PDA

View Full Version : DEMOCROOKS GO NUCLEAR!



LWW
10-07-2011, 07:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Avoiding a vote on President Obama's jobs bill, Senate Democrats Thursday night took the extraordinary step of changing Senate precedents by using a complex parliamentary maneuver to, in part, block a GOP bid to put Democrats on the record about the new White House economic plan.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>"It is very unfortunate that Senator Harry Reid and his fellow Democrat Senators have changed the rules of the Senate,"</span> said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), <span style='font-size: 11pt'>"all because they refuse to take a vote on President Obama's jobs bill."

It was the second time this week that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had thwarted a Republican effort to force a vote on the Obama jobs bill</span> ...

In a sense, this was like the "nuclear option" fight during the Bush Administration, when Republicans threatened to use a simple majority of the Senate to change the rules and do away with filibusters on judicial nominations.

Back then, Republicans were in the majority and chafed at Democrats using the filibuster; now it is Democrats in the majority who are aggravated that Republicans are using the filibuster and other tactics.

<span style='font-size: 11pt'>What stopped the GOP from using that nuclear option (and changing the rules by a simple majority vote) was the "Gang of 14," a bipartisan group which argued that changing the rules and precedents of the Senate was a bad idea.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>But things change when you go from the majority to the minority and vice versa, and so this time there were four members of the Gang of 14 who saw things differently and voted to change Senate precedent.

Sen. Dan Inouye (D-HI), Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) all voted with Sen. Reid</span> ...

One thing is clear, the Senate is an unhappy place right now, with both sides accusing the other of dealing in bad faith on a regular basis. </div></div>

JUMPING BUTTERBALLS! (http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2011/10/06/senate-jobs-bill-showdown/)

eg8r
10-07-2011, 08:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"It is very unfortunate that Senator Harry Reid and his fellow Democrat Senators have changed the rules of the Senate," said Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), "all because they refuse to take a vote on President Obama's jobs bill."
</div></div>This says it all. Reid is blocking Obama because he knows there are not enough Dems buying into the bill.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 12:38 PM
We'll see how reluctant Reid is to have this bill brought up for a vote PROPERLY (that is to say, with ample debate time, as a stand-alone bill, not as an undebated amendment to something to which this is not germane) in a scant few days.

Hint: he's not.

Conversely, we will see how interested McConnell is on a proper vote once Reid tries to get it to the floor for debate.

Hint: HE'S not, either. Dollars to doughnuts, when that time comes in the next little while, that effort will be filibustered by the same GOP that is so eager to bring it up now (simply as a gotcha ploy, and for further dilatory action).

LWW
10-07-2011, 01:11 PM
So ... when I say Reid is blocking a vote on Obama's "PASS THIS JOBS BILL NOW" you didn't mean that Reid is blocking a vote on Obama's "PASS THIS JOBS BILL NOW" but that Reid is instead actually blocking a vote on Obama's "PASS THIS JOBS BILL NOW."

Gotcha.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 02:33 PM
Are you that naive, really? You don't realize the parliamentary tricks and political rat-f**ng that goes on with how and when votes are brought forward?

The Chinese currency bill is in the final stretch, and McConnell wants to attach this non-germane $450 billion+ legislation as an undebated amendment? That should be a clue that it is not a serious consideration of this bill that McConnell is seeking.

Yes, it's true, and evidently news to you, that votes on bills are frequently delayed for many reasons, including that more time is needed to whip the caucus' support, and indeed, modify the proposal to gain that support. Such delay does not mean the leadership opposes bringing it up, just that it opposes bringing it up prematurely, without adequate preparation and head-counting of the vote.

So, yes, absolutely, Reid is preventing it from coming up prematurely, before he has the caucus fully in line, and before his Whip deputy in the leadership has the votes lined up, through crafting a modification of some of its terms.

Somewhat ironical, I guess, but at a very low level of significance, given that the bill in chief as its own bill will be introduced for debate and vote in about 1 week.

This kind of delay is unexceptional, and a standard practice. What is unique about this situation, and there is something unique, you leave out.

LWW
10-07-2011, 03:22 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Are you that naive, really? You don't realize the parliamentary tricks and political rat-f**ng that goes on with how and when votes are brought forward?</div></div>

That's precious that someone of your naivete would say that.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2011, 04:51 PM
Yes, I was quite naive to imagine you might not be that naive, after having seen you over-interpret, which is to say, wrongly interpret, any number of commonplace events, quotes, statistics, polling, and really, almost an unlimited number of areas of discussion.

I apologize, and it won't happen again.

Of COURSE, and as I already knew, you are engaging in a performance art agit-prop, as always. Settling old, possibly imaginary scores with your hated 'cabal' interlocutors, with outrageous dishonest tweaks you find amusing. Or something-- I don't pretend to get the whole Animal House food fight that is your substitute for rational thinking.

eg8r
10-07-2011, 09:56 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We'll see how reluctant Reid is to have this bill brought up for a vote PROPERLY </div></div>What exactly was IMPROPER by the Reps saying, "OK let's vote"? Obama wanted the bill voted on and the Reps said, "Fine, let's vote". Reid, knowing his fellow Dems had to much to lose going with Obama's recommendations, got worried and clammed up.

Do you find it proper to see Reid change the rules in the middle of the "game" to give his side an advantage?

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2011, 09:59 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Chinese currency bill is in the final stretch, and McConnell wants to attach this non-germane $450 billion+ legislation as an undebated amendment? </div></div>Is this type of action completely unprecedented? Hint: NO! It has been going on since the beginning.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, yes, absolutely, Reid is preventing it from coming up prematurely,</div></div>Why do you feel the need to defend only to give in? Just man up and admit it from the beginning. Obama told Congress to pass this bill. The reps called their bluff and said OK but first we still need to vote. Reid blocked that from happening because he knew the Dems would never agree with the bill as submitted by Obama.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-08-2011, 05:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We'll see how reluctant Reid is to have this bill brought up for a vote PROPERLY </div></div>What exactly was IMPROPER by the Reps saying, "OK let's vote"? Obama wanted the bill voted on and the Reps said, "Fine, let's vote". Reid, knowing his fellow Dems had to much to lose going with Obama's recommendations, got worried and clammed up.

Do you find it proper to see Reid change the rules in the middle of the "game" to give his side an advantage?

eg8r </div></div>

Not really, and I'll say it is pitiful how poorly this is understood.

The vote was not going to be ON THIS AT ALL (as an amendment). The vote was whether to ALLOW there to BE an amendment, which would have REQUIRED WAIVING THE RULES OF THE SENATE. (Otherwise, the rules of the Senate clearly bar the motion to amend at this stage of the bill, having already cleared the 60 vote threshold for the vote to take place.) The vote was going to be whether to waive the rule to allow this amendment be made. The threshold to waive the rules is a 2/3rds majority, which would in no wise be reached. It has NEVER been reached, whenever this tactic has been used.

What Reid did was to rule the motion to waive the rules out of order (from the podium). Upon appeal of that ruling by the chair to the parliamentarian, the parliamentarian of the Senate then ruled that such a motion was NOT out of order. Reid mustered 100% of the Democrats voting to agree to outvote the parliamentarian's ruling by majority vote, making the motion to waive the rules out of order.

McConnell was going to try to spin a refusal of the motion to waive, as instead REALLY the Democrats opposing the Obama jobs creation bill. It's a three rail bank shot, and more a version of street theater than something substantive the Congress would have done. A cheap trick, which Reid out-maneuvered.

LWW
10-09-2011, 06:07 AM
That was simply precious.

I have no doubt that dear leader will place a gold star in your permanent record.

Soflasnapper
10-09-2011, 12:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That was simply <s>precious</s>accurate.</div></div>

Yes, thank you! Or if not, please explain whatever errors you may find in the explanation.

One correction: I previously said that the motion to waive the rules had never passed, as it requires a 2/3rds vote. Strictly speaking, that is in error. Such a motion did pass, at least once, but not since 1941. I regret my prior erroneous claim.

LWW
10-09-2011, 12:48 PM
You made the claim ...

Soflasnapper
10-09-2011, 12:51 PM
Which you can't find evidence to refute? Understood.

Thanks for confirming it in the negative, by refusing to even claim it isn't true. Good choice!

Given this (http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/186133-reid-triggers-nuclear-option-to-change-senate-rules-and-prohibit-post-cloture-filibusters) explanation, from The Hill.