Fair enough. But again, it's not unreasonable for them to be worried, considering that in almost all first midterm elections, the party in power loses seats.

It's not a condemnation of sides at all - that's where you completely misunderstand me. I'm speaking contextually and in this context, it is the Republicans who are playing nastier politics. Do you want to know what the bill calls for that the Republicans want to fight? The bill closes a loophole in tax law that says you don't have to pay taxes for income earned inside the U.S. if your company is based outside.

Also, don't be so quick to condemn Democrats on not working with the other side. The Dems recently passed a bill in support of guns by a 2/3 majority in the House and as we know, Dems have a simple a majority so that is a massive upheaval of what is considered the typical liberal position on guns. Dems are cowards, Repubs are a-holes. I think both parties are pathetic. In fact, today I wrote my Congressman and both Senators to tell them that I am fed up with partisan politics. Pay careful attention to Mr. Weiner's sentiments: "Republicans wrapping their arms around republicans." If it were "Democrats wrapping their arms around Democrats," I would still agree with him. This is not a matter of partisanship.

The fact of this matter is that Republicans believe in a bill but don't believe in corporate accountability. They hold the value of corporate nonaccountability higher than they hold the value of providing health care for people who did something that was wildly and frighteningly brave and important. And here's a sad truth for you: corporations don't give two shits about Americans. They care only about their income and their profit and their earnings. Tax cuts on the rich do not work any longer because they simply set up shop overseas and outsource most of their jobs. So Repubs will vote against a bill that would fund the actions of the government by closing a loophole in tax law, which is a perfectly reasonable idea. I mean frankly we can't give these 9/11 heroes health care and just not pay for it. The money must come from somewhere. So Republicans should say that we don't have the money to pay for it if that's what they think. Not "Oh, well, we'd vote yes if only the procedure was different...." Weiner exposed the nay-sayers' hypocrisies.

"You vote yes if you believe yes. You vote in favor of something if you believe it is the right thing."

Case and point. Good day.

No, he could not have gotten it passed with a simple majority. The fact is the bill had more than enough support from Democrats, but the procedure used required a 2/3 majority in order to be passed so that no amendments could be added. So because the Repubs couldn't add whatever amendments they wanted to add (which I doubt would've had anything to do with the bill itself), they voted no regardless of whether they thought it sounded right or not.

Pray tell, what reports outside of Fox News back you up? I think the Democrats are going to lose seats because historically, the majority party (read: the party with the presidency) always loses seats at the first midterm. But I think their majorities are significant enough that they will retain both Houses of Congress.

Congressman King already had his say. That is what Weiner was responding to. He was responding to the arguments made by King, which was that he would've voted yes if the procedure was different. And if you don't align with Weiner, that you vote yes on a bill that you believe is the right thing to do regardless of whether you get your precisely desired amendment, then there is something wrong with this picture. Frankly, we can always say Weiner was just being a dick on the House floor but then we say, who wasn't voting to give Health benefits to victims and heroes of 9/11? The vote was about 255 yea/178 nay or something, but it didn't pass because it required 2/3 and the Repubs would not give their support without their amendments. THAT is politics. The Repubs are playing a game with the benefits of these firemen and honest heroes. They are more interested in slipping in their amendments than getting benefits to these people. That should make you unsettled.

Now that I'm more clear on the issue, I even more firmly agree with Weiner.

No, they would mask the reasons for it so that they don't look bad, but so that Democrats don't look good.

"Republicans are not nearly as worried as Democrats are...." Now you're beginning to sound like Fox News. I'll guarantee you that Dems will maintain both majorities this election. Power might shift in 2012 but Obama will most likely remain president. Don't attach yourself to the fantasy that there is some revolution coming about in America, because the "Revolution" is designed by the rich to deceive the poor/middle-class into believing that the evil people are the ones who don't want to help the rich people. And they will similarly try to convince you that by helping the rich people, the poor/middle-class people will also be implicitly aided. To some degree, they're right; the only problem is that it will help the poor people in other countries, not this one. Job creation will occur like crazy overseas if you cut taxes on the rich, but it will be slow-going here.

Whether the Bill passes or not is a COMPLETELY moot point. Weiner does not even mention that the Bill isn't being passed. He certainly cares whether or not it passes but his basic thesis is that a Congressperson should vote based on whether they think the Bill is the right or wrong thing to do. Republicans, Congressman King specifically, were voting no even though they said they thought it was the right thing to do. That doesn't frustrate you?

I too am from the Midwest, but I will tell you flat out that he wasn't just ranting and out-yelling his opponent. He begun by trying to make a point about the political process, and was interrupted. The out-yelling came after he was interrupted. Congressman King should not have interrupted Congressman Weiner. And he should have backed down when Weiner said "I will not yield to the gentleman," because it is, as Weiner says, "regular order." How would you like if your co-worker kept trying to talk over you in an office meeting or whatever analogous setting, refusing to listen to what you have to say? You probably wouldn't take too kindly to it. And since Congress is (and should be) such an impassioned environment, these sorts of things are prone to occur. I'd be much happier if they occurred more often than less. (As long as we don't have any Charles Sumner cases again.)

Yesss let us cultivate religious intolerance and hatred. Can anyone even hear the man say what he is shown to be saying?

ABC News indicated that the Bill IS expected to pass. Congressman Weiner's rant is directed toward the political motivation behind justifying a "No" vote on behalf of the Republicans. They don't want to look bad at elections, and don't want Democrats to look good by getting something like this passed, so they are going to dilly-dally and cry out for amendments until Democrats give up on the bill, and say they voted no because of procedure. No, they voted no because they didn't want Democrats to look good. One Republican Congresswoman who co-wrote the Bill, voted against the measure when it came to vote.

And I return to what I said before: "And the argument will of course be made that his rant was insincere. Well if it was insincere, then I still say that it states what the entire American population is out of touch with." The fact of the matter is that whether or not the rant is sincere, or whether it is contextually appropriate, it is still the most honest representation of the general frustration with American government I've ever heard. People want politicians to vote in the people's best interests. That is, they want them to actually represent them. And I'm pretty sure Joe Blow isn't asking for a different procedure in the House. There's no question of political party or affiliation at all. And frankly, had this been a Republican, you and Breitbart probably would've embraced it as the Kingpin of all problems with government. Yet again a perfect example of partisanship. You disagree with Weiner probably because he is a Democrat, not because what he is saying is wrong. Whether he was trying to pull a fast one or not, what he says is still right. It stands on its own and speaks for itself out of context. In my opinion, it does so in context as well but you're free to disagree on that point. You're of course free to disagree on both points, but then, if you do, you are.... not thinking straight.

Pure, simple negation is the best form of argument.

Have you all forgotten Senator Preston Brooks, who beat Senator Charles Sumner to death with a cane? You think this is bad? Anthony Weiner is a PATRIOT for standing up for what he believes in - THE AMERICAN SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN ITS TRUE FORM. He is not a coward and he is certainly not a nutcase to have been driven to such wroth by the political game of other Congressmen.

What is this website, a circle jerk for the Republican Party?

Anthony Weiner is a patriot who believes in something. Have you people forgotten what it is to have convictions? Do you not believe in the American Political System anymore? Repubs give a b.s. justification for why they voted against a particular bill so that they may save face in the elections, and we're criticizing the man who is telling them to represent their constituents? Do their constituents care about procedure? Is that what the people want their representatives to vote on?

I don't care whether this man is Democrat or Republican - he is passionate. We could do with a lot more politicians who were passionate about their convictions in Washington, rather than ones who are concerned about lining their pockets. And the argument will of course be made that his rant was insincere. Well if it was insincere, then I still say that it states what the entire American population is out of touch with. Representatives should represent their people. People don't want their representatives to vote no based on procedure, so that they may save face. This man is made of the stuff from which Patrick Henry was too made: passion, and a steadfast and firmly held conviction. Can't say the same for the Republican Party of reactionary, nonsubstantive politics. Anthony Weiner is a Patriot who cares greatly and deeply about the State of the Union, and you are all fools if you disagree.