I don't know the status on Hagel Martinez at this point, but I'd hate to be one of the Ted Kennedy Republicans and run for re-election.
The Republican Party is now pretty well defining itself into two wings: The Ted Kennedy wing and the Republican wing.
By the way: I got the very first copy of my book "Immigration Politics" yesterday. It is pretty darn good if I do say so myself. (only read halfway through so far).
So far it is available at the publisher, authorhouse.com It will be available from amazon.com probably within a few weeks.
Assuming it gets a decent amount of interest, I plan to follow up with Immigration Politics 2 next year, which will document what has happened starting with HR 4437.
By the way: Someone said Hagel and Martinez voted against Hagel/Martinez, because it had enough votes to pass without them?
I have heard of cases where politicians who favored something that would get in political hot water if they voted yes that have been allowed to vote no if the measure is sure of passing.
But to vote no on their own bill? I have never heard of such a thing. I mean, that would immunize them from the public outcry that will hit those who supported Hagel/Martinez? It makes no sense.
Hey, I just heard on the radio that Hagel Martinez went down.
(KABC 790)
John McCain vowed to fight on. No doubt. But losing two weeks of momentum will make it harder for the Kennedy (Hagel/Martinez) bill to pass.
If they knew it was going to fail, it is standard to vote with the majority vote in order to be in a position to immediately move for re-consideration, which is what happened.
The minority voters cannot move for re-consideration. There's always a remote possibility that the move for re-consideration could be effective in reversing the vote if new information was made available that was not available before they voted or during the roll call, from what I understand. But that would necessitate that one of the pro's would have to vote nay to be on the majority side in order to move for re-consideration.