Party of No, anyone? RT @fivethirtyeight Senate Republicans vote 40-0 against re-establishing pay-as-you-go rules. http://bit.ly/cxWAxI
Party of No, anyone? RT @fivethirtyeight Senate Republicans vote 40-0 against re-establishing pay-as-you-go rules. http://bit.ly/cxWAxI
How about H.R. 4474 Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act?
The Republican from Idaho introduced a bill on Sept. 8, 2009: H.R. 3538: Idaho Wilderness Water Resources Protection Act. The Democrat from Idaho was the co-sponsor.
The purpose of the bill was: To authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.
On January 20, 2010 the bill was defeated by the Democrats in the House 225-191 with 187 Democrats voting against it.
On January 20, 2010 The Democrat from Idaho introduced a bill: H.R. 4474: Idaho Wilderness Water Facilities Act. The republican from Idaho was the co-sponsor.
The purpose of the bill was: To authorize the continued use of certain water diversions located on National Forest System land in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness and the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness in the State of Idaho, and for other purposes.
On January 27, 2010 it passed the House 415-0.
How about that?
So:
A Republican bill sits in the House for 5 months and is defeated by the Democrats.
The same bill is introduced by a Democrat, sits in the House for a week and is passed with no opposition.
Funny how that works.
By the way..why was Sen. Kirk allowed to vote on that?
Sen. Brown should have already replaced him.
Sen. Ted Kennedy was seated the day after the special election for this seat in 1962.
gahrie, try addressing the argument at hand instead of posting non-sequitors. This is why I don’t take you seriously, your BS attempts to obfuscate and avoid legitimate criticism of the GOP’s Just Say No campaign. Seriously I think they misunderstood what Nancy Reagan was talking about…
Seriously, the Republicans have become the party of Reagan all right, Nancy Reagan…
That’s bi-partisan.
This is one bill I know must have been good for America.
David K – it sure looks like the GOP isn’t the “Party of NO” in the example gahrie gives …
In gahrie’s example, the Dems are the “Party of NO” – although I suspect they are more the “Party of opportunistic not-under-a-GOP-President-in-an-election-year” …
As I recall, the 60-40 vote was against raising the debt ceiling, yet, again, was it not ?
Brendan – I am disappointed … IF the Senate GOP was voting against a simple up-or-down on Pay-As-You-Go, your post *might* have merit … given that it was firstly to raise the debt ceiling by over $1 Trillion (about 15% increase, wasn’t it?), I would hope that, in the current economy, the ENTIRE Senate would have voted against it … well, OK, not Kerry – and not Byrd – OK, you’re right, with the current Senate Dems, they’re pretty much going to vote to spend more whether or not there is funding for it … SIGH !
Alasdair, really? gahrie provides one incomplete example and thats significant? How about he stop ignoring Brendan’s argument and trying to distract from the obvious point that the GOP’s attitude is basically “we don’t want anything to get done”. They LOST the election but instead of participating they are holding the country hostage with the threat of filibuster. If the situations were reversed and the Democrats were doing the same thing you’d be calling them un-American traitors.
David K:
No the republican party is not saying they don’t want anything done. They are saying we don’t want the agenda of the radical Left done, and the American people agree with them. The republicans submit bill after bill, and amendment fter amendment, but they all get shot down and ignored…..just like my example.
The bill isn’t acted on for five months and then is defeated by the Democrats….and then a week later it passes with no opposition. The only difference? Changing the orrder of sponsorship so that the democrat is the primary sponsor instead of the co-sponsor.
So whjat is more obstructionist and partisan:
opposing things based on beliefs?
or
opposing things based on party identification?
gahrie – sadly, David K seems to be American-challenged, never mind English-challenged …
David K – when Dems are obstructionist, I call ’em Dems … is there a worse insult than that truth ? (grin)