« The IPCC "torques the science in certain directions" | Main | Just saying »

CNN's Jack Cafferty: Dems are "beyond sleazy" on ObamaCare passage

This, from NewsBusters, is... well... hope and change to believe in:


The transcript follows:

CAFFERTY: Just when you think you've seen it all in Washington, along comes something like this. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may try to pass the controversial health care reform bill without making members vote on it- simply unbelievable. Pelosi says she might use a procedural tactic where the House will vote on the package of fixes to the Senate bill, and then that vote would signify that lawmakers- quote, 'deem' the health care bill to be passed.

Politically speaking, this is beyond sleazy. It's meant to protect House Democrats, who are all running for reelection in November, from having to make a tough vote up or down on health care reform. Pelosi says of this process- quote, 'I like it, because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill,' unquote. In Nancy Pelosi's world, accountability is a dirty word. The Senate bill, of course, contains many provisions that are unpopular among some House Democrats, including language on abortion funding and taxes on high-cost so-called Cadillac insurance plans.

This tactic has been used in the past, but never- never for something as big and important as the $900 billion health care reform bill- never. Republicans are jumping all over this, rightfully so. They're painting it as a way for Democrats to avoid taking responsibility, which is exactly what it is. Some even suggest it's unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, President Obama's campaigning relentlessly, calling on lawmakers to pass health care reform- quote, 'I want some courage. I want us to do the right thing,' unquote. Well, the irony here is if Nancy Pelosi gets her way, it won't take much courage at all on the part of our so-called representatives, will it?

Here's the question: should Nancy Pelosi be allowed to push health care reform through the House without a vote? Go to CNN.com/CaffertyFile, post a comment on my blog. Wolf?

WOLF BLITZER (off-camera): We're earning a lot about reconciliation, about 'deeming' bills passed into law. We're getting a little civics lesson out there, aren't we, Jack?

CAFFERTY: We're learning a lot more about lack of political guts.

BLITZER: Yeah, but you and I know that's been around for a while, right?

CAFFERTY: Not quite in this obnoxious form or noxious form. This reeks!

BLITZER: Jack Cafferty- telling it the way it is. Jack, thank you.

Crossposted(*).


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/38522.

Comments (93)

There will be a vote on thi... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

There will be a vote on this.

The measure will receive more than 50% of the votes.

Beyond that, I really don't care what has to be done. Republicans have refused to take Health Care seriously and have thrown up procedural road blacks repeatedly.

So long as a 50% or greater vote for passage the bill should be signed into law. Voters will decide in November and again in 2012 whether they approve of this or not.

Whether reconciliation is used or some other procedural tactic is employed really doesn't matter once we have 50% or more voting in favor of it. At that point the majority has spoken.

I'm glad the Obama administration is ignoring the polls. The Bush administration routinely ignored the polls and crammed down out throats whatever they wanted.

Old Stevie in the same idio... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Old Stevie in the same idiotic way as always, says on one hand the bad republicans use procedural shinnanigans and then on the other hand is fine with Pelosi doing it. That is not only hypocrisy but lack of reality.

Are any of my conservative friends surprised at the liberals lack of courage? ww

"What's really strange i... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"What's really strange is the GOP tacitly admitting that should a Democratic HCR bill get signed, they, the GOP will not seek to overturn it. They say that its UNPOPULARITY will work to GOP advantage, but that its POPULARITY will instantly bestow a sacred cow status on it."

Yep - I pointed out that same thing on another thread.

If Republicans are right and passage will be a death sentence for Dems then why aren't they appluading Pelosi's strategy?

"Old Stevie in the same idiotic way as always, says on one hand the bad republicans use procedural shinnanigans and then on the other hand is fine with Pelosi doing it. That is not only hypocrisy but lack of reality."

Sigh - engaging Wee Willie is usually fruitless but I'll try.

Willie - it is because the GOP refused to participate in a bi-partisan manner and threw up procedural roadblocks instead that I'm, ok with Pelosi ramming it down your throat.

It's kind of like giving the death sentence to a confessed murderer. Who cares.


Typical liberals, when it c... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Typical liberals, when it comes to saving lives or protecting our nation, we can't do anything with even the appearance of it being inappropriate. However if it is something they want then screw the rules. Back room deals. Illegal quid pro quos, threats, bribes and breaking the rules mean nothing. Just get it done.

Politicians at times have been sleazy n the past. However the Democrats have now made it the standard and like the CNN guy said they have taken it to new lows and they are not done yet.

But in all such Cases th... (Below threshold)
ras:

But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

It seems to me, admittedly a Canadian layman, that re the Slaughter approach, the focus on the voting per se has overshadowed the greater importance on the entering of names into a "Journal," as I've bolded above.

The public does not really watch the actual vote anyway; they rely on the vote tallies. What, if the Slaughter approach is ultimately used, will be the tallies - entered on the Journal of each House respectively -for the Obamacare bill?

I would presume they would have to be the same tallies, with each individual member's yea/nay recorded, as were cast for the "deeming" motion, would they not? And that's what the public will hear about.

The Republicans, if they wish to take advantage of the Democrats' fear of openly voting for Obamacare, would therefore do well to emphasize the recording of the "deeming" votes, and the fact that those votes must be recorded as the yeas and nays on the Obamacare bill itself.

So regardless of the process of voting used - by voice or by "deeming" - a vote tally must nonetheless be recorded on Obamacare and that is what the public will see. A focus on the recording of the vote, rather than the actual theater of it, would eliminate the p.r. shield that the Democrats perceive the Slaughter approach would provide.

And if the Dems were to try to suppress and/or censor the tally from being reported, this would be true even moreso, not to mention the additional grounds it would provide for legal challenges to the bill.

So why not move the emphasis to the constitutional requirement to record the votes? Is there any downside at all to doing so?

"It seems to me, admitte... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"It seems to me, admittedly a Canadian layman, that re the Slaughter approach, the focus on the voting per se has overshadowed the greater importance on the entering of names into a "Journal," as I've bolded above."

From what I've read the Dems are determined to get a vote "on the record" before any other procedural means are used to push the bill through.

It'll be interesting to see what tactics the GOP will use to block that vote. You'd think that with all of the GOP blustering about this vote being "a death knell" for Dems they'd be happy to have an "on the record" vote... but don't be surprised if they decide against that.

Every special deal, every b... (Below threshold)
Justrand:

Every special deal, every bribe, every threat and MASSIVE majorities in BOTH Houses...and the Dems STILL have to resort to something that even Jack Cafferty finds repulsive.

Amazing.

And yes, our trolls find this splendid! Of course, after November the Dems will no longer approve of such tactics...since THEY will be in the minority.

p.s. to the trolls: please cite an example where the Republicans (whether Bush or not) did this on a major piece of legislation. One example. Did they use the "Nuclear Option"...no. Did they use "Self-Executing" rules on legislation (a) like this or (b) that hadn't gone through the process of voting already? No.

Dear Trolls...the prison you are so gleefully cheering the construction of will house YOU too.

Steve Green,Your r... (Below threshold)
ras:

Steve Green,

Your reply does not answer my question, not in the least. Please re-read.

I surprised that little Ste... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

I surprised that little Stevie Green keeps saying things he cannot back up. He is either peculiarly unknowledgeable or a flat out liar. When little Stevie calls for bipartisanship, is he completely unaware the Republicans were shut out of health care legislation in the House, just like Waxman wrote cap and trad himself. Is little Stevie also unaware the Senate bill was written and substituted by Harry Reid. The we had the health care summit charade, where Obama spent a third of the time talking and ignored anything a Republican said. It might come as quite a surprise to little Stevie Wonder, but bipartisan implies two sides. It does not imply one side and then complaining because the other, the one that was ignored, does not agree.

Second, Where is the reference for the Republican's "tacitly" saying they would not seek to overturn it? I suspect little Stevie really means he hopes they will not seek to overturn the bill. Remember little Stevie, the bill collects taxes for 4 years before providing any health care services. Does little Stevie really believe there will be this pot of money saved to provide those service or does a small bit of rationality escape from his mind and note that any taxes collected will go into current expenditures.

Stevie, stevie, little stev... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

Stevie, stevie, little stevie. This is the House. The Republicans cannot block any vote Pelosi wants. Do you really not understand that?

Rick, The GOP members of th... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Rick, The GOP members of the House have resorted to filibuster on this issue many times.

Are you really that uninformed?

"I'm glad the Obama adminis... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"I'm glad the Obama administration is ignoring the polls."

So am I Stevie! November will be so sweet! As for Barry's health care 'reform' bill, as soon as the Democrats pass it, they might as well save time and just send it over to SCOTUS. And don't give me the 'promote the general welfare' bullshit. Were that true, where are the government bread stores? Why isn't bread FREE? Where are the government shoe stores and clothing stores? Where do I go to buy a government house? Those are all GENERAL WELFARE concepts (food, clothing, shelter). Wouldn't you agree Stevie?

justrand,Dear T... (Below threshold)
ras:

justrand,

Dear Trolls...the prison you are so gleefully cheering the construction of will house YOU too.

That suits them fine, actually, just so long as you are not doing better than they are.

By way of illustration, it's the same in economics. Let's say that you have two dollars and I have one. But then, I come to you with an idea, a good and useful one, and we partner in order to implement it. It works well and now you have twenty dollars and I have twenty-one.

Are you happy? You used to have two dollars and now you have twenty, so you would be, but in the same situation a troll would say, "Damn, I used to be ahead but now he's passed me! I hate that idea!"

Therein lies the fundamental difference in your politics and his, and it will not be resolved by logic.

Rick, The GOP members of... (Below threshold)
Matt:

Rick, The GOP members of the House have resorted to filibuster on this issue many times.


When have the republicans filibustered voting on the Senat version of the health care bill?

GarandFan - personally I th... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

GarandFan - personally I think health care for everyone ranks up there with "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You can't have "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you don't have access to health care.

Ill ignore the rest of your strawman argument.

The House does not filibust... (Below threshold)
Boots:

The House does not filibuster. The Senate filibusters.

Cafferty must be in that ever-shrinking group of dems, like Pat Caddell (former dem pollster for Carter) who can see the danger ahead if dems pursue the dirty deals on healthcare and try and "deem" it passed.

Fine, come November's elections and January's new congress, republicans better "deem" it revoked. If it's that easy to pass then it's that easy to repeal.

Steve Green,You... (Below threshold)
ras:

Steve Green,

You can't have "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you don't have access to health care.

As a Canadian, I have firsthand experience. My best friend - early 40's, wife, kids - died on the waiting list for a routine test, one you could get in the States in an afternoon. He died of heart failure as did his father at about the same age and his grandfather at about the same age, and had already waited weeks when the end came.

What does "access to health care" mean to you? My friend died for lack of same. Is it so important to you that everyone have an equal lack of care? Think hard before you too must bury a loved one, cuz it will come to that sooner than you realize.

Steve Green writes:"... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

Steve Green writes:
"You can't have "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you don't have access to health care."

Well, you can't have it with government mandated health care. And if you think the government is going to automatically provide healthcare at what ever level you want at whatever age or whatever benefit to society you are deemed to be you are probably - no you are - the most clueless person on this thread. You cannot pass Pelosi's budget busting legislation and expect your fantasy to be the outcome.

Steve, I don't know where you have been denied, deprived or whatever in your life but you are truly one of these individuals who believes he is entitled to the resources of others and wholeheartedly believes the government leviathan is the means for your obtaining this. Your bitterness in this regard comes across so clearly. I mean bitter, wow.

Oh yeah, - everyone has fri... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Oh yeah, - everyone has friends that died because of poor health care or mistakes.

Note that the GOP is doing their best to make sure that people are limited in seeking redress over malpractice. THAT's how much US republicans care about mistakes doctors and hospitals make - they want to make sure that the penalties for making those mistakes are reduced.

For someone who has NO ACCESS to health care today, being on a waiting list is better than not being on a waiting list.

#19 is directed at ras in r... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

#19 is directed at ras in reply to #17.

Rick, The GOP memb... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Rick, The GOP members of the House have resorted to filibuster on this issue many times. Are you really that uninformed?

Obviously, you are. The House doesn't filibuster, that is a Senate procedure.

"CNN's Jack Cafferty: Dems ... (Below threshold)
914:

"CNN's Jack Cafferty: Dems are "beyond sleazy" on ObamaCare passage."


Earth to Jack!! The dems are beyond sleazy on just about everything.

"You can't have "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if you don't have access to health care."

Where is that etched in stone? The Bill of rights? The Constitution? The Magna Carta? Stevie G's coloring book?

c'mon Steve, are you REALLY... (Below threshold)
wright:

c'mon Steve, are you REALLY that stupid???

House of Representatives

In the House of Representatives, the filibuster (the right to unlimited debate) was used until 1842, when a permanent rule limited the duration of debate. The disappearing quorum was a tactic used by the minority until an 1890 rule eliminated it. As the membership of the House grew much larger than the Senate, the House has acted earlier to control floor debate and the delay and blocking of floor votes.

"Note that the GOP is doing... (Below threshold)
DaveD:

"Note that the GOP is doing their best to make sure that people are limited in seeking redress over malpractice. THAT's how much US republicans care about mistakes doctors and hospitals make - they want to make sure that the penalties for making those mistakes are reduced."

OK, Steve. We will keep the determination of malpractice rewards out of government control if we keep the healthcare system that the lawyers are preying upon out of government regulation as well. Deal?

Oh yeah, - everyone has ... (Below threshold)
ras:

Oh yeah, - everyone has friends that died because of poor health care or mistakes.

In Canada, that is basically true.

You might wish to visit us one day and talk to folks directly; pretty much everyone has the same stories, much like mine. The docs and nurses are generally excellent, but the waiting lists to see them are killers. And it's getting worse, not better.

Rather than argue theory - and there have been many sweet sounding theories over the ages, such as "the earth is flat," disproven by the evidence - why not just look at the results?

Here's an example, and yes, it is representative: N.L. Premier Williams set to have heart surgery in U.S.

This is part of a pattern of Canadian pols - Chretien, Bourassa and others - over the years who all did the same thing, even (actually, more like "especially") our more socialist ones. They talk the talk but won't walk the walk.

There's a reason you don't see the reverse, US pols coming to Canada for our socialized health care. And that's based on the evidence.

The problem with Steve Gree... (Below threshold)
Deke:

The problem with Steve Green and other Facist-Utopians is that they all live in a Gene Roddenberry Star Trek Universe where there are no wants, research is done for the sake of research and all ailments are cured by a shot from Bones McCoy.

Unfot., as a Senator from Texas once analogized, when you have more people riding in the wagon than there are pushing it, the wagon tends not to move very far and it's not long before they just give up and join the riders.

Cradle to grave government control has been the goal of the Facist/Socialist movement since the 60's. These are the people who are now in charge and they see their dream becoming a reality. It's a sad comentary on America and I fear may be the final nail in the coffin of our grand Repulican experiment.

WAIT - He can't do... (Below threshold)
Eric:
WAIT - He can't do that! Only the Senate can filibuster. Oh, he did, sorry... never mind. He must not read wizbang...

Just because the RCP Staff doesn't understand House rules doesn't mean it's true. House members cannot filibuster.

"Take the House of Representatives. Its members lack access to many of the tools--like the filibuster--enjoyed by their colleagues on the other side of the Capitol." - Newsweek

ras - Realistically, there ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

ras - Realistically, there are limits to health care.

But not for the rich. At least, not in the U.S.

So the rich from other countries come here too.

Access for the poor and the lower middle class doesn't change according to the number of well-to-do people in America (and elsewhere) who are perfectly happy with the present US health care system.

I'm well-insured health care wise. Health care reform won't change that - but it will improve access for those less fortunate than me.

And if fewer rich folks from Canada cross the border into he US to get health care as a result who cares? Seriously?

SG et al:Malpracti... (Below threshold)
epador:

SG et al:

Malpractice suits, as they present today in the US, are largely about bad outcomes, not bad medicine. They do NOTHING to improve quality of care. They do effectively LIMIT access to care.

Not that YOU care.

Steve Green,The Am... (Below threshold)
ras:

Steve Green,

The American "poor" - a loosely defined term - show better medical results than do Canadians, meaning your thesis is theoretical and already disproven by the evidence.

My friend, for example, was middle-class, yet he died awaiting a test that even indigents in the States would have received immediately under your current system and often do.

When theory fails to match reality, which is wrong?

Libersl Super-Genius and ma... (Below threshold)
Brett:

Libersl Super-Genius and master logician Steve Green writes:

Willie - it is because the GOP refused to participate in a bi-partisan manner and threw up procedural roadblocks instead that I'm, ok with Pelosi ramming it down your throat.

I like the implicit Clinton-esque redefinition of words like "participate in a bi-partisan manner" - interpreted in this case to mean "throwing away any principles you might have and simply bending over for idiocy that Pelosi and Co. come up with regardless of our constituent's desires so we can all get along". I thought that "dissent was the highest form of patriotism"? Or is that too 2006 for you?

Brett,The unconsti... (Below threshold)
ras:

Brett,

The unconstitutionality of the process is part of what appeals to some people; it makes them feel important to be able to break the rules.

Why they so desperately need the boost to their ego is a different story.

Remember, they're not stupid: we are all home sapiens, after all. Of course they "get it" already; they just can't accept it.

Steve Green,Fee... (Below threshold)
ras:

Steve Green,

Feel free to provide a link to support that statement.

I already did (more than one, actually). Please re-read. As for my friend's story per se, I will respect his family's privacy.

Et al,My comments/... (Below threshold)
ras:

Et al,

My comments/question from #5 above remain.

Anyone got any answers or idea on the topic? Cuz it still seems to me that emphasizing the recording of the vote would be a solid strategy.

ras - None of your links su... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

ras - None of your links support your claim that the poor and uninsured in the U.S. are healthier than the insured in Canada, so I ask again - please provide anything = ANY thing - you can to support your claim. Still waiting...

Meanwhile, while ras looks that up and links to it, there's this...

The value of care for all

Historically, one of the cruelest aspects of unequal income distribution is that poor people not only experience material want all their lives, they also suffer more illness and die younger. But in Canada there is no association between income inequality and mortality rates--none whatsoever.

In a massive study undertaken by Statistics Canada in the early 1990s, income and mortality census data were analyzed from all Canadian provinces and all U.S. states, as well as 53 Canadian and 282 American metropolitan areas.6 The study concluded that "the relationship between income inequality and mortality is not universal, but instead depends on social and political characteristics specific to place." In other words, government health policies have an effect.

"Income inequality is strongly associated with mortality in the United States and in North America as a whole," the study found, "but there is no relation within Canada at either the province or metropolitan area level -- between income inequality and mortality."

Note, this is the opposite of what ras is claiming.

The same study revealed that among the poorest people in the United States, even a one percent increase in income resulted in a mortality decline of nearly 22 out of 100,000.

What makes this study so interesting is that Canada used to have statistics that mirrored those in the United States. In 1970, U.S. and Canadian mortality rates calculated along income lines were virtually identical. But 1970 also marked the introduction of Medicare in Canada -- universal, singlepayer coverage. The simple explanation for how Canadians have all become equally healthy, regardless of income, most likely lies in the fact that they have a publicly funded, single-payer health system and the control group, the United States, does not.

and...

Infant mortality

Infant mortality rates, which reflect the health of the mother and her access to prenatal and postnatal care, are considered one of the most reliable measures of the general health of a population. Today, U.S. government statistics rank Canada's infant mortality rate of 4.7 per thousand 23rd out of 225 countries, in the company of the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Australia, and Denmark. The U.S. is 43rd--in the company of Croatia and Lithuania, below Taiwan and Cuba.

Infant mortality hits the poor the hardest, needless to say.

And when you look at conservatives who claim they are concerned about the unborn, and then you look at these same conservatives who do all they can to stop the poor in our country from gaining access to health care, the hypocrisy stemming from a belief system that supports unborn babies but allows infant mortality to remain much higher than elsewhere becomes GLARING.

If nothing else, the GOP has a golden opportunity to enter the health care reform debate and to display their values and make sure that steps were taken to insure pregnant poor women, - but they didn't.

Steve Green,Man up a... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Steve Green,
Man up and admit to being wrong about the filibuster?

By the way Steve, you like ... (Below threshold)
Eric:

By the way Steve, you like to quote the Gallup poll about Obama's approval rating. Any comment on today's Gallup poll that has him underwater? 46% approve, 47% disapprove.

Eric - see comment #22 "Hou... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Eric - see comment #22 "House GOP Leader Boehner Filibusters Cap-And-Trade Bill".

Apparently nobody told House GOP leader Boehner that only the Senate filibusters....cause he's been doing it for quite some time now.

Will you now "man up" and admit I'm right? Nope. It's guaranteed that you won't....

re #39 - Obama's poll numbe... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

re #39 - Obama's poll numbers -- stay on topic, Eric. We can talk about Obama's poll numbers when there's a post on that subject - as long as it wasn't written by Shawn. My comments are being deleted from Shawn's posts.

Man up and admi... (Below threshold)
Man up and admit to being wrong about the filibuster?
Your request of the Green Douchebag went wrong on the very first word.
Steve See post 28. Just be... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Steve See post 28. Just because a staff member uses the term filibuster, doesn't mean it is a filibuster. The House of Representatives did away with the filibuster decades ago. You are the one who is wrong. And as you have shown time and again, you refuse to admit when you are.

Steve Green- "For someon... (Below threshold)
zaugg:

Steve Green- "For someone who has NO ACCESS to health care today"
Everybody in the USA has access to health care. They only have to walk, crawl or take the ambulance to the emergency room.
You, in your confusion, equate paying for health care with access.

s green - "Access for t... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green - "Access for the poor and the lower middle class doesn't change according to the number of well-to-do people in America (and elsewhere) who are perfectly happy with the present US health care system."

That's odd, every credible poll has suggested 80-85% of Americans are satisfied with there health care insurance.

By making that assertion it must mean you think [if possible] 80-85% of Americans are "rich."

More from the mentally challenged titmouse:

"I'm well-insured health care wise. Health care reform won't change that - but it will improve access for those less fortunate than me."

Silly you if you think your insurance won't change. Part of the reconciliation package contains "price controls" on health care.

Remember your insurer is what Obummer suggests is a hand maiden of Beelzebub and price controls WILL effect how and when your insurer provides you with service.

EXIT QUESTION: (that you will ignore or spin beyond all recognition)

If something is too expensive for American households, why would it not be too expensive for the government whose budget is financed by those same households.?

"Man up and admit to bei... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

"Man up and admit to being wrong about the filibuster?"

"And as you have shown time and again, you refuse to admit when you are."

It takes a man to own up to his mistakes. You assume a lot when you assume little Stevie Green is a man. When Stevie moves out of his mother's basement, then he has taken his first step at manhood. Not until then!

Obama's poll numbe... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Obama's poll numbers -- stay on topic, Eric. We can talk about Obama's poll numbers when there's a post on that subject

Stay on topic? Your very first comment mentions the polls.

Politicians and their supporters always claim to "ignore" the polls when the polls aren't going their way. But you can believe that Obama's people are paying attention to the polls. And they are worried.

I'm going to ignore Steve f... (Below threshold)
JPO:

I'm going to ignore Steve for a moment and ask a couple of questions that someone with legal training might be able to answer:

1. If this bill is passed using these questionable means, could it be challenged constitutionally in the Appeals Court and ulitmately the Supreme Court?

2. How valid are the resolutions being passed by various states to pre-emptively opt out of any national healthcare program Congress might pass?

Eric re: filibusters in the... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

Eric re: filibusters in the House.

This from Fox News, the bastion of Fair and Balanced!

Filibusters are not allowed in the House. They're a province of the Senate. But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) may have figured out a way to get around that prohibition Friday as the House inched closer to voting on a controversial energy and climate change bill.

The fact that they are not allowed didn't stop Boehner, as I've pointed out in many comments above.

and did you catch this?:</p... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

and did you catch this?:

Meanwhile, in a rare public disagreement that will reverberate among the nation's 70 million Catholics, leaders of religious orders representing 59,000 nuns sent lawmakers a letter urging them to pass the Senate health care bill. Expected to come before the House by this weekend, the measure contains abortion funding restrictions that the bishops say don't go far enough.

"Despite false claims to the contrary, the Senate bill will not provide taxpayer funding for elective abortions," said the letter signed by 60 leaders of women's religious orders. "It will uphold longstanding conscience protections and it will make historic new investments ... in support of pregnant women. This is the real pro-life stance, and we as Catholics are all for it."

Just as I said above - the hypocrisy among social conservatives who oppose abortion and oppose extending much-needed health care to pregnant poor women is glaring - and the nuns did something about it.

Steve, the house PASSED tha... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Steve, the house PASSED that bill. How did the PASS it if Boehner "fillibustered" it?

The good news is that any l... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

The good news is that any law passed by gimmicks and simple majorities is subject to repeal by the same process. Because the taxes kick in this year while most of the benefits don't kick in until 2013 there's a window of opportunity for repeal before the public gets addicted to another deficit ballooning entitlement.

Also Steve, regarding comme... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Also Steve, regarding comment #37, your links in no way proved the opposite of what Ras was claiming.

Ras said: "The American "poor" - a loosely defined term - show better medical results than do Canadians"

Your links merely show that all Canadians get equally inferior healthcare. That is irrelevant to whether or not America poor get better health care than Canadian poor (which they do).

But I'll agree with the point you are inadvertently making here-- that under Obamacare the poor and the middle class in America will get equally inferior healthcare and only the ruling class will have access to the best healhcare in the world that all Americans (and wealthy foreigners) have today. If that's what you leftists want then just admit it and quit lying, dodging, and spinning for a change.

You're right, Mac. The choi... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

You're right, Mac. The choice in November will be simple, thanks to the hard-liners in the GOP.

If you want to repeal the health care reform measure elect more Republicans this November.

If you want to preserve it, elect more Democrats.

Democrats are ok with it coming down to that. So are Republicans, right?

LET THE VOTERS DECIDE IN NOVEMBER.

If, as Republicans predict, this bill will be the death knell for Dems, what's the problem? You should all be cheering for Pelosi to get this pushed through the house and onto Obama's desk.

But for some reason, you aren't. Is it because you don't believe that the American people will chose to repeal health care reform in November?

Why do you bother even atte... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Why do you bother even attempting to disuade Steve Green/Hyper. He is obviously clueless and types up whatever rag he reads as fact. Politico says Boehner filibustered, so it is so. Any member of the house can elect to have the entire bill read by the clerk or whomever has the floor. That is policy and procedure. A filibuster (for those that do not understand it Green) is to stop a bill from passing to the vote stage.

Obama is swimming without his life vest on this one. Constitutionally it will be thrown out in it's current form, just like McCain/Feinfold was. The supreme court not only protects our rights of freedom, but now also has an ax to grind with Obama and the dem's for their unseemly behavior at the last state of the union lie. ww

Steve Green,Do the... (Below threshold)
ras:

Steve Green,

Do the US poor receive more timely care than do Canadians? Yes.

Does income inequality correlate with health in the US? Yes.

Both statements can be true. Both statements are true. Can you see why?

To me the shame of this is on our side of the border, not yours, and the pain/proof is in the death of our loved ones here, such as my friend.

P.S. US infant mortality figures are not based on the same formula as are the Canadian ones. Consider babies born very prematurely who don;t survive:

In Canada we do not count those deaths; in the US, despite saving a higher percentage, the deaths are counted. And so in spite of saving more children, the US stats skew worse than in Canada or Europe ... but only if you assume that they're actually measuring the same thing in each case; they're not.

I truly believe you already know these facts, and/or other facts very much like them, and have known them all along. Your support for health care must therefore be rooted elsewhere.

Liberal Dems. I'd hate the... (Below threshold)
moseby:

Liberal Dems. I'd hate their guts if they had any....

Steve, Here is what you sai... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Steve, Here is what you said.

The GOP members of the House have resorted to filibuster on this issue many times.

Since this so called filibuster you cite can only be employed by the minority leader and he only employed it one time on a completely different bill, that hardly makes it accurate that plural members of the GOP have used it many times to stop the health care bill.

Filibusters are still against House rules. That hasn't changed. You are wrong, that hasn't changed either. Just admit it.

Steve Green the liar: "Rick... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Steve Green the liar: "Rick, The GOP members of the House have resorted to filibuster on this issue many times."

So, here we have li'l stevie ASSERTING that the R's in the house have resorted to filibustering dems "many times".

"Many times".

"Many times".

li'l stevies proof?

He links to an article that says this: "But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) may have figured out a way to get around that prohibition Friday as the House inched closer to voting on a controversial energy and climate change bill."

Get it?

Stevie links to an article that says on this measure, Boehner "....MAY HAVE FIGURED OUT A WAY.."

"may have"

"may have"

Which implies "may not have". Which means it hasn't been tried, much less successful.

Get it yet?

Li'l stevie green offers as proof that the R's "HAVE" filibustered health care reform with the (almost AGW-like) "fact" that Boehner "may have" devised a way to get around the lack of the filibuster in the house.

Get it yet?

Which one of the 57 states do you have to live in to "get it"?

BTW stevie, actual number of filibusters that ocurred in the Senate in 2009? ZERO

ZERO

ZERO

ZERO

Steve green is allowed to s... (Below threshold)

Steve green is allowed to stay around because he is the Right's good luck charm: everything he is for, loses. Everything he is against, wins.

zaugg,You claim "E... (Below threshold)
Rance:

zaugg,

You claim "Everybody in the USA has access to health care. They only have to walk, crawl or take the ambulance to the emergency room."

Are you saying that a pregnant mother, with no insurance, can get regular prenatal checkups in her local emergency room?

Are you aware that if you go into an emergency room, without insurance, you will get a large bill? Even with insurance, you will likely get a large bill.

In a way, this site itself ... (Below threshold)
ras:

In a way, this site itself is like health care:

The alternative for a troll would be to cut himself to prove he exists, but if he can come here instead and provoke a reaction, it dulls the pain almost as well.


And in response to whoever ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

And in response to whoever asked about the Constitutionality of the procedures being considered by the Democrats....

The Constitution only sets a requirement for a simple majority, The 60 vote supermajority was a Congressional invention.

The 50 vote passage is Constitutional.

And to ras in #56 - you still haven't you provided any evidence to support your claim that the poor in the US who are uninsured are healthier than the insured poor in Canada.

The 50 vote passag... (Below threshold)
Eric:
The 50 vote passage is Constitutional.

No one disputes that Steve. The issue is the Slaughter Strategy, (see video of Jack Cafferty at top of post), in which the Democrats try to pass the bill WITHOUT actually voting on it.

What terrible thing have yo... (Below threshold)
Burt:

What terrible thing have you commenters wrought? I see Steve Green quoting Fox News. You should be ashamed!

And to ras in #56 - you ... (Below threshold)
ras:

And to ras in #56 - you still haven't you provided any evidence to support your claim that the poor in the US who are uninsured are healthier than the insured poor in Canada.

Other than the death of my best friend? I do not think it is evidence you really want, Mr. Green. The test that would have saved his life is covered under Medicaid in the US.

Move to Canada, if you think our health care is better. It's less complicated, I'll give you that, but to quote Einstein: things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.

P.S.
The 50 vote passage is Constitutional.

So why are the Dems promoting the unconstitutional possibility of the Slaughter approach when they could just do what they want to constitutionally? Apparently, shame and deceit are also constitutional.

The issue is the Slaught... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

The issue is the Slaughter Strategy, (see video of Jack Cafferty at top of post), in which the Democrats try to pass the bill WITHOUT actually voting on it.

Hmmm, well...

"The 'Slaughter Solution' is the ultimate in Washington power grabs, a legislative ploy that lets Democrats defy the will of the American people while attempting to eliminate any trace of actually doing so," House Republican Leader John Boehner (pictured) said.

But it's worth noting that this "Washington power grab" was used 36 times by House Republicans in 2005 and 2006, when they last controlled Congress, according to the Brookings Institution's Thomas Mann.

Republicans used the Slaughter Strategy 36 times during just the last two years of the Bush administration.

OBVIOUSLY, Republicans KNOW it's constitutional - they just are lying to you now by suggesting now that it isn't.

But that's what Republicans do....

little stevie is on fire to... (Below threshold)
Michael:

little stevie is on fire today(slamming the Red Bull there are ya stevie?)...the DNC must be paying him extra to spew their nonsense.

little stevie the Dimos wer... (Below threshold)
Michael:

little stevie the Dimos were in control of the House in Bush's last two years...my god you are a moron.

ras: "And to ras in #56 ... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

ras: "And to ras in #56 - you still haven't you provided any evidence to support your claim that the poor in the US who are uninsured are healthier than the insured poor in Canada."

ras replies: "Other than the death of my best friend?

No, we're not talking about your friend. You said the Canadian insured are less healthy than the US poor.

Apparently that's a lie. And asked repeatedly to back up your lie with ANY evidence - you first said you already did even though you hadn't - and now you aren't even acknowledging what you said.

Wow.... do you think people can't read?

Steve Green,

The American "poor" - a loosely defined term - show better medical results than do Canadians, meaning your thesis is theoretical and already disproven by the evidence.

My friend, for example, was middle-class, yet he died awaiting a test that even indigents in the States would have received immediately under your current system and often do.

When theory fails to match reality, which is wrong?

31. Posted by ras | March 17, 2010 3:06 PM

Can you show us any evidence of those 'better medical results' you cited? Or any evidence that these results exist anywhere that supports your claim?

"little stevie the Dimos... (Below threshold)
Steve Green:

"little stevie the Dimos were in control of the House in Bush's last two years...my god you are a moron."

That didn't stop the GOP from using the Slaughter Strategy 36 times, did it?

They didn't because they we... (Below threshold)
Michael:

They didn't because they weren't in control you idiot...Pelosi was...so how could they? My god...did you go to public school?..that would explain your lack of intelligence.

or are you still in public ... (Below threshold)
Michael:

or are you still in public school?...hmmmm?...that would explain a lot.

OT:Hey wizbangers ... (Below threshold)
max:

OT:

Hey wizbangers (esp. Shawn Mallow), how's it feel to have Steve Green residing comfortably in your collective head?

Steve Green"Rick, ... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Steve Green

"Rick, The GOP members of the House have resorted to filibuster on this issue many times.

Are you really that uninformed
"

Really?

WHEN

A filibuster by defintion is

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:filibuster&aq=0&oq=filibuster&aqi=l1g-e4g6

a legislator who gives long speeches in an effort to delay or obstruct legislation that he (or she) opposes
obstruct deliberately by delaying
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A filibuster, or "speaking or talking out a bill", is a form of obstruction in a legislature or other decision-making body whereby one attempts to ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

The republicans have threatened to filibuster things but they have not filibustered anything this past year.

Try to find one instance where a filibuster was used. Just one. not the threat of a filibuster, not the dems not trying to vote on something due to the threat of a filibuster, but an acutal filibuster.

You wont find one because there hasnt been one.

Once again your open your mouth and know not of which you speak.


From your home of talking points Stevie

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6872881

understand the idea of needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but why do the Republicans just get to say that they're doing it without actually doing anything? What happened to the days of people standing on the floor and actively blocking legislation?

I think that's what America needs to see if they try to block health care. Right now it looks like Dems scrambling and in-fighting. People need to see that it's the Repubs that are keeping us from moving forward.

Why is this not an option?
-------
also

http://www.williamkwolfrum.com/2010/02/10/should-the-filibuster-do-away-with-congress/
While the Republicans are the ones using a threat of a filibusters (actual filibusters almost never occur, a party need only threaten to use it for it to stop the legislative process in its tracks) on nearly everything that comes before them, the Democrats mealy-mouthed inability to do anything about it deserves at least a minority share of the blame.

http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Christine_Pelosi_4656FD9E-8082-48F1-BE7D-10CF6543CA1D.html
But, actual filibusters requiring nonstop talking and a vote at the end of the speechifying are great ways to let minority views be heard without undermining constitutional majority rule.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_myth_of_bipartisanship
The tactic is so embedded into the psychology of the institution that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does not even force actual filibusters. If there are not enough votes to ensure cloture, the legislation is simply tabled. No long-winded speeches needed.

So Steve. Show me where an ACTUAL filibuster (endless talking to delay a vote) has taken place.

Your dem talking points and media buddies will call the THREAT of a filibuster as an actual filibuster but it isnt. The republicans cant help it if the dems are too gutless to call them on their THREATS of a filibuster.

s green - "That didn'... (Below threshold)
Marc:

s green - "That didn't stop the GOP from using the Slaughter Strategy 36 times, did it?"

Show me a single instance of one that not only effected every living soul in America, and everyone yet to be born, but one that had a [fake] price tag of over 1 billion. (over 2 billion after the first 10 years)

"OBVIOUSLY, Republicans KNOW it's constitutional - they just are lying to you now by suggesting now that it isn't."

No, they have ignored the Constitutionally of the maneuver as the demturds are now.

EXIT QUESTION again: (that you will ignore or spin beyond all recognition)

If something is too expensive for American households, why would it not be too expensive for the government whose budget is financed by those same households.?

You gotta love Cafferty....... (Below threshold)

You gotta love Cafferty................I remember him when he was a local reporter in NYC and he was a cranky but humorous middle of the road guy. Imagine that, a journalist who is willing to take on both sides when they're destructive.

As for "Steye Green", I really think it's Rachel Madcow's alter ego when she is wearing the strap on.

From Steve's own link:<br /... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

From Steve's own link:

The Speaker Pro Tempore, Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) then ruled that Boehner was [in] order.

"It is the custom of the house is to listen to the leader's comments," Tauscher said

You're right, Mac.... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
You're right, Mac. The choice in November will be simple, thanks to the hard-liners in the GOP. If you want to repeal the health care reform measure elect more Republicans this November.

It's not just this November, but also November 2012. It's not just the healthcare measure voters will be judging, but the obsession with it to the exclusion of fixing the economy. It's unlikely Democrats will be able to pass any significant legislation this year and with the gains Republicans are likely to make this November, little else of significance is going to pass in Obama's first term. By 2012 the nation will be chocking on entitlement debt. We'll see then if voters want to stick with Obama in 2012. If not it will be taken as a mandate to dismantle the entitlement state even to the point of privatizing social security, at least for younger workers.

Democrats could have worked with Republicans to pass a truly bi-partisan healthcare reform bill that not only fixed health insurance, but addressed the real cost drivers. Such a bill would have been a triumph for Obama. Too bad for the nation he failed.

Steve Green"From w... (Below threshold)
retired military:

Steve Green

"From what I've read the Dems are determined to get a vote "on the record" before any other procedural means are used to push the bill through."

Really? I guess you missed this little gem from Pelosi

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/
"But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."


"Rick, The GOP members of the House have resorted to filibuster on this issue many times.

Are you really that uninformed?"

Stevie as shown above. Are you REALLY that uninformed? Threat of a filibuster does not equal a filibuster.


"I'm well-insured health care wise. Health care reform won't change that - but it will improve access for those less fortunate than me."

Are you really really that stupid to even believe this? You must be a union member or a member of Congress to make that statement.


ref Post 37

infant mortatlity rates.

You do realize that different countries use different standards to come up with their infant mortality rates dont you? Also you cant apply a country like the Netherlands (very small population with a govt paid system based on very high oil revenues (high relative to their size)). You are comparing apples and oranges.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality
But the method of calculating IMR often varies widely between countries based on the way they define a live birth and how many premature infants are born in the country. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines a live birth as any born human being who demonstrates independent signs of life, including breathing, voluntary muscle movement, or heartbeat. Many countries, however, including certain European states and Japan, only count as live births cases where an infant breathes at birth, which makes their reported IMR numbers somewhat lower and raises their rates of perinatal mortality.[5]

The exclusion of any high-risk infants from the denominator or numerator in reported IMRs can be problematic for comparisons. Many countries, including the United States, Sweden or Germany, count an infant exhibiting any sign of life as alive, no matter the month of gestation or the size, but according to United States Centers for Disease Control researchers,[6] some other countries differ in these practices. All of the countries named adopted the WHO definitions in the late 1980s or early 1990s,[7] which are used throughout the European Union.[8] However, in 2009, the US CDC issued a report which stated that the American rates of infant mortality were affected by the United States' high rates of premature babies compared to European countries and which outlines the differences in reporting requirements between the United States and Europe, noting that France, the Czech Republic, Ireland, the Netherlands, and Poland do not report all live births of babies under 500 g and/or 22 weeks of gestation.[6][9][10] However, the report also concludes that the differences in reporting are unlikely to be the primary explanation for the United States' relatively low international ranking.[10]

Once again Stevie your dem talking points fail you utterly.

Ref the filibuster article on Fox. A filibuster is again used to delay a vote. Exactly what vote did Boehner delay? None.

Thanks for playing again.

ref post 67

When the republicans tried to use the slaughter solution ON PURELY BUDGETARY ITEMS (not legislation to enact new laws) Pelosi and the other dems decried the use of the procedue. A fact that you seemed to forget there Stevie boy.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosi-Slaughter-went-to-court-against-GOPs-self-executing-rule-in-2005---87773712.html

Pelosi, Slaughter went to court against GOP in 2005 case that exposes Slaughter Solution flaw

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Pelosi-Slaughter-went-to-court-against-GOPs-self-executing-rule-in-2005---87773712.html#ixzz0iTHjuAhX

Sticking to your talking points is killing you Stevie.


rance - "Are you aware ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

rance - "Are you aware that if you go into an emergency room, without insurance, you will get a large bill? Even with insurance, you will likely get a large bill."

Um... the point was access not cost.

If you have insurance, that "large bill" will be paid by the carrier not you.

But lets continue your game of "are you aware."

Are you aware if and when a health care mandate is passed those that only had access to care via an emergency room previously will THEN have complete access to all forms of health care, not to mention dental care, and that WILL explode the costs?

Not that that's a bad thing, it just lays to waste the demturd talking point that "we pay for their emergency room care anyway so why not give them "free" insurance?

Steve, Those who tell you h... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Steve, Those who tell you how the Slaughter Strategy has been used before, imply that must make it okay. They are being disingenuous.

The Slaughter Strategy would be used here in a completely unprecedented way. The self executing rule has always been previously used to pass amendments to existing bills that have already passed both Houses.

It has never been used as a way to create a new law out of whole cloth. The Senate Bill is a completely separate Bill from the House's Healthcare Bill. The House has not voted on the Senate Bill and therefore has not passed in the House.

Look at it this way.

Normally, the self-executing rule deems an amendment passed to a law.

In this case the Democrats plan to deem a law passed to an amendment.

Eric why bother...your expl... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Eric why bother...your explanation is way beyond little stevie's comprehension.

Hey... s green, consider th... (Below threshold)
Marc:

Hey... s green, consider this as "pissing into your Wheaties:" (and pelosi's for that matter)

Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, today issued a warning to the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives about the possible use of the so-called "deem and pass," "self-executing," or "Slaughter Rule" to enact H.R. 3590, the legislative version of President Obama's healthcare proposal that has been previously approved by the Senate. If this tactic is employed, Landmark will immediately sue the President, Attorney General Eric Holder and other relevant cabinet members to prevent them from instituting this unconstitutional contrivance.

"Landmark has already prepared a lawsuit that will be filed in federal court the moment the House acts. Such a brazen violation of the core functions of Congress simply cannot be ignored. Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution is clear respecting the manner in which a bill becomes law. Members are required to vote on this bill, not claim they did when they didn't. The Speaker of the House and her lieutenants are temporary custodians of congressional authority. They are not empowered to do permanent violence to our Constitution."

To Stevie and all the dem t... (Below threshold)
retired military:

To Stevie and all the dem talking heads who say that the republicans are filibustering my response is this.

The only people who is stopping this from being brought to a vote by the incessant talking are Obama and Pelosi.

Lets have the vote today and get this done and over with.

All Pelosi has to do is call for a vote. Why is she filibustering the health care bill?

Steve Green,My fri... (Below threshold)
ras:

Steve Green,

My friend died on a waiting list for a procedure that any American - even those who were poor as a church mouse - would have been granted at once, doubly so given my friend's family history.

That is evidence, and tragically so ... unless by evidence you mean something that would make you feel benevolent to your fellow man instead of bitter; that would be different.

Come to Canada and see a doc. Complain of chest pain and of numbness in your left arm radiating down to the fingertips. See the evidence for yourself if you like; I already have.

Steve green is pathetic.</p... (Below threshold)
jim m:

Steve green is pathetic.

He repeatedly cites statistics such as infant mortality, which is widely know to be a bogus stat since, as others have already stated, how that statistic is measured varies from country to country and the US suffers because it has a high number of immigrants from poor countries where the mothers receive no prenatal care.

He cites the 2000 WHO report that ranked nations as the the "quality" of their health care systems. But he doesn't understand the actual quality of care was not a significant factor in the rankings. The WHO study is no longer conducted because it was acknowledged to be so flawed

He ignores the fact that outcomes in the US rank #1 in nearly every form of cancer and heart disease. Some cancer survival rates in the US exceed the % of people that are said to be insured.

He ignores that Obama trots out some sob story lady and claims that she is dying because she cannot afford cancer treatment, when in reality she is receiving treatment free of charge already at one of the world's best cancer hospitals.

He does not understand the constitution and cannot tell the difference between the House and Senate. He does not understand the rules for each body.

In short, Steve trots out a lot of BS that he neither understands, nor can he defend. He has talking points that he has heard from the media but he cannot back them up with real world data or facts. He does not understand democracy to the point that I wonder if he is even a resident of the United States.

Steve Green wrote:<b... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Steve Green wrote:

Republicans used the Slaughter Strategy 36 times during just the last two years of the Bush administration.

No, they didn't. What you're talking about is this: the GOP often voted only on Senate amendments to House bills which had already passed.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703909804575123512773070080.html

What is being called the "Slaughter Strategy" is nothing like what the GOP did, nothing like it at all. If you care to show specific examples otherwise, please do. The source for the "36 times" provided no specific examples at all, I noticed.

What Pelosi and Slaughter are proposing is unconstitutional.

Steve Green wrote:<bl... (Below threshold)
iwogisdead:

Steve Green wrote:

. . . the hypocrisy stemming from a belief system that supports unborn babies but allows infant mortality to remain much higher than elsewhere becomes GLARING.

Absolute bullshit, and you know it. This canard of a higher infant mortality rate showing that US medical care is poor has been thoroughly debunked on this site and on every other site that rationally discusses the issue. Among many other reasons:

1. The US counts all live births as such while most other countries count any child who dies within 24 hours of birth as "miscarriage."
2. Black people, for some unknown reason, have high infant mortality rates.
3. The US leads the world in non-healthcare related causes of low birth weight, which can lead to infant mortality: smoking, illegitimacy, and teenage births.

You just can't win today, can you Steve?

You just can't win today... (Below threshold)
ras:

You just can't win today, can you Steve?

Depends on your definition of winning. Technically, yes, on purely rational grounds he lost the argument, but ... well, at least he didn't have to cut himself today, so maybe we can just call it win/win? Sudden victory for all!

If a talking head on CNN is... (Below threshold)
Tsar Nicholas II:

If a talking head on CNN is your reality check then you've got serious problems.

As for "Steye Gree... (Below threshold)
Brett:
As for "Steye Green", I really think it's Rachel Madcow's alter ego when she is wearing the strap on.

OK, now you owe me for about 10 years of therapy to get that image out of my mind. Or I have to pray for Alzheimer's.

"well, at least he didn'... (Below threshold)
SShiell:

"well, at least he didn't have to cut himself today, so maybe we can just call it win/win?"

LOL! The mental image of Little Stevie Green cutting himself in his Mother's basement with a butter knife is trully laugh out loud funny!

max: "Hey wizbangers (esp. ... (Below threshold)
wright:

max: "Hey wizbangers (esp. Shawn Mallow), how's it feel to have Steve Green residing comfortably in your collective head?"

Not bad. He is a dumbbell that we use for mental exercise.

Mr.Green has defecated on t... (Below threshold)

Mr.Green has defecated on the floor once too often.. He's been banned for a cooling off period.
You can ascertain the period of cooling off as
to your advantage, or to his disadvantage.
Maybe he'll learn to disagree with a tad of respect.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy