Fifteen Dems (plus Sanders) vote against cloture, making it unclear if Sen. Reid has achieved what seemed to be his unadvertised dream: A failed bill he could blame on the Republicans.
२८ जून, २००७
"A humiliating defeat for Bush and the self-styled, MSM-idolized Grand Bargainer."
Cloture fails on the immigration deal in the Senate, and Mickey Kaus is happy to see that it didn't even get a majority. And:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२७ टिप्पण्या:
I was away from the media all day so when I got back to my computer and saw "53-46" I assumed the lower number were the no's. Then I read further... Wow, I can't believe they couldn't even get a simple majoirty for cloture on this one.
Does anyone know if they actually finished writing the bill?
So Mickey can retire, then.
So Mickey can retire, then.
Well, the bill keeps getting brought back from the dead every couple of weeks, and it is a long, long time until the 2008 elections...
Amazing that all the Senators -- well, except for Sen Johnson from SD --, even those who would be President, deigned to be in town for the vote!
One needs to analyze the defeat of the Bill from several perspectives.
1. The substance of the Bill. I was against it, but perhaps it had real support from good honest Americans. all 20% of them :)
2. The very secretive Bill development process turned folks off. What was the urgency after 20 years of failed implementation of Simpson-Mazzoli 1986, did a huge comprehensive revision of our entire immigration policy need to be done in secret without hearings or public debate in 2-3 weeks? The fooled me once shame on you, fooled me twice, shame on me alarm went off for lots of folks. Incremental change might have been reasonable, but not this monster bill.
3. The heavy handed and blotched Bill management by Reid, etal... I think that Bush could have delivered a few more votes, and don't forget that Reid lost 15 Dems, if Reid had not attempted unprecedented parliamentary maneuvering and rammed the vote through. Byrd and Johnson never were this bold or stupid in moving legislation. Voting on the Bill before it was written? Isn't there a law against that? why not?
it didn't even get a majority
That makes me feel better about the result, actually, since defeating something on cloture is a kind of weaselly way of going about it, even if the supporters were just as weaselly in their approach. I thought the bill and the ideas that motivated it were awful, and that the bill's supporters were clearly out of sync with the public on this issue, but cloture is a parliamentary trick. If a majority of senators were actually willing to stand behind the bill and vote for it, it would have been proper to let them do so, as elected representatives an so on. And then they could face the music next election.
Fortunately, though, they didn't even have a majority, once people realised it wasn't going to pass after all.
At least they can claim the vote was bipartisan. There were Repubs and Donks on both sides of the yeas and nays.
All those "gifts" from Archer Daniels Midland down the drain, boo hoo.
Mickey hasn't even had spare time to post about Coulter's recent media mini-blizzard.
As a New Mexican, I can look at the nice fact that both my senators (a Repub and a Dem) both voted the same for something that didn't involved gouging the taxpayers to send pork home.
Profiles in Courage from all the senators like Brownback who switched to "Nay" or went "Nay" when they knew it was going down.
involve...
Bush was a looser before and is now. He has about as much political clout as Millard Filmore and at last look about as much energy.
Laughin' at you GOP. Laughin at you.
Laughin' at you GOP. Laughin at you.
Yes, in this case, you're pretty well justified. This was a total own goal by the GOP leadership.
Laughin' at you GOP. Laughin at you.
Since a majority of GOP congressmen (and a supermajority of GOP voters) were against the bill it is hard to see how its defeat is cause for mockery. The immigration issue is a topic where most Republicans are truly thankful that Bush has no political clout anymore.
I rarely watch ABC or NBC's nightly news, because they are without exception tooth-grindingly awful. Tonight, I was curious to see how they'd handle two major pieces of news, so I tuned in, and of course the answer was "badly."
How is it, wondered an incredulous Charlie Gibson, that the vast majority of Americans agree that the immigration system is broken, yet the Senate today decided to do nothing? This is Unity '08 stuff - "everyone agrees that there's a problem, so there's consensus, right?" I don't know if that's fatuous or disingenuous. People from many origins can share a ride to the same destination, but people going to different destinations cannot share a ride even if they all came from the same place. To say that everyone knows the immigration system is broken is to say nothing of consequence; that is not consensus. There is not consensus on what matters: the remedy. Ted Kennedy and Tom Tancredo both agree that the immigration service is broken, but that is not consensus.
Speaking of Kennedy, to be entirely too candid, I honestly don't understand how with 99 other Senators, not one of them had the common decency to thump Ted Kennedy on the nose when - on camera - he compared this bill to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, comparing - all-but explicitly - those who would oppose this bill to those who want to go back to de jure segregation and black codes. I never thought I would see someone surpass Chuck Schumer as the most loathsome individual in the Senate, but today Teddy managed it.
Simon - Speaking of Kennedy, to be entirely too candid, I honestly don't understand how with 99 other Senators, not one of them had the common decency to thump Ted Kennedy on the nose when - on camera - he compared this bill to the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act, comparing - all-but explicitly - those who would oppose this bill to those who want to go back to de jure segregation and black codes. I never thought I would see someone surpass Chuck Schumer as the most loathsome individual in the Senate, but today Teddy managed it.
I don't know. I agree that Schumer is the most loathsome Senator. But he has competition in Trent Lott, Barbara Boxer, Lindsay Graham, John Kerry, Teddy, Arlen Spector, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Dick Durbin.
I suppose it is a matter of choice. I really can't argue that Graham is a lousy, oily, duplicitous weasel par excellence with someone that holds that is worse than the straightforward slime of Schumer. Or that Lott is a true Corruptican up for the highest bidder.
But Kennedy and ending America as a white Christian nation goes way back to Kennedy and some NY Jews in prominent places on key committees (Cellar, Javits, etc.)being the main drivers of the 1965 Immigration Reform Act and their subsequent work, along with business interests and ethnic action groups they later brought on board - in sabotaging the 1986 Act.
Like Teddy or not - he believes passionately in affirmative action, complete gun control except for government and wealthy people who can hire professional gunman bodyguards, and fundamentally transforming America through Demography into a nation easily manipulated by wealthy Elites and the East and West Coast Intelligensia.
The biggest losers are the people who spell loser looser.
"The biggest losers are the people who spell loser looser."
Indeed, that is true (although the record reflects there is only one such "person" on this thread).
And the biggest winners are the legal immigrants who, although trapped in a grossly inefficient immigration system, (and some idiots still want socialized medicine...) have escaped being punished for following the law.
For now.
I was curious to see how they'd [ABC & NBC] handle two major pieces of news, so I tuned in, and of course the answer was "badly."
CBS was also horrible. They reported that those who opposed the bill want more border security, and that when the bill died so did all the funding for the wall. No mention by CBS of all the loopholes and triggers that made that funding meaningless.
and now: absolutely NOTHING will be done, no fence, no wall, nada...until at least 2009.
is this good?
geeee, cedar,
that was a really, really well thought out and objective commentary on all that is left of attila the hun.
good boy...
Simon said..."I rarely watch ABC or NBC's nightly news, because they are without exception tooth-grindingly awful."
cuts into that "real" news you get from sean, bill and rush, huh?
duh.
this is fun:
This has to be a first. In its new poll, Fox News asked what may well be the ultimate in jingoistic, rally-around-the-flag questions — and the Democrats came out on top:
“If there is an all-out war between the United States and various radical Muslim groups worldwide, who would you rather have in charge — Democrats or Republicans?”
Democrats 41%, Republicans 38%, Both the same 9%, Don’t know 12%
Luckyoldson said...
this is fun:
This has to be a first. In its new poll, Fox News asked what may well be the ultimate in jingoistic, rally-around-the-flag questions — and the Democrats came out on top:
well there are some advantages in having the Dems in charge once we are in a war.
1. at least the press would be rooting for victory for a change
2. the country would be more united becuase the GOP would not be voting for surrender
and now: absolutely NOTHING will be done, no fence, no wall, nada...until at least 2009. is this good?
Good, no. The best we could hope for given Bush and the Democratic Congress, yes.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा