Senators who want to use a filibusters to block consideration of a bill would have to actually debate the issues on the Senate floor under a "Mr. Smith bill" introduced today by Sen. Frank Lautenberg.
"Filibusters should happen on Capitol Hill, not from the Capital Grille. If any of my colleagues feel strongly enough about a bill or nomination to stop all work in the Senate, they should have no problem standing on the Senate floor to explain their opposition to the American public," said Lautenberg, D-N.J. It was the Dhimmicrats who first started doing filibusters long distance ...
While actor Jimmy Stewart immortalized the filibuster in the film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," the Senate no longer operates that way.
Currently, most Senate business operates on "unanimous consent," where a single member can block the chamber from considering a measure or nomination without stating a reason.
To get around an objection, the majority leader wants has to invoke cloture to "end debate," even if the objection has never been stated publicly on the floor. Cloture requires 60 votes, and once granted, several days must pass again before a final vote can occur.
Under Lautenberg's bill, the leader could require when making a cloture motion that anyone objecting to a final vote come to the floor and remain there discussing their objection. Once the speaker or speaker gives up the floor, a vote could be held immediately.
Of course, the rule change would be subject to a 60-vote cloture procedure, and would require 67 votes to pass. How ironic!
The bar would be lowered significantly at the beginning of the next Congress in January 2011, however. At that point, only a simple majority will be required to change the Senate's standing rules. In other words, the change could occur just as the Dems slide into minority status and really, really, really need the filibuster bad in order to stop the repeal of Obamacare.
Not likely, but wouldn't that be delicious?
Posted by: Mike ||
03/24/2010 14:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Foster line on this was what came to mind, and also, I can't get over how it's Frank Lautenberg who is making this suggestion. Isn't he sick with some sort of nonlethal but debilitating cancer?
The Democratic side of the aisle is just choked with ruinous relics like Byrd, who are propped up by their aides and vote proxies and kept in a cryo chamber when not needed.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
03/24/2010 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Lautenberg was also illegally (with a corrupt NJ Supreme Court's backing) installed after the filing deadline when Bob "The Torch" Torricelli was embroiled in scandal and cratering in the polls. Frank outta be hiding in shame, but Dems don't feel shame and embarrassment like psychologically normal humans do
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/24/2010 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
I was reading this article in the Washington Times by Dr. Milton Wolf who is a Kansas radiologist. You know, I think he actually talked to you and contacted your office. He writes that there's "a scheme in this bill" that "actually penalizes your primary care physician if he is in the top 10 percent of doctors who refer patients to specialists, no matter how valid the reason." That brings up questions of rationing. That brings up questions of quality health care. Is that still in there?
Moore answers:
I don't know. And I will find out. But I don't know if that's in there. This is, as you know, a multi-hundred, several hundred pages of bill, but uh, uh, I'll check with Dr. Wolf directly too and talk to him and find out what, what, what his concern is because I don't know that.
What arrogance or blind ideology compels a man to allow the government takeover of the finest health care delivery system in the world without even reading the bill? . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
03/24/2010 13:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
All he likely knows is 1) Pelosi told him to do it, or else. And 2) Page 158 specifically exempts him, his staff, and their family members from this fiasco.
#5
Dennis Moore is retiring after this term. His seat will go to a republican. The Tea Party group in his district is very active since he is considered an embarrasement to an otherwise conservative state.
The war among pro-lifers over health care reform is worsening, not easing, in the wake of the passage of health care reform: Michigan Rep. Bart Stupak, leader of a key Democratic bloc that held out for tougher language against abortion funding, has called the Catholic bishops and conservative anti-abortion lobbies "hypocrites" for not supporting the bill after Stupak won last-minute concessions from the White House. Damn. Where's a ticked off nun with a ruler when you really need some knuckles rapped?
Stupak received a guarantee from President Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that Obama would sign an executive order after the bill's passage that reiterates the bill's ban on any federal funds going to pay for abortions. Stupak, a pro-life Catholic who had been strongly supported by the bishops and other groups for his stand, was satisfied with the deal. But his allies said the executive order was a fig leaf and Stupak has been vilified by conservative Catholic groups and lobbies like the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) since his switch.
In response, Stupak told The Daily Caller that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and NRLC applauded President George W. Bush in 2007 when he used an executive order to limit embryonic stem cell research.
"The Democratic Congress passed [a bill] saying we'll do embryonic stem cell research. Bush vetoed it in 2007. That same day he issued an executive order saying we will not do it, and all these groups applauded that he protected life," Stupak said.
"So now President Obama's going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone's condemning it. The hypocrisy is great."
Stupak said he wondered whether the Catholic bishops and others were motivated more by politics than pro-life convictions and were "just using the life issue to try to bring down health-care reform."
"I question, did they want to protect the sanctity of life, or did they want to defeat health care?" he told The Daily Caller.
Obama will sign the order at the White House today, and Stupak and 12 other pro-life Democrats who voted for the health bill have been invited to the signing ceremony. BTW, this is one time that the Precedent will NOT have cameras around to record the moment. Wonder why?
Two days before the health care vote, Richard Doerflinger, who coordinated pro-life strategy with Stupak and NRLC and conservative opponents of the bill, acknowledged that the battle could leave serious divisions within the Catholic ranks.
"The church does have some work to do in dealing with frayed nerves and divisions on policy questions," he said. Hmm. I'm a Catholic, and didn't notice that anyone had a major problem with the bishops' approach to the situation. It was kind of what we expected after all these years in the pews. But hey, I'm just a hick in flyover country, not some policy wonk in DC, so what do I know?
But Doerflinger then said that pro-lifers -- like the Catholic Health Care Association and many religious orders, as well as Catholic leaders, politicians and the nation's leading health care experts -- were "cooking the details" of the bill. The CHA, for example, does not "have policy people who work on these pro-life issues day in and day out." Well, yeah. But when the Church's policy is, and has been, an emphatic "thou shalt not" in all circumstances, there isn't a huge need to work on the nuances much, now, is there?
It's not likely the same could be said of Bart Stupak, however. And it seems clear the wounds can only deepen before the healing begins.
#1
"So now President Obama's going to sign an executive order protecting life and everyone's condemning it. The hypocrisy is great."
Because it is MEANINGLESS congressman, MEANINGLESS, and you know it. Please celebrate your own hyporcisy and say no more. You are history as a legislator.
#2
CHA specifically and explicitly went counter to the USCCB's intent and teaching on this. To put it bluntly a bitch of an old lefty nun running CHA decided to substitute her opinion and override the ruling issued by the Bishops.
This is in the process of being corrected by many of us inside the church. We have requested out parishes refuse to fund the CHA until it moves unrepentant reprobates like that Sister from their positions of authority, and adheres to the teachings of the Church as expressed by the USCCB and Vatican.
We are also asking her Superior in her Order and her Bishop to sanction her specifically for promoting abortion via material cooperation with evil.
#4
All he got was an executive order that hasn't yet been signed and can't be enforced, and about three-quarters of a million bucks for some regional airports.
I don't object to the fact that politicians can be bought.
I object that they can be bought so cheaply.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/24/2010 19:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Mr. Principled" got half the cab fare and the condom wrapper left on the dresser. Just hope he doesn't end up pregnant, his options will be limited...or not, as his his bend-over for the EO shows. He can always abort.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/24/2010 19:58 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I object that they can be bought so cheaply.
That's what you call a two-bit whore.
Posted by: Abu Uluque ||
03/24/2010 23:31 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Oregon State University received a hefty $26,434,969 as its portion of stimulus money from the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to the Oregon University System. The money will go to 61 projects to be used for studies on the ocean, climate change and immune system therapy, among others.
Anyone care to guess who coaches roundball at OSU?
AoS note: this is NOT a tech/moderator note and is NOT WoT operations. Please check appropriate categories before posting! Tunku Varadarajan, The Daily Beast
Yesterday, I got an email from a prominent conservative academic; it was, I think, a touch harsh on the object of its attention. Here's what it said: "Frum's pathetic, desperate whining reeks of self-loathing. At least that shows good judgment: I loathe him, too."
The Frum in question is David Frum, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, and the "whining" that so goaded my correspondent was a blog by David, written on the day the House voted on health care, in which he described the bill's passage as a defeat for the Republicans akin to Waterloo....
David is a man I've known professionally for almost a decade, and with whom my social interaction has always been very genial. He is a good and energetic man, and has, in the years since he left service at the White House, dedicated himself to being what I call a "polite-company conservative" (or PCC), much like David Brooks and Sam Tanenhaus at the New York Times (where the precocious Ross Douthat is shaping up to be a baby version of the species). A PCC is a conservative who yearns for the goodwill of the liberal elite in the media and in the Beltway--who wishes, always, to have their ear, to be at their dinner parties, to be comforted by a sense that liberal interlocutors believe that they are not like other conservatives, with their intolerance and boorishness, their shrillness and their talk radio. Not to be confused with the "PCC" which is the world's greatest streetcar.
The PCC, in fact, distinguishes himself from other conservatives not so much ideologically--though there is an element of that--as aesthetically.... See also, e.g., Chris Buckley, and most of the Palin-bashing crowd, many of whom deserve to be thrown under the other kind of PCC.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/24/2010 10:46 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think Jerry Pournelle owns the copyright on the phrase "The Egregious Frum" and has for something like seven years or so.
#4
John McCain. The King of PCC. But I am sure he is now quite comfortable being in surroundings where he is out numbered by the enemy. I'd rather be on the front lines fighting rather than bring PC.
When U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan ran the Chicago Public Schools for the boss of Chicago, he kept a secret list of those who hoped to clout children into the city's top-tier public schools.
"We didn't want to advertise what we were doing because we didn't want a bunch of people calling," CPS official David Pickens admitted to Tribune reporters Azam Ahmed and Stephanie Banchero, who broke the story.
So the schools kept a clout list. But they didn't want nobody nobody sent hassling them with calls. When the University of Illinois did essentially the same thing with Law School and undergraduate admissions, the resulting bruhaha lead to the resignation of the chancellor, president and board of trustees. Let's see if Daley takes a hit.
And once again, the bright road that is the Chicago Way is paved with shiny bricks for all to see.
Education in Chicago today, federalized health care for the nation tomorrow. Politicians know how to bind groups to their side.
Some of you are probably expecting me to rip on Mayor Richard Daley, especially since he insisted his office had no role in the clout list.
"No role, in the sense that, no role," Daley babbled on Tuesday.
Does anyone actually believe that political insiders weren't favored at the expense of deserving kids? No.
But today, I'm not going to rip on Daley. Instead, let's focus on his brilliance, in creating Chicago's two-tiered public school system. It bound the professional class to him and maintained him in power.
The mayor knows how it works. He etched it into Chicago's civic infrastructure years ago, when he took over the public schools. Rest at link. And now, a word from your poster.
My mom was a teacher in Chicago in the 1950s. Daley I made life easier for his pals in real estate by overseeing the construction of the Housing Projects, then abandoning the schools that had African-American and Hispanic students. One anecdote: She went to the supply room to get construction paper, scissors, and paste. The supply room staff said, "You can have all the construction paper you want, but we haven't seen scissors and paste for two years."
The Machine did this with the full collusion of the teachers' union. Teachers used seniority to get out of having to teach classes with minority students.
The city also stopped picking up trash in a neighborhood as soon as a minority family moved in. Then Daley I's real estate buddies would get on the phone to local homeowners. "See how your neighborhood and schools have declined since Those People moved in? You need to sell and move out as soon as you can, while you can get a good price for your house."
The machine and the politicians in the teacher's union helped create this mess decades ago. They have no desire to change anything. As the rest of Kass's column points out, the community no longer has the will or the know how to change things either
#1
Apparently he called WJR and complained that "he was tired". He probably was, and that is exactly why the unvarnished truth came out: his guard was down.
Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats ||
03/24/2010 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I suspect we'll hear this one on Beck this evening.
#6
Ahem. If you think about shooting my Critter, Duncan Duane Hunter (as I've noted ad nauseum, see: "F-150"), you better come loaded, Iblis. He's a Marine, Dad's an Army vet, and his positions are what you (supposedly) want. So, if you want a shooting, I'm on his side. That whole "they should be shot" is stoopid. Rethink. Or think once, k?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/24/2010 20:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Well, what can I say. The Dems have our number, don't they? No matter how badly they abuse the process, no matter how lawless or criminal their actions, we always take it. Law and order and all that. Vote in 6 months. Have a token effort at repeal, then let it go and people just get used to the idea. The other side is counting on us to obey the rules no matter what they do. Guess they made a good bet.
#8
no. the answer is to review your critter's behavior, if you approve, vote them back in. If you have the cash, and other district's critters are bad, sprinkle dollar love on their opponent if worthy. Same as it ever was
/quoting Talking Heads
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/24/2010 20:32 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"Same as it ever was"
Exactly. Why we've been steadily losing ground for the last 80 years.
#11
no. the process is the same. The will has to be different. If you want to change the process, I'm not with you. Ours is the best, barring none. That doesn't say much for the others, but there it is. Work within the system if the other side does the same. If they don't (see: Acorn, Al-Gore) the rules change
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/24/2010 21:01 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'm kind of torn on this. If history is any teacher, I believe the founders and esp Ben Franklin tried the "cooler heads" prevail path to work w/the system for a number of yrs. Eventually, these men, who imho were much superior to what I see running around D.C. today realized that system of early 1770s england could not be changed from within. I think the federalist republic system they envisioned and fought for is now broken or at least too corrupt to continue on w/what was it's intended purpose was. At some point we may have to go beyond what we all would like to do. If what we know to be is constitutional is thwarted or ignored by this gov't then I believe the people have to do what they have to do. I'd imagine our founders who went to the mat over a 3% tax increase would look at us w/some revulsion as a people - our apathy, lazyness and ignorance of the framework they set down. We (not the rantburg sense but in the U.S. sense) tolerate leaders who vote on bills they haven't read, propose laws that are blatantly un-constitutional, don't understand the constitution nor care to, don't hold themselves or their staffs to the same laws we are forced into, don't enforce our borders, distort the supremacy clause, the interstate commerce clause, the 2nd amendment, the 10th amendment, redistribute wealth, let citizens vote on the rights of other citizens, give bribes for votes, etc. I'd dare say the Red Coats had more class then these feckless traitors.
#13
BH6 speaks an uncomfortble truth. We are rapidly approaching a point where our Founders would hold us in contempt of we did not take action. We're at the tipping point. We can't take anymore. If Crap n Tax or (ill)legal immigration reform is crammed through, then we have, IMO, reached our breaking point. Prior to that, folks will need to come to terms with what action they are willing to undertake and form up with patriots of a like mind. Bood, Treasure and Sacred Honor. Our we up to the task if called upon? Active resistance can take many forms, some of which we see already.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/24/2010 22:53 Comments ||
Top||
Maybe there are a few devious GOP'ers with brains, after all....
Democrats in the Senate say they are so committed to passing the House's version of health care reconciliation fixes verbatim, that they are willing to vote against even the most alluring and unobjectionable of amendments -- from legislation banning Viagra for sex offenders to language adding the long-elusive public option.
In what is the final act of the health care reform saga, the Senate on Tuesday began debating reconciliation fixes that the House of Representatives passed two days prior. The process includes a period of what could be unlimited amendments, during which it is widely expected that Republicans will try their best to get the legislation changed.
The idea is that by securing even a slight adjustment in the language, the Senate will have to send the bill back to the House of Representatives for reconsideration. Drawing out the process makes it more likely for it to be tripped up.
On Tuesday, the GOP put its strategy into action, with Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) introducing an amendment beyond agreeable. Titled "No Erectile Dysfunction Drugs To Sex Offenders" it would literally prohibit convicted child molesters, rapists, and sex offenders from getting erectile dysfunction medication from their health care providers.
While it will undoubtedly be difficult for Democrats to vote against the measure (one can conjure up the campaign ads already), the party plans to do just that.
"Democrats in the Senate are very unified that this is not going back to the House," Sen. Wyden (D-Ore.) told the Huffington Post on Tuesday, minutes before the Coburn amendment was introduced. Translation: We've run out of "Obama money" to bribe our own party members....
Just how unified? If Republicans, in a bit of legislative trickery, offer an amendment to the Senate reconciliation bill that allows for the establishment of a public option for insurance coverage, Democrats -- despite longing for the proposal for more than a year -- won't even take the bait. Other supposedly proposed amendments have been to make the Precedent accept Obamacare coverage, adding a public option, and federal recognition of gay marriage. I'm sure that the 'burgers could think of a few more good ones...
Obama wasn't waiting for the polls to close in Massachusetts at 8 that evening. He already knew that his Democratic Party was about to suffer an embarrassing loss. In the bitterest of ironies, the Senate seat held for nearly 47 years by Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, who had been the leading voice in Congress for universal health care, was about to fall into Republican hands. The wheels were coming off...
Now the president was asking members of his assembled brain trust: What were they going to do?
Mathematically, Scott Brown's impending victory would deny Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. With only 59 votes loosely under his control, Reid wanted the House to adopt the version of the health-care bill that had barely squeaked through the Senate on Christmas Eve.
No way, said Pelosi. "The Senate bill is a non-starter," she said. "I can't sell that to my members." Yet, in only 61 days, San Fran Nan did exactly that.
As Pelosi and Reid left the White House that night, the administration was coming to the conclusion that its fatal mistake had been giving up so much control to Congress. Although the strategy was intended to correct the mistakes President Bill Clinton made in 1993 when his wife's task force wrote a health-care bill in secret, the Obama White House belatedly realized that the months of delay, closed-door negotiations and special deals had tarnished the effort and a president who won office by promising to change the way Washington operates. And he changed it, all right! And so came the first attempt at a retooled strategy: a commander in chief back in charge. Obama would still need Pelosi and Reid to deliver votes, but this time the White House intended to steer more aggressively.
Obama, who felt particularly stung by critics who said he had broken his pledge to air the health-care debate on television, immediately embraced the summit concept. It would be a chance to reset the effort, display his willingness to accept Republicans' ideas and claim - albeit more for show than substance - that he was crafting a "new" bill that was not sullied by the deals struck in Congress. And in the end, we got the old bill, as far as I can tell.
The first House tally had been close, with just two votes to spare, and it was headed for defeat until an extraordinary day just before when Pelosi, confronting a major rift over federal funding for abortion, called together the female Democrats in the House and said, "We're standing on the brink of doing something great. I'm not letting anything stand in the way of that."
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) launched into a tirade against David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser and one of Obama's closest confidants. "I have been in a slow burn here, a slow burn!" the lawmaker hollered from the last row of the meeting room. "I'm just livid."
Lacing his commentary with his usual profanity, Franken complained that the health-care campaign had been lackluster and leaderless, particularly in the tentative period since Brown's victory.
"Goddamn it, what's the deal here?" he said, as colleagues, their spouses and aides looked on. "You're talking platitudes, and we have to go home and defend ourselves. We're getting the crap kicked out of us!" Just wait, Al, just wait.
Kucinich's support was more than just one vote in the "yes" column; it was the start of the momentum the White House had been struggling to create. In short order, the news rolled out in a steady, well-choreographed clip.
Obama, meanwhile, doused a brush fire with organized labor over changes to a new excise tax that unions did not like. In a chance encounter in an aide's office that was actually well planned out, Obama pulled AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka into the Oval Office. "We're at the one-yard line. We've just got to get the ball in the end zone," the president said, imploring Trumka to hold his complaints for another day. "Rich, you've got to stay with me."
At 4 p.m., Altmire released his statement and at 7:30 Obama called once more. "I want to give you something to think about before the vote," the president said gently into the phone. "Picture yourself on Monday morning. You wake up and look at the paper. It's the greatest thing Congress has done in 50 years. And you were on the wrong team."
Protesters on the Capitol lawn. Rumors of enticements - a Cabinet post, water access in California, money for NASA. More phone calls, more news conferences, frayed nerves, exhaustion. At the Capitol, Pelosi was once again dealing with the specter of abortion funding, shuttling from office to office as she locked down the final votes. So they won. But nothing about the promised Executive Order that would convert Stupak. Did I dream that?
Posted by: Bobby ||
03/24/2010 06:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Politics are zero sum.
Dubya's win in 2004 was extremely costly to Dubya and the Republican Party.
This was a costly win for the democrats.
And the "Deem and Pass" nonsense will be used to gut government when the Republicans get to power.
#2
They didn't do a "deem and pass". The House passed the Senate's version which is what Obama signed into law. They are now arguing an amendments bill that will use the reconciliation method in order to pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 60. The question now is can the Republicans in the Senate prevent the changes bill from being passed? If so, the House Dems will be rubes for having passed the original Senate version (which many hated).
#3
You are correct, Spot, the Dhimms didn't use 'deem and pass'.
They did, however, gain all the negative attention one could get on deem and pass without using it. Most conservative and independent voters understood what was happening. Deem and pass will be used against the Dhimms in the fall as a symbol of arrogance and political chicanery. It's a marvelous symbol of what's wrong in Washington. It will cost the Dhimms the control of the House and perhaps even (God willing) the Senate.
And they didn't use it in the end. Heh.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/24/2010 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I only hope the voters realize how screwed we are with this bunch of clowns-in-charge in Washington.
#5
JQC, I'm not holding my breath bro'. A Fox poll yesterday said Nazi Pelosi had an approval rating of 8%, a negative rating of 37% and another 50% didn't know who she was or needed more info to form an opinion of her. It is the last number that I find most disconcerting and doesn't bode well for the future of our country. Too much of the electorate is ignorant and/or too lazy to care.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Obama wasn't waiting for the polls to close in Massachusetts at 8 that evening. He already knew that his Democratic Party was about to suffer an embarrassing loss. In the bitterest of ironies, the Senate seat held for nearly 47 years by Democrat Edward M. Kennedy, who had been the leading voice in Congress for universal health care, was about to fall into Republican hands. 
And so came the first attempt at a retooled strategy: a commander in chief back in charge. Obama would still need Pelosi and Reid to deliver votes, but this time the White House intended to steer more aggressively. 
Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) launched into a tirade against David Axelrod, a senior White House adviser and one of Obama's closest confidants. "I have been in a slow burn here, a slow burn!" the lawmaker hollered from the last row of the meeting room. "I'm just livid." 
