Over a hundred Democrats voted against the War Supplemental

[Bandit]

It was not enough, as they needed 144 to stop it but it was three times as many as the last supplemental bill. Maintaining this "War on Terror" is going to get harder for Obama I have a feeling. Obama made a promise there would be No More Supplemental War spending bills, both when he was campaigning and after the first one he asked for. Since that promise he has asked for three more supplemental bills.

[Stoic]

1. I'd be more impressed by that.

But the leadership has a way of insuring that a bill gets passes while allowing only a certain number of members to vote against because they know it won't look good for them back home in their districts. My Congressman, Elijah Cummings, voted no as did Donna Edwards in an adjoining district, but the rest in Maryland voted for. I see John Sarbanes every once in awhile and I'm going to give him shit for his yes vote. Glad he's not my congressman.

[Romulox]

8. I agree with you. They were told it was "ok" for them to oppose for strategic reasons. nt

[Bonobo]

2. Same old game.

The ones that NEEDED to vote against it to be "OK" with their constituents were given political cover.

In other words, they knew that it was going to pass, so they were 'allowed' to vote that way.

Votes were counted and well-known before the outcome, and as usual, they played political footsy.

We are all being made fools of.

Fuck off, the lot of you. You think we don't know how it works?

We need term limits, money out of politics, campaigning limits (time-wise), lowered pay for the civil servants so we can attract people who WANT to serve, and an end to the revolving door between congress and private enterprise.

[Stoic]

3. I'm generally against term limits.

Would you kick Paul Wellstone out? Ted Kennedy? Al Franken? On the other hand, taking away corporate donations is number one on my hit parade.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Would you get rid of Wellstone to get rid of ten Nelsons?

:shrug:

[Stoic]

11. Nope, cause he was worth 20 Nelsons.

Term limits is how a disaffected minority gets their way. Just like the filibuster in the Senate. If you want to get rid of someone in office build yourself a majority and just do it. It's hard to do, especially with how they rig re-election, but the tools you build to get rid of unwanted Republicans (shitty by default) and shitty Democrats can also be used against the people you want in office.

Term limits are un-democratic (small d).

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

12. That's almost half the Senate.

I'd go 4-6 Nelsons. And that is a massive compliment.

He's worth a hundred Boehner's, though. :)

[Lance_Boyle]

6. 2 years ago you might have asked the same question about Charlie Rangel.

Power corrupts. So absolutely yes I would kick out a Wellstone or a Kennedy after they hit the limit. And an Issa, and a Coburn, and a Foxx, etc.

As for the money issue - all federal, state and local campaigns for public office should be publicly funded with ZERO corporate, personal or PAC funds allowed. THAT's how to level the playing field.

[Romulox]

9. Yes to all. They are supposed to citizen-legislators, not Bishops or Dukes...nt

[zipplewrath]

4. They're leveraging the GOP against us

Once again you see democrats using the GOP to pass bills that we don't want. And you see the White House aiding and abetting them. But we'd be "retarded" to point it out to anyone.

[Hubert Flottz]

7. People funding more killing are supplementally disturbed.

Propping up a crook, who had to cheat to win, sounds like the very same shit republicans did between 2000 and 2008.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

10. Where can I find the vote tally ? Thanks n/t