"Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so."

[Atticus]

Senator Gregg thought reconciliation was just dandy when he was using it to kiss Bush's ass.

"Look At How Many Republicans Support Reconciliation!
September 03, 2009 5:12 pm ET
As the debate over health insurance reform continues, it is becoming evident that the issue of reconciliation will be discussed soon. Anticipating that Republicans will continue to argue against it, Media Matters Action Network has compiled a few quotes and votes of Republicans openly supporting the reconciliation process.
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Sen. Gregg: "Is There Something Wrong With Majority Rules? I Don't Think So." As reported by the New York Times: "The record is also replete with past statements by Republicans such as Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, the party's leader on budget issues, praising the logic of reconciliation. 'We are using the rules of the Senate here,' Mr. Gregg said in 2005 as he fought off Democratic complaints that reconciliation was wrongly being employed to block filibusters against opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. 'Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so.'"

Sen. Gregg Endorsed The Reconciliation Process To Open Up ANWR For Drilling Because Bush "Asked For It." As reported by the Associated Press: "Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. said it was reasonable to assume ANWR, as the refuge is commonly called, would be part of the budget measure. 'The president asked for it, and we're trying to do what the president asked for,' Gregg said Tuesday after meeting privately with Republicans on his panel."

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
"I prefer regular order, but recent tax legislative history in the Senate suggests the reconciliation option is an important tool to have at our disposal."

"The reconciliation instruction gives us the resources to maintain current law tax relief."

The Hill:
"Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) defended using reconciliation when pushing President George W. Bush's tax cuts through the upper chamber, but has warned Democrats not to do it in 2009."

http://mediamattersaction.org/factcheck/200909030007

[kelly1mm]

1. Yes - see Prop. 8 in California. Anytime the majority tries to limit the

fundamental liberties of the minority it is wrong. Maybe not so much on reconciliation but in the larger context there sure are times when there is something wrong with "majority rules".

[Atticus]

3. "MAYBE not so much on reconciliation?"

What "fundamental liberties of the minority"(GOP) are being limited?

WTF?

[kelly1mm]

4. By larger context I was trying to point out that "majority rules" is not

something we should hang our hats on. If the majority of the Congress votes to strip from left handed people the right to vote (setting aside constitutional issues) would that be morally/ethically right? Were the voters in California that passed Prop 8 right? That's the point I am trying to make. If you say "majority rules" without reservations, be prepared for the consequences.

[yurbud]

9. do you mean like the rich minority avoiding taxes?

[kelly1mm]

10. I said what I meant and even gave an example (Prop 8 in CA) and

then further clarified it for those who choose to read more into it. I will ask you a question - if you are so for "majority rules" are you OK with the living with the results of Prop 8 in CA?

[truedelphi]

2. One thing is certain - there is definitely something wrong

With being a hypocrite. And Republicans never lack on that score!

Remember how quick they were to label someone wrong for being ANGRY? That point of reference was in effect and they even manufactured an increased sound volume to make it appear that Howard Dean was YELLING at a reporter, rather than just talking loudly above crowd noise.

Now the Repugs say it is morally uplifting to be angry. And to be angry all the time. And to carry a weapon around while you are angry.

It just never ends with them.

[Igel]

7. Yes, which is why it's hard to say much either way.

Why do I say that?

Because what was the Democratic Party's response to the use of reconciliation on budget issues?

It was bad. It shouldn't be used. It deprived them of their right to be heard.

The (R) were bad: It was wrong to label people as unpatriotic, partisan, or stupid for being angry. They had a right to protest, to stop what they viewed as incorrect. They represented not their country, but their constituencies.

Why did the party out of power bother to say this? Because the party in power decided that 50% + 1 should be enough for any legislation--and, in accordance with reconciliation and the Byrd rules, from time to time the (R), as had the (R) and (D) before them, used it. But majoritarianism was really the point: After all, elections have consequences. They won the election, so just shut up. It was time to stop bickering and fall into line. To be against majoritarianism was to be against Mom, the flag, and apple pie, and showed cynicism and a lack of good will and patriotism.

Mutatis mutandis. The (D) and (R) have swapped places, but the song remains the same. I left (R) and (D) out of the previous paragraph because "the party in power" is, as Jakobson would probably say, a "shifter": Like "he", it has no single referent but means different things in different contexts. Yet the structure of the behavior is the same, regardless of how the identity of the actors shifts.

That means part of the song is actually a fugue with hypocrisy being the second subject in a fugue a 2; majoritianism is the initial theme. Having complained how wrong the (R) were and enunciated principles that were rock solid, when they got to the podium they showed that they knew the score--they didn't miss a beat, not a note.

[truedelphi]

8. Yes, plus one for your statements.

You really nail it using this term "Shifter"

Who/what is either party? I could lay out experiences I have had with people on both sides of the aisle.

At one point, to save the drinking water here in Calif., I had to ally myself with a man who was opposed to gay rights. Hell, he was opposed to gay people being gay.

But what to do? If there wasn't any drinking water, how would anyone survive, let alone the leaders of the Gay Rights movement?

And of course, my alliance with this man would not have been necessary if the California Democratic state legislators were not welcoming big Oil Money into their coffers.

[Seldona]

11. The song isn't the same. It's not even in the same genre.

You seem to be forgetting the absolute obstructionism, delaying, and poison pill tactics, the republicans are relying on.

Not so of the Democrats at the time. They were being locked out of policy meetings, and having their own hearings shut down. Including one republican chair killing the microphones and shutting off the lights in a room full of people in the middle of a hearing. I believe it illustrates the republican attitude very well at the time.

On the other hand the Democratic Party and the President have been bending over backwards to work with republicans, allowing them to strip piece after piece out of the health care bill, with ultimately zero republican support for their bi-partisan efforts. We aren't talking about the same thing at all imo.

Let's not forget the fundamental fact that in the republicans case they were legislating behind closed doors about wars, torture and eavesdropping programs, among other things, particularly private corporate influence over public policy. I see no change in their policy, on the last one especially.

It sounds hyperbolic, but it remains a fact. When you strip away all the euphemisms and distortions, isn't that really the republican health care plan? You have the money, the insurance, get charity, or die?

We are attempting to cover 46 million uninsured people, and get on to other urgent business, hopefully. Doing something about our two occupations would be a good next step.

[stray cat]

5. Civil rights probably would never have been accomplished for minorities

and the masses elected W twice

[Atticus]

6. 'elected W twice"---STRONGLY disagree! nt