TPMDC
Viagra, ACORN and Gay Marriage: The 10 Most Ridiculous GOP-Proposed Health Care Amendments
Clockwise: Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT); inset: viagra pills
Share
Send to a friend!
As I noted here, the GOP strategy for reconciliation is pure hardball. Democrats want to pass a clean bill, so Republicans will make Dems vote down politically charged amendments, including one--introduced by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)--to prohibit insurance companies for covering Viagra costs for rapists, and another--also introduced by Coburn--to fire one government employee each time the health care bill requires a new bureaucrat be hired.
Once the votes are cast, of course, they become fodder for attack ads come election season.
So far, the GOP has filed 32 amendments. But these 10 are our picks for the most ridiculous:
- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK): To reduce the cost of providing federally funded prescription drugs by eliminating fraudulent payments and prohibiting coverage of Viagra for child molesters and rapists for drugs intended to induce abortion.
- Vitter: Prohibiting use of funds to fund the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). (Adding to the ridculousness, ACORN folded just this week.)
Coburn: To require that each new bureaucrat added to any department or agency of the Federal Government for the purpose of implementing the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act be offset by a reduction of 1 existing bureaucrat at such department or agency. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA): To repeal the government takeover of health care. Coburn: To revoke the powers given the Secretary of Health and Human Services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Coburn: To help the President keep his promise that Americans who like the health care coverage they have now can keep it. Coburn: To repeal the new $375 million program directing the very same Federal Government that has amassed a $12 trillion debt to lecture Americans about financial responsibility. Sen. Bob Bennett (R-UT): To protect the democratic process and the right of the people of the District of Columbia to define marriage. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) To make sure the President, Cabinet Members, all White House senior staff and Congressional Committee and Leadership staff are purchasing health insurance through the health insurance exchanges established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Coburn: To require all Members of Congress to read a bill prior to casting on a vote on the bill.
Comments (102) | Join the Conversation!
TPM Top News
© 2011 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
oskieoskie
March 24, 2010 12:11 PM
Call the doctor. The GOP caucus is about to have a four-hour stiffy and no place to stick it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:17 PM in reply to oskieoskie
No! You can't call the doctor! It's an EMERGENCY!
You have to call the Waaaaaaaaahmbulance!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ryangsims
March 24, 2010 12:12 PM
Re: #4 Vitter != Democrat
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
commie atheist
March 24, 2010 12:44 PM in reply to ryangsims
Brian Beutler - Fox News intern???
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lively
March 24, 2010 12:14 PM
You're kidding me, you think that it's a BAD idea for congress to actually read the bill before voting? Yeah, the rest are kinda out there - but come on! They SHOULD read the bill before voting, what are are we paying them to do, if not *thoughtfully* consider the laws that will govern us, the people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oskieoskie
March 24, 2010 12:17 PM in reply to Lively
Then we'd have to elect people who can read. Never work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lively
March 24, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to oskieoskie
so true, DC has the lowest literacy rate in the nation - and the schools there aren't doing too well, either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 24, 2010 2:02 PM in reply to Lively
newsflash--most of congress wasn't born or raised in D.C., they just "work" there(when John McCain isn't shutting down business).
At this point, I'll take a D.C. educated student over the entire GOP any day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lacedaemeon
March 24, 2010 2:10 PM in reply to Lively
DC has schools? When did that happen? I lived in the Maryland suburbs for 25 years, and those kids go to school here, usually illegally. We see the DC-tagged cars picking them up at the MD bus stops every day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oskieoskie
March 24, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to Lively
Hey, maybe we could get George W. to come in and read the bills aloud.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
enough already
March 24, 2010 5:59 PM in reply to oskieoskie
or have obama speak with out a monitor, give out bogus facts, or sign an illeagal document or go kiss the hand of the people that cuts peoples heads off with a pocket knife. HOw many cia agents were killed? how many people got into the white house unnoticed. yeah there is man with experience who led us down the path of socialism. give me bush anyday
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CryRepukesCry
March 24, 2010 9:54 PM in reply to enough already
Dubya couldn't speak WITH a monitor, gave out hundreds of bogus facts as he lied his way into wars he couldn't win, (much like you) probably couldn't spell the word "illegal" and gave $43 million to the Taliban that harbored those people who cut peoples heads off with a pocket knife. How many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians were killed? How many Bin Ladens were out of the country after 911? Yeah there is man with experience screwing up everything he touched by leading us down the path towards deregulated "free market" capitalism while the rich got richer at everybody else's expense. Give me Socialism that works over deregulated capitalism that DOESN'T anyday!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:36 PM in reply to enough already
Huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:38 PM in reply to Cal Gal
CIA agents killed?
I can think of one who was outed, and whose work against WMD was RUINED, and whose contacts in the Middle East were EXPOSED.
But that would have been by the Dark Lord, Dick Cheney.
Is THAT what you're thinking of?
Huh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
March 25, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to Cal Gal
There's no telling what some of the wingnuts are referring to in their revisionist history.
Facts and events change from day-to-day depending on what they feel make them look good, or support their views.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
March 24, 2010 6:20 PM in reply to oskieoskie
Only if it accompanies "The Pet Goat", the only book in the Bush library
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lacedaemeon
March 24, 2010 2:19 PM in reply to oskieoskie
Years ago, the military started using 'comic book' style manuals in basic training. I mistakenly thought the GPO was using the same thing for our Congress, but perhaps this is a good alternative to the reading thing. We all know that they don't have the time to read these bils: it would infringe on their primary Constitutional obligation of raising money for their re-election campaigns.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:34 PM in reply to oskieoskie
At least we'd get rid of all the ReThuglicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
March 24, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to Lively
That kind of thing is sooooo easily abused. If they must read a bill before voting then couldnt a republican just offer a insanely large bill and thus waste tons of time, even though the bill is garbage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oskieoskie
March 24, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to musgrove
Print it in pale blue, 6-point ALLCAPs in long, justified blocks of type just like the fine print on the back of a credit card statement. In other words, impossible to read.
Hah! That'll show those pesky Dems not to try to conduct the people's business!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jvwalt
March 24, 2010 1:02 PM in reply to Lively
It may seem reasonable to require Congressmembers to read all legislation, but in reality it's highly impractical. Bills are often extremely long and complicated, and there are usually amendments and additions up to the last minute. That's why they have staffers: to keep track of the details.
Besides, how would we enforce such a requirement? Congressional Study Hall?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:41 PM in reply to jvwalt
Oooh. Yep. I like it. Talk back to the Leader? Study hall.
Interrupt by yellling "You Lie!" or "Baby Killer"? Study hall.
Tell blatant falsehoods? Study hall.
Sure would have give the ReThugs a whole lot of time to read the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
March 24, 2010 1:11 PM in reply to Lively
Get real. What are you going to do, make them give a book report on it to show they have read it? Make them pass a test? And set up a whole new government bureaucracy to write and administer those tests to Congressmen? And what happens if they don't pass? Do they not get to vote on the bill when it comes to the floor? I think that would be unconstitutional on its face.
The GOP has a lot of nerve floating this, after their abusive practice of putting legislation up in the middle of the night and requiring a vote on it early the next morning led Democrats, after the Congress changed hands, to institute rules about the minimum amount of time a bill had to be available for reading before it could be voted on.
This is the sort of thing a Congressional staff is for, to follow the detailed ins and outs of pending legislation and to give the Congressman or Senator the executive summary.
Besides, any amendments to a budget reconciliation bill have to be directly related to the budget. This one doesn't come close, and neither do the majority of the rest of the items on this list.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 24, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to Lively
Oh, you're so right.
Let's have them vote "Yes" on "reading bills".
Just think: then, we can send the entire shebang back to the House of Representatives for more endless debate, and...
You either are very, very stupid, or you're a troll who thinks we're all as gullible as you'd prefer us to be.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hologram5
March 24, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to Lively
Didn't you watch the Simpson movie? In the famous words of the cartoon Ahnold, "I get paid to lead, not to read".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IndyLinda
March 24, 2010 1:49 PM in reply to Lively
The issue is not that it's controversial to read the bill. The issue is that if any of these amendments are approved, the whole reconciliation bill goes back to the House for another (possibly iffy) vote. Realizing that, the GOP is trying to come up with amendments that realistically have no chance of succeeding, but will be politically unpopular to vote against, so they can have campaign ad fodder in the fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
BrookJolley
March 24, 2010 2:14 PM in reply to Lively
The republicans would refuse to read any bill so they wouldn't be able to call a floor vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Nancy Irving
March 24, 2010 8:53 PM in reply to Lively
It would be nice, but some of these bills are thousands of pages of legalese. There simply is not enough time. This is why there is staff, to analyze the bills and tell the congressman what a bill says. (And why the GOP practice of letting lobbyists write their bills should be avoided.)
If we were all to read the fine print on everything, we'd accomplish nothing else in our lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Texas Aggie
March 24, 2010 9:24 PM in reply to Lively
Why should we have to require them to read the bills, at least the ones that affect people's lives? Why shouldn't that be part of the job like a bus driver putting the keys in the starting switch?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lyleleander
March 24, 2010 12:16 PM
What about an Amendment that you can't wear Diapers on the Senate floor, or an amendment that you can't vote on legislation within the same 24-hour timespan that you've offered the husband of the woman you've been banging a job and his kids payoff money?
How would everybody vote on those?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:52 PM in reply to lyleleander
Against the first one for personal reasons, OK with the second one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SS247
March 24, 2010 12:22 PM
Sen. SS247 (D-Hates Stupid Amendments): to acknowledge that Sen. Vitter likes prostitutes and that Sen. Coburn likes to waste the American people's time because he is the biggest douche in the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lacedaemeon
March 24, 2010 2:35 PM in reply to SS247
Can we add that Dodd will be reclassified from a natural citizen to 'a wholly owned subsidiary of the financial industry?' We can prove that one easily, and it could even be 'deemed passed' and save a pesky vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:55 PM in reply to Lacedaemeon
Not pertinent to the legislation under consideration, regardless of the aptness of your characterization.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
psyclone
March 24, 2010 12:25 PM
If the Dems were smart, they'd use a political judo maneuver and turn this kind of cheap stunt back against the cReeps.
But they're not, so they'll have to go back on the defensive again. Sigh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oskieoskie
March 24, 2010 12:31 PM in reply to psyclone
Yeah, these are the same dumbasses who passed this thing. Hopeless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
March 24, 2010 12:26 PM
What about impeaching Senators who solicit prostitutes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
March 24, 2010 1:20 PM in reply to VictorLH
All of them or just the ones that get caught?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 25, 2010 12:01 AM in reply to An Outhouse
Um, I think you need to CATCH them to know they're doing it so you can impeach them, no?
So, to answer your question literally, all of them -- immediately after catching them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
March 24, 2010 12:29 PM
The Parliamentarian can cancel all frivolous amendments. Once he sees this happening, he could just do that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
VictorLH
March 24, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to calchala
Well, so far they have given him 37 reasons to do so. What's he waiting for?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
March 24, 2010 12:29 PM
How about "The Republicans Can Kiss My Ass and Make It Better" amendment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stillidealistic
March 24, 2010 12:40 PM
It's real simple...just say no. To everything. This is bs and the only people who will vote against people for their no vote, would have voted no anyway... Will be interesting to see if the dems can hang together long enough to get 'er done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 25, 2010 12:05 AM in reply to stillidealistic
They surely will. Have no doubt. Not only were they incredibly fired up by getting this over the finish line after 100 years of Presidents trying to get it done, they are also incredibly pissed off about all this brick-throwing, noose-faxing, gas-line-cutting threating crapola coming from the right that has been "fired up" by Armey's Army.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
March 24, 2010 12:45 PM
Is the federal government really spending 375 million to promote fiscal responsibility? Seriously that has to be a joke thrown in by the reporter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lacedaemeon
March 24, 2010 2:41 PM in reply to GOPinNYC
The same people who bailed out private financial institutions because they were too large to fail, and who want to reduce principal on underwater mortgages?
Oh, yeah, I'm really comfortable with that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 25, 2010 12:12 AM in reply to Lacedaemeon
Because so many empty, weed-infested, abandoned homes post-foreclosure have a such a positive effect on our neighborhoods, compared to homes inhabited by people who can afford to pay for them at their current market value.
Banks do NOT take care of foreclosed homes. They do NOT rent them at market value to families who could live there and keep them up. They do not even move quickly to sell them at current market value.
They really don't know much about managing or selling houses (surprise, surprise they don't understand housing). Foreclosure is a disaster not only for the person with the mortgage, but also for the neighborhood AND for the bank, whose collateral deteriorates day to day they ignore it.
But then most bankers are ReThuglican, so what can you expect about their intelligence?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GOPinNYC
March 25, 2010 5:33 AM in reply to Cal Gal
Could you please back up your claim that most bankers are Republican. I'd really like to read where ever you got that info.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxsteady
March 24, 2010 12:45 PM
How about the Republicans and their familiy members move to Seal Island in South Africa which is surrounded by Great White Sharks! Oh, and they can all kiss my ass too!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pete Bilderback
March 24, 2010 12:48 PM
Senator Beavis, meet Senator Butthead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
March 24, 2010 12:48 PM
Gotta love the way the GOP uses the health care reform bill as just another excuse to rev up the culture wars with Bennett's anti-gay-marriage-for-DC amendment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lively
March 24, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to jeffgee
Right, the Dems *never* do that, do they? (feel free to wipe excess sarcasm from monitor)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
March 24, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to Lively
examples please.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 24, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
why would they need any real examples? Just say "both sides do it" and give yourself carte blanche to say or do anything you want. It's so much easier living in the GOP/MSM alternate reality, must be nice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
March 24, 2010 2:58 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
There you go demanding "facts" from the conservative trolls again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
emjayay
March 24, 2010 6:33 PM in reply to jeffgee
The way it's reported above makes it sound good, not bad. I'm, sure it's not what the writer meant. Anyway, what's that got to do with healthcare anyway, unless everything has something to do with healthcare?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lively
March 24, 2010 12:49 PM
How about requiring all of them (our elected officials both sides) to have the same healthcare as the rest of us? They might get it right if they have to follow the same rules as the rest of us.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
March 24, 2010 1:48 PM in reply to Lively
what is it about 'if you have health insurance now and you want to keep it, you can' is soooo difficult to understand??
NOBODY has to change their insurance because of this legislation.
congress DOES follow the same rules as the rest of us. you might notice that 'the rest of us' don't all have the same exact health insurance. and many of us don't have any health insurance at all. members of congress have the option of a group health insurance plan negotiated by their employer just like most people who have health insurance in this country.
clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
March 24, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
which apparently makes you the republican party's target demographic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:50 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
I'm not exactly sure what your response to your response means, but not ALL of us have employer-provided health insurance, so Congress does NOT have what ALL of us have.
That said, Congress participates in what might be the largest "group" health care plan in the US of A: the Federal Employee Health Benefits plan, or FEHB.
By having so many friggin' people enrolled, included young people who get hired right out of school to work as clerks in the IRS office, FEHB can negotiate VERY low rates.
My solution as always been, just let EVERYONE buy insurance from the FEHB.
Crunch the numbers, and you'll see this is much less expensive insurance than ANY "small" business can find elsewhere.
So, although Congress does not have what ALL of us have, a big, easy step might have been to LET us, ALL of us, get what Congress has.
Sorry if this goes over your head. But this could have been ours with "the public option."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
March 25, 2010 5:32 PM in reply to Cal Gal
i said most people who have health insurance in this country have it through a group plan negotiated by their employer. which is what members of congress have (at least those members who have the plan that is available to them, which not alll members choose to do).
i never said that congress has what all of us have. i said simply that congress plays by the same rules as the rest of. this was in response to a comment suggesting that unless congress went on medicaid, congress was somehow not playing by the same rules as the rest of us.
of course, the rules we all play by, including members of congress, mean that there are winners and there are losers. playing by the same rules doesn't mean we all enjoy the same outcome. in fact, the rules pretty well guarantee that most of us get the shaft.
i say to hell with FEHB. we should have Medicare for all.
and sorry if this goes over your head, but the vast majority of the public options proposed would not have even been close to FEHB for all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lacedaemeon
March 24, 2010 11:13 PM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
Obama's puffery doesn't constitute either a contractual promise or a legal statement of the bill. The bill, as written, controls. How come all these people can't understand that principal? Obama's no different from an infomercial barker, except he got $750 million from his first big try, and most infomercials don't make money.
If you want to know what the bill really says, READ IT. Go on the web and read real legal analyses of it, not the media thumbnails.
Those posters of Obama that go up all over the place should have a new legend below his face: CAVEAT EMPTOR. We all believe that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
March 25, 2010 5:40 PM in reply to Lacedaemeon
and your wild paranoias constitute little more than drool on your shirt collar.
if you could actually explain what you even mean by "the bill, as written, controls" then maybe it wouldn't be so hard for anyone to understand. you can't. because you don't even understand what you mean.
unless you can show where in the bill you will be forced to change your current health insurance, what you call 'puffery' the rest of us can comfortably continue to call a 'fact'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lacedaemeon
March 24, 2010 2:43 PM in reply to Lively
Would never get past the anti-torture brigade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oskieoskie
March 24, 2010 4:00 PM in reply to Lively
I have a better idea. Why not let all the rest of us have the same health care that members of Congress have?
Now you're talking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:58 PM in reply to oskieoskie
Exactly. Exactly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
March 24, 2010 12:59 PM
Well, at least half of that top ten ought to be shitcanned right away under the Byrd Rule. If the rest turn out to be similar, you can cut that list of 32 down to around 17 or 18.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
March 24, 2010 1:08 PM
This is sooo stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Barry Champlain
March 24, 2010 1:12 PM
I'm sure the Dems are really reading this now [g], but here's how to make all those upcoming 30-second attack ads for November just go away:
Start now, with Dem spokespeople fanning-out across the media. Label them all as ONE THING:
"REPUBLICAN TRICK AMENDMENTS"
E.G., attack ad: "Dan Democrat voted against Viagra for RAPISTS!"
[Dan, when interviewed on that point:] "Oh, ha ha ha, that was just one of the famous 'REPUBLICAN TRICK AMENDMENTS'. It wasn't a serious amendment."
(When pressed further, simply repeat, until the next question is asked. Keep chuckling derisively, throughout.)
Which will work fine if the nation has been hearing the words "Republican Trick Amendment", for the previous 7 months. When the mainstream media starts using the phrase, and accompanying it with the word "serious", the R's are dead in the water, with all the attack ads.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 24, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to Barry Champlain
Seeing as how the Democrats have a lot more money for campaigns, they should just drown them out with ads saying that the Republicans want to repeal all of your protections against scumbag insurance companies. Which is 100% true, they've got tons of video of them calling for repeal.
OTOH--any ads attempting to use these clownish amendments against the Dems will be viewed as just that, clownish, by all but the teabagging base. Remember the ad accusing Obams of wanting to teach sex ed to kindergarteners? That's the level of absurdity we're dealing with here. How'd that work out for you President McCain?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
howie
March 24, 2010 1:12 PM
Tom Coburn is to the U.S. Senate as Les Kinsolving is to the White House press corps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mgmonklewis
March 24, 2010 1:14 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, The World's Greatest Deliberative Body™.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Lone Apple
March 24, 2010 1:18 PM
I have a few amendments that the Democrats can include just because I'd love to see them read:
- That in no way shape or form is Tom Coburn a shaved ape.
- That the Republican Party, no matter their behavior, is not a terrorist organization.
- That there is no evidence to suggest that David Vitter met a man in a bar bathroom in Chattanooga, TN to engage in kinky sex involving leather thongs and a staple gun.
If the Democrats want more, I can rattle off a hundred other embarrassing amendments.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
voreason
March 24, 2010 1:23 PM
I think there should be an amendment that would direct the NIH to sponsor research programs directed towards finding a cure for Republican impotence.
The viagra apparently is not working.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
March 24, 2010 1:26 PM
Vitter should propose a new amendment whereby if you cheat on your wife with a prostitute you must shit into a diaper for your sexual kicks
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lacedaemeon
March 24, 2010 2:45 PM in reply to pmb50
Automatic pass: they want the contributions from the industry, and ethics would ignore violations, as usual.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Damiana
March 24, 2010 1:30 PM
How about an amendment that all members of Congress AND the administration must take and pass:
--the US Citizenship test
--a 100-level course on Constitutional Law
--an EEG
The halls of government would be echoingly silent. But we wouldn't have to deal with this stupidity ever again! (Nor would we ever have to deal with another George W. Bush.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pmb50
March 24, 2010 1:30 PM
Why the hell doesn’t the msm call these heinous republicans out on their obstructive and destructive tactics instead legitimizing them. Its always about the sizzle never the steak
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
March 24, 2010 1:40 PM
Sen. David Vitter - can't believe he's still around. What would it take to shame this guy? Maybe if his Dem opponent showed up in diapers only for their debates, maybe that would do it. Really, diapers!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ws84
March 24, 2010 1:46 PM
Coburn wants to reduce the number of bureaucrats. Really?
Homeland Security, the third largest bureaucracy in the federal government, was created by Bush and the Republicans. It added 200,000 bureaucrats to the system.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AndrewT
March 24, 2010 2:23 PM in reply to ws84
Agreed. Not to mention the thousands of completely unaccountable private contractors bilking the US for dubious services here in the US and especially along side the military.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
human
March 24, 2010 1:47 PM
I'm surprised they haven't proposed an amendment to ban health coverage for al-qaeda, then turn around with an ad saying "we can't afford coverage for al-qaeda!"--which would be similar to an SNL fake ad, which would be appropriate because no one can tell the difference between the GOP and the cartoonish SNL version of the party any more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
March 24, 2010 1:50 PM
Republicans. It's like they're on dope. They're addicts. Stopping and feeling and seeing the world as it is is just too painful. Best to keep hitting the drugs. I've been there and recognize the addictive behavior and inability to pull out of it. I pray they can. Be they will truly need a higher power for they are absorbed deeply into themselves and their own pain and self-righteousness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
March 24, 2010 1:51 PM
Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK): To recognize that our Father, who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us, and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Redwood Rhiadra
March 24, 2010 2:12 PM
OK - the "ACORN" amendment - didn't that *already* pass last year and get struck down by the courts as a Bill of Attainder? (In addition to being ridiculous because ACORN folded).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnitaBee
March 24, 2010 2:20 PM
Simple way to shoot down all these amendments: none passes muster as appropriate to include in a reconciliation bill because they don't have significant effects on the budget.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lacedaemeon
March 24, 2010 3:25 PM in reply to AnitaBee
What would we do if we could no longer make fun of the congress? Aside from their primary Constitutional duty to enrich themselves, they also serve as "role models" for impressionable children and provide entertainment which can compete with "for-profit" cable reality shows.
As Esteemed Orator and Vice President Joe Biden said to the President, this is "a big f*cking deal."
"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in return?" (Pride and Prejudice, Jane Austen)
Congress laughs at voters as we incredibly re-elect them every time to positions where they can set their own benefits, hire relatives and contributors, police their own ethics violations, amass incredible wealth and power, and finally assert legislative privilege to prevent criminal investigations. Laughing back is the least we can do for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LinusToo
March 24, 2010 2:29 PM
Coburn's added an amendment "to require all Members of Congress to read a bill prior to casting on a vote on the bill." He does realize that, if the amendment were passed, the law would apply to him and his fellow members in the Knee-jerk, Reactionary voting block on his side of the aisle (I believe the block has 40 members now), doesn't he?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
planetniner
March 24, 2010 3:32 PM
Coburn points us to the modus operandi here -- start with Limbaugh "rile the rubes" hot buttons, and then WORK BACKWARDS to the health care bill. Compiled in partnership with my friend Erik Nelson, here are our best guesses at the next iteration of amendments...
1. (Coburn) Prohibiting the use of funds pay secret reparations to African-Americans so they can re-start ACORN.
2. (Vitter) To require that health care funds must be allocated to be used for medical care for Glenn Beck viewers who are currently being kidnapped and forcibly repatriated at "One-World" slave labor Concentration Camps "just barely" disguised as FEMA trailer rehab facilities and "closed" Air Force bases.
3. (Ensign) To require that health care funds be allocated, on an "as needed" basis, to certain Senators to make perfectly legal and appropriate "payments" to the husbands of certain Senatorial staff persons who wear deliberately provocative clothing in order to ensnare said Senators into compromising sexual relationships which said Senators deeply regret. This is so that said Senators don't have to ask their parents to cough up the same amount of dough.
4. (McCain) Prohibiting the use of funds as some kind of covert "mental health" scheme to re-institute the Fairness Doctrine and deny 'real' Americans the right to hear the truth on the radio, on teevee, and through the mercury fillings in their teeth.
5. (Grassley) Prohibiting the use of funds to provide "coddling" and "therapy" and "compassion counseling" and "neck massages" to Enemy Combatants of this country held prisoner in Guantanamo, especially after said prisoners are subject to incredibly legal and totally permissible "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" that have provided valuable intel to our intelligence services so that evil brown people haven't destroyed us.
6. (Coburn) Prohibiting the use of funds...something something...mandatory abortions for Evangelical Christians...something something something...take away legally purchased assault weapons...something something...let's see that birth certificate...something something....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chickenbone Bill
March 24, 2010 3:54 PM
In Season 3, Episode 17 of "The Andy Griffith Show" Opie's buddy the rich, spoiled kid throws a fantastic temper-tantrum!
This is what the Republican Party of today has come down to,throwing whiney-arse temper-trantrums!
Wish I knew how to isolate it and put it up on the web!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
March 24, 2010 5:17 PM
The "No Pampers for David Vitter" amendment.
The "No Viagra for John Ensign" amendment.
The "No Free Healthcare for Sarah Palin's Bastard Grandchild" amendment.
The "Let's Ask Scott Brown Why He Supported Romneycare" amendment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lisast
March 24, 2010 5:39 PM
What have the repugs been doing for the last 14 months? Since they are waiting until now to offer up their "amendments", rather than doing so over the last 14 months, can the taxpayers request an amendment to rescind their salaries and give the money back to us since they weren't doing anything?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JennOfArk
March 24, 2010 7:42 PM
I'm having a celebration of the meltdown over at my place. Up now: Butthurt Alert: Massive
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JennOfArk
March 24, 2010 7:43 PM
Oops. I guess our urls don't display. That would be Butthurt Alert: Massive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
latichever
March 24, 2010 9:17 PM
The Cialis and Levitra people must have gotten to Coburn, if he wants to ban only Viagra.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SantaMonica
March 24, 2010 10:55 PM
I think it's time we brought back the 2008 meme
THIS IS GREAT NEWS!!!! FOR REPUBLICANS!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cal Gal
March 24, 2010 11:15 PM
Can you amend an amendment?
Add Catholic priests to those who can't get Viagra prescriptions, and I could be convinced.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ZenBubba
March 25, 2010 7:37 AM
It seems to me that the solution is to run a bunch of ads in the Coeburn's district that they didn't care enough about keeping viagra away from sex offenders to introduce an amendment before the bill passed. Why does he want to protect sex offenders access to viagra? Are your children safe when Coeburn gives viagra to sex offenders?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
victor U
March 25, 2010 9:00 AM
Wow it does sound downright crazy when you think about it.
Lou
www.true-anonymity.pro.tc
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftflank
March 25, 2010 10:19 AM
You might be a dying entity if you've got a "top ten most ridiculous amendments" list. I'm just sayin!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 2:57 AM
How about an amendment that all members of Congress AND the administration must take and pass:
--the US Citizenship test
--a 100-level course on Constitutional Law
--an EEG
The halls of government would be echoingly silent. But we wouldn't have to deal with this stupidity ever again! (Nor would we ever have to deal with another George W. Bush.)
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?