I am trying to figure out--I wish it were true that we could be obstructionists, because if we were obstructionists, that meant if we vote ``no,'' it would stop the bill. But they have got 40 more votes than we do, so how in the world could we be obstructionists? I need some help on that because the logic seems to be very hard for me to grasp.
The speaker questions the label of obstructionism in the context of a legislative debate.
Share
More from W. Todd Akin
I knew that the party voters took a look at our hearts, understood who we were, had a chance to meet us in many, many different ways, and made the decision, and it makes me uncomfortable to think that the party bosses are going to dictate…
On rollcall Nos. 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 534, 535, and 536, I was delayed and unable to vote. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on rollcall No. 519, ``no'' on rollcall No. 520…
The men and women who volunteer to serve our Nation put themselves at great risk, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude and honor.
I know the party voters took a look at our hearts, understood who we were, had a chance to meet us in many, many different ways, and made a decision, and it makes me uncomfortable to think that the party bosses are going to dictate who…
Other voices in this conversation
