Last year in the House, Democrats saw several bills go down to defeat simply because they used special expedited rules in an effort to avoid amendments.  Chalk one up for the new Republican leadership as well.

On Tuesday night, it was an extension of three expiring provisions of the anti-terror Patriot Act that were defeated, even though a strong majority of the House favored the bill.

But because Republicans used a process known as "suspension of the rules," a 2/3rds super-majority was needed for approval of the bill, and the GOP fell short of that number.

Here is a list of the Republicans who voted 'No' on the bill:

Amash MI, Bartlett MD, Bishop UT, Broun GA, Campbell CA, Duncan TN, Fitzpatrick PA, Gibson NY, Graves GA, Heller NV, Hultgren IL, Johnson IL, Jones NC, Kingston GA, Labrador ID, Mack FL, Marchant TX, McClintock CA, Paul TX, Rehberg MT, Roe TN, Rohrabacher CA, Schilling IL, Schweikert AZ, Woodall GA and Young AK.

The final tally was 277-148, as 26 Republicans - eight of them newly elected freshmen - broke party ranks and voted down the extension of three Patriot Act provisions until December.

It means the GOP will now have to bring the bill back to the House floor under regular procedures, which could include amendments and other motions - and remember - Republicans have talked a big game on how they would have a very open legislative process.

Why the GOP leadership didn't just do that in the first place is a question that we asked about Democratic leaders last year, proving once again that it doesn't matter who runs the House or Senate, they often make the same managerial errors.

Even more interesting about this bill is that Republicans did not follow the regular order.  It was introduced and referred to both the Judiciary and Intelligence committees in late January, but neither panel held hearings or voted on the bill.

Instead, the measure was brought directly to the House floor - with the support of the White House, which issued a statement earlier in the day saying the President "strongly supported" the extension of the Patriot Act provisions.

The provisions in question are related to surveillance of "lone wolf" terrorists, roving wiretaps and controversial Section 215 evidence requests that do not allow the person served with a special Patriot Act search warrant to publicly disclose that the government has asked them for certain information.

The vote was a reminder to Republican leaders that just because they control the levers of power in the House does not mean they can ramrod anything through the Congress.

Or maybe they just need to break more arms to get their work done.

For some more background, here is the White House statement of support for the Patriot Act extension.

The Administration strongly supports extension of three critical authorities that our Nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies need to protect our national security.  These authorities, which expire as of February 28, 2011 absent extension, are: (1) section 206 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which provides authority for roving surveillance of targets who take steps that may thwart Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act ("FISA") surveillance; (2) section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which provides authority to compel production of business records and other tangible things with the approval of the FISA court; and (3) section 6001 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, which provides authority under FISA to target non-U.S. persons who engage in international terrorism or activities in preparation therefor, but are not necessarily associated with an identified terrorist group (the so-called "lone wolf" amendment). 

The Administration would strongly prefer enactment of reauthorizing legislation that would extend these authorities until December 2013.  This approach would ensure appropriate congressional oversight by maintaining a sunset, but the longer duration provides the necessary certainty and predictability that our Nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies require as they continue to protect our national security.  However, the Administration does not object to H.R. 514, which, if enacted, would extend these authorities through December 8, 2011.