Posted: 3/2/2004 6:38:25 PM EDT
|
If the Democrats really thought that an ammendment to the immunity bill was the best and only way to get the AWB renewal passed than why in the world was it voted down 90 to 9 in the end? Furthermore, why would they have voted it down after achieving sucsess with the renewal ammendment if this would effectivly destroy any possibility of having a renewal or new AWB voted on before the sunset, as many people here are claiming? I bring this up because I have read several times here that the Democrats planned their whole AWB strategy around getting it renewed in an attachment to the immunity bill, hence the return of Edwards and Kerry. If this was the case, then I would expect that once the ammendment was attached that the Democrats would actually push hard for the passage of the complete bill. Is it possibile that another new bill could be introduced for a stand alone renewal or expansion before the sunset in 94, or even as an ammendment to other legislation? I know this had been talked about much, but no where have I seen these issues explained. |
|
[adjusts tinfoil] hell, I'd go one further, and say the Dem gun-grabbers attached their AWB amendment to the lawsuit bill [i]specifically[/i] to tank that piece of legislation - exactly the result they got. And they are still free to endlessly add the amendment to any other piece of legislation they care to, until it passes, or until they no longer occupy their Senate seats. |