VOICE VOTE!!!?!!?! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Kadath · 11-05-2003, 07:19 AM

The Senate approved the $87 billion aid package. By a voice vote. The vote went FIVE TO ONE. NINETY-FOUR ABSTENTIONS. Not addressed on CNN.com, or foxnews.com, or msnbc.com. The Daily Show has more in-depth reporting than major news outlets?!
I understand that voice votes happen a lot, the purposes they serve, etc. In this case, the purpose was to allow U.S. Senators to save face. Great. Fucking great.

cchris · 11-05-2003, 07:24 AM

Speak up or be never heard.

Ustwo · 11-05-2003, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
I understand that voice votes happen a lot, the purposes they serve, etc. In this case, the purpose was to allow U.S. Senators to save face. Great. Fucking great.

Assuming that the Daily show wasn't just making a joke, several promenent democrats said they would support it. I don't see why this upsets you so much.

captain · 11-05-2003, 08:05 AM

There is no way that theDaily Show could know how many abstentions--by definition there are no abstentions on a voice vote

Voice votes are a method for polititions to claim both sides of the issue.

Any Senator could have called for the 'Yeas and Nays' and had them recorded. It is called Wimping Out.

onetime2 · 11-05-2003, 08:30 AM

Umm doesn't anyone see the attempt at humor here? 97 abstentions out of 100 votes? 5 to 1 margin?

Redlemon · 11-05-2003, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by captain
There is no way that theDaily Show could know how many abstentions--by definition there are no abstentions on a voice vote

I heard the 6 total votes thing on NPR All Things Considered last night.

Kadath · 11-05-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Assuming that the Daily show wasn't just making a joke, several promenent democrats said they would support it. I don't see why this upsets you so much.

I hoped you would say something this, I hoped against hope that you would fall perfectly into line and assume I was being partisan. I don't care who voted for it or against it. My opinion on the money doesn't enter into it. I care who didn't show up to vote. I care who furthered his or her political career by not using the power their office affords them. On a minor issue, I have no problem with abstentions. I don't expect my two senators to show up to every vote. I'm realistic. But 87 billion dollars is not something you let slide by. I want to know how my two guys feel on this.

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Umm doesn't anyone see the attempt at humor here? 97 abstentions out of 100 votes? 5 to 1 margin?

You're..uh..what are you talking about?

Ustwo · 11-05-2003, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
I hoped you would say something this, I hoped against hope that you would fall perfectly into line and assume I was being partisan.

I live but to serve.

Kadath · 11-05-2003, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
I live but to serve.

Yeah, I came on a little strong there. I apologize. I was swept up in the post-back-to-back-West-Wing-viewing euphoria that siezes me around 1 PM the days when I work from home. Assuming you can forgive me, would it be possible to discuss this, discarding political affiliations?

Ustwo · 11-05-2003, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Yeah, I came on a little strong there. I apologize. I was swept up in the post-back-to-back-West-Wing-viewing euphoria that siezes me around 1 PM the days when I work from home. Assuming you can forgive me, would it be possible to discuss this, discarding political affiliations?

Well watching West Wing is your first problem

But I do agree it was a pussy thing for them to do (again provided it was accurate). I am not trying to politicize this, but you can't really talk about the senate without talking left-right, rep-dem. I could understand the democrats looking around trying not to be heard, I can't see how most of the republicans gain from this, except for the handful of 'liberal-republicans'. So I'm really baffled as to WHY they would do this, unless there was more to it then said. I've tried to find a video of the vote on c-span but was unable to locate it.

Redlemon · 11-05-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
But I do agree it was a pussy thing for them to do (again provided it was accurate).

Here's one source:

Quote:

Congress has O-K'd 87 and a-half billion dollars in aid for Iraq and Afghanistan in an anti-climactic voice vote attended by only a handful of senators.

I'll try to find something more detailed.

Redlemon · 11-05-2003, 11:07 AM

Ah, here we go, an editorial in the Washington Post (you may have to fill out a form to reach that).

Quote:

Escape by Voice Vote

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, November 5, 2003; Page A29

If defeat is an orphan, the U.S. occupation of Iraq, for which the Senate appropriated $87 billion by a voice vote on Monday, should already go down in the loss column.

By rejecting the normal option of a recorded vote, America's senators decided that they did not want to be held individually accountable for our continuing presence in Iraq. That decision speaks far louder than their decision to actually fund our forces there and the Iraqi reconstruction.

What a difference a year makes! In the fall of 2002, the administration was positively gleeful about forcing Congress to go on record to authorize the coming war, and Democrats from swing states or districts knew they voted no at their own peril.

This week no such pressure was forthcoming. Those Republicans who live by the wedge issue understand when they could die by it, too. There was simply no percentage in compelling members to vote yes on a floundering occupation that could easily grow far worse.

It's instructive, though, that opponents of the occupation weren't exactly clamoring to be recorded against it either. Only old Robert Byrd stood on the Senate floor and shouted no when the vote was taken, but Byrd has been casting recorded votes since the waning days of the Roman Republic, and it's a hard habit to break.

What was striking Monday was that Byrd's colleagues were scuttling away from all sides of this debate, and it's not hard to understand why. The administration's handling of both the war and occupation has been so deeply flawed that it has created a situation to which not only its own policy but all the existing alternatives are clearly inadequate. Bush and his neos have given us a kind of Gothic horror version of Goldilocks, in which the policy alternatives are either too big or too small, while their own is just wrong.

Plainly, the U.S. force in Iraq is spread too thin to protect our own troops, the employees of international aid agencies and those Iraqis who have cast their lot with the new order. But there's no political support, either in the United States or Iraq, for increasing the number of U.S. troops there, and rightly so. It's not just that more troops means more targets. It's also that any such act would be viewed as a step back from Iraqi sovereignty, which would only further inflame the situation there.

Those who argued that the administration needed international approval for a war against Saddam Hussein -- the better, in part, to de-Americanize the occupation -- have been all too grimly vindicated. The problem is the occupation has proved so rocky that it's hard to envision the United Nations rushing into Iraq if we now admit we fear to tread there.

Bush's decisions -- to wage a unilateral war and exercise unilateral political power during the post-Hussein reconstruction -- have not merely failed in themselves but have dimmed the prospects for more sustainable multinational alternatives.

Historians will have to determine the precise mix of White House hubris, xenophobia and mistrust of allies that contributed to our determination to hold sole control in post-Hussein Iraq. (Of course, the anti-Americanism rampant among many of our longtime allies played a role, too, but anyone with a long memory -- one that goes back at least three years -- can recall a time when the United States actually had the respect of the global community.) Now a new factor has popped up for historians' future consideration when they ponder why we wanted the occupation to ourselves. It turns out that Paul Bremer, our man in Baghdad, has decreed that come next year Iraq shall have a flat tax on individuals and businesses of 15 percent.

It's hard to know whether to laugh or cry. Is Iraq to become a laboratory for all those right-wing brainstorms that have gone nowhere in this country but that we are free to impose there during our short-order mandate? While we're at it, we could also outlaw stem cell research and elevate Charles Pickering to the Baghdad bench.

Already, the administration is beginning to blame its critics at home for its problems in Iraq. The criticisms voiced by the Democratic presidential candidates, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Georgetown students last week, send "a very unsettling message to Iraqis that our elections might decide their future." But it was Wolfowitz, along with a handful of others, who so inextricably linked America's future -- on which, the last time I looked, Americans had a right to vote -- to a disastrous policy in Iraq.

And it wasn't Democratic critics who forced a Republican-run Senate to cast an unrecorded vote on the occupation. It was Republicans, who voted for the funding but who lack all confidence in the president's chosen course.

Kadath · 11-05-2003, 11:10 AM

The Daily Show had a video clip of the vote, so I know it exists. They also gave a reason why Reps who supported the bill might not vote, but I forget. Watch the 7 PM EST episode, it should still be the one from last night. I would, but, you know...West Wing...

Sparhawk · 11-05-2003, 12:04 PM

What was the name of the ship? S.S. Pussy-Out? Apt description if you ask me...

Tman144 · 11-05-2003, 07:48 PM

I think that the Republicans didn't vote so that if it goes sour they can't be blamed.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-06-2003, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tman144
I think that the Republicans didn't vote so that if it goes sour they can't be blamed.

As if it were only the republicans that didn't show...

eple · 11-06-2003, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
As if it were only the republicans that didn't show...

As if that arguement ever had any relevance "the others are doing it too, so it must be okay then". It seems to me like most Americans are okay with corruption, cowardice or bad decitions within their government, as long as they know that the incompetence is equally parted between the parties.

floonine · 11-06-2003, 01:13 PM

Does anyone know how many people were actually there? 94 out of 100 can't be correct can it?

I don't think I'm wrong to assume that everyone who posted is upset at the way this budget vote was handled, but any ideas why it was allowed to happen? Doesn't it seem that this system has a *few* flaws?

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
As if that arguement ever had any relevance ..."

Can you elaborate a little? Maybe I am misunderstanding the two posters before you, but it didn't appear to me that Tman144 and Conclamo Ludus were agreeing with "the others are doing it too, so it must be okay then" argument. Just curious...

Conclamo Ludus · 11-06-2003, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eple
As if that arguement ever had any relevance "the others are doing it too, so it must be okay then". It seems to me like most Americans are okay with corruption, cowardice or bad decitions within their government, as long as they know that the incompetence is equally parted between the parties.

As if I said that it was okay. It isn't okay. Its pathetic. Its pathetic on the parts of the democrats and the republicans. Maybe I should've clarified. Its my fault for not being so specific, its easy to put words in someone's mouth when they make short posts like I did. The fact that our lawmakers wouldn't show up in either support or opposition shows that many of them don't appreciate the importance of their job. Maybe that's what we're to believe. It really irks me. Its a disgrace.

Redlemon · 11-06-2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by floonine
Does anyone know how many people were actually there? 94 out of 100 can't be correct can it?

I don't think I'm wrong to assume that everyone who posted is upset at the way this budget vote was handled, but any ideas why it was allowed to happen? Doesn't it seem that this system has a *few* flaws?

Read my long quote above, which came from the Washington Post.

Yes, there were only 6 senators present.

The voice vote was worked out ahead of time between the majority and minority leaders.

The Republicans didn't want to be on record authorizing increases in spending.

The Democrats didn't want to be caught between disapproval of the war vs. supporting our troops.

alkaloid · 11-06-2003, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
The Senate approved the $87 billion aid package. By a voice vote. The vote went FIVE TO ONE. NINETY-FOUR ABSTENTIONS.

5+47 vs 1 +47
52 to 48 margin. Looks like strictly party line vote.

There are 51 Republican and 48 Democratic Senators, and there is Jim Jeffords, the loner. Senators would not have abstained without finding a matching opponent. Politicians are covering their ass. What else is new.

debaser · 11-06-2003, 02:11 PM

Solution:

Kick all of the worthless fucking turds out in the next three elections and start with a blank slate of new dirtbags.

eple · 11-06-2003, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
As if I said that it was okay. It isn't okay. Its pathetic. Its pathetic on the parts of the democrats and the republicans. Maybe I should've clarified. Its my fault for not being so specific, its easy to put words in someone's mouth when they make short posts like I did. The fact that our lawmakers wouldn't show up in either support or opposition shows that many of them don't appreciate the importance of their job. Maybe that's what we're to believe. It really irks me. Its a disgrace.

Thanks. I did misunderstand you, sorry about that. The numbers and the attitude shown by your politicians scare me. 6 persons voted regarding the use of 87 billion dollars...

Sparhawk · 11-06-2003, 03:54 PM

I'm pretty ashamed of my democrats. Only Robert Byrd had the guts to stand up there, and in his tremolous southern accent, shout "No!"

*Pours one out for his almost dead homie...

Conclamo Ludus · 11-06-2003, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by debaser
Solution:

Kick all of the worthless fucking turds out in the next three elections and start with a blank slate of new dirtbags.

I agree. When in doubt, toss them out. Its time to find some people who want the job.

Kadath · 11-07-2003, 05:22 AM

Find your Senators
Call their offices. Ask them if they voted. Tell them you expect them to represent you on a vote over $87 billion. Tell them you don't appreciate cowardice or clever political manuvering, just integrity. Specter and Santorum, I'm gunning for you motherfuckers.

Quote:

Originally posted by alkaloid
5+47 vs 1 +47
52 to 48 margin. Looks like strictly party line vote.
Senators would not have abstained without finding a matching opponent.

I suppose that might be true in an abstention on a less GRAND FUCKING SCALE, but I doubt they partnered up like a middle school science class about to dissect a goddamn earth worm. Your logic leaves something to be desired.

Redlemon · 11-07-2003, 06:18 AM

Dear Senator {insert name}: Please fill in the blanks.

I did not attend this vote because _______. If I had attended, I would have voted ________ because ________.

11-05-2003, 07:19 AM	#1 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	VOICE VOTE!!!?!!?! The Senate approved the $87 billion aid package. By a voice vote. The vote went FIVE TO ONE. NINETY-FOUR ABSTENTIONS. Not addressed on CNN.com, or foxnews.com, or msnbc.com. The Daily Show has more in-depth reporting than major news outlets?! I understand that voice votes happen a lot, the purposes they serve, etc. In this case, the purpose was to allow U.S. Senators to save face. Great. Fucking great. __________________ it's quiet in here

11-05-2003, 07:24 AM	#2 (permalink)
cchris Junkie Location: Sydney	Speak up or be never heard. __________________ There's a fine line between participation and mockery

11-05-2003, 08:05 AM	#4 (permalink)
captain Crazy	There is no way that theDaily Show could know how many abstentions--by definition there are no abstentions on a voice vote Voice votes are a method for polititions to claim both sides of the issue. Any Senator could have called for the 'Yeas and Nays' and had them recorded. It is called Wimping Out. __________________ captain

11-05-2003, 08:30 AM	#5 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Umm doesn't anyone see the attempt at humor here? 97 abstentions out of 100 votes? 5 to 1 margin? __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

11-05-2003, 11:10 AM	#13 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	The Daily Show had a video clip of the vote, so I know it exists. They also gave a reason why Reps who supported the bill might not vote, but I forget. Watch the 7 PM EST episode, it should still be the one from last night. I would, but, you know...West Wing... __________________ it's quiet in here

11-05-2003, 12:04 PM	#14 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	What was the name of the ship? S.S. Pussy-Out? Apt description if you ask me... __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work." Last edited by Sparhawk; 11-06-2003 at 09:29 AM..

11-05-2003, 07:48 PM	#15 (permalink)
Tman144 Tilted	I think that the Republicans didn't vote so that if it goes sour they can't be blamed. __________________ "Don't touch my belt, you Jesus freak!" -Mr. Gruff the Atheist Goat

11-06-2003, 02:11 PM	#22 (permalink)
debaser Sir, I have a plan... Location: 38S NC20943324	Solution: Kick all of the worthless fucking turds out in the next three elections and start with a blank slate of new dirtbags. __________________ Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.

11-06-2003, 03:54 PM	#24 (permalink)
Sparhawk Dubya Location: VA	I'm pretty ashamed of my democrats. Only Robert Byrd had the guts to stand up there, and in his tremolous southern accent, shout "No!" Pours one out for his almost dead homie... __________________ "In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work." Last edited by Sparhawk; 11-07-2003 at 05:54 AM..*

11-07-2003, 06:18 AM	#27 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	Dear Senator {insert name}: Please fill in the blanks. I did not attend this vote because _______. If I had attended, I would have voted ________ because ________. __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.