Manhattan Project

Posted on 12/14/2009 at 10:08 am by Bob Cesca

Here’s a wild card for passing the healthcare reform bill. But to support it, we have to choose hypocrisy to get healthcare.

The nuclear option. Change the rules so only 50 votes are needed to break the filibuster. Hell, 55 votes would do it, too.

Obviously healthcare reform is too important, but the nuclear option would make us look like two-faced hypocrites since the Democrats and the progressive movement loudly opposed the nuclear option several years ago when the Bush administration and Bill Frist were contemplating this.

This entry was posted in Healthcare and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://broadwaycarl.blogspot.com Broadway Carl

    Well, it sounds like Democracy to me. Majority rules and elections truly will have consequences.

  • kansasdem

    I say go for it! There are many things worse than being hypocritical!

  • camel54

    Things worse than hypocrisy:Dying of a preventable illness because you’re too poor to afford a doctor in the richest country in the world.

  • Jan

    Works for me. Maybe someone should tell Harry.Desperate times call for desperate measures.We’re pretty desperate which is very sad considering we’re IN THE FRIGGIN MAJORITY.

  • dansolomon

    I suspect that if the mega-disciplined Republican Senate of 2005 couldn’t get 50 Senators on the same page to fry the filibuster, the scattered Democrats of 2009 would have no real chance at all.

  • http://broadwaycarl.blogspot.com Broadway Carl

    Wait a minute… how does the rule change work? Do they vote on it, and if so, do they need 60 votes? AAARRGGH!!!!

  • http://politicalpartypooper.wordpress.com/ Political Party Pooper

    Politicians afraid of looking like hypocrites? That’s a new one to me.

  • m4rk0

    I’m all for it.

  • jhw22

    I think we should allow ourselves one hypocrisy for every 100 of theirs. That should give us about 1000 opportunities to be hypocrites and I can handle that. We’re only human, after all. And really, our motivation is for the good of the country whereas theirs is for the good of no one.Jennifer

  • Dr. Squid

    Make LIEberman talk for 24 hours. In the chamber. Without cameras. And when he passes out in 15 minutes for lack of a camera to whine at, vote on the bill.

  • -swift

    I’ve been trying to follow these rules. The nuclear option seems fine. Jon Stewart already has multiple cases on file of both Republicans and Democrats saying the exact opposite of things they said in previous years. And I’m pretty sure he’s on the side of universal health care.But a question about the filibuster itself. Each member gets “unlimited time” to debate. I assume after that debate a regular vote gets taken. 40 Republicans and Lieberman. How long can they debate for? Let’s say 24 hours each. Can’t Reid keep the session open for as long as it takes? 41 days? 80 days?

  • Dan in DE

    right! Why is it again- other than the recent precedent of cloture votes- why is it that we can’t just change it back this once and force them to filibuster old school for weeks on end? This would be huge news!! All over the tv devices, they’d be reporting, “that douchebag Lieberman has been blocking the entire legislative process with no end in sight!”

  • Drummer Doug

    Machiavelli would be proud.

    And if we don’t have a problem with that, then we really need to reevaluate who we are as a people and as a political party.

  • -swift

    I assume by “we” you mean Democrats. I am independent and usually vote for the least crazy third party candidate.I think conjuring images of Machiavelli is a little strong. The conflict we’re talking about here is whining about what is apparently legal parliamentary trickery when it is used against us, then using it. Not the highest moral ground, but not the lowest.We’re not talking about poisoning anyone, or doing something illegal. Otherwise, the Republicans would have been sent a Droopy Dog stuffed animal wrapped in paper by now.

  • Drummer Doug

    Yes, Swift, I mean Democrats. And it really sucks reading the comments I see here today.

    “Well, it sounds like Democracy to me. Majority rules and elections truly will have consequences.”

    “I say go for it! There are many things worse than being hypocritical!”

    “Desperate times call for desperate measures.”

    “We’re only human, after all.”

    I’m sure all the conservative blogs were filled with these exact same comments back when they were considering the nuclear option too. I don’t believe we called them “hypocrites” at the time, we called them “fucking hypocrites” And that’s exactly what we would be if we pursue this path.

    Republicans and independents used to defend themselves by saying the republicans aren’t evil. But when eight years of the bush administration made their behavior indefensible, they changed their defense to: “Democrats are just as bad as republicans”. And now you all want to prove they’re right.

    My Machiavelli comment was in reference to “the end justifying the means”. It’s wrong. It always has been and it always will be, no matter how strongly you feel about the issue at large.

    Congress needs to find another way.

  • Drummer Doug

    Sorry about all the extra space in my comment. Still trying to figure out the formatting.

  • iLLogicaL

    And if we go the hypocrite road, how can Lieberman not support that? It’s his touchstone.

  • GOVCHRIS1988

    @ Drummer Doug- I applaud your moral stance, better than that, I admire it. However, in todays political realm, I find that there is no such thing as a moral politician. Right now, the Republican Party are out of ideas to help this nation. There prescriptions for helping the sovereign public have been futile as shown by 12 years of a detrimental congress and eight years in the White House. Today,as records show, they have time and time again been hypocritical. All the way back to President Reagan on taxes and interventionism. All the way back to former Representative and current Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, who called for the impeachment of a moral crime that he himself is guilty of.This majority in 2006 and 2008, was given the power to clean Republican damages and better peoples lives. If a health care bill passes, it will not matter to the people whether the people who passed it were hypocritical, but whether they brought it to the people. It is how it has always been in American politics, and I don’t believe that it would change anytime soon.

  • Drummer Doug

    Thanks, GOVCHRIS. I agree with everything you said about the republicans. I find it abhorrent that with such a super-majority that the Democrats hold in Congress that we can’t get this damn thing passed. There are some serious flaws in our current system of governing, and I really hope that they can find a way to get around those flaws without becoming that which we despise.-Doug

  • Rogect8

    I’m with Doug on this one. I can’t get behind the nuclear option. For better or worse, all (okay, most) of this procedural gridlock was placed into the system intentionally – those who designed our government valued stability more than they valued the ability to get things done quickly. It’s just the way things are set up (it’s also why republicans seem to have more success than democrats – traditionally, they want to keep things the way they are, and we want to change them. And within the confines of the American system of government, it’s much easier to resist substantive changes than to enact them).It is a bit troubling though, that republicans seem to be much better at working their way around the gridlock to get things done (on the rare occasion they decide to do so). I’m not sure if it’s their “we don’t give a fuck it it’s ‘legal’…we’ll worry about that later” view of the world, or their superior fear-mongering abilities, but they’re definitely way ahead of the curve in that area….Adding – swift brings up what I think is a great point, and it’s something that Bob has touched on in the past – why the hell don’t we make these bastards actually filibuster? If nothing else, it’ll make their lives as miserable as they’re making ours. We made them filibuster the Civil Rights bill, and when history proved that democrats were on the correct side of that issue, it was something we could hold over their heads.Yet that doesn’t even seem to be an option at this point. Does anybody know why this is? (Harry Reid’s lack of balls or a spine would be my guess, but it’s just that – a guess).