I haven't blogged much in recent days because frankly, I don't even know where to start. The Obamastein monster presents wide-ranging implications--real and imagined, that make it hard to be succinct.

A few weeks ago, I mused that the Democrats were not deluded into believing that Obamacare was going to rescue them electorally. Andrew McCarthy at the NRO echos that point over the weekend, but while I considered that they were saving their army for later battles, McCarthy (and apparently Rush Limbaugh) think its because the Democrats think that healthcare is a kind of political super weapon that will make them the natural governing party for generations to come.

More on that in another post. What interests me at the moment are the lengths to which Democrats are willing to go to in order to 'get it done'.

Let's be clear about this--reconciliation is a well-established parliamentary rule used in the Senate since 1985 when Robert Byrd proposed it. Its a kind of very specific compromise between the exigencies of keeping the government running, and respecting the rights of the minority. Only legislation that principally affects federal revenues is suitable for the reconciliation process, but how does one interpret that?

There's the rub.

It get's interpreted by a bureaucrat, the Senate Parliamentarian who gives it a thumbs up or down. Wouldn't you hate to be that guy right about now? No doubt the Democrats will threaten him with death of loved ones if he doesn't play ball, but in theory at least, he could look at the healthcare bill and say, "Are you kidding me?"

Then of course, there is the problem of getting the votes in both House and Senate to even get that far. If you're a blue dog Democrat, the call has come, as it inevitably does, to fall on your sword so that liberals can dine at the trough. I don't think that's as much of a problem as it might seem. Given the choice of a lucrative sinecure or spending years in the Congressional wilderness without seniority or portfolio, the sellout is an attractive proposition.

The real problem is the precedent, of which Democrats will soon find themselves on the wrong end. Republicans used reconciliation to pass tax cuts and other revenue-related legislation, but there would be little incentive for them to restrain themselves if it becomes clear that the Democrat paid no price for ending the Senate's role as a deliberative body. We would soon find ourselves in a cauldron of political instability as every few years would see the country wrenching back and forth between extremes in policy. I've been there done that, and its devastating for the economic consequences alone. In our case, it could be a lot worse, because the political instability would simply be symptomatic of a social and cultural instability.

Ultimately, the real solution to this problem is for Republicans to run on a detailed health-care platform that is realistic, appealing, cost-effective and consistent with American values of self-sufficiency and independence. When they win big in November, they'll be able to legitimately claim a mandate to implement their vision of health-care and thus replace Obamastein with a sensible alternative.