Sometimes you just scratch your head and wonder where American journalism went. You won't hear the topic of this video reported by the mainstream media.
In case you don't understand the significance, the democratic hypocrites in the video were speaking about use of the nuclear option to pass a bill that could not get the 60 Senate votes needed to avoid a filibuster. President Bush suggested it, but the Republican-led Senate never used it.
Now the democratic-led Senate is seriously considering using the nuclear option to ram health care legislation down Americans throats. Wouldn't you think that a legitimate press would at least ask these democrats why they changed their views between 2005 and the present?
Emmy's First Birthday!
9 years ago
No, you're wrong. I mean, it would be rude to say you're lying, but you seem to have some idea of what you're talking about, so... well, I'll be polite and just say that you're severely misinformed.
ReplyDeleteThe "nuclear option" was a plan formed 5 years ago by the Republicans, to change the rules of the Senate and completely do away with Democrats filibustering Bush's partisan judicial appointments.
Reconciliation, on the other hand, is already in the rules of the Senate, and has been used by just about every Congress.
Two completely different things.
Why is it “hypocritical” when Democrats do it, but not Republicans?
Since every other industrialized nation in the world can and does offer healthcare to their people, why do you think we can’t do the same, and better? You don’t believe in American ingenuity? Why do you hate America?
Reconciliation has been used 31 times in the past by both Republicans and Democrats. The point of the blog is the hypocrisy of the democratic leadership who were avid critics in 2005, but will use it in the next few days to pass legislation they know the public doesn't want. You have to be a liberal Kool Aid drinker to defend it.
ReplyDeleteAvid critics in 2005 of the nuclear option. Which is not the same as reconciliation. You have to be a GOP hypocrite to try claiming that apples are oranges.
ReplyDeleteIt is a distinction without a difference. Both are a way to circumvent the founder's intent for Senate behavior. Both parties have their share of hypocrites, and I will defend none of it.
ReplyDeleteI don't defend Republican misdeeds. But using reconcilation as a method to force through a unwanted bill that will change how one-sixth of the economy operates is much more serious that forcing a vote on judicial nominees. It is Chicago-style strong-arm politics.
I do not hate this country, and I take offense at your questioning of my patriotism. I am sure you probably think I am also a rascist since I oppose Obama's great society plans.
I do not believe that health insurance is a right that should be protected or administered by the federal government. You mentioned industrialized nations providing healthcare to their ciitizens. Their socialized medicine do not compare well to the level of care provided in the United States. Why do they come here when they get sick? The answer is easy. They get better care in the US than they do with their government provided care.
My wife has had cancer. I have had a stroke. I have experienced the excellence of the Mayo Clinic. I am not willing to sacrifice the qualtiy health care I pay for and recieve so that healthy young people who have chosen not to carry insurance can be forced to do so. Neither will I accept a reduction of standards to cover illegal aliens, or those who only want to insure when they need it.
Regardless of whether the party in power at any time is the one you support or not, no party should unilaterally make such a significant decision via merely 51% of the vote. None!!! Not when impacting one sixth of the U.S. economy. That's true whether you agree with those in power or not. Elections are made to decide who should LEAD for a time, not who should be "DICTATOR PARTY".
ReplyDeleteNo doubt there are core areas that should be addressed and could receive agreement from both parties. Why is it so beyond reason to see that reducing 2,700 pages of unread, but potentially highly impacting, provisions down to no more that a couple hundred pages of manageable legislation, is the only way to get visibility to what is being considered. To push this through in its present form is analogous to Dictatorship, whichever side were to do it, and those that support that are blinding themselves to the scope and scale of what is being done, when what they really want is for the most part, I repeat, the most part, shared by all - an improved, cost viable health care system, that covers the majority of legal, tax paying residents. I challenge the Democrat supporters to consider that reality before saying things like "There will never be a perfect bit of legislation." Do this in manageable chunks, and see how much agreement can be made.