View Full Version : The corrupt Slaughter Solution!

03-13-2010, 05:23 PM
The corrupt ‘Slaughter Solution’
By Armstrong Williams - 03/12/10 02:07 PM ET
Ah, yes — the "Slaughter Solution," they're calling it. The latest move by the transparent, above-politics Democrats to slaughter the democratic process in the hopes that Americans are just dumb enough to fall for yet another ruse. The House passes — or rejects — a rule before it considers any given piece of legislation; this rule lays out the parameters for debating that particular bill. Sometimes these rules are strict, sometimes they’re lax; it all depends on how much debate time or how many amendments they want to allow on a given piece of legislation. And then sometimes the rules are just plum dirty. Like this Slaughter Solution.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) is the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and says she can pass the rule that will govern how the House handles the Senate-passed healthcare legislation by saying, simply, well — get this — that the House doesn't have to vote on that legislation.

Yes, the House is considering passing a rule that says it doesn’t have to do its job and vote on a bill. The rule would simply "deem" the Senate-passed healthcare bill — and the reconciliation bill that will get rid of things like Gatorade and the Cornhusker Kickback — as passed by the House, allowing them not to have to subsequently vote for its passage.

Huh? If, procedurally, that didn't make much sense to you, you're not alone. If, politically, you're wondering how passing the rule to deem a bill passed is substantively different from voting for the bill, you're also not alone.

Putting aside the sneaky, slimy sleight-of-hand the Slaughter Solution would allow Democrats to pull off, I wonder: Do Slaughter and House Democrats think this will fool anyone? The idea is to allow vulnerable, squishy House Democrats not to have to vote directly on the Senate bill. But they act like people won't be able to put two and two together — as if voting for the rule that deems it passed is any different than voting to pass it.

I'm not entirely sure who — aside from the Dems themselves — is fooled by this. Juries don’t fall for this reasoning — you don’t get a free pass if you hired someone to murder your wife but didn’t pull the trigger — and neither will voters, just because this time the context is different. After all, juries and voters are basically one and the same, right?

Visit www.armstrongwilliams.com.


03-13-2010, 05:35 PM
I tell ya, they are going to CRASH & BURN big time in November if they don't stop! Did anyone hear Scott Brown's GOP weekly address this morning? The majority of Americans do NOT want an ambiguous health care package passed into law right now...YES, we DO want health care REFORM but we don't want to read about it AFTER it is enacted as Nancy Pelosi so condescendingly put it. WTH don't the pols get about that? People want the govt to be focusing on JOBS right now.

BTW, has anyone else enjoyed the pictures of Pelosi that Drudge has been posting? The current one is particulary horrifying...

Scott Brown ~