Check out some similar questions!

excon · Nov 9, 2009, 06:40 AM

Hello:

Let's say you were a senator. Your party is on the verge of passing VERY SIGNIFICANT legislation. YOU, however, oppose it, and YOU, all by yourself, can STOP it in its tracks. I don't mean simply that you would VOTE against it. I mean that the rules of the senate give you the power to STOP it.

Would you? Why?

excon

PS> Ok, I'll tell you what I think. Even though I opposed the bill, I would NOT be so arrogant as to think that I am smarter than my ENTIRE party, and I would acquiesce.

inthebox · Nov 9, 2009, 06:51 AM

Dem Stupak of Mich and a # of dems have insisted on an amendment against federal funding of abortion. Rep Cao of LA actually voted for the Pelosi bill. I think a congressperson has to be able to think for themselves, explain it, and vote for their constituents. Cao represents very poor predominantly dems in his district so I can why he voted thecway he did

NeedKarma · Nov 9, 2009, 06:54 AM

I object!

excon · Nov 9, 2009, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by inthebox

I think a congressperson has to be able to think for themselves, explain it, and vote for their constituents.

Hello again, in:

Thanks.

Let's say you're a senator, not from AMHD, but from Connecticut and Connecticut happens to be the home state for LOTS of insurance companies. As I asked in another question, are THEY your constituents, or the voters?

excon

tomder55 · Nov 9, 2009, 07:31 AM

The party of the big tent Dems drummed Joe out last election cycle because he held different postions on national security than the extreme wing of the party that now represents the majority.. That is why he is an independent.
Despite that; the people of Connecticut sent him to the Senate anyway.. to represent them... not his party.

I just love this... McCain was a maverick on a lot of issues and he was touted as such and was loved by the left for standing up to his party. But when Joe L . Breaks ranks he's a traitor to the party .

excon · Nov 9, 2009, 07:39 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

the people of Connecticut sent him to the Senate anyway ..to represent them ....not his party.

Hello again, tom and in:

I ask again who he represents, the people or the insurance companies? I suggest the PEOPLE want the bill, but the INSURANCE INDUSTRY doesn't. Am I wrong?

excon

tomder55 · Nov 9, 2009, 07:45 AM

If they object to his vote they will express it in the next election .

Edit
You aren't saying that he should vote based on polling results or sticking his fingers in the wind... are you ?

NeedKarma · Nov 9, 2009, 07:50 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

you aren't saying that he should vote based on polling results or sticking his fingers in the wind ... are you ?

Are you suggesting that he should vote for whoever gives him the most money?

excon · Nov 9, 2009, 07:55 AM

Hello again, tom:

Let me see if I can ask you another way. Let's say there's a war that needs to be fought. Let's say that there's ONE Republican Senator who can STOP IT COLD.

You apparently, think he SHOULD, and cast his fate to the voters...

But, in truth, you wouldn't think that, would you? I KNOW the word you'd use to describe him, and it begins with T!

Come on, tom. You can tell me.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 9, 2009, 07:56 AM

NK
Putting words in my mouth again ? In a Representative system the legislator should support legislation that the legislator believes is in the best interest of the legislator's constituency . The people of Connecticut has sent Lieberman to the Senate since 1988. That means that he has a long track record of representing THE PEOPLE of Connecticut. He was also within a couple of electoral votes of being the Vice President.

If he is wrong ,then the people of Connecticut will not send him back in 2012.

tomder55 · Nov 9, 2009, 08:00 AM

Hello again, tom:

Let me see if I can ask you another way. Let's say there's a war that needs to happen. Let's say that there's ONE Republican Senator who can STOP IT COLD.

You apparently, think he SHOULD, and cast his fate to the voters...

But, in truth, you wouldn't think that, would you? I KNOW the word you'd use to describe him, and it begins with T!

Come on, tom. You can tell me.

Excon

I have no doubt the extreme wing of the Democrats already call him a traitor . And ,I'm sure they will do their best to oppose his reelection campaign if he chooses to run again in 2012.
His position is not all that unique . Are you arguing for PURITY in the Democrat's ranks ? I think you are. Will you be calling for other Democrat's ouster like Ben Nelson if he in turn opposes the public option ?

Edit by the way . I don't use the word traitor lightly . If I use it at all it is in issues related to giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies of the country.

excon · Nov 9, 2009, 08:06 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

Will you be calling for other Democrat's ouster like Ben Nelson if he in turn opposes the public option ?

Hello again, tom:

First off, I notice that you avoided my question. I thought you would..

But, let's be crystal clear here. And, of course, I thought I was, when I distinguished VOTING for, or against the bill, as opposed to STOPPING the bill altogether. Was that distinction lost on you? Or are you avoiding that too?

excon

tomder55 · Nov 9, 2009, 08:11 AM

I have no doubt that Harry Reid et al will punish Joe if he blocks the bill from moving out of committee. Lieberman will probably be stripped of Seniority .That no doubt will weigh on Lieberman's decision.

Either way ; there are not enough cloture votes to prevent a fillibuster regardless of Lieberman's move. The Democrat's who will face the wrath of their constituencies will do the same thing the 39 Democrats in the House did.

Then perhaps Joe will make the same plunge that Arlene Spectacle did.

excon · Nov 9, 2009, 08:17 AM

Originally Posted by tomder55

edit btw . I don't use the word traitor lightly . If I use it at all it is in issues related to giving aid and comfort to foreign enemies of the country.

Hello again, tom:

You're getting close to being candid... Congratulations for that... But, let's take the final step..

From the above, I WILL assume that if ONE Republican STOPPED you from fighting a war that needed to be fought, just like Joe Lieberman can STOP the health care bill ENTIRELY, you WOULD label that Republican a traitor.

Like I said. It's just us.

excon

ETWolverine · Nov 9, 2009, 08:25 AM

Simply put, I would vote my conscience and not the party line. As it so happens, my conscience with regards to health care is the same as my party line... no issue there.

My party voted in favor of Bush's original TARP bill... I would have voted against it. My party voted in favor of the auto bailouts. I would have voted against it.

I can give numerous examples of where I would have voted against the party line.

I am a Conservative first and a Republican a very distant second. That's how I would vote.

Elliot

tomder55 · Nov 9, 2009, 08:29 AM

From the above, I WILL assume that if ONE Republican STOPPED you from fighting a war that needed to be fought, just like Joe Lieberman can STOP the health care bill ENTIRELY, you WOULD label that Republican a traitor.

Nope that's a bridge too far... I would only call the above Senator a traitor if he then travelled to the enemies nation to strategize with them... or let's say that Senator was once in the armed services and then strategized with the enemy while peace talks were in progress.

The Senator you mention I would oppose at the ballot box. Nor would I compare that Senator's actions to that of a Senator who is blocking a domestic agenda. Apples and Oranges here.

excon · Nov 9, 2009, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by excon

But, let's be crystal clear here. And, of course, I thought I was, when I distinguished VOTING for, or against the bill, as opposed to STOPPING the bill altogether. Was that distinction lost on you? Or are you avoiding that too?

Hello again, Elliot:

Did you NOT read the above? Do you NOT understand the distinction I'm making? Do you NOT get that VOTING for or against the bill, is NOT the same as voting with the Republicans to PREVENT an up or down vote on the bill?

How many times do I need to discuss that part?? Or, maybe it's just not going to sink in no matter how much I try to educate you. Oh, well. I'm trying.

excon

tomder55 · Nov 11, 2009, 12:48 PM

As predicted, Sen Ben Nelson has also threatened to block the Senate version of the bill .
Subway Series: Senator Ben Nelson on Abortion Amendment in Health Care Bill - ABC News

When the Dems start purging the "moderates" like Nelson and like they have already attempted with Lieberman will you accuse them of ideological purity ?

excon · Nov 11, 2009, 03:09 PM

Hello again, tom:

It gets old, but I suppose I must again make myself clear...

We're not talking about somebody voting their conscience. Voting their conscience is what a representative is SUPPOSED to do.

But, this ISN'T about voting their conscience. Nope. It's about voting with the Republicans to BLOCK their party from even having an up or down vote. You DO understand the mechanics, do you not?

Ok, maybe you DON'T understand the mechanics of the Senate. It takes 60 votes to bring the bill to the floor of the senate for a vote. ONE Democrat can STOP the bill from ever getting to the floor. Let me say that again. ONE Democrat can STOP the bill from ever getting an up or down vote. Lieberman and/or Nelson COULD allow the bill to get to the floor where they COULD vote their conscience. But, no. They want to prevent ALL the other 59 Democratic Senators from getting a bill they want.

Do I need to go over it again?

So, if Lieberman and/or Nelson get thrown out of the party, it's not because of their conservatism. It's because of their treachery towards their party.

I'll say again, if I need to.

excon

speechlesstx · Nov 11, 2009, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by excon

But, this ISN'T about voting your conscience. Nope. It's about voting with the Republicans to BLOCK your party from even having an up or down vote. You DO understand the mechanics, do you not?

I understand the mechanics, but either way if one of those Democrats blocks the vote they are still exercising their conscience. Tom has a valid point though, and the purge is in the works already.

Democrats who thought a vote against the sweeping health care package would inoculate them from political attack are facing serious blowback from angry constituents and interest groups on the left — fierce opposition that could prove as consequential as anything Republicans could have thrown at them.

For some of the 39 House Democrats who opposed the bill, there are protests outside their offices and promises of retribution. For others, there are attempts to shut off their campaign money spigot. Still more are about to get drilled in a television ad campaign paid for by Democratic donors.

What they’ve all discovered is that there’s no safe harbor when it comes to the $1.2 trillion measure that the House passed Saturday.

Darcy Burner, executive director of the American Progressive Caucus Policy Foundation, said the anger over the vote was a natural outgrowth of the value liberals have placed on the health care push.

“I think, for the most part, the Democrats who voted ‘no’ on the health bill and who are getting heat deserve it,” said Burner.

Is this going to get the same play and attention as the alleged GOP purge in the last election, or is ideological purity a good thing on the other side of the aisle?