Posted on 06/26/2007 9:20:00 AM PDT by MplsSteve
I just got off the phone with someone at Norm Coleman's office. I told them that I was a constituent as well as financial supporter.
I asked if they knew how the Senator was planning on voting.
I was informed that the Senator will vote for cloture today because he feels the 24 amendments should be voted upon.
As for final passage of the bill, I was told that he's still undecided.
I politely informed the staff person that I wasn't sure that I'd be around in 2008 (financially and volunteer-wise) if the Senator votes for cloture.
She sounded mildly exasperated when I said that. I'm sure her office has been taking a lot of calls from perturbed constituents. Apparently, it's not working out too well as Coleman will vote for cloture.
Comments or opinions - anyone?
Seems like the newest “craze” for RINOs is going to be something I’m going to have to call “Suicide-by-Electorate”
If they are actually that stupid and feckless, their careers deserve to perish. THIS whole thing could start either a TRUE third party or a very dramatic re-vamping of the tenets and practices of the Republican Party. And we DON’T have to wait until the next election cycle to get the craven bastards out.
All I can say to this, as humbly as I can, is get of your ass and find a conservative to run, if not yourself, and elect them!
If I can find a conservative to run in VT, you can fine one in MN!
How does the vote get to 64-35 with 8 not voting? Something is strange in the vote totals.
I've done my part. Both my senators voted against cluture.
Just for accuracy.
Today’s vote was to bring the bill to the floor. Because the bill did not go through committee, they needed a vote to bring it to the floor. There is debate on that motion, as there is on everything, and the opponents would not agree to a unanimous consent request to end that debate and allow the vote.
So they filed ‘cloture’ on the debate to bring the bill to the floor. And that passed. Sometimes there’s more debate after cloture, but i think because this was a procedural move there is none, and the cloture vote allowed them to bring the bill to the floor.
Now the bill is debatable on the floor, and the opponents will keep debating forever. So Reid will file a cloture motion to end the debate ON the bill. A cloture motion to end debate has to sit for I think 2 days (through one complete legislative day), and then they can vote on it. And afterwards, unless unanimous consent is given for some other time period, they will have 30 more hours of debate.
I’m less clear of the clay pidgeon, but I think there’s a rule that you need 60 votes to make an amendment in order on the floor. By grouping the set of amendments together as one amendment, they can have the 60-vote run for that set of amendments, as a single amendment (otherwise it would take a long time and some wouldn’t get 60 and that would make people mad).
Then, having a single vote to get the amendment in order, they can then break the amendment up into it’s parts, so each one gets a straight up-or-down vote. In exchange for this, people are going to be asked to accept cloture, knowing that there amendment WILL be included because this trick ensures it.(included for debate, not for passage).
Of course, after THAT point, if your amendment fails you can vote against the bill, but they only need 50 to pass.
We need senators to oppose cloture until after THEIR AMENDMENTS ARE ACTUALLY VOTED ON AND APPROVED, rather than accepting just the promise of a vote.
Just for accuracy.
Today’s vote was to bring the bill to the floor. Because the bill did not go through committee, they needed a vote to bring it to the floor. There is debate on that motion, as there is on everything, and the opponents would not agree to a unanimous consent request to end that debate and allow the vote.
So they filed ‘cloture’ on the debate to bring the bill to the floor. And that passed. Sometimes there’s more debate after cloture, but i think because this was a procedural move there is none, and the cloture vote allowed them to bring the bill to the floor.
Now the bill is debatable on the floor, and the opponents will keep debating forever. So Reid will file a cloture motion to end the debate ON the bill. A cloture motion to end debate has to sit for I think 2 days (through one complete legislative day), and then they can vote on it. And afterwards, unless unanimous consent is given for some other time period, they will have 30 more hours of debate.
I’m less clear of the clay pidgeon, but I think there’s a rule that you need 60 votes to make an amendment in order on the floor. By grouping the set of amendments together as one amendment, they can have the 60-vote run for that set of amendments, as a single amendment (otherwise it would take a long time and some wouldn’t get 60 and that would make people mad).
Then, having a single vote to get the amendment in order, they can then break the amendment up into it’s parts, so each one gets a straight up-or-down vote. In exchange for this, people are going to be asked to accept cloture, knowing that there amendment WILL be included because this trick ensures it.(included for debate, not for passage).
Of course, after THAT point, if your amendment fails you can vote against the bill, but they only need 50 to pass.
We need senators to oppose cloture until after THEIR AMENDMENTS ARE ACTUALLY VOTED ON AND APPROVED, rather than accepting just the promise of a vote.
So Ol Norm thinks he can hold me hostage by holding up Alf while he stabs us all in the back.
What a lowlife pos move sob!
Now what?
Well, I can't really support either one, but with Franken at least you know what you are getting.
I'm at a loss here and need to regroup, starting with a nastygram.
Was that you I heard on Laura Ingraham’s show today? If it was, good job.
If not, it sure sounded like you. :)
I’m so hopping mad about Coleman’s yes vote I could spit nails. Time to make more phone calls.
I think Norm will be experiencing serious backlash today. I pity the folks on the other end of the phone and computer...
Well, the caller had the same first name as you do and was from your locale, so my ears perked up. LOL
She was talking with Laura after the interview with Coleman’s spokesman, Tom Stewart. She basically said what we are all saying, “Not one more dime and no support if Coleman votes yes on cloture.”
I’m running the boy over to his cousin’s for a sleepover so I can have an unimpeded evening of calling and e-mailing. Let the backlash begin!
How about loses his seat to a conservative Republican?
But I’ll start to bother their staff, just for the fun of it.
I’m irritated about his vote right now.
I’m this close (holding thumb and forefinger very closely together) to calling up Coleman’s campaign office and telling ‘em to remove my name/address from all of their contributor and volunteer lists.
But I’m gonna cool off just a bit and see what other Freepers and Minnesota bloggers have to say before I do this.
This is the sanest answer to kicking out RINOs I have seen.
Kicking Coleman to the curb is not a win for Franken, Minnesota is the state that elected Jesse. Third parties need to take advantage of the no Amnesty sentiment and turn things around.
Ideal solution, but is it possible?
Time for a primary challenge; paging Brian Sullivan (still interested?)
I wonder if Pawlenty is regretting his backing of the lame horse McCain? This debacle is the end of his presidential run for sure.
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.