Ethics pass Senate, while naysayers go down the Hatch

Comments

5 comments posted
Coburn and Hatch

Coburn voted against the bill as a symbolic protest. He believes the bill doesn't go nearly far enough to eliminate corruption and pork. And if you've been following the Senate at all over the past couple years, you'll know that Coburn has been out in front with the PorkBusters movement.

It was Coburn, for example, that introduced the amendment to grant a line-item veto in S.1. Coburn was also heavily involved last week when DeMint introduced the earmark transparency amendment that Reid, Durbin, and Kennedy (all Democrats, go figure) tried to kill.

I don't know what Hatch was thinking. But then who does.

kwo's picture
Posted by kwo (not verified) on 19 January 2007 - 11:55am
The imperial line-item veto

That seems to me hardly an anti-"corruption and pork" issue, and more about giving the president unprecedented power to lord it over the entire process, and there's no reason to assume a president is any more "pure" than any other politician, is there?

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 20 January 2007 - 7:56pm
Coburn's reasoning
kwo's picture
Posted by kwo (not verified) on 19 January 2007 - 11:58am
Actually Coburn voted

Actually Coburn voted against the bill because the Dem leaders wouldn't allow his amendment to be voted on that would prevent lawmakers from adding earmarks that benefit their family members. Its easy to assume the worst about someone you disagree with politically but its always nice to not distort their positions. If you had bothered to look at Coburn's website you would have realized why he voted against the bill.

I looked at Hatch's also but he had no press release on the bill yet.

AdmiralChris's picture
Posted by AdmiralChris (not verified) on 20 January 2007 - 5:13pm
my bad, i didn't see someone

my bad, i didn't see someone had beaten me to explaining Coburn's reasoning

AdmiralChris's picture
Posted by AdmiralChris (not verified) on 20 January 2007 - 5:15pm