Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

TPM: Ed Rendell: Time to play hardball on health care. Make them filibuster.

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 » General Discussion: Presidency Donate to DU
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 08:54 AM
Original message
TPM: Ed Rendell: Time to play hardball on health care. Make them filibuster.
Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) had some choice words for his fellow party members over the weekend.

To those Democrats who are worried about passing health care reform in the wake of Republican Scott Brown's upset victory in Massachusetts, Rendell said "get that best bill as strong and as tight as you can then send it back to the Senate and let's see if they (Republicans) are going to filibuster."

Rendell, who was speaking to ABC News, also said, "my message to those Democrats is don't be afraid. ... Listen, you got elected because you wanted to do something to change the quality of people's lives - here we have a chance to do something historic and if it means some of us are going to lose because of that so be it. At least you will have lost your office fighting for something and accomplishing something."

Video here:

http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/rendel...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:22 AM
Response to Original message
1. Not moving on to jobs. Gonna sit here forever and get healthcare or nothing moves.
That is just great
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yurbud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. His advice would have been good if they hadn't let scum like Baucus fuck up and drag out the bill
if they had moved fast, produced a strong bill, and then dared the Republicans to filibuster it would have been the ideal scenario.

I'm not sure if the filibuster dare is worth it for what's left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:24 AM
Response to Original message
2. YES. Make them vote against, pre-existing criteria, revoking the anti-trust exempton, etc. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoePhilly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:26 AM
Response to Original message
3. Agree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gregorian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:41 AM
Response to Original message
4. Ed Rendell RULES!
Come on, Ed, run for Senate. (Sorry if that's just an ignorant statement. But off the cuff it seems like he'd be great.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. They have fillibustered 101 times already
over the past year, and that's a new record. That's quite considerable, considering how often the filibuster has been used in recent years. They will do it again and again, because "no" is all they have got.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BonnieJW Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Have they actually filibustered???
I think the dems just give up when they don't have the 60 votes, but they never make the pubs actually filibuster.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alcibiades Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. There's a problem with that
Under Senate rule 22, it would be possible for Harry Reid to make them "actually" filibuster, but then we would have to accept that nothing else would get done either.

Plus, this is Harry Reid we're talking about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:53 AM
Response to Original message
7. I'd be all for that if they had time to waste. At this point, I think they should just pass the
Senate bill in the House and fix whatever they can through reconciliation and move on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 09:56 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. I read it as pass the Senate bill with an agreement from Reid to fix it in reconciliation.
I think the quicker the better--whether they do the patch first in the Senate or pass the Senate bill in the House and then do the patch. Just get it done--as soon as possible!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thatsrightimirish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:28 PM
Response to Original message
9. unfortunately
I do not believe that is going to happen. I have been waiting for months for the white house and senate democrats to wise up and fight but they simply refuse to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrToast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 03:33 PM
Response to Original message
10. I'm not sure Rendell has it right
I don't think they can "make them filibuster" in the traditional sense. The rules don't require that and you'd have to change the rules to bring it back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
marlakay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-25-10 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
12. Yes I say fix the bill they make them fillibuster
if we don't show any balls we deserve to lose. ( i shouldn't say we...WE have the balls...its Obama and congress that don't)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
old mark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 05:12 AM
Response to Original message
14. Rendell is a real asshole old style machine politician, interested in his own career and image.
He has no regard for the working peopole of his state, has thrown us out in the street to balance a budget both when he was mayor of Philly and later as PA governor. He was instrumentat in getting ZSpecter to switch parties by PROMISING him total support and all financial backing, and he has completely denied any support for the other Democrat Joe Sestak. (Specter is now 9 points behind the GOP opponent.)

I don't trust or believe anything Ed Rendell says, and oh,yeah, Ed - the time to play hardball was last year.

mark
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Rendell is right here. If health care dies, Dems are doomed in November.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Shrek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-26-10 07:00 AM
Response to Original message
16. It would be difficult to "make" them "actually" filibuster
Edited on Tue Jan-26-10 07:01 AM by Shrek
It would require a change to rule 22, which requires an even larger majority (67 votes) than is required to invoke cloture. Here's a relevant snip from an explanatory document (PDF link) found at senate dot gov:

Under Rule XXII, an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting is required to invoke cloture on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules. This exception has its origin in the recent history of the cloture rule. Before 1975, two-thirds of the Senators present and voting (a quorum being present) was required for cloture on all matters. In early 1975, at the beginning of the 94th Congress, Senators sought to amend the rule to make it somewhat easier to invoke cloture. However, some Senators feared that if this effort succeeded, that would only make it easier to amend the rule again, making cloture still easier to invoke. As a compromise, the Senate agreed to move from a maximum of 67 votes (two-thirds of the Senators present and voting) to a minimum of 60 votes (three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn) on all matters except future rules changes, including changes in the cloture rule itself.
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 Fri Aug 01st 2014, 05:44 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion: Presidency 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