greenbird
(432 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 06:17 AM
Original message |
| I need some education about this so-called supermajority. |
|
Why was Bush able to get things through without a supermajority - was it because Dems didn't threaten to filibuster? Are those who say that HCR could still be passed (like Grayson) correct?
I appreciate any enlightenment.
|
WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 06:31 AM
Response to Original message |
|
Dems were perfectly willing to vote yes on cloture and no on a bill.
Some Dems voted along with Republicans.
|
greenbird
(432 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 06:41 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
| 2. Is Alan Grayson correct in saying |
|
that nothing's changed? That HCR can still pass with the new Senate numbers?
|
WeDidIt
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 07:29 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 3. It cannot pass the Senate. |
|
The only hope is for the House to do it in two bills.
1) Pass the existing Senate bill as-is.
2) Pass a new bill that fixes the crap in the Senate Bill and 100% meets the Senate requirements for reconciliation.
This is such a long shot that at this point, I'm saying HCR is dead for another generation.
|
TicketyBoo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 08:20 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
TicketyBoo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
Brown is making noises like he will compromise on HCR; he just won't vote for it as it stands.
Well, duh. There isn't even a final bill to decide upon.
This doesn't sound exactly like what he campaigned on, for all those griping about such things. Record time for a flip-flop?
|
goclark
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #2 |
| 5. Did he explain how it can happen? |
greenbird
(432 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
| 8. Not in the short clip I saw. |
|
I wish I understood what he meant!
|
treestar
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 09:15 AM
Response to Original message |
| 6. The Dems cooperated sometimes |
|
The filibuster was not meant to be used the way the Repukes use it.
Bush also wanted less done. He was a Republican, after all.
the times were different, too. Right after 911, it would be absurd to have expected the Dems to filibuster Bush. Most of them voted for the Patriot Act! All of the Senators except Feingold voted for it, much less filibuster it.
The voters are more centrist than the progressives claim, too. Ultimately politicians want to be re-elected, and they know what their constituents want.
|
Cha
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 04:24 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
| 10. Yes, I think they're over simplifiying what bush |
|
got done..first of all..nothing was paid for.
|
AlinPA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 04:21 PM
Response to Original message |
| 9. Some of the bills Bush had pushed through were of a budgetary nature where |
|
reconciliation can be done, and needing only 51 votes. Also, he had Democrats who were afraid of him and Karl Rove. There were probably a lot of stuffed brown envelopes passed under desks.
|
greenbird
(432 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
| 11. OK, so is this why people say that the bill will have to be split up? |
|
Edited on Wed Jan-20-10 06:15 PM by greenbird
Parts that deal with budgetary considerations can go the way of reconciliation, and other issues (such as preventing denial on the basis of pre-existing conditions) cannot?
Edited for typos.
|
AlinPA
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Jan-20-10 08:18 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
| 12. That's my understanding. (sorry for late reply) |
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Dec 24th 2025, 05:37 PM
Response to Original message |