In responding to comments on recent Juice posts I illustrate a point by stating that when driving a car your rear view mirrors are smaller than your windshield for a reason. While it is important to see where you have been your focus should be on where you are headed.
Using the same illustration let me remind readers of a series of comments made by some very angry US Senators which dates back to May of 2005. At the time their angst related to the number 51. A simple Senate majority to avoid filibusters in that elected body. Think about that number and president Obama’s current efforts on the health care debate.
We thank Breitbart TV and Matt Drudge of the Drudge Report for providing the video from which the following one liners can be heard and viewed at the link provided below. This is a partial listing. We often hear that a picture is worth a 1,000 words. These video clips are priceless.
Senator Joe Biden. “I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the same kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
Senator Obama. “Absolute power of either side and that’s not what the Founder’s intended.”
Senator Clinton. “Mr. President. That’s a bridge too far. We can’t go there. You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.”
Senator Schumer. “If you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It’s amazing. It’s almost a temper tantrum.”
Hey great video of Obama and the Democrats hypocrisy, I love how you show them all in one video slamming the republicans for even thinking about using the Nuclear Option in Congress. A+++++
Larry,
Sorry, I just can’t help myself:
“Nuclear Option” stupidity comes full circle
February 24, 2010 1:18 pm ET – by Ben Dimiero
Want to see a neat trick?
As we’ve documented extensively over the past year, conservatives have waged an ongoing campaign to re-brand the process of reconciliation as the “nuclear option.” Feel free to read any of the hundred or so examples from our archives to get the full story, but to put it briefly: this is outrageously dishonest. The “nuclear option” was a term coined by Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) in reference to his proposed change to Senate rules that would have banned use of the filibuster for judicial nominations.
Reconciliation, on the other hand, requires no change to Senate rules since it has been used repeatedly over the years to pass major legislation – notably to pass major pieces of health care reform legislation. Republicans themselves weren’t quite so uncomfortable with the supposedly “dirty” process when they used it to pass President Bush’s tax cuts. Multiple times.
To a cynic, the reason for this re-branding might have appeared to be that conservatives were concerned that Democrats would use reconciliation to pass portions of health care reform. And lo and behold, with reports surfacing in the past few days that Democrats are again considering using reconciliation for health care reform (which, as NPR noted today, is consistent with the long history of the use of reconciliation in health care bills,) conservatives are redoubling their efforts.
Here’s how the trick works:
Today, conservative media are furiously promoting a video posted at Breitbart TV, titled:”Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founder’s Intent.” You can probably guess where this is going.
Among others, the video has been picked up by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, CPAC “Blogger of the Year” Ed Morrissey, Matt Drudge, and, of course, Fox Nation:
In a jaw-dropping display of audacity, the video runs several examples of Democrats railing against the “nuclear option” in 2005. The video attempts to juxtapose this with their current support for reconciliation to show their supposed hypocrisy.
This is absurd.
The Democrats in the video are railing against the “nuclear option” as defined by Lott, not the new definition conservatives have decided to bestow upon the phrase. On his radio show, Beck called the video “laughable” and “unbelievable.” I agree with those characterizations, but for slightly different reasons.
To prove a point, I propose we change the definition of “deficits” to mean “freedom,” then put together a reel of conservatives attacking “freedom.”
It would be about as honest.
anonster. I carefully watched the 2005 video clips early this morning. As you can see in the post, I did credit the source(s). In viewing it for this post I was cautious to avoid using any senator comments that might have been altered.
What you are defining might fall under the Obama expression to Wisconsin Democrats. “Words, just words.”
Larry,
Repug’s trying to brand “reconciliation” as the “nuclear option” , may be semantics to you, but an honest person would call it A BIG FAT LIE.
anonster. We all await your assessment of today’s meeting on the health care forum.
Larry,
I know how you HATE reading, but here’s a short excerpt from Newsweek on how OFTEN reconciliation has been used in the past;
Posted Wednesday, February 24, 2010 4:09 PM
Republicans and Reconciliation Go Way Back, Too
Andrew Romano
Earlier this afternoon, my Gaggle colleague Katie Connolly noted, quite correctly, that “every major health-care innovation of the last three decades has been done through reconciliation,” which suggests that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is overreacting slightly when he calls the procedure a “nuclear option” that “has never been used for this kind of major systemic reform.”
But to get a sense of exactly how much McConnell is overreacting, it’s important to consider two other facts as well. First, reconciliation has not only been used to pass major health-care initiatives; it’s actually been used to pass major initiatives of all sorts, including the Republicans’ favorite “major systemic reform” of the last 20 years: the 1996 welfare-reform bill. And, second, it hasn’t even been Democrats using reconciliation most of the time. It’s been Republicans.
For statements by Repug’s touting the VIRTUES of reconciliation go to;
http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909030007
anonster. You had my attention until you referenced Media Matters.