As turmoil swirls around the House-Senate Conference (*or lack thereof….) may we not profitably wonder whether the identity of the “target audience” for the messaging that is without peradventure in progress is immediately obvious?

Assume, arguendo, that Prez recognizes the policy deficiencies inherent in the Senate Bill as emasculated by that Mozart of Mohels, Joe “let me snip that dick for you” Lieberman.

We continue as a national audience to take the public tug of war at face value, and to reason therefrom that the definition of “success” will be the mustering of 60 cloture votes.

If so, then the perp who is the target of the manipulation is Joe.

But what if the target is votes 41-50 for cloture under the reconciliation instruction?

They need to be convinced that the House has drawn a drop dead line in the sand (Award to Nacy Pelosi for convincingly portraying Sipowicz), and that the policy interests vindicated by that line are inherently sympathetic.

I have been struggling with cognitive dissonance since even before the inauguration, but I remain cynical enough to believe that, of all possible truths, what we will get cannot be what we see.

To those who are rolling on the floor, laughing at my persistent pony search, this question:

If, indeed, the reconciliation instruction as inserted in the two bodies’ rule back in April was not meant to be in fact mobilized, why was it not barained away at some point in the negotiations with Nelson and Lieberman?

It was worth a lot as a chip. Rahm does not walk away with a losing hand because he forgot about a pocket full of chips, does he?

*As I recall, a conference committee requires appointment of conferees by each caucus and it was always supposed to be the Dems ace-in-the-whole, (had they but the stones)) to shut the Bush Coup down, be simply delaying the appointment of their share of a conference committee..

The thugs, of course, have the stones.