How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 TheHeight of Hypocrisy   [ Page: 1  2  3  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

TheHeight of Hypocrisy

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


0 posted 02-24-2010 06:26 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-in-2005-51-vote-nuclear-option-is-arrogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


1 posted 02-24-2010 06:27 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer


That was then.....this is now.

Administration Support: “‘This package is designed to help us [use reconciliation] if the Republican party decides to filibuster health care reform,’ said White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer. ‘That was certainly a factor that went in to how we put this proposal together…’The president expects, and thinks the American people deserve, an up or down vote on health care reform,’ Pfeiffer said.” (White House Communications Director, Dan Pfeiffer, Talking Points Memo, February 22, 2010)

Majority Leader Support: “If a decision is made to use reconciliation to advance health care, Senator Reid will work with the White House, the House, and members of his caucus in an effort to craft a public option that can overcome procedural obstacles and secure enough votes.” (Statement by Senator Reid Spokesman Rodell Mollineau, The Plum Line, 2/19/2010)

Feinstein Support: “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) became the 11th Senator to sign on to a new effort by Democrats to press Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to pass a public option for insurance coverage using reconciliation, her office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Wednesday.” (Huffington Post, 2/17/2010)
http://www.conservativeblogwatch.com/2010/02/24/obama-dems-in-2005-nuclear-option%E2%80%99-is-%E2%80%98arrogant%E2%80%99-power-grab-against-the-founders%E2%80%99-intent-video/
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


2 posted 02-25-2010 02:49 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thank you all for allowing me to win my bet with my girlfriend, regarding how many responses this would get...I even gave her odds!
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


3 posted 02-25-2010 03:20 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K




     Scarcely had the words faded from the mouth of that man whose name you asked me never to mention — a precedent, by the way, set originally in Scripture in relationship with YWHA — the THAT PERSON's words mysteriously find their way into our blue pages.  I said I'd not mention the name if you'd stop spreading the misinformation.  I haven't used the name; you haven't researched the information.

     Since exactly when is "reconciliation," the long used process by which bills with versions that are substantially different between House and Senate are reconciled by a committee of members by both houses.  This is a practice that gone on for as long as I can remember and has been used by governments with both Republican and Democratic majorities to come up with compromise version that are most likely to get past veto from the white house.  Has your memory gone up in smoke, man?  This is a regular occurrence.  It is part of the democratic process that's been going on since before you were born, without much more than an occasional bitter grumble about the nature of the compromises reached.

     "The Nuclear Option" was a threat by Trent Lott.  If the Democrats didn't knuckle under and give advise and consent the series of Supreme court nominees the Republicans were pushing, then he threatened to change the Senate rules so that it would be impossible to allow the Democrats to use the filibuster as a possible recourse.  I believe he wanted to raise the number back to 66 from 60, where it was at that time, making it close to impossible for the Democrats, with only 47 or 48 senators at that time, to go for a filibuster against a highly rigidly controlled Republican majority.  

     That was what Trent Lott and his friends called "The Nuclear Option," because it essentially reduced the chance of the Democrats doing anything to nuclear dust.  And that is what President (then Senator) Obama was objecting to, not the use of reconciliation.

In fact, the term "nuclear option" was coined by then-Republican Sen. Trent Lott in 2005 to refer to a possible Republican attempt to change Senate filibuster rules, while the budget process, known as reconciliation, is already part of Senate procedure, and Republicans have used it repeatedly in the past.

     The height of hypocrisy is for somebody who knows very well what the reconciliation process is about, such as that fella who thinks he's YWHA, and to try to pretend that it means something else indeed:  The Nuclear Option, which was a threat his party made against the party now in power.

     I can't help but understand why he's worried about such treatment.  After all, when he's busy suggesting such things and saying they're a great idea for use against Democrats, he's got to be sure that the Democrats are just looking for a chance to use such things against him and his.  It's one of those things about being paranoid in your treatment of others; you simply don't expect to be well treated in return.  It's a behavior pattern that is so often successful in creating its own enemies and its own truth.  Poor What's-his-name.

     It must be a terrible shock to find out that it may actually be possible for business to get done in the Senate with only 51 votes at times.  He makes this sound so anti-democratic, I almost feel sympathetic, except of course that it's quite democratic and  he's been indulging in one extended case of special pleading since the Democrats came into office.  And getting the best of it too, for much of the time.  

     This wasn't even Lying by Omission.  This was simply Lying.  He was claiming that Lott's "Nuclear Option," then, which is what the Democrats were complaining about, is the same as having a bill go through the quite standard legislative process of reconciliation now, and then tries to paint the the Democrats as liars in the process.

     Now anybody who suggested that health care reform and insurance reform would be easy, there we might all agree, would be a liar.  In this case, I think not; and I can imagine more obvious candidates for being hypocrites than the guys that Mr. Excellence in Bat-puckeying might be so quick to nominate.  He might try looking in a mirror and trying not to think of pink elephants.  

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


4 posted 02-25-2010 03:22 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Blind links frequently earn few responses, Mike. Especially to a video that freezes?

You sure you didn't purposely rig the bet?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


5 posted 02-25-2010 09:04 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

I don't understand, Ron. Which blind link are you referring to? Which video that freezes? The link and video I provided work just fine on my computer.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


6 posted 02-25-2010 10:06 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Yes, Bob, I'm well aware that Republicans have used the same tactic...

At that time Senate Democrats had been blocking some of President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees through use of the threat of a filibuster; of 57 nominees for the U.S. Court of Appeals, 42 were confirmed, five never received hearings, and 10 were blocked by threat of filibuster. Democrats said this was nothing compared to 60 or so nominees of President Bill Clinton for whom Republicans refused to even hold hearings. http://www.conservativeblogwatch.com/2010/02/24/obama-dems-in-2005-nuclear-option%E2%80%99-is-%E2%80%98arrogant%E2%80%99-power-grab-against-the-founders%E2%80%99-intent-video/

Democrats have made that very clear in their effort to justify their consideration of it also. So how did our current group of Democrats react when that happened? The video points that out very clearly..

“And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers -- the House and the Senate -- but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the founders intended,” ....Obama

So now Obama feels doing what the founders did not intend is fine?

“This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab….I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” ....Biden

So now he approves of that arrogance of power and same naked power grab?

“The right to extended debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases a filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.” .....Reid

So now Harry cries about filibusters and doesn't believe they are a check on power when HIS party controls congress and the white house?

The checks and balances which have been the core of our constitution are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option, the checks and balances which say if you only get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way all of the time. It's almost a temper tantrum. The (republicans) will make the rules, change the rules to have their way every time so that they will get their way. ...Shumer

So now he doesn't care about the core of the constitution being evaporated? It's not a temper tantrum when democrats act that way?

The nuclear option, if successful, can turn the Senate into a body which can have it's rules broken at any time  by the majority of senators. If the republican leadership insists on pushing the nuclear option, the senate becomes ipso facto, where the majority rules supreme and the party in power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power. ....Feinstein

But if the party in power is the Democrats then the domination is fine?
The founders understood that there is a tyranny of majority       ....Dodd

UNless that majority is the democrats, Chuck?


This is the way democracy ends, not with a bomb...with a gavel....Baucus

Except for when the Democrats own the gavel, one must assume.


C,mon, Bob, there is no way you can look at the incredible reaction of the democrats in 2005 at the thought of using the 51% majority rule in the Senate, from the ignoring of the founding fathers, the destruction of the constitution, the arrogance of the republicans, the unraveling of the fabric of our nation......and then look at their complete reversal and support of the same tactic now that THEY might use it to their advantage. If you don't call that hypocricy, then we use different dictionaries.


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


7 posted 02-25-2010 11:31 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

A blind link, Mike, is one with no explanation of what we should expect to find when clicked. That was your opening post? I clicked on yours, but honestly I usually don't. And, yea, the video in that first link played about 5 seconds for me and then froze. Probably my connection, but I doubt I'm alone. I'm connected with Sprint wireless and it's just not as fast or hearty as cable or DSL. People with dial-up are even farther behind the eight-ball.

You seem to be claiming that the Democrats and specifically President Obama are talking about getting rid of the filibuster as, apparently, the Republicans have threatened in the past? I haven't seen anything about that. A quick search on Google doesn't support your claim either. Could you, perhaps, provide more information?


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


8 posted 02-25-2010 12:41 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Balladeer may be a bit tied up looking for another link to support something else he said, so I’ll be a good Pipster and lend him a hand on this one even though it was only a passing fancy on the part of a couple of Dems:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/11/some-democratic-senators-want-to-end-filibusters/


Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


9 posted 02-25-2010 01:30 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Thanks, Jennifer, but I'm sure that can't be what Mike is referencing. The two senators mentioned in your link aren't trying to eliminate the filibuster, just limit it in terms of how long it can be used to promote discussion and delay action.

Nor, I think, would Mike be likely to charge these guys with hypocrisy?

"Mr. Harkin said he comes to the issue with 'clean hands': in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority, he proposed a similar rule change."


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


10 posted 02-25-2010 03:39 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

You're probably right Ron, and no doubt Balladeer will set me straight as soon as he has a chance. However, I do know for sure Obama's position on the filibuster. I'll hold off on the link unless Balladeer needs it.
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


11 posted 02-25-2010 03:52 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K

  

     No.  

      Let me be clear, since Mike apparently didn't read my post.  

     "The Nuclear Option" was a term created by Trent Lott.  He created it in 2005.  If The Democrats did not permit Republicans the addition of Democratic support in their Advise and Consent, Lott threatened to exercise "the Nuclear Option."  By this he meant the increase of the threshold for filibuster from 60 votes to 66 votes.  

     Since this is basically the prerogative of the majority party, who sets the rules for the Senate, as I understand it, this provided a dire threat.  It was indeed Nuclear in many ways for a party as disorganized as the Democrats have tended to be historically.

     Apparently Mike needs to look about and notice no such threat is being made today.

     Mike is angry, as are many Republicans, that Health care may be passed on a straight majority vote.  

     This is the way the founders sort of intended legislation to be passed.  

     If they intended a party in a clear minority in both houses of the congress to be able to block legislation, they did not offer a constitutional means of doing so.  The Senate has the right to make its own rules, and made no rule to keep this course of action from going through; in fact, this course of action is one used with incredible regularity because house and senate versions of a bill are seldom if ever  identical.

     The Republicans are here exercising The Blow Hard Option and are trying to Reconcile it with the Lie Hard Option.  They are squirming like eels in attempting to avoid the Cry Hard Option.  

     In fact, they have just about everything they could have wanted from this bill, and have been given the heart and soul of the bill on a platter in return.  It is, in my opinion, essentially an eviscerated version of what should have been a single payer plan that should have taken the private players out of the health insurance business and which should have put some actual market competition into the bidding for drug prices.

     I cannot hold the Republicans entirely responsible for the manifold apparent weakness of the bill that looks like it may appear out of the reconciliation process.  I cannot even say with any certainty that it will be a bill that would get the required 51 Democratic votes.  I can say that the Republicans are distorting the facts and reality of the matter beyond anything that I find recognizable.

     And that they would (in the form of The Great Unmentionable) suggest that the reconciliation (a standard practice between a house Bill and a Senate Bill) of today and the Nuclear Option (an actual change in the Senate Rules, requiring an alteration the the way that all legislation potentially be handled in the future for the purposes of gaining momentary political gain) of 2005 are identical, is simply bizarre.  The first is following the agreed upon rules for both House and Senate operations in dealing with differences.  It is normal.  The Second is a threat (You don't suppose that Trent Lott used the term "The Nuclear Option" because he was inviting everybody out for Root Beer, do you?) to change the way that things were supposed to be done within the Senate itself, greatly to the disadvantage of the party out of power.

     The Democrats haven't done that; they haven't even threatened to do that.  

     Not that I suppose they couldn't or wouldn't, mind you; they simply haven't.  Oddly enough, for all the Republican excoriation or The President, I believe that he seems to be a moderating influence on at least the Democratic side of the bare-knuckles aspect of this kerfuffle.  

     In the spirit of helpless puzzlement that takes mo on occasion, I offer the question, why is that in all the time that there has been cause to speak of that famous Republican, Trent Lott, has there been so little discussion of Lott's Wife?

     Inquiring minds want to know.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


12 posted 02-25-2010 06:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Thanks for the help, Jennifer, but, as Ron surmised, I wasn't referring to those two gentlemen. I was referring to the grand poobas of the Democratic Party....


At a briefing with reporters this morning, Harry Reid said that Republicans attempted to "ruin our country" when some tried to change Senate rules so that only a simple majority would be needed to confirm judges, a legislative maneuver dubbed the "nuclear option." But yesterday Reid said that it would be okay for Democrats to pass nationalized health care and massive cap-and-trade energy tax with a simple majority through a slightly-less-scary-sounding maneuver known as "budget reconciliation". Reid said today of the GOP's toying with the so-called "nuclear option":

The nuclear option is only one of the things that the Republicans in power at the time did or tried to do to ruin our country. As I said at the time, the nuclear option is the most important issue that I had worked on in my entire career because if that had gone through it would have destroyed the Senate as we know it. I said at the time that if I became a majority leader and the nuclear option were part of the Senate's [rules], I would change them. There is no way that I would be part of using the nuclear option. And I want every Republican to hear that.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/03/reid_nuclear_option_for_me_but_2.asp

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has vowed to avert a Republican filibuster to pass changes to the health care bill within 60 days using the reconciliation process.

The Hill reports:

    Reid said that congressional Democrats would likely opt for a procedural tactic in the Senate allowing the upper chamber to make final changes to its healthcare bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster.

    "I've had many conversations this week with the president, his chief of staff, and Speaker Pelosi," Reid said during an appearance Friday evening on "Face to Face with Jon Ralston" in Nevada. "And we're really trying to move forward on this."

    The majority leader said that while Democrats have a number of options, they would likely use the budget reconciliation process to pass a series of fixes to the first healthcare bill passed by the Senate in November. These changes are needed to secure votes for passage of that original Senate bill in the House.

    "We'll do a relatively small bill to take care of what we've already done," Reid said, affirming that Democrats would use the reconciliation process. "We're going to have that done in the next 60 days."

It's hard to know whether this is more tough talk for the Democrats, but it's important to keep in mind that any bill would still face a tough road to passage in the House.
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/02/20/reid-vows-to-use-nuclear-optio

President Obama wants to keep the option of using reconciliation to pass health care reform despite calls from Republican lawmakers that he agree to drop the parliamentary maneuver as a "good faith" gesture" before their bipartisan health care summit.

White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said on Tuesday that Republicans coming to the West Wing for the much-anticipated February 25 meeting would be better off arriving "without preconditions." Asked whether Obama would commit to not using reconciliation -- which would allow aspects of health care legislation to be considered in the Senate by an up-or-down vote -- Gibbs replied:

    The president is not going to eliminate things based on preconditions. And if that's one of their preconditions, the president doesn't agree to limiting the way we are going to discuss this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/09/obama-wont-drop-potential_n_455625.html

Pelosi Makes Case for Budget Reconciliation To Pass Health Reform

During an exclusive interview with Roll Call on Tuesday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) suggested that Democrats would not hesitate to use the parliamentary procedure of budget reconciliation to push a health care reform bill through the Senate with only 51 votes.

According to Roll Call, the Democrats' loss of a crucial seat in the Senate to Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) last month -- ending their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the chamber -- has "revived" discussions in the party to bypass potential filibusters by the Republicans.

In recent weeks, Pelosi has rebuffed calls from the White House for the House to pass the Senate's reform bill (HR 3590) as it stands and instead has urged Senate Democrats to make revisions to the bill that would draw sufficient support in the House through a separate filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill.
http://www.californiahealthline.org/articles/2010/2/11/pelosi-makes-case-for-budget-reconciliation-to-pass-health-reform.aspx

Feinstein Support: “Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) became the 11th Senator to sign on to a new effort by Democrats to press Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to pass a public option for insurance coverage using reconciliation, her office confirmed to the Huffington Post on Wednesday.” (Huffington Post, 2/17/2010) http://www.conservativeblogwatch.com/2010/02/24/obama-dems-in-2005-nuclear-option%E2%80%99-is-%E2%80%98arrogant%E2%80%99-power-grab-against-the-founders%E2%80%99-intent-video/

The recnciliation, or nuclear option, is the elephant in the room. It is the baseball bat held behind the back while the president asks you to play nice.  Considering everything those Democratic leaders said in the video, this would be hypocritical, at best.

On a side note, CNN reports that, during the health care show this afternoon, Democrats were given 114 minutes (with Obama having 59 of them) and the Republicans were given 55 minutes in total. I don't find that surprising at all.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


13 posted 02-25-2010 06:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Mike is angry, as are many Republicans, that Health care may be passed on a straight majority vote.  

     This is the way the founders sort of intended legislation to be passed.


Not according to Obama and Hillary in the video, Bob. Are you disagreeing with them?


The Democrats haven't done that; they haven't even threatened to do that.  
     Not that I suppose they couldn't or wouldn't, mind you; they simply haven't.


You may want to rethink that statement, Bob.

Btw, I did read your post, that is, up to the point where you accused me of not researching information and asking me if my memory went up in smoke. After that, I sort of lost interest.

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (02-25-2010 06:57 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


14 posted 02-25-2010 06:37 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

If anyone had the chance to listen to the interaction between McCain and Obama concerning using reconciliation, Obama danced all around it, stating that he does not think the American people are interested in the procedural system in the senate, only that "they want a vote and that most Americans feel that a majority vote makes sense."

That's pretty clear.....and extremely hypocritical with regards to his previous thoughts on the subject.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


15 posted 02-25-2010 06:40 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

WASHINGTON – After a day of debate and disagreement, President Barack Obama concluded Thursday's unprecedented live talkfest on health care with the bleak assessment that accord between Democrats and Republicans may not be possible. He rejected Republican preferences for seeking a step-by-step solution or simply starting over.

Obama strongly suggested that Democrats will try to pass a sweeping overhaul without GOP support, by using controversial Senate budget rules that would disallow filibusters. And then, he said, this fall's elections would write the verdict on who was right.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100225/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


16 posted 02-25-2010 07:04 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Not only did the Dems hog most of the allotted time, but the President sometimes interrupted the Republicans or slapped them down when they were finished.  Obama’s rebuttal to McCain was so petty and demeaning. Really, what a cheap shot to bring up that McCain lost the election. And Pelosi’s closer, whining on and on and shaking a finger at Boehner and Camp and calling them liars. Kabuki theater at it’s finest.

"If we're unable to resolve differences over health care, we will need to move ahead on decisions," he said, alluding to using reconciliation, a controversial maneuver that prevents a GOP filibuster by requiring only 51 votes to pass legislation.

Obama added that if voters are unhappy with results, then "that's what elections are for."

So much for caring about what Americans want.
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


17 posted 02-25-2010 07:11 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

quote:
The recnciliation, or nuclear option, is the elephant in the room.

Don't you mean "are the elephants in the room," Mike? You know, plural? As in two separate things?

The filibuster is a parliamentary procedure used to block an immediate vote. Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure, too, used to reconcile two bills that have already been passed. I think the emphasis is not unimportant. Still, I'm not here to defend reconciliation or to condemn it. I'm just pointing out they're entirely different things, Mike. I don't see anything hypocritical in being against a so-called nuclear option, which essentially eliminates filibusters entirely, and still being for the reconciliation process being used in a specific and very limited instance to make one particular filibuster more or less impotent.

quote:
On a side note, CNN reports that, during the health care show this afternoon, Democrats were given 114 minutes (with Obama having 59 of them) and the Republicans were given 55 minutes in total. I don't find that surprising at all.

Neither do I, Mike.

Using your CNN numbers, it seem the Democratic congress got 55 minutes, the Republican congress got 55 minutes, and the leader of our nation got 59. Considering this is a White House initiative, that seems reasonable to me. From a different perspective, one might argue that Congress got 110 minutes and the White House only 59. Is that what you think unfair?


JenniferMaxwell
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 09-14-2006
Posts 2275


18 posted 02-25-2010 08:03 PM       View Profile for JenniferMaxwell   Email JenniferMaxwell   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for JenniferMaxwell

Since the President is a Democrat, seems like 114/59 is a fair call. Kind of hard to dialog when you’re hogging the floor. A five minute open and close with brief remarks to move the discussion along when necessary would have been far more appropriate.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


19 posted 02-25-2010 08:13 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure, too, used to reconcile two bills that have already been passed.

I confess, Ron, that this whole health care odyssey has my head spinning so much I get lost easily. The House passed a health care bill, right? The senate passed a health care bill, is that right? Then the two were sent to be merged into one and voted on as the final health care bill...is that right? So then the final health care bill hasn't been voted on yet. Therefor it's not a bill that has been passed. Only two individual parts that must be fused together in some way have been passed, but seperately. It seems Pelosi's plan is to pass the final version, regardless of who agrees with it, by using the majority reconciliation vote....and then they can always change it after something has been passed.

The nuclear option eliminates the filibuster and, in reality, so does reconciliation in this form, since any majority vote effectively knocks out a filibuster which would prevent a bill from being voted on. They may be two different procedures but they
are used to achieve the same purpose, a bypass of the filibuster.

In the video which I hope you been able to watch by now, the democrats were speaking out against the same thing the democrats are gently threatening to exercise now, be it referred to as reconciliation, nuclear option or whatever.

As far as the president getting more air time, don't you consider that defeating the purpose in a meeting designed to hear the views of both sides? The republicans weren't invited there to listen to Obama speeches. They were invited to participate....and given 1/3rd of the time to do it. I don't think the invitation read, "Come to the conference and listen to Obama and the democrats speak...and you can have a little time, too, unless  we  decide to cut you off".
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


20 posted 02-25-2010 08:16 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Kabuki theater...now THAT brings back memories! Thanks, Jennifer
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


21 posted 02-25-2010 10:43 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K


     No, Mike, they are not the same thing.

     I have explained the difference twice.

     Ron has explained that they are different in a mild and non-confrontive way.  I wish I were better at that sort of thing.

     The videos are taken from a debate about five years old about raising the number of votes to invoke cloture.  This, "The Nuclear Option," which those Democrats were against then and are still presumably against today since no attempt has been made by the Democrats to raise the number of votes required to invoke cloture today, even though it is a prerogative of the majority party in the Senate to do so.  Nor, I repeat myself, have they threatened to do so.

     They are invoking reconciliation.

     I must say I'm sorry about one earlier statement I made about this term.  I thought that it was much much more common than it in fact is.  In fact the President said that it's been used only about 20 times since 1974, including by Republicans.  I thought it was more frequent, but it is still a common-enough parlementary tactic for you to remember its use as well as I do.  My memory is no great shakes, but even I remember its use on budgets in the past.  "The Nuclear Option" has never been used.  Never.  It was invented by Trent Lott, and the only threat of its use, as far I as I know has been by Trent Lott.

     You are confusing apples and elephants, Mike.  Only apples make a refreshing and palatable drink which, when fermented, is often called cider.  In England, one Variety of this is called "scrumpy cider," for some charming reason.

     There has never been as far as I am aware, either a delicious fruit drink called "scrumpy elephant juice," or a nuclear option called for by Democrats in 2010.  

     "Reconciliation," yes; but neither "The Nuclear Option" nor "Scrumpy Elephant Juice."   Democrats on the whole are far too serious to consider either of these two things funny.  For all I know, Republicans may be too serious as well, especially after watching the normally somewhat pro-humor John McCain in Today's exchange with the President.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


22 posted 02-25-2010 10:44 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I am not sure I would say filibuster and the nuclear option and reconciliation involve the same things.

Reconciliation involves budgetary matters.

One might look at the Byrd amendment.

As I recall it was a fairly liberal Democrat from West Virgina who stopped the Clinton Health Care initiative when the Democrats had 57 votes in the Senate back in the early nineties.

Byrd, who I rarely agree with, indicated rules are rules and procedures are procedures.

In reconciliation, debate is limited to 20 hours.  Byrd thought making such a major change to the American system and way of life ought to be fully debated and legislated. He put principal above politics and backed the Democrats down on reconciliation.

Nope, I don't think reconciliation is an often used procedure except in budgetary matters. Maybe if a few Democrats have the integrity that Senator Byrd (not to be mistaken as a Republican) did during the Clinton administration, we wouldn't be talking about reconciliation.

I also hope the Republicans have the intregity to not rely on reconciliation in a partisan power play to end run the legislative process.

Filibuster deals with stopping action.  Reconciliation involves ensuring decisions that will dramatically effect our country's future will take 60 votes and will be fully and openly debated.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


23 posted 02-25-2010 10:46 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Perhaps that's why our friends across the sea see it this way...


the Times of London wrote that "watching American politicians argue about health care can be seriously damaging to your health. Symptoms include migraines, extreme fatigue and sudden violent urges."
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


24 posted 02-25-2010 11:09 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I don't think it is a question of hypocrisy, but a question of attempting to subvert the legislative process and the will of the American people.

We are now venturing past partisan politics and hubris. We are now periously approaching the precipace of damage to our system of government.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> TheHeight of Hypocrisy   [ Page: 1  2  3  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors