Good idea. But I think I'll just email their offices a little greeting card:
Welcome to the Democrat Party, Senator. It suits you.
Posted on 06/07/2006 8:37:51 AM PDT by andy58-in-nh
Edited on 06/07/2006 11:34:52 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Constitutional Amendment on Marriage Fails
Wednesday, June 07, 2006 WASHINGTON — A constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman stalled Wednesday in a 49-48 vote, but conservative backers say they are pleased to have had the vote nonetheless.
"For thousands of years, marriage — the union between a man and a woman — has been recognized as an essential cornerstone of society. ... We must continue fighting to ensure the Constitution is amended by the will of the people rather than by judicial activism,” said Senate Majority leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., after the vote.
A constitutional amendment needs two-thirds votes to pass, but first had to get through the procedural cloture vote, which requires 60 senators to agree to end the debate and move toward final passage.
Shy 11 votes to go to a final debate, few crossed the political aisle to vote against their party's majority position. Republican Sens. John McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Judd Gregg, Arlen Specter, Lincoln Chafee and John Sununu voted against the cloture vote. Democratic Sens. Ben Nelson and Robert Byrd voted for it, as they did in 2004. Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel and Demcratic Sens. Chris Dodd and Jay Rockefeller were absent.
With enough Republicans so that even making cloture (60) let alone the super-majority for passage (67) was a pipe dream. It's hardly in a "badge of honor" category in any case. Sometimes people don't pass laws in hysterics, that's all. There's a good reason the Constitution is so hard to amend.
Stick a fork in him you may..
and RINO he is..
but done, nah!
Who do we have that's a serious challenger...seriously?
On the contrary. Attempting to reestablish the notion that there are some decent limits to the reach of the tax man's claws is about as critical as any issue could be.
Now you are lying... -please point out anywhere I have posted such a "dommsday" posting??? LOL (hopefully you will capitulate before you are zotted?)
Wow, now the truth comes out. You're PRO gay agenda. Now, I at least know where you're coming from. It all makes sense now.
Just as a side note... What the heck are you doing on The Freep with those opinions. That's like me going to DU to talk about virtues of Bible study groups.
Good idea. But I think I'll just email their offices a little greeting card:
Welcome to the Democrat Party, Senator. It suits you.
Of course not, but these types of votes are taken all the time in the Senate and are not necessarily grand-standing.
It serves a purpose to get the Senators on record. That way the voters in their states can work to get a Senator in or out dependent on how they voted.
Also, if a vote is taken again in 6 months or so it can be seen if progress is being made.
It doesn't hurt to get McCain on record for example. It is hard to see how he can be elected in 08 after this one.
Engaging in "a stupid ******* waste of time" is par for the course for most of these clowns.
McCain is sacrificing long term possible gains just to please the media. This moron can stay out of Iowa.
McCain is sacrificing long term possible gains just to please the media. This moron can stay out of Iowa.
Well with our ex governors new book coming out, and Menendez's vote against marriage it might hurt a little.
You can say that again. ;-)
I don't think getting Senators on record on such an important issue is necessarily "hysterics".
I don't know it for a fact, but I'll bet that many of the amendments in our Constitution didn't make it through on the first try.
Tell you what. You agree to pay my extra costs from these idiots' failures to deal with the pocketbook issues (in addition to your own), and I'll concur with this argument.
Anyone surprised?
NOW WHAT DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH WHAT I WROTE YOU? I made a comparison of venues, not to your knowledge of theology.
Seems a diversion tactic to me
No actually it is always entirely grandstanding. Getting the Senators "on record" has no purpose other than to allow them to go home and insist they "tried" but because of the preponderance of {insert this week's bad guy} in the Senate they couldn't win, but they "tried" so please re-elect them and maybe try to get them some more help "for the future". It's 100% grandstanding every single time, the only purpose it serves is to help the next campaign.
It would have to be in 7 months, after the new winners from mid-terms are elected.
It doesn't help to get McCain "on record" either, he'd already made his position clear to anybody that was paying attention. It won't hurt him in 08, his biggest mountain has always been the conservatives that don't like, they didn't like him in 2000 and won't like him in 2008, but if he finds a way to get the nod he'll cakewalk into the Whitehouse because a lot of libs (especially the press) totally dig him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.