Posts Tagged ‘50-plus-1’

Harry Reid And Senate Democrats Invoke ‘Nuclear Option’ In Pursuit Of Their Goal To ‘Fundamentally Transform’ American Democracy

October 8, 2011

Obama said it:

After all of Obama’s stunning lies, that’s the only promise that he’s kept.  He has fundamentally transformed the United States of America.

Democrats have already destroyed the American economy and turned our once-great capitalist system into a state planned economy.  Next on their gun sights is the American democratic political system itself.

We recently had the Democrat governor from the state of North Carolina openly advocate for fascism, stating:

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”

And, heck, if we don’t even need to have elections, we surely don’t need to have any of the rest of the pretenses of a democratic system, right?

Particularly when we have a president who can say to racist Hispanic group La Raza (which means “The Race”) one month:

“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

And then do the exact same thing he had just admitted was un-American, anti-democratic AND unconstitutional the next month.

The idea of doing things on his own – and by the Democrat Party abandoning American democracy – was apparently way too tempting for these fascists, indeed.

What else can we say but, “Yes We Can!”  We can truly poison America and everything it stands for.  And we can do it in just four short years.

Here is the new dose of outrage:

Reid triggers ‘nuclear option’ to change Senate rules, end repeat filibusters
By Alexander Bolton – 10/06/11 09:10 PM ET

In a shocking development Thursday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) triggered a rarely used procedural option informally called the “nuclear option” to change the Senate rules.

Reid and 50 members of his caucus voted to change Senate rules unilaterally to prevent Republicans from forcing votes on uncomfortable amendments after the chamber has voted to move to final passage of a bill.

Reid’s coup passed by a vote of 51-48, leaving Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) fuming.

The surprise move stunned Republicans, who did not expect Reid to bring heavy artillery to what had been a humdrum knife fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

The Democratic leader had become fed up with Republican demands for votes on motions to suspend the rules after the Senate had voted to limit debate earlier in the day.

McConnell had threatened such a motion to force a vote on the original version of President Obama’s jobs package, which many Democrats don’t like because it would limit tax deductions for families earning over $250,000. The jobs package would have been considered as an amendment.

McConnell wanted to embarrass the president by demonstrating how few Democrats are willing to support his jobs plan as first drafted. (Senate Democrats have since rewritten the jobs package to pay for its stimulus provisions with a 5.6 surtax on income over $1 million.)

Reid’s move strips the minority of the power of forcing politically-charged procedural votes after the Senate has voted to cut off a potential filibuster and move to a final vote, which the Senate did on the China measure Tuesday morning, 62-38.

Reid said motions to suspend the rules after the Senate votes to end debate — motions which do not need unanimous consent — are tantamount to a renewed filibuster after a cloture vote.

“The Republican Senators have filed nine motions to suspend the rules to consider further amendments but the same logic that allows for nine such motions could lead to the consideration of 99 such amendments,” Reid argued before springing his move.

Reid said Republicans could force an “endless vote-a-rama” after the Senate has voted to move to final passage.

He said this contradicts the rule the Senate adopted 32 years ago.

“This potential for filibuster by amendment is exactly the circumstance that the Senate sought to end by its 1979 amendments,” Reid said.

Reid appealed a ruling from the chair that McConnell did not need unanimous consent to force a vote on his motion.

Let’s look at some of Obama’s rules before he became dictator and abandon all rules and all principle:

  • My understanding of the Senate is, is that you need 60 votes to get something significant to happen, which means that Democrats and Republicans have to ask the question: Do we have the will to move an American agenda forward, not a Democratic or Republican agenda forward?“–CBS-TV election night interview, Nov. 2, 2004
  • You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50-plus-1 pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus 1, but you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One–I mean, there are a lot of nice perks, but you can’t deliver on health care. We’re not going to pass universal health care with a 50-plus-1 strategy.”–interview with the Concord (N.H.) Monitor, Oct. 9, 2007

And the conclusion:

[Obama] “explained almost as well as we can why what he is doing now–pushing Congress to “transform the country” precisely via a “50-plus-1″ strategy, is so foolish and dangerous.”

But “foolish and dangerous” – along with hypocrisy – are the defining elements of the modern Democrat Party.  Each of these is a sine qua non – a “that without which” the modern Democrat Party could not exist.

It’s true Republicans considered the filibuster – when Democrats obstructed everything under the sun – but the fact of the matter is that they DIDN’T DO IT.

What did Democrats say then?

Republicans want to blow up 200 years of Senate history and change the rules simply because they aren’t getting their way…” said (at that time) Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.

Then Senator Hillary Clinton said:

Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.”

But only BUSH must restrain himself.  To suggest that Obama should restrain himself is apparently “racist.”

Charles Schumer went farther yet:

Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.”

But Democrat temper tantrums are peachy dandy.

Schumer also said:

Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”

Well, what did Harry Reid say about the idea of the nuclear option?

Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”

And remember, Republicans DID NOT DO what DEMOCRATS JUST DID.

Joe Biden had the most prescient words as to what this means for the future:

Joe Biden 5/23/05: “I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you won’t own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”

Have I remembered to remind my readers that the Republican Party did not actually do this “nuclear option” thing?  Only Democrats are that genuinely evil.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia scolded ACLU President Nadine Strossen at the conclusion of a debate over her views on the “living breathing Constitution” that allows her side to impose their own will on the founders intent, and warned:

Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court … And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.”

Republicans are going to regain their power in the new “fundamentally transformed” landscape of the American political system.  We will rise up in vengeance and anger.  A president above the Constitution and the rule of law?  A Congress that shuts down debate?  You Democrats wanted it, you sowed the wind, and soon you will reap the whirlwind.

Which is to say, when Republicans pass the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs And Burn Them Alive Act,” don’t you complain.  Because we’ll only be doing what you started under Obama and the tyrant fascist Democrat majority.

If you are a Democrat, you are un-American.  You are anti-democratic.  You piss on the American Constitution.  And that’s just according to what you yourselves said only a few years ago about what you just did.

It is no surprise that the American flag creates Republicans.  It is no surprise that – overwhelmingly – only Republicans celebrate the Fourth of July and the Independence it stands for.

You Democrats are an abject disgrace.  You are a clear and present danger to the United States of America.  And you either need to change your ways damn quick or we’ll going to rise up and come after you with a vengeance.  And we’re going to use your own damn lawlessness disregard for the rule of law to do it.

I said it on November 6, 2008, only two days after the “fundamentally transforming” election: “Do Unto Obama As Liberals Did Unto Bush.”

It’s coming, Democrats.  And no one in human history will deserve it as much as you, because you lived in a society that used to be democratic and you personally voted for the hell that would come to sweep you away.

Advertisements

REAL Reason For ObamaCare: ‘To maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass the bill’

March 6, 2010

Obama says, “To maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass the bill.”

I thought ObamaCare was supposed to be all about reforming the health care system to make it somehow better.  Nope.  The REAL point of it is to “maintain a strong Obama presidency.”

Thanks but no thanks, Zero.

I mean, don’t get me wrong.  It’s a real tempting offer to support a hard-core partisan liberal big government takeover of our health care system to help you create the illusion that you aren’t such a total loser, after all.  But I think I’ll pass, just the same.

Bam feeling queasy
Pleads for health Rx – for sake of presidency
By GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
March 5, 2010

WASHINGTON — President Obama yesterday pushed wavering House members to OK health-care legislation for his own political standing and for theirs, as the battle came down to a bare-knuckle brawl for votes.

Obama met with groups of liberal and more conservative Democrats in the White House to try to assemble a winning coalition.

“To maintain a strong presidency, we need to pass the bill,” Obama told the liberals, according to Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), who attended the meeting.

“He made a very pointed, very realistic case about how this is an opportunity that won’t come around for a long time.”

The heightened presidential pressure came on a day when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) said a dozen centrist Democrats weren’t willing to swallow Senate language that they say provides federal funding for abortion.

“We’re not going to vote for the bill with that language in there,” Stupak, who leads a faction of anti-abortion Democrats who have voted for health reform, told ABC yesterday.

Congressional leaders say they want to bring Obama’s top legislative priority up for a vote by the end of the month.

On Wednesday, Obama called on Congress to stop debating and hold an “up-or-down vote” using a hard-line tactic called “reconciliation” and having the House take up the Senate-passed bill.

Now that push comes to shove, we see who this health care takeover is and always was about: Obama and the Democrats who don’t want to govern, but rule over us.

Not, “Do it for the people” who clearly don’t want this 2,700-page monstrosity, but rather, please do this for your messiah’s political standing.

And then we find that Obama “made a very pointed, very realistic case” for his chief of staff’s argument that “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”  Thus we have the continuation of the age-old philosophy of the demagogue: jump on a crisis and ride it to a self-serving power-mad agenda.

And in order to advance his self-serving, power-mad agenda, Obama calls upon a maneuver that he personally harshly attacked only a few years ago:

“You know, one of the arguments that sometimes I get with my fellow progressives–and some of these have flashed up in the blog communities on occasion–is this notion that we should function sort of like Karl Rove, where we identify our core base, we throw them red meat, we get a 50-plus-1 victory. But see, Karl Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus, because he doesn’t believe in government. If we want to transform the country, though, that requires a sizable majority.”–Center for American Progress, July 12, 2006

Obama told us how bad that Rove guy was just a few years ago.  Funny, but I don’t remember Karl Rove trying to ram through a partisan agenda that would take over nearly 20% of our economy.

So Obama demonized Karl Rove, but now he’s going to be worse, more partisan, and more destructive to government than Karl Rove ever was.

I understand why “Rove doesn’t need a broad consensus” given your demonization of him, Barry Hussein.  The bigger question now is, “Why don’t YOU need a broad consensus?”

Why is he going to do that?  Well, to “to maintain a strong presidency,” of course.

Could there even BE a more noble reason for Obama to ruin our health care system and our very system of government than to save his political ass?

Obama told us that reconciliation was “simply majoritarian absolute power” which was “just not what the founders intended.”

And just what did our founding fathers intend?

Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution’s framers considered the Senate to be the great “anchor” of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a “necessary fence” against the “fickleness and passion” that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to “cool” House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.

Ah, but that flies in the face of the demagogue’s “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste” philosophy.  And heck, it even flies in the face of “maintaining a strong presidency” now that Obama has foolishly bet his political farm on ramming through his ObamaCare boondoggle.

So now, by all means, let us ignore what the founders intended, let us have that “simply majoritarian absolute power.”  Let us take that scalding hot tea and pour it down the throat of the Senate.  Let us – again, in Obama’s very own words – “change the character of the Senate forever.”

Does the man whose core promise to the nation

WASHINGTON — At the core of Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, “we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done.”

– now want to be the most poisonous political figure in our nation’s history?  Because this hard-core partisan takeover of our nation’s health care system and nearly a fifth of the nation’s economy is going to create the most bitter, partisan, and ugly war we’ve seen since the Civil War.  And that is a fact.

Again, in Obama’s very own words:

You’ve got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics which is you have nasty primaries where everybody’s disheartened and beaten up. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, and 45 percent on the other, and 10 percent in the middle and (unintelligible) and Florida behind. And battle it out and then maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can’t govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks for being president. But you can’t, you can’t deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a 50 plus one strategy. We’re not going to have a serious, bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority.

Is it okay for a president to completely violate his word and credibility for the sake of his “strong presidency”?  He said “we’re NOT” going to do the thing he is now doing.  “Break OUT of the 50-plus-one pattern of presidential politics“?  Obama is storming the gates to rush IN.  No president has even TRIED to pass something to big and so fundamental and so radically transformative with this vile strategy.  Is it okay to totally divide the country and poison our system and our society this way for the sake of a “strong presidency”?

Let me put it this way: if Republicans take back the country, and use reconciliation to impose the “Hunt Every Democrat Down With Dogs and Burn Them Alive” Act, do you want Republicans to be able to justify their actions by quoting Barack Obama?

You Democrats, don’t you think for a SECOND that what you are doing now won’t one day come back at you with a vengeance that will leave you even more stunned and terrified than conservatives are today.

Obama’s “strong presidency” will see this country burning in flames.