CSPAN2, Reid just said Clinton and Kerry are each

[babylonsister]

going to be talking about the torture bill for 5 minutes. It's now 9:12 am CT.
And Dodd just gave an impassioned speech, comparing brave souls (including his dad) who did what was right after WWII, not what was political.

[MBS]

1. Dodd was terrific

I'm going to try to get hold of text-- everyone should see this

[babylonsister]

2. He really was, and welcome to DU and the JK group! nt

[whometense]

3. Leahy is impassioned.

NO ONE had better cross my path today with that "spineless dems" crap.

There are some pretty spineless dems in congress - but there are also a whole lot of them who do not deserve in any way to be tarred by that brush.

[babylonsister]

4. Good point. The fat lady hasn't sung yet, though my hopes are not

high.

[whometense]

6. No, mine aren't either.

But it warms my heart to see how strongly these good people feel about the subject. They are true patriots, and I'm proud of every one of them who speaks out with this kind of passion.

[beachmom]

5. Change you title to CSPAN2 (if possible)

Looks like we posted at the same time. Let's just use this thread.

[babylonsister]

7. Thanks, beachmom; done. I didn't see your post. And

I'm really sad that we're even having to get to this point.
As Leahy just said, what has made us so frightened as a nation?

[TayTay]

8. 5 Minutes to defend basic liberties

That is a disgrace. Again, the Rethuglicans did this.

Sen. Leahy is correct, we are becoming the thing we hate.

[karynnj]

9. Leahy is great today

[beachmom]

10. "We let the terrorists win"

Excellent. Hope his speech makes the news.

[Island Blue]

11. Has Kerry spoken yet? 10:46

Jeff Sessions is up. God I can't stand that man.

[Luftmensch067]

13. I am incoherent with RAGE (Sessions)

"What does Habeas Corpus MEAN?"

ARRRRRRRRRRRGH

[babylonsister]

15. No, JK hasn't spoken yet. nt

[karynnj]

12. Can Sessions get any dumber or slimier

What did Habeus Corpus mean when it was adopted???

[babylonsister]

14. The more I see him, the more I wonder what he's doing in the Senate. nt

[whometense]

17. no, he couldn't. n/t

[whometense]

16. has anyone yet plainly mentioned the elephant in the room?

What a load of crap.

The elephant is so clearly that we cannot trust this president or this administration to respect the rule of law. THey cannot regulate or control themselves - clearly - so how can anyone possibly consider giving them carte blanche?

It's implied - but has anyone flat out stated that this could end in the permanent imprisonment of political opponents? In a thought police? Or is my :tinfoilhat: on too tight?

[_dynamicdems]

19. Maybe Kerry will. n/t

[whometense]

67. WOW - he DID!!!

edited to add :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya: :loveya:

brilliant, but way too short.

[_dynamicdems]

114. The turds wouldn't let him speak longer.

He's such a hero! Our boy doesn't mince words, does he?

:woohoo:

[Luftmensch067]

20. Things are getting very scary very fast

I think my hat is as shiny as yours.

[_dynamicdems]

21. Mine too.

I'm terrified of what will happen if we don't take back Congress. If this is how they behave when they are in a political fight for their lives, what will they do if they become further drunk with power.

[Luftmensch067]

22. Well, here are some words of comfort

History has taught us that when you really have all the power, you tend to fall, and hard.

Malvina Reynolds words always help me: "They've got the world in their pocket...but their pocket's got a hole!"

Sadly, a lot of innocent people usually get hurt before their fall is complete, but it will come.

[babylonsister]

23. Great quote! Thanks for a wee bit of positiveness on this bleak day. nt

[_dynamicdems]

25. Thanks. This is a bleak day.

I hope they fall soon. Enough innocent people have already been hurt. God this Bond creep who is talking now makes me so furious, I just want to reach through the television and slap his face. What a lying jerk.

[whometense]

26. that is a great quote -

and from a great source, too.

[Luftmensch067]

34. I find she generally has words of wisdom

on most any topic :-)

Also the pie!

[karynnj]

52. What a cool quote

I hope it's true.

[_dynamicdems]

18. Russ Feingold is making some great points. n/t

[Mass]

24. Bond speaking now - Democrats are traitors.

not word for word, but this was the implication. :puke: Used all the keywords: weak in defense, cut and run, leaks of classified information, ...

[_dynamicdems]

28. He's loathsome. A real barf bag, scum-sucking cretin.

He needs a good slap.

[TayTay]

27. I beg you all to remember that Americans

do not favor this or torture. Then latest poll had a majority of Americans against this.

Even if this passes today, the fight is just beginning. This is unconstitutional after all. We are talking about Habeas Corpus after all and even the court with Roberts on it struck down as unconstitutional the lack of habeas.

Courage, the fight will move to the next phase and we cannot let it drop.

[whometense]

29. You read my mind.

I swear - I was just this second wondering what the american people are making of all this?

What's this Warner's up to?

[babylonsister]

31. I want to know why repugs get a pass for even forwarding

the issue of torture. What makes them think this would fly? They should be strung up in the town square (would that be torture?)!

[Luftmensch067]

35. You're right, Tay

Thanks for saying it!

[kerrygoddess]

30. Just got word - JK to speak around Noon

If I get more info I will try to post, but check the Dem Daily just incase...

[Mass]

32. OK, so it will be after the vote, I imagine.

[babylonsister]

36. Arggh! If it's after the vote, what's the point?

Just to get words on the record?:banghead:

[_dynamicdems]

44. From what Warner just said, the vote will be after all have spoken.

At least that's what it sounded like he just said.

[TayTay]

48. The vote on the whole bill

The debate on the Habeas Corpus provision will end at 11:45 am with a vote.

And the angels themselves will weep to see America brought down so low by her enemies.

[_dynamicdems]

54. The angels will have the last laugh though.

These bastards have a special place waiting for them in Hell.

[karynnj]

55. Could this suggest Kerry's speech will be on rejecting the entire bill

The Democrats likely had to choose some speakers for each time. Kerry is likely the best for that. His service and his morality really do give him standing.

[_dynamicdems]

33. Thanks! Any word on the online chat? Has that been cancelled or scheduled

for later in the day?

[whometense]

37. what the hell is this?

A republican speaking up for habeas corpus??

Oh. my. god.

Gordon Smith. Let's hear it for one republican who still has at least a vestigial conscience.

[Luftmensch067]

38. I don't like him, but

he spoke up for stem cell research, too -- we'll take what we can get!

[beachmom]

39. But he's voting for it? WTF? n/t

[Luftmensch067]

42. I don't always understand what's going on in this process

Is it possible the Republicans are rubberstamping with the assumption that they can stay safe and support Bush but the Supreme Court will do the "dirty work" for them?

Hm, that's what Levin seems to be saying.

That really makes the Republicans extra cowardly, if so.

Edited to add that "dirty work" is sarcastic!

[Mass]

40. Says he will vote for the full bill even if Specter's amendment does not

pass.

[whometense]

43. if so, that makes him a big fat weasel.

[_dynamicdems]

45. A big fat weasel with bad fashion sense.

He must have come directly from the circus for the vote.

[Luftmensch067]

46. ROFL!!!! n/t

[babylonsister]

47. LOL! I also wondered who dressed him! nt

[rox63]

51. That makes him totally useless

Anyone know where the rethug gals from Maine are on this bill?

[TayTay]

53. Collins is for it

Snowe is an unknown. Sigh!

[whometense]

56. Harold Meyerson

http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12065

...Problem is, Chafee and his moderate band are an ever weaker force in a party whose very essence is extreme, whose electoral strategy is solely to mobilize its base, whose legislative strategy is never to seek votes across party lines. And unless these moderates boldly go where they have not gone before and cast their vote for majority leader (and I don't mean in caucus, I mean on the Senate floor) for someone other than the nominee of their party caucus, they are not moderates at all. They are loyal and indispensable foot soldiers in the Republicans' continuing campaign to drag the nation rightward and backward.

And guess what. The moderates will vote for the extremist. "Moderate," after all, is only an adjective; "Republican" is a noun. Chafee, Snowe, the whole lot of them, are moderate enablers of an extremist party. That leaves those voters in Rhode Island, Maine, Ohio and other states where these self-proclaimed Republican moderates are running only one choice if they seek a Congress to check and balance the president, if they want a more moderate nation: Vote for the Democrat.

[rox63]

41. I can't imagine that Lincoln Chafee will vote for this either

Unless he wants to lose his reelection bid in RI.

[whometense]

49. Agreed.

Great column on Chafee, Snowe et al, and their general uselessness by Harold Meyerson. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=12065

[wisteria]

50. OMG!! Really? n/t

[_dynamicdems]

57. Heeeerrrrrreeee's Johnny!

And he's carrying a red file folder (speech, speech).

[whometense]

58. I'm kind of amazed that Sununu

vote aye on the amendment.

[_dynamicdems]

60. That is surprising. n/t

[_dynamicdems]

62. remove

posted in wrong place

[Luftmensch067]

59. Oh, man -- I know I'm going to miss it!

I have to go to lunch! Any idea when he might be speaking?

[babylonsister]

61. And totally underwhelmed that Nelson-NE voted no.

Did the FL Nelson voted yet? And Landrieu voted aye.

[wisteria]

64. Landrieu is afraid of her own shaddow. She is really a weak Dem,

but she is a Dem. She always seems too frightened to make a move that might get her unelected in her red state.

[_dynamicdems]

63. What in HELL is going on here?

Is there some concerted effort to prevent John Kerry from speaking?

This is annoying and confusing.

[babylonsister]

65. I share your annoyance. He was raring to go, then yanked. nt

[_dynamicdems]

81. He was pissed too, you could tell.

I'm glad he did get to speak, after all, but it wasn't clear when he did, whose time it was from.

(Is there an emoticon for hair-pulling?)

[babylonsister]

83. This will work:

[rox63]

68. I just caught the last bit of Kerry speaking

What did he say before the last part about it being unconstitutional to suspend the write of habeus corpus?

[Mass]

69. That the bill permits torture and that you cant trust dubya!

[whometense]

70. He spent most of the time talking

about why we can't trust the president. It was WONDERFUL. I recorded it on my computer, but don't know how good the sound quality is.

Anyone know where I can upload it so people can hear it?

[Inuca]

75. YouTube?

PLEASE try to upload it somewhere and let us know, I doubt it will be available anywhere else.

[karynnj]

72. He said that the constitution specifically allowed

for not complying with Habeus Corpus only during an insurrect or an invasion and this is neither of these.

That was an amazing speech - I love that he echoed his comment that our moral authority is a precious national asset. It was also good that he very clearly pointed out that Bush agreed to McCain's torture bill then immediately wrote a signing statement. He made a great comment that the President who lobbied for torture is the one this bill lets define torture.

[TayTay]

73. Brilliant speech

He said it all in about 5 minutes.

The US does not disavow torture, this is a moral blow that weakens America.
Bush lies, why should we trust him on this?
This bill is unconstitutional and was pased for an election, not for the good of the country.

[wisteria]

66. Has Clinton spoken yet? n/t

[babylonsister]

71. Not yet. Hopefully soon so we can get the hook out for Bond.

He's so so bad and sounds like a third-grader (no offense, kids).

[whometense]

74. Sound file is up

You can get it here: http://rapidshare.de/files/34772357/JK_senate_floor_9-28-06.mp3.html

Hope the quality is ok. I haven't had a chance to listen yet. Sorry - just audio. And if anyone wants to pretty it up, please feel free.

[Democrafty]

76. Thank you!

The sound quality is quite good.

[whometense]

78. oh, excellent!!

thanks for letting me know!

[Inuca]

77. One more thank you!

[whometense]

79. you're very welcome!!

I hope a whole lot of people will get to hear it!

[Blaukraut]

80. thanks so much! n/t

[Luftmensch067]

82. Bless you, Whome!

I am listening now and while I still feel like I've been kicked in the gut, it DOES help to hear someone like JK speaking the truth.

[ProSense]

85. Thanks!

I'll try listening later, it's not working for some reason. At least it here. Thanks!

[babylonsister]

84. Byrd introducing an amendment to slow this whole show down.

He's making great good sense, but will anyone listen?

[beachmom]

86. Somebody called Kerry's office on Kos. Basically this is already over.

Here is the comment:

John Kerry's office 1:57 (0 / 0)
Kerry's staffer explained that there is not going to be a cloture vote. Without a cloture vote, you can't filibuster.

The time allowed for debate has already been set, the staffer thought it was 12 hours.

When the 12 hours is up, they vote. The only way to kill it is to get every Democrat and 6 Republicans to vote against it.

This is consistent with something I read in the Washington Post yesterday, only the time was 6 hours.

I don't know who's right, but this guy sounded like he knew what he was talking about, and took the trouble to explain it to me.

by sozzy on Thu Sep 28, 2006 at 11:01:26 AM PDT

< Parent | Reply to This |Recommend Troll >




Others on the thread said this is wrong. I have no clue who is right. Pundits/MSM acting like this thing is all over. I think they're right.

Somebody tried to pick a fight about how senators can't be presidents because of this vote. I then asked them how if their candidate was in the Senate it would go down any differently. Then he went into '04 rehash. I ended the debate there. Geesh. Our constitution is being destroyed -- who the hell has time for the wayback machine?

[whometense]

87. how is it possible that they have

eliminated the cloture vote?

Not asking you, of course - I just don't understand how they can just do away with it.

[Mass]

89. Unanimous consent. This is the only way.

[TayTay]

91. Because of politics on the Secure Fencing Act

Originally, this bill was going to be an amendment to the Secure Fencing Bill, which has already had a cloture vote, btw. However, the Democratic and Republican leadership, sometime on Tuesday, decided to strip this amendment out, make it a bill in it's own right, set the time for debate and then pull it up for consideration immediately on the floor.

The agreement said how much time the entire package would take up, including amendments. A cloture vote is a vote to end the amount of time that can be used on the floor to debate the bill. (The old-time filibusters, that aren't done anymore, actually had to have a breathing human being on the floor talking in order to prevent debate from ending and a vote from happening. That doesn't happen anymore. The vote for cloture is, in effect, the filibuster which means the Senate can debate the bill indefinitely.) The time allocation has already been made. There is no need for a cloture vote to ask for more time. That decision was already made with unanimous consent.

There are some questions to be asked.

1. What the hell happened in the Democratic Caucus on Tuesday? Who argued for doing this in this way? What was promised and what was given up to get the bill to the floor in this way?

2. There are rumors floating around that Harry Reid did this specifically to make sure his renegade Senators couldn't filibuster this bill. (I half-believe this. Harry Reid hates the renegades, as we all know.)

This is what happened on Tuesday as recorded in the Congressional Record:

Mr. REID. Mr. President, I appreciate the majority leader yielding. So everyone understands where we are, let me repeat what the majority leader said. As things now stand, we are going to have a cloture vote on the Hamdan matter, the Supreme Court detainee situation that now confronts the country, sometime this evening.

What we are going to try to do in the next hour or so is work out a unanimous consent agreement that there will be amendments allowed to be offered on the Hamdan matter. There would be amendments. We would agree between the leader and me as to how much time will be on the amendments.

I have cleared this matter with most everyone. As I told the leader today, I still have to work things out with two other members of the Judiciary Committee. Hopefully, I can do that. If not, what will happen is cloture will be invoked on Hamdan and then 30 hours will start, and there will be cloture on the fence bill, the barrier bill, sometime tomorrow. We are trying to work our way through this so the Hamdan matter will have some debate on it and some amendments offered on it. We are doing our best to do that.

As I said yesterday, late in a session such as this, everyone becomes a Charles Atlas--one person can stop anything. They have the right to do that. We understand that. But procedurally that is where we are now. Hopefully, we can work our way through this and have some debate on this detainee matter and move on to the fence bill, hopefully work something out on that, and put us on a glidepath to completing the work of the body, as the majority wants to do, in the next couple of days.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield on that point for a couple of moments?

Mr. REID. Of course.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I commend the two leaders for trying to work out these issues. Over the years, I have seen leaders try to do it at the end of a session. I don't consider myself a Charles Atlas, but I do consider myself a U.S. Senator. I have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Some of us have sat in this Chamber and in committee for 5 years while what was being done in detaining the prisoners violated our Constitution and our traditions in the United States. Seven of the nine Members of the Supreme Court are Republicans, incidentally, and have said the same thing in the Hamdan decision.

We tried for 5 years to get the administration to listen to us, to tell us there are ways we could have worked this out so the United States would follow its own laws, would follow its own Constitution, would follow the ideals on which this country was founded, and give that kind of example, a shining light to the rest of the world. And now suddenly the administration, after meeting behind closed doors, predominantly just with the Republicans, says: Here, in 2 hours' time, we have a solution; accept it. I have some problems with that. I will discuss this with the leaders.

As I said, I don't stand here as Charles Atlas, but I stand here as a U.S. Senator with my rights and to protect the rights of Americans.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, reclaiming the floor for just a moment, I say to my friend from Vermont, I consider him a Charles Atlas today and any time I have ever served with him in the Senate. He is one of the most senior Members in the Senate. He is the person the Democrats have designated to be the arbiter of issues that go on in the Judiciary Committee, the busiest committee in the Senate.

I also say to my friend that he is not only a U.S. Senator but a very good one, and I look forward to working with him to work through this issue, and with other members of the committee, as I mentioned, not in name, but there are others I need to work with on the Judiciary Committee.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.

Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, we will continue our discussions. The goal will be to make sure Senators do have the opportunity to debate and amend this bill. We are just trying to put together an agreement to do that. If not, we will have the cloture vote and still have that debate and that opportunity as we go forward.

[Mass]

88. I heard 5 hours on the floor, but basically this is true.

However, this could not be done by an UC. There is no way that this was done without the (at least tacit) acceptation of every single senator. If they did that because they counted their votes and knew they could not win, they should say so loudly.

[Mass]

90. Here - They traded the filibuster against a vote on Specter amendment

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/washington/29detaincnd.html?hp&ex=1159502400&en=f804341525b03650&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The bill’s ultimate passage was assured on Wednesday when Democrats agreed to forgo a filibuster in return for consideration of the amendment. Any changes in the Senate bill, however, would have made it impossible for Republican leaders to meet their goal of sending the bill to the White House before adjourning on Friday to hit the campaign trail.

[beachmom]

92. So the loss of the Specter amendment, meant they lost EVERYTHING

Damnit!!

Pundits like Andrew Sullivan are calling Democrats "cowards". I can't think of a rebuttal. That's pretty sad.

As much as the blame is WAY more on the Republicans, sorry -- the Democrats f***ed this up big time. I said at the beginning that you DON'T rely on McCain to do the right thing. That the Democrats should have gotten involved. But Reid and Schumer et al were too worried about their red state Dems to defend and uphold the Constitution. So they stayed silent, and ALL the Democrats went along with them, including Kerry who remained mum on Hardball, when he should have spoken up against THE BILL AT HAND.

My anger two weeks ago was warranted. I smelled capitulation in the air, and now we're stuck with the worst law since the Alien and Seditions Act.

I am assuming that Kerry was opposed to this wimpy, pathetic "plan" to lose, but was overruled.

[Mass]

93. If they lost the filibuster, they would have lost everything including

the right to propose the Specter amendment.

I am not happy about this vote, but the choice was difficult:

Try to pass a Specter/Feingold amendment who had a chance to pass, or risk a filibuster that was going to fail.

I am not sure. I certainly wished they had the 40 votes and, if they had it, they are crazy not to have filibustered. But, if they did not have it, what was the best solution? Grandstanding by trying a filibuster that was doomed to fail or try to make the bill better.

[beachmom]

95. "Democrats are cowards" meaning we couldn't GET the 40 votes

We don't have enough progressives in our caucus. Had they ALL filibustered they wouldn't have had to capitulate. That's what I mean.

What you are suggesting (about a failed filibuster) is precisely what Kerry did in January with Alito. I thought that meant something, and I think it would have meant something here.

Maybe they thought they had the votes for the Specter amendment. Sigh.

I'm mad today. Beyond mad. Since the Republicans are intrinsically evil, I just feel the need to focus my anger on the Dems. But there aren't enough GOOD Dems is the problem. And that Harold Ford in Tennessee? He voted for torture in the House.

[Mass]

97. I agree - I am just trying not to be too harsh on Reid today.

[beachmom]

98. Actually, the plan I am criticizing is the "let's just watch McCain

and Bush fight" plan. That was completely STUPID. They should have framed the debate right then and there, and when the compromise came out framed it immediately again. When Kerry was on Imus, he still wouldn't speak out against the bill (reading through the language), when you knew damn well he was against it. That was because his leadership was pulling these parliamentary moves that added up to nothing. So once again, they had nothing to work with to reframe the debate.

Why can't Harry Reid twist arms, and get those red state Dems to cooperate? He seems to have no trouble trying to put Kerry in his place relegating him to the night shift, yet if Landrieu says "no, I can't vote against the bill", then Harry says "okay, no problem". The red state Dems seem to be able to control everything, which means standing for NOTHING.

[wisteria]

100. I agree they didn't go with the right strategy. Reid is the leader,

this falls on him. He is to cautious IMO. Kerry has to be part of the team. He followed the team leader.

[beachmom]

104. Which is why he needs to be in the executive n/t

[Democrafty]

105. True story.

He's the only person I trust 100% to set the right tone for how our government should be working.

[karynnj]

108. Reid is far closer to the red state people

He lets Landrieu off the hook, because he is not likey far from where she is and there is probably a lot of "winking" going on.. He is no more able to control Kerry's votes than Landrieu's, he does control what is on the table and the timing - and he uses it against Kerry.

I think the problem was that it is hard to do more than Kerry did - when the final shape of the bill is not known. My guess would be he and others intended to filibuster and Reid sold out. In the lead up - Kerry was the strongest speaking up and I saw NO ONE backing him up. Instead people who should have allied with him were kissing McCain.

[Blaukraut]

110. you know what, you're right about the red state dems

Frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of the Landrieu and Nelson types dictating the democratic response in the senate. Our blue state dems apparently have nothing to say anymore - they're just window dressing. I resent that so much lately. If these dinos are so afraid of their electorate, why don't they make it official and run as rethugs. At least then we know what we're dealing with and they can be considered enemies out in the open, not the back-stabbing, worry-about-my-ass-and-reelection-first cowards who have the audacity to call themselves Democrats.

[karynnj]

109. It will be interesting when whatever happened behind the

scenes leaks.

[wisteria]

99. Nothing they would have done would of made a difference- the bill

was going to pass with the Republican votes only. I know it sounds cold, but why risk votes so close to the election when we could make gains that would not allow the Repubs to get away with these awful bills and tactics in the future? Kerry could possibly wanted to filibuster, and I would of supported that move on the grounds it was the right thing to do, it would have made a statement, however, it would of been reported and denounced as grandstanding, calling attention to the matter and allowing it to be spun to benefit the Republicans. I doubt Sullivan would have applauded Kerry for his actions. Actually, why is he blaming the Democrats anyway. He should be going after his own party and viciously attacking them. They are the ones with the power. They could have stood up and voted against this. Unfortunately, time was not on our side to inform the public of the real travesty of this bill. Now, I think we should make the time to let the public know just what the Republicans have allowed to happen in our country. We do have time for that and to convince people to vote these people out of power.

[ProSense]

102. McCain, Warner and Graham -- every

conservative/Republican who is outraged by this bill should be condemning these three to hell!

[beachmom]

106. I understand what you're saying, but . . .

If someone innocent you know gets taken away, is tortured, and locked in a dungeon for years without being charged with a crime because of this bill, what can Democrats say? Oh, we wanted to fight the bill, but gee we had an election coming up, and it would look like grandstanding to filibuster, probably would have failed, and the most important thing is getting more Dems in the Senate even above upholding the Constitution.

Filibustering this bill only needed to last 4 days. Then Congress was adjourning. I think it was worth it.

But they didn't have the GUTS to do the right thing to save our democracy. THAT was what was at stake. I'm not even talking about the Republicans because they are too far gone -- they're unreachable. But the Dems weren't. It isn't enough to be good -- you must ACT against evil.

We now have a tyrannical president who can name YOU, Wisteria, as an enemy combatant, and then you can be disappeared. That is f***ing scary, and worth fighting against!

[Blaukraut]

94. Ok, Warner is now officially a cowardly piece of shit

Rejecting Kennedy's amendment on a constitutional basis, and when Kennedy offers to change the wording to remedy that, so our troops will be protected, Warner cries 'uncle' and calls for a vote. What a low-life bastard he is :grr:

[beachmom]

96. He let me down last weekend. What's happening now is just

more of the same. As much as I am grateful for him to be kind to Kerry, I will support a Democrat to oust him; however, I heard he is going to retire and won't run for election next time. I'm not sure if that is true. I bet you in his retirement, he will look back at this bill with regret.

[wisteria]

101. If he doesn't go along with the repub plan, they will take him out back

and shoot him. They have been told they had to stay in line on this. After all it is about power and winning.

[Blaukraut]

103. I don't get why they still feel they need to do Bush's bidding

The bastard's approval ratings are at an all-time low, rethugs would do well to distance themselves from him for the midterms, so how could they possibly get hurt by voting against this travesty of a bill? The majority of Americans are against torture, too. So how is voting for it in any way politically expedient?

[karynnj]

107. I'm with you I just don't get it

The ones I'm most mystified by are the ones I previously thought of as decent, but cowed. This is beyond politics, this is their legacy. They voted for torture. Even if we take back the House and Senate, we can't undo this - until we get a decent President.

I guess MCCain is less against torture than people thought he was. Maybe we should urge people to send his book on "Character" back to him, he has none.

[Blaukraut]

111. they're not even pretending anymore

Obviously they do not give a rat's ass about their legacy. They clearly went against the general public's opinion on this, against the constitution, and against all that is decent. Somehow, I think money and bribes were involved here.

[ProSense]

113. They are

rat's asses! No friggin leadership on that side, just a bunch of rabble-rousers! The party of Coulter and Melhman, Hannity and O'Reilly, McCain and Santorum, Bolton and Rumsfeld, and Bush and Cheney. Like I said, from the bottom up, rabble-rousers!

[Luftmensch067]

112. Leahy just gave credit to Kerry for speaking the truth

God bless him. And he is saying he will continue to speak out.