Since neither party has the corner on asinine commentary.


"I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America. " Alan Grayson - Florida Representative (also stated on the house floor the the Republican Health Care Plan was to either not get sick or die quickly).

10/1/2009 3:09:46 PM

yeah, that guy is at the top of the fucking moron heap.

10/1/2009 3:22:50 PM

Holocaust comparisons are just dumb and hyperbolic in general.

And I could just post "video of everything Michelle Bachmann has ever said" and win this thread.

10/1/2009 3:25:30 PM

to me, it seemed kind of obvious from what i saw him do afterwords(on CNN) that he was saying all those crazy things to bring attention to himself and getting on all the 24hour networks then saying the republicans aint got shit for alternatives. but that doesn't mean he isnt a looney and probably could have done it a better way but as crazy bald guy carville said it makes good television

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 3:27:05 PM

Isn't Grayson one of the few that has a clue about the economy and what the Fed is doing?

10/1/2009 4:00:11 PM

^ He knows they don't have a clue, I don't know how much he knows himself.

Quote :

"I could just post "video of everything Michelle Bachmann has ever said""

Go for it. Politicians of all stripes need to be called out.

10/1/2009 4:25:59 PM

Quote :

"Holocaust comparisons are just dumb and hyperbolic in general."

There's a difference between comparing something to The Holocaust and calling something a holocaust.

The 1930's/1940's don't get exclusive rights to the word.

Granted, it's still hyperbole.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 5:41 PM. Reason : /]

10/1/2009 5:41:17 PM

Quote :

"Holocaust comparisons are just dumb and hyperbolic in general. And I could just post "video of everything Michelle Bachmann has ever said" and win this thread. "

It would be insane to compare Alan Grayson to Michelle Bachmann.

10/1/2009 6:45:35 PM

Michelle Bachmann cannot be compared too.

She's on a planet all her own.

10/1/2009 6:46:54 PM

Quote :

"There's a difference between comparing something to The Holocaust and calling something a holocaust. The 1930's/1940's don't get exclusive rights to the word. Granted, it's still hyperbole."

Frankly, I'd say they do. The event has eclipsed the original meaning of the word, and the politician knew exactly what he meant when he used that word. There's a thousand other words he could have used that were just as powerful but didn't immediately recall the deaths of six million Jews.

10/1/2009 6:48:03 PM

You see, that's kinda wrong, and actually insulting to Jews. The word had been used to describe great atrocities for 800 or so years, including the description of other massacres of Jews.

I'm just saying, there's a difference (and a rather large one) between saying "a holocaust" or "this holocaust" and "The Holocaust".

Here, from Merriam-Webster

Quote :

"Main Entry: ho·lo·caust Pronunciation: \'ho-l?-?k?st, 'hä- also -?käst or 'h?-l?-k?st\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin holocaustum, from Greek holokauston, from neuter of holokaustos burnt whole, from hol- + kaustos burnt, from kaiein to burn — more at caustic Date: 13th century 1 : a sacrifice consumed by fire 2 : a thorough destruction involving extensive loss of life especially through fire <a nuclear holocaust> 3 a often capitalized : the mass slaughter of European civilians and especially Jews by the Nazis during World War II —usually used with the b : a mass slaughter of people; especially : genocide"

It's not even first or second.

But, looking at he definition, he was incorrect in his use of the word. I would imagine a small minority of those who have died due to lack of health care coverage have died as a result of fire, and they certainly haven't died as a result of genocide.

10/2/2009 8:17:19 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/01/bachmann-sex-clinics-will_n_306292.html

10/2/2009 11:42:43 AM

Quote :

"Even with forest fires raging out West, the U.S. Forest Service this week announced it will spend nearly $2.8 million in forest-fire-fighting money in Washington — a city with no national forests and where the last major fire was probably lit by British troops in 1814. The D.C. aid is going to two programs: $90,000 is slated for a green summer job corps, but the vast majority of the money — $2.7 million — is going to Washington Parks & People, which sponsors park festivals and refurbishes urban parks in the Washington area. Forest Service officials didn't return messages left seeking comment on why they spent money from their "wildland fire mitigation" stimulus fund in Washington, but members of Congress said city parks don't deserve the money while fires are scorching millions of acres of land and owners are losing homes. "

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/11/forest-fire-aid-given-to-dc-parks/


Because, clearly, there is a significant forest fire risk in the District of Columbia.

10/2/2009 2:42:46 PM

Consider this: "The stimulus bill, which passed Congress and was signed by President Obama in February, was designed to create jobs and take care of urgent priorities."

10/2/2009 2:47:53 PM

You can hear his initial comments, and his non-apology. The "average tuesday" comment around 4 mins was kind of funny. Rachel goes on to play clips of many republicans saying democrats are going to killing americans, drop dead, die in line, 1 in 5 ppl have to die, this program of gov option... is going to kill people, republicans have a better solution that... that wont have seniors put to death by their government, i'd hate to think that among 5 women 1 of them is going to die b/c we go to socialized medicine, watch out if you're disabled. And then she says that while it isn't the behavior that we'd like to see in congress, that it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense to call for the one democrat to stand up front of everyone and apologize, but not the republicans.

I have no problem with Congressman Grayson being called out to apologize for saying the other sides plan is for Americans to die quickly, & equally all the republicans who have already said democrats want to kill Americans with health care likewise need to be called out.

Escalation ftw!

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2009 3:02:57 PM

^^ If it was that important, how come so little of it has been spent? (Somewhere between 10 and 15% last I checked.)

Either way, aside from the dubious morality of confiscating wealth from tax producing citizens and distributing it for political favors, I'm sure there are plenty of things in DC which should take precedence over the need to fight forest fires in an area with practically no forests.

Quote :

"I have no problem with Congressman Grayson being called out to apologize for saying the other sides plan is for Americans to die quickly, & equally all the republicans who have already said democrats want to kill Americans with health care likewise need to be called out."

Agreed, hence the creation of this thread.

10/2/2009 3:19:48 PM

Quote :

"U.S. troop funds diverted to pet projects Senators diverted $2.6 billion in funds in a defense spending bill to pet projects largely at the expense of accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to an analysis. Among the 778 such projects, known as earmarks, packed into the bill: $25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat. While earmarks are hardly new in Washington, "in 30 years on Capitol Hill, I never saw Congress mangle the defense budget as badly as this year," said Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization. . . . Mr. Wheeler, who conducted the study, compared the Obama administration's requests for funds with the $636 billion spending bill that the Senate passed. He discovered that senators added $2.6 billion in pet projects while spending $4 billion less than the administration requested for fiscal 2010, which began Oct. 1. Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the "operations and maintenance" or O&M accounts. "These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel," Mr. Wheeler said. Raiding those accounts to fund big-ticket projects the military does not want, but that benefit senators' home states or campaign contributors, amounts to "rancid gluttony," he said. . . . Money for the Kennedy Institute was inserted by Mr. Inouye and Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat. Sen. Mary L. Landrieu, Louisiana Democrat, and Sen. David Vitter, Louisiana Republican, sought the funding for the World War II museum. . . . "This funding will help the Edward M. Kennedy Institute become one the nation's pre-eminent civic educational institutions, and Sen. Kerry is proud to have worked with Chairman Inouye to make it possible." . . . In addition to the $2.6 billion in earmarks, the bill includes $2.5 billion for 10 Boeing C-17 cargo planes that the military says it does not need, and $1.7 billion for an extra DDG-51 destroyer not requested in the Pentagon's budget proposal. . . . Mr. Wheeler said senators had raided O&M accounts to pay for narrowly targeted projects in every budget since 2002, with dire results for troops on the front lines. "Air Force and Navy combat pilots training to deploy are getting about half of the flying hours they got at the end of the Vietnam War," he wrote in his analysis. "Army tank crews get less in tank training today than they did during the low-readiness Clinton years.""

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/troop-funds-diverted-to-pet-projects/



Remind me again why I have the slightest reason to believe that these people will actually put my interests above their own if we cede to them control of the health care industry? Ted Kennedy's fans can go fuck themselves. His family has enough money to build whatever center they want in his name, it isn't the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund a bloated tribute to a bloated man, especially at the expense of the very service members that congress voted to send to, and maintain in, Afghanistan and Iraq

Not shit will be done though and most of these shitheads will be reelected to wallow in their own crapulence and crow upon the pile of shit that is the US Congress about how they're serving the people of the United States.

10/16/2009 6:32:13 PM

of course some other state's representatives and senators don't have YOUR interests in mind. why the fuck should they? that's not their job.

10/16/2009 6:41:50 PM

You're right, there is no incentive for them to watch out for me, which is why I have no incentive to fund them through taxes.


This is one of the most fundamentally immoral things about the current congressional process, the confiscation of money from one group to essentially fund the re-election of congressmen elsewhere.

Which, again, begs the question, why do I want to trust these shitheads to get health care reform remotely right?

10/16/2009 6:47:54 PM

the current process? it's always been like that. it sucks, but it's part of living in a democracy. your money is inevitably going to go towards shit that will never benefit you. that's just how it works.

[Edited on October 16, 2009 at 6:51 PM. Reason : .]

10/16/2009 6:51:02 PM

We could outlaw pet projects. If a bill involves the construction of something permanent in your district or state then you must abstain from voting.

A line item veto is also a popular solution.

10/17/2009 9:37:08 AM

^

All votes would be "0 in favor, 0 opposed." And you can only imagine how it would increase favor trading.

A line-item veto is bad for the separation of powers. The Presidency is already too powerful.

10/17/2009 9:55:56 AM

^^^ There are actually some interesting speeches from about the first 50 years of congress where at least some men made principled stands against this sort of thing.


But you're right, this sort of thing is inevitable, I suppose it is the scope these days which bothers me the most. I'm certainly not going to dismiss it simply because it is the way it has always been.

10/17/2009 10:07:12 AM

Quote :

" A line item veto is also a popular solution."

Line item veto is unconstitutional. The supremes have already ruled on it. For someone who is so smug and sure of his superior knowledge, you sure are clueless.

10/17/2009 10:51:18 AM

How odd, I could have sworn that you of all people would have heard of the amendment process. Or that it could be implemented as a parliamentary rule instead, only requiring a majority to re-send the vetoed items back to the president.

It is unlikely that you were unaware of these possibilities, the line-item veto amendment was proposed again just this year, that I can only conclude you are playing dumb.

10/17/2009 10:59:05 AM

Quote :

"Hatch asks Obama to launch investigation into BCS WASHINGTON -- A senator whose undefeated home state school was bypassed for the college football national championship last season urged President Barack Obama on Wednesday to ask the Justice Department to investigate the Bowl Championship Series, citing Obama's own concerns about the way the top team is crowned in building a case for action. "Mr. President, as you have publicly stated on multiple occasions, the BCS system is in dire need of reform," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a 10-page letter to Obama calling for an antitrust probe of the BCS. The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter. Shortly after his election last year, Obama said he was going to "to throw my weight around a little bit" to nudge college football toward a playoff system. Obama and Hatch are among the many critics of how the BCS -- a complex system of computer rankings and polls that often draws criticism -- determines its national champion. Hatch, who held a hearing on the BCS in July, told Obama that a "strong case" can be made that the BCS violates antitrust laws."

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/12399197


Really?

10/22/2009 5:16:43 PM

Gabby Grayson's off the rails again!



Just look at this fucking doofus.

Grayson: Fox News is the 'enemy of America'
22nd, 2009

Quote :

"'Fox News and their Republican collaborators are the enemy of America,' Grayson told MSNBC's Ed Schultz on Wednesday. 'They're the enemy of anybody who cares about health care in this country, the enemy of anybody who cares about educating their children, the enemy of anybody who wants energy independence or anything good for this country. And certainly the enemy of peace, there's no doubt about that. They are the enemy.'"

http://rawstory.com/2009/10/grayson-fox-enemy-of-america/

Wow.

10/23/2009 5:22:08 AM

Quote :

"How odd, I could have sworn that you of all people would have heard of the amendment process. Or that it could be implemented as a parliamentary rule instead, only requiring a majority to re-send the vetoed items back to the president. It is unlikely that you were unaware of these possibilities, the line-item veto amendment was proposed again just this year, that I can only conclude you are playing dumb."

You daft bint, Congress will never pass a line item veto amendment. It cedes its power to craft and write legislation to the President, hence it being unconstitutional.

Furthermore, it wouldn't matter if it was implemented as a parliamentary rule, it is unconstitutional. The only manner of getting it in place would be an amendment and that will never happen.

So continue to smell your own farts in the manner and comforts your smugness.

10/23/2009 7:22:42 AM

Line item veto is a terrible idea. The last thing we need is to give more power to the President. At the same time, Congress is incompetent. That much is obvious, to me at least.

Grayson's "die quickly" comment shows a fair amount of ignorance. Conservatives aren't saying that old/sick people should die quickly. They're saying they should be able to live for as long as they can pay to keep themselves alives. Sounds reasonable, to me.

Democrats, on the other hand, are saying that - at least under a government run health plan - old/sick people should be able to live until it gets too expensive for the government to cover. That's how it would have to be under a government plan. You can't dump millions of dollars into a 115 year old cancer patient. It's just not feasible. At some point, a government official or group official would have to make that call, or there would have to be some sort of annual/lifetime "maximum" payout for any given individual. So you'd still have people dying because the cost of staying alive is too high.

10/23/2009 9:02:30 AM

Quote :

"CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?” Pelosi: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” CNSNews.com: “Yes, yes I am.” Pelosi then shook her head before taking a question from another reporter. Her press spokesman, Nadeam Elshami, then told CNSNews.com that asking the speaker of the House where the Constitution authorized Congress to mandated that individual Americans buy health insurance as not a "serious question." “You can put this on the record,” said Elshami. “That is not a serious question. That is not a serious question.”"

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55971

10/23/2009 4:45:39 PM

I like how they don't even pretend to give a shit about the constitution anymore. I think, in the smoky back rooms where they conspire to do all this, they probably think of ways to just do away with that antiquated document altogether.

10/23/2009 4:52:30 PM

I haven't seen any Limbaugh-style outrage about this:

Alan Grayson Apologizes for 'K Street Whore' Comment
October 27, 2009

Quote :

"Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida has apologized for calling an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke a 'K Street whore.' 'I offer my sincere apology to Linda Robertson, an adviser to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke,' Grayson said in a statement emailed to reporters. 'I did not intend to use a term that is often, and correctly, seen as disrespectful of women.' 'This characterization of Ms. Robertson, made during a radio interview last month in the context of the debate over whether the Federal Reserve should be independently audited, was inappropriate, and I apologize,' he added."

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/10/27/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5427087.shtml



Hi, I'm as nutty as a 20-pound Christmas fruitcake!

[Edited on October 28, 2009 at 5:27 AM. Reason : Is it just me or does he look like an evil genie? ]

10/28/2009 5:25:22 AM

3^

Congress has the power to make laws. Don't tell me you don't realize thats a completely loaded question with no purpose other than to satisfy CNS News' primary audience - partisan simpletons.

10/28/2009 9:20:24 AM

It's not really partisanship, it's a legitimate question. Congress makes laws that aren't in line with constitution all the time, we've just gotten to a point where no one really cares. Elected officials don't view the constitution as something to be respected, but rather, as an obstruction that has to be worked around. Both parties are guilty of having a very liberal interpretation of the constitution, and not because their interpretation just happened to be a loose one, but because it supports whatever conclusion they've already reached. The first thing they determine is agenda, then what laws they want to pass, and finally, how they can make it seem like those laws aren't unconstitutional.

10/28/2009 10:05:02 AM

This is why we have the Judicial Branch and democratic elections.

10/28/2009 10:35:48 AM

The Judicial branch can only do so much, and when a lot of judges don't think we should have a strict interpretation of the constitution, it doesn't help. Voters aren't interested in punishing politicians that don't follow the constitution. In fact, voters keep voting in politicians that disregard the constitution, because there's something in it for them.

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin

10/28/2009 10:41:35 AM

Exactly. "Not a serious question"

Stop making me defend that cunt.

10/28/2009 10:46:41 AM

Quote :

"I don't give a hoot about states rights or federal rights. I care about results."

-- Jay Rockefeller

Indeed.

Quote :

"Stop making me defend that cunt."

No one is making you defend her, you're choosing to do so. The problem is that this wanton disregard of the highest law of the land has become institutionalized and, sadly, largely accepted by a populace which doesn't grasp even the most basic tenets of our system of government. It is as if theft were so rampant that we just quit caring and viewed the occasional thief who was caught and prosecuted as a novelty.

10/28/2009 7:35:40 PM

Quote :

"It's not really partisanship, it's a legitimate question. Congress makes laws that aren't in line with constitution all the time, we've just gotten to a point where no one really cares. Elected officials don't view the constitution as something to be respected, but rather, as an obstruction that has to be worked around. Both parties are guilty of having a very liberal interpretation of the constitution, and not because their interpretation just happened to be a loose one, but because it supports whatever conclusion they've already reached. The first thing they determine is agenda, then what laws they want to pass, and finally, how they can make it seem like those laws aren't unconstitutional. "

Even people who claim to want a “strict” interpretation of the constitution can’t agree on what that interpretation is, it’s practically a meaningless term.

Healthcare can easily fall under parts of the constitution without much contortions.

10/28/2009 7:53:48 PM

The Anti-Corporate GOP?

What happened to the party of business interests?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/219880

Quote :

"Take health-care reform. From the time the bill hit Congress, Republicans found themselves opposite big industry interests. From the drugmakers to the doctors to the insurers, every major player in the health-care battle declared themselves willing to work with Democrats to enact some variant on reform. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, were almost universally opposed. Nor is the health-care fight an outlier. Scan the big legislative battles of the past year or those on the horizon, and you start to see a pattern: the Republican Party on one side, entrenched big-business interests on the other. On cap-and-trade, the stimulus, the bank and auto bailouts, and financial regulation, Republicans face, or have faced, substantial opposition from parts of the corporate community. Much of what's happening can be traced to the party's current identity crisis: without strong leadership to hold together various representatives, interests, and constituents, personal squabbles that might otherwise have been quelled are allowed to fester. At the same time, the party's nascent populism is surging to the surface, resulting in a more reactionary outlook."

10/28/2009 9:31:59 PM

Quote :

"One year out from midterm elections, anti-incumbent sentiment is approaching its highest level in two decades, according to a poll released Wednesday by Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. The survey found that 53 percent of Americans said most members of Congress should not be reelected, compared with just 34 percent who said most members should be reelected."

however . . .

Quote :

"Fifty-two percent would like to see their own representatives reelected in 2010, while 29 percent want them out of office, according the Pew poll."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29458.html

11/12/2009 5:27:34 PM

Quote :

"Former Rep. William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat who lost his seat in 2008 while he was under indictment for bribery and racketeering -- and who was convicted of the charges earlier this year -- was sentenced today to 13 years in prison for his crimes. Roll Call reports it is the longest incarceration ever ordered for a former Member of Congress."

http://su.pr/2kQbpR

[Edited on November 13, 2009 at 6:29 PM. Reason : asdf]

11/13/2009 6:27:28 PM

and the Democrats never had a problem with him being in Congress, lol

11/13/2009 6:30:31 PM

Quote :

"Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) on Monday accused former President George W. Bush of “intentionally” letting Osama bin Laden escape during the American invasion of Afghanistan. “Look what happened with regard to our invasion into Afghanistan, how we apparently intentionally let bin Laden get away,” Hinchey said during an interview on MSNBC. “That was done by the previous administration because they knew very well that if they would capture al Qaeda, there would be no justification for an invasion in Iraq,” the Democratic congressman continued. “There’s no question that the leader of the military operations of the U.S. called back our military, called them back from going after the head of al Qaeda.” When host David Shuster followed up to ask if Hinchey really thought Bush “deliberately let Osama bin Laden get away,” the congressman responded: “Yes, I do.” "

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/30020.html

Quality, especially considering that the best possible chance to capture UBL occurred during the Clinton administration, which he explicitly passed up.

12/1/2009 7:37:12 AM

Homeland Security chairman faces ethics probe
Rep. Bennie Thompson's panel under investigation after credit card hearing
Dec . 4, 2009

Quote :

"WASHINGTON - At a hearing in late March, the nation's credit card companies faced the threat of expensive new rules from an unlikely regulator: the House Committee on Homeland Security, chaired by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). The committee had never before dealt with credit card issues, but Thompson warned Visa, MasterCard and others that Congress might need to impose tighter security standards costing millions of dollars to protect customers from identity theft. Behind the scenes, some of Thompson's staffers sensed a different motive -- an attempt to pressure the companies into making political donations to the chairman, according to several former committee staffers. Now the House ethics committee is investigating the propriety of the committee's operations, and whether its members' interactions with companies compromised its work. Within a few weeks of the hearing, Thompson collected $15,000 in donations from the credit card industry and its Washington-based lobbyists, a Washington Post analysis shows. No legislation on card security has been introduced. Several former committee staffers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, have told The Post that the credit card hearing was one of several committee actions that caused staff concerns because of their consideration of potential donors and contractors friendly to Thompson. The current ethics inquiry was prompted this summer, according to an ethics document obtained by The Post, when a former committee aide alleged she was fired after complaining to her bosses that a lobbyist made improper requests of staff members."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34276543/ns/politics-washington_post

[Edited on December 4, 2009 at 7:31 PM. Reason : Shakedown.]

12/4/2009 7:30:32 PM

Baucus Nominated Girlfriend for Post, Aide Says
December 5, 2009

Quote :

"A spokesman for Senator Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, said early Saturday that the senator nominated his girlfriend, a lawyer who worked for him at the time, for a United States attorney position last March. The girlfriend, Melodee Hanes, worked for Mr. Baucus as his state office director and as a field director between 2003 and 2009. Mr. Baucus and Ms. Hanes were separated from their spouses at the time they became romantically involved in the summer of 2008, said the spokesman, Tyler Matsdorf. Ms. Hanes eventually resigned from her position, Mr. Matsdorf said, and both she and the senator subsequently divorced their spouses."

Quote :

"In his statement, Mr. Matsdorf said Ms. Hanes was recommended for the United States attorney position solely on the basis of her credentials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/us/politics/06baucus.html

12/5/2009 4:11:22 AM

Quote :

"In his statement, Mr. Matsdorf said Ms. Hanes was recommended for the United States attorney position solely on the basis of her credentials... in bed."

12/5/2009 4:22:48 AM

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/4/810997/-Dems-call-the-Republicans-bluff

Quote :

"This politics stuff is getting kind of fun. When Sen. Vitter and Sen. Coburn introduced a health care amendment that would require all senators and representatives to be enrolled in the public option, they expected the Democrats to rise in opposition. What happened next is just RICH. "

Quote :

" On Thursday, thinking Democratic senators would balk at the idea, Sens. David Vitter (R-La.) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) introduced the gimmick health-care amendment. "The idea, broad-brush, is that whatever government option is in the bill, every senator and every representative should be enrolled in it," Vitter told The Hill. "No other possibilities, no other choices." "It's called leadership," Coburn said. "If it's good enough for everybody else, we ought to be leading by example." But Democrats called their bluff, and the Republicans wouldn't allow it. When Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) tried to become a co-sponsor of the amendment, he got the cold shoulder. So Brown, joined by Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.), and Al Franken (D-Minn.), forced his way onto the amendment with a unanimous consent vote."

12/5/2009 4:58:29 AM

^ Daily Kos? Seriously?

The majority of those senators--of both parties--are never going to allow themselves to be placed on any of the shitty plans being proposed. It's a gimmick all the way around.

And you just breezed right over the two stories involving Democrats, right?

12/5/2009 5:05:55 AM

yea there's no way they would pass that amendment

however, if they did, I will admit that it would go a LONG way towards making me rethink my opposition to obamacare.

[Edited on December 5, 2009 at 8:11 AM. Reason : s]

12/5/2009 8:11:02 AM