5 GOP break with party on jobs bill, vote w/Dems

[Riot]

Wow - finally, the Senate may get something done? One of the 5 GOP who voted with the Dems was newly-elected Mass Senator Scott Brown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/us...cs/23jobs.html

[Patrick333]

I certainly don't have any problem with people voting for bills that they believe in. Be they Republicans or Democrats they should vote for what they think is right. For the most part they weren't elected to vote a straight party line.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Patrick333

I certainly don't have any problem with people voting for bills that they believe in. Be they Republicans or Democrats they should vote for what they think is right. For the most part they weren't elected to vote a straight party line.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by Patrick333

I certainly don't have any problem with people voting for bills that they believe in. Be they Republicans or Democrats they should vote for what they think is right. For the most part they weren't elected to vote a straight party line.

Correct. Brown was elected by the independents.

[Danzig]

i think they should get rid of the parties. george washington warned about the 'party first' mentality, and what havoc it could wreak. and he's right on about it.

there should be far more voting across party lines then there is-i've always thought that.

but then again, arguing that obama should get everything he wants because he got over 50% of the vote is absolute hogwash. people voted for him because they thought he was the better candidate, not because they agreed with him 100% on all issues.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think they should get rid of the parties. george washington warned about the 'party first' mentality, and what havoc it could wreak. and he's right on about it.

there should be far more voting across party lines then there is-i've always thought that.

but then again, arguing that obama should get everything he wants because he got over 50% of the vote is absolute hogwash. people voted for him because they thought he was the better candidate, not because they agreed with him 100% on all issues.

That should clear a few things up!

[AeWingnut]

no we just need to get the dems to vote with their constituents instead of with their party

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

no we just need to get the dems to vote with their constituents instead of with their party

the same could be said of the republicans. most voters, just like in massachusetts, consider themselves to be independant. they don't follow the party line, they don't blindly vote. i know a few people vote dem/rep because they always have voted that way. i know others who won't vote, rather than vote across lines. so, it comes down to all of us in the middle. we don't agree with either candidate, so we vote for the one we like better-or dislike less! but on individual bills, we expect to be heard. that's the way it's supposed to be, isn't it? they 'represent' us. they being both parties elected members.

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the same could be said of the republicans. most voters, just like in massachusetts, consider themselves to be independant. they don't follow the party line, they don't blindly vote. i know a few people vote dem/rep because they always have voted that way. i know others who won't vote, rather than vote across lines. so, it comes down to all of us in the middle. we don't agree with either candidate, so we vote for the one we like better-or dislike less! but on individual bills, we expect to be heard. that's the way it's supposed to be, isn't it? they 'represent' us. they being both parties elected members.

one would think so..........

[Riot]

Originally Posted by AeWingnut

no we just need to get the dems to vote with their constituents instead of with their party

Well, if so, we would have had health care last August

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Patrick333

I certainly don't have any problem with people voting for bills that they believe in. Be they Republicans or Democrats they should vote for what they think is right. For the most part they weren't elected to vote a straight party line.

I agree with your post. That's the way it used to work - plenty of room in the middle for people from both parties to find common ground dependent upon the issue.

But unfortunately in the past year, the GOP not only has a straight party line, it's extremely narrow. Never has one so clear a minority party consistently voted as an immovable block in the US Senate. It's better in the House. But the Senate has completely blocked nearly all House bills, due simply to adherence to voting not to vote on anything!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

I agree with your post. That's the way it used to work - plenty of room in the middle for people from both parties to find common ground dependent upon the issue.

But unfortunately in the past year, the GOP not only has a straight party line, it's extremely narrow. Never has one so clear a minority party consistently voted as an immovable block in the US Senate. It's better in the House. But the Senate has completely blocked nearly all House bills, due simply to adherence to voting not to vote on anything!

bull

why do you continue to treat this as a new behavior? it's the same old, same old that's been going on for years. are you that determined to paint this as a new thing, solely due to who the current president is?

[ArlJim78]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, if so, we would have had health care last August

why should we have had healthcare last August, when Obama only published his half-assed "plan" yesterday? It doesn't even contain enough specifics for the CBO to score.

[randallscott35]

Independents will rise to the top.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

bull

why do you continue to treat this as a new behavior? it's the same old, same old that's been going on for years. are you that determined to paint this as a new thing, solely due to who the current president is?

I'm not painting it as "new" behaviour, I'm saying it's the worse ever.

You say that's bull? Nonsense. It's not bull, look at the numbers for cloture votes - this last session has been the worse, ever. There's no disputing that.

Edit: And here's those numbers for you, in a graph: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...the-senate.php

[Riot]

Originally Posted by ArlJim78

why should we have had healthcare last August, when Obama only published his half-assed "plan" yesterday? It doesn't even contain enough specifics for the CBO to score.

I guess you haven't been following what's happened, and what has been trying to work through the House and Senate, and public polling from early last summer, since this President was elected.

[Riot]

Let's try copying this image, and see if it works:

[timmgirvan]

Originally Posted by Riot

Let's try copying this image, and see if it works:

all this graph demonstrates is that Dems, even if they are the majority, can't get it together!

[Danzig]

more in total for all three categories. you might want to figure percentages, which tells the tale better than overall numbers. for instance, in the 97th congress, when republicans took over-look at motions, look at votes on cloture-virtually even. about 40 of each, compared to now with over 100 more motions than then, but about 80 more votes on cloture. number wise, both are higher-but percentage of cloture to motions isn't the same.
look at when republicans again took control, motions are similar to the last democrat controlled, 95-96. motions similar to 94, but look at the grey and yellow bars. especially for 2000-'02.

not a very good graph tho, it doesn't say which side filed the motions.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

more in total for all three categories. you might want to figure percentages, which tells the tale better than overall numbers. for instance, in the 97th congress, when republicans took over-look at motions, look at votes on cloture-virtually even. about 40 of each, compared to now with over 100 more motions than then, but about 80 more votes on cloture. number wise, both are higher-but percentage of cloture to motions isn't the same.
look at when republicans again took control, motions are similar to the last democrat controlled, 95-96. motions similar to 94, but look at the grey and yellow bars. especially for 2000-'02.

not a very good graph tho, it doesn't say which side filed the motions.

'Zig, I love ya, but the party in control doesn't fillibuster itself <g>

You make a nice attempt at spin, above, with the "percentages" thing, but that doesn't stand.

It's crystal clear who are filing the fillibuster motions that block everything and grind everything to a complete halt (dark gold line) - it's higher than it's ever been right now, and it's the GOP.

The actual votes the GOP has made this past year (No versus Yes votes), and the number of bills approved by the House but languishing unvoted upon due to Republican blockage not allowing those bills to even come for a vote in the Senate, is on the .gov website. *** and I just found that number, it's 290. 290 bills sent from the House to the Senate for action, and nothing. has. been. done. because the GOP votes to fillibuster and refuse to act upon virtually every damn thing.

Note:
The gold line indicates fillibusters by the opposition party. You don't have to stand on the floor and physically fillibuster now, you just have to "file the motion" with intent. That essentially starts a fillibuster for all intents and purposes. That means everything grinds to a halt, as if some Senator was standing on the floor reading the telephone book.

The "cloture vote" is someone calling for a vote to vote upon closure of the fillibuster, and a vote is taken to close the fillibuster or not. And "cloture invoked" means that the votes were enough in favor to stop the fillibuster. At this point, the Senate continues on with business.