What's wrong with debate?

Why is it that every time a Democrat in Congress wants to open up a debate on an amendment to some piece of legislation, the Republicans always throw up their hands and accuse the Dem of playing politics? It seems to me that one of three things could be going on instead.

One: The amendment is pure pork, and the Dem feels that it should see the light of day and the author(s) should be forced to defend themselves, on the record, in open session. Obviously the author is going to complain and namecall, rather than actually be forced to say on-camera why their homestate is now getting funds for a themepark on a bill designed for medicare or some such. Let's turn this one around for a sec and say it's not pork. Why wouldn't the author of the amendment want to talk about it and get more facetime on the floor? If I were responsible for creating a necessary and beneficial law, I'd want my face all over the cameras on C-SPAN. Why huff and puff and complain about opening it up for discussion?

Two: Perhaps there are more than one school of thought about a possible solution to a given problem, and the Dem wants to open up debate so that an informed consensus may be reached. This is just good old fashion Debate Club, a requirement of Congress in my mind. If you feel strong enough about a proposed solution that you are trying to create a new law about it, surely you must be able to defend it logically in a topical discussion about its merits. You must have researched the available options, and found the best personnel to inact the solution, right? Unless maybe you don't want to mention that the idea you are defending is the one that only does a marginal job, but provided for the largest kickback. Maybe you don't want to have brought up the stock options you possess in the company performing the duty. Maybe you're not comfortable explaining, on TV, why the company that you want to hire will be awarded the contract without ever having bid on it. You don't want it known that they are to be given the contract against the advice of experts in the community. Or why, in spite of a historical record of failure, they are to be given a lucrative contract, without the burden of competition, to perform a job vital to national security. (I thought we were Capitalists. Didn't we 'win' the Cold War? What happened to competition for government contracts?)

Three: The amendment was added for the sole purpose of causing a controversy so that the Republican can point a finger. Look at what's happening on the Hill today with the Immigration Reform Bill. More Republicans were having issues with the President's Bill than Democrats. (Now is a good time of course to point out that there is a Republican majority, so they can pretty much do anything they want without Democratic support, and they have been.) So both parties are split internally on the bill, some Democrats going with the President, and some Republicans going against him. So why does the President go on his weekly radio spot and say that the Dems are playing politics? "I call on the Senate minority leader to end his blocking tactics and allow the Senate to do its work and pass a fair, effective immigration reform bill." After a vote in the Senate, only 39 voted for it. Guess what? They were all Dems and Jeffords, the Independent! The Republicans are holding it up! This sounds like getting a flat tire on the highway, getting a lift from a police officer, and then blaming the cop as to why you were late to work. Wait, a better analogy would be if you first intentionally drove through a pile of nails.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is for everyone to stop and think about what they truly hold dear, and then see if the idea you're championing matches your belief. It only takes a little time and you'll feel much better about yourself in the morning too. For me, I wasn't born knowing everything about everything, so I enjoy listening to two contenders tout their side on a topic. Then, and only then, can I make an informed decision. To show this, I actually agree with some of the President's Immigration ideas, even if he's only doing it to try to win votes for his side in an election year.