Breaking on Olbermann - Senate parliamentarian declares Republican challenge a 'dud'

[HughMoran]

Just said that in his intro...

[jaxx]

1. I saw that too.

That ought to set them off all over again.

[HughMoran]

2. O'Donnell is discussing this now...

[DrToast]

3. I love it. Basically the Dems were more prepared...

[FrenchieCat]

4. O'Donnell seems to have taken that stick out of his ass......

or at least the one's he got there now is not quite as long.

Good for him.

I'm hope he slept it off!

[LeftyAndProud60]

6. He was giving Morning Joe talking points against the bill this morning. NT

[Thrill]

7. He'll have it back in his ass

whenever he is on Morning Joe. He's much like Richard Wolfe. When they're on with KO they act like they have some
damn sense. On the other shows, not so much.

[DCBob]

5. Very very good news... I was worried this guy might be in the GOP back pocket.

Cheers!

[tallahasseedem]

8. O'Donnell

said that the Dem lawyers pulled out a precedent from 1995 that shut the 'publ lawyers up and caused the Parlimentarian to rule against them immediately.

[LeftyAndProud60]

9. They'll just keep filing different one tho This isn't over. nt

[DCBob]

10. Yes, but this was the big one that could have derailed the entire Recon bill.

The other stuff is mostly nit picky and even if the Parliamentarian rules for the Repubs it just goes back to the House for a quick revote. Not a problem... according to LO.

[NYC Liberal]

14. But as VP, Biden can overrule the Parliamentarian

as I understand it.

[Marsala]

19. He can, but it's almost never done

It would be a true "nuclear option" and would set off much more controversy over parliamentary procedures. They would probably just change the package and send it back to the House. Inconvenient, but safer.

[DCBob]

20. Its my understanding that its never been done in the history of this country..

I doubt Biden would do it especially if it was simply a matter of sending it back to the House for revote. No harm done.

[NYC Liberal]

21. Oh I know. But we do have that option, just like the filibuster nuclear option.

Always good to have a few weapons in your arsenal even if you'll probably never need them.

[impik]

11. So it means that nothing is gonna change in the bill, right?

[high density]

12. O'Donnell said the GOP could still offer amendments

And if they are accepted another vote in the House will be needed.

[karynnj]

15. but if the 51 Senators who signed to pass it, all vote no, they lose

[Berry Cool]

13. "Open the door for your Mystery Date..."

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_EG5tz5Spz6E/SN6vVcQQQpI/AAAAAAAABNo/NW6iHznv1eo/s400/dud+date.jpg

Oops, sorry, Republicans. You got the Dud.

[Bobbie Jo]

18. !

You just gave me a flashback. :rofl:

[liberalpragmatist]

16. It was a very stupid, technical objection (here's what they were trying to claim:)

Apparently, changes to the Social Security Trust Fund cannot be pushed through via reconciliation.

Of course, the bill doesn't change the Social Security Trust Fund. Here's what the Republicans were arguing:

The CBO's revenue projections from the excise tax assume that people won't pay the excise tax; instead they'll shift to less-costly plans and overtime, more money will be directed to incomes, not health insurance. Thus, taxable wages will be higher.

Since the reconciliation bill delays and increases the threshold for the excise tax, Republicans were arguing that it would change the amount of money redirected into wages, which would change the amount of taxable income, which would result in changes to the amount of revenue brought in by social security taxes.

Yeah, okay. It was a fairly ludicrous indirect case. By that account, virtually any spending or taxing policy will affect the Social Security Trust Fund.

[Clio the Leo]

17. REJECTED!!!! ....... for lameness.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x240321