Can we please stop labeling the infrastructure bill the "bipartisan infrastructure bill"

[bluewater]

Last edited Fri Oct 1, 2021, 01:12 PM - Edit history (1)

since (edit added: almost) ZERO House Republicans are going to vote for it?

It's a bill that will do a lot of good and it's time we Democrats take more credit for it.

It's one of the two bills that are the foundation of President Biden's "Build Back Better" plan and the ONLY thing Republicans have contributed to it are cuts.

Edit added for greater clarity:

labelling a bill "bipartisan used to mean that the majority in both parties supported it.

But over the years that standard has eroded to the point if you get a handful of the opposing party to support a bill it gets labelled "bipartisan", but it's actually not.

[FBaggins]

1. There have been several republicans who say that they will vote for it

I think it's a dozen now.

The very fact that the CPC doesn't want to just bring it up and vote it down - is because they're worried about how many republicans might decide it's in their interest to support it.

[bluewater]

2. "House GOP to whip votes against 'bipartisan' infrastructure"

House Republican leadership announced they would whip votes against the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill negotiated by a bipartisan group of senators when it comes for a vote on the House floor.

Kevin McCarthy et al. standing next to a man in a suit and tie© Provided by Washington Examiner
The move is a win for members in the hard-line conservative wings of the conference, such as the Freedom Caucus and Republican Study Committee, who have pressured House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy for weeks to corral House Republicans against the bill. It could also be a key decision for him as he tries to shore up support from the conservative wing to become House speaker should Republicans take back the House after 2022.

“It’s now clear that the tax and spend reconciliation bill and the Senate infrastructure bill are inextricably linked. Therefore, we will be whipping against both measures in an effort to stop Democrats from enacting $5 trillion in socialist spending,” said House Minority Whip Steve Scalise’s office in a statement on Wednesday.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-gop-to-whip-votes-against-bipartisan-infrastructure-bill-in-win-for-conservative-wing/ar-AAOIlLa?ocid=uxbndlbing

I stand corrected, it's not necessarily ZERO Republicans voting for it in the House, it's just the Leadership whipping against it to ensure that SCANT FEW do.

So, again, it's time to stop labeling it the "bipartisan infrastructure bill" since the Republican party and the bulk of their members in Congress are actively against it.

It's a Democratic Bill, plain as day.

[FBaggins]

5. Have you seen reports that Pelosi has been pushing for passage?

Followed by other reports that she's secretly pleased with those who are blocking a vote?

You really don't think it's possible that republican leadership doesn't want to show their hand and tell progressives how many votes they really need? You don't think there's any reason at all that Jayapal has adjusted how many CPC members will now vote against it fro 40-60 when a dozen would do it?

So, again, it's time to stop labeling it the "bipartisan infrastructure bill" since the Republican party and the bulk of thier members in Congress are actively against it.

It has only come to a vote in one chamber... and passed with almost 40% of the republican votes. That justifies the label.

It's a Democratic Bill, plain as day.

A "Democratic" bill that many people on DU opposed as caving to the right wing - and many progressives admit they're only supporting in order to get a different bill?

Not the norm for that label.

[bluewater]

9. The sound of Goal Posts moving is deafening

Progressives are not "blocking a vote", they are just declaring how they will vote.

All the power about whether and when the bill is brought to a vote in the House is in the hands of the Speaker and Democratic House leadership.

Seriously, this goalpost moving and hair splitting and, to be honest, sophistry in trying claim that the Progressive Caucus is blocking a vote is past tiresome.

Sorry, but my part in this discussion has come to a end.

[bluewater]

3. "The very fact that the CPC doesn't want to just bring it up and vote it down"

Um, Speaker Pelosi is the person deciding whether and when to bring the bill to a vote in the House.
But we all know this, so I suspect that I am being trolled now.

In any case, the progressive caucus seems very confident of the lack of Republican support.

Facts are stubborn things.

[FBaggins]

6. If they were confident of the lack of republican support - it would have already been voted on

This nonsensical spin that "Pelosi doesn't like to hold votes that lose" is ridiculous.

She would be fine with the bill passing with democratic support (since she has said that she wants it to pass)... and she would be fine with the bill failing because enough democrats opposed it. The one outcome that worries her is progressives rejecting the bill in large numbers... yet it passes anyway. And the only way she can guarantee that this doesn't happen... is to not hold a vote.

[bluewater]

11. ONCE AGAIN, Progressives do NOT CONTROL when the vote gets held. Period.

We all know that. The Speaker and House Leadership decide whether and when a vote is held in the House. Period.

Progressives are merely telling House Leadership HOW they intend to VOTE at this time. Period.

All the sophistry in the world cannot change that fact. And that goes for any strawman arguments too.

I am done.

[FBaggins]

14. Got news for you. You've been "done" all along

Nancy Pelosi is a progressive. She isn't distinct from them. She never "cut a deal" with the CPC because nothing was traded and no deal had to be cut... her position was already their position.

Once again - it's utter nonsense to say that a vote isn't being held because Pelosi prefers to win votes. It costs nothing at all to hold the vote and let it be voted down to prove that the bill doesn't have support. The one thing that progressives must avoid is a vote that they lose. And not knowing how that vote would turn out is the only reason it isn't being held.

[DickKessler]

4. "Bipartisanship" is such an overhyped term anyway.

At this point I admit I would be suspicious if lots of Republicans were supporting a Democratic bill. What would their ulterior motives be? Would they be trying to sabotage it somehow?

I don’t trust any of them (Republicans). Am I wrong to be so suspicious?

[FBaggins]

8. Correct

The current definition by public usage is: "A bill that I want to pass that has at least one member of the other party supporting it"

[Budi]

7. It was referred to as bipartisan in its origin. When it was being 1st written.

And it did have bipartisan input at that time.
Its taken on an entirely hypocritical meaning since then, however.

Odd thing is then, those Repubs that contributed to its original writing are now opposing their own contributions.

Thrre's no chance of individual free thought within that organization.
The Party has become a "you're either with us or you'll be degraded out of existance"cult of thought.

[jimfields33]

10. It's actually accurate since it passed the senate with 68 votes

[brush]

13. Exactly. I was waiting for someone to post that. And calling...

it the bipartisan infrastructure bill differentiates it from the reconciliation infrastructure bill.

I really don't see what the problem is about that. The problem is getting Sinema and Manchin to joing the party and support the reconciliation infrastructure bill.

[bluewater]

17. Basically, my objection is that it gives the Republicans too much credit

Since their Leadership and the bulk of their members are actively opposing it.

Thanks for the discussion.

[bluewater]

15. labelling a bill "bipartisan" used to mean that the majority in both parties supported it.

But over the years that standard has eroded to the point if you get a handful of the opposing party to support a bill it gets labelled "bipartisan", but it's actually not.

But I take your point.

My point is that constantly labeling it as "bipartisan" gives the Republicans too much credit.

[CentralMass]

12. These days bi-partisan means being able to get Sinema and or Machin to vote with the party

[bluewater]

16. WINNER, WINNER, CHICKEN DINNER!!!

Well played.