Also, Republican and Reconciliation Start With the Same Letter!

UPDATE:  Man, I gotta lurn how to count.

http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/29138.html.

McArdle.  Someone that BM Matt listens too ought to point out this post and then ask him if he regrets not spitting in her face.  Extra special bonus points to James Joyner who did the original heavy lifting on this EPIC FAIL of anal-izing.  Super double-score multi-ball face-spitting regrets for BM Matt, since it was one of his posts that set the ball rolling - although in Matt's defense (I can't believe I'm doing that again) he managed to read the graphic and/or accompanying description.

D.A.'s point about 8/15ths being "almost every act" is just the tip of the iceberg.  Sure, based on that standard, using reconciliation is just a method of enacting legislation that "almost every" Senator is going to vote for anyways.  But the awesome deadly part is that these idiots are basing their smug "Dummy-craps are dummies" on evidence that totally refutes their point.

So anyways, keep in mind that we're talking about work where the final conclusion is:

The history is clear: While the use of reconciliation in this case — amending a bill that has already passed the Senate via cloture — is new, it is compatible with the law, Senate rules and the framers’ intent.

Anyways, here's Joyner moving on from his "almost every act" bullshit:

The argument that Republicans were more likely to use the process than Democrats is meaningless, simply reflecting the fact that Republicans have dominated the Senate over the period in question.

Really JJ?  Really?  To borrow a phrase Sadly, No!  From 1980 to 2007 there have been 12 15 sessions of Congress with six Dem majority Senates and six eight GOP majority senates (UPDATE: the 107th is the Jim Jeffords Session).  Talk about domination!  If they could have squeezed in one extra year of control, the Republicans would have had the Senate for "almost every year for the period in question".

Anyways, let's get back to the point - just how unprecedented is this reconciliation attempt?

As it turns out, not at all.  Here's Joyner again:

The two outliers: The 1996 welfare reform act and the 2007 student aid package. Why those were passed under reconciliation isn’t made clear.

IOW, other than the two other times it happened, including the most recent application - totally unprecedented.  Never before, except for those two times.  Nope.  But, let's pretend that those don't count, I mean it's only fair that he be allowed to totally ignore at least some facts before trying to make an argument.

Okay, let's ignore that Joyner has already proven himself fundamentally wrong on this.  Next he says that it's only been used for that purpose 7 times since 1980.  Well, that may be 7 more times than he's said anything correct in his post, but it aint' really "rare".  For example, the Yankees have only made it to the World Series 7 times in that time frame, so that's also "rare", right?  Nevermind the point that these cases only represent times when the threat of reconciliation hasn't made the minority shift it's position - nor the times when shitbag Senators switch to supporting actions they wanted to filibuster.  Regardless, let's use his bullshit metric and consider just those seven occasions.  If you look at the NYT graphic, it lists out what the policy effects of the reconcilliation bill are laid in a column titled "Policy".  Now I know that these jerkwads want to ignore policy, but let's just take a glance and see how omany of those seven occassions were related to health care... it's four.  4/7.  ALMOST EVERY TIME !!!!111one!

I'd say that this type of garbage, this level of incredible stupidity is unprecedented but:
1.  I know what unprecedented means
2.  I've read McArdle before.