Does anyone know how Jon Tester voted on the cut and run, pork and spinach bill?

I thought the Republicans had stopped using "cut and run" in favor of other talking points.

The question was, how did Tester vote.

Yes, I understand that was the question. That is why you put a little "?" symbol at the end of it. I was making a statement, so I used "."

If you want to know how Tester voted, check the Congressional Record. It is available online.

Kelly, the official phrase is now "Pork and Run"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201883.html

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 3/28/2007).]

Looks like he has voted the party line since he was elected.

http://projects.washingto...464/votes/

Suprise, suprise, and I thought he was going to be different from the rest of the Democrat party.

Pork and spinach bill? Thats intelligent. Let me tell you how that bill passed. It passed because several republicans are "ON THE TAKE"
No scruples at all. These republicans have finally proved, once and for all, that their votes can be bought. If a yes vote means cut and run, then it makes sense that a no vote means they are all for more dead Anericans. Nice work there.

Pork and spinach bill? Thats intelligent. Let me tell you how that bill passed. It passed because several republicans are "ON THE TAKE"
No scruples at all. These republicans have finally proved, once and for all, that their votes can be bought. If a yes vote means cut and run, then it makes sense that a no vote means they are all for more dead Anericans. Nice work there.

A "yes" vote meant that they're ok with dead Americans for another year or so, so long as they can cement those deaths' meaninglessness just in time to pimp 'em for some votes in the next election. (When they'll try to pin their self-imposed defeat on Republicans)

http://www.washingtonpost...01839.html

The Democrats aren't tryin' to hear that though. Their chips are down on defeat, and they'll throw the match if they have to.

"Yes" also meant that they love them some pork. All that stuff Pork n' Run Tester said about "special interests" during the campaign??? Well, they're not really considered "special interests" if you're a Democrat.

http://www.opinionjournal...=110009835

If earmarks are spent in the forest and nobody's there to see it, are they still pork? Not quite what I'd expected from the "Most Ethical Congress in History"

Matt, I really enjoyed your perspective that when a Democrat and Republican vote "yes" on the same bill, it's because the Democrat is principled, and the Republican is sleazy. I can see how you bring your whole world view into focus now.

Geeze. I only wondered if Tester is really his own man, or did he fall in line and goose step along with the rest of his comrades.

Don't worry guys, when this bill gets to the President's desk, he's going to whip out his mighty manly pen and veto the hell out of it - and you'll get to keep your war all to yourselves.

A Senator voting along party-lines . . . a freshman Senator at that!! Good Gravy! What's the world coming to?

Maybe the thing to do is to dig up the stats on Burns voting record . . . folks could keep a tally sheet and compare Jon's record with that of the legacy left behind by his predecessor.

Come next election, maybe folks who didn't want to base their votes on stuff like this (http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=24591) could use the tally sheet to help them decide who to vote for.

Hal: I most always injoy your input because it is informative and logical. But-- Burns is a dead issue. Don't play spin doctor. Next in my mind is how Tester is going to act on these two issues. International, Iran (we will be in there in some form, some say by the 7th of April) and the 400 billion dollar tax raise that is in the wings now.

Jay - there are a hundred or more posts here of folks who are still complaining about, whining about, and bashing Clinton and he's been out of office for years.
http://www.google.com/sea...tnG=Search

Is there some sort of double standard in play here? Is it true what they're saying? "Hypocrisy is the Vaseline of GOP political discourse?"

All that aside. . . .

Why isn't it legitimate to compare the current office holder's record with that of his predecessor? Isn't that one of the yardsticks used to evaluate an elected official's performance?

All that too aside. . . .

Jay wrote:
>>Does anyone know how Jon Tester voted on the cut and run, pork and spinach bill?

If you want to have an intelligent, civil, logical, and spin-free discussion, then start one.

I'd much prefer a discussion along those lines - but I'm not going to tie one hand my back and "play fair" while you frame the debate in the manner you chose to use when you started the thread.

[This message has been edited by Hal Neumann (edited 3/29/2007).]

Jay - what course of action would you want Tester to support vis-a-vis Iran?

Very well put Hal. When Jay started the discussion by infusing it with emotive words, I just had to respond with sarcasm. Your words were much more eloquent.

The pork was political payoffs arranged by Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to get the votes they needed to pass the legislation. The dems bought the votes here.

The deaths in Iraq are not meaningless and the surge is starting to work. Things have subsided in Iraq. Baghdad is a city of some five million people and has always been a violent place, even under Saddam.

Those who believe the surge is working must be watching/reading different news than I am.

T4TX: Why do you believe the deaths caused by this war are not meaningless? What is truely being gained by these deaths? A steady supply of oil? Democracy in the Middle East? You will never have democracy in that part of the world as long as the religion plays a roll, which it evidently does in Iraq.

Remember, these people have been at war over religion for thousands of years. "W" and his cronies will NEVER change that, with this war or any other.

For those that say leaving Iraq on a timetable will only let the "enemy" know that all they have to do is wait are mistaken. You must understand the people we are fighting. They are known for patience and will keep us engaged in war until our country is even further in debt due to war costs. Waiting is what they do, whether we are there or not.

[This message has been edited by Kelly (edited 3/29/2007).]

Is there some sort of double standard in play here? Is it true what they're saying?

If I'm not mistaken Hal, you gave me grief on a couple of different occasions regarding my references to Clinton-era precedent. Now, two months into a six-year term, and you're throwing out the... how did you put it....

BURNS DID IT, BURNS DID IT, BURNS DID IT

of course, it was Clinton when you said it, but you get the point. At least now we can say you've come around to see the relevance of precedent in politics.

Kelly, aside from what I already posted, take a look.

http://www.cbsnews.com/st...5272.shtml

http://www.foxnews.com/st...87,00.html

http://www.opinionjournal...=110009862

Now before we hear about some bleeding frontpager as "evidence" to the contrary, please keep in mind that one of the most difficult things in war is to keep morale high at home. Examples of death and destruction can always be found and highlighted in battle. What you see today is a media fixation on death, even in the midst of one of the least bloody wars in world history. A camera only shows you one point in time. Often, it only shows you what the person running it wants you to see.

This is why FDR immediately formed the Office of Censorship when we entered World War II to make sure things in the media were kept positive. He understood that in some ways what you see is more important than what's really going on. Imagine the screams we'd hear for impeachment if such a thing were proposed today.

I'd like to think such harsh tactics aren't necessary... that Americans are shrewd enough to be able to look past the blood splashed on the front page, to focus on the big picture... and the real carnage that would ensue if we were to abandon our responsibilities. We'll see how that pans out.

What is truely being gained by these deaths?

First and foremost, we've got a frontline with al-Qaida in Iraq. Whether they were there to begin with or not, the indisputable fact is that they are there now. Retreat now, and they'll be making more travel arrangements to the US for 9/11 part two. And when that happens, what's the next move? Start another war you say we can't win somewhere else?

[This message has been edited by Rick Kuchynka (edited 3/29/2007).]

The surge is working? Over 180 deaths in Iraq in just the last 48 hours. If that means our "plan" is working, then God forbid the day it stops working. If it only averages 50 a day for the next 6 months, thats only 9000 more dead Iraqi's. And about 900 more dead Americans. Thats some sickening math right there. And yes, pun intended, those are probably "conservative" numbers too.

"The deaths in Iraq are not meaningless and the surge is starting to work. Things have subsided in Iraq. Baghdad is a city of some five million people and has always been a violent place, even under Saddam."

If you're going to make inaccurate statements at least try not to include any facts that are incorrect so as to undermine your credibility by the end of your paragraph.

Iraq's last official census put them around 7.5 million people and the common sentiment of people who perform those counts estimate that if you add the "unaccounted" individuals to that number your looking at 8 million people. 3 Million is a big difference.

As to the bolded part.... how's the weather in that bag?

First and foremost, we've got a frontline with al-Qaida in Iraq. Whether they were there to begin with or not, the indisputable fact is that they are there now.

--------------------------

You mean "al-Qaida" might NOT have been in Iraq before the war?

Really????

Dang it Stone!

I was ready to respond to Rick, then I made the mistake of looking at your newest thread:
http://milescity.com/foru...fpid=27254

Brady . . . I hate it when commonsense and the truth prevents me from having my say, but I'll bow out of this thread and "dialog" with Rick at another point in time.

Rick - sometime again Man

You mean "al-Qaida" might NOT have been in Iraq before the war?

As I've said before, I don't hold that view, but at this point it's irrelevant.

We invaded Italy first during WWII, even though they'd done nothing to us. We did so because they were our most vulnerable enemy at the time. But the Germans showed up eventually, and at that point, retreat was no longer an option.

What's the difference here?