« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Steele to Democrats: You have the votes, and you won, remember?

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  August 21st, 2009 at 10:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

So stop wasting everybody’s time with pretending that you want Republicans for anything but cover and pass your cursed health care rationing bill.

Actually, that’s pretty much what he said:

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele on Thursday dared Democrats to try a one-party push to overhaul the nation’s health care system.

Steele told reporters that he thinks if Democratic senators think they have the votes, they should try a tactic that would allow them to get around a bill-killing filibuster without the 60 votes usually needed. Steele said he didn’t think Democrats would do it because of potential voter backlash.

“Get it to the floor. Up or down, baby,” Steele said at a news conference at the state GOP headquarters. “Put it on the table. And if you don’t think you’ve got enough votes to get to 60, you’ve got the nuclear option. You’ve got 51.”

(Via Hot Air Headlines)

Democrats who are surprised by this shouldn’t be: this is the natural and inevitable result of the Democratic House leadership deciding to freeze out House Republicans in writing bills this session. That particular bit of hubris then means that we feel that we’re under no obligation to give the Democrats political cover for a blessed thing now – and if the Democrats are feeling upset over that, well, good. They should direct that upset towards the people who actually caused it – which is to say, Pelosi, Hoyer, Murtha, Waxman, Frank, Obey, and every other House leader who let their sense of entitlement and need for petty revenge override their good sense.

Of course, what will actually happen is that upset Democrats will try to take it out on senior citizen protesters again. Although they’re probably running short of nasty names to call them, at this point…

Moe Lane

PS: As a special note… if you thought that the DNC’s response to that statement by Steele was milquetoast, struck precisely the wrong tone, and was probably delivered with hunched shoulders and no eye contact: yeah, you weren’t the only one. Funny, yes?

Crossposted to RedState.

Tags: , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.twitter.com/djdigdoug djdigdoug

    Time to stop pretending Dems want a bipartisan agreement and just do whatever it is the want to do! Time to sh*t or get off the proverbial pot!

  • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

    need for petty revenge override their good sense.” – - assuming all of their years inside the Beltway and feeding at the trough haven’t already obliterated any molecule of good sense they had when they came in the door.

    My only concern is that if they actually take Steele up on the challenge and twist enough arms/bribe enough tools to get this monstrosity through it will be one mother to get it repealed.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Shouldn’t you be busy helping with that, by the way? I mean, really, you don’t expect us to care any more about your opinions than your own party does, right?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    The Constitutional option, aka the Nuclear option, was for judicial appointments from the executive calendar, on the grounds that the Senate is instructed to give its advice and try to give its consent or not.

    It was never meant for ordinary legislation.

  • Marcus_Traianus

    Just askin.

  • bk

    Except for in Baucus’s Committee, no Democrat in the Senate had anything to do with any Republicans either. And Baucus did it over objections from Reid.

    Pelosi thought she could roll the Blue Dogs for the umpteenth time and Reid figured he’d have a few of the usual suspects like the ladies from Maine throwing in the towel in short order. When these didn’t work out, Pelosi and Reid couldn’t admit to the truth (Dem infighting), so as usual they had to make up a lie and blame the GOP for the Dems’ inability to unite.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I mean…he’s not wrong is he?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    He’s wrong in that what we proposed, couldn’t be used for this.

    He’s right in that the Democrats could probably get the rules changed to eliminate the filibuster entirely, for all time. But I doubt have get the votes for that. Probably even fewer votes than they have for the government option in the medical rationing bill.

  • Achance

    needing only a simple majority and which can’t be filibustered. Wrinkle, is that only true appropriation items can be treated as reconcilliation matters. Any member could object to a provision s/he considers to be programmatic being considered this way and the Senate Parliamentarian has to rule. That could be a messy process and either the bill gets gutted of its programmatic provisions or the Parliamentarian and the majority caucus have to take the political heat for a cram down.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I agree with you on the second point. As far as the naming goes, although it is a different procedure I have heard many referring to it as the Nuclear Option. It’s almost become a general term.. Another interesting instance of the Leftists trying to co-op our language while applying a wholly different meaning. Thanks for point it out. I really wish there was a better way to combat the bastardisation of our language.

  • IJB

    Even people like Byrd (if he’s actually there to vote, which is probably unlikely) would vote against having non-budgetary items in reconciliation. I suspect there are at least 10 or 11 Democrats who would similarly object to something that unseemly.

    It’s much more likely that they’ll split the bill – put the specific budget-related health care stuff in reconciliation, and try to pass the regulatory part (including the public option stuff) as a separate bill.

    I suspect, however, that that won’t work for the Dems either…

  • jeffreywturner

    Honestly, outside of this one issue, I would like the Dems to be forced into changing Senate rules to eliminate filibusters. You know they will if they have to anyway, and it would be nice if they would, so that way the GOP can pass things with a bare majority when they gain one. If it is left to the GOP in a crunch, they won’t do it because they have too many members who treasure “comity” over all else. (think gang of 14)

  • IJB

    At the core, it’s not in the craven self-preservation interests of any Republican, even Snowe-types, to vote for this.

    Heck, that’s even true of somewhere between 50-70 House *Democrats*!!

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I’d have opposed the Constit utional option if it applied to ordinary legislation.

  • arcman46

    should vote for this fiasco, or anything else BHO proposes. Make the Dems own what they are trying to do.

  • http://fjrealamericans.blogspot.com/ fjrealamericans

    Blame everyone else.. It’s never their fault..
    I read the white house actually hasn’t brought the Repubs into a “bipartisan ” meeting since April.
    Seems their whole game plane was to exclude, but blame the Repubs.
    I think they sadly underestimated the American public.

  • Big Apple Infidel

    Steele and the RNC should be continuously pounding the media with commentary about the total lack of bipartisanship as a deliberate tactic by the Democrats, particularly by Reid in the Senate and Pelosi in the House. The Dems have done everything possible to lock the Republicans out of any debate regarding legislation and most people are unaware of this.

    It is a totally cynical attempt at capitalizing on their takeover of government by completely excluding opposing viewpoints and must become a major campaign issue for Republicans in 2010.

  • securitymom

    Whatever the heck that means. I was going to ask my three year old neighbor but he is off to preschool.

  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

    “Whatever the heck that means.” Must be some kind of Hawaian/Chicagoan/Indonesian/Kenyan slang.

    I’m sorta leaning toward it meaning “pi**ed off” but when it comes to the TOTUS/POTUS who the heck knows.

  • janis

    manages to come up such Shakespeare-level sayings, isn’t it? Somehow makes words such as “strategery” look quite learned–not to mention decipherable.

    Obama can go after talk radio until the cows come home, but Drudge is just flaying him alive almost daily by headlining stuff like this.

  • DavidS1787

    he is just about speechless!

  • janis
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim

    Some funny moments have happened when there’s a glitch of some kind, such as when the operator has a lapse and forgets to advance it or when it breaks. But David’s right, the real BHO comes out when the TOTUS isn’t in use.

  • Tbone

    holding real townhall/stadium meetings should this nonsense ever come to a vote.

    They shouldn’t even be in DC. They should be where the real people are, Home.

  • mom2oneson
  • devCharles

    Props to you, Michael Steele. Seriously. I’ve been waiting for the GOP to say something like this. You guys have the votes. Senate and house. Get it done.

  • Return to Revolution

    Almost forgot they did that; I never looked up the source until now:

    http://republicanwhip.house.gov/blog/2009/06/developing-democrat-abuse-of-power.html

  • texas214

    While there has been a lot of worry over his selection to head the GOP, this was exactly the right moveon his part. When your facing a bully you don’t run and hide, you stand up call them out, and hold your ground.

    Whether we win or lose on the issue Americans appreciate this type of bravery. Thats the problem Zero and the Dem’s are having, they stand for big government control, but can’t bring themselves to say so.

    Word for the day, Bravery!

  • rec0n

    don’t they have to re-visit said items on a yearly basis, and meet budget requirements or make appropriate changes to the legislation? I read an article somewhere re: this pitfall, and appropriate changes would pretty much have to meet the approval of whomever is reviewing the budget…right?

  • rec0n

    My opinion they’re screwed no matter what they do now. They’re just screwed. The public has had a faceful, the Lib’s are frothing, and unless they pull some (more) really MAJOR fraud next election – they’re screwed. I’ve attended my town hall and written my letters, but most of the time I was just smiling this August. I knew they couldn’t handle real scrutiny, but the speed at which they’ve committed political suicide kind of surprised me, I have to admit.