« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

With regard to the health care rationing bill passing: Don’t get mad.

Get even.

Fire Nancy Pelosi.

That’s 106K being collected tonight, by the way. In, like, an hour and a half.

COMMENTS

  • patriotrx
  • smitch61

    She just won last year, she beat Cindy Sheehan, am I wrong? How can she be up for re election again?

  • patriotrx

    Hence, no more gavel;)

  • patriotrx

    It’s the Senate that has a six year term.

  • patriotrx

    For the proper motivational effect.

  • CTMoore

    I don’t comment much, but what has happened tonight has motivated me to get off my rear and help this party get back in power.

    I sat back and like many felt the GOP had left me, and had become “Democrat-Lite” well, I was wrong, and tonight I made a donation to the GOP that I hadn’t made in years.

    I am thrilled to throw my support to my Congressmen Jeff Flake and will thank him for opposing this trainwreck.

    I know now that we aren’t entitled to victory in November and will support my candidates as best I can.

  • jmimac351

    When they don’t have the guts to support people like Marco Rubio publicly?

    I won’t give a dime to the GOP until Michael Steele, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell are replaced with competent leadership. They are part of the problem that got us to where we are today.

    I will support individual candidates directly.

  • ThunderHook

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu1q17rUkVU&feature=player_embedded

  • zachv

    … is earmarked specifically for individual candidates.

  • rbdwiggins

    Steny Hoyer may have something else in mind for Ms. Pelosi.

  • Brian Simpson

    They are going to blow away their goal once people wake up in the morning.

  • http://www.barrypopik.com barrypopik

    FYI, the origin of “Don’t get mad, get even.”

    ?The motto of the Irish Mafia which Bobby [Kennedy] inherited has always been, ?Don?t get mad?get even,? a slogan which predates the Kennedys in Massachusetts politics.?

    Let’s get even. Do it for Ted.

  • sta46

    Zach Wamp who is leaving the house and running for governor of TN so I thought he’d be perfect for this particular ploy. I wrote to and called Michelle Bachmann after her comment on Hannity that Pelosi should be impeached. I sent faxes to Pence and Bohener’s offices citing the sections, page numbers and paragraphs in the House Rules which entitle ANY MEMBER to “declare the speakership vacant” and obviously NO ONE would do it.
    my question is WHY NOT????
    without her this absolutely NEVER would have gone through… the kitty-cats in the house are more afraid of her than they are of the voters back home. If she stays between now and Nov she will ram through amnesty, cap and tax, and universal voter registration and heaven knows what else.
    SOMEONE has got to step up to the plate and get her out of there. Even if the votes aren’t there right away keep doing it… she would never know but that some day the votes might be there… and I’ll bet there are more than a few dems who would like to see her gone.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Hey, not my fault.

  • proudgop

    just donated

    how low do u think stock market will open tomorrow ugh

  • jmimac351

    should get together on whether we are funding the status quo in the GOP or making it a goal to replace the problem elements.

  • theBlur

    I have now donated money to five people running against the corruptocrats in the Democratic party. Not much, but some. It starts here, it starts now. No matter the amount, help out every conservative candidate you can in order to help win back our future.

  • SteveM

    …is just a couple of bucks at a time, whenever you can spare them.

    I’m planning on giving as much as I can to as many Blue Dog opponents as I can. Let’s knock the lapdogs out of office for good.

  • gekster

    http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home

    and from that:
    http://republican.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Blogs.View&Blog_Id=6b53ad02-2d4b-4134-a08d-7c439defd83b

    an excerpt:
    DON STEWART, McCONNELL SPOKESMAN: ?Republicans have been trying to set up a meeting with Senate Democrats since yesterday to discuss this fatal point of order but have been met with nothing but silence. We suspect Democrats are slow walking us so as to have the House vote first. Since Senate Democrats refuse to meet with us and the Parliamentarian, we?ve informed our colleagues in the House that we believe the bill they?re now considering violates the clear language of Section 310g of the Congressional Budget Act, and the entire reconciliation bill is subject to a point of order and rejection in the Senate should it pass the House.?

  • weatherford

    looks like a lizard sunning herself on a hot rock. “Look at those eyes, there is nothing there.”

    Tacitus was right: “beware of the tyrany of feminine goverment.”

  • weatherford

    nt

  • gekster

    via Drudge Report.

  • sta46

    well into the next century but if we want to turn the tide we must stop playing politely.
    start applying Alinsky #5 all OVER the place or we will be toast.

  • weatherford

    from South Carolina or whatever rock he crawled out from under.

  • lazlor

    I THINK (could be wrong) that is strictly in reference to the reconciliation bill.. not the Senate bill… thats bought and paid for. The republicans can simply stop the changes the house made…

    again, that’s how I see it, but then again my vision could be blurred by my disappointment at the moment…

  • rec0n

    n/t

  • gekster

    I’m more or less looking for an explanation of this.
    There are people here who knows what this entails.
    I’ll admit my ignorance on this.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Be a Republican, or don’t; but make up your mind.

  • jstjoan

    n/t

  • wilfranc

    Why settle for even. I’d like to see us go back about 50 decades of Congressional hijinx.

    When it is our turn again, how about using what we have learned and instead of getting even, go further. The Departments of Energy, Education, multiple Czars positions, the Executive Offices, SS disability, HUD, FANNIE, Freddie, no more UN, and many more seem to be near their life expectancies.

    We need to start framing the debates now. Stupak should not be allowed to be called Pro Life for starters. Not when he is officially pro-choice. He lost his honorary degree tonight, and we know that liberals like to define themselves by their diplomas (strawmen).

    First, you know what Sheakspere said about the lawyers.

  • partyof1

    the reconciliation bill, that would just mean the original senate bill becomes law. Might PO some house Dems but they, and Obama can just throw up their hands and blame the Republicans. Again.

    BTW, if anyone wants to get even madder, check out this OP-ED breakdown of the funding lies by DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/opinion/21holtz-eakin.html

    In reality, if you strip out all the gimmicks and budgetary games and rework the calculus, a wholly different picture emerges: The health care reform legislation would raise, not lower, federal deficits, by $562 billion.

  • timmmmmmay

    Made my first ever political donation tonight. I’m sure I’m not the only one. Time to turn this country around, one way or another.

  • shadowtax

    This is the seat that Wexler resigned from. It’s a Democrat district full of seniors.

    I have not seen much discussion about the GOP nominee Ed Lynch.

    www.electlynch.com.

    Any thoughts?

  • AKSteveB

    What the hell else CAN we be but Republicans?

  • gored

    Great job maybe we can put something in there about how supreme the white race is and maybe make it legal to spit on people we don’t like! Great job, we hate everyone!

  • Adjoran

    Scozzafava.

    Whatever I can give will go to individual candidates in individual districts who appear to have a chance to win and whose positions I can accept. NOT ONE DIME to the party groups who interfere in our own primaries to support their favored toadies.

    Goes DOUBLE for the RSCC. When I think of the money and effort squandered on Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Specter, Charlie Crist . . . sorry, my memory is just too good to give them any more of my limited resources (and my memory is failing with age!) . . .

    To be fair, proper respect to the “RINOs” – Snowe, Collins, Georgie V, Cao, and others in the House – who held firm against this travesty of a bill.

  • gored

    and make sure they are white and rich too and having affairs and stealing our money, great job!

  • gored

    Yeah, lets talk about killing thing to make us feel manly, good point.

  • gored

    and acting like the racist cowards we are will get us going too!

  • gored

    Cool, Our lies, hate mongering and fear baiting work great too!

  • http://www.redstate.com/tnjim TNJim
  • http://oceanslicentia.blogspot.com/ daniocean

    It is great to see GOP catching up on the money-bomb thing. One valuable lesson from Paul’s campaign that we should have adopted earlier!
    I feel the winds of change blowing from the right this year, probably till November they are going stormy and blowing every incumbent Democrat out of office! I just hope we elect real conservatives and not RINOs.

  • http://todaysasbestos.wordpress.com scotteiland

    Do you plan on offering anything substantive, or are you just going to behave like the idiot you so obviously are?

    Neil?

  • http://todaysasbestos.wordpress.com scotteiland

    Hopefully within the next couple hours.

  • houstoneagle

    THANK YOU.

  • JadedByPolitics

    …….

  • JadedByPolitics

    ……..

  • Wubbies World

    It initially loads then a banner ad takes over and it goes away.

  • Jack_Savage

    They’ll have that stupidity treated in no time. As soon as they can see you , which will be three years after you die.

  • Jack_Savage

    Are they going to let you help suck the brains out of babies, or do you just get to dispose of their dead bodies?

    So many children, so little time! Go get ‘em, killa!

  • leftylurker

    He was saying that in order to overthrow society, you had to kill the lawyers, because they were the guardians of order against tyranny.

  • http://oceanslicentia.blogspot.com/ daniocean

    clean up your browser’s cookies and it will work.

  • mschmitt

    The Senators keep their bribes, but the House (poor, pathetic House) don’t get theirs.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    …but this is why people should not engage racist projectionist trolls. It’
    s clear that nothing was accomplished except grinding out one extra orgasm for the man.

  • Jack_Savage

    I’ll try to restrain myself in the future. It’s a really bad habit I have, engaging the witless. I use it as a warm-up for my ventures in and around Chapel Hill, NC.

    Let the record show I DID use the contact form, however.

  • Fla Mom

    Not the dopey RNC or any other Republican fundraising unit. We’ve seen how devoted *they* are to conservative candidates.

    While you’re at it, donate to Jim DeMint’s Senate Conservatives Fund, too.

    www.houseconservartives.com

    senateconservatives.com

    Fla Mom

  • Gigi

    At first I only gave a bit, but I am getting angrier by the moment, so I went back and donated again. I may be broke by the end of the day, but at least I will have spent my money on something of my choice rather than by fiat of our Pretender in Chief and his minions.

  • weatherford

    You know, rules of court and all that.

  • conservvoter

    I’m still pissed that the Repubs set us up for this great fall. Other than DeMint and Pence, I don’t trust the Repub leadership. I’ll continue to give to conservative candidates individually.

  • Jack_Savage

    Let’s assume you and I agree politically. Let’s also assume you are here to join a vibrant, activist community. If that is true, fine.

    We have a lot of morons who parade in here and waste a lot of our time. If you had been around a while, youwould know that. Your “test” post is not your finest, I would imagine. I would advise that you settle in, read a lot, get to know the posters here and then contribute. What you are attempting to engage in is a pi$$ing contest, and it will shorten your time here considerably.

    I hope that helps.

  • weatherford

    applies to both chambers. Any violation of its strictures can be tossed (absent Biden or, believe it or not, maybe with Biden) whether in a Senate bill so denominated and if permitted or, more likely, in a House bill sent to the Senate.

    It has been a long time since I read the thing (the cooler heads opposed the entire bill on the Senate Floor), and I dont have a copy in my office, but that is my recollection.

    I am not entirely sure of this either but the bill probably has to originate in the House, so there will be no Senate bill, per se, and the House bill will be the vehicle.

    Either way, it will be important to lather up Senators Demint, Bunning, Hatch et al to make sure there is objection to the appointment of conferees. (Best I recall, the Budget Act does not preclude a conference.) Without that objection, there might not be another damaging vote in the House — assuming at least one Senate Amendment carries.

    For here on out until November, our Senators need to halt all legislative or executive action in the Senate. I have seen it done with two Senators. With forty-one (wait a minute — I forgot Graham) with forty Senators, it is a peice of cake — if they suck it up and get a cup.

    The real key to stopping Obama is the preceding paragraph, but I dont think I have yet seen that comment on this site.

    A real filibuster never waits on the target — that is always too late.

  • Jack_Savage

    Since the reconciliation bill seems already to have been hashed out, is there any need for conferees? Or in other words, will the objection to the conferees be meaningless? Can the Senate amend its rules to suspend a conference in this instance?

  • weatherford

    will take the last first. Unfortunately, it cant be answered without being a tad long winded.

    The Senate Rules govern a continuing body, hence they are not redone at the beginning of each Congress as in the House. The fact that the Senate Rules tend to be immutable is a function of the six year term and that only one-third up for reelection every two years. It is also a function of the unique requirement of the Constitution that no State can be denied equal suffrage in the Senate.

    That’s background. The old Rule 22 (the filibuster/cloture rule) required two thirds of the Senate present and voting to close debate on any measure, motion, or matter (on a cloture petition signed by twenty senators and filed at the desk). About 1974, Rule 22 was amended to reduce the number from two-thirds of those present and voting to two-thirds of the entire Senate. This change had initially little effect because in those days it was about as hard to get sixty Senators in the Chamber as it was to get two-thirds of those actually there to envoke cloture. But new Rule 22 make no change to cloture if the matter subject to cloture should be to change the Rules. In short, for a long time, it was just a wash. That has changed.

    So, the first answer is this: it takes two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to change the Senate Rules and the Rules are never made anew. If you round up the troops, 34 Senators can block any Rule change.

    The blunder of passage of the Budget Reconciliation Act was caused because the Senators elected by television had no real respect for the institution and thought it was just dandy to kill their own power (and that of the then sovereign state they represented) by a statute fosted on them by the House — the Budget Act. Hence, the present debacle. The stability the framers crafted for the Senate was wrecked.

    Jack, I have a short meeting. More to follow, and I look forward to working with you.

  • weatherford

    If your going to be pompous, you better be right.

    Third paragraph: change the second” two-thirds” to “six-tenths;” otherwise, I am an idiot.

  • Jack_Savage

    1) Object to the conferees, although I am still not sure what that really does, although when DeMint did it this really pissed them off, so I am all for it.
    2) Make sure at least one amendment to the reconciliation bill carries the Senate, which will ensure the House will need to vote again (correct?).
    3) Make the amendment as unpalatable to the House as possible – simple majority vote carries the amendment, no?

    If the barely palatable amendment looks like it will pass, and the House will have to vote again, and they do not have the votes because of the amendment, is there a scenario that Democrats delay their own bill?

  • treeofliberty

    Wowsers!!

    Steele might get to his goal before dinner!

  • treeofliberty

    probably by lunch!

  • The_Gadfly

    To wit:

    Replace the RINOs by primarying them with solid conservatives. Support the Republicans in the primary because 3rd party candidates don’t win national offices.

    The only time Erick has ever “broken” that rule was NY23, where the nominal Republican was to the left of the Democrat. And I don’t consider it to have broken the rule because that was an election between two socialists.

  • Gigi

    climbing.

  • Trelaina

    The Republican “primary” wasn’t a real primary where the winner was determined by the people. That was another reason to support a 3rd party candidate.

    Support the conservative in the Republican primary.

    Support the Republican who wins the primary fair & square in the General.

  • weatherford

    Apart from killing extended debate in the Senate and destroying the Senate as the greatest deliberative body on earth, proceedings under the Budget Reconciliation Act are pretty much, best I remember, the same as on an appropriations bill originating in the House.

    There is a germaness rule in both cases, i.e. one is not “supposed” to legislate on and appropriations matter. (The way to circumvent the latter is to start all amendments with the magic words, “None of the funds appropriated by this Section,” for example, “shall be obligated or expended to fund The Annoited One’s Blackberry.”)

    Anyhow, I think the procedure is that the House to act last asks for the conference first (if it wants one), but I may have that backwards.

    What matters is that if the Senate amends the House Reconciliation Bill in any fashion, there could be a call for a conference — which would be deadly to the movement. But a Senator with courage can block a conference by forcing a vote on the appointment of conferees WHICH IS A MEASURE SUBJECT TO RULE 22. All that needs be said are a serious Senator’s most potent two words, “I object.” (It least that’s the way I recall it being.)

    Final increment next. Lord willing.

  • weatherford

    Let me finish up the first one, and we can make short work of these.

  • ocleverone
  • The_Gadfly

    Of course, the first sign of whether or not McConnell is serious is whether or not they seek a restraining order against The Big 0 signing the bill.

    I’d say that since no bill has been presented to and voted on by both Houses of Congress, therefore until the reconciliation bill is presented to and passes the Senate, it has not been approved. Since the reconciliation bill has strict rules about being directly contingent to budgetary issues, Republicans should be able to strip ALL policy issues from the bill. Furthermore, they ought to be able to engage in some rather artful filibustering. I’d do something like having a round-robin of each of the 41 Senators standing to read a paragraph of the bill, and moving to have the parliamentarian rule on whether or not it conforms to reconciliation rules. While they are reading, they should also be keeping an eye on how many people are on the floor of the Senate. Any time it falls below 51, they should issue a quorum call. Obviously this is best implemented with a small number of Republicans on the floor to force Democrats to be there.

    Now I figure even reading the whole damnable thing should take at least a week. But each motion itself could be the subject of up to 24 hours of debate. Throw in the quorum calls running 10-30 minutes when they happen…

    Yeah, it means all comity is dead, but that’s dead already. And it is time for Republicans in the Senate to pronounce that loudly. It might also be interesting to see what effect it will have on the 24 hours news cycle.

  • weatherford

    I think I lost my on way here and probably answered this one pretty much already.

    But your point is, if it is decided, then what is there to discuss. Obviously, nothing, which is the reason the dems are desperate for no Senate amendments.

    If their reconciliation bill is not amended it goes straight to the President after the Senate approves. It will be a joint resolution and thus require the same formalities as would any statutory enactment. It cannot be a concurrent resolution because a reconciliation measure, touching money (a money bill) must have the force of law.

    Anticipating your new question, you have the main point: the Senate has a golden opportunity to destroy the reelection hopes of the dems in the Senate by creating fifteen second TV ads for the use of the opponent of any Senator voting to table ANYTHING that the vast majority of Americans would find meritorious. I have actually been present when they tabled the Lord’s Prayer. It was a real close vote.

    Jack, many thanks. I’ll try to pick up the thread at your second full question after a quick lunch.

  • proudgop

    they have new target we need money to help elect people to repeal this crap

  • Jack_Savage

    You’ll do well here. Welcome.

  • weatherford

    I have got to handle this quickly and get back to work so excuse typos, misspellings, and missing words.

    Here are a few comments on each of your items:

    1) Objection to the appointment of conferees cant happen if the Senate takes the House Bill exactly; however, if it does not take the House proposal word for word, every i dotted and every t crossed, then from the dems perspective the next best thing is to get a conference to hide behind. (In conference, the basic rule is that the conferees can make any germane modification within the scope of the difference between the House Version and the Senate Version. Moreover, any conference report is privileged and very difficult to filibuster. In sum, the objection makes in impossible to hide from a determined foe seeking to expose you to your voters.

    2) You straight on point.

    3) Here again, you have got it.

    I would only comment on item 3) to say that there are two types of amendments that should be offered.

    Type One should be intended to get fifty-one votes and carry. A Type One Amendment should be highly reasonable, even conciliatory, virtually impossible not to agree with, uphold some underlying position the Senate holds dear that has been hampered by the House Version of Reconciliation. It has to be so sweet it can pick up about ten or eleven dem Senators, who will give an aye vote; notwithstanding extreme pressure to leave the House Bill alone. They may not bit but it shuts down their reelection talking points because they themselves will destroy anything they might use to boast about how they saved America by injecting some trivial clause or subsection.

    As you might imagine, I am not much good at drafting Type One amendments.
    When senator McConnell was on staff, he was great at it, and he is the one to turn to for the best product in the Type One category.

    As to Type Two, here we have the fun and the opportunity to inflict mass casualties. A Type Two drafter need to be utterly ruthless and immune to criticism or appeals to reason. All that matters, is forcing the vote and seeing what dead fish have surfaced when the gavel falls. A good Type Two amandment never wins. It has only two purposes a) burning up time, which is crucial to killing off the snakes and b) embarrassing the mortal Hell out of those who vote wrong. And it dont make a happy damn whether they vote wrong on a motion to table or straight up and down on the text itself. Believe me on this, a Senator who tries to tell his State it was “just a procedural question” is already doomed and gasping for breath. It wont sell.

    Also, you always kept Type Two amendments close to the vest, NEVER consult with your own leadership — as a general rule, they will beg the proponent not to do it, often because of the “not-invented-here” symdrome.
    Dont tell the “leadership” one word — unless you want to be talked out of what you know is a good idea and are already afraid to launch.

    Here is a good Type Two amendment for an authorization bill: “It is the sense of the Senate that the B-1 Bomber Program should be fully funded.”

    Then there is a motion to table and Senator X from State Y votes aye on the motion, which carries. Two days later, in state Y, there is about a half million dollar buy on a TV spot (15 seconds), to wit”Senator X voted to kill the B-1 Bomber [photos of the graceful aircraft in flight], and it is an essential component of our National Defense. [cut to Senator X's opponent] “I support the B-1, and I know you agree with me that we must have it, etc.” People of State Y, “What the Hell is wrong with Senator X, he’s acting like a Communist.” And maybe he was, but he is toast regardless.

    A final comment, Type Two amendments are not for the faint at heart. On that score, I have a very low degree of confidence in most of the Senate Repub minority. But when it comes to making a difference, and not just prancing around pretending to be wise, one good bomb-thrower is better than forty wimps.

    I have enjoyed this. Thanks, Jack, for letting me hold forth.

  • theBlur