December 23rd, 2009

Reid amendment adopted.

Coburn Bunning absent.

So, assuming the vote on final passage tracks this one, not a single Democrat decided to vote against the bill on the substance.  I guess I’m mildly surprised.  It would have been a principled stance to say that you were against the bill but in favor of letting it come to a vote.  I guess I wish I were surprised that no Republican took that stance; instead, they stood shoulder-to-shoulder for obstruction, all the way.

3 Responses to “60-39”

  1. spandrel says:

    but wasn’t there also a 60-vote threshold on the amendment’s adoption? I’m not 100% sure but I think there was an agreement that the substitute needed 60 to be adopted.

  2. Barry says:

    Mark: “I guess I’m mildly surprised.”

    Color me soundly surprised; both for that, and for the fact that Nelson/Lieberman ceased their tag-team obstruction (at least for now; I expect them to resume with the conference bill).

  3. Seth Owen says:

    It may be that the Democrats are so annoyed at the Republican obstructionism that they’ll maintain their voting block despite their normal stances. I mean, Feingold even voted for some war money the other day, just to keep the process moving.