On Fox News, Nina Easton erroneously refers to reconciliation as "the nuclear option"
February 12, 2010 7:17 pm ET
From the February 12 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Easton
What I find amazing, when W had 50 Senators + Cheney, he could pretty much ram through Congress whatever he wanted. When the Dems have 60 Senators, they have to beg and plead with Republicans to get a potty break.
And I'm not gonna give credit for the Republicans for being "strong" or getting bipartisanship. People voted that way because it was easier, not because Cheney was a political genius.
Q If she actually factually believes that the Budget Reconciliation process was "in a past Congress called the 'nuclear option'", then why did she laugh when she said it?
Think about it.
Also, I hate to take the blue pencil to your work, but where you write she "erroneously" did that, that implies she mistakenly did that.
It was no mistake I'm sure, it was intentional and calculated, and so I must line through with my blue pencil the words "erroneously refers" and write instead "lied when she referred".
Sorry, but I can't tolerate liars and their lies being referred to merely as "incompetent morons and their mistakes".
It must always be called what it truly is.
The argument that the U.S. Senate's Rule 22 requirement of a two-thirds super-majority to end debate (to "invoke cloture") on a matter, in order to bring it to a vote by the full Senate, is indeed meant to cause the majority to compromise with or otherwise include the minority in the matter. Maybe that would also be called "bi-partisanship", I wouldn't care to argue the point.
Instead I'd point out that these many refusals by the Republican minority in the Senate to "invoke cloture" are not attempts to compromise or be included in the matter, but are attempts to obstruct and kill the legislation.
I ask you honestly, is an attempt to obstruct or kill a bill considered "bi-partisan" or even considered making Law at all?
Of course it isn't.
Therefore the current abuse by Republicans of Rule 22 in the Senate is simply obstructionism and a sort of 'veto power', which is the antithesis of "bi-partisanship", and requires no compromise or consideration in return.
Speaking truth to/about progressives with a shout out to Harry 'Enola Gay' Reid and Nancy 'Nagasaki' Pelosi for their ability to know exactly what the public wants, whether they like it or not! Ka-Boom!
It's as old and tired and empty a political tactic as there is, to noisily warn elected officials off by way of falsely claiming they're courting political disaster with the American people.
It's a kind of "bring it on" that was just as empty when it was used to intimidate Congressional Democrats from opposing funding for the IRAQ occupation, and yet when the American people had their electoral say in 2006 and 2008, they turned out Congressional Republicans (who made the invasion and occupation of IRAQ their signature legislative priority) in record and historical numbers.
"Bring it on!"
We brang it alright.
As far as using the Budget Reconciliation process to get healthcare reform legislation through Congress, specifically any and all reforms that reduce the obscenely high costs of healthcare and health insurance (including offering Americans a Medicare-like Public Health Insurance plan at affordable premiums), Americans are so in favor of such reform, that they don't care how it's done, just get it done, even break Senate Rule 22 if that's what it takes!
The present Fox News Channel and Republican party's phony invoking of popular opposition to health care reform (and to regulation of the banks and financial services companies as well), is just the same old noise that was made by them in support of IRAQ, and it's just as false.