The People's Seat...

Jarod said:
The idea of delaying the seating of Senator Brown came from Rush making wild accusations in an attempt to discredit the Democratic party. It was never going to happen, except maybe in Rush's paranoid brain. Drug addiction does that to people.
Click to expand...

Actually it came from the democrats themselves, that is if you trust NBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34952671/ns/politics-more_politics/

"Brown will finish Kennedy's unexpired term, facing re-election in 2012. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pledged to seat Brown immediately, a hasty retreat from pre-election Democratic threats to delay his inauguration until after the health bill passed."
 
leaningright said:
Actually it came from the democrats themselves, that is if you trust NBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34952671/ns/politics-more_politics/

"Brown will finish Kennedy's unexpired term, facing re-election in 2012. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pledged to seat Brown immediately, a hasty retreat from pre-election Democratic threats to delay his inauguration until after the health bill passed."
Click to expand...

I see not cite for that and I dont necessarly trust all that nbc says.
 
Jarod said:
I see not cite for that and I dont necessarly trust all that nbc says.
Click to expand...

???? What ?????

Look closely:

Pasted from previous post:

"Actually it came from the democrats themselves, that is if you trust NBC:

Looky here ------- ***** http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34952671...more_politics/ *****------- Right here

"Brown will finish Kennedy's unexpired term, facing re-election in 2012. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pledged to seat Brown immediately, a hasty retreat from pre-election Democratic threats to delay his inauguration until after the health bill passed." "
 
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then why did you tell us about Massachussets General Statute 54?......
Click to expand...


To address a separate and distinct issue: when the results of the election can be certified and when Brown is actually considered to have been elected.

The issue of the seating of Senator Kennedy in 1962 has nothing to do with Massachusetts law. In fact, his election was not certified until 15 days after the election and the certification was not received by the Secretary of the Senate until about a week after that. Nevertheless, he was seated the day (or 2, I forget) after the election by unanimous consent and without objection because the Senate did not enforce the rule requiring certification.
 
Jarod said:
In an interview with ABC News, Obama said Wednesday that Congress must wait for newly elected Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown to be sworn into office before lawmakers move forward.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34953876/ns/politics-health_care_reform/
Click to expand...


Obama should STFU about what Congress should do. Particularly now. He should have been telling Congress what to do many many months ago. Had he done that back then we probably wouldn't be where we are now.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Obama should STFU about what Congress should do. Particularly now. He should have been telling Congress what to do many many months ago. Had he done that back then we probably wouldn't be where we are now.
Click to expand...

I wish he had chosen the leardeship in the Sennate and House.
 
Damocles said:
Good job Obama...



It was always time for that...
Click to expand...

He will build such a bill, there will be a compromise on abortion and then the bill will pass, pissing off some liberals.

The VAST majority of Americans want the healthcare system fixed.
 
Damocles said:
Good job Obama...



It was always time for that...
Click to expand...


Yeah, good luck with that. It worked so well the first time when the Dems didn't need Republican votes. I'm sure it will go over better now that at least one Republican is needed.

The Republicans have zero incentive actually agree to anything. They were just rewarded for delaying and obstructing. Why would they change their strategy now?
 
Jarod said:
He will build such a bill, there will be a compromise on abortion and then the bill will pass, pissing off some liberals.

The VAST majority of Americans want the healthcare system fixed.
Click to expand...


If the Senate bill that got zero Republican support was too conservative for the House, what in the world makes anyone think that some new, more conservative bill will suddenly become palatable.

The only realistic option for meaningful reform is for the House to pass the Senate version.
 
NigelTufnel said:
If the Senate bill that got zero Republican support was too conservative for the House, what in the world makes anyone think that some new, more conservative bill will suddenly become palatable.

The only realistic option for meaningful reform is for the House to pass the Senate version.
Click to expand...

Because the negotiation power ballance has changed and democrats NEED to do home to the voters with something accomplished.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Yeah, good luck with that. It worked so well the first time when the Dems didn't need Republican votes. I'm sure it will go over better now that at least one Republican is needed.

The Republicans have zero incentive actually agree to anything. They were just rewarded for delaying and obstructing. Why would they change their strategy now?
Click to expand...

A very few Republcan Senators would be rewarded by there voters if they go home with a healthcare bill that they personally were responsable for "moderating".

The Majority of Americans want healthcare reform, they have just been marketed and advertised into beliveing this bill is bad.
 
Jarod said:
Because the negotiation power ballance has changed and democrats NEED to do home to the voters with something accomplished.
Click to expand...


Well, why won't the House Dems just pass the Senate bill? It makes no sense to say that the balance of power has shifted and instead of passing the Senate bill the House Democrats will pass a more conservative bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top