What Pedro Picasso, who is approaching his sixth decade of life doesn't understand--among a great many other things Pedro Picasso doesn't understand--is that oftentimes a congressman or a senator will be allowed to vote the way that best ensures his re-election even if it is contrary to the "official" party position.
In 1993 or thereabouts, for example, some sort of law mandating a balanced budget went through the Senate, which the Impeached One and the Democrats opposed. The vote was bound to be close, and there was much nail-biting. However, at the last minute, the Democrats determined they had a little more than enough to defeat it.
Dianne Feinstein was running for re-election to her Senate seat, and the balanced budget was a hot issue in California at the time. I disremember why, but apparently she was considered "vulnerable"--a vulnerability that would be ameliorated if she voted for (i.e., against the Democrat party line) the bill.
And so Dianne Feinstein, who has never practiced fiscal responsibility in her life, was allowed to vote for mandating balanced budgets, so as to bolster her chances for re-election.
If her vote had been needed against it, well, she would have voted the party line.
Ditto for this guy Pedro Picasso praises.
This happens all the time, this has been happening since the beginning of time.
