Posted on 12/15/2013 1:02:33 AM PST by Libloather
Harry Reid's ham-fisted action to curb the filibuster of presidential appointment creates an enormous political opportunity for Republicans in 2014. As more than one pundit has noted, ending the filibuster for nominations means that a Senate Republican majority can end the filibuster for legislation as well, and Reid has removed the political cover for Democrats who would have used the filibuster to block Republican initiatives.
**SNIP**
The problems for Democrats will get much worse in January 2015. Because of what Reid has done with the filibuster, the House can quickly pass those ten bills, and the Senate majority can then compel all Senate members to vote "Yea" or "Nay" on these ten items. Obama will, of course, veto all the measures, and then Democrats in both houses of Congress will have to go on record as voting to override Obama (and so defying their president and party leader), or else voting to support Obama's veto. These Democrats will have no good choices at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
It could happen.... EXCEPT for the massive voter fraud..
Voting died in 2012 Nov 6th...
A few local southern elections may be fairly honest..
BUT the question is how few..
NO.... blue state has honest elections.. even purple states are corrupt..
might be a good number of red states are corrupt as well..
“And it will allow Republicans to make a compelling case as to why American needs a president who will sign reforms passed by a Republican Congress — and reforms wanted by the American people”.
Leave it up to the stupid Republicans to screw up a great opportunity.
The GOP is going nowhere by attacking their base. They are content to go over the falls.
“I’m with the GOP and I’m here to help.”
“Get off my lawn!”
I have a feeling that once the Dems have abused the system to their satisfaction Reid will “see the light” and bring back the filibuster. Just in case the Repubs regain Congress.
LOL it won’t matter b/c it’s established that a majority [not 60] can change the rules ... even for rules that required 60!
Harry really, really screwed the pooch. He has ensured his own demise in re his doings in the recent Senate.
I predict that no matter what Harry does, repubs will re-implement the majority rule [if needed], undo the actions that were taken while the previous senate had such majority rule, THEN change back.
If it were me I’d slam the just like they slammed us. Defund DOE, eliminated the IRS for an nrst, etc.
Repealing Obamacare will be a lot easier if the GOP can offer a viable alternative. Ted Cruz said he was working on a plan. It’ll be interesting to see what he comes up with.
Which they could have done anyway, just as the Democrats can end it tomorrow.
The filibuster is customary, not constitutional.
Article 1, Section 5: “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.”
The “plan” needs to be short, simple, individual items. No “comprehensive” crap.
Bill 1: allow ins to be purchased over state lines
Bill 2: allow any group to pool with any other group to obtain a group rate
Bill 3: allow ins companies to offer an option that will include people up to 26 [or whatever - altho i think this may already be true]
Bill 4: allow portability
Those four should be a slam dunk.
Bill 5: tort reform
etc
but please, please avoid going the “comprehensive” route!
The most idiotic part of our “system” is the tying of health insurance to employment.
No rational person would propose such a thing if setting up a system from scratch, so why is changing it unthinkable?
How would portability work?
comprehensive = BOHICA.
Probably just like COBRA - which IIRC has a time limit. Why a time limit???
Good one Sherman Logan -
6: untie insurance from employers in favor of individual health saving accounts
Health savings accounts are stupid. Insurance is what is needed.
I think I am misundertaken.
THE HSAs could be used for health reasons like medical costs and insurance premiums... not _as_ insurance! That would indeed be a poor choice for almost everyone.
Insurance being untied from employer does not mean eliminate insurance - it means untie it - ie individuals buy their own insurance and do not “get it” via employer.
So HSAs would be to help pay medical costs, not as a replacement to insurance!
“It could happen....”
...but it won’t. The gop is perfectly happy with deathcare. It’s payola for their political cronies. It’s like the balanced budget amendment that was all the rage during the 80’s. It was terribly important to the gop when they were out of power, but they could never quite get around to doing it when they were in power.
Deathcare is here to stay regardless of which wing of the uniparty gets elected.
Could, but Boehner and company are doing their best to squash any sort of excitement wish to vote. Others are working on Cruz. It’s not just the GOPe/RNC/RINOs doing their best to ensure we keep losing - many, “principled”/outraged-at-the-slightest-flaw, folks are also spraying high pressure water on the sandy foundations as they are being built. I hope for increases in the House and taking the Senate, but I won’t tie it to my happiness else I’m likely to go into suicidal depression with the way we ignore winning tactics and have no sense of cohesion when the chips are down. The enemies stick together through disasters and we can’t stick together through a overblown rumor of no consequence...
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.