Allah's put the votes in chronological order, hoping to suggest who here was really voting their principles and/or their constituents' principles (we'll take either!) and who was simply votin "no" when they realized the bill was doomed and so there was hardly any reason to defy the public's will for a futility.

There are obviously some problems with this very basic analysis; I'm almost ashamed to accept links from this "generator of simplicity" and hate-merchant.

For one thing, Chuck Hagel votes late but is there any doubt he was rah-rah amnesty from the start, and would have been one of the earliest votes if he hadn't been buys primping his Exquisitely Senatorial Mane?

For another thing, I have to think that most knew the bill was going down before anyone voted at all, barring some miracle. When you lose critical votes like Burr, Bond, and Ensign and others well before the vote with no offsetting vote pick-ups, you're in trouble.

But I can't help but noticing Voinovich's "no" vote is at the end. And McConnell's vote is just about at the end.

And Brownback's yes vote very definitely comes well before his no vote. Best video of the day -- Brownback's sudden epiphany on the senate floor.

Bravo, Senator. Bravo.

Posted by: Ace at 11:12 AM | Comments (18)
Post contains 218 words, total size 2 kb.

IMPORTANT UPDATE: For any Wall Street Journal types who might be reading this site, producing the vivid colors in the above map cost over $7.5 million dollars in undisclosed funding, and required 36 hours of constant access to the latest generation of quantum supercomputers. I'm not sure where the money came from, but Michelle Malkin keeps the computers in her garage. FYI.

For everyone smarter than a WSJ contributor, the above map was created using an Electoral College Calculator found on the following site: http://www.grayraven.com/ec/.

I used it to reproduce the State by State results of today's Senate 46-53 cloture vote on the Immigration bill to see if any interesting trends might be revealed from reviewing the data in this format.

The Key is as follows:

Red States- Both Senators voted "No" on the cloture vote.
Yellow States- These delegation split, with one Senator voting on each side.
Blue States- Both Senators voted "Yes" on the cloture vote.

On first blush, this reveals some interesting things:

*A plurality of States, 18, saw their delegations vote "No". 17 states were "undecided" and only 15 states saw their delegations vote "Yes"

*Discounting "undecided" states, the map does not look all that dissimilar from the electoral college results of the 2000 and 2004 election, in that this vote reveals a similar dynamic with regard to voting behavior between the South/Midwest and the Coasts.

*Although Red "Opposed" States carried a plurality in terms of States carried, the Blue "Yes" States actually carried a plurality in the electoral college, although not enough to have reached 270.

*Some of the state by state results are counter-intuitive. The 4 southern border states split. Who is right? Cornyn and Hutchison or Kyl and McCain?

*The state of Florida sticks out as the only deep South state which went "Blue".

*Are voters in Maine, Vermont and New Hampshire really in sync with voters in Arkansas, Mississippi and South Carolina? According to the map, they could fairly be lumped together.

*Does the map tend to reveal certain Senators that are out of touch with the voters in their own state? Arkansas has two Democratic senators. It split. Mississippi has 2 Republican senators. It split. These senators can't all be reflecting their constituents on this issue.

*Look at all the Yellow states in the Agricultural West and Upper Midwest, that would have been "Red States" for purposes of the 2000 and 2004 Presidential election? Does this show the extent of Agribusinesses lobbying power?

These are just some perfunctory thoughts as I look at the map for the first time. Perhaps some of you see some other interesting trends emerging here. Feel free to drop your thoughts in the comments.

Note: Thanks to Slublog for helping me incorporate the image into the site in a form that was a lot nicer looking than the mess I uploaded. Thanks, Slu!

Posted by: Jack M. at 10:06 AM | Comments (53)
Post contains 491 words, total size 3 kb.

Of course there's a darker side of victory, too. Gloating and taunting and even some bullying. And lots of it, too.

Like this.

Oh yeahhhhh... it's back, baby, and not a moment too soon.

Slublog's: Bush league.

BTW, please don't send me the ones you make, because it's sort of a pain to upload them. And then I have to make these often-impolitic judgment calls about what's worthy of linkage and what isn't.

If you do some, just put them in photobucket or flckr or the like and link 'em in the thread... I'll post the best ones in the thread body.

For Lindsay Graham... The bigots say suck it. And suck it good.

For Sam Brownback: I cast a brave vote for yay. Wait, you guys are voting no? Okay, I cast a brave vote for no.

Posted by: Ace at 08:28 AM | Comments (121)
Post contains 140 words, total size 2 kb.

Roll of Shame: Judd Gregg voted "Aye." New Hampshirites take note.

This is actually going to end up being a pretty big vote to deny cloture. Could wind up being one of those almost fifty-fifty splits if, say, Menendez carries through on his promise to vote against the bill for left-wing reasons.

Rockefeller-- no? Really?

Was he always a no? (I'm told he was always a no, actually.)

Panic Rush For The Exits! Well, they saw which way the vote was going and saw no reason to vote in favor of a wildly unpopular bill which was losing. So the rats deserted the ship.

Brownback seems to actually have changed his vote mid-process, though maybe that was just an error on his part.

Posted by: Ace at 07:16 AM | Comments (148)
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Bumped. Not to squash LauraW's post, but the vote's about to happen.

Over?

No.

Because now the deal-makers are going to work on Cochran.

And the Force is not strong in this one.

Call his ass, stat.

...

Because 10,000 morons can track news better than a couple of morons.

Jim DeMint Nails It:

This immigration bill has become a war between the American people and their government. The issue now transcends anything related to immigration; it's a crisis of confidence between what the American believe our government is and should be, and what it is now and what they perceive it to be.

This vote today is really not about immigration. It's about whether or not we're going to listen to the American people and realize we need to proceed more carefully and in a more senstive manner and appear to be listening to the concerns of the American people.

Well, it is about immigration, of course. But it is largely as he describes it -- honestly, even if it were the case that this bill were marginally better than the status quo (which is all its proponents are able to straight-facedly claim it is, after all), it doesn't matter -- because we have made our opinions known and we are being utterly ignored. Whether a bill is marginally better than the status quor or not, if 70% of the public tells you they do not want the bill you do not attempt to ram it down their throats with no scrutiny on a rushed schedule that doesn't even permit Senators to read the bill's provision.

You slow down. You either improve it or sufficiently make the case to the public that the bill is in their interests. You do not repeatedly attempt to sneak the bill past the public before they can hear what's in it. (And then complain about the only broadcast media that actually did so!)

Even if Lindsay Graham were objectively right -- which, you know, he's not -- it doesn't matter. Whether the boss is wrong or not, you listen to the boss. If he wants you to do your job in a way you think is suboptimal, you recommend a way you think is better, but you do it his way. He's the boss.

These stupid fuckjobs seem to have forgotten who the boss is here. And that is, more broadly, what this is about -- our attempts to assert our authority over our underlings and employee civil servants and their arrogant attempts to run the office the way they please.

Ted Kennedy: Noting that in the past the Senate "knocked down the walls of race, knocked down the walls of national origin, knocked down the walls of gender," and then, just when his rhetoric dictates he should say "now is the time to knock down the walls of citizenship," he instead begins speaking vaguely of the "march of progress."

The march of progress, it seems, does demand that the distinction between American and non-American be "knocked down," much the same as the border wall which would be knocked down were it ever built, which it won't be.

Cochran's Office Says He Already Voted Against Cloture Three Times... which sounds like a cocksucker way of saying "Three times should satisfy you knuckledgraggers; I'm'a gettin' a brand new border enforcement office in Gulfsport!"

That's from Dave in San Diego. The office seems oddly noncommittal concerning a vote slated to happen in fifteen minutes.

Allah's running count, though, says we can afford to lose him.

Then again, Allah's drinking more during the day lately.

Hey, Allah? The Ace of Spades Lifestyle (TM) thing is a gag, you know?

Speculation: Earlier I commented they would attempt to stall since they were behind and needed time to switch Cochran or some Democrats.

Reid is now going well over his time, and Sessions is interrupting him to note this.

It could be that Sessions knows he'll win now and Reid knows he'll lose now. So Reid is going on about Jewish grandfathers and watches and other bullshit to give McCain a chance to chew on Cochran.

Roll Call Called.

Posted by: Ace at 07:15 AM | Comments (40)
Post contains 713 words, total size 4 kb.

...going on right now in Atlanta.

Your typical leftist shambling wreck of a 'forum:' People on stilts, big puppets, and everyone is shouting a different slogan. Nothing of value (social or otherwise) ever gets accomplished at these things, but the participants always come away declaring it a raging success.

Still, it's nice that they keep themselves busy this way instead of actually trying to do something about anything.

"We have deserted spirituality and we are shacking up with the prostitute of materialism and greed. It is an incestuous affair and like all incest, it produces offspring with congenital defects, like addiction to violence, guns, drugs, sex, sexism, race, racism, and various idolatries. America needs a revival to save her souls," Lowery said.

"We have sown the wind of mean-spiritedness toward the poor, and lack of humaneness toward the stranger at our door."

Uh, sown the wind? Can you imagine spending a whole afternoon listening to this pap?

Can't you just be happy with your casinos?

Posted by: LauraW. at 06:30 AM | Comments (27)
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

Without talk radio, would there have been any debate on this amnesty abomination at all?

Who would have given fair coverage to the position favored by at least 70% o Americans? The MSM, which was blatantly biased in favor of this "bipartisan" piece of shit, putting out sham push-polls which misrepresented the bill as being tougher on enforcement than it actually was and misrepresenting the visa process as being a regular maybe-you-get-denied-maybe-you-get approved deal rather than the automatic amnesty it was? And deliberatley and repeatedly failed to ask the most obvious question of all -- Do you or do you not support the bill actually being debated in the Senate? -- because they knew full well the public was overwhelmingly against it and wanted to cobble together some plausible claim the public actually favored the bill?

Surely there would have been no debate in the Senate, whose establishment tried to shut down all discussion and force the thing through after a week's consideration before the bill could even be read, let alone digested, and let alone weighed in on by consituents.

And the media gushingly praised those engaging in dissent-crussing manueverings.

Why, some in the media even found time to display a "strange new respect" for George Bush, of all people.

"Fairness" doctrine -- right. What they mean is they think it's unfair they don't have complete monopoly over the media-political culture in this country, and they want it back.

They were able to do so many great things for America in the old days, without all the fuss and bother of the riff-raff commenting upon what was supposedly being done in our interests but against our wishes.

Posted by: Ace at 05:45 AM | Comments (29)
Post contains 290 words, total size 2 kb.

There are so many shifting parts in this it's hard to tell which way it's going. But down seems to be the general direction.

The future looked grim for an immigration overhaul legislation late Wednesday, with several key senators weighing objections that could kill the issue for the 110th Congress.

...

Though 64 senators agreed June 26 to proceed to the bill, more than a dozen said they did so only to allow debate on 27 amendments that they hoped would modify core provisions they found objectionable.

...

The list of potential “no” votes on cloture now includes New Mexico Republican Pete V. Domenici and New Jersey Democrat Robert Menendez — both of whom voted in favor of proceeding to the bill two days ago. Menendez failed in an effort to modify the bill Wednesday.

Perhaps the most telling vote will come from Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, who has made a practice of supporting cloture motions whether he intends to vote for the legislation or not. Nelson said Wednesday he would likely break that tradition and vote against ending debate on the immigration bill.

...

Domenici said he was “leaning” against cloture... “I’m against the bill,” said Domenici. “The more we’ve had amendments offered and had to clarify, the more I have concerns about whether it can be enforced. My concern about whether it becomes law is growing.”

...

Stabenow said she would “probably” vote against cloture Thursday.

...

The list of Republicans who say they are contemplating switching their votes includes Norm Coleman of Minnesota, John Ensign of Nevada, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and Christopher S. Bond of Missouri.

Ensign said he was hearing that Democrats were redrafting his amendment — as part of the larger “clay pigeon” amendment package the text was no longer his to control — in a way that would make it non-germane after cloture. His amendment would deny Social Security benefits earned by illegal immigrants prior to becoming legalized.

“I may vote against cloture anyway, but I will definitely vote against cloture if I don’t get a vote on my amendment,” Ensign said.

Ensign sounds more of a "no" than I'd thought.

Posted by: Ace at 05:31 AM | Comments (5)
Post contains 369 words, total size 2 kb.

Burr and Nelson are now confirmed as solid no's. No point calling, except to commend them.

Hawkins with another insider's report on what's going on.

To begin with, my source said he is guardedly optimistic that the bill will fail the 2nd cloture vote tomorrow. That is because he thinks that some of the senators who voted for cloture on Tuesday were doing so because they were being "senatorial" by allowing a debate. But, that only goes so far, and everyone realizes at this point that the Thursday vote is the final vote on amnesty as far as the base is concerned. In other words, a "yes" on cloture is a "yes" to amnesty.

My source, "Colonely Y," is also guardedly optimistic about cloture's defeat.

At that point, I asked about the "fool the yahoos" maneuver. Will there be senators voting "yes" on cloture and then voting against the final bill and hoping that they can avoid being tagged as supporting amnesty? He said that because of all the attention this issue has gotten, the base isn't going to be fooled and that anyone who does that will just have to hope that his election isn't close enough that thousands conservatives sitting at home can swing it the other way.

...

Last but not least, I asked him if the phone calls were still rolling in. He told me that there were so many calls coming in that most callers were getting busy signals and that it was absolute "pandemonium" in his boss' office today because the phones just never stopped ringing. So, make no mistake about it, the pressure, which was already relentless, has actually increased on these senators over the last few days.

I had to omit some of the best parts there -- Lindsay Graham, for instance, is now talking like a BAD ASS MOTHERFUCKER ON ENFORCEMENT because he's scared shitless about his crumbling polls. And yes, the staffs at these offices are aware the blogosphere is "out for blood." Of course, I doubt that matters much to them given talk radio and 80% of the Republican Party is similarly out for blood, but at least they noticed.

Multiple sources now reporting that Webb claims he had his "arm twisted" for the first vote -- his yes vote -- and feels he was treated shabbily. He seems strongly inclined to vote against cloture this time. Then again, this Corner scuttlebutt has Webb pulling the bullshit Yes on Cloture, No on Amnesty hoax. That tally only has 38 No's.

Posted by: Ace at 05:11 AM | Comments (3)
Post contains 423 words, total size 3 kb.

There seems to be some dishonesty going on in the Senate, if you can believe it. Senator Cochran, for example, who finally bowed to pressure to vote against re-opening debate on amnesty, is now said to be considering voting for cloture. It's possible some of these Senators may have struck deals -- You vote yes to re-open but no on cloture; I'll vote no to re-open but yes on cloture; that way we can both claim we voted against it (and for it) at various critical points, but whatever happens, we make sure we've still got 60 for each vote.

What on earth could possibly have convinced Cochran to vote yes on cloture now, given the fact that the amendment that even Lindsay Graham said was necessary for his support of the bill cannot even be voted on now and hence will not become part of the amnesty?

If you call -- and please do, especially for your home-state senators; though Ensign, as head of the NRSC, can and should be called by anyone -- be polite but be firm: A Yes on Cloture is a Yes on Amnesty, and that vote will never be forgiven or forgotten.

I've put especially critical undecided/wavering votes in bold.

Is pressure useful at this point? Yes, "Colonel Y" says. Many of these people will not make up their minds until the last possible moment; pressure from voters can swing that. You can bet they'll be getting pressure the other way from the leadership and corporate lobbyists.

Baucus, Max (D - MT)
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

Bayh, Evan (D - IN)
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm

Bennett, Robert F. (R-Utah)
(202) 224-5444
Web Form: bennett.senate.gov/contact/emailmain.html
(Call him to let him know you know he traded his vote for a pissant federal office in Utah.)

Bingaman, Jeff (D - NM)
(202) 224-5521
E-mail: senator_bingaman@bingaman.senate.gov
(Both sides think he's with them. Push him towards the No on cloture side. Especially if you're in NM.)

Boxer, Barbara (D - CA)
(202) 224-3553
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact
(Almost certainly a lost cause with this hyperpartisan, but supposedly she worries so much about the depressing effect on wages of the poor. California voters, give her a try. Imitate a liberal by talking like a condescending dweeb.)

Brown, Sherrod (D - OH)
(202) 224-2315
Web Form: brown.senate.gov/contact.cfm
(Again, supposedly on the fence. Fun for Ohio residents.)

Brownback, Sam (R - KS)
(202) 224-6521
Web Form: brownback.senate.gov/CMEmailMe.cfm
(A total tool who will probably vote for cloture as a way to differentiate himself from the front-runners, who are almost all anti-amnesty. He's such an idiot he doesn't realize that hasn't worked out too well for John McCain, but try anyway... hey, pretend to be one of his nine supporters for President. Then you'll have pull.)

Byrd, Robert C
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html
(Remind him that while Mexicans aren't quite black, they're definitely not white, and we no longer have brave Kleagle nightriders like him to protect us against the mongrel hordes.)

Chambliss, Saxby (R - GA)
(202) 224-3521
Web Form: chambliss.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactU...
(Should be on our side... maybe just want to confirm on this one... he's been a bit shifty.)

Cochran, Thad (R - MS)
(202) 224-5054
Web Form: cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm
(Ask him what on earth has improved the bill since he last voted against it -- what was supposed to be a critical amendment proving this wasn't amnesty failed due to a procedural glitch.)

Coleman, Norm (R - MN)
(202) 224-5641
Web Form: coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
(Very important undecided -- why is he undecided? He may be on our side now that his amendments to end sanctuary cities will not be voted on; then again, he's making a sanctuary oountry, so who cares? He hasn't gotten much attention or pressure during this process; it's time he did.)

Collins, Susan M. (R-Maine)
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact...
(Probably the best way to get her to listen to you is to pose as a member of her party, the Democrats.)

Craig, Larry E.- (R-Idaho)
(202) 224-2752
Web Form: craig.senate.gov/email/
(A useless cocksucker who should be informed of that.)

Dorgan, Byron L.- (D - ND)
(202) 224-2551
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov
(A real longshot, but North Dakota residents, why not? Push the labor/wage angle.)

Ensign, John (R - NV)
(202) 224-6244
Web Form: ensign.senate.gov/forms/email_form.cfm
(Call this stupid prick and let him know none of his Senate candidates will be getting a dime if he permits this to go through.)

Gregg, Judd (R - NH)
(202) 224-3324
Web Form: gregg.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.cfm
(Might be on our side now -- but I think he slipped under the radar and didn't get a lot of calls before now. Make sure he knows where the party is on this.)

Hatch, Orrin G.- (R - UT)
(202) 224-5251
Web Form: hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.Contact
(Who knows. He's a flake and he knows his seat is secure.)

Isakson, Johnny- (R - GA)
(202) 224-3643
Web Form: isakson.senate.gov/contact.cfm
(Probably solid for us, but let's reinforce that. A little. Politely.)

Kennedy, Edward M. (D - MA)
(202) 224-4543
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/senator/contact.cfm
(I just heard he killed some girl. Have any of you heard anything like this? Can't we use that against him or something? Sure seems like a murder could serve as a pressure point.)

Klobuchar, Amy(D - MN)
(202) 224-3244
Web Form: klobuchar.senate.gov/contact.cfm
(No point calling. I just can't get over the fact we have a "Senator Klobuchar." Whinny.)

McConnell, Mitch (R - KY)
(202) 224-2541
Web Form: mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
(Isn't it the duty of the conference leader to support the conference on procedural votes? This guy is wavering big-time. He plainly doesn't like the bill much. Why he's helping Reid ram it down his fellow Republicans' throats is something you'll have to ask him about yourselves.)

Murkowski, Lisa (R - Alaska)
(202) 224-6665
Web Form: murkowski.senate.gov/contact.cfm
(Said to be wavering, inclined to vote against cloture.)

Stevens, Ted (R - Alaska)
(202) 224-3004
Web Form: stevens.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Em...
(Also said to be leaning against cloture now, despite the super-important Alaska Border Enforcement office he's been promised. Don't bother writing an email to him; the Internets are a series of tubes that often get clogged.)

Webb, Jim (D - VA)
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: webb.senate.gov/contact/
(Claims to be leaning against amnesty. He did make promises to that effect in the campaign. Don't Marines keep their promises?)

Not One Dime: If you send an email, you might want to include this Not One Dime gif, a not-dime stamped with a rhino.

A lot of the emails look glitchy above. The hyperlinked addresses are here.

Can't Get In Touch With Ensign? Call the NRSC: The National Republican Senatorial Committee is tasked with getting Republicans elected, and Ensign heads it. The number: 202 675-6000.

And now about the NRC itself:

Phone Numbers:
Comment Line & General
Information: 202.863.8790
Phone: 202.863.8500
Fax: 202.863.8820

Update: Burr and Nelson were removed from the list, as they are confirmed as solid no's.

Thank them some other day. Not today.

Posted by: Ace at 03:47 AM | Comments (9)
Post contains 1163 words, total size 8 kb.