Democratic Convention - Who Was Nominated?

 

At Some Point You've Made Enough Money

Thank You Letter to the Left

Dear Left:

It is always nice to hear your sweet and consoling words whenever a person of the right passes away. It’s refreshing to hear the kind words about those with whom you disagree.

However, these kind words are always missing while those people are alive or in a position to influence. People like George HW Bush and Mitt Romney are dismissed as racist, sexist, homophobic haters when they are in or running for office.

After leaving office, the ignoramus you compared to Hitler, George W Bush, was lauded as thoughtful, restrained and even a genuinely nice guy. Heck, he almost rose to genius status when he assessed Trump's abilities by saying, "Wow, this guy really doesn’t understand the job of president." Amazing how tolerant you became of this hating, racist, bigoted, sexist pig when he was no longer in a position of power.

This is a problem. You demonize and seek to destroy when you should be battling ideas. Everyone you disagree with is bashed as stupid, ignorant, mean-spirited, war-mongering, selfish, greedy, hateful, nativist, racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, intolerant, fascist, misogynistic and hypocritical - until they die or are no longer in a position of influence. Then you praise them.

This is a big part of the reason we have Trump in the White House. Because you can’t help yourself and have to be mean demonizers instead of talking about the issues. And I get it. It works. There are fields full of sheeple out there who hear your accusations and don't dig deep enough to know better. But your Johnny-come-lately hagiographic accolades shed light on your unprincipled tactics.

As always, thanks for the nice compliment frosting on a cake of venomous hate. Reaching across the aisle to shake the hand of the former hate-filled bigot is really big of you. But shame on you for giving us Trump.

It Wasn't A Disgruntled Movie Critic?

Benghazi was first dismissed as a movie review gone bad. Then it took years for her to finally admit that the murders and invasion of an embassy wasn't just the thoughtful outrage of dissatisfied movie buffs. And then she brushed it all under the rug by asking, "What difference, at this point, does it make?”

With the Colorado Springs shooting, she tweets at 3:36 PM, 1 hr and 16 mins before the shooter was even taken into custody, that "Today and every day, we #StandWithPP." How did she so quickly divine the motives of this shooter? And why didn't she first assume that he was an angry movie critic?

Who Are The Neanderthal Bigots?

It really isn't about a black man's way of thinking or a Latina woman's perspective, it is about who is a leftist. More on this here.

The left isn't really interested in women's advancement, they are interested in leftist women's advancement. The left isn't really interested in black's advancement, they are interested in leftist black's advancement. The left isn't really interested in homosexual's advancement, they are interested in leftist homosexual's advancement. This is why any of these groups and others on the right are mocked and ridiculed by the left. This is why the left feels comfortable mocking and making racist comments about blacks such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, JC Watts, Juan Williams, Clarence Thomas. (Juan Williams being a particularly pertinent example since he is a man of the left.) Similarly, leftists feel no guilt or shame about their own sexist impulses when they dismiss the woman of the right, or their homophobic comments about right leaning gays, or any other group they claim to care about when it deviates from the leftist mantra.

...the left is not interested in intellect per se, but is interested in leftist intellectuals.

The most vile, sexist and racist epithets are hurled at anyone on the right no matter what their educational pedigree is. Feminism, racial sensitivity, decency, nuance and any number of other concerns are kicked to the curb when leftism is jilted.

Anything can be said about those on the right. And leftists can be as sexist, homophobic, racist, bigoted, mean-spirited and repugnant as they want. They claim to be none of it while doing all of it.

Jonah Goldberg's article deals with the inanity of the racial aspects of this double standard.

Obama v Obama

              [Click image to enlarge]

In 2011, President Obama had this to say:

After taking office, I announced a new strategy that would end our combat mission in Iraq and remove all of our troops by the end of 2011. So today, I can report that, as promised, the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year.

And in 2012 his own Twitter post was pretty braggadocios about his involvement:

FACT: In 2008, Barack Obama said he would end the war in Iraq, and he kept his promise. http://t.co/V5wyw6uV
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 9, 2012

But now he is perplexed about how this all transpired:

What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision.

This video shows how he hasn't been entirely clear over the years about whether he has had anything at all to do with ending American involvement in Iraq:




As Jonah Goldberg notes:

It’s only now that the downside critics warned about for years is materializing that he suddenly feels the need to explain the invisible asterisk he put on all of his statements. It reminds me of the years he spent going around telling everyone they can keep their health plan if they want.

None of this was too difficult to decipher. This thought about leaving from 2011. One wonders if he will disavow the Afghanistan drawdowns too.

Democratic Sophism

Democrats are good at wording things in the worst possible light to paint their opponents as dark-hearted haters who are racist, sexist and homophobic to boot.  The headline below is just such an example:

The story in HuffPo.

Of course this all assumes that the economy is static and not dynamic.  But couldn't a similar headline have been written for Obamacare:

Source: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341589/gao-report-obamacare-adds-62-trillion-long-term-deficit-andrew-stiles

War on Women

Another example of how memes would look if the right used the same tactics as the left:

The Washington Monument Gambit

Washington Monument Gambit

Encountered this shutdown screen at the USGS site. Apparently I underestimated the manpower requirements for website links.

I Don't Know

The White House is about to get hit by the biggest tsunami since the Iran-Contra affair, maybe since Watergate. [The President] is trapped, immobilized by his own stay-the-course campaign strategy. Can he escape the massive tidal waves? Maybe. But at this point, it's not clear how.

If today's investigative shockers are true, it's hard to avoid concluding that responsibility goes straight to the top, both in the [agency involved] and the White House, and that varying degrees of blame can be ascribed to officials up and down the chain of command.

That was how the reporting went for Abu Ghraib. But now we are in a brave new world when the buck stops anywhere but at the President's desk.

When the story is targeting political opposition with the heavy hand of the IRS, blame it on Bush because it was the guy he appointed that was in charge when the IRS targeted people aligned with Bush (seems like Bush would be praised for appointing such a bipartisan 'company man' who was willing to cross political lines, but who can understand this logic?).

When the story is misleading the American people about Benghazi, it is just a witch hunt by a vast right-wing conspiracy. But when others get information from intelligence agencies and act on it, it is a war crime. Apparently it is no longer fashionable to ask, "What did the President know and when did he know it?" There was a time when Ms. Clinton was very interested in just this sort of question. She also noted that "The goal of such an examination should not be to assign blame, but to find out all of the facts." But what difference does it make now?

When the story is the President's Justice Department doing illegal wire taps, it is justified because of national security. No problems with Patriot Act style intrusions here. Too bad Holder wasn't a Bush appointee; the assignment of blame would be over. (Make that 'undocumented' wire tap since illegal is somewhat out of fashion these days.  And maybe we should go with 'domestic contingency operation' instead of wire tapping while we're at it.)

That Bush appointee should have just said, "I don't know."  Come to think of it, Donald Rumsfeld might have been well served to use Holder's tactic when pressed about Abu Ghraib:

But it is hard to hold the President accountable for any of this. After all, he only just heard about it in the paper. As Steyn wrote:

...the Internal Revenue Service had spent two years targeting his political enemies until he "learned about it from the same news reports that I think most people learned about this." Like you, all he knows is what he reads in the papers. Which is odd, because his Justice Department is bugging those same papers, so you’d think he’d at least get a bit of a heads-up. But no doubt the fact that he’s wiretapping the Associated Press was also entirely unknown to him until he read about it in the Associated Press.

How is it that the most intelligent, smartest, most caring, "articulate, bright, clean, nice-looking" President only finds out about scandals in his administration by reading about them in the paper? One recalls that the former "Presi-dunce" held to account for every bad thing that happened on the planet up to and including hatred of America.

One can only imagine if Obama had been the one reading to school children on morning of 9/11 2001. I wonder how much time would have elapsed until he finally read about that day's events in the evening edition.

Dishonoring Others With Lies

It is amazing that Cheney was even able to speak, what with that file in his mouth to sharpen his teeth and all. I mean he is unmitigated evil, so this really shouldn't be surprising, right?

Well, hold on. I went to a Americans Against the Tea Party to see what all the fuss was all about. A left wing site like this should give me the unvarnished scoop on this most recent utterance of horror from the evil one.

Their headline shouted out the disturbing wickedness: "Dick Cheney Tells Fox News That Benghazi Is Worst Disaster In His Lifetime (Video)." They embedded the video and even kindly posted a transcript of Darth Cheney's words. Let's watch what the portal to hell actually said:

Huh? He didn't say it was the worst disaster. Maybe, as the AATTP so kindly informs, Cheney "mumbles through" this so it was hard to understand. Let's look at their own transcript of the screeching weasel of Hades:

It’s one of the worst .. incidents in frankly that I can recall in my career.

Either they can't read, they can't hear or they are liars. Take your pick. They have no problem misrepresenting what was actually said even after they post the video and the transcript that contradicts their statements - now that's chutzpah. I wonder how often this occurs in the name of partisan zeal? (Rhetorical question.) I guess they don't share the President's feeling that "We dishonor them when we turn things like this into a political circus."? Apparently telling lies is neither dishonoring nor political big top material but calling attention to lies is.

One of the joys of being on the left is never having to say you're sorry. You can misquote somebody you disagree with and attach video and written evidence that you have misquoted them without suffering any shame or embarrassment. Anything for political gain. Destroy the opposition at all costs.

But at least Cheney couldn't say that the Benghazi bacchanal was the “Most Audacious Plan” In 500 Years. That honorific has already been doled out.

Maddow, Maher and High Taxes

View on YouTube

Maddow is loathsome with her meanness and purposeful misrepresentation. Of course, "the big problems in America right now are that rich people do not have enough money," and that "poor people have too much access to affordable health care." What a despicably demagogic representation of those she disagrees with. Can you imagine so misrepresenting those you disagree with? And that many applauded her is shameful. Is fear of discussing the real issues what causes her to set up her fantastical straw men and knock them down?

Wouldn't this be like saying that because the left supports largely unrestricted abortion and because blacks abort at a rate 5 times greater than whites, that the left hates blacks, are afraid of them and is engaging in genocide to control their numbers?

I struggle to know if it is rank hatred, a who-cares-what-I-say-about-them-win-at-all-costs mentality or complete derangement that motivates her distortions. I normally don't waste any time listening to her degeneracy.

But what follows is priceless. Bill Maher concedes that the rich do 'pay the freight'. This isn't remarkable; anyone who can read knows that. But what is remarkable is that he said, "I just saw these statistics. I mean, something like 70 percent."

Really? Just now saw these statistics? Is he willfully ignorant? How is it possible that a man who has a political commentary show had not absorbed this before now?

I guess Diana Mutz, professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, was correct when she concluded that those with the highest levels of education have the lowest levels of exposure to people with conflicting points of view. This is because universities are largely leftist seminaries and intellectual ghettos. The left lives in an insular cocoon where they only listen to each other and just dismiss those with whom they disagree with mockery, name calling and the sort of trite, twisted deceit that Ms Maddow demonstrates here.

I won't hold my breath for the Maddows of the world to jeer, mock and deride Maher as a mean old rich white guy who thinks America's problem is that he doesn't have enough money or that the poor have too much access to affordable health care.

Intellectual honesty would demand it. But that's precisely why it won't happen.

Sequester Scare

Thomas Sowell wrote,

Back in my teaching days, many years ago, one of the things I liked to ask the class to consider was this: Imagine a government agency with only two tasks: (1) building statues of Benedict Arnold and (2) providing life-saving medications to children. If this agency’s budget were cut, what would it do?

The answer, of course, is that it would cut back on the medications for children. Why? Because that would be what was most likely to get the budget cuts restored. If they cut back on building statues of Benedict Arnold, people might ask why they were building statues of Benedict Arnold in the first place.

This is a nice illustration of what is known as the Washington Monument Gambit. That is, when making decisions about budget cuts, do the most harm with the most painful cuts possible so that you can reinstate the spending that you want.

The Whitehouse is unleashing WMG on the populous for political gain. And if that wasn't enough, as Sowell continues,

President Obama has said that he would veto legislation to let him choose what to cut. That should tell us everything we need to know about the utter cynicism of this glib man.

He doesn't want to make his own plan (sequestration) work, but wants to inflict pain on the poor and vulnerable in order to get his way. Possibly because that plan was never intended to work budgetarily, but was a political maneuver to check mate the GOP.

Harming the most needy is usually the sort of thing rich Republicans are accused of – whether they have the power to do such things or not – and here the President is actually doing it right before our eyes precisely because he has the power to inflict pain on the electorate.

Romney the Despicable Bigot

Soooo. President Obama cracks wise about Romney carrying things on his car that aren't windmills:

I know he's had other things on his car.

Romney volleys back with:

No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate.

Meanwhile, VP Biden is making references to Republicans wanting to put blacks back in chains:

...going to put y’all back in chains.

Nancy Pelosi chimes in with (previously noted):

You could depend on the government for one thing — it was about, you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this is the E. coli club.

A Democratic SuperPAC blames Romney for killing a woman with cancer:

And who is "resorting to some of the basest, most despicable bigotry we can imagine" and "scraping the very bottom"? Of course it is Romney.

I guess this is just the sort of filth Rep Rangel was talking about when he said,
"If you want to win, you’ve got to play this filthy, obscene game."

Oh Mother! Reid is a Liar.

Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones says that Harry Reid is a liar and contemptable. Who are we to argue?

It's Time to Stop Celebrating Harry Reid
—By Kevin Drum | Tue Aug. 7, 2012 7:31 AM PDT

Here is Harry Reid on Mitt Romney's taxes: "I was told by an extremely credible source that Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years." PolitiFact rates this a Pants on Fire lie.

An awful lot of liberals disagree. Typical reasons include sophistry ("PolitiFact doesn't know that Romney paid any taxes"); revenge ("Romney's been telling lots of lies, so why shouldn't we?"); disingenuousness ("All Romney has to do is release his tax returns to clear this up"); or lying as a virtue ("Politics ain't beanbag").

Come on, folks. Reid didn't say I'll bet Romney didn't pay any taxes. He didn't say he talked to someone familiar with high earners who told him Maybe Romney won't release his returns because he didn't pay any taxes. He made a flat statement of fact. He said he has an "extremely credible source," which in this context means someone with direct knowledge of Romney's taxes who decided to pick up the phone and dish about it to Harry Reid. Does anyone really believe this? Really? Then, as if that weren't enough, Reid made his little bluff even less plausible by deciding that Romney didn't just avoid all taxes for one year, he avoided them for ten years. Yeah, baby, that's the ticket! Put these two things together with the fact that Reid hasn't even tried to make his fairy tale sound believable (it's just some guy he talked to) and this is not a story that a five-year-old would credit. It's just Reid making stuff up in order to put pressure on Romney, and I think we all know it.

Can I prove this? Of course not. Given the epistemological limits of proof, I can't prove Barack Obama was born in the United States either. Nevertheless, I feel safe saying that anyone who claims to have an "extremely credible source" that Obama was born elsewhere is either crazy or lying. The same is true for Reid, and Reid isn't crazy. It's simply vanishingly unlikely that he's telling the truth, and no one — not liberal or conservative — would spend even ten seconds on a story so patently far-fetched if it were anybody but Reid and the background were anything but the frenzy of a presidential campaign.

Politically, of course, Reid's ploy has worked like a charm. Romney's taxes are back in the news and Romney's ham-handed handling of the whole affair has kept it there. And that gives everyone a fifth reason to cheer on Reid: the end justifies the means.

Take a deep breath, folks. This is contemptible stuff and it's not just business as usual. We've spent too many years berating the tea partiers for getting on bandwagons like this to get sucked into it ourselves the first time it's convenient. It's time to quit cheering on Reid and get off this particular bus.

Couple this with Bob Schieffer comparing the obsession with Mitt Romney's tax returns to the McCarthy hunt for Commies and it starts to look like the left is growing weary of this smear too.

This was quite a bold step for Schieffer and good for him for at least trying to make the point that this is a witch hunt. But Ann Coulter clarifies that McCarthy was at least correct in his assertions as compared with Reid's baseless accusation.

New Yorker Cartoon by Richard Decker

But even with this history lesson by Coulter, the bigger point is still standing unnoticed in the middle of the room, as pachydermic ideas tend to do. This 'when did you stop beating your wife' style accusation (Lawyers refer to this method as "ringing the bell," because you can't un-ring a bell.) is about as un-American a concept as ever existed. It makes a mockery of the presumption of innocence.

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many nations. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution,...

That Reid and many others on the left are not disturbed by unsubstantiated accusations and asking the accused to prove the negative is depressing. The burden of proof is with Reid, not Romney. Furthermore, he understands that the IRS would have already referred Romney to the Department of Justice if anything illegal had occurred.

Reid is not stupid. But that he so recklessly tosses aside basic rule of law for political gain demonstrates that political victory is a higher value for him than truth.

Right Is Evil Redux

Just sit back and drink it in. First Goldberg:

As Noah Glyn noted the other day, apparently Nancy Pelosi is not content to let Harry Reid win the title of shabbiest congressional leader uncontested. She says Republicans want to poison children with E. coli. Or something.

“I say to [Republicans], do you have children that breathe air? Do you have grandchildren that drink water?,” Pelosi asked. “I’m a mom and I have five kids . . . as a mom I was vigilant about food safety, right moms? If you could depend on the government for one thing it was that you had to be able to trust the water that our kids drank and the food that they ate. But this is the E. coli club. They do not want to spend money to do that.”

Link to video.

The dishonesty and/or stupidity of all this is really quite breathtaking -- and obvious. First of all, you could cut government funding down to 1950 levels and still have money for food safety. But this is what liberals do. They metaphorically lash children to the fenders of government so that the budget cutting blade must slice through them first. Then, after insanely putting them in harm's way, they proclaim it is the sane budget cutters who seek to harm children. In fairness, sometimes liberals hold the young human shields in reserve and put firehouses, historic monuments, and old-age homes outside the budgetary walls of the fiscal keep. And, again, they declare that the fiscally sane want to get rid of firefighters and the Washington Monument -- and not, say, the Export-Import Bank or agricultural subsidies.

But this is an old complaint. What is infuriating about Pelosi's comments is the silence that greets them from the same cloying mob of bleaters and emoters who demanded a "new tone" not so long ago. How is saying the Republicans want to kill your children less "extreme" and irresponsible than anything uttered by Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin? Why hasn't it occurred to all of these media outlets currently reporting the news that Jared Loughner has pled guilty to mass murder to do a story on how the new tone they demanded hasn't materialized with Nancy's Pelosi's repugnant musings as exhibit A? Perhaps it is because the whole "new tone" censorial fraud was always aimed rightward. When liberals accuse conservatives of wanting children to die, that's hardball politics. When conservatives put banal targets on congressional maps, that's incitement to murder.

And then Steyn:

Jonah, it's not just that Mitt Romney hasn't paid any taxes since 1975 and that Bain Capital is the planet's largest distributor of E. coli which it manufactures in petri dishes offshored to Mitt's safe deposit box in the Cayman Islands, but that Mitt will kill your loved ones five years after his minions lay you off. Just because he can. He doesn't have to meet you. You might show no outward signs of ill health. You might even have a job and health insurance. But you bear the Mark of Mitt, and decades later when you keel over and expire it'll be because he once laid off your brother, or your cousin, or your hairdresser's sister, or someone who once heard something from someone who knows Harry Reid.

Don't get hung up on details, folks. Details are how the vampire capitalist seduces you into surrendering to his vise-like death grip. Remember, when Obama was a youngster, he fought for social justice and opened up a Jakarta dog shelter in his digestive tract. But the young Romney traveled around Europe opening numbered bank accounts in Zurich and biting women in the neck.

So don't fall for esoteric concepts like details. Details are for subprime mortgages. Like David Axelrod says, keep to the big picture here. Mitt Kills. Warning From The Surgeon General: Voting For Romney Will Result In Death. Voting For Romney While Pregnant Will Result In Your Unborn Child's Death. Mitt = Death. Silence = Acceptance.

And when Mitt responds by chuckling and saying, "Well, I can't comment because a mass killing spree's not part of my campaign, and Nancy and Harry and the oppo-research lads at that super PAC are all good friends of mine", that just shows how vicious and murderous he is.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) recently slandered Nuclear Regulatory Commission member Bill Magwood, an African-American, as “one of the most unethical, prevaricating, incompetent people I’ve dealt with.” Reid, furious with Magwood because of his support for the Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste repository in Reid’s state, also called Magwood a “treacherous, miserable liar,” “a first-class rat,” and a “sh-t stirrer.”

But there really isn't anything new to report here. There is a legacy of this kind of mean-spirited character assassination and Right Is Evil stuff. Remember when Howard Dean when he was Chairman of the Democratic Party said, "Our moral values, in contradistinction to the Republicans', is we don't think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night."

NY Math

Uh, really? Math not really the good Mayor Bloomberg's strong suit? Using their numbers yields the following:

I guess this is why he can say something as silly as, "Is purchasing two 16 oz sodas too much of an inconvenience to help reverse a national health catastrophe?"

Shouldn't the calories in a 32oz be exactly twice those in a 16 oz? Somehow 7, 12 and 32 oz cups contain 4% more calories in NY. And when you huddle up 64 oz of soda in NY the calorie bump doubles to 8%.

Apparently there is something quite magical about the 16 oz cup in NY. Another example of the science being settled?

And I guess he doesn't care that it creates twice the waste.

Green Jobs

I guess we are all green now. Green jobs include:

• Manufacturing wind turbines
• Sweeping the floor in a solar panel facility
• Driving a hybrid bus
• Driving any bus
• Putting gas in a bus
• Clerk at a bicycle shop
• Selling antiques at an antique shop
• Selling used goods at a Salvation Army or consignment shops
• Selling rare books and manuscripts
• The teenage kid who works full time at a used record shop
• Manufacturing railroad rolling stock
• Hauling trash
• Oil lobbyists who advocate environmental issues

Issa was asking similar questions back in September of 2011:



Remember, no new jobs are created. They are just now reclassified as "green jobs".

Klavan helps us to understand this complicated matter:

Michael Moore is a 99%'er

Michael Moore denied that he is in the 1%. His proof? Because he says he's not. Amazing.

Apparently he can say anything and not be held to account. Does he really think that just doing a Jedi hand wave will convince the nation that he makes less than $344k/yr? (2009 AGI) Or because he doesn't think of himself in that way, he isn't? His thoughts notwithstanding, I think the IRS considers him to be a one percenter.

Will Moore extend the same wealth exemption to conservatives?




And Russel Simmons isn't in the 1% either. He's in the 100%.



UPDATE: Look for Moore to become more shrill. After making a statement as foolish as this, he will now go all in for socialism.

Who Voted For The Iraq War?

YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA) Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND)	Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN)	McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Chafee (R-RI) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN)	Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Graham (D-FL) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)	Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Stabenow (D-MI) Wellstone (D-MN) Wyden (D-OR)

Source: U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session