AUDIO: BARNEY FRANK WANTS TO CHANGE THE RULES...AGAIN

The far left looney Democrats are simply too emotionally invested in this health care monstrosity to stop now. The doubling down continues. When it comes to the Super Majority in the senate necessary to overcome a filibuster, Barney wants to do away with it at a time when it's inconvenient for passage of the health care monstrosity.

Barney provides further audacity by invoking the Constitution to support his claim. Uh, Barney, do you really want to go there at this point?



Now for those wondering what Barney's opinion was back in 2005 when Bush's judicial nominees were getting filibustered constantly, I found this excerpt from the Boston Herald on Free Republic although the link to the actual article is dead.

WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who publicly crusaded against Senate filibusters 12 years ago, now says he opposes banning filibusters against judicial nominees - the so-called "nuclear option" fueling a bruising Capitol Hill showdown.

"I would vote against changing the filibuster rule right now,'' Frank (D-Newton) told the Herald in a telephone interview Thursday. Frank explained he still supports an "across-the-board'' ban against all filibusters, but he opposes the Republican "nuclear option'' because it only outlaws filibusters against judicial nominees.

"I object to (a filibuster ban) being used in a very specific instance,'' Frank said. "If they make an improvement going forward, I would maybe look at it differently.''

Frank's comments come as the Senate braces for a showdown vote over President Bush's filibustered judicial picks, a battle that could affect federal justices from the district level all the way to the next Supreme Court nominee.

In 1993, Frank led a public fight to end Senate filibusters, asserting in a Washington Post op-ed piece: "I believe legislative bodies should scrupulously abide by two principles: complete openness and majority rule. The filibuster is a godsend to potential gridlockers.''

Republicans at the time were using filibusters to block President Clinton's agenda in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Today, it is frustrated Democrats in the GOP-run Senate who are using filibuster tactics to block Bush's judicial nominees, whom they consider to be too conservative.

The time-honored Senate practice of the filibuster, whereby lawmakers can block a nominee or a bill by refusing to stop debating, has sparked acrimony on Capitol Hill expected to reach a climax this week. Sixty of 100 Senate votes are required to kill a filibuster.

Republicans, who accuse Democrats of blocking Bush's judge picks for sheer partisan advantage, want a straight up-or-down majority vote on the president's court picks. Their bill would outlaw filibusters against judicial nominees.

Frank scoffed at Republican claims Bush is being unfairly shortchanged on nominees.

The Newton Democrat recalled the nomination of former Bay State Gov. William F. Weld to be ambassador to Mexico. GOP senators blocked a vote on Weld because they questioned his conservative credentials. "Why didn't the Republicans apply the same standard to Bill Weld?'' Frank asked.

Quite obvious that Barney is AGAINST the filibuster when Democrats have a majority but not a super-majority and he's FOR it when Republicans have the majority but not a super-majority. In 2005, the Republicans had a majority of 55 senators. At that time, Barney re-calibrated his position by saying the filibuster should NOT be banned in the case of judicial nominees. So, Barney was for the filibuster after he was against it and before he was against it again. Beautiful.

Let's also not forget that while the Social Security reform initiative Bush attempted was also met with Democrat resistance in the form of a threat to filibuster. Wouldn't you love to know what Barney's view were on that one too?

Video via Breitbart

PELOSI ALREADY DOUBLING DOWN ON OBAMACARE

We all knew it was coming but there's just something about watching it unfold that is still jaw-dropping. Nancy Pelosi couldn't wait 24 minutes let alone 24 hours - after it became apparent that Scott Brown had won - to open her yap about still being determined to ram the health care monstrosity down the throats of Americans.

The Politico reports that as she was leaving her office at 11:30pm, she dug in her heels:

And already Tuesday night, Democrats were being forced to come to terms with the prospect that their decades-long goal of health reform might once again fall short, despite getting closer to becoming law than ever before.

Pelosi insisted Democrats could still make it happen. "We will get the job done. I am confident of that. I have always been confident of that," she told reporters as she left the Capitol at 11:30 p.m.

"Massachusetts has health care and so the rest of the country would like to have that too," Pelosi said, referring to the state’s health care program. "So we don't [think] a state that already has health care should determine whether the rest of the country should."

I don't know what's going on inside that delusional mind of hers but she obviously has no clue how utterly ludicrous she appears to an increasingly overwhelming majority in this country. Arrogance, pride, and indifference all wrapped up inside a botox shell.

As if more irony was necessary in the Massachusetts senate saga. Perhaps Nancy should re-read the cover of her own book, which flopped monumentally, despite her appearing on every forum possible. Remember THIS? Be sure to read the reviews of that awful, awful book.

Spock would think twice before performing a mind meld on this woman.

VIDEO: ERICK ERICKSON OF RED STATE SMACKS DOWN DEMS

There are SO many ironic elements to Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts. Whether it's the fact that the Tea Party movement levied its strongest blow in a state where the original tea party took place or the fact that a special election certainly unforeseen by the Obama administration has sunk the health care monstrosity. Let's not forget WHY there was a special election - Teddy Kennedy. The man who made passing a health care monstrosity his life's work also remained in the senate well after diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Enter Erick Erickson of Red State, who was on a panel at CNN talking about what Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts means for the health care monstrosity.

His argument? If Teddy Kennedy would have resigned when he was diagnosed, the Democrats wouldn't have been in this position. Paul Begala calls it a "low blow".

The truth hurts, doesn't it Paul?



h/t to HotAirPundit