Patterico's Pontifications

7/1/2013

“I Can’t Allow a Hoax to Come to the Floor”

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:49 am

John Boehner is getting criticism from leftists for even thinking about not holding a vote on amnesty without the support of a majority of his own party.

He need only remember one phrase, used by Nancy Pelosi when she refused to allow a vote on drilling: “I can’t allow a hoax to come to the floor.”

The immigration bill is a hoax. Claimed to “fix our broken immigration system,” it fixes nothing, but merely legalizes millions who have broken the law. Claimed to secure the border, it does not, as its proponents tacitly admit by refusing to give any teeth to border security requirements.

It is a hoax.

And John Boehner can’t allow a hoax to come to the floor.

We’re just playing by your rules, Nancy.

124 Responses to ““I Can’t Allow a Hoax to Come to the Floor””

  1. rewarding illegal behavior is criminal…

    it will be interesting to see if Boner folds on this or not…

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  2. Playing with fire here.

    Remember President My Way or the Highway’s rule: “If Congress doesn’t act, then I will!”

    Icy (695237)

  3. I’m on-board, Boehner certainly can’t allow a hoax to come to the floor of the House, and if anyone disputes his decision all they have to do is read the bill.

    In fact, the first question to anyone who criticizes Boehner’s decision should be, “Have you read it, or do you think we need to pass it first so you can find out what’s in it?”

    ropelight (11f141)

  4. it’s a little scary to think of all the useless pandery crap smarmy smarmy rubio will be supporting as he tries to recover from this fiasco

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  5. Icy wrote:

    Remember President My Way or the Highway’s rule: “If Congress doesn’t act, then I will!”

    He already has, continuing the Bush Administration’s policies of faux enforcement. He could take it a step further and quit even pretending.

    Of course, the Speaker could bring up a bill which authorizes and appropriates for a real border fence, thousands more Border Patrol agents, and all of the things most Patterico readers seem to believe should be done, but he won’t do that, either.

    The realistic Dana (3e4784)

  6. @5: Howdy Dana. Apparently the House is preparing bills along the lines you describe. Manageable bills in appropriate committees, each addressing an appropriate topic instead of using one massive bill that would be very hard to amend.
    Then the Senate will sit on them, likely, but still working in the direction you suggest.

    MT Geoff (a67ef4)

  7. The Right has reached a breaking point. Clear a good chunk of the Senate has decided to sell out for 30 pieces of coin to screw working class Americans in order to cater to Big Business looking to cut labor costs, real societal costs be damned. The indifference to chronic unemployment,stagant wages, dropping QOL and entitlement costs exploding under this proposed bill is simply incomprehensible. Simply if the House passes this the GOP is done. It will have no constituency at all.

    Bugg (ba4ca9)

  8. JOHN ROBERTS: I assume you heard Senator Schumer talking about immigration. He is fairly positive, he has a bold prediction: the House eventually will pass the Senate bill. What do you say?

    REP. TREY GOWDY (R-S.C.): Well, I was moved, almost to the point of tears, by Senator Schumer’s concern for the future prospects of the Republican Party, but we’re going to not take his advice. The Senate bill is not going to pass the House. It’s not going to pass for myriad reasons. I support immigration reform; I think the current system is broken. But our framers gave us two legislative bodies, and I assume that they did it for a reason. The House runs every two years with the theory that we will be closer to the will of the people.

    So, under the assumption that the framers meant to give us two legislative bodies and a House of Representatives with 435 members, we are going to work our will, like we have been doing for the past weeks. We have passed four separate bills out of House Judiciary and an additional bill out of Homeland Security. We’re making progress, and we will continue to do so. I’m more interested in getting it right than doing it on Senator Schumer’s schedule.

    Music.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  9. Panderific!

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  10. Trey has some rock star qualities.

    elissa (ff35cf)

  11. Here’s Trey reeming the IRS for profligacy.
    He’s a very good spokesman, I think.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/06/06/189268466/watch-rep-trey-gowdy-gets-emotional-during-irs-hearing

    elissa (ff35cf)

  12. The immigration bill is such a hoax Corker and Hoeven don’t even know what’s in their own Corker-Hoeven amendment.

    Here’s a transcript from Hugh Hewitt show in which he destroys Sen. John Hoeven over just the fence. There are zero minimum miles for double layered fence, no specs for what they call “pedestrian fence,” and more important no penalties or no citizen standing to sue the DHS Secretary if she doesn’t build the fence, but just about anyone can sue to stop her from building the fence (sue & settle, anyone?).

    http://www.hughhewitt.com/senators-cruz-and-hoeven-on-immigration/

    I think this is the money quote:

    HH: But Senator, Bill Kristol and I agree on this. We don’t want this to go to a conference. We do not trust a conference. We do not believe that if this is the best that the Republicans could to on security, on the border fence and other issues, we don’t want the House to pick this up. I think you guys killed immigration reform by not taking conservative demands for border security seriously in substituting, and I debated this with Senator McCain once. We wanted a fence, an honest to God, big, double layered fence with an access road with specs spelled out, and you guys blew through it in five paragraphs, and anyone can avoid this. Anyone with a, I mean, maybe not your lawyer, but I certainly can go to work for the enviros to stop this, and if I was a La Raza type, I could make sure this fence was never built, even it was only three feet and it could be hopped over. I mean, it’s a disaster.

    Hewitt admits he was a squish. All he wanted was the fence, and he would have supported the rest of the amnesty bill. But they wouldn’t even give him a fence. He told Mark Steyn in a later show that he feels like a guy who showed up at a used car lot with a wad of cash and all he wants is a blue car. Any blue car. There are lots of blue cars on the lot, but they wouldn’t sell him a blue car.

    Steve57 (192f26)

  13. Even an immigration bill that did nothing else but expanded legal immigration from Mexico to 2 million a year would be better than this thing. If you added border security to that, it might be 3 pages long.

    Have the House pass that and let the press try to attack them. If they talk about all the illegals here now, respond with “let them go get in line.”

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  14. Bill just needs to be truthfully described, like events in Texas last week:

    Angry mob aids Wendy Davis in defeating bill to deliver safe health care to Texas women.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  15. R.I.P. Jim Kelly, African-American martial artist that fought Bruce Lee in “Enter The Dragon”

    Icy (695237)

  16. In fact, the first question to anyone who criticizes Boehner’s decision should be, “Have you read it, or do you think we need to pass it first so you can find out what’s in it?”

    Exactly. I’m all in favour of something like this, in principle. But I’m dead against any legislation that the legislators have not read and understood before voting on it, and definitely against blockbuster bills like this, which could contain just about anything and are inevitably found after the event to contain all sorts of surprises. I think it should be required that before a legislator votes for a bill they must certify under oath that they have read it and believe they have understood it.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  17. to screw working class Americans in order to cater to Big Business looking to cut labor costs, real societal costs be damned.

    See, that is protectionism, which has no place in the liberal (now known as conservative) movement. Free trade is the founding principle of this movement, and if you don’t believe in it then get the hell out and join the Democrats.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  18. Rep Trey Gowdy (R-SC) was quoted above as saying:

    So, under the assumption that the framers meant to give us two legislative bodies and a House of Representatives with 435 members, we are going to work our will, like we have been doing for the past weeks.

    I guess Rep Gowdy isn’t concerned about the gerrymandering of districts which tilts the elections, to the extent that we now have TEA Party activists elected for the sole purpose of preventing the House from getting anything done, because he is one.

    And perhaps it does not concern Rep Gowdy that the majority in the House were elected with less than a minority of the popular vote.

    Furthermore, he, and Speaker Boehner as well, are not the least bit impressed that the Senate Immigration Bill passed with a 68 vote majority, including a significant number of Republicans.

    To these unrelenting extremists, the House has accomplished something by voting down the Affordable Care Act 38 times.

    They can’t even pass a restriction on magazine size, ignoring the will of over 85% of Americans.

    I don’t think this is the behavior of our so-called representative government that our founding fathers had in mind.

    Gramps2 (be4148)

  19. I think we need an amendment that any not related to national emergency must be presented for 30days before voted on

    no wait tehwon Hussein already had promised that!

    E.PWJ (6140f6)

  20. that any bill…

    E.PWJ (6140f6)

  21. tehwon Hussein

    Let me guess, it’s been five o’clock in your time zone for a while? (hic)

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  22. They can’t even pass a restriction on magazine size, ignoring the will of over 85% of Americans.

    Liar.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  23. Patrick–

    Those 6 short paragraphs of yours are the single best précis of this Amnesty and Abdication bill that I have read anywhere. Hope all your readers paste it to a postcard and mail it to whatever stooge “represents” them in Congress.

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  24. I’m all for a reasonable restriction on the size of magazines. Let’s say 150 pages. Because if it’s bigger than that, it’s not a magazine, it’s a book.

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  25. Perry is spitting out his nonsense again.

    And perhaps it does not concern Rep Gowdy that the majority in the House were elected with less than a minority of the popular vote.

    Meaningless drivel.

    Furthermore, he, and Speaker Boehner as well, are not the least bit impressed that the Senate Immigration Bill passed with a 68 vote majority, including a significant number of Republicans.

    Why should this be impressive? If the number of votes is important, then you should also note that Schumer failed to reach his stated goal of 70.

    To these unrelenting extremists, the House has accomplished something by voting down the Affordable Care Act 38 times.

    Public opinion is only important to the Left when it is on your side. As is, majorities of Americans are not in favor of your beloved ObammyCare.

    They can’t even pass a restriction on magazine size, ignoring the will of over 85% of Americans

    See? Public opinion only counts sometimes to you. The Senate failed to pass this ban, why should the House do it?

    I don’t think this is the behavior of our so-called representative government that our founding fathers had in mind.

    The idea that the Founders would approve of your nanny state totalitarian all-encompassing government is silly beyond words.

    JD (38e188)

  26. Perry (Gramps2),

    Do you know anything about the Constitution, separation of powers, or checks and balances ?

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  27. Comment by Icy (695237) — 7/1/2013 @ 11:26 am

    Icy, Icy, Icy — Jim Kelly didn’t fight Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon; they teamed up together along with John Saxon to take on the evil Kien Shih.

    JVW (23867e)

  28. Rules for teh Right:
    1) take no prisoners
    2) pick your target
    3) freeze it…
    4) polarize it… any polar bear will do
    5) leave teh remains for teh buzzards and rats

    Colonel Haiku (0f21fb)

  29. A learning experience, reacting to the public transit train workers strike in San Francisco:
    “More power to the unions, but at the end of the day, how are we supposed to get to work?” said Alejandro Illidj, 20, a University of California, Berkeley student. “How is the economy supposed to work?”

    Icy (695237)

  30. #15, Icy, Jim Kelly didn’t fight Bruce Lee, they were sympatico. Both of them fought against the the evil Master Han, owner of the island, sponsor of the tournament, pimp, and drug trafficker. Kelly lost and Lee won.

    ropelight (11f141)

  31. You silly conservatives, Jim Kelly played quarterback for the Buffalo Bills !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  32. Perry would love Kien Shih in Enter the Dragon. He provided free room & board to his workers, and guaranteed them a job on his island. He even set them up with prostitutes, whose birth control he clearly was paying for (hooray for Julias everywhere!). And he only allowed his security force to carry weapons, and demanded that his workers not wander the island alone at night for their own good. Sure he was a complete totalitarian with a penchant for violent control and murder, but he really had everyone’s best interest at heart.

    JVW (23867e)

  33. Icy, Icy, Icy — Jim Kelly didn’t fight Bruce Lee in Enter the Dragon; they teamed up together along with John Saxon to take on the evil Kien Shih.
    Comment by JVW (23867e) — 7/1/2013 @ 12:51 pm

    – Argh! “fought WITH”. Stupid iPhone!

    [Karma dictates that Jim Kelly is right now kicking Steve Jobs's ass.]

    The Icy that has watched "Enter The Dragon" 15 times (695237)

  34. carlitoad

    I don’t drink, ever,justtype extremelypoorly

    E.PWJ (6140f6)

  35. You silly conservatives, Jim Kelly played quarterback for the Buffalo Bills !

    Actually that Jim Kelly has recently had a bad cancer experience too:

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9352692/jim-kelly-surgery-remove-cancer-jaw

    JVW (23867e)

  36. Icy, I figured you might have accidentally omitted a preposition in that earlier post.

    JVW (23867e)

  37. I guess Rep Gowdy isn’t concerned about the gerrymandering of districts which tilts the elections, to the extent that we now have TEA Party activists elected for the sole purpose of preventing the House from getting anything done, because he is one.

    Take a breath there grampS. I live in California with an artificial supermajority Democrat legislature – due to gerrymandering. It’s been going on unabated for a hundred years or so I guess.
    Suddenly now you are worried about gerrymandering?

    Your buddies should have cheated more, sent more black panthers with billy clubs to stand watch over polling places and the like.
    You lost the election. Too bad. Learn to deal with it. Suffering in silence would be my preference.

    Because What difference, at this point, does it make?

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  38. Perry Gramps2 wrote:

    They can’t even pass a restriction on magazine size, ignoring the will of over 85% of Americans.

    I don’t think this is the behavior of our so-called representative government that our founding fathers had in mind.

    Given the words of our founding fathers, as passed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and ratified by three-fourths of the states, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” I would guess that not passing an infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms is exactly what the founding fathers had in mind!

    I guess Rep Gowdy isn’t concerned about the gerrymandering of districts which tilts the elections, to the extent that we now have TEA Party activists elected for the sole purpose of preventing the House from getting anything done, because he is one.

    Perhaps you had better look to your own house, because the biggest factor in “gerrymandering” is the demographics and the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 — not a section which the Supreme Court just invalidated — holds that states may not dilute minority voting strength, and has been interpreted by the federal government to mandate the creation of majority-minority districts when such are reasonably feasible.

    And so, we have districts in which the Democrat would get 90% of the vote if he actually had a Republican opponent, but actually gets near 100%, because the entrenched black incumbents draw no Republican opponents. The very thing you champion packs black voters — read Democratic voters — into one district, and leaves the bordering districts whiter, and therefore more Republican.

    The Dana who has actually read the Constitution (3e4784)

  39. In 1990, Representative Herbert Bateman (R-VA 1st District) was quite surprised when he just barely eked out a victory over a political novice, a local television personality as I recall. Said Democrat was bound and determined to beat Mr Bateman in the 1992 elections, and started preparing early.

    But . . . .

    The 1990 census led to the Old Dominion being awarded an eleventh congressional district, and, under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the feds were pushing for the creation of a majority black district in the Hampton Roads area. The new 3rd District was created by the General Assembly just for State Senator Bobby Scott — who had lost the 1988 congressional race to Mr Bateman — and this spidery district, running through Newport News and snaking up the James River to Richmond, was about 65% black. The result? Bobby Scott was elected to Congress with a huge percentage of the vote, but Mr Bateman, in the redrawn 1st District, now defeated his Democratic opponent by a very comfortable margin.

    That’s what has led to so many safe republican districts: the imposition of ridiculous, 90% Democratic districts for black candidates.

    I worked on Tom Ward’s 1994 congressional campaign against Bobby Scott. Mr Ward was a handsome, articulate, well-to-do and intelligent candidate, someone who just looked like a congressman; he got a whopping 23% of the vote in the gerrymandered 3rd District.

    The Dana who used to live in Virginia (3e4784)

  40. What 85% was there a note?

    E.PWJ (6140f6)

  41. vote? Note? where did this 85% come from?

    E.PWJ (6140f6)

  42. EPJW, you crack me up. Is the period in your username symbolic of anything, or just another typing problem?

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  43. The very thing you champion packs black voters — read Democratic voters — into one district, and leaves the bordering districts whiter, and therefore more Republican.

    Spot on, Dana. Not only does it create a Republican district next door, it also ensures that the minority candidate who wins the seat in the gerrymandered district can follow an obnoxious race-based liberal agenda and not be held accountable by his or her constituents. Imagine if a majority of members of the Congressional Black Caucus or the Congressional Latino Caucus came from districts where they actually had to appeal to white moderates, instead of being able to pander to the race hustlers in their party. Democrats might be that permanent majority that they are always yammering on about, and they might see fit to venture beyond their usual grievance-mongering and try to appeal to the best interests of the nation instead of pandering to the various members of their coalition.

    Imagine if John Lewis had to actually win a vote from a white moderate or two, instead of always trading in on his (pretty much drained) “moral authority” from his actions nearly 50 years ago.

    JVW (23867e)

  44. To be fair, the gerrymandering goes both ways. We are increasingly sorting ourselves into like-minded groups. That could be our #1 problem, long term.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  45. The immigration bill is a hoax. Claimed to “fix our broken immigration system,” it fixes nothing,

    It changes some things, but it by no means fixes the system. It maintains a very low quota for guest workers.

    but merely legalizes millions who have broken the law. ?

    That’s the point. President Obama has said if a “opath to citizenmship” is not included in the bill, he won’t sign it. I think he’s partially bluffing but it would have to have permanent residence of some kind. The bill cpould probably leave some people out.

    And if that (legaalizaation) isn’t done, Senator Schumer talked of a mass demonstrations.

    I thought that it would take place in 2015 maybe or 2016, and then I thought 2014, but apparently a re-enactment of Martin Luther King’s August 1963 March on Washington is being planned, on its 50th anniversary, only the subject matter this time won’t be civil rights for Negroes but ciuvil rights for illegal immigrants, and he sounded quite serrious.

    http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-news-sunday-chris-wallace/2013/07/01/sens-mccain-schumer-hope-house-will-get-board-immigration-bill-rep-gowdy-says-it-wont/print

    In fact, I believe that by the end of this year, the House will pass the Senate bill.

    I know that’s not what they think now. They’ll say, oh, no, that’s not what’s going to happen. But I think it will. Let me explain why.

    First, I understand where Speaker Boehner is coming from. I have respect for the House. And he’s got a whole lot of Republican members, I’m sure the majority of the caucus saying they will vote no. They fear Republican primaries from the right if they vote yes.

    But I believe, over the next several months, that dynamic will change and they will start saying they can’t vote for it. They are worried about the primaries, but let it get — let it go, let get off our backs for three reasons, four reasons actually.

    First, the coalition John mentioned is a broad and deep coalition of people who usually tonight side with Democrats — the Catholic Church, the evangelicals, the business community, the growers. And now, they are going to feel it’s high tech, it’s really enthusiastic. They’re going to feel a desire to get this done quickly.

    Second, the national Republican leadership will tell John Boehner if you don’t pass a bill, then we are going to be a minority party for a generation. And he’s not only the House leader, he’s a party leader. Third, this has the potential for being one of the greatest civil rights movements we’ve ever seen. I could see a million people on the mall the in August asking for the bill. And who’s going to be on oh stage? Not the usual suspects but the bishops, evangelicals and business leaders.

    And, finally, and very importantly as well, we’re not going to let this issue go away. The strong supporters of immigration are going to be at the town hall meetings of Republican congressmen. They’re going to be visiting them in their offices. They’re going to be traipsing in the halls of Congress. We have seen the power of the DREAM Act kids.

    You put that all together, and you add one more fact. I don’t think Speaker Boehner can pass piecemeal bills. In other words, let’s take the toughest one — enforcement. No Democrat will vote for a bill without a pass to citizenship. And about 40 Republicans are saying they’re not voting for any bill because they don’t want a conference.

    Claimed to secure the border, it does not, as its proponents tacitly admit by refusing to give any teeth to border security requirements.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  46. The Republican party has a choice betwen something that could potentially do long term damage to the Republican party or something that will do a great deal of short term damage to the Republican Party.

    If they reject amnesty, they will get a “statute of limitations” instead.

    The American public is about 70% in favor of amnesty especially for those brought here as children… they also tend to be in favor of border control, AND SOME TALKING POINTS, but that’s a hoax.

    It’s not a hoax because Democrats plan it that way, it’s a hoax period.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  47. All that delay will do is force the Democrats to come up with better, more accurate, arguments.

    They’d prefer to portray the Republican party as anti-Hispanic, they may instead wind up having to portray them as economic ignoramuses, and in the process, convert some Republicans.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  48. rewarding illegal behavior is criminal…

    The United States passed laws in the 19th century giving squatters rights to poublic land.

    If people insist on that talking point the only result will be inmcerasded legal immigration.

    And does everybody understand that Cubans get instant amnesty? If intercepted on the water they get sent back. If they suceed in hitting land withoyut enciountering the Coast Guard or other authorities they get the right to stay.

    Anybody proposing to chanmge that and lose the Cuban vote too?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  49. Anybody proposing to chanmge that and lose the Cuban vote too?

    Oh Sammy, it’s a hell of a lot harder for a Cuban to get two dry feet on American soil than it is for a Mexican. You do know that Cuba is an island, right?

    JVW (23867e)

  50. And by the way, irrespective of Cubans, we seem to have a pretty damn low threshold for taking in those who claim to be persecuted for their political beliefs. Witness the Tsarnaev brothers. It’s also pretty easy for Mexicans these days to claim they are seeking sanctuary from narco-gangs and border coyotes and be allowed to stay here without having obtained prior legal authorization.

    JVW (23867e)

  51. It is heartwarming to see that Sammy is as concerned about the Republican Party as Chuck Schumer.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  52. Could it be possible, the speaker has balls.

    mg (31009b)

  53. He’s a Republican, the chances are better at hitting the Lotto.

    ropelight (11f141)

  54. 52. Could it be possible, the speaker has balls.

    Comment by mg (31009b) — 7/1/2013 @ 3:36 pm

    Possibly. Maybe he’s had them in a blind trust up until now.

    Steve57 (192f26)

  55. Your article was short & sweet – I copied and pasted the whole thing into Speaker Boehner’s contact form (at website http://www.speaker.gov/contact)

    - – - –

    {Sigh – so far he’s NEVER taken my advice…}

    A_Nonny_Mouse (57cacf)

  56. Hope any critical thinkers left in the House put a stop to this nonsense and restore respect for the rule of law. Fairness in this case favors those who take the required steps to enter this country legally.

    Colonel Haiku (ee0321)

  57. Icy, you know the old saying: a conservative is a liberal who hasn’t been mugged yet. That kid was just mugged.

    Patricia (be0117)

  58. Sounds like you are espousing the legislative equivalent of taking your ball and going home. Forget that the bill passed by an approximately 2-1 margin in the senate. Kill it!

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  59. I could see a million people on the mall the in August asking for the bill.

    What a wonderful opportunity to faithfully execute the laws.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  60. Ian G., you mean like the half dozen budgets that the House passed that the Senate ignored?

    Democrats playing Calvinball.

    SPQR (768505)

  61. Kevin, actually a large rally of illegal aliens in DC would be just the thing to help solidify the opposition among the American public.

    SPQR (768505)

  62. Sounds like you are espousing the legislative equivalent of taking your ball and going home.

    2000+!days without a budget ring a bell? The House is under no obligation to pass something just be ause the Senate does.

    Forget that the bill passed by an approximately 2-1 margin in the senate. Kill it!

    Your childish inanity is just precious.

    JD (b63a52)

  63. Is this what Breitbart.com told you to respond to this, JD?

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  64. A 2/3 majority isn’t inane.

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  65. Ian G., your reference to Breitbart is bizarre. Are you trying to claim something specific, or did you just lose your “F” key?

    SPQR (768505)

  66. Forget the majority, let’s all bow to the will of Fuhrer Boehner!

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  67. I haven’t read Breitbart today. But clearly you have your ThinkRegress MediaMutterz talking points down pat.

    Is that some new standard? If 68 Senators vote in favor of something it is incumbent upon the House to simply rubber stamp it?

    JD (b63a52)

  68. “Ian” goes Godwin. Sweet.

    JD (b63a52)

  69. 67-It certainly warrants a vote.

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  70. Bullshit. It warrants the same treatment House bills get when they go to the Senate. The House can pass their own immigration proposals, and the legislative process can proceed.

    JD (b63a52)

  71. Ian G., tell us about all the times Nancy Pelosi allowed a vote on a bill opposed by the majority of Democrats that might have a majority in the House.

    SPQR (768505)

  72. If the criminal aliens congregate, Citizens Arrest, Citizens Arrest.

    mg (31009b)

  73. Ian G. — Do you think the votes are there in the House to pass the bill you appear to want? Do you think Boehner is afraid to put it to a vote for that or another reason? Are you aware that many in the senate of both parties voted for the senate monstrosity because they knew, and were totally confident that that, or even a similar “comprehensive” bill could never pass the house and frankly don’t want it to? Are you aware that a number of Ds in the House do not want it to come up for a vote, either?

    My impression from reading your posts on this thread is that you are a fervent, possibly paid, partisan, but that you are not very savvy in how the game of politics is played in D.C.

    elissa (ff35cf)

  74. 70-And you wonder why congress has the approval ratings it does…

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  75. If the house fails to pass an immigration bill the GOP is going to get housed (ha) in the next election.

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  76. Your tender concern for the future of the GOP is noted.

    elissa (ff35cf)

  77. 75- So what, I have been getting hosed by republicans since R.R.

    mg (31009b)

  78. Ian G., Congress’ approval ratings were no higher during Pelosi’s term.

    You really are a pretty pathetic troll.

    SPQR (768505)

  79. Your “concern” almost brings tears to my eyes.

    JD (38e188)

  80. I think not passing a budget, as required by law, for over 4 years might have something to do with that rating.

    JD (38e188)

  81. Meanwhile, the Democrats do nothing to reverse the many job-killing policies and legislation that are keeping the US economy from recovery.

    But they are wasting time on immigration bills that few in the US care about.

    SPQR (768505)

  82. Some one needs to google bicameral legislature. I think. Here’s a baby-step link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameralism

    Sarahw (b0e533)

  83. For the same of honesty and transparency, “Ian” would you care to share with us the other names you have used here. Or in the alternative, what led you to begin suddenly commenting this site out of the blue?

    JD (38e188)

  84. SPQR – features and bugs.

    JD (38e188)

  85. 85-That is hilarious. Are you allowed to disclose the GOP training videos?

    Ian G. (b2d693)

  86. Its tough keeping up with this stuff is you have to work and tend animals.

    Those Founding Fathers had a nerve, putting forth a Constitution that put vast power of government in the hands of the people’s representatives. If they had been crazy enough (by the standards of the day) to think that service in the House of Representatives would have been considered a career as time went on, instead of time out from personal activities to serve, they might have put some limits on it. They didn’t so here we are.

    Speaking of immigration, I heard words attributed to The Kenyan that chastised Mr. Putin over not making a decision to send Snowden back to US to face the music. Our hero said that Snowden should not be kept in Russia as he was there without a valid passport or other entry documents. What?

    Hundreds a month, probably more, come across our southern border and stay here… none with valid passports or other entry documents and that is just fine with him and his administration. One such “undocumented” person shows up in the Moscow airport and he decides to give advice on immigration law to the Russian head of state. I am constantly amazed by things.

    And as admonished in prior posts, do not be mislead by imitators. Demand the original, factory installed “gramps”. Like many sequels, #2 leaves much to be desired.

    gramps, the original (13e453)

  87. There are 435 members of the House. Most of the people who elected them are quite happy, left or right, with the job they do.

    Trying to convince one or another to vote against their constituents probably is not a good idea.

    Yet, the best the solution the left can come up with is to try to tell Republicans they would be better off by voting as a Democrat.

    Thanks for the advice.

    Ag80 (eb6ffa)

  88. Possibly. Maybe he’s had them in a blind trust up until now.
    Comment by Steve57 (192f26) — 7/1/2013 @ 4:08 pm

    Hah!!

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  89. I heard words attributed to The Kenyan that chastised Mr. Putin over not making a decision to send Snowden back to US to face the music. Our hero said that Snowden should not be kept in Russia as he was there without a valid passport or other entry documents. What?
    Comment by gramps, the original (13e453) — 7/1/2013 @ 7:01 pm

    Did he really? That deserves to be in some collection of famous quotes and speeches recorded on a CD and given to senior officials of state as a good will gesture, or spliced into a video of Hitler at the Argument Clinic.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  90. From MSNBC;

    The U.S. does not have an extradition treaty with Russia, but President Barack Obama noted that Snowden traveled to Moscow without legal papers and referred to “high-level” discussions between the two countries about the case.

    narciso (3fec35)

  91. You would think that since he tells other countries to follow the US example and make homosexual marriage legal that he would also tell other countries to follow his desire and grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants looking for new opportunities.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  92. The President of Senegal, and the VP of Kenya, told him that wasn’t a swift move.

    narciso (3fec35)

  93. They are just a bunch of r wing haters, narciso.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  94. You would think that since he tells other countries to follow the US example and make homosexual marriage legal that he would also tell other countries to follow his desire and grant amnesty to undocumented immigrants looking for new opportunities.

    Maybe we should adopt Mexico’s immigration laws.

    JD (38e188)

  95. He also said Boko Haram, the Nigerian Taliban, was because of ‘bad governance’ well kinda,

    narciso (3fec35)

  96. I still think it was cute he waited until he got to Africa to take lot shots at the Supreme Court over the VRA.

    JD (38e188)

  97. You know they place he spoke, Goree Island, was not a major slave trading post, and that’s been known for 50 years at least.

    narciso (3fec35)

  98. Narciso, History began 52 years ago next month. Obama has never dealt in TRUTH or FACT, he has dealt in lies and deception.

    Gus (694db4)

  99. Kevin, actually a large rally of illegal aliens in DC would be just the thing to help solidify the opposition among the American public.

    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 7/1/2013 @ 5:50 pm

    Sounds like a great immigration enforcement opportunity to me! OH Snap! We still have the illegal alien Welcomer in Chief as Prezzydebt.

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  100. Oops, “Prezzydent”

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  101. But now that I think on it Prezzydebt works too, doesn’t it?

    peedoffamerican (ee1de0)

  102. I would like to step on Nancy Pelosi’s foot kind of hard… hard enough to startle her but not hard enough to break any bones or nothing and then run away really fast. (I don’t want to get in trouble like sidewalk chalk guy.) I need to know first though if she has any bunions (sp?) I need to be aware of. Bunions are serious business. What’s motivating this idea is that I think if I were to execute this devious scheme our friend Nancy would feel in her heart like she’d been egregiously disrespected. Especially if I did it in front of lots of her fancy fascist friends like for example a CNN cameraman. She’d feel disrespected and she would know how it feels to be an American living under the fascist whoretwaddle we all experienced when she was the historic first speaker of the house what had breasts and et cetera blah blah blah.

    In this way I would be helping Nancy understand different, non-fascist perspectives!

    I’m sort of leaning towards just putting this up on taskrabbit though instead of trying to do it myself. I wonder if you can get in trouble for that like what happened to sidewalk chalk guy.

    There are a lot of unknown unknowns in proto-fascist America I’m noticing.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  103. happy, there is so much wrong with what you just posted. For instance, a far more simple way of egregiously disrespecting Aunt Nancy Pelosi would be to pick her up in a Lincoln Town Car instead of a Navigator, or to switch her reservation to a table closer to the kitchen at the Hay-Adams Hotel Dining Room.

    And contrary to what you think, Thomas P. “Tip” O’Neill was the first Speaker of the House “what had breasts.”

    JVW (23867e)

  104. Mr. JVW if I could fit you in my pocket and carry you around like jiminy cricket I would for sure be Ahead Of The Game.

    Good points all.

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  105. the best thing to do with Pelousy would be to slip a set of odor eater insoles into the cushions of her office chair, and the one she parks her butt on in the House, etc…

    in a few weeks she would simply disappear, having been absorbed as the lump of noxious waste she is.

    redc1c4 (403dff)

  106. Thank you to the Original Gramps (accept no substitute).

    I’m thinking of opening a Che Guevara T-shirt consession on the mall that day.

    @ Comment by happyfeet (8ce051) — 7/1/2013 @ 9:42 pm

    Prudent. Your penguin would have been malled by six seals if you did.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  107. He need only remember one phrase, used by Nancy Pelosi when she refused to allow a vote on drilling: “I can’t allow a hoax to come to the floor.”

    Since when did Miss Nancy decide to stay off the floor?

    peedoffamerican (a84075)

  108. The highly regarded and intelligent ropelight @3 wrote:

    I’m on-board, Boehner certainly can’t allow a hoax to come to the floor of the House, and if anyone disputes his decision all they have to do is read the bill.

    It is hardly a “hoax” when the Senate bill garnered 68 votes including a significant number of Republicans, unless the TEA Party is now trying to push for 70 votes in the Senate to be the new threshold for the House to work as they are being paid to do.

    “Nice job, but I got you!”

    PS: Ropelight, have you read the Senate bill.

    Gramps2 (be4148)

  109. Funny, I only see one person ^^^ calling for Congress to make a procedural change.

    Icy (940358)

  110. Maybe we should adopt Mexico’s immigration laws.

    That makes perfect sense, since it’s very likely that other aspects of that nation will increasingly become aspects of this nation. But hopefully the good ones, and not the ones associated with interminable bouts of poverty, corruption, crime, anomie, mediocrity and PRI-is-wonderful (or urban-America-ized, or Argentina-Eva-Peron-ized, or France-socialized) type of liberalism.

    A bright future, indeed.

    Mark (a38238)

  111. Perry – can you explain to us when Congress should follow public opinion? When they should not? How you differentiate? And why you are so dishonest?

    BTW, 70 votes was Schumer’s standard.

    JD (b63a52)

  112. It is hardly a “hoax” when the Senate bill garnered 68 votes including a significant number of Republicans

    How does the number of senators who voted for it affect whether it’s a hoax?

    Milhouse (3d0df0)

  113. The hoax is supposed to be the border control aspect.

    The real hoax is saying that amnesty is conditional or should be conditional on bordrer control or that border control syhould be implemented before amnesty is even considered. (with the 1986 law cited as a “fooled me once” case in point.)

    This is a problem for 3 reasons:

    1) The number of illegal immigrants, by all accounts has gone down very much in the last 5 or 6 years and theer has been an increase iun deportations (until the point when President Obama invoked his deferrals policy in 2011) If you were going to say do border control first, well he did it.

    2) There is no proposal among opponents to tie amnesty (legalization) to border control but they just say do this first and then we’ll talk.

    3) Supposing a deal was made, and supposing the only reason illegal immigration was being limited was in order to get amnesty, then as soon as the amnesty is achieved the border control will start to go away.

    It’s also a hoax because there is no way of measuring it. You can measure money spent or some otehr metrics, but that would mean results don’t count and only intentions matter.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  114. Now there is metric they could use if they wanted to. Offer instant amnesty to nearly anybody who crosses the border provided they say how they came across. It doesn’t even matter if they lie. Nearly everybody eligible will claim it. Then use the number of people who claim instant amnesty as a metric. But they’d have to get their notions of “fairness” out of their minds to do that.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  115. Notice none of the trolls can name a time that Pelosi allowed a bill she opposed but could otherwise pass to be voted upon.

    SPQR (768505)

  116. Comment by Bugg (ba4ca9) — 7/1/2013 @ 9:29 am

    screw working class Americans

    This is not only not true, it is totally untenable, and besides contrary to the general position of most in the Republican party toward economic freedom.

    The student loan calculation of the CBO are wrong but this is only wrong in overestimating the minimal downside.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  117. JD asked Perry Gramps2:

    Perry – can you explain to us when Congress should follow public opinion? When they should not? How you differentiate?

    It was Edmund Burke who pointed out that a representative is really a delegate, and he should not substitute the judgement of the people for his own. However, in every district in the country there are going to be people on all sides of the issue: a congressman who votes with the wishes of 45% of the people in his district, when 55% are opposed, is doing what he believes is best, and it is up to his constituents to decide on his fate at his next election.

    Perhaps the Republicans who voted for the Senate bill believed they were following the wishes of a majority of their constituents, and perhaps they believed they were voting with a minority, but still thought it the right thing. Thing is, to Gramps’ detriment, that one body voted for it does not mean that the other must.

    Who knows? Perhaps enough Republicans in the House would disagree with the Speaker’s decision to vote with the Democrats and make the lovely Nancy Pelosi Speakess again, after the next election. I’m guessing that won’t happen.

    The historian Dana (3e4784)

  118. Schumer (or the senate) is acting like he’s afraid like the majority will only hold for a short time.

    But the general point is correct. The type of bill that is easiest to pass is one that gets a majority of Democrats and a substantial minority of Republicans. This is partially because the two houses have a different balance of members, and the senate filibuster rule (which means you need about a 60% majority to pass the Senate) but because Democrats are more tightly bunched than Republicans.

    In this Congress, moving toward more Republicans from say, 35% of the Republicans and 90% of the Democrats (and that might have been really more like 75%) as you gain Republicans, you lose more Democrats than you gain Republicans, and by the time you’ve reached 50% of the Republicans, your majority is gone.

    You lose the majority at about 40 to 45% of the Republicans, at which point you have maybe 55% of the Democrats.

    For every Republican vote you gain, you lose 2 or more Democrats.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  119. Senātus Populusque Rōmānus wrote:

    Notice none of the trolls can name a time that Pelosi allowed a bill she opposed but could otherwise pass to be voted upon.

    Actually, such almost never happens, because for a bill to come to the floor of the House, it would have to have been passed in committee, and the majority party controls all committees. While not technically impossible, it would be extremely rare for a committee to pass a measure that the majority of the majority party in general did not support.

    The Dana who was never a Congressional page (3e4784)

  120. The House can pass bills that get nearly all Republicans and nearly no Democratic votes (like their repeated passing of a plain vanilla repeal of Obamacare) but those bills will never pass the Senate.

    To get nearly all the republicans the bills have to be pretty pro forma – and they get so many votes BECAUSE they have no chance of becoming law.

    The Democrats are much more controlled by their political contributions and tend to get centralized help.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  121. The House can also pass non-controversial legislation that gets a majority of both parties,

    Senator Schumer (in predicting it would happen again with immigration) said that 3 times in the past six months Speaker Boehner violated the Hastert rule and passed bills without the support of 550% of the Republicans – with the fiscal cliff, Hurricane Sandy aid, and in the Violence Against Women Act. John Roberts of Fox News added the farm bill, but Schumer wasn’t counting it because that bill failed on the floor (with Democrats and Republicans voting against it for opposite reasons)

    I think Roberts is right because the question is bringing a bill to the floor, not whether it ultimately passes.

    The farm bill probably needs to be adjusted to get some more Democrats, because it will lose fewer Republicans as it gains Democrats if it moves in that direction, but the opposite sort of thing will happen if it is changed the other way.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  122. What Boehner really needs to do is to get about 10 to 15 Democrats to leave the democratic Party and vbote with his caucus.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3339 secs.