Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(46,077 posts)
18. maybe in some alternate universe but not in the real world
Fri Mar 29, 2013, 11:54 PM
Mar 2013

In the real world, the House passed a version of the CR that wasn't supported by a majority of the House Democrats. An amended version was submitted by Mikulski for consideration by the Senate on March 11 that included over 200 additional pages of provisions, including the Monsanto provision. Tester and six other Democrats submitted an amendment to strip that provision, but like the overwhelming majority of amendments submitted, they did not make the cut when the Senate leadership worked out a time agreement for debating the CR. When the bill was voted on in the Senate every Democrat voted for it except Tester. In other words, the six Senators that had joined him in proposing an amendment to strip the Monsanto language still voted for the CR even though that language remained in the bill. The bill then went to the House where, in a turnaround from the vote on the original version, a majority of Democrats supported its passage.

So, in order to get a "clean" CR, the president would have to veto the bill and then hope than enough Democrats would reverse their position and vote to sustain the veto. Yet, that had zero chance of happening. If six out of seven Senators who were on record as opposing the Monsanto language still voted for the bill the first time around, they weren't going to switch and put the funding of the government at risk after a presidential veto. Nor would other Senators. It would make it look like the President and the Democrats were in complete disarray and were putting the funding of the government at risk over something that members had previously voted for.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Thanks. 'Provisions in effect for 6 months, elleng Mar 2013 #1
Kind of like the Bush Tax Cuts TM99 Mar 2013 #2
The Bush tax cuts were extended due to defeatists staying home in 2010 allow the baggers control. freshwest Mar 2013 #3
Seriously? TM99 Mar 2013 #4
I think you must have missed a lot since 2008. The Tea Party was formed to stop PBO's freshwest Mar 2013 #7
Condescension always works well in a discussion. TM99 Mar 2013 #9
Then there's this... sheshe2 Mar 2013 #14
This will be good news TM99 Mar 2013 #15
actually he did want to keep a large part of them dsc Mar 2013 #16
LOL. Bonobo Mar 2013 #5
Sure, the Tea Party had nothing to do with it... freshwest Mar 2013 #8
not this shit again.. frylock Mar 2013 #10
Thanks for bumping Janey Vee's thread. It's inspired a number of others, including Will Pitt. freshwest Mar 2013 #11
Agreed! sheshe2 Mar 2013 #13
1000% raouldukelives Mar 2013 #21
No, we do not have to sit and wait, sheshe2 Mar 2013 #12
If change was that easy, TM99 Mar 2013 #19
POTUS Obama could have vetoed the spending spill (oops Bill) PufPuf23 Mar 2013 #6
and then there would have been no food inspection whatsoever dsc Mar 2013 #17
maybe in some alternate universe but not in the real world onenote Mar 2013 #18
Spot on... SidDithers Mar 2013 #23
Ah. That explains it. I wasted time trying to find something about labeling in that budget bill Honeycombe8 Mar 2013 #20
Sorry you didn't recognize the angry humor in the name M. Protection Act Overseas Mar 2013 #22
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Snopes has already tackle...»Reply #18