The Democrat trick behind Senator Murkowski’s ‘present’ vote – IOTW Report

The Democrat trick behind Senator Murkowski’s ‘present’ vote

AT: Under the cover of doing a favor for Senator Steve Daines, Senator Lisa Murkowski actually helped the Democrats more.

Yesterday the Senate confirmed Brett Kavanaugh as the 114th Justice of the Supreme Court.  The final tally was 50 to 48, with 99 Senators voting to achieve that outcome.

The mathematics are odd because Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) switched her “nay” vote to “present.” She says she did this to accommodate her colleague Senator Steve Daines (R-MT) who was attending his daughter’s wedding and unable to register his vote in favor of the nomination.

Really? If Murkowski had voted “nay,” the result would have been 50-49. Kavanaugh still would have won. Her voting “present” had no effect on the outcome. Do you suppose she didn’t think of this? Or might she have something else in mind?

17 Comments on The Democrat trick behind Senator Murkowski’s ‘present’ vote

  1. Daniel’s math is F’ed up.

    WITH Manchin’s YEA, it was 50-48.
    If Murkowski had voted NAY, it would have been 49-49,
    and Pence could NOT have intervened with a vote.
    Daines would have HAD to come back to vote within 30 hours, while avoiding being Arkancided.

    AS IT WENT, with Daines gone and Murkowski “present” (AND ONLY PRESENT),
    the “majority” was ‘more than’ 49-1/2…which they got with 50.

    3
  2. In my humble opinion, after Murkowski’s “no” cloture vote, she put herself in a box. She chose “present” as Collins/Flake/Manchin’s “yes” votes had been publicly stated. Voting “present” was a total cop-out vote that was only guaranteed to be seen negatively by everyone. It was politically correct for plausible deniability.

    7
  3. CORRECTION:
    if Murkowski had voted NAY, it would have been 50-49…
    (my bad math)
    BUT Pence could not intervene…
    What would have had to happen then was
    1) Daines get back (alive) and vote YEA, bring it to 50-50
    2) and IF possible per Senate rules (don’t know) THEN Pence would have had to break the tie….

    This WAS the right way to do it and Daniels is making this much more twisted than it needs to be.

    3
  4. You can be damned sure that Schumer and Feinstein would have dragged a Dem Senator away from his mom’s funeral to get that vote. I sure hope the Daines wedding was a ploy to keep the Dems guessing about the final count, because otherwise, it shows a lack of intensity at a crucial point.

    9
  5. If Murkowski had stuck to examining factual evidence, she would have voted “yes” for both cloture and confirmation and probably secured another term starting in 2022.

    8
  6. Alaskans were stupid to vote for this pile of crap in the first place .. they had a decent repub candidate & instead chose to elect someone running ‘independently’ … you get what you deserve … & she’s up for election in 4 years … 4 years is a long time … especially in Alaska

    (although I can’t say I’m any better, living in the ‘cradle of graft’, Merryland … but, I can say I have NEVER voted for ANY democRat in ANY election above Mayor)

    & if she was going to do a ‘cancel out’ of Daines’ vote she wouldn’t have changed her ‘no’ to ‘present’, or would have changed her ‘no’ to a ‘yea’ as Daines would have done … she’s a grandstanding bullshitter

    5
  7. there is not trick. She has been an Obama/Bush lib from the get go. Lost the GOP primary to a conservative, The UNIPARTY sent their army in to elect her ; then the leftist GOP welcomed her. The Obama/Bush folk fool few. Many lie and say they were tricked; but they lie.

    1
  8. Murkowski’s a rat-bastard.
    She comes from a long line of rat-bastards.

    Without resorting to any type of conspiracy (of which there are many – AND they DO exist) “present” is simple cowardice. Rats are demonstrably coward-ish: hiding in sewers, dumpsters, and Federal Office Buildings and a sudden light usually sends them scurrying for the darker recesses.

    Occam’s razor suggests simple rat-type cowardice – no need for anything more complicated – but, hey! – you never know!

    izlamo delenda est …

    2

Comments are closed.