# House GOP: we keep voting until we get it right! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [March 31, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526 "2004-03-31T14:44:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/1 "2004-03-31T14:44:18Z")
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.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37354-2004Mar30.html) > [@](#): > > By a near party-line 209 to 209 vote – one vote short of the majority Democrats needed to prevail – the House turned down the Democratic provision urging budget bargainers to reimpose rules requiring that tax cuts or benefit increases be paid for with other budget savings. > > Republican leaders held the voting period open an extra 23 minutes to persuade a handful of Republicans who initially supported the Democratic move to instead vote with their party. Heads they win, tails we lose. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/2 "2004-03-31T15:09:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/3 "2004-03-31T15:12:33Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > Next up from **RT** : “Republicans are evil for putting their pants on one leg at a time!” 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. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/4 "2004-03-31T16:53:41Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/5 "2004-03-31T18:38:12Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > 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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/6 "2004-03-31T19:12:22Z")
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. [http://www.house.gov/rules/RXX.htm](http://www.house.gov/rules/RXX.htm) [http://www.conginst.org/FLOOR/IV.html](http://www.conginst.org/FLOOR/IV.html) ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/7 "2004-03-31T19:26:32Z")
> [@](#): > > John, thanks for supporting the OP point by yet another entirely-predictable use of tu quoque 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. ---
**Author:** ![elpadre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/838e76/32.png) [@elpadre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elpadre)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/8 "2004-03-31T19:31:39Z")
“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. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/9 "2004-03-31T19:50:09Z")
[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. > [@Libertarian](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/10 "2004-03-31T19:56:08Z")
[Fixed link](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,115654,00.html) ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/11 "2004-03-31T20:13:36Z")
> [@SPOOFE](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/12 "2004-03-31T21:08:36Z")
> [@Otto](#): > > [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. 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? ---
**Author:** ![elpadre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/838e76/32.png) [@elpadre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elpadre)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/13 "2004-03-31T21:25:44Z")
“ **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. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/14 "2004-03-31T21:40:42Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > 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? 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!” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/15 "2004-03-31T22:02:11Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/16 "2004-03-31T22:15:03Z")
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. [http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v2n3/connelly.html](http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/onprin/v2n3/connelly.html) ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/17 "2004-03-31T22:31:35Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 11:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/18 "2004-03-31T23:42:09Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > 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! ---
**Author:** ![Governor\_Quinn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/d26b3c/32.png) [@Governor\_Quinn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Governor_Quinn)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2004, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/19 "2004-03-31T23:58:32Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > 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. 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. ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2004, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526/20 "2004-04-01T00:08:20Z")
> [@Libertarian](#): > > So what’s new about this? The part where I said it sucks regardless of which party does it, jackass. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/house-gop-we-keep-voting-until-we-get-it-right/237526.md?page=2)