The thirteen brave Senators

These are the Thirteen:

Boxer
Kennedy
Levin
Durbin
Byrd
Kerry
Jeffords
Reed
Dayton
Akaka
Lautenberg
Harkin
Bayh

Give these folks some slack in the future? Hold the feet of every last damn one of the other 33 to the hottest fire you can! They deserve our scorn!

Those thirteen get a lot of slack from me.

The rest get NO SLACK ON ANYTHING UNTIL THEY PROVE THEY HAVE A PAIR!

a fabulous pair of Prada heels!

I know where my money is going next time.

i thought for sure he's vote for her. I need to be a tad more openminded.

-- I'm a bit red-faced myself on this one.

pander to us a little. I hope he continues on this track. I will hope for the best and prepare for the worst...ie the usual.

Just ask Clinton and Biden and Obama and so many others.

So good for Bayh for taking this unpopular but absolutely right stand. He's no glowy-eyed idealist, so it may well be that he has become convinced that the country is headed for destruction if the blivet** isn't stopped. For a wise person, that would trump short-term political gain.

and maybe even find the will to act. The country really is headed over a cliff, so short-term political gains may not be quite such a good deal to someone with even one open eye.

Even some of the conservatives are starting to be scared of what is happening to this country. For example, did you see this article (now on the DU home page):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1529983

But even with all of this, only 13% of the Senate votes were against Rice, who has lied repeatedly to Congress, enabled the blivet**'s disastrous schemes, is totally incompetent, and -- deadly serious for a Sec of State -- has not a shred of credibility throughout the rest of the world. As I said in another post in this thread, it does make it look like RFK Jr.'s estimate of 95% of Repubs and 75% of Dems (I assume he meant in Congress) are corrupt is pretty accurate (the link to a thread discussing this is in my other post).

I think we should make that corrupt AND stupid. Even a corrupt person with any sense at all would see that this path is leading to the destruction of the country in the not-all-that-distant future. Not good business, that, for someone who values only power and money. Maybe they plan to move to an island paradise with their loot while the country sinks.

right? I mean these guys have to retain power in both houses and they will take no prisoners. I'm really hoping there is a change coming. I'm hoping the public is equating the GOP with a failed war and bad economic times.

I believe that, given that the corporate media have so far stayed firmly in the blivet**'s pocket, getting the truth out, raising money for the best candidates, and organizing dissent and support where they are needed IS GOING TO BE UP TO US here on the internet.

I'm currently trying to think through how to put together something to stimulate brainstorming about this, what we can do to increase our reach to those who don't use the internet and also how to defend the freedom of the medium to the inevitable attacks. The country is in terrible danger and it looks like we're all that is left to defend it. We've accomplished a lot in the last months, but we're now at the beginning of something huge.

All suggestions are welcome. I'm hoping some kind of DU working group can be formed with people who are a whole lot more knowledgable and connected than I am.

Evan's father may be having periodic chats with junior about these matters. Maybe some of that old liberal juice is starting to circulate.

thought he had more courage than that! Of course, he also voted for Ashcroft so . . .

who the prez wants in his cabinet.

So it was no surprise. Just sticking to a gun we don't like much, is all.

war criminal on the Senate floor. Feingold has slipped many notches for me in the last few weeks and I'm feeling angry that I worked for his campaign.

Better than Michels? Not sure if he keeps voting like this.

I'm not riding the "he's only as good as his last vote" rollercoaster. Heard too many good things about Feingold for that. His Patriot vote should still carry some currency yet.

And don't get crazy with the "Is he better that Michels" talk. Michels was one scary, pro-life absolutist, petty mo-fo. Even several Republicans voted against him, or didn't vote at all since they couldn't support Feingold either.

The man is more than his one vote for this. And I am not sorry I worked for him. Working for him and Kerry and Moore this campaign is one of my prouder moments, actually. I might be sentimental though. It was also my first campaign.

I just hope he gets off this Repug lite bit and we start seeing the Maverick again.

Did you see my post about the Milwaukee meet-up this Sunday?

I'll go look.

for Dems with no balls. No president is "entitled" to his cabinet. That's why the Senate has "advice and consent"....otherwise, why does it go to the Senate? He could just pick who he wants and be on his merry way.

advice and consent - Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote.

I don't see where it states that the president is "entitled" to have who he picks for his cabinet. He's not.

he's failed in his constitutional duty.

there are 13 out of a hundred senators who are not complete dingbats, dumb asses and sycophants for the fascists.
I suppose I should be encouraged.

So out of the "free will humans" we got over 25%

why is it so farfetched to expect the dems to do the same thing?

nevermind, rhetorical question, but you get my point.

Also, in times past, republicans would not toe the party line when a clearly ghastly thing was happening with their party.

I am so dissapointed, Its like watching your child going to jail....

Oh no !!!

or was he absent? I heard his name called but couldn't hear his vote - I was listening to CPAN on the web at work - it faded sometimes

no slack on anything else for Mr. Obama.

to Obama expressing my disappointment in his vote.

I also said I expect an answer as to why he voted "aye".

:shrug: We'll see if I receive a reply.

Cheers,
Kim

To the Honorable Senator Barack Obama,

It is with a heavy heart that I feel compelled to write to you today. I supported your candidacy for the Senate with my vote, my verbal support to convince others to vote for you, and with my pocketbook via donations.

I saddens me greatly to see you support a proven liar with your yes vote to confirm Condaleeza Rice for the position of Secretary of State. What this has accomplished is to reward negligence, failure, incompetence, and lying that borders on criminal activity with a promotion to a higher office.

If this is what I can expect from the future of your tenure as Senator, I will be unable to support your re-election as Senator or your candidacy for any other office.

I will hold my judgement until I see how you vote on the Alberto Gonzales nomination for Attorney General. Should you also vote yes on this nomination, I will be unable to support your future political ambitions and will find myself in a position where I feel compelled to work against such endeavors.

Please, restore the faith I held in you when I cast my ballot on November 2, 2004. Vote NO on the confirmation of Alberto Gonzales for Attorney General.

Sincerely,
Walter E. Starr

the extent of the Democratic party.

At least, they are all mostly my faves of the lot.

Whom some continue to imagine to be liberals,

Let us hear no more from them.

And work for their replacement next time out.

Excuse me? Obama wasn't in the Senate, and has continually spoken out against the war.

As an Illinois State Senator, Obama was outspoken against the war.

So the next time some poster says "all democrats are sellouts" I'll have a list.

Kudos to them! (and I'll send money, too.)

nt

They will sleep well tonight.

in 2008, unusual vote for him.

let the revisionist history begin

:shrug:

I just got home and heard the confirmation count on the radio on the way and was dying to find out who voted against her. Thanks for posting this so I could easily get the info.

continues.

Good for him.

...Democrats did the right thing. And I salute all of them for doing so. Even Kerry and Bayh.

just like the original 13 colonies. :)

I keep tellin ya there is a lot of dead wood that needs trimmin up in the senate.

actions people...actions...watch what they do not what they say.

might get you a cup of coffee in the Chicago Loop.

These thirteen certainly have my admiration and respect.

Another thread the other day gave the site for the House of Reps and site the Senate from which activity such as this Senate vote canbe followed in detail:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=14437

I went to the Senate one hoping that this vote had already been posted but could not find it. There was, however, the vote in which only Boxer stood against validating the Ohio vote. There is much more detail here, giving not only who voted yea or nay but also who did not vote at all. I wanted to know those for this vote, but the info was not there yet. I wanted to know, for example, if Barack Obama actually voted FOR Rice or was not there. Same for others. I'll check back later when the site is updated.

So bitter not to see Obama's or Clinton's or so many Dem names on this list of 13 brave souls. And not a single Republican.

More evidence that RFK Jr. was eeriely accurate when he recently estimated that 95% of Repubs and 75% of Dems (I assume he meant those in Congress) are corrupt:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2999611
My calculation for this infamous Senate confirmation of Rice is that a mere 13%, close to what would be predicted from RFK Jr's estimate of the extent of corruption.

He's been one of the biggest drum beaters for a war against Iraq and now Iran.

Sorry to be so harsh but this really is a crumb. Bahy is so far down the shit list because of a TON of previous votes that it's going to take him more than this one 'safe' one to bring him up.

But with the other 12? Carry one Walt! A dozen bouquets of roses, one each.


CDI Praises Passage of Senate Resolution on Iran:

And Bipartisan Action to Condemn Rigged Elections


The Coalition for Democracy in Iran
Press Release - March 8, 2004

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 8, 2004 Washington, D.C. --

The Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) praised the passage of a Sense of the Senate resolution (S. Res. 304) condemning the recent sham elections in Iran and calling for the United States to advocate democracy in Iran. The resolution, which was offered by Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE), Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-SD) and Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), was approved unanimously.

The resolution tracked an earlier Senate version, S. Res. 302, authored by Senator Brownback and co-sponsored by Senators Evan Bayh (D-IN), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Saxby Chambliss (D-GA), Michael DeWine (R-OH), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

The resolution states that it is the policy of the U.S. that –

1. The United States should not support the elections in Iran;

2. The Unites States should provide support to Iran and the Iranian people; and

3. The United States should advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the people of Iran, abandon terrorism, protect human rights, and live in peace and security with the international community.

The CDI applauds this forthright resolution, which condemns the fraudulent elections and calls upon the U.S. to support the establishment of a democratic government in Iran. The CDI also notes the strong bipartisan support it received, and welcomes the co- sponsorship of the Ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Democratic Leader.

108th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. RES. 304

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should not support the February 20, 2004, elections in Iran and that the United States should advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the Iranian people and will abandon terrorism.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

February 12, 2004
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. BIDEN, and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the United States should not support the February 20, 2004, elections in Iran and that the United States should advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the Iranian people and will abandon terrorism.

Whereas there is a long history of mutual affection, appreciation, and respect between the people of the United States and the people of Iran, including the incalculable efforts by the United States in providing humanitarian, financial, and technological assistance to help the people of Iran;

Whereas the people of Iran have shown support for decency and freedom, and solidarity with the United States, including the demonstration of such support through candlelight vigils attended by the youth of Iran in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks upon the United States;

Whereas the Council of Guardians is a 12-member unelected body that has arbitrarily disqualified thousands of candidates, including sitting Members of the Parliament of Iran and members of the reformist movement;

Whereas the elections scheduled to be held on February 20, 2004, in Iran are fatally flawed; ((gee, all this care about Persian elections and so little about ours!))

Whereas the brave efforts of the people of Iran to promote greater democracy and respect for human rights are being thwarted by the actions of the Council of Guardians;

Whereas the blatant interference of the Council of Guardians in the electoral process ensures that the elections scheduled for February 20, 2004, will be neither free nor fair; and

Whereas the circumstances in Iran clearly call into serious question whether pro-democratic reform within the regime of Iran is possible: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not support the elections in Iran scheduled to take place on February 20, 2004, as such elections stifle the growth of the democratic forces in Iran and do not serve the national security interest of the United States;

(2) the support provided by the United States to Iran should be provided to the people of Iran; and

(3) the policy of the United States should be to advocate a democratic government in Iran that will restore freedom to the people of Iran, will abandon terrorism, will protect human rights, and will live in peace and security with the international community.


http://www.c-d-i.org/pr/2004-03-8.shtml

See how many CDI-loving PNACers you can spot who were very pleased with Evan Bayh and the other neoliberals!

Individuals Expressing Support for The CDI


Hon. Frank Gaffney

Hon. Jack Kemp

Dr. Michael Ledeen

Mr. Bruce McColm

Dr. Joshua Muravchik

Ms. Danielle Pletka

Dr. Rob Sobhani

Prof. Raymond Tanter

Hon. James Woolsey

http://www.c-d-i.org/supporters.shtml

===
(snip)

Not having its own intelligence-gathering infrastructure, Feith’s office relied on fabricated information supplied by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who led the Iraqi National Congress (INC). In 1998, Chalabi’s group was funded by the Iraq Liberation Act, a congressional initiative that was backed by neoconservative institutions such as AIPAC, CSP, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

(snip)

In early 2002, Leeden, along with Morris Amitay, a former AIPAC executive director as well as a CSP adviser, founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) to build congressional and administration support for Iran regime change. AIPAC and CDI helped ensure passage of recent House and Senate resolutions that condemn Iran, call for tighter sanctions and express support for Iranian dissidents.

The CDI includes members of key neoconservative policy institutes and think tanks, including Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs (WINEA) – an off-shoot of AIPAC – and Frank Gaffney, president of CSP. In the ’90s, Feith served as the board chairman of CSP, whose slogan is "peace through strength," and where Woolsey currently serves as co-chairman of the advisory committee. Other neoconservative organizations are represented in the coalition by more than one member include AEI and Freedom House.

Rob Sobhani, an Iranian-American, who like Ledeen and other neoconservatives is a friend of the Shah’s son Reza Pahlavi, is also a CDI member. CDI expresses the common neoconservative position that constructive engagement with the Iranian government – even with the democratic reformists – is merely appeasement. Instead, the United States should proceed immediately to a regime change strategy working closely with the "Iranian people." Representatives of the Iranian people that could be the front men for a regime change strategy, according to the neoconservatives, include, the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi (who has also cultivated close ties with the Likud Party in Israel), the Iraq-based guerrilla group Mujahadin-E Khalq (MEK), and expatriate arms dealer Ghorbanifar.


(snip)

Meyrav Wurmser said: "Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster."


http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=2320

first post. It's not Senator Jack Reed, it's Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, I believe who vote Nay.

Reid of NV voted aye.

Like, maybe the fact that these are all big names (except for Daniel Akaka)

Come on. While I am glad that Durbin voted No, I can understand why Obama voted Yes.

For me jan 6 is still the standard/issue.

Someone enlighten me. I guess he really has to go and has needed to go for awhile now. And to think I voted for him in 2000 (twice! once for vp and once for sen, as he was allowed to run for each).