There's an old joke about the football/basketball team that didn't lose the game, they just ran out of time before they could score enough points to win.
When the Democrats sense they are going to lose, they appear to have no problems in changing the rules of the game while it's still in progress. And I'm not talking about ancient history like Franklin Roosevelt's attempted court packing plan or the 2000 Florida recount where Democrat controlled election boards tried to discern the intent of the voters by looking at dimpled chads, tea leaves, what have you.
No, the most recent exhibit for cheating is Deval Patrick's announcement today that the Massachussets legislature is taking up a bill to allow him to appoint a successor to Edward Kennedy who died last week.
Current law provides that the Governor must call for a special election between 145 and 160 days of the vacancy. For those who don't already know, the current law was the result of a change urged by Kennedy and others who didn't want Republican Governor Mitt Romney to appoint John Kerry's successor should a vacancy have been created were he to win the 2004 presidential election. Clearly the ruling class in Massachussets are completely without shame.
In Washington, Democratic Senators, egged on by the New York Times, are threatening the "nuclear option," that is, they are threatening to pass health care reform by a reconcilliation procedure which would require only 51 instead of the 60 votes it would take to defeat a filibuster.
But the Times concedes that:
The Times further adds:
Given the above, could it be any more clear that reconcilliation is not appropriate for the sweeping, "transformative" changes in the proposed health care reform bills? Aside from changing the rules during the middle of the game, this would effectively kill the filibuster. But like the Kennedy succession farce, how long would it take Democrats to insist on the vitality of the fillubuster once they again found themselves in the minority?
With their willingness to cheat on such naked display, how will they adjust themselves to losing an election? Can we expect Obama to try to amend the Constitution to permit him to serve more than 2 terms? Or worse, will he follow the examples of his simpaticos Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras and seek (or in Zelaya's case, attempt) to make himself President for life?
Thus reducing our electoral system from "one man, one vote" to "one man, one vote, one time."
And of course they'll remind us that their noble ends justify their disreputable means.
When the Democrats sense they are going to lose, they appear to have no problems in changing the rules of the game while it's still in progress. And I'm not talking about ancient history like Franklin Roosevelt's attempted court packing plan or the 2000 Florida recount where Democrat controlled election boards tried to discern the intent of the voters by looking at dimpled chads, tea leaves, what have you.
No, the most recent exhibit for cheating is Deval Patrick's announcement today that the Massachussets legislature is taking up a bill to allow him to appoint a successor to Edward Kennedy who died last week.
Current law provides that the Governor must call for a special election between 145 and 160 days of the vacancy. For those who don't already know, the current law was the result of a change urged by Kennedy and others who didn't want Republican Governor Mitt Romney to appoint John Kerry's successor should a vacancy have been created were he to win the 2004 presidential election. Clearly the ruling class in Massachussets are completely without shame.
In Washington, Democratic Senators, egged on by the New York Times, are threatening the "nuclear option," that is, they are threatening to pass health care reform by a reconcilliation procedure which would require only 51 instead of the 60 votes it would take to defeat a filibuster.
But the Times concedes that:
Reconciliation bills are primarily intended to deal with budget items that affect the deficit, not with substantive legislation like health care reform. Senators could challenge as “extraneous” any provisions that do not change spending or revenues over the next five years, or would have a budget impact that is “merely incidental” to some broader policy purpose, or would increase the deficit in Year 6 and beyond.
* * *
Another hurdle is that the reconciliation legislation covers only the next five years, while the Democratic plans are devised to be deficit-neutral over 10 years. The practical effect is that the Democrats will almost surely need to find added revenues or budget cuts within the first five years. Another Senate rule, which applies whether reconciliation is used or not, requires that the reforms enacted now not cause an increase in the deficit for decades to come, a difficult but probably not impossible hurdle to surmount.
The Times further adds:
Even the public plan so reviled by Republicans could probably qualify, especially if it is given greater power than currently planned to dictate the prices it will pay to hospitals, doctors, drug companies and other providers, thus saving the government lots of money in subsidies.
Given the above, could it be any more clear that reconcilliation is not appropriate for the sweeping, "transformative" changes in the proposed health care reform bills? Aside from changing the rules during the middle of the game, this would effectively kill the filibuster. But like the Kennedy succession farce, how long would it take Democrats to insist on the vitality of the fillubuster once they again found themselves in the minority?
With their willingness to cheat on such naked display, how will they adjust themselves to losing an election? Can we expect Obama to try to amend the Constitution to permit him to serve more than 2 terms? Or worse, will he follow the examples of his simpaticos Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras and seek (or in Zelaya's case, attempt) to make himself President for life?
Thus reducing our electoral system from "one man, one vote" to "one man, one vote, one time."
And of course they'll remind us that their noble ends justify their disreputable means.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment