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

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!

[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

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.