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

[IdesOfOctober]

... to ask why:

1. The Senate Democrats didn't filibuster the creation of the military commissions, at least until after November 7, 2006: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00259

2. The Senate Democrats didn't filibuster - or bottle up in committee, or delay the vote on - the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, at least until after November 5, 2002: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237

I've taken a drubbing on this.

My basic point is simple:

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

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

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

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

Ides

[liberaliraqvet26]

1. No its not irrational. But we are looking to the future at the moment...

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

[IdesOfOctober]

4. But what about 2002?

If there was ever a time for a line in the sand to be drawn, 2002 was it.

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

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

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

OK. Either they got fooled, or we did.

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

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

Ides

[Grebrook]

2. No, it just makes you a repetitive poster who isn't pointing out anything that hasn't already been

rehashed. Furiously.

[IdesOfOctober]

5. Sorry about that...

... if you point out the threads discussing the current batch of Senate Dems' failure to filibuster the creation of the military commissions, I'll go read those thoroughly, before posting anything more about it.

Ides

[Nite Owl]

3. No, not a bad Democrat

and definitely a good American. I totally disagree with the lack of foresight and backbone on the part of the dems and sorry if anyone doesn't like that, I'm an American before I am a Democrat.

[IdesOfOctober]

6. Thank God!

And thank you for saying so.

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

Ides

[Nite Owl]

8. They were afraid that it would be used against them

in the election but actually they could have turned this right back on them. They could have had a "Mourning Ceremony" for the Constitution on the Capitol steps among other things. Everything has gone too far, we can't be afraid anymore.

[IdesOfOctober]

10. We can't be afraid anymore...

... which is why I don't understand why many of the same Democratic Senators who voted for the Iraq War (out of fear), succumbed to the same reasoning last month on the military commissions.

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

Ides

[Gwerlain]

12. I believe we shared a few thoughts...

NightOwl.

[Gwerlain]

7. Perhaps there is more to it...

they do, after all, have to get reelected, and I think that the point at which they had to make the decision whether to filibuster or not might have been before all this stuff started coming down with Foleygate and Stay The Course and so forth; although I believe that it was after the publication of the latest Woodward book.

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

Rather than answer your second question, I'll answer the question implicit in the statement that precedes it, and state that while a public official's voting record is certainly part, and an important part at that, of the answer to what criteria one should (man, I hate that word in this context- shouldacouldawouldaoughtamighta!) consider when deciding who to vote for, you imply that that is ALL one should consider, and with that thought I disagree.

[IdesOfOctober]

14. What more important criteria is there?

I may like a candidate. I may think s/he'd make a swell drinking buddy.

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

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

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

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

Ides

[Gwerlain]

19. Never said there was a MORE IMPORTANT...

criterion, just that it's not the ONLY criterion.

As far as needing a serious challenge in the next primary, I agree completely. I'd also say a chiding letter to go with it.

[originalpckelly]

9. self-delete.

[SmokingJacket]

11. Dont you remember? They agreed not to filibuster.

No, I'm not happy about it either. But it won't make me vote Republican.

[IdesOfOctober]

16. Me either...

... but will it make you think seriously about replacing those Dems with others?

Ides

[SmokingJacket]

18. That's why I voted against the Dem incumbent in the primary.

However, my guy lost, and now I have no choice.

[CorpGovActivist]

24. Maybe When the Bush-Backing Dems...

... start sensing that they're vulnerable in the primaries, they'll get with the progressive program?

- Dave

[SPKrazy]

13. It Does Make You Wonder If The Whole Lot Of Them

have been gotten to.

(congress that is)

[GeorgeGist]

15. No...

it means that elected, national Democratic Party leaders are not Progressives.

[IdesOfOctober]

17. I understand that to achieve the majorities...

... the caucus will not be 100% progressives.

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

; )

Ides

[Toots]

20. You do know about Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, & Mary Landrieu don't you?

:shrug:

[CorpGovActivist]

21. Had Gavels, Did Grovel

That could be the title of the tell-all about Daschle's last days.

- Dave

[IdesOfOctober]

25. Awesome working title...

... when are you gonna pen the manuscript?

Ides

[seabeyond]

22. it depends if you reasonably listen to the answer once you ask

or if you ignore answer continually and keep asking over and over and over, with no intent what so ever to see reality

[IdesOfOctober]

30. Help me to see the reality...

... of the votes cited in the OP?

The reality I see is that:

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

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

What part of that reality am I not seeing?

Ides

[Individualist]

23. No. It makes you a good Democrat, a responsible citizen,

and a good person.

[IdesOfOctober]

31. Then why do I feel...

... like a heretic?

Ides

[brentspeak]

26. I would say it makes you a "concerned Democrat"

Pay attention to the quotation marks.

[IdesOfOctober]

32. "Lovely"...

... no argument, just "air quotes."

How "mature."

How "enlightened."

How "devoid of anything resembling leadership."

Ides

[Garbo 2004]

27. Are you representing yourself as a Democrat/progressive/liberal?

Given your thread yesterday and the language you use regarding Dems, is this just a question for those who are liberal, progressive Dems or are you also representing yourself as a liberal, progressive Dem?

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

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

If you want proof, donate to the site and search the archives yourself if you really want to know.

[IdesOfOctober]

29. Funny how you focus only on...

... the criticisms I have leveled, and not the praise.

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

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

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

Ides

[Garbo 2004]

35. Funny how you didn't answer my question. ;) As for criticisms of Dems,

DU's full of criticism of Dem pols, just read. You've apparently missed considerable discussion here regarding precisely the matters you mentioned in your OP. But you also seemingly ignore criticism of Dem pols since you've signed up here and continue to suggest a poster voicing such criticism may be "shouted down," despite evidence to the contrary.

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

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

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

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

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

And you still didn't answer my question.

Again, if you want to read threads critical of Dems votes/actions/inactions on various matters, including habeas corpus/military commissions act, donate to the site and use the advanced search function.

[LeftCoast]

28. It makes you a 'concerned' Democrat

;-)

[IdesOfOctober]

33. "Concerned" code phrase full of "Macaca"...

... it's entirely possible to be a good progressive, a good liberal, and/or a good Democrat, and still ask questions like those in the OP.

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

Ides

[hootinholler]

34. I dunno bout that, but...

If I ever find that room of dry powder, I'm gonna have a schmoke.

-Hoot