Boehner - Filibuster rule change bills 'dead on arrival'

Washington Times ^ | 11-29

[Arthurio]

House Speaker John Boehner, Ohio Republican, made it clear that any bill that came to the House from the upper chamber as a result of Senate Democrats changing the rules on the filibuster would be "dead on arrival." In a statement released from Speaker Boehner's office, the Ohio GOP'er remarked:

“Senate Democrats’ attempt to break Senate rules in order to change Senate rules is clearly designed to marginalize Senate Republicans and their constituents while greasing the skids for controversial partisan measures. I question the wisdom of this maneuver, especially at a time when cooperation on Capitol Hill is critical, and fully support Leader McConnell’s efforts to protect minority rights, which are an essential part of our constitutional tradition. Any bill that reaches a Republican-led House based on Senate Democrats’ heavy-handed power play would be dead on arrival.”

Read more: PICKET: Boehner - Filibuster rule change bills 'dead on arrival' - Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2012/nov/29/picket-boehner-filibuster-rule-change-bills-dead-a/#ixzz2Dg9fMZKU Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[Eleutheria5]

Sorry, that should have been CFTCATCWBWAPD. Almost forgot about the children!

[1010RD]

My comments are correct. Clearly, people didn’t vote pro-life if Obama won. So there may be a definitional problem. Nonetheless, Mourdock and Akin lost in states that Romney won. How do you explain that?

The issue isn’t abandoning your values. The issue is that in politics you must compromise to get your way. It sounds contradictory, but if we could simply move the laws to our side incremenally we’d be there already. Demanding all or nothing is foolish.

I’d much rather elect someone who is 80% on my side, than 50% or 0%. Abandoning a candidate because they’re not 100% pro-life is a formula for failure.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Until the Republicans drop their obsession with abortion, they will lose the vote among women.

Why? Women oppose abortion more than men do (the dirty little secret is that abortion is not a "women's" issue, despite how the Dimocrats try to cast it).

All the same, standing by idiots like Todd Akin doesn't do us any good, regardless of the issue.

[Yashcheritsiy]

Until the Republican party accepts the issue as settled and moves on

Incorrect. In fact, the thing to do with the abortion issue is to INCREASE the frequency of discussion about it, at the demotic level.

Look - after Roe v. Wade in 1973, support for abortion on demand (aka elective abortion) was in the high 70% range. It is now around 40-45%. What happened? Reasonable pro-lifers (i.e. the non-dead-baby-blood-throwing type) engaged the culture at the demotic level and changed a lot of peoples' minds. Continue that, and we'll see the change we want. Giving up on the issue, or going the other direction and taking the absolutist position that many on Free Republic (but not many outside of FR) want, are NOT the ways to go.

First and foremost needs to be the repeal of Roe v. Wade, coupled with the widespread knowledge that doing so won't "abolish abortion" but will throw it back to states where it belongs.

[Persevero]

” Clearly, people didn’t vote pro-life if Obama won.”

You are right. However, you are wrong to say that if our candidate was pro abortion, he’d get more votes. People were not voting significantly on the issue.

I don’t know what they were voting on. Theories range from freebies, to vote fraud, to “likeability.” But whatever was decisive, it wasn’t abortion. No change on that front is going to help us.

[srmorton]

Can’t we agree that at some point during a pregnancy the baby becomes human?

It certainly looks like one from very early in the pregnancy. My daughter is 18 weeks pregnant and sent me a picture of the sonogram she had done a couple of days ago. There is no mistaking that she is carrying a baby - not an "unviable mass of tissue". The tragedy is that many women who have abortions see the same thing when they eventually have children and most of them are overcome by guilt when they realize what they have done.

[1010RD]

You’re misreading me. I never said we should have a pro-abortion candidate. I wouldn’t support one. The issue is the message and appearances. The media have painted conservatives into a caricature of our real selves. You don’t beat them by talking about rape being of God or of His purpose or a legitimate rape (what about the illegitimate rapes?).

Don’t you see how the message/messenger is trapped? Instead use a gentler, softer message to get to the same place. It’s obvious that a baby is a baby at what point during the pregnancy to say 70% of likely voters? That number then is the key to electoral victory. Figure out that message and use it.

Romeny’s message didn’t sway enough voters and some analysis show that if he just won an additional 330K voters in key swing states he’d have won the Presidency.

Akin and Mourdock lost in states that Romney won. Conservatives, pro-life conservatives, cannot be election zombies. We have to craft a message that the voters accept, support and understand. If not we lose.

[1010RD]

OK. We agree on that. So could you craft a message in your state that would ban abortions say after the 18th or 20th week of pregnancy and win or get it passed?

I don’t know if that is an improvement or not for your state, but if it is that’s what I would go for. Don’t seem extremist or absolutist. Be pro-child, half of them are females. So let’s help end the war on women.

[Antoninus]

Until the Republicans drop their obsession with abortion, they will lose the vote among women.

Go surrender somewhere else, will you? There is no Republican obsession with abortion. Romney was embarrassed by the subject. McCain ignored the subject. The Democrats obsessed over it both in 2008 and 2012 and won both times in part because our side surrendered the issue to them.

What really is needed is a Republican who can passionately and convincingly articulate the Pro-Life position without being the least bit embarrassed by it. Give us a candidate like that and we'll wipe the floor with the pro-death left. Just you watch.

Of course, people like you will be trashing such a candidate the whole way. Those offering such advice are idiots. If the GOP isn't pro-life, there will be a third party because there won't be a second party.

[srmorton]

I am one that believes that you cannot win the pro-life argument by proposing laws that ban the procedure. I believe that Roe vs. Wade, although it was wrongly decided, is established law and even a more conservative court than we are ever likely to have would hesitate to overturn it after so many years. My point is that women should be told the truth about what they are doing before they have an abortion. They have been deceived by the pro-choice lobby that the fetus is just a mass of tissue that doesn't feel pain, etc. Since the nervous system (as well as most other organ systems) are developed by the fourth month, we can not assume that the fetus feels no pain. Recently on this very board someone posted a sonogram picture of a 20 week old fetus yawning which was considered a very significant activity.

[Graewoulf]

” - - - pack the courts with extreme leftists. - - - - “

Already done. Traitor John Roberts gives the Communists a 5 to 4 advantage on THE NINE SUPREMES.

[Catsrus]

I believe him because he isn’t going to do anything at this point to hurt fellow RINOs.

[County Agent Hank Kimball]

Huh? The House gets zero say in any change to Senate rules. Boehner suddenly grows a pair but it’s on a subject about which he has zero influence. Great.

What will he do for an encore? Firmly oppose a manned mission to Neptune? Pledge to fight the legalization of bestiality? Way to take a stand, there, OrangeMan.

What a loser.

Hank