Once again, Senator Chuck Colgan has abandoned his Democratic colleagues and voted with the Republicans. This time, it was on an amendment to the budget to prohibit any funds from going to Planned Parenthood. The vote was a 20-20 tie, allowing LG Bill Bolling to cast his first vote of the session.
Somebody tell me again why we worked so hard to get a Democratic majority.
UPDATE: Colgan says it is because of his views on abortion.
I’d like to think that Colgan would suffer party consequences for this, but I fear not.
Posted by MB | Wednesday, February 27, 2008, 10:00 pmWell, it is his pro-life view that got him elected…you run Chuck Colgan as he is in that Senate district as a pro-choice candidate and he would have been taken down in 2003 if not 2007…
If you want to blame someone, look to Warner and Kaine. By numerous accounts I have heard Colgan was ready to step down in 2003, but Warner convinced him to run again. In 2007 Kaine urged him to run again to help get a democrat majority.
Posted by Bwana | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 8:12 amIrony of irony…..the House rejected the amendment (as they did to all Senate amendments)…so Cooch’s amendment is dead…LOL
Posted by not glenn croshaw | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 8:13 amOK, but if the D majority doesn’t act like one, what good does it do? Yes, the Ds get the committee chairs, which theoretically allows the Ds to set the agenda. But it hasn’t worked so well, has it?
Posted by vjp | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 8:48 amI don’t disagree with you…but Saslaw and Kaine wanted a majority bad, so they cut the deal-and now they get to live with it.
But on the subject on the non-functioning majority, this might give you an idea of how the GOP has felt about Chichester and what’s his name in Winchester…
Posted by Bwana | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 9:07 amPlease let’s not forget that we’re the big tent party now; Bwana’s right, we did broaden it a little to make room for the man currently occupying Sen. Colgan’s seat. That means he can depart from the party line every once in a while and still “act like [a Democrat].” If he’s doing what he thinks is right, I can’t really fault him for a couple of disagreements.
I do disagree with him on this because Planned Parenthood does a whole lot of good things for the Commonwealth that have nothing to do with abortions–like *preventing* unplanned pregnancies so we have *fewer* of them. I wish Saslaw had tried to broker some middle ground between the rest of the Dem caucus and Colgan to see what we could do about supporting those endeavors without funding the things Colgan finds distasteful.
Posted by anonymous | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 9:46 amI feel you pain, Vivian. Now you know have the Republicans have felt with Bush.
We had a Republican President, House, and Senate, and what did we get? Interference in the STATE schools, vast expansion of Medicare, and more spending.
THAT’S why the Republicans lost in 2006 — they stopped acting like Republicans.
Maybe the Libertarians are right, and we should just call them all RepublicRATS.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 11:55 amI hope that Kaine uses the line-item veto to defeat this amendment.
If any of those legislators, especially Colgan, really wanted to decrease the number of abortions, they would support Planned Parenthoods, whose main message is PREVENTION and EDUCATION!
I’m sad, but not surprised. There are three other anti-choice bills being heard this morning in committee.
Posted by idealistlefty | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 12:11 pmHilarious. That’s kind of like saying the USSR failed because they stopped acting like Communists. Nope, conservatives gained control of everything, and then used that chance to show what a spectacular failure conservative policies are.
Posted by MB | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 1:05 pmNope, conservatives gained control of everything, and then used that chance to show what a spectacular failure conservative policies are.
Conservatives in control of everything? Ever hear of the Senate? Would massive spending increases, greater federal oversight of education, a new entitlement program and interventionist foreign policy be the conservative policies you’re talking about?
Posted by Brian | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 1:53 pmTHe thing is, BM, the Societ Union implemented all of the policies you liberals want — gun control, suppression of religion, universal health care, guaranteed employment, “cradle-to-grave” care, etc.
Yeah, that worked.
Posted by Anon E. Mouse | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 7:09 pmYes, Brian, the Senate that was controlled by the GOP from 2002-2006, and an equal claim to it in the period immediately before that. You know, along with naming two Supreme Court Justices to an already conservative Court and the most pliable House in our lifetimes. Do you need a review?
And all of those things were fought for and implemented by conservatives so yes, I’d call those “conservative policies”.
I understand. I’d be pretty embarrassed, too. All these years of hard work and big talk only to find out that conservative policies have done more to damage this country than any outside threat ever could. Yeah, I’d even feel a little stupid, at this point (see, e.g., the post above me).
Posted by MB | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 7:28 pmMB,
Your ignorance (feigned or not) is breathtaking.
Posted by Brian | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 8:27 pmKeep hope alive, Brian. Nothing like dedication to a lost cause.
Posted by MB | Thursday, February 28, 2008, 9:57 pm