LXXVIII: Politicus Lupus (GAME OVER!! SEE POST #2593 FOR RESULTS)

[KWhit]

And I'd question the people on your side who are writing the bills, since getting a law overturned would be a BIG win for the wolves as it would severely slow down our progress.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by KWhit

And I'd question the people on your side who are writing the bills, since getting a law overturned would be a BIG win for the wolves as it would severely slow down our progress.

That was to Path.

[PurdueBrad]

I'm not sure where Mccollins is going either.

Furthermore, I feel like even if this is going into a grey area of constitionial law, lets test it early and figure out the bounds rather than late in the game when we really may need something.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by KWhit

That was to Path.

Sorry. taht was to Pass, I mean.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

Why would you say that 2 is bunk?

Because I don't see anything in the rules that says that anyone who supports a bill found unconstitutional will lose popularity. If it ends up being unconstitutional, it's on us -- but if it fails because people think it MIGHT have been, it's on them.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by mccollins

Newsflash to the Republican Congressman in the district that is strongly centrist and only slightly leans Republican: A bill does not need unanimous support to pass.

Newsflash to the Democrat Congressman in whatever district you're in: I know that. That ceases to be my point. It's that if the Democrats can't come and support our bill, at the very least in the same manner in which we supported theirs', why should I believe these seemingly empty promises of benefits to come for my district and my constituents? Why should I think operations with Chubby the Democrat as Speaker are going to be any more than what I have come to expect from the by and large Democratic party thus far in my lifetime? There is a reason why I am Centrist with a Republican lean, and not a Democrat one.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

if it's unconstitutional, so be it.

That to me, good sir, is what screams wolfish. Not caring if these important bills get past the Supreme Court or not.

[RendeR]

VOTE YES ON WOLF DISCOVERY BILL
VOTE YES ON WOLF SECURITY BILL
Vote St. Cronin for Speaker of the House


"My Dear Fellow Congressmen, How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans? How can any of you sit there and perport to defend this great country and yet not show your support for Legislation that gives us the ability to do exactly that? You would throw our very citizenry to the wolves for the sake of political gain? I am apalled. Appalled I say. I will stand by my votes as they are what is best for my constituancy as well as all of the American public!"

[PurdueBrad]

I do not want to see the bill fail but I think we need to be a bit aggressive early. Not voting for this is a mistake.

[chesapeake]

I cast no aspersions on anyone for voting the way of those who elect you to the job. It is from our constituents that our power derives, and only a fool would spit upon that.

I respect the deeply held convictions of the distinguished Republican Leader who has chosen to vote against the Wolf Security Bill, despite its careful crafting and many merits. Thwarting the will of his constituents in this regard may well deprive this body of his very important presence, which would diminish us all considerably. Unless you are a wolf.

I understand the good intentions of the Republicans who proposed the Wolf Discovery Act, and I hope that at some point in time it will be revised to the point that it will be come acceptable to myself and the voters that entrusted me with this office. But I must, reluctantly
VOTE NO ON WOLF DISCOVERY BILL

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Because I don't see anything in the rules that says that anyone who supports a bill found unconstitutional will lose popularity. If it ends up being unconstitutional, it's on us -- but if it fails because people think it MIGHT have been, it's on them.

Maybe so. But it does say that if a bill doesn't pass, you could lose popularity. It is not a stretch to assume the same could be said of a bill that is ruled unconstitutional.

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

We see where you're coming from, but you're from a pretty centrist district yourself -- I'm worried that your 'no' vote is cutting it too close.

My district is definitely not 'centrist' - it is a 'Moderately liberal, democrat district'. I'm already getting calls back in my office from senior citizens and policy wonks sitting at home watching C-Span as I try to ensure that we have two constitutional bills even if my constituents don't support one of the bills.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

And I'd question the people on your side who are writing the bills, since getting a law overturned would be a BIG win for the wolves as it would severely slow down our progress.

It has to get passed first!

[EagleFan]

I believe the Wolf Discovery bill will be deemd unconstitutional and will not vote on it at this time but will discuss this with my constituants to determine what they feel is in their best interest.

If they feel it is unconstitutional it makes a LOT of difference.

What next? Will the Republican party propose a bill to detain suspected wolves on an island off our shores with no evidence?

I will be back in a while, I have a meeting with my new intern. Where's my cigars?

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Chubby

In short, everyone should always be mindful of what their district wants. You can't help the country if you aren't in office. It isn't always about strictly voting party lines but voting for what your district wants. In your case, it's pretty clear to me that they'd prefer myself over St Cronin.

I am very mindful of what my district wants.

My district wants a good, honest politician. One who considers an issue and decides on it in a fair light after exploring the options. I've given that to them here, and then some.

I can't see where one can say that you as Speaker is what my constituents want when you haven't told me, or my constituents, what you bring to the table for them.

That's just pandering on your part and my constituents would string me up for blindly following that without truly getting the feel that you, with the backing of your party, truly share my beliefs.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Newsflash to the Democrat Congressman in whatever district you're in: I know that. That ceases to be my point. It's that if the Democrats can't come and support our bill, at the very least in the same manner in which we supported theirs', why should I believe these seemingly empty promises of benefits to come for my district and my constituents? Why should I think operations with Chubby the Democrat as Speaker are going to be any more than what I have come to expect from the by and large Democratic party thus far in my lifetime? There is a reason why I am Centrist with a Republican lean, and not a Democrat one.

Except it's not "vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours"

I want us to work together to get the wolves. With that in mind I think everyone should vote how they think their local voters want them to.

That being said, your local voters would prefer me over St Cronin just as my local voters would prefer passing your bill vs not passing it.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

It has to get passed first!

I feel sure that it will pass. I know that there are even some Democrats who will help ensure that it does.

[jeheinz72]

Again the inability of the Democratic leadership to support our bill drives my decision for Speaker further from Chubby.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I understand 1) coming from you, but mccollins's district is not extreme enough for him to be worried about that. It just screams wolfish. And 2) is complete bunk -- if it's unconstitutional, so be it.

If this is the kind of talk going around in your back rooms, you should really look at who's driving conversation over there.

With respect, 10 votes is enough to pass. Any middlin' to conservative republican that votes for our bill is a dope. We've got the 10 votes we need with our party, whose constituents like the bill and jeheinz and RendeR who may also benefit from it. There is no reason whatsoever for the GOP to needlessly fall on their swords for a bill that is already passing. Take the smart vote.

It is extremely wolfish to ask folks to take an unnecessary vote that may cause them to lose reelection.

If your seer bill looks like it will fail, I'll switch and take the heat from my constituents. We all want a seer.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Except it's not "vote for my bill and I'll vote for yours"

I want us to work together to get the wolves. With that in mind I think everyone should vote how they think their local voters want them to.

That being said, your local voters would prefer me over St Cronin just as my local voters would prefer passing your bill vs not passing it.

I think my local voters would want me to support the candidate who I think can best control and lead Congress. So far, you've displayed a complete lack of ability to do so.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Again the inability of the Democratic leadership to support our bill drives my decision for Speaker further from Chubby.

If you don't want to support Chubby, then don't. But don't blame your decision on me.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I am very mindful of what my district wants.

My district wants a good, honest politician. One who considers an issue and decides on it in a fair light after exploring the options. I've given that to them here, and then some.

I can't see where one can say that you as Speaker is what my constituents want when you haven't told me, or my constituents, what you bring to the table for them.

That's just pandering on your part and my constituents would string me up for blindly following that without truly getting the feel that you, with the backing of your party, truly share my beliefs.

What do I bring to the table? I bring a centrist view, not an extremist view as my competition does.

I bring the goal of both parties working together to eliminate the wolves being our primary goal.

I bring the deisre to see good citizen congressmen stay in office instead of getting voted out where they can't do the country any good.

I bring the deisre to pass bills that further the cause of eliminating wolves, regardless of what side of the aisle they come from.

That's what I bring to the table. I'd love to know what St Cronin brings to the table, but I haven't seen much of him today


/out of character - I'm off from work today and the gf is working so I have a lot of comp time today. Hopefully to the village's benefit.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

Because I don't see anything in the rules that says that anyone who supports a bill found unconstitutional will lose popularity. If it ends up being unconstitutional, it's on us -- but if it fails because people think it MIGHT have been, it's on them.

Let us know how you feel the next time your representative comes out and supports a bill that is unconstitutional...

[path12]

Friends and colleagues, despite the harsh rhetoric tossed back and forth at times we are here to serve the public interest. Having a clause in a bill that may be overturned does not serve the public interest as far as I can see -- indeed, it opens us up to further delay in removing this threat from our body politic.

I am very much in favor of a seer appointment, and would like to vote for one today. However, a clause that both deprives the accused of due process and one that magically protects a seer from attack strike me as positions that are likely to be deemed unconstitutional.

One of these clauses I could support, the one that protects our seer in case of attack. But I do not know if I can support this bill as long as it contains the clause that gives the chance of instant removal from the game, since I believe this will not stand up in court and delay us further in our ultimate goal. For now I will defer voting on the Wolf Discovery Act in hopes that an amendment may be offered that I can support.

As for the other issues at hand:

VOTE FOR CHUBBY AS SPEAKER
VOTE FOR THE WOLF SECURITY ACT

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I bring the goal of both parties working together to eliminate the wolves being our primary goal.

I bring the deisre to pass bills that further the cause of eliminating wolves, regardless of what side of the aisle they come from.

It appears your party does not share these beliefs.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

If you don't want to support Chubby, then don't. But don't blame your decision on me.

FTR, no one in the Party is making that much of a push to get Heinz to vote in line. Whichever way he decides, it's you guys that are doing the pushing, so it only makes sense that you, as the Leader, should take some responsibility for it.

Instead of all this posturing, why don't we talk about what the Speaker does, and how much it even matters which party he is? I'll admit that we just put cronin up as our candidate because of Mrs. Schmidty's vote-and-run. Since both candidates are too liberal for my taste, it matters little to me, but if you want to differentiate between these two pinkos, talk some details!

[chesapeake]

My colleagues, do not view close votes as a concern. Indeed, if both of these bills head to the deadline with the bare minimum for passage, I contend that we are better served. Anyone who would change their vote at the last minute would clearly be someone for whom the good of the Congress -- indeed the good of the people -- was not an issue.

Defy the wolves among us to sacrifice themselves to kill the creation of a seer or bodyguard.

[Lathum]

VOTE NO ON WOLF DISCOVERY BILL

For the reasons KWhit stated earlier.

I can't piss off my peeps

[mccollins]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

I think my local voters would want me to support the candidate who I think can best control and lead Congress. So far, you've displayed a complete lack of ability to do so.

And your nominee is MIA!

[EagleFan]

We must ask ourselves who is the Republican leadership. Proposing a bill that could be overturned due to being unconstitutional is either wolves running the show in an attempt to get the seer role shot down for another night or just plain POOR leadership.

Either way this should show the centrists where they should look towards voting as our bill went through several changes to ensure it was air tight when going before the Supreme Court.

Join with the party that has the best interest of the people at heart.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by KWhit

I feel sure that it will pass. I know that there are even some Democrats who will help ensure that it does.

Originally Posted by chesapeake

With respect, 10 votes is enough to pass. Any middlin' to conservative republican that votes for our bill is a dope. We've got the 10 votes we need with our party, whose constituents like the bill and jeheinz and RendeR who may also benefit from it. There is no reason whatsoever for the GOP to needlessly fall on their swords for a bill that is already passing. Take the smart vote.

It is extremely wolfish to ask folks to take an unnecessary vote that may cause them to lose reelection.

If your seer bill looks like it will fail, I'll switch and take the heat from my constituents. We all want a seer.

That's cool. I just get nervous.

VOTE NO ON WOLF SECURITY BILL

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

It appears your party does not share these beliefs.

Of course they do.

but again, if they don't get reelected then the wolves benefit.

I still, and will always, maintain that people should vote how their district wants them to.

[path12]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

It appears your party does not share these beliefs.

I don't think that's the case at all and is rather an attempt to try and point fingers.

This is simple. Your bill may not be constitutional. This is bad for all of us because it sets us back a day without a seer. If you modify it you will have more than enough support from our side and the bill will pass easily.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by mccollins

And your nominee is MIA!

Show me where he was needed? We Elephants did the right thing in supporting, with a far further reach, the passing of your bill.

[jeheinz72]

(and surely you don't actually mean to suggest Cronin will be inactive as a player)

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by path12

I don't think that's the case at all and is rather an attempt to try and point fingers.

This is simple. Your bill may not be constitutional. This is bad for all of us because it sets us back a day without a seer. If you modify it you will have more than enough support from our side and the bill will pass easily.

But it also may be constituional.

Think of it this way. If the bill is passed and declared unconsitutional we are at the same page as if we were to reject the bill. However, if the bill were to pass and when it is declared consitutional, we will have a seer.

Let's say we pass it and it is declared unconstitutional. We lose a day.
We reject it. We lose a day.

We are basically at the same page, just with less progress. Or we can pass it, and when it is declared constitutional, we are set, and if it's not, then we are right back where we started except we know how far to go with our bills.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

But it also may be constituional.

Think of it this way. If the bill is passed and declared unconsitutional we are at the same page as if we were to reject the bill. However, if the bill were to pass and when it is declared consitutional, we will have a seer.

Let's say we pass it and it is declared unconstitutional. We lose a day.
We reject it. We lose a day.

We are basically at the same page, just with less progress. Or we can pass it, and when it is declared constitutional, we are set, and if it's not, then we are right back where we started except we know how far to go with our bills.

The problem being if it gets shot down because it's unconstitutional then we probably take a popularity hit for that.

Not speaking for the party, that's KWhit's job, but we all want a seer in the game unless you are a wolf.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I still, and will always, maintain that people should vote how their district wants them to.

this is why Chubby needs to be elected speaker, his integrety is matched by no others!

[chesapeake]

I think we are having too much fun playing at being partisan. It is allowing the wolves to gain an advantage.

Pass, you make a good point. The Speaker's role is limited in power. He could help his party, but, honestly, there is a disincentive to do so too much given that whacking on members of the other party ultimately benefits the wolves the most.

Chubby should be attractive to jeheinz (in a political sense) because he is closer in philosophy to jeheinz's constituents than is StC. Chubby also benefits politically by supporting moderate legislation, more similarly to jeheinz. With the Speaker's power to submit a bill, I suspect he would be inclined to offer something that will be good for both himself and jeheinz.

It is very unclear in the rules what happens to legislation absent a President AND a Speaker. I think there is some urgency to coming together on an acceptable compromise.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

But it also may be constituional.

Think of it this way. If the bill is passed and declared unconsitutional we are at the same page as if we were to reject the bill. However, if the bill were to pass and when it is declared consitutional, we will have a seer.

Let's say we pass it and it is declared unconstitutional. We lose a day.
We reject it. We lose a day.

We are basically at the same page, just with less progress. Or we can pass it, and when it is declared constitutional, we are set, and if it's not, then we are right back where we started except we know how far to go with our bills.

I have said it before and will say it again. I cannot envision a scenario in which the Republican's bill will receive too few votes to pass.

It will pass.

(however, what happens after that is anyone's guess)...

[Chubby]

Ok. I think I have a bi-partisan solution.

If elected Speaker, I will put forth a Seer bill tomorrow if this one doesn't make it past the courts. I will take input from both sides in this thread to craft the best bill possible to the benefit of all non-wolves. This way each party can come up with their own bill tomorrow and not worry about playing catchup on a Seer bill if we need to.

[EagleFan]

I will echo Chubby's statement. If we vote for it and it is unconstitutional we get the popularity hit. Now we're behind a day and losing ground for getting re-elected which is a win/win for the wolves.

This again is exactly why I say you need to look to see who was the driving force behind this bill. You are either putting your faith in unreliable leader or letting wolves lead you around.

Either way this just shows the public what party they need to lead them to victory over the wolves and what party would rather pander to the oil companies and the NRA than actually solve the country's problems.

[KWhit]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Chubby should be attractive to jeheinz (in a political sense) because he is closer in philosophy to jeheinz's constituents than is StC. Chubby also benefits politically by supporting moderate legislation, more similarly to jeheinz. With the Speaker's power to submit a bill, I suspect he would be inclined to offer something that will be good for both himself and jeheinz.

That is a good point. I think Chubby is an excellent candidate for Speaker because he will be inclined to propose legislation that will be centrist and likely to be able to be supported by all of us - Republican and Democratic alike.

[Passacaglia]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I think we are having too much fun playing at being partisan. It is allowing the wolves to gain an advantage.

Pass, you make a good point. The Speaker's role is limited in power. He could help his party, but, honestly, there is a disincentive to do so too much given that whacking on members of the other party ultimately benefits the wolves the most.

Chubby should be attractive to jeheinz (in a political sense) because he is closer in philosophy to jeheinz's constituents than is StC. Chubby also benefits politically by supporting moderate legislation, more similarly to jeheinz. With the Speaker's power to submit a bill, I suspect he would be inclined to offer something that will be good for both himself and jeheinz.

It is very unclear in the rules what happens to legislation absent a President AND a Speaker. I think there is some urgency to coming together on an acceptable compromise.

Oh, I forgot to mention the first time you mentioned that -- I asked CR, and he said there is a tiebreaker. So no worries about not having a Speaker. My hunch is the more centrist person will win it, but he wouldn't say exactly what it was.

[jeheinz72]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

I think we are having too much fun playing at being partisan. It is allowing the wolves to gain an advantage.

Chubby should be attractive to jeheinz (in a political sense) because he is closer in philosophy to jeheinz's constituents than is StC. Chubby also benefits politically by supporting moderate legislation, more similarly to jeheinz. With the Speaker's power to submit a bill, I suspect he would be inclined to offer something that will be good for both himself and jeheinz.

Frankly, you hit the nail on the head. Dem after Dem has come forth, saying Chubby will do what is good for both parties. Chubby will align himself closer to what my constituents and I want. Then time comes to put the money where the mouth is and we see the same partisan actions.

Hence my worries about why I should be the one to cross over the party lines and actually support a Democrat as Speaker.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Ok. I think I have a bi-partisan solution.

If elected Speaker, I will put forth a Seer bill tomorrow if this one doesn't make it past the courts. I will take input from both sides in this thread to craft the best bill possible to the benefit of all non-wolves. This way each party can come up with their own bill tomorrow and not worry about playing catchup on a Seer bill if we need to.

Bravo fine sir, bravo.

[henry296]

As the representative of District 10 I think both bills are great ideas

Vote Yes Wolf Security Bill
Vote YEs Wolf Discovery Bill
Vote Chubby for Speaker

However, my views match Chubby much more than St. Cronin and think he can unite the parties and bring comprise to our great Congress.

[path12]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

But it also may be constituional.

Think of it this way. If the bill is passed and declared unconsitutional we are at the same page as if we were to reject the bill. However, if the bill were to pass and when it is declared consitutional, we will have a seer.

Let's say we pass it and it is declared unconstitutional. We lose a day.
We reject it. We lose a day.

We are basically at the same page, just with less progress. Or we can pass it, and when it is declared constitutional, we are set, and if it's not, then we are right back where we started except we know how far to go with our bills.

You're risking a lot trying to find out where the boundary is. Let's find out the boundary on a lesser role. Let's not risk wasting a day without a seer by redefining the role.

Basically, what I see you doing with this bill is grabbing as much as you can without seeing if you can carry it all. You might call this going for the gusto. I call it foolish as hell.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Frankly, you hit the nail on the head. Dem after Dem has come forth, saying Chubby will do what is good for both parties. Chubby will align himself closer to what my constituents and I want. Then time comes to put the money where the mouth is and we see the same partisan actions.

Hence my worries about why I should be the one to cross over the party lines and actually support a Democrat as Speaker.

/out of character - I'm guessing you haven't gotten caught up in this thread yet

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by jeheinz72

Frankly, you hit the nail on the head. Dem after Dem has come forth, saying Chubby will do what is good for both parties. Chubby will align himself closer to what my constituents and I want. Then time comes to put the money where the mouth is and we see the same partisan actions.

Hence my worries about why I should be the one to cross over the party lines and actually support a Democrat as Speaker.

Chubby voted for both bills. He put his votes where his mouth is.