False Reporting on the Medicare Vote

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | 25 November 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[rmgatto]

David Broder has always been a whore--now, he's an old one who can't tell the truth from a trick.

[Congressman Billybob]

You almost, but not quite, have the internal dynamics of the vote down correctly. Two Republicans who had voted no, were persuaded to vote yes. However, two different Republicans who had voted yes, changed to no. That made the Republican side a wash.

On the Democrat side, three who had previously voted no, changed to yes. And Rep. Wu (D-Ore.) who had previously declined to vote, voted yes. So, three Democrats changed from no to yes and one Democrat who had not voted, came in at yes. The Democrats made up the entire difference between a two-vote loss and a five-vote win. Exactly as I said.

Overall, Republican "arm-twisting" was less effective than Democrat "arm-twisting" on this vote. Speaker Hastert lost 11% of his Members in the final vote. Minority Leader Pelosi lost only 8% of her Members on this vote. Remember, in the Democrat Caucus she threatened retaliation against Members who defected from her orders. LOL.

John / Billybob

[Redbob]

Seem to me a loyal Dimocrat would see the passage of this as an abject failure on the part of Mrs. Pelosi.

[ambrose]

bump.

[Badray]

Excellent job, John. Thanks.

[joyce11111]

bump

[BartMan1]

interesting sidebar to the story...

[nicollo]

Mr. Congressman, I'm a touch late getting to this thread, coming now from a trip away.

I'm fascinated by your take on this, a most excellent analysis. I wonder though, about the vote counters, the Whips? You suggest that Pelosi failed. I wonder if she didn't know in advance that she'd fail? And what of our friend, the Hon. Mr. Blunt? I'd venture that he knew it all all along.

One of the tasks of the Whip is to allow dissent. On controversial votes, loyality is measured not by the individual vote but by the total vote. Individual votes are accommodated accordingly. If needed, it's there. If not, the dissent is tolerated for home consumption.

What of that occurred here?

[self_evident]

I have not a clue what went on behind the scenes, and actually I didn't really analyze it; just reported what I saw happen on the tube since there were probably all of 50 people in the country watching at that point lol.

My point is simply that there was vote changing in the end by Republicans (in response to pressure from Bush), and without the vote changing the bill would have failed (sigh).

[octobersky]

bump

[Once-Ler]

It would be acceptable to blame the American people for this legislation. It is the American people who want prescription drug coverage. If Dubya didn't give them what they want, he would be replaced with another servant. I do not blame servants for doing their master's bidding.

[Once-Ler]

Excellent analysis and well written. Thank you.

[billbears]

Nice try, however the Founders saw the problems with basing all decisions on an easily deceived public. That's why the higher house of Congress was originally elected by the states instead of directly by the citizens of the respective states.

That still doesn't excuse the elected representatives from the respective states or does it excuse the national representative of all the states, namely the President. He ran on a smaller government, not expansive federal entitlements

[Congressman Billybob]

You are still missing the point. Between 3:00 a.m. and 5:53 a.m. there WERE two Republicans who switched from "nay" to "aye." But there were ALSO two Republicans who switched from "aye" to "nay." I don't know how your math works, but in mine, if you subtract 2 from 2 you get zero.

For the third time, as I said originally, the vote changes that passed this bill occurred SOLELY on the Democrat side of the aisle. Democrat votes for the bill went up during that period from 12 "aye" to 16 "aye," and that's what passed the bill. If you were watching in detail, that is what you saw.

John / Billybob

[Once-Ler]

That still doesn't excuse the elected representatives from the respective states or does it excuse the national representative of all the states, namely the President. He ran on a smaller government, not expansive federal entitlements

Nice try but Dubya ran on a Prescription Drug plan - "We will make prescription drugs available and affordable for every senior who needs them." [Bush campaign ad] during the 2000 campaign. He was elected and is now fulfilling his promises.

[billbears]

That's interesting. I didn't realize the President had the power to pass bills such as that. Do you have the 2003 Constitution? Because mine says it still resided in Congress. That being said the President shouldn't push the representatives on down the road to socialism by making statements he knows very well he had no power to fulfill

[Once-Ler]

Well, now your playing semantic games. The President doesn't have any power to pass legislation, but he can take his case to the American people and propose law. You already know this. Every President in our history has promised legislation before he was elected. I'm sorry you feel betrayed by every single President in history. When Dubya promised to propose and support a prescription drug plan, he did nothing that any previous President hasn't done. Well, except Dubya actually made good on his promise...perhaps this is why you are angry.

The power the President holds is given to him by the people. There are many laws that have passed that you and I would agree do not meet constitutional muster. I find no mention of a right to privacy yet the SCOTUS did. I find the 2nd Amendment very clear in intent, yet the SCOTUS is unsure what "shall not be infringed" means. The SCOTUS is given the power to interpret the Constitution. My opinion doesn't count.

In our form of government the people vote for the man who will give them what they want. If Dubya does not give the people what they want, the people will replace him with someone who will. The Constitution is not elected. Your animosity would be better aimed at the power behind the prescription drug law...that power is the people. If the people demand socialism, a servant can only give them what they want, or find another job with the knowledge that another servant will be willing to serve.

You are exaggerating the force of Dubya's will. Dubya could be the most charismatic man in the world but he will never convince the Congress to pass any law the American people do not support.

That being said, I wish the public did not support more socialism, but we have seen with AFDC (welfare) that socialism can be reversed when the public supports it's reversal. In time this entitlement may also be reversed. This bill is much better than any bill we would have gotten from the Gore administration, and I do not blame Dubya for doing what he was elected to do.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Thank you.

Again!

[RipSawyer]

In all my years of reading news reports, in any instance where I was able to independently check the facts I have almost always been able to find something reported incorrectly. The ability to communicate accurately must be one of the rarest of human talents.