I wonder why the majority would not allow debate upon competing resolutions. What do they fear?
They're doing what the Republicans did for six years: block resolutions designed to put them on the spot. Why would they allow a vote they'd be sure to lose just because it had the force of law?
And here's another point:
If it's so difficult to get 60 votes for this measure, what would the point be in proposing something more far-reaching that would only fail by a larger margin?
I'm an old time McCainiac, so, please excuse my flaming you a bit. He didn't show up for the vote because it wasn't in jeopardy. It was a make believe vote on a pretend bill, and John McCain is a grown up. Some day there'll be a real bill and a real vote. Probably. If he ditches that, it might mean something.
You still like him, Andrew? He makes the Kerry "flip-flops" look like chump change, as far as I'm concerned. In the 2000 SC primary he was trashed by the Bush people, including charges of instability and paternity of a black child. Now they're his buddies.
Same with Falwell; he once called Falwell an "agent of intolerance;" now he speaks at Falwell's Liberty University.
Then there's the whole Keating Five business.
I still love him. I won't vote for him, I don't think, but I love the man. He spoke at Liberty University; the speech he gave was to his credit. Why should those kids not get to hear from legitimate leaders? How is shunting them off, for good, to the mercy of fools like Falwell better for anybody? There are people to whom there's no point talking; the kids who had the bad luck to end up at Liberty University should not, I don't think, be assumed to be among them.
I only care about the Keating Five business to the extent that it informs his, ill considered, jihad on campaign finance. If he were to flip-flop on that--to realize that his approach isn't any good--I could be persuaded to vote for him again. But I don't think he will; more is the pity.
My gripe is not him speaking to kids; my gripe is his one-eighty on Falwell. I agreed with his initial comment about the man (and the Robertsons and the rest of the fundies); when he went the other way it seems to have been purely for political expediency, not out of any sudden change of heart.
You think he likes Falwell now? He's never retracted what he said; he's never apologized for it. Is there something he did, other than speaking to the kids, that makes you think he's flipped on Falwell? Falwell and Robertson are pimps. I guess it's possible McCain doesn't think so (and that he never did), but I don't know of a reason to believe that. What would it get him? He's never going to be faith-y enough for the sort of people who look for that (even though, maybe the most striking points of his memoir was the prison guard scratching a cross in the dirt, after loosening the torture device for the night). When there's nothing in it for a politician, I usually assume it's a matter of conviction.