The Senate fell 11 votes short of mustering the 60 needed to shut off debate and force the proposal to a final roll call. Supporters said they took some solace from the fact that the measure got a public airing and picked up 49 votes, one more than the number of senators who backed it in a similar procedural test in 2004.Hardly. The vote was not on the amendment itself but on whether to bring it to a vote. Out of a Republican-controlled Senate desperate for "red meat" to feed their massively discontented "base", they still could not find a majority who even wanted to vote on the misbegotten thing, much less pass it. Take "solace" if you want to Tony Perkins, but I have only one word for this: "Yippee!"
Perhaps it is wishfull thinking, but this effort could turn out to have backfired in terms of inspiring the "social conservatives." The Republican fear is not that these people will vote against them but that they will get discouraged and not vote at all. It has got to be pretty damn discouraging for these people to find that, despite all their work and all their apparent success in getting Republicans elected, they cannot get a majority of Republican dominated Senate to agree even to vote on a constitutional amendment that they see as necessary to both enforce their own morality and strike a blow against "activist judges." On the other hand, the fact that these people even tried to do this could be invigorating for those of us who think these people are truly dangerous.
It may be illusory, but this vote provides me with at least a moment of hope that we are slowly but surely be turning the corner on this kind of stuff.
No comments:
Post a Comment