North Dakota Senators And Their Inconsistent Voting
Posted in the forums:
Here's the vote tally on the first bill sponsored by Democrats. Here's the vote tally for the second, "compromise bill" that passed.
I think it's clear, from anyone looking at the way the North Dakota Senators vote in Washington, that they usually vote according to how the vote itself will make them rather than according to what the legislation will actually do. The ideal that Conrad is angling for more appeal to red state voters before 2006 balloting is spot on.
As for the bill itself, the one that passed, a lot of people on the right are angry about it. They're talking about the Republicans "caving in." I don't see it that way. Mostly because most of the bill's provisions are advisory. Like, for instance, asking the President to put forward his strategy for winning the war in Iraq.
Like he hasn't done that in every other speech since we invaded.
Plus, the House version of this bill that passed the Senate doesn't include any of these provisions and it doesn't look likely that any of them will be added. And if they are, it is not at all assured that they'll pass.
So, we'll see I guess. I like the idea of the Republicans showing some spine and the idea that they'd undermine the President (even in a sort of meaningless way like this) is troublesome, but "caving" on a largely symbolic bill is hardly cause to get very upset. A little peeved, perhaps, but not angry.
In the long run, I don't see this legislation making much of a difference if it even passes.
There were two votes in the Senate [yesterday] on the need for more reports on progress in Iraq and for the White House to explain its strategy to win the war. The first was sponsored by Democrats, and it very nearly called for an exact timetable, and it failed 40-58. The second, a "compromise bill", and it passed 79-19.
The North Dakota votes are interesting.
Conrad voted against them both, a largely conservative position (he's with 13 other Republicans and NO Democrats). Dorgan, on the other hand, voted in favor of the first bill (with 38 other Democrats and a RINO) as well as in favor of the second.
Any thoughts on what this could mean? Remember, back in 2002 it was Conrad who voted against the "Joint Resolution" that sent us to war, with Dorgan for it. With these votes, Conrad appears to be aiming for a more conservative appeal, just in time for 2006.
Here's the vote tally on the first bill sponsored by Democrats. Here's the vote tally for the second, "compromise bill" that passed.
I think it's clear, from anyone looking at the way the North Dakota Senators vote in Washington, that they usually vote according to how the vote itself will make them rather than according to what the legislation will actually do. The ideal that Conrad is angling for more appeal to red state voters before 2006 balloting is spot on.
As for the bill itself, the one that passed, a lot of people on the right are angry about it. They're talking about the Republicans "caving in." I don't see it that way. Mostly because most of the bill's provisions are advisory. Like, for instance, asking the President to put forward his strategy for winning the war in Iraq.
Like he hasn't done that in every other speech since we invaded.
Plus, the House version of this bill that passed the Senate doesn't include any of these provisions and it doesn't look likely that any of them will be added. And if they are, it is not at all assured that they'll pass.
So, we'll see I guess. I like the idea of the Republicans showing some spine and the idea that they'd undermine the President (even in a sort of meaningless way like this) is troublesome, but "caving" on a largely symbolic bill is hardly cause to get very upset. A little peeved, perhaps, but not angry.
In the long run, I don't see this legislation making much of a difference if it even passes.
Chief RZ
likwidshoe
HG
Proof
Bat One
realitybasedbob
2Hotel9
Blue Eagle Six
