Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Democrats Going 'Nuclear' Over the Health Care Plan?
Fox News - Greta ^ | 21 August 2009 | Dodger

Posted on 08/21/2009 8:26:41 PM PDT by dodger

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS HOST: All right, is the plan to go nuclear? Are the Senate Democrats fed up and fired up, and are they going to invoke the nuclear option and push through health care reform? Democrats might use the nuclear option, which is slang for a parliamentary procedure called "reconciliation" to get health care reform passed.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: commmunistcoup; filibuster; nuclearoption; partisan; reconciliation
Post-partisanship hope & change, indeed.
1 posted on 08/21/2009 8:26:41 PM PDT by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: dodger; savedbygrace

Golly, a bit of conceptual agility ...


2 posted on 08/21/2009 8:33:42 PM PDT by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger

3 posted on 08/21/2009 8:34:23 PM PDT by Travis McGee (---www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger
You bet they are. They're going to need all the illegal alien votes they can get in 2010 and 2012. This should do it. Getting Americans to pay for healthcare for Mexican Nationals.

I know, "That's rasis!"

4 posted on 08/21/2009 8:43:18 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (January 20th, 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger
Do it.

Photobucket

5 posted on 08/21/2009 8:44:58 PM PDT by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|Remember Neda Agha-Soltan|TV--it's NOT news you can trust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger
It's looking worse and worse (or better and better for worthwhile conservative candidates) for dimocRATS in Blue/Brown Dog areas.

Many been a bit of trouble trying to explain their "yeas" on the bailout, the Cap and Tax and now thumbing their collective noses at the desires on "healthcare reform" of their constituents could be the final straw. Before '09, many were able to have "safe" votes - with Pelosi/Reid/Obama, that option is now off the table.

Some of these dogs claim to be "fiscal moderates" yet none of their votes for so far is either "fiscal" or "moderate."

Finally, in my area, we will be able to pin the "tax and spend liberal" tail on our KS 3rd District Donkey!!!

He's up the creek no matter which way he jumps - vote yes to keep the $$$$ rolling in from his big dollar supporters, all from outside KS but lose the votes to get reelected or vote no to pretend to please his voters but lose all of those $$$ from his big-money donors plus the democRAT Party.

Such a dilemma and it couldn't happen to a more deserving liberal/progressive in conservative Levi's.

6 posted on 08/21/2009 8:46:53 PM PDT by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger
Do not know about ‘nuclear’ but how about ‘comprehensive’?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2321788/posts

7 posted on 08/21/2009 8:47:55 PM PDT by Just mythoughts (Bama and Company are reenacting the Pharaoh as told by Moses in Genesis!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger

If they do, they’ll find out what “nuclear” means in November 2010.


8 posted on 08/21/2009 8:48:49 PM PDT by VoiceOfBruck (Always be a good boy, don't ever play with guns)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger

It will render the entire Democrat party radioactive if they do.


9 posted on 08/21/2009 8:56:23 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Barack Obama is a political suicide bomber.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Tell him to repent and become a Republican.


10 posted on 08/21/2009 8:57:28 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Barack Obama is a political suicide bomber.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dodger
I don't have a nuke, but I can make field expedient area weapons. Bring it, communists. I call. All in.

/johnny

11 posted on 08/21/2009 9:16:02 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (God Bless us all, each, and every one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger

That was my opinion when this all started. There will be some public outcry, then it will pass with the help (or non-reporting) of the MSM. Just like the same public outcry with the first bailout budget.


12 posted on 08/21/2009 9:28:58 PM PDT by CatOwner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger

Yes, but the worst of it is that it is politics - they could care less about how it affects the country. Isn’t that a bitch! More than half of the country could care less, just get me elected!


13 posted on 08/21/2009 10:04:40 PM PDT by Deagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. Reconciliation also applies in the United States House of Representatives, but since the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the reconciliation process represented less of a change in that body.

A reconciliation instruction is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.[1]

A reconciliation bill is one containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.[2]


14 posted on 08/21/2009 10:29:45 PM PDT by knarf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger

Here is the actual analysis of “the nuclear option”:

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45448.pdf

Do a Search or Find in that document for ‘reconciliation’. No hits. That’s because reconciliation has existed for many years, and has been used many times, but isn’t “the nuclear option”, regardless of what an uninformed reporter or Michael Steele might say while acting stupid.

“The nuclear option” was a phrase coined by Senator Lott with regard to the filibusters Senate Democrats were employing to keep the majority Republicans from voting on President Bush’s judicial nominees.

The phrase only applied to that legislative process of invoking cloture with less than 60 votes. Lott proposed to step the vote downward, first trying to invoke cloture with a 55 vote majority. If that failed, Lott proposed to reduce the number of votes required in subsequent votes until they reached 51, if needed.

So, to review, THE nuclear option was a phrase coined by Trent Lott for a Senate procedure that would have modified Senate rules for invoking cloture to end the minority’s filibuster of the President’s judicial nominees.

OTOH, reconciliation is an established Senate procedure that has existed for many years, but is supposed to only apply to a narrow set of budget bills.

BTW, if Reid were to try to apply reconciliation to the health care reform bill, Republicans would shut down the Senate. Almost all Senate business requires unanimous consent to proceed. Republicans would demand a unanimous consent vote, and no other Senate business would be able to proceed until one side blinks.


15 posted on 08/22/2009 4:06:14 AM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
Ah well, yours seems an incapacious obduracy ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Other_uses_of_.22nuclear_option.22

Other uses of "nuclear option"

Beyond the specific context of U.S. federal judicial appointments, the term "nuclear option" has come to be used generically for a procedural maneuver with potentially serious consequences, to be used as a last resort to overcome political opposition.

In a recent legal ruling on the validity of the Hunting Act 2004 (Jackson and others v. Her Majesty's Attorney General [2005] UKHL 56, 13 October 2005), the UK House of Lords used "nuclear option" to describe the possibility of creating hundreds of new Liberal peers, which the government threatened to do in order to force the Tory-dominated Lords to accept the Great Reform Act of 1832.

16 posted on 08/26/2009 9:18:12 AM PDT by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dodger
Yes, that's exactly what they are going to do. They're aleady making noises about it.

Elections have consequences.
17 posted on 08/26/2009 9:22:34 AM PDT by Antoninus (Sarah Palin will soon have more fans on Facebook than most major newspapers have readers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dodger

Reconciliation has been used a number of times in the past, and nothing blew up or was incinerated. Still, you insist on calling it the nuclear option.

Well, if that floats your boat, paddle on. But do so without me.


18 posted on 08/26/2009 9:46:52 AM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: savedbygrace
YOU TWIT & TWIT ... this following is from your WIKI citation ...

Beyond the specific context of U.S. federal judicial appointments, the term "nuclear option" has come to be used generically for a procedural maneuver with potentially serious consequences, to be used as a last resort to overcome political opposition.

What ever 'floats your boat' ... FQNRP

19 posted on 09/02/2009 9:43:29 PM PDT by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: dodger

We covered that already upthread. This misnaming of terms always happens over time as a result of ignorant people misusing the phrase. Weren’t you paying attention?

In this case, the misnaming was begun by ignorant reporters, and sheep like you must like sniffing their tails, just following along behind them.


20 posted on 09/03/2009 2:34:03 AM PDT by savedbygrace (You are only leading if someone follows. Otherwise, you just wandered off... [Smokin' Joe])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dodger

SBG ... we covered all that - right!


21 posted on 09/03/2009 9:11:25 PM PDT by dodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson