Skip to main content

View Diary: UPDATE: Fight the Veto (321 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Oh please (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Phoenix Woman, Catrina, bricoleur

    Why do you think the bill got so many Blue Dog votes?

    And there is nothing absurd about saying it's the whip's job to whip votes

    No, there isn't. But you said that the Majority Leader doesn't, and that is absurd.

    Pelosi would not go along with whipping a vote on war.

    Yes she did. Go back and look at what happened with the Out of Iraq Caucus.

    •  7 Blue Dogs supported veto n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  What happened with the out of Iraq caucus (2+ / 0-)

      is that Pelosi was asking them to let the bill through, which is NOT the same as whipping votes.  It's that simple.  In order to whip any vote, the prerequisite is you have to first make it a caucus position.  That was never done.  Therefore, whipping would be impossible.  Don't keep hanging on this point.  Asking your colleagues to vote for something on a personal basis and enforcing something because it is the party's position - aka whipping - are not one and the same.

      Why do you think the bill got so many Blue Dog votes?

      Same reason Chuck Hagel did.  Because some of them, too, have a conscience.

      he Majority Leader doesn't, and that is absurd.

      Nope, it's not absurd.  The Majority Leader is NOT in charge whipping votes.  The Majority Whip does.  The Majority Leader, along with the rest of the leadership can make a decision to make something a caucus position, thus compelling the Whip to whip the votes, but the actual act of whipping is not done by the Majority Leader.  That's how it works.  The Majority Leader has a say in whether or not the party will whip the votes, but it's the Majority Whip that's in charge of whipping the votes.

      •  Promises (0+ / 0-)

        Reid, Pelosi, Hoyer.

        The whole bunch of them have been promising that they will fund this war for another year all along.  They'll deliver on those promises.

        The whole things a giant theater to make you think the Democrats oppose the war while they vote (again) more money to continue it for another year.

        When it comes to money for war, whether its the bloated Pentagon budgets or its the supplementals to fund the wars, the Democrats have always been right there with Bush and the Republicans voting more $$ for more war.

        Democrats, the other War Party.

        "I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not support a speedy end to the war in Iraq." -votersforpeace.org

        by COBear on Thu May 03, 2007 at 05:46:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site