Glynnis,
No need to say you are playing devil’s advocate, we all know that’s your main job, to make the liberal argument.

Also, I’m wondering if you will be doing an update on your beck fails history 101 claim? He had a judge on today that said that he was correct. I look forward to your update.

MichellF – If thats true then there is no need for you to say it. Wishful thinking.

Well if a judge on Glenn Becks show told him on his show that he, Glenn Beck was correct (did I say on his show) then golly jeepers…it must be true. Dang MichelleF, point for you!!

When Bush wanted to cut taxes in 2003, the Republican Congress utilized the reconciliation procedure (now called the nuclear option) to bring that into law. The vote was 50/50 with Cheney breaking the tie. That tax cut cost the U.S. treasury 1.4 trillion dollars. Who got the primary benefit of that? The super wealthy who saved millions and millions. Thus, from that point on the deficit grew bigger and bigger. So what is the complaint now when a Congress and President, elected by the people, seeks to push forward the primary plank in the party’s and the Presidents, campaign platform? Its like the election did not happen, the President did not win decisively, the Congress did not go overwhelmingly to the Democrats.

I think Pelosi underestimates the anger of the electorate. It’s not just about the health care bill now. It’s about the subversion of the democratic process. Deem and pass? Reconciliation? The Slaughter subterfuge? The Louisiana purchases? The Cornhusker kickback? Judgeships handed out to the brother of a swing vote? Rahm bullying people in the nude?

This has become the ugliest power play in modern American political history. No wonder people are phoning their overlords. And either they listen to the voters, or there will be a housecleaning in November of unprecedented proportions.

Subversion of the process. How so? The Republicans used the non vote reconciliation process many many times. I love the fact that the Repubs are saying that the Democrats are hurting themselves by this process. I would think that they would be happy about that. Rather, they say that to continue the fear mongering approach that they have adopted. People are so sick of this healthcare debate they will just be happy it is over. And in two years, they will not even care how the bill passed because by that time there will have been several other contentious issues that have rung their bell, such as immigration reform which is up next.

Because he knows that the bill will pass and it’s their last stand. I think all 300 people who showed up at today’s teabagger reach around know the bill will pass too.

By the way, there’s no subterfuge.
TPM

All Nonsense
The procedure every(GOP)one is so up in arms about is called a “self-executing rule.” How many times did the Republicans use it the last time they controlled Congress, 2005-06? More than 35 times! And the Democrats? They complained about it then too, though to the best of my knowledge there were no claims of treason.

Norm Ornstein has the story.

http://blog.american.com/?p=11467

Both bills have passed the House and Senate. The Dems still have a super majority and every right to govern. Fuck off losers!

Why don’t you lefties read the Constitution? What part of article one, section seven don’t you understand. It states for a bill to become law “the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by the yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.”

To pass a bill without a vote on the bill is the most blatant abuse of power in modern American political history.

felixw,
They already voted for the bill. What is happening is a procedure to reconcile the two versions of the healthcare reform bill that HAS ALREADY PASSED BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS..

valkyrie101, Republicans used the reconciliation process for…. (wait for it)… budget reconciliation! The Democratic leadership wants to use it along with pass-by-rule to send legislation that was not passed by both houses of Congress to the President’s desk for signing. This is an end run around the constitution and very different than anything done before.

roxsteady, The do not have a super majority the Senate.

Of course you probably do not like this site, but it is a gold mine of objective information: http://mediamatters.org/research/201003160042 This so called “self-executing” reconciliation procedure has been used a couple hundred times, mostly during the Republican control of Congress. Of course now the shoe is on the other foot so they say it is a travesty, to further their political agenda to kill health care reform, of any kind, as a main priority.

Rush and the teabaggers and Jim DeMint with his lies and Sarah Palin with her lies and Chuck Grassley with her lies all made it a ‘ball game.’ It’s degenerated into that and the American people, when HCR passes, will see Democrats as winners in that game. And that comes full circle to those who lied about being bipartisan and wanting bipartisanship, all of those liars being Republicans, and that they set the tone and made the game exactly what it is. In your face.

The Bush tax cuts in 2003 went through the reconciliation process. The vote was 50/50 with Cheney (of all people) casting the deciding vote. Say what you will about Clinton, but when he left office he left a budget surplus. You are a conservative, you like the sound of that, right? The Bush tax cuts cost our treasury over the term of the cuts, 1.4 trillion dollars. So your position is that this was not a significant use of reconciliation?

The central objection to the health care bill all this time has been that it will contribute to a growing budget deficit. But here is reality, it will not contribute to a budget deficit because it will have the effect of reining in medical costs. But in any event, how does this bill from a budgetary standpoint compare with the Bush tax cuts? Like comparing a grape to a pineapple. So where were all these fiscally prudent objections to the Bush tax cuts by the conservatives. Oh yea, the other half of their fiscal conservatism is lower taxes are good. Yes, very good for the wealthy people pushing that agenda, with minor impact for the common man. Glenn Beck, who earns 20-30 million dollars per year, saves millions on the Bush tax cuts. That may explain his attitude toward going back to the Clinton era levels. Bottom line is that the Bush tax cuts were not fiscally prudent at all. How do I know? Compare the Clinton surplus with the highest deficit by far in American history at the time Bush left office.

As for the self executing reconciliation procedure, as I mentioned above, not only is that process frequently used (especially by Republicans), it presumes that both houses of Congress have already passed versions of the same bill. So where is the constitutional crisis in that?

Nice try, Rush, not.

2/3 of respondents either approve the bill or want it stronger, but don’t let facts get in the way of your agenda, any more than the media will call out your lies given that they’ve let every other Republican hack repeat it endlessly.

Even as bad as this sucks it will be accepted and generally liked, just like the awful Medicare Part D (try repealing that), and the Republicans will look like mean selfish pr__ks – same as always.

No soup for you, peasant!

If this law is so great and it’s what everyone wants, why is it so difficult to pass? Why can’t they get the votes to do it in a legit way? Wasn’t it Obama (you know the President) who said this deserves an up or down vote?

I’m not sure I understand how this bill that has so many parts to it that have NOTHING to do with healthcare is such a good idea. If the bill was just healthcare, then maybe but this bill has all sorts of other crap in it.

Plus, will anyone be less sick the day after it is signed? Will everyone suddenly have coverage? Will that woman they keep trotting out as an example really have anything in her life change after this bill is signed into law? NO – not for another 4 years (at least). If this thing is SUCH an EMERGENCY then why is there such a long time for it to kick in?

What’s the hurry? Oh, that’s right, jerk off has a plane to catch. He has to go piss off more allies. You know, they thing that everyone accused Bush of doing, and the O-Man is doing nothing but pissing off more people. Hope / Change / MY ASS.

Worst President Ever! Welcome back Carter.

Why is it so hard to pass a health care reform bill? Hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying donations from insurance and health care special interest groups to the politicians on both sides of the isle. And then there is the simple reality that one entire party is trying to sink the President’s administration by opposing everything, no matter what.

Zakk,
Obama worst President ever? Way too soon to make such a statement. But consider your hero, Bush. Entered office at a time of peace and a budget surplus. Left office with the country in two wars, the largest deficit in U.S. history, and the country’s financial system near collapse. Can Obama compete with that? Yes you say? Please explain, objectively, why you believe that.

Maybe it is too soon to make that call. How about ‘approaching worst president ever’. Is that better? At what point did I say Bush was my hero? Or are you just projecting? Here’s the deal with Barry O – He took a bad situation and made it worse. The country is broke and everyone is losing their jobs, so what does he do. Well, he worries about health care and the environment. Just a little off the mark, don’t cha’ think? Then, as the unemployment numbers rise, he gives a speech and goes back to worrying about his precious ego and this health-care debacle.

Truth be told, McCain would have been just as bad – things were royally screwed up when he came into office. I really think a Governor (NOT PALIN) was needed in this type of situation. Someone who has been held accountable for a budget at least once in their political career. Personally, I don’t like any senator who runs for president, I don’t trust them at all, especially with money.

Yes, we were in ‘peace’ time, if you don’t count the USS Cole, the US Embassy bombings, the World Trade Center bombings, Khobar Towers and so on. What exactly was the response to all of those attacks? “We are determined to get answers and justice.” – How’d that go? Not nearly as well as blowing them the f*%k up. I realize we’ve gotten lucky a bunch of times but that’s neither here nor there.

One of the big contributors to the economic boom was the defense spending cuts under Clinton. I get it, he figured the Cold War was basically over so why do we need a strong national defense. When Bush went into Afghanistan the military was working with old equipment that hadn’t been updated since the Cold War, so yes, he had to spend lots and lots of money to get the military up to date. Same goes for Iraq, [which we were basically done with by the time the Big O took office, but I did enjoy how Biden tried to take credit for it. (save that for another post).] It’s not as black and white as your talking points make it out to be.

“And then there is the simple reality that one entire party is trying to sink the President’s administration by opposing everything, no matter what.” – Would that be the party that is out of power? The party that until a few months ago didn’t have enough representatives to block a vote? Is that the party your talking about? Sorry, don’t buy it. Try again. You can’t blame the republicans for the awful leadership of Reid and Pelosi and Obama for that matter. That one falls directly on their front porch. If they can’t get their own party behind a bill that is supposedly their cornerstone issue, then what can they do?

Valkyrie, clearly you haven’t been reading the news if you think the health care bill has already passed the Senate and the House. I hate to break the news, but they were not the same bill. If Pelosi wants, she can put the Senate bill up for a vote in the House. But she doesn’t want an up-or-down vote on it. She wants to force it into law without a vote.

The Democratic party should change its name to the Despotic Party.

Well if you are saying that about the Dems, what do you say about the hundred or more times that Repubs used exactly the same procedure last time they controlled Congress? Obviously your complaints are partisan.

It is almost never the case that the two bills of the two houses of Congress exactly meet. But that does not mean they did not pass the bill in both houses. That is what the reconciliation process is all about. And pursuant to Congressional rules, one way of performing the reconciliation is by the so called self executing procedure. The Republicans used that procedure to pass bills over 200 times during their last run as the majority party. What do they have to say now?

I guess before Democrats can proclaim the vaunted title of despotic party, they have some catching up to do.

“When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.”

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/13/self-executing-rule/#ixzz0iP0UHCGk

As usual, fact-less smear and fear, nothing new by any means.

Why should ANYONE be worried about a draft dodging clown?

If anal pustules are contagious that explains that rash around Sean Hannity’s face.

This site is good for information except when it puts out disinformation about Fox News, Glenn Beck and Rush.

The only thing you liberals, socialists, fascists, communists, and so-called “progressives” have is besmirching those you do not agree with, comparing apples to oranges, and outright lying. You have nothing of substance ever to contribute to a debate.