The campaign on healthcare reform is playing out on tv now, with ads and so on. I’ve seen the increase lately so we know that “it’s on!” The positions the parties and their factions take as a vote on a bill approaches will depend on who wins the war for public opinion.

So I don’t expect the GOP to try to filibuster unless they think they already have the democrats on the run, public opinion wise. If opinion is close, they might eschew a filibuster, saying they don’t have the votes. Thus they force the democrats to pass a bill that’s all-democrat, and then the GOP can run in 2010 against whatever passes.

Unanimity on a final bill is unlikely. What we really need is unanimity opposing a GOP Filibuster, and that is possible. Maybe not with a public option, but no Democrat’s self-interest is served by being the guy liberals blame for defeat on health reform. If you’re that guy you ain’t winning a Democratic primary anytime soon.

Shay,

The Democrats don’t need a single Republican vote to pass whatever health care legislation that they wish to pass, which clearly a majority of the American public is unaware of here. It is Democrats who are blocking whatever the president wants to do. If there’s so much public support, then why haven’t they passed it already?

The filibuster-proof majority only existed for a month. Then Ted Kennedy had to go off and die. Now he’s been replaced, but Health Care has to be paid for so it has to go through the Conservative Finance Committee.

And that takes awhile.

The GOP holds 40 seats in the senate. That makes them quite relevant unless the democratic party can achieve unanimity. Who wants to bet the democrats will achieve unanimity? Anyone? Bueller?

That does not make the Republican Party relevant to politics. If serving as a foil for the Democratic Party is the only way to appear relevant, the the even more irrelevant than most people believe.

Any Republican in the Senate who votes with the Democrats is setting themselves up to serve as the scapegoat. for any future failures. Any Republican vote gives the Democrats the excuse that they had to adjust the bill to get that Republican vote and that is why it is over budget, under performing, etc.

They’re relevant because a couple votes from them could make up for the couple votes that the democrats won’t give. They’re relevant because they still represent rural people, who most likely are under or not insured or don’t have adequate access to health care.

The only question on health care is what the Democrats in Congress and the Administration want to do and what they willing to take the blame for.

Generally speaking, do you strongly favor, somewhat favor, somewhat oppose or strongly oppose the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and the congressional Democrats?

If you can find bias there, well, you truly are a magician.

Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.

I guess Rasmussen is just part of the VRWC.

But I have reached the point that I have to assume that a Republican candidate in the general election (just by virtue of having made it thru the party primary successfully) is probably going to be so extremely conservative that the Democrat may well be closer to my positions on the issues. At least, until I see something specific to lead me to believe that an individual Republican candidate is actually a sensible human being. And there certainly are some out there . . . but it increasingly appears that they have to get d*mn lucky to make it thru the filter of the Republican primary.

I would like to see Ron Paul denounce Glenn Beck. I wonder if he has lost some balls since he has gotten a lot of attention lately and his son is running for senate. Beck was against Dr. Paul when it counted.