°¿°

[AnderL]

from what I was reading she was trying to swing the 40% of democrats that were voting against the bill. Seems that the nays on the democrat side were voting against it because they wanted to stuff it with more legislation on subsidies for alternative energy, education and what not.

but I agree with you that the whole we are going to walk away from this because you offended us was bad.

all the seating in the house are up for reelection so they are going to play off each other, they see a critical bill that needs votes so members are going to insert their agendas into this.

personally I think that a peer review system that research scientist use is much better. the whole thing needs to be ratified by economists which hasn't been done.