Coburn wins

[badger]

Despite the Democratic supermajority in the Senate, despite everything suggesting that the Dems were going to get their health bill passed, Coburn once again found some way to get the Senate to go his way.

It all started with this.

Link (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20091216_17_0_WASHIN663705)

After suggesting that Senators should confirm that they read and understood the amendment before being allowed to vote, which was shot down, he exercised his right to have the entire 700-plus page amendment read outloud in a nearly empty Senate chamber.

So then, some poor Senate clerks were forced to read the thing outloud to practically nobody... after three hours, they were 139 pages into it.

Then, realizing that this was not going to go their way, the bill died. Dr. No wins again.

Seriously, Dems... even if you controlled every seat in the Senate except one, so long as that seat was Dr. Coburn's, you would not get stuff like this passed without his consent.

[OUHOMER]

I love that guy. If we had more like him we would be a lot better off.

[I Am Right]

It was the clerks job.

[swardboy]

Coburn did this? God bless him.......

[SCOUT]

a key Democrat refused to go along with his request to have individual senators certify they have read and understand the legislation.
This is what is wrong with government in general. Shouldn't they certify that they have read and understand any major bill? Isn't that kind of their job?

[Petro-Sooner]

This is what is wrong with government in general. Shouldn't they certify that they have read and understand any major bill? Isn't that kind of their job?

You would think so! :mad:

[DM05]

This is what is wrong with government in general. Shouldn't they certify that they have read and understand any major bill? Isn't that kind of their job?

Ok, I primarily lurk here, but in this instance I couldn't resist replying to this post. The motion for certification wasn't on the bill, it was on a 700 page amendment. It's simply obstructing.

Personally, I'm not a fan of such cheap tactics. Win through your argument, debate, or swaying public opinion, not through being an obstructionist.

[DM05]

And upon further review, the delay tactic was on Bernie Sanders amendment for to add a single payer reform to the HCR bill, which wasn't going to pass anyways. The move doesn't kill the HCR bill ... it obstructs and delays an amendment which wasn't going to pass anyways.

The problem with the whole thing was that the Senate was supposed to get to cloture on a DoD funding bill today ... so that it could pass by Friday night, when funding runs out.

[Petro-Sooner]

Ok, I primarily lurk here, but in this instance I couldn't resist replying to this post. The motion for certification wasn't on the bill, it was on a 700 page amendment. It's simply obstructing.

Personally, I'm not a fan of such cheap tactics. Win through your argument, debate, or swaying public opinion, not through being an obstructionist.

Or read the ****ing amendment? How about that?

[Ardmore_Sooner]

Voting on something without reading it is just like people who vote for people based on party lines. You do it just because you are "supposed to". I'm not the biggest Coburn fan, but by God I respect him in the fact that he doesn't sell out in what he believes. He would sit in that chamber and filibuster for a year if it killed anything he didn't like.

[DM05]

No, it's nothing alike "voting on party lines." There is a reason why Senator's have such large staffs. With the amount of amendments that can be entered on a bill ... nothing would ever pass if you were to require reading every page of an amendment before it could be put up for a vote. If you wanted to prevent a bill from passing, you could just keep filing gigantic amendments. Given the fact that there are 100 Senators, you'd be left with a Congress unable to act.

I don't think you guys quite understand the number of bills, and amendments to bills that are filed every session... and the capable staff size that legislator's have to help with parsing through everything. I mean, you don't complain about the Senators not actually writing the bills, but not actually reading thousands about thousands of pages of amendments, which have no chance of acutally passing anyways, thats moral outrage!

[ndpruitt03]

The dems views now are the same as the repubs views about a year ago. Why should we read a bill? Just pass it.

[swardboy]

No, it's nothing alike "voting on party lines." There is a reason why Senator's have such large staffs. With the amount of amendments that can be entered on a bill ... nothing would ever pass if you were to require reading every page of an amendment before it could be put up for a vote. If you wanted to prevent a bill from passing, you could just keep filing gigantic amendments. Given the fact that there are 100 Senators, you'd be left with a Congress unable to act.

I don't think you guys quite understand the number of bills, and amendments to bills that are filed every session... and the capable staff size that legislator's have to help with parsing through everything. I mean, you don't complain about the Senators not actually writing the bills, but not actually reading thousands about thousands of pages of amendments, which have no chance of acutally passing anyways, thats moral outrage!

And this is the problem in my simple world...I wish congress would take a couple of years off and write nothing.

[ndpruitt03]

And this is the problem in my simple world...I wish congress would take a couple of years off and write nothing.

That would give the people a chance to actually clean some of their mess up. They certainly wouldn't want that.

[badger]

Coburn's gone against both Republican and Democratic majorities during his time in the Senate... and finds ways to win regardless of the circumstances.

He places holds on bills he doesn't like, he has the power of the fillibuster, and now this - asking that the entire thing be read before an empty Senate chamber.

Love or hate him, I didn't realize someone could be such a roadblock to the rubber stamp process... and I love it :D

That being said, both parties are going to do absolutely everything they can to find someone in Oklahoma that can beat him in 2010. He has been a thorn in their side for too long.

[picasso]

Ok, I primarily lurk here, but in this instance I couldn't resist replying to this post. The motion for certification wasn't on the bill, it was on a 700 page amendment. It's simply obstructing.

Personally, I'm not a fan of such cheap tactics. Win through your argument, debate, or swaying public opinion, not through being an obstructionist.

Obstruction is the way it's been done forever. That or bribe a player ala Nelson.

Had to edit the name of the Nebraska Sen. who just so happens to be getting bullied right now.

[bluedogok]

No, it's nothing alike "voting on party lines." There is a reason why Senator's have such large staffs. With the amount of amendments that can be entered on a bill ... nothing would ever pass if you were to require reading every page of an amendment before it could be put up for a vote. If you wanted to prevent a bill from passing, you could just keep filing gigantic amendments. Given the fact that there are 100 Senators, you'd be left with a Congress unable to act.

I don't think you guys quite understand the number of bills, and amendments to bills that are filed every session... and the capable staff size that legislator's have to help with parsing through everything. I mean, you don't complain about the Senators not actually writing the bills, but not actually reading thousands about thousands of pages of amendments, which have no chance of acutally passing anyways, thats moral outrage!
That's the inherent problem, EVERY bill should pass/fail on it's own merits, not because attached to some other bill as a rider or amendment. They should know what they are personally voting for, and they should have to vote on every piece of legislation. Most of the ones without opposition get passed anyway and they only spend a minute or so on them.

For the most part legislators don't write bills, their staffers pass the proposed legislation to them after whatever lobbyist wrote what bill they want.

[MrJimBeam]

Personally, I'm not a fan of such cheap tactics. Win through your argument, debate, or swaying public opinion, not through being an obstructionist.

Obstruction? Wasn't the constitution written in a way that made it difficult to get legislation passed? Wouldn't Madison be proud? Didn't anybody ever see 'Mr. Smith Goes to Wasington'?

[Ardmore_Sooner]

No, it's nothing alike "voting on party lines."

People who vote for someone because of an R or D before there name is ignorant. It's blindly voting half the time without really knowing what that person stands for or what their policies are. I'm just saying that if they aren't even going to read all the little things that go into it, then they are no better then some uneducated twit strolling into a booth every other November and voting for the R's and D's on the ballot.

[JohnnyMack]

No, it's nothing alike "voting on party lines." There is a reason why Senator's have such large staffs. With the amount of amendments that can be entered on a bill ... nothing would ever pass if you were to require reading every page of an amendment before it could be put up for a vote. If you wanted to prevent a bill from passing, you could just keep filing gigantic amendments. Given the fact that there are 100 Senators, you'd be left with a Congress unable to act.

I don't think you guys quite understand the number of bills, and amendments to bills that are filed every session... and the capable staff size that legislator's have to help with parsing through everything. I mean, you don't complain about the Senators not actually writing the bills, but not actually reading thousands about thousands of pages of amendments, which have no chance of acutally passing anyways, thats moral outrage!

This health care bill, regardless of who wrote it, read it or attempted to amend it, is a flaming bag of dog **** on the front steps of America. That's what is important to remember here.

[SoonerJack]

No, it's nothing alike "voting on party lines." There is a reason why Senator's have such large staffs. With the amount of amendments that can be entered on a bill ... nothing would ever pass if you were to require reading every page of an amendment before it could be put up for a vote. If you wanted to prevent a bill from passing, you could just keep filing gigantic amendments. Given the fact that there are 100 Senators, you'd be left with a Congress unable to act.

Yes. More of this.

[badger]

Legislation should be difficult to pass, with the exception of emergencies, like declaring disaster areas or declaring war against a country that attacks our poor Hawaiian islands.

The fact that they were trying to slip in a 700-plus page amendment and Coburn was among the few trying to stop it says something. No wonder earmarks and spending are out of control.

[OUMallen]

That's the inherent problem, EVERY bill should pass/fail on it's own merits, not because attached to some other bill as a rider or amendment. They should know what they are personally voting for, and they should have to vote on every piece of legislation. Most of the ones without opposition get passed anyway and they only spend a minute or so on them.

For the most part legislators don't write bills, their staffers pass the proposed legislation to them after whatever lobbyist wrote what bill they want.

That's DM's point. They can know what they're voting on without having to read every single page in the Senate chamber.

That being said, I love Dr. Tom. :)

[ndpruitt03]

People who vote for someone because of an R or D before there name is ignorant. It's blindly voting half the time without really knowing what that person stands for or what their policies are. I'm just saying that if they aren't even going to read all the little things that go into it, then they are no better then some uneducated twit strolling into a booth every other November and voting for the R's and D's on the ballot.

I quit paying attention to R & D because they are basically one and the same

[StoopTroup]

I've never been head over heals about Tom....but I think he did a good thing yesterday. They should have to sit there and read every bill aloud before they vote on it IMO. Then at least they'll have at least looked at what they voted on.

Most of these guys/gals have folks telling them what's in it who've been lobbied to get their guy to vote on it.

They should do their own work IMO. Then I might begin to believe they are actually doing some good and earning their keep.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

No, it's nothing alike "voting on party lines." There is a reason why Senator's have such large staffs. With the amount of amendments that can be entered on a bill ... nothing would ever pass if you were to require reading every page of an amendment before it could be put up for a vote. If you wanted to prevent a bill from passing, you could just keep filing gigantic amendments. Given the fact that there are 100 Senators, you'd be left with a Congress unable to act.

I don't think you guys quite understand the number of bills, and amendments to bills that are filed every session... and the capable staff size that legislator's have to help with parsing through everything. I mean, you don't complain about the Senators not actually writing the bills, but not actually reading thousands about thousands of pages of amendments, which have no chance of acutally passing anyways, thats moral outrage!

actually, that was the original thinking behind the senate "to chill the hot bloodedness of the house".

[StoopTroup]

Also...if actually reading a bill holds up getting something passed....it just might be a good thing.

[85Sooner]

Oklahoma should be proud and He is one of the very very few that should be re-elected.

[King Barry's Back]

People who vote for someone because of an R or D before there name is ignorant. It's blindly voting half the time without really knowing what that person stands for or what their policies are. I'm just saying that if they aren't even going to read all the little things that go into it, then they are no better then some uneducated twit strolling into a booth every other November and voting for the R's and D's on the ballot.

Well, that's not exactly true. You'd be surprised how much of this gets decided one-on-one personally between Senators. Nothing ever happens until the Chairman of the relevant committee is happy with a bill, then he allows it to be voted out of the committee.

Now the chairman and the key sponsor have been working this bill for months. They know it inside and out, and they have been closely tracking the amendments.

So now the bill is coming to the floor. There are a bunch of Senators who know nothing about it, because it wasn't in their committee.

How do they know how to vote? There are, let's say, 500 bills in the hopper for this week. Even if they sit down and read them all, and some of them may run to 3000 pages, as human beings they can't really understand every paragraph and the ramifications of every subclause in the 72 hours they have.

So, while Senator Z is down on the floor voting, they amble across the floor to the Chairman, and to the key sponsor. They say, "What's the story with this bill?" They'll get a quick summary, focused on, say, the top five issues with why they should vote for the bill, and maybe four or five top issues with why they shouldn't.

They might say, "We think this bill is important because of reasons A, B, and C...but, you know, Senator Y over there, he's against it because of reasons D and E."

So, then Sen Z would wander over to wherever Sen Y is standing, and engage him about why he doesn't like it.

Then Sen Z would weigh his own govt philosophies and the interests of his own state, and make a decision.

Nobody can be experts on everything, so that's just how the Senate works.

[King Barry's Back]

PS -- I heard on the radio that "one Senator" had required that a bill be read in its entirety. I said, "That had to be Coburn."

Now I found out, it was.

For those of you critical of Senator Coburn for "obstructing" the legislative process -- I'll just say this.

If such tactics are so outrageous, why has the Senate not simply abolished the rule that allows individual Senators to demand that any bill be read? They could do it, but why not?

[Fraggle145]

I motion to table this until next week. ;)

[OklahomaTuba]

Thank GOD we have someone like Coburn in the Senate.

We just need a few more of them.

[soonerscuba]

Lulz, most on this board were singing a different tune regarding legislative process circa 2002-2006.

[badger]

Coburn was just as much on the prowl back when the Republicans were in charge as he is now... although he had fewer bones to pick among those he shared some common ground with :D

It's just that Democrats and their supermajority have brought out the creative side of him a little... the Senate split is going a lot better than I thought it would. Dixiecrats are rebelling, everyone's vote really, really matters now. It's a lot less lockstepping than I pictured. Might have to do with the present icky economy.

Before, when the Republicans were in charge and when the Democrats only had a simple majority, Coburn would simply place holds on bills he didn't like, or threaten filibuster. The reason I started this thread is because when all hope seemed lost and Coburn's defeat seemed imminent, he pulled a whale out of his magic hat when you all expected a cute little bunny.

[soonerscuba]

I remember lots and lots of people crying because Democrats were doing the same thing, hell Cheney and Frist considered changing cloture to simply majority. I don't remember people on this board lauding those Dems for their civic duty within the framework of the body. I don't have a problem with what Coburn is doing procedurally, but people like Tuba come off as partisans to a degree beyond silly when they laud the action now but acted as if it were some great tyranny a few years ago.

[SoonerProphet]

I remember lots and lots of people crying because Democrats were doing the same thing, hell Cheney and Frist considered changing cloture to simply majority. I don't remember people on this board lauding those Dems for their civic duty within the framework of the body. I don't have a problem with what Coburn is doing procedurally, but people like Tuba come off as partisans to a degree beyond silly when they laud the action now but acted as if it were some great tyranny a few years ago.

You expected something different?

[NormanPride]

Coburn is ****ing awesome. It's a shame he's so devoted to term limits that he won't run again... We can only try to vote someone in that will represent us in the same way.

Everyone is applauding the fact that he was trying to get everyone to read the bill, but that's not why he did what he did. I guarantee you he doesn't read everything that comes across his desk either. This was a pure "**** you" to the filibuster-proof majority that was trying to cram a stupid bill down everyone's throats. He's pissed everyone off in that room a thousand times, and still does what he thinks is right regardless of what they say or how hard they try to stop him. He works 10x as hard and 100x as smart. He's exactly what every Senator should be.

[soonerboomer93]

This health care bill, regardless of who wrote it, read it or attempted to amend it, is a flaming bag of dog **** on the front steps of America. That's what is important to remember here.

yup

[OUinFLA]

No, it's nothing alike "voting on party lines." There is a reason why Senator's have such large staffs. With the amount of amendments that can be entered on a bill ... nothing would ever pass if you were to require reading every page of an amendment before it could be put up for a vote. If you wanted to prevent a bill from passing, you could just keep filing gigantic amendments. Given the fact that there are 100 Senators, you'd be left with a Congress unable to act.



there are many days I would consider this a blessing.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This health care bill, regardless of who wrote it, read it or attempted to amend it, is a flaming bag of dog **** on the front steps of America. That's what is important to remember here.The WINNAH!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

This health care bill, regardless of who wrote it, read it or attempted to amend it, is a flaming bag of dog **** on the front steps of America. That's what is important to remember here.The WINNAH!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I quit paying attention to R & D because they are basically one and the sameOh hellyes, exactly the same, haha...see any difference between Tom Coburn and Nasty Pelosi? How about between harry Reid and Jim Inhofe?...No, you don't? haha

[badger]

OK, so the health bill officially cleared so insanely early this morning that I have to wonder if there isn't a little bit of fear it'll fail when debate opens.

Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=17&articleid=20091221_13_0_WASHIN511724)

60-40 (All 58 democrats and two independents versus all 40 republicans) voted at about 1 a.m. (I think that's D.C. time, so about midnight Oklahoma time).


Reid cut numerous last-minute deals to get the votes he needed and powerful Democrats also inserted home-state provisions in a 383-page package of amendments Reid filed this weekend to the 2,074-page bill.
I am kind of curious which states got what... I assume Reid helped out his own state of Nevada and I know the Nebraska guy got stuff for his bugeater state... but I am pretty sure Oklahoma didn't get sh!t.

And now... the rush to pass it before Christmas Eve. I put it in this thread because I am really, really curious what Coburn is going to pull to ensure that the Senate will either (a) Need to give up Christmas vacation to get this passed, or (b) Cause the Senate to implode and lose their 60-vote supermajority.


Two more procedural votes await the Senate, each requiring 60 votes, the first of these set for Tuesday morning. Final passage of the bill requires a simple majority, and that vote could come as late as 7 p.m. on Thursday, Christmas Eve.
My guess is that Coburn (among the 39 other "no" voters) will try to conivnce the 60 "yes" voters that they are getting a raw deal if they don't get exactly what the top dems are getting for their own states... a little bit of pork here, a little bit of bitterness there, and suddenly 60 turns in 59 unless you give something to madam Senator from New York :D


After Monday's vote a number of Senate Democrats warned that the legislation could not change much and expect to maintain support from 60 senators. House Democrats are sure to want to alter it but may have to swallow it mostly whole.
For those of you that aren't here to giggle at Coburn tactics but just to criticize the health bill, this can be your solace that will ensure that this never passes. There's no way that the House side will allow itself to be left out of the decision making process. It needs credit (and pork for its home states!) too. One little alteration and some of the 60 senators voting "yes" will vote "no." They have the 2010 election to worry about, after all.

But for now, I am wondering what ace Coburn has up his sleeve. Something is coming from Dr. Tom, I just don't know what... I'll probably burst out laughing when it does.