• Home
  • Today
  • Advocacy
  • Forum
Donate
  • login
  • register
Home

They need you!

Forum links

  • Recent changes
  • Member list
  • Search
  • Register
Search Forums
 
Advanced Search
Go to Page...

Resources

  • Do I qualify?
  • In-state tuition
  • FAQ
  • Ways to legalize
  • Feedback
  • Contact us

Join our list

National calendar of events

«  

April

  »
S M T W T F S
 
 
 
1
 
2
 
3
 
4
 
5
 
6
 
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
14
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
 
19
 
20
 
21
 
22
 
23
 
24
 
25
 
26
 
27
 
28
 
29
 
30
 
 
 
Sync with this calendar
DAP Forums > DREAM Act > The Lounge

Who flip-flopped on Dream?

  • View
  • Post new reply
  • Thread tools
  • 1
  • 2
  • next ›
#1
10-25-2007, 05:20 PM
Junior Member
From Seattle, Washington
Joined in Apr 2006
25 posts
Sam
0 AP
Although the loss yesterday still causes tremendous amount of pain, but hey! AT LEAST WE GOT A VOTE, which has never happened before. So to certain extent, we ought to be thankful about the progress Dream is making. When I went throguh the voting records from yesterday, I noticed more than a few senators changed their positions on Dream which was very disappointing.

Among them are Specter, Grassley, Crapo, Pryor, Landrieu McCain. They are either current or past co-sponsors of Dream. I was the most disappointed about Specter and McCain's betrayal. I was very surprised to see Crapo and Grassley not voting for us. Although those who vote for the cloture will not be a guaranteed "yea" when the real vote occurs, I am still shocked to see these former allies would not even allow Dream to be debated.

On a positive note, these are also votes we could have had. If we do the math, 52+6 flipfloppers+ absentees, ( Kenneday and Boxer and maybe Dodd?), we would have over 60 votes to proceed.

This election year politics is ugly. How can McCain denounced Dream when he has always been a co-sponsor? This change of mind is saying alot about the person and also how he will be if he becomes a president. I used to admire how McCain is different from his conservative base and gave him a nod. But now we should just call him a big time flip-flopper. Specter's sellout is also disturbing, given that he has always been a strong supporter for Dream and CIR.

Once again, there are also positive signs that show the progress of Dream and where we are at this point. I firmly believe that we will have a good chance if we can convert those who sell out on us to flip-flop back to Dream, then there will be enough votes to overcome this hurdle.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Sam
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Sam
Find all posts by Sam
#2
10-25-2007, 05:25 PM
Senior Member
From Columbia, SC
Joined in Jul 2007
390 posts
mdhfinsc's Avatar
mdhfinsc
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
Although the loss yesterday still causes tremendous amount of pain, but hey! AT LEAST WE GOT A VOTE, which has never happened before. So to certain extent, we ought to be thankful about the progress Dream is making. When I went throguh the voting records from yesterday, I noticed more than a few senators changed their positions on Dream which was very disappointing.

Among them are Specter, Grassley, Crapo, Pryor, Landrieu McCain. They are either current or past co-sponsors of Dream. I was the most disappointed about Specter and McCain's betrayal. I was very surprised to see Crapo and Grassley not voting for us. Although those who vote for the cloture will not be a guaranteed "yea" when the real vote occurs, I am still shocked to see these former allies would not even allow Dream to be debated.

On a positive note, these are also votes we could have had. If we do the math, 52+6 flipfloppers+ absentees, ( Kenneday and Boxer and maybe Dodd?), we would have over 60 votes to proceed.

This election year politics is ugly. How can McCain denounced Dream when he has always been a co-sponsor? This change of mind is saying alot about the person and also how he will be if he becomes a president. I used to admire how McCain is different from his conservative base and gave him a nod. But now we should just call him a big time flip-flopper. Specter's sellout is also disturbing, given that he has always been a strong supporter for Dream and CIR.

Once again, there are also positive signs that show the progress of Dream and where we are at this point. I firmly believe that we will have a good chance if we can convert those who sell out on us to flip-flop back to Dream, then there will be enough votes to overcome this hurdle.
That's one thing, I still don't understand why President BUSH announced he would veto this bill, I don't understand this people, He wanted a CIR..I think he'd say: or is everthing or nothing at all.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
mdhfinsc
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mdhfinsc
Find all posts by mdhfinsc
#3
10-25-2007, 05:26 PM
Senior Member
From neighbor of someone from alipac, CA
Joined in Sep 2007
1,664 posts
greentea
10 AP
flipflops hmm..
Pete Domenici

former co-sponsors that switched..
Mike Crapo
Mark Pryor

co-sponsors that did not vote..
John McCain(R)
Barbara Boxer(D)
Ted Kennedy(D)
Chris Dodd(D)

that were a toss-up but voted no..
Cornyn
Grassley
Specter
Landrieu
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
greentea
View Public Profile
Send a private message to greentea
Find all posts by greentea
#4
10-25-2007, 05:28 PM
Senior Member
From neighbor of someone from alipac, CA
Joined in Sep 2007
1,664 posts
greentea
10 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdhfinsc

That's one thing, I still don't understand why President BUSH announced he would veto this bill, I don't understand this people, He wanted a CIR..I think he'd say: or is everthing or nothing at all.
Source? I read it wasn't supported but it wasn't officially going to be veto'd
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
greentea
View Public Profile
Send a private message to greentea
Find all posts by greentea
#5
10-25-2007, 05:29 PM
Guest
n/a posts
Jourbalist
AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdhfinsc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam
Although the loss yesterday still causes tremendous amount of pain, but hey! AT LEAST WE GOT A VOTE, which has never happened before. So to certain extent, we ought to be thankful about the progress Dream is making. When I went throguh the voting records from yesterday, I noticed more than a few senators changed their positions on Dream which was very disappointing.

Among them are Specter, Grassley, Crapo, Pryor, Landrieu McCain. They are either current or past co-sponsors of Dream. I was the most disappointed about Specter and McCain's betrayal. I was very surprised to see Crapo and Grassley not voting for us. Although those who vote for the cloture will not be a guaranteed "yea" when the real vote occurs, I am still shocked to see these former allies would not even allow Dream to be debated.

On a positive note, these are also votes we could have had. If we do the math, 52+6 flipfloppers+ absentees, ( Kenneday and Boxer and maybe Dodd?), we would have over 60 votes to proceed.

This election year politics is ugly. How can McCain denounced Dream when he has always been a co-sponsor? This change of mind is saying alot about the person and also how he will be if he becomes a president. I used to admire how McCain is different from his conservative base and gave him a nod. But now we should just call him a big time flip-flopper. Specter's sellout is also disturbing, given that he has always been a strong supporter for Dream and CIR.

Once again, there are also positive signs that show the progress of Dream and where we are at this point. I firmly believe that we will have a good chance if we can convert those who sell out on us to flip-flop back to Dream, then there will be enough votes to overcome this hurdle.
That's one thing, I still don't understand why President BUSH announced he would veto this bill, I don't understand this people, He wanted a CIR..I think he'd say: or is everthing or nothing at all.
They had compelling reasons for wanting to veto it though. They say it could lead to a large scale documentation fraud. There was a statement I read in papers online and I understand why he'd veto it. Doesn't mean I want him to veto, just means that Durbin should come up with a more hardcore version of Dream so it doesn't look like amnesty.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Jourbalist
#6
10-25-2007, 05:45 PM
Senior Member
From Columbia, SC
Joined in Jul 2007
390 posts
mdhfinsc's Avatar
mdhfinsc
0 AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentine
They had compelling reasons for wanting to veto it though. They say it could lead to a large scale documentation fraud. There was a statement I read in papers online and I understand why he'd veto it. Doesn't mean I want him to veto, just means that Durbin should come up with a more hardcore version of Dream so it doesn't look like amnesty.
What kind of documentation fraud, we all have to prove we went to a US public schools.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
mdhfinsc
View Public Profile
Send a private message to mdhfinsc
Find all posts by mdhfinsc
#7
10-25-2007, 06:54 PM
Guest
n/a posts
Jourbalist
AP
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdhfinsc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Valentine
They had compelling reasons for wanting to veto it though. They say it could lead to a large scale documentation fraud. There was a statement I read in papers online and I understand why he'd veto it. Doesn't mean I want him to veto, just means that Durbin should come up with a more hardcore version of Dream so it doesn't look like amnesty.
What kind of documentation fraud, we all have to prove we went to a US public schools.
I have no idea of what kind of documentation fraud. White House said it. If I had to guess what kind of fraud, I'd say people will try to make up fake hs transcripts in order to prove they were here. I don't even know if you could do such thing.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Jourbalist
#8
10-25-2007, 06:56 PM
Senior Member
Joined in Jun 2007
2,690 posts
CIR_DREAM2009
210 AP
Its ironic that the arguments the White House used against the Dream Act were the arguments anti-immigration groups used against his CIR bill.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
CIR_DREAM2009
View Public Profile
Send a private message to CIR_DREAM2009
Find all posts by CIR_DREAM2009
#9
10-25-2007, 07:08 PM
Moderator
From New York City
Joined in May 2007
1,249 posts
RahmanIV
0 AP
Landrieu is the Senator who is in the greatest danger of losing her seat next election. She had to shore up her conservative base in Louisiana. I don't blame her for voting no. Though she does look quite attractive.
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
RahmanIV
View Public Profile
Send a private message to RahmanIV
Find all posts by RahmanIV
#10
10-26-2007, 03:45 AM
Senior Member
From The Westcoast
Joined in Jul 2007
999 posts
Ed's Avatar
Ed
0 AP
we won 52-44 but not enough to get the majority which sucks!. i thought the White House was not going to do that, since last time i heard bush was for the dream act
  • Reply With Quote
Post your reply or quote more messages.
Ed
View Public Profile
Send a private message to Ed
Find all posts by Ed
  • 1
  • 2
  • next ›


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Contact Us - DREAM Act Portal - Archive - Top
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.