Career Gangsters in the Senate?
I alluded to this yesterday but it probably merits a separate entry. Thus far, I’ve been inclined to give John McCain the benefit of the doubt in his opposition to the Administration on the post-Hamdan bill. However, after examining more closely the line-up of “Republicans” opposing the President on this issue now, vs. the line-up of the seven “Republicans” who joined the infamous “Gang of 14″ last year who torpedoed the nuclear option on judicial filibusters. Let’s refresh our memories as to who those seven were, by name, party, state and class:
| Chafee, Lincoln | Republican | Rhode Island | I |
| Collins, Susan | Republican | Maine | II |
| DeWine, Mike | Republican | Ohio | I |
| Graham, Lindsey | Republican | South Carolina | II |
| McCain, John | Republican | Arizona | III |
| Snowe, Olympia | Republican | Maine | I |
| Warner, John | Republican | Virginia | II |
Now, let’s take a look at the current Gang of Four, who are resisting the Administration’s efforts to authorize the interrogation program called into question by Hamdan:
| Collins, Susan | Republican | Maine | II |
| Graham, Lindsey | Republican | South Carolina | II |
| McCain, John | Republican | Arizona | III |
| Warner, John | Republican | Virginia | II |
One possible explanation for this variation is that judicial filibusters and civil rights for terrorists are so inextricably linked that every single Republican willing to go out on a limb to protect civil rights for terrorists is someone who also supports judicial filibusters. Another possible explanation is that the two issues are closely linked, but just nuanced enough that Senators hailing from such hard-core right wing jurisdictions as Ohio, Rhode Island and the part of Maine in which Olympia Snowe is more popular than Susan Collins come down on the President’s side of the terror issue, while those from more liberal states like Arizona, South Carolina, Virginia and Susan Collins’s half of Maine dissent. I’m not sure that’s the best explanation, though. Can anyone come up with a more plausible explanation?
September 20th, 2006 at 12:19 pm
It’s just a wild guess on my part, God knows how anyone can really answer the question with the skimpy information you gave out, but is it barely possible that it is because the current Gang of Four are Republican Senators who are not up for re-election this term? I wish you would give us a few more hints, though, so I could be more certain of my answer.
September 21st, 2006 at 9:47 am
[...] Xrlq notes an interesting coincidence about who is opposing the president on post-Hamdan reforms. [...]
September 21st, 2006 at 10:42 am
I think there’s a more simple explanation on Snowe and Collins. Snowe is up for re-election this year; Collins is not. I’m from Maine. Both senators have a pattern of irritating the base for five years and throwing them some scraps in the election year.
September 21st, 2006 at 2:39 pm
1. McCain is exclusively his resume. I’d like to know how being a prisoner of war means that you have the ability to discern what is good or bad legislation. McCain Feinberg being the most recent example. His stances regarding those who have never served having less than good credentials regarding international relations are bogus. I served in combat and I know zero about anything other than my unit and their units. Period. I learned how to kill peopole and break things, how does this qualify me for political office.
2. Face it Snow and Collins have horns sticking out otheir faces, they are that Rino. They would balk at tickle torture.
September 21st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
Well, I’ll defer to the comment by the Mainiac on Susan Collins. That leaves two Johns and a Lindsey. The President’s proposed legislation tracks pretty closely with the demands of John McCain, and he’s opposing it anyway. It must mean he’s running for President, and doesn’t want to be tied to a Bush proposal. I assume Warner and Graham want to be cabinet members in a McCain administration.