Self-Executing Hypocrisy: Democratic Edition

Q:

What do Obamacare and a stool sample have in common?

A:

You have to pass them to see what’s in them.

Q: How many Coffee Party members does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. First of all that job is beneath them. Second, they’re waiting for someone from the Govt to do it for them.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/13/low-key-java-drinkers-in-washington-kick-off-coffee-parties/comment-page-5/#comments#ixzz0iQduvrfz

KT -I get the “everybody stinks” angle that stories in DC need to follow but I was wondering about this part-
.
“No one expects every rule to be open, but we do expect that the opportunity to debate legislation be the norm, not the exception”
.
Is more or less the norm under the current Congress versus the republican controlled Congress?
.

One difference, of course, is that we weren’t so enveloped in the screaming cable/blog culture in 2003, and the Democrats are nowhere nearly as persistent as Republicans at complaining about the opposition (there’s a thesis there for someone).

But the only bill whose manner of passage I can remember is the pharmaceutical medicare bill passed in the middle of the night after the vote was held open for hours. Generally, how this is passed is not going to matter if people like it.

It’s so amusing to watch you demwits get all flatulent.

You convinced independents to vote for Obama by claiming he was transformational.

Now you say all his dirty tricks and bribes and lies are OK because Republicans did them too.

That’s why most independents now want Odumbo’s head on a stick.

And yours too, you lying sacks of poop.

It’s so amusing to watch you demwits get all gassy.

You convinced independents to vote for Obama by claiming he was transformational.

Now you say all his dirty tricks and bribes and lies are OK because Republicans did them too.

That’s why most independents now want Odumbo’s head on a stick.

And yours too, you lying sacks of fertilizer.

kathy: i think the cable culture was pretty well established in 2003. as i’ve been writing over the past few days, this whole self-executing thing started getting crazy in the 1990s. where people stand on it is not driven by principle; it’s driven by whether they’ve got power or they don’t. you could see the same thing at work in david dreier’s arguments over the past few days as well:
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/15/re-and-here-we-go/

the norm (see my answer to kathy) is to use whatever levers of power are available to you, and then to complain when the same get used against you.

KT that is a pretty non-responsive response.
.
“No one expects every rule to be open, but we do expect that the opportunity to debate legislation be the norm, not the exception”
.
My question was regarding this quote. Note the difference between accepting that it can happen and it being abused.
.
Not tactics but what is actually going on.

You must be trembling that a major progressive initiative is about to become law. Oh heaven forbid we actually do something to make this country a better place to live!

I have no problem with self executing rules. The vote is still scheduled, it’s just scheduled under a different procedure. It’s equivalent to telling everyone we’re voting for ice cream and cake and yet everyone knows we’re actually voting on the health care bill. If you don’t want the health care bill to pass, don’t vote for ice cream and cake. We’ve debated this issue to death. Just schedule the vote already.

We’re making it a better place to live? Did I miss the Personal Responsibility and Accountability Act of 2010? I’d be really interested in reading it if someone has a link.

Nope. That’s up next.

Because we all know that cancer only afflicts those who deserve it.

I believe that Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter, among others, sued the Republicans over the use of deem and pass and lost in court.

I am a life-long Democrat. I voted for President Obama and will do so again, if he is our nominee. I want health care reform to pass (though I’d like to see a public option in the reform). I detest the frenzied misrepresentations that have helped stir up such opposition to the idea of health care reform. But, if the House leadership uses this procedure to pass a bill that it cannot get 216 of its own members to vote for, the Democratic Party will be known for years–far past the 2010 elections– as the party of ultimate contrivance. It doesn’t matter that Republicans have used the same procedure in the pas; this moment is so high profile that this kind of manipulation screams paternalistic, elitist shenanigans. I head Speaker Pelosi’s comments that she couldn’t recall Republican opposition to the procedure when Republicans used it, but she conveniently forgot to mention that Democrats howled. Why can’t these people–all of them–get it: so many of us are so early of the constant tit-for-tat hypocrisy. I never thought of myself as a “throw all the bums out” kind of voter, but that’s almost where I am–easy for me, because I live in Republican-controlled Tennessee

closed rules are the norm, no matter who is in charge. and complaining about closed rules is the norm, no matter who is in the minority.

what do bruce and stoll have in common?
.
they are one and the same

“I never thought of myself as a “throw all the bums out” kind of voter, but that’s almost where I am–easy for me, because I live in Republican-controlled Tennessee.”
.
That’s a good point. I’m a life-long democrat too. The only time I want to throw “all the bums out” is when the republicans are in control. I’m looking forward to the warm weather protests when the Teabaggers Party and the Coffee Party protesters clash. All of that caffeine floating around should make it interesting.

We love you too Bruce.

In 2003, Hoyer criticized a self-executing rule used to pass legislation that the GOP supported but didn’t want to have a (clear) voting record of supporting.

In 2010, Hoyer supports using a self-executing rule to avoid the appearance of supporting legislation (e.g. the Cornhusker Kickback) that Dems (a) oppose and (b) are simultaneously modifying to avoid the enactment into law thereof.

Does KT really not grasp the difference between these situations? Dems are using a parliamentary tactic to hamper the GOP’s ability to run deceptive ads. If Republicans weren’t unabashed lying scumbags, the tactic wouldn’t be necessary. This is not obvious to anyone over the age of 15, why?

Ironically, it is pathological need of reporters to write cynical, “a pox on both their houses,” faux-balanced stories that enables the hyper-partisan behavior of the GOP. What possible check on the GOP’s obstructionism can there be when the press corps dutifully runs to their aid and digs up some tangentially-related behavior on the part of the other party and presents it as equal?

Wait a minute… what exactly is the irreconcilable hypocrisy between these two statements? Steny ends with this line:

“No one expects every rule to be open, but we do expect that the opportunity to debate legislation be the norm, not the exception.”

As far as I know, the crux of this legislation HAS been debated thoroughly for the past year, both on the floors of both houses of Congress and in our media which has more often than not let the right wing completely distort its contents and purpose. As long as Democrats don’t expect that using this legislative tactic to be “the norm”, what is inconsistent with both statements?

Hypocrisy is here:
.
What kind of demeaning of democracy is the objective of efficiency resulting in?

Or not even bothering with the equal part. Yesterday trifecta complained about Nice Polite Republicans airing a story about the protest against hcr yesterday using a clip of Mike Pence, without bothering to note there were only about 200 people there. They didn’t bother to cover the pro-hcr rallies recently at all.
.
This morning a shortened bit of the protest and Pence clip were part of the top of the hour news. A feature story was demonstrations in front of the office of an Ohio representative. On the anti- side, three people were given an opportunity to speak and the interviewer noted how well they all had the message down. (Trust me, I could have recited their message as easily.) Then he interviewed one person from the pro- group asking only what she thought about the obscure rule they were going to use to pass it. She didn’t know about the rule, just wanted it to pass. That’s enough from the pro side, cut to both sides yelling at each other about Medicare.
.
It’s like listening to Fox. No wonder people are confused.

Ummm, how did you get that Mr. Dirks? Illness, except in rare instances, has nothing to do with being deserving of anything. I know you are being sarcastic, but to think by any leap of the imagination that is what I was saying is absurd. The responsibility is multi-faceted. Starting with all the regulations currently in place (enacted by many different Congresses) that limit the competition. For instance, why in the name of heaven and hell can’t I shop for insurance across state lines? The next question is, who bears the responsibility for my healthcare? Is it me? I like to think so, because I like to be in control of my LIFE (which is what healthcare is, preserving life). It is not your responsibility to care for my health, nor is it Congress’s or PrezBo’s. If it is any of your responsibility, then you have power over some part of it. With responsibility comes power. Is it enough for you to stop the power here? Or would you rather extend it? Perhaps letting the government have a say in what kinds of food people are allowed to eat? After all, our health is a direct result of what we eat. Or of how much each citizen exercises? Exercise is a key component of maintaining a healthy lifestyle. I’m hoping both of these examples are absurd, but they are no more absurd than letting the government bear responsibility/power for/over your healthcare. Remember, when you let the cat out of the bag and grow government power, it rarely if ever is rescinded. Therefore, when a guy gets in power that you totally disagree with, realize he is going to have the same power and you are going to be as helpless to do anything about it as the citizens that are against this bill currently feel they are.

Karen, the sequence matters here, doesn’t it?

Let’s say we’re playing chess and when I look away you move one of the pieces off the board. I complain about your cheating.

But hey, we love playing chess so we agree to play again next week.

When you look away I knock a piece off the board. You complain.

In that scenario you’re a hypocrite and I’m not. I’m just playing by your rules. Since I was wronged first I get to make an adjustment. Its your complaint that would count as hypocrisy since you don’t want the crime you committed to be committed against you.

By better nation you mean higher taxes, higher HC premiums (yes Obama continues to tell this fibber), less services and a country choking deficit.

Now he’s duplicating post messages. How unique. Is this what a–holes do for a living??
.
Wait–considering that that orifice serves an important function, it’d be better to describe them as anal-retentive.

Destor:
.
If this is how you view it:
.
In that scenario you’re a hypocrite and I’m not. I’m just playing by your rules. Since I was wronged first I get to make an adjustment. Its your complaint that would count as hypocrisy since you don’t want the crime you committed to be committed against you.
.
I might direct you to another part of Hoyer’s 2003 testimony:
.
Unless, David, we adopt the premise of situational ethics, it is not right to pursue that which you attacked and lamented just a few years ago. Unless we adopt the premise of situational ethics whether we are in the Majority or the Minority, a practical difference should not affect our intellectual determination as to the debate on the House floor and how it should occur and the right of Members to participate.

“I detest the frenzied misrepresentations that have helped stir up such opposition to the idea of health care reform.”

You mean the lies Obama continues to make?

You premiums will go down?
“”There’s no question premiums are still going to keep going up,” said Larry Levitt of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a research clearinghouse on the health care system. “There are pieces of reform that will hopefully keep them from going up as fast. But it would be miraculous if premiums actually went down relative to where they are today.” (A friend of HC reform)
=
If you like your doctor you can keep him?
New England Journal of Medicine in a survey estimates 1/3 of doctors will leave profession if HC bill passes.
=
You can keep your private insurance?
As long as they don’t raise premiums, change coverage and meet rules determined by the federal government. Or in an economy that is depressed hope your company doesn’t decide to pay the 8% tax instead of the HC premiums for workers and drop the private insurance.
=
Higher deficits, higher taxes, higher premiums and lower services. It seems the frenzied misrepresentation is mainly from the Obama administration that you adore.

You have my sympathies, Georgiac–I live in Republican-controlled Jacksonville And you’re spot-on BTW. Business as usual (i.e., what’s good for the goose…) is what a lot of people are turned off about.

“Because we all know that cancer only afflicts those who deserve it.”

Wow you must have been up all night to come up with that brilliant retort!

square: please see my reply to destor below. what you are describing sounds very much like what hoyer (the one in 2003) decried as “situational ethics.”

“I’m a life-long democrat too.”

Well nobody’s perfect but at least that explains your desire to get nationalized HC just think of the money the liberals will save on group purchases of Prozac.
=

“I’m looking forward to the warm weather protests when the Teabaggers Party and the Coffee Party protesters clash”

Ah yes the Tea Party folks will bring there 12 gauges and the douche baggers will bring their purses. Should be quite a sight.

KT:

I think you can’t win this one. Bashed by the left for one answer or bashed from the right if another. At least you are sticking to your guns and not hedging. That I admire.

KT:

Seems you can’t win. I do admire that you have stuck to your guns on the answer. That I admire.

Sorry for the dup. Computer is possessed this morning

No, KT. The objective this time is not “efficiency.” The objective is to avoid GOP lying about House Democrats’ position on the objectionable portions of the Senate Bill.
.
As nonagendaeyes said, there has been no absence of debate. Far from it.
.
Furthermore, the entire point of recording legislators votes is so that the public can know where their representatives stand on the issues. However, because Congressional bills are massive pieces of legislation containing thousands of provisions, it is impossible, based upon a vote for the entire bill, to know where a legislator stands on a particular provision (e.g. the Cornhusker Kickback). This is particularly true where the House members are being asked to vote up or down on the entire Senate Bill and never had a chance to record a vote in opposition to the objectionable provisions.
.
Unlike most uses of self-executing rules, this instance will clarify and not obscure the House members’ views. Hoyer and the rest of the Dem caucus aren’t using the self-executing rule to hide their true positions. They are using the rule to reveal them.
.
Sadly, your tortured efforts to find hypocrisy where there is none only frustrates our democratic process.

“Ah yes the Tea Party folks will bring there 12 gauges and the douche baggers will bring their purses. Should be quite a sight.”
.
Are you saying that the Teabaggers are homicidal maniacs that will resort to murder when confronted with a different viewpoint? I seem to recall people making the assertion that Teabaggers were just average, well-behaved citizens from all walks of life. Are murderous ramapges against people armed with purses what the “average” people do now?

Perhaps letting the government have a say in what kinds of food people are allowed to eat?
.
Perhaps you’d be happy with letting the agricultural growers determine which pesticides to use on their crops? I’m sure that, given the choice between an cheap (but dangerous) product and a more expensive (but safer) agent, these businessmen will make the choice that protects you and not their bottom line. Especially if they are reasonably certain that you can never find that out.
.
When the cancers start to mount up, who will perform the studies that definitely link the pesticide to the cancer as a cause? The manufacturers? What’s the chance that their study, funded by them, will do anything except exhonerate them?
.
Do you want to keep government out of your life THAT badly?

KT,
.
No, I do not think it constitutes “situational ethics” in the academic sense of the term. Dems are not arguing that usage of the rule is a necessary evil. They are saying that the usage of the rule in this case is proper.
.
With regard to the common lay usage of the term — that is, as a snarky and derogatory phrase often used to accuse others of hypocrisy — it does not apply either. As I have said repeatedly, Democrats are not saying wrt the self-executing rule: “Good for Democrats. Bad for Republicans” Dems are saying: “Good or bad, depending on the context.”
.
To say that the appropriateness of ANY political decision (e.g. a declaration of war, the impeachment of a president or the use a self-executing rule to pass legislation) depends on the context does not mean that one is applying “situational ethics”. It means that one is applying discretion and judgment.

You see xxception, creating a national philosophy of “Personal Reponsibility and Accountability” would eliminate the Democrats / Liberals whole reason and purpose for breathing air.
.
Where would they get a base of support if people were accountable and not dependent upon entitlement programs they champion?
.

Ben Franklin said, “Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. … Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”

.
The Founders knew that hard-work and personal responsibility was the foundation for this country. People who work for it, appreciate it more. Those who are given it, don’t. It is that simple.
.
Charity to those who are unable to work or are diseased in the body do need help and assistance. But how many people do you know in your own community who are on welfare, but are able bodied to work and don’t?
.
This is the work-ethic that Democrats have fostered now for over 60 years with the Roosevelt “New Deal” era, and all the other entitlement programs of the Johnson era of the 1960′s.
.
Obesity has risen. Healthcare costs as well. We have become a country of fat dependent slobs. Hands out for the next big government bailout.
.
Progressivsm is the cancer we must eradicate in this country. It is killing us all.

After looking at some of the things that both Dreier and Hoyer have said in the past few days, and comparing them to what they’ve said and done in the past, I’m thinking that some staffer needs to take them aside and tell them about Teh Google.

KT: I am interested in your comment on the theme: “both sides do it”. Once in power each side basically uses the same excuses and explanations for employing a tactic. What is particularly egeregious about Hoyer’s position given that Dreier used the same argument?

Or is the underlying theme: Democrats should be held to a different standard?

It is the same with ethics issues: each side gets worked up about the other, and the resulting hypocrisy is blatant.

In the end it seems that getting this HCR passed by any means is the governing principle. No one will care about methods if it succeeds. If it doesn’t???That’s another opportunity to keep the Swamp posts going.

In all seriousness, do you guys have a problem with the Fire Department?
.
Don’t give me this “Well, it’s a local thing, not Federal” crap, because you just went on and on about individual responsibility.
.
Why is it my responsibility to pay for the Fire Department to come out to somebody’s house –somebody I don’t know, who lives far away from me– in the middle of nowhere (no chance of burning anybody else’s house down) to put out a fire that most likely started from their own negligence?
.
What’s “personally responsible” about the Fire Dept.?
.
Why do I care about somebody eles’s house…their personal responsibility?
.
(the answer has something to do with being an American and patriotism)

“creating a national philosophy of “Personal Reponsibility and Accountability” would eliminate the Democrats / Liberals whole reason and purpose for breathing air.”
.
I’ll make this deal instantly (and retro-actively) all the “red” states take in as many federal dollars as they send to DC and all the ‘blue” states do the same.
.
Scream and holler about accountability while suckling at the federal teat.

Thanks very much for your engagement with commentary this morning, KT.

What is the story? We complain because we have a do nothing Congress. We site Hypocrisy when they do something.
.
When has Hypocrisy never been part of Politics? The old saying, talking out of both sides of his mouth, rules.
.
It is part of the process we should tune them all out and tell them what we want, how they get there is up to them.
.
I think we the public must like hypocrisy.

SZ with regard to your Fire Department scenario-have you read this?
.
http://harpers.org/archive/2009/12/hbc-90006213
.
“McKenzie Funk with AIG’s Private Firefighting Brigade”

I think we the public must like hypocrisy.
.
And don’t forget sanctimony.
.
It’s like negative ads. (And fake filibusters. Don’t forget fake filibusters.) They keep doing it, because it works. But that doesn’t absolve me of my responsibility as a journalist to keep pointing it out when I find it.

KT: It won’t do any good. We know they’re hypocrites with short term memories. They know it too. They just don’t like to be reminded of it.

This stuff and nonsense about arcane congressional procedure is just the Latest Shiny Object, serving to prove only that both sides can and will use the rules however they can to accomplish a given objective.

The lesson here is that when one side focuses on the procedure their argument on the substance hasn’t carried the day. Boo-freakin-hoo.

Sanctimonious hypocrites are running the country. Does anybody really wonder why some of us laugh at those buffoons? If we can’t argue or reason with them, why not make fun of them?

That’s actually pretty funny. Where were you when Drug-A-Bush passed?

I am not sure about that KT. How do you determine when you are being used?
.
Was your post about Hypocrisy, or was it about the Democrats use of self executing rules, or both? Condemning the the hypocrisy both sides claim by using the rule condemns the rule to many.

I like to think so, because I like to be in control of my LIFE (which is what healthcare is, preserving life). It is not your responsibility to care for my health,
.
So, if you are ever in an auto wreck, unconscious, those state or local police (who are government employees, by the way), should just push you and your car off to the side of the road, and leave you to wake up or die on your own because, as you put it, YOU are in control of your life – and it is NOT their responsibility to care for your health.
.
Is that honestly your position?

allthings: this is my fourth post on this subject since friday. as longtime readers of swampland know, i’m kind of a legislative procedure geek. (and have i mentioned they should Make Them Filibuster?)
.
you can read my other posts on self-executing rules and decide for yourself:
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/12/re-bending-the-rules/
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/13/self-executing-rule/
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/03/15/re-and-here-we-go/
.
In my next life, I want to be either the Senate Parliamentarian or the Secretary of Commerce.

They are bit I suspect they learned from the Tea Party meeting s this summer when the serious minded Union thugs beat a conservative with a different opinion in typical style 3 or 4 against 1 or the Black Panthers with a baseball bat at the polling places in the November election. It’s called self defense and every citizen has a right to it.

Well, it would be there JOB and RESPONSIBILITY to respond to my needs as my INSURANCE that I pay for pays them to do. You are trying to cite people hired to do a specific job, i.e. respond to emergencies and help save lives to the national government seeking a vast increase in it’s power stake in the healthcare market. If you think that is an apt analogy, I can see why you support this bill.

Karen, is this part of Hoyer’s 2003 statement true as well?

We are in a contest today, and, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, where the majority or plurality of Americans voted to elect Al Gore, fewer voted to elect George Bush, and a very few voted to elect Ralph Nader. We are at a time when the differences between our parties are 51 point something and 48 point something. Very close. It seems to me that it would support, therefore, a greater openness in the consideration of legislation because the American public have very clearly reflected a close division.

Given that ‘close division’ described by Hoyer does not exist and that the level of obstruction on the part of the GOP is unprecedented, it’s not quite apples-to-apples. Furthermore…from Hoyer’s 2003 presentation:

In the 108th Congress, for example, we dedicate almost as much time to noncontroversial bills on the suspension calendar, as Mr. McGovern observed, naming Federal office buildings and post offices, as we did to the House Republican tax plan, a crucial debate for our Nation, a debate in which the Republican Majority denied the Democratic Minority any opportunity, not any opportunity, to offer our alternative plan.

At what point has the Republican minority not been given the opportunity for meaningful debate or to offer up ideas or alternative plans? I mean, you can legitimately bemoan the use of situational ethics (I don’t), but the situations aren’t as similar as they appear on the surface. The hypocrisy isn’t as strong on Hoyer’s part as it is on Drier’s.

When did it become a bad thing for people to be self-reliant? To take care of their own needs? To be, shall we say, personally responsibile for what they have or have not done with their lives. To even be accountable for the decisions they have made. I’m all for giving people a helping hand when bad things happen to them. I just don’t like using the force of the federal government and especially using the IRS to enforce a mandate to buy something. Remember you were for this when it’s a government you vehemently oppose that is mandating you buy something and using the punitive force of the IRS to enforce it.

when the serious minded Union thugs beat a conservative with a different opinion in typical style 3 or 4 against 1 or the Black Panthers with a baseball bat at the polling places in the November election.
.
Links please… and I do mean something other than FreeRepublic or RedState, because we know how impeccibly unbiased their reporting credentials are… and they would NEVER doctor a photograph to make a point.
.
Not that we don’t trust you to tell the truth, free, but the sun did rise this morning…

“In my next life, I want to be either the Senate Parliamentarian or the Secretary of Commerce.”
.
Then there is no hope for you!
.
Thanks KT for your responses.

There is very little meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Representatives. Period. It has been thus since I have been in Washington since the 1980s. In what passes for debate, members are limited to five-minute floor speeches, and every important piece of legislation has a closed rule. I think it is also fair to say that the Republicans in the House had very little input in shaping the health care bill. That is not the case in the Senate, but it is in the House.

KT, you’re NOT the Senate Parliamentarian? And to think the House used to have filibusters, disappearing quorums, and other crap. Imagine if they still had those today …oh wait, that would be the Senate.

Somebody always uses the fire/police department argument when this line of argument is brought up. Is it in the liberal, ummm, excuse me, progressive handbook? Can somebody cite the page?

If you want to make an argument about the wrongness or stupidity of the mandate, go ahead.
.
If you want to make an argument about how the government is attempting to seize tyrannical power, go ahead.
.
If you want to make some sort of claim about “personal responsibility” when it comes to obtaining health care services –as opposed to fire extinguishing services, or saving your ass when you’re lost in the Grand Canyon services– then you’ve got to do better than the nonsensical “it would be there JOB and RESPONSIBILITY to respond to my needs.”
.
We’re Americans. We care about other Americans –everybody. America should be the healthiest nation on the face of the earth. It’s patriotic to want that. It’s our patriotic duty to make it happen.
.
You should probably re-examine what it means to be a patriot in this country before you put the interests of “markets” and a fantasy version of self-reliance ahead of your fellow Americans’ well-being.

Well, it would be there JOB and RESPONSIBILITY to respond to my needs as my INSURANCE that I pay for pays them to do.
.
You really don’t know how that process works, do you?
.
Your insurance pays the state police NOTHING! When he/she calls the wrecker and ambulance, they have NO knowledge of your insurance and are,a s you state, just doing what they are paid to do. In fact, it doesn’t matter if you have NO insurance at all! They will respond in a similar manner.They will block and direct traffic and supervise the cleanup with NO reimbursement from your insurance company.
.
As for my supposed support of the bill, I think it sucks as written! And, as I’ve reported at other times, I will probably get NO benefit from any of this because of my age. I am more concerned about what will be happening when my kids have the need for care.
.
I bring these up because YOU are the one waving the banner of “get the government out of my life – I can take care of myself”.
.
Just unsure how much clear thought you have actually put into the practical aspects of what you are asking.

think it is also fair to say that the Republicans in the House had very little input in shaping the health care bill. That is not the case in the Senate, but it is in the House.”
.
I would have to say that the GOP let be known from the start that they wanted no real part in developing Health Care Reform.They called defeating it, Obama’s Waterloo, and by extension the Democrats. They removed themselves from the process.
.
Second I would argue that the house as a unit had very little input into the reform. What we have is a Senate Bill, witha hope for reconciliation to remove a few portions objected to by both Dems and Reps.

KT
.
Republicans in the House had very little input in shaping the health care bill
.
That’s a very interesting, and fairly accurate statement.
.
Do you think that, if the Dole-Daschle plan were put before House Republicans, a majority of the GOP would vote for it?
.
I mean the Dole-Daschle plan absent the Nelson, Landrieu and various vote-getting incentives, of course.
.
Do House Republicans agree at least in theory with the Dole-Daschle blueprint for health care reform?

I realize that the journamalism rule book says that you must always point out that Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault (if it’s not totally the Demorats fault, that is), but are you serious about this? Compare the comments you quote from Democratic leaders to:

Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) “In their bill they have the IRS enforciing the Health Care Bill”, said Bachmann. “We’re not going to pay their taxes…” “We don’t have to follow a bill that isn’t law.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) “I look back 20 years ago in the square in Prague… Storm this city, fill up Washington D.C., jam this capital so they can’t move.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) “I brought an abortion to show you today,” he said, hosting a copy of the health care bill in his right hand.”

I could go on and on, but the point is that the difference between the two parties is in orders of magnitude, it’s not even close.

“Why is it my responsibility to pay for the Fire Department to come out to somebody’s house –somebody I don’t know, who lives far away from me– in the middle of nowhere (no chance of burning anybody else’s house down) to put out a fire that most likely started from their own negligence?”

.
Actually Mr Zilchman, the Fire Department where I live is totally VOLUNTARY. Their funding is from donations, raffles, bingo, and charges for ambulance services to those people who have insurance and/or can pay out of pocket.
.
Amazingly, it WORKS!! A group of dedicated men and women who give up their time freely to man the firetrucks and ambulances. 24 HOURS a day!!!
.
I give freely to this organization every year, as many in my community do each and every year.
.
Next point?

Somebody always uses the fire/police department argument when this line of argument is brought up. Is it in the liberal, ummm, excuse me, progressive handbook? Can somebody cite the page?
.
No, you sanctimonious dumba$$, they are out of the book “Real-life Examples of Government Services Provided to You Through Your Taxes”, Chapter 2.

Amazingly, it WORKS!! A group of dedicated men and women who give up their time freely to man the firetrucks and ambulances. 24 HOURS a day!!!
.
Yeah, Rusty, we’ve got them here too.
.
Last time one of them had to replace equipment because it wouldn’t work, they had to reply on a DONATION from a big-city fire department who was upgrading theirs. They couldn’t even afford to buy a used replacement.
.
And, speaking of city fire departments, wonder how well they could function relying on donations for equipment and a volunteer-only force?

Thanks for the response, Karen. This late in the thread, I thought that you would have moved on.
.
There is very little meaningful debate on the floor of the House of Representatives.
.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/12055360/cover_story_time_to_go_inside_the_worst_congress_ever/print
.
Anything like this happening in the current Congress, Karen?

“I remember one incident very clearly — I think it was 2001,” says Winslow Wheeler, who served for twenty-two years as a Republican staffer in the Senate. “I was working for [New Mexico Republican] Pete Domenici at the time. We were in a Budget Committee hearing and the Democrats were debating what the final result would be. And my boss gets up and he says, ‘Why are you saying this? You’re not even going to be in the room when the decisions are made.’ Just said it right out in the open.”

Or this:

…where Rep. Bill Thomas…just before midnight on July 17th, 2003…dumped a “substitute” pension bill on Democrats — one that they had never read — and informed them they would be voting on it the next morning. Infuriated, Democrats stalled by demanding that the bill be read out line by line while they recessed to a side room to confer. But Thomas wanted to move forward — so he called the Capitol police to evict the Democrats.

Or maybe this:

….the Patriot Act…was originally crafted in classic bipartisan fashion in the Judiciary Committee, where it passed by a vote of thirty-six to zero, with famed liberals like Barney Frank and Jerrold Nadler saying aye. But when the bill was sent to the Rules Committee, the Republicans simply chucked the approved bill and replaced it with a new, far more repressive version, apparently written at the direction of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft….”They just rewrote the whole bill,” says Rep. James McGovern, a minority member of the Rules Committee. “All that committee work was just for show.”

If that’s going on now, we should know and try to put a stop to it…if it’s not, then you really can’t claim equivalence.

One reason for this vote to be done as a vote on “Rules” instead of “Policies” is that the House Rules Committee bars television cameras.

More Obama regime transparency.

Ffred I was against Bush’s policies, which are identical to Obama’s, except that Obama is doing all the same things 3 times as large for 3 times the destruction.

But only when the Obama-Bush policies caused the economy to crash (and with Obama, to stay crashed) did I have the free time to hang out with airheads like the people on the Time blog.

A good article from Rolling Stone, by-the-way…

[The 109th] “Congress has thrown caution to the wind,” says [noted constitutional scholar and the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington Law School Jonathan] Turley…”They have developed rules that are an abuse of majority power. Keeping votes open by freezing the clock, barring minority senators from negotiations on important conference issues — it is a record that the Republicans should now dread. One of the concerns that Republicans have about losing Congress is that they will have to live under the practices and rules they have created. The abuses that served them in the majority could come back to haunt them in the minority.”

What a load of Crap!
.
Each house is responsible for making their own rules.
.
It isn’t up to the President. It called seperation of power.

Try that argument –a return to a 19th century all volunteer Fire Department– in Manhattan, where I live, sometime, Rustyblog.
.
Better yet, tell that to New York’s Bravest, the NYFD.
.
See what kind of response you’d get.
.
Are you seriously suggesting that the NYFD are an illegitimate government takeover of emergency management services that would always be better served by the private sector –or volunteers?
.
Seriously, Rustyblog?

Definitely Secretary of Commerce – you get to take neat trips. The Senate Parliamentarian has to sit there and listen to all the dreck!

Sing a new tune for once.

FYI, we’re currently in an economic recovery.

“Are you seriously suggesting that the NYFD are an illegitimate government takeover of emergency management services that would always be better served by the private sector –or volunteers?”

.
No Mr Zilchman, just pointing out that your “one size-fits all” neo-Socialist philosophy does not work everywhere. That communities like mine can survive very well indeed without big government interventions, and high taxes to spread the wealth.
.
No one wants to take away your NYPD or NYFD. God forbid if the whole city of New York burnt to the ground ala-Chicago fire 1871. Now that would be un-Patriotic to wish such a demise.

Sorry should have been reponse to 6.19

The Rule will be written by the commitee, but the full House will have to vote on it, on the floor, in front of God and C-SPAN. Also, while i’m not sure of the situation with cameras in the Rules Committee, its proceedings are open. I have attended many sessions myself. It’s in a very small room, but it accommodates a few dozen spectators.

Grape:
.
The Senate Health Care bill was put together in Harry Reid’s office, working off of what passed HELP and Finance, but adding a number of special deals with no outside scrutiny, as we now know. (Exhibit A: Cornhusker Kickback)
.
And don’t forget, this time around it was Coburn who was insisting that that health bill be read “line by line” by the clerk on the Senate floor. In fact, I made fun of him at the time, since the chamber was empty.
.
As for the Patriot Act, it’s probably worth noting that Democrats were in control of the Senate when it was written.
.
So, um, yeah, that all kind of looks familiar.

I’ve put plenty of thought into it. The difference is where we draw the line. To think you will have absolutely no government intrusion in your life is as asinine as saying the government should have total control over your life. Yet, you run to the utmost extreme and yell about every single instance the government is involved in your life. Did you ever stop to think the fire department is there to stop the current situation from spreading and destroying many more houses in the matter of a few hours? You’ll probably now go for the infectious disease scenario, but the government already has speacial powers in that case. So, where does my responsibility for my neighbor stop? Shared fire and police, military, other needs that an OVERWHELMING majority of Americans have decided is a good use of their money is a far cry from the arguable slimmest of majorities that want this healthcare bill as written. Which, if I didn’t hold these views, I would still be against this bill. Rarely, if ever, has the government’s involvement and creation of red tape brought the cost of anything down. To think it will happen with healthcare is pie in the sky optimism. Somehow, people expect the same people that created this mess, politicians and their well intentioned, but severely flawed laws limited how you can buy insurance, denying you an income tax deduction for healthcare while giving your employer one, I could go on, and on. The point is, these are the people that have created this problem. With their mandated coverages, manipulation of the tax code to encourage employer provided instead of self-provided insurance, lack of ability to purchase across state lines, and myriad other road blocks to honest competition is what has put us in this mess. If I can buy across state lines, I can increase the number of insurers competing for my dollars. If I can deduct my insurance cost as businesses currently can, I am more likely to carry my own policy and vote with my dollars by changing companies when the insurance company doesn’t do as I would like them to. Why does someone who has never had a drop of alcohol in their life have to carry substance abuse coverage in their health insurance? There are a plethora of reasons I’m not willing to back this bill. The incompetence of politicans and their complicity in this mess makes me more than excited about backing what they are claiming will save us from ourselves now.

I’ve put plenty of thought into it. The difference is where we draw the line. To think you will have absolutely no government intrusion in your life is as asinine as saying the government should have total control over your life. Yet, you run to the utmost extreme and yell about every single instance the government is involved in your life. Did you ever stop to think the fire department is there to stop the current situation from spreading and destroying many more houses in the matter of a few hours? You’ll probably now go for the infectious disease scenario, but the government already has speacial powers in that case. So, where does my responsibility for my neighbor stop? Shared fire and police, military, other needs that an OVERWHELMING majority of Americans have decided is a good use of their money is a far cry from the arguable slimmest of majorities that want this healthcare bill as written. Which, if I didn’t hold these views, I would still be against this bill. Rarely, if ever, has the government’s involvement and creation of red tape brought the cost of anything down. To think it will happen with healthcare is pie in the sky optimism. Somehow, people expect the same people that created this mess, politicians and their well intentioned, but severely flawed laws limited how you can buy insurance, denying you an income tax deduction for healthcare while giving your employer one, I could go on, and on. The point is, these are the people that have created this problem. With their mandated coverages, manipulation of the tax code to encourage employer provided instead of self-provided insurance, lack of ability to purchase across state lines, and myriad other road blocks to honest competition is what has put us in this mess. If I can buy across state lines, I can increase the number of insurers competing for my dollars. If I can deduct my insurance cost as businesses currently can, I am more likely to carry my own policy and vote with my dollars by changing companies when the insurance company doesn’t do as I would like them to. Why does someone who has never had a drop of alcohol in their life have to carry substance abuse coverage in their health insurance? There are a plethora of reasons I’m not willing to back this bill. The incompetence of politicans and their complicity in this mess makes me less than excited about backing what they are claiming will save us from ourselves now.

Karen, this seems like a major stretch to me. Certainly there are better examples of hypocrisy in Congress. From Steny Hoyer’s comments in 2003:

“All of us use it. It is appropriate to use.”

Dryer used the deem and pass procedural, what, 35 times? And with no substantive debate or vote. On the issue of health care reform, we’ve had a national debate for well over a year, and TWO up and down votes on separate incantations of the reform bill, both in the House and Senate, which will not be the actual bill that is enacted into law, but it will be basically the same in spirit. And the House bill included a public option, which to my knowledge the reconciliation bill will not. The Republicans have voiced their dissent, quite loudly, both in public and private for the past year. That have voiced their dissent, quite loudly, as a matter of public record, in their votes on the House and Senate bills. If there is one thing in this country that almost everyone is sure of, it is that the Republicans don’t want HCR.

Was the courtesy of registering their dissent as a matter of public record ever afforded to the Democrats by Drier when he invoked deem and pass? You might be able to argue that the Democrats are demeaning democracy by doing this, but in a way that is so minor in comparison.

I would however agree with your contention that little substantive debate is ever achieved in the House, because there is never any clash on the floor. It’s like watching ships sailing past each other in the night.

“In my next life, I want to be either the Senate Parliamentarian or the Secretary of Commerce.”
.
I want to be either a Supreme Court Justice or a shameless pimp. I could walk around in public and no one would be able to tell the difference.

Yet, you run to the utmost extreme and yell about every single instance the government is involved in your life.
.
These weren’t extremes, but common examples of government involvement. YOU were the one talking in generalities about how government involvement was bad and always lead to a take-over. Obviously, now, you understand that your original statements were, in your words, “absurd”. There IS a role for government. You really need to turn off Fox and Glenn Beck every once in a while.
.
Did you ever stop to think the fire department is there to stop the current situation from spreading and destroying many more houses in the matter of a few hours?
.
Did you ever think that, in rural areas, there is little chance of a fire at one residence burning down many others? That they have these fire departments, funded with some government assistance, because there’s just something inherently “un-American” about watching your neighbor’s house burn down, when, with a little shared sacrifice, it could have been avoided.
.
I would also imagine that the presence of “fire protection” has a lot to do with your home insurance rates (or ability even to get house insurance). Cna’t see anyon wanting to give you that if you don’t have that readily available. In fact, I’m pretty sure that, when we bought, the issue of where the closest fire station existed was an issue for the insurance company.
.
You claim to have thought about a lot of this but I have my doubts. Just seems you are “anti-government” – “anti-tax” – on other words, knee-jerk reactive.

So, um, yeah, that all kind of looks familiar.
.
But is it the same? Reid’s manager’s amendment – which includes the kickback you cited – was posted for 72 hours before being brought to a vote…and manager’s amendments aren’t exactly unusual, are they?
.
As for Coburn’s ‘line by line’…were the motivations behind it the same? I’m also unclear as to how the Senate being controlled by the Democrats when the Patriot bill was being tossed out by the House is relevant.
.
I know it’s late in this thread to expect a response, but thanks for your interaction to this point.

Posting for 72 hours is not such a big deal, window dressing really. I think these are all distinctions without differences. The fact is, the real deal-cutting in Congress always happens out of sight. I was struck by that even when I was reading old accounts about the civil rights votes of the 1960s. The real deal cutting was going on in Everett Dirksen’s office.

Well Freeper, it looks like you’re striking out all over today, as per usual.

New England Journal of Medicine in a survey estimates 1/3 of doctors will leave profession if HC bill passes.

Wrong. The NEJM did nothing of the kind and was not associated in any way with that steaming pile of crap.

Recruiting Physicians Today is a free advertiser newsletter published by the Worldwide Advertising Sales and Marketing Department in the publishing division of the Massachusetts Medical Society. Each issue of the newsletter features research and content produced by physician recruiting firms and other independent groups involved in physician employment.
..
On December 17, 2009 The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm based in Dallas and Atlanta, published the results of a survey they conducted with 1,000 physicians regarding their attitudes toward health reform. To read their survey results at The Medicus Firm website, click here.
..
The opinions expressed in the article linked to above represent those of The Medicus Firm only. That article does not represent the opinions of the New England Journal of Medicine or the Massachusetts Medical Society.

http://www.nejmjobs.org/rpt/health-reform-may-reduce-physician-workforce.aspx
..
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201003170036

NewsBusters: TIME’s Tumulty Notes Hoyer Hypocrisy on ‘Deem & Pass’
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2010/03/17/times-tumulty-notes-hoyer-hypocrisy-deem-pass