What fresh bloody hell is this?

[MadHound]

First we were presented with "reconciliation" because the Democrats didn't have the spine to fight. Now we're going to pass this goddamn "reform" through the House via a "self executing resolution".

This is wrong, simply wrong. Not only is it ramming through a monstrosity of a bill through Congress without following normal procedures, but by doing so it is setting a massive precedent for when 'Pugs come to power and want to ram even more damaging stuff through.

If you can't get your bill through the House, or through the Senate, then hey, rather than take the chickenshit way out, kill the bill and come back with something better. Oh, and when you come back, bring along your spine and actually fight for what you want.

This is just getting to be the height of outrageousness. You know, Dems both here and in the real world screamed bloody hell when the Bush administration and 'Pugs used these tactics on a much smaller scale. It is the height of Dem hypocrisy to be using it now.

The Democratic party, every day, in every way, is managing to show just how intellectually void and morally bankrupt they are.

[av8rdave]

1. I think some of this may be misrepresentation

Huffington Post has an explanation:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/health-care-opponents-dem_n_501353.html

[MadHound]

7. No, this is not media misrepresentation

I've listened to the media this afternoon, and they've basically have it right. The actual bill will be deemed to have passed without an actual vote on that bill being taken.

It is an outrage and sets a horrible precedent.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

8. How can it set a precedent when it's been used before?

[MadHound]

16. The size of the bill is what is the precedent.

Previously this bill was used on fairly minor things. Now it is being used on way bigger stuff.

Why not just bring the Senate version of the bill up for a vote in the House?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

20. Sorry. The Court ruled that deeming resolutions are sound and Constitutional

http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/public-citizen-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia

[MadHound]

22. Yeah, so is reconcilliation and signing statements,

But the Dems howled like stuck pigs when used against them, now that they don't have the spine for an up or down vote, even with Congressional majorities, they turn hypocrite.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

26. Which is why arguing that reconciliation was "unconstitutional" would be stupid.

And so the Republicans who tried to argue that it was unconstitutional were shut down on that approach.

[Unvanguard]

27. Reconciliation is certainly constitutional, signing statements probably aren't.

And they will have an up-or-down vote on the final health care package. I'm not sure what there is to object to about this.

[polpilot]

76. I'm maddern' a hound dog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can't Democrats say 'purty please?'

[quinnox]

86. lol

Nice play on the OP's handle, heh

[Cha]

2. Good for the Democrats..they're just using procedure.

It's not complicated.

And, the rw hacks are the ones screamy bloody hell on this..hypocrites that they are.

[CreekDog]

3. Health Care reform has passed both houses of congress

this is a way of dealing with the differences between the bill.

there is no "ramming" of any kind on this. you make it sound like none of this stuff has been through a vote --it most certainly has.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Never get in the way of a good rant. I've already seen the King of England brought up.

More melodrama! More!

[CreekDog]

10. We kicked the British out of here through violence instead of doing it democratically!

what a travesty! :sarcasm:

[xultar]

9. +1

[MadHound]

12. No, it is a way of getting the Senate version through without having the House actually vote on it

It is a nice little procedural trick that sidesteps the need for a vote.

Yes, it is ramming the Senate version through, especially since the House hasn't voted on the Senate version of the bill. Way to sidestep the Constitution.

[CreekDog]

40. it's a way to have the House vote for a changed Senate bill

rather than vote for the Senate Bill itself (a slightly different animal).

[gateley]

4. The Republicans wrote the book on using these 'tactics' - this is nothing

new to them.

And I don't have faith that we'll come back with anything, let alone better, for another 10 or 15 years or so.

[MadHound]

19. So we're going to stoop to their level.

So much for that dime's worth of difference, it has now shrunk down to nothing.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. Do you understand how this works? If you vote yes, you are voting for the reconciliation bill AND

the Senate bill at the same time. If you don't want to vote for one or the other, vote NO.

[MadHound]

34. Yeah, d'uh, I know how it works,

It is basically providing political cover for a bunch of spineless Dems who don't want to fight. Anything else you want to know?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

36. So then you recognize that your claim that there is no vote is fallacious, right?

[MadHound]

43. It is vote on the fixes, not on the actual bill,

You can spin that however you want to, but the fact is the actual bill is not going to come up for a House vote.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

44. No, it is a vote on BOTH.

That's not spin, that's fact. A fact that every House member should understand. Nobody is "tricked" into voting for the bill.

[MadHound]

49. Spin, spin, spin

It is a vote on the fixes. If the fixes are passed, the Senate version passes without a vote being taken on it.

[Jennicut]

55. It gives cover to the Dems in the House that don't like the Senate bill and it

makes sure the Senate cannot just leave the House high and dry. This is really to get a better bill then the Senate version.

[CreekDog]

5. Actually, if the House sent a conference report to the Senate, it would be filibustered

and need 60 votes.

that's not democratic.

[quinnox]

11. This the way it should be done

Republicans are crying about it, but they utilized the procedure before a few times.

I'm glad the Democrats are pissing the republicans off by this procedure.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

15. A few times? They did it 36 times from 2005 to 2006. Dems have done it 49 times in 2007-2008

This whole controversy is bullshit.

[CreekDog]

13. Have to give Republican talking points credit here

they worked on you.

[MadHound]

21. Ooo, aren't you the quick and witty one, did you have to think all day on that one,

Or was it already pre-written for you?

[CreekDog]

35. oh relax, those really are Republican talking points

the whole notion that health care reform is being "rammed" through congress is a misrepresentation and we should be allowed to give you a little snark in return for that.

[MadHound]

41. If it isn't being rammed through, then why aren't the Dems actually standing up and fighting?

You know, telling the 'Pugs to screw themselves and filibuster, then beat them about the head and shoulders for their obstructionism.

The Dems have apparently lost their ability or willingness to fight, thus they're resorting to this sort of bullshit.

[CreekDog]

54. them not fighting a filibuster does not make using this method in the House wrong

and i have some ideas why they aren't fighting the filibuster in the Senate, but I don't know that's the best strategy --it might not be.

but that's a far cry from saying this is all being "rammed" through.

that's where you lost me.

and assuming you wanted to convince anybody, there's your trouble. people already in agreement with your sentiment came here and agreed with you and those that didn't or would need to be convinced said, "hey, wait a minute, that's not what happened..." and instead of talking about the best tactics, we've been talking about how you haven't represented what happened here correctly.

are you an expert on strategy?

[MadHound]

61. Depends on what I'm doing

When I'm posting on an anonymous political chatboard, then I don't give a rat's ass about strategy because frankly there is very little or nothing that gets said or done here that has any actual effect in the real world.

Out in the real world, that's a different matter.

[onenote]

79. what exactly do you want them to fight for? The Senate bill that they will then change?

What exactly is the point of that? Fight to cast a vote for a bill so you can then vote to change it when instead you basically vote for the bill as changed and avoid having to vote for something that you never wanted to have enacted (and that was only enacted as a temporary stopping point along the route to the final bill)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Isn't this just teabagger rhetoric?

The Republicans are using (abusing) certain congressional procedural rules to block reform, so the democrats who are in majority use other procedural rules to push reform through, and then suddenly the teabaggers start moaning about procedural rules?

[MadHound]

25. The 'Pugs are threatening to filibuster in the Senate

So instead of actually standing up and fighting, Dems are resorting to these bullshit tactics.

So, are you actually calling me a teabagger? If so, do it straight out, don't be like a Dem and beat around the bush.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

33. You're splitting hairs.

"So instead of actually standing up and fighting, Dems are resorting to these bullshit tactics. "

That's exactly what we're doing, and we're beating the teabaggers at their own game.

Is that why you're so upset?

[MadHound]

38. If the Dems were actually fighting, we would tell the 'Pugs to go ahead and filibuster,

Then use the bully pulpit to beat them about the head and shoulders with their obstructionism. If we had chosen that path, we would actually be getting a bill with a strong public option, no this mandated monstrosity that we're getting instead.

Still haven't answered my question though, are you actually calling me a teabagger? Straight up, yes or no.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. That's like saying getting beaten up is fighting back...

cause the guy doing the beating hurts his fists after awhile. Claiming that allowing the republicans to filibuster would give us a strong public option just doesn't make any sort of logical sense whatsoever.

Where are you coming up with this crap?

"Still haven't answered my question though, are you actually calling me a teabagger? Straight up, yes or no."

You tell me.

[MadHound]

46. Ah, so that big filibuster that LBJ used on the Civil Rights bill wasn't effective

But apparently the Dems don't want to fight anymore.

And just like the Dems, you apparently don't even have the courage to state your convictions. Typical, sadly typical. Thanks for at least showing your true character.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. You mean the time they had 67 votes to kill the filibuster?

Again, where are you getting this shit? Because that doesn't apply to modern affairs at all.

"Thanks for at least showing your true character. "

I'm proud of my character, Madhound. I've said nothing ridiculously stupid, nor posted inane teabagger rhetoric. Are you proud of your character?

[MadHound]

59. Had the 67 votes, yeah, after they beat both obstructionist 'Pugs and Dixiecrats

About the head and shoulders for being obstructionists. It took over seventeen days. But you're right, fighting for what is right is so un-Democratic these days:eyes:

Yeah, I'm proud of my character, I don't sell out my values for thirty pieces of silver. Hope you enjoy that lucre.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

80. values?

Pff.

[onenote]

81. and the filibuster on the civil rights bill was overcome not because repubs were beaten

but because southern Democrats were beaten. If you can't see how that situation differs from today, you're not looking very hard.

[Little Star]

93. ha! it fits perfectly! If the conservadems were being shamed, we would have a much better bill

than the bullshit put on the plate at this time.

[Ignis]

17. What is this "spine" of which you speak?

Don't you understand that The Bad Things are only bad when The Other Guys do them?

:crazy:

[Edweird]

18. The Administration IS fighting for what they want. They apparently want RW crap.

[deaniac21]

23. This is going to be the worse November ever.

[MadHound]

29. Hey, I'm gone.

It's not just this so called "reform" either. It is how they're screwing education and teachers, these illegal, immoral wars, LGBT rights, our civil rights, on and on.

[CreekDog]

47. To be fair, it sounds like you already had your narrative written before this post

and this item is just one of the blanks you filled in.

i understand being disappointed, but i disagree with the broadbrush which puts the administration on the wrong side of all major issues.

[MadHound]

56. It is the administration that is putting itself on the wrong side of all major issues

Let's see, you want the list.

Education, they want to privatize it, lower teachers salaries and qualification requirements.

War, without end.

Patriot Act, it's renewed, after all the Dems have just been itching to use those extralegal powers.

LGBT issues, under the bus

Gitmo, still open, along with the bonus Baghram AFB.

Banks, fully bailed out.

You really want me to continue?

[CreekDog]

64. It's not as black and white as you are proclaiming

i'm not going to try to change your mind. you've done the hard work of giving up on the adminstration on the basis that they are doing everything wrong on the issues you listed.

i'm not there yet, and don't think i will get there.

[MadHound]

69. Oh really?

So we're not involved in an apparently endless war? We're not seeing this administration favoring privatized education over public education? We're not seeing LGBT thrown under the bus (again and again and. . .). Let me guess, Obama really didn't renew the Patriot Act last week:eyes:

You'll settle for just about any outrage won't you, just so long as the magic letter D is behind it.

Must be tough living without morals, values or ethics.

[CreekDog]

72. now that you've declared me without morals or ethics, everybody can see what you're about

i learned the price of disagreeing with you.

[MadHound]

73. Yep, I think that you were another one who protested these sort of tactics about five years ago

Under Bush, but hey, it's A-OK under Obama and the Dems.

Hypocrisy much?

[CreekDog]

74. got a dossier on me?

well at least you know whom to hate. :eyes:

(BTW: i don't think i ever said what you are accusing me of, but who knows...it's possible)

[Individualist]

37. Yep. DLC has achieved its objective of destroying the party.

[Echo In Light]

39. With repubs DOA, the system needs to plug in their life support to maintain the two party ruse

Otherwise our phony rep democracy won't work correctly (from power's perspective)

[Ignis]

Bingo, and time for yet another prescient Hicks quote:

I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. "I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs." "I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking." "Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!" "Shut up! Go back to bed, America. Your government is in control. Here's Love Connection. Watch this and get fat and stupid. By the way, keep drinking beer, you fucking morons."

[Echo In Light]

78. _

[Prism]

28. The survival instinct has kicked in. They have to do this.

This is about pure, unbridled power. They hosed health care reform. This is now stretching into April. Remember when "By August . . ." It's going to be April! They have sold every scrap of liberal policy down an Amazon of political expedience, and they're still struggling to pass this.

They cannot have this bill die. They cannot approach November, hat in hand, and ask the American people for their vote after they spent a year during the greatest economic collapse since the Depression messing around with a health insurance bill that didn't pass in the end.

They cannot do it. It will wreck the party.

By hook or by crook, at this point, Constitution or no.

This is a party that is desperate and turning crazy Machiavellian. After eight years of Bush, I thought we'd at least passingly get back on a constitutional track. Now, this.

I feel like our government has lost its damn mind. They're wrecking themselves, the party, and reform for generations.

And it's all about power.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. Once again, this tactic was ruled Constitutional by the Court years ago.

[Prism]

48. I agreed with Speaker Pelosi in 2005

In those halcyon days where Democrats were still worried about the constitutionality of legislation being signed by the President even though both houses of Congress did not vote on the final bill.

The Court recently unleashed corporations onto our election processes. The Court can say whatever it pleases with the power of law behind their rulings, but that doesn't make them right or any less in violation of our constitutional principles.

Wrong is wrong. If Speaker Pelosi and others thought this method unconstitutional in 2005, I see no reason, cause, or change that magically makes it ok in 2010.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. They thought it was wrong, it was deemed Constitutional.

Since then, they've used the process themselves dozens of times.

[Prism]

62. The Court declined to rule, actually

Which is much different from saying "We're all for this." The Court generally leaves Congressional procedure alone. This is a sound practice, because it keeps the different branches of government distinct. I don't like it, because I think both houses voting on legislation is one of those Massive Important Things that should be kept sacrosanct. But the Court didn't want to meddle in that case.

However. The case you're referencing concerned bills that were very similar. In that case, it was very much a question of procedure. The bill had the votes to pass, there wasn't any substantive difference between them, and the Court said "The problem isn't major enough for us to involve ourselves with the legislative branch's business." So, they declined to rule.

This is an entirely different kettle of fish. There are major differences between the bills and whether or not the votes exist to pass these bills according to proper procedure are by no means a given. With legislation this far-reaching, with bills this fundamentally different, and with the question of whether or not the democratic means exist to pass a bill into law are in question, the Court could very, very easily come down and say "Ok, this is a bridge too far. We need to rule on this."

Saying "Oh, health insurance reform is just like that other case" is very misguided and misinformed. The two instances are not at all the same - not by a long, long way. And I would support any lawsuit brought before the Court on this question in the hopes that they would take it up and declare this tactic unconstitutional.

[girl gone mad]

57. Either way, they've wrecked the party.

One fatal calculation after another.

[bvar22]

94. You know, I'm beginning to believe this could be a good thing.

After they insist on passing this Republican Health Insurance SCAM, the Democratic Party can no longer pretend to represent the Working Class anymore.

I feel released to move on and begin fighting for something better...something that represents ME.
They don't represent me anymore
I don't support them anymore.

THIS "Democratic Party is GONE:

"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being."--FDR

[Ozymanithrax]

30. You missed "down our throat" in your talking point quote...

Not only is it ramming through a monstrosity of a bill through Congress

[NNN0LHI]

67. lol

[DJ13]

32. It makes me mad that the same people who claimed

the PO couldnt be passed through reconciliation now want to pass the Senate version without a vote through reconciliation.

They always have a million excuses to prevent helping the average person while doing everything possible to give more to the corporations, and Im getting tired of that.

[Jennicut]

51. The difference being, these are fixes related to the budget. An entire health care bill through

Reconciliation WOULD be difficult and there is the Byrd Rule to contend with. Also, as far as the Senate is concerned, as long as there were less then 50 votes on the public option letter, there were not 50 votes there. Kind of obvious we never had the votes for it. Which is pathetic, but such is the Senate. Still, I would have tried the PO through reconciliation if we had the votes just to see what we could get.

[gulliver]

45. I doubt you would like Freepland very much then.

But you could always have a look to regain some perspective.

They have lots of intellectuals and non-morally void types over there. And their dialectical standards appear pretty consistent with yours. Lot's of red ears and pulsating veins.

I'm about 95% convinced that there are very few true Progressives who are outraged by us getting a health care success. Republicans, emoters, and a few remora are in a high dudgeon of course. Just makes me want to see it happen more.

[MadHound]

50. Cool, you keep thinking that

And when the liberal and progressive base abandons the party this fall, remember, you thought it was only a few who were truly upset:eyes:

[CreekDog]

82. most DUers ARE liberal and progressive

we are among the left of the liberals and probably middle of the left overall.

most people supporting HCR here vote for liberals and want liberal solutions.

i posted a single payer poll and it was nearly unanimous in support here --that kind of result shows you where most people on this board are.

but you are busy calling everybody DLC'ers and what not. I may have joked that your points were Republican, although that's where I heard those words first, but I didn't presume you were a Republican.

[Hansel]

89. Your numbers are likely much smaller than you think.

There are plenty of progressives and liberals who simply have a different perspective on this than you do. You calling them DLCers doesn't make it so. You don't get to decide how they will respond.

My guess is that very few liberals and progressives will take that hard line that you expect them to.

[Orangepeel]

58. nonsense.

There is plenty to complain about in the bill and even more that is not in the bill. But there is nothing wrong with the way they are discussing passing it.

[Bitwit1234]

60. Kill the bill and come back with something better???

that's a crock. It took a year to get this far, how far do you think it would get if we had a do over...republican speaking folks, wants a blank sheet of paper.

[MadHound]

63. And who's fault is it that it took a goddamn year?

"We'll have health care reform by August!"

What the fuck ever.

Yes, I want a blank sheet of paper, and no, I'm not a 'Pug. I don't want a goddamn mandated monopoly handed over to insurance industry without a strong public option, you know, like about three quarters of the population wants.

This bill is going to destroy the middle and working class, I really don't want to see that happen, I don't want such a bill to pass just so the Dems can claim some sort of "victory".

[Oregone]

65. Do you prefer they vote for the Senate Bill outright, without fixes guaranteed?

[onenote]

83. I'm pretty sure the OP prefers that they don't vote "for" either version

I'm pretty sure the OP's objection isn't to the use of the procedural maneuver as much as to what will be passed using it. If the bill was more to the OP's liking, I'm fairly certain they would be leading the cheers for any and all procedural maneuvers to get it enacted.

[Oregone]

85. Me too, but thats not an option

This shit is going to pass. Doing it this ways guarantees its less shitty

[NNN0LHI]

66. I feel like I am at a Michele Bachmann rally here

[MadHound]

71. Did you feel that way about five years ago when you and others around here

Were outraged by the 'Pugs using these same bullshit tactics?

Hypocrisy much?

[CreekDog]

77. did you cut and paste that response? because it's a copy of what you wrote me

:eyes:

[onenote]

84. so if this was a version of HCR you liked

and the surest route to getting it passed was a procedural maneuver like a self executing resolution, would you be railing against the passage of the bill on those terms and be urging for it to be defeated rather than passed through such measures?

Honestly?

[peace13]

68. Watch FOX they will explain it to you!!

[MadHound]

70. Nah, the DLCer's around here are doing a bang up job,

Faux's spin has nothing on theirs.

[laughingliberal]

87. +1000 nt

[Individualist]

90. +1

[onenote]

75. how is it "ramming it through" -- it still need the votes

If there is a majority that doesn't want HCR to pass, they kill it by voting down the rule. Why all the gnashing of teeth? The idea is simply to give a fig leaf of cover to those who would otherwise have a vote on the Senate bill hung around their necks. This way they can say that what they voted for was the final bill not some way station along the route to passage.

[Hansel]

88. They still have to vote for the bill to pass. There's nothing wrong with it at all. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

91. I don't care how they do it - as long as it gets done.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[troubledamerican]

95. "this is setting a massive precedent for when 'Pugs come to power"

Don't smart thoughts like this get you banned from DU??

Thank God, at least, I see the COINTELPRO discredit-op hucksters are out in full force on this one.