I’m really sick and tired of this man:
But Nelson later told reporters that his amendment would not be ready for a vote until after the weekend, postponing a floor showdown over abortion rights.
The defeat of his amendment would be politically significant because Nelson has pledged to vote with Republicans to filibuster the health bill if it did not include the Stupak language.
“I’ve said at the end of the day if it doesn’t have Stupak language on abortion in it I won’t vote to move it off the floor,” Nelson told reporters.
Look, I understand the need for a big tent and all that, but you simply can not have members of your caucus threatening to filibuster a bill that everyone else in your party supports and not suffer repercussions. You just can’t. Maybe he is just grandstanding, and will say this, then very publicly agonize over it, and vote for the bill without the Stupak legislation. I understand the games these guys need to play in states like Nebraska.
But if Nelson does filibuster the health care bill because the Stupak language is voted down by the majority of his party, at the very least he needs to lose his prized chairmanship. At the very least. You simply can not have members of your caucus siding with the minority to filibuster your signature legislation. There is a time when it is better to have someone outside the “Big Tent” pissing in, and if Nelson filibusters, it is his time to be kicked outside.
jeffreyw
amen darn tootin right on
Barry Soetoro
Back atcha!
Zuzu's Petals
I’m off to ActBlue to donate to his primary opponent, if there is one. And then I’ll call Nelson’s office to tell them why.
It’s one of the only things that makes me feel better.
Aunt Moe
One day I think Harry Reid is doing is right and then he leaves Lieberman in place. And Nelson too? Jeeez. Get a spine!
Egypt Steve
Reconciliation! Reconciliation! Reconciliation!
Man up, motherfuckers, and do HCR with reconciliation!
Jesus Fuck, it is all so simple. Just do it with reconciliation!
El Cid
The question is how much the party leadership fundamentally disagrees with Nelson’s aims. If you want the insurance companies and big pharma to get as much as possible out of any bill or bill failure, well, Democrats like Nelson are a pretty good excuse.
RedKitten
Imagine, for a moment, if a Republican had done this while Bush was in power. The guy’s house would have been burned down.
gwangung
@Egypt Steve: And do the same dance in six years? Like with Bush’s tax cuts?
Um, no…do the best you can without reconcilliation….
Rick Taylor
I agree entirely.
Sentient Puddle
I broadly agree, but really, what can you do about Nelson? By my reckoning, his chairs are the Subcommittee on Legislative Branch and the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, not exactly big prizes.
Zuzu's Petals
@Zuzu’s Petals:
Okay, couldn’t find a primary opponent. Guess I’ll donate to Nebraska Planned Parenthood, and tell him why.
TR
Seriously.
The Democrats would be better off if they took away all the privileges they give Nelson (and Lieberman), and treat them as opponents. Which they are.
The obsession with the magical number of 60 votes is pathetic. The whole reason it supposedly matters — and the whole reason they put up with Lieberman and Nelson’s pathetic grandstanding on other issues — is precisely for moments like this, when the party as a whole needs to have 60 votes to move forward.
If they’re not willing to do that, then there is ZERO reason to give them any standing in the party. None at all.
The Republic of Stupidity
Of course you can… remember when members of the Bush Admin blew off subpoena after subpoena and all the issuing Dems did was threaten to send a sternly worded letter?
The DNC, circa 2009… The Mouse That Whined…
freelancer
But, seriously, y’all are gonna be rooting for the Huskers tomorrow night to fuck up the BCS?
Even though Nelson is a hemorrhoid, I can count on you guys, yeah?
The Republic of Stupidity
@Sentient Puddle:
If that’s ture, then how come this POS has the ability to tie such a major piece of legislation up all by himself?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
Is it worth giving up the pretense that the Democrats have the ability to override any blocks from the Republicans by having Nelson and Lieberman on their side, and going to a situation where there are always 42 people opposing everything?
Dreggas
With Harry reid in charge it will never happen.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@freelancer: I would love to see a game where Texas and TCU play, and TCU wins. This would totally destroy the BCS, because the members will not let TCU play for the championship.
Makewi
Why not just compromise? Ensure that there is a provision that provides a guarantee of no federal funding for abortions and be done with it.
The Republic of Stupidity
Harry Reid…
Whenever I hear THAT name, Mr Burns words from The Simpsons come to mind:
‘More impotent than a Nevada boxing commissioner…’
NR
Come on, John. Be real. It’s not going to happen. If you can’t get kicked out of the Democratic caucus for endorsing the Republican candidate for President, there is simply nothing you can get kicked out for.
Chaz
You referenced the phrase: “Better on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in”. This example is more proof that that’s a false dichotomy – it’s easily possible to have people on the inside pissing in.
TR
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
Zifnab
You do understand how the Senate works, right? In order to get Nelson stripped of his Committee chair, you’re going to have to convince Evan Bayh and Dianne Feinstein and the other Ben Nelson in Florida and Joe Mutherfuck’n Liebermann and all the rest of the conserva-Dem Senators that this is all fine and dandy.
Nut-uh. Fuck that. Conservative Dems have an incredibly heavy hand to play in the current Dem caucus. They can waffle however they want and extract all the industry friendly goodies their backers demand. And there simply aren’t enough liberal Dems to stop them. You only have to look as far as Harry Reid to see what Senate consensus looks like.
El Cid
The Stupak amendment does not simply repeat the Hyde amendment’s ban on federal funding for abortion — it forbids private insurers from funding abortions on their plan if the company participates in the exchange.
On the argument that the money is ‘fungible’. On the other hand, the Catholic Church may continue political lobbies, because it carefully keeps its lobbying funds separate from its non-taxable operations.
Stooleo
Shorter Ben Nelson “Bitches, give me money”
The Bearded Blogger
You can’t be in the tent if you want to burn it down. I’d give away Bayh, Lincoln, Lieberman and Nelson for one more democrat in the senate. In fact, I’d give them away for free
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
So you mean keep the status quo in tact like the Democrats want? Awesome. I’m glad that whole you being sane thing from yesterday wasn’t some kind of one-time situation.
cyntax
Sorry that would be disinsentivizing bad behavior. Dems don’t roll that way.
[sigh]
gwangung
You’re assuming a Democratic majority. Like there was a permanent Republican majority.
The Moar You Know
@Makewi: There already is one. It’s called the “Hyde Amendment”.
This is just President Nelson looking for a way out of voting against the insurance interests that have given him well over a million dollars this election cycle alone. I can’t blame him, in a way. I’d have a hard time saying no to that kind of cash as well.
Makewi
@Midnight Marauder:
Do private insurers on the exchange receive federal funding? If so, what mechanism would be in place to ensure those dollars did not go towards abortions?
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
The Hyde Amendment
Makewi
@Midnight Marauder:
I know the Hyde Amendment. It does not answer my question.
Jamey
Hey, at least USA didn’t get jobbed in the World Cup draw.
ellaesther
You say “cannot” but I believe the record shows that you can (Joe Lieberman, would you please just go home?)
I believe the term you’re searching for is: Should not.
Tsk. Did they teach you nothing in elementary school?
BombIranForChrist
“Look, I understand the need for a big tent and all that, but you simply can not have members of your caucus threatening to filibuster a bill that everyone else in your party supports and not suffer repercussions. You just can’t.”
The problem is, these guys are never, ever, ever punished, ever, so the fact is, he won’t suffer repercussions and that is exactly why he, Lieberman, etc. etc. continue to do what they do. Because they can. And until Reid (or his replacement) starts putting a crack in his whip, they will continue to screw the rest of the majority.
There is no leadership in the Senate. Only a coalition of drama queens and fools.
aimai
Oh fuck off Makewi, you are asking other people to do the research for you when you could just as easily do it yourself. Because it enables you to pretend there’s no obvious answer to your question. Since the Hyde Amendment, and in many areas of financing with respect to lobbying, research, religion and advocacy there are perfectly well understood mechanisms for keeping “federal” monies separate from “private” monies, or for ensuring that dedicated monies go specifically to targeted entities or activities while the larger organization is free to spend the rest of its money in some other way.
The Stupak amendment specifically extends the ban not to the use of federal dollars to subsidize particular abortions but to a ban on the right of private citizens to purchase *with their own money* coverage for abortions from *private insurance companies.* It does this on the untested legal theory that federal money is “fungible” and might in some mysterious way be commingled with the private premiums paid by *other people* through the insurance exchange. Why should women’s health care fall under a more draconian ban in which women who are not using federal monies but who are customers of private insurance companies are denied the right to purchase a desired form of health care coverage?
I’d like to see a lawsuit against the Catholic Church for accepting moneies as charitable donations and then also spending other money to lobby congress–that money is just as fungible as my abortion dollars.
aimai
NR
I read this somewhere recently, and I’ve become convinced that it’s right: The left needs its own version of the Club for Growth. The Club for Growth has been hugely successful at moving the Republican party to the right and enforcing tremendous party discipline. They did this with an unpopular program. The things progressives want are popular, so it should be even easier for us to accomplish the same thing.
If an organization like that surfaces, I’ll happily donate to it.
bemused
Dems seem incapable of sending turncoats to the woodshed no matter how deserving.
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
@Makewi: If they Hyde amendment doesn’t prevent federal money from going toward abortions, then no amendment added to the bill will prevent it either. Stupak, as it’s been reported, goes beyond the Hyde amendment. And the only reason Nelson is adding the amendment is to get other Democrats to vote against the bill, that way he’ll have cover to oppose it.
CalD
You know I get as annoyed by these people as anyone else but:
a) What part of “Nebraska” don’t people get? You’re simply not gong to get a guy like Denny Kucinich elected in a place like that and like it or not, there are only so many places where you can go to get senators.
b) If Nelson were an actual Republican, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. I’ll be surprised if any HCR bill in any form gets a single Republican vote.
It must suck to be Harry Reid.
Makewi
@aimai:
You do yourself a disservice with both your rudeness and your presumption to know my motivations. The Hyde amendment covers funding under HHS appropriations, and H.R. 3200 is provided funding outside of that scope. So again, why not provide a compromise in which there is clear language which provides that there is no federal funding of abortion?
Suzan
Ah, the fragrance of power!
And why should they give it up? (Nelson and Reid)
Salute!
S
PTirebiter
Nebraska has less than half the population of Manhattan Island; Nelson even threatening to block a vote is beyond shameless.
Napoleon
@NR:
Whatever it is called that Glen Greenwald and Jane H are involved with basically is intended to act in a similar manner.
Irishnana
All the Dems need to do is “poison pill” the Stupak language. If abortion can’t be a part of any plan that involves federal dollars — regardless of whose dollars actually pay for the service (because all money is “fungible” they now argue), then Dems should simply insert a provision that states that the new standard must be applied to ALL government contracts. For years the Catholic Church and other religious organizations have enjoyed the benefit of federal and state contracts by arguing that money spent on religious activities could be kept separate from money spent on social services. Now, regarding abortion only, that’s not possible? Fine by me. Then not a single penny for Catholic Charities, Lutheran Social Services, Salvation Army, etc., etc.. See how fast they drop the Stupak nonsense.
cyntax
@Makewi:
[from dday]:
How about explaining why abortions shouldn’t be covered by the public plan if they’re covered by private insurance?
Belafon (formerly anonevent)
OT, but the Arlington, TN mayor called Obama a Muslim and accused him of scheduling his speech last Tuesday to interfere with “The Charlie Brown Christmas Special.”
chuck
Apparently “Nebraska” means more than “don’t give the keynote at NARAL” and actually means “actively fuck with a good size chunk of the base that elected you in the first place”.
The guy won by a hair and he thinks it’s a good idea for LESS democrats to support him? Huh. Well, it’s not like 60 ever did us any good in the first place, because he’s toast.
Zifnab
@NR:
Name one primary the Club for Growth has one that has resulted in a general election victory.
You only need to look as far as Arlen Specter to see what is at the end of that dark road. He jumped ship on the party and has been more loyal to the Dems than a dozen other Senators I could name. I have been hoping and praying for a Snowne defection to produce similar results.
I don’t know the value of letting guys like Liebermann and Nelson keep chairmanships. But I definitely see value in keeping them in the party. They do come around eventually.
cyntax
@Belafon (formerly anonevent):
So there is no such thing as peak wingnut… limitless capacity for crazy.
eemom
@aimai:
better yet, just yank the obscene tax exempt status of the Catholic church. The real property tax they’d have to pay just here in the greater DC area would fund 10 health care bills.
Sentient Puddle
@The Republic of Stupidity:
Because of Senate rules. You can’t just place this squarely on Nelson. If it wasn’t him, it’d be Lieberman. Or Lincoln. Or Bayh. Or Snowe, if we didn’t have 60.
Makewi
@cyntax:
Why not let the Senate debate that very question, perhaps without the demonetization that usually accompanies it from both sides?
BeccaM
Didn’t the official Democratic Party platform in 2008 repeat and affirm the party’s commitment to protect women’s reproductive freedoms? Has it not been saying this for, oh, every election cycle for the last generation?
Now I think the GOP has gone way the hell too far with their enforcement of strict party-line hyper-con orthodoxy. But the Democratic leadership sure could use more backbone in standing for the key principles for which the party supposedly stands.
Makewi
Or perhaps demonization would work better.
cyntax
@Makewi:
Why not let the Senate debate that very question?
Cause it will derail the helathcare bill. That’s a debate for another time.
perhaps without the demonetization…
??? What does the divestiture of monetary value have to do with this?
Makewi
@BeccaM:
You can make a good argument that requiring taxpayers to fund abortions doesn’t really fall under the umbrella of protecting woman’s reproductive freedoms, but rather moves into the territory of requiring others to subsidize woman’s reproductive freedoms. Euphemistically speaking, of course.
FlipYrWhig
@Napoleon:
The Dickbag Brigade? OK, that’s not the _official_ name…
Makewi
@cyntax:
I agree, and even though I do not support the bill, I wonder why no one has written a Hyde amendment for this bill as a compromise to Stupak.
Notorious P.A.T.
I’m not sure Nelson could even hit the tent. He seems like one of those people who couldn’t pour water out of a jar if instructions were printed on the bottom.
cyntax
@Makewi:
So you’re against Viagra being covered I assume?
Jim
@PTirebiter:
The Senate is fucked up beyond words, and I don’t see any way to fix it. Self-styled originalists will never admit that cultural shifts, growths in population, etc have taken us into some kind of Looking Glass version of Madison’s vision.
sigh
kay
I don’t know. I think this is more of the endless politicking by the pro-life crowd, where they turn every issue into an opportunity for moralizing on abortion. I’m really to the point where I believe the reason these people obsess on abortion is they’d rather not reach their sort of sketchy moral positions on every issue other than abortion. See: Catholic leadership, or Nelson’s slavish devotion to the needs and wants and whims of business interests.
An insistence on “Stupak language” is pretty broad.
He can really claim a win fairly easily.
But, ultimately, I have to agree, I’m sick of them too.
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
No, the funding is not outside of the scope of Hyde; that’s outright bullshit from you, which is entirely unsurprising. So this compromise that you keep asking for–THERE’S NO NEED FOR IT. Ben Nelson is almost as big a moran as you, Makewank.
Almost.
@Makewi:
Except for the fact that all of the bills already had language similar to Hyde in them before The C Street Supply Side Jesus Gang rolled in to town. I guess they must have mistook DC for Uganda or something.
Zifnab
@Makewi:
Indeed. And why doesn’t this bill contain a First Amendment? Or any defense spending? This bill doesn’t stipulate anything that would create the department of Health and Human Services either. What the hell? And where is the language funding the Department of Education?
They promised legislation on climate change, and yet there is absolutely no green energy credits in this bill to speak of. Do the Democrats care so little about clean energy that they refuse to include it in the health care bill?
In fact, there are whole textbooks of laws that this bill completely neglects. What sort of bill is this, where it doesn’t rehash the entire legal system?
And it’s over 2000 pages long! Why can’t they abbreviate it some? There’s no reason the bill should be this long.
Also!
BeccaM
@Makewi: In that case, I want to see a ban on any impotence treatments for men, including but not limited to Viagra, Cialis, and surgical treatments.
Guys can live without sex, right? It’s a privilege, not a right and why should I, as a woman, pay for some guy’s ability to get it up?
Meh…silly me, feeding the troll. Sorry folks.
bartkid
>When Will He Become a Republican?
Maybe when Zell Miller gets Highlander’ed.
scav
Oddly enough, I’ve had to fund a fair number of wars and police actions and bailouts and tax loopholes and blahblahblah that I’ve objected to on strong moral grounds. Never seen much legislations derailed over that. Apparently all moral objections aren’t as equal as others.
aside. compromising with sleep deprived and high sucrosed toddlers is generally a poor option.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
Hey, thanks Nelson. I just came from a $25,000 doctor visit.
Well, a visit in which the doctor described to me a needed procedure that we’ll do in a month or so, which would cost me around $25k if I had no insurance. With my gold plated insurance, it will cost me around a couple hundred bucks.
So why would I be Jonesin’ for healthcare reform?
Well, if I lose my job, which is not impossible, given the state of the world right now, I can only retain this gold plated insurance by paying a gold plated premium for it. It’s in the unaffordable range. If I stop the premium, I will never get this insurance again due to exclusions no matter what I pay.
I’m held hostage by this FUCKED healthcare system, and I am one of the really lucky ones, but only as long as my employer can hold out and keep me employed.
Fuck you Ben Nelson, and the shitty evil horse you rode in on.
Makewi
@Midnight Marauder:
Yes, in fact it is. Hyde covers funding under appropriation bills to HHS. It does NOT cover all federal funding.
It would seem that a simple compromise would cover this, but you all would rather stomp your feet and yell liar. Or in the case of Nelson, heretic. So I’m guessing that at least some of you would prefer to see this fail if it doesn’t include tax payer funded abortions.
Ed Drone
@Makewi:
What mechanism are in place to ensure those tax dollars churches get for faith-based actions do not go towards proselytizing? (cf The United States Constitution)
Goose/Gander –> sauce
Ed
PeakVT
Nuclear option, anyone?
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Jim:
Somebody, sounding very intelligent at the time (Howard Fineman, maybe?) said yesterday that the US Senate is no longer a functional legislative body, and is breaking America.
I don’t what the long term fix is, but short term I have come to think that the fix is to replace Harry Reid and get a majority leader who will kick asses and take names.
Punchy
Nelson will not filibuster this POS health care reform bill. It would certainly be the death of the 2010 elections and almost certainly kill Obama in 2012.
Midnight Marauder
@Makewi:
Fine, Makewank. The funding currently being proposed for HCR falls outside of Hyde. Fine. You still haven’t answered the point that every single bill already had language written into it mimicking Hyde, to make sure that the funds were protected. All sane people agreed this was fine until Stupak and The C Street Posse showed up. Again, the compromise you keep asking for was already there until a bunch of radical Christianists decided to really fuck things up.
Barry
Chaz
“You referenced the phrase: “Better on the inside pissing out than on the outside pissing in”. This example is more proof that that’s a false dichotomy – it’s easily possible to have people on the inside pissing in.”
There are certain phrases which give at least a 90% probability that the user is a fool or a liar. From what I’ve heard, when LBJ offered somebody that choice, he also had a biiiiiiig pickle jar of, um, ‘pissing apparatus’ which he had cut off of the bodies of those who decided to piss inside the tent after accepting the offer to be inside the tent.
If one doesn’t have that threat, then the obvious thing to do is to accept the offer and come inside the tent – the better to piss on people inside it.
It made sense to give Joe Lieberman something up front (like a committee chair), but *only* in return for a promise to cooperate, and *only* when one can carry out the threats which should have been made when offering him that chair.
It’s clear now that Reid gave Joe a chair, with no way to enforce anything.
cyntax
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
From your mouth to the flying spaghetti monster’s ear.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@cyntax:
We can only hope. My fear is that Reid is there precisely because the weasliest Dems, the ones with long service and closest ties to lobbyists and coroporate interests, have installed him and want to keep him there as their pet. So somehow we have to start dislodging those people.
El Cid
I think there should be clear language that no federal funds in any way should go to any private insurer whose exchange policies might cover people working for the Republican Party or FOX News or Xe / Blackwater or any for-profit defense contractor who profits from federal spending and who might have lobbyists.
After all, federal funds are fungible, and I don’t want any of my health care tax dollars going to some organization who wants to spend my money in foreign wars and lobbying for federal funds for profitable projects.
Likewise, we need to have wording in there revoking tax-free status to any religious organization which has paid lobbyists from any funding source whatsoever, ’cause I don’t want my health care tax dollars going to the immoral mixing of church and state — like the Founding Fathers felt, you need to protect religious establishments from government involvement.
Lolis
Ben Nelson doesn’t worry me so much. He just wants attention at this point. He has probably been sad Lieberman has been hogging the spotlight. Nelson left himself wiggle room. This is all just a negotiation tactic.
Napoleon
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
I think that all the Senate needs is any vote only needs 50% plus one vote to pass. It is BS that anything needs more then a majority. If they make that change then at least it gets the Senate back to what it was for around 200 years, even though that was far from perfect.
Church Lady
@Belefon: Arlington is a very small suburb on the far northeastern reaches of Shelby County and is mostly undeveloped rural farmland. As of 2008, the population was less than 4,000. I have almost that many residents in my flippin’ subdivision! What the mayor of Arlington says carries about as much weight in the national discourse as what either you or I say. In other words, none.
cyntax
@El Cid:
Good point. Given the fungibleness of money, shouldn’t Nelson and co. give back all donations from the health insurance industry? After all some of their profits came from performing abortions.
Corner Stone
@AngusTheGodOfMeat: Of course that’s why he’s there. But for those wishing for an LBJ-esque ballbuster to be Leader – never gonna happen again in our lifetimes.
There are no mechanisms to herd the diaspora of interests that big money Senators now represent.
Ben Nelson can ad will flip us all the big bird, including his state, because he knows he can’t be taken out by anyone to his left.
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@Napoleon:
Yes but unless I am mistaken, the simple majority rules require the reconciliation protocol, which in turn imposes a sunset on the resulting legislation (a la “Bush’s tax cuts” which expire unless extended).
Nobody really wants a healthcare reform platform that rests on a sunset provision and requires revisit in six years.
That’s why the drive to get past the filibuster rule with 60 votes.
So far as I know. Of course, I am just an ungulate.
itsbenj
let’s try this again. Nelson will not filibuster – ever. he will not have to. he will merely threaten to, and that will be it, if he lets it go that far. there are NEVER actual filibusters, just allusions and threats which are nearly all bluffs, which bluffs are never, ever actually called. Nelson is a POS grandstander and a blowhard of the highest order, not to mention a complete hypocrite and ignoramus. and he can be that way, as much as he wants, because the Dems are too weak to force his hand and say “go ahead, filibuster, the nation will be watching.”
chuck
We are ruled by rectangle states.
At what point is it going to take another civil war where the fighting will take place over the right to kick these states *out*?
AngusTheGodOfMeat
@chuck:
Sign me up. I would like to cut the whole South loose.
As long as we can still get the barbeque and the hot sauces.
Mike G
Will Invertebrate Reid punish Nelson, Lieberman and other privileged and pampered committee chairmen who sabotage major legislation at the drop of a hat? (Or as the Chimp once put it, “…at the whim of a hat”.)
Will Lucy hold the football so Charlie Brown can kick a field goal?
Makewi
@Midnight Marauder:
Well considering I’m the one calling for a compromise, it would seem fairly obvious that I think someone in the Senate should put forward the idea of putting that language back in. You know, as a compromise.
Do you have a link to the previous language supplanted by Stupak?
Makewi
@Ed Drone:
A topic worthy of discussion, but for purposes of this one, somewhat outside the scope.
John Sears
@chuck: In all seriousness I think it’s inevitable. We don’t even share a consensus reality with those people any more; they live in a world where up is down, black is white, cutting taxes raises revenue and Obama is the end result of an elaborate conspiracy involving the use of a time machine to go back and plant false birth notices in Hawaii newspapers (rather than simply ensuring that Obama was born on US soil, I guess).
A good 25% of the American public is absolutely bugfuck insane and ungovernable. A lot of the rest are ignorant anti-science reactionaries too (what, 40% of the country believes in evolution? something like that). Even without the South, plus a couple of the Survivalist States out west, we would have a tough job.
arguingwithsignposts
@freelancer:
We are all Huskers now.
(seriously, the BCS is right behind the Senate and G-S as the most f*cked up American institutions)
arguingwithsignposts
@Makewi:
hahahahahahahaha!
(cough – single payer – cough)
Makewi
@arguingwithsignposts:
Eh, I still think the whole thing is going down in flames.
Sentient Puddle
@Makewi:
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Makewi
@Sentient Puddle:
My name is Inigo Obama, you killed my health care bill, prepare to die!
les
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
les
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
dammit, I did not (intentionally) post that blank post that I appear to have posted but did not. Post, that is.
Oh protein deity, I don’t know if anyone could run the Senate; but it sure doesn’t seem to be Reid. To your larger point, Matty Yglesias comments fairly frequently on the giant suck that is the US Senate, and links to some pretty informative and thoughtful analysis type stuff. The more I read, the more disgusted I get; it’s designed for fail, and most of the problems are rules based and could be fixed, if the fuckers had the will–i.e., weren’t the purchased creatures of corporate masters.
jcricket
@AngusTheGodOfMeat:
If Democrats want to know why “overall” Congressional approval ratings are in the f’ing tank, look no further than the Senate. The parliamentary nonsense that is day-to-day operations have grown so ridiculous it makes Seattle’s endless “process” (wherein which we get nothing done, ever, and when we do, we later vote to undo it before it takes effect, even after spending the money) look like a model of just-do-itness.
At any rate, I have no hope, because the Senators apparently are “very serious” and think they are the “world’s greatest deliberative body” or some other such bullshit. I don’t want the Senate to the be the House, but given its non-representative nature, that’ll never happen. Chucking anything else non-majoritarian, as well as crap like one-person non-public holds, etc. would go a long way towards making things right. I don’t even care that this benefits Republicans when they’re in charge. We will never, ever get real progressive change with a requirement of like 80% support (60+ senators, which represent like 80% of the nation, population wise) for every single f’ing bill.
Nick
Why not? We’ve been doing it since the beginning of the nation. Robert Byrd did it, he became Majority Leader and he’s still in the Senate.
Nick
@jcricket: This is just the way the Republicans want it
slightly_peeved
Now this is the world’s greatest deliberative body.
Marshall
Is the good mayor 8 years old ? It sure does sound like it.