Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Does it make me a bad (Democrat, progressive, liberal)...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:00 PM
Original message
Does it make me a bad (Democrat, progressive, liberal)...
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 06:02 PM by IdesOfOctober
... to ask why:

1. The Senate Democrats didn't filibuster the creation of the military commissions, at least until after November 7, 2006: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

2. The Senate Democrats didn't filibuster - or bottle up in committee, or delay the vote on - the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, at least until after November 5, 2002: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

I've taken a drubbing on this.

My basic point is simple:

1. We wouldn't have military commissions today, had all 44 Dems and 1 Independent filibustered: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_and_t...

2. A Senate filibuster (or, better still, committee hearings - with subpoenas issued by the Democratic Chairs) in 2002 would have forced the Administration to do more to justify invading Iraq.

I think it is the mark of a loyal and patriotic American to look at the actual votes, and to use the election cycle to hold our public officials to account for those actual votes.

So, does any thoughtful, rational, fact-based Democrat who dares to ask one of the YEA-voting (read: rubber stamping) Democratic Senators to explain his/her vote on these two critical matters risk being shouted down in the town square?

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
liberaliraqvet26 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. No its not irrational. But we are looking to the future at the moment...
a good enough showing on Nov 7th and crap like this wont even come up for a vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. But what about 2002?
If there was ever a time for a line in the sand to be drawn, 2002 was it.

"a good enough showing on Nov 7th and crap like this wont even come up for a vote."

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

The Senate Dems had the majority in 2002. They didn't use it to stop (or even delay) the authorization of force in Iraq.

OK. Either they got fooled, or we did.

Last month, the Senate Dems had the numbers to stop the enactment of the military commissions, via a filibuster. Did they stand up this time around? Nope - even though they could have argued that the opposition of Senators McCain, Warner, and Graham highlighted the need for more careful study, and pointed out that with the election looming, this could wait. "After all," they could have said, "it's not like those detainees are going anywhere with Bush in charge, right?"

OK. Either they got fooled - again - or we did.

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grebrook Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:13 PM
Response to Original message
2. No, it just makes you a repetitive poster who isn't pointing out anything that hasn't already been
rehashed. Furiously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Sorry about that...
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 06:19 PM by IdesOfOctober
... if you point out the threads discussing the current batch of Senate Dems' failure to filibuster the creation of the military commissions, I'll go read those thoroughly, before posting anything more about it.

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:14 PM
Response to Original message
3. No, not a bad Democrat
and definitely a good American. I totally disagree with the lack of foresight and backbone on the part of the dems and sorry if anyone doesn't like that, I'm an American before I am a Democrat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Thank God!
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 06:21 PM by IdesOfOctober
And thank you for saying so.

Honestly, how hard would it have been for the current batch of Senate Dems last month to say, "We'll agree to come back to town and take this (creation of the commissions) back up on November 9th, to give everyone the day after the election off"?

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nite Owl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. They were afraid that it would be used against them
in the election but actually they could have turned this right back on them. They could have had a "Mourning Ceremony" for the Constitution on the Capitol steps among other things. Everything has gone too far, we can't be afraid anymore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. We can't be afraid anymore...
... which is why I don't understand why many of the same Democratic Senators who voted for the Iraq War (out of fear), succumbed to the same reasoning last month on the military commissions.

You'd think they would have learned by now that appeasing Bush isn't the answer.

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwerlain Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. I believe we shared a few thoughts...
NightOwl.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwerlain Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
7. Perhaps there is more to it...
they do, after all, have to get reelected, and I think that the point at which they had to make the decision whether to filibuster or not might have been before all this stuff started coming down with Foleygate and Stay The Course and so forth; although I believe that it was after the publication of the latest Woodward book.

Not excusing it- that's not what you asked. I treat your initial question as non-rhetorical and suggest an answer.

Rather than answer your second question, I'll answer the question implicit in the statement that precedes it, and state that while a public official's voting record is certainly part, and an important part at that, of the answer to what criteria one should (man, I hate that word in this context- shouldacouldawouldaoughtamighta!) consider when deciding who to vote for, you imply that that is ALL one should consider, and with that thought I disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. What more important criteria is there?
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 06:39 PM by IdesOfOctober
I may like a candidate. I may think s/he'd make a swell drinking buddy.

But what more important yardstick is there for me (or any other voter) to use than their actual votes?

I'm not a single-issue voter. I understand that no candidate is going to cast his/her vote exactly the same way that I would, if I were on the chamber floor.

But when I look at the overlapping lists of those current Democratic Senators who voted both: (1) to authorize troops in Iraq; and (2) to authorize the creation of military commissions, I see:

(3) the list of Democratic Senators who need serious primary challengers their next go-around. Basically, I think if a Senator appears on both lists, s/he at least needs a serious primary fight, to be forced to explain the rationale, without a "by" or a "pass" on such weighty issues.

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gwerlain Donating Member (516 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
19. Never said there was a MORE IMPORTANT...
criterion, just that it's not the ONLY criterion.

As far as needing a serious challenge in the next primary, I agree completely. I'd also say a chiding letter to go with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
originalpckelly Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:26 PM
Response to Original message
9. self-delete.
Edited on Sat Oct-28-06 06:27 PM by originalpckelly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:34 PM
Response to Original message
11. Dont you remember? They agreed not to filibuster.
No, I'm not happy about it either. But it won't make me vote Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
16. Me either...
... but will it make you think seriously about replacing those Dems with others?

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SmokingJacket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. That's why I voted against the Dem incumbent in the primary.
However, my guy lost, and now I have no choice.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
24. Maybe When the Bush-Backing Dems...
... start sensing that they're vulnerable in the primaries, they'll get with the progressive program?

- Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SPKrazy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:36 PM
Response to Original message
13. It Does Make You Wonder If The Whole Lot Of Them
have been gotten to.

(congress that is)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:37 PM
Response to Original message
15. No...
it means that elected, national Democratic Party leaders are not Progressives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I understand that to achieve the majorities...
... the caucus will not be 100% progressives.

But those two voting lists - especially the overlap - suggests to my mind a targeted focus list of Dems who should be replaced with newer models.

; )

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-28-06 07:36 PM
Response to Original message
20. You do know about Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, & Mary Landrieu don't you?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CorpGovActivist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 10:20 AM
Response to Original message
21. Had Gavels, Did Grovel
That could be the title of the tell-all about Daschle's last days.

- Dave
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. Awesome working title...
... when are you gonna pen the manuscript?

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seabeyond Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 10:30 AM
Response to Original message
22. it depends if you reasonably listen to the answer once you ask
or if you ignore answer continually and keep asking over and over and over, with no intent what so ever to see reality
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #22
30. Help me to see the reality...
... of the votes cited in the OP?

The reality I see is that:

1. in October 2002, the Senate Dems had the gavels, and didn't use them.

2. in September 2006, the Senate Dems had the numbers to stop the creation of the military commissions, or at least to delay until after next week.

What part of that reality am I not seeing?

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Individualist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
23. No. It makes you a good Democrat, a responsible citizen,
and a good person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Then why do I feel...
... like a heretic?

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
brentspeak Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
26. I would say it makes you a "concerned Democrat"
Pay attention to the quotation marks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
32. "Lovely"...
... no argument, just "air quotes."

How "mature."

How "enlightened."

How "devoid of anything resembling leadership."

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 06:46 PM
Response to Original message
27. Are you representing yourself as a Democrat/progressive/liberal?
Given your thread yesterday and the language you use regarding Dems, is this just a question for those who are liberal, progressive Dems or are you also representing yourself as a liberal, progressive Dem?

Yesterday in your thread you seemed to create a Dem bogeyman to be feared if the Dems gained a majority in Congress, using language such as "'Lord of the Flies Democrats,' who would - left to their own devices - seize the gavels and take the country into a sort of retributionist Reign of Terror," and "frothing-at-the-mouth Dems." Language seemingly influenced by if not indeed taken from Republican talking points and fears. Baggage.

As for your question if anyone here who "dares" question Dem Senators about their votes is at "risk" of "being shouted down in the town square," that question has been repeatedly answered over the years here by the many threads that indeed have criticized, indeed bashed Dems in Congress for their votes/actions/inactions on a number of matters. And furthermore by those here who do more than just post but also contact their reps/Senators before votes and then afterwards asking them to explain/justify their votes. And apparently you've already been made aware of that by other posters. You're a bit late to the party here (figuratively speaking) if you've spent time at DU and still ask that, braving the "mobbish rage" here and all.

If you want proof, donate to the site and search the archives yourself if you really want to know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Funny how you focus only on...
Edited on Sun Oct-29-06 06:50 PM by IdesOfOctober
... the criticisms I have leveled, and not the praise.

And yes - history teaches (over and over and over and over again) that an out-of-power minority can allow itself to be hijacked by its extremists.

If you have an argument to offer that Democrats are immune from human nature, I'm all ears.

I don't think it makes me unpatriotic or disloyal to throw up the caution flare - while we're on *this* side of next week's victory.

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Garbo 2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #29
35. Funny how you didn't answer my question. ;) As for criticisms of Dems,
DU's full of criticism of Dem pols, just read. You've apparently missed considerable discussion here regarding precisely the matters you mentioned in your OP. But you also seemingly ignore criticism of Dem pols since you've signed up here and continue to suggest a poster voicing such criticism may be "shouted down," despite evidence to the contrary.

And who says it's "unpatriotic, disloyal" to criticize Dem pols? That's a Republican response/talking point when they're faced with criticism. (Just can't seem to shake them, can you?) No one here that I can recall has ever questioned posters' patriotism when, for example, they took Feinstein to task for her votes. Or Kerry. Or Biden. Or other Dem pols.

As for the Dem party being "hijacked" by "extremists," good grief, are you channelling Joe Lieberman? :eyes: To some folks on the right apparently a "liberal" is by definition an "exremist." Even moderate Dems or the DINOs are sometimes called "extremists" by RW Republicans. Which is why some of us have a laugh when the specter of "extremist" Dems controlling Congress is raised as a bugaboo. Why not name a few of these "extremists" you seem so concerned about? Dianne Feinstein? Biden? Dean? Kennedy? Lamont? Conyers? Does the CBC just give you the heebie jeebies?

You seem frightened at the prospect of a Dem Congress at the same time you appear to support the need for a change from the current Congress, but what precisely are you afraid of? Just wondering since you seem to come to DU with booga booga and inflammatory rhetoric about Dems. Which seems somewhat odd for someone who in this thread appears to be representing himself/herself as a progressive, liberal Dem.

The party that has been hijacked by extremists (and cynical opportunististic politicians both whipping them up and pandering to them) is the Republican party, which I surmise is likely why you're here at DU and appear to support a change in Congress. If so, you certainly wouldn't be the first. But most of 'em drop the Republican talking points and fear mongering about Dems.

But please don't continue the pose that criticism, questioning of Dem pols may not be tolerated here on the board or within the party because that's simply not the case. Evidence to the contrary is readily available here.

And you still didn't answer my question.

Again, if you want to read threads critical of Dems votes/actions/inactions on various matters, including habeas corpus/military commissions act, donate to the site and use the advanced search function.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftCoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
28. It makes you a 'concerned' Democrat
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IdesOfOctober Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 06:59 PM
Response to Reply #28
33. "Concerned" code phrase full of "Macaca"...
... it's entirely possible to be a good progressive, a good liberal, and/or a good Democrat, and still ask questions like those in the OP.

Make no mistake: I want to see both houses in Democrats' hands by next Wednesday. Once the Democrats regain the majorities, though, I think a good hard look needs to be taken at which Dems in that majority could be replaced with "better models" in 08, to retain the majority, and solidify its progressive bent.

Ides
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-29-06 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
34. I dunno bout that, but...
If I ever find that room of dry powder, I'm gonna have a schmoke.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC