Dem "Eunuchs" Voting To Support Bush's $87B (here's the list)

[Flying_Pig]

Here's a list of who is, and is not, supporting Bush's demand for $87 billion more dollars for his Iraq and ME escapades. This list reflects the preliminary Senate vote, with the final Senate vote expected early next week. The House has already approved it. Though some senators could still change their mind on the final bill, this is how it stands for now.

Before getting to the list, we should pause to ask the following questions:

Why would any Democrat support any bill that would further enable G.W. Bush to wage still more war in the Middle East, kill more of our soldiers, murder more innocent civilians, further empty our Treasury, and most likely help in his "re-election" efforts?

I truly wish I could hear their reasons, in an attempt to understand. Do they think they are helping to support our troops (if so, they are tragically mistaken)? Are they purposely aiding the military-industrial complex to help them make more profits? Are they voting for this because of pressure from Israel, and their lobbyists, who fully support Bush, and encourage U.S. wars in the M.E.? What the hell is it?

While we certainly owe it to Iraq to rebuild what we destroyed, and give heaping helpings of humanitarian aid, fully $67 billion of the $87 billion is earmarked for the military, NOT the Iraqi people. Giving the military these additional funds, will certainly provide Bush and PNAC the money they need to expand their imperialism, and possibly provide the dollars needed for possible invasions of Syria and Iran (#1 on Israel's "wish list").

Why would any Democrat vote to support these things, right along with the likes of Tom DeLay and Zell Miller? We need to let the "Eunuch Dems" know that we find it unacceptable, that they continue to support G.W. Bush and his criminal neocons.

Here's the list:

First the good news. The following Senate Dems are down as opposing the bill:

Kennedy, Byrd, Boxer, Edwards, Graham, Harkin, Hollings, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, and Sarbanes.

In the House, 118 real Democrats opposed the appropriation.

Now, here's the list of "Eunuch Democrats" in the Senate:

Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Cantwell, Carper, Clinton, Conrad, Corzine, Daschle, Dayton, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Inouye, Johnson, Kohl, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Miller, Murray, Nelson, Pryor, Reed, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Stabenow, and Wyden.

Why Senators, are you going to betray your nation, and your Party?

*On edit: Thanks to Studs Terkel for the term "Dem Eunuchs".

[Kamika]

1. Just why is everyone against this?

Iraq NEEDS money to be rebuilt, but it wont work if we cant have military presence there to support it.

I dont get why everyones against this

[Sagan]

2. I'll tell you why...

Because whether or not the bill SHOULD be passed, the Dems in Congress just do NOT seem to understand parliamentary warfare.

Make the Repugs pass it on their own. You know they can. They've got the majority and the discipline to do it. Make THEM accountable.

But noooooo.. .the Dems in Congress LOVE giving the Repugs political cover. Now, as things continue to go wrong in Iraq, Repugs can point to Dems and say "Hey, they supported it too!"


That's why I'm pissed so many Dems voted for it. Also, by making the vote less assured, the Dems could force compromises from the Repugs. Why would the Repugs compromise at all if they know the Dems are going to help them anyway? It's stupid.

[Flying_Pig]

5. Thank you Sagan. That is exactly why.

n/t

[Upfront]

15. Also

They are bought and paid for by the people who are getting rich on this war.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

63. Well then I guess Kerry's not bought and paid for

while Dean is.

[Hawkeye-X]

84. Sorry. I don't see Kerry's vote on it.

So it makes him more of a coward.

Hawkeye-X

[salin]

19. In addition

using the process, they could make more attempts at various amendments and demonstrate (because the country IS watching) how they are being systematically shut out. This is important in next years congressional elections. Voters, believe it or not, tend to like having a split party rule (repubs in one branch, dems in another) - it slows dominance down - especially around issues that are not uniformly popular.

Resisting early republican efforts allows for more offering of amendments (or attempts to do so) on issues requiring transparency and accountability of contracts, that address the concerns raised in the UK conference for potential investors in Iraq that the 'selling off of Iraqi assets' might be unenforceable according to international law - and that even more money and instability could follow, or include provisions for audits and cost comparisons of various big 'reconstruction' contracts on areas that in the past would have been done by the Army Corps of Engineers but that now are given to private contractors - and just administered by the Army Corps of Engineers (forcing the issue of ... does privatization save tax payers dollars... INTO THE NEWS).

Strategically what they are doing is unwise.

Not to mention that there are already estimates that the ongoing costs are escalating and there will be another request before Congress, and that if this is the case (as it appears likely to be) that the public will be even MORE angry at Congress. Those who quickly keep capitualating give the republicans the cover that... "well the democrats supported it to...." In that argument, again, making very public attempts to reign in spending - and to have those efforts stymied either on the floor of the Senate by procedure - or to have more public feuds with the WH, put the accountability back on the republicans, and gives those democrats who try to push those amendments more campaign ammunition (ala "we tried to do x and y...").

[brainshrub]

23. Amen Sagan...

They are already useiung the excuse: "Most of the Senate voted for the war. Why don't you blame the Democratic Senators lying for about the dangers of WMDs."

[Hippo_Tron]

29. That's not why...

It's like I said before, the fact is that the dems who voted against it don't want to give the Bush administration $87 billion. If I were in the House or Senate I'd demand an ammendment giving the Bush administration a list of exactly how the money should be spent before I'd vote for it.

[frank allen]

36. Voting one's Actual belief is better course

"Because whether or not the bill SHOULD be passed, the Dems in Congress just do NOT seem to understand parliamentary warfare."

It might serve the interests of the Democrats better if they would more universally IGNORE this advice and instead vote a bill up or down based on their actual beliefs! <--- THAT ought not be such a novel idea! Forget that whole "provide the Republicans with cover" stuff and VOTE as they were ELECTED to vote: on the merits.

Note: I acknowledge that I say this as a Democrat who is a Democrat, now, in voter registration papers only.

Just as a for instance: what if Sen. John F. Kerry had voted for the authorization for the use of force against Saddam premised on an actually held belief that Saddam and his regime had continued in his behavior for too long (in ignoring or trying to subvert the UN sanctions and his own agreement to divest himself of WMDs)? Had he done THAT, he might not have been in the unenviable position, later, of having to claim that he believed he was only voting for a THREATENED use of force. I mean, really, that was preposterous. Had he voted his beliefs in the first place, he might not have to come up with such an implausible cover story down the road in an effort to pander to the Dean-ish left of the Democratic Party. It might be refreshing to see a Democratic Presidential contender take a stand on an issue that reflects a point of view that isn't merely a mirror image (or a poorer copy) of Dean's position.

[Flying_Pig]

44. I don't know that I agree with you Frank Allen, but welcome to DU.

n/t

[frank allen]

53. thanks for the welcome

Thanks!

[newyawker99]

49. Hi frank allen!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[frank allen]

55. thank you, too

thanks for the welcome AND for the cyberbeer. Or is that cy-BEER?

[La_Serpiente]

3. I would support the bill

only if there was more accountability in the way the funds are distrubuted.

[salin]

20. exactly - and if they can't get it in there... Strategically

they need to make this a BIG issue, in their resistance.

[dusty64]

59. What resistance?

x

[Brucey]

4. Well,

it's because the invasion and occupation are creating a hell hole, and pouring more money into it only exacerbates the situation. It's because Bush and company said they would steal the oil and Swiss bank accounts and use it to pay the bills for taking over their country. It's because leaving would be the best thing -- the Iraqi people are perfectly capable of creating their own society (why do we think we are the only ones who can create a society; what kind of arrogant bullshit is that?). It's because the money won't go to Iraq anyway. About $65 bn will go to Pentagon buddies to build more missles, ammo, tanks, rockets, and Humvees -- stuff for invading and occupying other countries; only about $29 bn is for reconstruction, and that will go to companies like Helliburton. It's because we have many, many needs for that money here in our own country. It's because it gives the Bush administration one more bit of support for their attempt to grow the deficit so big that they can kill social programs like social security. That's enough for now, but there are more reasons that I will list later.

[diamond14]

6. like Vietnam, this money will turn a $70 Billion mistake (spent

already) into a $157 Billion raging infernal WAR in Iraq and the ME...

more money does not solve the Iraqnam that bush* has created...it makes is worse...

and this is bush* massive drain on the USA economy, taking this money from our seniors medicare, schools, hospitals, colleges, roads and bridges, environmental protections, food protections and more...bush* is deliberately strangling our economy....

lastly, the money is NOT going to rebuild Iraq, we've spent Billions on Afganistan (for TWO years) and no rebuilding has taken place...the money is almost entirely going to enrich the pockets of bush* friends and campaign donors...halliburton, bectel, carlyl group...these are the war profiteers...and bush* major campaign donors....

just look at bush* follies in Iraq...we've already spent $70 Billion and seven months (way enough to rebuild any third world country), and there is still not a functioning water treatment plant, there is still not even power...

here read this Newsweek article titled
"The $87 Billion Money Pit: where are the billions really going?
http://www.msnbc.com/news/985304.asp?0dm=N32DN

[Flying_Pig]

9. As I pointed out, only $20B is earmarked for the Iraqi people

the rest is forthe military. You think we should give the military another $67B on top of the $100B they've already gotten, to fund Bush/PNAC's ME imperialism? I sure as hell don't think so, and I can't see how any progressive thinking person could either!

[welshTerrier2]

13. Political Cronyism

source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/10/31/study_finds_cronyism_in_iraq_afghanistan_contracts?mode=PF


Many of the companies that have received government contracts to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan have collectively contributed more money to President Bush's election campaigns than to any other candidate in more than a decade, according to a study released yesterday.

In one of the most detailed studies of postwar contracts, the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit government watchdog, found that at least 70 companies have been awarded a total of $8 billion in contracts in the past two years.

<skip>

"Most of the companies that won contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan were political players," said Charles Lewis, the center's executive director. "Those companies contributed more money to the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush -- more than $500,000 -- than to any other politician over the last dozen years. These two wars in two years and their aftermaths have brought out the Beltway Bandit companies in full force, and there is a stench of political favoritism and cronyism surrounding the contracting process in both Iraq and Afghanistan."

The report, entitled "Windfalls of War," is the result of a six-month review of information collected through 73 requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act and through appeals to the US Agency for International Development, the Department of Defense, and the State Department.

[Imajika]

26. Kamika

"Just why is everyone against this?"

Easy. Because Bush is for it. If Bush hadn't pushed a big spending package for Iraq, you can bet that the screams and cries here would be that Bush was too cheap to adequately rebuild Iraq.

"Iraq NEEDS money to be rebuilt, but it wont work if we cant have military presence there to support it."

Well, many people don't think it will work anyway. Personally, I give us only a 50/50 chance at best at any measurable success if the goal is creating some sort of stable, reasonably democratic government in Iraq.

The people that opposed this from the beginning have every right to complain about this huge amount of spending, and to point out how and why this entire adventure may well fail.

Saying that, it is really political suicide for most Democrats to oppose this spending. The aid is tied to an even bigger amount for the "troops". Republicans run Congress in both houses and Democrats have no way of separating the funding. Further, Democrats are already perceived as the party weaker on national security isses. Imagine if we went into the 04' elections having, as a party, largely voted against Bush's funding for the military, Afghanistan and Iraq contained in this bill. It may sound all well and good to vote against it now, but just wait till the GOP advertising onslaught begins - over 200 million dollars worth. Remember what happened to Max Clelend for simply not relenting to Bush's version of the Homeland Security bill (something Bush didn't even want in the first place).

I am sure your well aware that DU is made up of many of the most ideological, political and active people on the left. Most of them want to stick it to Bush at ever opportunity. Yeah, that feels good to do from time to time, but as a Party we just can't be obstructionists on every issue. It just won't work for us.

Just remember, I believe a majority of people here actually opposed the war in Afghanistan (at least at that time). That is a position, that had the Democratic Party taken, would have resulted in its absolute destruction in 2002.

There are a lot of great ideas, links, commentary, opinions and discussion here - but I often don't see a lot of realistic thinking. Politics is the art of the possible. The further to left people are, the more they are just going to have to realize that their agenda can, if at all, be enacted only very slowly and over a long period of time. The American people are simply not anywhere politically close to the majority thinking on this forum.

Imajika

[Mairead]

35. "just wait till the GOP advertising onslaught begins"

And you think that by knuckling under they're going to AVOID being eviscerated!?!?

When are people going to get it through their skulls that It Doesn't Matter. Capitulation or resistance, the GOP is going to say mean things about Democrats! Cleland, fachrissake, is about as right-wing a Dem as you can get, and it didn't save him. So what exactly is the advantage in being a 'centrist'? Not a godsdamned thing, that's what.

[Flying_Pig]

43. Right on Mairead!

n/t

[Imajika]

54. Your missing the point...

"And you think that by knuckling under they're going to AVOID being eviscerated!?!?"

My point here is that voting against the 87 Billion Bush requested would not have been a politically viable option in many districts and States.

The public just will not support many, many of our candidates whom might would have liked to vote against it.

It is all well and good to make a political statement, but with the inpact of any advertising, that political statement could be turned against an awful lot of Democrats come election time.

You've got to realize that in many, many areas and regions of the country, the American public is just not anywhere near the majority position on DU on the issue of Iraq. Not even close, doubt if they will ever be.

I, for one, would like to keep as many Democrats in office whom, at least at a minimum, will vote for Democrats as majority leader(s) and/or Speaker. People are just going to have to accept that perhaps often a majority of our Representatives and Senators will have to cast votes we don't like to stay in office. That is just the way it is.

Imajika

[Mairead]

67. No, I'm not the one missing the point

You're trying to claim that, if these guys want to save their jobs, they have to vote with the Republicans, because if they don't, then the Republicans will use their vote to beat on them come election time.

I'm saying that It Doesn't Matter, that they can vote 100% with the Republicans, they can kiss Republican bum in the High Street at noon on market day and It Won't Matter. The Republicans will make something up if they have to, as they did with DINO Cleland. No matter what the Dems do, they cannot make themselves immune from attack.

That being true, what's the profit in selling out?

[annak110]

81. How true, how true Mairead, thanks for saying it.

and yet Democrats continue to do the bum licking trick over and over again, year after year, mindlessly supporting Republicans and being trashed by them...

[Nlighten1]

7. Bayh

Might as well join Zell Miller in his support of Bush

[salin]

21. Bah Bah Bayh Sheep.... have you any wool

yes Bush yes Bush all the votes you need full.

It is sad. I hear more and more democrats here note with despair that Bayh, who used to be centrist, has accelerated the pace at which he supports the GOP. I would love to see a vote analysis comparing his record from 1999-2001, and 2002-2003. I think we would see a vast difference - but I could be wrong - it could be that just on high profile issues that he backs the bushmen. Though I recall that Bayh, along with Miller were the two that almost scuttled the Sarbanes Corporate Accounting reform legislation (they wanted to leave companies the ability to use the same CPA firm for accounting and consulting). Indeed they stalled it - until the second round of corporate implosions pushed public sentitment so high that the bill was revived and pushed through.

[jiacinto]

30. Spare me

I know Bayh isn't Barbara Lee. But then again I guess that you would have Indiana elect someone like Dan Burton.

[Flying_Pig]

41. So Carlos pops in to defend the DLC'ers ...

Just like any other day....

[salin]

47. nah - not all dlc-ers... Just Bayh... and to chastise "Indianan's" who

voice frustration with Bayh. It is repetitive, reflexive, patronizing, and tiring. Carlos can, and has, done much better than this in discussing some candidates/elected dems. But for whatever reason there seems to be a compulsion to insult Hoosier DUers, by making false suppositions about the intent of the criticisms. I have NEVER seen a hoosier suggest that Indiana would vote a Wellstone, or a Barbara Lee - but there is the constant allusion that any Hoosier voter criticism of Bayh is somehow off base because Indiana wouldn't vote for a strong liberal. ?? I don't follow the logic, either.

[salin]

45. Carlos

again you respond to Indiana voters in a most disrespectful way. No Indiana democratic voter who has ever posted on any thread I have read on DU that refers to Bayh has suggested that Indiana was going to vote for a Barbara Lee. We are not naive. Nor are we incorrect in noting Bayh's slow rightward drift since Bush was elected.

[jiacinto]

61. Ok

But it's not like IN will elect someone in line with "DU's standards".

[salin]

62. please

hear me for a moment. Sometimes you get into a repetitive moment. Step out of it and listen to me.

You live in a red state that also elects blue folks. But the state is more red than blue. The state represents a couple of wingernuts - but for the most part at the state level even the republicans are fairly centrist. This is, because at the state level the $$$ for candidates are ruled by the business GOP (who also give to dems) who do not like/trust the more fringe republicans. Indeed this group has tanked more than one statewide GOP candidate.

Now, the state has elected a CENTRIST democrat twice for governor and once for senate. The candidate got his first statewide office based on name recognition, not qualifications (he was young and an unknown quantity beyond the name) nor experience. After serving as Sec of State (I believe), the attractive young man provides a slightly leftleaning centrist alternative to the years and years of republican rule of the governorship. He wins. Moves a bit more center - especially on economic issues. Wins a second election, grows more popular. Scares a sitting (rightwing) republican senator OUT of running for reelection (Dan Coats... remember what I said about the centrist republican party in Indy being willing to push too conservative of candidates out from time to time?).

Evan Bayh never runs as a liberal. He ran as a 'traditional' democrat, with a penchant for fiscal conservatism (budget). We hoosiers knew that. And never gaga overhim, we know that he is better than the alternative.

(Oh and by the way, you are wrong. Dan Burton could NEVER win statewide office in Indiana. See above discussion. The indy republicans would NEVER let it happen. Dan is an embarassment to them (the business folks) and he is elected - OUTSIDE of Indianapolis.)

The thing is, he has moved further right than anytime that he held statewide office in Indiana. This was NOT expected by Hoosier Democrats. On some issues he is further to the GOP side than even many hoosier republicans (remember that influential centrist business class powerbase in Indy that I keep mentioning) on some issues. Thus, some of his post 911 votes do NOT appear to be geared towards Hoosier voters. This is the piece that you are missing. He is NOT pandering to Hoosier voters. Get it? Look in most papers across the state - you will see more praise for Lugar - when Lugar voices CRITICISM of Bush's foreign policy. Get it - when Lugar gets critical of Bush (as he has several times, quite publically, in the past year) HE GETS PRAISE. Furthermore in the buildup to the war vote - Bayh's own office stated that their calls against the war vote were running about 8:1 (eight against, one for); this mirrors what was found in Congressman Baron Hill's district when he was touring the district just before returning to DC to vote. Even republican Richard Lugar's office received many MORE anti resolution calls than pro war calls/letters.

When you hear criticism of Bayh at DU - you assume it is one thing (we are more liberal than other hoosiers, which is probably true, and that we DON"T understand Indiana - that is frickin' insulting!) but you MISS the bigger sentiment that runs through....

Bayh - seems to be pandering to an audience that is NOT hoosiers. His votes appear to have gotten more conservative (next time you do a vote analysis of Bayh - test the hypothesis that there is a slight shift right after 2001 when compared to 1999-00.) That some of his votes do NOT reflect his constituents (those more centrist than the DU hoosiers), and that he appears to be pandering... not to be reelected in Indiana (which he will run again, and probably will be reelected) - but that he aspires to run for higher office. The man has presidential aspirations. I believe, that his people believe that he is a prime Vice Presidential candidate. HIs role as Chair of the DLC was supposed to give him a higher national profile, and place more democratic candidates in a position of "debt" (as in they needed the DLC help - and Bayh as the figurehead for the DLC was there...)

That leaves us rather angry, Carlos. He is moving to the right. PAST what he has always claimed to represent. With no electoral "need" (as in to be reelected) to do so. He does not seem to be responsive to hoosiers (save Lily and the insurance industries). We (hoosier democrats) feel further abandoned by the centrist we voted for who has become a bush supporter (read his quotes about bush - they are periodically in the paper - and they are very rah-rah). Each time we read these things, see him on the news (how does a jr senator get on the tv so much... oh he's an attractive jr senator (supposed babe appeal) who praises the Bush administration... let's give him a call and see if he'll come on the show), we feel betrayed.

If you had listened to Georgians who for two years have said the same things about Zell Miller, that he had been a centrist governor - but had moved further and further to the right (past center), rather than using the same exact, snotty/dismissive tone that you take with Hoosiers about Bayh, with a knowitall "they wont vote for wellstone in Georgia (DUH! We know that!)" statements, If you had LISTENED and asked WHY folks were staying this - rather than being self-righteous and blinded by that selfrighteousness on YOUR view of what they (GA voters were saying) - then you wouldn't have been shocked in the least to read about MIllers book, or hear him endorse/support President BUsh's reelection.

So how about learning a lesson regarding how you treated GEORGIAN's criticism of Zell (with a knee jerk/ nonthinking/ response) - and apply it to Hoosiers criticizing Bayh. Ask us WHY we say it instead of making very silly assertions that mean nothing. This man may become our Vice PResident. Shouldn't we learn a little bit from those who have voted for him for over 15 years?

[jiacinto]

75. Well

You would be surprised--IN could elect someone like Dan Burton. You may be right that the business community might oppose him, but he could still win.

What angers me is that certain people here have called for him to lose next year, especially when the alternative is going to be worse than Bayh could be.

And I do think that Bayh is more liberal than Miller.

[salin]

79. Carlos - do you ever listen when conversing?

I work around the folks who fund the parties and campaigns in Indiana. I have watched rightwing GOP candidates get blown out in primaries due to the power structure, and I have watched them be abandoned during general elections by the power structure.

Take the last Indiana Governor's race. The late Frank O'Bannon wasn't perceived as particularly strong. Generally a nice guy but ineffectual governor. GOP sees an opportunity to take over. BUT in the primaries a wingnut congressman wins. Here is the rub - the business power structure never gets behind him - and swings behind O'Bannon (even though they didn't like him terribly much.)

Why?

First - Indiana is traditional/conservative - not in the political sense but in the - run it steady and don't make big changes sense. There is a strong sense of both fiscal conservativeness AND fiscal responsibility. So while the GOP at local levels gets some play on cut taxes all the tme.... at top level there is skepticism that this approach wouldn't bankrupt the state. THis is also why sitting incumbent Senator Coats (winger) got OUT of the campaign to be reelected to the senate. He did NOT have the state support - it was aleady thrown behind Bayh.

Now - look at the next year's governor's race. Folks (including the business repub class in Indianapolis) were really upset when Lt. Gov. Kernan announced he would NOT run last December. Why? Recognizing that he had run a very sound ship in South Bend as Mayor, and that he had a reputation of high integrity, and seeing that the state is in a financial crisis (both due to the economy and due to a state/court mandated restructuring of the property tax system), the business class wants stability. Here it gets even wierder. Some were worried that popular Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson (first Dem Mayor in memory) would leave office to run for Governor. In other places the fear would be: oh no, if he wins the Governor will be a dem. In Indianpolis the fear was instead (and I had to hear it first hand, from a number of people, to believe it) that Peterson was really getting the city in shape and was desperately needed to run the city for at least a few more years. They didn't want to lose the (democratic) talent in City Hall. So names were bantied about for 'prefered' candidates/governors. The winger who ran last time (yikes they said - he would be awful! - get it THEY DON'T TRUST these guys)? A couple of conservative and a more moderate state senator (would he (they) be up for the job, they asked?). And then Mitch Daniels started itching. Now get this - they SHOULD be concerned about him (based on winger fears on how wingers would handle the statehouse and budget) due to his role as OMB director for Bush. But overwhelmingly the business class looked past Daniels most current role and instead considered his reputation as providing very strong leadership for Eli Lily, as evidence that he could provide stability to the state.

The unexpected death of Governor O'Bannon has completely changed the landscape. Governor Kernan is once again thinking about running... and he is being courted by - both the democratic party and SOME (at least a few) in the Business class GOP. THIS splits the $ and support of the influential business class - as many also see Daniels as a means to get state aid that is desperately needed.

No, you are absolutely wrong. Burton and Hostettler can get elected to congress. But right now, they can not get elected to state wide office. The powers to be would sabatoge them either in the primary - or in the general election.

You mistake hearing voices of voters betrayed - from active work against him. I doubt there will be a candidate put up to oppose him. Thus we frustrated democratic hoosiers will really not have a whole lot of choice.

You are missing the similarity between Bayh's current pattern of behavior, and the pattern of behavior exhibited by Miller over time. It is the rightward drift over time - more accenuated than previous tenure in office(s) - and NOT the platform campaigned on. Also a drift further right than is required to maintain state level support. So Bayh may not be where Miller is now - but he keeps this pattern going and he very well may be there over the next couple of years. The thing is - he could move slightly to the left and still be elected by huge margins in Indiana. Get it? His drift rightward has NOTHING to do with getting elected in Indiana.

[jiacinto]

80. Fair enough

I just don't want to see people to use DU to vote against him.

[salin]

82. trust me Carlos

we won't have much of a choice. But many of us are very frustrated. here is a suggestion... instead of jumping all over any of us when we voice our frustration - and we will - as Bayh has picked up speed in terms of how often he backs bush - ASK FIRST about our frustration (or even validate it) - then ask "are there any real alternatives" (there aren't!) - or ask "so what are you doing to build a base of alternatives up in the future" (as in BETTER CANDIDATES).

Why?

Because we KNOW we don't have options - and getting a parrot response that is patronizing in tone is insulting and frustrating.

Validate our frustration - but channel it - either to learn more about the frustration - or to challenge us to work LONG TERM to get better candidates in the pipeline.

Thus you avoid getting into this kind of discussion (and building illwill with Hoosier DUers) - and move us more to a constructive conversation (one that should be happening, we hope, in many parts of the country - in terms of working for better future candidates).

And besides - that line about hoosiers not electing a "barbara lee" (or Wellstone, or any of the other liberals you tend to banty about as boogie men to red states) - drives us nuts. FIRST I challenge you to EVER find a post on ANY DU thread where a HOOSIER DUer suggests such a thing. Find it - and I will back off. Thus, the statement is dishonest and inflamatory.

Thanks for listening Carlos. Maybe book markthis thread - so the next time you see a Hoosier bashing Bayh (or if you don't know if the poster is a Hoosier - just ask her/him) - re-read this little subthread - then think a minute before posting. I bet that you will have a more thoughtful post as a result - and that the conversation will be much more interesting and productive than a typical flamewar.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

8. Their decision to only stick a toe in the Iraqi waters...

Makes the UN the best friends WE have, in the runup to 2K4.

I have said it before and I will say it again: This country is gonna have to endure a lot more pain, to break the backs of the neo-cons.

Why?

Because we, The American People, are just that thick. We don't learn jack until learning leaves a mark.

[diamond14]

17. That's all it would take: 1 percent of the people.

-snip-

Neighborhood Bully
Ramsey Clark on American Militarism
an interview by DERRICK JENSEN


Clark:
I think what all of this means is that we each have to do our own part, and become responsible, civic-minded citizens: we have to realize that we won't be happy unless we try to do our part. And if a small portion of us simply do our part, that will be enough. If even 1 percent of the people of this country could break out of the invisible chains, they could bring down this military-industrial complex - this tyranny of corporations, this plutocracy - overnight. That's all it would take: 1 percent of the people.

http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html

[kentuck]

10. We can only hope Bush goes to their districts ...

..and campaigns against them...Like he did with Max Cleland.....and they lose because their own people have turned against them...

[diamond14]

14. no, Cleland lost because of rigged electronic diebold voting

machines...it had nothing to do with shrub's appearance...

[jiacinto]

33. You have no proof to suppor that claim

I hate to break it to you, but sometimes Republicans do win close elctions.

[Upfront]

58. Yawn

[jiacinto]

60. Yawn back

nt

[roughsatori]

11. That sort of Dem voting pattern is why

I think posters are wrong when they write: "We would not be going though this if we had not had the election stolen." The FACT that so many Dems have voted for everything Shrub has asked for makes them, and our party, culpable. We can't have it both ways. That voting pattern is why I am considering leaving the Democratic Party.

[Flying_Pig]

16. And millions are thinking just like you Rough. Once we get through

the 04' elections, and get Bush out of there, it'll be time to clean up our own house. If the Party won't change, then they are going to lose me (a Dem for over 35 years), and a lot of others. Once Bush is gone, I will never again compromise on what I think my party should stand for. As it is, the Party has nearly compromised itself to death.

[Mairead]

69. "Once Bush is gone..." But what if in '08 there's another monster?

And the Dem is a sellout who doesn't deserve a second term?

That's the problem, I think. It's a perfect ruling-class strategy: run a barking nutter as the GOP candidate and the guy you really want as the Dem candidate. Everyone is running to the bathroom every 5 minutes out of fear of the bogyman, and making demands For The Good Of The Country that people must vote the lesser evil. And For the Good Of The Country, responsible people--the ones most likely to lead the formation of a new party--cave in. It's very slick. Why won't it keep working indefinitely?

[izzie]

12. Greens were even mad a Feinstein. The true Dem Are the Greens.

Sorry but this party has moved to far to the middle. If Lieberman, Edwards,Biden or Clinton get to run I am out of here.I am already on the books as a Green and only vote for the national people in Dem party. I was not happy with Gore but did not wish Bush. He, Gore, could not seem to stay with his base and I held my nose and went with him.I must now find out what Allen did.

[welshTerrier2]

22. More than 75% of Dem Senators Voted "Yes"

it seems very likely that the Dem nominee will be one of the following four: Clark, Dean, Edwards, Kerry.

I'll vote for any of these candidates in the general election ...

BUT, the Green's have been consistently right about the war ... they opposed every aspect of it ... none of this "we had to empower the President to negotiate" crap ... none of this "now that we did it, we have to fix it (by occupying a sovereign country) ... " ...

It's becoming almost impossible for me to remain a Democrat ... what the hell is the point in being part of a party that lacks any sense of cohesiveness whatsoever ... what the hell is the point in being part of a party that has no sense of right and wrong ... the Greens aren't perfect either ... but seeing more than 75% of dem senators empower bush's madness yet again is more than I can take ...

We need to get our military people out of Iraq ASAP ... we do have obligations to the people of Iraq ... but they are not military obligations ... Too many misguided dems just don't seem to understand that ...

[Iverson]

76. to answer your question ...

The point would be that only the Democratic Party has the national apparatus to oppose emergent fascism effectively. Sadly, not a very high percentage of Democratic officeholders seem to want to.

This is the rather obvious answer that you have to get from a Green around here, because the irresistible lure of sanctimony takes over anytime one mentions the G-word.

[annak110]

83. You are correct except that, if the party moved to the middle

they'd be moving from the right...

I think the $87.5 Billion vote was way beyond the last straw for me and I will be doing the same kind of voting you are doing izzie. I think all that will save anything even approximating a Democracy and a rule of law (the Constitution, the law, rules) in this country is to force (at least) third and even forth party wedges between the twits in the Republicrat party, lets break up that party!

[LuCifer]

18. Make BUSH and his criminals PAY FOR IT!

Not US! We The People OPPOSED this bullshit war.

Com'on Dem's, GROW A PAIR ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stand up to Bush...or defect to the RepubliKKKans already.

STOP SUCKING WINGNUT ASS!!!!!!!!!

Last time I check, the two parties ARE JUST THAT...TWO DIFFERENT PARTIES! So either cut the crap and BE OPPOSITION...or just join them.
Nothing is more stupid than voting for someone that you THINK is going to do the SANE thing, and then they sell you out and side with the scumbags. Vomit-inducing.

Lu Cifer

[RichM]

24. More proof that Democrats are not very different from Republicans --

just as Nader said. They are simply the lesser evil, as demonstrated by the fact that at least SOME of them will oppose this bill. But here we see fully 75% of Dem senators voting just like Republicans.

[Redleg]

27. Change that to "some democrats are not very different"

This democrat is very different. Don't paint us all with a broad brush. Do you suppose that voting against the spending bill would be used by the rightwing as a way to accuse Dems of not supporting the troops? Nader can go jump in a lake. It's pretty easy for him to talk a bunch of smack seeing how he is not an elected official accountable to his constituents.

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Not true, just some of our senators

What disappoints me is that one might get this attitude by the fact that Daschle won't vote against the Republicans.

[RichM]

37. No, not "some" of our senators. It's 76% of Dem senators, and 42% of

Dem representatives (gauged by this vote).

[Redleg]

25. I thought only conservatives made black lists.

EOM

[Skittles]

28. please explain, literally

what EUNUCHS means in reference to Democrats

[Flying_Pig]

40. The term was invented recently by Studs Terkle. He prefers it to

"pink tutu" Dems. As far as a definition goes, it means they have "no balls", if you'll pardon the expression. Studs, is an old-line Dem like me, and is mighty unhappy with so many of our congressional Dems caving into the BFEE. We want Dems to act like the opposition should act, and oppose things that are not good for this country.

[Skittles]

64. TO INFER

IN ANY WAY, THAT "BALLS" ARE REQUIRED FOR COURAGE IS SEXIST, DEMEANING AND ABSOLUTE BULLSHIT. I EXPECT BETTER FROM DUers. FIND ANOTHER G.D. EXPRESSION.

[Flying_Pig]

65. You know Skittles, I have always liked you, and enjoyed your posts.

But I think your attack on my use of the term "Eunuch Democrats" today, was really out of line. First of all, I didn't invent the term. I borrowed it from a highly respected reporter and writer, who is using it. His comments using the term have been published in a number of publications, and websites.

What the hell makes you think DU is so freaking "PC", that a term like this can't be used? I call bullshit. If it's good enough for Media Whores Online, then it's good enough for DU.

I am an old Democrat, just like Studs, and I can remember when Dems HAD BALLS. I am too goddamned old to change my vernacular to suit easily bothered, thin-skinned people like you. And if you don't like the language I use in my posts, then don't visit them anymore. In the real world of politics, one is likely to hear much worse, and if you can't take it, then may I respectfully suggest you find something else to do with you time.

[Mairead]

70. It is pretty sexist, when you think about it. How about 'gonads' instead?

AKA 'nads?

Because women are just as capable of courage as men as I'm sure you'll agree. And very few women have balls. Gonads, yes, balls, no.

[Skittles]

74. his explanation was pretty sickening, no????????????????

I'm fedup with that g.d. expression and I'll confront the morons who use it - YES, STUDS INCLUDED - if I F***ING FEEL LIKE IT.

[Skittles]

73. IT IS DEMEANING AND SEXIST AND OUTDATED

DIDN'T YOUR MOM TEACH YOU THE "EVERYONE DOES IT" EXCUSE IS BULLSHIT?????????????????????????????????????? It is SICKENING to hear it coming from a DEMOCRAT.

[MrPrax]

86. You should send your objections to

Senator Feinstein and Senator Clinton...

Little off topic, no?

[jiacinto]

32. Ok

So let's assume that they did it the way you wanted to. Then Bush would say that they all "hate the troops".

What they should have done was sponsor a bill that gave the troops money so that they could be inoculated from that charge.

However, many of the Senators who are voting yes--like Barbara Mikulksi--are good Democrats.

[jiacinto]

34. Boxer is up for re-election

I hope that this vote isn't used against her next year.

[Flying_Pig]

39. It may be used against her, and it will be her own fault.

I don't want Barbara to lose, but damnit, she had better start voting the wishes of her constituents. Based on the polls I've seen out here, her constituents are overwhelmingly (75%) against this bill. Do they have the right to be pissed off when she ignores their wishes?





.

[Cha]

38. Well, I don't understand how the likes of Debbie

Stabenow could have voted against the IWR and now voting For the $87Billion Mess!?

[jiacinto]

68. She voted against the war

nt

[Iverson]

78. then what happened to her faculties of reason?

n/t

[Pepperbelly]

42. why are they eunuchs just because they do not vote as you want?

Can they not have a differing perception without namecalling?

Just how much control do you want to give the Republicans in the Senate? Do you want to cede to them a 65 vote margin?

Any Senator who votes against a bill that has body armor, food for soldiers and ammunition in it while the soldiers are under hostile fire is a damned fool who is giving his political oppoenets all the ammunution they need to defeat them in almost every one of the home states of the Senators who will vote to approve. The gop controls the rule and the rule is allowing the conflation of all of the monies into one spending bill. There is nothing else they could do without committing political suicide.

:eyes:

[Flying_Pig]

50. Bull. They could have demanded accountability on every dollar

that has thus far been spent, and on how they are planning to spend the $87B.

They could have demanded the truth from Bush and his neocon henchmen, concerning all of the lies they told Congress (which is a crime by the way) about Iraq in the first place.

They could have demanded the resignations, before approving one more goddamn cent, of those responsible for the quagmire we now find ourselves in there.

They could have demanded that no further funds be given the military for further invasions, without specific congressional approval. Having already given Bush a free hand to do just that (with disasterous results), it seems like the least they could have done.

Committing "political suicide", comes from not standing up for your beliefs, and defending the greater interests of this nation. Giving Herr Bush and his PNAC neocons another $67B in military funds to play with, without restriction or accountability, is NOT in the best interests of this nation!

[Pepperbelly]

52. You give more credit thqn is due to the voters ...

and you do so at the peril of the party.


Most voters will not be swayed by nuance. What will sway them are ads insisting that Senator Bullfrog voted against buying body armor for the troops, voted for letting them do without food and ammunition. If you cannot see how easily that could be used against our pols, rightly or wrongly, than it does not speak well for your practical political acumen.

[Flying_Pig]

56. Well Pepper, you've got your acumen, and I've got mine...

And with all due respect, I'll take mine thank you.

Peace,
F.P.

[Mairead]

71. "you do so at the peril of the party"

The party is more important than the nation? Than the people being butchered in Iraq?

Get your priorities straight, for Goddess's sake.

[ErasureAcer]

46. I ripped into Dayton after his first vote

hopefully he read my email and will vote no this time

[sal]

48. Who looks best in their pink tutu?

The whole thing was crazy. Prior to debate on the bill, and slightly after * mentioned the request for appropriations in his terrible speech to the nation, I saw credible polling that 59% of Americans did not approve of the amount spent on Iraqi reconstruction and 65% wanted roll-backs on the tax breaks to the upper 1% who received an undue amount of gain....to make them sacrifice something. The Democrats could have defeated this bill and tied a can to *'s tail by making him compromise to the UN and open the contract process to venders and contractors; especially to Dem constituents.

We got punked by our own guys.

When has this party EVER got ANYTHING by appeasing facists???

Et tu Wyden? Et tu Clinton?

[Flying_Pig]

51. Good points Sal!

n/t

[Pastiche423]

57. Wyden, indeed

Prior to the vote, I sent my Senators and Rep emails asking that they vote NO. My Rep, Pete DeFazio returned my email and followed through w/a snail mail. He voted NO.

Wyden claimed he was co-sponsoring an amendment to the bill, asking for a reduction. As far as I can tell, that amendment was not passed. Yet, he voted YES to the $87B.

I am deeply disappointed in him and just let him know. *I will continue to let him know until I get an answer.

*I = two activist groups representing a portion of the southern coast of Oregon.

[raysr]

66. Cantwell

Cantwell's a Repug (WA) knew it from the beginning, Murray really surprised me.

[Mairead]

72. Well said, Sal. Right on.

[Andy_Stephenson]

77. Cantwell and Murray

Figures. :eyes:

[LittleApple81]

85. PLEASE LISTEN to Studs Terkel in his interview with Democracy now!

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/11/04/161221

He refers to senator Byrd's negative vote on the give away and to his wonderful speech (I listened to it when it was happening and wanted to cry... this country is a goner). But then I listened to Terkel and a ray of hope comes through. If Terkel at 91 can be so smart a courageous, why shouldn't and couldn't WE! There is too much at stake here and now.

In the interview he refers to Asscroft as being over 300 years old because he really is the reincarnation of the puritan Minister in
"The Crucible".
Please listen... it is good.