Fox News: LIARS or Just STUPID???  

Lil, this isn't a matter of how you or anyone else sees it, the "Nuclear Option" is an actual gimmick or whatever you want to call it that the GOP threatened to use back in 2005. It's NOT reconciliation, not even close. To put it simply, it would be if the V.P., acting in his capacity as President of the Senate, were to declare that the current majority doesn't agree with the rules as they stand and that they were going to vote to end the use of the filibuster. That would require a simple majority of 51, or 50 with the V.P. breaking the tie.

The Democrats have NOT threatened to do that!

Which time or times do you mean that the Republicans used reconciliation and lost a lot of seats? I think you're confused because they've used it many times and I don't ever even remember there being any outcry over it.

I realize all networks have some bias, as long as you have humans running news organizations I suppose that's how it will be but in this case Fox intentionally distorted the facts. There has NEVER been a time when reconciliation has been called the Nuclear Option.

Annie

oh I know it is sensationalism. But I look at this way...if they use reconcilation to pass this bill....a lot of american public is going to go "nuclear". Look at it the reaction that is going to come from it.
You are right there is a lot of rederick on both sides. Another poster put it a better way...it is a last ditch effort...last option open to them. just like in war...nukes are your LAST resort.

Republicans lost seats in the past two house and senate races because not only their use of reconcilation...but also their high handed approach to governing. The same approach the dems are using now. If you can't get it passed in a regular vote...don't do it. Cramming something down the americans throats is never a good idea..no matter which side is doing it.
There were outcries when they did it. Just not as loud as now. A lot of American public is at a boiling point with our government and how they are doing things. It takes a while for it get to that point. Took long in my opinion. But it has gotten there finally. So yes...more people are fed up and speaking up about it...thanks to what the republicans and Bush did. They learned their lesson with them and are not about to let the government act that way again. Not without a fight.

Two wrongs don't make a right. And the republicans parties behavor in the past should not be a gauge used to see if something is ok to do or not. The whole "they did it so I can do it" does not make it RIGHT or even OK. It just makes them both wrong.

They still go home with a nice nest egg, regardless.

The dems are in a tight one on this one....use reconcilation...probly loose a lot of seats..because it is going to tick off a lot of americans.
Not use reconcilation...not get a healthcare bill...tick off the democratic base and probly loose their jobs in their next election.
Damned if they do..damned if they don't.

Personally I would LOVE healhtcare reform. But they have not come up with a decent bill (much less a good bill). So therefore I can not support it. I really just wish they would have gotten it right. Lord knows they have been working on it long enough.
This is what happens when lobbyists get involved in the process. You end up with a bad bill.

Missliss, I agree, I hope they just get it done already and let the chips fall where they may. The truth of the matter is the Democrats are going to lose seats in November, the party in power always does in the first off-year election of a new President's term. Who knows if they'll lose more if they pass health care or if they don't, only time will tell. If they pass a bill and enough people see that it's not the horrid bill they thought it would be, that will go in their favor.

Lil, as you know I agree completely about getting rid of lobbyists! Did you happen to see how angry the House Republicans got at Rep. Weiner when he said they're a "wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance companies"? In my opinion he spoke the truth!

Annie

They can get as mad as they want...sometimes the truth hurts. It is true for the republicans and the democrats. They all are owned by lobbyist. Which in my humble opinion is a lot of the problem we have in washington. I think if we get rid of the lobbyist things would get better.

The links I posted were for the purpose of seeing the videos of the Fox reporters making the claim that "reconciliation used to be called the Nuclear Option". Those are the actual newscasts where they said those words so there's nothing "biased" about them.

I think many here are missing my point entirely and I'm not sure if I didn't make myself clear or what...lol! The facts are back in 2005, when Bush was President and the GOP had the majority in the House and the Senate, the GOP Senate leadership threatened to use a rare process which they coined as the "nuclear option" in regard to stopping the Democrats from being able to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees. Therefore, these reporters aren't just labeling "reconciliation" as the "nuclear option" because it's a "last ditch option", they're making the claim that the latter is the word previously used in place of the former, which is definitely not true.

My feeling is that if anyone wishes to argue for or against the use of budget reconciliation on its merits, that's fine, but at least let's be honest about it. I believe this whole confusing of the two terms began with the videos of the President, Vice President and several other high profile Democrats speaking out against the "Nuclear Option" back in 2005 but being represented as them being against "reconciliation" which was disingenuous at best. The truth is reconciliation has been used to pass just about every major health care bill we've had as well as all of the Bush tax cuts. On several occasions the V.P. at the time had cast the deciding vote.

Annie
A

Re-branding of political terms is becoming really popular. It happens every time a new President steps into office. Many people think that if Congress doesn't use reconciliation then the health care bill is essentially dead. The term "Nuclear option" has changed in its meaning to fit the new Congress and new President.

The problem is not that Congress is considering reconciliation. The problem is that a majority of the people are against this particular health care plan. Therefore, reconciliation should not even be an option for something that basically changes the whole health care system and includes some parts that may not even be Constitutional in the first place.

I forgot to add that looking back at history, 2005 wasn't the first time the "Nuclear option" term was used. I believe the first time the phase was coined in conjunction with the government was during WWII when the US President at the time was presented with the "Nuclear option." In that case, it meant dropping two A-bombs on Japan.

You know, every time Chris Matthews drops his big word, "monochromatic," when talking about Republican/conservative audiences, I always look long and hard for any diversity in his immediate vicinity. Obly and the lot are surely straight up whiter than the whitest white man. Maddow! lol I apologize.

But then I remember: As long as you're claiming to be on the side of the "victims," you don't really have to separate yourself from the supposed victimizers.

I seen that Olby YouTube vid has nearly 300k hits. If only Countdown could get those types of numbers.

Maddow is kinda manly.

Dude, that was awesome! Seriously though, MSNBC is the most racist network I've ever seen in my life. I'm not saying that because they have a lineup of white people on their network, I'm saying it because it seems to be all they ever talk about. Every time I see Chris Matthews he's whining about how the people at town halls are all white, you know, as if he's been to one. Olbermann does the same thing. They clearly subscribe to the racist belief that if white people are against something they should be ignored. Think about what people would say if Rush Limbaugh were out there saying that large groups of people should be ignored because they're black?

HOW in the world did this discussion come to be about RACE??? I'm not going to get into how many non-white people are on MSNBC.

Annie

I originally posted the lie that Keith Olbermann told. You were talking about liars, right? Or were you only talking about the liars you disagree with?

WHAT did Keith actually lie about? Was he wrong about there not being many "people of color" at most tea parties?

Anyway, what I was talking about was the topic I posted about and that's the dishonesty of many Fox News reporters regarding reconciliation "formerly being called the nuclear option", which is a lie!

I suppose we could argue about Keith's statements. I mean "not many" or whatever his exact words were is a subjective phrase. Maybe to some if 10% of a huge crowd at a tea party even were "non-white" that would be a lot. Maybe to some 1% would be a lot, I don't know, it's all in the eye of the beholder. However, reconciliation was never called the nuclear option, that was a whole different animal as I think you know.

Annie

He lied because he said all the tea party people were white. He's also a hypocrite. So there are (according to you)only 1% of people of color who are in the tea party. They still deserve the right to stand by the principles of the constitution and they still deserve the right to their opinions. The right to NOT be like everyone else even if it is their own race.

NO, I'm NOT glued to any blogs, Taskr! I spent several hours trying to find the videos of what I'd seen for myself on TV of the various Fox personalities making the claim that reconciliation and the nuclear option are the same thing.

Anyway, it's NOT the same principle AT ALL! Reconciliation has been used many, MANY times to pass major legislation including all the Bush tax cuts, COBRA, and various changes to Medicare and Medicaid. The "Nuclear Option" was THREATENED once, as far as I know, by then Senate Majority Leader Frist regarding Bush's judicial nominees.

I've never liked the whole concept of the filibuster. Had myLot existed in 2005 I'd have probably been complaining about it here then. Since when is a MAJORITY a "shady technique"? The House and the Senate, the latter with a "super-majority", have already passed health care reform bills. Reconciliation will simply be used to make some minor changes to put the two bills together and that only requires a simple majority.

Annie

That's my theory too. Former GOP politicians never go away, they become Fox News contributors.

Annie

lol!
Annie

So you don't think saying "reconciliation used to be called the nuclear option" is a lie, even though reconciliation has never been called the nuclear option? Now it's MY turn to be confused!

Annie

Beg pardon, Annie, it wasn't Fox News who dubbed reconciliation the "nuclear option." It was the democrats in 2005 when they weren't getting their own way.
Take a look.

http://www.theyoungturks....