The "no difference between D's and R's" crowd shall be silent from now on.

[LoZoccolo]

These are the Senators who voted against the anti-torture bill today:

Allard (R-CO)
Bond (R-MO)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Stevens (R-AK)

None of them are Democrats. They are all Republicans.

Let there never be a word said from here on out about there not being a difference between the Democratic and Republican parties. You can vote for the candidates you like in the primary, and you can make your case for them to the public up until then*, but come the general, if you let a Republican have your vote through a third-party, you could potentially be electing someone who may have you or someone else tortured.

*Why this avenue seems to never be considered by people who want to complain about the party, I don't know. But I think it has something to do with hard work.

[electropop]

1. republican culture of torture

the meme for the day

[JI7]

2. what a vile bunch

even the most conservative of democrats such as ben nelson, evan bayh etc would be a huge improvement over them.

[punpirate]

3. Ummm, one example...

... does not a principle make.

Generalizing from a particular is a questionable debate tactic, at best. When the Demos start behaving consistently as human beings concerned about other human beings instead of corporate interests, I'll take note.

Until then, such votes as this represent the exception, not the rule.

Cheers.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Right.

So let's see them knock it off with NAFTA already.

Seriously though, I'm saying that the two parties are not equivalent, the way a mathematician would say 1 does not equal 2. You can't say "well, the two just has only one more one than the one, please don't generalize based on there being only one more". Nope. Not equal means not equal. There is either a difference, or there is no difference. And there is a difference.

[punpirate]

25. Fine...

... mathematical sophistry....

1.995 does not equal 2.000. I agree.

Cheers.

[LoZoccolo]

47. But here in this case, the difference of 1 is torture.

You are against torture, right?

[jobycom]

4. Cochran, wow. He used to be pretty moderate

I voted against him on the first ballot I ever cast (1984-right after voting against Reagan), but I always thought he was reasonable. He was the moderate choice to replace Dole as Majority Leader when Lott got it instead. I remember this because I wrote a letter to him, and he personally responded. I once worked for retired senator Ralph Yarborough, just as an office boy, but he told me a few stories about Cochran. Yarborough liked him. So I emailed Cochran and told him I hoped he would get the leadership, and told him the Yarborough stories.

I didn't think he'd even see it, but a few days later he wrote back personally, even talking about Yarborough a little.

Sad to see he's sold out like that. Lott isn't even on the list. Was there some technical objection that anyone voted against?

[ladjf]

8. I remember when Thad Cochran was a fun loving cheerleader

at Ole Miss. He hasn't aged well.

[jobycom]

20. I thought Trent Lott was the cheerleader.

[ladjf]

23. Yes he was. But, I believe that Thad also was also a cheerleader.

We are the same age and were students at Ole Miss during the same years. I could be in error.

[jobycom]

24. So both Mississippi Senators were cheerleaders! That beats Texas

where only one (Kay Bailey Hutchison) was.

[Zen Democrat]

30. I don't know. Texas has the trifecta on cheerleaders:

George W. Bush
Gov. Rick Perry
Sen. KB Hutchison

[Zen Democrat]

32. I'd like to hear some of your Yarborough stories.

Ralph Yarborough was one tenacious son-of-a-gun. He was the only government official in the Dallas motorcade that publicly voiced an opinion different from the Warren Commission.

[jobycom]

41. Yarborough was convinced Oswald was the lone gunman.

He disagreed with parts of it, but mostly over small details. There were two schools of thought on what made Yarborough upset about it. The first was he was just upset because they never interviewed him, and he felt snubbed, probably by LBJ. The second was it was just a political ploy--he tried to win the skeptical vote and retain the vote who agreed with it when he ran in 70 (lost to Lloyd Bentsen in the primaries) and then again in 72 (lost to someone else, forgot who. Maybe John Tower.).

But he finally convinced me Oswald was the shooter. I had believed otherwise, but had started to lean that way. Yarborough got upset that people were using his words to argue that there were other shooters. He said it was obvious to everyone in the motorcade and most of the witnesses where the shots came from.

One question he wouldn't answer, though. He would never say whether he believed anyone put Oswald up to it. That's one area he felt the WC didn't explore enough.

Keep in mind, he was very close to JFK. I knew him in the 90s, not long before his death, and he would still choke up the very few times he would talk about it. He stopped doing interviews because he was upset that people only talked about the assassination of JFK, and not JFK's life. The official story of why JFK was in Texas that day was to patch up a rift between Yarborough and LBJ--the two branches of the Texas Dem party. Yarborough disputes this. He claims that he was the most popular of the three, and JFK was in Texas to shore up his own numbers by being seen with Yarborough. I doubt that's true, but JFK may have told him it was. JFK had a way of telling everyone what they wanted to hear without contradicting anyone else.

Anyway, cool guy. Lot's of stories. The main one about Cochran happened after Yarborough lost, and returned to the Senate building for another reason. Out of habit he took the senate elevators, which he was no longer allowed to take. Cochran caught the elevators at the same time, and held the door for him, and joked with him about it. Yarborough followed his career after that, and thought he was a good senator, though he disagreed with him.

[jobycom]

5. They should have been silent long ago, but they won't be. nt

[LoZoccolo]

10. I think you're right.

Attention-whoring knows no final argument, and the pleasure of self-pity outweighs the suffering inflicted by the Republicans for some people.

[jobycom]

21. For some

it is the self-pity. For others, I believe there are unstated objectives being sought, that aren't the same as the majority of DU's.

[ulysses]

6. you're so sexy when you make pronouncements you can't guarantee.

:D

Yes, good on the party that no Dems voted against the anti-torture bill. That's what we expect of them.

[ulysses]

12. allow me to elaborate a bit.

A Democrat, pretty much by definition, should be opposed to torture. That I even have to say this is a bit depressing.

While I am indeed thankful that no Dems voted against this bill, making that fact as meaningful as you wish to make it is like conferring special benefits upon the sky for being blue.

I am not of the "no difference" crowd and never have been. The "insufficient difference" crowd, yes. I want genuine stances on hard policy from my party. I got it in this instance. That's good.

There have been many instances, though, where I haven't. Let's let them keep at it a bit before we enshrine the Grand Pronouncements, shall we?

[LoZoccolo]

13. Torture: an insufficient difference.

Not for me.

[ulysses]

14. you're pointedly missing the point.

Opposition to torture IS a sufficient difference, yes. Support for CAFTA is not. Support for IWR is not. Halfhearted mumbling about No Child Left Behind and vouchers is not.

[LoZoccolo]

15. Is there a sufficient difference between the parties or is there not?

You're talking about stances on single issues and whether you like the opinion of every single Democratic elected official on those issues. I'm talking about punching one hole in the ballot versus another.

[ulysses]

16. on the whole? no.

You're talking about stances on single issues

Call me crazy, but isn't that what you just did?

[LoZoccolo]

17. You only have to have a difference on one issue...

...to say there's a difference. That's all that's required to support my position. Saying that there's not a sufficient difference would require saying that there's not a sufficient difference on every issue.

I think torture is a sufficient issue because I don't want to open the door to letting a torturer into the Senate because I am opposed to torture. There are a ton more issues anyways if you'd care to look. Do you even know how many Democratic Senators voted for CAFTA versus against? Off the top of your head? You can look it up on the web and post it here, but get the reason I'm asking you this - have you really looked for a difference to begin with, or are you just being contrarian?

[ulysses]

18. um, no.

Saying that there's not a sufficient difference would require saying that there's not a sufficient difference on every issue.


Nope. I'm a "whole package" kind of guy.

You can look it up on the web and post it here, but get the reason I'm asking you this - have you really looked for a difference to begin with, or are you just being contrarian?

No, I followed CAFTA relatively closely. I may get this wrong, but as I recall there were five.

And no, I'm not being contrarian. As deeply as it annoys you, some of us really do have genuine problems with the party of late. Deal.

[LoZoccolo]

22. "I'm a 'whole package' kind of guy."

No you're not. I think of the people who might get tortured, killed in combat, or drowned because that's part of the whole package I'd be throwing away with my futile third-party gesture should I be so inclined to make one. That's one of the differences between your philosophy and mine.

There were ten Democratic senators, and fifteen Democratic representatives who voted for CAFTA. Not even the majority of Democrats, and certainly not worth opening the door to torture and institutional racism.

[ulysses]

26. I didn't say it was.

and certainly not worth opening the door to torture and institutional racism.

Of course not. Then again, the environmental and labor law damage we can expect under CAFTA - to say nothing of the AIDS patients who will die as a result of the deal, reflected in my sig line - didn't seem to be worth the chance to toss anothe bone to the corporations, did they?

Bear in mind that I'm largely resigned to voting Dem for the forseeable future, for all the damned good it'll do. I just don't expect much to come of it.

[LoZoccolo]

27. Give me a plan, I want to see the plan.

Show me how you'll realistically repeal CAFTA by voting for third parties. Anything else is vanity in the truest sense, that of doing something that does nothing.

Remember, for every term we have to wait through Republican leadership because certain factions decided to teach the Democratic primary voters a lesson through the use of violence (even if they let the Republicans inflict the violence for them) is another term of more damage to be reversed...unless you think the Iraq war or New Orleans floods were worth it to punish the people who wouldn't vote for a "progressive" candidate in the primaries?

Or even passage of more free trade bills that you are against in theory?

[ulysses]

28. you're the one with the third party jones, not me.

Show me how you'll realistically repeal CAFTA by voting for third parties.

Why? I haven't posited the idea.

Remember, for every term we have to wait through Republican leadership because certain factions decided to teach the Democratic primary voters a lesson through the use of violence (even if we let the Republicans do it for us) is another term of more damage to be reversed...unless you think the Iraq war or New Orleans floods were worth it to punish the people who wouldn't vote for a "progressive" candidate in the primaries?

As always, I'm inspired by the display of machismo from a center that can't find it's ass with both hands and a flashlight. Don't want the left? Then do it yourself. See how it goes, ace.

[LoZoccolo]

29. "No sufficient difference" is third-party propaganda.

It's only conclusion is that it's OK to vote for third parties.

Also, the moderates are the majority of the Democratic Party, and it's the leftist splinter that thinks people should drown or die in a war if they don't vote for their candidate, which is a friendly thing to do and should steer the Democratic Party unto a course that's only slightly less insane than Maoist China.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=240

[ulysses]

31. LOL!

No sufficient difference" is third-party propaganda

We will suffer no dissent within the glorious party! All hail the party! Four legs good, two legs bad! :D

It's only conclusion is that it's OK to vote for third parties.


It's still legal, as far as I know...

Also, the moderates are the majority of the Democratic Party

Then why do they go apoplectic when the left threatens to vote third party? If the moderates can do it themselves, THEN DO IT.

and it's the leftist splinter that thinks people should drown or die in a war if they don't vote for their candidate

Speaking of propaganda...

which is a friendly thing to do and should steer the Democratic Party unto a course that's only slightly less insane than Maoist China.

You seem to have your own idea of what my politics are. Please elaborate - what is that insane course on which I want to steer the country? This should be good. :D

[LoZoccolo]

33. I'm not saying that's your politics.

But it's a definite thing that I've heard from splinterists, that people should be made to suffer so they'll come running to a progressive. That is the strategy that Stalin suggested to German communists that led to Hitler getting elected. But hey, they eventually got a German communist state, didn't they? All this killing and torture with an optimistic leftist utopian face on it to make it seem alright...it's madness, and killed more people in the 20th century than even fascism, actually. But that's the only reason I can think, outside of just not knowing the effects of your actions, for voting for a third party or even encouraging it with propaganda - to cause violence onto people using the Republicans as the instrument of torture. Some people say they know the consequences of their actions, and encourage them: Republican violence.

Then why do they go apoplectic when the left threatens to vote third party? If the moderates can do it themselves, THEN DO IT.

They can't, but it's based on the propagandistic lie that there is no difference between the parties, therefore progressives don't get anything from moderates (they do). That lie is basically part of the Stalin strategy I describe above.

[ulysses]

36. then why are you bringing it up to me?

:shrug:

It's well past my bedtime and you're playing games again, so I'll have to catch up with you tomorrow evening. I can only hope that I haven't been rude to you, so that I'm still able to log in then...

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. First off the people who believe there is no sufficient difference

DON'T belong to the Democratic Party, but thank you for pointing something out, the Moderates (I will read the DLC) are reacting with a nice knee jerk to people pointing out what the problems are

Now lets take take you down to main street, for multiple reasons, go ahead I dare you, Joe Six Pack, remember him? when asked what the RNC stands for, they will give you a litany of one liners

Family Values (Barf)
Pro Life (Barf)
Lower taxes (barf)
The American way of Life (barf)
Pro gun (barf)

Now ask them, what do democrats stand for?

Go ahead, please do... not your friends, not your pals, just Joe Six Pack.

These days I take at times over an hour explaining the basics of what Democrats stand for... I watch the SPAN... most people DON'T watch the Span... and I do include ONE Republican, who should go indie as a person hero in this, Ron Paul... his party left him a while ago.

That said if any democrat voted for torture I would be having a cow but would have been very strange, tell me... will this be reported tonight on the daily news? Why not?

Now you have a problem with people pointing the problems, some of us have even given solutions you are not willing to respond to, such as ....

Publicly Funded Elections, just like the glided age, you want to run for Congress... tell me what is the cost and how much do you get paid for your job? How much does it cost to run for the Senate? Again how much does it pay? How much does it cost to run for dog catcher for god sakes?

In an ideal world, I would actually open the system (this requires an amendment and there is no way the Dems or the Pugs will support it) and create a proportional representation system.

Learn to use the two word culture, and the 30 second one liners, the PUGS spends millions testing this, and then deploying the two word culture, why have we not done this?

Take stands for the people, not the corporations, see above about publicly funded elections. And yes there are some Dems who are returned every election who TAKE STANDS, McKinney, Conyers, heck most of the Black Caucus, I know they are radicals for you....

Hit the airwaves

What is the matter with Kansas, you don't face those problems you know when we will win an election?

So stop your belly aching about people being critical, WE are being critical because WE yearn to win an election, or two or three and so far people have noticed, polls for the pugs are plummeting, but the dems are NOT gaining traction... that should be your HUGE clue that there is a problem.

[LoZoccolo]

35. I don't have anything against being critical.

It must be constructive, though. And it can't be lying. And "no difference" or even "no sufficient difference" is a lie.

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. Then why are yuo reacting this way every time somebody

points out the elephants in the room?

And you are....

by the way the herd is calling, they need peanuts

[LoZoccolo]

42. I'm reacting this way every time somebody...

...advocates third parties, which is not constructive, and usually based on a fundamental lie (that there is no difference between the parties).

[ladjf]

7. Their names should be posted in public buildings everywhere

in America that the 10 commandments are displayed. Those nine men are advocating the illegal torture of humans.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

11. Camelot

"Don't let it be forgot
That once there was a spot,
For torturing the Hajis
That . . . was . . . known as . . .
Bomb . . . a . . . LOT!

[jonnyblitz]

19. hey I ALWAYS vote for the DEM and I am one of the fringest

lefties on DU. I could get away with voting 3rd party, too, since i live in a very blue state but I STILL vote for the DEM every time. I just bitch about them "in-house" here at DU. :shrug:

[rockymountaindem]

38. Thanks for being a team player.

Since people always spend time shouting "please don't go!" to people who threaten to quit, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for being reasonable :cheers:

[don954]

39. their pictures

-grin-

[Lecky]

40. Ugh...of course Jeff Sessions is on that list

I cannot stand that man, he makes my skin crawl.


What in the Hell is wrong with these 9 Senators? They should be ashamed of themselves. Disgusting pigs...

Both of the Oklahoma Senators support torture apparently, sounds like a scary state.

[Armstead]

43. The viote was 90-9, which means most GOP voted for it too

And Republicans were among the prime sponsors.

That is not to negate the awfulness of those GOPers who voted against it.

But to use this as an example to refute the distressing similarities between the current stance of Establishment Democrats with Republicans is an irrelevant apples and oranges example.

It's also a narrow one. Voting to prevent torture is like voting for apple pie.

Any idiot knows there are differences between Democrats and Republicans overall. That's not the problem. Ther problem is both quantity and quality of differences between the overall performance of the Democratic power structure.Not enough differences on core issues these days.

[Humor_In_Cuneiform]

44. McCain is not your garden variety Republican

And from what I read, it was his stirring emotional speech discussing his own experience as a POW in Vietnam that helped the amendment pass.

He said among other things that when he was there, one thing that kept him and the others going was the idea that we were better than that, ie the torture done to them. That our side would not do that, were roles reversed.

McCain is one of the more frequent crossovers who votes with the Dems, when others vote strictly on a party line. He's in a different category at least part of the time.

I still see a very large difference between basic Repubs and Dems, in terms of bills supported, stances on issues.

It has however become very difficult to have much impact in this time with almost complete Republican takeover of the government.

I get emails all the time from the DSCC and the DCCC advocating for good causes, ones most here would support, I imagine.

And there is a lot of work that goes on at local levels, which can still happen despite the monopoly in DC.

And good grassroots efforts, and work by people like Robert Kennedy Jr. for the environment, Wes Clark on national security and a variety of issues.

Now if we're talking about a system of lobbyists in which some Democrats "drink at the same trough" as Republicans, there is a problem that I believe needs to be dealt with.

Abramoff is about to unwillingly be the cause that will drag the idea of lobbying gone wild through the muck of public opinion, I hope.

We do need to get the special interests out of government.

:argh:

[rniel]

45. Good god

A few years ago I wouldn't believe that people could run on a campaign of "we want torture" to get elected. "feed the hungry" "equal justice for all" maybe, but here we go america "we want torture"

[Arkana]

46. At least no Dems are there.

That should shut the "EVRYWUN IN THA SENATE IS A DLCERRRR!!!!" crowd up. For a while at least.

[ElectroPrincess]

48. Being honest on one issue, both morally and intellectually ...

does not necessarily differentiate the two parties FINANCIALLY.

The Democratic Leadership, especially the DLC is sucking at the corporate teat. Everything is first and foremost accomplished to benefit their corporate masters. In that regard, there is LITTLE difference between the two parties.

[radio4progressives]

49. Please say tongue is firmly planted in cheek

postings can be very deceptive when there is no facial or voice tone in order to determine when someone is only kidding.... like i hope you are ...

and no smilies to boot. ;)

[LoZoccolo]

50. No, I am serious.

There are many other differences between the parties. But torture alone is inexcusable to ignore.