I’m not entirely sure what’s going on in this video clip, but it indeed sounds like some individuals got their ass handed to them in the senate. What happened (I got the thread title from the video’s title)?
I suspect this sums it up.
Holy crap. I don’t know what’s going on there, but that was a righteous can of whup-ass he just opened up.
I don’t get it - aren’t the first responders all already covered by the policies of the State of New York and New York City? If these are illnesses and injuries sustained by cops and firefighters, those guys already have a policy that covers them - don’t they?
Cops and firefighters, yes. Construction workers and all the other men and women who labored day after day in a toxic environment trying to rescue victims and then more days to recover bodies? No.
I’m all for a good rant, but I’d have preferred he dial it back a little bit. Telling the opposition to sit down didn’t have the full effect because he was already dialed to 11.
I’d be surprised if construction workers weren’t insured in NY but the bill was procedurally sabotaged at the last moment. Democrats brought it up for a 2/3’s vote to avoid discussion or amendments instead of a straight vote which would have passed easily.
It will come up again for a normal vote and pass. Weiner should change his name Whiner.
The Republicans were trying to attach a huge number of completely unrelated things to it and the Democrats figured that the Republicans weren’t so craven as to vote against helping First Responders. They were wrong.
My understanding is: had Dems not done it, Republicans would have procedurally delayed the bill as long as possible with amendments (recall the tactic from HCR, among others). My understanding is also that the bill is rather popular and really does garner bipartisan support.
Honestly, what can you possibly (and substantively) mean by “procedurally sabotaged”? What rationale do you believe would explain the move by Democrats? Are you going to attempt to argue – with a straight face – that Republicans wanted additional substantive “discussion”? Or had relevant-to-this-bill amendments to offer?
Yes, it will, but I hope Republicans pay a price for their obstruction, especially concerning legislation for which it is practically a foregone conclusion they will end up supporting…eventually.
Fat chance o’ dat.
A bill without an amendment? Seriously? That’s the rationale behind the rule change and histrionics?
Yes, seriously. And yes, that’s the rationale. But I’d say “no” to the “histrionics”, as you so dismissively call Weiner’s tirade. I’d also amend my previous post slightly – with some more thought, I’m not so sure the bill actually would have passed with an up/down vote. Not without knowing what nastiness would be in the Republican amendments.
Furthermore, I suppose you can avoid providing answers to my questions by responding with questions. But then, you’re the one bitching about “Whiner”. Oh, how I loves me some unintended irony.
Perhaps it would be helpful to you to read a little about it. As stated there:
Providing more context: Republican Rep. King is the person at whom Weiner’s tirade was directed. Rep. King is also the one who was ignoring the floor rules, interrupting while Weiner had the floor. In fact, Weiner’s entire rant is directed at Rep. King, who had the floor – and spoke uninterrupted – just prior, and was only slightly less animated. Note also that King states without equivocation that the Republicans’ tactic is to attempt to add controversial amendments – explicit that they’re either obstructionist or just “playing politics”. And let’s face it, to some degree they’d be remiss not to do so, just as Democrats would be remiss not to attempt to stop it. Unfortunately, that’s what politicians do. And in that same vein, we find further Republican opposition:
Not surprising. Look, this is a fairly easy one, IMO – does the country owe 9/11 responders support? Yes, just as we are obligated to care for injured troops. The bill is time sensitive (read the linked article) – it needs passage by September 8th and thus shouldn’t be delayed. But surprise! Republicans are (yet again) being obstructionist, and are (yet again) actively avoiding the (IMHO) moral choice. And nauseatingly claiming it’s because of Dems’ “procedural sabotage”, a charge you’re parroting as if it had substance.
It doesn’t.
It was a childish tirade that is best described as histrionics. Circumventing the amendment process and then throwing a fit about it is political grandstanding.
Considering all the childish, obstructionist shit that the Republicans have been doing since 2007, when they became the minority in both houses, you don’t have a lot of fucking room to talk trash about the Democrats. When one party is devoted to completely preventing the government from doing ANYTHING, that party doesn’t deserve the consideration that a party that may have had a different political rationale but was willing to compromise and work to get things done might.
Yep they should have allowed the Repubs to stuff the bill full of amendments. They could have given so much to their rich friends.
When did accurately describing a tirade become trash talk? Democrats threw away standard voting procedure and it was tossed back in their face in defeat. The Democrats went ahead with the vote anyway knowing the result. Nobody in the media bothered to ask why. It was a guaranteed waste of time. It’s only purpose was so someone like Weiner could be yielded extra time to make a soundbite for public consumption. Without the cameras rolling it never would have happened.
Hmmm. Perhaps when someone says Rep. Weiner should be called “Whiner”, for instance.
Honest question: since this was a procedural move, it must be in the rules, and thus legitimate. How often does this happen? Any comparative numbers?
Did they know Republicans were going to vote against it? My understanding is, again, that it had wide bipartisan support. And, again, that it’s time sensitive – it needs to be done by September 8th, and there’s the summer recess consuming a large chunk o’ time.
In the interest of fairness and honesty, I point you to an article on Salon.com, Let’s not get too excited about Anthony Weiner:
Perhaps. Given the context of a publicity stunt I think it’s applicable but point taken.
According to this site it isn’t usually used if they know it will fail:
**
almost any motion that does not have the support of three-fifths of the Senate effectively fails. Historically, cloture has rarely been invoked because bipartisan support is usually necessary to obtain the required supermajority, so a bill that already has bipartisan support is rarely subject to threats of filibuster. However, motions for cloture have increased significantly in recent years.**
Unless a vote is down to a couple of people then they know ahead of time.
It’s not like this is new to politics or specific to either party but it should be looked at for what it is. Rep Weiner is not Mr Smith going to Washington. He’s another politician trying to buy votes (with party support) and Salon called him on it.
That’s the Senate; this is the House. Different rules.
That’s what I got out of it. Pubbies are blaming the Dems for using incorrect procedure that required a 2/3 vote instead of a simple majority, saying they could vote down any add ons line by line. So fucking what? If it’s a good bill then there’s no reason it shouldn’t get 2/3. If it’s a bad bill explain why and vote no. But don’t vote no whining about procedure.
Regardless of your interpretation the GOP consciously voted this bill down while the Dems overwelmongly voted for it. If it’s a good bill that will pass what decent reason did they have to vote no? That’s the basic point Weiner is making in his rant.
It seems to me it’s the GOP that is whining. Hey it’s agood bill and we wanted it to pass but the bad ole Dems made us vote no with their trickery. What bullshit.