March 05, 2010
— Ace One can give McCain points for keeping a consistent stance.
But, at the time, McCain's conservative critics noted that Democrats in the Gang of 14 would never honor a similarly consistent stance. McCain, Graham, Snowe, Specter, Voinovich and the others were all being used by the Democrats to protect their own privileges in the minority, we said, but we would never see the reciprocal protection of Republican minority rights that McCain promised.
He's finding out now that we were right.
“Back a few years ago when the Republican side was in the majority and there was a movement toward the ‘nuclear option’ … I stood up as a member of the majority and said we should not erode the 60-vote majority rule that has prevailed here in the Senate for many years,” McCain said Thursday evening.
McCain noted that he took heat from fellow Republicans for standing up for their rights in the minority.
“That was not greeted on this side of the aisle, frankly, with approval by a lot, but what we did then was preserve the Senate,” he said.
...The Gang of 14 enraged conservative activists, many of whom still view McCain and Graham with suspicion.
And rightly so, if Democrats, as we suspect, wind up playing McCain for a chump.
Keeping Hope Hostage: Pelosi thinks she has a way to reassure wavering Democrats about a possible betrayal by the Senate, in which the Senate doesn't do anything through reconciliation and instead just forwards the now-passed bill to Obama for his signature.
Her idea? The House can vote in favor of the Senate bill, but they will not actually send it up for the President's signature until the Senate makes changes the House wants through reconciliation.
This, however, just changes which party can screw you -- can Bart Stupak trust that Nancy Pelosi won't send the bill up to be signed into law unless the Senate adds in the Stupak abortion language? That makes me laugh, ha-ha.
And, for that matter, lefties can't trust the power-mad Pelosi to hold out for their precious leftwing changes. Pelosi just wants a win.
That said, it could be the fig-leaf these idiots in the House need to vote America into ruin.
Posted by: Ace at
11:01 AM
| Comments (68)
Post contains 395 words, total size 3 kb.
Posted by: Slublog at March 05, 2010 11:03 AM (qjKko)
Posted by: lorien1973 at March 05, 2010 11:05 AM (IhQuA)
Posted by: Ace's Sockpuppet at March 05, 2010 11:06 AM (GpHQ+)
Posted by: joeindc44 at March 05, 2010 11:06 AM (QxSug)
Yes. Just not me. I was was too Hispanic for Senator Durbin.
Posted by: Miguel Estrada at March 05, 2010 11:07 AM (+zo63)
Didn't the gang of 14 help get a lot of Bush judges through though, that would have been blocked otherwise?
Posted by: lorien1973 at March 05, 2010 03:05 PM (IhQuA)
No.Posted by: Tinian at March 05, 2010 11:07 AM (7+pP9)
The GOP should be thanking Mccain, even if the democrats eventually do overcome the basic Senate idea. It's already paid off hugely for the right. And there's a good chance the democrats will eventually see Mccain's point here, after all... they will be in the minority again eventually and perhaps soon.
Posted by: throwaway handle at March 05, 2010 11:07 AM (dUOK+)
Well, he is a chump so that should be easy enough to do.
Posted by: Hilary Clinton's thighmaster at March 05, 2010 11:07 AM (0Hn5w)
I think he's a jerk and I don't appreciate a lot of his work, but on this issue alone, I'm really pleased with old Mccain.
Posted by: throwaway handle at March 05, 2010 11:11 AM (dUOK+)
Posted by: CoolCzech at March 05, 2010 11:11 AM (9IHmo)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at March 05, 2010 11:11 AM (sF1cH)
Posted by: This is Puppy Chow at March 05, 2010 11:12 AM (F2qjY)
Posted by: joeindc44 at March 05, 2010 11:13 AM (QxSug)
Posted by: arhooley at March 05, 2010 11:13 AM (2zkIP)
Posted by: Cicero at March 05, 2010 11:13 AM (QKKT0)
Also, there there is that inconvenient matter about the tax on "cadillac" healthcare plans that's in the Senate version that probably is technically fixable in reconciliation, but probably wouldn't pass through the process.
Again, I just don't see how ANY guarantee can be offered to the House members here.
Posted by: looking closely at March 05, 2010 11:15 AM (6Q9g2)
Her idea? The House can vote in favor of the Senate bill, but they will not actually send it up for the President's signature until the Senate makes changes the House wants through reconciliation.
I thought we had already been told that reconciliation could only be used on a law and this bill cannot be law until the President signs it. Or did she not see that particular Schoolhouse Rock back in the 70s?
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at March 05, 2010 11:15 AM (sXLx/)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at March 05, 2010 11:16 AM (Oan2w)
Posted by: kelley in virginia at March 05, 2010 11:17 AM (Oan2w)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at March 05, 2010 11:18 AM (sF1cH)
But I blame Bush for letting the Senate filibuster without actually having to filibuster.
Posted by: joeindc44 at March 05, 2010 03:13 PM (QxSug)
That was a the result of a Senate rule change made by Sheets Byrd long before W ever got into politics.Posted by: Tinian at March 05, 2010 11:18 AM (7+pP9)
kamikaze behavior: sacrifice oneself for the larger cause
amoeba behavior: even a barely sentient life-form fights for its own survival above all
We can only hope that Congress is an amoeba, not a kamikaze. And those are your choices.
Posted by: arhooley at March 05, 2010 11:19 AM (2zkIP)
Posted by: arhooley at March 05, 2010 11:21 AM (2zkIP)
recon can only be used on existing law ...
no signature, no law ...
this is all a big con to get the House to vote Yes on the Senate bill ...
If they do it will be signed into law within 24 hours ...
Posted by: Jeff at March 05, 2010 11:22 AM (QdGwf)
Posted by: Rahm at March 05, 2010 11:23 AM (y0VOX)
Posted by: 'Nam Grunt at March 05, 2010 11:23 AM (sF1cH)
We're just one big happy fraternity here, in the Senate.
Posted by: Jonny McMaverick at March 05, 2010 11:24 AM (GwPRU)
but Mccain's behavior on the gang of 14 ALREADY paid off pretty well for the right. If the GOP had exercised the nuclear option, even in a more reasonable way, the democrats would have run with that 100%, and every single S.B. would pass with 51 votes. That would honestly have been a disaster. Watching the Democrats fail to get much done with their supermajority bullshit is mainly possible because they have to jump this one hurdle.
Thanks Mccain, for getting it right this time. You still are very annoying.
Posted by: throwaway handle at March 05, 2010 11:25 AM (dUOK+)
>>This, however, just changes which party can screw you -- can Bart Stupak trust that Nancy Pelosi won't send the bill up to be signed into law unless the Senate adds in the Stupak abortion language? That makes me laugh, ha-ha.
This is the old "don't worry, I'll pull out before that happens" routine.Of course Stupak can't trust Pelosi on this.
Pelosi and Obama have every incentive to screw the House here just to get this thing signed, no matter how awful it is or what it takes to do it. Pelosi in particular is from as safe a district as they come, and she knows she's going to be losing her speakership in just a few months, no matter what.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that Pelosi actually does what she says in good faith, and doesn't send the bill to Obama until reconciliation is attempted.
Does anyone doubt for a SECOND that if reconciliation were to fail, she'd just sit on a major healthcare reform package, the holy grail of liberals for 30+ years, and NOT have it signed into law? Of course she'd get it signed.
Posted by: looking closely at March 05, 2010 11:25 AM (6Q9g2)
Posted by: huerfano at March 05, 2010 11:25 AM (gLSaO)
Posted by: KilltheHippies at March 05, 2010 11:25 AM (VKfXw)
Posted by: Truman North Doofenschmirtz at March 05, 2010 11:25 AM (e8YaH)
Still, the couple of folks dissing his service are crossing the line. Diss his senate career of opposing free speech and bashing the GOP. That's fair. His service in our military was fucking heroic and he feels the physical burden of being tortured by communists every fucking minute he's awake.
I disagree with this dude, and I am still shocked the GOP thought he was the best candidate, but don't diss his Vietnam service, you're not fit to bag his tea, so to speak.
Posted by: throwaway handle at March 05, 2010 11:28 AM (dUOK+)
I won't lose any sleep worrying about whether Mccain wins or loses, but I don't really like JD Hayworth. Mccain's a mixed bag, but he's been stellar lately. He's probably the best Obama basher in the Senate. He fucked up the 2008 campaign, and if that has you sore, go ahead and donate to JD I guess, but Mccain realizes now, late, that the USA is in trouble and he's pissed off.
I saw Mccain suffer a few indignities when Obama kept pointint out that the campaign is over and Mccain lost, as Mccain hammered and hammered and hammered Obama for breaking his campaign promises in that health care forum last week. Obama doesn't have what it takes to phase John Mccain. Mccain didn't realize just how sick and twisted a politician could be, but it's OUR fault for nominating Mccain. We already knew he was naive and Mr Commity. We knew he wasn't going to go to the mattresses in political attacks. We picked him and he was who we thought we was.
Should have gone with that flip flopper Romney.
Posted by: throwaway handle at March 05, 2010 11:35 AM (dUOK+)
Posted by: HeatherRadish, descending into madness at March 05, 2010 11:35 AM (OkT2m)
Posted by: Dan at March 05, 2010 11:35 AM (1jzSs)
Is that really true? Does the POTUS have to sign a bill before reconciliation can even be attempted?
If so, that probably ends this charade. No matter what the verbal guarantees, I don't see the house just passing the Senate bill blindly hoping for a "fix" that may never come.
That's apart from the pragmatic issue of actually coming up with a "fix" that's legal under the reconciliation rules, and that a House majority will actually support.
Posted by: looking closely at March 05, 2010 11:36 AM (6Q9g2)
Posted by: ace at March 05, 2010 11:37 AM (jlvw3)
Old Rusty McDumbass from Arizona is taking it up the dusty squeakhole and he doesn't even know it. Amazing.
Posted by: Marcus at March 05, 2010 11:37 AM (MGg6q)
Posted by: Louis Tully at March 05, 2010 11:40 AM (jat5l)
I think it could -- since it would cut spending, presumably, by reducing federal obligations to provide subsidies for health care plans with abortion coverage.
I don't think any of this even matters. The parliamentarian can rule that it doesn't qualify for reconciliation, and then Biden acting as President of the Senate can overrule him. These are Democrats and they will not be bound by rules.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at March 05, 2010 11:47 AM (sXLx/)
Posted by: Dan at March 05, 2010 11:52 AM (1jzSs)
Posted by: John McCain at March 05, 2010 11:53 AM (pZEar)
Posted by: Ken at March 05, 2010 12:15 PM (4JpPD)
If the House were willing to just pass the Senate bill, the bill already would have been signed into law.
Also, I think this bit from Hot air addresses whether or not the POTUS needs to sign a bill before reconciliation is attempted (in short, probably not).
Ace, for what its worth from the DC article linked to in Hot Air:
Abortion language cannot be changed through reconciliation, which addresses only budgetary measures, and to pass a separate piece of legislation changing the law after the fact would require 60 votes in the Senate, which Democrats would almost certainly be unable to muster.
Stupak appeared convinced, however, that the abortion language could be changed through the reconciliation process, during an apperance on Good Morning America. “Where there’s a will, there’s a way,” he said.
That the abortion issue has become such a barrier to a health-care bill clearly grated on Pelosi. “This is not about abortion,” she insisted to reporters at her weekly press conference. “This is a bill about providing quality affordable health care for all Americans.”
“I will not have it turned into a debate on –,” she said, before cutting herself off.
An aide to Pelosi said afterward they did not know of a way to change the language, which the Stupak bloc of lawmakers says mandates the use of federal funds to pay for abortions.
Posted by: looking closely at March 05, 2010 12:16 PM (PwGfd)
Posted by: joated at March 05, 2010 12:19 PM (1kwr2)
I wish, just once, someone...anyone...would ask, "So, can you give me 1 concrete example of something in this bill that will increase quality and decrease the cost of healthcare....just one."
Posted by: Tami at March 05, 2010 12:20 PM (VuLos)
I wish, just once, someone...anyone...would ask, "So, can you give me 1 concrete example of something in this bill that will increase quality and decrease the cost of healthcare....just one."
You're expecting liars to tell the truth.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at March 05, 2010 12:28 PM (sXLx/)
You're expecting liars to tell the truth.
Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at March 05, 2010 04:28 PM (sXLx/)
Well no...I was more looking for someone to just ask the damn question.
Posted by: Tami at March 05, 2010 12:31 PM (VuLos)
Posted by: GarandFan at March 05, 2010 12:44 PM (6mwMs)
Posted by: Schwalbe at March 05, 2010 01:06 PM (UU0OF)
Posted by: Iago the Parrot at March 05, 2010 04:50 PM (kmEfr)
@9: "And there's a good chance the democrats will eventually see Mccain's point here, after all... they will be in the minority again eventually and perhaps soon."
Sorry, never gonna happen. It's a one-way ratchet - it only goes to the left.
Posted by: Iago the Parrot at March 05, 2010 04:53 PM (kmEfr)
Good evening, my friends. Nice to see so many fellow conservatives in the audience tonight.
*sings*
Maybe I (thank you)
Didn't heed you
Quite as.......oftenasIcould (thank you, you're all wonderful)
But it was always on my mind
It was always on my mind
Posted by: John S. McCain, Lounge Singer at March 05, 2010 04:56 PM (kmEfr)
Thank you, my friends, thank you. You're too kind. No really, you are far, far too kind.
*sings*
I seem to always play the fo-oo-ol.
Each ti-i-me
There's no excep-shee-ion to that rule.
Listen, baby!
It's actual factual; I'm a tool,
I ain't lyin'!
I seem to always play the fool.
Posted by: John S. McCain, Lounge Singer at March 05, 2010 05:05 PM (kmEfr)
Posted by: abercrombie outlet at May 08, 2011 11:56 PM (R2DjZ)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3112 seconds, 196 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: Roland Martin at March 05, 2010 11:03 AM (+zo63)