« MN GOP STATEMENT ON LEGISLATIVE SESSION | Home | ABELER: DEMOCRATS “KILLED THEIR OWN OVERRIDE” »
RHETORIC ON VETO OVERRIDE OF GAS TAX INCREASE
By Michael B. Brodkorb | May 22, 2007
The highly anticipated attempt by the House Democrats to override Governor Pawlenty's veto of the "hefty" transportation bill failed last evening by comfortable margins. The vote was 83-50, seven votes short of the required 90 votes needed to override
WHO PREDICTED THE VETO OVERRIDE WOULD FAIL:
- "Seifert scoffed at persistent rumors late Sunday that House DFLers would pick up enough votes to override Pawlenty's veto of the hefty transportation bill, which includes a 7.5-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax.'We are locked down and bolted shut on transportation,' Seifert said, amid Republican members who nodded heads while eating. 'There will be no override.'" Source: Star Tribune, May 21, 2007
- "'I cannot foresee a situation where enough House Republicans would support overriding the governor,' said Rep. Pat Garofalo, R-Farmington, who voted for a failed 10-cent gas tax increase two years ago. "'It's tantamount to public policy treason.'" Source: Associated Press, May 9, 2007
WHO PREDICTED THE VETO OVERRIDE WOULD SUCCEED:
- "'We're going to be OK on an override,' said Rep. Bernie Lieder, DFL-Crookston, chief author of the bill, House File 946." Source: Star Tribune, May 14, 2007
- "Drama awaited later in the day in a possible House override of Pawlenty's gas tax veto. 'It's going to be so close you can't tell,' DFL Rep. Bernie Lieder, the sponsor of the transportation funding package, said." Source: Associated Press, May 21, 2007
You'd think that after serving in the legislature for over one-hundred years like Lieder has he would be able to count votes.
Tags: Uncategorized
Topics: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »
13 Responses to “RHETORIC ON VETO OVERRIDE OF GAS TAX INCREASE”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:33 PM
You are missing the 50 or so morons who post blather on this blog who wrote that an override was a done deal.
I recall at least one of them even writing that he/she knew specifically who those Republicans would be who would vote to override.
I’d like to invite our friend to clarify what he/she meant on that comment. Maybe writing that he/she knew exactly who was going to vote in favor of the successful override meant something other than what it appeared to mean.
As always, I’m willing to give our Lefty friends the benefit of the doubt.
May 22nd, 2007 at 12:47 PM
“Never give our Lefty friends the benefit of the doubt.” – Bobby Kennedy.
OK…OK…he didn’t say that. Probably because he was too smart to ever give the left-wingers the benefit of the doubt.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Perhaps Lieder needs some new glasses so he can see better when he counts votes.
I think the veto over-ride is indicative of how out to lunch the Democrats were during the whole session.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:27 PM
If Seifert wasn’t scared of the vote, why did he almost shit his pants when they brought it up? If he was confident he would have said “take the vote”, instead they tried to stall and do everything possible to avoid taking the vote.
If you actually watched the vote, they were up to 87 before a few flaked off when they knew they were not going to reach 90. Clearly it’s only a matter of time, before the magic number will be reached.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:39 PM
Debbie,
Part of being a leader is making sure your votes are counted. To say that Seifert was “scared” because he covered all of his bases before the vote was taken is remarkable.
When seeking to get to 90 votes, 87 is as far away as 1 or 2. Even if the final result would have been 87, those last 3 seem unattainable.
Thank God.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Nice language there Debbie. Now go back and watch The Jerry Springer Show.
Thank you to Seiffert and the republicans for not forcing me to pay for half-empty buses and costly trains.
May 22nd, 2007 at 2:10 PM
Actually, I agree with Debbie. Marty looked a little nervous about the outcome of the vote. Probably because he was making a mistake.
Marty’s mistake: Namely the mistake of underestimating how the arrogance and over-reaching of the DFL would come back to bite them on the butt.
May 22nd, 2007 at 3:08 PM
If you actually watched the vote, they were up to 87 before a few flaked off when they knew they were not going to reach 90.
And?
This happens on virtually EVERY vote. People hit the wrong buttons, some are playing games, etc. etc. etc. It’s the final vote that counts, not the games that go on during voting.
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:00 PM
the margin was actually 86-47. Three people I assume they were DFLers were permitted by the chair to switch their votes to nay after it was obvious that the override was failing. I forgot to write down their names, but if I were their Republican opponent I will be putting that on every piece of campaign literature I put out.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
May 22nd, 2007 at 4:34 PM
Here’s what I thought was odd about the vote:
The Senate, as I understood it, adjourned at 10 p.m. There was no override vote in the Senate. The House voted on the override around 11:30. Even if the override would have carried the day, there would not have been enough time to get a Senate vote on the override.
Perhaps those of you (on both sides of the fence) who forgot more about the legislature than I know can help me understand why the House took up the override vote that late in the evening.
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:08 PM
I wondered about that… was just to get people on the record so they could say “I voted to override the Guv to get more transportation spending” when they run for office next time? Or a miscalculation that some Republicans wouldn’t have the guts to vote against more transportation $$$?
May 22nd, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Otter,
You are right on the first count. There would be no way possible you could get the senate back together in 30 minutes to vote on an overide. Getting senators to do anything is like herding one legged cats into a pool.
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:21 PM
I was watching the television coverage. It seemed like the Senate was still in session and actually voted to adjorn after the House adjorned. It looked like they were waiting for the House to send something to them (the veto override?) before adjorning.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN