« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Sen. Harkin Will Try to Change Filibuster Rules to Ram Healthcare Bill

Democrat senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) wants to eliminate the Senate filibuster rules to ram through the Senate’s version of health reform. One fact to take away is that Reid does not have the votes or this wouldn’t be necessary. Hence, the rule change to require only 50 votes to force the bill down our throats pass the bill.

Harkin’s gripe is that he thinks it an “abuse.” From the LifeSiteNews article.

Harkin states,

“It’s an abuse of a person’s position as a senator to demand, because we need one more vote, just to demand everything. It’s really unfair to the rest of the Senate, rest of the caucus.” Noting that he and many senators have overcome their inhibitions about the bill, Harkin suggested that “to sort of lay down an ultimatum” about conditions for passing a bill was “not the way you do legislation.”

Ironicly, a top White House economic advisor threatened the Senate just two days ago with a command and control role to force cap and trade.

The official was quoted as saying,

“If you don’t pass this legislation, then the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area. And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty.”

So, I’m confused, Senator Harkin. The White House just issued a serious warning and ultimatum to the Senate to pass cap and trade–or else–and there were crickets.

Again Harkin states, “It’s an abuse of a person’s position…” Senator Harkin, I ask you:

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of the White House’s and EPA’s position to tell you how to run your house?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of the Obama White House’s position to use bully tactics to ram through an agenda the American people don’t want?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of the pay czars position to regulate salaries?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of a person’s position to appoint over 30 czars and bypass Senate confirmation?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of a person’s position to silence the GOP members of Congress?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of a person’s position to appoint their girlfriend as a US attorney?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of a person’s position to write the health care bills in secret?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of a person’s position to represent the interests of the administration over the people who elected you?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of a person’s power to ignore the Constitution and your oaths?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of a person’s position to force a mandate on Americans into buying health coverage or risk going to jail?

Don’t you think it’s an abuse of a person’s position to ignore the will of the American people?

What’s even more intriguing is that Senator Harkin may have forgotten that it’s his own Democrat party that has a supermajority–that’s what he’s fighting.

To remind Senator Harkin, Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate. Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass any legislation. Democrats have silenced and excluded the Republicans every step of the way–to the point Republicans cannot effectively represent their constituents.

Senator Harkin, please get your bearings and realize that the American people are rebuking the Obama agenda. Let the rules of the Senate stand the way the Founders intended and don’t play dirty tricks and change to rules to force the Obama agenda. You don’t have the votes, because some Senators are actually listening to their constituents–as you should.

COMMENTS

  • mbecker908
  • SteveLA

    As Yogi once said, this is like deja vu all over again, got Nuclear Option?

    But the real question, will the Gang of 14 ride to the rescue once again and stop this latest attempt to change the rules of the Senate or will the door finally be open to letting a majority, any majority, in the future ram through legislation over the minorities objection?

  • Jack_Savage

    I won’t be holding my breath waiting for this or for the answer to mbecker’s question.

    I guess I will have to spend my time looking for the local Anti-Escalation Of The War protest….

  • reddog53

    Even though I’ve met him once, and came away impressed, he is obviously past his prime; he’s a great example of the efficacy of term limits.

    When folks have to change the rules of the contest while the game’s being played, you know they’re behind and desperate.

  • bk

    back about 80 or 90 years ago.

    P.S. How many times did Harkin vote to filibuster Bush nominees? THAT is an abuse of the process.

  • IJB

    He’s been an out-of-control loon/goon for years, but he still regularly wins reelection with >55% of the vote.

    I don’t get it. But IA seems to never want to get rid of the guy…

  • Richard Mullins

    I wonder if Senator Harkin remember that it takes 2/3 majority to change the rule and they have a 3/5 majority? Stupid idiots like this being voted, keeps with my nothing really changes though.

  • SteveLA

    Jack,

    Just think, if it hadn’t been for that evil traitor to “true” conservatism everywhere, John McCain and those other 6 evil traitors from the R side of the Gang of 14, there wouldn’t even be a question, the Nuclear Option would already exist. I shudder to think what Hateful Harry and the Donks would be doing today with that tool in their collective bag O tricks.

    Talk about hoisted on your own Petard.

  • mbecker908

    The Republicans never discussed a “Nuclear Option” vis-a-vis legislation. It related only to judicial and cabinet level nominations.

    I supported that at the time and I still do. Elections have consequences and Presidents, even BoyPresidents™, should have the right to have their nominees for high appointed office – even offices of life tenure – moved out of committee in a reasonable time (I personally favor 60 days) and voted up or down on the floor of the Senate without delay.

    I have never favored, nor did the earlier discussion include or G14 have any relation to, eliminating filibusters on legislative issues.

  • SteveLA

    mebecker

    No disagreement that the Nuclear Option was intended only to address Presidential nominations and the “Advise and Consent” provisions of the Constitution. But do you really think that if it had been passed that Donks today would not be trying to expand what the Nuclear Option did to include passage of legislation?

    The laws of unintended consequences might well have come up to bite R’s in the proverbial Tuches, save for the actions of the man you love to hate on and his fellow traitors to “true” conservatism who were the R side of the Gang of 14.

    I’m not into messing with precedence of the Senate, or for that matter the law, giving both great deference because for the most part things seem to work out over time.

  • redpens

    or does he just need to retire?

  • mbecker908

    what Democrats will try to justify. You know that.

    I normally agree with you, but we’re about 180 degrees apart on this one.

  • SteveLA

    mbecker

    I’ll go back and delete any references to the man you like to hate on, then you’ll agree…..LOL

    But in my view, if the Nuclear option had been passed over judicial nominations, DONKS would be using it to get Obamacare to ramming speed, not that they are not, but the Nuclear Option would be in play as a tool.

  • Jack_Savage

    I believe that going nuclear on legislation, even with the precedent that would have been set by the (R)’s on advise and consent, would be so far beyond the pale that the Dems would not try it. These two issues are simply apples and oranges and the Dems would be roasted if they tried it.

    I am certainly no fan of McCain, but he is beginning to create an opportunity to distinguish himself on the health care rationing debate.

    Now let’s please start talking about Sarah Palin so you and mbecker can get back on the same page. On second thought….

  • SteveLA

    Jack

    I’m saving up for the Palin Bot announcement about the Climate debate between SWMNBN and AlGore that was suggested by Laura Ingram.

    Willard Scott is available to moderate.

  • Jack_Savage

    Won’t happen. Palin is now far too worldwise to get roped into a Greenpeace sponsored debate moderated by Bill Moyers, which is what it would become.

    I think Al Gore would freak out and try to kiss her, anyway, and he knows it.

    I’m looking forward to the diary that explains how using the term “Palin Bot” improves discourse at RedState, though. Or maybe….just maybe…you are still mad that I was able to outbid you on her red jacket that was auctioned by Laura. Don’t deny it. Embrace it.

  • SteveLA

    Jack

    Sorry for the pain you had to suffer listening to Ms. Ingram, taking one for the masses is good.

    So how about a debate with a “fair and balanced team of moderators?

    On the Palin side

    Willard Scott
    Jillian Barbaree (used to be on the NFL show)
    Shawn Hannity

    On the AlGore side

    Sting
    Keith Oberdog
    Someone foreign with an unpronounceable name
    Alan Combs

    A good time will be had by all…or something like that.

  • Jack_Savage

    But Olbermann would try and kiss Palin too, so it could turn into something not very pleasant in a big hurry.