"Get yer red hots right heah!"
Last night, New York Democrat Congressman Anthony Weiner (pronounced "Weener") threw a hysterical fit on the House floor. Talk about hysterical! It was historical!.
So what was all that about? Well, it seems the Dems have a bill providing health care for first responders to 9-11 that have contacted diseases due to their exposure to toxic elements. There are some Republicans who oppose the bill due to certain parts of it. Yet, the Dems have the majority and the votes to pass the bill, right?
Right. But instead of passing the bill on a majority vote, the Dems chose to demand 2/3 majority knowing they didn't have enough Republican votes to pass it. It failed. So now, instead of having the bill they wanted, the Dems chose not to have it but to have the issue instead.
This afternoon, Weiner went on another rant on Sean Hannity's radio show. Hannity pointed out the hypocrisy of the tactic. (Also on the show was Peter King (R-NY), who supports the bill.)
As Weiner continued his angry rant, Hannity told him to just pass the bill on majority vote, which Weiner ignored. Weiner also ignored Hannity's final request that he (Weiner) pledge never to sign a bill he hasn't read. Hannity asked him at least 6-7 times, but Weiner ignored the question and continued to rant until Hannity hung up on him. Here is the audio from Right Scoop (Hat tip also to Hot Air):
That's our Congress, folks. Deliberately lose a vote you would have won so you could have something to complain about. What a tactic. The 1919 Chicago Black Sox would have been proud.
4 comments:
The real reason 2/3 vote was needed:
the Democrats decided to bypass the stage where the bill would be amended, because they knew the Republicans would try to add all kinds of right-wing goodies to it, knowing that it would have to be passed anyways because of the whole 9/11-ness of it. Because of this procedural matter, 2/3 vote was needed rather than a normal majority.
Can you tell me specifically what you and your fellow conservatives didn't like about the existing bill?
And are you mocking this man's JEWISH surname? Hmmmmm....
Anonymous,
You mean the Dems are against ever adding left-wing goodies to bills? Nancy Pelosi is great at that.
As to what "I and my fellow conservatives" have against the bill-nothing.
Nothing.
All I said was that some Republicans had things they didn't like. I don't know what they are, and I don't really care.
As for Weiner's last name, this is not the first time I have made sport of it. I only regret his first name isn't Dick.
It has nothing to do with it sounding Jewish. Why he doesn't pronounce it "Whiner"-I have no idea.
Anyway, you know that. You're just reaching for straws.
If you have nothing against the bill as it stands, then why aren't you upset that your fellow conservatives are keeping it from passing? Seems like a pretty noble bill. So why are you mocking Weiner? After all, he represents a lot of the fine folks who would benefit from this bill.
I'll take a guess: it pains you to be anything but completely partisan, even when it is contradictory to your own professed values.
I am mocking Weiner because he is acting like a spoiled child who is not getting his toy.
Here's a flash. The Dems own congress. They don't need one Rep vote to pass this bill. Not one. Yet, they deliberately stick in the 2/3 majority because they knew they would fall short that way.
What kind of tactic is that?
Post a Comment