Not my words, but I agree. The election was won by a candidiate who campaigned on defeating health care. Democracy is best served by respecting the election, not trying last-minute procedural manuevering to get something done. The last two senators to hold this seat were seated the day after winning the seat. If, for whatever reason, it takes longer to seat Brown, the Senate should avoid further action until Brown can join his new colleagues.
"It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated. "
Let’s just get this out of the way right off the bat: <cough>Al Franken<cough>
The Senate only sits a limited number of days per year. I am unaware of any other circumstance under which they have held up Senate business for the winner of a special or contested election to join them. If you know of any such cases, I’d be interested to hear about them; otherwise, business goes on.
Which is why we need to seat Brown as fast as possible so he can continue the process of abusing a procedural tactic to stop the party with a democratically elected super majority from getting anything done.
Also, Weiner is a supporter of expanding medicare for all who opposes passing the bill because it is far too conservative and corporate.
His statement really can’t be used as a justification to stop UHC. Just as a statement that the dems should reform how they pass it and how they market it.
AHEM!
For all those who have not yet posted:
The thread is about Brown.
It is not about Bricker.
Keep it that way.
[ /Moderating ]
Wow! A pre-emptive protection order against professor Bricker! Will wonders never cease? 
If we want to respect elections, scrap the filibuster. So now the Senate is comprised of only 57 Democrats plus a leftist independent plus a sometimes useful Lieberman. If 57-59% of the Senate can’t do a damn thing, then they need new rules.
I’d say that’s apart from this debate, though.
As for Bricker’s posit: I’d say there’s no requirement to do so. There are special elections all the time and debate and procedures don’t suspend pending the resolution of such.
In a fair play scenario I’d say it’s something that’s likely going to happen. I’m pretty certain that was Jim Webb (D-VA) in your quote up there. Or at least he said something similar last night/this morning. Whether it’s a good idea, tactically, is an open question. But I don’t think it’s a requirement of longstanding.
I suspect this motion is more due to Weiner, and others, considering their fate in the upcoming elections than it is due to Brown or what he campaigned on. Brown is now just a convenient excuse.
The rats are abandoning the sinking ship…
Yes, it was. I meant to link to his quote, but somehow, in my various edits of the message before posting, dropped that link. Buty in case it wasn’t clear, the first quote in the OP is from Senator Webb.
It’s not a requirement or even a general rule. But in light of the specific events surrounding this election, it’s the right thing to do.
Please. These are *Democrats *we’re talking about. I am utterly surprised when they actually do anything constructive, regardless of the size of their majority.
The Senate does need rules to prevent the majority from riding roughshod over the minority, but likewise it needs to prevent the reverse from happening as well.
And I disagree about the “right thing to do”; there’s no reason to give Brown’s position special consideration just because he’s coming in partway through the debate. Yes, his election was in part a referendum on the healthcare reform bill but it was also a repudiation of Coakley and a general anti-incumbent thumbing-of-the-nose.
How would this proposal be in my self interest? As a Democrat, I see absolutely no reason to cut the Republicans any slack. It’s not as if they would ever return the favor. I say steam roll them while we can. Fuck 'em. Compromise is for pussies.
And as you may recall, I said at the time that Coleman should stop the ridiculous lawsuit and concede the election.
But you didn’t say that the Senate should suspend debate until he was seated.
I thought this thread wasn’t about you, though.
The New York Times said:
Of course, that was in 2005.
They went on to say:
Do you happen to recall your position on the filibuster in, say, 2002?
I was trying to bury Al Franken (by mentioning him first, hoping to avoid a more substantive hijack), not praise him. It was not an accusation of hypocrisy on your part or I would have made that more explicit and run with it myself.
But I do agree with Wesley Clark’s first post: if we’re “respecting democracy”, bending over backwards for the benefit of the **minority **party seems counterintuitive.
(deleted)
Sorry. I didn’t get that at all; my bad. Since it’s not a substantive argument, it can drop now.
It’s not so much for the benefit of the minority party as for the benefit of the actual people being represented here. "There’s a limit to which you can keep saying, ‘OK, they just don’t get it. If we pass a bill they’ll get it.’ "