Journal Fight: Senate Republicans Split On Health Care

By FITSNews || When it’s not being surreptitiously altered in an effort to protect RINO Senators from the consequences of their own actions, the Journal of the S.C. Senate is usually a pretty quiet place – not a lot of shouting or finger-pointing going on.

That wasn’t the case on Thursday, however, as Senate President Glenn McConnell and several of his RINO colleagues endeavored to explain why they caved to the “minority” party on the first important vote of the 2010 legislative session.

By agreeing to adjourn debate on an amendment that would have asserted South Carolina’s sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment on the issue of health care, McConnell and his allies have materially impaired the Palmetto State’s ability to fight against the implementation of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional socialized medicine proposal.

They’ve also handed S.C. Democrats a major early session victory.

We don’t see how you can “explain” that away, but from the (current) Journal, here is McConnell’s attempt:

Today, the opponents of the Sovereignty Resolution, S. 424, who had been engaging in extended debate to block passage offered to conclude the debate on Tuesday if the Senate would adjourn. Those of us who wanted to pass the Resolution did not have the cloture votes to conclude the debate today and vote up or down. Therefore, the offer by the opponents was reasonable and made good common sense. There was no need to sit here today in a filibuster and then be back in a filibuster on Tuesday when we could conclude the matter on Tuesday. To vote against adjournment meant no deal and no end to the debate. A vote by supporters of the Resolution with the opponents today to adjourn assures an end to the filibuster.

This was explained to the other supporters of the Resolution who chose instead to oppose adjournment. That vote, in our opinion, was supposed to apparently make them appear more determined than some of us to pass the Resolution; but, in actuality, their votes, if they prevailed, would have left the Resolution to die in extended debate.

In other words, according to McConnell the sellouts are the heroes. And the real heroes are … well, kinda stupid.

Either way, the so-called “minority” party walked away a winner – its filibuster having succeeded and the “Republican” party having been exposed once again as full of hot air when it came time for the rubber to meet the road.

Wait … that’s a bad metaphor mix, isn’t it?

You get the point, though …

McConnell’s statement, incidentally, was echoed by RINO Senators Hugh Leatherman and Billy O’Dell, which makes absolutely no sense because Leatherman and O’Dell were two of the “Republicans” who refused to cast their votes to permit this legislation to move forward (the others were Jakie Knotts and Luke Rankin).

Seriously, where do these Senators get off saying “we didn’t have the votes” when they withheld their votes?

Needless to say, it didn’t take long before Sen. Mick Mulvaney – who authored the amendment – took to the Journal to defend his colleagues.

Here’s Mulvaney’s statement:

We continue to be disturbed by and disappointed with this body’s refusal to give S. 424, “The Sovereignty Resolution,” an up-or-down vote.

We have been repeatedly promised by senior members of our party that they would help to push for a vote. However, that did not happen on Tuesday. Or Wednesday. Or today. At some point the only conclusion we can reach is that those who now seek to lay blame at our doorstep lack the political will themselves to force a vote on what should be an issue that lies at the heart of our shared political philosophy. We find it especially noteworthy that several who now accuse us of obstruction were among those who refused to vote cloture yesterday.

We voted today not to adjourn. We voted to stay, and work. We believe that, perhaps sometimes, doing our jobs requires us to work for more than an hour on Thursday afternoons. And we refuse to sit quietly by while some attempt to portray our vote not to adjourn as obstructionist. The commenters indicate that they had cut a “deal” with the opponents of the Resolution in order to end the filibuster. That proposed “deal” was not shared with many of us. More importantly, if our entire caucus believed in the importance of this Resolution, as we do, there would be no need to cut any “deals.”

Mulvaney’s remarks were echoed by several fiscally-conservative Senators including Lee Bright, Kevin Bryant, Chip Campsen, Tom Davis, Larry Grooms, Shane Massey, Mike Rose, Phil Shoopman and Danny Verdin.

Two Senators who spoke confidentially with FITS following the vote expressed their shock that such a straight-forward piece of legislation was held up by wayward Republicans.

“If the Senate Republicans can’t rally behind this – and behind the voter ID and union check card legislation that’s being held up by filibuster – then you’ve got to wonder what they will stand up for,” one of them told us.

“Maybe they’ll break a filibuster if it’s a cigarette tax hike,” the other quipped.

Sadly, the full-court press by McConnell to spin this vote as a failure on the part of the fiscal conservatives isn’t surprising. In fact, it’s become standard operating procedure for the Senate’s RINO leadership as they stake out an increasingly leftward (and increasingly expensive) course for our state government.

For example, we haven’t forgotten how Majority Leader Peeler tried to spin last year’s total lack of legislative accomplishment on fiscal conservatives, who only have about a dozen reliable votes on their best day. If you forgot, click here for a reminder … and then click here and here for two more peeks behind the curtain of our “Republican-controlled” State Senate.

It’s not a pretty sight, is it?

As for Peeler, we received a call from one of his strongest supporters while we were writing this article. They urged us to give him the benefit of the doubt, arguing that as Majority Leader he has to be responsive to the GOP Caucus as a whole.

Yeah … we’re not buying that.

Back in 2008, Peeler campaigned against fiscal conservatives (spending GOP money to protect RINOs in contested primaries) and in 2009 and 2010 he’s voted against fiscal conservatives on key votes in the Senate. Obviously he’s doing everything he can to make himself look “Republican,” but the proof is in the pudding.

At best, Peeler is like a squirrel stopping and starting while trying to cross the road.

Until he makes up his mind which way he’s going, we’re going to continue to run over him …

Comments