooperation with the democrats should be expected to play out:

1. Democrats, no longer having the needed majority in the Senate to outright pass most bills, could reach out with an actual bipartisan bill that a few Republicans vote for

2. The Democrats, using the exact same process they did this weekend, than change whatever the fuck they want in the bill and it becomes law.

Therefore, until someone fixes the loophole, which the Democrats are wildly unlikely to do anytime soon since it favors them, it means that any cooperation at all is just handing them a blank check to do whatever they want.

How can you expect anybody to cooperate in an environment like that?

[Mikey]

A bill can't be changed once it goes to presidential review - or after a version of the bill has been passed. If "whatever the f**k they want in the bill" is changed, it must go through the floor again.

[Sionnach Glic]

I don't know if those outside the US have been hearing much of the drama about the "reconciliation" process.

Pretty much jack shit. It's of no interest to anyone outside the US. I only know about this stuff from browsing boards composed mainly of Americans.

[Aaron]

Yeah it's mostly a curiosity here or a "ha ha look at those fools," type thing here.

[sunnyside]

A bill can't be changed once it goes to presidential review - or after a version of the bill has been passed. If "whatever the f**k they want in the bill" is changed, it must go through the floor again.

False. Changing the bill after a version had been passed is what JUST HAPPENED, and, using a similar process, you could change a law after the president has passed it.

The point of the process was to allow for altering budgets in programs and laws with a 50+1 vote to keep things running, without the usual requirements for debate or a 60% majority vote. However the issue now is that the Democrats have demonstrated that they're willing to jam about anything through the process.

Of course the further they bend the rules, the more likely there will be a legal snag or that the supreme court will get involved. But there is plenty of room for a good screwing over of concessions in a bipartisan bill.

Actually some of the democrats got screwed over this time around, as I understand it.

Basically polls indicated that the majority of voters didn't support the bill in their specific local districts, but they were given piles of pork to get their vote. Heaps of money tend to make the local voters happier.

However, for some of them, the pork got trimmed off when the process was used to pass the bill.

So now, they passed an unpopular bill and aren't bringing home the bacon either. I've got a feeling things will be ugly for them in the next election.

[Aaron]

Man, I would pay good money to watch Obama do that whole thing Bush did where he wrote in exceptions to laws. You know the stuff folks flipped a lid over.

Imagine the uproar if he wrote in Universal HC or something.

[Mikey]

The point of the process was to allow for altering budgets in programs and laws with a 50+1 vote to keep things running, without the usual requirements for debate or a 60% majority vote. However the issue now is that the Democrats have demonstrated that they're willing to jam about anything through the process.

This process is sanctioned, not illicit, so my statement wasn't false. However, calm down; your point was precisely what I was getting at. The usage of that loophole, legal though it may be, provided the GOP a perfect opportunity to make themselves look fantastic. Instead, they made themselves (well, McCain made them) look like toddlers about an hour late for their nap.

[sunnyside]

The republicans do need to hire some people to help them with making soundbites the same way they have speech writiers.

You cannot expect the American public to, understand...much.

So you need to somehow get the concept of "If we cooperate with them on anything, they are free to change the deal on us and we expect them to do so" and compress it .

I'm sure that's what they meant in the quotes above of "They have poisened the well" and "the institution of the Congress has been fundamentally harmed".

But everyone here seems to have not understood, or otherwise felt they were simply pouting, instead of being in a position where they are simply unable to negotiate or reach agreements, since anything they gained in an agreement or negotiation can be taken away if the Democrats want to. And, especially when written that way, I expect many readers of that article would feel the same way.

[Aaron]

So the Dems could have written any bill they wanted and got away with it? Is that the gist of this?

[sunnyside]

So the Dems could have written any bill they wanted and got away with it? Is that the gist of this?

It would seem so.

But like I said they're exploiting a grey area. The further they bend things, the more likely there is to be a challenge, and the more likely it is to succeed.

But selective rewriting of clauses seems like it'd fly, especially if you can somehow make it look like the changes are related to the projects budget.

[Mikey]

So the Dems could have written any bill they wanted and got away with it? Is that the gist of this?

Not quite. They couldn't, for example, add a pork-belly rider and just let it fly. But certain selective changes - and I believe there is actually a limit on the percentage of wording changed - can be made and passed with a simple majority rather than a two-thirds approval.

[Aaron]

So not enough to have an UHC style system.