Jump to content

Dems get Ugly


KaskadskyjKozak
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

"Obama said he would have voted against the measure but didn't because he was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time. He said it was impossible to know when votes will be scheduled in the Senate. "This is a problem" related to running for president, he said"

 

 

 

So……did he vote for it? Not sure how to read this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Obama said he would have voted against the measure but didn't because he was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time. He said it was impossible to know when votes will be scheduled in the Senate. "This is a problem" related to running for president, he said"

 

 

 

So……did he vote for it? Not sure how to read this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RTFA. "He would have voted against it" means he didn't vote. Habla anglais, mon amis?

 

What about "impossible to know when votes will be scheduled in the Senate"? A U. S. Senator in the 21st century does not know when a vote is coming up? What, do they pull them out of their ass on the spur of the moment? He has staff in D.C., right? And they all own cell phones, right? The statement that it's "impossible to know when votes will be scheduled" sounds like something only an asshat would say.

 

I have a recollection of reading somewhere that Obama has one of the highest absenteeism rates in the Senate, has been present to vote only 30% of the time or some such figure. (not sure if that stat is accurate)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Obama said he would have voted against the measure but didn't because he was campaigning in New Hampshire at the time. He said it was impossible to know when votes will be scheduled in the Senate. "This is a problem" related to running for president, he said"

 

 

 

So……did he vote for it? Not sure how to read this.

 

 

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

 

Vote Summary

 

Question: On the Amendment (Feingold Amdt. No. 3164 )

Vote Number: 362

Vote Date: October 3, 2007, 02:00 PM

Required For Majority: 3/5

Vote Result: Amendment Rejected

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 3164 to H.R. 3222 (Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008)

Statement of Purpose: To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

Vote Counts: YEAs 28

NAYs 68

Not Voting 4

 

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---28

Akaka (D-HI)

Biden (D-DE)

Boxer (D-CA)

Brown (D-OH)

Byrd (D-WV)

Cantwell (D-WA)

Cardin (D-MD)

Clinton (D-NY)

Dodd (D-CT)

Durbin (D-IL)

Feingold (D-WI)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Harkin (D-IA)

Kennedy (D-MA)

Kerry (D-MA)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Kohl (D-WI)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

Leahy (D-VT)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Murray (D-WA)

Reid (D-NV)

Rockefeller (D-WV)

Sanders (I-VT)

Schumer (D-NY)

Stabenow (D-MI)

Whitehouse (D-RI)

Wyden (D-OR)

 

NAYs ---68

Alexander (R-TN)

Allard (R-CO)

Barrasso (R-WY)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Bennett (R-UT)

Bingaman (D-NM)

Bond (R-MO)

Brownback (R-KS)

Bunning (R-KY)

Burr (R-NC)

Carper (D-DE)

Casey (D-PA)

Chambliss (R-GA)

Coburn (R-OK)

Cochran (R-MS)

Coleman (R-MN)

Collins (R-ME)

Conrad (D-ND)

Corker (R-TN)

Cornyn (R-TX)

Craig (R-ID)

Crapo (R-ID)

DeMint (R-SC)

Dole (R-NC)

Domenici (R-NM)

Dorgan (D-ND)

Ensign (R-NV)

Enzi (R-WY)

Graham (R-SC)

Grassley (R-IA)

Gregg (R-NH)

Hagel (R-NE)

Hatch (R-UT)

Hutchison (R-TX)

Inhofe (R-OK)

Inouye (D-HI)

Isakson (R-GA)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kyl (R-AZ)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Levin (D-MI)

Lieberman (ID-CT)

Lincoln (D-AR)

Lott (R-MS)

Lugar (R-IN)

Martinez (R-FL)

McCaskill (D-MO)

McConnell (R-KY)

Mikulski (D-MD)

Murkowski (R-AK)

Nelson (D-FL)

Nelson (D-NE)

Pryor (D-AR)

Reed (D-RI)

Roberts (R-KS)

Salazar (D-CO)

Sessions (R-AL)

Shelby (R-AL)

Smith (R-OR)

Snowe (R-ME)

Stevens (R-AK)

Sununu (R-NH)

Tester (D-MT)

Thune (R-SD)

Vitter (R-LA)

Voinovich (R-OH)

Webb (D-VA)

 

Not Voting - 4

McCain (R-AZ)

Obama (D-IL)

Specter (R-PA)

Warner (R-VA)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These non-binding resolutions are a waste of time anyway. They can condemn Move On, Rush Limbaugh, Burma, Sudan and declare french fries be called freedom fries. Its all CYA moves on both sides. Its like declaring that you dont like the brand of tires on the car thats running you over. I'd have to agree that was a lame fucking excuse by Obama(shows poor organiztional skills if he cant get to what he believes is an important vote.) But your fooling yourself to think that inept behavior is isolated to the Democratic side of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These non-binding resolutions are a waste of time anyway. They can condemn Move On, Rush Limbaugh, Burma, Sudan and declare french fries be called freedom fries. Its all CYA moves on both sides. Its like declaring that you dont like the brand of tires on the car thats running you over. I'd have to agree that was a lame fucking excuse by Obama(shows poor organiztional skills if he cant get to what he believes is an important vote.) But your fooling yourself to think that inept behavior is isolated to the Democratic side of things.

 

inept, or done on purpose?

 

this way he doesn't actually vote against it, but would...so he says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...