Someone please explain to me why the we don't have the votes to overide SCHIP is

[saracat]

the Dems and most of the GOP support it? Please? And why did the Senate get rolled on the Telecomm immunity? I don't get it. When we were the minority, we couldn't stop anything that Bush wanted to do,now that the GOP is the minority, they still stop us from doing anything! Is it that they hang together better? Why can't we muscle anything through? I think we have a larger majority in the House than they did, though I am not sure, and the Senate seems divided by the same numbers, so why can't we get any traction? I suspect it is the conservative Dems who are protecting their asses for reelection in both houses. Anybody else got an answer?

[Lasher]

1. Moderate Republican members of the House got voted out last November

Most of the ones that are left are from more safe districts, and therefore tend to be hardliners. Hard to get them to do anything except what Junior says.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. There aren't 291 Democrats in the House. It requires 291 votes to override a veto there.

[saracat]

3. but surely the job of the Speaker and the Whip is to get some of those

GOP votes on board.It is said the GOP don't like this veto either. Why can they round up Dem votes and we can't get ANY of theirs?

[endarkenment]

4. The whip's job is to whip his party into line.

The Speaker should indeed be working to convince the other sides members to defect. The current Speaker does not seem to be too good at that.

[saracat]

5. But the Speaker, whip and Deputy Speaker should all work together to get

those votes.Our whole team does not seem to be efficient.

[onenote]

8. the repub leader and whip both opposed the bill

and they are far more likely to be effective in convincing the repubs that voted no to stick with that vote than Pelosi, Hoyer, or Clyburn could be in convincing repubs to jump ship.

[saracat]

18. So they are better at their jobs than our leadership? Why aren't we any good? Why?

[onenote]

22. Did our leadership do a bad job getting Democrats to support SCHIP?

I must have missed something.

[saracat]

23. It doesn't matter if we can't overide the veto.Period.The GOP was always able to

get votes for things they wanted.We aren't able to get votes WHY?

[onenote]

30. did the repubs have to get enough votes to override chimpy's vetoes?

I really am missing something.

[saracat]

34. No.Don't be silly but they always got our votes to pass what they wanted

and continue to do so.We should be able to override this. We have the votes in the Senate.We should and the fact that we can't is a failure in the House..To spin it any other way is disingenuous.

[onenote]

38. how many of our votes do they typically get?

We got 45 of theirs on SCHIP.

[saracat]

39. They got enough to pass.We didn't end of story.

[TayTay]

52. Because some of the Repubs are true believers

and do not want this legislation to pass. They will not fund Children's Health Care because it is against their ideological beliefs to do so. We didn't fail to get them, they weren't ours to get in the first place.

Elections matter and the constituents of those Members of the House who voted to uphold the veto need to be held accountable for their votes. The Democrats stayed together on this. Unfortunately, so did most of the Repubs.

[dsc]

57. No they aren't

2 count them 2 Democrats voted against the bill. Given our numbers in the House that is less than 1%. Conversely 44 Republicans voted for it. That is around 25%.

[saracat]

59. There shouldn't even be 2 Dems voting against it.

[dsc]

60. No there shouldn't be

but your claim was that the Democratic whip was less effective than the GOP one which is false.

[onenote]

6. "most of the GOP support it" --- nope

In the House, 45 repubs voted for and 151 voted against.

In the Senate, I think it was 18 for and 30 against (one not voting)

SCHIP got 69 votes in the Senate, which is enough to override. But it only got 265 in the HOuse, which is significantly under the number needed to override.

[saracat]

7. Then the Speaker has some arm twisting to do.

[onenote]

12. the speaker has little sway with repubs, particularly when the repub leadership

is opposed to the bill.

[saracat]

14. Really? Then how did they get "our" votes all the time? And how are they apparently still doing it?

What good is quid pro quo if they NEVER vote with us when we need it?

[cuke]

49. Ask Murtha

He was *'s go-to guy whenever * needed some Dem votes

[abluelady]

9. It is Very Simple

The Bush agenda is more important than alive children.

[sampsonblk]

10. Because our leadership is all carrot and no stick-nt

[Enrique]

11. the GOP isn't hanging together better

on the contrary...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20070904/pl_cq_politics/bushsuccessratingathistoriclow

(...)

Similarly, Republicans have been less unified than in the recent past on votes that feature a majority of one party facing off against a majority of the other. In the House so far this year, 526 of the 839 roll call votes have met that definition. The same is true for the Senate, where the parties have divided on 193 votes out of 310 cast.

House Republican unity this year has ebbed to 85 percent, and Senate GOP unity slumped to 81 percent. Both averages are the lowest since 1994.

That has come as the majority Democrats became more unified. The average House Democratic unity score of 91 percent matches the high-water mark that Republicans scored three times: in 1995, 2001 and 2003.

The average Senate Democratic unity score so far this year is similarly high at 88 percent, almost reaching the party’s peak score of 89 percent posted twice: in 1999 and 2001.

[saracat]

15. Then why don't we have the votes to do anything important? Why?

Why did we have to pull our version of FISA? Why?

[Enrique]

17. I don't know

but it's not true that the republicans never vote with us.

[saracat]

20. But not enough when it counts.LBJ could have gotten those votes

and he NEVER would have allowed a Dem to stray.Never.Not when it counted.

[Enrique]

21. LBJ lost some

in fact, according to that CQ study, he lost more than the current Congress.

[saracat]

25. I doubt it.He has 2000 peices of legislation passed in record time.

[Enrique]

28. and they were the republican president's legislation

you want the dems to work as closely with Bush as LBJ did with Eisenhower?

[saracat]

31. I was talking about the "Great Society" but I do not believe LBJ would.

have caved as often as this Congess.He just wouldn't have. Not on major issues.I do not believe it. He was known to resort to blackmail if necessary to get votes and from the opposition.

[onenote]

35. The Great Society was LBJ's program when he was President

And yes he was effective at twisting arms as president. Much different than being speaker or majority leader.

Also, Johnson's greatest success in term of his Great Society program came during the 1964-1966 period, when he had a veto proof majority in both the House and the Senate.

Looking at today's situation, a better comparison would be Bill Clinton's record with respect to vetoes during the period when the repubs controlled a majority in the house. During that time frame, Clinton vetoed 36 or 37 bills and was only overriden twice.

[saracat]

42. Yeah well, we can't even overide once. And I am aware that the Great Society was a presidential

program.

[Enrique]

37. his pressure tactics were mostly aimed at liberal democrats

the reason his civil rights legislation passed is that he had built up credibility among the racists by voting with them his whole career.

[saracat]

40. He did what he needed to do. He was successful in getting passed what needed to be.

[Enrique]

41. would you like Reid to "do what he needs to do"

suppose that included pressuring liberal democrats to vote with Bush? if he could do that, he could rack up quite an impressive legislative record. You want him to do that?

[saracat]

43. Johnson passed a lot of "liberal " legislation.If he had to give "quid pro quo"

so what? We have been "giving' and getting NOTHING< in return. Getting the return on the investment is how you build up a legilative record. We have been caving to the GOP and not getting a return. I want to see a return on our quid pro quo.

[onenote]

44. as president, LBJ had a veto proof majority in both houses

why do you keep comparing two situations that aren't remotely similar?

[saracat]

45. Fine .Don't compare it.The repukes overode Clinton.We can't overide Bush.

[onenote]

46. the problem with comparisons

You point out that the repubs overrode Clinton. Well, that's not exactly an accurate statement. First, Clinton vetoed 36 bills. THere was no attempt made to override 24 of them. And of the remaining 12, two were overriden. One of those that was overriden was the Line Item Veto legislation, which passed initially, and on override, with huge majorities from both the Democrats and the repubs, so to say that the "repubs" overrode is something of a misstatement -- members of Congress from both parties overwhelmingly supported the legislation.

The only other bill overriden during Clinton's term was the Private SEcurities legislation. In the Senate, that bill got 21 Democrats to go along with 47 repubs in the override. But digging deeper, you'll see that the bill didn't divide neatly along party or even ideological grounds. Among those voting to support the override: Kennedy, Mosley-Braun, Kerry, Harkin. But Feingold and Wellstone voted against it (as did McCain).

The bottom line -- vetoes are rarely overriden, particularly where the legislation doesn't start out with a veto proof majority.

[saracat]

47. The point is we can overide NOTHING.Ever. it seems.

[onenote]

48. bush I -- overriden one out of 29; reagan -- overriden 9 out of 39; Ford 12 out of 38

So, apparently, repub vetoes can be overriden. The problem with comparisons is that each bill, and the voting breakdown on each bill is different. And since chimpy has only vetoed three bills since the Democrats regained a majority (and a slim majority at that, particularly in the Senate), the fact that none of those bills has been overriden doesn't prove much of anything.

[saracat]

55. In "this". Congress. Usually Bush doesn't even have to veto because they give him what he wants.

[onenote]

29. history much?

LBJ didn't lose votes? Give me a break. Take the Civil Rights Bill of 1957. He got it passed, but he had to agree to water it down so much that some Civil RIghts leaders viewed it as a sham. In addition, LBJ and Eisenhower were often on the same page with respect to legislation. LBJ's biggest problem wasn't repubs, it was often southern Democrats.

By the way, LBJ was SENATE majority leader. And for half the time he was Senate majority leader, he had a veto proof Democratic majority. So your comparison is lots of apples and lots of oranges.

[saracat]

32. I am aware of that.I never said he had a perfect record and you are

right about the souther Dems.But I still feel he would not have stood for this BS in either house.I just don't.And I am aware he was the Senate Majority Leader.

[Cary]

13. Don't you think the Republicans want to make the Democrats look. . .

like they can't do anything?

[saracat]

16. And they are succeeding. Why can't we do as well as they did? Why? Why do our people vote with them

and get NOTHING in return? Why?

[Joanne98]

19. Because we're losers!

[Vinca]

24. Because the Republican representatives can do nothing other

than walk in lockstep with Bush. The whole lot of them should have knee pads permanently affixed to their legs.

[saracat]

26. Thenperhaps our people need to be in lockstep and grap some repukes as well.

[OHdem10]

27. As usual The GOP won the PR War.

As soon as the thing was passed and before it even got to the
President the GOP were all over Tv.

We will help the poor--this is a flawed bill. This bill supports
families making 83,000 dollars a year. This is too expensive.
The American Taxpayers cannot support this. Poor Children First.

I did not see one Democrat go on one program to directly confront
this message. In fact I cannot remember anyone but Pelosi on
Sunday AM Fox News with C. Wallace.

Taxes are a tool the GOP uses to cut wedges right through our
Society. The Timid Democrats on the Hill must agree with GOP
or so afraid of their shadow they cannot speak.

Starting with Civil Rights--Wedged the working poor whites against
BLacks---"do not want your taxes paying for welfare"

In this case, the working stiff is lead to believe his taxes
will be supporting some families making 83,000 dollars ayear.
(paying for his kids' healthcare.

[Freddie Stubbs]

33. Most of the Republicans in the House do not support it

The problem is not the Senate. It is the fact that Bush can veot this and there are enough Republicans in the House to sustain the veto.

[saracat]

36. If people understood how to use balckmail or whatever it takes we would have the votes.We do not do

whatever is necessary to get those votes.

[Enrique]

50. that's not true

every Congress and every president loses some battles. This Congress will likely lose more.

However, according to the story I posted above, they are winning a record number of them.

[saracat]

56. Yeah.Right.Not ion much that counds.They are funding the war and can't pass SCHIP.

They renewed FISA.Some battles? They can't even make an effort to do what they were elected to do!

[iconocrastic]

51. Obviously Republicans hate children

There's no other answer.

[beachmom]

53. Because the GOP still has the White House, that's why.

The Republicans didn't need 2/3rd majority to pass things when they were in control. Also, something Josh Marshall brought up, the Dems in the minority in the Senate were under extraordinary pressure because they really were the final stop to prevent a bill from passing. The GOP, OTOH, can filibuster, and failing that, the president can veto.

As to the FISA bill, I don't know the answer to that. But on things like Iraq and S-CHIP, there are minority rights in the Senate (which the Dems defended 2 short years ago) and a presidential veto. The bar is higher for Dems to get anything passed.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

54. I guess that's why people don't bother to vote in elections

they give up as they know no one is there for them.

[rasputin1952]

58. It's called "Politics"...

Think of it this way, the GOP was going to follow bush's lead, (at least most of them), because they are losing their base rapidly. They needed to show that they can come together to back the veto, because if they caved, they would lose a serious percentage of those that still support them. In the near future, they will pass an amended bill, which may/may not have the same cost attached, but they can't leave kids hanging....people are rally pissed off about this.

They need to come up w/something they can say they "won" on, (AFAIC, they are all dead meat anyway, the GOP is going to lose big time simply because of bush...but they haven't figured that out yet).

All they need is something to make it look like they "did" something to the bill. However, it is too late, they chose the wrong bill to mess with, like I said, people are pissed.