Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

“60 Votes” — It Was Always Bullshit - Jane Hamsher/FDL

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
WillyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:06 PM
Original message
“60 Votes” — It Was Always Bullshit - Jane Hamsher/FDL
“60 Votes” — It Was Always Bullshit
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday January 23, 2010 8:59 am

<snip>

One of the ways the administration tried to jam its PhRMA deal/Aetna bailout on the country was forcing a series of false choices onto the debate. Those who opposed this corrupt hijacking of the democratic process were told that the reality was, you gotta have 60 votes in the Senate. And Lieberman, Landrieu, Nelson and Lincoln stood firm, so you had to give them what they wanted.

It was that or nothing. What can you do? We now hear “If only we didn’t have the filibuster” as frequently as we heard “if only we had 60 votes” when the Democrats didn’t own the war.

And now, we find out something that may surprise many (though probably not anyone who has watched politics for more than 6 months): it was all bullshit.

Part of the negotiations center on whether Reid can provide an ironclad guarantee that the Senate will not leave the House in the lurch, aides said. If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill with a companion measure — or a “cleanup” bill — to make fixes, they want to know that the Senate will indeed pass it, too.

There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn’t materialize, insiders said.

“The Senate moderates’ viewpoint is, ‘We passed our bill. We’re not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,’” said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.


So how many “moderates” are there now?

The 60 vote bar was always crap. Now that it only takes 51 votes to pass a public option (which the OpenLeft whip count says they have), they can’t clear that either. It’s all about kabuki — who gets to feign support for publicly popular legislation vs. who gets to take credit for bashing the hippies and killing it. The White House wants what it wants, and the Senate — largely insulated from the electoral consequences of the bill — is totally willing to sacrifice those in the House who are much more vulnerable in order to give it to them.

Now the apologists are peddling the “it’s this or nothing” false choice about a bill that won’t even kick in for the next four years, as if their “60 vote” myth didn’t just explode. How is it suddenly Raul Grijalva’s fault if he stands firm and won’t accept a hideous bill crafted on the imperative of getting Joe Lieberman’s vote, which isn’t necessary any more?

Meet 51: it’s the new 60.


<snip>

Link: http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/23/60-votes-it... /

Yep...

:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:07 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
2. "It was always bullshit"
which can describe anything written by Jane Hamsher
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azmouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Your logic is almost irresistible.
Almost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fire1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. +10
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #2
14. Then why don't you start a blog that gets over a million hits a day?
I can't wait to see what you come up with. Then again, I'm sure it's never going to happen.

Jane's right. It's too goddamn bad you don't comprehend what you read.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. Free Republic gets a million hits a day, doesn't make any of the posts over there
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 03:01 PM by NJmaverick
right though :eyes: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Again. You can't aspire to that standard, can you?
Why don't you tell me what is wrong with the above post? The fact she's pointing out that the Senate never had any intention of passing a health care reform bill that actually served the average American, or the fact that the Democratic "majority" in the Senate is, and always has been, bullshit?

If you think those obstructing any kind of meaningful reform are actually working for us, you might want to seek some kind of help.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. First off you are playing as fast and loose with the facts as Jane does
her blog gets on average 14,000 hits a day not the million you claimed. Secondly Jane has shot whatever credibility she may have had (not that she has a background that makers here an expert on any of the topics she rights for). In fact seeing ads for new bloggers to her sight, they only are required to agree with her rather than actually have a background or expertise in the field they will be writing on.

A blog like hers only shows that any unqualified, ill informed and illogical person and write a blog. Doens't mean that her views are in any way correct, accurate or worth reading.

Oh and here is the link that supports the 14,000 hits a day assertion

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/firedoglake.com?p=tgraph&...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
27. Oh, my GOD. I got the visitors' count wrong!
So, sue me. :rofl: I look forward to fact-checking your posts from now on, too.

Again: You can't even approach what she does. You don't have the ability to drive 14 people to your site daily, let alone 14,000, and you're going to dismiss the thousands of stories Jane Hamsher, Christy Hardin Smith and Marcy (Emptywheel) have successfully reported on over the years over one story you disagree with.

>A blog like hers only shows that any unqualified, ill informed and illogical person and write a blog.<

Perhaps you should ask President Clinton why he thought Jane's blog (and opinions) were sufficiently important to invite her and other bloggers to a summit at his Harlem office. Maybe you should ask multiple candidates how important the campaign funds Firedoglake and other liberal bloggers raised for their campaigns are. You could also find out why Firedoglake is read by scores of elected officials and other media outlets.

Then again, you've already proven my point. You can't aspire to the standard, so you'd rather sit back and take potshots at something you could never accomplish on your own.

-MV
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:19 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. You can't laugh off a factor of 100
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #21
36. I believe you are reporting on FDL's traffic rank not "hits a day".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
40. *SNORT* Alexa? SERIOUSLY?
You do know that that site only reports users that have the Alexa spyware installed, don't you?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Generator Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #25
43. That was fucking nasty and mean
I see you are one of the great new Democrats that Obama has brought to us.

Yes, she signed one letter with fucking Grover Norquist so she should be reviled, hated and worse. And MOCKED for having cancer-because she's a SELL OUT because she actually believes what she writes. Democrats are getting you nothing. Guantanamo, torture, war, banks, presidential power, all the same crap as the previous leader.

Anyone that DARES to take on the contrived-right/left power is the enemy. Since Obama became president,Howard Dean, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Hamsher and all the rest are now the ENEMY on DU by some.

Keep on dreaming that huckster Republican in Democrat's clothing Obama will ever do anything for you.

Because he won't. He doesn't work for you. He never has and never will. Ever action he has taken proves it over and over and over again. In another time, some here would actually realize Karl Rove is the moral equivalent of Rahm Emmanuel-our dear Leader's right hand man. Which is what the letter with Norquist was about. But instead the fact that Hamsher has "fame" is what you worry about instead of the content of the character of the man your worship, President Obama.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
58. "nasty and mean", and incredibly ignorant and defamatory.

Sad to see such stuff on a (supposedly) progressive forum. :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #25
47. How has she "sold out" to Norquist and the teabaggers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #25
53. I feel very sorry for you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
34. DLCers hate Hamsher b/c she speaks the truth; not DLC memes n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #34
50. They can't speak outside of DLC memes. You won't see one anti-Jane statement you won't see 50 times
Posters can earn Rahmbucks for bashing Jane, just like they can with Dennis Kucinich, or any other lefty who steps outta line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #50
65. yes, exactly, lots
of ramhbucks earners here.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dflprincess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:54 PM
Response to Reply #50
69. Rahmbucks!
I love it...I'll probably be forced to steal it and use it myself on occasion.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #69
76. Please do! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donco6 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #2
46. Until she writes something nice about Obama.
Then she'll be a goddess again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #2
57. -1,000

LOL, what bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
74. Do you have something of value to say, like maybe
refute her points? What exactly is she wrong about?

What a totally worthless comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yep. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #3
67. love your avatar.

just wanted to say that. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
6. Yeah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
7. Just like "we've gotta pass the Senate Bill to get reconciliation" is the latest BS
The fact is, the Senate reconciles its Bill to the House version under Reconciliation, not the other way around. The "sidecar" arrangement is something they just made up to further drag out and make reform less likely to really happen.

The House doesn't have to do a thing. It already has a sorta okay HCR Bill. The current Senate Bill is poison.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bain_sidhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
29. Different reconciliation
the "reconciliation" you're talking about is the conference committe process. The "reconciliation" they're talking about is a budget reconciliation. Totally different thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Look it up. That's reconciliation.
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 04:36 PM by leveymg
Come back later and explain if you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bain_sidhe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I have already explained it to you once
But you apparently didn't read my reply to your post a few days ago:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

To make it easy on you, I'll repeat myself:

The confusion comes from both processes using the word "reconcile."

Reconciling two bills, one passed by the House, and one passed by the Senate, is done by a Conference Committee which reports out a "reconciled" bill, and that's what you describe. Although you describe it incorrectly. The Conference Report (reconciled bill) CAN be filibustered.

What they're talking about is a *budget* reconciliation. This can only be done if a line in the actual budget bill authorized it. Luckily, the Budget bill passed by the Dems DOES have such an authorization. It can only pertain to budget items, such as taxes and spending, not regulations and setting up new programs and such. *THAT'S* the kind of "reconciliation bill" that only requires 50+1 votes to pass, because it cannot be filibustered.

What they're talking about here is passing the Senate bill as-is, then doing a separate bill to deal with the tax/payment issues under the "budget reconciliation" authority granted in this year's Budget bill.


And I'll add:

They decided against setting up a conference committee on the two different versions of the Health Care bill, going for the "ping-pong" instead. There won't BE a conference committee or *that* type of "reconciliation" for the health care bill. The Senate bill was to be the "ping." The House was supposed to modify it, which would be the "pong." That bill would then go back to the Senate for a vote. They're now scrapping the "ping-pong" strategy, because the modified bill can, and will, be filibustered.

Now they're talking about passing the Senate bill as is, which would make it the law when Obama signs it. Then the House would write a new, separate bill under the Reconciliation Instruction passed in the Budget, to "fix" the problems with the Senate bill, and send it to the Senate. That bill, because it's written persuant to a Reconciliation Instruction, can't be filibustered, and would require only 51 votes. But now, the Senate can't or won't guarantee that they'll have 51 votes to pass that separate "fix" bill. So, I'd suggest that they pass the "budget reconciliation" bill FIRST, and see if the Senate passes it, before they pass the Senate's version of the health care bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. Budget items are what the VP's Instruction says are budget items - you haven't disproven that
Yes, no doubt there are going be lots of Objections, but the fact remains that unless 60 Senators agree that an item is "extraneous" under the Byrd rule, the item will be referred to committee for reconciliation with the House Bill. There's a lot of elastic meaning about what's a budget item, and what isn't, and the VP has a lot of room to craft the Bill he wants.

What you're talking about is capitulating to those who put together the current Senate Bill that is unacceptable. If you are indeed correct, and there aren't 51 votes in the Senate to change that Bill, then HCR is dead. If there aren't 51 votes to substantially change the Bill, what's the point of doing an uncontested budget reconciliation, unless you're going to accept the appropriations in the Senate Bill unchanged?

If the House goes ahead and passes that Bill with no binding commitment for specific changes, then the Democratic majority is dead. By my lights, I'd rather sustain the majority and try again than to swallow a poison pill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #39
64. They would defer to the Senate parliamentarian to determine if the Byrd Rule
was satisfied. The VP doesn't get to build any bill he wants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leveymg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:41 AM
Response to Reply #64
73. Why defer to the Parliamentarian? Only if the other side has 60 votes to support an objection.
This was written last Spring at Brookings Institute. Democrats should have followed it: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/0420_budget_mann...

The best path would be to have reconciliation as an implicit or explicit threat: if Democrats can employ it to accomplish the policy goal with only a simple majority, Republicans may be persuaded to abandon efforts to use their 41 votes to just say no and instead engage the majority constructively to find common ground. But if that is not feasible, it is perfectly reasonable for Democrats to use the process for health care reform that both parties have used regularly for other major initiatives. The result might be more piecemeal and imperfect, but it would be better than the alternative of no bill at all.

Budget Reconciliation Bills Signed Into Law, 1980-2008 - (28 Laws)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
8. Jane's serving Norquist's agenda quite well. K&U
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Larkspur Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Obama and Rahm are serving Norquist and the Corporate interests
They don't give a damn about the House Dems or us ordinary folks. Obama wants to be popular and Rahm wants to get a cushy corporate lobbying job once he's done with running for office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
berni_mccoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. LMFAO!
You'd rather believe that than face the fact that Hamsher IS WORKING WITH NORQUIST.

Hope-less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Sounds like Obama is working FOR him. And Jack Abramoff.
They only dream of buying legislation like this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr.Phool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Oops Double post..
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 02:37 PM by Dr.Phool
But, saying it twice doesn't hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WonderGrunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
26. It doesn't hurt. I tdoesn't make it true either.
n/m
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
37. Bingo. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Missy Vixen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. Jane's trying to point out the truth
Of course, those interested in doing nothing more than demonizing her have no interest in the truth.

:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
live love laugh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
44. Anybody who associates with treasonous folk like /norquist don't deserve to be heard.
Fuck Hamsher.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. Oh yeah, because you can't have POPULIST bipartisanship, only CORPORATE bipartisanship.
What about our president, and his bi-partisan debt comission?

Why do all the DLC clowns condemn association with the right, while Obama bends over backwards for Boehner and crew?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #44
56. Then you will have to shut these liberals out, too.
They also signed a letter with Norquist:
Chris Bowers, founder, OpenLeft, Dean Baker, co-director, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Adam Green, co-founder, Progressive Change Campaign Committee, Mark Cohen, executive director, Government Accountability Project, and Robert Weissman, president, Public Citizen.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/left-right-coal...

Are they all treasonous?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DisgustedInMN Donating Member (956 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #44
75. Who the fuck left you in charge..
.. of who "deserves to be heard?"

Fuck that. I'll pass on your brand of dictatorship, thank you very much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
live love laugh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 12:29 PM
Response to Reply #75
78. Uhhhhh OK. Stress much? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:14 PM
Response to Reply #8
31. Can you explain, specifically, how pushing the Public Option is "serving Norquist's agenda"?
Or were you just bloviating again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:00 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise * cricket noise *
I thought so. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #31
49. Whereas Obama is cool with a bipartisan panel to evaluate "entitlements" and some say nothing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:41 PM
Response to Reply #8
48. And just what is Norquist's agenda that Jane is serving?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rudy23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #48
52. They have no idea. It's a talking point, they know nothing past that.
These are robots, sent to attack anyone who threatens from the left. If she has cancer, then make that a talking point. Sickos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #52
60. Yep. It is pathetic the amount of energy that is expended towards
vague accusations and smears.

This discussions on this board board turn quickly devolve to a "mean girl" clique ; whereas ideas, information, and policy, the tools with which we can collectively organize around, are few and in between.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #8
54. As others have asked please explain - also Hamsher on signing the letter with Norquist...
http://firedoglake.com/2009/12/23/why-i-reached-out-to-... /

You collect signatures on letters like these to get media traction, to build pressure so someone has to take action. Kevin apparently didn’t read our letter — it’s about a bailout of Fannie/Freddie that they’re trying to jam through before the end of the year, nothing to do with health care. He also apparently slept through the past nine years when people on the right like Bob Barr, Grover Norquist and Bruce Fein were cosigning letters with ACLU civil libertarians all the time when it came to FISA, domestic spying and transparency. It was hard for them to do, because Bush sycophants dismissed them as “traitors” to the president.

For those with short memories: Here’s Wes Clarke, Mort Halperin, John Dean, John Podesta, Grover Norquist, Bruce Fein and Bob Barr on the Liberty and Security Protection Committee of the Constitution Project.

Here’s Alec Baldwin and Grover Norquist speaking on a PFAW panel in opposition to the Patriot Act. Grover cosigned an ACLU letter against the CAPPS airport spying system in 2003, opposed national ID cards with them in 2004, and supported Prof. Lyle Craker and marijuana grown for medical research in 2005. (And just for fun, here’s Kevin himself cheering on Bruce Fein for going after Roy Moore. Apparently that’s only supposed to cut one way.) For those who are strangers to the civil liberties/transparency world, this stuff has been happening for years right on this very blog.

They all know who Grover Norquist is and what his political history is. So do I. That’s not the point.

In this instance, the fact is that most “liberals” who work at institutions can’t step out and take a shot at Rahm, because Rahm would take it out on their organizations. That leaves the people on the right — those out of Rahm’s reach — who can be called upon to get the media “heft” you need to call attention to an issue. The year-end deadline for doubling the Fannie/Freddie commitment to $800 billion was fast approaching, and it’s hard as hell to get media traction on something over the holidays..."



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #8
59. yet Obama and his admin seem to Embrace the economics Norquist Espouses
very right wing indeed. Interesting times we live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
inna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #8
68. what an ignorant and idiotic comment.

:thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #8
82. Crickets!!!!!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
18. Are the lies that this Hamsher character tell made out of ignorance or malice?
It's hard to tell sometimes.

51 is the "new 60" because we already got 60 on the Senate bill. Duh

Now if the House passes the Senate bill we can dust up some minor issues using reconcilliation. Reconcilliation is good for something like that, it would be a nighmare to put the whole bill through that process.

Is that very hard to understand?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. both
she is in no way shape or form qualified to write on the topics she writes on. So ignorance is always a factor. Beyond that her alliance with the tea baggers marks her as someone that has some malice in her soul.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lorien Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #18
38. The bill in it's current form is a nightmare that the non-elite can't afford. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Well I think your assessment is garbage.
Edited on Mon Jan-25-10 06:21 PM by tritsofme
But that's beside the point.

The point is that it still takes 60 votes in the Senate to pass comprehensive reform, it wasn't "bullshit" as this Hamsher pretends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #41
55. It takes 51 votes. It has always taken 51 votes to pass a bill in the Senate.
We were told that, in order to avoid a filibuster (rather than respond to a real live actual filibuster), the bill needed to be watered down to being useless to gain 60 filibuster proof votes.

But, (like Bush's Republicans when passing tax cuts for the wealthy), the bill did not need to be neutered in order to avoid a filibuster. It could have been settled in reconciliation. Bills under reconciliation cannot be filibustered.

Bush & the republicans passed 10 major bills using reconciliation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:12 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. Bush needed to make his tax cuts sunset because they were passed through reconciliation.
It wasn't their first choice, they essentially ended up using reconciliation because there weren't 60 votes. They tried numerous times to round up the votes to make the tax cuts permanent, but always found themselves filibustered.

Tax cuts lend themselves well to the reconciliation process, they directly effect budget. Republicans got shut down when they tried to send ANWR drilling through reconciliation, it fell victim to the Byrd Rule, as would most insurance regulations and the meat of the HCR bill. We would need to restart the committee process and build a bill only to be gutted by the parliamentarian.

Whatever makes it though to the end product would still expire after 5 years if not renewed.

So once again, the OP is bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Luminous Animal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:29 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. Nope. Tax cuts sunsets to avoid the Byrd rule by staying within PAYGO restrictions.
ANWR was stripped because of pressure from moderate House Republicans. The reconciliation language, in regards to ANWR, was purposely written to avoid the Byrd Rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace frog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 02:58 PM
Response to Original message
19. K&R
Tell it, Jane.

"Dogs bark, but the caravan passes on."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:01 PM
Response to Original message
20. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
22. Hey, what do you know? The chess brigade was right!
They *are* playing chess! Just not against the Republicans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WonderGrunion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
24. Democrats had 60 votes, liberals did not.
And the more that liberals decide to sit out elections, the fewer votes they will have.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #24
62. lol... like in Massachusetts right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #24
70. You enjoyed saying that part about "the fewer votes THEY will have." didn't you Grunion?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blindpig Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:27 PM
Response to Original message
30. In fact...
it's all bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
howaboutme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
42. Jane Hamsher
one of the few who says it like it is. Unlike some in the DP she doesn't pretend to be for the people while being for the elite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slipslidingaway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
45. knr - also signed the petition at the bottom of the link n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
democracy1st Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:56 PM
Response to Original message
66. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bertman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 10:28 PM
Response to Original message
71. I'm with Jane on this. Petition signed. Rec. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
72. K&R for Jane and Firedoglake.
Unlike Obama,
I DID campaign for The Democrats on a "Public Option like Medicare".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ganja Ninja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
77. K & R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GinaMaria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
79. The 'This or Nothing' BS claim
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 01:14 PM by GinaMaria
When ever you hear it, just ask for proof that if we don't pass this piece of crap we will never get anything, not one little thing. They can't prove it. It's a made up claim to sound like desperation. It's the extreme black and white thinking typical of the alcoholic * administration. It's dysfunctional and toxic.

This whole thing has been bullshit from day 1. We need to do a little firing in DC. These are our employees. Are you happy with their performance? If I performed like this on the job, I wouldn't have a job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
swilton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
80. Jane is Right - Three Cheers for Her and a Big Kilo Romeo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
81. They have hammered the 60 votes thing so much that
most people think it's true. It's insanity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 08:10 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC