What an idiotic comparison between two situations that have no relevance to one another.
I'm not trying to compare the 9-11 health care bill with the current situation. What I'm saying is he has a point, you vote yes if you believe it is the right thing, and vote no if you don't. Regardless of how you feel on the bill, it is childish to just run away and avoid the vote.
It's also childish to hold no real debate, have no bi-partisan dialogue and have no process for amendments to be considered on an issue that would totally change how civil service and education work. To have collective bargaining in a budget bill is a disgrace in and of itself. The situation regarding the 9-11 health care bill was entirely different, there were plenty of chances for amendments, debate and the give and take that is proper practice in the American tradition of legislative bodies. For the Republicans to stall on a bill that gives badly needed financial aid in the form of paid medical bills to American heroes was disgusting and despicable, especially considering their puffed up rhetoric on the subject. Weiner gave this speech because he, as any New Yorker would feel, felt outraged that at the hypocrisy of the situation. He wanted them to vote their conscience and show their true feelings towards 9/11 first responders.
"Running away" wasn't childish, it was the last straw for the minority party that was being trampled by the legislative process. The bill passed anyways in a situation which showed the true reality of the situation, that it's really about damaging unions which are a major political force for Democrats. If it had originally been proposed and passed in that fashion and there were enough Democrats to avoid a quorum, I would oppose them avoiding it to stall the process.
Do you even agree with "progressives" on the Senate, filibuster and tactics used by Republicans to gunk up the mechanics of the process then?