(no subject)
May. 11th, 2008 02:19 amMany of us have suspected this for a long time, but now we have proof:
In fairness, this was the result of procedural negativism, a continued attempt by the Republican minority to prevent any real work from being accomplished, so they can later accuse the Democratic majority of failing tostomp them hard enough get anything done, rather than being an actual vote against mothers. Rumor has it that at least half of the Republicans actually had mothers at one time, after all.
For all you mothers and children of mothers, Happy Mother's Day (even if you're not ina place that celebrates it)!
Republicans Vote Against Moms; No Word Yet on Puppies, Kittens
On Wednesday afternoon, the House had just voted, 412 to 0, to pass H. Res. 1113, "Celebrating the role of mothers in the United States and supporting the goals and ideals of Mother's Day," when Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-Kan.), rose in protest.
"Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote," he announced.
Rep. Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), who has two young daughters, moved to table Tiahrt's request, setting up a revote. This time, 178 Republicans cast their votes against mothers.
It has long been the custom to compare a popular piece of legislation to motherhood and apple pie. Evidently, that is no longer the standard. Worse, Republicans are now confronted with a John Kerry-esque predicament: They actually voted for motherhood before they voted against it.
In fairness, this was the result of procedural negativism, a continued attempt by the Republican minority to prevent any real work from being accomplished, so they can later accuse the Democratic majority of failing to
For all you mothers and children of mothers, Happy Mother's Day (even if you're not ina place that celebrates it)!