Amnesty cloture vote tanks, 33-63
posted at 12:52 pm on June 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m shocked. Reid has been threatening for days to end debate on the bill in order to limit the number of potential killer amendments the GOP might foist on it. The worry was that he’d force a cloture vote and would have the 60 votes needed to beat a filibuster. As it turns out, there were in fact 60 votes — the other way. What happened? I’m guessing some of the bill’s supporters are nervous about bringing it up for a final vote before the killer Dorgan amendment has itself been killed, so they want to continue the debate for the time being. (Specter hinted as much earlier today.)
Reid promised earlier this week to shelve the bill entirely if the cloture motion failed, as it now has. He’s already reneged on that and scheduled a re-vote this afternoon at 5 p.m. But why? According to MM, all 48 Republicans (plus 15 Democrats) voted against the measure. Even if Reid flips his 15, he still can’t beat the GOP filibuster. So he’s lining himself up for a second humiliation, unless I’m missing something. Which, in this case, I very well may be.
Stand by for the roll. Exit question: If he crashes and burns again tonight, does Reid have no choice but to euthanize this sucker?
Update: Here’s the roll. No votes include 48 Republicans, a smattering of Blue Dogs, and Harry Reid himself (who had to vote no to preserve his right to call for a reconsideration later).
Update: Politico notes that Reid himself voted for the killer Dorgan amendment last night. Is Reid trying to get the bill passed with a sunset provision on the anti-labor guest worker program, or is he trying to get the bill killed so that he can revisit this subject in a few years when he’s got a bigger majority in the Senate? If the latter, why not just shelve the thing now? (Possible answer: Because then blame for the bill’s failure falls squarely in the Democrats’ lap. Forcing the Republicans’ to filibuster it makes it more of a shared failure.)
Update: The Times expects euthanasia if the 5 p.m. cloture vote fails. I guess this is Reid playing chicken with Mitch McConnell, Jon Kyl, and the other Republicans who support the bill: either they switch their vote tonight or they get jack. Are the amnesty shills at Time too late?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
By that time, tonight, some of our RINOs may decided that the debate should stop.
amerpundit on June 7, 2007 at 12:58 PM
They didn’t fillibuster to stop the bill – they wanted their amendments heard. If their amendments are heard, they may be fine to proceed.
amerpundit on June 7, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Or they can sink the bill with Amendments, lets hope that’s the case.
Bad Candy on June 7, 2007 at 1:02 PM
From Michelle’s blog it looks as if there were already two cloture votes. Did I misunderstand something?
INC on June 7, 2007 at 1:03 PM
I think someone else moved for cloture. Reid’s going to do it again at 5.
Allahpundit on June 7, 2007 at 1:05 PM
The first cloture vote was trying to cloture. The next two votes were votes to reconsider cloture. Reid voted “NO” on all, to reserve his right to bring up another cloture vote tonight.
amerpundit on June 7, 2007 at 1:06 PM
Call the senators on Michelle’s list!
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Thanks for the explanation.
I did find this on the Senate page:
00204 07-Jun S. 1348 On the Cloture Motion Rejected Motion to Invoke Cloture on S. 1348; Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007
00203 07-Jun S. 1348 On the Cloture Motion S.Amdt. 1150 Rejected Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Kennedy Amdt. No. 1150, As Amended; In the nature of a substitute.
INC on June 7, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Yes, they want their amendments heard. But all this goes to show no one knows who will vote for cloture and who will not.
Anil Petra on June 7, 2007 at 1:14 PM
For those in the Atlanta area who want to let Saxby Chambliss know how you feel there is a meeting tonight
LakeRuins on June 7, 2007 at 1:16 PM
i wonder if it’ll be a “teachable moment” when hotair readers show up to find they’re the only ones there without the swasi tattoo.
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 1:20 PM
No votes include 48 Republicans
But what about St. John the Maverick? Alas, he did not vote.
Blacksheep on June 7, 2007 at 1:22 PM
The only fascist here is you, Justin.
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 1:26 PM
Reid’s trying to spin this to a Bush failure and trying label it as his bill.
bj1126 on June 7, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Looks like Chuck Hagel (D- NE) will have a challenger for his seat this time around. Let’s make it National Kick An Incumbent Out Year.
LakeRuins on June 7, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Interestingly, St. John of Boston was the only other healthy Senator to sit this one out. Isn’t it odd that neither McCain nor Kerry — two men of principle, and don’t you forget it — could summon up the courage to even cast a vote on such an important issue. Maybe they should have run together in ‘04 after all.
Blacksheep on June 7, 2007 at 1:34 PM
Godwin!
One of my senators, Collins, voted against the Coburn amendment. I have no reason to vote for her next year.
Slublog on June 7, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Still on his watch, no matter.
Topsecretk9 on June 7, 2007 at 1:38 PM
Are you questioning their patriotism?
LakeRuins on June 7, 2007 at 1:38 PM
http://www.redstate.com/stories/featured_stories/cloture_vote_fails_but_new_threat_emerges
Anyone see this? Allah?
RedState says they’re sources say the Amnesty crew gonna try and strip ALL the amnedments and pass the original bill. They can’t do this, can they?
And that’s true Slubbo, jummy FTGodWin!
Bad Candy on June 7, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Yep, the only problem is Bush isn’t up for re-election so his weasel attempt doesn’t matter – his watch.
Topsecretk9 on June 7, 2007 at 1:40 PM
Love the screencap, AP.
He looks like a pissed-off, 60 year old, virgin Harry Potter.
Right. It would be lunacy on Reid’s part to kill the thing now. If it passes, he’s a hero to the left and the GOP is more fractured than ever.
If the GOP filibusters, he wins and we’re obstructionist and racist.
If it comes up for a vote and fails, he’ll blame it on the GOP, there won’t be any mention of NAY voting Dems and the GOP will STILL be fractured.
No downside for Harry whatever the outcome as long as he isn’t the killer.
BacaDog on June 7, 2007 at 1:40 PM
you’ve been prying. was that you i hit there? it’s funny, because if there is an actual username with a crossover membership to vnn forums or stormfront here, i really wouldn’t be surprised if it were you. keep digging. you’ll find that i’m not afraid of commies either.
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 1:48 PM
I’m excited. I can’t stand Hagel, never could, and I never voted for him in the primaries. He’s a carpetbagger that swept in here from Virginia years ago and bought his seat.
After listening to him on the war and immigration, well, I hope he goes down in flames.
jaleach on June 7, 2007 at 2:05 PM
Hey, if we all team together, donate to the oppositional candidate, and work in their favor, we can affect races across the country in ‘08.
amerpundit on June 7, 2007 at 2:13 PM
I think that’s the way to go. Structurally, we’re way behind the nutroots in this regard. We should try and take down a few RINOs to make a point, and I think we can be successful at it, moreso than the nutroots. Graham and Hagel are probably the first we oughta to go after.
Bad Candy on June 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM
If the RNC still wants to know where their donations are going that might be a clue. Contribute to the counter candidate. An RNC endorsement could turn into the kiss of death for a candidate.
LakeRuins on June 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 1:48 PM
Ha ha ha pwnd……..
doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Another possible theory – maybe he really does want this thing to go down because he doesn’t want to face Nevada voters at some point in the future after having been the Senate Majority Leader that shepherdad amnesty through the senate. He hasn’t been consistently on one side of the immigration issue in the past, which might indicate that he knows his constituents are against it. Even though he’s got some Republican cover, he’ll share a large part of the blame if this or a similar bill becomes law, so maybe he’s trying to avoid that.
Just a theory though …
thirteen28 on June 7, 2007 at 2:30 PM
how so?
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 2:43 PM
I hope they try – that would all but ensure that it fails another cloture vote at 5:00 EDT today, after which Dingy Harry says he’ll pull the bill.
thirteen28 on June 7, 2007 at 2:51 PM
They’re lining him up for a second humiliation, and boy does he deserve it, and any other humiliation that comes his way–for dishonoring our troops in harms way, by saying the war is lost. The putz!
So now Harry Reid joins the reneger family–apologies to David Chapelles.
smellthecoffee on June 7, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Fax your congress-critter and tell them Just say no…..
http://www.numbersusa.com/faxcenter
doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 3:02 PM
The Politico reports:
In fact, the Senate is debating S.1348 — sponsored by Guess Who?
Karl on June 7, 2007 at 3:04 PM
Maybe the failure of cloture portends a reprieve in the movement toward American citizenship for millions of people with no American heritage. It seems the reprieve will be only temporary, though, unless the Americans reform matters of family, work, taxes, and leisure.
We’ve seen that, to the rulers of the Americans’ parties, Americans and Mexicans look much the same. The politically powerful men in the U.S. want America to have its share of the world’s workers, soldiers, and voters. If Americans don’t have children, no matter the reason, they can be replaced, even if it must be done clumsily and badly. For about thirty years, the Americans thought they had better things to do than have children, like hoi polloi in Mexico. Even now, they’re just barely at replacement level, maybe, on a continent and on a world in which many other populations are still growing rapidly.
Everyone has had many fine reasons, I’m sure, for waiting until age 35 to eek out one or maybe two perfect little infants, or maybe none at all. Whether the many fine reasons include graduate school, a “career,” bvtt-sex, the priesthood, one-night stands, high taxes, or the big mortgage on a French Country home, the end is the same. If the Americans have better things to do than have large families, they’ll watch themselves be replaced in their own lifetime. The rulers of their very own parties will look elsewhere for workers, voters, and soldiers, and they’ll find them in Mexico, Pakistan, India, and other places where the pitter-patter of children’s little feet can still be heard.
Kralizec on June 7, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Justin,
You figured me out. I admit, I am a white nationalist bent on an all-white nation. I have a small fuhrer ’stache on my upper lip, I celebrate Hitler’s birthday, and listen to only Wagner.
/sarc
That said, you love to pretend that you occupy the moral high ground around here. I’m not quite sure who died and made you the judge, but anybody who disagrees with you on the immigration issue is immediately labeled a racist by you. Same tactic all the other libs use. If you can’t come up with a cogent argument, and you can’t, you just brand them a racist. Problem solved. Your most common ‘argument’ is to make some crude sexual reference to your target or their mother. Classy. You are all class. So who made you the moral authority, Justin?
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 3:29 PM
Is there a difference if most illegal immigrants were white Europeans or Australian?
tomas on June 7, 2007 at 3:32 PM
tomas on June 7, 2007 at 3:32 PM
No, none what-so-ever, illegal is illegal and it doesnt matter where they came from.
doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 3:36 PM
Why is this continually brought up? Australians and Europeans have similar culture to us. But for the sake of argument, if they were coming here, demanding healthcare, welfare, forming street gangs, and imposing their language on us, it would sure matter. Why don’t you ask any old Irish-American how they were treated when they first got here: way worse.
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Here you go, Tomas. Have you seen any Irishmen lately? Pretty pale. Kinda blows a few holes in your grievance-mongering.
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Not one bit.
Wait…are you trying to imply that we’re…racists?
I’m shocked! And outraged! And outrage-shocked!
Slublog on June 7, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Okay here is the ultimate irony. In my neighborhood yesterday a family of legal Mexican immigrants hired a lawn service to cut their grass, which he and they admitted, were illegals.
They were proud to show me their NC drivers licenses too!
LakeRuins on June 7, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I’m not calling you racist…I think there is a natural tendancy to fear what we don’t understand. That is why I fear you guys so much…wink.
tomas on June 7, 2007 at 3:45 PM
So it’s not that we’re racists, we just don’t understand Latino culture?
Slublog on June 7, 2007 at 3:47 PM
The Irish immigrant side of my family thinks that people like you are scum.
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Yes Slub, you are a racist who doesn’t understand Latino culture … wink, wink.
(hope I’m not ruining the fun for you …)
thirteen28 on June 7, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Heheh. Going to enlighten him, Slu?
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Heh heh heh.
Slublog on June 7, 2007 at 3:49 PM
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 3:49 PM
The Irish immigrant side of my family thinks that we should take people like him out for a couple of beers, then help..er I mean watch them fall down a few times.
doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 4:00 PM
i honestly don’t know what your deal is. you’re clearly more obcessed with me than i with you. my world extends beyond the internet and i rather pity people who research and compile dossiers on people who frighten them with differing opinions.
i rather think the moral authority belongs to the one who doesn’t lie, and so i have to ask you to dig into that weird little dossier of yours and cite for me the occasion where i went after someone’s mother.
instead you’ll change the subject and say something bland like “i’m afraid there’s no point in forthwith and wherefor…” as you did the last time you had a problem with one of my arguments. that argument was that the white-knuckled rage about illegal imigration owes much of its passion to racism against catholics and latinos, which is hard to dispute when today fellow zealot doriangrey summed up his prefered policy of mass deportation under the title, “operation wetback”. yesterday when i quoted and brought to your attention a racist comment by sonnyspats you strenuously avoided the issue and left the conversation. i can’t satify your challenges if you refuse to aknowlege my responses. and i don’t care to try.
you have problems with sincerity and your temper drives you to odd extremes.
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 4:05 PM
i’m trying to understand your train of “thought” here. what you”re saying is that because it happened before, it should happen again? the blood of the irish washes away any sins against guatemalans?
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 4:10 PM
It is the fear that causes white flight.
tomas on June 7, 2007 at 4:12 PM
watch out thomas, this guy’s actually driven through “rough” mexican neighborhoods. he’s capable of anything! he’s like the dread pirate roberts and evil knievel wrapped in one!
and he’s irish! he’s practicly a field slave!
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 4:14 PM
The house of pain is in effect ya’ll.
tomas on June 7, 2007 at 4:15 PM
JUMP! JUMP!
i’m da cream of da crop
i rise to the top
i never eat a pig
cuz a pig is a cop
or betta yet a terminata
like arnold swartzenegga
try to play me out
as if my name were sega
i came to get down
i came to get down
so git up out ya seat and jump around…
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 4:19 PM
STFU, drama twit.
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 4:27 PM
If you’re able to keep up with my argument, and you’re not, Tomas was wondering if skin color mattered. I was pointing out the the Irish, (white people), were treated way worse.
Your wish is my command.
Emphasis mine. This is only the tip of the iceberg with you though.
You know, Jimmah, I can’t really speak for sonnypats1 or Doriangray. If Doriangray is to be branded, as libs like you enjoy doing, for referring to a historical event by it’s historical name, than maybe you really are beyond competent reasoning.
Libs like yourself are also quite handy at obscuring definitions of words, which is why
you made this statement. Tell me, when did ‘catholics’ and ‘latinos’ become a race? Is Islam a race also?
I guess you just take sonnypats1 statement as license to wield your ‘racist’ brand. I’m not quite sure who gave you that authority, but it’s interesting to see how your atheistic religious beliefs allow you to judge others.
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 4:32 PM
right.
go pick up your mother’s valtrex prescription.
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Heheh. As well reasoned as your stuttering YouTube videos.
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Collins has been a RINO for ever. I don’t know has she ever had a decent opponent to vote for in the primary?
SSG Fuzzy on June 7, 2007 at 5:24 PM
I’ll donate to his opponent! Now I just need to get my relatives in Nebraska to vote against Snagel!!
SSG Fuzzy on June 7, 2007 at 5:27 PM
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Oh…what a witty and intellectual retort, the philosophical nuance just screams of multi-layered sardonic inference. How pray tell shall prcaldude ever extricate himself from the abyss of discordance that you have cast him into. Such an emasculating public evisceration is surely beyond the means of any mere mortals capacity for transcendence.
doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 5:46 PM
The state of the GOP up here is so sad that I don’t know of anyone who could make a decent primary opponent. I’m practicing the words “Senator Tom Allen” now.
Slublog on June 7, 2007 at 5:47 PM
now, you were the one calling for mass deportations. you wouldn’t defend this yourself, but since prcaldude did, you’re, what? his toady now?
i’m sorry.
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 5:52 PM
jummy on June 7, 2007 at 5:52 PM
What is to defend? It’s a) Doable, and b)the law.
Should the United States stop enforcing its murder laws just because 50,000 murders are committed each year? Should we stop imprisoning rapists just because there are 100,000 rapes committed every year? Should we stop arresting armed robbers and burglars just because over a million robberies and burglaries are committed every single year? Should we abolish the laws which protect employees from ruthless and unscrupulous corporations?
No……I don’t think so. Nor when our national security and national sovereignty are in peril should we stop arresting and deporting those who enter this country illegally. My assertion that we should engage another Operation Wetback needs no other defense than it is already the law. This great republic is a nation of laws, either our laws mean something or they do not.
doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 6:11 PM
Slublog on June 7, 2007 at 5:47 PM
Here’s a novel idea…….get off your dead a$$ and run for office then. Remember all politics are local.
doriangrey on June 7, 2007 at 6:13 PM
At the moment, it’s not possible. In a couple of years, though, I’m considering running for a seat in the state legislature.
Slublog on June 7, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Raaaacist.
PRCalDude on June 7, 2007 at 7:10 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
So, do you have any proof that the DorianGrey that posts here conceived Eisenhower’s 1954 Immigration policy of deportation? Or do you disagree that Eisenhower’s policy was in fact titled “Operation Wetback” in an odd dispute with history?
That’s impressive, I haven’t even figured out his name or age and here you are ratting him out for having come up with U.S. Government policy over 50 years ago.
That, or he was commenting on the last time (and to my knowledge, only time) the Governemt has mass deportation; and you’ve attributed the name to him believing that racism was the only possible option.
Do you also call people racist for mentioning the “French and Indian War” due to their not using the phrase “native-american”?
gekkobear on June 8, 2007 at 2:42 AM
your idiotic sophistry aside, i’ve attributed nothing to him but his own words.
maybe you’ve warmed to the racist overtones which accompanied mass deportation in the past.
just don’t whine about it and claim to be mischarictarized when people say you want to round up all the “wetbacks” and ship them off. own it. be a man.
but none of you want to own it. you want to pretend mexicans did 9-11 or some such nonsense. here you want to pretend that racist invective is somehow cleansed by its use in the past. as if someone saying “segregation now, segregation …” today could be excused because it was said in the 60’s. after all, SEGRERGATION WAS THE LAW@@!@#*(@(!*!
jummy on June 8, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Your idiotic inability to understand that his words are in fact a reference to the actual enactment of the policy he wants aside.
Maybe you’ve warmed to historical revisionism as a politically correct manner of approaching history. Using the name for a historical policy = racism… gotcha.
Just don’t whine about it and claim to be mischaracterized when your donation to the “United Negro College Fund” is considered racist. You can’t claim that it wasn’t considered racist when they named it; you must avoid using that name today. Right? Remember racist invective cannot be cleansed from its use in the past…
And why are you using the obviously racist term “segregation”? Aren’t we supposed to come up with completely new terms for points in history that we don’t like the names of? Racist invective you know.
At least you’ve got a point though, much like segregation; deportation is no longer the law of the U.S. and some people are trying to revive those laws. Unlike enlightened today where anyone who wants can cross the border and live in the U.S. without fear of being punished for having crossed the border.
That, or your analogy needs some work. Deportation of illegal border crossers… this is not “was the law”, but “is the law”. You seem to be the one wanting the laws changed here… unless you’ve got some evidence that securing the border isn’t part of the lawbooks not just in 1954 or today.
So if you want to keep your analogy, you’re the one on the side of changing current law to match historical evidence (as I doubt we’ve had border security in 1776… so at some point the concept wasn’t clear).
Nice job, your analogy fits you, not us. Why not go back and try again.
gekkobear on June 8, 2007 at 3:46 PM
So this is where pro-Amnesty supporting jummy (aka Justin) meets PRCalDude.
It’s only a shame PRCalDude isn’t on here anymore.
CABE on January 31, 2008 at 4:31 AM
Comment pages: