S397 how your senator voted


PDA






4thHorseman
July 30, 2005, 07:30 PM
U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 109th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (Passage of S. 397, As Amended )
Vote Number: 219 Vote Date: July 29, 2005, 05:11 PM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Bill Passed
Measure Number: S. 397 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act )
Measure Title: A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.
Vote Counts: YEAs 65
NAYs 31
Not Voting 4
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Nay
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Not Voting
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Not Voting
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Not Voting
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

If you enjoyed reading about "S397 how your senator voted" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Xori Ruscuv
July 30, 2005, 07:39 PM
Heya folks!

I've been posting at 1911forum for a long time, and lurking here for a while. I decided it was about time that I register here and post, so here I am. Hi! :)

---
On topic: Go figure. Washington's senators both voted "no". Doesn't surprise me, coming from the hippie-laden northwest Washington. :fire:

SouthpawShootr
July 30, 2005, 08:26 PM
Well at least my two senators voted right. What irks me is that there's always people not voting (usually more than the 4 this time). Giving consideration for ill health, family emergencies, and the like, these guys are paid (a sizable salary I might add) to be there and vote. Whenever a lawmaker misses a vote, I'd like to know exactly where he/she was and what he/she was doing the was so damn important. Like to see that in print.

280PLUS
July 30, 2005, 08:37 PM
:barf:

And that's all I have to say about THAT!

scubie02
July 30, 2005, 09:23 PM
gee, i wonder how mine voted...

bigun15
July 30, 2005, 09:32 PM
Feinstein (D-CA), Not Voting

Sort of strange, don't you think? The gun Nazi didn't vote.

dpesec
July 30, 2005, 09:37 PM
DeWhine voted against the bill, Surprise surprise.
Now the real shocker is that Voinovich voted for it. :what:
I sent a letter to each expressing my "appreciation" on how they voted :evil:

txgho1911
July 30, 2005, 09:50 PM
I can see through the records that Bayh (D-IN) may not be a Kennedy but he is anti.
Can also see through the records that Lugar (R-IN) is on the wrong side of most of the issues up this past week.

All of the 109th congresses Senate votes are here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm

S.397 begins at about vote # 206. The various recorded votes on amendments until final passage streach up to about 219.

The RINO is up first for re-election. Lets show him the door.

shermacman
July 30, 2005, 10:01 PM
Well! Lookkee here! My esteemed senator, John Fraud Kerry, showed up to vote! Against, too! Imagine that! Last time I saw hime, he was crawling on his belly hunting deer.

"Can I get me a huntin' license here?"

Guess he figures that his $15,000 shotgun manufacturer won't be in the cross hairs of these lawsuits...

Anybody know if Jean Fraud Kerry ever served in Vietnam? He would be about the right age, I have never heard him mention it.

280PLUS
July 30, 2005, 10:19 PM
The gun Nazi didn't vote. I find that strange myself. Maybe she's starting to waffle.

As far as my two knuckleheads, I think I WILL email them both and make sure it sticks in their craws a bit. This oughta be fun! Thanks to whoever's idea it was!

:evil:

Flyboy
July 30, 2005, 10:54 PM
Perhaps a more important question is how they voted on the amendments. Any data?

Standing Wolf
July 30, 2005, 11:20 PM
Colorado's representative of the Democratic (sic) party surprised me by voting in favor of the bill.

mountainclmbr
July 30, 2005, 11:23 PM
Allard in CO voted Yea, no surprise, I helped on his last campaign. Surprised that my communist senator Salazar also voted Yea. There must me subltle shades of gray between the democommunists that I don't understand. Anyone understand???

KriegHund
July 30, 2005, 11:33 PM
Allard Yea and Salazar Yea...

Alles Gut! And Salazer a democrat too.

GunGoBoom
July 31, 2005, 12:11 AM
Wow, how did Louis. get Landrieu to vote yea?

Standing Wolf
July 31, 2005, 12:31 AM
There must me subltle shades of gray between the democommunists that I don't understand. Anyone understand???

Some representatives of the Democratic (sic) party are shrewd enough to understand that anti-Second Amendment bigotry costs them votes. Many aren't.

4thHorseman
July 31, 2005, 12:33 AM
Some representatives of the Democratic (sic) party are shrewd enough to understand that anti-Second Amendment bigotry costs them votes. Many aren't.

Standing Wolf, I believe you are right. :)

Marshall
July 31, 2005, 12:53 AM
My two guys are pretty faithful, this one, Inhofe, very much so! The other one, Coburn, has a 100% rating by the NRA


James Inhofe on Gun Control

* Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (re-authorization of assault weapon ban)

* Voted NO on background checks at gun shows.

* Voted YES on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.

* Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks.

* Rated A+ by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun rights voting record.





Something else I ran across..........why we have an uphill battle.

# 40% of all US homes have guns
# 81% of Americans say that gun control will be an important issue in determining which Congressional candidate to vote for.
# 91% of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership;
# 57% of Americans say that there should be major restrictions or a ban. Child-Safety Locks

Since 1939, the Supreme Court has not heard any further 2nd amendment cases; the most recent ruling, in 1997, overturned part of the 1993 Brady Bill, but did not address 2nd amendment rights.





A few generalizations.............

# Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.

# Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.

# Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.

# Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.

# Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.

# Positive mentions of the NRA (the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun rights lobbying group) implies support of gun rights, while opposing the NRA or "taking on the gun lobby" implies support of gun restrictions. Amendment II to the US Constitution
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. (1791)

Source (http://www.issues2000.org/Background_Gun_Control.htm)

Cesiumsponge
July 31, 2005, 01:42 AM
Oh gee, Democratic Ms. Maria Cantwell and Democratic Ms. Patty Murray of my state of WA both voted "no" to the bill...what a surprise. Throw in Democratic governess Christine Gregoire and you have a party :barf: I'm surprised that our gun laws are still acceptable compared to some other states like CA.

Monkeyleg
July 31, 2005, 02:10 AM
Senator Herb Kohl (D-WI) voted for the bill, but only after his amendment for mandatory trigger locks was passed.

Herb Kohl has never met an anti-gun bill he didn't like. I could say even worse things about him (which former vice cops have told me) but I'd be risking a lawsuit from the wealthiest member of the US Senate.

Trust me on this, though: Herb Kohl is running for re-election next year, and knows that he needs the votes of gun owners in an NRA-dominated state like WI. Herb Kohl got a pass from the Kennedy Crowd, got his own do-nothing amemdment passed, and will trumpet his vote to both sides.

So, he'll play the same tune to the same union crowd.

And they'll buy it.

And so we go, on and on again.

And he'll win.

I've only met the man once or twice, but what's striking is that he's probably 5'4" or so, maybe even shorter. I was tempted to tell him to lick the lint from my navel, but thought that would be unbecoming. Not for a US senator, but for someone like me who tries to live by principles and decorum.

Drizzt
July 31, 2005, 02:26 AM
GunGoBoom: That's because she is well aware that her state is voting more and more politicos into office that have an R behind their name, and most of the people there take their guns seriously.

LiquidTension
July 31, 2005, 03:32 AM
I have to wonder if the Republicans voted for the bill because of the gun ownership aspect or the big business aspect. Could be that they cared more about businesses not getting hurt than about protecting our rights. After all, these BS lawsuits could spread to other industries...

Reno
July 31, 2005, 03:44 AM
Did any amendments other than the trigger locks get tacked on?

TonkinTwentyMil
July 31, 2005, 04:53 AM
... by Marshall.

His gun control "buzzwords" analysis cuts right to the chase.

The only additional buzzword I can think to add is "COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS." That's inevitably woven into some Nanny-State Lib-Pol's pitch to an audience of Soccer Moms whose actual knowledge of EXISTING gun laws -- and technical knowledge of firearms -- is exceded by that of a doorknob.

Wild Prediction: in the '08 national election, we'll hear many emotion-based pleas for (more) COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS... from a certain female senator/pesidential candidate. Just remember: it'll be For The Children (*gags*).

And all this... from a political party whose national chairman recently pledged (between screams) to all that Gun Control was no longer a national issue grounded in his party's policy and platform.

Marshall
July 31, 2005, 10:20 AM
LT, probably both, which is fine. After all, the gun manufacturers are big business and employ a lot of people. Think of all the jobs and other companies and their employees that would be negatively effected if S&W were to go under due to law suits. Same with Ruger, Browning, Remington, Winchester, etc.


TTM, I couldn't agree more.

BenW
July 31, 2005, 11:06 AM
Sort of strange, don't you think? The gun Nazi didn't vote.
Crazy as it sounds, Feinstein is BY FAR the more conservative of our two Senators.

redneck2
July 31, 2005, 06:23 PM
is there any chance of getting Bayh beat???

We live in a conservative state and he gets re-elected by big margins every time

carebear
July 31, 2005, 06:35 PM
There's a whole pile of Dem's out there who aren't socialist extremists and gun grabbers.

If they can gain ground on the local level, (if Dean can slip the leash and be more than a figurehead he might be able to steer it that way) they might slowly manage to convince the aging and increasingly irrelevent national leadership to change their kneejerk, lockstep anti-gun idiocy. Show it isn't politically feasible.

Heck, with the unions breaking up the Dems are going to have to diversify their positions more anyway.

Dan from MI
July 31, 2005, 09:16 PM
My two jokers voted their normal gun grabbing ways. Levin and Stabenow 100% anti-rights. Even voted for the Kennedy amendment which banned the .30-30.

http://www.keithbutlerforussenate.com

KEITH BUTLER FOR SENATE

Silver Bullet
July 31, 2005, 10:16 PM
Even voted for the Kennedy amendment which banned the .30-30.
Can you publicize that within the Michigan hunting organizations ? I would think that would get through to even the densest hunter.

Marshall
July 31, 2005, 10:30 PM
It should be a full page add in every hunting and fishing magazine on the planet.

Marshall
July 31, 2005, 10:47 PM
Senator Kennedy wants take away your right to own a .30-30 deer rifle. A man out of touch with Americans.

Kennedy, not your Forefathers Oldsmobile.

http://www.americantraitor.us/images/tkennedy.jpg

foghornl
August 1, 2005, 10:34 AM
My Senators (DeWhine & Voinovich...what a pair) Voinovich for S. 397, DeWhine against.

I am really surprised that Voinovich vote for, not suprised about DeWhine voting against. Whoever comes up agsint DeWhine in the next election cycle is just about guaranteed my vote. And both of them are "(R)"

Unless maybe California exports Boxer/Finestien to Ohio...then I REALLY gotta think about it.

RealGun
August 1, 2005, 10:50 AM
There's a whole pile of Dem's out there who aren't socialist extremists and gun grabbers.

But there is a pile (30+) of senior or very prominent Senators that are hard core liberal gun grabbers or simply against anything the GOP tries to do. If they don't represent the Dem party, then they should be replaced or discredited, shouldn't they?

This shouldn't be mentioned without noting a dozen or so House Democrats who are supporters of gun rights, some outstanding. See GOA ratings.

Stickjockey
August 1, 2005, 12:55 PM
Ron Wyden (D, wuss-OR) Nay. That was expected. :barf:

Gordon Smith, (R[ino? Jury's still out]-OR) Not voting. Well, not expected, but not surprising either. :rolleyes:

Now maybe we can get Rep. Blumenauer (D-OR) to grow a spine and vote for this in the House. Not a chance, really, but one can hope.

erik the bold
August 1, 2005, 01:02 PM
I hate Michigan's *!$*! Democrats ! :barf:

El Tejon
August 1, 2005, 01:13 PM
redneck, boy, I hope we can get rid of Bayh! :fire: He tries the same gambit as his father, just a solid American in Indiana, but when he gets to D.C. he turns into a SuperEastCoastEloi ready to trade our freedoms for approval from the Washington Post and the leftist cocktail circuit.

Please write Bayh and express your displeasure (politely). As well, please write your newspapers and ask Senator Bayh to explain himself at the next "town meeting." What counts most of all is money. Give and give some more to his opponent!

BenW
August 1, 2005, 02:17 PM
I hope we can get rid of Bayh! He tries the same gambit as his father, just a solid American in Indiana, but when he gets to D.C. he turns into a SuperEastCoastEloi
This is why "local boy" viewpoints are so important regarding politicians. I have to say that I saw Bayh on Fox News right after the last Presidential election, and from his demeanor there, believed him to be a thoughtful Democrat, in the same camp as Zell Miller. The more I read about him though, the more I see that is not the case.

Just goes to show acting lessons pay off in politics.... :barf:

DelayedReaction
August 1, 2005, 02:44 PM
Big surprise. Mikulski and Saurbanes both voted against it.

Woo. Maryland. :barf:

sctman800
August 2, 2005, 11:52 PM
That is about I can say, my senators are Durbin and Obama, both Chicago Democrats. Disclaimer: down state Democrats in Illinois are not neccerialy connected with the Chicago gun grabbers. Durbin somehow stays under the radar, so to speak but is as bad as any Senator when it comes to being a gun hater. Obama is everyone in Illinois' "darling little goat-herder boy" that so far can do no wrong, he is just wonderful. Give him time and I predict he will be another Durbin. Our problem in Illinois is the Republican party is totaly disfunctional along with the Illinois State Rifle Association, who seem to be a "good old boys club" with rules making it impossible for anyone new to be elected to office.

cracked butt
August 3, 2005, 12:02 AM
Yup Herb Kohl showed up for a yea, but he voted that yea for masterlock, not the people of Wisconsin.

Feingold- no suprise here, he only votes in a way that is both politically safe and draws attention to himself.

Joey2
August 3, 2005, 12:55 AM
Please correct me if I am wrong.

I heard on a talk radio show that part of this bill is gun locks on all guns. If a gun you own is stolen and does not have a gun lock on it, you will be charged with the crime commited with that gun.

carebear
August 3, 2005, 01:37 AM
You were informed absolutely, completely wrong.

The amendment only mandates a lock be provided at the point of sale between a licensed and unlicensed individual.

It doesn't say "shipped with the gun by the manufacturer or distributor".

It doesn't say "sold with the gun".

And it expressly, in plain language, states that it does NOT create any expectation of use nor any culpability for non-use.

The "Negative Nannys" are screaming that having the lock be provided with the gun sets the stage for future legislation assigning civil or criminality liability to one who doesn't use it.

Which would take separate legislation to be passed, since the stated intention of the amendment contradicts that interpretation and it would have to be changed prior to being used as precedent.

Which would take two pieces of legislation if I understand correctly. One to change the intentions stated in the amendment, one more to actually create the liability. That's two bills subject to vote by the House and Senate and veto by whoever is then Pres.

In any event, there's absolutely no liability assigned or implied at all. It is expressly opposite to the stated intention.

People need to learn to read before they run their sucks.

bigun15
August 3, 2005, 01:51 AM
Crazy as it sounds, Feinstein is BY FAR the more conservative of our two Senators.

I'm speechless. I really am. I know you're right, but I can't put into words my disappointment.

jrpeterman
August 3, 2005, 02:13 AM
I knew Levin and Stabenow voted NAY before I even looked on the lists. The voters in Michigan really need to do something about those two.

Magnum Mike
August 3, 2005, 05:56 PM
I'm not surprised with the outcome of the vote. Both of Arizona's Sentors John McCain and John Kyle, who are not perceived by the NRA as 100% pro 2nd Amendment senators, voted to pass S.397.

I sure wish the folks in Mass. and New York would help Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer retire.

Who was it that said 11 years ago, when they were debating on the semi-auto weapon bans and restrictions that eventually passed in August of 1994? I think it was Charles Schumer that said (and I'm paraphrasing here) "... they [shooters] need to start thinking about new hobbies like reading books..".

RealGun
August 3, 2005, 06:49 PM
The "Negative Nannys" are screaming that having the lock be provided with the gun sets the stage for future legislation assigning civil or criminality liability to one who doesn't use it.

Which would take separate legislation to be passed, since the stated intention of the amendment contradicts that interpretation and it would have to be changed prior to being used as precedent.

Which would take two pieces of legislation if I understand correctly. One to change the intentions stated in the amendment, one more to actually create the liability. That's two bills subject to vote by the House and Senate and veto by whoever is then Pres.

That's exactly the history of seat belts, later to become shoulder and lap belts and eventually air bags. Older cars had to be retrofitted with seat belts or they would not pass inspection in PA. In the only accident I ever had, I was left hanging upside down and unharmed, held by a retrofitted seat belt. I also survived a head first landing on a rock while the only kid on the block with a motorbike helmet. I recall this stuff pretty clearly.

The "trigger lock" bill is without any intelligent purpose if you don't project where they are headed with it. All it does is coordinate interstate commerce on behalf of the States. Don't expect implementation of penalties from the federal level. They will leave it to the States to explicitly infringe upon the RKBA.

carebear
August 3, 2005, 11:04 PM
Realgun,

True enough, it could go that way in the end (and in fact I don't disagree they are trying in some states even now), but THIS bill does nothing to forward it as it is written.

They are still going to have to pass the enabling legislation, state by state (my state still exempts "older" cars from retrofit) or on the Federal level. Using your example, seat belts were mandated to be added by the manufacturer, at the factory at first. Having them in the new car you bought wasn't an option at all.

This bill explicitly doesn't mandate anything from the point of manufacture or distribution. Only that some kind of security device (not even a "lock", a trigger block would fit the terms IIRC) be provided (at no required charge) when a non-licensee takes possession.

For the seat belt analogy to work, seat belt laws would have had to begin with the dealer (not manufacturer) being required to provide (not sell) seatbelts at the dealership for you to install if you wanted while expressly stating you neither had to install or use them nor fear any consequences if you didn't.

It's not nearly the same thing and is many more steps up the slippery slope than seat belts ever were. Up the ladder but not yet even at the top of the slide. :D

RealGun
August 4, 2005, 10:56 AM
True enough, it could go that way in the end (and in fact I don't disagree they are trying in some states even now), but THIS bill does nothing to forward it as it is written.

This bill helps enable it, serving the interstate commerce role of national solutions to individual State confrontations with gun manufacturers. It also uses BATF authority to impose requirements on gun dealers. The rest of the subsequent funny business is up to the States.

kwelz
August 4, 2005, 03:09 PM
Sadly Bayh is darn near unbeatable. Marvin Scott made a good run at it but was unable to get the support he needed. Most of the attention went to the Sodrel/Hill and the Daniels/Kernnan races. It is pretty much assumed that he isn't going to be beat. We just have to wait him out.

I personally hate that attitude but I also see why people think that way.

emc
August 4, 2005, 04:16 PM
The comments from fellow Hoosiers are interesting, and thought-provoking.

First, I've heard Marvin Scott speak, as well as had the opportunity to meet him (Bayh's Republican opponent last fall), and he's the genuine article. I had the feeling that the state Republican party was spending all of its money on getting Mitch Daniels elected. I do know that Scott drove his own vehicle, and often went to various events held for him totally unaccompanied. No support of any sort that I could see. Given the existing name recognition, the advantage of incumbency, and his successful masquerading as a thoughtful moderate, Scott had an uphill battle against Bayh.

As someone who's much more politically astute than me described it, Bayh's terms as governor were not an accurate indicator of his true beliefs, due to the various constraints that a governor faces, and the fact that there are many issues that simply never cross a governor's desk. Those limitations were gone when he went to Washington. I have noticed that he has adhered to the Democrat party line almost always. When it comes down to the wire, he will do as he is told by the party bosses in the Senate.

Among others, he has voted:
For McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform
For McCain-Lieberman climate stewardship (Kyoto Lite, as it were)
For Renewing the assault weapons ban
For Acquitting Clinton on the perjury charges

Against S.397

As someone who is ambitious, he has studiously avoided making himself available for any sort of in-depth interview. His public appearances are carefully controlled, and he has continually stiffed Greg Garrison (local conservative talk-show host) in regards to being on his program. There is no public access, and no media contact on other than VERY controlled terms.

Can he be beaten? Yes, but it will take some amount of money, and something more than lip service on the part of the Indiana Republican party to do so. Unless we have a candidate who can finance their own campaign, I'm not sure that the party is up to it. They are still of the opinion that Sen. Dick Lugar is a good guy, They have conveniently ignore that he is a pure RINO, having voted in favor of the AWB on both occasions. This tells me that they would rather support someone who is Republican in name only and a supporter of internationalism, as opposed to any sort of true conservative. If they are that clueless, then I'm not optimistic. :banghead:

At least with someone like Kennedy or Schumer, they make no bones as to where they stand. Bay State or Empire State THR members may correct me, but the impression that I have is that neither individual tries to deceive their constituents as to what they are. I cannot say that about Bayh.

FWIW,

emc

If you enjoyed reading about "S397 how your senator voted" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!