I actually don't think the fact that Judd Gregg supported using the 50-vote reconciliation process for ANWR but opposes using it for health reform is, on its face, a contradiction. Unless you're prepared to argue that supporting reconciliation for any legislation means consistency requires that you support it for all legislation, I'm not sure where this gets us. Health reform is different than oil drilling! Bigger and more complex! That said, I think Gregg's position is, in fact, hypocrisy. He supported a rule requiring bare majority when that would maximize his power and opposed it when that would maximize his power. It just can't be proven. But that's the problem with using procedural rules to change the voting requirements in the Senate. Filibusterers get to hide behind the hallowed importance of unlimited debate when they're really just forcing a supermajority to pass legislation. Opponents of reconciliation -- which limits debate to 20 hours -- get to argue that we need longer debate when, again, they're really just forcing a supermajority to pass legislation. But I'm for debate! And in particular, I'm for a debate on the question of how many votes Senate legislation should require. If it's 60, then make that the rule. if it's 50, then make that the rule. If it's 55, or 57, or 53, or 31, then write it into the rulebook. But enough of this parliamentary calvinball. PARLIAMENTARY CALVINBALL.
I actually don't think the fact that Judd Gregg supported using the 50-vote reconciliation process for ANWR but opposes using it for health reform is, on its face, a contradiction. Unless you're prepared to argue that supporting reconciliation for any legislation means consistency requires that you support it for all legislation, I'm not sure where this gets us. Health reform is different than oil drilling! Bigger and more complex! That said, I think Gregg's position is, in fact, hypocrisy. He supported a rule requiring bare majority when that would maximize his power and opposed it when that would maximize his power. It just can't be proven. But that's the problem with using procedural rules to change the voting requirements in the Senate. Filibusterers get to hide behind the hallowed importance of unlimited debate when they're really just forcing a supermajority to pass legislation. Opponents of reconciliation -- which limits debate to 20 hours -- get to argue that we need longer debate when, again, they're really just forcing a supermajority to pass legislation. But I'm for debate! And in particular, I'm for a debate on the question of how many votes Senate legislation should require. If it's 60, then make that the rule. if it's 50, then make that the rule. If it's 55, or 57, or 53, or 31, then write it into the rulebook. But enough of this parliamentary calvinball. 
