Ignatz Mouse
Banned
An absolute "wow" on the Acorn thing. I guess if you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over, people will believe it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF Thread of PRESIDENT OBAMA Checkin' Off His List
- Thread starter PantherLotus
- Start date
- Status
Beer Monkey
Member
Ignatz Mouse said:
It works for religion.
LosDaddie said:
It comes back to the constitutionality of it. Currently, mandated insurance is 1) done by the state 2) done on property. This mandate is 1) done by the federal government 2) done on a human being. There really isn't a clear cut equivalent in our society.
It definitely crosses a barrier that would need to be addressed by the courts (if people saw fit to challenge it).
Empty vessal (above) makes an argument for it, and he could very well be right.
polyh3dron
Banned
:lol :lolTamanon said:
PhoenixDark
Banned
....err but looking at the actual bill I see
(had to edit out some of the numbers)
http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf
It's right on page 123 (starting at line 17) and continues through page 124
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Shit. Where's Friedrich Hayek when you need him.
charlequin
Banned
Dax01 said:
I'm extremely surprised, and even more surprised that Harry Reid seems to be the driving force behind all of the things that are better-than-expected about it.
ToxicAdam said:
I just realized how silly it is that we refer to "conservative Democrats" at all. Nobody talks about "liberal Republicans" except crazy RINO-hunting wingnuts. Scored on D-NOMINATE, the rightmost Democratic Senator is more liberal than the leftmost Republican Senator.
PantherLotus said:
There is no, no way that this is right.
empty vessel said:
Thank you. Eloquently (and accurately) stated.
In other words: the best way to understand a health insurance mandate is that our country already provides a costly guarantee in the form of non-deniable emergency care to all residents; either explicitly pushing that cost off on everyone through a mandate or (more wisely) creating a nationwide program to explicitly provide that care to everyone, is a more efficient and more-in-line-with-our-values way of doing it.
Inflammable Slinky said:
The big distinction being that the Diebold stuff never made it on the nightly news (and also that the theoretical concern about closed voting-machine systems was entirely legitimate even if the specific "voting machines are actually, in reality, winning elections for Republicans" theory was not.)
ToxicAdam said:
I agree that this is a concern although that lobby is already pretty strong and I'm not sure this bill necessarily makes it stronger so much as completely punts on doing anything that would make it weaker.
beermonkey@tehbias said:
Lucky Forward
Member
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/
The lyrics to the song, when aimed at Palin, are pretty insulting... :lol
This is going to get Good:
Health bill could get 34-hour reading in Senate
Health bill could get 34-hour reading in Senate
The 2,074-page Senate health care bill would take 34 hours to read cover to cover -- and that's just what Sen. Tom Coburn wants done on the Senate floor.
The Oklahoma Republican has threatened to invoke parliamentary rules to force the Senate clerk (or more likely, a team of clerks) to read the massive bill before the full Senate begins formal debate on the legislation.
The move is strictly according to Senate rules, which say any senator can demand a bill be read in its entirety before debate begins. While Democrats could, if they wish, repeatedly make motions to end the soliloquy, Republicans on the floor could object, and the reading would continue.
What's even more interesting is that Senate Rule XIV (paragraph 2) states that every bill and joint resolution "shall receive three readings prior to its passage."
"Upon demand of a senator, these readings shall be on three different legislative days," the rules say.
A little quick math shows that at a minute a page -- an easily achieved pace since the pages are double spaced and in a rather large type face -- it would take 34.5 hours to read straight through the measure put together this week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Republican leadership and gallery staff say the reading -- with occasional pauses and sips of water for parched throats -- could take more like 48 to 54 hours.
Pity the poor Senate clerks.
See how fast you can read the bill.
The Oklahoma Republican has threatened to invoke parliamentary rules to force the Senate clerk (or more likely, a team of clerks) to read the massive bill before the full Senate begins formal debate on the legislation.
The move is strictly according to Senate rules, which say any senator can demand a bill be read in its entirety before debate begins. While Democrats could, if they wish, repeatedly make motions to end the soliloquy, Republicans on the floor could object, and the reading would continue.
What's even more interesting is that Senate Rule XIV (paragraph 2) states that every bill and joint resolution "shall receive three readings prior to its passage."
"Upon demand of a senator, these readings shall be on three different legislative days," the rules say.
A little quick math shows that at a minute a page -- an easily achieved pace since the pages are double spaced and in a rather large type face -- it would take 34.5 hours to read straight through the measure put together this week by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Republican leadership and gallery staff say the reading -- with occasional pauses and sips of water for parched throats -- could take more like 48 to 54 hours.
Pity the poor Senate clerks.
See how fast you can read the bill.
The Librarian
Banned
Why is Woodsy back in this thread?
The Librarian
Banned
Goddammit.Woodsy said:
GhaleonEB said:
Call it what you want - but if you can't wait for a bill to be read, don't make it over 2,000 pages. So let Coburn have the Bill read 3 times. That takes all of 6 days. What's the harm in waiting 6 days until the bill is read unless you're afraid that there is actually something in there you know won't go over well with the public and cause a backlash? If I was Reid I would invoke that rule right now and have it read starting tonight - that's how you sweep the rug out from someone.
The Librarian
Banned
what the hell is thisWoodsy said:
scorcho said:
I never said they haven't - but I would never be one to argue against having a bill read. Really, what's the harm? The public option isn't going in place until 2014 if passed, so I have a hard time seeing why having it read for a week, following Senate Rules, is really an issue.
You guys are arguing agaisnt having a bill READ.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Lucky Forward said:
they never said it wasn't insulting. they said it wasn't sexist.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Rudy Giuliani to run for U.S. Senate; If elected may aim for White House in 2012
By Kenneth Lovett and Elizabeth Benjamin In Albany and David Saltonstall In New York | DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS | Thursday, November 19th 2009, 2:39 PM
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has decided not to run for governor next year - but will run for U.S. Senate instead, sources told the Daily News.
A source familiar with Giuliani's thinking said the failed presidential candidate has been telling people he plans to run against Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010 to fill out the remaining two years of Hillary Clinton's term.
If elected, the source said, he could use that as a stepping stone to run for President in 2012 - rather than run for re-election to the Senate.
A Giuliani spokeswoman downplayed the reports. "Rudy has a history of making up his own mind and has no problem speaking it," she said. "When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own."
His absence from the governor's race would be a boon -- and a bow -- to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is considering a run for the office.
Gov. Paterson, who trails Cuomo by up to points in a hypothetical matchup in some polls, insists he is running, even though the White House has pointedly told him President Obama would "prefer" he didn't.
Former Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari, a close Giuliani pal, said the former mayor had been privately sharing doubts with him for months about running for governor.
"What he said to me is that he doesn't think he's going to do it," Molinari told The News about an early November conversation with the former mayor.
"It just didn't make any sense to him." Molinari said the ongoing circus in the state Senate, combined with Democratic Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver's iron grip on Assembly matters, had convinced Giuliani that a Republican governor would have little ability to get things done quickly in Albany.
"The big drawback for him was -- could I really be effective?" Molinari said.
"He saw too many hang-ups there. He's not running for the title, that's for sure." Molinari said he favors the idea of Giuliani running for U.S. Senate. "Some of us, including myself, feel like that would be a better fit because he could use his talents there almost immediately," Molinari said.
"You get the sense that he'd be a major player [in the U.S. Senate] from day one."
A source familiar with Giuliani's thinking said the failed presidential candidate has been telling people he plans to run against Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010 to fill out the remaining two years of Hillary Clinton's term.
If elected, the source said, he could use that as a stepping stone to run for President in 2012 - rather than run for re-election to the Senate.
A Giuliani spokeswoman downplayed the reports. "Rudy has a history of making up his own mind and has no problem speaking it," she said. "When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own."
His absence from the governor's race would be a boon -- and a bow -- to Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, who is considering a run for the office.
Gov. Paterson, who trails Cuomo by up to points in a hypothetical matchup in some polls, insists he is running, even though the White House has pointedly told him President Obama would "prefer" he didn't.
Former Staten Island Borough President Guy Molinari, a close Giuliani pal, said the former mayor had been privately sharing doubts with him for months about running for governor.
"What he said to me is that he doesn't think he's going to do it," Molinari told The News about an early November conversation with the former mayor.
"It just didn't make any sense to him." Molinari said the ongoing circus in the state Senate, combined with Democratic Assembly Speaker Shelly Silver's iron grip on Assembly matters, had convinced Giuliani that a Republican governor would have little ability to get things done quickly in Albany.
"The big drawback for him was -- could I really be effective?" Molinari said.
"He saw too many hang-ups there. He's not running for the title, that's for sure." Molinari said he favors the idea of Giuliani running for U.S. Senate. "Some of us, including myself, feel like that would be a better fit because he could use his talents there almost immediately," Molinari said.
"You get the sense that he'd be a major player [in the U.S. Senate] from day one."
###
No one said that bill should not be read.Woodsy said:
What people said is that Coburn is an obstructionist tool whose only goal is to put as many obstacles in the way of healthcare legislation.
I'm sure the senator himself would agree.
It's fine to support such tactics, but really, if you do, you can't complain about the inefficiency of the congress.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Woodsy said:
...read that post to yourself
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
laserbeam said:
Do you think they will actually be listening? :lol
I hope he does run. The more he campaigns, the less popular he gets.PantherLotus said:
Kinitari said:
No. I'm just trying to figure out what LiberalGAF's issue is with having the bill read. I know that it's an "obstructionist" move by Coburn, but all it does is delay the vote a few days or a week. Why is that even an issue? Have it read, get your 60 votes, and put it on the floor for a vote.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Lucky Forward said:
Just wanted to point out that I made the same exact point in the Sarah Palin thread--which few people took the time to read. (The point being that the title and the picture are perfectly in sync).
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Chichikov said:
Coburn was even open about the fact that this is an attempt to be obstructionist. Not sure what Woodsy is even defending here.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Woodsy said:
I have no problem with it being read, but what would you argue is the point? Because Republican Senators are not themselves capable of reading it? Because there hasn't been time to read it before voting against it (which they're already committed to? Because the public won't have 72 hours to read it before it is voted on?
Let's be clear: there's nothing inherently wrong about reading it, but surely you know what the point is, right?
Woodsy said:
The issue is that it puts a ridiculous amount of strain on your congress, having to literally sit for days on end listening to some dude read a goddamn bill in a monotone voice for longer than any human being can be asked to pay attention for. If your argument is that you think people will actually know whats in it now - do you honestly think that anything being read out loud is going to be absorbed after the second hour? Or that anyone is going to have the iron will to go home, and read the bill AGAIN to make sure they got all the info? It's so very anti-productive and obstructionist, I don't see how anyone can make a reasonable case for it.
Republicans are trying too hard. All they need to do is sit back and let Democrats shoot themselves in the foot (err .. feet). Non-support of selected issues is enough, anything above and beyond that is severely hurting their cause and looks extremely foolish.
When you consider the anti-incumbent mood of the electorate, they tread a very fine line here.
When you consider the anti-incumbent mood of the electorate, they tread a very fine line here.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
The Most Frustrating Body
The Senate has changed, and not at all for the better.
E.J. Dionne Jr. | November 19, 2009 | 12:00 am
###
The Senate has changed, and not at all for the better.
E.J. Dionne Jr. | November 19, 2009 | 12:00 am
WASHINGTON--Normal human beings--let's call them real Americans--cannot understand why, 10 months after President Obama's inauguration, Congress is still tied down in a procedural torture chamber trying to pass the health care bill Obama promised in his campaign.
Last year, the voters gave him the largest popular vote margin won by a presidential candidate in 20 years. They gave Democrats their largest Senate majority since 1976 and their largest House majority since 1992.
Obama didn't just offer bromides about hope and change. He made quite specific pledges. You'd think that the newly empowered Democrats would want to deliver quickly.
But what do real Americans see? On health care, they read about this or that Democratic senator prepared to bring action to a screeching halt out of displeasure with some aspect of the proposal. They first hear that a bill will pass by Thanksgiving, and then learn it might not get a final vote until after the New Year.
Is it any wonder that Congress has miserable approval ratings? Is it surprising that independents, who want their government to solve a few problems, are becoming impatient with the current majority?
Democrats in the Senate--the House is not the problem--need to have a long chat with themselves and decide whether they want to engage in an act of collective suicide.
But it's also time to start paying attention to how Republicans, with Machiavellian brilliance, have hit upon what might be called the Beltway-at-Rush-Hour Strategy, aimed at snarling legislative traffic to a standstill so Democrats have no hope of reaching the next exit.
We know what happens when drivers just sit there when they're supposed to be moving. They get grumpy, irascible and start turning on each other, which is exactly what Democrats are doing now.
Republicans know one other thing: Practically nobody is noticing their delay-to-kill strategy. Who wants to discuss legislative procedure when there's so much fun and profit in psychoanalyzing Sarah Palin?
Yet there was a small break in the Curtain of Obstruction this week when Republican senators unashamedly ate every word they had spoken when George W. Bush was in power about the horrors of filibustering nominees for federal judgeships. On Tuesday, a majority of Republicans tried to block a vote on the appointment of David F. Hamilton, a rather moderate jurist, to a federal appeals court.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama explained the GOP's about-face by saying: "I think the rules have changed."
That was actually a helpful comment, because the Republicans have changed the rules on Senate action up and down the line. Hamilton's case is just the one instance that finally got a little play.
Thankfully, this filibuster failed because some Republicans were embarrassed by it. But Republican delaying tactics have made Obama far too wary about judicial nominations for fear of controversy. He is well behind his predecessor in filling vacancies, a shameful capitulation to obstruction. There's also the fact that the nomination of Christopher Schroeder as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, which helps to vet judges, is snarled--guess where?--in the Senate.
Republicans are using the filibuster to stall action even on bills that most of them support. Remember: The rule is to keep Democrats from ever reaching the exit.
As of last Monday, the Senate majority had filed 58 cloture motions requiring 32 recorded votes. One of the more outrageous cases involved an extension in unemployment benefits, a no-brainer in light of the dismal economy. The bill ultimately cleared the Senate earlier this month by 98-0--yes, that is a zero.
The vote came only after the Republicans launched three filibusters against the bill and also tried to lard it with unrelated amendments, delaying passage by nearly a month. And you wonder why it's so hard to pass health care?
Defenders of the Senate always say the Founders envisioned it as a deliberative body that would cool the passions of the House. But Sessions unintentionally blew the whistle on how what's happening now has nothing to do with the Founders' design.
The rules have changed. The extra-constitutional filibuster is being used by the minority, with extraordinary success, to make the majority look foolish, ineffectual and incompetent. By using Republican obstructionism as a vehicle for forcing through their own narrow agendas, supposedly moderate Democratic senators will only make themselves complicit in this humiliation.
Last year, the voters gave him the largest popular vote margin won by a presidential candidate in 20 years. They gave Democrats their largest Senate majority since 1976 and their largest House majority since 1992.
Obama didn't just offer bromides about hope and change. He made quite specific pledges. You'd think that the newly empowered Democrats would want to deliver quickly.
But what do real Americans see? On health care, they read about this or that Democratic senator prepared to bring action to a screeching halt out of displeasure with some aspect of the proposal. They first hear that a bill will pass by Thanksgiving, and then learn it might not get a final vote until after the New Year.
Is it any wonder that Congress has miserable approval ratings? Is it surprising that independents, who want their government to solve a few problems, are becoming impatient with the current majority?
Democrats in the Senate--the House is not the problem--need to have a long chat with themselves and decide whether they want to engage in an act of collective suicide.
But it's also time to start paying attention to how Republicans, with Machiavellian brilliance, have hit upon what might be called the Beltway-at-Rush-Hour Strategy, aimed at snarling legislative traffic to a standstill so Democrats have no hope of reaching the next exit.
We know what happens when drivers just sit there when they're supposed to be moving. They get grumpy, irascible and start turning on each other, which is exactly what Democrats are doing now.
Republicans know one other thing: Practically nobody is noticing their delay-to-kill strategy. Who wants to discuss legislative procedure when there's so much fun and profit in psychoanalyzing Sarah Palin?
Yet there was a small break in the Curtain of Obstruction this week when Republican senators unashamedly ate every word they had spoken when George W. Bush was in power about the horrors of filibustering nominees for federal judgeships. On Tuesday, a majority of Republicans tried to block a vote on the appointment of David F. Hamilton, a rather moderate jurist, to a federal appeals court.
Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama explained the GOP's about-face by saying: "I think the rules have changed."
That was actually a helpful comment, because the Republicans have changed the rules on Senate action up and down the line. Hamilton's case is just the one instance that finally got a little play.
Thankfully, this filibuster failed because some Republicans were embarrassed by it. But Republican delaying tactics have made Obama far too wary about judicial nominations for fear of controversy. He is well behind his predecessor in filling vacancies, a shameful capitulation to obstruction. There's also the fact that the nomination of Christopher Schroeder as head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, which helps to vet judges, is snarled--guess where?--in the Senate.
Republicans are using the filibuster to stall action even on bills that most of them support. Remember: The rule is to keep Democrats from ever reaching the exit.
As of last Monday, the Senate majority had filed 58 cloture motions requiring 32 recorded votes. One of the more outrageous cases involved an extension in unemployment benefits, a no-brainer in light of the dismal economy. The bill ultimately cleared the Senate earlier this month by 98-0--yes, that is a zero.
The vote came only after the Republicans launched three filibusters against the bill and also tried to lard it with unrelated amendments, delaying passage by nearly a month. And you wonder why it's so hard to pass health care?
Defenders of the Senate always say the Founders envisioned it as a deliberative body that would cool the passions of the House. But Sessions unintentionally blew the whistle on how what's happening now has nothing to do with the Founders' design.
The rules have changed. The extra-constitutional filibuster is being used by the minority, with extraordinary success, to make the majority look foolish, ineffectual and incompetent. By using Republican obstructionism as a vehicle for forcing through their own narrow agendas, supposedly moderate Democratic senators will only make themselves complicit in this humiliation.
###
adamsappel
Member
Because stamping your foot and calling PoliGAF mean and saying you're never, ever coming back is a pussy thing to do and I'm glad he changed his mind. JoeBoy101 should come back, too.Dax01 said:
Has JayDubya been banned from OT? I see that he's only posting on the gaming side lately.
PantherLotus said:
Ugh. Typical liberals. Photoshopping a horse's teeth into Mr. Giuliani's mouth is sad, but expected from you lot.
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
Why the Democrats Are Sluggish on Judicial Nominations
Nov 19 2009, 1:46 pm by Marc Ambinder
###
Nov 19 2009, 1:46 pm by Marc Ambinder
Democratic senators are slow-waking President Obama's judicial nominations, something that our constitutional law professor chief executive is said to be frustrated about. The Washington Independent's chronicler of the conservative movement, David Weigel, has a theory: the White House itself is to blame because it's failed the zone with nominees and hasn't gone to the mat for all of them. Republicans, he notes, were quite aggressive in squeezing their nominees through a tighter Senate vise.
Why would this be so? Why would Democrats be more tepid than Republicans? The root, I think, is in the asymmetric importance that the two parties ascribe to this issue. For many reasons, GOP movement conservatives care deeply about judicial nominations -- advancing them when they are in control, and blocking them when they are not. But for Democratic movement liberals, they are less central.
The GOP's critical interest group, the Christian right, puts judicial nominations -- pro and con -- at the top of their list. The Democrats' most critical interest group, organized labor, wouldn't rate it in the top 20 of things it cares about.
Put another way, any Republican running for president in 2012 will be seeking the support of the three or four key leaders of the conservative judicial selection/opposition movement. But I doubt that the Democrats who ran in 2008 spent 10 seconds seeking out Nan Aron's endorsement, as influential and respected as she may be. There are exceptions, of course, such as when the left rose up to fight Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas. Daily, though, the 10 most important conservative activists put judicial selection nearer to the top of the list of things they care about than do the 10 most important liberal activists.
Similarly, because the Democratic Party has a much broader coalition than the Republican Party, there is an asymmetric comfort with social issue debates. Judicial confirmation fights -- and the selection of controversial nominees -- inevitably come down to battles over social issues. And the GOP senators are more comfortable doing battle over social issues than are Democratic senators. The GOP is fine defending really conservative nominees like Roberts and Alito (and their court of appeals parallels) with right-wing records on civil rights, gay rights, and abortion. But the Democratic senators quake in their boots to defend David Hamilton's legislative prayer case, or Sonia Sotomayor's firefighters decision. Democrats are happy to defend liberal views on economic matters -- hence, 57 or 58 or 59 are ready to vote for EFCA -- but judicial nominations are not about economic matters. And Democrats are still spooked by cultural issues.
Why would this be so? Why would Democrats be more tepid than Republicans? The root, I think, is in the asymmetric importance that the two parties ascribe to this issue. For many reasons, GOP movement conservatives care deeply about judicial nominations -- advancing them when they are in control, and blocking them when they are not. But for Democratic movement liberals, they are less central.
The GOP's critical interest group, the Christian right, puts judicial nominations -- pro and con -- at the top of their list. The Democrats' most critical interest group, organized labor, wouldn't rate it in the top 20 of things it cares about.
Put another way, any Republican running for president in 2012 will be seeking the support of the three or four key leaders of the conservative judicial selection/opposition movement. But I doubt that the Democrats who ran in 2008 spent 10 seconds seeking out Nan Aron's endorsement, as influential and respected as she may be. There are exceptions, of course, such as when the left rose up to fight Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas. Daily, though, the 10 most important conservative activists put judicial selection nearer to the top of the list of things they care about than do the 10 most important liberal activists.
Similarly, because the Democratic Party has a much broader coalition than the Republican Party, there is an asymmetric comfort with social issue debates. Judicial confirmation fights -- and the selection of controversial nominees -- inevitably come down to battles over social issues. And the GOP senators are more comfortable doing battle over social issues than are Democratic senators. The GOP is fine defending really conservative nominees like Roberts and Alito (and their court of appeals parallels) with right-wing records on civil rights, gay rights, and abortion. But the Democratic senators quake in their boots to defend David Hamilton's legislative prayer case, or Sonia Sotomayor's firefighters decision. Democrats are happy to defend liberal views on economic matters -- hence, 57 or 58 or 59 are ready to vote for EFCA -- but judicial nominations are not about economic matters. And Democrats are still spooked by cultural issues.
###
frankthurk
Member
Dax01 said:
A different form of obstructionist. His target is rational conversation.
If they really want somebody to read the entire bill three times on stage, then I expect all congress members to be sitting and listening intently the whole time. So, if they can't do that, then don't bother trying to act all high and mighty demanding the bill to be read.
It's ridiculous to criticize a bill solely on its length and size. That's all I hear from the Republicans now days... John Stewart had it right the other night when he pointed that out.
It's ridiculous to criticize a bill solely on its length and size. That's all I hear from the Republicans now days... John Stewart had it right the other night when he pointed that out.
- Status