Re: Senate votes by state

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

The notion that the Senate vote went by who has nuke plants and wants to get rid of waste, etc., is simplistic and (excuse me) off the mark.  First of all, in Congress, a lot is done by deals that have nothing to do with the substance of the resolution -- a sort of "if you vote with me on x, I will vote with you on y."  Second, deals are made regarding going against your party.  For example, the State of Washington split their vote.  Both Senators are Democrats; in fact, Patty Murray, who voted FOR Yucca Mountain, is generally considered the more liberal of the two.  My guess (and that's all it is) is that they got together and decided that one of them would represent the Seattle area and the other, the Tri-Cities/Spokane area.


Also, I believe every Senator knew how many votes were needed and most of the votes were decided a while ago.   The bottom line for any vote is how the constituencies will react.  For example, New Mexico has no nuclear plants.  However, Bingaman has a relatively pro-nuke constituency (the two labs, the WIPP,  and the Air Force) so he was going to vote to override anyway.


Why did Chafee (R) and Leahy (D) both vote against their leadership?  Why did Ben Campbell (R) vote against his leadership? 


Most of what went on during the debate was posturing, and a great deal of the posturing was pandering to the current "liberal" canon.  That is the big question in my mind: why does "liberal" and Democrat seem to equal anti-nuke?  It sure wasn't that way 20 years ago.


Ruth   


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com