Can't seem to find a straight answer in the news on what exactly the argument was about. I'd like to know what was it that the Republicans wanted changed in the bill and why the Democrats didn't want to listen - or at least Michael McNulty didn't want to listen.
2007-08-03 12:24:41 · 2 answers · asked by jjflash 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I understand the rough outline of what happened, but I'm not clear on what the specific disagreement was about. I can't imagine that it's as simple as "the dems wanted benefits for illegals and the repubs didn't". Does anyone know the exact issues that were at stake? What were the two viewpoints?
2007-08-03 13:18:02 · update #1
The argument was that the current chair closed the vote and declared it a 214-214 tie (not carried) when there was still potential disagreement on the outcome -- some thing it should have been a 215-213 outcome, with the bill passing.
It's a common political tactic if you think the vote is going badly, to cut off further change -- happens a couple times per term in every Congress.
It's wrong every time -- but it's nothing new.
2007-08-03 12:59:02 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Repubs. wanted the provisions that would give financial benefits to illegal aliens out. They had the votes to do it, but the Dems banged the gavel down to close the voting before everyone had cast their votes. They were trying to prevent the Republicans from succeeding in taking out the aid for illegals provisions. Being sore losers and bending the rules b/c they weren't getting their way is really what it was.
2007-08-03 19:40:10 · answer #2 · answered by Catia 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋