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

[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.