Not helping the people of her state so that she can participate in the roadblocking of progress and empower conservative Republicans hardly seems like that would help the people who elected her.
Yes, I know that, but something like 97% of the time they get the 60 votes to start the debate, the bill itself goes on to passage.
You don’t really think conservatives have a realistic chance to derail this, do you? We are making the finest grade of sausage here, but it is still sausage, and deals will be made. Even some Republicans will see the light, and get something for their states in the process. Thus it has always been; why are you suddenly shocked to see deals being made? Where were you when Republicans were the ones doling out favors to get tax cuts passed or banking regulations overturned?
Your whining is transparently hypocritical.
Is this vote that’s currently big news just for the senate’s health care bill? So that after that, the house and senate will have to patch together a new bill and vote on that? Do I have this ridiculously convoluted process correct?
Well, AFAIK, Sen. Lincoln hasn’t yet committed to voting yes this evening, at least she hasn’t publically. If Reid doesn’t get 60 votes, then it’s over, at least for now. And that wouldn’t be EVIL CONSERVATIVES derailing things, but a Moderate Democrat.
Hope Springs Eternal!
Not quite. This vote is to allow debate on the Senate health care bill.
OK, so let me get this straight: You’re upset that a politician is looking out for the best interests of her constituents? That’s her job! The way I see it, it’d be a scandal if she didn’t do this.
This kind of dealing is an inherent part of our system, designed into the very fabric of the Constitution. If the Founding Fathers didn’t want senators looking out for the interests of their specific states, they would have made them all be elected at large, not from the states separately. Opposing this is opposing the very way the Constitution was set up.
Actually the current vote is to open debate, so that they can vote on a bunch of amendments that are offered despite everyone knowing they won’t pass so that they can later vote to close debate so that they can then vote to pass the bill to the conference committee so that they can vote on the actual bill. Err, there might be a set of votes to open and close debate after the conference committee as well, I’m not sure.
Moral of story: having to buy votes from senators to get things passed is hardly the only inefficency in the system. Indeed, if it wasn’t done, the gov’t probably wouldn’t work at all.
I seriously doubt the current state of “let’s bribe everyone off to pass a bill” was the intended working system of government envisioned by the writers of the constitution. They had some words to say about the idea of the public robbing the public treasury. And I always find it silly to use constitutional arguments when debating the merits of the method of passing an unconstitutional law.
These sorts of issues are a serious flaw in our system of government and they should not be excused or even glorified as correct just because they’re going to serve a cause you think is worthy.
They have to vote on whether or not to debate about something? Shouldn’t such a thing just be a given? Did they first debate about the vote to debate? My head hurts. :smack:
Vote trading - Wikipedia It is as old as the country. It is in theory a way for a person on the wrong side of a vote to get some kind of concessions or a deal to help local constituents.
How different is it from the repubs watering down the health care bill when they know we have to fix it. It has to be removed as a cost of doing business if we wish to compete on the world market. They get concessions and can tell their voters they won.
Because I’m sick of seeing people apologize for, justify, and even praise a corrupt process when it ultimately supports ends that it supports and then raging against it if it’s for something they don’t. If this woman believes that health care reform is the best thing for the country, then she is being an asshole by waffling on the issue and demanding a bribe and slowing the process up and emboldening her opposition. If she doesn’t, then she shouldn’t vote for it even with a bribe.
This is how congress works, I don’t see what the surprise is.
If someone votes the way you want you offer goodies to their district, and whatever issues or bills they take seriously or write (mental health parity, CAFE standards, humanitarian aid, etc) you give more precedence on votes. You also agree to help fundraise and raise awareness during reelection and you offer them good jobs after they get out of office (Krugman calls it ‘wingnut welfare’ when the GOP does it. Vote the way the GOP and corporations want you to and get a cushy job after you retire from congress or are voted out).
If the do not vote the way you want you deny them funds and help during their reelection and channel that into primary opponents from the right or left instead. And you take away their chairmanships and authority in congress (there was talk of trying this on Lieberman and Baucus. And I think this threat was used on Specter when the GOP was in charge). Plus you deprive them of good jobs after they leave office.
It is my understanding that the GOP and corporate world has a revolving door system of congress and high paying lobbying jobs. If you vote the ways the GOP and corporations want you to, you get a 6 or 7 figure job after you leave congress. If you do not, you end up like Max Cleland or Mike Gravel. Neither of them was punished by the dem party (as far as I know) but both went through serious personal and financial traumas after losing their elections. Whereas congresspeople who vote with the party end up getting cushy jobs. Billy Tozen or Santorum got good jobs instead.
That isn’t even including outright bribes and blackmail like Sibel Edmonds say are used (cash bribes, sexual blackmail)
Its bribery and intimidation. But it works and I wish the dems would use it more strongly instead of only letting the GOP and corporations use it.
Maybe some people should start looking for another job now. They probably can’t get another one where they can ruin the lives of poor people by denying them coverage, but hey beggers can’t be choosers.
By my definition, it is only a bribe if it benefits the person getting it. If they payed her money personally, then I could see a problem.
Anyways, what one person calls a bribe, another calls just compensation. The decision is which is more important, getting money to help the Katrina victims’ medical bills, or making sure the government isn’t involved with the entire state of Louisiana’s health care. As the elected representative of that state, Landrieu gets to decide.
It does help her personally because she will have an easier time during reelections because she has a stronger platform to run on (I brought $100 million in funds to LA Katrina victims).
Sen. Lincoln just folded like a house of cards. 
The 800 lb gorilla fetus in the room. The Pubbies are going to exploit anything at hand to kill this thing, if they could come up with a justification, however irrational, that this might somehow impact the right to keep and bear arms, they would. They’ve already dragged in illegal immigration, euthanasia, anything they can get their hands upon.
In Louisiana, they are going to make abortion the issue, and they will scream about it until they are too hoarse to speak, then they will “sign” about it with very large gestures. Of course this bill is all about free abortions for your teenage daughter, everybody knows that all this other “health care” stuff is just cover for their real agenda! And if Mary L. votes in favor of any of this, she’s all about funding abortion vans to ride through neighborhoods like ice cream trucks…
Covering her ass. Oh, there’s something to see here. But there’s nothing new to see here.
And for those of us who tear their hair and moan about the stupidity and inefficiency of democratic institutions…well, yeah. If you are unshakably devoted to democracy (as I am), you take that as a given. Would you rather be governed by a vast pool of people no smarter than yourself, or by a smaller, elite group that may well be smarter and more efficient, but don’t much care about you. Democracy isn’t “better”, it isn’t more efficient, it isn’t more sensible, it is only more just.
And that’s all you get, and you have to fight for it every step of the way.
So like I said, I don’ t really mind the horse trading to get the bill passed. One person’s “bribe” is anothers “compromise”.
But as a practical matter, why do Landrieu and Lincoln wait till the last minute to support the bill like this? Assuming they think its a liability to their re-election chances, why not just get your pork added early, announce your supporting the bill a week ago, and then stay quite. If they’re in the news as one of sixty dems who voted for the health bill, then while it probably hurts them a little, they don’t stand out very much from their peers, and in all likelyhood, a sizable chunk of their electorate won’t even hear about it.
Waiting causes the news to report that the bill lives or dies based on their votes, which makes it easy to attach their names to the bill and make them personally responsible for it, as opposed to just one of sixty people who chose to vote for it.
Well sure, if they were passing an unconstitutional law, like say the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, then things would be different. But I don’t see what that has to do with the current situation.