I did not cover this story yesterday, like many did, because I did not understand the procedural context of his outburst and wanted to make sure I understood it. What happened was that Republicans wanted to attach a poison pill amendment to relief for 9/11 first responders, and failing that, delay the bill beyond the August recess by loading it with amendments. The only way Democrats could get it through was to use a procedural rule that did not allow amendments, but required a 2/3 majority. Then Republicans claimed that they were for the bill, but could not vote for it, because no amendments were allowed, and tried to blame their NO votes on Democrats.
House Republicans late Thursday were able to corral enough votes to defeat a bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to those sickened by toxins resulting from the 9/11 attacks.
In the process, they set off a host of fiery speeches and denunciations from their Democratic colleagues and produced a veritable YouTube moment from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), whose district includes many of the affected.
At the heart of the debate was a procedural maneuver made by Democrats to suspend the rules before consideration of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The move allowed leadership to block potential GOP amendments to the measure (there was worry that Republicans would attach something overtly partisan in hopes that it could pass on the otherwise widely-popular measure). It also meant that the party needed a two-thirds majority vote.
When the final tally was announced, there were 255 representatives for the measure, 159 against… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
Unlike the video I’ve been seeing, this video includes the Republican liar to whom Weiner replied, and a conversation between Lawrence O’Donnell and Officer Joseph Camarrata.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
What might have happened had Democrats allowed amendments? In the Senate, Harry Reid was trying to bring a bill providing $30 billion to community to banks for small business loans and tax cuts for business that create jobs. Republicans said they would filibuster unless Reid allowed amendments. Read did his normal cave-in and agreed to allow three Republican Amendments. Guess what happened?
Lawrence O’Donnell and Journalist Annie Lowrey discussed it.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
See? The only thing that changes is the Republican BS excuse for saying NO.
I feel angry that Reid told democratic senators who were outraged at this to cool off. He should have lined them up to vent their rage for voters to see.
How I wish thet Anthony Weiner and Harry Reid would switch jobs!
12 Responses to “Weiner and the Republican BS Machine”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It was great to see some passion on the left. Maybe it will catch on and we can see what scum people Like Peter King really are. King who is one of the biggest fear mongers on the Right needed that. He sat down like a child being admonished by their parents. Forgive my spelling on this but Clair McCaskill did a fine job the other day questioning the two losers who screwed up Arlington. She showed a lot of passion too.
Tim, I saw that on CSPAN. I wish she’d direct it at her Republican colleagues.
Just as Republicans like to wage war and use our troops as a political logo, but not properly supply our troops, or take care of them when they get home; again they come up with some excuse to say no to something they claim to support – the men and women who responded to the attack on the United States. And of course, if you helped and are not a citizen of the United States, you should not get any aid. What can be said – WOW !
Excellent point, Tom. I knew that, but failed to think of it. Thanks!
Absolutely ridiculous. The law should have passed on it’s own merits without amendments that had nothing to do with the bill. In fact, I’m in favor of all bills passing with an up or down vote (with 51 Senators being the win) and no amendments. Think of how much shit we’d get done then! Adding amendments that have nothing to do with the bill is usually just adding pork that’s hidden in the bill – this time it was the Bush tax cuts and the death tax. Do they really think that people care enough about that shit to have it added to the bill? No they don’t. Help is needed for small businesses and the Repubs won’t let them have it simply because the Dems could add it to their list of accomplishments when running. Everyone of these Repubs need to be run out of the Senate.
I agree, Lisa, but I would allow ammendments that are related to the bill under consideration.
Somehow, (for political reasons on both sides) the mechanics of both houses have become so torturous that nothing but milk toast can get passed and not even that any more. We need a complete overhaul but I surely don’t see that coming. That would require a new house and senate who agreed to stay one term only for the purpose of revising the entire system to make it operable again. I don’t see that happening. This whole thing just sucks.
Sherry, it’s not that complicated. The House is working fine. All the problems are in the Senate and thise could disappear on 1/3/2011 if Senate Democrats hve the courage to change the rules, ending the filibuster and personal holds.
Sherry,
The filibuster rules can be changed at the begining of a Congressional session. Why Sen. Reid did not change those rules, is beyond me.
The “milk toast” you reference, is because of the filibusters and the compromises that follow.
Sen. Reid has not been a good manager of the Senate, or his own Democrats.
Tom, the Nevada Leg Hound did not change the rules, because he was too busy humping GOP legs and whining.
Like you, TomCat, Media Matters also did an excellent job of covering the background details that prompted Weiner’s well-deserved outrage:
Source:
http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201007300005
Thanks for the confirmation, Nameless. Aren’t they despicable?