RE: Senate votes by state

["Gibbons, Gregory J" <GJGibbon@MAIL.BHI-ERC.COM>]

Ruth,

 

I applaud you're analysis of the situation.  While I don't know your

experience around the U.S. Senate (and I assume the House does similar types

of activities, though not quite as freely because of constituency

differences), I could not have done a better job explaining what happens

within the congressional chambers better myself (which can be both a shame

and a reason to give thanks--depending on your view of the issue in

question).  While in high school, I served in the U.S. Senate as a page

where I was able to take in essentially everything that went on -- most of

which the public does not see -- and I can tell you first-hand that you have

described EXACTLY what happens.

  

Greg Gibbons

  



 -----Original Message-----

From: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM [mailto:RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:47 AM

To: kenneth_peskin@yahoo.com; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Subject: Re: Senate votes by state







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 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/