No matter what they pull in the Senate, I do not believe at this point that they can get anything called “health-care reform” through the House. Anything at all.

Bring it, lady. Drag this into the spring. Drag it into the summer. Break every polymer in your plasticized face when you fall on it and then get to work dusting off your old “House Minority Leader” door plaque.

Not only will they lose Blue Dogs, but they may lose some “good government – “respect the process” types.

If some Democrats think they are not needed, considering the Mass Senate race, they will jump off the ship to save themselves. Lieberman, Lincoln, Bayh, Webb, Nelson, McCaskill could all be “no” votes.That makes 47.

If they act as a block, they way unwittingly delegitimize the proccess and get some others to jump ship. Bill Nelson, Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Mark Warmer might not be far behind and then there are “process” Dems like Byrd and Feingold.

I thought the rules for that were that the only thing that can be put under reconciliation is the budgetary items. How can an out and out policy change like offering a public option be a part of this bill.

But again to the Dems the rules mean what they say they mean.

I don’t understand the tone here. Frankly, I don’t see why the Senate would go along with it. They have really been hurt in public opinion because that is where they were making all the deals/bribes.

What are the rules for relieving Pelosi as Speaker? Can the Dem caucus get together at anytime to vote in, say, Stupack? If I were a Dem Congresssman I would be looking at saving my own ass, and the best “group think” would be to debride the Dem caucus of that pariah

How to Impeach the Speaker of the House

Contact your Representatives and let them know that we are demanding the removal of the obstacles of democracy:

They Must Remove Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House immediately!

It is within their power, and it is within our RIGHTS to do so.

The Process to remove a seated Speaker of the House during session.

“It is well-settled that the U.S. Speaker may be removed from office by a resolution presenting a question of privilege declaring the office of Speaker vacant. 6 Cannon § 35.” CoxNewsweb here.

According to the 110th Congress House Rules Manual – House Document No. 109-157 From the U.S. Government Printing Office Online Database [DOCID:hruletx-66] [Page 410-428] ;

Rule IX : The Question of Privilege (emphasis added):

1. NOTE: Sec. 698. Definition of questions of privilege.
Questions of privilege shall be, first, those affecting the rights of the House collectively, its safety, dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings; and second, those affecting the rights, reputation, and conduct of Members, Delegates, or the Resident Commissioner, individually, in their representative capacity only.

2. (a)(1) A resolution .NOTE: Sec. 699. Precedence of questions of privilege.
Reported as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered from the floor by the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House, or offered as privileged under clause 1, section 7, article I of the Constitution, shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn. A resolution offered from the floor by a Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner other than the Majority Leader or the Minority Leader as a question of the privileges of the House shall have precedence of all other questions except motions to adjourn only at a time or place, designated by the Speaker, in the legislative schedule within two legislative days after the day on which the proponent announces to the House his intention to offer the resolution and the form of the resolution.

3. NOTE: Sec. 701. Questions relating to organization.

Privileges of the House include questions relating to its organization (I, 22-24,

189, 212, 290), and the title of its Members to their seats (III, 2579-2587), which may be raised as questions of the privileges of the House even though the subject has been previously referred to committee (I, 742; III, 2584; VIII, 2307). Such resolutions includethose: (1) to declare prima facie right to a seat, or to declare a vacancy, where the House has referred the questions of prima facie and final rights to an elections committee for investigation

A resolution electing a House officer is presented as a question of the privileges of the House (July 31, 1997, p. 17021; Feb. 6, 2007, p. —-). A resolution declaring vacant the Office of the Speaker is presented as a matter of high constitutional privilege (VI, 35). For further discussion with respect to the organization of the House and the title of its Members to seats, see Sec. Sec. 18-30, 46-51, 56, and 58-60, supra.

4. NOTE: Sec. 702. Questions relating to constitutional prerogatives.

”Privileges of the House, as distinguished from that of the individual Member, include questions relating to its constitutional prerogatives…”

“The constitutional prerogatives of the House also include its function with respect to: (1) impeachment and matters incidental thereto…”

In short, the rules of the US House of Representative for the 110th Congress provides for the removal of a seated Speaker, during session, for the purposes of preserving the “dignity, and the integrity of its proceedings” under the constitutional prerogative of its function with respect to impeachment. Any member of the House can bring forth a resolution presenting a question of privilege to declare the Speakership vacant based on this provision.

This can be done and MUST be done to reclaim the integrity of the Congress and to hold this Administration accountable to the rule of law!

It’s just that every thing I would say… I can’t.

was before she made the announcement that she couldn’t get the votes in the House for the Senate Bill. But it would be fun to watch them try to go through reconciliation. The Republicans could tie this up all the way until the midterms and then watch the Dems squirm.

Persistant mental disorder or derangement. See Nancy Pelosi.

Sure wish I could be there to witness the exploding heads …

members to walk the plank with no results except a huge spike in retirements and a massive loss looming in November with really bad Gallup generic ballot points.

See this: http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2010/01/10/dems-deserve-no-respect-for-their-self-inflicted-wounds-none-at-all/

You can argue Paul Ryan doesn’t know how the Senate works, but he strikes me as a pretty sharp guy. He tells NRO that the Dems have enough power to pull this off.

It’s the perfect deal in the Senate isn’t it? If they can set it up so that 51 votes are needed, Byrd, Bayh, Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson, Lieberman, and a couple others can feign disappointment with the approach but cast a sigh of relief that they are off the hook.

If this comes up for a vote in the House it’s going to be a done deal it seems to me.

The first law of holes will need to be rewritten after the Dems get through with this. Rather than stop digging, they are ordering bigger shovels. As Pat Caudell said the other day, “this isn’t political suicide, it’s political Jonestown.”

…wouldn’t it expire in five years unless it’s renewed?

The democrats in the house are going to tar & feather Pelosi.
This will go down in history as the “The Botox Rebellion”.

It’s OVER

Dan, if the Dems go this route and nuke the Senate rules to pass this piece of garbage, doesn’t that pretty much set the precedent of the majority party operating under majority vote instead of three-fifths vote? I mean, if I were a GOP Senator who will, in the near future, be in the majority, there is no way I would let the minority Democrats have the filibuster back. If it was good enough for them to operate under majority rules, then it has to be good enough for the GOP too.

This may not be a technical nullification of the filibuster rule, but it has that de facto effect. Are the Dems really willing to set this precedent?

If the Donkeycrats are stupid enough to try this,we will get big Republican majorities after the 2012 elections which will not only allow us to repeal everything with a Republican president, but force through a law by reconciliation stripping government employees of being able to belong to a labor union which is our ultimate goal.

Remember in November!

POLITICIANS LIKE DIAPERS NEED TO BE CHANGED OFTEN…AND FOR THE SAME REASON:
George Bernard Shaw (Even out of the mouth of socialists)