PDA

View Full Version : The 9/11 Responders Bill explained.



Qtec
08-07-2010, 03:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Joe Scarborough had Rep. Peter King on the set of Morning Joe to respond to Anthony Weiner's interview the previous morning and took up for King and the Republicans while going into full hissy fit mode. Did we expect anything different out of him? He claimed he's going to have Anthony Weiner back on again because he's "got some questions for him". We'll see about that.

Karoli explained very well what game the Republicans were playing here. In Joe Scarborough's world, this is "changing the rules" and the Democrats playing politics rather than the Republicans hoping to insert a poison pill into the legislation so they can run attack ads against the Democrats. Note to Joe Scarborough, you're not "changing the rules" just by deciding to use a different procedure in the House to prevent the Republicans from playing politics. I'm not sure what the definition of "playing politics" is if it doesn't include inserting provisions into a bill purely to attack your opponents in the next election cycle. Scarborough thinks it's just terrible that the Democrats don't want to allow the Republicans to have something to attack the House Hispanic Caucus with in November.

As Karoli already noted here's the game the Republicans are playing:

So to review, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>the Democrats bring a bill to the floor to pay the debt this country has to 9/11 responders. It doesn't have any poison pills, but the Republicans want to add something that involves illegal immigration, so that Democrats will look like they voted against illegal immigration when they were voting on a bill to take care of 9/11 responders.
</span>
And according to Peter King, it's all the Democrats' fault. Got it. (Note: Peter King voted for the bill...) </div></div>

This bill has been 5 years in the making. The GOP claim they are all for it. At the last moment they still want to stall and introduce some crap into the bill that the Dems will never vote for.
The Dems called their bluff, as A.W so eloquently said, "If you believe in the bill, vote yes."

The rest is history.

Q watch it. (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/node/38838)

LWW
08-07-2010, 05:56 AM
So, again, why didn't they pass it?

With 218 votes they could have hassed the bill and stopped all amendments.

Why didn't they do that if they in fact have 255 real votes?

Why would they pursue a legislative [process that would guarantee failure?

You can figure this out ... assuming that you want to figure it out.

LWW