Arizona Freshmen Vote Against It Before They Vote For It


Posted by Bob Lord

I'm reminded of that old Britney Spears song "Oops, I did it again" or perhaps Ronald Reagan's "there they go again."

Last week, prior to passing a Republican-backed Homeland Security funding bill, the House voted on an amendment proposed by immigrant hater Steve King of Iowa to remove protections for children of illegal immigrants, previously authorized by President Obama. 

Our three freshmen, Barber, Sinema and Kirkpatrick voted no. Only three Democrats voted yes, but the amendment passed.

OK, makes sense so far.

Then the amended bill was put to a vote.

And our three freshmen voted for it, immigrant bashing provisions and all. The overwhelming majority of Democrats voted no, but 25, including our three freshmen, joined Steve King and his friends. 

I can just hear them touting their "independence" and their "bi-partisanship" now.

Pardon me while I gag. 

So, I wonder, if asked about this vote by their base, will they explain how they voted against it before they voted for it?


  1. Tracy S.:
    That’s plausible(the fixing) if both the House and Senate, plus the Presidency, are controlled by Democrats. Given there is decent odds of the GOP holding the House until 2020, and that it could passed with just GOP votes, I don’t get it. Besides, it will have to go to conference anyway since the Democrats control the Senate.

  2. Keep in mind that the process of getting bills passed in BOTH the House and the Senate requires two things, strategic thinking, and kabuki theater. I haven’t been following this particular bill but with all bills they originate in one chamber, the other chamber must also pass a version of the bill (but often this differs in some areas such as amendments), then the bills have to be reconciled, then both chambers vote again on the final bill. During reconciliation a lot of ‘just for show’ amendments get thrown out, especially when the people we like control the other chamber. Some poison pill amendments can slip in and those will kill a bill. But you have no chance of passing a good bill in the second chamber if the first chamber kills it to start with. This is where the strategy comes in. Our representatives sometimes have to vote to pass the bill on to the other chamber in order to get the bill to where it can be molded into a decent final form. In many cases because of the districts certain Representatives are in they are encouraged to vote in ways that will help with re-election or at least not hurt them. — Think what their opponents would do with them if they voted AGAINST the Homeland Security Bill?

    When it gets to the final form what often happens is that the Representatives (or Senators) have to hold their noses and vote for a bill that is imperfect. In the final form they often have to judge whether the bad things that are in the bill are one of four things: a) bill-killing, bad enough that they can’t live with it and therefore they vote no; b) something the courts will deal with and likely remove later, in which case they might be able to vote for it despite those things, c) not that bad, bad in name only, not likely to affect the implementation of the main good points of the bill, or d) can be fixed later with another bill, and therefore they can vote for the bill. But if they don’t get the bill into the other chamber in the first place nothing can be done with it downstream. If they have an essentially good bill with a few crappy amendments that can be stripped out during reconciliation it does absolutely no good to vote to kill it early on. In these cases the ideal, the perfect, becomes the enemy of the good.

    There is a saying that when I heard it was attributed to Ted Kennedy — I have absolutely no idea if he actually said this or not. — I was told that he said this to Pat Moynihan about an imperfect bill but one that had the guts of something good in it: “Pass it now, we’ll fix it later.”