Nabb1:

But Republicans quickly discovered that there was no longer any record of the controversial vote and immediately charged Democrats with erasing the bad result... The official House website did not show a record of the vote as of 1 a.m. Friday.

Holy creeping fascism, Batman. I don't care who is in charge, they need to keep records of every vote on the House floor. Hopefully that has been rectified in the Congressional record by now. If not, that's just unacceptable.

As reported, this sound pretty crappy. It does amuse me, however, that the GOP is suddenly calling BS on tactics they have used themselves, many, many times over. Playing with the timing of a roll call vote is something they have done for quite a while, including the famous Medicare D vote where they actually bribed a congressman on the floor until he changed his vote--and they held the (15 minute) vote open for three hours.

Doesn't make it right, (if the reporting on this issue is to be believed...I have my doubts about the Politico and will take their reportage with a grain of salt) just funny.

albo: this is exactly why we have parliamentary procedure and why is has to be followed at all times. it's what keeps us from just being naked apes throwing poo at each other.

This.

albo: and everybody agreed and nobody engaged in partisanship and it was Pax Democratica

Things were much, much more statesmanlike from, say the end of WWII until just before the GOP takeover in the 90's (with some obvious exceptions like the McCarthy hearings). The small differential in party numbers drove a higher sense of partisanship in the congress immediately before the GOP takeover. This was fueled by a burgeoning 'reform' movement driven by newer legislators of both parties who wanted seats on the coveted committee positions, as well as a concerted effort by Newt Gingrich to turn this bipartisan desire for reform in the way power was distributed in congress into a platform for partisan GOP gain. The Democrats did their part by engaging in some ethically dubious power plays--like holding a roll-call vote open for 15 extra minutes to get the opportunity to get a Democrat who had cast a protest vote and then left the chamber to reconsider once another 'sure' vote didn't materialize.

The GOP used such tactics by the Dems (as well as ethical violations by Jim Wright and Dan Rostenkowski among others) to make a claim that Congress was a corrupt body and they would fix it. What they did, instead, was to greatly accelerate the use of such political strong-arm tactics and hugely spread the practice of ethical violations of individual members (Cunningham, Abramoff-related congressmen, etc..) This was all tied into an overall plan by so-called "movement conservatives" to create a permanent majority and a de facto one-party rule in the US.

This despite the fact they loudly criticized the previous Democratic congress for violations far less egregious than those they then committed happily themselves--the 15 minute vote hold was called by Dick Cheney, then a Wyoming Congressman "The single most undemocratic thing I have ever seen" (rough paraphrasing).

Crying about allegedly similar tactics being used against them, now that they no longer have the majority is expected, but really, really lame.

The article does not give enough information to indicate which vote it was that was questionable, but there is this one on record that appears to be a close vote at about the right time.

It seems that as of right now, the only corroborating evidence that anything untoward went on comes from the GOP--an obviously interested party in the kerfuffle.

Part of the comment I posted over there:

"...what evidence is there that there was any maliciousness involved, instead of just simple confusion?

And why were the GOP unwilling to revote when the opportunity was offered?

Seems to me that if the vote was not recorded (if the link above is not, in fact, the vote in question), perhaps it was simply because it was considered invalid because of the confusion at the taking of the vote."