A post I should never have had to write
Sometimes you just have to speak your mind, and this is sadly one of those times. If you have been paying any attention at all you will know that the House and Senate is debating whether to legalize torture and to give amnesty to anyone who has engaged in it since 9/11/2001. It's a disgraceful piece of legislation that throws away any moral authority this country has.
The house voted on the measure today and it PASSED 253-168.
The usual suspects voted for torture. Boehner, Chabot, Gillmor, Oxley, Pryce, Regula, Schmidt, Tiberi, Turner. 34 Democrats joined them.
Steve LaTourette to his great credit voted no (with 6 other Republicans), along with Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, and Tim Ryan. Ted Strickland was absent from the vote, as too of course was Bob Ney.
But it's not the usual suspects that give me a heavy heart tonight, I've come to expect nothing of them. It's the one name so far not mentioned.
Sherrod Brown.
He joined the Republicans and voted for torture. I just cannot support or condone that vote. I think it is political cowardice of the highest order, far worse than his ANWR vote.
I suppose we should wait to hear his reasons, but frankly I cannot think of a single reason why anyone with any conscience could have voted yes.
I feel incredibly let down by Sherrod after expending energy getting over my earlier reservations, only to have those grave doubts resurface.
Mike Dewine has a huge opportunity to prove he is independent when the vote moves to the Senate. I hope he takes it.
ps, this was a pic of Brown getting a "backbone award" a few weeks ago
You and me both, Russell.
One more time with feeling: "Fuck Sherrod Brown"
http://blog.oh02.com/
Five weeks before the election.
Environmental activist
so they're not pointless.
There is a spot where I just sent a message:
http://www.progressivepatriotsfund.com/suggest-a-candidate/index.html
This is Russ Feingold's Progressive Patriot fund and Sherrod Brown was the most recent recipient of their support (and if I remember right, money).
I put in "NOT Sherrod Brown" and wrote why in the comments.
Something like this may make an impact as well.
http://blog.oh02.com/
It takes at least the edge of the issue away from many a Democrat campaigning across the state and the country.
"But it was a bi-partisan vote in favor of the bill" the GOP incumbent/candidate will say.
Thanks a lot, 34 Democrats, including you, Sherrod.
Absolutely disgusting. And a good example of why I've long believed that Brown, while largely on our side on issues, is not a leader and not a person who can be counted on to fight when the going gets rough. Frankly, if DeWine does vote the other way (he won't), he would get my vote, no questions asked.
Looks like I'm back to square one- none of the above.
Is something we probably won't get.
A Senate filibuster.
As for you Sherrod, remember this from Mark 8:36:
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
The only excuse I can think of for your vote on House Bill 6166 is political posturing.
Can you give me another rational reason?
I wrote about your campaign for Senate as being the Politics of Hope vs. the Politics of Terror, following the inspiring interview you gave us at Meet the Bloggers in Cleveland.
Today you traded in that hope for what?
Color me disgusted, disappointed and waiting a justifiable reason.
scott
Sorry, Sherrod, I don't understand this vote on political grounds; I don't think that is valid or even useful here. This is a clear stand-and-fight issue. So obviously he thinks this is the right vote. Like many others here, I'd love to hear an explanation.
The coward wretch whose hand and heart
Can bear to torture aught below,
Is ever first to quail and start
From the slightest pain or equal foe.
---Bertrand Russell
because if we don't accomplish the mission NOW, in 2006, then 2008 won't matter. There is no "savior" we can elect to the WH who can make it all better from the top down. It has to start NOW. I just blogged some thoughts on this:
http://blueohioan.blogspot.com/
That's the weak kneed piss your pants excuse.
If Brown had voted the other way and DeWine voted for torture are you saying that we are so fucking pathetic as to not be able to use a vote for torture against DeWine ? sick to death of pussy Democrats worried about what the fuck the GOP are gonna do and never think about what we cold do back in return. Give more credit to the American people.
If you;re seriously going to argue that torture is a majority political position in this country, then really what's the point of any of this anyway ?
The point of being pissed about this vote is it shows Brown's cowardice. There is ALWAYS going to be difficult votes, that's the nature of the job. Whether it is weeks before an election or not. Think you can trust Brown still ?
The media and the pundits had all basically endorsed passing this bill by 5pm Friday--a scant period of time after the bill's details had become public.
Environmental activist
Because there was literally NO counter argument from any Democrat. Did Brown do anything to work against this bill in the last 2 or 3 weeks ? He has a pretty big megaphone you know.
Sick of spineless Democrats. The more I type and think about this the more angry I am becoming.
How
Environmental activist
bigger picture folks: would you have wanted the vote this time, or 6 years of Sherrod voting in the Senate as compared to DeWine.
That's a no-brainer.
That's BS.
I'm sick of this ridiculous Democratic excuse of it being a political trap.
What if the bill was to legalize eating muslim babies to minimize future terrorists ? Where do you draw the line and say, you know what. I think I am going to vote the right way and trust the American people on this one.
Instead over the last 3 weeks this has been going on Democrats have hid from the Debate as usual like fucking cowards. They don't trust themselves or the American people.
But at least the bulk of them had the decency to vote the right way.
How many more crucial issues is Brown going to dodge and vote the wrong way over the next 6 years so his reelection is "easy" ?
Your argument is basically to win we have to become what we don't believe it.
If you really want to rationalize this excuse and do it the right way the answer is to miss the vote and release a statement saying you want nothing to do with this dangerous and ill thought out bill.
I don't like it any better than you do. It tastes like shit to me any way you slice it.
But a political trap is exactly what it was.
Brown opposed Bush and his war vehemently--long before anyone knew that Rumsfeld's botched planning would make the war a disaster.
Environmental activist
sherrod brown has been a champion for trade and he was one of many democrats who opposed the war in iraq.
but doing the right thing when it's also the safe thing is just, well, doing the right thing.
it's doing the right thing when it's tough -- when there are personal
Opposing the war in 2003 was hardly "the safe thing" to do.
Environmental activist
Environmental activist
Can't disturb the sheeples' beautiful minds, though, so let's give 'em runaway brides and s[eculation about who is the father of Anna Nicole Smith's baby?
This drama is the reality the whole country needs to be dealing with, not just the faction of us who are paying attention to the man behind the curtain.
that I seem to be arguing in support of Sherrod Brown on this, because
isn't that the fundamental question?
none of this will stand. We will be in a position to reverse some of the damage.
We're also not talking about six years, we're talking about 6 weeks leading up to THIS election.
And if you don't think the NRSC and DeWine was ready to pounce on that vote, you're fooling yourself. The ad would have been on air by the end of hte week, if not sooner.
Sherrod could have trusted us to know why he voted against (if he had), but could he trust DeWine not to distort the hell out of it?
I don't like it either, but it was move he probably had to make.
he voted for torture and indefinite imprisonment w/o charge or trail. that was his choice.
I just think the onslaught of negativity from voting against it would have made the race even tighter than it is.
And I think it's sad more D's don't recognize this bill was part of a political move to cover Bush's ass and paint D's as weak.
yeah, i know exactly what it was.
I believe a correct vote would have had no impact on the race, and anyone who thinks this was an issue pushed for campaign advantage has bought way too far into the "Karl Rove is so clever we can't fight him" line of b.s. This is a dangerous, volatile issue that any Democrat will half a brain could make into as big an albatross for a Republican as calling someone "macaca."
Put it in this space.
Environmental activist
you give the electorate too much credit.
you dont give them enough credit and you assume there is only one way to frame this argument - and I think that is because you have only been exposed ot one argument because the Dems have been silent.
voting against this bill protects the troops. It's why Colin Powell opposed it, and a whole raft of others. That with a couple of abu gharaib photo's would convince a lot of people of the depravity of this bill.
Democrats have to argue their positions and trust the voters. That's how the GOP always win and we don't. Pure and simple.
I know precisely what it is, a firewall for the Bush admin from prosecution from war crimes, the ability for the decider to decide what torture is, and a big bat to swing at Dems. That last part is the one that seems to so elude everyone.
Notice how the "brave" GOP senators that "stood up" to Bush - McCain, Graham, Warner - didn't support Spector's amendment today that would have saved due process? What does that you, it's all been orchestrated. And voters that don't pay attention to the minute details (read: the vast, vast majority of them), get suckered in.
Who's got the bigger bullhorn? Generals or the admin? Generals have been saying for up to two years that we don't have enough people or equipment on the ground, and no one's listened. Now people will respond? hmmm.
just like we're being forced into our choices.
Who calls the shots, and what is wrong with this picture?
Understand, I HATE the choice he made.
But to not show up for the vote would have been the real coward's choice, and would be spun by Rove exactly the same way as a No.
Strickland isn't running for Congress and that puts him in a whole different situation.
If Brown was really the "Progressive Patriot" he's been made out to be, he would have voted against torture. Forget "terrorists," let's talk about uncharged detainees. Is it OK to torture people just because der Dubyer claims, citing secret evidence, that they are "enemy combatants?" Or even while they are "awaiting such determination?" The case of Canadian citizen Maher Arar, whose torture was outsourced to Syria, makes me forcefully say NO.
If you're so driven to win an election that you're unwilling to see that this kind of horror is immoral and goes against everything this nation has ever claimed to stand for, then America is already dead. "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
...who is also in a tight race (in Tennessee).
Environmental activist
- Sherrod Brown voted for secret evidence, which the accused cannot see or challenge.
- Sherrod Brown voted for indefinite detention without charge.
- Sherrod Brown voted for torture.
- Sherrod Brown voted to give Bush & Rumsfeld a pass on Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and the secret CIA prison/rendition network.
- Sherrod Brown voted to remove all judicial review and oversight from all of the above.
His vote completely destroys whatever credibility he may have had to discuss human rights violations anywhere in the world. Would he have voted the same in a non-election year? If not, what does that say about how much he can be trusted?PS: I didn't put up with Brown-nosers telling me to shut my pie-hole back in February and I'm not putting up with it now. I can and will say whatever I good and damn well please.
and see if you can understand where I'm coming from and what I'm trying to tell you.
Everybody is being entirely too reactive when a bit of reflection is called for.
And since I've said all that I need to, I'm going to leave it at what I've already written here.
While you're taking the time to reflect on all that's been said and done, ask yourself two questions:
The problem with your logic is that Brown is now part of the problem, not the solution.
Do I have the stomach to do what is needed to stop this runaway train? If that means tacit support of this:
then pass the Pepto."All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
Why?
A vote in support of ANYTHING this powergrabbing, corrupt, lying administration wants is shortisighted and stupid. (sorry, you know who, but it is.)
Any compromise that mollified some critics will be surely overturned by a Bush "signing statement" or simply ignored by the same crew that brought us the human disaster in Central America in the 80's and so much more.
Support in any way of this administration brings them credibility they then use to bash anyone foolish enough to have given them the inch that led to that mile~ ask all those fools who voted for the Iraq War, and all those who voted for the original sin:
the joint congressional resolution passed on Sept. 14, 2001,authorizing the president to respond to the terror attacks.
"...Although the White House had initially sought authority for the president to "preempt any future acts of terrorism" without any limitation on those responsible for the attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center, Congress deleted the pre-emption request and narrowed the scope of the president
How about everyone around the world watching at the direction we are heading with apparent conviction. Jesus.
You don't think despots and dictators are looking at this and rubbing their hands knowing the door is now wide open for them to torture, to hold people without trial or much due process or appeal ?
and our counter argument when they do that is going to be what exactly ?
How's Brown ever going to be able to speak to those issues with any moral clarity ?
Folks have got to stop analyzing everything in a purely election orientated prism, and start considering the broader ramifications of where these policies lead us.
We're slowly boiling the frog, and some folks can't wait for a taste.
Dude, this isn't about ideology fir christs sake. It's about having a pair of balls. There's nothing ideological about torturing people unless you are some fucking tin pot dictator.
Quit being a weak kneed fucking Democrat and stand up to obvious bullshit for just once.
Read this thread and tell me that Browns hard core base isn't now pissed off big time, then tell me it did no damage.
I dont mean to be rude, but that's foolish. Torture and habeous corpus aren't ideological debates. It's the core of what WE ALL ARE.
If we have descended so low as to make the arguments tin pot dictators try to make to rationalize their actions then we have no purpose left.
I happen to think that the American people know differently and can understand this. You and Brown obviously don't.
I said i was trying not to be rude :)
I think you are flat out wrong. We're in these predicaments because people have allowed the GOP to put us there without standing up to them, and instead cowering afraid of 30 second TV ads.
Isn't it crystal clear by now from all the polling that people are SICK AND TIRED of the GOP and their failed BS policies and politics and are looking for a change ?
How can we offer that credible change when we endorse what they do because Democrats are afraid ?
I simply do not understand why Democrats are utterly incapable of standing up for what they believe in. If what we believe in makes us unelectable, then what is the point anyway ?
and look at reality here. This isn't about whether or not Sherrod Brown is your soulmate.
listen, i want to start by saying that i'm not advocating anyone vote against brown here.
might be hard to do if Democrats decide they aren't into torture and those who vote for it. I'm guessing those people weren't part of the political calculation, but they should have been. the primary result should have been a red flag.
A lot of voters vote their conscience not party lines. I think we forget that at our peril. They might just skip the senate race now.
Imagine if DeWine voted for abortions because he was worried about Democratic attack ads. Where do you the the danger in doing that would come from ?
1)
brown didn't have to vote for torture. he could have voted the right way --
Yes, exactly.
My son is a soldier and Sherrod Brown just voted with the side that thinks the Geneva Conventions are just nonbinding suggestions. How the hell do you think I feel?
On the other hand, how do we get this country back under control if we start balking because the McDemocrats our party puts up aren't NICE enough?
First, the fact that Brown supported this atrocity demonstrates to me both his lack of conscience and his lack of understanding of the fundamental principles upon which this country was conceived and founded.
But so what? Some of you are arguing that his vote had to be a pragmatic one instead of a principled one, because, poor thing, he had to protect himself against those dastardly Republicans and their negative ads. You argue that he didn't give up his ethical standards and courage; he only suspended them -- presumably until he gets elected.
Sure folks, I'll agree that Brown must have thought that he has insulated himself against attacks from the GOP. He may also have thought that he will pick up a few rightwing votes since he can now claim that he's tough on terrorists.
Well, then he's not just immoral and cowardly but also an idiot. Does he really think that anything, ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, he may do, or not do, will insulate him from attacks from the GOP that will question his patriotism, his sanity and his sexuality -- and likely all three at once? And does he think that any voter who's already for authoritarianism and for torture and against our Constitutional freedoms is going to dump DeWine for him? How long has this guy been involved in politics? Is it possible that he's so incredibly na√
You can go ahead and choose the lesser of two evils by voting for Brown and the Democrats, thus rewarding their calculation that they have you in their pocket, no matter what. And, trust me, they'll continue to take you for granted and paying no attention to anything you want them to stand for. And, ironically, they'll continue losing elections because while they have you in their pocket, they never seem to stand for anything so they are perpetually -- and accurately -- coming across as weak and spineless.
You don't fight by caving in, over and over again, and voting for those who do not support your ideals. I'm not the one who's not fighting, it is Brown and the Democrats that are no longer fighting for what I believe in.
If they want my support they must start earning it. And you know what, if more liberals react like me, then perhaps we will get the party we want and deserve, instead of this pale, feeble version of the GOP we have right now.
Susan, do you work for Brown? Otherwise your insistence that he's fighting makes no sense. He is fighting for whom? For what? Not for me, and not against torture. I don't care whether he liked voting for torture or he didn't. The fact is that he did and that's all that counts.
I consider Brown's vote to be immoral, un-American and stupid. You're asking me to reflect, on what exactly? There's no leeway. I cannot, and will not, support Brown in anything he does now or in the future.
I will have a hard time deciding what to do if DeWine suddenly votes against the torture bill in the Senate. I've never supported a Republican and I find their ideology totally odious. However, whichever way DeWine goes, Brown will never have my support.
What distresses me especially are the people here whining that Brown had no choice because the Republicans have totally set the parameters of the discussion, the campaign and of governance and weas Democrats CAN'T fight it and must fit into their frame.
In that case, we have already lost eveyrthing- for good.
A courageous candidate would have voted against this and aggressively attacked, changing the frame of the discussion.
I can hear the fife & drums
Environmental activist
The first paragraph of the AP's latest report on the Bush administration's detainee legislation: "President Bush urged the Senate on Thursday to follow the House lead and approve a White House plan for detaining and interrogating terrorism suspects, saying, 'The American people need to know we're working together to win the war on terror.'"
The second paragraph of the same report: "Bush met in the Capitol with Senate Republicans the day after the House passed the legislation that Republicans likely will use on the campaign trail to assert that Democrats want to coddle terrorists."
http://salon.com/politics/war_room/
Environmental activist
AP thru Yahoo:
Environmental activist
go hide under mommy's skirt. if democrats are going to fight tough, then really fight tough.
republicans are going to say crap regardless of the issue, regardless of the vote.
...and get this behind them.
Environmental activist
http://blog.oh02.com/
Am I disappointed by Sherrod's vote? Yes. Bitching about and belaboring the issue isn't going to do any of us any good right now. Sherrod's our nominee and needs our support. Hold your disappointment and your nose, if you have to. There's no benefit in going on the attack or complaining. The only potential outcome will be less of a chance for change in the Senate.
<<If you'd rather have another six years of DeWine, then bitch and blog away.>>>
If they are going to vote for the same horrible bills for the bigger picture....what difference does it make?