On Sat, Nov 16, 2002 at 03:59:52AM -0500, Nathan Newman wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael Pollak" <mpollak at panix.com>
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
-- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu