The Democrats Gloat Thread

I dont know why they waited,you have to ask them.

Interesting how the dems dont want the rules to apply to themselves,isnt it.

OK, so, 11 Democrats voted "nay." [..]

The total vote was 54 yea, 41 nay.

Here's the text:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r110:1:./temp/~r110FS9Vjz:e91453:

[..] the relevant part of the text is pretty short

``SEC. 325. PROHIBITION ON EMPLOYMENT OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF A CANDIDATE OR FEDERAL OFFICE HOLDER BY CERTAIN POLITICAL COMMITTEES. ``(a) In General.--It shall be unlawful for any authorized committee of a candidate or any other political committee established, maintained, or controlled by a candidate or a person who holds a Federal office to employ-- ``(1) the spouse of such candidate or Federal office holder; or ``(2) any immediate family member of such candidate or Federal office holder. ``(b) Immediate Family Member.--For purposes of subsection (a), the term `immediate family member' means a son, daughter, stepson, stepdaughter, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, mother, father, stepmother, stepfather, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother, sister, stepbrother, or stepsister of the Member.''. (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Really, you have no idea, no inkling? No opinion about this at all?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00003

Yes,I have an opinion about it,but that isnt what you asked.
You asked if I KNOW why the repubs waited,and no,I dont KNOW.
You need to ask them why theyt waited,I wasnt privy to the discussion,so I have no idea what their rational was.

Mysteryman, while you're answering nimh's question, will you answer mine too? Just to remind you, here is the question again: "What is your comment, mysteryman, on the fact that a majority of Repbublicans opposed the measure?"

Possibly for the same reason I would have opposed the measure. I see nothing wrong with hiring family members,as long as they are qualified to do the job.

mysteryman wrote:

Possibly for the same reason I would have opposed the measure. I see nothing wrong with hiring family members,as long as they are qualified to do the job.

I see. Can I assume, then, that you consider it a good thing that some Dems (Reid, Obama, ...) opposed the measure? At first it almost seemed as if you criticized them for it.

I am not criticizing them for opposing the measure so much as I am for the stand that they were gonna be the "most ethical congress in years",but then voted against an ethics reform package.

mysteryman wrote:

I am not criticizing them for opposing the measure so much as I am for the stand that they were gonna be the "most ethical congress in years",but then voted against an ethics reform package.

Fair enough. In the meantime, we established that although some Democrats voted against the ethics reform package, the majority of Demcrats voted for it. If the "they" in your sentence refers to Democrats collectively, you were simply mistaken about the facts. Given that, does this mean you aren't criticizing "them" (the Democrats collectively) anymore on this point?

Thanks for the correction, nimh!

A proposal by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would ban senators' spouses from lobbying the chamber has [..] failed to clear a legislative hurdle Wednesday when it did not get the 65 votes needed to advance it.

Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama made his first misstep a few days ago when he joined only a handful of Democrats in opposing a Senate reform banning the increasingly widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls. [..] Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who opposes wives cashing in on their husbands' positions, voted righteously in favor of the reform [..]

Obama's inexplicable pro-nepotism vote may have been cast in sympathy with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. [..] But whatever the reason for his vote, Obama has screwed up.

Any payment from campaign money to a spouse is, in fact, an appropriation of campaign funds by the member of Congress for his own personal use, however camouflaged or disguised. The Senate was right to ban the practice and the House should follow suit.

The Motion to Table is used to kill a legislative matter. An Aye vote in favor of the motion is a vote against the bill or amendment.

Thomas wrote:

mysteryman wrote:

I am not criticizing them for opposing the measure so much as I am for the stand that they were gonna be the "most ethical congress in years",but then voted against an ethics reform package.

Fair enough. In the meantime, we established that although some Democrats voted against the ethics reform package, the majority of Demcrats voted for it. If the "they" in your sentence refers to Democrats collectively, you were simply mistaken about the facts. Given that, does this mean you aren't criticizing "them" (the Democrats collectively) anymore on this point?

Since I was going solely on the article the USAToday had online,then yes,I was wrong and will retract my criticism,on this one issue.

However,if they vote against another ethics reform package,especially one that will affect them,then I reserve the right to criticize them for it.

OK, Mysteryman - look what a fact-check on this turned up on another thread [..].

The whole charge you suggest here, apparently, turned out bogus in the end - the Dems did not block legislation on prohibiting the employment of family members.

Nimh,My OPINION as to why the repubs waited to bring it up is simple.

The dems claimed to be the more ethical party,so the repubs wanted to prove them wrong.
BUT,that is my opinion only.

I would have opposed the measure. I see nothing wrong with hiring family members,as long as they are qualified to do the job.

I also have no problem with Congressmen or women being married to lobbyists. Its not the job of a congressperson to decide how or where a person,even a spouse,works as long as the job is a legal one.

I am not criticizing the [Democrats] for opposing the measure so much as I am for the stand that they were gonna be the "most ethical congress in years",but then voted against an ethics reform package.

Yes,I would have voted against it,and I am glad they did,but that vote contradicts their public stance supporting ethics reform.

They either want total reform or none at all,there is no middle ground.

The Hill article of Jan. 17 that McGentrix posted in the Obama thread ("Obama's first blunder") has an equally clear - but completely opposite take:

So what that means, if I understand correctly - unless there has by now been a new vote that neither the US Senate website nor GovTrack or that of the Library of Congress have posted info on yet - is:

• The Hill article is wrong: the Senate did not in fact ban the practice of Senators employing spouses and relatives as lobbyists or campaigners.
  
  
• USA Today is right: instead, the amendment has for now failed to advance.
  
  
• Mysteryman is right: most of the Democrats have voted to kill the Vitter bill, for now. Most of the Republicans voted to proceed with the amendment.

• Here it gets interesting: if I understand this correctly, the whole premise of the anti-Obama Hill article then is one big cock-up. After all, Obama then actually voted in favour of the amendment by voting against "tabling" it - whereas Hillary voted to kick it in the long grass by voting for "tabling" it.

Here's a clue: the Hill article was written by Dick Morris. Former Clinton operative, if memory serves me well.

More recently, Morris has emerged as a harsh critic of the Clintons and has written several books that criticize them, including Rewriting History, a rebuttal to Senator Hillary Clinton's Living History. Morris has stated he will leave the United States if Hillary Clinton were to be elected president in 2008.

I just find it interesting that the dems are fighting it,when they ran on a platform of reforming the ethics laws and being ethical.

Thomas wrote:

Thanks for the correction, nimh!

No problem, but there might be more to come. This discussion might take an interesting turn. [..]

Back to the actual amendment [..], the more I look into it, the more confusing it becomes. [..]

The USA Today article of Jan. 17 that Mysteryman posted [on the Democrats gloating thread] has a clear take on what happened:

Quote:

A proposal by Sen. David Vitter, R-La., that would ban senators' spouses from lobbying the chamber has [..] failed to clear a legislative hurdle Wednesday when it did not get the 65 votes needed to advance it.

The Hill article of Jan. 17 that McGentrix posted [here] ("Obama's first blunder") has an equally clear - but completely opposite take:

Quote:

Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama made his first misstep a few days ago when he joined only a handful of Democrats in opposing a Senate reform banning the increasingly widespread practice of legislators hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls. [..] Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who opposes wives cashing in on their husbands' positions, voted righteously in favor of the reform [..]

Obama's inexplicable pro-nepotism vote may have been cast in sympathy with Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. [..] But whatever the reason for his vote, Obama has screwed up.

Any payment from campaign money to a spouse is, in fact, an appropriation of campaign funds by the member of Congress for his own personal use, however camouflaged or disguised. The Senate was right to ban the practice and the House should follow suit.

So what up? Did the Vitter amendment about banning legislators from hiring their family members on their campaign or PAC payrolls pass, or fail to be advanced?

I am no expert on these things, but I think the USA Today article and Mysteryman are actually right - and the Hill article that McGentrix posted has it ass upside down. In what would be quite a spectacular way.

The only vote on a Vitter amendment to ban the practice is the one you linked in, Thomas: the Motion to Table Vitter Amdt. No. 6. 54 Senators voted to table it, 41 voted "Nay".

Most Democrats voted to table it, most Republicans voted "nay" - this GovTrack page has a lovely little insightful map (looks like a very useful site).

The question is then just what it actually means to "table" an amendment. A clue is in the voting roll. Those who voted "yea" included not just Hillary, but also Reid and Feinstein, mentioned in the USA Today article as likely to oppose the amendment. Obama, but also Vitter himself, however, voted "Nay".

The GovTrack website provides what seems the crucial bit of information here (Senate Roll Call Vote #3):

Quote:

The Motion to Table is used to kill a legislative matter. An Aye vote in favor of the motion is a vote against the bill or amendment.

Wowza.

So what that means, if I understand correctly - unless there has by now been a new vote that neither the US Senate website nor GovTrack or that of the Library of Congress have posted info on yet - is:

• The Hill article is wrong: the Senate did not in fact ban the practice of Senators employing spouses and relatives as lobbyists or campaigners.
  
  
• USA Today is right: instead, the amendment has for now failed to advance.
  
  
• Mysteryman is right: most of the Democrats have voted to kill the Vitter bill, for now. Most of the Republicans voted to proceed with the amendment.
  
  (Which is where one sceptically wonders why they suddenly want to now, when throughout the time they were in power, they refused to propose such a thing).
  
  
• Here it gets interesting: if I understand this correctly, the whole premise of the anti-Obama Hill article then is one big cock-up. After all, Obama then actually voted in favour of the amendment by voting against "tabling" it - whereas Hillary voted to kick it in the long grass by voting for "tabling" it.

Here's a clue: the Hill article was written by Dick Morris. Former Clinton operative, if memory serves me well.

OK,now I'm confused (no cracks about that).
Was I right in what I initially reported before I got jumped on about what I said,or was I wrong?