5 ms·
Nice of the article to clearly lay out the partisan divisions here. None of that "blame both sides" bs. The vote: All D's voted right except Bill Nelson of Flo
by Hario 12y ago
Nice of the article to clearly lay out the partisan divisions here. None of that "blame both sides" bs.
The vote:
All D's voted right except Bill Nelson of Florida.
All R's voted wrong except Cruz, Lee, Heller, Paul, and Murkowski.
Where "right" means "for the overhaul bill" and "wrong" means the opposite.
You'll also notice that this bill got way over 50 votes, but still failed due to the modern filibuster.
- techrat 12y agoThe next two years are going to be full of "wrong" votes.
- deciplex 12y agoTwo? You're awfully optimistic.
- protomyth 12y agoProbably, but some of the new R's in the Senate would follow Paul / Cruz on this vote.
- tptacek 12y agoNeither Rand Paul nor Ted Cruz were going to break with the party on the eve of the GOP's assumption of the senate majority, knowing that in a year or so they're going to be on a stage debating other Republicans in front of the GOP base. In fact: the more "grassroots-friendly" this bill had been, the less tenable a yea vote would have been, particularly for Paul.
- protomyth 12y agoPaul said it didn't go far enough and had some problems. Cruz has proven he doesn't care what the old guard think.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoCruz did break with the party.
- tptacek 12y agoD'oh. Thanks for the correction.
- drzaiusapelord 12y agoBecause, like Paul, he has the luxury to. If he ever held the tie-breaking vote he sure as hell would vote lockstep with the GOP. These people are "show libertarians," at best.
- lvh 12y agoWhat would convince you of that fact, or convince you of the contrary?
- wyclif 12y agoNope. Paul refused to support the bill because of the provisions for the continuance of the Patriot Act into 2017. He's been quite consistent on this, and it really doesn't have anything to do with Senate majorities. I applaud his stand.
- djur 12y agoWhich ones?
- protomyth 12y agoI apologize, I haven't found my issue list but: The following Republican Senators Elect are currently US House Reps and voted: Yea Tom Cotton Nay Cory Gardner Yea Bill Cassidy (assuming win in run off) Nay Steve Daines Yea Shelley Wellons Moore Capito Joni Ernst, Thom Tillis, Mike Rounds are the unknowns.
- deciplex 12y agoThe new R's are going to do what they're told, just like Paul and Cruz did what they were told in this vote, as well: as stars of the Republican party, they were allowed to vote for cloture and deflect attacks on them in a year when the race for President heats up. And, they were allowed to do this because the leadership knew they already had the votes to block the bill.
- themartorana 12y agoThe party of keep-the-government-out-of-my-healthcare would very much like to keep it in absolutely everything else you do. These are not your Goldwater Republicans.
- deciplex 12y agoI'm not sure why you think I'm suggesting they are? My only point is that, had the blocking of the bill depended on Paul and Cruz voting against cloture, they would have voted against cloture. Since it didn't, they were allowed to vote for cloture, and appear to be friendly to privacy/whatever, since both of them think they might be President someday. It's why a lot of votes in both houses can seem close, or bipartisan, but in fact they are not - just Congressmen who are owed a favor being allowed to vote in such a way that won't piss off their constituents or hurt their chances of being elected to a higher office someday, or land them a sweet consulting gig after they leave office, or whatever. If the leadership knows they have votes to spare anyway. This is a pretty common and well-known practice I thought, so I don't really understand the downvotes. I mean, if both Cruz and Paul had voted for cloture and the Senate had moved on cloture with e.g. 61 votes or something (i.e. both their votes actually mattered and were against the party interests), then their votes would be big news and evidence of an actual schism. As it stands, how they voted doesn't mean shit, other than that they are reasonably famous politicians.
- _delirium 12y ago> All R's voted wrong except Cruz, Lee, Heller, Paul, and Murkowski. The roll-call vote I'm looking at [1] only has Cruz, Lee, Heller, and Murkowski voting to move the bill to a vote on passage; Paul supported the filibuster. [1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=2&vote=00282 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c...
- nostromo 12y agoPaul ended his support because the bill also renews the Patriot ACT until 2017. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_Freedom_Act http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244 http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=1244 He's actually been very consistent in opposing Patriot ACT renewals, and I applaud him for it.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoSo some Patriot Act provisions expire in 2015. That could make for some interesting politicking.
- phaus 12y agoNot sure how one can be pro mass surveillance and anti-patriot act at the same time. Fuck that guy.
- adventured 12y agoBecause Paul isn't pro mass surveillance.
- phaus 12y agoWhat is his justification for voting against? Unless his argument was that the bill is inadequate, I can't really see a good reason.
- 12y ago
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- baddox 12y agoI doubt most votes are motivated by what's "right" and "wrong" (since we're apparently pretending those are objective for the moment). I suspect most are motivated by the party lines, for members of both parties.
- waterlesscloud 12y agoYou make a statement of non-partisan truth, and you're downvoted. Well, there's your problem in a nutshell. That's why we are where we are.
- mariodiana 12y agoThis bill was completely watered down and subverted from the original, to the point where even many of its initial champions turned against it. Voting it down was the right choice. The worst thing would have been to have passed it and pretended that "reform" had been made.
- mikeyouse 12y agoI think one of my favorite sayings applies: 'The Perfect' is the enemy of 'The Good'. Google, MSFT, Apple, the EFF all supported this bill. Obviously there are further improvements that could be made, but instead of starting from a better platform, we're at ground zero with an incoming congress that has no interest in curbing the 'military' power of the US. The EFF's case for supporting the bill that was just killed is very clear about this: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/understanding-new-usa-freedom-act-questions-concerns-and-effs-decision-support https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/08/understanding-new-usa-...
- 001sky 12y agoThis is (arguably) a lame excuse. Half-measures are often incoherent and worse than the status quo. See: banking & healthcare You just lock yourself into a disaster. Obama can update the EO's for the NSA without congress[+]. [+] EFF: "Future reform must include significant changes to ... Executive Order 12333, and to the broken classification system that the executive branch counts on to hide unconstitutional surveillance from the public." He just doesn't want to stick his neck out. So this bill was a distant 3rd choice for the country. 1) pass a good law 2) administrate the NSA into compliance 3) pass muddled legislation in a lame duck session
- bsimpson 12y agoHooray Dean Heller - way to not-be-a-dick! I find it interesting that Barbara Boxer voted for it, given her staunch defense of the NSA's abuses-to-date.
- patronagezero 12y agoWhat a uselessly unintellectual commentary. Care to address the renewal of the 'Patriot Act' as being the "right" vote?
- dang 12y ago> What a uselessly unintellectual commentary. No personal insults on Hacker News, please, even when someone else's comment seems dumb.
- patronagezero 12y agoIt wasn't a personal insult if I was addressing the quality of the comment made, just as you are doing for me.