GOP votes against mothers

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

What a silly plan by the GOP.
GOP votes against Moms, puppies next?

Quote:

On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day," when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.

"Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote," he announced.

Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who has two young daughters, moved to table Tiahrt's request, setting up a revote. This time, 178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers.
...
Republicans, unhappy with the Democratic majority, have been using such procedural tactics as this all week to bring the House to a standstill, but the assault on mothers may have gone too far. House Minority Leader John Boehner, asked yesterday to explain why he and 177 of his colleagues switched their votes, answered: "Oh, we just wanted to make sure that everyone was on record in support of Mother's Day."

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-275

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 784 • Replies: 11

No top replies

What a misleading column in the Washington Post...

The original bill passed 412-0.

The Congressional record very clearly shows that the motion by Tihart to reconsider the vote was to get a recorded vote.

Fortenberry announced that he had not been able to vote on the original bill in roll call vote #274.

Tihart moved to have the bill reconsidered so that Fortenberry's vote could be recorded.

Castor raised a motion to table Tihart's request. Motions have to be voted on.

Roll call vote #275 was a vote on Castor's motion - not on the original bill.

Presumably, if they had been allowed to revote Fortenberry's vote would have also been recorded and the final vote would have been 413-0 instead of the 412-0 that shows in the record.

The Congressional Record

Add Dana Millbanks to the long list of Journalistic hacks...

0 Replies

Leave it to the Republicans to say they like America, but are really subverting it. Last week, they voted to make rat poison the prime ingredient to lollipops.

0 Replies

So, let me get this straight Fishin..
The GOP think the bill is so important that they needed to vote on it twice so one more member can vote aye? Is that the argument? Because if the bill is so important they have to vote twice why wasn't it important enough for Fortenberry to show up for the first vote? It's not like it was a suprise vote that he wasn't aware of.

Your link doesn't work fishin but on examination of the house record there were 5 times on Wednesday that the GOP required a roll call vote on a motion to adjourn when it would have been quite clear that the motion had not carried during the voice vote.

With each of the motions requiring 20 minutes of open voting time that means on Wed the GOP wasted over an hour and a half of the House's time.

On Thursday, the GOP called for 10 votes on adjournment. You can do the math at 20 minutes per vote.

0 Replies

It's obstructionism of the highest order. Far more then the Dems EVER did in the minority.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

From the Congressional Record:

Quote:

SUPPORTING THE GOALS AND IDEALS OF MOTHER'S DAY -- (House of Representatives - May 07, 2008)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Page: H3130]
--- The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to the resolution, H. Res. 1113.

The Clerk read the title of the resolution.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay) that the House suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 1113.

The question was taken.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 412, noes 0, not voting 21, as follows:

[Roll No. 274]

*** Blah, blha, blah - Long list of people who voted "yea" and those who didn't vote****

ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). There are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

So (two-thirds being in the affirmative) the rules were suspended and the resolution was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Stated for:

Mr. FORTENBERRY. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 274, H. Res. 1113, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote.

MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MS. CASTOR

Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Speaker, I move to lay the motion to reconsider on the table.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.

The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE

Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

A recorded vote was ordered.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.

The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 237, noes 178, not voting 18, as follows:

[Roll No. 275]

*** Blah, blha, blah - Long list of people who voted yes/no and those who didn't vote****

So the motion to table was agreed to.

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

[Time: 14:27]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both roll call votes were 5 minute votes and the grand total for all of the discussion on the bill and both votes was a whopping 14 minutes and 27 seconds.

There was no vote "against mothers". Typical left-wing nonsense.

0 Replies

You do agree, however, that endless roll call votes and motions to adjourn are base obstructionism? Shameless Obstructionism?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You do agree, however, that endless roll call votes and motions to adjourn are base obstructionism? Shameless Obstructionism?

Cycloptichorn

I'd agree that they are a form of obstructionism. Shameless? Maybe, maybe not.

You do agree however, that fabricating and supporting lies about what the votes were actually for is nothing more than the same cheap politics that the Democrats have been accusing Republicans of, don't you?

0 Replies

fishin wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
You do agree, however, that endless roll call votes and motions to adjourn are base obstructionism? Shameless Obstructionism?

Cycloptichorn

I'd agree that they are a form of obstructionism. Shameless? Maybe, maybe not.

You do agree however, that fabricating and supporting lies about what the votes were actually for is nothing more than the same cheap politics that the Democrats have been accusing Republicans of, don't you?

Oh, yeah.

Though it's mostly the obstruction of justice, lies and illegality that get our goat. The cheap politics are to be expected.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What's next, cryinoutloud? Apple pie?

0 Replies

fishin,
First of all Fortenberry's statement appears to be an inserted statement to to show how he would have voted. It was not made at the time the motion to reconsider was made but was inserted into the record at a later time by Fortenberry. He also inserted how he would have voted on the previous vote. Other members inserted statements as well for other votes.

I am curious as to when there has ever before been a request to reconsider a vote when it carried so overwhelmingly.

The call to reconsider is usually because it is an attempt to overturn the previous vote. The GOP look like idiots in either they are trying to overturn the vote for mother's day or they are idiots in being obstructionist.

0 Replies

its about time moms finally got noticed as the primary source of america's decay.

see philip wylie on "momism"

http://www.library.csi.cuny.edu/dept/history/lavender/momism.html

0 Replies

GOP votes against mothers

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know