The Lily Ledbetter Anti-Discrimination bill that we wrote about yesterday was scuttled by Senate Republicans.
Senate Republicans yesterday blocked legislation to make it easier for women and others alleging discrimination to sue their employers over unequal pay, blasting the measure as an attempt by Democrats to score political points before the fall presidential campaign.
The vote was delayed until 6 p.m. so the Democratic presidential contenders could make it back after a day of campaigning in Indiana. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) gave showcase speeches on the Senate floor.
Apparently that vote delay - a pretty minor procedural matter compared to the outrageous stunts GOP senators pulled when they were in charge - is what pissed them off.
"We understand people have to run for president," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said. "But to have the schedule of the Senate completely revolve around the schedule of the Democratic presidential candidates strikes me as particularly ridiculous."
So that was the reason they voted against an anti-discrimination bill?
Sure it was.
No, wait. Kay Bailey Hutchinson from - you guessed it - Texas was, she says, all set to break with the GOP leadership and vote for the bill if only those dictatorial Democrats had been willing to compromise. Darn them anyway.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) said that workers should have more time to complain about unequal pay and that she could have supported the bill if there had been "an opportunity to write it a different way."
"I'm sure [the vote] will be spun as anti-equal pay," Hutchison said, but "there's definitely something I could have voted for."
Even if Mitchie told you not to? Please. The Republicans have been voting in lockstep with the White House for 7 years. In fact, they've got their synchronized voting routine so perfected there have been suggestions they ought to enter it as an Olympic event.
So the Dems wouldn't compromise, huh? OK. Then I guess that's one for them. But then, why didn't it come to a vote - and get passed - since All the Donkeys were there and outnumbered the Pubs?
Ah, there you've got me. The WaPo article doesn't say. Maybe they'd rather see the bill fail so they can run against the GOP intransigence. Hm?
Other Democrats spent much of the day hammering Republicans for opposing the measure, which aims to reverse a Supreme Court ruling from last May. "Politically, it's the dumbest thing they could ever do," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who chairs the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Women "are a majority of the vote," he said. "Issues like this will matter in this election."
They wouldn't be that opportunistic. Would they?
Harry must have given in to yet another GOP threat to filibuster without actually making them do it. How else could they have "blocked" it when the Dems had the votes? If they really wanted to tie the GOP in knots, why not let Bush - whose popularity already rivals that of Ivan the Terrible - veto the damn thing and then hang the veto around all their necks?
Who's doing strategy for the Dems these days, anyway? Frank Luntz?
Comments