It's nothing new that politicians won't take responsibility for their own actions. But the drumbeat for months has been that in Florida, it is the fault of Republicans that the primary was moved up, and that the Democratic voters and candidates should not be penalized for it.
As expected, however, this is entirely and completely untrue.
This was a bill passed by the Florida Republican-controlled legislature, and signed into law by a Republican governor. But the bill was initially approved 37-2 in the Senate, and then 118-0-2 in the House. Every Democrat who voted for it in the House approved of the bill, and two Senators -- not sure which party -- voted against it.
So when it passed with overwhelming support by Democrats, how can they blame Republicans? Simple: they couldn't vote against the bill, they say.
Seriously.
Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) actually made this argument. Liberals Crooks and Liars reported this a couple of months ago, but actually bought her lie:
So the vote total was unanimous, but that was because there was no one in the Florida legislature was going to vote against changing our voting system so that you could have a paper trail and make sure that every vote could be counted, unlike our touch screen voting system right now, which doesn't allow for that.
That is, of course, complete nonsense. It, literally, makes not a bit of logical sense. If you vote for a bill, you are giving your assent to the bill. If you disagree with a portion of the bill so much that you won't want to have your name attached to its passage, then vote against it. If you vote against it because of something sigificant you disagree with, and the bill doesn't pass, great! Now you have the leverage to change the bill and get it passed as you want it. If you fail, great! You still get the bulk of the bill that you want, without having your name attached to what you don't want.
It should be, by definition, harder for a legislator to vote Yes than to vote No. A Yes vote means you assent to the whole bill. A No vote means only that you disagreed with one part of a bill. No one had to vote for that bill. For whatever reason, they DID vote for that bill, and they cannot blame someone else for it after the fact. That is lying.
This is why I supported John Kerry's argument when he infamously voted against the $87 billion for our troops. I disagreed with his reasons for voting against it, but when he said his vote against the bill did not represent a vote against funding, he was absolutely correct. He was in favor of the funding, but in favor of taxing the rich to get it.
Saying Kerry was against the funding was utterly untrue. Unfortunately for Kerry, he has trouble breathing and clearly stating his position at the same time, so he couldn't articulate this very well, and came out with the lovely illustrative phrase, "I voted for it, before I voted against it." You can't easily save a drowning man while he's flailing his arms and legs.
Kerry was right to vote against the troop funding, if he disagreed with some parts of it. McCain was right to vote against the tax cuts, if he disagreed with some parts of it. And the Florida Democrats should have voted against this elections bill if they disagreed with a part of it. Sure, there may be a political cost to it: unscrupulous people may attack you for voting against the part of the bill you supported as though you were against it. But if you can't handle that, if you can't stand up for a No vote based on principle, then you have no business being a legislator.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at May 25, 2008 08:42 AM | Email ThisYou can then vote however you want on final passage - for or against.
But no. It's much easier to dupe the liberal lemmings by blaming the GOP for everything.
Posted by: jimg on May 25, 2008 09:39 AMWhen Bob Dole, a notorious compromiser, would vote for a bill, he wouldn't say "I'm not responsible, don't blame me." He would say, well, he disagreed with it, but he voted for it, and he is responsible for that vote. The Democrats are saying they voted for it but they are not responsible for that vote, and that is rubbish.
And I am not saying this is a partisan problem, as I pointed out by mentioning the attacks on Kerry etc. All sides play this game. Bottom line: you voted for it, you voted for it. You are responsible for your vote: it's your vote, after all. You can't disown it later. You can say you didn't want it in the bill, that's fine, but you can't say the vote wasn't your fault, because you chose to say Aye. No one held a gun to your head.
Posted by: pudge on May 25, 2008 09:50 AMIf you follow congressional sausage making, you understand that most bills are omnibus legislation that that contain a lot more than one item of law.
In this type of legislation we often see items (often added as amendments) that can nullify each other.
One that really caught my ire in 2007 was the clause in the immigration bill that mandated criminal checks for all registrants, but which was waived if the FBI didn't finish the check in an extremely short period (I think it was 10 days, but I don't have total recall).
Posted by: deadwood on May 25, 2008 10:34 AMIs this what they call a dry run?
Talk about stupid, what is it about Floridians and voting?
Posted by: ExPatBrit on May 25, 2008 11:44 AMThe Florida Republicans could have done the same thing. As it was, the Republican party is only stripping Florida of half its delegates, instead of the entire delegation. The Republicans also stripped Michigan, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Wyoming of half their delegates for selecting them too early.
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 25, 2008 06:02 PMThe Michigan / Florida Democrats and DNC missed its opportunity to set this right. There was only one good solution: hold another delegate selection process later. They decided in March or April they wouldn't do that. So now they will either shut out a huge number of Democratic voters, or they will go back on their own rules, statements, and promises.
Either way, the Democrats will lose from this, no matter what happens.
Sucks to be them.
Posted by: pudge on May 25, 2008 07:10 PMKind of like when they themselves designed and approved the Palm Beach butterfly ballot, and then complained that no one could understand it. Well who designed it, folks???
Posted by: Michele on May 25, 2008 08:05 PMThe first, an L.A. surgeon, says: 'I like to see accountants on my operating table, because when you open them up, everything inside is numbered.'
The second, a Dallas surgeon, responds: 'Yeah, but you should try electricians! Everything inside them is color coded.'
The third, a New York surgeon, says: 'No, I really think librarians are the best; everything inside them is in alphabetical order.'
The fourth, an Seattle surgeon, chimes in: 'You know, I like construction workers...those guys always understand when you have a few parts left over.
But the fifth, a Washington D.C. surgeon, shut them all up when he observed: You're all wrong. Politicians are the easiest to operate on. There's no guts, no heart, no brains and no spine, and the head and the butt are interchangeable.
Posted by: GS on May 25, 2008 08:52 PMI think it has a lot to do with the childish nature of people who are drawn to liberalism and the Democrat party. How many times have we seen liberal trolls interrupt a discussion and change the subject or resort to insults? How many times do liberals avoid answering a direct question?
Asking liberal politicians such as Obama or Gregoire about their policies and disastrous historic record is the best weapon we Republicans posess. I'm not sure our current leadership is up to the task.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 26, 2008 10:23 AMIf Democrats weren't such a bunch of dangerous socialists observing their behavior would be more amusing.
Ever seen a Democrat make a sincere apology? I can't recall a single one. When Democrats make a stupid gaffe they can be relied on to say something like, "I apologize if my remarks were misunderstood". No matter what they are experts at blaming other people for their own screw-ups.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on May 26, 2008 01:07 PMHow about giving them credit for that?
As far as the primary, once again, political parties are private organizations. I don't even know why the legislature was "voting" on when the Democrats could hold their primary. I mean, if the Democrats want to pay to hold a primary with their members, they are free to do so. If the state is offering a "free" primary to them then the legislature, state and citizens are free to determine when, where and how that primary may be conducted.
Did I miss something?
WA is a little different in that the primary is not run by the party at all, but purely by the state, and the parties can choose to accept the results or not.
But even if they do not choose to accept the results, or hold the primary on that date, most parties do not have the money to hold a separate primary, and if you are Florida and not Washington, your party has no experience with caucuses at all.
So while I absolutely agree with your point -- they didn't have to follow that date, even if the state required them to, as that is illegal -- they probably didn't have much choice, since they really have no other method.