Obamacare

Nancy Pelosi: "A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes."

|

When I say "bipartisan", what I mean is "partisan".

From The Hill:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Sunday that Republicans have left their mark on the healthcare bill and should accept that the bill will go forward.

"They've had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard," she said on CNN's "State of the Union" Sunday morning. "Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes. Republicans have left their imprint." [emphasis added]

Also, up is down, cats are dogs, Republicans are Democrats, and Lost is satisfying and coherent. In fairness, I get what she's saying here: Republican opposition has helped shape the health care bill; the bill is the way it is in some part because of Republican behavior. But if that's the standard, then every single piece of legislation that passes through Congress (or fails to) is bipartisan. After all, both parties, whether through action/inaction or support/opposition, influence every bill in some way. Either they change it directly or they choose not to; either they vote for it or they don't. No matter what, the choices both parties make affect every bill and its outcome. But of course this is not what anyone is actually talking about when they talk about bipartisanship; what's meant is cross-party support, and with the exception of lone votes by Joseph Cao in the House and Olympia Snowe in Senate committee, this bill hasn't ever had any. 

NEXT: Drug Warriors Fear Their Efforts Could Become Incoherent and Ineffective

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. And then when we have a bill — you — as I say, you can bake the pie, you can sell the pie, but you have to have a pie to sell.

    And, moreover, it is a bipartisan pie — as I say, a piebartisan.

    1. Who wants to eat this pie? Not I.

    2. President Obama and the Democrats campaigned on health care reform. Elections do matter. So the Dems should deliver what they were put in for… health care reform. They have been more than generous… they have compromised… but the Bunting Republicans just OBJECT.

      1. Don’t worry, they won’t have that problem after November.

        Once again, Republicans have zero power to object or obstruct or do anything. Democrats have large majorities in both chambers and essentially had unlimited power for 8 months. The catch is some Democrats not wanting to vote for these radical, hamfisted experiments, at least without some token Republican support. Gee, now why would that be?

      2. Don’t worry, they won’t have that problem after November.

        Once again, Republicans have zero power to object or obstruct or do anything. Democrats have large majorities in both chambers and essentially had unlimited power for 8 months. The catch is some Democrats not wanting to vote for these radical, hamfisted experiments, at least without some token Republican support. Gee, now why would that be?

  2. Am I serious? Am I serious?

    1. Notice Pelosi’s eyes! Her eyes are shining much too brightly, must be the DC water system or something else!

  3. She’s such a clown.

    1. A clown who is one of the people with the power to fuck up our economy even worse, a clown who is two deaths away from being the President, and a clown that wears way too much makeup.

      1. Yeah, but like everyone else, she’s only one death away from being worm food.

      2. President Pelosi. What a surreal experience that would be.

    2. Would you say she is more of a Pennywise or Bozo tradition?

      1. More of a “The Clowning” tradition.

        1. Man, what do you call something that’s like Godwin’s Law, but involves invoking The Joker?

          1. The “Why So Serious?” Law.

        1. You NutraSweet’d the link, dude.

            1. Man, I need to go back to visiting SomethingAwful.

              1. the internet does make you stupid

      2. Steven King’s “It” tradition

        1. That would be Pennywise.

      3. Frenchy the Clown.

  4. Well, not unexpected. Well, let the hilarity ensue.

  5. “I get what she’s saying here: Republican opposition has helped shape the health care bill; the bill is the way it is in some part because of Republican behavior.”

    Actually, I don’t believe you do get what she is saying here. She’s not saying the bill is bipartisan because it was developed in reaction to the opposition. She’s saying it contains many ideas that Republican members have either in the past or present supported. John Chafee’s bill from the 90’s is almost identical. So, yes, it is a bipartisan bill. Democrats spent a year negotiating away the pure bill they really wanted, in the hope of attracting GOP support. Just because they aren’t getting it after all those concessions (no single payer, no opt-out public option, no opt-in public option, no public option period, deficit neutral, no medicare expansion) doesn’t make the bill any less bipartisan.

    1. Ah. So if the GOP starts with a bill that bans abortion and contraception nationwide, and then slims it down to only outlawing abortion after the first trimester with exceptions for rape and incest in the hopes of attracting Dem support, that makes it a bipartisan bill.

      1. If a GOP bill contains provisions that the GOP is only including to attract Democratic support–the caucus is otherwise opposed to those provisions–then yes, it is definitely a bipartisan bill. But you can’t expect one side to completely negotiate away their position (hard as the Democrats might try). Especially when they’re in the majority.

        1. What provisions of the current iteration of the health care bill are opposed by Democrats (including Blue Dogs) but supported by Republicans?

        2. Will, how does this work with your wife?….
          “Honey, I want to sleep with whomever I want?…you object? Then I’ll only sleep with Felicia, Jenny, Ellen, and Lady Gaga. I’m glad we reached a mutual agreement.”

          1. If you’re saying that legislative compromise is often ugly, you’re not going to find any objection here.

            1. I think he’s saying that compromise is something that involves the engagement and consent of two parties. If you offer the Louvre twenty bucks for the Mona Lisa, and then try to raise the offer to a hundred while they escort you out of the building, that isn’t compromise, except in your own sad mental world.

      2. It reminds me of the stimulus bill, you know, the president released it, gave a speech about how it included tax cuts, Republicans can spell tax cut and have had a couple in the past, so it was bipartisan. Really, they sent Winston to room 101 for his own good.

    2. She’s saying it contains many ideas that Republican members have either in the past or present supported. John Chafee’s bill from the 90’s is almost identical.

      So a guy from the Senate who has been dead for 11 years is a co-sponsor? Typically a bipartisan House bill should have more than a few RINOs willing to vote for it.

      1. Teddy Roosevelt supported health care reform, and he was Republican too!

      2. Let’s hope the same logical doesn’t apply to “bipartisan” gun control. Here is Chaffee’s position on that.

        Chafee sponsored a bill that, if passed, would have prohibited the “manufacture, importation, exportation, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and hand ammunition.”

        By Will’s logical, the only issue in US history that wasn’t bipartisan is slavery. The Democrats owned that one. Looks like not much has changed.

    3. Maybe if the Democrats cared more about the support of the American people and less about attracting the GOP they might have a bill that makes sense! They certainly aren’t going to get any common sense out of Nancy Pelosi.

  6. Nobody seems to remember the Senate Finance Committee wasting months of our time trying to accommodate Republicans. The process has been way more bipartisan than Republicans deserve, given their behavior. You can’t blame Dems for a lack of bipartisanship when the GOP has simply decided to define itself as the party that not only opposes, but obstructs, everything.

    But if people actually care about bipartisanship, they shouldn’t. Dems annoyed me by spending so much time trying to get lone GOP votes. But the only reason members care about bipartisanship is because they know that having no cross-party support means the opposition is free to paint whatever they pass as evil socialism that will kill us all.

    1. Your view is premised on the idea that partisanship and bipartisanship are byproducts only of political parties…at what point does any of it reflect the views of the electorate? And at what point do dems and repubs have an obligation to represent even those who didn’t vote for them or who aren;t members of their political panopticon?

      1. “Your view is premised on the idea that partisanship and bipartisanship are byproducts only of political parties…at what point does any of it reflect the views of the electorate?”

        Isn’t that what elections are for?

        1. yeah, but does that mean our reps only get to lock into their positions on issues once every 2 or 4 years? Why hold constituent meetings?

          1. “yeah, but does that mean our reps only get to lock into their positions on issues once every 2 or 4 years? Why hold constituent meetings?”

            Elected representatives are accountable every 2 to 4 to 6 years. Every 2 to 4 to 6 years, they have to face the voters. If they have not sufficiently served a majority of those voters, they are going to be fired by those voters. They get 2 to 4 to 6 years to decide how they want to use their time in office. Constituent meetings assist a representative with gauging the mood of the electorate, to see which choices will either assist or detract from their re-election prospects. They also offer the public a chance for some constituent services. But they are no substitute for elections, nor should they be.

        2. As a wise man once said, elections have results.

          Then, but a year later, he and his comrades are trying to find a procedural trick to circumvent the results of an election.

          1. “Then, but a year later, he and his comrades are trying to find a procedural trick to circumvent the results of an election.”

            How’s that?

          2. President Obama and the Democrats campaigned on health care reform. Elections do matter. So the Dems should deliver what they were put in for… health care reform. They have been more than generous… they have compromised… but the Bunting Republicans just OBJECT.

    2. By your definition, anything that is not the most extremely liberal bill is bipartisan, since it represents a compromise compared to what Nancy Pelosi would want if she had legislative fiat.

      1. Well, it wouldn’t have to be extremely liberal or what Pelosi would want, it would just represent the input of Democrats, who range from conservative to liberal. As I said, I don’t put much stock in the concept of bipartisanship. The policy is what matters. Bipartisanship is just political cover.

        1. A spoonful of wine in a barrelful of sewage is sewage. The basic premise that the government must force everyone to have health insurance is a crock of shit that no amount of GOP input can change.

      2. Whenever good and evil compromise, evil always wins.

        1. What about when evil and evil comprimise???

        2. What about when evil and evil compromise???

          1. oops, ignore the first one.

            1. Idk, but i bet Poland loses

    3. Yeah, that’s pretty much a complete bullshit premise, since it assumes that every single dem represents a completely safe, full-left constituency, which they don’t. The dems knew they weren’t going to get republican votes. They also knew that (at the time) they didn’t need a single one. Any and all compromises were made with blue dogs and dems who were narrowly elected by generally conservative constituencies and face wrath for, among other things, liberal abortion language. And there are loads of them.

      Now, the race is on to hang this on the RP rather than career conscious Democrats who are on the fence about misrepresenting conservative districts.

    4. You can’t blame Dems for a lack of bipartisanship when the GOP has simply decided to define itself as the party that not only opposes, but obstructs, everything.

      How dare they obstruct that which they oppose! Just because the Dems’ idea of “opposing” the Iraq War and the Patriot Act was to make speeches about them and proceed to have significant numbers of their ranks vote for them, doesn’t mean that’s the Republican idea of opposition.

    5. Time is only wasted if it would have been otherwise used productively. I suspect the Senate Finance Committee spending time doing nothing is always in the best interest of America.

    6. I still say if Republicans had all the power right this minute, Democrats would be hook-or-crooking their way to obstruct everything.

      Of course, Dems don’t agree with that… until they find themselves out of absolute power. Then, they get to be the great obstructionists.

      And don’t fucking say they don’t, Tony.

      1. Not that I don’t like obstructionists, mind you. It’s the only way to slow down the eventual demise of the Republic, after all.

      2. Actually, the Dems aren’t terribly good at obstruction. They had more votes than the GOP has now but couldn’t stop the Iraq War Authorization or the Patriot Act extension.

        1. Were they actually worried about stopping those things, or were they using them for polictical capital against a neocon president?

        2. How many Dems voted for PATRIOT in the first place, Tulpa? How many voted to go to Iraq?

          Fuck ’em all, by the way. But that’s pretty much standard ops.

          1. Well, that’s the point. They always have a hell of a hard time holding their caucus together.

        3. Why is it that Democrats are cowardly about opposing wars, and Republicans are cowardly about opposing spending increase?

          1. because they are all gutless fucks

            1. The Republicans on one side, the Democrats on the other, and you in the middle…

              C’mon, yojimbo, take them out!

    7. Get your facts right. The problem with socialism isn’t that it kills us, but that it enslaves us. Given their 19th century defense of the indefensible, it’s little wonder they remain morally blind.

      1. It ain’t all bad.

    8. Donkey shit is donkey shit; the Republicans don’t have to paint this piece-of-shit bill brown to make anyone see what steaming pile of socialism it truly is.

  7. Nobody seems to remember the Senate Finance Committee wasting months of our time trying to accommodate Republicans. The process has been way more bipartisan than Republicans deserve, given their behavior. You can’t blame Dems for a lack of bipartisanship when the GOP has simply decided to define itself as the party that not only opposes, but obstructs, everything.

    I weep for you, Tony.

  8. Re: the Pelosi photo with this post.
    Where is the toilet and the red, downward-pointing arrow to go with the sign reading “A New Direction for America”?

  9. Dems annoyed me by spending so much time trying to get lone GOP votes.

    And by “lone GOP votes” he means Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.

    1. “And by “lone GOP votes” he means Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.”

      No, the Dems were hoping for GOP votes from Snowe and Collins. It’s possible they were deluded enough at one point to pine for Grassley’s support. At least Max Baucus was.

  10. Those dirty frenchies:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/worl…..al-georgia

  11. Alternative alt text:

    “Oh we got both kinds: Country _and_ Western”

  12. In a related story, Speaker Pelosi also stated that “Freedom is Slavery”, and “Peace is War.”

    -jcr

  13. How many amendments to the bill were amendments proposed by Republicans? I read that there were 160.

  14. If we seal Congress in a box with a bill proposal, to the outside world the final bill is both partisan and bipartisan.

    1. Actually it’s a linear combination of a partisan state and a bipartisan one.

      1. Blah, blah, blah. In any case, I’m happy with not resolving the actual state of the bill by unsealing the box.

        1. Or punching any air holes in it.

  15. Seeing the definitions of bipartisanship from Tony and Will above, I wonder how bipartisan they rate Bush? I mean, his major non-tax initiatives (No Child Left Behind, Patriot Act, AUMF Iraq, Medicare Part D, TARP) didn’t just try to get bipartisan support, they actually got it. Not just a couple votes, either, but, in fact, at least ten cross-aisle votes on each one.

    I mean, that was the era of divisive partisanship on the part of the President, right? So where’s the Obama health care bill that’s acceptable to, say, fifteen sitting Republican Senators? Why hasn’t Obama willingly shed his own party’s left flank to capture the center much like Bush shed Senators like Ensign and Lott on Medicare D?

    Or was Bush, in fact, being excessively accommodating to the Democrats, excessively bipartisan, excessively willing to sell out his base, and all the screaming about his divisiveness was just political theater to try to move policy even further leftward?

    1. Dude, quit trolling… Bipartisan means supporting what all right thinking people support. People like Sean Penn, Nancy Pelosi, and Joe Biden.

    2. Why can’t the health care bill get any republican votes? Because the republicans are being utterly, completely, and totally partisan. Duh.

      Any of the health care bills that are under consideration, are, in fact, right-wing. If you disagree, kindly point out the rich nation that has a health care system further right than the bills under discussion. Since you obviously can’t, then by definition, any of these bills would represent the right wing.

      So when the leftist party presents a right-wing bill, and the conservative party screams that it isn’t right-wing enough, is it “bipartisan”? Do trees falling in the forest make a sound if no one can hear them?

      1. So when the right-wingers present pretty much any bill, and the liberal party screams that it isn’t left-wing enough, is it business as usual?

        1. If it’s pro-growth and small-government oriented, you can bet most Democrats are going to vote against it.

          Especially the Chaddites. They’re the worst.

        2. No one is seriously discussing a left-wing bill, or even a centrist bill. All bills under consideration would result in us having the most right-wing system of any rich nation. Ergo, they are ALL right-wing bills.

          1. No one is seriously discussing a left-wing bill, or even a centrist bill. All bills under consideration would result in us having the most right-wing system of any rich nation. Ergo, they are ALL right-wing bills.

            And this, good people, is how we know Chad’s retarded: anything not far to the left of Josef Stalin politically is “the most right-wing system of any rich nation” to whatever passes for a “brain” in that empty skull of his.

            1. To the left of Stalin? The Health Care Reform plan being offered is not even to the left of Bob Dole.

      2. Bipartisan in American political discourse means appealing to both political parties of the United States. The goalposts that matter are the ones on the American playing field, not the Italian one.

        Move the bill far enough right that Bernie Sanders comes out and announces he will not vote for its passage, and you’ve finally moved it far enough right to at least pretend you’re trying to be bipartisan here in the U.S. A genuinely bipartisan bill would lose not only Sanders, but probably a couple of others, as it swept far enough to the right to bring Alexander, Collins, Grassley, Lugar, Murkowski, Snowe, and Voinovich all on board.

        It would still be lousy policy, but it would be bipartisan lousy policy.

      3. >the republicans are being utterly, completely, and totally partisan. Duh.

        That may be why they’re doing the right thing, but I’ll take any vote against an unconstitutional nationalization of an industry that I can get.

        -jcr

        1. Don’t be naive. They are doing it for power and money. Health care reform will happen eventually anyway.

          1. In other words, bend over and enjoy your rape?

            1. I am for heath care reform and I do want to be able to buy across state lines, straight catastrophic insurance, disband the AMA and tort reform but that isn’t going to happen while the insurance companies are in control. Would I rather have the government fuck me? Yep, I can vote them out.

              1. You don’t realize, do you, that the insurance companies would be even more in control than they are now if–as that monstrous fudge dragon of a bill those jackasses in Washington D.C. are trying to shove down our throat mandates–we’re all forced to buy their policies?

                Worse than either big business or big government trying to screw us is both of them incestuously shacked up together and trying to drag us into their porno dungeon for the world’s most rapetastic three-way ever.

                1. I think you failed to open the door and see that they are fucking each other in the next room. We are already just the beard in this three-way. I don’t see the public cumming when they get a government policy but the good news is they we get to change the sheets every 4 years

      4. Why can’t the health care bill get any republican votes? Because the republicans are being utterly, completely, and totally partisan. Duh.

        So you obviously agree that Nancy Pelosi is an utter, complete, and total dunce for saying this is a bipartisan bill? Thanks for the clarification.

      5. If you disagree, kindly point out the rich nation that has a health care system further right than the bills under discussion.

        Singapore.

        Thanks for playing.

      6. If you disagree, kindly point out the rich nation that has a health care system further right than the bills under discussion.

        Also, the Swiss healthcare system is more free-market than Obamacare would be.

        Again, thanks for playing.

  16. DRM – doesn’t the left flank want a public option? the bill has no public option. Obama has sold out the left flank. QED.

    1. No, I’m not talking about abandoning fantasies so extreme that they can’t even win the support of the centrist members of your own caucus. I’m talking about pushing the bill so far to the opposite side to pick up opposite-party votes that several of your more extreme same-party Senators actually vote against it, unable to hold their noses and vote with their President or Congressional leaders.

      After all, that’s what Bush did on Medicare Part D, and he was a dirty divisive partisan, not a hope-and-change lightworker like Obama.

      1. Do you mean that the bill is so far right that some liberals don’t suppor it? Again, this bill is RIGHT WING, by defintion. You can’t escape this.

        1. The US is still a sovereign nation and is not part of some world government, as much as you might like for it to be.

          Besides, using your logic, we can argue that because the US is the richest nation in the world, whatever it has been doing is smarter than what the rest of the rich nations have been doing. Is that what you believe?

        2. I knew you were a man, Janeane Garoffalo!

        3. This bill is a commie FAR-FAR-FAR-LEFT-WING power grab and nothing but. Which one of you douchebags let Chad out of his padded cell? You’re fired if we find out.

        4. Fine, it’s right-wing by international standards. So? It’s still not bipartisan in the U.S. until it’s right-wing enough to have the support of members of the U.S.’s Republican Party. Which it isn’t.

          It’s a drag living in a right-wing country, isn’t it? Fortunately, Chad, you know? You can move.

          Don’t let the door hit you on the way out; I don’t want any dents in the door.

  17. It’s been a long day, but I’m thinking the bill is *cispartisan*.

  18. how dare you insult Lost. death.

    1. Insulting Heroes would have been much more sophisticated, I agree. Nobody watches Lost, after all, so who can get the joke?

      1. You didn’t even watch the episodes with Rob McElhenney?

        1. Why would I want to see Mac be serious?

    2. Polar bears.

  19. Or is it “a nude erection for America”? Think about it.

    1. Clothed erections are just as tasteless.

      1. Not if you’re wearing tight jeans.

  20. Here’s another thought to consider:
    If Pelosi actually wheels and dealls her way to the house voting on the Senate bill, what are the chances that any of us will actually know what kind of “fixes” are added in committee before the bill becomes law.

    We wait until Obama signs it and then: surprise! more tax breaks for unions! surprise! six more states are arbitrarily exempt from medicaid expansions! surprise! abortions are tex-deductible in oregon!

    1. surprise! abortions are tex-deductible in oregon!

      RU-486? RU-486?

        1. Huh?

          1. Don’t be coy. That was an excellent play on letters/words.

            1. Elderist! Look at me. I’m senile and driving an imaginary golf cart.

      1. No, I H8 86!

  21. “They’ve had plenty of opportunity to make their voices heard,”

    “And I’ve ignored every single comment”
    N. Pelosi

    1. You’ve stumbled upon the liberal conception of democracy — everyone gets a chance to speak and express themselves, before accepting whatever the majority wanted to do in the first place. Trying to actually prevent the majority from getting what they want represents the grave sin of “obstructionism”.

      1. It’s an infantile attempt at PR to ‘look like’ there is an effort to include other views, but the conclusion was forgone. Those who bleeve are convinced….
        In business (and it certainly happens there), the solution is simple; “I resign.” I’ve done so.
        Harder to do when the ‘management’ uses guns.

  22. “Also, up is down, cats are dogs, Republicans are Democrats,”

    One of these don’t belong.

    1. I know. Up at the North Pole is the same direction as Down at the South Pole.

  23. In fairness, I get what she’s saying here: Republican opposition has helped shape the health care bill; the bill is the way it is in some part because of Republican behavior.

    Being fair to Nancy Pelosi is unfair to most of those who make up our common humanity who at least try.

  24. Every time some stupid bastard quips the tautology, “the law is the law.” I think, “yeah, but it law make by stupid twits like this.”

    Why should I have any respect for any law with a pedigree of the nature of this stupid cunt?

  25. I get what she is saying, too.

    War is Peace.
    Ignorance is Strength.
    and, most of all
    Freedom is Slavery.

    We live under oligarchical collectivism. Derrida is looking like Plato about right now.

    1. ++ Good

    2. What an original contribution.

      You do know Orwell was a socialist, don’t you?

      1. Only because he died too young.

  26. you how gross she is? I’d fuck Sugarfree before I’d fuck her.

    1. I think NutraSweet would say that he was fucking you.

      1. If you had to pick between hilary or pelosi which would you fuck. Keep in mind that you have to fuck one.

        1. I could always kill myself…how may bags do I get?

    2. You couldn’t handle my lovin’, little boy.

  27. If you disagree, kindly point out the rich nation that has a health care system further right than the bills under discussion. Since you obviously can’t, then by definition, any of these bills would represent the right wing.

    That would be a gross distortion of the “right wing”, unless you think we’re supposed to be judged by global political standards or something.

    Anyway, another lame argumentum ad populum from Chad. *yawn*

    1. Saying that the thing furthest to the political right is anything other than right-wing is a distortion, silly goose.

      I know it pains you that you are so far to the right that you oppose right-wing bills for not being wing-nutty enough. But that is exactly what you are doing.

    2. Saying that the thing furthest to the political right is anything other than right-wing is a distortion, silly goose.

      I know it pains you that you are so far to the right that you oppose right-wing bills for not being wing-nutty enough. But that is exactly what you are doing.

    3. Saying that the thing furthest to the political right is anything other than right-wing is a distortion, silly goose.

      I know it pains you that you are so far to the right that you oppose right-wing bills for not being wing-nutty enough. But that is exactly what you are doing.

      1. And now, 3 times the stupid. Brought to you by Chad.

      2. No matter how many times you click the submit button, Chad, you’re still wrong.

      3. Chad you are retarded. If left and right wing were only determined by policies’ political proximity to one another, there would be no way to tell what is right and left wing. How do you know everyone else’s health care plan is left wing, except for ours. Maybe the farthest left wing plan is the only left wing plan and everything else is “right wing” compared to it. Once again, you are retarded.

        The bill currently being decided on might be towards the right of other plans, but it is still ON the left wing.

  28. You’ve stumbled upon the liberal conception of democracy — everyone gets a chance to speak and express themselves, before accepting whatever the majority wanted to do in the first place. Trying to actually prevent the majority from getting what they want represents the grave sin of “obstructionism”.

    Bad news, Tupla. That is democracy. It is also what is wrong with democracy. Hence, the need for a Republic. I say need, but, really, it’s all a fiction. We live under oligarchical collectivism, and we will reap the rewards (and, more to the point, the lack there of) of that system. Let’s hope for our children’s sake the Chinese don’t discover freedom.

    1. Let’s hope for our children’s sake the Chinese don’t discover freedom.

      That’s kind of a disgusting sentiment. I have no wish for a billion people to remain oppressed so that my few descendants can continue having them make plastic cup holders for them.

  29. And the lesson we should learn here as Libertarians is when we start having to pay the bill for the bill we can all lay bipartisan blame…Two arms of the predator state.

  30. Let’s hope for our children’s sake the Chinese don’t discover freedom.

    Publius, I nominate you for winner of H&R’s stupidest sentence of the week award.

    1. I second that.

        1. What is it with guys named Larry?

          1. called Larry. Who would think of a guy named Larry as a name of a Chinese double agent who worked in the CIA

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry

  31. This is why Democrats have always wanted to do away with the filibuster.

    Wait, what?

  32. Nancy has a Nude Erection for you to embrace, America.

    err… New Direction…

    whichever, we’re getting f-ed.

  33. I’ve never seen her naked but if you tell us she has a dick….

    1. You don’t need to have a dick to be a dick.

    2. I have!

      1. then your name would be MMMMMMMM.

  34. I bow to your expertise on dicks

  35. And the lesson we should learn here as Libertarians is when we start having to pay the bill for the bill we can all lay bipartisan blame…

  36. The problem with America can easily be boiled down to a single question:

    Would you like a nice, cold glass of donkey piss to go with that juicy plate of elephant shit you’ve ordered? Bon appetit!

    http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

    Tom Degan
    Goshen, NY

  37. The problem with America can easily be boiled down to a single question:

    Would you like a nice, cold glass of donkey piss to go with that juicy plate of elephant shit you’ve ordered? Bon appetit!

    http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com

    Tom Degan
    Goshen, NY

    1. You know, this “pox on both their houses” attitude is why libertarians aren’t nearly as influential as they should be.

  38. how is this thing a senator? can anybody tell me?

    1. Two words. San Francisco.

    2. If you’re asking about Pelosi, she’s not; she’s a Representative.

      Joel, on the other hand is correct. The fact that she’s from San Fransissyco weighs heavily.

  39. As KY suggests, this bill has Democratic opponents in the House, largely due to the abortion issue, but the Dems still want to blame the Republicans.

    Here is an interesting bit from the *Hill* article linked in the post:

    ‘In early remarks released by ABC, Pelosi was asked by “This Week” host Elizabeth Vargas “when it does finally come to vote on it in the House, you’re certain that you can muster the 217 votes that you need even with the differences over abortion language?”

    ‘”Well let me say I have this in three — just so you know how we sequence this,” Pelosi said. “First we zero in on what the policy will be. And that is what we’ll be doing — following the president’s summit yesterday.

    ‘”Secondly, we’ll see what the Senate can do. What is the substance? And what is the Senate prepared to do? And then we’ll go to the third step as to what my — my members will vote for. But we have a very diverse party. But we all agree that the present system is unsustainable.”‘

    Let me boil that down:

    Q: when it does finally come to vote on it in the House, you’re certain that you can muster the 217 votes that you need even with the differences over abortion language?

    A: No, I am not certain.

  40. The Repubs just want to make sure it’s clear that the Dems own this train wreck of a bill. Which is one of the few smart things I’ve ever seen them do as a group.

  41. Its not bipartisan just because the Dems have made insufficient moves to try to get Republican support.

    That’s like trying to sell a house, negotiating the price, and saying you have a deal before you actually agree on a price.

    No. Sale.

  42. “But if that’s the standard, then every single piece of legislation that passes through Congress (or fails to) is bipartisan.”

    So bipartisanship is like interstate commerce?

  43. I’ll show you satisfying and coherent…

  44. And this clever, clever woman is second in line to the Presidency. Jeez.

  45. Pelosi is insane and delusional.

  46. Wow, a new slogan for EngSoc:
    One party rule is bipartisanship.

  47. It will indeed be a bipartisan effort, when the Republicans and the scared shitless bluedog Democrats vote it down.
    That is the only bipartisan bill I see coming out this congress.

  48. We’re used to DC and hearing dumb quotes.
    But Speaker Pelosi topped all when she clucked,
    “A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes.”
    Like a virgin can be a virgin after having been ? deflowered.

    1. She can still be an anal virgin. (Until the Democrats pass the health finance reform bill.)

      1. I think I just found my new name for tomorrow.

  49. Of everything I’ve ever read about Pelosi, I like the following the best…’She’s a piece of shit’.
    Yeah, I like that alot!

  50. I fear Chad teaches poli-sci in a university. Tell me I’m wrong…………anybody. (awaits reply, points gun to own temple)

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.