Nathan Newman wrote:
>Ephemeral "moving bills along" don't meet any standard of serious
>analysis.
-Nathan, my info comes from someone who knows the process and issue -very very well. It may not meet your standard of "serious analysis," -but I think what's really wrong is that it doesn't conform to your -picture of the Democrats.
No, it doesn't conform to my definition of analysis period. I asked a question-- since Daschle has power under the rules to appoint the conference committee, why hasn't he? He doesn't need a vote by the Democratic caucus to appoint the conference committee, so what is stopping him?
If your source can't answer those basic questions, it's not analysis, it's just speculation.
I am singularly unimpressed by people "in the know" explaining how Congress works when they talk about personalities and so on. It's usually singularly uninformative.
So again-- folks on this list have been talking about the imminent passage of the bankruptcy law for two years, thereby proving the malfeasance of the Democrats, yet that imminent passage never happens. My model has been predicting procedural delay all along, which has been confirmed, while your model would have dictated an immediate conference committee after passage in the Senate. The conference committee never happened.
So what evidence do you have to support your model other than ephemeral "moving the bill along" gossip. To repeat, why hasn't Daschle appointed people to the conference committee?
-- Nathan Newman