Pelosi Consolidates Her Power

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30143&s=rcmp

Fourteen year old "fairness rules" out the window.

Is this the kind of change President Elect Obama was talking about?

Well as I recall it was the republicans who dumped Gingrich and surely you dont claim Hastert and Delay let the Dems have any input.

Heck they practiced a scorched earth policy so far as including democrats.

I would like to see a serious push for an alternative. Apparently, I'm not alone.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/05/bipartisan-group-launch-dingell-speaker-protest-vote-tuesday/

Wasn't it the GOP who kept threatening to use "The Nuclear Option" in the Senate (i.e., doing away with the 60-vote requirement for closure) if they didn't get their way when THEY held the majority???

The "Fairness Rules" had been in effect, uninterrupted since 1994. Gingrich stepped down following set-backs in the mid-term elections of 1998. What does his demise have to do with the rules he instituted to give the minority a voice?

I think this is a case where Nancy Pelosi wants to get HER agenda pushed through at all cost and doesn't care about debate as she thinks she knows what is best for the country and no one else's voice matters and imho is just another pathetic example of poor democratic leadership.

What I would like to see is how Obama feels about this. Somehow I think that if he were put on the carpet and forced to answer, he would not favor this change. It certainly doesn't go very far in reaching across the isle.

bmd wrote:Wasn't it the GOP who kept threatening to use "The Nuclear Option" in the Senate (i.e., doing away with the 60-vote requirement for closure) if they didn't get their way when THEY held the majority???

Its cloture, not closure and why are you so hypocritical when it comes to politics?

Aaron wrote:

bmd wrote:Wasn't it the GOP who kept threatening to use "The Nuclear Option" in the Senate (i.e., doing away with the 60-vote requirement for closure) if they didn't get their way when THEY held the majority???

Its cloture, not closure...

Oops. Right you are.

Aaron wrote:...and why are you so hypocritical when it comes to politics?

I was just asking a question. So, what's the answer? Or, is that something you're willing to answer?

You'll have to provide a link so I know which instance you're talking about BMD.

Aaron wrote:You'll have to provide a link so I know which instance you're talking about BMD.

Short-term memory problems? It was all over the news a few years ago, when the GOP held the senatorial majority.

I don't recall. In fact, I think you could be making it up. Got a link?

Aaron wrote:I don't recall. In fact, I think you could be making it up. Got a link?

Are you always so lazy? Try googling "republican nuclear option".

Sure, Frist threatened it. What's your point? McCain and his weak-kneed sister Lindsay Graham formed a bipartisan party of fourteen that whipped out a compromise.

Frist threatened to change one rule. Pelosi throws out the Fairness Rules. Not the same.

Reach much?

As Ziggy says, you're the one making the accusation thus the burden of proof is on you.

For the record though, the Republican Nuclear option referred only to judicial appointees not the entire procedural rules of the Senate.

You don't know what cloture is and you know nothing about the gang of 14 or the nuclear option. All you've got is a headline and you think it's the same as Nancy's rewrite of house rules in her attempt to do away with fairness and transparency.

For such a Fart Smellar you're not very.

Perhaps you should do a little more reading.

Aaron wrote:As Ziggy says, you're the one making the accusation thus the burden of proof is on you.

For the record though, the Republican Nuclear option referred only to judicial appointees not the entire procedural rules of the Senate.

You don't know what cloture is...

It's an internal rule of the Senate. The Senate can change it's rules. Cloture wasn't even a rule until the early 20th century, when the Democrats imposed the original version of such.

Aaron wrote:...and you know nothing about the gang of 14 or the nuclear option.

Apparently I know quite a bit more about the subject than yourself.

Aaron on Tue 06 Jan 2009, 12:08 wrote:

I don't recall. In fact, I think you could be making it up. Got a link?

Aaron wrote:All you've got is a headline and you think it's the same as Nancy's rewrite of house rules in her attempt to do away with fairness and transparency.

Them in power get to make the rules. The rules of both the House and Senate get changed from time to time; sometimes by the Republicans, sometimes by the Democrats (and in the past, by other parties in power). I don't have particularly strong feelings on whether they should be changed this time or not. All I was pointing out was that the GOP has threatened much more drastic changes in the past, and used those threats to leverage concessions from the Dems. For the GOP to whine about the Dems do so now is more than a little hypocritical.

Aaron wrote:For such a Fart Smellar you're not very.

Again with the names. Is all this name-calling your way of compensating for the guys in HS gym class calling you Stubby, or what?

Aaron wrote:Perhaps you should do a little more reading.

Perhaps you should concentrate on your reading comprehension a bit more.

Cloture was adopted in 1917 as a means to stop unchecked filibusters. Originally calling for 67 votes, it was reduced in 1975 to 60 but language was changed from "Senators present" to "duly chosen and sworn" so that the only way it takes less then 60 Senators to enforce cloture is if there are less then 99 Senators.

There are currently 99 duly chosen Senators, although I'm sure many democrats will try to say there is only 98. This could get interesting.

The Senate can't just change that rule, no matter what you think. They could call for a point of order but that has far more reaching consequences then most Democrats are willing to agree to, thus the compromise by the gang of 14.

Contrary to what you think, the nuclear option is not an option. I understand that.

I also understand that if my play on words is calling you names then you're a pretty thin skinned smeller indeed.

I also comprehend enough of what I read to know that as well as seeing just how hypocritical, partisan and bigoted you really are BMD.

Who sets the rules of the Senate, Stubby?

The name is Aaron and you'll address me as such or don't address me at all BMD.

Now try again!!!

Aaron wrote:The name is Aaron and you'll address me as such or don't address me at all BMD.

Now try again!!!

Well, well, well. It would appear that someone can dish it out, but can't take it.

You see, my little friend, when you call people names, and make disparaging remarks, and such, people are likely to return the favor.

Now, if you will mind your manners, I will mind mine. But, if I were you, I wouldn't go around calling people names and then demanding that they show you the courtesy you find so difficult to show them.