Which Senators voted for cloture on Medicare Bill?

[genius]

Since 44 Senators voted against the bill, there were more than enough votes to fillibuster if all those Senators supposedly opposing the bill voted against cloture. The ones who in the end voted against it after voting for cloture simply wanted to go on record both ways and were themselves responsible for the end of Medicare. Which Democrats were theses?

[nini]

1. delete

sorry.. I read the post wrong.


zzzzzzz

[theivoryqueen]

2. Boxer and Baucus?

just a guess

[genius]

3. I hope you're wrong about Boxer. It wouldn't be in character for her.

She's the more liberal Senator for California. I can't imagine she would do that.

[theivoryqueen]

6. thanks for the correction

I read and heard (on TV - I admit) that Boxer was going to vote FOR the bill to pass. This surprised me.

[genius]

7. That was Feinstein. Feinstein betrays us a lot. She's not planning

to run for Senate in 06 and she has basically let her constituents know she doesn't care how they feel. I think she's planning to run for governor in 06 though. I have a feeling all the seniors will vote against her.

[dmkinsey]

4. link to Senate vote

I hope this link works

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00457

[genius]

5. Thank you. Only 29 voted against cloture. Boxer voted against cloture.

The following voted against cloture.
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)

[burr]

8. 11 Democrats of the Democrats who backed the point of order...

also supported cloture. What does this mean?

It means that Daschle could have brought at least an additional 11 votes to the table on this vote, if he had done the work expected of the Minority Leader. Had he threatened to remove Max Baucas as the ranking member of the Finance committee in the next session, he could of gotten another additional vote. Instead he choose to take the approach least dangerous to his career..and therefore endanger Medicare, any purpose for having a Democratic Party, and future generations of Americans for decades to come.

[NewJerseyDem]

9. No!!!!

First of all, he can't threaten to remove Baucus has ranking member. Reportedly, he has threatened to remove Baucus as Finance Chairman a couple of years ago and it didn't work. The Senate is run purely by seniority. It should work that way!!!! Do you think that a single republican would have voted no if seniority wasn't there to protect him? The Senate would just become like the partisan Hell that we call the House of Representatives!!! Seniority is important to the independence of senators and it must stay.

Daschle didn't do anything wrong. He opposed this bill and tried to filibuster in the end even at a risk to his reelection. He can't just order senators to vote how he wants them to. I don't think you understand how weak the leadership is in the Senate. Especially the MINORITY leader. What the hell is he supposed to do, threaten to be mean the senators that vote against his position? He has no power over those senators and frankly he shouldn't. Senators should vote how they want to, free of leadership orders. That is what makes the Senate great even if it doesn't always do what is right.

[genius]

10. Daschle opposed the fillibuster. He voted for cloture

Then he opposed the bill for show.
Here are the names of those how opposed the fillibuster and voted for cloture.

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---70
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

[DJcairo]

11. Dude, don't diss Dashle

The problem with the Dems is we diss our guys every chance we get. Dashle lead a successful filibuster of the energy bill and the four judicial nominees. By the way, since I know you all love Senator Byrd. well, guess who voted against the McCain-Lieberman global warming bill...

[NewJerseyDem]

14. Filibuster was the wrong word

Sorry. I meant to say how he tried to kill it on a point of order. I guess that really isn't a filibuster and Democrats didn't want to have another filibuster going because it might be unpopular. It just looked better to kill it on a point of order. Too bad, Trent Lott and Lincoln Chafee have no backbone. We were so close to winning this one.

[burr]

12. Can't Daschle completely remove Baucas from that committee?

My understanding is that the party leaders have this power. I also believe that Daschle could of cut a deal with Breaux to get his vote, in return for making Breaux the new ranking Senator on the Finance Committee.

Two backstabbers are more dangerous than one...

[NewJerseyDem]

13. Not really

I guess they could kick him off, theoretically. I don't believe that has every been done before, however. That is just something that isn't done in the Senate because he protects the independence of senators. How would you like it if Daschle threatened to kick Feingold off the Judiciary Committee because he voted against the Patriot Act? It wouldn't work to hurt just moderates, it would also hurt those more liberal than the leader.

Rick Santorum wanted to oust Mark Hatfield as Appropriations Committee chairman back in 1995 because Hatfield voted against the balanced budget amendment. I don't want the same type of Senate that Snatorum does, where it is just a miniature version of the House.

[burr]

17. it has been done...

in 1924 Republican Robert LaFolette of Wisconsin was stripped of a chairmanship just for running against the GOP nominee Calvin Coolidge, in the fall.

You imply this would be bad for moderates, but Breaux is a moderate...and one who may run again if made the ranking member!

[NewJerseyDem]

19. That was 1924

That was a long time ago. It happened once, 80 years ago.

And, he lost his chairmanship for turning against the party which is a little different than just voting a way you don't like.

I don't even think that you could get Breaux to change his vote if you did offer him the ranking member position. Breaux wouldn't accept it and Baucus would just turn against the Democratic leadership. It would backfire severely. What is so important about being the ranking member anyway? The power lies with the chaiman.

It would be bad for moderates because they would be pressured into voting a more liberal way when they don't want to and that shouldn't happen in the senate.

[burr]

20. I disagree...

Breaux is a traditional power broker, and he usually goes for the top dollar. This was the case on the Energy Bill, on Tax Cuts, and on this Medicare bill.

The only way he would of voted differently would have been if Daschle had promised him something much better for him and Lousiana! This deal could of even secured Landreui's vote. 42 votes against cloture, 3 republicans and 29 Democrats!

But you are right about one thing..this is not 1924, 1954, or 1984. Each of those years, the leaders in the Senate were a force to be reckoned with. But this is the era of Tom Daschle, the most powerful Democrat in Washington since 2001. Look at where his effective leadership and vision have guided us today.

[NewJerseyDem]

21. I'm not a fan of Tom Daschle

Even though I think he is a fine senator and hope he is reelected, I feel that if the 2004 elections go badly that we need a new leader. For whatever reason, his time as leader hasn't been the most successful time for Democrats. It isn't one particular thing that he has done or does but just in general it hasn't worked out.

However, I hate the attacks on all of our leadership. People even attack Nancy Pelosi who is about as liberal as they get in the House of Representatives. Too many people just want to bash any leader who doesn't try to assasinate Bush at the State of the Union or something like that. It has just gone to far in our criticism of members of our own party. Maybe that is why we are losing.

I still remain convinced that threatening a senator with the loss of seniority is unacceptable. The entire institution is built on the seniority. That is what is so great about the Senate. I don't want strong leaders in the Senate. It should be where 100 individual men and women representing the 50 states come to try to legislate not where 2 men dictate to the 98 other senators what to do. That would be a tragedy.

You've given one example, LaFollette. It was wrong then and hasn't been done since. Ousting a ranking member is just unheard of in the Senate. None of the other senators would support Daschle because they don't want to be the next person to lose their seniority.

[burr]

25. let's turn this issue around!

What would happen to Kerry or Lieberman in the Senate if they both decided to make public statements that Daschle should step down as Minority Leader? And what if all the other candidates followed their lead?

I seriously doubt Daschle would support our Democratic nominee..wouldn't this justify removing Daschle as the leader, despite his Seniority?

Doesn't the leader have a greater interest than merely playing it safe, and covering his own ass?

[NewJerseyDem]

28. Leader has nothing to do with seniority

Being minority leader isn't determined by seniority. He serves at the will of his caucus. If they want to fire him then that would be fine. I think he would endorse the democratic nominee but that is just my opinion, I don't know him so I don't know what he would do. If he endorsed Bush, of course I would want to get rid of him. That is completely different from being the chairman, or ranking member, of a committe.

When was the leader playing it safe? He along with other democrats do plan strategy and don't filibuster every bill. they tried to kill the bill on a point of order. It almost worked.

[burr]

30. I agree, we can't filibuster "every bill"...

but the most important ones, which do the most damage..must be filibustered.

In 1960 despite a push for three civil rights bills, only a token bill extending the life of the Civil Rights Commission was passed. All others were killed in committee or by filibuster. These were good bills, which were effectively killed by a few southern Senators.

The point is that the filibuster is the most effect tool available to use against the Majority party. It cannot be used against the budget, but it certainly should have been used against this bill.

Daschle's point of order was merely a way for him to weasel out of the filibuster, in reality he should of used both methods...resorting to the second method only after he tried to fight off cloture.

Concerning the issue of Seniority, every Senator that backed Chris Dodd would probably disagree with you! Senators like Robert Byrd saw him as being next in line for Democratic leader, and this is why Daschle only won by a single Senate vote in 1995. Had Jim Sasser been re-elected, Daschle would have never come close to being leader.

[Frodo]

16. You really think he could do that? But...

why do you assume the nine republicans who voted "no" on the issue would have supported a filibuster against their own party leadership?

Wouldn't they face harsher punishment?

[burr]

18. no...

but I believe that three of them would have..Chuck Hagel, Lincoln Chaffee, and John McCain.

[NewJerseyDem]

23. Not really Chafee

He voted against clotur and against the bill but his vote didn't matter then. He had the deciding vote on the point of order and he voted to waive it. The reason: the republicans agreed that Rhode Island wouldn't be one of the "demonstration" areas in 2010. I'm very dissappointed with Chafee's actions. Lincoln Chafee could have defeated the bill if he wanted to but he didn't.

[burr]

24. whatever....

I think Daschle could of rounded up 39 Democrats plus 2-3 Republicans. Nine Republicans would not be necessary, if Daschle had done his job!

[NewJerseyDem]

29. So, who could do better?

Do you really think that any other minority leader could have gotten another senator to switch their vote? Nobody else would have done anything different. He didn't have the votes. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, this time we lost because too many democrats voted against us. Daschle did the best he could.

[burr]

31. What a load of bullshit!

Daschle did the best he could...I agree, at supporting cloture!

Had Daschle and Reid been active participants in the filibuster, then I would agree that "we win some and lose some."

But this was not a failure, this was a direct attack on 26 Democratic filibustering Senators by the minority leader. Those Democrats put their careers on the line, and how did Daschle repay them? By covering his own political ass, then he pushes a point of order to "patch up the wounds" which he was guilty of tearing open!

[NewJerseyDem]

33. So the wording is the issue

The filibuster requires the same number of votes. It doesn't really matter what you call it. Point of order and filibuster end up being effectively the same thing. There is no reason for a filibuster and a point of order. Then you are just doing the same thing twice and you would get the same 61 senators voting to invoke cloture.

Also, the republicans were more willing to consider to join in opposing the bill on the point of order. Lindsey Graham and Trent Lott both considered voting no on waiving the point of order but probably wouldn't filibuster because they claim that would be "obstructionism."

[burr]

34. except for one thing...

When Daschle supported the point of order, so did 11 Democratic opponents of cloture. Doesn't this tell you something?

It tells me that Daschle was the one who drove the stake into the heart of this filibuster! And this filibuster, which had the support of 26 Democrats and 3 Republicans, with those other 11 votes...you only need one additional vote for it succeed. And you cannot convince me that Daschle couldn't of gotten Jim Jeffords or Ben Nelson to back him on the filibuster.

The Minority Leader had the ability to pull some strings if he wants something done, but the fact was Daschle supported cloture...because he is afraid of not being re-elected!

[NewJerseyDem]

35. He couldn't get them to oppose the point of order

Does that convince you? Why do you think he could be more persuasive on the cloture vote but not on the point of order? They were just one vote short to kill the bill on the point of order.

[burr]

36. actually they were two votes short on the point of order...

but on cloture, I believe he would of been one vote short had he made a fight of it. A vote he could of easily obtained!

And you say that Nelson couldn't be confinced, maybe it was because Daschle didn't even bother to get Nelson's vote. After all...if Hagle voted for the filibuster, then this would of given Nelson the political cover he needed to oppose cloture. The same is true with Jeffords, who would had not suffered at all politically if he had supported cloture. But with Jeffords, Daschle could of certainly offered something he wanted...like support for more IDEA funding next year.

[NewJerseyDem]

37. Wyden would have voted no if he was the deciding vote

They were effectively one vote short because if they could get just one other senator to vote no Wyden had said that he would vote no. He didn't want to be the deciding vote to pass the bill.

However, on the cloture vote, I believe that Chafee would have changed his vote. He voted to waive the budget because the republicans promised him that Rhode Island would not be one of the democnstration areas. I'm sure they could have offered him the same deal during the cloture vote.

How do you know if Daschle tried to get Nelson's or Jefford's votes? Maybe he did and they refused to vote for it. First of all, Daschle can't promise Jeffords anything because the republicans have the power. Maybe the republicans promised Jeffords something like more IDEA funding. And Nelson is too conservative. He probably likes the bill and voted yes for ideological reasons, not political ones. And even if it is political reasons, I'm sure that Nelson can come up with is own political strategy. He wouldn't need Daschle's advice.

[burr]

38. Republicans cut IDEA funding, and still don't communicate with Jeffords.

Jeffords to repukes, is what Zell became to us...both are seen by those respective parties as Senators that betrayed them at times when their support was most needed. Jeffords was seen as doing this when the repukes had a one vote margin in the Senate and Jeffords went independent, Miller did this by endorsing shrub and offering no constructive ideas to help when his party needed him most. And now both are untrusted and no longer seen as reliable votes on any legislation. To Democrats cutting a deal with Miller would be like dealing with the devil, and most repukes see Jeffords the same way.

"And Nelson is too conservative. He probably likes the bill and voted yes for ideological reasons, not political ones. And even if it is political reasons, I'm sure that Nelson can come up with is own political strategy. He wouldn't need Daschle's advice."

And Hagle isn't? Believe me, if Daschle had wanted Nelson's vote to oppose cloture..he could of gotten it! But why would Nelson support cloture or Daschle's point of order, when the Minority Leader is set on killing the filibuster. The Democrats who suffered most were the ones who went out on a limb to oppose this bill, and then got smacked right back down by their own Leaders!

I provided these Senators as examples to demonstrate that there were numerous ways for Daschle to have killed cloture, had he made the effort. But the point is that he supported cloture, and this sends a strong message to all Senators regarding this effort. The undecided Senators get the message that Daschle thinks it is bad for the Democratic party, and therefore damaging politically to their chances of winning back the Senate. The Senators who supported cloture get the message that Daschle is happy as MINORITY Leader, and will crush any who challenge his authority among Senate Democrats.

[Frodo]

15. That's not really fair

We simply can't expect every "no" vote to equal the willingness to filibuster the bill. We'd be fillibustering EVERYTHING. That isn't how the system is supposed to work. The Senate is supposed to be the deliberative body... supposed to take the time necessary to hear all the arguments for and against. Filibusters are supposed to gurantee that the sides are heard... and in the extreme are used to block legislation. But not for EVERYTHING we disagree with. Those handful that "split" are basically saying "my mind is made up, there is no need for further debate".

Or they could have just decided that they couldn't support it, but could let it go by. OUR bill was never going to pass this Senate, and the alternative was NOTHING for seniors for another couple years even if we DID take back one or more branches.

Also, there were NINE Repbublicans voting "no" on the bill. There's no way that five of them were going to break ranks for a filibuster. That's like expecting six more Democrats to break on the filibuster of the judges... if they come for a vote there are WAY MORE than six more Democrats that would vote for them... but party discipline keeps the caucus (largely) together.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. good points

also, some just wanted to get on to other business.

[NewJerseyDem]

22. Cloture vote didn't matter

The Democrats decided to battle on the point of order which required the same number of votes. That was in effect an attempted filibuster in that it needed 60 votes. All the democrats who opposed the bill voted to waive the Budge Act with the Republicans. The Democrats did all they could. It was those coward republicans who were so angry about the bill's costs but voted to wave the Budget Act.

[burr]

26. the point of order was an attempt to run away...

for those Democrats who did not want to appear to be opposing or filibustering this "drug benefit bill".

It was an attempt to prevent a lengthy..painful, but effective method to kill bad legislation. But who wants to oppose the AARP on thanksgiving?

[a_lil_wall_fly]

32. Here in Oregon....

Congressman David Wu(1st district) and Sen. Ron Wyden vote for the bill. For shame for what they have done.

This will be more ammonution agianst Wu next fall with the 25% 3rd party voters in his district.
Wyden will have some serious explaining statewide as well.


The other 3 congressmen and 1 congresswoman voted against the bill.