Republicans Disrupt Debate on House Floor

I'm sure Price's mother is so proud.

Funny. I was struck by how differently the scene is viewed, depending upon one's perspective. You seem to have covered the view from the left, Kathy. But the view from the right is much different (link).

A parade of female Democrats are using the House resolution process to play the gender card on Pelosicare and eat into general debate time through unanimous consent requests. GOP Reps are objecting. Chair John Dingell shutting up GOP reps. Repubs want an extension of an hour on debate to balance the female Dem circus.

No judgment being passed by me here. Merely noticing how differently an event can be interpreted.

Merely noticing how differently an event can be interpreted.

Well, after about six years of political blogging, I'm used to that. It doesn't surprise me that Michelle Malkin thinks female Democratic House members are violating Republicans' rights by demanding the right to use their allotted time to speak w/o being shouted down. Malkin also thinks that women's reproductive health is "the gender card." I don't really have a lot of respect for the legitimacy of her views.

Pretty tame and typical,actually. Shouting-down in the house isn't all that unusual and used to be a lot worse.

Pretty ugly business. No wonder its so hard to get anything accomplished there.

The House is nothing but a room full of extremists from gerrymandered congressional districts. They are all nuts.

http://img.slate.com/media/1/123125/123054/2207...

I watched it live and I do think the Republicans took it too far, however the video is cut to ignore the substance of the objections that they were making. The question was whether people making an UC request have the right to make a statement regarding the intent of their comments that there were requesting to be inserted. It is notable that John Dingle eventually began to honor the Republican objections and started charging time for the statements against the Democrat's time, and even in some cases called some particularly verbose statements to be out of order. Whether that was because he believed the Republican objections had merit, or whether that was just because he tired of hearing them, I'm not sure.

So, I think it's easy to look at this sort of thing from the outside and criticize it. But the rules of the Congress are very specific and complicated, and so one has to consider the context in which this is happening (and the context is not made clear in the video). I'm not an expert in the subject and so I'll just say that it is not the image I want my representatives projecting, but as far as their intent goes I'll withhold my judgment.

Of course a clip from think progress or a post from Kathy is likely to make this into a singularly spectacular event, lol.

Malkin also thinks that women's reproductive health is "the gender card." I don't really have a lot of respect for the legitimacy of her views.

And you seem to hold the view that the taxpayer should be stuck with the bill for the consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices and fund abortion. I don't really have any respect for that view.

More from Malkin:

The female Democrat parade continues. Dingell finally, lamely, chides Dem Rep Slaughter that her parade needs to limit its unanimous consent request embellishments. They ignore him. He will now charge Slaughter time.
Female Dems end their parade with a Democrat screeching about domestic violence. Finally ruled out of order.
GOP women finally lined up to file their own unanimous consent requests.
Dingell immediately rules a GOP woman out of order.
Dingell repeatedly admonishes GOP women for their statements when he allowed the parade of female Dems to spew freely.
GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx pushes back against “this exercise of tyranny by the majority.”
Dingell rules her out of order. He’s charging GOP Rep. Pete Sessions’ time now.
GOP men now on floor with their unanimous consent requests.

Looks like the GOP was calling the Democrats on time wasting grandstanding.

And you seem to hold the view that the taxpayer should be stuck with the bill for the consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices and fund abortion.

Yeah, I do. Abortion is legal.

I don't really have any respect for that view.

I don't really care.

But the rules of the Congress are very specific and complicated...

That's true, and I did not mean to suggest that Republicans were violating the rules of Congress. In fact, they were doing, in a way, the opposite: Using procedural methods to slow down and obstruct debate on the bill, the purpose being to keep it from getting to a floor vote as long as possible. It's a rather ignoble way to try to win an argument.

Yeah, I do

So drinking is legal, want to have your taxes used to give aspirin to poor people if they get a hangover from drinking too much? Maybe we should pay for their car to be repaired if they get drunk and wreck their car? Why stop with just irresponsible actions that have pregnancy as a result?

I don't really care.

That is your right, as it is mine to not care for your wanting to make some people pay for the actions of others that they had nothing to do with. To me this is simply theft.

http://masteroftheuniverse.files.wordpress.com/...

Using procedural methods to slow down and obstruct debate on the bill, the purpose being to keep it from getting to a floor vote as long as possible. It's a rather ignoble way to try to win an argument.

With the exception, of course, when the Democrats have done the exact same thing, or as they have done just now, used procedural methods to try and eliminate Republican time.

As always, it seems to me that Liberals can dish it out, but can't take it. Unless the taking of course is the taxpayers money. THAT they are very, very good at.

Keep Conservatives out of my bedroom and Progressives out of my wallet and I will be a much happier person.

"It's a rather ignoble way to try to win an argument."

It's a delay tactic. We'll see if the Democrats have the balls to vote for it when it does finally get to a vote. Not holding out much hope, if they'd had the balls this vote would have happened months ago.

Oh, come off it, AR. You know darn well Republicans' talent for taking taxpayers' money is at least as advanced, if not more so, than Democrats'. Republicans just want to use taxpayers' money for different things than the Democrats do -- like endless preventive war and feeding the bank accounts of corporations and wealthy Americans via tax cuts, which are then paid for by cutting human needs programs, funds for infrastructure, etc.

I will grant that recent history supports their current lack of fiscal responsibility as well. In fact, I almost added a line about the Republicans pretty bad too in my post.

And if you have paid attention over the years, you have seen many, many posts from me condemning them for exactly that - spending as bad as a Democrat!

But I won't give you more advanced. Not after this past year of a Democratic Executive and Legislative branch.

I tend to agree with the view that this all depends on where you are looking at it from. I didn't see the incident but I am sure the GOP members pushed the boundries of good taste and decorum but I am also sure that the Democrats are not allowing much in the way of opposing views on the debate.

And I'm sure if the balance of power was reversed the roles would be switched.

Indeed if this were say a debate on tax cuts and the GOP prevented or limited Democratic input and you had a group of Democrats protest that the same posters who attack the GOP now would cheer the Democrats and vice versa.

Aint politics fun.

Over the years? I haven't known you that long, AR.

Well, I have been here since almost the beginning of TMV, back when it was just Joe's personal blog. I have a hard time remembering who has been around how long.

I guess it seems like years we have been 'discussing' issues. :-)

Leonidas, "And you seem to hold the view that the taxpayer should be stuck with the bill for the consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices and fund abortion." And then:

"So drinking is legal, want to have your taxes used to give aspirin to poor people if they get a hangover from drinking too much? Maybe we should pay for their car to be repaired if they get drunk and wreck their car? Why stop with just irresponsible actions that have pregnancy as a result?"

If we were all perfect we wouldn't have health issues, accidents or the need for health insurance. What makes some actions, voluntary or not, and some people, wealthy or not, more entitled to health insurance? You seem to be saying that abortions resulting from woman having unprotected sex should not be covered by insurance. You also seem to be saying that aspirin given to poor people who drink too much and get hangovers should not be covered. To be clear I don't think aspirin should be covered in this situation, but I am curious why you choose the word "poor" people. It seems that you believe some people are more entitled to healthcare than other people.

The whole point I'm making is why should we have carve outs of "voluntary" and "involuntary" and certain procedures? What about a depressed person who jumps off a bridge in an unsuccesful suicide attempt and winds up in intensive care? Since the decision to jump was "voluntary" are you saying that treatment should not be covered by insurance for that person, like the woman who "voluntarily" choose to have unprotected sex which resulted in a pregnancy? What about auto accidents? If you wrapped your car around the tree because you took your eye off the road to change the radio station do you think that should be covered by health insurance? Following your logic about not funding abortions, it was you who did the stupid thing, so why should we all pay your stupidity?

The America I want to see is an America where we are enlightened enough and caring enough about the well being of others to meet their needs without judgement. We are all equal and we should all have healthcare to be there for whatever health needs we have. I disagree with those people who sit in their little castles waving their sticks around who say someone doesn't deserve healthcare (or covereage for certain procedure) because, "that person is too poor" or "that person is undeserving because their skin color" or "that person made a poor decision". I believe in a compassionate America, (compassionate having the original meaning of the word, and not the meaning that Republicans assigned to it under their faux "compassionate conservative" ideas).

"I object...I object...I object...I object"

Next up for the GOP in Congress is the "making faces by sticking out of tongues at the opposition speaker when they aren't looking and then stopping the moment they turn around" style of parliamentary debate.

In their defense Dingle did say they could object as each speaker came to the podium. In Dingle's defense I am certain he expected a slightly higher maturity level. A night for disappointment all around.

Oh my gosh, I have not been here anywhere near that long, even as a reader.

AR, "With the exception, of course, when the Democrats have done the exact same thing, or as they have done just now, used procedural methods to try and eliminate Republican time."

I agree that Dems are not perfect on this matter either and I don't watch enough of these debates to know if this is the norm or not.

WIth regards to the linked video, I did not see the Dems using procedural methods to try to eliminate Republican time. What I saw was Democrats trying to speak and Republicans not letting them, clearly using obstructionist methods.

Procedurally, when asking for unanimous consent motions or ammendmants, no speeches or oration is allowed. See for instance how the Chair gavels down the republicans when THEY tried to say anything during their unanimous consent motions.

2004 for me!

:-)

Heck, he was still on blogspot!

AR, "Unless the taking of course is the taxpayers money. THAT they are very, very good at."

Hahaha. I got a good laugh at that. I seem to recall that when Bush took office he cut the taxes on the rich and then spent more money, including starting two wars without plan to pay for them. And It was the Bush the president and the Republican congress who expanded Medicare drug coverage, again increasing the national debt with no plan to pay for any of the additional Medicare costs.

I seemed to have read somewhere that part of the debate around the healthcare bill involved how to cover the costs, with certain sacrifices made to lower the costs. Not that it's perfect but at least there was debate around it....

So I guess the liberals are good at taking and spending the taxpayers money, whereas the Republicans are good at running up the national debt by running up spending and decreasing taxes.

Sort of makes both groups the same, as best I can tell.

See my reply to Kathy's same objection.

And you HAVE been around long enough to see me bash the Republicans for their spending.

Oh, come off it, AR. You know darn well Republicans' talent for taking taxpayers' money is at least as advanced, if not more so, than Democrats'

Prior to 2009 you might have had a point, Bush ran up record deficits. Unfortunately the Democrats have reaffirmed their mastery of this and tripled Bush's deficit from the previous year, with more deficits of similar size projected for next year as well.

AR, "Procedurally, when asking for unanimous consent motions or ammendmants, no speeches or oration is allowed."

Right, thanks. What makes the video difficult for me to interpret what's going on is whether the Democratic speakers who are being interrupted by the Republicans were proposing amendments or making speeches. At one point in the video a Dem asks if she has the right to say whatever it is she's saying and the chair says that she has such a right. I assume the chair knows the procedures. Thanks again.

Kathy,

The rules I was referring to was not the rules that the Republicans were invoking, they were the rules that the Democrats may or may not have been breaking (again, I admit to being ignorant on how those rules have been applied in the past). The Republicans objected to what they viewed as a violation of the house rules, which is a reasonable objection. With that said, it does appear that they went too far when they continued to object even after the chair ruled repeatedly against their objections. However, on the other hand (how many hands do we have here?), there was some legitimate confusion over how the rules were being applied with regards to how/when objections should be made. Some (not all) of the commotion was caused by Republican members trying to clarify what standing they had to raise objections the UC request parade, which again is a reasonable request.

AR,

I have to say that I didn't see that much of a difference between how Congressman Dingell handled the Republicans vs. the Democrats. For those who took too long, he noted that the time was counted against the party's debate time. For those who took excessively long, he noted that the speaker was out of order. Those rules were applied pretty much equally to both parties, from what I saw.

"And you seem to hold the view that the taxpayer should be stuck with the bill for the consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices and fund abortion."

That was never the case. At no time has the bill ever allowed federal funding for abotions under any circumstances other than rape, incest, and/or danger to a woman's life/health. Those three cases can hardly be considered "voluntary".

I do find it particularly interesting that you refer to pregnancy as "the consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices." Since when was a woman able to produce a child without a man's "voluntary sexual practices"? I would very much find it amusing if women started suing for their male partners to pay for abortions now that they cannot get coverage-- private or otherwise.

And since some have found it appropriate to propose that women who accept welfare payments be sterilized, I think it would also be amusing that someone also propose that men who fail to make child support payments also be subjected to the same. How far exactly do you think such legislation would go?

If you consider that many women have been abandoned by their dead beat husbands and fathers of their children and forced into government support, I suppose you could consider that taxpayers have been paying for the "voluntary sexual practices" of men for some time now. The real problem is that sex has never really had any consequences for men. I'd say it's high time that it did. Or perhaps we should embrace the fact that sex is such a "problem for women" by just having the women of this country embrace the ideals of Lysistrata. I wonder if that would affect the men, then.

Here is some more footage, the GOP seems willing to allow the Democrats to speak their mind provided the debate is extended by 1 hour so that everyone gets a chance to speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRavaAjfoVs

That was never the case. At no time has the bill ever allowed federal funding for abotions under any circumstances other than rape, incest, and/or danger to a woman's life/health. Those three cases can hardly be considered "voluntary".

Then why were all the progressives opposed to the amendment, written by a house Democrat, as it just gave teeth to this? Because having all the money in the same pool leads to creative accounting. If it cost $100 to fund a plan for someone with abortion coverage and the government chips in $75, why is it so hard for progressives to split it into 2 parts one in which is $75 and doesn't include abortion coverage and one that cost $25 and does? It gets the same thing accomplished if they really are sincere in keeping the monies separate, and it makes the money trail clear for tracking and more transparent. Why obfuscate the money trail if they are serious about making sure the funding goes to the legally mandated areas? Is there something they want to keep in the shadows? You betcha, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting against it and other pro-life democrats, 64 of them 25% of all democrats wouldn't be fighting for transparency.

I do find it particularly interesting that you refer to pregnancy as "the consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices." Since when was a woman able to produce a child without a man's "voluntary sexual practices"? I would very much find it amusing if women started suing for their male partners to pay for abortions now that they cannot get coverage-- private or otherwise.

Only referred to it that way as we were discussing it as a woman's health issue. I have absolutely not problem in recognizing it as a voluntary male action as well (unless the woman used artificial means like going to a sperm bank to get pregnant, or raped the man. I also have absolutely no problem with women suing men for 1/2 the cost of a privately funded abortion (assuming it endangered the mothers health and/or took place before the fetus was capable of a mental synapse, after which point I cannot support abortion for any reason other than the endangerment of the woman's health, at that point even a rape victim had plenty of time to decide to abort or not IMHO). In fact I would applaud any woman who did so and any court that forced the man who impregnated the woman to own up to their responsibilities, and not stick the woman with the 1/2 of the cost that he was responsible for.

Of course that also implies that he have some say in the abortion decision. I think if he is held accountable for 1/2 the cost you can't just shut him out of the decision. If the woman has final say on the abort or not decision then perhaps the male should only be responsible for say a third of the cost provided he signs a legal statement saying that he will raise the child if it is born and have legal responsibility to do so, if he doesn't he gets 50%. Of course if the woman changes her mind and has the child he must be legally required to take custody if the woman so desires as the price of his decision. I think thats fair to both parties, or about as fair as possible. This protects the financial rights or the woman and her having the ultimate say in whether she will carry the child to birth or not, but gives the man a chance to express his opposition to an abortion in a meaningful way that does not overrule the woman's rights, nor ignore his sharing of the responsibility for the pregnancy.

"And you seem to hold the view that the taxpayer should be stuck with the bill for the consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices and fund abortion. I don't really have any respect for that view"

Pregnacies due to rape, incest, etc." consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices"???

And since some have found it appropriate to propose that women who accept welfare payments be sterilized, I think it would also be amusing that someone also propose that men who fail to make child support payments also be subjected to the same. How far exactly do you think such legislation would go?

I'm opposed to both, but I agree if you have one, the other is justified by the same logic. I simply think that they shouldn't be rewarded with government money for children they can't support on their own, except for a limited time as bad things can happen to good people and set them back temporarily. Instead we should take the children out of this bad environment and put them in better care. Give the parents a chance to do what they need to to regain custody and offer some counseling and if they improve thir situation return the children, if not by a certain time, allow the children to enter adoptive or foster homes that can provide for them and offer them a better environment teaching them how to better succeed in life.

Republicans are such class acts. Case in point... THE classic Republican Parliamentary Inquiry

If AFDC rules required women to identify the man and force him to accept his responsibility, then men might become more -- responsible.

SteveK lecturing on class!

Kettle, meet pot. Pot, kettle.

comment 2261 read

Pregnacies due to rape, incest, etc." consequences of a woman's voluntary sexual practices"???

I'll excuse this misrepresentation of my views because you likely have not read my posts on this topic on the other thread. In this thread I was specifically referring to acts that were voluntary and not involuntary, sorry if this wasn't clear to you. In the case of incest, that is a voluntary act unless the relationship was unknown, or it was a rape, and I'm not for that being funded by taxpayers either.

Here is a quote of mine from there
http://themoderatevoice.com/52201/the-price-for...

Personally I don't mind it too much if it is used to abort rape pregnancies before a mental synapse is possible, but I think if the woman voluntarily had sex she should voluntarily accept the consequences of her actions and not expect the taxpayer to be responsible for her deciding that Billy Jim Bob was mighty charming after she had 6 beers and changing her mind in the morning.

2261/6 years at TMV = ~360 per year, on average.

Of course, you seem to be getting more and more obsessed with me and how I spend my time. You aren't gay and looking at my butt with lascivious intent, too, are you?

And this is 2263.

2264

Thank goodness you're here, Leonidas. Finally, someone who can be the arbiter of all that is well and good, "responsible" and legitimate. You do realize that your new responsibilities as Conception and Contraception Responsibility Chief requires you to be present at each and every act of human sexual intercourse, worldwide. Better get cracking.

This is pathetic, but this is no surprise. I firmly stated the obvious, months ago, that abortion would materialize as an obvious political issue related to federal health care interventionism; it was obvious (to some of us, anyway). And right on cue, the militant far-fringist absolute-abortionist responsibility-is-un-PC-and-heresy types are agitating in their mentally ill manner because they don't have an absolute federal entitlement to abortion (which is no "right" [sic] whatsoever) absolutely established. It was also no surprise to some of us, at least, that the fringists would be the ones to hype it as a holy grail issue.

At least the more foolish, evasive, dishonest, or cowardly (FEDC) typical lefties didn't call it "choice" [sic].

Capps, whose amendment I posted links to in the past several weeks if not multiple months, and whose language Stupak corrected with better language in his amendment, was as blatantly hypocritical as some lefties on this site, when she crititized the Stupak amendment:

"Comprehensive health insurance reform legislation is not the place to be re-debating federal abortion policy, nor is it the place to dramatically expand or contract access to abortion services."

Grow up, lefties, cease the more extreme, mentally-ill agitation, and concentrate on retention of the public option, in any form, in the Senate legislation prior to the conference with the House. [sigh]

I'm surprised Nancy Pelosi didn't re-define "children" above age 27, so as to include more lefties.

Grow up.

"The House [...] full of extremists"

The House lib Dem menagerie has been the major story this entire year, but that doesn't mean that the Senate will be free of foolishness. If fringists push the abortion issue, and reverse sexism is attractive in the Senate, too, it wouldn't be surprising, for example, to see either of the dim bulbs from the State of Washington, Maria Cantwell or Patty Murray, play the role, if not, say, someone like Barbara Boxer of California (currently notorious for Senate "climate" legislative extremism-related foolishness).

"Here is some more footage, the GOP seems willing to allow the Democrats to speak their mind provided the debate is extended by 1 hour so that everyone gets a chance to speak."

Watching it twice (once live, and once from the video in the post, although that video was cut up quite a bit) was enough for me, thank you.:) In any case, you make my point. The Republicans did have a valid objection and some valid questions about the process. However, it was not their place to decide what the Democrats could do once the chair had ruled. The chair had ruled on the question, and also made clear that his intention was to be fair to both sides (implying that whatever time imbalance the Republicans perceived would be accounted for), and yet they continued to object, which it seems to me goes too far. On the other hand, once John Dingell made clear to the Democrats that their statements were being counted against their debate time, the Republican objection subsided and things started rolling again.

It seems to me this whole thing in being blown out of proportion, by both sides. The Republicans had a valid objection at least at the beginning. Yes, they went too far but this is hardly the first time the house has gotten unruly. On the other side, it seems to me that Dingell handled it as well as could be expected and he attempted to be fair to both sides. Maybe he could have explained sooner that the Democrats were being penalized, but the end result seemed fair to me.

(Also, in the end, the debate was extended, although not as a result of this incident)

"I'll excuse this misrepresentation of my views because you likely have not read my posts on this topic on the other thread. In this thread I was specifically referring to acts that were voluntary and not involuntary, sorry if this wasn't clear to you. In the case of incest, that is a voluntary act unless the relationship was unknown, or it was a rape, and I'm not for that being funded by taxpayers either.
"

Mr. Smith:

1. No need to impugn ("misrepresentation") a person's motives because he or she doesn't read alll your sublime comments on other threads.

2. I don't need nor accept your "I'll excuse this...."

3. Notwithstanding your eloquent "Billy Jim Bob was mighty charming after she had 6 beers and changing her mind in the morning." I respectfully but totally disagree with your views on this issue.

Thank you.

Dorian de Wind

Not necessary, AR

Not necessary, AR

Of course not. But fun!

1. No need to impugn ("misrepresentation") a person's motives because he or she doesn't read alll your sublime comments on other threads.

I do no such thing, I only sought to clarify for you. I honestly never thought that anyone would suggest that another member of these boards might consider an act of rape to be a voluntary act of the victim. You implied that this may have been my view, it most certainly was not. Rather than overreact at this implication, I simply directed you to the other thread to clarify. I accept your respectful disagreement, but I do not accept a misrepresentation of my views that you implied in your post. I've had a love one raped and I am fully aware of the involuntary nature of the victim's involvement, I went to counseling sessions with her and have dealt with much of the long term damage her ex inflicted upon her with this brutality. I would currently be in jail for murder had the police not located, arrested, and incarcerated this individual before I had found him myself (and I was looking). I will not accept any implication that I consider her a voluntary participant in the violence that was inflicted on her by this beast. I'm not jumping on you for this, but simply clarifying something which I didn't think previously should need any clarification.

No need to impugn ("misrepresentation")

Minor quibble. Impugn does not mean to misrepresent; it means to to challenge as false.

Actually I'd be required at none of them. Thats the beauty of it, people taking responsibility for THEIR own voluntary actions. Of couse Nanny Staters would throw a fit. I prefer not to be held financially responsible for the irresponsible behavior of others.

But who's to know just which WOMEN have been responsible or not? Clearly, you seem to be the only person in the universe to be able to distinguish "responsibility" on the part of each and every individual and their sexual practices. I was only following your logic. I mean SOMEONE must be the judge of WOMEN and just how they are conducting themselves, so that we can deny them any benefit of our society, should we deem them unworthy. Hence, your new title, Conception and Contraception Responsibility Chief. I'll just call you CCRC for short.

All sarcasm aside, Leo, you've already shown your true colors on this issue. Backpedaling, couching your hatefulness in talk of "responsibility" won't work for anyone who remembers your rants on the subject, previously. It was ugly, and it was the real you.

"No need to impugn ("misrepresentation")
Minor quibble. Impugn does not mean to misrepresent; it means to to challenge as false.


Although English is not my native language, I believe that I know what "impugn" means."

"Impugn" went with "my motives"

The ("misrepresentation)" was a reference to Mr. Smith's post.

Sorry I confused you

"I mean SOMEONE must be the judge of WOMEN and just how they are conducting themselves, so that we can deny them any benefit of our society, should we deem them unworthy."

If by society, you mean government, then someone must, at some point, determine who is "worthy" or "unworthy" (qualified) to receive government payments. If by society you mean people receiving charity or earning their own money, I didn't him, or anyone else, attempt to take that away.

VeratheGun, in case you missed it on the other thread I said I'd gladly listen to valid comments on the issue but not red herrings, strawmen and ad homs. Thats the only response I can give to your last post.

EDIT: Oh BTW I noticed you hadn't responded to my question for you on that other thread so I'll repost it here:

Why do you think the average tax payer should be required to fund an irresponsible act by a person they don't even know, just because they can't afford insurance?