I think that the Republicans are bending too far over backwards over this:
“All legislation currently scheduled to be considered by the House of Representatives next week is being postponed so that we can take whatever actions may be necessary in light of today’s tragedy,” said House majority leader Eric Cantor in a statement.
The House was scheduled to vote on a repeal of Obamacare this week.
What “actions” would those be? Resurrecting her from her sickbed? So, if she’d come down with the flu, or got stuck in a blizzard, they’d postpone a vote for one representative? Of the other party? I hope this pays off politically, because from a precedent and policy standpoint, it’s really dumb. It’s senseless to me to shut down the entire House because it’s missing one out of 435 members.
I fully understand your disappointment as I feel it too. Loss of momentum surely plays into the leftists hands.
However, keep in mind the leftist blogosphere and mainstream media is in full gear desperately trying to pin this on the Tea Party in general and Sarah Palin in particular before the facts get in the way. It seems like the Oklahoma City Bombing all over again in many respects. It probably is prudent to slow things down a bit and wait for the media storm to subside. With a gutless GOP the only things in our favor is the truth (the shooter is very likely a young schizophrenic and a leftist anarchist to the extent he thought of politics) and the fact the leftists will once again overplay their hand.
OK, with all respect to the victims of the horrific events Sat, I agree with you Rand.
The House could spend several hrs on formal expressions of sympathy, discussion of security, etc. on the floor, then move onto business later or the following day. What is wrong with that?
This is downright insulting, but hardly unexpected. Cantor is effectively using the 24 hour news cycle as an excuse to see how many real calendar days the House can get away with being truant.
Too soon to know about this particular tactic; but I’m glad to see the Repub leaders know that the political game is about long term rather than short term results. Spin control is their most important job right now.
Who was the historical figure that said no one’s liberty was safe while the legislature was in session? Maybe we need more excuses to shut down…
@Sully:
Spin control was presumably their most important job in the aftermath of Oklahoma City bombing. Look how well that worked out.
We’ve seen this movie over and over again since 1963. A lone wolf motivated by God knows what gets lucky, and the Left uses the act as a bludgeon against all who have the audacity to hold beliefs contrary to the defenders of the federal bureaucracy–especially those who own firearms. And we’re told that the rules of common decency require we accept the spanking in quiet dignity.
Hell, there’s even a term for this sort of process. It’s called blood libel.
Presley, that term doesn’t mean what you think it means. Google it, or click here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
On one hand, I have to agree with you that shutting the place down for a week seems excessive, considering that in the great scheme of things, while this may be a personal tragedy to those involved, it’s not all that different from when Wellstone’s plane went down or a similar fatal accident. On the other hand, anything that slows down the mischief that Congress can and will do is a positive outcome from something tragic.
What I fear is that means is that we will see Congress to further insulate itself from the people, with “heightened security” and other restrictions, along with fewer but more tightly controlled (read “choreographed” and “scripted”) public appearances.
As for complaints about this is exploiting a tragedy, that’s just sour grapes from the people who like Krugman and The Atlantic’s on-staff Forensic Gynecologist. both of whom were blaming Palin for this within minutes of the news breaking. “waving the bloody shirt” may have been invented by the Radical Republicans, but it has since been perfected by the modern Dems.
(The guy was going to a Community College. If you want/need someone/something other than the shooterto blame, maybe start with the steady diet of agitprop from the likes of Zinn and Chomsky and Moore and community organizers that he probably got in various classes and around campus.)
@Bob-1:
The implication of the term is clear, which is why I used it.
If the House really had important work to do, it would skip voting on health care reform, since they know they don’t have the votes in the Senate, and don’t have the votes to override a presidential veto.
As for political reaction to the shooting, I see a lot more calls for cooling down the rhetoric than for gun control — starting with the sheriff in Tuscon who alluded to the shooter’s mental health history and suggested that overheated political rhetoric had influenced him. I’m not sure the Congress can do much about that though.
A better use of Congress’ time might be to use this incident as as a prompt to ask whether there is anything at the Federal level that can be done to improve emergency response times and effectiveness. The doctor/witness who tended to the injured said that he thought there was too much of a lag between 911 and the police and EMTs arriving. I understand most of this needs to be improved at the local level, but who knows, maybe a homeland defense grant got delayed due to excessive federal paperwork or some such. Not that it should take a member of congress to be injured for the Congress to look into this, but now that it is on their minds, it seems like a better use of their time than voting for a repeal that they know will not become a law.
This will not work out well for firearms owners. The shooters entire crazy, off center, bizarre background will go away in the leftist MSM (over) analysis, and ONLY his (evil) gun will remain.
And let me ask, if anyone heard the first blurb, HOW in the HELL is Sarah Palin responsible?
@Bob-1:
While there’s merit in the argument we should pay Congress not to show up, something about that just rubs me the wrong way. 😉
@Der Schtumpy:
She shot a reindeer on national television. Clearly this was a signal to what will obviously turn out to be a domestic sleeper agent.
It is only unimportant for Leftists like Bob-1 who prefer GOP-as-usual, naturally.
I thought my comment was non-partisan, in that if they did have the votes in the Senate, I wouldn’t have said it. Can you explain why a futile vote in the House is important to you, or why the vote isn’t actually futile?
The Congress made a lot of votes on health care last year that appeared futile to many, particularly after the Scott Brown election, but it didn’t stop them. And I don’t recall you complaining.
It will pass the House. It may pass the Senate, or at least it would if Prince Harry would allow it to come to a vote. At that point, the president will have to take a stand, going into 2012, as to whether or not to veto it. If he does, everyone else will have to decide, going into 2012, whether or not to override. Every single one of these votes will have political consequences, and they should. That doesn’t sound futile to me.
Bob, why did the House bother to pass Cap’n’Tax, when it was clear that it was never going to pass the Senate? Why wasn’t that “futile”? Why wasn’t it a waste of valuable time? Were you complaining about that? I didn’t hear you.
Please give up this ridiculous argument. Particularly when it’s clearly partisan.
Hey, don’t assume partisanship when simple uninformedness will do.
I didn’t follow Cap and Trade at all for example. For repealing health care reform, I didn’t know there were enough votes to pass the Senate assuming it came to a vote. Are there really? (Another thing I’m uninformed about is the rules, so I don’t understand the reference to Reid.)
Buyt if the vote merely has “political consequences”, they should vote closer to the next election, no? Maybe they’ll vote again then too.
Hey, don’t assume partisanship when simple uninformedness will do.
Wow Bob, if you admit that you are uninformed, then why are you weighing in on the topic? And how can you possibly express astonishment and dismay when others point out the flaws in your logic?
Wow Bob, if you admit that you are uninformed, then why are you weighing in on the topic?
It’s his MO. And don’t assume he’s uninformed just becaue he says so. He likes to appear to be an affable blatherer, but eventually he’ll get to his auntie who was in a concentration camp or some such. Which will, you know, add WEIGHT to what he is saying. The idea that the people who voted this congress into office actually WANT this vote is a complete non-sequitur. They’re idiots and of no consequence.
Jiminator, whether I was following Cap and Trade or not is irrelevant to whether the health care reform repeal vote looks useless to me or not. I do admit that this is a case where the assertion seemed basically correct (the house has a GOP majority, the Senate doesn’t, and we know where Obama stands), and I didn’t need to look very far to see everyone repeating the line that the vote is just political theatre. For example, Giffords herself said so on Friday (http://www.svherald.com/content/news/2011/01/08/giffords-friday-interview-heraldreview).
In terms of political consequences, the vast majority of voters don’t care whether someone takes a stand via a vote, or simply by stating their position on the record. And I bet every member of Congress who didn’t already vote on health care reform last year (ie the new members) had to clearly state their position to win election.
So, the only interesting thing here is this assertion that there are enough votes to pass the reform, but not enough votes to bring it to a vote, which seems weird, and I’d like to learn more.
The reason Palin’s linked to this is her graphic (hastily taken down after the assasination attempt) putting Giffords in a literal set of crosshairs.
The problem with sane people calling their enemies socialist / communist / fascist is that crazy people just might take it seriously.
As far as Congress taking a couple of days break before re-launching the most partisan and viscious argument since the Civil Rights Act, it certainly seems a good way to get people to calm down. There are nuts with guns on both sides of this debate.
“This will not work out well for firearms owners.”
The leftist media will meet the most pro-gun house of representatives in a century. They can wish in one hand and sh@t in the other and see which fills faster.
They are deluding themselves if they think they are going to take up any gun control measure. I think they know this. Their rhetoric is simply a fund-raising telethon for the Brady campaign so they might endeavor to keep the lights on another 6 months.
The reason Palin’s linked to this is her graphic (hastily taken down after the assasination attempt) putting Giffords in a literal set of crosshairs.
Yes, because no one else has ever done that, especially on the left.
Chris Gerrib Says:
The problem with sane people calling their enemies socialist / communist / fascist is that crazy people just might take it seriously.
I do NOT accept the premise that one should not label a politician as adhering to a political philosophy because it somehow incites violence. Balderdash.
The reason Palin’s linked to this is her graphic (hastily taken down after the assasination attempt) putting Giffords in a literal set of crosshairs.
Need I point out that the graphic doesn’t put Giffords in a literal set of cross hairs? The cross hair is on her district, her name is under the map without an associated set of cross hairs. I guess you must be pretty far gone to be able to ignore the evidence in front of your own eyes.
In terms of political consequences, the vast majority of voters don’t care whether someone takes a stand via a vote, or simply by stating their position on the record.
Wonderful assertion there BOB. Care to back it up with quotes from your soon-to-be-released poly-sci textbook? Will it include “vast” or just “majority”? Do you recall the original Contract With America? One of its major items was forcing votes FOR THE EXPRESS PURPOSE OF PUTTING CONGRESSMEN ON RECORD. Your “vast” “majority” exists only in your mind.
For Bob, the only thing vast is the empty space between his two ears.
“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”
“Argue and Get in Their Face”
Who said those two quotes Chris?
and I didn’t need to look very far to see everyone repeating the line that the vote is just political theatre.
That one really speaks volumes. BOB.
Yes, Curt, it shows I’m being honest with you. I repeated the conventional wisdom without doing further analysis or citing anyone else’s. It doesn’t mean I always do it — in my comments here, I often provide a citation that actually proves something in a way which is independent of the conventional wisdom. (See my response on Bennet’s questions about 9/11 — I repeated the conventional wisdom that planes really did hit the towers, but cited a pretty good physics lecture on how they fell.)
Now where, among all this ad hominem, is the evidence that the conventional wisdom is wrong? How many votes in the Senate would the repeal measure get? Do you have your own analysis or a source to cite?
Alternatively, maybe you agree the votes aren’t there in the Senate, but you want the votes on the record. Ok, fine, I get it. I think the voters just want to know where a candidate stands, and don’t care whether that knowledge is gained via a vote or a clear definitive statement on the record (such as in an interview with an editorial board). You don’t agree. I don’t know how either of us could prove it, but I’m open to suggestions.
Bob, words mean things. You rush to post your first draft and then subject us to your endless editorial process:
* Hey, don’t assume partisanship when simple uninformedness will do.
* I didn’t follow Cap and Trade at all for example.
* Another thing I’m uninformed about is the rules, so I don’t understand the reference to Reid.
* I repeated the conventional wisdom without doing further analysis or citing anyone else’s.
How about getting informed, follow the discussion, learn the rules, and doing the analysis before you post? Just a thought 🙂
O fellow transterrestrials, can we lay off Bob a bit, please? He’s a good and decent soul, perhaps with some confused ideas — but ideas which are likely to have appealed to every one of us, at one time or another. He’s also willing to stay in a pretty hostile environment and argue the case, resorting as much as possible to facts and reason, and rarely to the nastiness that so often infects the Modern Left. That takes courage and decency — let us respect, admire and encourage that.
Er…Bob, I don’t want you to think I’ve gone soft or anything, so let me emphasize that everything you say is clueless nonsense, and I look forward to my next opportunity to demolish your flimsy half-baked arguments with the razor-sharp talons of my logic and the cold hairy fist o’ facts, and then dancing with glee on the smoldering wreckage of your ego. Ha ha ha!
I repeated the conventional wisdom
No you didn’t. You said: I didn’t need to look very far to see everyone repeating the line that the vote is just political theatre.
Everyone is not repeating that. Regardless of how far you looked. A very subtle point, which you slipped in thinking it would fly by most readers. And it probably will. Give yourself a back pat.
Now where, among all this ad hominem, is the evidence that the conventional wisdom is wrong?
Another skillful swipe. You didn’t repeat the conventional wisdom. “Yes I did”. No you didn’t. And. So. On.
How many votes in the Senate would the repeal measure get?
“Don’t look over there, that’s political
theatertheatre. Look at the Senate. Not enough votes.” Again, back pat. Just don’t break your arm.I think the voters just want to know where a candidate stands, and don’t care whether that knowledge is gained via a vote or a clear definitive statement on the record (such as in an interview with an editorial board).
Good one. Which editorial board? And what would the question be? And what are the chances it would provide information anywhere near as meaningful as a real floor vote?
How many votes in the Senate would the repeal measure get?
No one can know that, but there are 47 Republicans, and there are a couple dozen Senate Democrats, most of them in states that John McCain won, up for reelection in two years, who came in with the 2006 sweep and are very vulnerable. They just saw what happened to several of their colleagues who voted for this atrocity last year. Are you really saying that McConnell couldn’t peel off at least four of them? That they’re all politically suicidal?
I think the voters just want to know where a candidate stands, and don’t care whether that knowledge is gained via a vote or a clear definitive statement on the record (such as in an interview with an editorial board).
Bob, it’s sort of like the difference between giving an interview and testifying under oath.
My argument has the same weight whether it repeats the “conventional wisdom” or simply repeats something that a whole bunch of Democratic lawmakers are saying. Either way, I repeated something I heard without doing further analysis, and I admitted it. So why not address whether or not the argument is true?
Which editorial board? Well, one read by the voters in the candidates district, of course! Do newspapers not interview candidates where you live?
Which questions should be asked? A good journalist would ask a series of questions to establish where a candidate stands. Good questions can be much more informative than a simple Yea or Nay on a bill, particularly an omnibus bill. I thought elections, in this respect, were pretty much the same all over the USA. How do elections play out for voters who want to educate themselves where you live?
Well, one read by the voters in the candidates district, of course!
Of course! Which would be the NYTimes for a few million New Yorkers. The questions all fairly assembled, honestly administered, and with no political agenda involved.
A good journalist…
[insert explosion noise]
Can you explain why a futile vote in the House is important to you, or why the vote isn’t actually futile?
That’s been fully covered. Can you explain why not having this particular vote in the House is important to you?
I’ll insert the first part of your response here so you can just cut-and-paste:
Curt – Let me rephrase myself so you are no longer confused.
Are really saying that McConnell couldn’t peel off at least four of them?
Yes. But maybe I’m wrong. The inevitable presidential veto means it is moot anyway.
So, your Prince Harry comment was a reference to the need for 60 votes to stop a fillibuster, and ultimately 67 votes unobtainable votes be needed to actually change the law. (It isn’t really up to Reid, right?)
For what it is worth, I’d favor a vote in the Senate, even though it won’t change anything. A presidential veto is fine with me.
Congress working on actually making laws (like improving the process of distributing homeland security funds to bolster local 1st responders) seems more useful to me. I think they should work making laws, not bills.
I guess I didn’t get the Palin memo ‘cross-hairing’ Giffords (district wise or personally). I’m kinda pissed too, I thought I was on the “Sarah Palin’s Daily Cross-Hair Memo” list! I signed up long ago.
and,
M. Puckett,
is it really fair, given yesterdays events, to correctly quote that line? After all, what was the ‘context’, or ‘nuance’?
The inevitable presidential veto means it is moot anyway.
That was a little bold. A lot of readers are definitely NOT going to blow by that. You’re slipping.
I think they should work making laws, not bills.
Clarity at last. We need more laws. Thank you.
Curt, “making laws” is politically neutral. A law can streamline inefficient government processes, it can cut waste, it can cut spending of all sorts. I assume you want to shrink government — laws are the way to legally do it.
I think they should work making laws, not bills.
Bob, Bob, Bob…every law begins as a bill. Bills are proposed laws under consideration and debate by a legislature. A bill doesn’t become a law until it is passed by the legislature and, in most cases, approved/signed by the executive.
Bob, I can think of very little that the 112th Congress could do that would be more worthwhile than getting rid of the monstrosities put in place by the 111th. If HR2 is a step in that direction — and wiser heads than mine, about politics at least, think it is — then more power to them.
Fiddling with grants allocation methodology by contrast strikes me as indeed abandoning the big priorities to fiddle while Rome burns. In short, I suggest your own argument, framed with the correct priorities, leads to the opposite of your conclusions.
Jiminator, HR2 is destined to remain a bill forever. It has been eye-opening for me to learn here that such a destiny doesn’t make it a waste of time for quite a few people.
Carl, right!!! That’s why I thought I sounded non-partisan. Anyway, cheer up, maybe Congress will end up authorizing the use of force somewhere.
Carl, what I mean is, since no law is perfect, they might work on changing health care reform in some clever way that Obama or a 2/3s majority would agree is actually a good idea yet still appeals to die-hard Republicans, at least the ones hungry enough to accept half a loaf.
Bob, that legislation is such a complicated, incomprehensible inextricable mess that it can’t be fixed without spinning off more trillions of dollars and unintended health consequences. They need a clean start.
A repeal might pass if a better plan was developed and presented first. Are there any in the works?
@Bob-1:
Setting aside entitlement reform, who says there’s a better solution to be had at the federal level?