27% of Senate Democrats voted for Torture. What does that imply?

[Poll_Blind]

  Because it certainly implies something, something bigger than a mere aberration. To me, it implies there is a (sizable!) movement within the Democratic Party which shares a kinship with the entirety of the Republican Party (save one, Mr. Chafee) on a blank cheque to torture.

  What is the name of this movement? I'd like to kill it or at least try to slow it down. But I need to know what it is. Whether it's an ideology subscribed to or affiliation with a particular ideological group within the Democratic party doesn't matter. I need to know what the common denominator of these 12 is.

  Help. I've only got one Democratic Party and the one we have is statistically running on only three wheels right now.

PB

[Ezlivin]

1. It means we focus our attention on the 73% who don't

After all, that's the majority of Democrats.

[Poll_Blind]

2. Why? They seem to be doing their job well-enough. Why do we...

..focus on them? How will that correct or help anything?

PB

[Ezlivin]

42. Perhaps I should have said "backed" or "helped" instead of "focus"

Sorry for the confusion.

My human side has been acting up lately.

Live long and prosper.

[indepat]

13. Sadly, it means that 27% of Dem senators are un- and anti-American

joining whatever percentage of the Repugs are likewise as indicated by their votes.

[Poll_Blind]

17. Ok, but my question is...why? Why would they do this? 25%+ is a BIG...

...number. It shows that their is a real segment within the party which, at least on this issue, does not see things the way the great majority of Democrats, Progressives, Liberals in America would see it.

  I want to know what ideological similarities they have, or what ideological group they belong to, that makes them this way.

  I want that name.

PB

[onenote]

45. look at them individually

leaving out Lieberman, who isn't the Democratic party nominee and therefore shouldn't be associated with other Democrats in this analysis, five of the 11 Democrats who voted for the bill are up for reelection. Four of the five (Stabenow, Nelson, Nelson, and Menendez) won by the narrowest of margins in 2000 -- each ony got 50 or 51 percent of the vote. The other Democrat who voted for the bill and is up for reelection this year is Carper, who got 56 percent of the vote in 2000 and, thus, cannot as readily justify the vote on the grounds of political expediency. Another five are up for reelction in 2008 a couple of them (Johnson and Landrieu also narrowly eked out victories in states that are probably more red than blue). Pryor and Lautenberg both got 54 percent of the vote in 2002 so arguably are in a different category and Rockefeller would be safe for reelection is he renamed himself Che', so he has no excuse even if West VA is a more conservative state than some. Finally Salazar isn't up for reelction until 2010, but he also only won by a narrow margin.

[Radical Activist]

3. Its called the "electability" movement.

It consists of those who give up their principles easily because they believe it makes them more "electable" which it usually doesn't.

[Poll_Blind]

9. And that may be it. But I wanted to know if there was something...

...a little more organized behind this.

PB

[MADem]

4. And four percent of Republicans did not. So what?

I'd say we're in better shape than the GOP in the morals department.

And I'd say we need to move forward and win in November. Because that's the only way we can make a difference on this issue.

[AX10]

5. I agree.

[AX10]

6. I agree.

[Poll_Blind]

12. 4% is an abberation. 27% is a movement. I agree that we...

...need to win in November. But what do you make of the 12 in regards to "moving forward"?

PB

[MADem]

29. 27 % isn't a movement. As for the 12, they are to no small degree

people in tight races who are scared shitless of having to beat back an October Swiftboating high-priced media blitz, when, without this issue on the table, they have a real shot at winning and can spend their dough doing something other than responding to smears. That's likely why you saw both NJ senators in the Yea column--one was running, the other didn't want to splash shit on his partner in a tough race.

It's called a tactical retreat. That may be uncomfortable, but that's what it is.

There's surely the odd asshole in the bunch who does think 'terrists' don't deserve rights--right of center, in our party, and no doubt reflecting the solidly held views of their constituents. All politics is local, like it or not.

I am not saying we should drop this issue. I am only saying the time to pick it up and poke the Monkey in the eye with it is after November.

And when WE have the majority, the Susan Collinses and ducking Olympia Snowes just might vote WITH us, to get THEIR agenda items on the floor. It will be our turn to bully and arm-twist, and their turn to compromise with us.

[Poll_Blind]

31. Do you know of anyone who has done an analysis on this in regards....

...to the re-election. I hear that 5 of the 12 are up for re-election. Six with your description of the situation in New Jersey. Do you know of an article which goes into details about the motivations of the remainder?

Anything would help, even if it's not as thorough as I would like. Thanks.

PB

[Jersey Devil]

7. Yeah, Lautenberg & Menendez are really wingnuts at heart

and soulmates with W. :sarcasm:

[Poll_Blind]

14. Ok, then why didn't they vote No? What duress were they under? n/t

PB

[Solon]

18. Don't have to be a wingnut to be an asshole. n/t

[Laughing Mirror]

8. They want to prove they're not "soft" on torture

or is that soft on "terror"? I get them confused.

Their impulse, whatever it is, is the impulse of a fool.

[Old and In the Way]

10. It means we need to become the majority.

Would those 27% have introduced a bill like this if they were part of the majority? Not likely. Yes, they are afraid of the Republican political terroriusts, but they, for the most part, are not leaders in our Party anyway. Once we get the majority, we work to defeat them in their next primary.

[calico1]

11. Why is is so many people miss this point?

:-(

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. Ideological purity.

Some people like chasing chimera.

[Poll_Blind]

28. Are you intoning that conservation of Contitutional Right is...

..."ideological purity"? I can't agree.

PB

[MADem]

33. Are you intoning that cutting off our noses to spite our faces is helpful?

Because if we push this matter in the run up to NOV, we'll stay exactly where we are--in the MINORITY.

Look, most Americans are STUPID or don't pay attention. Only twenty percent of the electorate actually is familiar with the issues. This subject is too complex to teach in a simple thirty second civics commercial, and the GOP has the cash and the momentum to paint it as "letting terrists go scot-free" or "preventing our CIA from saving American lives." Now, don't get all over me with regards to the falsity of those statements, I know it's horseshit, but that doesn't matter. It's what the 80% who DON'T pay attention ACTUALLY BELIEVE.

The time to fight this battle is after November. The place from which to fight it is the high ground of the MAJORITY PARTY.

[Poll_Blind]

36. And voting against torture would be cutting off our noses?

  I agree that many Americans are ignorant, for whatever reason, of politics. In this regard, however, they likely believe they have the convenence of doing so because they elect representatives who safeguard their interests on their behalf.

  That some of those representatives would sell out their constituency's Constitutional Rights on a gamble that they may restore them after a presumed regaining of the majority position is disturbing. And if we do not? Has anyone considered that option?

  Have any of these representatives or yourself considered the peril they have willinging and knowingly placed fellow Americans into by waging so much on this gamble?

PB

[MADem]

44. Yes, for some, because of the way the GOP would portray it.

And because stupid voters would actually believe that Democrats wanted to prevent the CIA from saving American lives. And that the Democrats like the terrists better than our servicemembers....

This subject is one with a lot of nuance. We have just over a month to go until the election. We don't have time to educate people on this matter, and we didn't have the votes to push it back.

Here's two ways you can go with this. You can whine all day about how terrible they are, and vow to get up on your soapbox and tell everyone what shits they were, and guess what your result will be? Probably NADA, but if you DO have any effect, you'll just DEPRESS THE DEMOCRATIC TURNOUT and help the GOP. Now, if that isn't your goal, then what you need to do is rachet it down, push hard to win in NOV, and THEN, once we win, advance the rollback of this bad legislation.

Because if we don't win, we're screwed anyway. There's no point looking back and pointing fingers. There's no point whining about what the naughty 12 did. It's DONE. All we can do is move forward and try to mitigate and reverse the damage.

[Hippo_Tron]

51. IMO this bill would've been forced onto the floor majority or no majority

Almost all of the controversial votes that DU gets riled up about I argue that it would've never gotten to the floor if we weren't in the majority. That isn't the case here. If we were in the majority, the Bush administration as well as the GOP minority would've still forced us to bring this to a cloture vote. Maybe it would've have been a bill in itself, but they would've attached an amendment onto something. Democrats really fucked this one up and this is one of the few times where I don't accept minority status as an excuse.

That said, getting progressives like Jon Tester, Sherrod Brown, Ned Lamont, and Bernie Sanders into the Senate will be a huge help on these crucial votes. Claire McCaskill, Harold Ford, Jim Webb, Bob Casey, and Sheldon Whitehouse will be a hell of a lot better than what we have now. Some of them (possibly Webb in particular) may be particularly surprising in their votes.

[MrCoffee]

15. 100% pissed away the filibuster in a unanimous consent agreement.

[Poll_Blind]

26. Do you happen to have links to any analysis on that? I'd heard a...

...little about it but I do not understand these "agreements" as much as I should. Anything would be helpful.

Thank you,

PB

[MrCoffee]

30. I haven't seen any analysis...i can find the CR page where it's reported.

What essentially happened is that Senate Dems agreed to skip the cloture vote after debate, in exchange for which they got an extra day to float the Levin/Specter/Kennedy/Rockefeller/Byrd amendments.

A cloture vote is "the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place a time limit on consideration of a bill or other matter, and thereby overcome a filibuster. Under the cloture rule (Rule XXII), the Senate may limit consideration of a pending matter to 30 additional hours, but only by vote of three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes." http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/cloture.htm

My interpretation: The Senate Dems got played for fools. They handed the only bullet left in their gun to the pukes when they agreed to skip over the vote and go straight to cloture at the end of the scheduled debate time. This had 2 effects. It set up Specter's amendment to fail by signalling to pukes that the Dems couldn't do anything about the bill as a whole without the amendment (because they couldn't filibuster the bill), and it released Dems who are running this time to vote for the bill.

In other words, Harry Reid is an incompetent quisling who has sold out the Democratic party.

[Orangepeel]

16. those 12 represent constituencies in which the majority supports torture?

that doesn't make it right, but it explains it.

[Poll_Blind]

21. Good point- it's certainly a possibility. It naturally raises the...

...following question: Is a Democrat expected to follow Democratic ideals first or serve the will of their constituency first? One would expect that because they were voted into office by that constituency that one and the other would be the same.

  In cases where this were not the case, I would certainly hope they would follow the "Profiles in Courage" tack and do the right thing, regardless of the backlash of the constituency. Not to put too fine a point on it, but they did elect the official to represent them. It is not a truly Democratic nation we live in (which I am unhappy about but there's bigger fish to fry) but a Representative one.

PB

[Orangepeel]

32. they are supposed to serve the Constitution first

But in most cases, they are supposed to serve the will of their constituency. There isn't one standard set of Democratic ideals and we aren't supposed to be a lock step party. Presumably, they align with the party because they share some values. But they don't need to share all values.

[Hippo_Tron]

50. New Jersey and Michigan are pretty blue

I don't buy the argument that in 2004 those states were willing to vote for a presidential candidate who opposes the death penalty but in 2006 they won't vote for a senator who opposes torture.

[The Magistrate]

19. Nothing Of Any Importance, Sir

The votes are meaningless: the measure had a wholly Republican majority of fifty-three, sufficient to pass it rergardless. Most of the these votes came from members representing "red states", or involved in, or in a postion to impact, close racs the Democrats must win, and foreclosed focused attack ads that could have done real damage in the closing days of the campaign.

In whatever form it is broached, Sir, the "not a dime's worth of difference" line you are promoting here is bankrupt, and of benefit only to the Republicans in the curent political climate.

[Poll_Blind]

23. How does this discussion benefit the Republicans?

  I wasn't aware that pursuing the reasoning behind the 12, if there is some common ideological denominator would, in fact, be such a comfort to our enemies in your opinion.

  Mr. Magistrate, you make a very convincing argument in voting for the legislation ("since we were going to lose anyway it doesn't hurt to get political insurance out of voting for it"). Their vote in favor of this is meaningless and should not reflect on their adherence to Democratic values in your opinion?

PB

[The Magistrate]

34. When Mounted From The Left, Sir

The line of minimizing differences between the leading parties tends to depress the vote from the left for Democratic candidates, and to cloud the decisions of those political unsophisticates inhabiting the middle of the spectrum. The correct line is in all instances to clarify, and even exaggerate to the point of near absurdity, what differences actually do exist, and present the choice before the body politic as being one between a group arrayed at the side of the angels of Heaven and one aligned with the demons of Hell. For reasons which are not completely clear to me, most people tend to prefer the side of Heaven's angels....

Where you are heading, Sir, with the idea of an ideological overlap, may need some clarification for further discussion. It can mean anything from stating these people may have a moderate or centerist orientation to an allegation that they represent some sort of organized "fifth column" within the Party, operating in deliberate concert with the enemy. Any successful coallition in our country is going to have to contain centerist elements, not just center-left but even extending to center right: the arithmetic simply cannot be made to work otherwise from the left of the spectrum. Thus if it is this meaning you intend, you may well be right, but it is hardly a bad thing. The other extreme the line could tend towards is extraordinarily disruptive, and not a good fit with the way the world actually works.

In my view, the vote is, as stated, meaningless, cast purely from political calculation. Whether that calculation is a wise one or not is certainly a seperate question.

[MrCoffee]

24. Whatever yesterday's votes were, they were NOT "meaningless"

They were cast aside by a Senate minority so ineffectual and desperate for reelecton that they agreed to curtail habeas so they would not look "weak on defense".

To eviscerate the Constitution because it makes it easier to run a campaign is despicable.

[The Magistrate]

35. Their Votes Did Not Eviscerate The Constituition, Sir

The votes of the Republican bloc sufficed for that. Re-election is the business of an officeholder, and you might as well condemn a plumber for seeing to it your pipes no longer leak as condemn a politician for acting in the manner he or she calculates will best secure continuance in office.

"One war at a time is about all we can safely handle."

[MrCoffee]

37. Is there no limit then on what is fair game in the name of electioneering?

It would be so much easier to be reelected if those pesky reporters didn't write bad things about me. It would be so much easier to be reelected if i could sneak into my opponents house or office and snoop around without a warrant. It would be so much easier to be reelected if we toss out habeas so the other guy can't make a nasty campaign ad about me?

"Re-election is the business of an officeholder". Not at the expense of the Constitution that officeholder has sworn to uphold, preserve and protect. If it were so, there would be no office to hold, no Constitution to preserve, and certainly no America left to protect.

[The Magistrate]

38. Not Really, Sir, Is The Short Answer

At least as it applies to the calculation of votes on Bills and Resolutions.

"If the game is gin, four of kind wins nothing."

[MrCoffee]

40. Respectfully, I cannot agree.

There is nothing more to say, i suppose. Thank you for your civil debate. I appreciate it.

[The Magistrate]

43. My Thanks As Well, Sir

No one is required to agree, and those close to me have on occassion chided me for excessive ruthlessness....

A pleasure to make your acquaintance, Sir.

[ProudDad]

39. NOT if there were a fillibuster

They would have needed 9 more votes to invoke cloture.

[LynneSin]

20. It means on Nov 8th, 2006 we need to start planning for 2008

and getting rid of the bums that supported it.

I've been down this path before with the republicans using controversial votes to divide the party. And given that we pretty much have two options for election day I'll take my chances with Carper

[zara]

25. 27% cowards

[Poll_Blind]

27. Cowards in the sense that they assumed that the Repubicans would...

...use their vote for Constitutional Rights against them in the next election?

PB

[Strawman]

41. That (roughly) one in four will vote away our rights

to get elected. But on the other hand a 27% suck rate might be a historic low for the Democrats who had rotten segregationists that obstructed the New Deal and Civil Rights legislation when the party held power during the 20th Century. Maybe one day in my lifetime FDR's dream will be realized and the Dems can purge all the conservatives and still have a majority. Not today. As long as the relatively progressive wing gets empowered by them being in the majority, this is as good as it gets short of a revolution.

It is what it is. There's no defending that vote by that 27%, but that's no reason to abandon the party unless you've got a better alternative that's feasible.

[yebrent]

46. Call me crazy, but I think most of the Dems that voted for it...

believe that it will not hold up in Court. That the bill will be shot down as unconstitutional. It seems like a big gamble, so I hope it pays off. If the bill is deemed unconstitutional AND the Dems win the House and Senate, then I think they played this one right. If the bill somehow holds up in court or we don't win either the house or senate, not filibustering will be viewed as a colossal mistake.

[Poll_Blind]

47. From what I understand of the situation, and the mechanics and...

...politics underlying it, that assessment is the best I've seen so far of the realities.

  I'm not a gambler, though. And this is a gamble. And it's someone else betting our Constitutional Rights.

  That just worries the shit out of me.

PB

[Totally Committed]

48. It implies that we are 27% taken-over by DINOs

intent on making it 100% ASAP.

Only my opinion, of course.

TC

[mhatrw]

49. I thinks it's called Liebermania. n/t