Edwards, Kerry & Lieberman Missed The Appropriations Bill Vote Wednesday

[KittyWampus]

From Congressional records.

Kerry has missed 60% of his votes. He cannot truthfully say he voted against the Medicare Bill.

Since when is running for President to fulfill one's own personal ambitions more important than doing ones job and representing ones constituents.

..................................................................................................................................................................................


The ominous "Omnibus" Appropriations Bill was passed on Weds, Jan 21, 2003 by a vote of 48 - 45

Senators not voting:

Joseph Lieberman (D)

Saxby Chambliss (R)

Daniel Inouye (D)

John Kerry (D)

Mark Dayton (D)

Max Baucus (D)

John Edwards (D)

[Nazgul35]

1. So much for providing leadership....

but than again, we only seem to be interested in our candidates "looking" presidential rather than "being" presidential...

You won't here too much of a hew and cry from anyone here about why these Senators didn't try and take the fight to Bush now....

Same old same old from the Washington establishment.....oh well, maybe in 2008....

oh wait, that's right, were going to have Senator Clinton to save us.....

:evilfrown:

[DjTj]

2. That was the cloture vote.

...and since it was 48-45, that means it failed. Also, that vote happenned on Tuesday, January 20.

Two days later, the cloture vote passed 61-32 and the bill itself passed 65-28.

Having Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards there would not have changed anything. Other Dems gave up on Thursday.

Please provide a link so that your facts are straight:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_108_2.htm

[Nazgul35]

3. wrong....

If they can not get Senate Dems to work together.....

How do you think they are going to be able to lead this country?

It is a fair question.....they could have publicly come out and stated that the Senate Dems should have filibustered this thing until these idiotic riders were removed....

Two real gems were:

1) The over time changes we defeated twice before....
2) The destruction of FBI checks of gun applications 24 hours after they have been completed...

It is the same nonsense we have gotten from the Washington Dems for the last three years......every time we have needed them to stand up for us...they back down over and over again....

Nice try, but Lieberman, Edwards and Kerry are not good enough to be the nominee of the party of FDR, Truman, and Kennedy!!!!

[DjTj]

7. I blame Daschle...

...It's very convenient that you blame candidates on the campaign trail, but if that were the test we would never nominate a Senator or Congressman.

When there are so many Dems voting for the bill, we can place the blame on Clark or Dean if we wanted. With their grassroots organizations, they could swamped the offices of Akaka, Bingaman, Breaux, Cantwell, Carper, Dodd, Durbin, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Landrieu, Lincoln, Mikulski, Miller, Mruray, Nelson, Nelson, Pryor, Reid, and Schumer. Clark or Dean had just as much opportunity on the campaign trail to speak out against this bill. Their votes would have count exactly the same as Lieberman's, Kerry's, or Edwards' - they would have been meaningless.

The bottom line is that all the candidates running for President believe that the best way to make a difference is to beat Bush. Otherwise, they could all just be raising money and organizing to try to stop these bills.

Lieberman, Kerry, and Edwards made a choice, and I think it was the right one, because that Veto power is the only way we're really going to be able to stop these things from passing.

[Nazgul35]

11. You can't have it both ways....

When Dean was the front runner and attacked Kerry and Edwards over their IWR vote, people defended them by saying it is easy to be against something when you don't have to vote....

So now, when they are the possible nominees of the party and they have an opportunity to actually do something to stop the right wingers (do you really think they are not going to push through everything they can if they think Bush will lose?) they don't step up to the plate (again!)

and you offer up the defense that the other candidates who can't vote should have done something if they wanted to stop it....

But plain and simple.....the Dem Senators could have done somthing and did nothing.... True to form I might add.....

I really feel sorry for the multitude number of Dems here and elsewhere who are buying into the new activist Senators who are going to fight for us little people when every indictation is that they are not going to lift a finger if they feel they will get any dirt on them in any way!!!!

Disappointment full steam ahead!

[paulk]

16. what should they have done?

Shut down the government?

That worked so well for the Gingrich Republicans...

[AP]

56. I'd like an answer to that question too.

Should they have fillibustered right throught to next Thursday?

[beaconess]

14. Thank you!

Nice post.

It's unfortunate that some people believe that the only people who should ever run for president are out-of-work, independently wealthy or broke former politicians.

[AP]

17. yeah!

[genius]

53. Daschle voted against the bill. For once he was on the right side.

We should send him thank you notes.

[Jacobin]

4. What bothers me more is what he DID take the time to vote for

[Forkboy]

18. Ouch

burn.... ;-)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. Totally inaccurate to say: "passed by a vote of 48-45"

In fact, the 48-45 vote is the one that we WON.

Cloture votes:
Tuesday, rejected(which is good): http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00001

Thursday, passed (bad): http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00002


The swing voters who went over to the dark side between Tuesday and Thursday:

Bingaman (D-NM)
Breaux (D-LA)
Carper (D-DE)
Dayton (D-MN)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Schumer (D-NY)



Final passage: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00003

[Nazgul35]

6. Fine but what about the larger point...

that the Senate Dems running for president say they will fight for us.....are given the perfect opportunity to hand it to Bush, and they do nothing!!!

The reason is that they are the same types of Dems we have been seeing in Washington for the last three years!!!

The next election is too important to place these men in the position of our nominee!!! Their words are awful nice to the ear but their actions speak volumes!!!!!!!!!

These men do not have the fight in them that we need for the coming battle, they are empty suits, more concerned with polls and image than with actions and deeds!!!!!!! They are not fit to be the Party's nominee!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How many more examples do we need!!!!!

Wake up Dems!!!!!!!! Before it is too late!

[Feanorcurufinwe]

9. The only point you are trying to make is that you want Dean to be Prez.

lol

[AP]

12. funny

[Nazgul35]

13. Wrong....

I said the Senate Dems.....which leaves more than Dean as an alternative....

But thanks for playing....

I happen to think it is important that we nominate a real candidate and not a person who will not fight, which is the case for both Kerry and Edwards....as we will find out to late....I fear!

[beaconess]

15. Yes, that leaves Clark and Sharpton

you said SENATE Dems, but certainly you must have the same standard for Kucinich since he is missing votes as well.

I think a few people would beg to differ with you that the Democratic field would be improved if it were winnowed down to Dean, Clark and Sharpton.

[Nazgul35]

28. Actually Kucinich

does fight....but since we all know (or should know) that the House minority can not stop anything, what happens there is irrelevant unless the repugs are divided...

The Senate is a different story altogether....

But that's ok....Kerry Edwards and Lieberman supporters have been spinning their votes and inactions for almost a year now, so I am not surprised that you're still doing it....

Just don't start crying or be surprised when they start getting hammered in the general election and take it.....

[beaconess]

31. So, I guess only Senators are supposed to "make a statement" by voting

even when their vote won't make a difference, as some in here have insisted. But Kucinich gets a pass? Why should he be let off the hook just because HIS vote doesn't make a difference.

[Nazgul35]

34. what are you talking about?

What makes you think a Senator's vote doesn't matter?

The Dems could have filibustered this bill if anyone of the Dems stood up and fought.....I am sick of the dems who are not running for president as well...

Just last month the Senate allowed a bill to pass on a voice only vote that included portions of the Partiot Act II as a rider....a recorded vote only requires one....I repeat, one Senator request a roll call vote, so we would have known who voted for this monstrosity!!!

At what point do you want our party to start fighting? I mean really, this is getting pathetic!!! They're not caving when they support IWR (even though Kerry voted no on the GWR....when Sadam actually had troops in Kuwait, a far more serious situation than we faced when he voted for the IWR)....they were not caving when they voted for the Patriot Act, they were not caving when they allowed a bill with attachments to allow portions of the Patriot Act II to go through...they were not caving when they allowed the omnibus bill to go through, curtailing overtime for 8 million Americans, destroying FBI gun registrations after only 24 hours.......

If this isn't caving, I'd really hate to see it when they do!

[beaconess]

36. I've explained it to you several times - you clearly just don't understand

Senate procedure.

Of course, that hasn't stopped you from lecturing the rest of us about it.

So, carry on.

[Nazgul35]

40. First your premise is flawed

second....I teach Congress at a midwest university

You are going under the assumption that nothing could have been done...that their votes wouldn't have mattered....which is false....

If they had even tried it would have been ok, but nothing came of it...

You seemed to be happy with the status quo, and that is your right....but many here expressed a desire for a candidate who was going to fight Bush in the Fall, yet when offered the opportunity to begin the fight.....nothing happened...

Your "detailed" description of Senate proceedure aside...perhaps you would care to explain exactly why they could not have mainatined the votes needed to prevent cloture and forced the republicans to remove those horrendous riders to the bill...

When do you want these guys to start fighting?

[jpgray]

49. You teach "Congress"? (nt)

[AP]

54. I think this is a case where it's one in the hand or 100 in the Bush.

I have NO problem with any of these candidates deciding that it might be better to shoot for 100 in the Bush (ie, the presidency) than fight these little battles which will become distant memories if Bush wins reelection and America takes it's Great Slide into oblivion.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. Oh, are you a Clark, Sharpton or Kucinich supporter now?

:eyes:

[beaconess]

25. Why would you draw that conclusion?

[Nazgul35]

29. If I had to choose

since we are talking about ranking here....

Clark has been my number two since he got in the race...

beyond number two.....Gephardt, Kerry and Edwards are all the same to me....

[Maddy McCall]

8. And didn't someone say the Breaux would make a great VP?

Look, there's Landrieu too. :mad:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

10. So? Some people think Cheney would be a great vp. So what?

[AP]

19. Let me get this straight. This was a cloture vote.

The threshold is 65. The result wouldn't have changed had the Dem Congress-candidates been there (they would have won both ways) and we're complaining that they SHOULD have been in the senate wasting their time rather than on the stump making powerful arguments about why Bush should be gone next year?

[beaconess]

22. Actually, the threshold is 60 n/t

[Old and In the Way]

48. C'mon AP, play along.

Geesh, how are smear threads going to get posts if you blow holes in their premises?

Apparently, Kerry's drawn the short stick for the Friday Night Smear-a-thon.

[AP]

50. I accepted a long time ago that these guys would miss votes...but,

I've been amazed at what a great job they've been doing about fighting Bush in congress while campaigning. I think they've been without fault.

Remember how upset we all were when the Democrats lost their temporary hold on the Senate? Well, it looks like the got organized anyway have kept their fingers in the dyke.

I'm really impressed.

[cthrumatrix]

64. I think we prefer action ...to words

[beaconess]

59. LOL

Don't worry - I'm sure Edwards' turn is coming up any day now - hopefully after the NH Primary when HE'LL be the frontrunner :-)

[isbister]

20. Don't worry about this constituent

because this constituent is absolutely thrilled about the job my Senator is doing and has done.

[HuckleB]

21. Six Dems missing, including the three? Aaaaaarrrrrrghhhh.

That makes me so pissed. How many people will never earn enough in their lifetimes to make up for the frickin' pork that will go to the weatlhy based on that spending bill? This is CRAP!

[beaconess]

Tell you what

If the other candidates who aren't in the Senate or House agree not to hold or participate in any campaign events on days that Congress is in session, and thus, not give themselves an unfair advantage over members who must choose between campaigning and being in Washington for votes, I'm sure that the members will be glad to always remain in DC to cast their votes, even when it doesn't make any difference.

I'm sure they'll agree to this - it's the least the other candidates can do, isn't it? After all since they and their supporters seem to think that voting on every measure that comes to the floor is of paramount importance, they should certainly be willing to make this tiny concession for the good of the Congress and the good of the country.

If they're not willing to do this, perhaps they should refrain from attacking the candidates who are continuing to serve their country and their constituents in the best way they see fit.

[HuckleB]

26. Nice try.

If you can't get back for that vote, to save billions of pork, then you've got no business running for president. Sorry. If you can't do the job, then resign before running for another office. That's the ethical thing to do.

[AP]

27. I'd worry more about these candiidates' common sense if they wasted their

time flying back to DC for a vote they weren't needed for.

[HuckleB]

30. Clearly, they were needed for it.

So, what's your point?

[AP]

38. They weren't. Dems won. The Reublicans needed 60 votes.

[HuckleB]

39. So how did the appropriations bill pass?

Minus big time Dem leadership, I might add? Sorry, but there are no excuses on this one. Please stop playing games.

[AP]

42. It was a vote to end the debate, so that it can go to vote, which Repubs

want. They didn't have enough votes to end cloture. So it's stuck in committee. Dems win.

[Nazgul35]

43. check post number two...

there was a second cloture vote that succeeded and then the bill passed....so it is not in committee (was this the final version or has it gone to the conference committee..there may still be time!)

[AP]

44. Either way, Dems didn't need those three votes to win. They couldn't have

made a difference. You want them to show up anyway?

[HuckleB]

46. Yes, I do.

Their leadership was needed. We could have won with them there. Don't make excuses. There is no excuse on this one.

[AP]

47. Their leadership is REALLY needed in NH and IA and in the WH.

If we lose this election, nobody's gonna remember this bill. It's going to be a bloodbath. Goodbye legacy of FDR. We'll bury it forever.

[HuckleB]

61. Again, nice try.

They just made it more like that we will lose the election. They just gave the GOP one more thing to pound Kerry or Edwards or Lieberman with.

[HuckleB]

45. Umm. The bill passed.

It was big news. All over the place. It's not in committee.

Our Senate leadership failed. We must acknowledge this.

[CTLawGuy]

62. BRAVO!

"Sorry. If you can't do the job, then resign before running for another office."

Exactly the solution.

[beaconess]

63. That's a great idea! They can resign and be replaced by Republicans!

Since Connecticut, Ohio and Massachusetts have Republican governors, they would appoint Republicans to replace the Democrats who resigned to run for President.

So, you solve the problem of Democratic presidential candidates who miss voting on measures where their votes will make no difference at all by adding a few more Republican incumbents to the House and Senate (giving Republicans a filibuster proof majority).

Yeah, that's just the ticket!

[Nazgul35]

32. a filibuster only requires 41 Senators...

they could be absent, but we are talking about leadership....

this was a perfect opportunity for edwards or Kerry to hand one to Bush and they didn't step up....

Again, if they want us to believe they are going to be fighters, are going to stand up for the little folk.....wtf?

Many here touted that they made the difficult choices and should be credited because others who didn't have to vote had it easy....

Now, when it is again important for them to stand up....they did nothing, again....they had the opportunity to do something very real for the party and did nothing....

I started a thread before this all happened calling for people to contact the senators to do something....I stated that I would truely consider supporting either of these two senators if they showed me the money......but nothing happened...

If you think I don't feel disappointed you are wrong!
If you think I was hoping they wouldn't you are wrong again!!!

These two may be the front runners coming out of NH and I want a fighter to lead this party in Nov....but I have real concerns that these two men will fold when the big guns get trained on them by the repugs....

[beaconess]

33. Wrong - a filibuster does not require that 41 Senators vote no

It requires that 60 Senators vote yes to stop it. In other words, it requires that 41 Senators DON'T VOTE YES. It doesn't matter whether they vote no or don't vote at all, as long as they don't vote yes.

That is why Senators who want to keep a filibuster going don't have to vote since their vote makes no difference. If those trying to break the filibuster don't get 60 votes, the filibuster continues, even if not a single Senator votes no. And the Senators who oppose cloture make a clear statement by not voting yes, whether they vote no or don't vote at all.

[Nazgul35]

35. I didn't say they needed to vote no...

You didn't read my post.....I assumed people knew what I meant

dont you want to address the issue I raised?

If these two men can not get 41 Democrats to "not vote" to end cloture, how in the hell are they going to lead this party to victory in November......

Or are they just saving up for the big push.....

[beaconess]

37. I see - unless these two Senators can convince 40 other Senators

to all vote a certain way - regardless of what those other Senators various constituencies want them to do - they are not fit to be president?

You really don't understand the Senate, do you?

[Nazgul35]

41. and you do....

I've actually written articles in political science journals about this subject....but you continue to be condescending...

I didn't sya they had to get the job done...they didnt even try...

Are you telling me that we could get 44 Dems to hold the cloture vote on 5 federal judges but couldn't protect over time? Especially when there were several republicans unhappy about this bill?

Again, you ignore my overriding points....my long list of

"gee, we just can't get it done today....sorry, let them vote it through" votes from these Senators.....

When do you expect them to actually start fighting...please let me know so I can start to evaluate their performance....

[AP]

55. You wouldn't give us a cite so that we can see how they went over?

[beaconess]

58. Yes, I do, as a matter of fact . . .

And that's why I understand that the dynamics differ from vote to vote and the fact that it's possible to get 44 Dems to hold together on a cloture vote on federal judges does not automatically mean that they will hold together on a vote on an entirely different issue. These matters are different in so many ways that have huge impacts on how they are dealt with by Senators, individually and collectively.

For example, they come out of different committees - which is enormously affected by and depends heavily upon the makeup of the Committee, who is ranking, the breakdown of Committee votes, etc.

For example, did you know that the ONLY reason the Democrats were able to launch and maintain successful judicial filibusters is that the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, led by John Edwards and others, voted together in Committee to block Estrada, but that only happened after Feinstein switched her vote as a result of a huge grassroots telephone effort in her home state (thousands of constituents jammed her phone lines the day, leading her to change her leaning yes to a no)? Had they come out of Committee with a divided vote, the filibuster couldn't even be attempted. And, even as it was, the Daschle, Reid, the Democratic leadership and Committee Dems had to practically break their necks to get the Democratic caucus members to go against tradition and agree to filibuster. It almost didn't happen at all, but Edwards and the others did an amazing job and achieved what everyone was sure was impossible. But, since you teach Congress, you certainly already were aware of all of this.

The Omnibus vote was in an entirely different posture for reasons you certainly understand, since you know about the Senate and its procedure. Unlike the nomination of an individual judge, the Omnibus package was immensely complicated and, even though lots of Dems didn't like it because of a few particular provisions out of thousands, there were other Dems who did not feel that those provisions were enough to vote against the bill. Lieberman, Edwards and Kerry didn't have the same leverage on this massive spending bill that Edwards had in pushing the filibuster of judicial nominations.

Unlike a judicial filibuster which dealt with one issue that didn't even directly affect most members and their constituents - at least not in obvious, tangible ways - the Omnibus package affected everyone in complicated and myriad ways. This was not a bill that could be whipped in the same way that a nomination can be. Only someone who has a very limited understanding of Senate procedure would insist that three Senators could have forced everyone else to treat an omnibus package the same as a judicial nomination.

If you know as much about the Senate as you claim to, you would understand how immensely complicated each of these votes is and how foolish it is to extrapolate the results of one vote into what you think should be a certain outcome in another.

[Old and In the Way]

51. You, too, beaconess.

Stop making sense. We can't have a proper candidate smearing thread if you continue to tell the truth.

[Maddy McCall]

57. LOL!

[beaconess]

23. Dupe

[genius]

52. The bill had more than 60 supporters. They didn't matter.

Get your facts straight.

[Capn Sunshine]

60. It's called rolling over

And it's been happening not just with the two senators currently in the race but with ALL the democrats for years now.

This irresponsible bullshit is a direct result of a poisoned system of corporate greed and lobbyists.

I'm trying to remember ANY memorable comments Kerry or Edwards made during the national nightmare that has bee these past three years.

By memorable, I mean fiery anti-Bush "we will go down swinging" rhetoric.

I guess that's not "presidential" enough. After all, that's what the media says. Well after the media chooses our candidate for us, don't wonder at the the sky when he isn't capable of beating Bush in November. Because he "deserves" the nomination.