Some Dems HAD to vote for this thing.

[democrat_patriot]

They need to win an election. That is all. We need them to win this election.

The RNC has 5 times the money we have, 5 times. How many ads that say "Dems weak on Terror" can they run? 24 X 7.

The RNC owns the airwaves. They control the media.

The Dems who voted for this cannot now come out and say "We had to vote for this vile crap to win".

Let's gain the majority and than see what happens: Secret Energy task Force - Abramoff Inquiries - Pre-Iraq war intelligence.

Oh, and they can always repeal this thing. But we need to win first.

Volunteer, contribute and vote.

Thanks.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Yep. It sucks, but they had to. n/t

[leeroysphitz]

3. You may want to change your user name.

No need to flame me. I'm just sayin'...

[no_hypocrisy]

17. No, you have a point. However, I also embrace the concept of

"the color of truth is gray". This situation isn't as black-and-white as I first had the impression it was.

[MADem]

2. Stand by for the foam and spit....fair warning!

I know what you are saying, and if you look at the ones who voted YEA, they're in competitive races and fear that "cut 'n run" rush of attack ads that will cost big bucks to refute, or they've got a fellow Dem running in that boat and don't want to splash any crap on them.

The other day, there were several threads urging everyone to pick up the phone and regurgitate down the line at Senator Obama, because one person claimed that "someone in his office" said that he was taking a "poll" on whether or not to "vote for torture." Now, aside from the simple thought that I can't believe a staffer would be that stupid, I also can't believe someone as smart as Obama would even SAY such a thing. But hey, that didn't stop everyone from getting all in a swivet...and at the end of the day, Obama, NOT on any ballot, didn't vote for the thing after all of that drama. And I strongly doubt he would have in any case.

But anyway, you'll likely see more than a few "take my ball and go home" outbursts as a result of your offering of that tactical truth.

I'm a fan of win and repeal, myself, simply because there's no other recourse at this stage. We can't do squat without controlling the agenda.

[MrCoffee]

4. You may be willing to run on the corpse of the Constitution. I am not.

There is no baser excuse for this than "I did what I had to so I could win an election."

[John Gauger]

63. I know

You expect me to accept it when you say, "It's okay that I authorized that torture, I was just being nakedly political, that's all" I like them even less than I did before that rationale was put forth.

[maxsolomon]

5. not acceptable

basically, your assertion is that the ends justify the means.

but this WAS the constitution. habeas corpus WAS a 1000 years old. Jose Padilla isn't a hypothetical. he's a citizen deprived of his constitutional rights, and it was just validated by Senators of the only party i would vote for. i expect politicians to be venal, but this is how our new fascism thrives, by tiny steps.

[napi21]

18. If you are right and this is UNCONSTITUTIONAL the SCOTUS will

overturn it!

For all those who are screaming at the 34 Dems who voted for this disaster, did you ever think of that? I HAVE!

I actually think it will do MORE damage to the PUBS when it's overturned as unconstitutional than all of those 34 voting against it ever could have! Remember how hard Shrub took it when the SCOTUS overturned his 2 other plans?

I don't agree with "the end justifies the means" strategy either, but there's a differencebetween that and saying "fine, we'll votethe way OUR constituents want us to vote and then laugh ourselves silly when it gets O/Ted by the SCOTUS. That's not an end justifies the means idea, it's a strategy, and I believe it will work!!!!

[maxsolomon]

22. will they?

i hope you're right, but it is their DUTY to uphold the constitution, to stand on principle. not to pass the buck to the Judicial Branch & hope that Scalia, Thomas, Alito et al do the right thing.

as a hold-my-nose-and-vote democrat, i have no faith in any branch of our government at this point.

[John Gauger]

65. Of course they will overturn it

No decent human beings would ever approve of torture.

There was a time when I would have said the same thing in reference to Congress. But oh lookee, it would seem that the venal and virulent vermin have indeed approved of torture. I really don't know that the SCOTUS will overturn this. I myself am holding out for the International Criminal Court.

[Individualist]

23. Bushco's SCOTUS?

The one that selected the little dictator, now with the addition of Roberts and Alito?

:rofl:

:rofl:

[SammyWinstonJack]

25. !

:rofl: Hysterical isn't it, the thought of bu$hco's bestest buds overturning his torture rights. I suppose it could happen. :think:

[savemefromdumbya]

42. I doubt it - they're all entwined

[napi21]

52. Yep! Even the media kept saying"Cheney's buddy Scalia said no"!

I can just imagine the conversations behind closed doors in the WH when the SCOTUS made those rulings!

I wouldn't trust the new SCOTUS at all when it comes to Roe or displaying the 10 Commandments, but even the most political of the bunch still seem to have a strong support for the Constitution!

[napi21]

49. YEP THEM! They've already done it twice that I know of!

ShrubCo was as surprised as we were I suspect!

Actually, I think there's a second subject in this bill that is ALSO unconstitutional, and that's making it "retroactive"! I can't recall which one of the constitutional scholars I heard talk about this (I think it was Johanathan Turley), but he saidYOU CAN'T make laws RETROACTIVE! If something was illegal 6 mos or a yr ago, you can't just pass a law and say someone who broke the law in the past is off the hook because it's NOW legal!

[bryant69]

6. I am in favor of supporting the dems, but come on

They didn't have to vote in favor of pissing away the constitution. My guy, Nelson, certainly didn't have to.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[donco6]

20. I don't think Salazar did, either. eom

[paulk]

30. I was surprised by Salazar's vote

considering that just a week ago he came out very strongly against the pre-compromise bill...

I can only figure that he did it because of the House and governor's races, five of which are currently held by Republicans and all of which are competitive at this point.

Perhaps, as the highest ranking elected Democrat in the state he felt he had to provide political cover.

[donco6]

37. Well, maybe.

But Ritter is almost 20 points ahead of Beauprez, and I don't think Salazar's no vote would have swung that one much. Perlmutter is leading O'Donnell by a decent margin last time I looked, but yes that's still competitive. I hope for Paccione over Musgrave, but not optimistic there. Eastern plains farmers tend to vote as nonsensically as Kansans.

But, it begs the question that people would not like the vote itself. I'm not so sure.

[paulk]

61. a lot of people won't like the vote

but, Salazar won't be up for re-election til 2010... So, it's not going to hurt him.

I could accept Salazar better if we can get Udall elected in 2008. That will give us a more liberal voice at the statewide level.

-------------


I've got to ask myself how the idiots in district 04 can vote for someone like Musgrave. Actually, I know the answer - I've spent a good deal of time over the years working up in the Greeley area (also out around Limon and points east) - it's waaaaay conservative.

Still, I think Paccione has the best shot we're going to get in a long time...

[democrat_patriot]

50. You Florida Nelson?

Yeah that confused me too, the guy is way ahead in the polls.

But you got Fordia + K Harris + Jeb + Diebold + voter suppresion

He needs quite a lead to pull that off.

[kentuck]

7. The assumption is :

That they would have a better chance at winning if they are not called "weak on terrorism" by supporting this torture bill, rather than campaigning and defending the Constitution and laws of the land and opposing outright torture. They voted out of fear. They had the stronger position. But they surrendered their rocket launchers to a BB gun.

[MuseRider]

8. kentuck

:applause:

Keeping the powder dry until it is too late.

[agio]

9. I agree

if the 13 Torturecrats did this out of calculation, it was a very stupid calculation.

They could have stood for something, and made it an issue worth fighting for.

Now what will they say, "I caved because I want to get elected?"

[democrat_patriot]

51. Nope: They say "We are tough on terror"

This is the America we live in today.

I'd rather we had a Dem house with the torture bill, than a Repuke house with the torture bill.

Either way the bill was getting passed.

[VelmaD]

15. yes yes yes

My thoughts exactly. It's a sad fucking day when you don't think you can win by actively supporting the Constitution and opposing torture.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. I know. I'd like to find out what genius is behind this "not standing up

for anything, ever, makes us look STRONG" idea.

Bob Shrum?

[G_j]

10. question

what if they were voting to legitimize rape?
Would that be ok?

[John Gauger]

67. I think they just did

A lot of the torture in Gitmo involved rape.

[Solly Mack]

72. They did. Really. The "compromise" narrowed the range of

forms of rape and acts of sexual assaults that would be a crime...but left other forms of rape and and acts of sexual assault off the list

The "compromise" narrowly defines what is rape.

Anyone that would vote to legalize torture has absolutely no problem legalizing rape. Rape is a used as a war tactic....which is why it's considered a war crime.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/23/opinion/23sat1.html?_r=1&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fM%2fMcCain%2c%20John&oref=slogin

[TahitiNut]

11. "In order for the Opposition to win, they must not Oppose!"

Pardon me while I vomit on my corn flakes. :puke:

Why not start the "Go Along To Get Along" Party?

[Beelzebud]

12. Then those politicians aren't worth voting for.

It's that damned simple.

[ProgressiveFighter]

13. Correct. Get ready to be bitch slapped though for saying that

"YOU LOVE ROVE DONT YOU!! WAAAAAHHHHHHH!"

[Beelzebud]

16. Hey, sometimes the truth hurts. Not all democratic politicians are good.

I REFUSE to do the same thing the Republican enablers do.

No blind support from me.

[Individualist]

21. I'm with you.

No war criminal will get my vote. I am NOT a Good German and will never be one.

[KingFlorez]

14. You're right

I think some people don't get that

[TahitiNut]

28. Really? So, tell me what I "don't get" when I see a Senator

... called Stabenow (D-MI) who's an incumbent (so-called) Democrat with an 8-19 point lead over Bouchard, her GOP challenger, who yesterday voted in favor of torture and denial of habeas corpus.

Stabenow has raised $10,564,768 in her 2006 campaign.
Bouchard has raised $2,089,534 in his 2006 campaign.
That's a 5-to-1 funding advantage.

Stabenow's cash on hand is $4,369,090
Bouchard's cash on hand is $530,115
That's an 8-to-1 cash advantage.

http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.asp?ID=MIS2&Cycle=2006

On top of this, not a single House Democrat from Michigan voted in favor of HR 6166 yet Sen. Stabenow somehow found it politically 'necessary' to vote 'Yea"??? Give me a fucking break! It's appalling!

Now, tell me what I fucking "don't get"!!!!!

:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

God damned pompous condescending pretentious fucking BULLSHIT!

[donco6]

38. I'd like to see the answer to that myself.

Good points. I don't see much reason for her vote. And in my state, I don't see much reason for Salazar's yes vote, either. He's not up for election; the other candidates are holding leads - some better than others, but hey, this is Colorado, not Michigan. So it makes no sense to me strategically.

[leftchick]

46. well done TN

she is either totally fucking clueless or totally fucking corrupt. Or both.

[TahitiNut]

57. (Thanks, lc!) Both, imho.

She demonstrates little other than self-interest ... a very codependent self-interest at that.

Nominally 'pro-choice,' she's demonstrated little else in the way of either liberal or democratic values. She's as anti-labor as Reagan. She's as pro-war as any Bushtard. She's sided with the corporatists on both bankruptcy and health care. She's further to the right than any "Eisenhower Republican."

[bif]

68. Wow!

I didn't know she had that much of a cash advantage. It really is inexcusable. I'm seriously thinking of voting Green Party. I'll only feel bad if she loses by one vote. Which doesn't seem likely.

[democrat_patriot]

70. I can't answer that - I said "some". Wanna vote for her opponent?

I don't know her voting record, but I'll bet she votes the way you want her too 80-90% of the time.

[TahitiNut]

73. I'll bet Ted Bundy didn't murder 80-90% of the people he could have.

It's not "who" but "what" ... and I will not vote for those who sell out on human rights and civil liberties.

If no candidate earns my vote, then I won't give it. It's as simple as that. If that means this nation sinks even faster into the raw sewage of fascism, then that's the way people have made it happen. I will not support fascism at a more sedate pace. The 'blame' for fascism lies squarely on the shoulders of those who support it, no matter what the degree of that support. It won't include me. There's no such thing as "a lttle bit pregnant" and there's no such thing as "only somewhat fascist."

A murderer doesn't have to murder everyone and a fascist doesn't have to vote 100% fascist.

I refuse to accept "Sophie's Choice" in politics. There are worse things than violent, bloody revolution - and selling out is one of those "worse things."

[TygrBright]

19. No, they didn't. Sorry, but this is where I draw the line.

I'm fairly moderate as Dems on this site go, and will piss and moan with the best when a Dem makes a politically-calculated call that offends me, but generally will excuse the ones who are in neanderthal constituencies on the grounds that, after all, keeping some level of Dem power is worth a few compromises.

Not THIS compromise. This is immorality on a level so profound it distorts and, ultimately, destroys the soul of any who are complicit. This is the point at which it is not worth it. This is the point at which the ends emphatically cease to justify the means. This is the point at which Dems who go along with it forfeit their right to any support from anyone, just as Republicans who instigated it long ago forfeited their right to any support from anyone. The fact that they still get any support is a sign of how blind, self-deluding, ignorant, corrupt, and evil the American electorate has variously become.

I use the word "evil" deliberately. This is EVIL. Being complicit in evil opens you to evil. You can NOT paint a wall white with black paint. No end justifies these means. There is NO moral ambiguity about torture as a tool of public policy. It is EVIL, it is WRONG, and those who enable it are commiting evil and doing wrong.

"Going along to get re-elected" is not a valid justification. It were better to take a stand, to say "I will not be part of this, even at the sacrifice of potentially winning back power so that we can end such practices." Because if those who win back power are those who voted to condone torture, they have utterly forfeited any moral or ethical right to wield that power. No. The more powerful choice, even if it increases short-term misery, is to take a stand against evil and show an alternative choice to evil.

Sorry. If any Dem who voted to condone torture had a primary opponent I would work for that primary opponent. If they had no primary opponent I would vote for a third-party candidate in that race, and Dems in other races. Getting back some measure of power is NOT worth it if that means condoning those who condone torture.

implacably,
Bright

[quinnox]

24. yea

it isn't a big deal anyway except to the hysterical ones who always scream end of the world whenever a congressional vote comes up that they don't like.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. What thing? The Iraq War Resolution?

Oh, wait. That was before the 2002 election. This is 2006.

Same Bullshit, same excuses, same lame, weak-ass rationale.

How many Democrats got "saved" from electoral doom by voting for THAT turd?

[Elidor]

27. Flashback to 2004

For a second there I thought we were discussing the Iraq war resolution again. Or the Patriot Act. How many more times in the years ahead am I going to hear "Democrats have to vote like republicans to keep getting re-elected"?

[meganmonkey]

29. No they didn't

Remember the other half of America, the ones who rarely vote?
The ones people around here like to call 'sheeple' and 'ignorant' and 'apathetic'?

Through my work and protesting I spend a LOT of time with 'those people'. And guess what, they aren't stupid - they have seen through the rhetoric all along. And guess what else? Ain't no way in hell that they are EVER going to vote for a party that can't even unite on an issue like TORTURE and indefinite detention of American citizens.

If the Dems took a fucking stand for the rights and livelihood of the actual PEOPLE in this country many of those people would get out and vote more often.

But no, instead, the Dems worry about whatever 3 or 4% so-called 'swing voters', a convenient fucking figment of the public's imagination. They don't WANT to represent the rest of the people. They BENEFIT from the disenfranchisement of the voters because it preserves their status quo.

They are succeeding wildly. You think I can get independents in Michigan to vote for Stabenow now? Now that she VOTED TO LEGITIMIZE TORTURE? Give me a break.

Pardon me, my head is exploding.
:nuke:

[TahitiNut]

33. The fascist takeover of the GOP is complete.

The fascist takeover of the Democratic Party is proceeding with the eager assistance of the same blind partisanship.

[meganmonkey]

69. Scary stuff

The weird thing is, despite my anger and rage, I am not surprised.

:shrug:

[KG]

31. you know what so laughable about your post?

the naive belief that if the dems regain the hill, they will investigate things like 'Secret Energy task Force - Abramoff Inquiries - Pre-Iraq war intelligence.'

even if the dems take the hill, none of that would ever happen.

[democrat_patriot]

71. So, what's your solution? Voting republican?

Whatever hope we have lies in voting Dem. I'd like to see 50 Ned Lamonts running, but we have what we have.

[Toucano]

32. Bullshit.

Nobody had to vote for this travesty. Voting for bad legislation weakens the WHOLE PARTY! When we're dying for a distinct unified voice of opposition, we do not benefit - short term or long term - for passing bad legislation. When a turned-off voter now says, "What's the difference?" we have nothing to counter. Republicans support torture. Now, so do Democrats.

I'm sick, sick, sick of this ridiculous assertion that we can lose EVERY FUCKING BATTLE and still win the war.

The only thing Democrats haven't helped Bush achieve is his Social Security Reform, which was just a diversion anyway.

[Bluerthanblue]

35. the RNC owns the elections too- so

what does it matter?

I'm volunteering to oust Bass from NH- I'm gonna vote if i'm still around in Nov.- but I'm not expecting anything new...wishing?... hell yeah... but believing it will really happen, honestly?- no.. There is nothing I'd like more than to be proven wrong... it's just I can't fall out of hope again, and live.

[Marr]

36. I'm amazed that people think the Dems are going to win Congress.

Seriously- we have a government that just voted to legalize torture and ditch habeas corpus. Later in the evening, they passed a bill that lays the groundwork for war with Iran, even though the Iraq occupation is very unpopular.

Do you really think a government that does these things is going to allow an election that's not completely rigged? The only thing to do this time around is attempt to make the public as aware of election fraud as possible, so that maybe- MAYBE- there'll be enough popular support to erode that system from the bottom-up before 2008.

[kath]

74. And today,weren't they alsogoing to vote to legalize warrantless

wiretaps?

[mmonk]

39. No, they HAD to protect and defend the constitution

but they didn't due to political considerations.

[Kashka-Kat]

40. Ironically, I think that strategy could very well could cost them the

election. I think the lying-low strategy totally misses the mark. People of the center & even some moderate right are looking for & craving a viable alternative to the republicans, something to provide more checks and balances. But how can they believe democrats are strong enough to take on the big scarey boogie man terrorists when they can't even be united and stand up against Karl Rove & Co., in favor of THE CONSTITUTION?

They really missed a golden opportunity here-- couldve framed it in simple terms that any one could understand: pro-Constitution. Usually we lefties get into trouble bc our messages tend to be too nuanced for sound bites. Not this one. This was so very clearly a right and wrong issue.

This is not to disparage the 34 who did the right thing. But as the NY times editorial yesterday put it, "if ever there was a time for filibuster, this was it." A truly sad day.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. Yeah. And Dillinger HAD to rob banks to pay for a new Caddy.

Advocating torture to advance one's career does not speak well of character or morals.

[TahitiNut]

53. 'Pragmatists' don't care about the ephemerals of character or morals.

Isn't that clear? Sneering at "bleeding hearts" is a popular stance on DU these days, it seems. After all, 'character and morals' are just useless baggage for the 'end justify the means' advocates.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. A very noticeable, but not unexpected, phenomenon.

I also find it amusing that we are called "purists" by people who insist that we vote and think exactly as they do.

Or, that they justify such things as advocating war, torture, and loss of rights as "single issues" or mere bagatelles of little importance to be ignored in view of the "bigger picture".

I sometimes respond with this: (To no avail)

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1795. ME 9:317

[LynneSin]

43. I'm thinking this thing is going to be finalized in the courts

I can see where you're coming from and perhaps the Dem majority knew this bill would end up in the courts and probably shot down. We still have a bit of say in US Supreme Court with 4 definates on our side and one wild card (Kennedy).

It's the only explanation I can give for progressive candidates like Sherrod Brown and Robert Menendez (both voted against IWR and Patriot Act) supporting this thing. Both of them have tight races and I still believe both are much needed in the Senate!

[savemefromdumbya]

44. you're assuming all their constituents are sadists?

I don't think they HAD to vote for it? Besides if it Is overturned then 'egg will be on their faces'

[kath]

45. BS. It's WAY past time for Dems to take a cue from Clinton and FIGHT

BACK against the right wing noise machine, rather than just wailing "ooh, I'm afraid they'll paint me as unpatriotic, so I'll just go along with whatever Bushco wants (whimper, whimper)"

[ryanus]

47. I Don't Care That They Want to Be Re-Elected!

They can't trade people's rights for their election!

And which voters exactly are they winning over by voting for it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. No, they did NOT

They're cowards. They ASSUMED that Karl Rove would go after them if they didn't vote with the Busheviks.

Well, guess what. Karl Rove will find something else to blame them for, having crabgrass on their lawns or liking French cuisine or some dumb thing, and a certain percentage of mouthbreathers will fall for it.

By voting for torture, these chickenhearts have fallen into the same trap that Kerry did. He couldn't criticize the invasion of Iraq, because he voted to authorize it; he could only criticize the way it was being conducted, which sounded decidedly half-assed.

Now they can't campaign on Bush's attacks on the Bill of Rights because they voted for it.

Karl Rove REALLY has them cornered now.

[TahitiNut]

60. It's hard for rubber-stamps to campaign as an 'alternative.'

When the (so-called) opposition has endorsed the policies of the Reich, they leave themselves with absolutely no platform that's not already overcrowded by the GOP.

[katinmn]

62. You are so right! Dems can't win as liars and cheats (thank God)

Instead of rolling with the swine who excel at lying and cheating, they should campaign on truth, integrity, and transparency and speak directly to the people they take for granted instead of playing to the knuckle-draggers. The knuckle-draggers already have representation. What about the rest of us?

It's so simple. Why doesn't everyone see it?

Dems have to play to the democratic base or we have no one.

[trogdor]

54. Um, no.

http://thismodernworld.com/3210

Pity The Election Year Democrats, For They Know Not What They Do, by Greg Saunders.

Of the 10.5 Democrats who voted in favor of giving President Bush the powers of a despot, 5.5 are running for reelection. Since these men are all in heated election battles, I think it’s only fair that we get to know them and maybe get a better idea of why they stabbed their party and their country in the back.

Tom Carper

Graduating from the ranks of “Who’s the hell is that guy?” is Thomas Carper of Delaware, who’s in a tough reelection battle against Republican Jan Ting. How tough? Well, with little more than a month before election day, he’s only got a 40-point lead over his challenger. That must explain why he was so quick to jump on the anti-habeas corpus bandwagon. Those wedge issues can be a bitch.

Bob Menendez

New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez has an even tougher challenge ahead of him. Not only does he have to struggle through life with an oddly-shaped head, but he’s only up by six in a state which hasn’t elected a Republican to the Senate in 34 years.

Ben Nelson

Then there’s the case of Nebraska’s Senator Ben Nelson. Yes, he looks like the dad from The Wonder Years, but I’m not going to mock the looks of two Senators in a row. Besides, he’s got other things to worry about, like being a Democratic politician in a blood-red state. After winning his first term by a narrow 51%-49% margin, you can bet that Sen. Nelson knows that he has to veer right to stay in office. If he didn’t support torture, his Republican challenger might start to catch up to Nelson’s 23-point lead.

stabenow.jpg

At a glance, Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow’s surname kinda looks like “stab me now”. Kinda fitting for someone who’s giving the President the power to decide unilaterally what constitutes torture. The latest poll only has her up by 7 points, so you can see why she wants to give the President a blank check.

Bill Nelson

The other Senator Nelson also has a bad case of red state fever. Like most Democrats, Bill Nelson is a grand master in the “let’s wait and see what happens” school of political campaigning. Unfortunately for Bill, he’s up against Republican superstar Katherine Harris. Perhaps if Nelson caught a lucky break, then maybe Harris’s campaign would run into some troubles…things like having the National Republican Party oppose her candidacy or having her entire campaign staff quit or being tied to a bribery scandal or being accused of “increasingly erratic behavior” by a former campaign manager. Those things could sink a candidacy, but Harris only has to gain 28 points in the next 40 days. Just to be safe, Nelson should probably support the GOP’s efforts to shred the constitution.

My head hurts.

This is Joe Lieberman. He only gets half a picture because he’s only half a Democrat. The other half is douchebag. Of course he voted alongside the Republicans. They’re the ones paying his bills these days.

So as you can see, these six Senators had to vote along with the Republicans. If they didn’t, the might risk the Democrat’s chances of retaking the Senate (which, including the 11 Democratic torture-supporters , will be a mixed blessing at best). Screw values. As long as we win the election, everything will take care of itself! They’re just pretending to be immoral assholes with no regard for the constitution, right? CLAP LOUDER!

Uggghh…wake me up in 2008.

[BlueStater]

55. What makes you think the American people want any of this shit?

It's those corrupt GOP bastards in the House and Senate who are shoving this down our throats. I seriously doubt most Americans, except a few Bush-loving nuts, approve of them shitting on our Constitution.

The Democrats are, as usual, completely out of touch.

[Lilith Velkor]

58. Yes, they just HAD to demoralize their base to win!

Craven, treasonous cowardly scum. Fuck them!

[katinmn]

59. I strongly disagree. I refuse to believe America is a nation

of torture nuts who want to restrict their right to free speech or be sent to detention camps themselves.

Get real! Stop making excuses for scared leaders who reneged on their oath to protect and defend the Constitution.

Stop making it easy for leaders to support trashy legislation that undermines truth, liberty and justice, the things this country is supposed to stand for.

I volunteer, contribute and vote more than most and I sure as hell don't do it to make my country the torture capital of the world.

Sheesh.

[novalib]

64. They HAD To Vote for this THING????!!!

They HAD to vote for this thing in order to win elections???!!!!

Because, if they did not vote for torture and human rights abuses, they would be subjected to hostile Rethuglican ads????!!!

What sort of talk is that???!!!!

Why would it have been so difficult to VOTE CORRECTLY and then DEFEND yourself (and your vote for JUSTICE) against the attacks of the fascists???

By voting the way they did, they LET the fascists win!!!!!

[bluestateguy]

66. True, but many didn't

Ben and Bill Nelson are up 20 points in the polls. They could have voted no. I'll give Menendez a pass.