Log in

No account? Create an account

Wed, Jul. 14th, 2004, 03:57 pm
The vote in senate on whether to consider the constitutional amendment to define marriage

It needed a 3/5 majority, and the vote was 50-48 with two abstains.

Guess which senators abstained.

Then check.

I can't say I don't understand why Kerry and Edwards abstained. I mean, if you were trying not to piss off a tumultuous middle, would you vote, knowing the votes required and knowing who was on your side?

Sorta lame, but at this point I'd rather they didn't self sabotage over pride and strict principles. Strategy is acceptable.

Wed, Jul. 14th, 2004 04:30 pm (UTC)

Desperate times?

Wed, Jul. 14th, 2004 06:20 pm (UTC)

I thought the vote was not for or against the admendment itself, but instead it was a vote to end debate and put the admendment up to a vote.

Kerry and Edwards are kinda busy.

Wed, Jul. 14th, 2004 06:35 pm (UTC)
conculcate: senate rules

You are mostly correct; it was a vote to cloture (prevent further debate by) the democrats who were essentially filibustering (by the threat of filibuster, which is invoked far more often than an actual filibuster in today's Senate) the motion to consider the amendment. The amendment can't be voted on until a motion to consider it succeeds. If the motion to cloture had succeeded, the next thing that would have happened is that the motion currently up for debate (the motion to consider the amendment) would be put to an immediate vote with no further debate. If the motion to consider had failed, the amendment would have (for the time being) died then. If the motion had succeeded, Senate would have proceeded with a debate on the amendment itself (and the democrats would have filibustered this debate as well).

Wed, Jul. 14th, 2004 09:55 pm (UTC)
holyloki: Re: senate rules

as the title of my post keenly points out. ; )

Wed, Jul. 14th, 2004 09:53 pm (UTC)

That's not the excuse I'm supporting. I'm supporting their awareness of the dire stakes involved in their position on a topic like that.

Thu, Jul. 15th, 2004 06:07 am (UTC)

bush just walked around michigan and points midwestern yesterday calling kerry a no good liberal, which got some honest to god negative reactions from the crowd (liberal is a totally hokey word in my opinion and means as much about a person as calling them "californian"- which is to say, conjures up stereotypes that everyone knows are false except for people in the midwest),

but then again, he also has an ad on the telly these days giving kerry shit for his voting record. specifically, how often he has abstained and how crappy his attendance record has become since beginning his campaign.

i think it would only have hurt him to find time in his schedule to vote on this issue.

Thu, Jul. 15th, 2004 01:01 pm (UTC)

This whole thing just makes me really sad. It's like they're trying to burn witches all over again.

The more 'progress' we make, the further behind we are.

I think I'll go crying in the arms of my lesbian lover, then read the part in the bible about setting a bush on fire...

Thu, Jul. 15th, 2004 11:17 pm (UTC)

I'm sorry this is not pertaining to your entry. But couldn't help noticing suddenly that I was listed in your "friend" file, and was curious why. Has this relationship been going on long and I didn't know it? I hate it when that happens, and I must just apologize.

Oooooh, it was done by mistake. Yeah, I figured. You have so many friends, it must be hard to seperate the wheat from the chaf. Understood.


Fri, Jul. 16th, 2004 01:08 am (UTC)

actually, no, it wasn't on accident that i befriended you (and the friends on my list actually corresponds pretty closely to the people i know in real life, so keeping up with who's who isn't really a problem). you commented in one of my numerous other journals (this one was not identified clearly as being mine), and i took a look at yours. i found you to be a reasonably intelligent person, and thought i might befriend you. sorry i didn't introduce myself, but the manner in which i came upon your journal, and explaining this, would have blown a cover i may very well wish to keep semi-anonymous for future use.

sorry about the double response, my friend accidentally kept hersefl logged in after using my computer.

Fri, Jul. 16th, 2004 07:18 am (UTC)

Having you say I sounded like a "reasonably intelligent person" may just be the best compliment I've ever had. I shall bask in the glow of that for quite some time......

I am glad it was not a mistake, and I understand the need for anonymity, I have indulged in that as well.

Portland, Oregon eh? Blazer fan? Rose Garden? Know the difference between Dallas and The Dalles?