Hatch to House Dems: If you believe we’ll pass your reconciliation bill as written …
posted at 9:00 am on March 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Not only does the most gentlemanly of Senators blast his lower-chamber colleagues for their belief that reconciliation will sail through the upper chamber unchanged, Orrin Hatch warns Senate Democrats that an attempt to push it through will mean “war.” If they believe Republicans will just sit back and allow Democrats to run roughshod over the minority, they will find themselves in a battle they’ll regret “for the rest of their lives”:
Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are “nuts” to think tomorrow’s vote on health-care legislation will resolve the issue.
If the measure passes, Senate Republicans have enough votes on at least two points of order to alter the measure and send it back to the House for a second round of votes, Hatch said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.
“If those people think they’re only going to vote on this once, they’re nuts,” Hatch said as House Democratic leaders rounded up support before the scheduled vote on President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
The senator from Utah also said the approach Democrats are using to pass the legislation in the House may be unconstitutional because the House and Senate aren’t voting on “exactly the same language.”
I’ve interviewed Hatch a few times, and this is about as harsh as he ever gets. He generally likes to work towards consensus, not confrontation; fire and brimstone aren’t part of his nature. So when Hatch says this, it means something:
Hatch, who was first elected to his seat in 1976, predicted “outright warfare” in the Senate if Democrats use a process called reconciliation that would allow the chamber to pass the health-care measure with a simple majority.
“That’s going to be something they’re going to have to live with the rest of their lives,” Hatch said.
At one time, Democrats considered using a ping-pong strategy to keep refining the bill rather than attempting to do it through reconciliation. It appears that Republicans have now adopted the idea to keep it from passing. If they can alter the bill in their Senate vote — and it might be hard to do, considering they only have 41 votes — then the House will have to reconsider the new language before passing it along to the President for his signature. In the meantime, it will take a long time to get through the various amendments and points of order, and if Republicans really want to make it a “war,” they can make everything else in the Senate come to a halt, too.
When Tom Coburn threatens to do that, people have to take that seriously because Coburn rarely makes empty threats, but it’s usually reflective of Coburn himself. When Orrin Hatch threatens that, it means that most if not all Republicans have had it with Democratic steamrolling. Get ready for some fireworks.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Good, time for everyone to grow a pair.
RarestRX on March 20, 2010 at 9:33 AM
Keith Hennessey, Bush43′s chief economic advisor posted an analysis on his blog a few days ago in which he said there were at least three clear Byrd violations. Of course, he wouldn’t publicly say what they were, but no doubt the GOP Senate leadership is well-informed and ready.
And of course, the noly “passed” bill would be the Senate version. Which Obama would no doubt be ok with. Anything he can call a success right now.
Even if it loses the House and most of the Dem majority in the Senate. He will throw the Congressional Dems under the bus to achieve his historic destiny.
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 9:36 AM
What reconciliation bill, Pelosi and her politburo will simply send the senate bill to Obama for signature . . . game, set and match.
rplat on March 20, 2010 at 9:36 AM
scorched earth.
rob verdi on March 20, 2010 at 9:36 AM
We want warfare. NOW!!!!
Either Hatch and the Republicans can bring it, or the American people will. Choose your enemy, Democraps.
Fishoutofwater on March 20, 2010 at 9:36 AM
Very nice! And something for Stupak, and any other House member who thinks they are just going to “tweak” the bill to their own liking (for better or worse), to consider over the next 18 hours. The House can posture and deal and bribe and threaten all they want, but the only way this passes is if they pass the exact Senate bill without any changes. All the promises and payoffs Pelosio gave out mean nothing to Republicans in the Senate.
JamesLee on March 20, 2010 at 9:37 AM
Thanks for chiming in NOW, Orrin. Where the hell were you all of last week?! He, and a lot of the ‘pubs are so damned exasperating they make my hair hurt.
Sheesh.
By the way, any news from DC, both in congress and at the rally?
J.J. Sefton on March 20, 2010 at 9:37 AM
Latest from NRO on Stupak tweaking.
Stupak only got 45 votes in the Senate when Nelson offered it as an amendment.
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 9:39 AM
Too bad this attitude wasn’t there 12 mos ago. However, I do think that the Republicans have finally realized that their enemies are ruthless and in order to win, they must be equally ruthless.
I still think that the optics of this for Dems now and going forward are horrible. Obama must have been able to further twist their logic on this because I just don’t see how this could possibly be a winner for them this fall.
volnation on March 20, 2010 at 9:40 AM
The era of ‘bipartisanship’ ended some years ago.
Time for the Republicans to find out if they are capable of actually advocating a position rather than negotiating it away. I’m not voting for appeasers who have no concept of what government should and should not do, but see everything as negotiable, including my liberty.
That is not up for negotiation.
Republicans had best learn that they cannot give liberty of the people away for anything. It isn’t theirs to give or negotiate about… and learning that little lesson would begin to set them apart from the Big Governmentites of the Left and Right, thus drawing the line between tyranny and liberty.
ajacksonian on March 20, 2010 at 9:40 AM
Thank you R’s for keeping up the fight! Please don’t cave. Please kill the bill.
L
letget on March 20, 2010 at 9:40 AM
There are a lot of people smarter than I am about all of this stuff, so I have a question, and I hope someone can answer it: “If this bill isn’t unconstitutional, because of the 10th Amendment, what is?” If the states can’t opt out of this, or challenge it, what can they challenge? This bill seems like such an intrusion into everyone’s life that I just can’t imagine the framers had anything like this in mind.
There is no way this is a specific function of the federal government and, even if it could be on the fringes, the constitution can’t possibly allow them to demand we buy health care insurance, at least not my constitution.
bflat879 on March 20, 2010 at 9:42 AM
Levin said yesterday on Rush that the main problem with the bill once passed is separating out certain provisions (i.e. the Senate bill) and then having Obama sign it into law.
volnation on March 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Unfortunatly, some of those people ARE nuts. Pelosi is the biggest nut of the bunch.
MikeA on March 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM
We’ve heard this before about the stimulus bill. Prove it, Hatchling.
Sloan Morganstern on March 20, 2010 at 9:43 AM
Would someone please explain to me exactly what a Byrd violation is? Thanks.
Yossarian on March 20, 2010 at 9:45 AM
The House passes the “fix”, “reconciliation” bill, which deems the Senate bill to be passed as-is, then the President signs the Senate Bill. And that’s it, except more additions like the “Public Option” later.
The House members aren’t getting their “fixes”, and we’re all getting the Senate Bill as law if it is deemed passed on Sunday.
forest on March 20, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Today we are not RINO’S, libertarians, or hell even ” I won’t vote for it without the public option”. Today we are just simply “against”.
For all his flaws, I loved it when George W. Bush said it clearly on November 6, 2001
Kill this monstrosity today, and we can live to fight each other tomorrow..
tottoritodd on March 20, 2010 at 9:47 AM
Rush and Levin have some good company. Former federal judge McConnell has been writing in WSJ about the “deem, pass and split” problem.
But hey, Obama was a “constitutional law professor.” And crr6 is a law student. Who are we to argue with such jurisprudential expertise? :)
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Fox is unbelievable!They are wrong with the numbers and have been,if you listened to Rush yesterday,their numbers are wrong.Dan Perrin over at redstate says the same.This will only serve to discourage us to the point where we stop calling feeling the need is hopeless.Let them know how you feel..newsmanager@foxnews.com
ohiobabe on March 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM
I think there are so many new untested variables at work at this point NOBODY knows which way is up. IF it passes (which I don’t believe it will) it will spend decades in the courts being sorted out…obama’s legacy…
winston on March 20, 2010 at 9:48 AM
Here’s another question. If Piglosi gets 216 votes, does this still mean they are exercising this “deem and pass” rule? This is fascinating and confusing at the same time.
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 9:50 AM
NRO.
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 9:50 AM
Apparently. The Rules Committee meets today to write the rule that would or would not have the “deem” language.
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 9:51 AM
Actually, if the Senate Parlimentarian rules that something can’t be passed through reconciliation, then it’s already going to go back to the House right?
I guess that’s where Biden comes in. Although it just doesn’t make sense for the VP (who is not directly elected) to be able to overrule anything and everything all willy nilly.
uknowmorethanme on March 20, 2010 at 9:51 AM
So, does this mean that they are writing their own rule to pass this disaster? If Piglosi gets 216 votes to pass the Senate’s bill why do they need the “deem and pass”? Thanks for your help.
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 9:53 AM
It’s when Obama oh-so-slyly scratches his cheek with his middle finger….
No, actually, since Robert Byrd was the author of the Senate rule allowing for “reconciliation” of budget matters on a strictly time-limited debate schedule (i.e. no possibility of filibuster), so long as the legislation is budgetary in nature, and is deficit-neutral or reduces the deficit, any provisions in the reconciliation package that are either a) clearly non-budgetary, or b) increase the deficit, or c) violate the special provisions for reconciliation in some other way I don’t know about, are called “Byrd violations.”
notropis on March 20, 2010 at 9:54 AM
I’m on Amtrak @ New Carrolton, last stop before DC. Saw a number of people who apparently were coming down via bus when I boarded the train in Wilmington, DE. My sister is on group bus coming in from Pittsburgh. Rally proper begins @ noon. Will convey more when I’m in DC.
ya2daup on March 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Exactly.
Mr. Arrogant on March 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Exactly. It’s not “deem and pass” that’s the problem.
It’s “deem, pass, and split” that is unprecedented and blatantly unconstitutional.
uknowmorethanme on March 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Other than making me nervous, this is a true civics lesson to watch unfold. The Dems are trying their best to hijack the Constitution but the genius of our forefathers in putting mechanisms in place to keep one branch of government or the majority party from taking over is awesome to watch. I am taking heart in our Repub leaders defending our freedoms (and truely our freedoms are in jeopardy) – it is about time. HOLD FAST!
AusTex girl on March 20, 2010 at 9:56 AM
come on pubbies
bend those democrats over and give em the spanking they deserve
blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Well, it’s about time.
Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2010 at 9:56 AM
Good luck, and God Bless!
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 9:57 AM
What does Mitch McConnell say? Can you get a quote from him, too?
gocatholic on March 20, 2010 at 9:59 AM
The rule will set up the “deem and pass” procedure. They can’t pass the Senate bill without it. Before they vote on a bill in the House, as I understand it, the rules committee writes a rule setting out the procedures by which it goes through the House.
They’re sticking in “deemed that the Senate bill passed” language into the rule for the passing of the reconciliation bill. At least that’s how I understand it. I welcome any clarification.
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Thank you ya2daup!!!
yoda on March 20, 2010 at 10:00 AM
Malkin should highlight the willful ignorance on FNC’s reporting of the numbers. BUT, that won’t happen.
Mr. Arrogant on March 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Hatch…bada-s? BawwwwwHaaawwwwwww!!!
Patrick Kane could kick his a-s.
LtE126 on March 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM
This is a concern. Most Democrats don’t know what they’re doing to our country if the vote passes tomorrow. They will be essentially lighting the fuse.
conservative pilgrim on March 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM
Cavuto on FNC covering the vote/process… several important interviews to come.
He mentioned the protestors arriving, traffic troubles be damned .. LOL
pambi on March 20, 2010 at 10:04 AM
the democrats aren’t helping my hangover.
blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM
That’s not exactly what they deserve…
2ipa on March 20, 2010 at 10:07 AM
They are bringing on my next one.
Les in NC on March 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Because she can’t get 216 votes to pass the Senate bill.
If they’d simply passed the Senate bill, then introduced their “fixes” as a separate bill, they were afraid that Obama would simply sign the Senate bill and that would be that.
Their attempt to “have it both ways” is to pass only the “fixes” while at the same time “deeming” that they passed the Senate bill.
The theory is, that then Obama can sign the Senate bill, and that the Senate will be forced to take up the House “fixes,” without amendment, as reconciliation. (If they amend the “fixes,” then the amended “fixes” would still go back to the House. Ping-pong.)
What would actually be the state of affairs if Obama signs the Senate bill, and the Senate fails to reconcile, is very much an open question, even among those who think this whole chicanery is Constitutional. Many around here assume that the Senate version (complete with Cornhusker Kickback, etc.) would be the law. But would it?
Here’s one of many rubs: part of the language of the “fix” includes the “deem” clause, so if the Senate doesn’t pass the House “fix” as is, does that mean that the House has, in fact, failed to deem the Senate bill passed, since the “deem” language is not law? And if so, what did Obama sign?
This is but one complexity in the whole “split” problem Levin was talking about.
notropis on March 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM
stupid democrats
that’s all im gonna say
blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM
*face palm* How could I forget? We’re dealing with Republicans. They did surprise us at the Health Care summit.
conservative pilgrim on March 20, 2010 at 10:12 AM
Si. We got that going for us. LOL
Mr. Arrogant on March 20, 2010 at 10:14 AM
LET’S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!!!!
conservnut on March 20, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Let’s hope.
drjohn on March 20, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Drink Recipe Ingredients:
1 oz. Smirnoff No. 21 Vodka (25 oz. per bottle)
3 oz. tomato juice
2 dash(es) red hot sauce
2 dash(es) green hot sauce
1 dash(es) worcestershire sauce
.5 oz. lemon juice
1 pinch(es) salt
1 pinch(es) pepper
1 stalk(s) celery
Mix. Drink.
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 10:17 AM
Very interesting. If they try to make the deemed passage of the Senate bill contingent on the Senate passing reconciliaton, then they run afoul of the Senate parliamentarian’s ruling that the Senate bill must be passed by both houses and signed into law before reconciliation can begin.
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM
I don’t see why not. If the exact HC bill the Senate previously passed is deemed to be passed by the House as part of the fixes, I don’t see nay reason why the President wouldn’t sign it making it law without any of the extra stuff everyone is focused on. Didn’t one of the Parliamentarians rule that the Senate bill would actually need to be signed into law before they could act on the fixes?
There’s their excuse. “We need to sign the Senate/House-deeemd Bill into law to move forward with your fixes, but hey, sorry about that when the fixes never happen…”
If this mess passes tomorrow, we’re getting the Senate Bill as law.
forest on March 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM
General Anthony McAuliffe, acting commander of the U.S. Army, responding to the German commander’s request that McAuliffe surrender Bastogne: “Nuts!”
Orrin Hatch writing to House Dems about the prospects of the Senate passing reconciliation legislation: “You’re nuts!”
Give ‘em h*ll, Orrin.
BuckeyeSam on March 20, 2010 at 10:18 AM
the democrats aren’t helping my hangover.
blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 10:06 AM
They are bringing on my next one.
Les in NC on March 20, 2010 at 10:09 AM
No doubt about it!!!
LSUMama on March 20, 2010 at 10:19 AM
B-b-b-b-but he’s a Constitutional Scholar! Surely he wouldn’t sign something that is unconstitutional, in violation of his Oath of Office!
Here’s the big rub: If he, as a “Constitutional Scholar” signs something that is UnConstitutional, would this not be automatic grounds for Hearings of Impeachment? After all, he cannot claim ignorance on the issue of the Constitution.
Dream with me.
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 10:20 AM
Mark Levin on FNC with Cavuto after the commercial.
BuckeyeSam on March 20, 2010 at 10:21 AM
No doubt, tomorrow morning is going to be worse.
conservnut on March 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM
sounds hellish
blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM
Not nearly enough vodka in that drink KWR.
thomasaur on March 20, 2010 at 10:23 AM
Obama won’t care. The House and Senate Dems will have to run on their votes for the Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase, Cadillac plans’ tax (unions hate that one), etc., in the fall 2010 elections.
They would lose the House and get close or lose the Senate. As long as the GOP didn’t have 60 votes in the Senate, Obama could veto anything they sent him, and do the same blame game that he has with Blame Bush. He isn’t up unti 2012.
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM
Pelosi and Obama are performing the biggest bluff in American political history. They do not have the votes, know they don’t have the votes and at this point, are only left with the pressure of the actual floor vote to change 3-5 ‘No’s to ‘yeas
It ain’t gonna happen.
We are about to see the biggest political gamble/failure in American history.
I envision the GOP to begin chanting ‘USA’ when #215 is tallyed in the no column tomorrow. It will begin slowly, then swell to consume the entire chamber.
Tomorrow, 3/21/10 will go down as the day Americans stood their ground and saved the union.
tatersalad on March 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM
Second look at the GOP?
fossten on March 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM
On what grounds do we know that the House has “deemed” the Senate bill to be passed? Why, from the “fix” bill that the House passed, of course.
But the “fix” bill does not become law unless the Senate also passes it.
Therefore, unless the Senate agrees to the “fix,” the provision that says that the House deemed the Senate bill to have been passed is not law, and therefore the House has not, in fact, deemed it “passed.” That is the whole crux of the theory behind “deem and pass:” it is supposed to force the Senate to accept the House fixes, or else the whole thing disappears.
That’s what the Pelosi leadership is selling to the House. The fact that most members of the House aren’t buying this any more than you do, is why Reid had to send out the letter of reassurance.
notropis on March 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM
Lightweight.
/
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 10:31 AM
no need for the sarc
its entirely accurate.
i had half a bottle of a Cotes du Rhone and I’m hurting now
blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 10:32 AM
Oh, and this whole convoluted “linkage” attempt to bend the space-time continuum is one of the main reasons why Levin (and many others) think that it cannot possibly be Constitutional.
“We will only have passed the Senate bill, if the Senate agrees that we “deemed” it passed, but somehow, before the Senate agrees with that, it has passed, and Obama can sign it into law, but it won’t really be law unless the Senate passes the “fix,” even though it had to be a law before the Senate could consider it….”
notropis on March 20, 2010 at 10:33 AM
I’m allergic to the Fwench, too.
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM
Pelosi has the damn votes!
This is about who won’t jump ship after the Senate starts dicking around and who can afford to vote “yea” in the mid-terms. Again, Kucinich and Stupak can afford to, Bocceiri and others couldn’t. If Stupak came on board earlier, Bocceiri would have been a “nay”. Now, Stupak realizes he has no clout because Pelosi has the numbers and he’s going to miss out on the Stimulus windfall. Hence, Stupy wants in before the rest of his blockade jumps. If Kaptur is wavering this late, then Stupak is going to be left alone on the floor and he’s now shitting a brick.
The DNCC wants Stupy to run for re-election but he’s thinking of a Governor’s bid – for Michigan! Think of how much federal help he’s going to need to not just win, but fund that state!
As for FNC, why would they say “yes” while the others say “no”?
1. It shows fair coverage. Have we forgotten that FNC was being dogged as the main voice of opposition? Why Obama went on Special Report? Does it matter that Valerie Jarrett was a guest of FNC at the Radio/TV Correspondents dinner?
2. It’s reverse psychology. Older people will feel more compelled to call or email if they think the end is nigh.
budfox on March 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM
I wonder if anyone can enlighten me on the following:
Assuming this monstrosity gets passed and my state, Florida, opts out (which supposedly is allowed), will the IRS NOT be calling myself and/or my employer to verify my insurance? Further, will Floridians tax rates (IRS rates) be lower for our citizens because we are not opting in???
I’m sure I already know the answer to this, but want to make sure.
FloridaBill on March 20, 2010 at 10:42 AM
just reds?
if its just reds is a histamine problem
blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM
Speakers already at work at venue on West Side of Capitol. I suck at crowd size estimation, but there are thousands of people here, probably shy of 10,000 right now but folks are drifting in.
ya2daup on March 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM
1 oz.? Not going to cut it Key. Larger glass, 4 oz vodka, and use celery salt not table. Plenty of vitamins A, B, C, and V
JusDreamin on March 20, 2010 at 10:45 AM
You do. States can opt out of benefits, but individuals cannot opt out of liability, nor can states protect their citizens from the financial liability. It’s how the feds have forced through seat belt laws, uniform drinking age, uniform b.a.c. levels for D.U.I., etc.
It’s an on-going battle at the federal level to keep motorcycle helmet laws from going the same route….
notropis on March 20, 2010 at 10:46 AM
God bless you ya2, please keep us informed!
side note-anybody have webcam links for the area?
JusDreamin on March 20, 2010 at 10:46 AM
I thought I had this straight, but maybe not:
Are the Representatives voting ONLY on the Senate bill tomorrow, OR, are they voting on a ‘fix’ and will ‘deem’ the Senate bill passed? I was under the impression that they would only use “deem” if they could NOT get the votes on the Senate bill. Now it seems the Slaughter solution will not be necessary, as they might have enough ‘yes’ votes just on the Senate bill.
Thanks.
Grace_is_sufficient on March 20, 2010 at 10:47 AM
A speaker here from Americans for Prosperity who is following the vote tally said that the purported Pelosi – Stupak deal appears to be falling apart… Just sayin’
ya2daup on March 20, 2010 at 10:47 AM
On what grounds do we know that the House has “deemed” the Senate bill to be passed? Why, from the “fix” bill that the
yeah, I’m not buying what their selling. I think that would only be true if they made the Senate-passed bill and integral part of their fix bill, but they aren’t, because then they would actually have to vote on it.
So the House is going to deem the stand alone Senate-passed bill to be passed when they pass their meaningless “fix” bill. All that matters at that point is that the same bill has “passed” both the House and Senate. The
PetulantPresident will sign it. Memebers of the House are unprotected, and they know it. This is all a charade. The Senate/deemed bill will get signed into law and they will pretend they didn’t really mean to pass it – or something.forest on March 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM
That’s a change I could hope for…
JusDreamin on March 20, 2010 at 10:50 AM
Please stay strong Senators 41. The country is counting on you.
Please stand firm in your beliefs Rep Stupak and the prolife coalition. Not only babies are counting on you.
Pray, Praise and give thanks that they have fought a good fight and held this thing back so far. Father, refresh and strenthgen them. Amen.
journeyintothewhirlwind on March 20, 2010 at 10:52 AM
Crowd is in the “V” formed by PA and MD Avenues, in front of West Steps and perhaps 1/3 to 1/2 filled toward the Capitol Reflecting Pool.
ya2daup on March 20, 2010 at 10:53 AM
They have forced through those laws by tying federal funding to the required change in state law. SD tried to challenge the federal funding for highways tied to raising the drinking age to 21. SD had split licenses: one for bars that only served 3.2 beer to age 19 and up (lots of those in college towns) and full licenses (served all kinds of liquor to 21 and up). SCOTUS said, you want the fed’s money, you take it with the fed’s strings attached.
AZ is amending its constitution by referendum this fall. Will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 10:56 AM
K-Lo at NRO says that, too. Stupak wanted the Senate to vote first. And he suspected that Reid did not have the votes. And NARAL was not happy that Pelosi was apparently caving to pro-life groups.
Wethal on March 20, 2010 at 10:58 AM
Is the pro-amnesty crowd there today? where are they?
journeyintothewhirlwind on March 20, 2010 at 10:59 AM
INC on March 20, 2010 at 11:00 AM
notropis on March 20, 2010 at 10:46 AM
So, in other words, Floridians will still have to pay for something that they don’t want to receive (assuming, of course, we opt out). So much for the sovereignty of the individual states (but I guess this was inevitable after the Civil War)…
Again, I’m reminded of Franklin’s words after the Constitutional Convention, about what they had wrought:
“A REPUBLIC, if you can keep it”!
I pray we are able!
FloridaBill on March 20, 2010 at 11:00 AM
My point exactly. States can go their own way and give up the funding coming back to them, but that doesn’t exempt their citizenry from that portion of their federal taxes, nor will it exempt them from the “fines” collected by the I.R.S. It’s like the “stimulus” argument all over again: Sure, you can reject the stimulus funds and the concomitant strings, but your citizens (or their grandkids) are still on the hook for funding it for everyone else.
notropis on March 20, 2010 at 11:03 AM
…by talking a good game while in the minority. They always say the right things when they’re in the minority. It’s what happens when they obtain the majority again, inevitable such as it is, that worries me.
gryphon202 on March 20, 2010 at 11:12 AM
I wish I could be there today.
That sounds like a plan.
TXMomof3 on March 20, 2010 at 11:17 AM
Well, Barry said he’d be a ‘uniter’. But I don’t think he had this in mind.
GarandFan on March 20, 2010 at 11:17 AM
When Tom Coburn threatens to do that, people have to take that seriously because Coburn rarely makes empty threats, but it’s usually reflective of Coburn himself. When Orrin Hatch threatens that, it means that most if not all Republicans have had it with Democratic steamrolling. Get ready for some fireworks.
Well about bloody time! In the interests of supposed collegiality, or perhaps in denial of what has been taking place before their eyes, the Reps have been sitting on the sidelines playing bean-bag while the very fabric of our nation and the constitution upon which it is based has been torn asunder. It may well be too little too late.
If as some suspect, that Obama is a Manchurian Candidate, and he seems to be too impeccable in accomplishing what such a carachter would do if elected to strain credulity in denying, then the stage seems well set whether he implements his policies or not. If he is successful we are absolutely and completely bankrupt, a corpse of a super-power dead and buried as we will not be able to finance the basic constitutionally directed Federal responsibilities. If he does not, the leftist/collectivist forces which approximate 20% of the electorate seem all too willing (if judged by their initial response to the town hallers) of inciting a race war. If the greatest “melting-pot” on the planet were to descend into dividing itself along ethnic lines it would be fractured to such an extent as to no longer be viable as a nation. Indeed, if it only split along red/blue-state lines, and the chaos that would create in our armed forces, we would effectively no longer maintain a status of a super-power.
If Obama’s goal has been, as he implied in his address to the UN that the US should be considered no greater in it’s interests than any other, he would seem to be well on his way to reducing us to level of any Bannana Republic.
What Mssr’s Hatch & Coburn are just awaking to, that we are indeed in the preliminaries of “war”, they are well behind in recognizing the fault lines already taking shape and publically stated in the sentiments of Jon Voight when he asked if.. “is Obama trying to start a civil-war?”
If the Reps do not make the dangers of where we are headed appparent to the Dhims sufficiently to get them to back off and reassess the consequences to their current mechanations, I fear this may be the final result of divisive passions being inflamed. If this, as I am almost certain of, falls along racial lines America would be in danger of becoming the next Rawanda.
I do not even wish to contemplate the horrors of that possibility.
Archimedes on March 20, 2010 at 11:21 AM
I’m a beer person. But I whine for guests. Reds, White’s, Chablis.
Check u email
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 11:24 AM
nothin tehre
blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 11:37 AM
then you’re link don’t work.
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 11:44 AM
I read Hatch’s biography and it turns out he was among those that led the filibuster against Carter forcefully unionizing the country.
He’s proved he can do this.
I’m kicking myself though, I just saw Hatch at Mitt Romney’s book signing last Saturday and I forgot to ask him about this!
scotash on March 20, 2010 at 11:45 AM
The amnesty crowd is tomorrow.
conservative pilgrim on March 20, 2010 at 11:45 AM
try ‘gain
blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 11:46 AM
did it again. I’m a lot older than you, Sonny Jim. But you need to heed my words.
Also, I’d like to hire you for an ad Campaign.
Key West Reader on March 20, 2010 at 11:51 AM
W
A patriotic American President once said “Trust but verify.” Given that the GOP has pretty much behaved as abused spouses during my lifetime I’ll have to see it first.
chemman on March 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM
My recipe: whiskey, V8 juice, worcheshire sauce,and dill pickle…works for me…
lovingmyUSA on March 20, 2010 at 11:56 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »