Can’t Fix A Law that Isn’t a Law

So much for that idea.

The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.

House Democratic leaders have been searching for a way to ensure that any move they make to approve the Senate-passed $871 billion health care reform bill is followed by Senate action on a reconciliation package of adjustments to the original bill. One idea is to have the House and Senate act on reconciliation prior to House action on the Senate’s original health care bill.

Information Republicans say they have received from the Senate Parliamentarian’s Office eliminates that option. House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

1. Oh, don’t worry…the Dems will change the rules quickly to correct this little “problem”.  Bet the Botox on that.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 1750 hrs




2. Look for the Senate to have a new Parliamentarian soon.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 1823 hrs




3. Totally off topic, but if you want to see a kid who is smarter than Ginny just click on this:

   http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/11/child-sorts-out -conc.html#comments

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 1935 hrs




4. Since when do politicians follow any rules or procedures?  Oh right, when republicans suddenly decide they’re small government then the rules are important.  Otherwise, they’re just a g.d. piece of paper, or so G. W. Bush once said.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 2132 hrs




5. Hey Jay, way to stay on topic and not deflect and distract everyone with more Bush-hating gobble-dee-gook.

   Mmm…mm…this red herring is delicious!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 2136 hrs




6. The leftys never disappoint - post #4 and they’re blaming Bush.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 2137 hrs




7. Bush is/was a big government big spending liberal.

   I was on topic.  Why all of a sudden do the rules matter?  They didn’t for the previous 8 years, now they’re important?  Please.  You wanna be conservatives crawl out of your hole every few years and moan about small government, but in the end you just want big government done your way.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 2145 hrs




8. Bush is/was a big government big spending liberal.

   So, what you’re saying is that you actually loved the guy and you were lying to everyone from 2000-2008.

   Got it.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 2218 hrs




9. Oh so calling Bush a big government politician is now left wing, but calling Obama a big government politician is right wing?

   Get over it, the differences between the jokers on both the left and right is extremely small.  Tell me…which government programs have the republicans shown are completely wasteful and unneeded and ended?  None.

   They’re just placeholders until the democrats get back in power and move their agenda ahead a few steps.  republicans are mainly there to make people think there is a small government alternative, all they are is a pacifier as government expansion continues.

   I’m sure most of the “conservatives” here can’t wait to get out and vote for morons like Mitt “I started socialized healthcare in Massachusetts” Romney.  That’ll make a HUGE difference!

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 11, 2010 at 2339 hrs




10. You know, Jay, I had a problem witht the level of spending during the Bush administration.  So did many conservatives.  And many expressed their displeasure in the mid term and presidential elections.  A lot of Republicans paid for their lack of integity with their jobs.  (I hope the party got the message, but we’ll see.)
    There.  There’s your conservative admission that spending in the preceeding 8 years was out of control.  And a lot of people who caused it are gone now.  So.  Can we stop talking about them now?  Or is Obama’s term going to be over before we can talk about the damage he and the Democrats are infilicing on this nation?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 0014 hrs




11. I didn’t start the whole “oh you don’t like Bush, you must be a liberal” B.S.  It is possible to think he was a big government joke just like the current guy.  The current guy is only a bigger joke so far.  Unfortunately I don’t think many people are laughing.

    If anyone thinks people like John Mccain or Mitt Romney will fix things and undo the damage Obama has caused, they are delusional.  Only when people are willing to admit that most of the republican party is full of big government establishment hacks will we see a reversal of the damage currently being done.  I just don’t think people can tear themselves away from the red team vs. blue team mentality long enough to actually follow through with it.

    Clinging to this “my politicians are better than yours” thinking is how we got here in the first place.  Bush was a big government hack that “conservatives” still defend as a champion of conservatism.  He wasn’t.  At all.  At least with Obama we know exactly what we’re getting.  I can deal with that better than the lie of being one thing while doing another.  I don’t like it, but at least the crap is right out there in the open for all to see.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 0041 hrs




12. Bush was a big government hack that “conservatives” still defend as a champion of conservatism.

    Really?  Jay, I challenge you to find one conservative here or elsewhere who is making such a defense.

    You risk your credibility with hyperbole such as this.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 0655 hrs




13. The problem, Jay, is that the original post and topic is about a parliamentarian rule which may stifle the Senate Democrats chances to push for reconciliation.  As soon as you launched into your “Bush is a big spending, big government liberal” diatribe, you completely lost me, and your credibility.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 0846 hrs




14. I challenge you to find one conservative here or elsewhere who is making such a defense.

    You may want to take a look at this Tony.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1437410519&play=1

    And a page w/part 2 of the Rove interview.

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/26408730/

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 0911 hrs




15. Heh.  In your world Rove is a conservative?  You funny.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 0926 hrs




16. Then this will have you rolling on the floor.

    THE DC: So the “fight,” though, is for conservative principles.

    ROVE: I mean, yeah, I became a Republican after I became a conservative and it is, I think, the fight is at, sort of, it’s a political and philosophical fight.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/12/transcript-daily-call er-interview-with-karl-rove/2/#ixzz0hyNnsfXL

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/12/transcript-daily-call er-interview-with-karl-rove/2/#ixzz0hyNUg9PV

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 0933 hrs




17. I’m reminded of a story attributed to Abraham Lincoln.  He asked an audience how many legs does a dog have.  “Four” they answered.  Then he said if you called its tail a leg, how many would it have.  “Five” then answered.  He said no, just four.  Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 0951 hrs




18. Just out of curiosity would you consider Cheney a conservative?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 1006 hrs




19. So this is how the game will be played?  Keep naming off people who have deep personal loyalty to GWB and throw out quotes where they say he was some sort of a “champion of conservatism”, and thinking it proves Jay’s point that conservatives in general think this is true?  You’ll have to do better than that.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 1022 hrs




20. Actually you seem to be the one playing some sort of game.

    You asked for one conservative who thought Bush was a conservative. I gave you one. I think most people would be surprised to hear that Karl Rove does not fit into that category including Rove himself.

    You seem to be comfortable speaking for conservatives in general so I wondered who you think deserves the conservative label.

    You want to keep it a secret, be my guest.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 1231 hrs




21. fact, let me clue you in on a fact that you’re evidently unaware of.  You know all those huge spending programs that Jay was railing about?  Well, Rove didn’t get his nickname of ‘The Architect’ for nothing.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 1306 hrs




22. President Bush was a Conservative… a social conservative. He was not overly much of a fiscal conservative during his Presidency… nor even really as a governor. There were social programs that he did favor. That’s why he coined the term “compassionate conservative”. He did some good things fiscally, and some not so good things.

    In the end, he was conservative far more often than not… and he was a veritable penny pincher compared to the ridiculous economic suicide bombers who are running things now.

    Politicians have to deal with reality, domestically, overseas, and politically. Sometime they are forced to allow things to pass that they would not prefer, in order to keep the train on the tracks overall. Pointing fingers at one thing a politician supported (out of the context of his whole term) or googling up links to quotes is just gotcha style argument. It proves nothing other than that the purveyor values argument over substance.

    In general, President Bush was a conservative President. In general, he did far more good than bad, imho. In general, Obama misled voters on his intentions, and has been a domestic, overseas, and economic clusterfrak of a leader.

    As to the original post… In general, changing laws that are not yet made, making closed door dirty deals, and telling people that they’ll have to pass legislation before you can see whats in it is crooked, unethical, and patronizing politics. I hope that the unemployment rate in the Democrat Party skyrockets in November… and it will.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 1420 hrs




23. The problem, Jay, is that the original post and topic is about a parliamentarian rule which may stifle the Senate Democrats chances to push for reconciliation.  As soon as you launched into your “Bush is a big spending, big government liberal” diatribe, you completely lost me, and your credibility.

    Then you lack reading comprehension skills.  I asked why suddenly the rules matter now?  Politicians don’t care what the rules are, they’ll just pull some political gymnastics to get what they want.  I used Bush as an example of just one politician who has contempt for the rules.  There are others, heck just watch the current healthcare debacle.  Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc. all have obvious contempt for the rules and will look for ways to get around them.  Once it’s done then that rule no longer matters.  It’s been done for decades but apparently people only care about it when the other team is in control.

    There is that all better?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 12, 2010 at 1449 hrs




24. Then you lack reading comprehension skills.  I asked why suddenly the rules matter now?  Politicians don’t care what the rules are, they’ll just pull some political gymnastics to get what they want.  I used Bush as an example of just one politician who has contempt for the rules.  There are others, heck just watch the current healthcare debacle.  Pelosi, Reid, Obama, etc. all have obvious contempt for the rules and will look for ways to get around them.  Once it’s done then that rule no longer matters.  It’s been done for decades but apparently people only care about it when the other team is in control.

    There is that all better?

    It was wrong then, its wrong now. Quit with the “they did it, so can we crap.” Bush was a big spender who came from Texas and read the bible… Does that make him conservative? No.

    President Obama has continued two wars, and done little to close the evil “gitmo”... Is he liberal?

    We can shoot this crap back and forth all day, but until we ALL stand up and tell our government to start following the rules, they are going to continue to walk all over us… Right now, I think that fight starts with a clearly unconstitutional healthcare bill that is being pushed as we speak.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 13, 2010 at 0904 hrs