As you folks no doubt remember, last fall the House GOP was losing a vote on the Medicare drug benefit plan. So they kept the voting open for over three hours, until they twisted some arms (and perhaps used even more unsavory tactics) and came out ahead. Once they were ahead, the vote was suddenly final.
Looks like they’ve done it again.
Heads they win, tails we lose.
Next up from RT: “Republicans are evil for putting their pants on one leg at a time!”
I mean, come on. Are you trying to state that when Democrats controlled the House and/or Senate, they never played with the procedural rules in order to get the results they wanted? Are you that naive? No, you’re just that partisan.
Well of course its evil when we do it, we’ve got to be careful not to get the blood of the minorities we oppress on our suit pants.
John, thanks for supporting the OP point by yet another entirely-predictable use of *tu quoque * (with a side order of claiming the *other * guy is the partisan). That’s what you guys’ claim to morality consists of anymore; have you noticed? Do you really *like * being laughed at for such decembrism?
Now, since you take so much pride in your knowledge of history that you feel justified in mocking others for theirs, how about some of them cite thingies for comparison? Or at least a cogent explanation of what kind of “core principle” the party that you still waste your reflexive loyalty on is demonstrating in this instance?
Putting on elucidator’s nonpartisan hat for a second, I’m curious – have the Dems used a similar “extend the voting period until we get ahead” tactic in Congress in the past?
I’m sure that both parties have gamed the rules, I’m just curious if a Democratic-controlled House or Senate actually used this particular gambit before.
I don’t think anyone bent any rule. The rule is that the vote must be a minimum of 15 minutes, but the time may be extended at the discretion of the chair.
It’s only a tu quoque fallacy if he’s claiming it excuses it. John’s pointing out that the OP must be either naive or very partisan in order to be surprised/amazed/offended by the behavior.
“John, thanks for supporting the OP point by yet another entirely-predictable use of *tu quoque * (with a side order of claiming the *other * guy is the partisan).”
BullCaca. Both parties make use of parliamentary tricks.
[url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115654,00.html]Cite for those who don’t want to register through the OP’s link.
Oh come now, do you honestly believe that it’s anything like standard practice, when extending the time, to extend it by twenty-three minutes? Twenty or twenty-five I would buy as an extension, but twenty-three? Does anyone actually believe the Chair decided before extending voting time that he would extend it by twenty-three minutes, no more, no less? Bullshit. The Chair held the vote open long enough to get to a tie, defeating the question, and closed the vote.
Rule broken? Perhaps not. Rule manipulated? Absolutely, and it sucks regardless of the party pulling it.
If that isn’t “excusing” it, what is?
OP’s don’t form in a vacuum. The clear subtext is the GOP claim, sometimes implied and sometimes overt, to represent superior morality - “restore honor and dignity” and all that. The OP helps put that, and those who still claim it, in stark outline. John’s response not only confirms that basic amorality, but shows that the only response left to them when it is demonstrated is to claim that the other guys are “just as bad” - even when they don’t have facts available from which to derive that claim. You don’t have to call that *tu quoque * if you don’t want to, but what do you call it then? Nothing better, right?
elpadre, you too can take up the request for comparable cites if you like.
Would you say that thirteen is as bad as twenty-three? Thirteen minutes? That’s not an even number either, but its the number of minutes that democrat speaker Tom Foley extended the voting time in April, 1993, after he got two votes switched on a spending bill. Manipulation of parliamentary procedure has gone on for a long time. In 1989, Jim Wright, another democrat, extended voting time when it appeared that his bill would lose by one vote. He used the time to talk a Texas colleague into changing his vote, and thereby changed the outcome. So what’s new about this?
“elpadre, you too can take up the request for comparable cites if you like”
I believe that’s just been done. From here, it looks like you’re drowning in a big pool of BullCaca.
But if the charge applies to both parties- as Libertarian just proved- then complaining about the process while only noting it as a “republican practice” is inherently incorrect, and gives the impression that the republicans are doing something that, by omission, the democrats would never do.
And I’d be careful about claims of morality when the platform you’re standing on is, “Now that the Republicans are in power, they’re doing to us what we did to them! No fair!”
Well, I agree with Otto: it’s a sleazy tactic no matter which side uses it. (I was unaware of Jim Wright and Tom Foley having used this one.)
Feel free to call me naive and idealistic, John. I’ve got this weird notion that fair play is good for both sides, not to mention for the country as a whole. Such procedural tricks are, more often than not, used to frustrate the will of the people, rather than enact it into law.
In fairness to RT, though, he’s not the first crybaby. It’s been complained about for a long time. I got my two examples from a 1994 rant by a couple of whining Republicans.
It’s interesting that Lib’s cites are for instances that happened twice from 11 to 15 years ago. Yet the OP refers to two instances in less than a year’s time.
Yes…I do see a trend here. If the pubbies retain control, get used to it.
The house leaders even use it against their own.
Show our own soldiers no quarter!
Seeing as how the Dems haven’t had controll of the House since before the 1994 elections, it’s not likely that he’s going to find a more recent example.
The part where I said it sucks regardless of which party does it, jackass.