Redstate

See roll call vote here. It was accidentally left off during the cutting and pasting in the original post.

Dems who voted Yes include:

Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Webb (D-VA)

Some of those folks will be looking for votes in red or swing states sometime soon.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

Virginians need to concentrate on Webb, Arkansans on Pryor, Dakotans on Conrad, and so forth, from that list.

The second cloture vote Thursday, after a number of senators who thought they had amendments to offer get rolled, is where it counts. Only six more will be needed then. If a senator votes to invoke cloture Thursday, it is time to start looking for and contributing to primary opponents and knocking the timbers from beneath the RNSC.

In other words, get really angry between now and Thursday, and if necessary remain enraged after the second cloture vote. But don't get distracted.

Don't even start to get even--yet.

Last chance to call ...
I heard good news, second hand: “Domenici — one of his Hill staffers told me two hours ago that Domenici has issued a statement on this. He’ll vote against the bill AND cloture!!!”

Robert Bennett (R-UT) (202) 224-5444
Norm Coleman (R-MN)(202) 224-5641 - 2008 election
Susan Collins (R-ME) (202) 224-2523
Pete Domenici (R-NM) (202) 224-6621
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) (202) 224-5972
Judd Gregg (R-NH) (202) 224-3324
Chuck Hagel (R-NE) (202) 224-4224
Jon Kyl (R-AZ) (202) 224-4521
Trent Lott (R-MS) (202) 224-6253
Richard Lugar (R-IN) (202) 224-4814
Mel Martinez (R-FL) (202) 224-3041
John McCain (R-AZ) (202) 224-2235
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) (202) 224-5344
Arlen Specter (R-PA) (202) 224-4254
Ted Stevens (R-AK) (202) 224-3004
George Voinovich (R-OH) (202) 224-3353
John Warner (R-VA) (202) 224-2023

You mean our first instinct should be to go after Democrats, not Republicans? Craziness.

http://www.myelectionanalysis.com

Some of those [Democratic] folks will be looking for votes in red or swing states sometime

For Democrats seeking reelection in red or purple states, it makes perfect sense to increase the Democratic voter base with more illiterates benefitting from taxpayer subsidies.

voted for cloture the first time but not this time:
Boxer (California) and Webb (VA).

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

Brownback with this and his recent positions might just as well have dropped out of the race.

It would make sense to disinvite him to the next debates.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

To a guy who hasn't announced how he'll vote for cloture. While we're at it, we could disinvite everyone who has ever done anything the current caucus of hyperventilators has ever disliked, which means that Tancredo can debate himself. If he can afford the plane ticket to make it to the debate site.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Hurmph However The Senators latest set of positions almost constitute an announcement he is not actually seeking the presidency. Immigration is not the whole of what I based my statement on. While I would certainly prefer a Brownback world on abortion to to the current one, its not a position that plays with the electorate.

If the Senator feels that he is voting on this to try and structure a bill with security first he needs to say so.

BTW I have no dog in this fight yet. I have a couple of candidates I favor and I am pretty much wide open. At this point though it looks like Brownback is pulling a Ron Paul. FWIW thats the way I see it.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Here.

I'm curious as to what else you're referring to.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

Just what are the chances of a 300+ document being amended to do things it was clearly written not to do in the first place ?

When he says he doesn't support amnesty, benefits, does support securing the fence why vote for a bill that does none of the above and does do the exact opposite ?

Given the fact that there is a significant faction or coalition of interests pushing this bill, why vote for a bill that has the votes to pass if it gets out of cloture ?

Let it go, hope to fix it later, if not try to live with it ?

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

What's the harm in letting the amendment process run its course? What's the harm in TRYING to amend the thing into something reasonable? Amendments can do startling things to a bill, as any veteran legislator will tell you.

Also, why do you suggest the Senator is going to "Let it go" when Leon has already pointed out the fact that the Senator has made no such determination on what his vote will be on cloture for the final passage (which would be silly given that he can't say what amendments will pass and what amendments won't)?

Run like Reagan!

(and I agree about the limited amendment process): the compressed 48-hour time limit is too little to absorb the bill and this 300-plus page "clay amendment." The real rage should be directed at Sens. McConnell and Lott for their agreement to such nonsense...but...

Let us just find five or more senators, regardless of party, who probably are just as outraged and have them vote against cloture on Thursday. Frankly, there may be some as upset by the process as by the contents.

The process stinks. We're lucky to have ditched Sen. Lott when we did, and Sen. McConnell is the next that needs to go.

And yes, we need to lobby to ensure we get the No votes we need for the REAL cloture.

But now's not the time for namecalling, mudslinging, and all-around hyperventilation.

Run like Reagan!

If for nothing else than to let them know just how upset we will be if it actually passes.

Let em know they will be throwing away that 50 million they raised to win their senate seats, if this passes.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

there is no amendment process.

Senators may not offer amendments to this bill in an effort to fix its flaws.

How many times and how many ways does it need to be said? This bill is being written by s small "gang" of senators who will not accept input from outside.

... Queen of Denial.

Yes, there has been an amendment process. It happened in a back room, but it happened. Guys like Sens. Kyl and Brownback got to play.

Run like Reagan!

Were involved in the negotiations that put this pile of garbage together in the first place.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Would you rather NO conservatives took part in the process? Give me a break. Get over the anger and be reasonable, please.

Run like Reagan!

convinced that any conservatives were involved in the "negotiations". I think Kyl got used as window dressing for a preordained outcome. I can't prove it, so it's my own personal conspiracy theory [stops typing, adjusts tinfoil hat], but I think the deal was defined by Bush, Kennedy and McCain and they just tossed in some "deny-ability" with Kyl and friends.

Jon has poor choice in his friends. I like that better than to think my favorite Senator is a freaking turncoat.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

That Kyl was very much involved in the negotiations and McCain was actually not there for very much of it. He was pretty busy with his pointless campaign while all this was going on.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I'm in denial. Quit bothering me. [places hands over ears] lalalalalalalalalalalala.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

He could've walked out of the negotiations and threw up his hands, but he stood behind the bill as it was written. And now you expect him to fix it? Yea, that makes a lot of sense. Hey, maybe Teddy Kennedy or Barbara Boxer will fix it.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

When has the Senator expressed support for the bill as written?

Run like Reagan!

He was on the freakin' stage next to Teddy. That doesn't sound like a guy disgusted with the end result and trying to distance himself from it to me. He has defended it on radio programs. Sure, he says "there are some things I would change" but so does the White House, Teddy Kennedy, and every other booster of this bill.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

When he voted to bring it to the floor of the Senate. He, after all, has already been able to make such amendments as he liked, even if he has denied that right to his fellow Senators. So what is there is what he likes.

And in all the other votes over the past month where he voted for it.

You may as well have stayed in retirement if this was all we were missing.

Senators are not allowed to offer amendments to the bill. There is no amendment process, as that term has been understood in the United States Senate for 230 years. Erick has a story on the front page on this very topic. You even managed to comment on it without telling him he was wrong.

But I'm tickeled pink that Amnesty Kyl gets to have some sort of say. Gee, just think how bad the bill might be if Mr Conservative were not involved and working feverishly for our interests. Why, we would not have .... uh, what good things are in the bill anyway?

nt

I am really wound up on this issue and would be the first to admit it.

I don't see how this bill can be fixed. First it shouldn't be one bill. Its two bills. One that deals with border security, another that deals with not having a secure border for 30 years.

I have no problems with their being 2 bills one that provides for border security another that deals with how to deal with the illegals here. I wouldn't even mind a guestworker program in a third bill.

If the security is in one bill and the amnesty / whatever bill is in the second and the second has enabling provision requiring time (years) to pass and goals to be met by the first, I would have at least confidence we would get our border security. If we didn't get our border security you can bet your bottom dollar there will be lawsuits and injunctions blocking the amnesty.

As to the let it go. The cloture vote had 4 votes over the 60. Thats letting it go. The 4 who voted for cloture now and against in the past are saying they are willing to let it go forward.

Even if this bill gets amended to death, just what do you think is going to come out of the conference committee ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Obviously a sequenced approach would have been the honest and effective way to deal with the legislation, both now and back in 1986. But I have a quibble, albeit a small one.

The reason for the insistence on a "comprehensive" approach is that no senator from either party would dare vote for a blanket amnesty/status adjustment/legalization/feel-good/whatever bill. So as window dressing the Senate adorned this absurdity with security and enforcement measures no sensate being believes would be implemented.

Your rage is fully justified, but for now we need to concentrate on finding enough senators to prevent the second cloture motion. I would have been happy if the bill went down in flames today but we are here now. I will never understand what motivated the White House and Senate GOP leadership to do such irreparable harm to the party and potentially the United States, but the former is a given now. We need to make sure the latter doesn't happen.

Is that the further this thing gets, the closer it is to passage. Every vote matters. Maybe it won't have 60 votes for cloture, but should we let it get that far? Maybe it won't have 50 votes for final passage, either, but should we let it get that far? Maybe it won't make it through the house, but should we let it get that far? No way.

As far as the amendments turning this into something reasonable, there's about as much chance of that happening as a nice tax hike package suddenly becoming acceptable through a rigged amendment process.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

I don't understand. You seem to think that it becomes more likely to pass after this cloture, yet at the same time you claim the bill is a stinker that will stay a stinker.

If the bill's a stinker then it's not going to make cloture for passage is it?

Run like Reagan!

Of course it is. The Senate wouldn't even be considering the bill if this vote did not succeed. That would make it less likely to pass. Every step closer this bill gets to passage makes it more likely it will pass, since fewer obstacles remain in its way.

If the bill's a stinker then it's not going to make cloture for passage is it?

You're joking, right? You sure seem to have a lot of faith in the Senate leadership and the President they seem to be doing the bidding of. On this issue, I have as much faith in that crowd as I do in Teddy Kennedy and Barbara Boxer.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

What's the harm in letting the amendment process run its course?

A yea vote today was a vote for the process. How can anyone who voted yea today vote nay on Thursday if the process they voted to follow was followed? It'll be pure sour grapes if someone votes no on Thursday because they don't like how the amendment votes came out. They demanded the vote and they got it, so they should vote yes on cloture Thursday and then vote against passage. Otherwise they are just into obstruction and don't care about the process. Can anyone point out the flaw in that logic? I will agree with any Dem who screams that re Thursday's vote.

On the other hand, a no vote today says you think this whole process stunk, and cherry-picking a couple of amendments to try to buy off cloture votes doesn't change that this whole process stunk. It was debated before it was a bill and before there was CBO scoring, it had no committee reviews, it had extremely limited debate and amendments the first time, and even more limited debate and amendments this time as far as I'm concerned. If something this big doesn't deserve the full process of Senate review, then let's just dissolve all the committees and bring everything straight to the floor.

THAT is the harm in letting this process run its course.

If you hate the process, then you should vent your anger not at Sen. Kyl or Sen. Brownback, but rather at Sen. McConnell. It is HE who's been buddy-buddy with Sen. Reid on this railroad job.

We need to run HIM out of his leadership post the same way we did Sen. Lott.

Run like Reagan!

Everybody who voted to bring yes to back this bill under this process is to blame here. A no vote was the way to stop the railroad job. Clearly, none of the yes votes had much of a problem with it, since they just gave it their endorsement and made it possible to go forward.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

in McConnell's handling of this or what?

We had half our people (24 out of 49) vote yes today. Some of them were going to vote yes no matter what, but as I recall 38 voted no the other day. So that makes 14-18 GOP Senators who voted no last time (or didn't vote) and voted yes today. Since not much has changed, it seems that either:
1) They took their lead from the leadership and bought whatever McConnell promised. or
2) They were bribed by getting to raise an amendment instead of Sessions, Vitter, Cornyn, etc.
Either way doesn't make a hill of beans to me - this process sucked before and it sucks now and they should have voted no simply because of that.

My position as well; bk does a far better job than my prior feeble, emotion-laced, Vicodin-soaked attempts at saying why the senators should have been voting no on today's cloture motion.

I wouldn't be surprised to see several, and I hope enough, change to "no" after substantive amendments go down in flames. I agree with your analysis about the problem with a "yes" vote today, but the Senate is quirky (and frankly filled with enough lightweights) for this to make sense.

Again, I'm more angry at McConnell and Lott than at the other "yes" GOP votes. Their agreement to this process was shameful, and both need to be ousted.

NT

I guess in the absence of any actual arguments in favor of your position this is all you have left to fall back on.

it was just good natured kidding. As far as making arguments in favor of my position, this post wasn't even about my position - it was in response to one of Leon's posts. It got so far separated from Leon’s post that maybe you didn't notice.
Now, I will respond to your comment down thread so as to not have to comment twice. You complain that there are senators that got elected by campaigning against amnesty and now they are voting for it. Not keeping campaign promises is a definite problem for a Republic form of government, and if this was done, you have every reason to be outraged. What this story seem to argue though, is that we should be outraged because the senators haven't listened to all the noise we have made - that is not a reason to be outraged. If you want a system of government where congress has to make a decision if they get a certain number of phone calls or mail, then you are certainly free to propose an amendment to the constitution. The system is designed to be controlled by elections, not public pressure.
The system is dependent on candidates being honest, and if they are not that is reason for grave concern and justification for outrage. Congress not bowing to public pressure (when we can vote them out every other year) is not reason for outrage.

BTW I may be wrong in calling myself a populist - I am certainly not a populist in the sense of thinking every issue should be decided by a direct vote of the people, I think you should decide what issues are priorities and vote for representatives accordingly. The reason I call myself a populist is because of a political theory - You can find it at ontheissues.com. What it means is that I'm a fiscal moderate and social conservative.

He voted against cloture the first round. He has an amendment that would eliminate green cards for illegals and he wants to see if it will pass. I predict that he will vote against cloture if his amendment fails.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

... and you forgot that the folks we send to D.C. are supposed to REPRESENT the will of the people who sent them there. There has been so much resistance to this sell-out bill from the PEOPLE, yet the REPRESENTATIVES (cough, cough) still think they know what's better for us.

The better question is, why aren't you as disgusted as the rest of us???

Senators are supposed to count letters and phone calls to decide what decision to make. Also do you think that since the polling against the war in Iraq has been so strong, we should pull out? Afterall we are a representitive democracy.

...does it say that Congress is supposed to be a full-time, lifelong posting? We can go back and forth like this all day, but Moe would tire of our using bandwidth for remedial civics re-education.

Also, make up your mind; Republic is different than democracy, and waging war is different from a blatant backstab on immigration.

which mean that Congress can make decisions for whatever reasons they want to. I realize that war is different than immigration, but how is it different in whether Congress should listen to public opinion. Should congress listen to the public on domestic policies, but on foreign policy they know better than the people.

I don't know where you stand on the abortion debate, but I'll use it as a hypothetical scenario.

Let's assume you are extremely pro-life, and worked your little heart out for a candidate who PROMISED he would legislate to your satisfaction, within his limitations. You are willing to be reasonable over said limitations, being the astute political observer.

Fast forward a year or two (Heck; make it a decade or so, since that's about the norm for the corruption factor to kick in). Now, in a contentious struggle over an issue you hold dear, your favorite senator completely throws his principles down the toilet, voting to kill more babies than ever before.

Would you not be a bit upset?

As you may have gathered from my handle and the fact that I'm even posting here, my senators feel they have safe enough seats and can afford to disrespect and ignore me. I have no way to know for certain if Murray and Cantwell are voting for this sell-out bill from a sense of political expediency, party discipline, or because they truly believe it to be in the National Interest. I'm not a mind-reader. The point is, they were sent to D.C. by a MAJORITY vote (arguably) of people who share their political philosophy, and the two Senators from Wa. KNOW this, and vote accordingly. Ergo, their majority voting base can count on their solid support, on issues near and dear. If either one of them stepped out of line from the Party Platform (unthinkable to a Dem robot), it would be political suicide. To then mock and deride their constituents as ignorant, racist thugs who couldn't understand how to open a pack of Pop-Tarts, well... I can't use that kind of language to describe the feelings of those voters.

Murray and Cantwell, if I can say anything good about them, it's that they know who is buttering their bread. They know that they were sent to REPRESENT, not decide from on high,like Lott and the rest are doing to the GOP base.

I trust I have made myself sufficiently clear, and can count on you not to assume that we are just a bunch of crybabies. This type of arrogance from our 'leaders' is what cost us the majority in '06, and will kill the GOP in '08, if not stopped in it's tracks here.

BTW, for a "conservative Populist", you don't seem to have much faith in the People.

I think what outrages the majority of us is the fact that the Senate takes us for a bunch of fools. The Senate and House passed immigration laws in the 80's, the 60's, and some time before that as well. The laws don't get enforced so therefore nothing changes. Now the Senate say "we'll fix it this time" but the bill they present is nothing more than a repeat of the past.

In 12-step groups, they say the definition of insanity is repeating the same action while expecting different results.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

I would submit that anyone opposing this bill who as a response to his Republican Senator or Congressman voting the "wrong way" on immigration, plans to vote Democrat, vote third party, or just stay home...

IS a fool. Let me get this straight; you think the DEMOCRATS will handle this issue more to your liking?

Punish straying incumbents in primaries all you want, but remember that the general election is for choosing the lesser of two evils if that's the only viable choice you've got.

that the republicans (at least the ones that supported this travesty) have shown that we are better off without them. I live in Kansas and if I have to live with a democratic senator for 6 years to rid the Senate of Brownback then I'm willing to bear that burden. I send his office an email telling him that I had never actively campaigned for a candidate but that next year I will do so for anyone that runs against him. Be that person another republican in the primary or a democrat in the general, I want him gone. He has sold out the country and I shudder to consider what America is going to be like for my children and grandchildren.

I'm no longer going to hold my nose and say "well they not great but they are better than a dem". NO, not any longer. Let's get rid of these people and if we have to suffer for a few years then that's a price that we'll just have to pay.

Isn't it in 2010? Also I seem to remember that Brownback has promised to not serve another term.

And Fred Thompson was the only one in my memory to actually keep that promise.

You are absolutely wrong.

"I would submit that anyone opposing this bill who as a response to his Republican Senator or Congressman voting the "wrong way" on immigration, plans to vote Democrat, vote third party, or just stay home...IS a fool."

What you are advocating is more of the "battered conservative syndrome" that has gotten us exactly nowhere with the GOP.

Without the threat of impending unemployment these cretins will never heel to the demands of the conservative base of the party. If this is accomplished through the primaries, that's great. If this has to be done in a general election then so be it. If this means voting for a vile democrat - I'll do it with a smile on my face knowing that I won't be the only conservative OF PRINCIPLE prepared to take that step to see an amnesty supporter go down to electoral defeat.

You ask if the democrats will be better on this issue than the GOP...

Will it make a difference? If the political establishment and the GOP specifically get this one wrong there won't be much left to care about. This is a point in time that even GWB recognizes as a "historic opportunity" for a sea-change in immigration policy. This means a lot more than just a simple amnesty (which we already had the pleasure to see implemented in the eighties) this means a radical overhaul in the immigration system as a whole with lasting and profound effects on our nation and culture.

It is after all, not the amnesty that makes this proposal radical...its the GREATLY increased LEGAL immigration that will follow from this that will result in a rapid cultural/political metamorphosis.

The amnesty is repulsive as it stands...but their future plans to import vast amounts of illiterate third worlders makes this "immigration reform" absolutely unacceptable.

Does this make me a hated "nativist?"

Sure! If being a "nativist" means not selling out the sovereignty of the United States to corrupt Mexican politicians who so blatantly fail at providing reasonable working and living conditions that a quarter of their population decides to pick up and move here then so be it.

If this also means not selling out our national sovereignty to open borders leftists and Wall Street Journal capitalists then so be it again...I will gladly accept the label while voting their toadie politicians out the door - I'm looking at you Richard Burr.

Will88

"Go ahead and figt the bill, and vote on senators accordingly on election day, but don't whine that the senators actually make decisions rather having staffers run a tally on the mail and the polls to decide what the people want - it's called a Republic."

This issue is somewhat more complicated than your silly little spill. Several of the main proponents of this amnesty bill campaigned saying they opposed amnesty, namely, John Kyl of Arizona and Lott of Mississippi, and others, including Bush, who was against amnesty in a debate with Kerry. So, now we're back to whatever the "meaning of is is", but now from Republicans.

There are several shameless liars now pushing this bill, or proponents of Clinton's "meaning of is is" approach. When politicians do 180s from what they promised when seeking votes, then people have a right to complain as much as they choose.

their promises, and I never said otherwise. I don't know
whether your represenitives promised to not vote for any path to legalization for illegal immigrants. If you took a promise against amnesty to mean this, then it was your own fault that you were fooled, because by now it should be quite clear that congress people do not consider providing a path to legalization to be amnesty.
Anyway the point wasn't that politicians don't need to be honest, the point is that outrage that senators didn't make their decision based on letters, phone calls, or polls, is misplaced outrage. Outrage that senators went back on their promises is right, outrage that senators didn't make their decision based on phone calls is not right.

Having a different definition of "is" is not the same as holding a different definition of "amnesty." Kyl and Lott may not define amnesty the way you do, but their vote against cloture does not mean that they lied to you. Amnesty to me means that there is no penalty for breaking the law. The bill requires people to pay a fine and back taxes and learn English in order to become citizens. Clearly there is a penalty, even if it's not as strict as it ought to be, therefore I think Lott and Kyl are justified in saying they didn't vote for amnesty.

Another important somewhat unrelated point to bring up is that this was a vote for cloture, not on the bill. A lot of the same people who were deamanding that the senate vote for cloture on judicial nominees so that they could get an up or down vote claimed that it was the senate's duty to vote on things and that endless debate was a dishonest political tactic used for obstruction. Now of course it's perfectly justified if it's being used to obstruct something they're opposed to.

You can use filibuster to try to get changes to a bill. When it comes to a nominee the person is the person. It's not like you can hold out to try to "tweak" a nominee like you could try to do with a bill.

The point about legislation is that it requires a broad degree of consensus. We all know of examples of legislation that remains controversial and damages respect for the law, especially if it is seen as partisan. The alternative to passing legislation is always to not pass legislation.

Executive and judicial posts, on the other hand, are created to be filled. They are created - by means of legislation - to fill a perceived need. The alternative to filling a post, which legislation has established, is not filling the post and thus defying the current law.

The Constitution clearly recognises this important distinction. Legislation needs to be passed by two houses, with distinctly different mandates. (In the original Constitution, the mandates were even more different). It then needs the assent of the executive branch. It can only be carried in the face of a veto with a two-thirds majority. The practical upshot is that it usually requires at least some bipartisan support. No such requirement exists for filling exeuctive or judicial posts. Once they have been established in law, only a nomination and 'advice and consent' of one house only is required.

It seems pretty clear that Constitutionally, these are very different procedures, and was consciously designed to be so.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Amnesty is not the only word they play with, either.

The semantic game extends to calling something a "fine" when it is optional and the person who pays the "fine" gets something extremely valuable in return that he could not buy for any price, if he had not decided to violate the law. "Reward" would be a more accurate term for this. If we opened it up to anybody in the world, there would be lines around the block to pay the "fine" and get the benefits promised in exchange for it.

It also extends to calling something a "penalty" when it is expected of you in the first place (paying back taxes) or when it is in your best interest (learning English).

A lot of the same people who were deamanding that the senate vote for cloture on judicial nominees so that they could get an up or down vote claimed that it was the senate's duty to vote on things and that endless debate was a dishonest political tactic used for obstruction.

Confirmations are not the same as legislation. Doesn't seem like a tough distinction to catch on to there. The Senate has to offer advice and consent on nominees as part of their duties explicitly outlined in the constitution. The body has no obligation to vote on particular bills.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

that we'll start hearing about how "unfair" these fines are. "It's not fair to punish this hard-working group of people who have so little, when we can offset that income with a tiny reduction in the tax cuts Bush gave to the richest Americans who benefit every day from the work of these undocumented future Americans."

being anti Amnesty has slightly less meaning than being pro - life. I think enough politicians have been clear that the term doesn't mean to them what it means to you. So if you were fooled on this point than it really isn't anybody's fault but your own.

If HRC wanted to redefine the term pro-life and try to label herself that, I don't have to buy into it. The only reason she doesn't do that is because it would do more harm than good to her politically.

Contrast that with immigration, where it's in every pro-amnesty politician's best interest to lie about a bill they support being an amnesty. So they follow their best interest and do it. Maybe some of them believe it isn't amnesty... I imagine most of them are smart enough to know better. I don't really care how they rationalize it, it is still an amnesty bill, and worse than that, it's a huge giveaway program targeted exclusively at those who broke our laws.

So if you were fooled on this point than it really isn't anybody's fault but your own.

I'm not sure where I said I was fooled by anybody. The people being fooled are the ones that repeat the talking-point nonsense about all the "punishments" the illegals have to suffer.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

There are NO penalties if someone simply accepts the Z visa amnesty and does not elect to seek citizenship. Pure amnesty.

And when the legal penalty for lawbreakers is forgiven, that's amnesty. The penalty for entering the US illegally (deportation) is being forgiven and replaced by a far lesser penalty. Actually, it might be a jackpot reward in lieu of amnesty.

And what do you think the odds are that these poor, hardworking people will ever be required to pay the fine, which they have several years to pay, and Congress has several years to eliminate?

We do live in a republic. In order for a republic to survive its leaders and citizens must from time to time over look their own special interests and act in the national interest.

The Senate amnesty bill is not in the national interest the bill undermines the rule of law in this country by enabling millions of willful lawbreakers. The bill also does nothing of consequence towards stemming the tide of lawbreakers into this republic. Worse still the advocates of this bill have sunk to the lowest levels of demagogy in their pursuit of amnesty bill, which has severely undermined popular support for two of the republics major institutions the Presidency and the Senate.

In essence this bill has the potential to do more damage to the continuance of our republic than any other bill this millennia. It is for the republic that I oppose amnesty. It is also for the republic that I beseech other to oppose amnesty.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

your posting reminds me of the preamble to the Declaration of Independence:

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

It is (now) necessary for us to dissolve our political bonds which have connected us with the Senate Republican traitors. Who will "declare the causes which impel (us) to the separation"?

Many of the same people who are so outraged over this immigration bill because the senate is supposedly not voting what the majority wants would be outraged if the senate were to vote as the majority wanted on Iraq. We could just put every bill up on a referendum, but that's not the way the constitution set things up.

The talk radio talking points that "the people" are overwhelmingly opposed to this bill and only "elites" favor it, is highly dubious anyway. Yes, there are polls showing lots of opposition to the bill, but there are also polls that show that two thirds of "the people" favor a comprhensive immigration bill that includes more border security and a path to citizenship for illegals already here. Undoubtedly oppoenents of comprehensive immigration reform are louder than advocates, but not necessarily more numerous.

You know what the majority wants in Iraq? I would bet if we took a vote that most of America wants to win in Iraq not pull out in defeat.

Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you. Washington Elected Elite

the low numbers re: Iraq are whether the President is executing the war well...not whether Americans want to lose.

It's all in the question.

It is no freakish coincidence that the Senate couldn't beat Bush on the funding-NO one wants to de-fund the troops...NO ONE.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

to get out of Iraq immediatelly along with polls that showed that's what the people wanted- would you think that Congress must listen to the people, and that if they don't they are being arrogant; becuase that seems to be what your post would suggest.

by all means yes-IF Americans wanted an immediate withdrawal, then they should have one. The thing is, they don't.

I would further assert that the absence of any attempt to introduce legislation to de-fund, or withdraw, or cancel the authorization of the original war should indicate to you that this is NOT the calls and polls these idiots are getting...at all.

My personal opinion of what Congress should do is one opinion, and more often than not, in the minority. The majority rules, as our Democracy expects. The majority of America doesn't want to lose the war...they are sick of not winning it decisively...and that's a big difference.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

but I disagree with you. I am not saying that Congress is getting overwhelming phone calls against the Iraq war, but if they were I don't think congress should make their decision based on that. You say we're a democracy, but were not, we're a republic. Nothing in the constitution obligates congress to pay attention to public pressure, they have an incentive to do so since they might not get reelected if they don't, but they aren't obligated to do so. If the founding fathers wanted to have a system where the people decided issues on a case by case basis than they would have created such a system, instead they created a system where the people choose a general course every election - if they don't like what congress does then there's an election every two years where they can express their opinion and change course. You have all the right in the world to be upset by this bill, but the senate voting for something against a popular uproar is not the demise of our system of government.

did you forget the bit about "of, by, and FOR the people?"

While the system of government does not lend itself to the citizenry working the minutiae of every piece of legislation, it also allows for intervention prior to election cycles and terms of office expiring...sheesh-to suggest once elected we get no say in the things they do is absurd.

Why have offices and phones then? Or faxes and emails and mailing addresses? And why have town meetings and face to faces with constituents and lobbyists and activist groups? You seem to suggest once they're sworn in, we don't exist anymore...I ain't buying.

haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).

that people have a right to lobby their senators, and senators should take their opinions into account. However, senators are not obligated to just listen to whoever is the loudest and most obnoxious, and that is a generous observation of some of what people say they are sending to their representitives. The election is the time for the majority to rule ( and if a state has a recall election process than that adds more power to the people in between election); the problem with basing policy on the volume of protest from the electorate, is that there is not an objective way to guage the real feelings of the electorate - there is always the possibility of a silent majority. So the people have a right to lobby congress, but congress does not have an obligation that they make policy based on threats from people telling them that they are going to donate to their opponenets.
If the public really is on your side at 80%, as some of you claim, then you should not have trouble finding people among that 80% to run for office, and they should win.

can you actually be?

Jon Kyl ran for office our "our side" as you put it. So did Mel Martinez, and Jim Webb, and a host others. Very few people get elected to the US Senate by promising to take the position which 64 of them took today.

You are an odd sort of populist who dislikes the majority.

"Do you support the United States' unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, no matter what the ramifications in the Middle East or United States?"

Something tells me the numbers might be a bit lower than the current poll figures.

Pollsters are like accountants - they can make numbers say anything they want them to.

In polls the sampling method maters, the diction of the questions are of importance (note the difference that the inclusion or absence of the word illegal has in the ubiquitous amnesty polls), and the availability of different responses to poll questions (polls that have only two available responses such as approve/disapprove usually generate higher disapproval ratings than polls that provide the following potential responses: strongly approve, somewhat approve, somewhat disapprove, and strongly disapprove) are also of consequence.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Yes, polls are often biased and depend greatly on the wording of questions, which is why they are only somewhat reliable, whether they are about Iraq or immigration reform. I wish that other conservatives would stop averring that the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to comprehenisive immigration reform and citing some poll as proof and then denegrating anyone who disagrees with them by branding them as "elites" who don't have the best interests of the country at heart.

I'd be betting that there will be a lot of senators finding it much easier to keep promises not to run again.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"Many of the same people who are so outraged over this immigration bill because the senate is supposedly not voting what the majority wants would be outraged if the senate were to vote as the majority wanted on Iraq. We could just put every bill up on a referendum, but that's not the way the constitution set things up."

There isn't anything difficult about this concept. I support my local Senator for standing up to the "cut-and-run" lefties and political opportunists eager to make political hay by promising an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, but I refuse to support him when he even contemplates supporting this horrific "immigration reform."

On a side note...

Ever notice how most of the debate has revolved around the "amnesty" portion of this bill and not the radical new influx of low skilled foreigners portion?

Amnesty while detestable and rightfully opposed is secondary in importance to the society changing effect of this mass importation of third worlders.

Senator Lieberman who most likely has taken a quite unpopular position with his constitutients

Lieberman ran for office on his position regarding Iraq, and was elected on it. You can't say he is going against the will of his constituients here.

I don't hear complaints of Bush being dictatorial because he continues to hold an unpopular position on the Iraq war

You must be remarkably hard of hearing then, because I hear those complaints all the time.

You all seem to be fine if the senators take an unpopular position on the Iraq war

The Senators are not taking an unpopular position on the Iraq war. Their position on that issue is an accurate reflection of the feeling in the country. Their position on the immigration bill is the exact opposite.

It is striking that you'd be hard pressed to find any member of the Senate who was elected by running on the position they have now adapted. Webb, Kyl, Martinez, Brown, and all the rest run like John Calhoun and vote like Ted Kennedy on this issue. It is the flat out dishonesty on display here which is so disgusting.

"Lieberman ran for office on his position regarding Iraq, and was elected on it. You can't say he is going against the will of his constituients here."

I don't think it was ever any secret that Bush would support a bill like this, nor that McCain would, so I suppose you are not upset that they didn't listen to their constituents.

" don't hear complaints of Bush being dictatorial because he continues to hold an unpopular position on the Iraq war,

You must be remarkably hard of hearing then, because I hear those complaints all the time."

I was talking about hearing complaints from our side of the aisle not the Daily - Kos crowd. If there are a lot of the people who are complaining about congress not listening to the people on Amnesty, complaining about the president not listening to the people on the war than I stand corrected.

Finally maybe not all the Senators are taking an unpopular position on the war, but I imagine many of you would be happy if they did. The point is that if they take an unpopular position against your position their considered to be ignoring the people, and not living up to a democratic form of government, but if the unpopular position is your position, than you will consider it to be a principled stand.

And refrain from telling other people what they think. If you would like to know what I think, just ask me.

I don't think it was ever any secret that Bush would support a bill like this

Not a secret? Well, he certainly never went out of his way to make the matter public.

We must do a better job of stopping those who seek to come into our country illegally. I support strict border enforcement programs such as Operation Hold the Line, which concentrate border patrol officers and resources at known border-crossing points. I believe it is far more compassionate to turn away people at the border than to attempt to find and arrest them once they are living in our country illegally.

George W Bush, A Charge To Keep, 1999.

If he did not outright lie, I think its fair to say that he was rather less then honest. Border security has been pretty much non-existent under Bush.

I do expect the Congress and the President to listen to the people. This is not Russia, after all. Not yet, I hope.

The President and the GOP leadership have utterly failed to make the case for staying in Iraq. I happen to think that there is a good case all the same, but if the American people by a significant margin think otherwise then that is just the way it is. I personally am not of the opinion that our government should ignore the very people from whom it draws its just powers. And I'd be very surprised if any significant number of people at Redstate felt otherwise.

Assuming that there is a "bipartisan agreement" to wrap things up in Iraq (and all the evidence is that this is in the works) then that will reflect the political reality in the US. The exact opposite is true of the immigration bill, which is disliked across the board.

It makes no sense to say that the people of Connecticut elected Joe because of his Iraq views. Lamont was an unexperienced nobody when he entered this race, and the only difference between him and Joe was the Iraq war issue. Joe had support from the unions and liberal groups not related to foreign policy.

A pro-war conservative would have had no chance in this race. This is why the Republican (Schessinger) got almost no support from anyone.

_A pro-war conservative would have had no chance in this race. This is why the Republican (Schessinger) got almost no support from anyone._

Schlesigner was anti-war. He got no support because people were voting tactically. Everyone knew that either Lieberman or Lamont would win. Interestingly, Jodi Rell got around ten times the vote that Schlesinger did - probably the biggest discrepancy between two state wide candidates on the same ticket.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Schlesinger 9.6%

We should all almost lose like that!

Webb, Kyl, Martinez, Brown, and all the rest run like John Calhoun and vote like Ted Kennedy on this issue.

How DO they get away with it?

His current wife is Elaine Chao, Bush's Secretary of Labor.

So as I predicted they voted for closure and probably put this over the top. Had they been opposed, is there any doubt 3 other Reps would have joined them?

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

The odd thing was when they voted for cloture today they didn't know for certain if their amendment would withstand a vote or screening. There remains a signficant probability that at least six more senators will peel off by Thursday. Now is the time to really exert pressure.

I was upset at my conservative Senator Kit Bond, but I believe that he will vote against cloture if his amendment fails. Conversely, I could plausibly support this bill if his amendment passes (it eliminates the path to citizenship), although it probably doesn't have a snowball's chance. Let's continue to turn up the heat.

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”

Senator non grata to me now, and I emailed him as such. ANY support for this abomination is unacceptable.

The Romans actually invited many of the barbarians to settle in areas within the Empire. They then used this position to undermine the Empire from within. The similarities between what the Romans did and what we are doing are uncanny. The Fall Of Rome by Bryan Ward-Perkins is a good read on the topic, and very concise.

"The Romans actually invited many of the barbarians to settle in areas within the Empire. They then used this position to undermine the Empire from within. The similarities between what the Romans did and what we are doing are uncanny. The Fall Of Rome by Bryan Ward-Perkins is a good read on the topic, and very concise."

YES, MORE THAN UNCANNY. Rome and the following dark ages was done in by a mixture of demographics and failure to defend militarily the civilizational system that they built up. Moreover, the empire was a land of free citizens early on, but became more and more a land burdened with heavy taxation and de facto slavery. Citizens over time became serfs.

One that Redstate showed yesterday showed 50% opposed and 22% support.

86% supported raising the federal minimum to $6.45 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-30-minimum-wage_x.htm), or Just 35 percent of 1,033 adults polled say they favor the war in Iraq; 61 percent say they oppose it (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/21/iraq.poll/index.html)

What does all this mean... not much really, but it does show us one thing and that is that no matter which side of the isle your on your reps will not listen to you. They are there to serve their own special interest.

that Congress listened to the people on the minimum wage, and are about to do so on the Iraq war. But no power on earth seems to be able to get them to do the same on immigration.

The one titled Ending the Rights of U.S. Senators as the Senate Has Known Them

And Rightly So!

A vote for cloture today was a vote in favor of the process by which this bill is being jammed through. And that process is specifically designed to prevent debate and the offering of amendments.

The Aye votes today are votes for the process that has been setup by Sens. Reid and McConnell.

An Aye today is not, however, a vote to pass the bill.

Run like Reagan!

Jon, I don't want this bill any more than you do. To be quite frank, I think it's appalling that, without so much as even being sniffed by a committee, that it is already on the floor. I think Harry Reid needs to do things like realize that, as much as he calls Bush a tyrant for doing an end-around on things that he's in favor of, that he needs to shut his mouth and work by the rules, not politic the parlimentarian into letting him have his way.

But, everyone is renouncing these Senators for them voting Yea today, without knowing why. The people in Bond's office are saying that, if his anti-amnesty amendment isn't approved, that he will vote no when cloture to vote on the bill comes up.

Is the process screwed up? Yes. But, there are reasons for some of these Senators to vote yea. I don't condone it, but I'm not going to renounce my party simply because of this cloture vote. Let's see how the bill fares, and then determine where we stand.

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

So it really isn't necessary to see the outcome of Bond's or anyone else's amendment. Fixing this bill would require so many major changes that it would be completely unrecognizable from it's current state. That's not going to happen.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

IF, after the amendment process, the bill is no good and these guys still vote for cloture on it, THEN it's time to pile on.

Note before though.

Run like Reagan!

Thats kinda the problem. Senators are not allowed to introduce amendments.

We might not like it, but there is going to be a list of amendments to be voted upon.

The fact that it's a most unusual process for the US Senate does not negate its existance as a means of changing the bill.

If major problems remain afterward and yet these Republicans vote for cloture on the final bill, then I'll be right there calling for change in the party caucus.

Not before, though.

Run like Reagan!

there is going to be a list of amendments to be voted upon

Sure there is. And that list is going to be prepared by the joint Democratic-Republican leadership with an eye to getting the whole shebang passed. Individual senators are NOT allowed to introduce amendments.

McConnell has gone far out of his way to shaft the majority of his own caucus. He should be replaced as Minority leader ASAP.

To know this bill will still be bad after the amendment process. It is fundamentally unacceptable in a dozen different ways. No amount of tweaking is going to fix it... not that the rigged amendment process is going to allow for much tweaking anyway.

IF, after the amendment process, the bill is no good and these guys still vote for cloture on it, THEN it's time to pile on.

Why even pile on after the bill is passed. Hey, it might somehow become acceptable in conference with the House, right? Why even pile on then, it might be unacceptable as written and signed into law, but maybe it will be acceptable as it is enforced, right? Keep dreaming. This bill is garbage and will remain garbage throughout the process.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

his one piddly amendment makes this bill passable, he's smoking something better than I have. There are so many issues with this bill (I believe a nice list was posted here previously) that one amendment won't help.

I don't completely renounce the Republicans. Todd Akin is my rep, and he's a fantastic Christian conservative who (in my memory) I have not differed with once. But I will NOT donate money to the RNC, and if Bond continues down his current path, I wouldn't vote for him for library board.

"Is the process screwed up? Yes. But, there are reasons for some of these Senators to vote yea. I don't condone it ..."

The point is that Bond, like a few others, was "bought off" to get the bill revived in exchange for his cloture support... now that they are over one hurdle THEY TURN AROUND AND SCREW BOND BY TABLING HIS AMENDMENT. So what was the point of Bond bothering to support a bill THAT WOULD NEVER BECOME "ACCEPTABLE" TO HIM.

We knew this was the game the pro-amnesty bill pushers were going for. We know also that Bond's amendment wouldn't pass... I was somewhat hopeful that the Webb amendment would get consideration, but no such luck. IT GOT A WORSE VOTE TOTAL THAN THE VITTER AMENDMENT 3 WEEKS AGO TO STRIKE THE Z VISA COMPLETELY.

The Game is Up. The 'changes' to this bill are non-existent to meaningless. They are not passing. Sham process for a sham bill. Any Senator who actually voted "Aye" on Tuesday hoping that the bad bill would get better needs to wake up and smell the amnesty. Smells like amnesty, tastes like amnesty, looks like amnesty. Kill the bill. Vote it down.

Jon Sandor, if voting for cloture today is not such a big deal because senators will be allowed to offer amendments, I would like to know how many amendments Senator Sessions and Senator Vitter will be allowed to offer.

"The defense of our nation begins with the defense of our borders." - Rep. Tom Tancredo

www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com and www.teamtancredo.org

The fact that they have a 2nd and 3rd chance down the road to stop the bill doesn't excuse them for not stopping it here.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

will be Thursday, and has always been.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

The main problem I have with today's cloture vote is the imprimatur it sort of gives to this outrageous "clay pigeon" maneuver. All that said, what happens Thursday is what ultimately counts.

was a vote in favor of the flawed process by which this bill is being pushed through the Senate without debate, without hearings, and without amendments being offered. (Other than those cherry-picked by the Gang.) I don't suppose any Senators will take the trouble to show up here and explain why they would do such a thing. But if Senator Brownback would like to explain his own reasoning I'd be interested in hearing it.

Everyone wants to paint today's vote as a de facto vote for amnesty, yet it is nothing of the sort. Many of those who voted in favor of it today will vote for amnesty-don't get me wrong. But, the vote today was to actually start debating the bill.

And, you have no idea what plans these senators have for it. I'm sure votes will peel away when their amendments don't pass. I know for certain of one, and I've got contacts saying up to 6 or 7 more, at minimal, if their 'poison-pill' amendments are not accepted.

Everyone's painting it as legislative fiat, yet nobody seems to understand what today meant. There is a much better chance of killing the bill once and for all if there is ample debate given on the floor, and THEN voting it down through lack of cloture or a simple up-down vote on the floor.

Keep the powder dry and keep putting pressure on the Senate without making hasty arguments.

Fides non in bonus intentions , tamen in bonus factum

Formerly known as ShowMeConservatism. For more common sense conservatism, visit the Show Me Conservatism blog.

This was a vote to accept the unprecedented process by which this bill is being rammed through with next to no debate. Trying to pass it off as being a pro-debate vote makes you look really bad.

There is a much better chance of killing the bill once and for all if there is ample debate given on the floor

There is not going to BE ample debate on the floor. The timescale involved dictates that, even if the process was not explicitly designed to curtail debate.

If these Senators really wanted debate they should have rejected this entire process and forced this bill to go through the normal procedure complete with committe hearings. Anyone who voted for cloture today is not in favor of debate.

The amnesty portion begins to look more and more like the "smoke and mirrors" piece everyone will be seething about while they ignore the vastly more important increase in legal immigration.

Just like the europeans weren't consulted by their governments through any sort of referendum before they began (in concert) to import vast numbers of poor, illiterate and/or muslim immigrants, the congress of the United States is pursuing the same exact path by importing a vast new underclass of spanish speaking third-worlders.

I truly detest what the government of this nation has become.

McCain has the best team and infrastructure of any GOP candidate bar Romney. He will stay in until February. He is hung up on the 'John Kerry' scenario. He knows perfectly well that he is in a position to capitalise on any bounce he gets out of IA, NH, and SC. I don't seen any reason to believe he will get a bounce, but he is in a position to build on one if he gets one.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Is undecided at this point about whether he will support the bill, or vote for cloture on Thursday. I understand that one could be misled to believe that he has already in fact voted for the bill based on information currently on the front page, but that is not in fact true.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

"This is not a vote "FOR" the bill" may be an accurate statement. However, it is even more accurate to state that Brownback, with this vote, voted to give this bill life! Life that it should not have if the votes went the other way.

I do not expect that you can tell me I am wrong on that point, but I am curious to see how you may try to rationalize it any other way.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

Senator Brownback believes that the bill is in need of improvements before he can support it, but he wants to give the amendment process a chance to run its course. If the end result of the amendment process is not satisfactory to the Senator, then he will vote against cloture on Thursday. That vote, as well, will require 60 "yea" votes to pass.

------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...

-John Locke

..why this bill should be given life.

How about throwing it in the garbage can and crafting a bill with hearings, testimony and a normal amendment process, like all legislation use to do, before the Senate decided the rules were just a nuisance.

Please understand that I do not know a lot about Senator Brownback, but from what I did know, I did not have anything I could put my finger on that would cause me to think him a bad person or legislator. However, I could have said the same thing about Senator Kyle and McConnell too.

I guess this legislation has done things to my perceptions of a lot of politicians in the Republican Party that are not good. Unfortunately, Senator Brownback even thinking this bill is worth giving life, well, I am at a loss.

The more I think about it, the sharper my feelings about our Republicans in Congress and the betrayals in many things over the last few years have finally piled up to have finally gone over the top. This bill has sent it over the top for me. Senator Brownback is just showing me he is trying to have it both ways. I can't explain it any other way.

There is no reason to give this "mess" life. I honestly feel sorry that I feel that way about it, but I do, and it isn't going to change anytime soon.

My only bright spot in this is that my Senator, Sen. Thune, has voted solidly against everything about this bill, save some amendments to toughen it. He voted not to give it life today too. My other Senator, Sen. Johnson is not there to vote.

Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }

You're exactly right, Wub, and that's why I am so disgusted with Bond, despite his stated objective of trying to amend it. It is beyond repair.

As you say, I too am "at a loss to understand why this bill should be given life".

Exactly.

Run like Reagan!

It's not like this bill is the law of the land now.

Some of these guys are amnesty shills, like Graham, McCain, Lott, et al. But others like Ensign, Bond, Burr, Cochran, etc. are good conservatives. Yes, I would have liked them to vote no this round, but some of these guys have amendments that they want to see debated. The REAL cloture vote is Thursday, after the amendments are debated. If these amendments are not adopted and the bill isn't improved, and they still vote against cloture, that will be something to be upset about. Just keep contacting your senators between now and then. This is a loss of a MINOR battle in a much larger war (which I believe we will win!).

“.....women and minorities hardest hit”