A question

[avevale_intelligencer]

bedlamhouse mentioned in another connection:

"- the (bipartisan) Department of Homeland Security.
- the (bipartisan) Patriot Act
- the (bipartisan) invasion of Afghanistan
- the (bipartisan) invasion of Iraq"

I don't know exactly how the voting went, but from what I do know about the state of Congress certainly leading up to the last midterms, would I be right in thinking that calling them "bipartisan" basically amounts to:

MOMMY: "All right, Tommy, whose idea was it to kick the ball through the window?"

TOMMY (age five): ".......mine." (Pointing at three-year-old baby sister) "But she din't stop me, so that makes it her fault too!"

I'm sure some Democrats voted for these things. I'm equally sure no Democrat originated them. I'm open to correction, though, hence the question.

Comments

[billroper]

The Democrats in Congress were the ones who wanted the Department of Homeland Security originally. Bush initially rejected the idea, then gave up and went along with it.

Here's a by-no-means-pro-Bush source. You'll find the paragraph below about halfway down:

"Less than two months ago, top White House officials dismissed Democratic Party proposals for a new cabinet department for homeland security, calling it, at best, a possibility for the distant future."

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Of course, the same article says:

The Washington Post, in what purports to be an inside account of the decision, described what it called “a seven-week deliberative process secretive even by the standards of [the] Bush administration.” To call this process “deliberative” is surely misleading. Who was deliberating? Only four top Bush aides reportedly discussed and drafted the proposal: Bush’s present homeland security adviser Thomas Ridge, Budget Director Daniels, White House chief of staff Andrew Card and White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez. The plan then went to Bush and Cheney for ratification.

So the Democrats may have originated the idea for a Department of Homeland Security. The form that Department took was apparently determined by a handful of Republicans.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Okay. I stand partially corrected.

[howeird]

There's more to partisan politics than party, as you probably know. The same way not all Protestants back the same ideologies, neither do all Democrats. Thanks to some baggage from the Civil War, most former slave state southerners will not vote Republican, so even today many of the most conservative members of Congress are southern Democrats. They would rather be dead than take campaign money from the party which put Lincoln in office. Seriously. But they vote with the Republicans.

With 435 people in the House and 100 in the Senate, there are almost always votes across party lines one way or the other, so unless a vote is unanimous it is probably bi-partisan.

There's another definition of bi-partisan, though. Every bill has at least one sponsor, most have more co-sponsors. If there are people from both parties listed as sponsors, it's a bi-partisan bill.

[bedlamhouse]

The things I selected were specifically done because they were overwhelmingly supported by both parties. No, they were not unanimous, but more than just a few Democrats voted for them. Especially the Patriot Act, which, as I recall (no time to research exact votes) had no more than 5% dissent in either the House or Senate.

Fear and anger are universal, and gut reactions even more so.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

My recollection is that any Democrat who dared to question the wisdom of, for example, The Patriot Act, was publicly beaten with the "Unpatriotic" stick, mostly by Republicans. That may have had something to do with the degree of "support."

[bedlamhouse]

I recall that, but it was done to all who actually did oppose it (and of the few who opposed it, some were Republicans, too).

I recall many, many Democrats coming out in support of it - certainly enough to force cloture in the Senate, where the Republicans did not have a filibuster-free majority.

If every Democrat who voted for it (and did so every time it was renewed) was just keeping their mouth shut and voting simply because they were afraid to be branded as "unpatriotic" and losing the next election, then that is worse than fear or anger, it is dereliction of duty. I'm cynical but not that cynical.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

This is perhaps the old thing about "doing what's right" versus "doing what you have to in order to stay in the game."

The motion to pass the original Patriot Act was carried by 357 votes to 66, and 145 of the yeas and 63 of the nays were Democrats.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Thank you for checking this.

I should look up who those people were; those "NO" votes must have taken courage. On both sides of the aisle.

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I don't recall Republicans opposing it, but I only listened to the news, I didn't research it in depth. From Smallship1's comment, there must have been 3 Republicans in the House who opposed it. Good for them. I should look up who they were.

Regarding the last paragraph of your entry, I notice that there is a certain recurring theme (expressed here and in certain other posts by other people about Monday's failure of the bailout bill in the House) that Democrats are expected to sacrifice their jobs when they believe the good of the country would be better served by a particular vote. I also think it is appropriate to hold Democrats to a higher standard. I just want to note that it's happening.

[bedlamhouse]

Oh, I'm naive enough to hold all politicians to the standard that they should sacrifice their jobs when they believe the good of the country is at stake. I especially believe this if the "sacrifice" is simply holding up those "standards" by which you define your party and beliefs - for Republicans, that tends to be voting against things that push the nose of government into people's private lives (thus the utter disgust I have for the Religious Right's stranglehold on the party, as they pretty much exist to push the nose of government into people's private lives).

I also believe that this "sacrifice" is overrated - that it is the political hack's internal Fear as opposed to reality. At a certain level, I think people expect to be held to a higher standard by the government and - if the representative is simply continuing stands they campaigned on in the first place - will not punish someone for voting the way they've said they believe.

I do not, however, believe in Santa Claus. You have to draw the line somewhere.