The Long Version

Retired broadcast journalist. Blogging helps scratch the itch. Recovering exRepublican – Sober and still Conservative.

Posts Tagged ‘Republican

Roll Back Thursday – The Filibuster

leave a comment »

Today, Thursday, November 21, 2013 the United States Senate voted to change a centuries old parliamentary procedure in the Senate chamber and invoked the so-called “nuclear option” making it possible to confirm presidential nominees by a simple majority vote rather than the 60 votes necessary to override any filibuster attempt by the minority party.

Senate Majority Leader Harry ReidSenate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats claim Republicans have become career obstructionists holding up judicial and executive nominees from an up or down vote for too long.  So with that in mind Harry Reid said, “It’s time to change the Senate, before this institution becomes obsolete.”  (Now remember this quote when you watch the videos below)

Of course there is fantastic irony at play here that simply can’t be ignored, nor should it be.

A little background.

In the 2005 Senate, Republicans held 55 seats and the Democrats held 45 including Jim Jeffords, an independent from Vermont who caucused with the Democrats. Confirmation requires a plurality of votes, and the Republicans could easily confirm their nominees if brought to the floor. Earlier in 2005, Democrats had blocked the nomination of 10 of George W. Bush’s nominees, saying they were too conservative and that Republicans had blocked many of their nominees back in the 1990s. The old tit for tat response.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist then threatened to enact the nuclear option.

This is how then Senator Barack Obama, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, and Senator Hillary Clinton reacted to that threat, and their staunch defense of the rules of the Senate and the filibuster.

So what changed folks?

What happened to “as long as I’m the leader, the answer is no!” eh Senator Reid?

Tsk tsk tsk…the lengths we will go to get what we want. Even if it means a complete reversal of ourselves at any moment in time.  Look up the word integrity. You won’t find this behavior exemplified anywhere in its definition. This rebuke isn’t reserved exclusively for Democrats either. Republicans are just as stained when it comes to this kind of gerrymandering to get their way.

Shame on this governing body.  Shame.

Advertisements

The Politics of Gerrymandering or Vice Versa

leave a comment »

Democrats and Liberals and Progressives (OH MY) are up in arms over a rule change by the House Republicans.

Late in the evening on September 30, 2013, the House Rules Committee Republicans changed the Rules of the House so that the ONLY Member allowed to call up the Senate’s clean CR for a vote was Majority Leader Eric Cantor or his designee — all but guaranteeing the government would shut down a few hours later and would stay shut down. Previously, any Member would have had the right to bring the CR up for a vote.

This is what we’ve come to in Washington DC politics.  The division between the two major parties has become so large and so corrosive that neither will work with the other.  Rather than even try they simply look for ways to get around whatever impediment the other side puts in their way.  In other words, they gerrymander the system to get what they want when they want it.

It happens on both sides and its wrong in either case.

But we can’t let Liberals squawk about this rule change without reminding them of the underhanded tricks, procedural gimmicks, and gerrymandering that took place when Obamacare was voted into law without a single Republican vote in 2010, even though the Senate did not have the super majority it needed to ram it through.

Here is the story behind that gerrymandering fiasco.

How Obamacare Became the “Law of the Land”.

senator_nancypelosi_obamacareYou may recall the Democrats in the Senate weren’t able to pass their version of the Healthcare law because all revenue bills must originate in the House of Representatives.  So the Senate found a bill that met those qualifications: HR3590, a military housing bill.  They took that bill and basically stripped all the language out of it and turned it into the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which we now all know as Obamacare.  Dirty trick number one.

Oh but It gets better.

At the time the new fangled HR3590 was passed and moved to the Senate, the Democrats had 60 Senators, just enough to pass this gerrymandered bill.  However, after that bill passed the Senate, Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy died.  In his place, Massachusetts elected a Republican, Scott Brown, to replace him.  Now the Democrats no longer had the super majority needed to rubber stamp the Healthcare law, Obama’s signature legislation.

That meant, if the House made any changes to the bill, the Senate would not have the super majority to push the bill through without Republican help and Republicans were not on board with Obamacare.

So the Senate Democrats made a deal with the Democrats in the House with no input from any Republicans.  The House would agree to pass the Senate bill without any changes, IF the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version.  This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010.  It made some detail changes and added some language to the bill.  You scratch my back I’ll scratch yours.  Dirty trick number two.

So the House passed the PPACA, the Senate bill, and their Reconciliation Act.  Making the PPACA ready for the President’s signature, but the Senate still needed to pass the Reconciliation Act from the House.

Confused yet?

Now remember the Senate only had 59 votes to pass the Reconciliation Act since a Republican, Scott Brown, replaced Democrat Ted Kennedy.  That meant in order to pass the Reconciliation Act the Democrats in the Senate had to change the rules.

They declared (because they were the majority and could) that they would use the Reconciliation Rule to pass the Reconciliation Act — the Reconciliation Act and Reconciliation Rule are not the same thing but the irony is simply amazing!

Stay with me.

5639556_Obama_Obamacare_Signature_600x515_xlargeThe Reconciliation Rule was only used for budget item approvals to allow budgets to be approved and passed by a simple majority vote of 51 Senators rather than the usual 60 super majority.  The Reconciliation rule had never been used nor was it ever intended to be used to pass legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare, but that wasn’t about to keep the Democrats from getting their way come Hell or high water!  So they used this obscure rule with some very liberal interpretation (pun intended) to pass the bill.  Dirty trick number three.

Both of the “Acts” passed both houses of congress and were then signed by President Obama.  All done by Democrats without a single favorable Republican vote.  To quote Democrat Representative Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee during the bill process: “We’re making up the rules as we go along”.  They certainly couldn’t have passed this law without doing so.

I don’t care what party you align yourself with, show me the integrity in that process. Defend the actions of the Democrats and President Obama. Some of you Liberals may have done so at the time the law was passed.  I don’t know how, but maybe you figured out a way that sat well with you. But what about now? Now that we’ve seen what a disaster the implementation of this law has become. Do you still defend the method of its passage? Do you still say Republicans should have been shut out of the process? That it was right to ignore their ideas and input on the law?

And now, as Republicans use the same dirty underhanded tactics to get what they want you scream foul!?!  Really?

What goes around comes around. The Republicans have figured it out.  They’ve finally succumbed to using the same political guerrilla warfare they seen used on them by Democrats for decades.  Principles be damned.  To Hell with integrity, decorum, and fairness.  Win at all costs.

That’s how we got here and it’s only going to get worse.  The power brokers on both sides in DC think they are “winning” while the rest of us are losing.

Big time.

The Sky-quester is Falling!

with 2 comments

President Obama proposed the soon to be enacted sequester, demanded it be part of the debt deal, signed it into law and angrily promised to veto the GOP efforts to repeal it. Now, like Dr. Frankenstein, he’s running from his own creation.

It is an intentional untruth to say sequester cuts must come from police officers and schools. It’s a tiny cut that barely moves the needle on federal spending. You can meet sequester targets by instead eliminating a small amount of waste. $84 Billion in spending can be cut without touching critical programs like police, schools and NASA.

House Republicans have passed two different bills to replace Obama’s plan to cut critical services. Senate Democrats refuse to hold a vote on it and Obama once vowed to veto any plans to stop his sequester. Republicans have provided alternative spending reductions, but Democrats have rejected them and seem committed to blind, across-the-board cuts to scare people. We need to “encourage” Democrats to support intelligent cuts.

Here are five simple spending cuts suggested by Rep. Steve Stockton which meet Obama’s sequester reduction targets without cuts to essential programs.

  • Eliminate the government’s “free cell phone” plan that has ballooned into the ObamaPhone giveaway, 41 percent of which goes to people not even eligible (sorry but a cell phone is not essential to survival): $2.2 billion in savings
  • Eliminate ObamaCare’s “Public Health Slush Fund,” which even Democrats want to eliminate: $10 billion in savings
  • Require food stamp recipients, the numbers of which have exploded under Obama, to actually be eligible for food stamps: $26 billion in savings
  • Eliminate overpayments for ObamaCare exchange subsidies: $44 billion in savings
  • Eliminate Obama’s “renewable energy” fund in the Energy Department: $1.8 billion in savings

The “sky is falling” approach to the sequester the President and democrats have taken after THEY created it is the height of hypocrisy.

I say let the sky fall and watch as the sun rises in the morning.

The-Sequester

Written by DCL

February 22, 2013 at 2:49 pm

Voter Fraud? What’s the GOP going to do about it?

leave a comment »

Voter Fraud in 2012 GOP can't fight it.The answer to the question in the title is quite simply, nothing.

But the reason the GOP will sit quietly as reports come out of battleground states of voter fraud is not for lack of desire to right a wrong, but because they are legally prevented from doing so.

You read correctly. The GOP cannot legally file suit or petition the courts to look into voter fraud in any of the 50 states.

In 1981, during the gubernatorial election in New Jersey (NJ), a lawsuit was brought against the RNC, the NJ Republican State Committee (RSC), and three individuals (John A. Kelly, Ronald Kaufman, and Alex Hurtado), accusing them of violating the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

To settle the lawsuit, in 1982, the RNC and RSC entered into an agreement or Consent Decree, which is national in scope, limiting the RNC’s ability to engage or assist in voter fraud prevention unless the RNC obtains the court’s approval in advance.

The RNC has tried to get court approval to help prevent voter fraud but has been denied by the courts.

The RNC also agreed that the RNC, its agents, servants, and employees would be bound by the Decree, “whether acting directly or indirectly through other party committees.”

The Consent Decree was modified in 1987 and redefined “ballot security activities” to mean “ballot integrity, ballot security or other efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud.”

Here’s a fun twist. Since 1982, this Consent Decree has been renewed every year by the original judge, Carter appointee District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise, now 88 years old.

Debevoise has been retired for years but comes back for the sole purpose of renewing his 1982 order for another year.

In 2010, the RNC unsuccessfully appealed “to vacate or modify” the Consent Decree in “Democratic National Committee v Republican National Committee,” Case No. 09-4615 (C.A. 3, Mar. 8, 2012).

The judge who denied the RNC’s appeal to “vacate” the 1982 Consent Decree is an Obama appointee, Judge Joseph Greenaway, Jr., of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. What? You were expecting a Reagan appointee?

The RNC and DNC made their Consent Decree 30 years ago, in 1982. The agreement in effect gives a carte blanche to the Democrat Party to commit vote fraud in every voting district across America that has, in the language of the Consent Decree, “a substantial proportion of racial or ethnic populations.” The term “substantial proportion” is not defined.

The Republican Party is either full of incompetents or part of a big plan where they are the Tom to the Democrats Jerry.

This is just another layer to be peeled back from the mess our election process has become, with each layer revealing an even bigger, deeper, and more disturbing problem.

Thanks to the following blogs for their thorough reporting of this story.

Fellowship of the Minds

gulagbound.com

Also check out this article at TheBlaze.  A good read about why, regardless of the number of cases of alleged voter fraud come forward, the election will stay the same.

An $8 Billion Coincidence?

leave a comment »

What you’re not hearing about Medicare in all the Medicare banter these days is an interesting little coincidence President Obama hopes Seniors never hear about before November 6th.  You can all but guarantee you won’t read about it in the major news publications or see it on TV.

Here is a simple slide presentation explaining this slick move and, in my opinion, calculated act of deception by the administration.  Click the link to view.

www.brainshark.com

Written by DCL

August 23, 2012 at 12:19 am

Top 10 Reasons to Hate Mitt Romney

with 222 comments

Top Ten Reasons To Hate Mitt Romney

speaking at CPAC in Washington D.C. on Februar...

A lot is being said in the media about Mitt Romney not being “likable” or that he doesn’t “relate well” to people.

So after much research, here is a Top Ten List to explain this “un-likablility.”

Top Ten Reasons To Hate Mitt Romney:

1. Drop-dead, collar-ad handsome with gracious, statesmanlike demeanor. Looks like every central casting’s #1 choice for Commander-in-Chief.

2. Been married to ONE woman his entire life, and has been faithful to her, including through her bouts with breast cancer and MS.

3. No scandals or skeletons in his closet. (How boring is that?)

4. Can’t speak in a fake, southern, “preacher voice” when necessary.  (Could learn a thing or two from Hillary, Al, or Barack in that area)

5. Highly intelligent. Graduated cum laude from both Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School…and by the way, his academic records are NOT sealed.

6. Doesn’t smoke or drink alcohol, and has never done drugs, not even in the counter-culture age when he went to college. Too square for today’s America?

7. Represents an America of “yesterday”, where people believed in God, went to Church, didn’t screw around, worked hard, and became a SUCCESS!

8. Has a family of five great sons….and none of them have police records or are in drug rehab. But of course, they were raised by a stay-at-home mom, and that “choice” deserves America’s scorn.

9. Oh yes…..he’s a MORMON. We need to be very afraid of that very strange religion that teaches its members to be clean-living, patriotic, fiscally conservative, charitable, self-reliant, and honest.

10. And one more point…..pundits say because of his wealth, he can’t relate to ordinary Americans. I guess that’s because he made that money HIMSELF…..as opposed to marrying it or inheriting it from Dad. Apparently, he didn’t understand that actually working at a job and earning your own money made you un-relatable to Americans.

 

*I am not the original author of this Top 10 List.  I have tried to search for the original post to provide attribution to its author, but have not located it to date.

Written by DCL

July 30, 2012 at 3:28 pm

Socialism Explained for 8 year-olds

with 6 comments

President Obama loves to talk about fairness but fails to include everyone in that conversation.  How can there be fairness when one segment of the population is used to provide “fairness” to another.

Even if you’re older than 8 watch the video and marvel at the common sense of it.

Written by DCL

April 19, 2012 at 6:28 pm