93 - 6. What Opposition Party?

[endarkenment]

I am disgusted. What a rotten week this has been. Schumer and the rest of the cowards can go huddle with joementum and form their own party. They are not the opposition party. They are the party that is summoned with no warning by the fraudulent president, so they drop their plans to launch their big campaign 06 non event and trot dutifully over to be told nothing new by the commander in thief. Then they trot back to congress to vote against ending the most unpopular war in the history of this country, for fear of looking weak. They look weak.

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Vichy Dems.

Collaborationism, as a pejorative term, can describe the treason of cooperating with enemy forces occupying one's country. As such it implies criminal deeds in the service of the occupying power, including complicity with the occupying power in murder, persecutions, pillage, and economic exploitation as well as participation in a puppet government.

The use of "collaboration" to mean "traitorous cooperation with the enemy," dates from 1940, originally in reference to the Vichy Regime in France, and other French people who helped Nazi Germany. Since then, the words collaboration and collaborateur possibly have this very pejorative meaning in French (the shortened form collabo only has this pejorative meaning).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaborationism

[endarkenment]

3. What does Democratic Underground mean?

To me it is increaingly meaning one thing: we need to organize an insurgency within the Democratic Party. We need to stop caring at all about the next election and start thinking only about how to make the party a progressive voice for the american people, the organization that will speak for the powerless, for all of working america, for the millions of good people in this nation. If we continue to pay attention to those who say we must collude and cooperate and compromise beacuse surely 06 or 08 or 10 will be 'our year' we will continue to facilitate the murderous corporate regime that now has complete control of the reigns of government both de jure and de facto.

[LoZoccolo]

4. "We need to stop caring at all about the next election"

See you in November.

[endarkenment]

5. Oh I'll vote D in november as always

That is not the point. The point is that 'D' either means something or it doesn't. If it means more of the same, slightly less mean spirited then why bother? We are headed off a cliff and we are taking the rest of the planet with us. Which lapel pin the bus driver is wearing is perhaps irrelevant.

[Jed Dilligan]

14. Vichy Dems, or Weimar Republicans? nt

[rfranklin]

2. They are craven cowards....

The majority of Americans are fed up with the phoney war and the worst president ever.

[buff2]

6. They don't look weak

They ARE weak. I'll never donate money to that pack of bu$h ass kissers that's in there now. Never.

[Totally Committed]

7. Is there a list somewhere of the 6 who voted

to bring the troops home?

TC

[riona]

8. n/t

NAYs ---6
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Not Voting - 1

[Totally Committed]

11. Thank you! (n/t)

TC

[cosmicdot]

9. what is Biden's amendment re Iran about? 99 yeas, 0 nays, 1 NV

it preceded the 93-6 vote

"To state the policy of the United States on the nuclear programs of Iran" added to S.2766 the Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007; Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4257 ... no details of the amendment, other than title and sponsors, have been posted ... the 3 co-sponsors: Levin, Dodd, Hagel ... 99 voted 'yea'; Rockefeller not voting. Vote 173

Vote link:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00173

this is the same Senate Bill involving the 93-6 vote on Amendment 4269, motion to table

Purpose: To require the withdrawal of the United States Armed Forces from Iraq and urge the convening of an Iraq summit. Vote 174

the six: Boxer, Byrd, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry; Rockefeller not voting

Vote Link:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00174

edited: if the vote links don't work ... try linking from the main Vote page ...
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/a_three_sections_with_teasers/votes.htm

[LSK]

10. roll call?

[cali]

12. I think you all have it wrong.

You're damning dems who voted against a republican measure introduced by REPUBLICANS in order to screw dems. This was introduced by Mitch McConnell of KY. It is NOT Kerry's. I don't know why the 6 decided to vote against tabling it, but I understand why other dems did.

[Dr Fate]

13. ...

...

[liberalpragmatist]

15. This was a Republican-sponsored measure

Meant to cut off debate and stall a Democratic resolution that sought to bridge the gap between Kerry's plan and the rest of the Democratic caucus.

Democrats accused Republicans of political gamesmanship and sought to curtail floor debate on the proposal. The vote occurred quickly.

Kerry called the vote “fictitious” and promised further debate next week on the issue. He and five other Democrats were in the minority on the vote — Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Senate Republicans claimed victory with the lopsided tally. “This sent a good message that the United States Senate overwhelmingly opposes a cut-and-run strategy,” said John Cornyn of Texas.

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13338901/page/2/

[jackbourassa]

16. This is why the Democrats are so stupid...

They fall into Republican traps so frequently and easily. This bill was designed for nothing else than having people like John Cornyn say things like, "This sent a good message that the United States Senate overwhelmingly opposes a cut-and-run strategy."

Here's how it will play out now. Every time a Democrat says anything about Iraq, the Republicans will respond by saying that Democrats are "cut and run" and when given the chance to "debate" or go on record against the war, they balked. This was designed to PREVENT debate on the issue of Iraq, not encourage it. And the Democrats, as per their custom, fell for it.

The issue has thus been reduced to simple sloganeering: either you support cutting and running, or you support staying the course. Nice going, Democrats. You worthless fucks.

Iraq is one of the most important issues, and the Democrats just refuse to fight on the issue. They prefer to say nothing at all. THAT IS WHY THEY LOOK WEAK!!!

[Clarkie1]

17. It's not just about fear of looking weak or being an opposition party.

It's important to support policies that are best for America, regardless of the side of the aisle. Making the best of the situation in Iraq should be a non-partisan issue. No one should be for immediate withdrawl merely in order to be in maximum opposition to the present state of affairs. We should promote a policy that is most likely to leave the Irai people with a stable country and government. We should rise above partisanship without letting Bush off the hook for the terrible mistakes he has made.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. But they aren't proposing an altnernative and they aren't being honest

Here's the truth...

We can occupy Iraq for 20 years or more and MAYBE the country will one day be stable. However, no politician who continues to support the war will be honest about this. The administration and even Democrats who support the administration's policies keep saying we'll probably be out by next year and then next year they say the exact same thing.

If these Democrats who supported the continued occupation wanted to do the right thing, they would at least be honest and tell the American people that this isn't going to end next year or the year after, and that we are in this for the long haul.

Here's the other truth...

America is most likely not going to tolerate a long term occupation of Iraq. Sooner or later they will elect a President who will pull the troops out. Some Democrats like John Murtha know this and they would rather see us pull out now instead of five years from now with the same results but more people dead. Other Democrats like Joe Biden know this and they are proposing a completely different alternative which is to divide Iraq into three countries.


Iraq has been a complete and utter failure since Bushco started it no matter how you spin it. It isn't partisan to tell the truth about the war. If Democrats genuinely feel that the continued occupation is the best thing, then they need to stop lieing to the American people about how long we are going to be there like Bush does. Otherwise, they need to present real alternatives to Bush's policy.

[WyoBlueDog]

19. Calm down,

Schumer and the other mainstream Democrats (Sanders will be a hoot when he gets in there!) recognize the very rational fact that we cannot withdraw from Iraq by any set date. That's because none our elected officials, Democratic or Republican, can even come up with a fucking plan. So how can we even begin to imagine when to withdraw?