> On big critical issues, they might pull out all
> stops.
-Approval of the new Bankruptcy Act?
The majority of Democratic Senators voted against it, and not a single GOPer joined them.
Far too many voted for it of course, but this vote actually illustrates why party control matters. We've been talking about this bill for I believe six years, and everyone said, look the Dem leadership will push it through. And as long as they controlled the chamber, the bill never passed. Only when the GOP got a convincing majority did it go through, and once it was going through, some Dems decide to collect their checks from MBNA.
But as I argued for years -- as long as the Dems controlled or nearly controlled the Senate, the bill was dead. Folks love to point to individual votes, but the issue should be overall results. And the bankruptcy bill is a perfect example that party control mattered tremendously.
>Renewal of the Patrtiot Act sans sunset provisions?
Over 75% of Democrats voted against reauthorization, supplying almost all of the 171 votes in the House against it.
>Authorization for the Iraq war? Oops, the Dems approved all that.
No, two-thirds of Democrats voted AGAINST authorization of the Iraq War in the House. Pelosi led the campaign against authorization of the war.
Given
> that Roberts will get confirmed no matter what,
> nuclear option if needed,
> why waste the ammo?
-There was this thing called the fillibuster . . . . .
There's also this thing called the nuclear option.
-- Nathan Newman