Why would it be wrong for ALL the Dems to vote as a block?

[saracat]

Why is it the Repugs can do that and we can't?

[Delphinus]

1. Got me, Saracat.

All we'd have to do is take a stand a few times and we'd get some of our power back.

[Avalux]

2. Who said it was wrong?

And why can't the Dems do it? I'm tired of letting THEM (repugs, DINOS, spineless wimps) call the shots. Damn them all. It's time to rise up and take a stand.

[Joe Chi Minh]

4. Social Security vote

sounds a good enough time to start, doesn't it. Is there any cause more important?

[Walt Starr]

22. Carper, Landrieu, Lieberman, and Ben Nelson are likely traitors on SS

They are all likely to go along with Bush, thus giving Bush his dream of killing Social Security forever.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Reid says all 44 dems are voting NAY on Bush Social Security, BTW...

Lieberman is really the only likely defector on your list. Social Security preservation is a winning issue and almost no vulnerable senator on either side of the aisle will vote yes on this unless the White House twists their arm enough.

Nelson would be unseated as would Landrieu if they voted for the Bush social security plan.

[Walt Starr]

46. Ben Nelson (D -Chickenshit ) is already on the road trip with *

I fully expect enough chickenshit Dems to jump ship that a filibuster is precluded and Social Security is killed dead as a doorknob.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. But here the thing, Nelson will loose his seat if he votes YEA

That is, unless Bush cuts him a deal where the GOP will not run a serious challenger against him in 2006 (which is entirely possible). Preserving social security is such a popular issue that even some of the most conservative of Republicans will not support the Bush plan. DINOs won't cave on this because it simply won't help them get re-elected.

[saracat]

7. Dunno. Some feel that it is unrealistic or wrong

to expect them to vote as a block on issues like Gonzales. I really expected them too. I know we got thirty six and I am grateful to those Senators but why is it wrong to expect 100% ? It seems the repugs can do it.

[bobbieinok]

3. reps are controlled from the top; dems are independent

what if dem leaders wanted to vote a way I/you greatly disagree with???....thank goodness, individual dems could still vote their/our conscience

[saracat]

8. But what about when voting their "concience"( which I doubt some did)

involves approving an immoral act? Such as torture?
And if we don't block vote, how can we excercise any power?

[Mend]

9. How is voting for gonzales a "conscience" vote?

this is one time I cannot conceive of anyone voting for this monster unless it was for crass, personal political gain. Once in a while there should be party discipline and unity, when it is so obvious that there is only one right vote. Maybe I have missed gonzo's great redeeming features....he seems to be a miserable excuse for a human being.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. I think that you could be 100% for senatorial courtesy

But even strict people on that issue like Russ Feingold have drawn the line at Gonzales, so I think that might possibly represent 1 out of the 20 or so Democrats who will vote for Gonzales. All it is really is pandering to hispanic voters, Bush knew that this would happen when he nominated the guy.

[genius]

5. they should

[codegreen]

6. because then the Republican infiltrators into our party infrastructure

wouldn't be doing what they're there for: occupying seats that would be better used by real Democrats, and preventing a unified front which helps benefit the Republicans in the media wars and assists in demoralizing the Democratic base.

to these people, it's always war, all the time. of course they've been running in our primaries and sitting on fences and eventually sitting in seats of power, to be useless and disruptive of party coherense.

just a paranoid theory.

[LittleClarkie]

10. It's not wrong

but do we force them? Look at the people on the other side selling their souls left and right. McCain et al. It's disgusting, and in the name of unity.

Meanwhile, darling, you know I love you, but you're kind of hung up here. This is like the fifth thread you've started on this subject.

All in all, I'm fairly impressed with the opposition to Gonzalez. And even if we don't vote as a block with SSI, as long as we win and they lose, I will be a most happy camper. The point is to stop them from privatizing, not to show our absolute unity. I don't care if it is an ugly W as long as there is a W in our column on SSI, and an L in their column.

[saracat]

11. I salute all those Senators who stood firm and opposed this abuse

not only the Constitution but human rights If we can't vote to against a basic human rights issue as torture I really don't care how they vote on SSI. This was a vote about our moral integrity! Even one vote in favor of Gonzales is a disgrace to all Americans. This was an enormous vote , IMHO. You know great Senate Leaders used to be able to get Senators to vote together and that was when we won!
I just looked at the list and do you know, not one Repug voted nay? Even Lincoln Chaffee, and Collins and Snowe. Not one. I think we need to know how to block vote as well. We keep saying "save our capital" For what? What is more important than Human Rights? And what "capital " do we have? They aren't going to cross the aisle and vote with us. They don't have too.We don't have anything they need. If we could have proven vote power, but we didn't . Congratulations to all our Dems who stood firm. They are statesmen.

[housewolf]

12. Politics in the Reality-Based World

Dear Saracat,

Your idealism, integrity and high standards are inspiring. If even 10% of the people we elect to public office held standards as high as yours, we would be in much better shape than we are.

But if we live in the reality-based world, life in the Congress is about compromise and deal-making, accumulating and spending political capital and power. It's a war juggling for power and advantage in which tactics are used in order to win something. Most of what is done is done because it is the political expedient thing to do. It is politics at its most dirty, raw politics.

If a party wants to take a stand on something with a party-line vote, the leaders of the party need to be able to make a deal with those individuals who are inclined to vote a different way. When a party is in power, it has many incentives it can use - plum seats on committees or commissions, promotion of specific legislation, promises of support on other legislation, meetings with the White House, or other political favors. When a party is out of power, there are fewer incentives that can be used to bring recalcitrants into line.

Reid is doing a good job of organizing the Dems, but he just doesn't have much that he could have offered to Lieberman, Salazar, Landrieu, or the others who wanted to support Gonzales.

And if he did have political favors he could have traded, what would it have ultimately bought him when Gonzales' confirmation was already a certainty? He and the Dems would have been slandered on their partisanship, voting on a strict party-line vote, voting against the president, etc and it would have ended up costing them politically.

In an ideal world, Lieberman, Salazar, and the others would have believed the same as the other 36 Dems and voted against him. But that wasn't the case. Whatever their reasons, they wanted to support him - and I don't know what those reasons are. I am very disappointed that they made that choice and I hope their constituents will be on the phones to their offices to find out why they voted they way they did.

The day will come when the Dems will have an opportunity to truly affect the outcome of some legislation with their votes, and Reid will need to have the carrots and sticks to get everybody in line and keep them there. But the question is... with limited power, should he use it on a vote that's guaranteed to go against him?

In the world of idealism, where we lefties love to hang out, Congress would be a place of principal over politics, where people of integrity could make all of their choices based on what was the highest good for the majority of the people rather than what was politically expedient. I pray for the day humanity has evolved enough for that to be possible in the reality-based world.

In today's reality-based world, about 90% of the Dems took a stand against torture and I think that's commendable. Perfect? No. but definitely commendable.

As for all the repubs who voted to confirm Gonzales - well, they really had no choice, even if they did not want to support him . For any of them to vote against their president's wishes would bankrupt them politically and they'd have a tough time accomplishing their goals in congress.

But the reason it's easier to hold the repubs to a party-line vote is because the repubs have almost all the power. They have the sticks and carrots to make the deals necessary to keep their folks in line.

Truth be told, it sucks being the minority party.

But your idealism is a beautiful thing. Hang on to it with all your might in spite of your disappointments because you inspire others to rise to your vision. And we need that desperately... people who can hold the vision and inspire others with it.




:hug:

I am sorry you were so disappointed with the Dems today.

[Mend]

13. Bill Nelson wrote me

that the reason he voted for Rice was that he thought the president should have the cabinet he wants. That doesn't explain why there is advise and consent but I guess he understands rubber-stamping as an important senatorial function much better than an average person such as myself.

[housewolf]

14. Maybe he felt he needs to "pick his battles"

Maybe he just felt there was nothing for him to gain by voting against the president's wishes in this matter.

I don't know... just speculating.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. I agree with Nelson

There's a long standing practice of senatorial courtesy for cabinet appointees because they effectively run the President's government, they are his direct subordinates. Gonzales is where I would draw the line for two reasons. One, he wants to be the Chief enforcer of the law in the United States, but he has clearly advised his superiors on how to BREAK the law. It's not so much the torture thing itself, it's a matter of respect for the law. Secondly, the Attorney General serves two functions, really: Attorney General and Secretary of Justice. I wouldn't mind so much Alberto Gonzales being Secretary of Justice as I mind him being Attorney General, because it's a position that acts independently of White House control much moreso than the other high cabinet departments.

Condi hasn't done anything that can be proven. Sure I think that she lied out of her ass, even to the 9/11 commission. There's no way that our intelligence (despite how messed up the bureaucracy is) reported to the President that Saddam would have a nuke in a year when really there were no WMD's whatsoever. There's just no possible way. But unfortunately, that isn't proof that she lied.

[saracat]

15. Thank you , housewolf.

I do understand about reality based politics, but I also believe the day of "politics as usual " has run its course. We will not be able to compete in that manner. We , the Democratic party, have nothing to lose, and so it behooves us, even mor,e to draw that line in the sand and stand up, united, for what is right. Not one Republican crossed party lines. I think we would do well to note that.

[housewolf]

19. "I believe the day of "politics as usual " has run its course"

I hope and pray that it is so.

Keep holding on to that vision and articulating it - you'll bring others to it so that we'll start seeing it in the reality-based world. We need to be there.

[orpupilofnature57]

16. You are eloquent, and you didn't use that "progressive" word to

Talk around it, rather directly to it "reality Based" very descriptive.

[moggie12]

20. Wow, that was great -- can you do an OP of that somehow?

people really need to hear this -- too much blanket attacking of Dems going on, with little understanding of practical realities

[housewolf]

23. What's an OP? n/t

[moggie12]

25. An "original post" - the person who starts the thread

Of course, you may get flamed -- many people get upset when anyone suggests any "compromising of principles"

[housewolf]

27. Thanks...

I'll work on the piece and get it posted.

[Tigress DEM]

17. Here's the list

Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Not Voting
Bayh (D-IN), Nay
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Nay
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Not Voting
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Nay
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Coleman (R-MN), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Not Voting
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dole (R-NC), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Not Voting
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Nay
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Sununu (R-NH), Yea
Talent (R-MO), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

[housewolf]

18. So we lost 2 because of absence...

I don't know how they would have voted, but 2 of our guys were absent from the vote today - Conrad (ND) and Inouye (HI).

Thanks for posting the list, I've been looking for it.

[housewolf]

35. I found out where one of them was...

Kent Conrad, Dem Senator from North Dakota...

was flying to Fargo on Air Force One today with GWB!
"But the personal touch didn't seem to budge Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), who Bush invited to fly to Fargo on Air Force One. Bush spent the flight talking to him about everything from rural health to baseball.

"He's saying we've got to take more money out of Social Security to start private accounts and borrow the money," Conrad said. "I just think it's very unwise.""

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush0204,0,2826385.story?coll=ny-nation-big-pix

[Tigress DEM]

29. Sorry my hubby was bugging me to get off computer..

http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_se...

Said it is updated every 20 minutes, but it showed the result as confirmed. Here is a better sort anyway

YEAs ---60
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---36
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 4
Baucus (D-MT)
Burns (R-MT)
Conrad (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)

[pdxmom]

21. After watching the SOTU last night, it's highly apparent

that Bush could stand up there and propose building a paved highway to Mars, to be traveled by mules in spacesuits and monitored by little green men, and all the Repubs, as a group, would stand up and yell and cheer. They support only the party, regardless of how ridiculous or outrageous the idea or proposal. And there's one of the big differences. Repubs walk in lockstep. Democrats seem to act as individuals. Which then seems to lead to disagreement within the party.

[Mend]

24. I wouldn't object

to a Democrat's vote if, by any reasonable standard, it appeared to be due to genuine conviction. This just is not one of those times when anyone could look me in the eye and say that gonzales is fit for this office. If a Democrat is not voting his or her honest conviction, what does that leave as an explanation? Bill Nelson represents me and my family. We are Floridians who sent money to his campaign and voted for him. How is this representative government of the people, by the people, and for the people? This is personal to me and not about him picking battles for political reasons but staying true to our party's ideals.

[pdxmom]

36. I agree about the Gonzales vote

I don't see how it really could be any other way. To paraphrase Bush himself, you're either for torture or against it. Any vote for Gonzales was a vote in favor of torture.

If a Dem isn't supporting his constituency, and merely voting on political expediency, then he needs to go. Thank goodness at least one of my representatives voted Nay on this one. Gordon Smith can expect a battle his next time out, and the Gonzales vote is just one more reason for me to work to make sure he's not back in Washington. He's the perfect example of what a Senator shouldn't be. He is supporting the administration's fight to overthrow our Death with Dignity Act. Smith is well aware that the majority of his constituency voted for that act not once, but twice. Obviously, his devotion to his personal beliefs and to the party come before representing those of us who he supposedly represents.

[Tigress DEM]

30. Nothing wrong with healthy disagreement....

Thing is concentrated effort even if it is evil will move in one direction.

Remember our founders had these problems too. That's why they had to remind people that United We Stand, Divided We Fall.

[Joe Chi Minh]

49. So, you see, Saracat,

That's the bigger picture. Cutting corners (my party, right or wrong, suppression of any glimmer of personal conscience) is the way to get ahead, as every good wee neocon knows. But only in the short term. As our dear departed harold Wilson once said, "A week in politics is a long time...".

[w4rma]

26. And now Dems can't even run ads against this pro-torture guy to defend

these Democrats because they voted for him. What the heck are they going to run on? "I love Bush"? How does that help Dems in 2008? It doesn't.

That was the problem in 2004. Dems had been kissing Bush's behind for 3 years and then at the last moment decided to start attacking him (because they really had no choice). So that was 3 years that THEY had been building up Bush's popularity before they finally spent a few months tearing it down.

These are swing states that these Senators came from. These are the states that most need to be informed of Republican pro-torture policies. These are the states that need to be turned away from totalitarianism.

This was an issue they could have run on in conservative areas that was also a pro-Democratic position. What the heck are they going to run on? They need to divide the Republicans. They need issues that many Republicans oppose that Bush supports to peel them off. They seem to be refusing to find them.

On the next vote similar to this one, I think that maybe a good tactic would be to run ads in this swing states to both shore up these folks and get them afraid of choosing Bush's side, which could be an unpopular position.

[Tigress DEM]

32. The Majority of DEMS did vote against Gonzales

We even got a few repubs.

[w4rma]

37. Absolutely. But, Nelson is up for reelection. And I tend to like the guy &

would like to see him stay in office. I just think that considering he's in a state that voted for Bush he should tap into conservative sentement that is running against Bush, rather than trying to act like a Republican because he's going to run against a Republican who will vote for everything the Republican Party wants voted for.

He must tap into their divisions. He must peel off conservative voters. If he acts like a Republican to win, he'll lose because they'll just go ahead and vote for the Republican.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. It's not about pandering to Republicans, it's about pandering to hispanics

Voting NAY on this was political suicide for him because Gonzales is hispanic. You can bet that Nelson's opponent will have much more money than him and will run a much nastier campaign. If Nelson had voted NAY on this, you would hear nonstop ads all over southern Florida about how Nelson hates hispanic people.

One of the few people to overcome this kind of smear campaign and still vote his conscience was Wellstone and no offense to Nelson, but he's no Wellstone.

[w4rma]

42. Maybe. You have a point with the hispanic angle. The Repug PR machine is

so good that they could have people drinking lead-based paint if they wanted (as Bill Maher said somewhat recently).

[Skittles]

28. Democrats do not play the role of goose-steppers well

comes natural to fascist thugs though

[Tigress DEM]

34. I thought I read a thread out there that said if DEMS...

made a fuss on this appointment then the repubs were going to kill filibuster power on Judiciary nominations - and they have the majority so they CAN just change rules like that now. It isn't ethical, but that's no surprise.

ANYWAY - I remember reading a post about Gonzales possibly going thru as an appointment to AG for 4 years, which was viewed as better than giving up the minority authority to block Judicial appointments which are for LIFE. How about a PRO Torture judge on the Supreme Court for 40 years.

[Mend]

39. And they trust the republicans to keep their word on this

you have got to be kidding.

[Tigress DEM]

44. It was about an INSTANT loss of judicial filibuster rights forever...

I don't think trust is the right word.

So they were buying time, but mainly I just think the DEMS are out there on limbs alone.

I wonder if we all should start weekly TRUTH TO THE PEOPLE Protests. Say Noon to 2pm every Saturday we should be somewhere making a ruckus. That's what the college kids did in the 60's

Get out to the State Capitols, the Governor's Mansion, the News Outlets, wherever we can gather in big numbers and present the TRUTH about why people CAN'T AFFORD to TRUST Bush and the repubs!

Wear blue jeans, white shirts and white hats and put blue makeup on our necks to show how the repubs are just strangling the life out of us.

If the people start protesting in the streets on a regular basis and we are loudly vocal, but peaceful about it, then there is some representational power for the DEMS. A peacful mob is still a mob and gets paid attention to and listed to.

Bush can keep us off his space, but he doesn't own every bit of real estate in America, yet.

They are elected officials, but there's only what, 44 Senators and how many of THOUSANDS of us?

[Hippo_Tron]

41. They can't actually, senate rules require 60 votes to change

What they can do is call it to a floor vote by having the chair just call for the vote and then even though a dem will object that the chair is wrong in his actions, the repukes will have a majority so they will say that the chair was not wrong in his actions and there will be a vote. They will try this whether the dems had blocked Gonzales or not. And unfortunatley most Americans don't give a shit that Bill Frist is effectively going to destroy the prestige of one of the most important institutions in our government.

[borg5575]

48. A lot of Republicans...

with cooler heads are extremely reluctant to use the nuclear option for the obvious reason that once they use it then when they are back in the minority again, and they surely will be someday due to the cyclical nature of politics, then they won't be able to filibuster either.

So I am not sure if they will actually use the nuclear option or not.

[Tigress DEM]

51. If they have control of the voting machines and the press...

how can we be sure they will ever be out again?

[Hippo_Tron]

53. The longer they are there the more control over voting machiens they have

Which is why we need to get them out. Right now it's not too terrible. If a race is a one point spread, they can change a few votes, disenfranchise a few thousand African Americans, etc. If it's a five point race, their dirty tricks wouldn't work. The problem is that if we leave them in power, they will continue to find new ways to rig the voting and thus they will become capeable of stealing a five point race.

[Tigress DEM]

43. Contact info for the DEMS & the one Independent

SO Tell the ones who VOTED NAY - GOOD JOB, KEEP IT UP.
To those who VOTED YEA - Wanna keep your job? Vote like you mean it.
To those who abstained - What you need a note from your mother?

Baucus, Max - (D - MT) Class II
511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/emailmax.html

Bayh, Evan - (D - IN) Class III
463 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/WebMail1.htm

Biden, Joseph - (D - DE) Class II
201 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Bingaman, Jeff - (D - NM) Class I
703 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Boxer, Barbara - (D - CA) Class III
112 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: boxer.senate.gov/contact

Byrd, Robert - (D - WV) Class I
311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/byrd_email.html

Cantwell, Maria - (D - WA) Class I
717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: cantwell.senate.gov/contact/index.html

Carper, Thomas - (D - DE) Class I
513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/email-form.html

Clinton, Hillary - (D - NY) Class I
476 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: clinton.senate.gov/email_form.html

Conrad, Kent - (D - ND) Class I
530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/webform.html

Corzine, Jon - (D - NJ) Class I
502 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: corzine.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Dayton, Mark - (D - MN) Class I
346 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: dayton.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

Dodd, Christopher - (D - CT) Class III
448 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: dodd.senate.gov/webmail/

Dorgan, Byron - (D - ND) Class III
713 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Durbin, Richard - (D - IL) Class II
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

Feingold, Russell - (D - WI) Class III
506 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Feinstein, Dianne - (D - CA) Class I
331 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: feinstein.senate.gov/email.html

Harkin, Tom - (D - IA) Class II
731 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: harkin.senate.gov/contact/contact.cfm

Inouye, Daniel - (D - HI) Class III
722 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: inouye.senate.gov/webform.html

Johnson, Tim - (D - SD) Class II
136 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: johnson.senate.gov/ContactPage/emailform.htm

Kennedy, Edward - (D - MA) Class I
317 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: kennedy.senate.gov/contact.html

Kerry, John - (D - MA) Class II
304 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: kerry.senate.gov/bandwidth/contact/email.html

Kohl, Herb - (D - WI) Class I
330 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html

Landrieu, Mary - (D - LA) Class II
724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Lautenberg, Frank - (D - NJ) Class II
324 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: lautenberg.senate.gov/webform.html

Leahy, Patrick - (D - VT) Class III
433 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Levin, Carl - (D - MI) Class II
269 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: levin.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

Lieberman, Joseph - (D - CT) Class I
706 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: lieberman.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm?regarding=issue

Lincoln, Blanche - (D - AR) Class III
355 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: lincoln.senate.gov/webform.html

Mikulski, Barbara - (D - MD) Class III
709 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: mikulski.senate.gov/mailform.html

Murray, Patty - (D - WA) Class III
173 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: murray.senate.gov/email/index.cfm

Nelson, Bill - (D - FL) Class I
716 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: billnelson.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm#email

Nelson, Ben - (D - NE) Class I
720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/email.html

Obama, Barack - (D - IL) Class III
UNITED STATES SENATE WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: obama.senate.gov/contact/

Pryor, Mark - (D - AR) Class II
217 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: pryor.senate.gov/email_webform.htm

Reed, Jack - (D - RI) Class II
728 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: reed.senate.gov/form-opinion.htm

Reid, Harry - (D - NV) Class III
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm

Rockefeller, John - (D - WV) Class II
531 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Salazar, Ken - (D - CO) Class III
UNITED STATES SENATE WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: salazar.senate.gov/contactus.cfm

Sarbanes, Paul - (D - MD) Class I
309 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: sarbanes.senate.gov/pages/email.html

Schumer, Charles - (D - NY) Class III
313 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: schumer.senate.gov/webform.html

Stabenow, Debbie - (D - MI) Class I
702 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: stabenow.senate.gov/email.htm

Wyden, Ron - (D - OR) Class III
516 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact.html

Jeffords, James - (I - VT) Class I
413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Web Form: jeffords.senate.gov/contact-form.html

[saracat]

45. Thank you Tigress dem.

Useful and hilarious post! I love " what do you need, a note from your mother?"

[Tigress DEM]

50. So nice of you to notice!

:kick: :headbang:

[last1standing]

47. It' s more important to vote your conscience than your party.

But the Dems who are voting for Gonzales and SS are voting only for strategy. These are people who still think that if they do whatever the repubs want, they won't come gunning for them at election time. They should talk to Max Cleland.