For those considering not voting for Stabenow....

I am very disappointed/upset/confused, etc. with her also. However...consider this: (from a post in GD:Politics by SDDEM06)

"So you live in the district of a Representative who voted for torture, or in a state whose senator voted to enable BushCo to disappear people (that's me on both counts) and can't stomach voting for these people because of their votes. What do we do?

Imagine instead you are voting for Barbara Boxer, Russ Feingold, Charles Rangel or John Conyers. Because when you vote for that DINO and the Democrats take back the majority, you are giving these Senators and Representatives the power. You are giving them a louder voice. You are giving them the chairmanships of the committees, the ability to set the agenda (so crap like this never even gets introduced) and the right to investigate, subpoena and punish the crooks running the country today. When I vote for Stephanie Herseth I am voting to give Dennis Kucinich a bigger microphone. When a Floridian votes for Bill Nelson they are voting to put Pat Leahy in charge of the Judiciary Committee, as well as getting rid of the Chairman tag in front of Warner, Stevens, Inhofe and Chambliss.

If you can't bring yourself to cast a ballot for your Democratic candidate, please consider that (at least indirectly) you are voting for the Congressional Democrats you most admire."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2854116

So close your eyes, imagine one of your favorite Dems, and cast your vote for Stabenow anyway. It's really that important.

With Stabenow's very low reliability factor, the visualization strategy in your re-post works for me.

I hope this helps sway some people to still vote for her. I was never not going to vote for her, in spite of this awful vote yesterday.

From the looks of it around here and on MichiganLiberal I think she lost a lot of votes. I was at a house party for Nancy tonight, and people were really pissed at Stabenow, but most, if not all, of them there were still going to vote for her. She's gotten and will be getting lots of mail and calls on this one.

:hi:

I'm pretty sure if Stabenow would have been the deciding vote, she'd vote the right way.

We lost this vote before the votes were counted. Stabenow was allowed to vote on the winning side so it couldn't be used against her.

Bouchard is a sherrif, this issue is right in his wheelhouse. If Stabenow votes on the losing side of this bill, Bouchard can play it for all it's worth. This specific bill, this specific issue...Stabenow might as well do this because we lost this vote way before she voted. Her vote didn't matter, because the Senate is 55-45 Republican.

Sure, I WISH she would have voted against it. But I understand why she didn't.

If, with such a lead and such an advantage, she thinks a right-wing vote is more important to her than mine, who am I to disagree?

She lost my vote. Bouchard didn't 'win' anything -- Stabenow didn't either.

It wasn't about convincing a right winger to vote for her.

It was preventing the awful ads Bouchard could legitimately run if she voted against the bill. A swing of independents over to Bouchard hurts a lot.

She prevented the debate from being framed into a godawful "I'm a Sherrif, I'll protect you from TERRORISTS, while Debbie Stabenow is more worried about Canadian Trash!" narrative. You can bet Team Bouchard is pissed they can't use that to put the race in play.

The less money Stabenow has to spend defending her seat, the stronger the party will be. If she sews it up for 6 more years, she can kick some of that money to hotly contested races in '08.

Two more years, and you can have your voice heard with your vote.

First and foremost, nothing can stop the reich wing from lying and propagandizing. When fear of "what they might say" controls the vote of a Senator, then the Reich has won. That is truly and literally a "cut and run" (from democratic values) strategy.

IMHO, it betrays a lack of commitment and belief in the very foundation of liberalism going back to the Magna Carta. The specious War on an Abstract Noun is only a 'war' to those who've never been in a combat zone, who can't even vaguely recall London's Blitz, who can't recall the hysteria of "duck and cover." The specious War on an Abstract Noun is an appeal to abject cowardice.

Anyone who retreats on the battlefield of liberal values and democratic principles will NEVER share a foxhole with me.

A coward in our own ranks is as damaging as five fighters in the opponents' ranks. Sabotage and treason are unforgivable acts. (There has NEVER been a coward who didn't claim allegiance to PRAGMATISM! Don Quixote was NOT a pragmatist - he was a hero. Humanity has never benefitted from cowards, only heroes.)

Ms. Stabenow has shown both a lack of comprehension and a lack of commitment to liberal democratic principles as well as an appalling lack of respect for the voters. I'm not the foremost apologist for the intelligence of the general public, but an elected representative absolutely must act with such respect at all times. It's in the f*cking job description!

If Ms. Stabenow doesn't feel qualified to articulate the extreme dangers of such an assault on civil liberties, even with the assistance of Carl Levin (who voted 'Nay') and every Michigan Democrat in the House (who voted against HR 6166), then she has absolutely no business 'representing' me.

This is NOT a matter of 'seeking perfection' or 100% agreement. Despite a voting history that's sprinkled with numerous appalling stances (bankruptcy, health care, labor, etc.), I was prepared to use the "Stabenow Clothespin" and cast my vote. There's a limit in all things. Like I'd NEVER support Ben Nelson (Dino-Nebraska) in any race, including dogcatcher, I'm now not able to honor my own conscience and vote for Stabenow.

ANYONE who would disrespect my inalienable right to honor my own conscience isn't even close to being a "democrat," imho, let alone a liberal. Thus, I'm an independent. Such abject partisan nonsense is why the GOP has marched lockstep into the arms of fascism. Will Dems follow? It seems too many will.


Afterword: Quite frankly, I'm appalled at the state of partisan politics in the U.S. There are many other countries where I could easily affiliate with a political party and work within it. These are countries with political parties that have a commitment to core values and ideologies where those who call themselves an "X" are more truly aligned with those values than mere convenience. For me, the first and foremost responsibility of any political interest group is adherence to the core values by which they're formed - if only for the pragmatics of funding. Who, for example, would contribute to NOW if they were to subscribe to anti-abortion legislation? Who would subscribe to the ACLU if the ACLU advocated "free speech zones"? Political parties in the U.S. have subscribed to "power for power's sake." That's appalling. I would no more want a Senate overpopulated with Ben Nelson's and Mary Landrieus than I would want a Senate populated with Arlen Spectors, Olympia Snowes, and Lincoln Chafees. I will vote for NEITHER.

Sadly, both parties have fallen prey, in some degree, to the most common corruption of any organization: the perpetuation of its own existence. Above all. The 'corporation' itself, originally deemed to be disbanded upon the accomplishment of the objective for which it was formed, has morphed into a creature that seeks (and achieves) immortality. Just as the March of Dimes was not disbanded when polio was 'conquered' as the overwhelming threat to our health and survival it was when I grew up, so other organizations fear the elimination of their raison d'etre ... even to the point of perpetuating the very conditions they're supposedly committed to eliminating!!

way she did. Politically speaking, I suppose Bouchard could have had a bit of "fun" with this. How many votes did she lose with this strategy? Most people, myself included aren't political strategists, and expect their candidates to vote with their conscience and heart.
Man, politics really suck sometimes. The more I learn about it, the crankier it makes me.
Thanks, Jordan.

I wish you could vote -- it would be one more much-needed vote for Stabenow and a Democratic Senate.

:hi:

Say hello to your grandmother for me.

I get so tired of seeing her in every photo op going along to get along. I'll vote for her but its time to get rid of some of these dems because she irritates me everytime I see her.

If she doesn't improve, I will not vote for her in the primary in 2012. Maybe I'll vote for another Dem or write someone in, maybe I'll vote in the Repub primary.

important than that. She voted for torture... I can't explain that to myself, nor my kids. No way of "looking at it" is going to make it any different, or better. It's really THAT important to me. The people need to rise up and be heard. No more DLC politics. Thank you.

I think Jordan is right, and it was a purely political vote. That doesn't make it right in my book, either, but I'm not a politician, nor could I ever be if it would require me to do as she did.
Jordan is also correct, I believe, that her vote either way was a moot point. The bill was going to pass irregardless of how she voted. However, it did protect her from bashing by her opponent.
I guess, in this case, I'm willing to give her a very unhappy temporary pass, only to protect a Dem seat in the Senate. I'm looking at the situation in the long term. I want my country back, and that is not going to happen with a Republican majority in the Senate and House. I'd kick myself if I didn't vote for her, and her loss meant the difference in the Senate.
There are few, if any "perfect" Dems, and she is certainly, in my opinion, very far from fitting the description, but she is the only Dem who can fill that seat right now. If there was another alternative, I'd take it.
Whatever, your decision, you have, as always, my respect. You have to do what is right for you.:pals:

I just can't follow step any more after this torture bill. I cannot condone, nor vote approval for her. It's so disappointing for me. I guess I believe in voting conscience and she proved she lacks one. Moot point or not, she should have done the right thing then. I can't condone or make it better. :(

Good to see you. :hug:

I've been thinking about this a lot and will more than likely be thinking about it long after I cast my votes. Whether the Dems win it all or not.

I'm already going to vote for Granholm even after she ended benefits to gay partners because of popular opinion. The vote on the marriage proposal wasn't split THAT much- 40's to 60's. She used to seem so supportive, so it came as more of a surprise and made me believe she could easily be a turncoat. Voting for her after that sends the message that my vote can be used by Democrats when it's convenient for them. I'm selling out to keep DeVos from becoming Governor.

Now I've got to decide whether to vote for a woman who peed on the constitution for fear that people might call her names if she didn't.

There's no way to soak my brain and soul in bleach after the vote.

First off, none of the elites in the Democratic party consultantocracy will link her loss to her vote for torture. They'll just blame it on the economy or if they do consider her position on the "war on terror," they're probably more likely to conclude that she didn't come off as tough as the Sheriff did.

I know. It sucks. I would love to stick it to her personally for being such a hack and a sellout, but there's more at stake than teaching someone a lesson or feeling good personally about the individually expressive act that is affectively associated with voting. There's no silver lining in an abstention or a wasted vote for a Green or someone else on the left. A vote for Stabenow does have a silver lining that has nothing to do with her: potential Democratic control of the Senate.

And remember, we vote by secret ballot. You get to do it behind a curtain and you don't have to boast about it or even tell anyone how you voted if you don't want to. If you don't want to explain your Senate vote to your kids or anyone else, my suggestion is simply: don't.

As for not being able to look at myself in the mirror, or taking a shower after voting for Stabenow etc.., meh, I'll be fine with voting for her. I'm a grown up. As much as I might like to think that my vote has some symbolic meaning on the torture issue, it doesn't, and if enough people become too self-important about what their vote on Nov. 7th really is all about, it can lead to disunity among progressives and center-left voters and bad outcomes. The general election vote is strictly a utilitarian instrument at the END of the political campaign process. It is not a tacit endorsement of torture to vote for Stabenow. It is not a symbolic yea to the awful Bankruptcy Bill. It is a vote for a REPRESENTATIVE legislator who votes on ALL of the issues and forms part of a party caucus that controls the Senate. I either add to one of the viable candidates' expected count or I subtract from it. I have two viable choices in this US Senate contest. One is, on balance, significantly better than the other despite her many faults. Even though it frustrates me that we do not have better politically viable choices, right now, in this contest, we don't, and the remedy for that problem is to organize progressives for the next election cycle and boot her ass off the ticket next primary season. On November 7th, it's too late for uncompromising idealism. That ship has sailed. There was no Ned Lamont in Michigan this year. Liberals and progressives missed an opportunity to challenge Stabenow during the primary season and as one of them I deserve a share of the blame for that. Most likely, I would have voted against her then.

It would certainly feel good to stick it to Stabenow on Nov. 7. But after the satisfaction and the brief afterglow of that statement quickly wears off, how good will erstwhile Dems feel on the morning of November 8th if Mike Bouchard pulls off an upset and steals a potentially pivotal seat from the Democrats by a handful of votes. How good will they feel when Karl Rove's hand picket Senate Majority Leader calls the new Senate into session next January? Will those Dems who cast protest votes look in the mirror then or will they be content to merely join in the predictable rants about Diebold?

And I'm too honest with myself and know I'll be sleepless the night I vote out behind that curtain. I'm making my stand for true Democracy here.

I definitely do not want to vote for Stabenow, but I just can't rationalize the alternative. It is, literally, a sadistic choice between an enthusiastic torturer and a reluctant one. In my earlier post, I think I was in a bit of denial about it being easy to vote for Stabenow. I must concede that it truly is not at all. I feel sick that I am reduced to rationalizing such an awful choice, but nonetheless, I'm convinced it's the right one for several reasons.

The way I see it is that I am being brutally honest with myself and facing an ugly truth: the best realistic choice we have for US Senator is a woman who voted for torture for political reasons. Someone who will not take a stand when the cost is too high, but can generally be relied upon to vote the right way 80-90% of the time. Mike Bouchard would have cast the same vote along with lots of other crappy votes. If the Dems pick up seats in the Senate and takeover the House, the wind changes and Stabenow with it. There's at least a chance to stop the worst of this stuff under that scenario.

As tempting as it is to disregard costs and benefits associated with the outcome of the Stabenow/Bouchard race and say that they are irrelevant because Stabenow has crossed a terrible line that makes casting a vote for her immoral, I can't. I can't ignore the consequences of a Republican winning that seat because they mean a continuance of everything that has been terrible about Republican rule. More people will be harmed if Stabenow loses even thogu she has allowed to many to be harmed by her acquiescence. At least with Stabenow there is some hope that she will come around to oppose Bush on torture when it's safe, and there is everythign else that impcats the lives of people that a Senator has some influence over. Bouchard will support Bush and the Republicans to a much greater extent. I can't do anything to help that happen.

So I guess my take on it it that I won't sleep at night knowing I indirectly helped the Republicans (who have an agenda with more torture and war on it) just so that I could say I did not vote for someone who crossed a line and cast a vote for torture. I just think there's alot more to consider.

I agree with all you've said here.

and couldn't live with myself if I sat on my hands and subjected MI and America to another Republican senator and a stronger Republican majority. A vote for Stabenow is a vote for a Democratic majority and all the additional power that comes with it: more Dems on committees, more Dems heading committees. Regardless, Stabenow will vote the way I like most of the time, Bouchard will vote the way I like less than 5% of the time. It is either going to be Bouchard or Stabenow in that senate seat, and it is easy to choose which one would be best for MI and best for America.

My vote is more for a Democratic majority in January than a vote for Stabenow at this point. I hope in six years we will have a viable candidate who can beat her in the primary.

but while I understand your logic and fully support everyone here voting their conscience, I can't vote for stabenow. The question for me is how far does a politician have to go so that voting for them would be tantamount to voting for treason. stabenow has crossed that line.

I'm sure she will vote for more things that I would approve of than Bouchard, and I'm sure she'll caucus for the Dems which, if six other seats switch, will give us a slender majority in the senate. However, by voting for stabenow I would be sending a message that I approve of and support torture. I would be telling the senate that I do not respect the Constitution or the Writ of Habeus Corpus. I honestly wouldn't be able to live with myself if I ever knowingly pulled the lever for someone who gave the okay to rape children, and that is exactly what stabenow has done. There is no hyperbole there.

Also, I think it's important to remember that John Conyers and Charles Rangel are congressmen, not senators. A Dem majority in the senate will not give them any additional leverage in the house.

Anyway, I wish everyone here the best of luck with the upcoming election and I'll be making calls and walking the beat with the rest of you. It just won't be for stabenow.

I won't violate my won conscience. If, in fact, it's necessary to plunge even faster into fascism in order for people to wake up, then so be it. I won't be an affirming party to that plunge. When it comes to "Sophie's Choice," I will not be a collaborator - acting in any way to give 'honor' to 'evil' ... neither lesser nor greater.

It'd be like being a member of a lynch mob arguing for a softer rope.

because the alternative is worse.

But after seeing the Road to Guantanamo, I am seriously fantasizing about showing up to all her post election gigs in an orange jumpsuit with the black bag over my head. I would love to have at least one person like that at every damn event she goes to, so she can't escape it. And if I had the resources to put to it, I would project the movie nonstop on the exterior of her Michigan offices.

I was kind of impressed with the fact that both he and Debbie were running positive campaigns. He blew that this week. He should have stuck to the funny one with his daughter-that was a good ad.

I always planned on voting for her and still will. She has supported women's causes in Michigan for a long time.