Large Majority Of Senate Dems Voted For Lieberman-Kyl Amendment
A sizable majority of Senate Democrats, 30 in all, voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran amendment -- a measure which, while stripped of its most bellicose language, nonetheless seeks to designate the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Only 20 voted against it.
The vote, obviously, was a far easier one for Republicans, all but two of whom backed the measure.
We have a full list of Dems who supported the measure -- and Dems who opposed it -- after the jump.
Dems who backed the measure:
AkakaBaucus
Bayh
Ben Nelson
Bill Nelson
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Conrad
Dorgan
Durbin
Feinstein
Johnson
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Levin
Lieberman
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Schumer
Stabenow
Whitehouse
Here are the Dems who voted against it:
BidenBingaman
Boxer
Brown
Byrd
Cantwell
Dodd
Feingold
Hagel
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Leahy
Lincoln
Lugar
Mccaskill
Sanders
Tester
Webb
Wyden
The only two GOP Senators to vote against the measure were Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar.
Comments (14)
Anonymous wrote on September 26, 2007 2:45 PM:I'd like to hold up this list to those who keep talking smack about recently elected Dems like Klobuchar, McCaskill, Tester, Webb.
anonymous2 wrote on September 26, 2007 2:57 PM:Where's Obama?
nick wrote on September 26, 2007 3:00 PM:Lieberman is not a democrat.
Hatch wrote on September 26, 2007 3:07 PM:Obama is in New Hampshire trying to become our next President. Majority Leader Reid said last night that there would be no vote on this amendment in the near future, so Senator Obama had no reason to expect that this vote would be happening today. The announcement that the amendment would come up for a vote today didn't happen until 12:30pm. What was Senator Obama supposed to do, hop on a private jet and fly straight back to the Capitol? It's not like his vote would've changed the outcome.
chigger wrote on September 26, 2007 3:21 PM:Tom Harkin, maybe I will forgive you afterall.
chigger wrote on September 26, 2007 3:23 PM:Heh, Hagel isn't a Dem, either, but he's on the list.
randron wrote on September 26, 2007 3:42 PM:The sad truth is:
There are "true" Republicans i.e., those who believe in smaller government, lower taxes and state's rights.
Then there are "true" Democrats i.e., those who support New Deal policies like Social Security, want to help the poor and disadvantaged, think civil rights should be extended to all citizens and who believe that government CAN be a force for good in the world.
But the majority of "representatives" don't "represent" their states OR their constituants. The majority are...
Corpublicrats...
Not a Senator or Congressman from their respective state, representing the "people," but a Senator from Wal-Mart, or Exxon, or Boeing, or Glaxxo-Smith-Kline, or Kaiser-Permanente. "We the People," are now "We the Chumps." We are nothing more than an inconvenience, and a temporary one at that! Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' Constitution! Rule of Law? Yeah, for "You the people," but not for Corpublicrats! "Free Trade" not "Fair Trade." Jobs for everyone but Americans! Where the bottom line and high stock prices and dividends take precedence over Americans with good jobs, with benefits and health care. America isn't "America" any more.
jim wrote on September 26, 2007 3:49 PM:Harry Reid is an incompetent moron. Is the GOP still running the Senate or what? Everyday I see these GOP bills come up -- and pass. Why does any of this matter anymore? The Dems side with the GOP 90% of the time anyway.
chimp wrote on September 26, 2007 4:33 PM:Reid is a two-faced mealy mouth. Saying the bill wouldn't see a vote, then turning around to vote for it. Not surprised at Hillary, she of the MOR triangulation party. Do they really think sabre rattling is policy or are they so invested in AIPAC they just rubber stamp their agenda? I am sickened.
SocraticGadfly wrote on September 26, 2007 4:52 PM:Once again not voting, among Democratic Senatorial presidential candidates? Barak Obama. Seems to be happening more recently.
linda wrote on September 26, 2007 5:39 PM:Neither Obama or McCave voted. Personally, I find this as defining as Clinton's vote. I gotta say I'm having a continuing sense that Clinton is the MSM darling because she is almost as supportive of the neo-con agenda as Lieb.
Side bar: They had to raise the debt ceiling yesterday. Did I hear Gates say the supplement request included money for realigning Bases In Iraq? Have we been there so long Iraq requires a separate BRAC?
colonpowwow wrote on September 26, 2007 6:32 PM:chimp et al
I guess Hillary had her chance here to stop the Bush/Cheney juggernaut. Not by becoming President in 2008, but by voting "no" on a watered-down, symbolic, sabre-rattling amendment.
BTW - Since Hillary knew her vote wasn't crucial for passage, she would have engaged in "triangulation" if she had voted "no" and mollified the lefty base (you) instead of voting "yes" along with warharks Durbin, Levin et al.
No triangulation to see here. Move along.
Gerald Baker wrote on September 28, 2007 12:16 PM:Ach, du lieber Lieberman, redux.
Here's a "rogues gallery" of Senators, including some prime presidential suspects, who voted to allow Bush to attack Iran. Another day, another vote that will live in infamy.
My friend Dan Lyons has comments about it, on his blog:
And I have comments on mine:
Gerald Baker
Cedar Falls, Iowa
Good for Sen. Biden and Sen. Dodd. This vote alone is a good reason not to vote for Clinton. She is way too far left to be the leader of all the people. I would rather see Whoopie Goldberg lead this country than Hillary and she would be a better understanding how to deal with foreign leaders. Myself I would rather see Sen. Dodd or Gov. Bill Richardson in the pilots seat. Hillary voting for this measure just shows that she will drag us into another war.
