[lbo-talk] GOP slows down Senate debate by demanding full reading of amendment

[Nicholas Ruiz III]

...yeah, but the major point for me is there it was in plain sight, and Sanders had the will to put it forwrd - all they had to do was vote for it - single payer healthcare...and it gets taken off the table, in the name of the people who want it...such a travesty of representative democracy.

You're right - Sanders should have called Coburn's bluff...

nick

 

----- Original Message ----
From: socialismorbarbarism <socialismorbarbarism at gmail.com>
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Sent: Wed, December 16, 2009 4:32:52 PM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] GOP slows down Senate debate by demanding full reading of amendment

Nicholas Ruiz III <editor at intertheory.org> wrote:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/12/gop-slows-down-senate-debate-by-demanding-full-reading-of-amendment/1

"The Senate health care debate has run into a major delaying maneuver
by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, of Oklahoma, who demanded that a
proposed amendment be read in full -- a move that could take hours.

The amendment, which is more than 700 pages long and has no chance of
passing, would create a single-payer health system. It was offered by
Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent socialist from Vermont , who
caucuses with the Democrats.

The reading of bills and amendments is allowed under Senate rules, but
usually is waived."

Wait, there's more...

"Update at 2:45 p.m. ET: Sanders withdraws his amendment, ending the
extended reading.

Update at 2:52 p.m. ET:  Sanders move came only moments after the
Senate's second-highest ranking Democrat, Sen. Dick Durbin of
Illinois, said the decision to require the reading of the amendment
was part of a broader attempt by Republicans to "bring down health
care reform." Durbin argued that the delay also jeopardizes
last-minute legislation to fund the Department of Defense. "We have
very little time," Durbin said."

Oh no! Reading the bill would have "jeopardize[d] last-minute
legislation to fund the Department of Defense"! Quelle horreur!

Here I am ready to re-think Alexander Cockburn's characterization of
Sanders as a "hack Democrat," and this comes along. Will an
opportunity for a twofer like this ever occur again for any putative
"independent" socialist politician in the US of A? All Sanders had to
do was call a fucking bluff. Well, two bluffs--Coburn's and whatever
Durbin may have threatened Sanders with.

I am also alternating admiration of Sen. Coburn's parliamentary savvy
with stunned disbelief. Do you mean to tell me that the august body
that dreamed up the filibuster almost two centuries ago never got
around to figuring out this tactic before today? If I understand
correctly, it means that *only one* Senator could have killed the USA
PATRIOT Act (I believe the same rule applies to the reading of bills
as applies to amendments?), with no threat of a closure vote or damage
to the honorable solon's larynx. (I think in this case, in perfectly
appropriate bourgeois fashion, the actual labor of reading would be
dumped on a recording secretary or some other Senate employee. Maybe
someone more expert than me in US Senate rules can answer
definitively. Although I respect the privacy of anyone who is
reluctant to admit to such perverse knowledge.)

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Nicholas Ruiz III
<editor at intertheory.org> wrote:
> http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/12/gop-slows-down-senate-debate-by-demanding-full-reading-of-amendment/1
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk