Kerry and Edwards miss critical vote, let Repugs win

[baby_bear]

Boxer was also absent. If two of them had been where they were supposed to have been, this amendment would have passed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9182-2003Oct23.html

<snip>
Bush says requiring federal workers to compete for their jobs promotes efficiency, even if the positions stay in-house. Critics, including employee unions and many Democrats, say the president merely wants to farm out jobs to reward business allies. Opponents of the initiative have tried to impede it with amendments to appropriations bills. The Senate narrowly defeated such an attempt yesterday, voting 48 to 47 against an amendment by Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) that would have required agencies to toss out newly revised OMB regulations governing the competitions. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) sponsored similar language in the House version.

OMB officials pressed hard for the revised rules, which are expected to reduce to 12 to 18 months job competitions that often took two to four years to complete. The changes also made it harder to define jobs as "inherently governmental" (and therefore protected from contracting out), and wiped out a requirement that contractors cost at least 10 percent less than the in-house bid.

Mikulski said the revised rules, known as Circular A-76, are "inherently unfair to government employees. The deck is stacked against them to pursue an ideologically driven agenda rather than a management reform agenda."
...
Mikulski won the support of three Republicans -- Olympia J. Snowe (Maine), Arlen Specter (Pa.) and Ben Nighthorse Campbell (Colo.) -- and briefly had the vote of Christopher S. Bond (Mo.) before he switched to the "No" column. Mikulski still might have carried the day but for the absence of Democrats John F. Kerry (Mass.) and John Edwards (N.C.) who were away campaigning for president, and Barbara Boxer (Calif.).
</snip>

:mad:
s_m

[montanacowboy]

1. Thanks a lot

kerry, edwards and boxer

keep up the good work screwing federal employees

one more reason to support DEAN

[mikehiggins]

2. Don't you beleive it, Sailor Moon.

If boxer and Kerry and Edwards had been present and voting it would have suddenly become necessary for Snow and Specter and Campbell to go with the "no" for some perfectly understandeable reason or other.

Bond "switched" just in time to pass the resolution by one vote. The GOP gave a black eye to two candidates (and Barbs) without it costing them anything.

I know it may seem paranoid to see things that way, but this is 2003. Paranoia is a tool for survival.

There is still the rumor out there that the GOP feels they have a better chance of beating Dean than Kerry, and history has shown they have no compunctions at trying to steer the Democratic Party towards the candidate they feel more comfortable fighting (remember Ed Muskie, just to name one obvious example). The Presidential campaign began months ago. Don't be fooled into thinking the Repugs are going to wait for their "coronation", aka, convention, to get moving on this front.

If it looks like a setup, it is a setup.

[chiburb]

4. Good points!

I was typing my response as you were posting yours...

[Nancy Waterman]

7. Thank you, mike higgins

It is important to understand these things. The subtle smearing of Kerry and Clark is already well under way.

[baby_bear]

8. Nevertheless

Assuming you are right about Snowe, Campbell and Specter, that doesn't give Edwards and Kerry a pass on campaigning instead of being on the Senate floor for an important vote. Why give those 3 Repugs a chance to look like they are pro-worker if they really are not?

I don't know why Boxer wasn't there, but at least she wasn't campaigning.

s_m

[NewYorkerfromMass]

12. Look. The bottom line is they didn't have the votes. and it was a set-up

to make Kerry and Edwards look bad. It is that simple. mikehiggins nailed it. so..... Thank You mike! and welcome!

[chiburb]

3. Maybe, maybe not...

As has been detailed here many times, when it is apparent that a Dem amendment cannot pass Republicans 'cross over' to vote with them. This way they can point to their "independence" and "bipartisanship" and their ability to "buck the (P)resident" when running for reelection. I don't doubt that Snowe's vote was legit, and I'm not saying that the missing Dems votes wouldn't have mattered. I AM saying that things aren't always what they seem...
And where was Daschle in allowing an important vote to take place when he knew he didn't have a full complement?

[Algorem]

5. Huh.She gets 3 R's to vote yes,then 3 D's don't show.It's like the 3

D's conspired with the R's.No that can't be.

[baby_bear]

6. Bond is up for re-election in 2004

Maybe enough federal workers in Missouri will take note of his last-minute switch to stab them in the back and throw the bum out.

s_m

[w13rd0]

9. Actually...

...I'd heard that Bond wasn't running for re-election. I could be wrong, and most likely am. I know if he does run for re-election, he sure as hell doesn't have my support...

[baby_bear]

10. According to this, he's running

http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/7087988.htm

Posted on Thu, Oct. 23, 2003

Bond draws fire for pay raise vote
LIBBY QUAID
Associated Press

<snip>
WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., voted in favor of a pay increase Thursday, drawing fire from the Democrat seeking to challenge him next year, state Treasurer Nancy Farmer.

Bond was among 60 senators who voted to boost their paychecks from the current $154,700 to about $158,000 in 2004.
...
Farmer said: "At a time when working Americans are struggling to make ends meet, it is unconscionable that elected officials voted themselves a pay raise."

She pointed out Bond has voted several times against increasing the minimum wage.

</snip>

s_m

[Cocoa]

11. here's a good place to keep track of missed votes

http://www.gop.com/newsroom/rncresearch/missedvotes102403.htm

RNC research seems to place great importance on this.

[baby_bear]

13. Am I to gather that I place too much importance on missed votes?

That seems to be the gist of the responses to my original post.

Am I missing something? Just because something is a "set-up" doesn't mean we have to buy into it and let the Repugs look good.

Enlighten me?

s_m