PDA

View Full Version : Cry baby Dems...



Soflasnapper
12-22-2011, 03:48 PM
The GOP held a pro-forma session of the House, where the business of the day was to recite the pledge of allegiance, and then adjourn.

Ok, silly and stupid though it is, that is typical House procedure at times, and nothing to peg the outrage meter.

It seems Steny Hoyer and Van Hollern decided to make a show appearance, and move for unanimous consent to consider the Senate bill, a unanimous consent that would automatically fail if but one person objected, as someone surely would have objected.

Ok, that's silly and stupid as well, although an attempt at political theater, and again, typical House theatrics, no big deal.

So the acting Speaker who has the floor mumbles the sacred incantation 'pursuant to blahblahblah, the House stands adjourned,' whatever, and pounds the gavel, adjourning the House session. On C-Span, you see them take down the fasces behind the podium, which when up indicates the House is in session.

Some Dems and fellow traveler media are howling that the acting Speaker refused to recognize Steny Hoyer to deal with the motion for unanimous consent. How RUDE!!! they say.

Nonsense. There was nothing to recognize, nothing CAN be recognized, as Hoyer didn't begin to seek recognition until about 3 seconds before the final gavel fell (the acting Speaker well into reciting the fact that they were adjourning).

Not to mention that HAD he been recognized, it would have taken 5 seconds for an objection to be raised to the unanimous consent request, so it would have then failed, and the adjournment then completed.

Rachel Maddow for one reported this as the acting Speaker making no response, and simply walking away. Incorrect. He ADJOURNED THE HOUSE, and then walked away, because nothing can happen if the House is out of session.

In other words, the Dems wanted to perform a political stunt, and were headed off at the pass, mainly by a slightly late start to the request they were trying to make that would have been slapped down anyway. It's ok that they tried, I suppose, but having failed, it's childish to complain about this particular supposed snub which wasn't that at all.

cushioncrawler
12-22-2011, 06:16 PM
Krappynomicysts are watching all of this, while sipping their coffee and waiting for their cue.
mac.

Qtec
12-22-2011, 08:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not to mention that HAD he been recognized, it would have taken 5 seconds for an objection to be raised to the unanimous consent request, so it would have then failed, and the adjournment then completed. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> During a quick pro-forma session of the House this morning, Republicans rebuffed a Democratic attempt to force an up-or-down vote on the Senate-passed payroll tax holiday extension, which Republicans have thus far refused to allow. Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA), who was serving as the speaker pro-temp, ignored shouts of “Mr. Speaker!” from Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), quickly adjourning the House.

Hoyer continued talking undeterred, saying, “You’re walking away, just as so many Republicans have walked away from middle-class taxpayers [and] the unemployed.” “We regret, Mr. Speaker, that you have walked off the platform without addressing this issue of critical importance to this country,” Hoyer added.

<u>Moments later, the mic appeared to cut out. A few seconds after that, the video feed switched away from the House floor to a still image of the Capitol Dome. It appears someone in House Speaker John Boehner’s (R-OH) office cut the feed,</u> as C-SPAN tweeted afterwards: “C-SPAN has no control over the U.S. House TV cameras – the Speaker of the House does.”

Watch it:</div></div> here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxcrJMPGMzU&feature=player_embedded)


Just in,

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Payroll Tax Cut Fight: House GOP Agrees To Two-Month Extension

WASHINGTON -- Ending a dramatic, weeks-long political standoff, House Republican leaders agreed Thursday to pass a Senate-endorsed short-term extension of the payroll tax cut in return for House-Senate negotiations on a year-long package.

The House will take up and pass the bill as soon as Friday at 10 a.m. <u>The bill will come up under unanimous consent, which means it can pass on a voice vote with only two lawmakers present:</u> one in the speaker's chair and one to offer up the bill. Under that scenario, the Senate can take up the bill immediately afterwards and also pass it on a voice vote, clearing it for the president's desk. </div></div>

This extension will affect millions of people so it is pretty important. Sure, Hoyer and Van Hollen were never going to get a vote but their protest showed that the GOP were not interested in getting anything done. It might have only been 3 seconds but when Hoyer addressed the Speaker, the house was still in session and the Speaker ignored him! He took the ball and went home. That's not all.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Moments later, the mic appeared to cut out. A few seconds after that, the video feed switched away from the House floor to a still image of the Capitol Dome </div></div>

How very adult and professional of them!

Q

eg8r
12-22-2011, 09:59 PM
LOL, sofla called you a cry baby before you ever started crying. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
12-22-2011, 11:06 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">LOL, sofla called you a cry baby before you ever started crying. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r </div></div>

When adults get together, we have adult conversations, nothing for you.

The fact that I agree with S on most things ,doesn't mean I agree with everything he says. He gave his opinion, I gave mine. I await his reply. That's what adults do.

egor suits you better than eg8r. What do you think egor?

Q..LOL

Soflasnapper
12-23-2011, 11:27 AM
I don't support the GOP's House leadership's position on this bill (before the recent cave, which I do support).

I thought the Speaker ought to have allowed the Senate bill to be voted on, and had he done so, it probably would have passed.

But whoever controls the House is often keeping things from being voted on-- this is not exceptional nor exceptionally bad. Same thing occurs in the Senate. The power of the agenda, what is allowed to be brought to the floor, is a key power of the majority.

We cannot be consistent if we demand the GOP House leadership allows any bill we like to be voted upon, without saying future Speaker Pelosi should be also so required, or Leader Reid. I don't think they should be required to have votes on all bills, so my position is that the same power of keeping bills from votes is a legitimate power of the GOP when they have majorities.

What is just as clear as the power of the agenda is that there is little or no chance for unanimous consent for controversial matters. Mainly, no chance. Given that reality, it is not any real impingement of the minority's rights if one or another motion for unanimous consent doesn't get recognized to be made on the floor.

And I do not think any particular person or motion needs be heard or recognized by the presiding officer, except a very few things-- point of order, point of personal privilege, maybe a parliamentary inquiry. I haven't studied my Roberts Rules of Order in a long time, if that is even what is used in Congress. But people shouting out 'Mr. Speaker' are not automatically granted recognition at all times, under all circumstances (for one thing, several people might all be saying it, and only one can BE recognized at a time), and in particular, no one needs to be recognized in the middle of a sentence, or 2 seconds away from announcing adjournment.

To my ear, the acting Speaker was already into saying the House was adjourning, and on the last phrase of his sentence saying it, down to a sparse couple of seconds, almost moving the gavel downwards prior to Rep. Hoyer's second 'Mr. Speaker' request for recognition.

I find the Speaker's lack of recognizing him fine, and then, once the House is out of session, having the camera and/or mike cut seems perfectly fine to me as well. Ordinary, in fact. Outside of the old 3-minute address periods (whatever they were), no mikes or cameras show the chamber if the House is not in session.

Again, while I opposed the House majority's handling of this matter, I did not find the tactics of this little situation despicable or outrageous, and really not much out of the ordinary way things always happen. Things like pro-forma sessions of the House are done with a clear agenda, and that agenda does not include entertaining motions from the floor, and especially not motions for unanimous consent to overturn what the majority is doing. Nor does the House ever allow people to pontificate with the trappings of the House around them to open mikes or cameras without a session going on, unless it's open to all members as in the 3-minute talks that used to be allowed.

eg8r
12-23-2011, 03:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The fact that I agree with S on most things ,doesn't mean I agree with everything he says.</div></div>And this is a perfect example of him being a "voice of reason" you and being the "village idiot".

eg8r

Qtec
12-24-2011, 07:52 AM
LOL. Now you call him the "voice of reason", I remember you calling him other less flattering names as well!

Q

Qtec
12-24-2011, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't support the GOP's House leadership's position on this bill (before the recent cave, which I do support).

I thought the Speaker ought to have allowed the Senate bill to be voted on, and had he done so, it probably would have passed.

But whoever controls the House is often keeping things from being voted on-- this is not exceptional nor exceptionally bad. Same thing occurs in the Senate. The power of the agenda, what is allowed to be brought to the floor, is a key power of the majority. </div></div>

I'm not saying the Dems don't use this tactic as well. Pelosi did it many times. What I'm trying to say is this was not the usual run of the day 'no vote' situation.
Almost 90% of the senate passed this bi-partisan agreement. It was a done deal as far as the Dems were concerned and the GOP senate leadership. It was also a done deal according to Boehner until he did his turn around.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">According to various media reports based on a readout from a “source on the call,” Boehner, Cole and Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) praised the two-month deal Saturday, while Cantor, House GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) and House GOP conference Chairman Jeb Hensarling (Texas) sided with the freshmen in ardent opposition. </div></div>

So Boehner caves in [ against his better judgement ]and goes with the TP nutjobs who think they can extort some more political gain from the WH. This was the real 'stunt'.

As for the two Dems calling them out? Drawing attention to the Rpublican/Conservative hypocrisy can never be futile.

Fact.

The GOP who have sworn NEVER to raise taxes have <u>now twice been prepared to raise taxes on the MC if they didn't get their demands met.</u>



Q

Soflasnapper
12-24-2011, 10:49 AM
Q, obviously, we agree that the GOP House position was wrong headed, bad politics, stupid, etc.

All I'm dissenting on is the idea that this very last part-- gaveling the House into adjournment without hearing the futile motions of the minority-- was anything but standard operating procedure.

Part of the game played up there is making the other side take votes on things thought to harm them with the electorate down the road. The other part of the game is to avoid being forced into taking such votes. The 'deem and pass' gambit we may remember from not long ago was designed to avoid taking such another harmful vote (as it has so been used, when used, in the past-- to avoid the separate roll-call vote that is avoided, so that it cannot be used in campaign commercials against those voting for it).

So, it was neither ruthless tyranny, nor rude. Those claiming it was somehow either of those, or leaning that way, are only performing political gamesmanship some more themselves. I really dislike faux outrage, to where I'm almost going to express faux outrage about faux outrage! LOL.

And to be clear, I've actually only heard Rachel Maddow doing this, not others, and not Dems in particular.

eg8r
12-25-2011, 09:39 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Part of the game played up there is making the other side take votes on things thought to harm them with the electorate down the road. The other part of the game is to avoid being forced into taking such votes.</div></div>A bunch of overpaid men and women, whom outside of politics all abuse our environment and get rich off the little people, sitting around playing games. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

eg8r

eg8r
12-25-2011, 09:43 PM
Yes I have, but I have never steered from the fact that he is the only person the left that comes across somewhat level-headed (when not vehemently defending Obama for crap that doesn't even make sense) and easy to discuss back and forth. More often than not, his posts include his own thoughts and then uses google (cringe "wiki") as supporting documentation.

You on the other hand are a complete 180. You use the quotes of others as your voice (good thing you quote because when you use your own thoughts you sound like an idiot). Volleying back and forth with you is pointless because the person with the original thought is not here to explain themselves or provide their own sources. All we have is you and frankly that never bodes well for the person you are quoting.

eg8r

Qtec
12-26-2011, 06:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You use the quotes of others as your voice </div></div>

Yes, S is able to express his point accurately in few words. I don't have that skill. That's why if I find a quote that expresses my view and says it better than I ever could, I use it. Why shouldn't I ?

Deal with the point, not where it came from.

Q

Soflasnapper
12-26-2011, 10:50 AM
Yes, S is able to express his point accurately in few words. I don't have that skill.

If I'm able to do that, why don't I do it more often (the few words part, I mean)? Not sure I AM really able to express points in few words. Because somehow it ends up in a lot of words, LOL!

eg8r
12-26-2011, 11:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, S is able to express his point accurately in few words. I don't have that skill. That's why if I find a quote that expresses my view and says it better than I ever could, I use it. Why shouldn't I ?
</div></div>After seeing the garbage you post using your own thoughts, I actually recommend you keep up the copy/paste.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Deal with the point, not where it came from.
</div></div>Don't get all hypocritical now. The second I post something from Boortz you get all foolish and attack Boortz instead of the point.

eg8r