The amnesty cloture vote — in order
posted at 2:52 pm on June 28, 2007 by Allahpundit
The official roll breaks down the vote alphabetically, by state, and of course by vote. What it doesn’t do is tell you the order they voted in, which is critical to understanding (or at least inferring) motive. They’re supposed to vote in alphabetical order, but if they’re not present when the roll is called — or if they are present but would rather keep mum to see how things are shaking out — they get skipped, and can then approach the podium afterwards, when they see fit, to cast their ballot.
So here’s how it went, based on a once-through of the videotape. Boldface indicates Republicans, underline means they switched from yes on the cloture vote on Tuesday to no today. Forty members voted during the alphabetical roll. Note that fully six of them switched — and only five switches total were needed to kill the bill. The other fencesitters must have noticed, sensed the momentum, and recalibrated their own votes accordingly. The other notable is the Burr-Harkin-Pryor-Nelson run. They all voted no, all in succession, and were all switchers, which makes we wonder if they had an informal agreement among themselves.
The dotted line marks the 40th no vote, which doomed the bill. Everyone after that knew it was dead (assuming they’d been keeping count), which makes the late switchers like Coleman, McConnell, and especially Voinovich switchers of convenience, not conviction. Why vote yes on a bill that you know is going to lose?
First round
Aye (19):
Bennett Brownback Casey Clinton Conrad Craig Durbin Graham Kyl Lott Martinez Murray Obama Reid Salazar Schumer Specter Whitehouse Kennedy
No (21):
Alexander Baucus Bayh Bond Bunning Cornyn DeMint Dole Domenici Dorgan Ensign Hatch Isakson Murkowski Sessions Smith Stabenow Stevens Sununu Vitter Webb
Afterwards
Leahy – aye (20)
Dodd – aye (21)
Crapo – no (22)
Corker – no (23)
Feingold – aye (22)
Biden – aye (23)
Gregg – aye (24)
McCain – aye (25)
Coburn – no (24)
Chambliss – no (25)
Bingaman – no (26)
Enzi – no (27)
Landrieu – no (28)
Allard – no (29)
Roberts – no (30)
Rockefeller – no (31)
Lugar – aye (26)
Reed – aye (27)
Sanders – no (32)
Feinstein – aye (28)
Grassley – no (33)
Wyden – aye (29)
Mikulski – aye (30)
Hutchison – no (34)
Burr – no (35)
Harkin – no (36)
Pryor – no (37)
Nelson (Ben) – no (38)
Lincoln – aye (31)
Cardin – aye (32)
McCaskill – no (39)
Shelby – no (40)
———————————-
Tester – no (41)
Nelson (Bill) – aye (33)
Inouye – aye (34)
Barrasso – no (42)
Collins – no (43)
Byrd – no (44)
Snowe – aye (35)
Thune – no (45)
Brownback – no (46)
Akaka – aye (36)
Coleman – no (47)
Cochran – no (48)
Cantwell – aye (37)
Hagel – aye (38)
McConnell – no (49)
Brown – no (50)
Lieberman – aye (39)
Klobuchar – aye (40)
Carper – aye (41)
Warner – no (51)
Inhofe – no (52)
Menendez – aye (42)
Lautenberg – aye (43)
Kerry – aye (44)
Boxer – aye (45)
Kohl – aye (46)
Levin – aye (47)
Voinovich – no (53)
Say, how come there are 47 yes votes when the roll says there were only 46? Ah, my friends, that’s because Sam Brownback turned out to be the weaseliest “no” vote of all. He voted yes right at the very beginning, during the alphabetical vote, probably thinking that cloture was going to pass. Then, when it died, he switched to a no. I almost wish he was pulling more than 1% in the presidential polls so we could hammer him into oblivion with that. As it is, I’ve captured his moment of shame for posterity on video. I think that’s him in the red circle; you’ll see him gesture to the clerk just before she announces his deep, principled opposition to amnesty.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air

Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here

Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit







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: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2