Ignorant Vice Presidential Candidate- a Republican Tradition
Dan Quayle (remember him?) on Fox news, transcribed by Talking Points Memo, where you can see the video if you'd like:
"They're gonna go to budget reconciliation, which I believe would set a very bad precedent, because essentially -- if they could do it, and I don't know if they can do it, but if they could do it -- what you have done, effectively, is to take away the filibuster in the United States Senate," Quayle said. "So, therefore, you have 51 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. That is not the constitutional process."
How do I lie to you? Let me count the ways:
1. "That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind."
From an recent article in Time Magazine (this information is easily confirmable lots of places:)
"The filibuster, long seen by its proponents as a necessary check on power and by its critics as a frustrating waste of time, has been around since the mid-19th century...The word comes from the Dutch term vrijbuiter (pirate)... Originally, both the Senate and the House of Representatives had a rule called the Previous Question Motion, where a simple majority ended debate — a rule the House has kept. But the Senate dropped this provision in 1806, leaving open the potential for a filibuster. (Read "Revisiting the Filibuster.")
The first filibuster in U.S. Senate history began on March 5, 1841"
Founding fathers? not so much. They were all dead by 1841.
2. "So, therefore, you have 51 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate."
51 votes in the House. Dan, you stupid dick, you were in the House of Representatives, and you apparently never even noticed how many seats there are in the room.
3. "...51 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. That is not the constitutional process."
Dan, you never noticed, when you were a congressman, that the House of Representatives doesn't have the filibuster? No, I guess not.
4. " 51 votes in the Senate. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind."
No, of course not, Dan. They didn't want majority rule. No way. What they wanted was that a few Senators in the pay of gigantic corporations could bring the Senate to a grinding halt, and prevent the government from doing anything to deal with our problems.
Well, I feel called upon to set the record straight. When I used the word 'lie' up there, I guess what I really meant was that this ignorant cracker was in Congress and doesn't have a clue what its rules are or what their history is. And yet some malicious Republican presidential candidate decided that this guy was suitable to be one step away from the Oval Office.
Thank God no presidential candidate would be that stupid again, huh?
"They're gonna go to budget reconciliation, which I believe would set a very bad precedent, because essentially -- if they could do it, and I don't know if they can do it, but if they could do it -- what you have done, effectively, is to take away the filibuster in the United States Senate," Quayle said. "So, therefore, you have 51 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. That is not the constitutional process."
How do I lie to you? Let me count the ways:
1. "That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind."
From an recent article in Time Magazine (this information is easily confirmable lots of places:)
"The filibuster, long seen by its proponents as a necessary check on power and by its critics as a frustrating waste of time, has been around since the mid-19th century...The word comes from the Dutch term vrijbuiter (pirate)... Originally, both the Senate and the House of Representatives had a rule called the Previous Question Motion, where a simple majority ended debate — a rule the House has kept. But the Senate dropped this provision in 1806, leaving open the potential for a filibuster. (Read "Revisiting the Filibuster.")
The first filibuster in U.S. Senate history began on March 5, 1841"
Founding fathers? not so much. They were all dead by 1841.
2. "So, therefore, you have 51 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate."
51 votes in the House. Dan, you stupid dick, you were in the House of Representatives, and you apparently never even noticed how many seats there are in the room.
3. "...51 votes in the House and 51 votes in the Senate. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind. That is not the constitutional process."
Dan, you never noticed, when you were a congressman, that the House of Representatives doesn't have the filibuster? No, I guess not.
4. " 51 votes in the Senate. That is not what our Founding Fathers had in mind."
No, of course not, Dan. They didn't want majority rule. No way. What they wanted was that a few Senators in the pay of gigantic corporations could bring the Senate to a grinding halt, and prevent the government from doing anything to deal with our problems.
Well, I feel called upon to set the record straight. When I used the word 'lie' up there, I guess what I really meant was that this ignorant cracker was in Congress and doesn't have a clue what its rules are or what their history is. And yet some malicious Republican presidential candidate decided that this guy was suitable to be one step away from the Oval Office.
Thank God no presidential candidate would be that stupid again, huh?
Comments
Perhaps the great American quest to learn the true spelling of "potato" will continue.
zero.