Anthony Weiner: Congressional Badass

[eion]

Weiner: The Republican Party Is A Wholly Owned Subsidiary Of The Insurance Industry

Anthony Weiner just made a fiery speech in the middle of the House debate on repealing the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption. Angered by a motion to recommit, he lashed out, saying “the Republican Party is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry!” While continuing on this theme, Republicans asked that the words be taken down, an attempt to rule Weiner’s remarks out of order and ban him from speaking on the floor for the rest of the day. Weiner then asked unanimous consent to substitute remarks, and after withdrawing the initial ones, said “Every single Republican I have ever met in my entire life is a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry!”

Republicans again asked for the words to be taken down.

At issue was a motion to recommit from the Republicans which would essentially scuttle the bill to repeal the insurance industry’s anti-trust exemption. The motion would have inserted a massive loophole that would have allowed insurers to collude with one another. Weiner said “You guys have chutzpah… they say that, well this isn’t going to do enough, but when we propose an alternative to provide competition, they’re against it… they said they want to have competition, and when we proposed requiring competition, the Republicans are against it!”

Eventually, Weiner withdrew his comments. But then he concluded, “there are winners and losers in the way we distribute health care,” and the insurance industry are among the winners, and the motion to recommit would keep that in place. He basically reinstated his “wholly owned subsidiary” comments in slightly more palatable words.

Guess Weiner is showing off what made him an FDL Fire Dog.

God, makes you wish they still had actual floor fights in the House. I really hope Rep. Weiner doesn't get too disillusioned with politics, cause he'll make a great presidential candidate one day.

[Koolaidkirby]

isn't this the guy who used to be Jon Stewarts roomate?

[eion]

isn't this the guy who used to be Jon Stewarts roomate?

Indeed. He's also the only political candidate Jon Stewart has ever written a campaign check for.

Maybe he should run a sub-title on his next round of campaign ads: DAILY SHOW APPROVED!

[Highlord Laan]

"Words taken down?!?"

Congress can fuck off, and their pretentious bullshit can go with the horse they rode in on.

[Fiji_Fury]

While I'm enthused by his passionate speach, let's recognize that the meat of it came in his explanation of his originals two attempted comments. I think he's right on the money, and I'm surprised there aren't more strong voices calling the Republicans on their awful partisan sabotage efforts on Health Care reform. There should be - in fact there needs to be - a lot more voices very loudly and publically pointing out the Republican's and their obstructionist, inconsistent approach to health care issues.

[eion]

I think had he been allowed to continue unintereupted, he would have concluded his remarks similar to how he eventually did.

[La Maupin]

*chuckles*

Bravo, sir.

[Themightytom]

This doesn't really need a new thread as it is along the same lines as his earlier actions so I... HOPE necroing is appropriate?

[eion]

The OP certainly approves!

Anthony Weiner Goes Ballistic At GOP For Killing 9/11 Responders Health Care Bill (VIDEO)
First Posted: 07-29-10 11:29 PM | Updated: 07-30-10 10:25 AM

House Republicans late Thursday were able to corral enough votes to defeat a bill that would have provided up to $7.4 billion in aid to those sickened by toxins resulting from the 9/11 attacks.

In the process, they set off a host of fiery speeches and denunciations from their Democratic colleagues and produced a veritable YouTube moment from Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y), whose district includes many of the affected.

At the heart of the debate was a procedural maneuver made by Democrats to suspend the rules before consideration of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. The move allowed leadership to block potential GOP amendments to the measure (there was worry that Republicans would attach something overtly partisan in hopes that it could pass on the otherwise widely-popular measure). It also meant that the party needed a two-thirds majority vote.

When the final tally was announced, there were 255 representatives for the measure, 159 against. The defeat of the bill, which would have provided free health care to those affected during the 9/11 rescue and recovery, likely means that the court system will have to settle compensation issues.

Weiner spoke right before the vote when it was clear that Republican lawmakers would stake their opposition on grounds of procedural concerns. But for the grace of the C-SPAN cameras, he managed to stay physically behind his lectern.

"The gentleman will sit!" he declared at one point, addressing, it is believed, Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). "The gentleman is correct in sitting!"

"SIT, BOY!" Or you don't get a tax cut! That's a good Republican"

Sadly the bill was eventually defeated.

[Kanastrous]

I was shocked - although I shouldn't have been - to learn some time ago that Congress has the ability to selectively purge anything out of the Congressional record at all, when it suits them to do it (well, and when it can be done within their rules of order, I guess, which shouldn't allow for it in the first place).

Makes me wonder where the fuck they got off during the Watergate investigation, getting all pissy about the missing minutes on the Nixon tapes. Heck, if the legislature can play Ministry-of-Truth with records of the people's business, why shouldn't the executive enjoy the same privilege?

It's some real 1984-grade shit. There's now stuff in C-SPAN's archives which, according to the Congressional Record...never happened. Well, assuming that they didn't send the FBI or some other authority over to C-SPAN and just remove the tapes from the archives. Which would only surprise me a little bit, were I to learn that happened.

[MKSheppard]

Makes me wonder where the fuck they got off during the Watergate investigation, getting all pissy about the missing minutes on the Nixon tapes. Heck, if the legislature can play Ministry-of-Truth with records of the people's business, why shouldn't the executive enjoy the same privilege?

You forgot the crucial key bit of information.

Congress was at the time Democrat controlled, and Richard Nixon was a Republican.

More to that, he had long been a damn thorn in the Democrat side; all the way back to 1952.

So it was just a little political stab-knife-back theater. So was the Clinton impeachment; which I suspect was driven by some long term GOP members to get 'payback' for Nixon.

What, me cynical?

[Kanastrous]

Cynical? Aw, not you, Shep!

You want cynical, you should listen to the current right-wingsey talk-radio coverage of Weiner's statements. It's really remarkable.

[MKSheppard]

Cynical? Aw, not you, Shep!

Hey, when the House Ethics Commitee recommends a reprimand for Charlie Rangel -- it sends a message that massive tax fraud etc is the functional equivalent of shouting "YOU LIE" at the President during the State of the Union (this is the punishment that Wilson got).

You want cynical, you should listen to the current right-wingsey talk-radio coverage of Weiner's statements. It's really remarkable.

*point to signature*

[Kanastrous]

uh..you know, somehow I didn't ever note that line in your sig, before.

how awkward.

well...regarding that particular variety of radio, I don't think you're missing much of anything.

[eion]

I was shocked - although I shouldn't have been - to learn some time ago that Congress has the ability to selectively purge anything out of the Congressional record at all, when it suits them to do it (well, and when it can be done within their rules of order, I guess, which shouldn't allow for it in the first place).

Congratulations on discovering Required Congressional Reform #458. But not only can Congress remove things from the official record, it can add things as well.

Say you want to send a special birthday announcement out to a constituent. Thank her for setting up your district's first blind pet shelter or something, wish her a happy 65th birthday, and remark on how she represents the best of America, etc. You could go out to the floor and deliver your remarks, taking up yours and the Congress' valuable time, or you could just have the statement entered into the official record.

Wow, what a timesaver. Now you can print the statement in your constituent newsletter and add those very important words, "Part of the Official Congressional Record." In Congressional Record (The GPO official record of congressional proceedings) at least, any "revised and extended" remarks are either bulleted or written in a discernably different typeface.

Which is why CSPAN is so important. It's pretty much the only reliable, uneditable record of what Congress actually says.

[MKSheppard]

Congratulations on discovering Required Congressional Reform #458

You forgot Required Congressional Reform #1; which is instituting term limits. Two Terms for Senators and Six Terms for Representatives. This gives them the ability to outlast a president (Twelve years in office versus Eight years); preserving the intent of the framers in regards to checks and balances in the system.

It also prevents them from being so throroughly entrenched in the system like ticks; that only death or a major polticial scandal can remove them from office. The hardest job any Congressman faces is actually getting elected in the FIRST place and then surviving their first re-election. Once those are done; you're pretty much Congressman-For-Life.

[eion]

Congratulations on discovering Required Congressional Reform #458

You forgot Required Congressional Reform #1; which is instituting term limits. Two Terms for Senators and Six Terms for Representatives. This gives them the ability to outlast a president (Twelve years in office versus Eight years); preserving the intent of the framers in regards to checks and balances in the system.

It also prevents them from being so throroughly entrenched in the system like ticks; that only death or a major polticial scandal can remove them from office. The hardest job any Congressman faces is actually getting elected in the FIRST place and then surviving their first re-election. Once those are done; you're pretty much Congressman-For-Life.

Oh I agree, but if elections were fair in other regards term limits would be unnecessary.

I'd rather see comprehensive election reform and boot out the bad apples (or not elect them in the first place) than to get rid of the 1% of valued and valuable public servants just after they get experienced enough to actually do some good.

I didn't forget it, I just didn't mention it. The ability to edit the Congressional Record, while idiotic is so far down on the list of abuses available to Congress compared with the need for election reform and ending filibuster abuse.

[MKSheppard]

than to get rid of the 1% of valued and valuable public servants just after they get experienced enough to actually do some good.

So you are in favor of Reagan '88? Third Term of RAYGUN?

Hell, after the USSR implodes in 1991, he can easily win a fourth term as the man who Won the Cold War (TM).

[eion]

than to get rid of the 1% of valued and valuable public servants just after they get experienced enough to actually do some good.

So you are in favor of Reagan '88? Third Term of RAYGUN?

In an ideal world with fair presidential elections I would see less need for term limits overall.

Would I want to see another 4 years of AIDS denying, deficit skyrocketing, and sacrine speech giving Reganism. FUCK NO! But I would find another way to sink the Gipper's reelection hopes.

Much as we might disagree on his principles, Shep, we can both agree that FDR got A LOT done during his time in the presidency, and his success in that regard is, in part, due to his lengthy experience in the executive branch.

However, there are many arguments in favor of presidential term limits that would still have merit even with fair elections.

[MKSheppard]

In an ideal world with fair presidential elections I would see less need for term limits overall.

We live in a non-ideal world. Remember, the same argument can also be used for a third Clinton Term - 2000-2004.

Much as we might disagree on his principles, Shep, we can both agree that FDR got A LOT done during his time in the presidency

I dunno, from 1943 onwards; he pretty much was increasingly incapicated in office; his fourth term was just waiting to die.

[eion]

In an ideal world with fair presidential elections I would see less need for term limits overall.

We live in a non-ideal world.

I know; that was my somewhat sneaky way of saying that even though it might in principle be a workable idea, there are just far too many potential drawbacks. The potential for abuse of the Presidency is at least 100 times greater than a mere congressmen or senator.

Remember, the same argument can also be used for a third Clinton Term - 2000-2004.

Or day we dream: a Reagen v. Clinton 1992 presidential campaign. I don't know who would have won that one, but it sure would have been fun to see.

Much as we might disagree on his principles, Shep, we can both agree that FDR got A LOT done during his time in the presidency

I dunno, from 1943 onwards; he pretty much was increasingly incapicated in office; his fourth term was just waiting to die.

Yes, but between 1941 and 1943 he still got a lot done. But regardless of any term limits, if FDR had to run for president (or even run for his reelection in 1944) with the 24 hour television media of today he'd never even get the nomination.

And if FDR was term limited out we might not have gotten the "Four Freedoms" SOTU, or like most final SOTUs it may well have been ignored. And the FF has had a definite impact of American foreign policy even nearly 70 years on.

[Simon_Jester]

In an ideal world with fair presidential elections I would see less need for term limits overall.

We live in a non-ideal world. Remember, the same argument can also be used for a third Clinton Term - 2000-2004.

I for one would prefer Clinton III to Bush Jr. I. I'm not sure I'd prefer Reagan III to Bush Sr. I, but one of the big reasons for that is that I have a sneaking suspicion his Alzheimer's would be starting to kick in during that period. He was diagnosed in 1994, and I thought you normally weren't diagnosed with Alzheimer's without a significant period of prior symptoms that make you wonder what the hell happened to your brain). A president with Alzheimer's is a bad thing no matter who he is.

Beyond that, I honestly don't know exactly what the political differences between Reagan and Bush Sr. were, not clearly enough to feel confident making a call.

Much as we might disagree on his principles, Shep, we can both agree that FDR got A LOT done during his time in the presidency

I dunno, from 1943 onwards; he pretty much was increasingly incapicated in office; his fourth term was just waiting to die.

Aaand this is why I think even most Republicans should have second thoughts about Reagan III and especially Reagan IV.

[Shroom Man 777]

Talk about terrible sequels.

Man, you guys should make this Anthony Weiner guy your new President. What a badass!

[CaptainChewbacca]

Talk about terrible sequels.

Man, you guys should make this Anthony Weiner guy your new President. What a badass!

As much as I'd love a young firebrand for President, I don't think he'd resonate with the country at large. Egalitarian though we may be, I don't think red states would vote for jews.

Edit: I really tried to think of a less-racist or inflammatory way to say that, but I couldn't think of one. I'm sorry.

[ray245]

Talk about terrible sequels.

Man, you guys should make this Anthony Weiner guy your new President. What a badass!

As much as I'd love a young firebrand for President, I don't think he'd resonate with the country at large. Egalitarian though we may be, I don't think red states would vote for jews.

Edit: I really tried to think of a less-racist or inflammatory way to say that, but I couldn't think of one. I'm sorry.

Didn't Obama managed to win the election despite the low support he got from the Red States? Why would less people vote for Jews as opposed to blacks?