Borrowing an expression from the Washington Post, yes, that Washington Post, blogress Jennifer Rubin nails the Democrats’ health care endgame, well, actually, it’s their end-end-endgame:
Even Nancy Pelosi is trying to keep things vague, suggesting it may not come to this [the “Slaughter Rule”]. But it iscoming to this, because a desperate president and the equally desperate Democratic leadership fear losing, so they resort to tricks, backroom deals, and parliamentary sleights of hand. That’s in large part how the bill got to be so unpopular. Nevertheless, the Democrats seem intent on doubling down, so why not load up on the procedural gimmicks? At some point — now would be as good a time as any — saner Democratic heads may prevail and wonder why their leaders must shred the Constitution in order to pass a bill that’s supposedly such an electoral winner for their side.
Emphasis added.
As to the aforementioned Slaughter rule. Its author was against it before she was for it. What is this for the Democrats, situational politics?
Hey – I thought liberals were supposed to be “consensus builders”? Is that only as long as the consensus goes their way?
Situational politics=situational political expediency. Situational political expediency=structural lying and cheating. Structural lying and cheating=Progressive governance. Progressive governance=responding to the penumbra that emanates in the aura of the living Constitution. Responding to the penumbra that emanates in the aura of the living Constitution=The People’s Republic of Progressive Reformation and Positive Fulfillment. The People’s Republic of Progressive Reformation and Positive Fulfillment=Permanent Progressive Politically Correct Utopia of One Party and Controlled Elections. USSRA.