🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Jim" == Jim Pritchett <jdp@caleb.UUCP> writes:
In article <a4tIv*n+3@caleb.UUCP> jdp@caleb.UUCP (Jim Pritchett) writes:
    Jim> In article <38r4bc$ee4@news.onramp.net>, cnelson@onramp.net
    Jim> writes:
    >> The last time I checked the Democrats were still the majority
    >> party in Congress. I wonder why there were so many close votes
    >> during this session. Anything who watchs CSPAN can

    Jim> Let me let you in on a "dirty little secret" the Democrats
    Jim> don't want you to know.  They count the votes beforehand for
    Jim> the controversial votes.  Then they let the "excess" votes go
    Jim> the other way in order for certain Congressmen to be able to
    Jim> go home and tell their constituents that they voted against
    Jim> bill XXX (they rotate this around on different votes.)  That
    Jim> is why many votes look closer than they really are.  Remember
    Jim> that when YOUR Democrat Congressmen touts his "opposition" to
    Jim> liberal policies.  In many cases, YOUR Democrat Congressman
    Jim> would have voted WITH the liberal Congressional leadership if
    Jim> his vote had been needed to win!  By the way, this trick is
    Jim> NOT new.  It has been used regularly for many years.

    Jim> This trick is more easily seen when it fails.  On a few
    Jim> controversial bills where the Democrat leadership just
    Jim> couldn't get enough votes to pass them, the bill suddenly
    Jim> loses 20, 30 or more votes as the more moderate or
    Jim> conservative Democrats jump ship en masse.

    Jim>                                                 Jim Pritchett

This is most interesting. Where did you collect this information? What
reliable sources do you have for this kind of allegation? Or is this
simply disinformation?



--

George J. Loegel
Computer Science Engineering Department
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI
ettare@dip.eecs.umich.edu