Senate Republicans play Politics with the Defense Budget and Fail

[Modbert]

Senate Democrats block GOP filibuster

Senate Republicans failed early Friday in their bid to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move designed to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.

On a 63 to 33 vote, Democrats cleared a key hurdle that should allow them to approve the must-pass military spending bill Saturday and return to the health-care debate. After years of criticizing Democrats for not supporting the troops, just three Republicans supported the military funding.

The maneuvering came as Democrats were still trying to secure a crucial vote on the health-care legislation. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the last holdout in the Democratic caucus and the focus of an intense lobbying campaign by White House officials, rejected an abortion compromise aimed at bringing him on board. Nelson has said he would not support the package unless it explicitly bars use of federal money for abortion services.

Republicans have provided the backbone of support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many have praised Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan. When the House considered the same legislation Wednesday, 164 of the 175 Republicans present voted for it, so the Senate GOP plan to oppose defense spending Friday morning put them in an unusual position.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cited the roughly 1,800 earmarks in the bill worth $4.2 billion in explaining his opposition, but most others were blunt in their rational for opposing the military legislation.

"I don't want health care," Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said Thursday evening.

Taking the floor as the new day's session began just past midnight, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) laid out what appeared to be a case to filibuster the defense bill. "The bill that is before us is not what is driving, actually, the timing of this vote at 12:15 in the morning on Friday. I think that what is driving it is health care," Hutchison said.

An hour later, Hutchison joined Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe as the only Republican votes for the defense bill. But their support came only after waiting for all 60 members of the Democratic caucus to cast their "aye" votes, hitting the 60-vote threshold and making the GOP votes moot.

"Patriotic Americans indeed." Thoughts?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Your an idiot...the Republicans can filibuster nothing...they DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS...Quit blaming all of your party's fuck ups on Republicans...it's getting real old.

60 members of the Democratic caucus to cast their "aye" votes, hitting the 60-vote threshold

 

[Modbert]

Your an idiot...the Republicans can filibuster nothing...they DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS...Quit blaming all of your party's fuck ups on Republicans...it's getting real old.

60 members of the Democratic caucus to cast their "aye" votes, hitting the 60-vote threshold

Who says they can filibuster anything by themselves? The article said they played politics by attempting to get Democrats to join their side if you bothered to read the article. And they failed thankfully.

It's not my party as I'm not a Democrat. Maybe you should worry about your party sinking further into the depths of scummy behavior and less about myself.

 

[Maple]

Senate Democrats block GOP filibuster

Senate Republicans failed early Friday in their bid to filibuster a massive Pentagon bill that funds the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an unusual move designed to delay President Obama's health-care legislation.

On a 63 to 33 vote, Democrats cleared a key hurdle that should allow them to approve the must-pass military spending bill Saturday and return to the health-care debate. After years of criticizing Democrats for not supporting the troops, just three Republicans supported the military funding.

The maneuvering came as Democrats were still trying to secure a crucial vote on the health-care legislation. Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), the last holdout in the Democratic caucus and the focus of an intense lobbying campaign by White House officials, rejected an abortion compromise aimed at bringing him on board. Nelson has said he would not support the package unless it explicitly bars use of federal money for abortion services.

Republicans have provided the backbone of support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many have praised Obama's troop increase in Afghanistan. When the House considered the same legislation Wednesday, 164 of the 175 Republicans present voted for it, so the Senate GOP plan to oppose defense spending Friday morning put them in an unusual position.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) cited the roughly 1,800 earmarks in the bill worth $4.2 billion in explaining his opposition, but most others were blunt in their rational for opposing the military legislation.

"I don't want health care," Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) said Thursday evening.

Taking the floor as the new day's session began just past midnight, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) laid out what appeared to be a case to filibuster the defense bill. "The bill that is before us is not what is driving, actually, the timing of this vote at 12:15 in the morning on Friday. I think that what is driving it is health care," Hutchison said.

An hour later, Hutchison joined Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe as the only Republican votes for the defense bill. But their support came only after waiting for all 60 members of the Democratic caucus to cast their "aye" votes, hitting the 60-vote threshold and making the GOP votes moot.

"Patriotic Americans indeed." Thoughts?

Do you think that the reason they opposed funding for our troops was written in a bill that included 5,000 earmarks?? Because I do, one of those earmarks for $3 million dollars going to study a surgery center in outer space.

If the funding for our troops were written in a separate bill it would have been no problem and all Republicans would have supported it. Nice try though, to paint Republicans as anti-American, but that boat won't float.

Earmarks 'robust' in House $1T spending bill - USATODAY.com

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Your an idiot...the Republicans can filibuster nothing...they DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS...Quit blaming all of your party's fuck ups on Republicans...it's getting real old.

60 members of the Democratic caucus to cast their "aye" votes, hitting the 60-vote threshold

Who says they can filibuster anything by themselves? The article said they played politics by attempting to get Democrats to join their side if you bothered to read the article. And they failed thankfully.

It's not my party as I'm not a Democrat. Maybe you should worry about your party sinking further into the depths of scummy behavior and less about myself.

They didn't try shit....this thread will die a painful death just like all of your baseless partisan suppositions....I guess they don't teach you clowns math anymore...oh wait...you are getting a degree in what? Basket Weaving? Origami??

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why can't Democrats be honest enough to vote their earmarks outside of a defense bill?

Oh, I see the problem, I said "Democrats" and "honest" in the same sentence.

 

[Modbert]

Oh how nice of all the Republicans rushing to their party's aid. Some even denying that the fact that the Republicans tried to get the bill blocked. How out of touch with reality.

 

[Modbert]

They didn't try shit....this thread will die a painful death just like all of your baseless partisan suppositions....I guess they don't teach you clowns math anymore...oh wait...you are getting a degree in what? Basket Weaving? Origami??

Except they did you delusional fuck.

And all of your little personal attacks aren't going to change that.

 

[California Girl]

I think I'm kind of bored with people starting new threads on shit that's already being discussed. What is this obsessive 'look at me' mentality?

 

[Modbert]

I think I'm kind of bored with people starting new threads on shit that's already being discussed. What is this obsessive 'look at me' mentality?

Link? I looked before I made a new thread and I didn't see one.

And considering who's saying "what is this obsessive look at me mentality" you're probably not one to talk. Though if it's anything I don't have, it's that mentality. I post threads that interest me.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Why do Democrats Loves Earmarks more that our Soldiers and Marines? Why?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I think I'm kind of bored with people starting new threads on shit that's already being discussed. What is this obsessive 'look at me' mentality?

Link? I looked before I made a new thread and I didn't see one.

And considering who's saying "what is this obsessive look at me mentality" you're probably not one to talk. Though if it's anything I don't have, it's that mentality. I post threads that interest me.

You probably posted in the other thread.

 

[California Girl]

I think I'm kind of bored with people starting new threads on shit that's already being discussed. What is this obsessive 'look at me' mentality?

Link? I looked before I made a new thread and I didn't see one.

And considering who's saying "what is this obsessive look at me mentality" you're probably not one to talk. Though if it's anything I don't have, it's that mentality. I post threads that interest me.

Really? Exactly how many threads do I start on topics that are already being discussed? None. You?

Whiner.

 

[Modbert]

You probably posted in the other thread.

What other thread? And if I didn't, you going to come in and admit you were wrong? Or you going to slink off like the coward you are?

 

[Modbert]

Really? Exactly how many threads do I start on topics that are already being discussed? None. You?

Whiner.

Only one's that whining is you. You come in every thread of mine to attack me looking for praise from others and even maybe a treat.

It's either that or you're such a miserable person that you come on a message board just to flame instead of try to have a conversation. Either or. *Shrugs*

I'm still waiting for that link princess.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

You probably posted in the other thread.

What other thread? And if I didn't, you going to come in and admit you were wrong? Or you going to slink off like the coward you are?

Dems voted against funding the troops when there were no earmarks under Bush, why do Dems love earmarks more then our fighting men?

 

[Modbert]

Dems voted against funding the troops when there were no earmarks under Bush, why do Dems love earmarks more then our fighting men?

So instead of answering my two questions, you act like a partisan hack. And care to give me a link to back up what is likely bullshit?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dems voted against funding the troops when there were no earmarks under Bush, why do Dems love earmarks more then our fighting men?

So instead of answering my two questions, you act like a partisan hack. And care to give me a link to back up what is likely bullshit?

Maybe you posted in the other thread, maybe you didn't; this is still Old news, but have fun!

 

[Modbert]

Maybe you posted in the other thread, maybe you didn't; this is still Old news, but have fun!

I want a apology you coward. And old news? It happened not even two days ago.

What's your next excuse, I could use some more amusement.

 

[uscitizen]

Oh how nice of all the Republicans rushing to their party's aid. Some even denying that the fact that the Republicans tried to get the bill blocked. How out of touch with reality.

I don't remember DeLay or McCoinnel being against the pill bill?