2008 Senate seats

Status
Not open for further replies.
What if Romney was talked into running for Senate instead of POTUS?

While Mitt isn't exactly our best friend, he would be worlds better than John.

Romney ran against Kennedy in 1994 and lost by 17% (which supposedly is the least amount Kennedy has ever won by). After this campaign I'm not sure that many Republicans would support him. There is a perception that he abandoned Kerry Healy, his Lt Governor during this race.

We may think that Romney is better than Kerry/Kennedy but "we" don't elect the Massachusetts senators, the liberal citizens here do. And that is who we have to get by.

 
I doubt that. Despite which foot Kerry puts in his mouth there is NO Republican contender in sight who could seriously challenge him.

"Vulnerable" does not mean he is already expected to lose. As we saw with Leiberman, Kerry has to survive his own party primary first. Kerry is not a popular Democrat right about now. It depends whether Massachusetts wants to remain the laughing stock of all US electorates, continuing to elect two far left, loose cannon, rich boys.
 
I believe Russ Feingold voted against renewing the AWB.
Yes, and then that same day he voted to ban .30-30 ammo and all other centerfire rifle ammo. - Bartholomew Roberts

Make sure you have the right votes in the right context and year, because voting for a poison pill amendment can be a pro-gun strategy.

Also, the last iteration of Kennedy's bill actually passed but was "a study" to determine the facts about various ammo capabilities...you know, one of those million dollar govt studies to declare what everyone already knows. Meanwhile, it appeases Kennedy.

This is why Kennedy is dangerous. because some of these votes or even amendment wordings reflect some deal making, acknowledging his power as a very senior Senator.
 
Make sure you have the right votes in the right context and year, because voting for a poison pill amendment can be a pro-gun strategy.

You know what, I am going to save myself the trouble of trying to decide whether that was some double-top secret exceptionally clever strategy on guns and just assume that anybody voting with Kennedy, Kerry, Feinstein, and Schumer on a gun bill doesn't have my best interests at heart. It may not be foolproof; but it seems like a safe bet.

Also, the last iteration of Kennedy's bill actually passed but was "a study" to determine the facts about various ammo capabilities...you know, one of those million dollar govt studies to declare what everyone already knows. Meanwhile, it appeases Kennedy.

I understand what you are saying; but your statement is a bit unclear. Kennedy offered an amendment that would ban any centerfire ammunition capable of penetrating soft body armor (which is pretty much all centerfire rifle ammunition). He even mentioned .30-30 by name on the floor of the Senate as an example of what needed to be banned.

In response to this, Bill Frist of TN offered an alternative amendment saying "Hey, why don't we do a study about this instead and in the meantime, if you use armor-piercing ammo in a felony, we will make sure you do at least 15 years in a federal prison."

They voted on Frist's amendment FIRST and it passed (even though Feingold was one 12 Senators voting "NO" on this). After this they offered up Kennedy's amendment which was voted down.

You can see the history in the vote record for the 108th Senate. The votes are #27 and #28 on the Kennedy and Frist amendments.
 
I believe the real story, as far as what actually passed, was in 2005, and the relevant vote was #216 on the Craig amendment.

See http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_109_1.htm

The final vote in 2004 failed with only 8 Yea votes from the following:

Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
Daschle (R-SD) (gone)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Breaux (D-LA) (gone)

The vote in 2005 passed 87-11 after the measure had been reworked. Kennedy's amendment to expand the definition of "armor piercing" was defeated, but the Craig amendment provides for "a study". The entire text of the amendment as submitted and passed appears below.

SA 1645. Mr. CRAIG proposed an amendment to the bill S. 397, 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; as follows:

On page 13, after line 4, insert the following:

SEC. 5. ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION.

(a) Unlawful Acts.--Section 922(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking paragraphs (7) and (8) and inserting the following:

``(7) for any person to manufacture or import armor piercing ammunition, unless--

``(A) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

``(B) the manufacture of such ammunition is for the purpose of exportation; or

``(C) the manufacture or importation of such ammunition is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;

``(8) for any manufacturer or importer to sell or deliver armor piercing ammunition, unless such sale or delivery--

``(A) is for the use of the United States, any department or agency of the United States, any State, or any department, agency, or political subdivision of a State;

``(B) is for the purpose of exportation; or

``(C) is for the purpose of testing or experimentation and has been authorized by the Attorney General;''.

(b) Penalties.--Section 924(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

``(5) Except to the extent that a greater minimum sentence is otherwise provided under this subsection, or by any other provision of law, any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime (including a crime of violence or drug trafficking crime that provides for an enhanced punishment if committed by the use of a deadly or dangerous weapon or device) for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries armor piercing ammunition, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses armor piercing ammunition, shall, in addition to the punishment provided for such crime of violence or drug trafficking crime or conviction under this section--

``(A) be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than 15 years; and

``(B) if death results from the use of such ammunition--

``(i) if the killing is murder (as defined in section 1111), be punished by death or sentenced to a term of imprisonment for any term of years or for life; and

``(ii) if the killing is manslaughter (as defined in section 1112), be punished as provided in section 1112.''.

(c) Study and Report.--

(1) STUDY.--The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

(2) ISSUES TO BE STUDIED.--The study conducted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

(3) REPORT.--Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to--

(A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and

(B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.
 
Last edited:
I believe the real story, as far as what actually passed, was in 2005, and the relevant vote was #216 on the Craig amendment.

Why do you believe that is the real story?

The vote (on armor piercing ammo) in 2004 failed with only 8 Yea votes from the following:

I don't know which vote you are referring to; but Kennedy's ammo ban amendment to S.1805 (vote #28 in the 2nd Session of the 108th Congress) received 34 votes - including every single Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary committee except Leahy.
 
I was actually referring to S1805 (the whole bill) failing to pass as amended, the poison pilled thing in 2004. See vote #30. Sorry for the confusion on my part. But that vote is a story of its own.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00028

I see you are correct about the Kennedy amendment failing and the number of votes in favor (34).

I concede to whatever you want to call "the story". I see that the 2004 votes certainly appear to reveal real anti-gunners and no real evidence of any voting strategy on the part of others except to vote how they really felt and then scuttle the whole bill.

Actually, only Lieberman among the 8 votes in favor of S1805 passage voted for the Kennedy amendment (in 2004 when it failed). No point particularly, just data.

Looking at the roster of the 34 who voted in favor of the Kennedy amendment (2004), it reads like a who's who among gun grabbers, only one Republican of sorts (Chafee) among them.

YEAs ---34
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top