You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Interesting Roll Call Votes on DK's Impeachment Resolution [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
garybeck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-09-07 01:17 PM
Original message
Interesting Roll Call Votes on DK's Impeachment Resolution
Advertisements [?]
Edited on Fri Nov-09-07 01:22 PM by garybeck
Thanks to David Swanson afterdowningstreet.org for this
(note, this is from a live blog, so the order of events is reversed)
=======================================================

4:41 The motion to send it to the Judiciary Committee passed with only about 5 Dems voting No and 3 Republicans voting Yes. Presumably the 86 Dems who voted No on tabling believed that to be enough to appease their constituents, while 5 Dems actually had integrity enough to put the Constitution ahead of Pelosi and Hoyer. There was no discussion of a time limit for the Judiciary Committee to report back (even though there are precedents for insisting on one with impeachment resolutions). This bill has, of course, ALREADY been in the Judiciary Committee for months, and that committee has done nothing with it.

You'd think if offense (rather than defense) ever entered Pelosi and Hoyer's heads, they'd want to put an hour of Cheney-bashing debate on TV. But they want at all costs to avoid impeachment, and you can't debate the substance of the charges against Cheney without making an obvious case for impeachment.

Roll call. These 5 Dems voted right: Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Waters, Towns.
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=1039

----------

4:19 p.m. There is now a 5-min vote underway on whether to refer to the House Judiciary Committee.

-----------

4:18 p.m. The procedural vote passed just barely (218-194). Of the 218, 3 were Republicans.

Roll call. These 5 Dems voted right: Filner, Kaptur, Kucinich, Waters, Watson.
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=1038

------------

4:14 p.m. The motion to table having failed, Hoyer moved to refer the resolution to the House Judiciary Committee. Kucinich tried to avoid that and get a vote on the resolution, but - unable to do that - asked for a vote on the decision to refer to committee. Hoyer withdrew his motion and then unwithdrew his motion. Boehner asked for 40 minutes of debate. Serrano as chair seemed clueless for a while, and then ordered a procedural vote on whether to vote on sending to committee. If this new 15-min vote passes, then they will vote on whether to send to committee.

-------------

4:02 p.m. Over an hour into this 15 min vote, 78 Dems are voting Nay on tabling, joined by 164 Republicans in an apparent stunt to surprise the Dems and bring the issue to the floor -- which the Republicans will regret if the Democrats actually debate it and debate it well (admittedly a remote possibility). They will say over and over and over that this has divided the Democrats. Not outside the Beltway it hasn't. Over 3/4 of Dems want Cheney impeached.

Currently 142 Dems to table, 78 not to , 13 not voting; 28 Repubs to table, 164 not to, and 9 not voting. Most of the Republicans switched their votes, and for some reason the leadership kept the vote open for over an hour, allowing them to do so. No doubt the Republicans want to get the Dem leaders on tape on the floor defending Cheney against impeachment. But how smart is it of them to allow the topic to gain attention? The evidence, after all, is overwhelming that Cheney has committed impeachable offenses.

Roll call. It turns out 86 Democrats voted the right way:
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2007&rollnumber=1037

Abercrombie, Allen, Baca, Baldwin, Braley (IA), Capps, Capuano, Clarke, Clay, Cleaver, Cohen, Conyers, Crowley, Cummings, Davis (IL), DeFazio, Dicks, Doggett, Doyle, Ellison, Farr, Filner, Green, Al; Green, Gene; Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hare, Hinchey, Hirono, Hodes, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Inslee, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson (GA), Jones (OH), Kanjorski, Kaptur, Kilpatrick, Kucinich, Lee, Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Maloney (NY), McCollum (MN), McDermott, Meeks (NY), Michaud, Miller (NC), Moore (WI), Moran (VA), Napolitano, Ortiz, Pallone, Pascrell, Perlmutter, Price (NC), Rangel, Richardson, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Schakowsky, Scott (VA), Serrano, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Slaughter, Solis, Stark, Stupak, Sutton, Thompson (CA), Tierney, Towns, Velázquez, Waters, Watson, Watt, Weiner, Welch (VT), Wexler, Woolsey, Wu, Wynn

There's a lot of overlap between the above list and the list of cosponsors in 2005 of H Res 635. These are congress members with medium grade willingness to put their constituents ahead of Pelosi and Hoyer.

As Linda Boyd points out, several members of the Judiciary Committee who are not cosponsors of H Res 333 voted against tabling: Conyers, Scott, Watt, Wexler, Gutierrez, Sherman, Weiner, Davis.

And 65 Democrats who are not cosponsors of H Res 333 voted against tabling: Abercrombie, Allen, Baca, Braley, Capps, Capuano, CONYERS, Crowley, Cummings, DeFazio, Dicks, Doggett, Doyle, Al Green, Gene, Grijalva, Gutierrez, Hare, Hinchey, Hirono, Hodes, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Inslee, Jackson (IL), Jones (OH), Kanjorski, Kapptur, Lewis (GA), Loebsack, Maloney, mcCollum, Meeks, Michaud, Miller (NC), Moore (WI), Napolitano, Ortiz, Pallone, Pascrell, Perlmutter, Price, Rangel, RICHARDSON, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Scott, Serrano, Shea-Porter, Sherman, Slaughter, Solis, Stark, Stupak, Sutton, thompson, Tierney, Towns, Valazquez, Watt, Weiner, Welch, Wexler, Wu.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC