On Fri, 15 Nov 2002, Nathan Newman wrote:
> "principled opposition"? Of course not, since he voted for the bill.
> Unprincipled opposition, yes. The very introduction of the
> anti-abortion provision was designed to derail the bankruptcy bill.
-That's not what the WSJ article says. It says it was introduced by -Schumer, who was and is foresquare for bankruptcy reform, and never -thought for a moment this would derail it once he had Hyde on board.
I don't know about Schumer, but a lot of Dems knew it would kill the bill. Since I stated back in the Spring that it would kill the bill, I guess I am just smarter than the WSJ and Schumer, I guess.
And the WSJ article actually supports my view of Dem actions. Look at this line:
"At one point, the tally was 203-204. Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who usually doesn't cast floor ballots, voted for the measure, producing a tie. But within seconds, Democrats who had voted in favor of the bill started switching sides to oppose it, urged on by incoming Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. Once a dozen or so Democrats had jumped ship, assuring defeat, Rep. DeLay released Republicans to vote as they pleased, and more than a score also reversed course."
ie. Some Dems were faking support until it looked likely to pass, then they abandoned the bill to kill it. And when it came up for a vote again without the abortion provision, many Dems could vote for it, since they knew it would die in the Senate.
It all fits my theory of what was going on, since if Dems were happy with the bill as long as it had the pro-choice provision, they would never have abandoned it when it looked likely to pass.
-- Nathan Newman