« Contact Sen. Bingaman on Torture Bill | Main | Madrid Campaign Benefit Reception at St. Clair Winery & Bistro 10/5 »
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Another Dem Cave-In Sullies Our Liberty, Our Nation and Our Party
What a debacle. What a shameful display. Once again, I rely on Greenwald:
Final passage of the torture/detention bill was 65-34. Without necessarily planning to, I live-blogged the Senate proceedings here.
Twelve Democrats voted in favor, 1 Republican and 1 independent voted against (there may be one or two errors because I compiled the list while listening to the vote):
Democrats in favor (12) - Carper (Del.), Johnson (S.D.), Landrieu (La.), Lautenberg (N.J.), Lieberman (Conn.), Menendez (N.J), Pryor (Ark.), Rockefeller (W. Va.), Salazar (Co.), Stabenow (Mich.), Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.)
Republicans against (1) - Chafee (R.I.).
Jeffords voted against.
I don't understand why Harry Reid made a backroom deal with the Repubs where he promised not to lead a filibuster if they "let" there be a few hours of "debate" and "permitted" 3 amendments, which Reid had to know would fail. A filibuster would have shown Americans that this bill is THAT BAD. What this does is show that Reid has no idea how to keep control of the Dem caucus. We need another Lyndon Johnson in that regard, don't we? To me, Reid is as bad a leader as Daschle was, and the stakes are much higher now.
September 28, 2006 at 05:19 PM in Democratic Party, Terrorism | Permalink
Comments
This is just horrifying and beyond depressing. I just do not know how I can continue to call myself a Democrat. I feel so disgusted I could vomit.
Posted by: | Sep 28, 2006 5:52:32 PM
Disgusting?
This only serves to prove the profound power reined by the most extremest Republicans at this time.
Democrats under-estimate the extent of Facist control.
They got us all by the short-hairs. Heather's wiretapping bill will enable the executive branch of our government to snoop without check from the other 3 branches. (I include the Press).
This pretty much casterates our beloved Constitution.
Posted by: qofdisks | Sep 28, 2006 7:49:57 PM
Reid fails again as a "leader." These 12 turn-coat, unAmerican, gutless bastards! I am sick, disgusted, and depressed.
Posted by: Placitasroy | Sep 28, 2006 7:50:22 PM
I heard Reid on Ed Schultz today, he was asked about filibustering and said he didn't have the votes to support a filibuster, he didn't say anything about a backroom deal. Anyone have any idea how the rank and file can bring about a change in leadership???
Posted by: VP | Sep 28, 2006 8:27:11 PM
There is hope, I hope, of a Supreme Court rejection of these bills.
The Republicans want to use this against Dems in the run-up to the election. The Republicans have the Dems right where we (dems and libs, et al) want them (Repubs). I really think so. This is kind of like a chess player going for the Queen and unintentionally leaving his King wide open. I don't have much hope that the Dems will do this, but I think this would be a great time to run offense when Repubs think we'll be defensively on the ropes.
What if every Dem running for office, incumbent or not, began to run ads saying "My opponent (would have) voted to make torture and detention without hope of trial or appeal an American policy, in order to gain your vote. Well, if you’re for imprisoning and torturing people without first finding out if they’re guilty of anything, I have news for you. I don’t want your vote. " And then went on and spoke glowingly about the tradition of American jurisprudence we inherited (okay, they'd have to embellish and leave out some stuff...) and how they would never, ever confuse torture and secret prisons with American justice; and by the way, we Dems are in favor of implementing the 9-11 Commission's recommendations . . . and why hasn't this Republican-led Congress gotten around to that?
Dean keeps saying he wants to play offense. Now is the best chance, when Repubs will be talking about this same bill and expecting Dean & Co to be on the defense. AND the Dems can bring up Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's finding on ACLU vs. NSA that President Bush acted as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act forbids. See Thom Hartmann's treatment of this angle at https://tinyurl.com/m6ea3 .
Whaddaya think? I mean aside from the fact that it's unlikely? Would it work if tried?
Posted by: John in Santa Fe | Sep 28, 2006 8:48:05 PM
Adapted from Hunter@DailyKos: Domenici, Wilson and Pearce OK Rape of American Prisoners. Republican legislation "allows the president not only to authorize which prisoners will and will not be raped in an attempt to "break them", but will allow the president to refuse all access to evidence or trial to those prisoners. So that'll keep future abuses from coming to light . . . It would be more accurate to say that it is "unclear" whether or not actual rape is allowed, or merely all sexual violence up to and possibly including rape. Some interpreters of the bill say yes: some interpreters say no, the torturer must stop the sexual assault at the point of entry. The Senate chose to refuse further debate on the issue, deeming that clarity unimportant."
Republican Values, Wilson's Values, Domenici's Values, Pearce's Values
Don't get sick, get mad, get out in the streets. Fascism can't be combated with reason, it can only be confronted with personal committment to human dignity.
Posted by: Ron | Sep 28, 2006 9:15:43 PM
You guys keep raggin' on the Dems. It is the Far Right that has power. They have power over even the Democrats. Real power with impunity. I am not so sure that the Dems had any other option but capitulation.
The Dems will not be able to use this issue effectively against the Right in the election. Why?
1. Dems don't want to be percieved as weak on "terrorism".
2. It was passed on a bi-partisan vote giving the tormentors total victory.
Dems need to keep hammering on stuff like the fact of Bushco incompetence especially with regards to protecting the Homeland. Clinton has expended his capital on that so we can not be distrcted by this horror now. Yes, it is appalling and the devoted "base" can take a little time to whine but the list of audacious evilness that is Bushco destruction is sooo long.
Focus, Focus.
So, has anybody seen the new Rove directed anti-Madrid ad? SLICK!
Posted by: qofdisks | Sep 28, 2006 10:31:05 PM
I never heard anything about a backroom deal, either, and from reading Harry Reid's comments, he came across pretty strong against the bill. I'd tend to believe that there were never the votes for a filibuster, in which case he had no room to deal anyway.
Posted by: KathyF | Sep 29, 2006 6:47:59 AM
I agree with Jerry Politex (from Bush Watch) when he says "if the Democratic Party can't defend our basic Constitutional freedoms, it has no reason to exist. Not only have Senate Democrats refused to filibuster against this law that tears out the very heart of our democracy, 12 Democrats voted for it" He also says "our research shows, nearly 50% of the Senate Dem's vote Republican on key legislation nearly 50% of the time". I have to seriously think about that, why would I as a lifelong Democrat want to keep voting for a party that doesn't represent my interests.
Posted by: VP | Sep 29, 2006 7:07:31 AM
Kathy F: The info about the deal was in many places on the net yesterday. Frist had originally announced there would be no debate and no amendments. Later, as we saw, he allowed them, reportedly because Reid made the deal.
And you're right, Reid made a statement very critical about the legislation. That's all well and good but Reid didn't seem to have much clout with his own Dem caucus. Way too many Dems wouldn't even take a position until yesterday and didn't seem to start fighting the bill until very late.
Given the truly awful nature of this legislation, I would think a strong Dem leader would be able to wheel and deal, cajole and push within the caucus to get better unity on this. When certain former Dem leaders didn't have the votes for something, at least initially, they often seemed better at gaining those votes in the process. We don't want the lockstep mentality of the Repubs, but I think Party unity on something as central to liberty as habeas corpus should be attainable.
Posted by: barb | Sep 29, 2006 4:17:50 PM
I like John's plan. The way to conduct a good defense is by having a good offense. Too often Dems refuse to stand and get in their faces, but people love it when they do. They buy into Rove's framing instead of treading new ground on their own. I really think it would work.
I also think it's important to remember all the good Dems who voted against this bill. We need to find and elect more of them. Unfortunately, some Dems represent areas where it's hard to lead people away from the Republican-programmed views, like the South, certains parts of Ohio and Penna. for instance. I think it can be done but the members of congress aren't strong and convincing enough to lead. We will have to lead people away from the kind of thinking that believes we need to destroy the constitution and Geneva Conventions because terrorism exists in the world. We need leaders who can talk to ordinary people and they are in short supply in this era.
Posted by: Old Dem | Sep 29, 2006 4:50:49 PM
From what I read now it looks like it was a gamble that almost—almost—paid off. The amendment almost passed, by a 51-48 vote. If it had, the bill would not have gone to Bush to sign, since it would not have jived with the House bill. There would have been no time before Congress adjourned to fix it. Thus, no bill in this Congress. Hmmm...
Posted by: KathyF | Sep 30, 2006 1:43:09 AM
"Almost" works well when playing hand grenades, nuke war and horseshoes, but with something as important as this issue is/was the Dem leadership should have been able to defeat that legislation. Fact that 12 Dem's voted in favor of this crap, quite possibly because that were afraid that opposing would have been used against them in their reelect campaign is disgusting. To me it shown how politicians put their self interest ahead of the Constitution and the Country and the people they represent.
Posted by: VP | Sep 30, 2006 8:30:00 AM
