Senate Republicans have a counter attack ready if, despite the president's allegedly bipartisan summit, Democrats try to pass Obamacare via mis-use of the reconciliation process. While that process requires only a simple majority to pass a bill and limits debate time, it does not limit the number or content of proposed amendments to a reconciliation bill and Republicans could offer hundreds of them, forcing Democrats to vote on each one.

Continued...

On the surface this may seem like a bad idea - just postponing the inevitable and annoying the American people with a display of the meaningless gamesmanship that all too often plays out in Congress. But the display will not necessarily be meaningless as many of the amendments will force Democrats to publicly vote on such politically poisonous subjects as Guantanamo Bay and terror trials. (source) The fallout from such votes could further damage the already dim prospect of re-election for many Democratic senators in November.

In addition to the dangerous votes, this technique by Republicans could force the Senate to spend weeks or even months dealing with each amendment; time the Democrats cannot afford to be seen spending on this hugely unpopular piece of legislation. The electorate is already frustrated with the amount of attention and effort the ruling party has given over to Obamacare at the expense of other issues considered more important.

So what are the Democrats' options if they want to avoid those uncomfortable votes when the Republican amendments start flowing? There are several:

1. Get 60 senators to agree to cut off the process. This would of course require the Democrats to get at least one Republican to vote with them which is highly unlikely.

2. Seek a ruling by the parliamentarian that Republicans are filing amendments in order to stall the process. If the parliamentarian rules against the Democrats (a likely scenario as the amendments are not expressly barred), Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) could overturn the ruling but that would set a Senate precedent that amendments must be limited. (source) This tactic would be similar to the so-called nuclear option and the Democrats would have to live with it when they inevitably become the minority party in the future.

3. Withdraw the health care reform bill.

So it doesn't look promising for the Democrats. But what about the risk that this flood of amendments would solidify the Republicans' reputation as obstructionists and the "party of no"? Some believe that's not necessarily a bad thing. Representative Mike Pence (R-Indiana) recently announced that he proudly wears the "party of no" label saying, "'No' is way underrated here in Washington, DC. Sometimes 'No' is just what this town needs to hear." (source)

Certainly "no" is what the voters are saying to the Obama agenda in general and Obamacare in particular every chance they get. Would the American people penalize Senate Republicans for doing what they can, within our system of government, to send that same message? Certainly the Democrats are doing whatever they can within that same system to circumvent the will of the people.