"Far too many votes today in the Senate are predetermined"

I recently had a devil of time trying to use the google to find evidence that a certain memorable incident did in fact happen shortly after the GOP debate held on October 28.  Even on DKos, I could find no record of it. I decided to create this diary for posterity.

because campaigning for president, of course. Jeb! Bush felt obliged to bring this factoid to the nation’s attention during the debate. With a completely straight face mind you, he said, "In this era of gridlock, it's really hard to break through, and I think he's given up." Jeb! added a few nice flourishes too, something about how giving up is wrong and, oh yes, that Rubio should resign. How did Rubio respond? He “punched back,” according to Reuters. They even described this back-and-forth as “one of the most notable exchanges” of the entire debate.

It’s this next part where things get more interesting, I think. Rubio wasn’t done with the punching when the gabfest ended that night, so he went on a Sunday talk show to punch back some more:

Rubio responded again on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday, saying beating Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton was more important than missing meaningless Senate votes.[emphasis mine]

Did you hear that? I wasn’t so sure that I actually heard the words correctly, but I double-checked and this is in fact a direct quote: “meaningless Senate votes”. Meaningless Senate votes? What on earth was he saying? Our beloved Founders designed the Senate to be a wise and thoughtful council of elders, using ancient Rome as an example; it is supposed to be a temperate body that serves as a check on that wild and crazy gang they called the “House of Representatives”.  How could Senate votes ever be meaningless?

"Far too many votes today in the Senate are predetermined. We know what the outcome's going to be. It's being done for messaging purposes, but it's never going to pass," he said.

And there, my friends, Rubio let the cat out of the bag. Watch for yourself in the following clip (exchange starts at 5:45, money shot comes around 6:30):

What we see is on this video is not just a politician, but a standing Senator who is actively seeking the Presidency of the United States of America, admitting that many votes taken in Congress are merely just a form of theater.  The very votes that we schmucks like to think of as democracy-in-action, those votes, are a show, an illusion, a magic trick, a prearranged and coordinated sequence that is carefully designed “for messaging purposes”. Messaging purposes? Translation: the votes are cast in such a way so that politicians can “send the right message” to their respective bases back home, while at the same time delivering the correct outcome, the predetermined outcome: “We know what the outcome's going to be.”

Question One:  How do [the senators] know what the outcome’s going to be?  How do they know this information in advance of the actual vote?

Question Two: why the hell didn’t Rubio’s admission raise a bigger some kind  any kind of ruckus after he gave that interview? Did it make front-page news anywhere? Why not? Did it not make news because, just possibly, it is not news? And if it is not news, what the fuck has happened to our country?

“Is anybody there? Does anybody care? Does anybody see what I see?”

Fox News, bless their heart, provides current approval numbers for Congress.  Right now, the numbers are: 78% Disapprove, 13% approve. Why is that? Is it possible that we the people are not fans of Congress because Congress is not passing legislation that “we the people” want?  And if Congress is not striving to make “we the people” happy, then what the fuck are they actually doing?

“Far too many votes today in the Senate are predetermined."  Predetermined how?  Predetermined by whom? 

and two fine actors are auditioning for the lead role. Both have significant expertise with politics as usual. The biggest difference between the two concerns the script for the show.

Actor A is in favor of “enhancing” the script, rather than significantly re-writing it. If the producers decide to go with this person, they can expect the new production to look very similar to the current one. Prearranged outcomes and staged votes will continue, as they are an important part of the show.

Actor B has been complaining about the script for quite a few years. If the producers decide to go with this person, they can expect the current show to be replaced with something far more daring.  Prearranged outcomes and staged votes will likely diminish, though it is difficult to foresee whether they will entirely disappear.  Whether or not the overall production will be a success or as much of a flop as the current one is unknown at this time.

Final Question: Are we willing to continue to buy tickets to a play that 78% of the audience dislikes?