Sensing Weakness, Senate Democrats See Strength in Bucking the President

[Purveyor]

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28 — The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush’s power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.

The most vivid example of the Democratic assessment came from the party’s many presidential hopefuls in the Senate. All of them voted against the bill, apparently calculating that Mr. Bush’s handling of Iraq has undercut the traditional Republican strength on national security and will insulate them from what are certain to be strong attacks from Republicans not only this year but also in 2008.

--snip--

Over all, 32 Democrats voted against the measure while 12, including some of those in the most difficult re-election fights, backed it. Among the latter was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose perceived support for Mr. Bush has brought him political trouble at home.

--snip--

Yet the minority of Democrats who joined with Republicans in passing the bill again illustrated that the party is unable to speak with one voice on security issues. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat up for re-election who often breaks with his party, said he was willing to follow the lead of Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, who lent the final legislation his strong endorsement. Mr. McCain is a potential Republican presidential candidate.

---snip---

Four other Democrats facing voters this year — Bill Nelson of Florida, Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Thomas R. Carper of Delaware and Robert Menendez of New Jersey — voted for the bill. New Jersey’s other senator, Frank R. Lautenberg, a Democrat, also supported it. Nine others running for re-election opposed it.

---end of excerpt---

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/29/us/politics/29assess.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Kagemusha]

1. Someone hand me a rock. I need to crawl under it.

This article is embarassing...

[mom cat]

22. Don't crawl ynder a rock - Throw it instead!

[Old and In the Way]

2. Good news is that we know who are the Democrats that need ousting

in their next primary. We have weeding to do and it will make us a stronger Party down the road. I hope we are all smart enough to realize that Karl Rove wanted a replay of the 2002 mid-term/IWR. Hope the American voter finally starts to uunderstand how they are being played by the Syndicate.

[chill_wind]

3. Somebody hand me a barf bag with Harry Reid's name on it. nt

[MadMaddie]

4. Well the proof is in the pudding Lieberwhore is a Republican

no surprise folks...keep on moving....

[OrangeCountyDemocrat]

5. Another Onion Article

This is the 2nd article from a major news source that was written by The Onion.

It can't possibly be true. We can't possibly have arrived in the Twilight Zone.

Oh, the other article was about how GM thinks they need to increase the Hummer line of cars and make it their centerpiece model.

[lovuian]

6. True corruption of both parties

thats when America died

[FormerOstrich]

7. While, unfortunately, it may be true...

I hate the way they frame the analysis. It seems to indicate that the way a Democrat voted was based solely on political gain/loss potential.

What I'd like to see is those that voted against it communicate they voted against it on its merit, regardless of any political aspirations, because it is so fundamentally wrong on every account. As long as they are not screaming that from the rooftops, the media can get away with painting the picture that they are nothing but a group of followers looking out for their own best interest.

As far as those that backed the bill, I will let them know what I think of them (not that it's going to help anyone but me). We need to get them out of the party at the first opportunity to do so.

I hate this article....I hate how it probably is more true than not.....I hate this damn bill.....I remember a time when there wasn't really much I hated. Now I just feel and sound like some bitter, negative, grouchy, crotchety old lady.

[rodeodance]

8. I hear yah (well, prob except for 'crotchety old lady' bit).

I hate this article....I hate how it probably is more true than not.....I hate this damn bill.....I remember a time when there wasn't really much I hated. Now I just feel and sound like some bitter, negative, grouchy, crotchety old lady.

[FormerOstrich]

9. I only feel like a...

crotchety old lady on days like today. How jaded I have become.....

Thanks for letting me know I'm not alone (except for the one thing!)

[Art_from_Ark]

13. Hey, Former Ostrich

You can't be *that* old (you're younger than I am, after all :D ). But I can certainly empathize with the "grouchy" and "crotchety" parts.

[FormerOstrich]

18. Hey Art_from_Ark!!!!!

Long time no see!! Actually, I was writing this post to you earlier when my internet went down. Something seems to be keeping us apart!!

Great to see you! How are you doing? Let's keep in touch better..I was sort of reclusive for a while but I'm moving past it.

[Straight Shooter]

10. Lieberman and Nelson don't speak for our party anymore, anyway.

"Speak with one voice." Please, give me a break." I suppose the writer meant to say "march in lockstep, or goosestep," eh?

[hatrack]

11. Who writes this SHIT?

Oh, that's right, the New York Times - home of Judith Miller.

That fucking figures.

On edit: Ooh. A whopping THIRTY-TWO Democrats voted against shredding the Constitution. How brave.

[Mind_your_head]

12. After what "went thru" in Congress today.......

the Chimpy's gotta be saying, "if this is 'weak', BRING IT ON!!!"

The neo-con fascists won BIG today.

Calling them weak .... pfffft ...... they WON guys, "We, the People".....suffered HUGE loss.

:cry:

[keopeli]

14. If a Dem candidate needs to endorse this to get elected, I'm ok with it.

First, we must realize that no objection was going to stop this thing short of a filibuster and that decision was left to Reid.

This legislation was deliberately delayed until right before the election so the Repubs could make a spectacl of 'weak' Democrats. They did the same thing in 02 with the Iraq War Act.

The timing also impacts the possibility of a Democrat filibuster. Have you noticed what Bush's meme was today? It was that Dems are 'weak' on defense and are 'cut and run'. This script was written months ago. They just HOPED the Dems would filibuster.

The decision not to play into their hand must have been difficult for Reid. I sense he's a good man with a good heart.

But, the paramount focus should be on winning control. If the Dems take control, this legislation will fade into the memory hole as the hearings and testimonials commence. THAT is the goal.

As long as Republicans maintain control of Congress, NOTHING can be stopped that Bush wishes to implement.

I can't support a decision to endorse the suspension of habeus corpus, but I can look the other way - something I've learned to do well in the past few years. At least this time, I'm looking away with hope.

[davekriss]

21. Hate to burst your bubble

"If the Dems take control, this legislation will fade into the memory hole as the hearings and testimonials commence. THAT is the goal."

Fine, it fades into the memory hole, but this fascist/immoral law remains on the books. And the hearings won't be on the Bush Regime's illegal use of torture, rendition, and detainment, since it will be retroactively legal when Bush signs and, even if the law is repealed, Bush cannot be held accountable ex post facto.

The IWR strategy really worked for us, too, huh? How many seats did we pick up in 2004?

[Vidar]

15. So if the whole goddamned Senate is running for president, maybe

they'll have the balls to stand up to the chimp. Seems to be the moral of this piece.

[GetTheRightVote]

16. I can not vote for Bill Nelson this year due to this vote alone

not in good consious, no way.

:kick:

[bklyncowgirl]

17. Let me get this straight.--they call this a profile in courage? Good God.

True, most Democrats voted against it and many spoke passionately in opposition but there was no effort whatsoever made to force a party line vote and apparently a general decision on the part of party leaders and Senators in tight races--including to my total disgust my own Menendez and Lautenberg--to vote tactically as opposed to voting for what is right.

A refusal to stand on principle is seen as a smart political move. Let us hope that this is correct. More than likely it will be seen by voters as just another example of the Democratic party's unwillingness to fight.

[The Backlash Cometh]

19. Again, something they should have done YESTERDAY!

I didn't see no bucking yesterday.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

20. If the headline was true, the Senate Democrats would have filibustered

As it is, capitulation again.

I really think being in DC all the time is keeping these knuckleheads from understanding how pissed off a lot of liberals and conservatives are about this. They just sanctioned behavior that is completely un-American to me and probably most people.

Salazar and Lieberman I understand. Total DINOs. But why would Lautenburg vote for this piece of shit?

The twelve Dems who voted for this should form a club and call themselves Pink Tutus for Torture.

[agio]

23. they couldnt

because there were enough torturecrats who would support cloture.

[Vinca]

24. Principle should trump politics, pure and simple.

It's obscene this legislation was even proposed during a campaign season because votes, for some, are only made with political consequences in mind. The most important legislation of the session pushed through in the last days . . . but at least gays can't marry. Phew!