The new Congress has plans
The House will take up the issue of repeal of HCR.
It’s an act of theater, because Obama has veto power and would almost undoubtedly use it. And repeal is doomed in the Senate, anyway. But it’s nevertheless a good idea to try, because a vote would force members to lay their cards on the table. It will be especially interesting to see what House Democrats from purplish districts will do.
Another task for the new session: investigations by the oversight committee, including Fannie Mae, Wikileaks, corruption in Afghanistan, and FDA recalls.
And then there’s the filibuster and what’s known as “reform.” I don’t even know which article to link to on that topic, there are so very many calls (now that the Democrats have only a slim majority) for changes. The goal is to make it easier to pass legislation in the Senate by simple majority, through making it harder for the minority to block such votes.
This could come back to bite the Dems in two ways. The first is obvious: if they lose that majority in the next election, the rule change will come to favor the Republicans. The second way is perhaps a little less obvious: a few of the Democrats in the Senate are so-called moderates who might be persuaded to vote with Republicans if they see it as benefiting their own re-election chances in 2012 (see this list of those up for re-election in 2012). If the Republicans are united in their votes, and even just a few Democrats join them, then the Democrat leadership might come to regret those reforms.
Forcing a vote on the health care bill repeal will put Dems on record for the next election. It’s a good move.
Get the repeal to Obama. Let him veto it. It will show that he considers himself the master, not the servant, of the people.
I agree. Hang HCR around Obama’s neck. No voting “present” on this one, Barry.
The goal is to make it easier to pass legislation in the Senate by simple majority, through making it harder for the minority to block such votes.
Do you ever wonder if Dems identify with Wile E. Coyote? They should relate to him, because he, too, invariably fails consider the long-term implications of an idea.
Kill the filibuster, then get turned out of power in 2013, and oops! That anvil they launched comes right back down on their heads.
It’s just like their notions of government imposing “fairness” on news reporting, just in time to give President Palin the power to hammer loyal Dem media acolytes.
Do they never stop to think about how things are likely to play out? Apparently not, which would explain pretty much all of their policies.
As a matter of re-collection…. I can’t remember a liberal actually thinking things through.
What is the result of their policies?
More misery…
Does a liberal think through what the results would be of putting people in homes when they can’t afford them or raising tax rates for corporations, the so-called rich or for inheritance?
Let’s name the liberals who do think things through:
List:
End List:
Baklava:
I believe Robert Heinlein once defined a liberal as someone who knows that water runs downhill, but hopes confidently that it will never reach the bottom.
I guess I never appreciated before just how well put that was. Because that’s the unifying principle of so many failed liberal policies, isn’t it? — good ideas that sound pleasant, for which the secondary and tertiary effects are not considered.
The Russian Duma has clarified that America must dismantle its star wars missile defense. The START treaty must, therefore, be de-ratified. What that process of de-ratifying is, I’m not sure. But it really doesn’t matter. There was no honest meeting of the minds and the Senate was lied to by Obama.
Obama is a liar. This refrain needs to be as ubiquitous as his stupid posters used to be.
Curtis says the Senate was lied to by Obama. But God forbid the non-Democratic Senators who made passage possible should actually do a bit of serious homework. It’s only an arms-reduction treaty, after all, and we are all in favor of that, No? So let’s take Baraq at his word. It’s not that he’s never lied to us or to the People; we are simply gonna trust him just this once. And the Russkies assure us they will ratify it right after we do, so let’s go, Senators!
Grrrr.
Any decent opposition would oppose it and anything else Baraq seeks on pure principle.
Hopefully, the collaborating Senators will get the same refudiation as those who collaborated with the Nazis.
For a real hatful of puke, read the departing remarks of Senator Obey.
Walter Mondale opined for a softer, kinder Senate by weakening the filibuster in yesterday’s NYT. The only thing of interest (not his remarks) is the NYT citing him only as a former Senator, ignoring his Presidential candidacy.
hmmm….
How do they refer to Algore? 🙂
Whoever made this video should scroll text of major events along with the year countdown.
Isarithmic History of the Two-Party Vote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4h62jRiUcc&feature=player_embedded
Then again – Democrats of yesteryear are not the same as today’s Democrats….
Very revealing video, Baklava. Thanks for the link.
What is revealing is the amount of change that has occurred, and there’s poetic justice that the change now occurring is a conservative change. Right now the big argument is whether Indiana, Virginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, and Florida will go red in 2012. The crazy thing: The census shift just might decide the race. And the electoral count favors a Palin candidacy. She very well might lose the popular vote but win the electoral.
And yet, a recent poll reveals 61 percent of the people think taxing the rich is the best way to resolve the deficit and debt.
I talked with a union concrete worker the other day who had come out to California from the Midwest. No work out there, especially during the rain and snow. I got all the usual stereotypes including tax the rich. But here’s what got me: the hypocrisy. This guy was rich. Single and making $60/hour and working lots of hours when he is working. When he’s out of work, he applies for unemployment. So here’s someone who makes $100,000 in half a year and thinks nothing of claiming unemployment.
Don’t get me started on federal workers!
Lordy – 61% !@#$%
Everyone seems to look at what is best for them.
Even my girlfriend proclaims that out loud. I question her on that because I say to her “we have children and the economic environment and debt will be on their laps”.
Hand meet forehead because it doesn’t sink in.