Judd Gregg, today, on using reconciliation for aspects of the health care bill:
If reconciliation is used, it will be a clear signal to Americans that the administration and the Democratic majority are willing to trample the spirit of the Senate in order to pass a highly partisan policy, regardless of the damage it does to the concept of representative government.
Judd Gregg, in 2005, on using reconciliation to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:
"The point, of course, is this: If you have 51 votes for your position, you win," Gregg told his Senate colleagues on the floor.
He added, "Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate (that) has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions... Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so."
It would really be nice if someone from the tradmed would point out this stark hypocrisy other than we dirty hippie bloggers. I mean, it's only the umpteenth time* Gregg has flatly contradicted himself on the use of reconciliation.
But IOKIYAR, so whatever.
UPDATE: * Most recently in mid-January, e.g.:
Senator Judd Gregg, Republican of New Hampshire, said that if Brown were elected, rushing a bill through or using reconciliation to pass it "would be Chicago politics at its worst.''
"You're talking about basically an approach that says we're going to do whatever we want, and because we've got power, independent of what people think or say or how they may vote,'' he said in a telephone interview last night.