Time to 'pull the plug on Grassley.' He says he won't vote for bill that gets few Republican votes.

Sen. Grassley on Health Care: 'The Government Is A Predator'
By Rachel Slajda - August 17, 2009, 11:17AM

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) dug in against a public option today, telling MSNBC this morning that "the government is a predator."

"When you have the government running something, the government is not a fair competitor," he said. "The government is a predator, not a competitor."

Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee and key Republican negotiator on the health care reform bill, said he wouldn't vote for a plan without widespread Republican support.

"I'm negotiating for Republicans and if I can't negotiate something that gets more than four Republicans, I'm not a good representative of my party," he said. "It isn't a good deal if i can't sell my product to more Republicans."

more here...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/2009/08/sen-grassley-on-health-care-the-government-is-a-predator.php?ref=fpb

Chuck Grassley's Dispiriting Bipartisanship

Spent a few hours today as one of the panelist's on Dylan Ratigan's "Morning Meeting." Toward the end of the second hour, Chuck Grassley hopped on the program to talk death panels and bipartisanship. It sounded like bipartisanship dying.

First, Grassley did not speak like Lindsey Graham or Olympia Snowe. He did not come onto the program determined to present a reasonable face and comfort liberals, conservatives and independents alike. Instead, he railed against "government-run health care" and the "Pelosi health-care bill." He talked about bureaucrats and exploding deficits. He sounded like a House conservative giving a stump speech. Grassley presumably leaves his stemwinders behind when he's with the Gang of Six. But this was not a comforting sign. This was not a unifying performance.

Second, Chuck Todd asked Grassley whether he'd vote for the bill if it was a good piece of policy that he'd crafted but that couldn't attract more than a handful of Republican votes. "Certainly not," replied Grassley. Todd tried again, clarifying that this was legislation Grassley liked, and thought would move the ball forward, but was getting bogged down due to partisanship. Grassley held firm. If a good bill cannot attract Republican support, then it is not a good bill, he argued.

Grassley, in other words, is working backward from the votes. If the Gang of Six reaches a compromise that the Senate Republicans don't support, Grassley will abandon that compromise, regardless of the fact that he's the guy who built it. The Gang of Six, in other words, falls apart if it can't assure a vote of 76. Since it seems virtually impossible that such a vote will manifest, it seems similarly unlikely that Grassley will sign his name to the final bill. And Grassley, remember, was willing to say all this publicly. His version of bipartisanship is strikingly partisan.

By Ezra Klein | August 17, 2009; 1:34 PM

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/chuck_grassleys_dispiriting_bi.html