Senate voted today to table the Nelson-Hatch amendment, effectively killing the Amendment. The vote was 54:45, which was not the landslide victory everyone reported. Although Democrats only needed 51 votes to defeat the Amendment, I think it's a sad state that they only managed to get 3 others to vote for tabling the amendment. Two of those votes were from Republicans, Snow and Collins (both from Maine).
It should also be noted that several Democrats voted against tabling the Amendment and spoke in favor of the amendment during the floor debate. Senator Casey (D-Pa) comes to mind with his awful 10 minute speech about why the Nelson-Hatch amendment was such a wonderful thing and why we should all be sucking Hatch's dick.
You can see who voted for and against tabling (remember, for tabling= good) here.
But, if you can't wait to click and see, here's the down and dirty on the Democrats who were fine with Nelson-Hatch Amendment and voted against tabling:
Bayh (IN)
Casey (PA)
Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Kauffman (DE)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Special thanks to those Democratic Senators who made some brilliant and impassioned arguments on the floor:
Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
and Feinstein (CA) (who did not become involved until the very end, but as the saying goes "better late than never")
Of course, as much as I liked the fact that these particular senators raised good arguments, I am still disappointed that no one came out against the Hyde Amendment. The rhetoric from both sides of the debate was that the Hyde Amendment is well settled policy. Hmm, that's interesting: the Hyde Amendment was particularly controversial in 1977, and many organizations think the Hyde Amendment is horrible policy. Where is this idea that it is well settled policy?
And let me add one final thought: the Democrats have a super-majority. There is no reason why the party should be bowing to Republican or conservative rhetoric. Oh, but wait, I forgot-- there are lots of Democrats now that side with Republicans. Does anyone else see a mythical creature emerging-- one with a donkey's head and an elephant's behind?
It should also be noted that several Democrats voted against tabling the Amendment and spoke in favor of the amendment during the floor debate. Senator Casey (D-Pa) comes to mind with his awful 10 minute speech about why the Nelson-Hatch amendment was such a wonderful thing and why we should all be sucking Hatch's dick.
You can see who voted for and against tabling (remember, for tabling= good) here.
But, if you can't wait to click and see, here's the down and dirty on the Democrats who were fine with Nelson-Hatch Amendment and voted against tabling:
Bayh (IN)
Casey (PA)Conrad (ND)
Dorgan (ND)
Kauffman (DE)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor (AR)
Special thanks to those Democratic Senators who made some brilliant and impassioned arguments on the floor:
Boxer (CA)
Cardin (MD)
Menendez (NJ)
and Feinstein (CA) (who did not become involved until the very end, but as the saying goes "better late than never")
Of course, as much as I liked the fact that these particular senators raised good arguments, I am still disappointed that no one came out against the Hyde Amendment. The rhetoric from both sides of the debate was that the Hyde Amendment is well settled policy. Hmm, that's interesting: the Hyde Amendment was particularly controversial in 1977, and many organizations think the Hyde Amendment is horrible policy. Where is this idea that it is well settled policy?
And let me add one final thought: the Democrats have a super-majority. There is no reason why the party should be bowing to Republican or conservative rhetoric. Oh, but wait, I forgot-- there are lots of Democrats now that side with Republicans. Does anyone else see a mythical creature emerging-- one with a donkey's head and an elephant's behind?

