Can a dem say they will vote yes, But support colleagues in Filibuster

[stop the bleeding]

This was posted as a question in another thread here in GD and I think it is a good one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=248902&mesg_id=249111


LeftHander (1000+ posts) Thu Jan-26-06 01:58 PM

Response to Original message

33. Can a dem still say they will vote yes...
But support colleagues in holding Filibuster?



Added link on edit

[John Q. Citizen]

1. Sure, why not. In fact it would be a great way to play both sides of

the fence.

[stop the bleeding]

2. next question - is this part of the strategy - are the DEMS aware of this?

I would think that they are.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. They know they can commit to vote yet vote no on cloture.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. The ultimate in fence straddling. I believe the word is "hypocrisy".

A not unusual proclivity in politicians.

[unblock]

5. it's not hypocrisy at all

a yes/no vote, especially when the majority is known, is usually an individual decision/conscience vote. politicians are free to play to their constituents or whatever.

joining in on a filibuster, however, is more of a party unity issue, or at least a commitment to a determined minority. the dynamics are very different.

so it's not at all impossible for someone to think alito is worth a 'yes' vote (because they are from a conservative state, e.g.) and yet to join in on a filibuster (because they are a democrat).

[LeftHander]

8. excellent answer that is what I thought....but still

It seems flippy floppy...

"I voted for it then I didn't vote for it before I voted for it again..."

[unblock]

10. and this is why questioning individual senate actions is silly

creating actual laws is a real mess. to get the law you want, you often have to vote AGAINST a competing law that's 80% of what you want, in order to get the law that's 90% of what you want. and that first vote can be taken out of context and made to look bad, or 'flip-floppy".


note to any senator who runs for president:

if they ask you to explain some particular senate action, don't fall into the trap of getting into the minutiae of the maneuvering.
just say something like, "i was then and remain now firmly committed to bringing reform to the health care industry and my actions at the time were consistent with those goals."

if they press on specific votes, just say, "well, there's a whole lot of parliamentary procedure involved in these things, and i'm simply not going to get into looking at individual maneuvers. my approach to that entire piece of legislation was to try to get the best health care for the most americans in need and that's what i will do as president."

[Reader Rabbit]

6. How about abstaining?

It works the same as a "no" vote, which is good for our side. Republicans have less than 60. For the wafflers, they could claim that technically they *weren't* supporting the filibuster, and yet at the same time, prevent the nomination. Makes about as much sense as voting "no," and *not* supporthing the filibuster!

[stop the bleeding]

7. kick for answer n/t

[joanski0]

9. They can change their vote.

They are not locked in.