The Republican Thread

[southsider2k5]

And you know how in middle school you elected the cool kid to run student government, and 3 weeks later the school was bankrupt, closed, and on fire?

 

That was a great year.

[Cknolls]

I think Jesse benefits more from a win versus a loss. He might actually get a position of power out of this.

 

 

RACE CZAR

[Cknolls]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

 

Interesting!!!

[Rex Kickass]

I wonder if he's going to return the $14,000 he's collected from Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi for reelection.

[Cknolls]

From the Senate Yest:

 

7:30 PM

PRESIDENT, I YIELD THE FLOOR. DEMINT

not. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. demint: mr. president?

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

the senator from south carolina.

 

DEMINT

mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that i be allowed to speak for ten minutes.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

without objection.

 

DEMINT

parliamentary inquiry, mr. president. does rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate provide that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting?

 

7:31 PM

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

it does.

 

DEMINT

further parliamentary inquiry. is it also the case that on numerous occasions, the senate has required a two-thirds cloture vote on bills that combine amendments to senate rules with other legislative provisions that do not amend the rules?

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

that would require a two-thirds vote.

 

DEMINT

i have numerous examples here. we did it twice this year on senate bill 2349 and i could read those but i’ll spare the chair all of these. i’m just trying to get at a concern we have here. am i correct that with respect to these bills, there was a combination of legislative provision and rules changes and the chair ruled that because they were — and i’m referring, mr. chairman, to the — earlier this year, those he

 

referred to where we required the two-thirds cloture. am i correct on these previous bills that with respect to the bills, there was a combination of legislative provisions and rules changes and the chair ruled that because there were rules changes, a two-thirds vote was required?

 

7:32 PM

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

if there were changes to the standing rules of the senate, a two-thirds vote would have been required to invoke cloture.

 

DEMINT

i thank the chair. mr. president, am i also correct that the senate has required a two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills where the amendments combine legislative provisions

 

and rules changes?

 

i have a number of references on bills that this was done if there’s any question, and i have given them to the parliamentarian for consideration. is there an answer? i mean, i know that there have been amendments to bills that we required two-thirds because they include rule changes. i just wanted to get a confirmation from our parliamentarian. is that, in fact, the case, where two-thirds cloture on amendments to bills have been required to have a two-thirds vote because

 

there were rules changes included in them?

 

7:34 PM

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

the chair would like to check that for a future answer.

 

DEMINT

okay. i believe the parliamentarian does have some of the references of times this has been done. we’re quite certain it has. but, mr. president, as the chair has confirmed, rule 22, paragraph 2, of the standing rules of the senate, states that on a measure or motion to amend the senate rules, the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the senators present and voting. let me go to the bill before us, because buried deep within the over 2,000 pages of this bill, we find a rather substantial change to the standing rules of

 

the senate. it is section 3403 and it begins on page 1,000 of the reid substitute. these provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth. again, i’ll skip over some examples but let me read a few of these provisions that amend the senate rules which are contained in section 3403 of the reid substitute. it’s section d, titled referral. the legislation introduced

 

under this paragraph shall be referred to the presiding officers of the prospective houses, to the committee on finance in the senate, and to the committee on energy and commerce, and the committee on ways and means in the house of representatives. the bill creates out of whole cloth a new rule that this specific bill must be referred to the senate finance committee. another example under section c, titled “committee jurisdiction.” and it references rule here. “notwithstanding

 

rule 15 of the standing rules of the senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph a may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the committee on finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection c-3. clearly a rule change. so there’s no pretense that this bill is being referred under the rules of the committee of jurisdiction. and now it is allowing the finance committee to add whatever matter it wants to the

 

bill, regardless of any rules regarding committee jurisdiction. and of good measure, the bill even specifically states that it is amending rule 15. let me just skip over a number of other examples referring to rules just to try to get to the — the point here. because it goes on and on, and i’ve got pages here. but there’s one provision that i found particularly troubling and it’s under section c, titled “limitations on changes to

 

this subsection.” and i quote — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” this is not legislation. it’s not law. this is a rule change. it’s a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. i’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate

 

rule. i don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses. mr. president, therefore, i would like to propound a parliamentary inquiry to the chair. does section 3403 of this

 

bill propose amendments to the standing rules of the standing rules of the senate? and further parliamentary inquiry. does the inclusion of these proposed amendments to the senate rules mean that the bill requires two-thirds present and voting to invoke cloture?

 

7:38 PM

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

the section of the proposed legislation addressed by the senator is not — does not amend the standing rules. the standing rules of the senate.

 

DEMINT

okay. mr. president –

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

and, therefore, its inclusion does not affect the number of votes required to invoke cloture.

 

DEMINT

mr. president, is the chair aware of any precedent where the senate created a new law and in doing so created a new rule — and i’m quoting from our bill — “it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change the law.” is the chair aware that we have ever put this type of binding legislation on future congresses in a bill?

 

7:39 PM

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

it is quite common to do that.

 

DEMINT

i would ask the chair to get those references, if the parliamentarian would, to us. mr. president, another parliamentary inquiry. if this new law will operate as a senate rule, making it out of order for senators to propose amendments to repeal or amend it it — i’ve been in congress 11 years. i have not ever heard of an amendment being called out of order because it changes something that was done before. you know, how is that different from the types of senate rule making for which our predecessors in their wisdom provided a two-thirds cloture vote?

 

this seems to be a redefinition of words in my mind. mr. president, it’s clear that the parliamentarian is — is going to redefine words, as i’m afraid he has done as part of this process before, but this is truly historic, that we have included rules changes in legislation. we have included rules changes in this legislation yet we’re ignoring a rule that requires a two-thirds cloture vote to pass it. i believe that

 

it’s unconstitutional. it subverts the principles that — i believe it subverts the principles that we’ve operated under and it’s very obvious to everyone that it does change a rule. mr. president, it’s clear that our rules mean nothing if we can redefine the words that we use in them. and i yield the floor.

 

7:40 PM

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

the chair will note that it is quite common to include provisions affecting senate procedure in legislation.

 

7:41 PM

DEMINT

is there a difference between senate procedures and rules?

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

yes.

 

DEMINT

and so the language you see in this bill that specifically refers to a change in a rule is not a rule change, it’s a procedure change?

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

that is correct.

 

DEMINT

then i guess our rules mean nothing, do they, if they can re define them. thank you. and i do yield back.

 

THE PRESIDING OFFICER

the senate stands adjourned until 7:00 a.m. tomorrow

 

[kapkomet]

Pwned.

[Controlled Chaos]

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/22/rei...he-monstrosity/

[Rex Kickass]

The very next paragraph says that this can be appealed by a three-fifths vote.

 

So, if I'm understanding the subsection correctly, the Senate can not veto a decision by the board. That is, unless there are 60 votes to consider it.

[NorthSideSox72]

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/12/22/rei...he-monstrosity/

That means that subsection cannot be removed - which means you'd have to remove the whole bill, to remove that part. If its even Constitutional, which it may not be. I don't like it, but, I'd want to know what this section C is, and if there is a reason why it shouldn't be removed as a single part.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

 

Interesting!!!

I thought centrist Republicans were being purged from the ranks.

[Balta1701]

Since when are Senate Rules violations also constitutional violations?

[Controlled Chaos]

That means that subsection cannot be removed - which means you'd have to remove the whole bill, to remove that part. If its even Constitutional, which it may not be. I don't like it, but, I'd want to know what this section C is, and if there is a reason why it shouldn't be removed as a single part.

 

For your edification

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF...%20language.pdf

 

page 1020 line 15

[NorthSideSox72]

For your edification

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSF...%20language.pdf

 

page 1020 line 15

OK, so, it appears this is an adjunct to the section dealing with decisions by some created board of review, that establishes cost and pricing levels based on various consumer indices. So this particular phrase, is saying that you cannot alter the pricing model, for within this committee's jurisdiction with regards to that aspect of the health plan. Basically, they are saying, we're aligning these costs with some sort of index, and you can't change that periodic judgement, without dismantling the whole cost structure.

 

On the whole, that would seem like good policy. But, I am still not sure I like the idea of putting that per se limitation in there. I think its contra to the spirit of how rules of legislation are supposed to work (meaning, not putting no-backsies provisions in them).

 

[Controlled Chaos]

OK, so, it appears this is an adjunct to the section dealing with decisions by some created board of review, that establishes cost and pricing levels based on various consumer indices. So this particular phrase, is saying that you cannot alter the pricing model, for within this committee's jurisdiction with regards to that aspect of the health plan. Basically, they are saying, we're aligning these costs with some sort of index, and you can't change that periodic judgement, without dismantling the whole cost structure.

 

On the whole, that would seem like good policy. But, I am still not sure I like the idea of putting that per se limitation in there. I think its contra to the spirit of how rules of legislation are supposed to work (meaning, not putting no-backsies provisions in them).

 

Board of review = IMAB = dreaded death panels.

 

Weird that there's more protection here than any where else in the bill. They chose this section regarding the Independent Medicare Advisory Board to have the biggest roadblocks for change or repeal? Seems to me the reasoning is if the GOP wins back the house and seante this guards them from altering this part of the bill. So it's kinda like play by my rules even if I'm not there, I know whats better for you anyway.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30896.html

 

Interesting!!!

 

The tent gets a little smaller...

[Rex Kickass]

Board of review = IMAB = dreaded death panels.

 

Weird that there's more protection here than any where else in the bill. They chose this section regarding the Independent Medicare Advisory Board to have the biggest roadblocks for change or repeal? Seems to me the reasoning is if the GOP wins back the house and seante this guards them from altering this part of the bill. So it's kinda like play by my rules even if I'm not there, I know whats better for you anyway.

 

Basically, I think what it means is that Congress can't overrule the board's reimbursement decisions.

 

Except the very next paragraph says that this paragraph can be appealed by three-fifths majority in the Senate.

 

So essentially, a board decision can't be altered except in the case of enough concern that 60 senators vote to review it in house.

[mr_genius]

don't know if this has been linked yet.

 

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091221/NEWS01/712219890

 

WASHINGTON — The phone lines were jammed and busy signals greeted callers to Sen. Ben Nelson's offices today in Washington and throughout Nebraska.

 

Constituents were letting the Nebraska Democrat know what they thought of his decision to back the health reform package on the verge of passing the U.S. Senate.

 

“Keep trying” — that's the advice to frustrated callers from Nelson's aides.

 

The Democrat was also at the center of attention at a rally in downtown Omaha on Sunday that drew about 1,800 people. And much of the attention was unfavorable, as opponents of the health care legislation in Congress expressed outrage with his decision to cast the crucial 60th vote in favor of the bill...

 

Interns were answering the phones this morning at Nelson's office near 76th and Pacific Streets in Omaha.

 

Intern Karson Kampfe told one angry caller, “Would you please stop swearing?”

 

lol

[Rex Kickass]

don't know if this has been linked yet.

 

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091221/NEWS01/712219890

 

 

 

lol

 

That's not that uncommon with controversial legislation. I'm sure he's gotten more than a few pieces of mail containing dog or human s*** too. That's also surprisingly common.

[NorthSideSox72]

That's not that uncommon with controversial legislation. I'm sure he's gotten more than a few pieces of mail containing dog or human s*** too. That's also surprisingly common.

I once sent a letter to my house rep when I was living in Tennessee. I was writing in support of a decision by SCOTUS - I believe it was the decision that children should not have to be forced to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (I am fine with the pledge generally, but dislike the idea of forcing the later-added religious part on kids). Of course, living in Tennessee, my letter was in the minority opinion, but I saw that this particular rep was trying to pass legislation against the decision.

 

I got a letter back - saying that he agreed with me... except he was saying that he too was disgusted by the SCOTUS decision. Basically, some lacky in his office just saw "pledge of allegiance", and assumed I was against the decision, and spit out a form letter to that end. That was annoying.

 

[Rex Kickass]

I once sent a letter to my house rep when I was living in Tennessee. I was writing in support of a decision by SCOTUS - I believe it was the decision that children should not have to be forced to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (I am fine with the pledge generally, but dislike the idea of forcing the later-added religious part on kids). Of course, living in Tennessee, my letter was in the minority opinion, but I saw that this particular rep was trying to pass legislation against the decision.

 

I got a letter back - saying that he agreed with me... except he was saying that he too was disgusted by the SCOTUS decision. Basically, some lacky in his office just saw "pledge of allegiance", and assumed I was against the decision, and spit out a form letter to that end. That was annoying.

 

In most cases, its rarely read. If you want an actual audience, your best chance is to handwrite the letter.

[mr_genius]

I once sent a letter to my house rep when I was living in Tennessee. I was writing in support of a decision by SCOTUS - I believe it was the decision that children should not have to be forced to say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (I am fine with the pledge generally, but dislike the idea of forcing the later-added religious part on kids). Of course, living in Tennessee, my letter was in the minority opinion, but I saw that this particular rep was trying to pass legislation against the decision.

 

I got a letter back - saying that he agreed with me... except he was saying that he too was disgusted by the SCOTUS decision. Basically, some lacky in his office just saw "pledge of allegiance", and assumed I was against the decision, and spit out a form letter to that end. That was annoying.

 

haha.

[Cknolls]

Everyone have a safe and MERRY CHRISTMAS!!

[HuskyCaucasian]

GOP candidate runs ad citing ‘rumors’ opponent is gay

Andy Martin, a journalist from Illinois with a long history of controversial anti-Semitic remarks and the man credited with starting the rumor that Barack Obama is a Muslim, released an ad Monday in which he cited "rumors" that Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) is gay.

 

"I am fighting for the facts about Mark Kirk," Martin, who is running for Obama's old seat, says in the ad. "Illinois Republican leader Jack Roeser says there is a 'solid rumor that Kirk is a homosexual.' Roeser suggests that Kirk is part of a Republican Party homosexual club. Lake County Illinois Republican leader Ray True says Kirk has surrounded himself with homosexuals. Mark Kirk should tell Republican voters the truth."

 

Martin's history of controversial comments goes back much further than last year's presidential campaign. In 1996, his run for a Florida State Senate seat ended in failure when it emerged he had named the committee for a 1986 congressional campaign "The Anthony R. Martin-Trigona Congressional Campaign to Exterminate Jew Power in America."

 

And the New York Times reports that, in a 1983 bankruptcy case, Martin called the judge “a crooked, slimy Jew who has a history of lying and thieving common to members of his race.”

 

The object of Martin's attack ad, Mark Kirk, is considered a Republican moderate. The five-term House representative is a leading voice in Congress for sanctions against Iran, and has also strongly criticized President Barack Obama's plan to relocate Guantanamo detainees to an Illinois prison facility.

[Cknolls]

What is the over/under in days for the fall of the gov't in Iran?

 

My best guess is days to 1 month.

[Rex Kickass]

What is the over/under in days for the fall of the gov't in Iran?

 

My best guess is days to 1 month.

 

I'd take the over on that. I think that things are fluid in Iran, and there may be significant changes in 2010, but I doubt it will happen by Feb.