Oh, good grief. I do so very much hate the political silly season, which is getting ever sillier this particular season.
A proposed constitutional amendment to outlaw the burning of the American flag won the approval Tuesday of a Senate Judiciary Committee split largely along party lines.
Raised by some Republicans as a mark of patriotism this election year, the measure passed on a 11-7 vote and was sent to the full Senate for final congressional approval. While the Senate has repeatedly rejected such measures in the past, both sides predict a razor-close vote this time.
At a guess -- andit is, of course, only a guess -- this amendment, like the other, will fail to acheive cloture, but this time along a more predictable 55-45 vote in favor, rather than the peculiar 48-50 vote against the FMA. I can't imagine that any senator opposed to this amendment wants to be on record as having voted directly against it (although a vote against cloture achieves something of the same goal for the Republicans, who are desperately searching for some "patriotic" issue with which to belabor the Democrats). I mean, if the Republicans need this sort of false issue to unify their conservative base, then doesn't that say that the Republicans' actual issues and positions are the problem in the first place? And doesn't it strongly suggest that they're trying to distract their constituents in a move that's profoundly insulting to said constituents' intelligence? "Hey, look over here! Flag burning amendment! Patriotism! Woo-hoo! Pay no attention to the bankrupt positions laying over there on the floor, just vote for patriotism, goddammit!"
I would also like to know what the hell Dianne Feinstein was thinking to vote for the measure. Not that it would have made any difference, but still. The hell?
Posted by iain at July 23, 2004 02:01 AM
