Andrew Ian Dodge is running for US Senate for Maine. Help him win.
Here’s his Twitter handle.
(also found the video at Theo Spark’s)
WHO was the STIFF that did THIS?
…A button-down shirt and tie to play softball in? Really?
Everyone else wore baseball tee shirts and shorts.
I’ll give you ONE clue: it was a contest between US Senate office teams from the same state and the bosses were on hand. No CHEATING!
Massachusetts Sens. Scott Brown (R) and John Kerry (D) are developing a healthy rivalry, but it’s not over partisan politics. It’s all about sports.
The athletic lawmakers faced off on the National Mall on Tuesday for a friendly softball game between their office teams, which Brown’s team, the Great Scotts, won handily, 11-6. Brown, wearing a team jersey and shorts, played a very capable first base for eight innings and went 2 for 3 at the plate, scoring two runs.
Kerry, who arrived in a shirt and tie, had one at-bat and grounded out to third.
But before he batted, the senator took off his tie — to whooping cheers from his staffers.
When it was Brown’s turn to bat, however, Brown asked to wear Kerry’s tie at the plate. Kerry was happy to oblige and Brown batted in “business attire.”
Glad to see that Scott Brown, while behaving like a Dem, has not taken up yet the sartorial statements. Next, Brown and Lurch will be going out for bike rides. Let’s hope Kerry wears a helmet.
In nepotism news, the Kennedys are still working on a Capitol Hill dynasty: the article also mentions that
In a twist of fate, Brown was tagged out once, at first base by Kerry intern Jack Schlossberg, son of Caroline Kennedy and the great-nephew of Brown’s predecessor, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.).
I humbly pray, “Dear Lord, no more Bushes, Clintons, or Kennedys in politics, ever. Amen.”
The Republicans made a point, albeit temporarily,
Finance Bill Fails to Move Forward in Key Test Vote
Delay is Likely Temporary as Parties Continue Negotiations on Terms of Overhaul
U.S. Senate Republicans stood together Monday to successfully block lawmakers from moving ahead with sweeping legislation to overhaul U.S. financial markets, a temporary stumble for the Obama administration’s top domestic policy priority.
The Senate voted 57-41 on a procedural measure allowing lawmakers to move toward debate on financial regulatory overhaul legislation, falling short of the 60 votes needed. All GOP senators present voted against invoking cloture, joined by at least one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.).
The partisan vote underscores the high political stakes surrounding the legislation, which would subject the nation’s financial institutions to new consumer and capital rules, boost regulation of derivatives and allow the government to respond more aggressively to crises in the financial system. If enacted, it would represent the most sweeping changes to regulation of financial markets since the Great Depression.
The Republicans oppose it because it’s essentially a permanent bailout bill:
Republicans have also criticized what they consider loopholes in the Senate bill that would give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. flexibility in how it deals with creditors during a new regime for winding down faltering financial firms whose failure could harm the entire economy.
However, the Obama administration is hell-bent on passing this, and they will.
We will all pay for it.
At the Washington Post,
Financial overhaul falls short in procedural vote
The Senate voted Monday afternoon to prevent the start of formal debate of legislation to overhaul financial regulation, creating a largely partisan standoff over a far-reaching Democratic bill meant to strengthen oversight of Wall Street.
It would have taken only a few Republican votes to reach the 60-vote threshold needed for debate to begin. The measure received 57 votes with 41 senators voting in opposition. Two Republicans did not vote.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) joined Republicans in voting to prevent debate from proceeding. When the outcome was clear, Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) also voted no, a move that allows him to reintroduce the measure later.
While the procedural vote delays formal consideration of the overhaul bill, lawmakers in both parties have said they expect it will ultimately be debated — and passed — in the coming weeks, though the exact contours of the final legislation remain uncertain.
Because, as we are all told, you have to pass the bill to find out what’s in it.
Here’s the text of the letter that the 41 Senate Republicans sent Harry Reid telling him they will oppose waiving any violations of the “Byrd Rule” in moving parts of the health care bill through reconciliation:
March 4, 2010
The Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
S-221 Capitol Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-0001
Dear Leader Reid:
We understand from press reports and comments that you and the Speaker have made that the House and Senate will use the budget reconciliation process to overhaul our nation’s health care system, which represents 1/6th of our economy. We urge you to not use reconciliation to pass a partisan bill that is opposed by the majority of Americans.
The American people have been paying close attention to the health reform debate; they understand the issues being discussed and they have expressed broad opposition not only to the substance of the health reform bills, but also to the process by which those bills have been developed. According to a February 24 CNN poll, 73 percent of Americans believe Congress should either start over on an “entirely new bill” or not do health care reform at all this year. A Gallup survey released February 25 showed that the majority of Americans oppose using reconciliation to expedite passage of health reform legislation through the Senate.
Overhauling our health care system will affect every single American and is simply too important to be passed without broad bipartisan support. Yet, it is clear that the only reason you are considering using the budget reconciliation process to pass this unpopular bill is because you have not been able to attract any Republican support for your comprehensive health bill.
We recommend you rethink your plans of expediting such legislation through Congress over the strong objections of the American people. We urge you to listen to the advice of Senator Robert C. Byrd, who was quoted in the Washington Post on March 22, 2009:
I am certain that putting health-care reform and climate change legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage that must be resisted.
Using the reconciliation process to enact major legislation prevents an open debate about critical issues in full view of the public. Health reform and climate change are issues that, in one way or another, touch every American family. Their resolution carries serious economic and emotional consequences.
The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation — a process intended for deficit reduction — to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role.
We agree with this assessment—misusing the Senate rules in this way would be a tremendous “disservice” to the American people and it is “an outrage” that we should resist.
In that regard, to endeavor to ensure that the reconciliation process is not used to fast-track an unpopular bill through Congress, we wish to inform you that we will oppose efforts to waive the so-called Byrd Rule during Senate consideration of any reconciliation bill concerning health reform. The Byrd Rule, as you know, was created by Senator Byrd to ensure that reconciliation bills were not used to enact policy changes, the primary purpose of which is not specifically related to the federal budget. As it takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule, we can ensure that any provision that trips the Byrd Rule will be stripped from the bill, which will require that the bill be sent back to the House for further consideration and additional votes.
We urge you to abandon the use of reconciliation to pass a partisan bill that is opposed by the vast majority of Americans. Instead, we encourage you to work with us on a series of bipartisan bills that provide a step-by-step approach to reducing the cost of health care for Americans.
Senate sources also sent a video of Senators DeMint, Wicker, Coburn, and Thune—all former House members— talking about the Dems being responsible for passing the bill through the reconciliation tactic,
Two from Ace:
Constitutional Slaughter: Democrats Attempting Rule Change in House That Would Pass Senate Bill Without An Actual Vote on the Senate Bill,
and More on the Blatantly Unconstitutionally, Recklessly Illegal Slaughter “Rule:” Citizens Would Have Standing to Challenge, which links to Leon Wolfe at Red State,
Having determined that they lack the votes in the House to pass the Senate bills as-is, House Democrats are attempting one of the most breathtakingly unconstitutional power grabs ever witnessed – a maneuver to deem the Senate bill ALREADY PASSED by the House by rule, despite the fact that it clearly has not. Now, as we have constantly reminded our ahistorical liberal friends who have already forgotten all of 2002-2006, the filibuster is constitutional because it is a Senate rule of debate, which is expressly authorized by Article I’s delegation of power to each house of Congress to set its own rules of debate. Apparently, some Democrats can’t seem to tell the difference between a rule of debate and just declaring by rule that the House has passed a bill that they have not, when the Constitution itself expressly states that “in all  Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays[.]” What Slaughter and Pelosi here are attempting here is a blatant violation of the principles of bicameralism and presentment.
And unlike other Unconstitutional things Congress does, there’s caselaw here suggesting pretty clearly that when Congress attempts to pass a law in the absence of proper bicameralism and presentment, a person negatively affected by Congress’s action (e.g., a person required to pay a fine for not having health insurance) has standing to challenge the law’s validity in the Courts. This farce is illegal and unconstitutional on its face, and someone has to be advising the Democrats in the House of this fact.
This is extremely troubling.
Harry Reid gives Max Baucus the raspberry:
Reid kills Baucus-Grassley jobs bill
Members of the Senate Finance Committee unveiled a long-awaited bipartisan jobs bill Thursday morning — only to have it scrapped within hours by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Reid killed the bill after hearing complaints from members of his own caucus who argued that Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) had gone too far beyond the core goal of job creation in order to win Republican support.
It was a major rebuke for Baucus, who’d spent weeks working with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking Republican on his committee, trying to come up with a bill that Republicans would support.
It doesn’t matter whether the jobs bill would be effective. Harry didn’t want Max to “go too far”.
Harry extends a hand with a middle finger to his own Finance Committee Chairman.
How’s that for bipartisanship?
This guy isn’t even pretending to talk about jobs — he’s just telling the press flat-out the political message he wants to get out by spending a $100 billion. And they don’t even seem to notice.
What they hey? “Kennedy’s office”?
Did Kennedy have a right to that office forever? Was it his to leave to his descendants?
No, Kennedy had it because he had been in the Senate since shortly after allowing Mary Jo to drown,
Because of his seniority, Kennedy had one of the most coveted office suites in the Senate complex. It is located in the Russell building, down the hall from the Rotunda, and has balconies that overlook the Capitol.
Makes me glad that Brown will occupy that bit of real estate.
Via Sister Toldjah.
Embattled Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd (D) has scheduled a press conference at his home in Connecticut Wednesday at which he is expected to announce he will not seek re-election, according to sources familiar with his plans.
Dodd’s retirement comes after months of speculation about his political future, and amid faltering polling numbers and a growing sense among the Democratic establishment that he could not win a sixth term. It also comes less than 24 hours after Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) announced he would not seek re-election.
the chap with the “cottage” in Ireland, the sweetheart deals with various mortgage companies that you and I, with no patronage to dispense, could never wrangle, and a reputation for honesty that rivals that of Barney Frank
and has spent
30 years with his lips sewn to the public teat
While Dodd’s resignation points to the grim outlook for Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections, Another Black Conservative correctly reminds us of the short-term effect:
What is being overlooked is that these Democrat House Reps and Senators are free to vote for whatever crappy legislation they please without a worry about answering to their constituents. In essence they are like Dead Men Walking. They have nothing to lose by going against the will of the people for the next eleven months.
So as we all cheer about another Dem biting the dust before 2010, let us take time to realize the threat these retiring Dems pose.
They’re not out – legistatively speaking – until they have actually left.
More on Dodd at Power Line.
With the final vote on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act slated to start after sundown Dec. 24, senators and hundreds of their health policy analysts, press secretaries and other aides — not to mention the universe of police officers, clerks and student pages who keep the place humming — wishing to be with their families will instead spend the holiday in Washington. And there’s a possibility the Senate could be called back next week, to take up debt-limit legislation.
At Red State, Erick Erickson posts, We Are No Longer a Nation of Laws. Senate Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare
The Senate Democrats declare a super-majority of senators will be needed to overrule any regulation imposed by the Death Panels
Upon examination of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment to the health care legislation, Senators discovered section 3403. That section changes the rules of the United States Senate.
To change the rules of the United States Senate, there must be sixty-seven votes.
Section 3403 of Senator Harry Reid’s amendment requires that “it shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.” The good news is that this only applies to one section of the Obamacare legislation. The bad news is that it applies to regulations imposed on doctors and patients by the Independent Medicare Advisory Boards a/k/a the Death Panels.
Section 3403 of Senator Reid’s legislation also states, “Notwithstanding rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate, a committee amendment described in subparagraph (A) may include matter not within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Finance if that matter is relevant to a proposal contained in the bill submitted under subsection (c)(3).” In short, it sets up a rule to ignore another Senate rule.
Go read Erick’s post.
How’s that hope and change working for you now?
VIDEO via Ed: