Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your definition of "the American People", as usual, being the section of the population that belongs to the "Tea Party".
Brown's win could help the Democrats. Now, instead of trying to pass watered down legislation to get a 60 vote majority in the Senate, they should just do what George Bush did...use reconciliation to pass what they want.
No more negotiating with scumbags like Nelson and Liebermann. Just pass what is best for the country instead of what will avoid a filabuster.
And while you are at it, get rid of the filabuster. It is incredibly undemocratic.
My bad since I assumed that when Harry Reid said this when asked by Tom Daschle about the possibility of a (Frist style) nuclear option under his leadership he said .....
"As long as I am the leader, the answer is no. I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never, ever get to that again. I really do believe it will ruin our country."
The only "nuclear option" left open to Senator Reid was reconciliation, since then the media has picked up the ball and run with it often referring to reconciliation as the "nuclear option" without any objections (that I've ever seen) from Congressional Democrats, it is after all a rather generic term.
But your point is well taken, I haven't heard Harry Reid specifically refer to reconciliation as the "Nuclear Option" (not that he hasn't I've just never heard it).
Yes the 2005 Republican leadership WAS deranged, however the instance in question was a judicial nomination not anything even approaching the magnitude current health care legislation AND they didn't go through with it, did they?
Were you hiding in a cave in November 2006 or something?
Your definition of "the American People", as usual, being the section of the population that belongs to the "Tea Party".
Like all those folks in Masschusetts, arguably one of the bluest states in the country, who just elected a Republican senator for the first time in a half century? God I hope you're right and they were all Tea Partiers. That would be the best thing that could ever happen to this country.
Your definition of "the American People", as usual, being the section of the population that belongs to the "Tea Party".
Like all those folks in Masschusetts, arguably one of the bluest states in the country, who just elected a Republican senator for the first time in a half century? God I hope you're right and they were all Tea Partiers. That would be the best thing that could ever happen to this country.
Which was completely the fault of the candidate at hand and the lack of support from the party. Coakley was fucking awful, and no-one outside Massachusetts even knew who Brown was until shortly before the election.
I dont really care what your 15% of the population thinking it doenst go far enough when the rest want the monstrousity shut down and actually want teh legislators to *gasp* read and write their own bills.
I would rather the Congress go on a long vacation and do absolutely nothing rather than pass legislation that a) is poorly conceived, poorly understoood, or intentionally deceptive and/or b) is clearly against the better interests of the people and/or c) most of the people don't want.
If you think the Congressional leftists are taking popularity hits by trying to pass destructive legislation, just wait to see the opinion of the people if they pull some unethical rule changes and actually do it.
The President already crashed the market this morning by threatening his own version of 'nuclear option' on the banks and financial institutions while addressing absolutely NONE of the issues that mostly created the mess in the first place. If Congress supports him in that turn out the lights. The party is over.
lack of support from which party?
Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections
In a 5-4 decision that strikes down a 1907 law, the justices say the 1st Amendment gives corporations, just like individuals, a right to spend their own money on political ads for federal candidates.
Meanwhile, your Bush-appointed Supreme court has just taken the ability to have any say in any form of government out of your hands, by allowing Corporations to contribute directly to political campaigns.
What you say is very true...however....right now the Democrats don't have a leg to stand on with the American people. If they try to do away with the filibuster I can guarantee you they will NOT hold power after the 2010 elections and will lose the WH in 2012 regardless of who runs against Obama.
The American people are tired of getting throatfucked by Congress.
Your definition of "the American People", as usual, being the section of the population that belongs to the "Tea Party".
One of the main reasons, in reality, why the legislation at hand is so unpopular, is that many people on the left are very unhappy because they feel too many compromises were made, and that the bill DOESN'T GO FAR ENOUGH.
Like the Howard Dean wing of the Democratic party for instance, who are generally PISSED with this bill.
That is exactly it.
There are so many cost savings associated with national health insurance done right.
Every other industrialized nation has it, and they pay HALF per capita what we pay for healthcare. And they don't have medical bankruptcies and "pre existing conditions." And their businesses are more competitive worldwide because they don't have to pay for employee's healthcare.
