No FISA Vote? Well. Hillary Lost This White Lady Today.

Well said! I agree with you--I am not voting with my fallopian tubes, nor my ovaries, but with my brain and clearly that vote should go with the person who wishes to preserve our most basic liberties!

I have just read your thoughts through digg link and just wanted say I found your position on this issue correct and your blog entry is also very inspiring.

All the best from Canada.

I must say, great blog and great viewpoint. I felt the same way about Hillary after I saw she didn't even bother to vote on such an important issue.

Bad move on her part and makes me even more distrusting towards her.

So she didn't vote AND she refuses to release her tax documents. Makes me think she is hiding something and I don't think we ever want to see it.

As a Ron Paul fan, I am rooting for Obama. I have seen him speak in person, and he talks a good talk. I sometimes now find myself torn between voting Paul or voting Obama in the main election.

Jesus Lopez Viejo
LiberalsVSConservatives.com

Hillary's cowardice on the FISA vote matches her cowardice on the original Iraq war vote; as Mr Obama puts it, ready on day one vs right on day one.

I feel the same way.

I was hoping for an Edwards and undecided re Obama and Hillary.

Her failure to vote on Dodd/Feingold made my mind up.

Thanks for the "shout," I dugg it and excerpted it at http://www.worldwide-sawdust.com

Thanks,
Bob Higgins

Wow! Thanks everybody. It's great to know so many are bothered by this. Now if only the media would reflect our grave concern! I didn't watch much coverage Tuesday night, but it's hard to imagine the pundits discussing whether Clinton's no-show would affect her support.

According to senate.gov, obama did not vote either...I've noticed more and more leftists slamming hilary and this looks like one more smear by not using all the facts.

Mike -- she didn't vote against telecom immunity. That's the issue.

Abraham Lincoln stated, “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me, and causes me to tremble for the safety of our country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people, until wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.”

Happy Birthday Abe...

Right she didn't vote on the bill, and neither did Obama. You said: "Obama, on the other hand, voted against telecom immunity." Now, tell me how he did that if it he didn't vote against the FISA bill?

Arun - he voted against an amendment that gave the telecoms immunity from prosecution for illegally collaborating with the government on domestic spying.

The presence of a vagina versus a penis makes no difference on someone's competency. That she seems to think so by trying to pull the woman card not only makes me ashamed of my gender, but shows her own incompetency by her clear inability to draw attention to any of her accomplishments. Oh, that's right, there are none but to be a crying shame to women.

Wait, an accomplishment. She has single-handedly proven that women are too emotional to be president, so scratch my first sentence. God damn, I can't stand her.

The point is not that Hillary plays the "woman card" but that the media is more obsessed with horse race demographics than issues as essential as our crumbling civil liberties.

You say, "'Change' must mean the restoration of our democracy." No. "Change" MUST mean the restoration of our REPUBLIC. The word democracy is not in the constitution. Please discover for yourself why this is such a big difference, and the only hope we have for real personal liberty, peace and prosperity.

Nick -- I'll answer you in a new post in the next week.

I give this article a "C"

While the individual of this particular
message seems to be semi-intelligent, jumping from the fire into the frying pan is not so intelligent....All four of the candidates being covered by the main news media are talking the same game....however there are three maybe more candidates they have chosen to blackball from their coverage, which have far better track records then any of the afore mention candidates.

These candidates stole the catch phrase "time for change" from none other than Ron Paul...
either the people want candidates that believe in the CONSTITUTION or the people want candidates that can easily be lead around by the nose ring that has been placed there already, or the people want a candidate that will say what the people want to hear..once the cosmetics, mascara,eye shadow and all the rest of the facade is removed, the picture is still just as ugly as the day before... seeing as how the 'lemmings" are blind, they won't care, they will feel no pain.

If one is truly interested in a real 'Statesman" then they should check out Ron Paul's record of 10 terms 20 year record....while one is there they should check out his platform, which can be found at his web site....

WAKE UP AMERIKA...oooops AMERICA !!!!

Thanks for the mention of Ron Paul. Don't forget; Ron Paul voted against the Patriot Act every time, while Barack Obama recently voted to renew it.

If you are interested defending your civil liberties, personal freedom, and Constitutional Rights, I urge everyone to stand with Ron Paul. A vote for Ron Paul is not wasted - it shows the establishment that we are fed up with endless war and attacks on us and our Constitution. This is the beginning of a movement to Restore the Constitution.

the senator may be educated but she has no street sense. if she truly thought bill was faithful then she is the only person in the united states who did. with his "girls" running in and out the doors and his being accused daily and she didnt know? sorry thats too stupid to be president.

Thank you for this post, Kyeanne. I'm a white male Iraq veteran, and I'm proud to say that I voted against GWB twice (and I can honestly say that I was more voting against than voting for).

James Madison and the founders understood that the gravest threat to freedom would come in the guise of outside threats. It was for this reason that they put declarations of war and the power of the purse in the hands of the Congress, the body most accountable to the American people. The congressional authorization giving Bush the authority to prosecute a preemptive war against Iraq without a formal declaration of war was not leadership. It was a political calculation to avoid appearing "soft" on terrorism, while shirking constitutional responsibility for the action. The *only* thing that I can say in Bush's favor is that at least he assumed responsibility for his wrong-headed, disastrous policies.

As a result, we see our freedoms being rolled back daily. We see an administration that flouts our own laws and international laws. We have become a torturer. We are told to "trust" the government to eavesdrop on our privacy for our own good, without oversight, and indemnify corporations who flout the law and profit from it.

These are not the principles that this country was founded on. In fact, the constitutional separation of powers demonstrates the level of distrust our foreseeing founding fathers held in government.

I fought for my country. I love my country. I would defend her with my life. But I'm not blind. I'm happy when I read blog posts like this one from other conscientious Americans who are not asleep at the wheel.

I urge everyone to side with Kyeanne and hold our politicians strictly accountable for our freedoms and privacy. We can no longer rely on a free press as a check on government. The press has been co-opted by advertising dollars and "access."

It's time to return America to the principles that she was founded under. It's time to make her something that we're once again proud of.

Kyle Looper

Wow, Kyle, thanks. Very inspiring. I think we can turn back this tide of illegality. It will take a lot of resolve and effort.

The FISA amendment is an important issue for me as well, and as an Obama supporter I was dismayed to see neither voted on the final bill. That said, it's not the votes against it that matter in this case - both parties were vocally opposed to it. What was really needed was to decrease the number of votes *for* it, and neither of their votes would have changed that fact.

- c

Perhaps my view is a bit less faithful to anyone. He who has the "green" makes the rules it seems. No matter who we elect, its the money that makes the rules. Therefore...(again through my messed up world view)...if whoever we elect really makes no "real" difference, we might as well elect someone that can rally the support of people and I've seen nobody do that better than Obama. I'm not likely to agree with many people and vice versa, nor am I likely to agree with any single candidate, but I'd rather follow someone who can get support and make you feel like you can actually make a difference.

We're not a democracy. One of the many changes I'd like to see is people getting that right.

I served my country 40 some years ago....I didn't have to go due to my claasification of 4F the last of my bloodline.... I stood up and answered the call for my country, or so I thought I was doing the right thing, sad to say at the time I was very ignorant, just as were many others... I had very high ideals.

War is an ugly demon..... does not care whom it kills, maimes, or destroys.... it is one benfactor trying to impose its will on another.

It is one thing to retaliate from an act of aggression, and yet it is another thing to be the aggressor... The cowards that reside in congress, are as much at fault as Bush, no I am not defending Bush, haven't liked him from the git go....congress used the phoney excuse, they didn't get to read the 'Patriot Act', we were scared of the repercussions, like little sniveling kindergartners....

They sucked right up to Bush and his goals to over throw this form of government, just as they are still sucking up to Bush right now by pushing the "Thought Crime Bill" & "Immigration Reform" as they contintue undermining the CONSTITUTION. Oh it started long before Bush got into office I asure you... They blatantly throw it the faces of the American citiznery every day byt their actions...

SEMPER FIDELIS !!!

Ron Paul is probably the strongest candidate on civil liberties, though this is debatable. In a way it's an unfair comparison, however, because Ron Paul never considered himself a viable candidate (neither did Dennis Kucinich), and hence he (and Dennis) had the luxury of voicing their opinions with complete disregard to middle (conservative) America. Candidates like Hillary Clinton and Obama would no doubt have stronger stands on things like gay marriage if they didn't care about getting elected (and hence have to dilute their message by tilting it to the center).

This is just a reality in America today. You can't be but so socially liberal and still get elected.

Regardless, Ron Paul, for whatever reason, doesn't believe that Roe vs. Wade decided the issue of a womans right to have an abortion. He wants to throw this issue back to the states (how convenient), even though the Supreme Court decided it based on a womans right to privacy. The Supreme Court, by the way, are the guys that are supposed to decide issues of constitutionality and to interpret this document (which is very brief, it can be folded up and slipped in the back pocket. Many amendments are a SINGLE sentence. Talking about setting things up for hot debate later). Anyway, I'm not exactly sure why Ron doesn't agree with the Supreme Court's decision on this one, other than perhaps because he disagrees with it.

Throwing things back to the states would be a disaster. The entire south would constitute a no-abortion zone, unless you were a rich little princess in the suburbs. Then you could afford a weekend trip to New England or California to get your abortion.

Well, Kyeann, I may be able to be relatively comfortable with a lot of legislation that gets some people up in arms (mainly because I see much of it as utterly ineffectual political grandstanding), but this is atrocious. What I'm not sure many people consider is that it is VERY possible that some percentage of their internet traffic "originates" outside of the United States. We often think of "origin" in a bi-nodal way, in which there are two points involved in a communication, but in modern telecommunications a multi-nodal model is more appropriate. Does a signal "originate" from a foreign source if it is first sent in the U.S. an intended for a destination in the U.S. but is retransmitted by routers located in Canada?

A better question is: "Why?" What benefit does the administration, or any future administration, derive from not having post facto oversight of its surveillance? FISA was a violation of the principle of separation of powers before this. This is simply a fundamental violation of the fourth amendment. The only reasonable answer is that whatever the administration is doing it has reason to suspect that the FISA court (which is notoriously government-friendly) would find something that it is doing illegal.

As for the votes of Clinton and Obama, I think I can provide an answer for you. Every move they make now must be calculated in the extreme. A trip to DC means a trip away from a fund raiser or stump speech. With 68 "yea" votes, their votes against were effectively protest votes. Obama had already made his more-than-token attempt to stop telecom immunity, so his record and stance are clear in this area. Clinton probably should have considered this vote more carefully, but at the end of the day the ACLU crowd is smaller than the "It's the economy stupid," crowd. Too bad, as the economy tends to rely on those pesky little freedoms.

I commend you.

I am a Ron Paul supporter, but when it comes to our liberties and freedoms...I would hope our candidates are for them.

Did you see the margin that bill passed by? I think it was like 67-30 or something. Why should he stop campaigning, which gives him the opportunity to create greater change in the long run, to be in attendance in DC for a vote that was not going to win. He already stood there to count his opinion on the bill, what more do you want right now?

You're right though. The vote stinks

i really wish the media would cover issues, but that would cost more money than getting a bunch of airbags to talk about haircuts and who has a penis.

i don't hate hillary because of her laugh or because her husband cheated on her. i don't hate hillary at all. but her vote on iraq, followed by a vote just this last year to declare iran's army a "terrorist" organization (carte blanche for dick cheney if i ever saw it), suggests that she doesn't have the same sense of right and wrong that i do. failing to vote on fisa is certainly another important indicator.

i wonder what mccain did. given he's republican, he probably voted for unchecked government spying. anyone know?

e-head,

you said a few things that are incorrect and I must correct you on.

1. "Ron Paul is probably the strongest candidate on civil liberties, though this is debatable."

How is this debatable? He is basically the only candidate to vote against the patriot act and the only candidate to vote against the war. He advocates a strict return to the constitution. What other candidate or politician for that matter has his kind of track record on defending civil liberties? His record goes back 20 years, I think you'd be very hard pressed to find someone that is "stronger" on civil liberties.

2. "In a way it's an unfair comparison, however, because Ron Paul never considered himself a viable candidate..."

It's true that Ron Paul hasn't considered himself a viable candidate. But for that statement to make sense you have to first qualify it. What is meant by saying this is that he can't get the Republican nomination and that even if he did he wouldn't be elected. The reason for this is that the vast majority of the people simply don't understand the issues and problems we face. And it isn't their fault. The media simply spoon feeds us whatever gets the highest ratings, so important issues don't get very little coverage if any at all. Essentially he is not a viable candidate because the majority are uninformed and apathetic.

3. "Anyway, I'm not exactly sure why Ron doesn't agree with the Supreme Court's decision on this one, other than perhaps because he disagrees with it."

This is true as well but with most things in life you have to understand the reason why. The reason he wants to throw it back to the states is because it is a states rights issue. The constitution says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This basically means that anything not granted to the federal government by the constitution falls to the states to decide. This would include abortion, education, drug laws and most other laws. The constitution was designed to keep the federal government out of our daily lives by explicitly stating what the feds have the authority to do and what they do not have the authority to do. It is also there to preserve freedom by letting each state decide what is right for them. Unfortunately this idea was pretty well lost after the civil war when the paradigm changed and the government was no longer subordinate to the people but rather the people subordinate to the government. But I digress.

The point is that Ron Paul is the only person today who can fix what is wrong with our country. It should also be noted that while Ron Paul is a pro-life candidate he recognizes that the rest of the country isn't and that they have the choice under the constitution to decide the issue for themselves. What other candidate will take a stance but then steadfastly state that they are unwilling to force their views on the people? Ron Paul understands the constitution and he understands freedom. He will not be elected (or anyone like him) until the people wake up and realize what has happened and what is happening to out nation. We need only study history to see what the future holds for our nation.

P.S. We live in a democratic republic, not a democracy.

I found your blog entry inspiring great things are accomplished in little steps. You are en-lighting your self and thats the best place to start.

I would like to offer you free hosting for your site, indefinitely.

You may hold a position that I do not agree with, but that is exactly why I love America.

Jim Medeiros
Founder

You suck for using gender and race to titularly shock people. Boo.

Thanks for your thoughtful post. While I often encounter people who don't have a clue about politics, you DO have a clue and I am glad you're expressing the truth.

I think that Obama could potentially hurt this country more than Hillary, but its hard to say because Obama is the most vague candidate I've ever heard. Of course, it is working.

I get sick of hearing about Hillary's 35 years experience, technically the first lady isn't a political position. She had 8 years that she wasn't in office. Also, wouldn't it be scary that for possibly 32 years we had either a Bush or a Clinton running the country. I mean come on. We need change, but I'm afraid Obama isn't going to help our economy at all.

I don't see McCain doing any better than those two either. It is a sad election.

I feel that any woman voting for Hillary just because of gender is really narcissistic and does so in the expectation that some of the admittedly historic recognition of feminine prowess will boost her own esteem among males. Men admittedly have not made a great showing, by and large, when it comes to presidents, and a woman should, by all means, have an equal chance at the job, but it should be one of such outstanding quality in all areas of essential prerequisites that she will set the standard for all women who follow her in the pursuit of a major leadership role. Hillary Clinton does not qualify in these terms. The first woman in the Oval Office must be more than just "ready on Day One." She must stand on tiptoe throughout her presidency, displaying wisdom and acute discernment at every turn, not judging right by its political expediency but by the sum total of the consequences to all concerned. She must balance tact with candor, mercy with condemnation, flexibility with strength and power with humitily. If she stumbles badly, she will be excoriated not for her personal failings but for her gender, and it will be the last time in a VERY long time that another woman has a shot at attempting to scale the political mountain to the top. In the meantime, Barack Obama is the best prospect on the horizon, and we should not lose this chance to get someone of his stature in the White House. Beyond that, we have not had any examples of truly outstanding performance by a woman in high Administrative office for some time -- and I include Secretary of State Rice. Let's wait till someone worth the gamble comes along. That will happen in time.

My take on Barack Obama's appeal:

One of the more astute pundits, reflecting upon the state of American politics over the last several years, recently remarked in a throw-away line that the poetry had all gone out of it. That may appear to be a strange metaphor, but it is, in fact, very apt. To understand why, it is necessary to understand the nature of poetry and the effect it has on the human spirit.
Unlike prose, which more often than not merely describes and relates, a poem – a real poem – means. It cuts through the mundane to the essence of things. It reaches into where we live, jolting into acute awareness a sudden recognition of our own inner being. “Yes!” we say to the poet. “Yes, that is exactly how I feel too! You have found me out and opened this bond between us that validates who I am, and who I am is no longer alone in the universe!” Put another way, poetry is a spark that lights a candle within us, illuminating the darkness that was isolation, revealing assets and potentials of which we had previously been ignorant and connecting us to kindred souls.
Following the deaths of Martin Luther King, of John and Bobby Kennedy and the defeat of Eugene McCarthy, those of us who had been summoned by them to greater heights of personal endeavor by the vision of loftier goals than had previously been set for our generation were thrust back by the forces of prosaic business as usual. That is not to say progress wasn’t subsequently made in some areas, but it came without a sense of triumph and pride, for it rode in on the coattails of sheer expediency and pragmatism, achieved not as an expression of right prevailing over wrong, but as a means to what often became selfish and even nefarious ends.
Jesus is alleged to have said that perfect love casts out all fear. Who has not witnessed the truth of this? Men have faced the most daunting obstacles and dangers for the women they love, mothers for their children. Such displays of courage are by no means limited to these commonplace examples. When people speak of being inspired, as many among the young are now inspired by Barack Obama, what they’re expressing is his capacity for casting out of them their fear to act, their fear of failing, their fear of censure, their fear of revealing who they are. This is the “romance” of politics that has been missing for so long: that unspoken but powerful attraction between a leader who is loved and those eager to prove themselves worthy of implementing the causes he promotes.
In the cause lies the nitty-gritty, and it is, of course, essential. But there is nothing to suggest that Obama does not have a firm grasp of all that involves. What he lends to the mundane details of forging policies and putting them into action with what may well be painful effort is the difference between doing a job grudgingly merely to earn a living and doing it joyfully with a sense of fulfillment and pride.
I am happy for our nation’s youth, happy that they have been given this opportunity to identify themselves with something nobler than partisanship and narrow self-interest. The truly great leader is the one who leaves us with smiles on our faces, not with our fists in the air; who stirs us to jubilation, not anger; and who defeats his enemies by treating them like friends.

If Ron Paul's theory of government ever took root, have you considered how basic human services (police, fire protection, education, etc.) would be financed? How about having to pay up front to get help from a privatized 911 responder the way you have to tender co-payment before being seen by a medical provider even if you have insurance? There are areas where all must chip in for the general good of the whole and government alone has the power to enforce even a modicum of stability and assure fundamental opportunity for the "pursuit of happiness." The only way possible to provide those basic necessities is through taxation -- which remains "taxation" even if it's euphemistically called "fees." Obama has been accused of having his head in the clouds, but Ron Paul is so unrealistic in his dream of complete individual "freedom" that it boggles one's mind. He's absolutely right on the war in Iraq, but so is Obama.

Found this through Digg, and like John Oz said, I found this post to be spot on. I'll check out the rest of your blog shortly. I also wanted to mention that I'm another Ron Paul fan who will probably support Obama when it comes time.

Obama voted "yes" to remove immunity from the bill and didn't appear to vote "no" on the second one because absence and "no" are equivalent in a vote that requires a threshold minimum of "Yes" votes to pass.

Please America, please, please vote in Obama. He will change things for the better and is not the empiristic choice that your country fought so hard against.

Sincerely

R
on behalf of Australia.

We are having a structured debate of Hillary vs. Obama for the nomination here: http://www.cruxlux.com/debate/view/1091

Brice -- your explanation makes sense. I'm glad you are troubled by this issue (I know you don't share my concern over the Homegrown Terrorism Bill). :)

Jami -- I agree on the media and your assessment. McCain did support telecom immunity.

Jim -- Thanks! I may take you up on that.

you suck -- I wouldn't need to talk about myself in such descriptive terms if the media wasn't constantly breaking this down into a demographic horse race. It's meant to draw attention to the ridiculousness of fixating on those rather than substantive issues.

Thank you, Charlie and Zack!

73/white/female -- Thanks for your insights. Like most, I am afraid of Ron Paul's dream of completely dismantling so many basic government functions and criminalizing abortion by prosecuting abortion doctors (of course that would be "up to the states" as another commenter pointed out above.)

Amen to your post.

I have been complaining about this behavior for a long time. This Clinton/Bush One two punch of divide and conquer of the Americans for 20 years must end. It really often seems like both families have the same agenda they they are trying to achieve over the long term. Its like chess pieces being positioned on a board against the interest of the American people. Both sides are involved, Dems and Pubs.

Both Bush senior and Bill reduced the military then, Bush Jr tries to stretch them to the limits, and sets up para-military organizations being paid billions and immune from American Law. Bill Clinton used terrorist to spin the media when he wanted to change headlines. In those days we called it "Wagging the Dog" As for Bush.. Well, we all know how Bush has used fear and terror to spin or control the people.

Bush Jr. allowed Corporations who use to tell us to "buy American" toss aside their patriotism and ship American jobs over seas. Bill Clinton is the Father of NAFTA, which is the blue print Corporations use to sell out American workers.

Bush started an unjust war, Clinton signed for it and refuse to apologize for it, and even recently defended her vote. Bush wanted to declare Iran a terrorist Organization, and Clinton approved it with a vote. Thank God that the Intelligence Agencies stepped in and stopped the insanity. If we found out 20 years later that the Bush and Clinton Families were on the same team, I would not be shocked. Jeb is waiting his turn in Florida, and Chelsie is now getting involved in politics so that she can take her shot. We must break up this Dynasty. It is bad for our democracy.

I am glad to see that there are some educated voters out there who are not just blindly following the mainstream media. I was beginning to think that the voters of this country were making this into a gender and race vote rather than one of voting for the person best able to do the work that needs to be done. I personally dont like Hillary, she has six years experience just like Obama. First lady is experience, but only in knowing how to manipulate the system.
I am unsure of Obama, i admit to needing to know more about him. I do not like John McCain at all. Guaranteed to be four more years of Bushco politics. I think Huckabee is out of it just waiting for the time to drop out. Ron Paul has great ideas but they are too radical for the mainstream middle america to swallow. The fact he wont be the republican candidate because the media very rarely mentions him and that he said he would not run as an independent basically takes him off the ticket. As far as returning our civil liberties back to a constitutional basis that is not going to happen unless we get the special interest groups, lobbyists and political parties out of congress. The two party hold on our system of government is stagnating.
I am going to repeat an idea i have heard going around. When it comes time to vote no matter who they are FIRE THE INCUMBENTS do not reelect anyone to any office in any election all the way down to your city councils. Secondly if you have an independent or any other party running other than the democrats or republicans vote for them.
If enough independents get into congress then hold of the democrats and republicans can be broken. If there are no independents then just get rid of the incumbent. Do the same in 2010 and 2012 and there will be an entirely new government in office a voters revolution. Not one shot has to be fired we just have to get rid of the bilge and barnacles we currently have hanging around our government.

I wish that we as a country would actually have a conversation about "security" and "terrorism". What do those words REALLY mean, and what are their implications? Let's take a look at some basics numbers here....

First, 9/11, while horrific and very devastating to our economy, killed about 3,000 people. Terrible, horrible, all of those things, to be sure. What other terroristic acts have taken the live of U.S. citizens? Well, there have been embassy bombings, the USS Cole, and the scattered American who has been caught up in the occassional suicide bomb in a nightclub (Bali) or train (Spain, London). I'm sure there are a couple of other incidents here and there. I'm also not including the Federal building in Oklahoma City, as this was not Al Queda or a foreign group but rather a nutjob with a beef against the government.

My point is this: terrorism, while certainly a problem, has been used to justify all kinds of actions and reductions in our freedoms--not to mention the billions upon billions of dollars that have gone into Iraq. (Afghanistan is where we should have been the whole time, but that's another story.) But look: we've lost maybe a total of 4,000 U.S. lives to terrorism.

How many are we losing daily to poverty?

The probability of any one of us being killed by a terrorist action is FAR less than dying in a plane crash, falling in your bathtub, or crossing the street. Yet, Washington uses the "threat" of terrorism to justify all of its underhanded, sneaky actions all over the world, not to mention the continued loss of liberties here in America.

People: stop letting politicians and the media run your life by instilling fear. Remember George Orwell?? Let's focus on the issues that might actually have an impact on our lives today. Think of what we could have accomplished in America over the last seven years if we had been as determined to improve the lives of U.S. citizens as we were about "rooting out the terrorist where they live"....

They both didn't vote because it would send a clear message of who's side they are on. Since they play both sides of the fence and are sold out, they couldn't vote on the 12th. Probably because both would have voted yes to immunity which is not consistent with the what they say on the campaign trail. Both are worthless. Ron Paul 2008

Avoid cliches like the plague; seek viable alternatives. — William Safire

I can prove anything by statistics--except the truth.--George Canning (1770--1827), British politician

Really well done really.