Buckeye State Blog - A post I should never have had to write - Comments

UA MAK

MarkJablonski — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:46:57 -0700

is right, I'm afraid. Brown is (for the most part) DeWines polar opposite. As much as it blows, as you all know, we have two clear choices: 1.) continue to support Brown and cast our vote for him on November 7th, 2.) or, skip the Senate vote, stop supporting Brown, and see DeWine easily keep his seat until 2013. I've made my choice.

No difference

mrsrony — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 16:49:22 -0700

<<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?�� Two peas...one pod

Think Before you Bitch

UA MAK — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:39:27 -0700

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.��We can't afford that.

If you'd rather have another six years of DeWine, then bitch and blog away.

they used that language over and over and again

redhorse — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 13:55:47 -0700

and it works. It worked in '04 and in '02. and if you hadn't noticed, they've been building to this point for weeks with the admin speeches and this bill. Generic congressional ballots have been narrowing, Bush's approval has been going up. Hmmm....

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.

i am not whining

RMC2000 — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:15:48 -0700

i think it was a smart move. sometimes you have to sacrafice a pawn to save the queen. eyes on the prize, folks

Very stirring

LakeThomas — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:35:17 -0700

I can hear the fife & drums

Sorry, RMC but

AmberCat — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:29:41 -0700

this isn't just some little issue we disagree with that can be reversed once someone comes to their senses (i.e. Strickland's vote for the bankeuptcy bill, my biggest beef with him). This overturns centuries-old principles on which our nation was founded, it makes mincemeat of the constitution and it is brtual, inhumane and reverses everything that we believe about ourselves and that others have until recently believed about us. This isn't just another vote. I'm the first person to get angry with progressives when they threaten to leave the party or "never vote for another Democrat" because someone's not ideologically pure enough. But this isn't just another vote.

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.

Why not point out that not one of these allegedly "coddled"

AmberCat — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:16:06 -0700

persons has been clearly identified as or convicted of terrorism? Why not point out that a huge majority of these "coddled' people turned out to be completely innocent, or certainly not guilty of anything remotely identifable as "terrorism"? Slam it back down Bush's throat. Ask him where all these people FOUND GUILTY of terrorism are. This vote was stupid. Momentum is on OUR side, and it's our OPPORTUNITY �� Democrats in power! �� to crush with it. Build on the NIE report showing that this administration has done nothing �� nothing! �� to make us safer from terror. The public is having its eyes opened. This is an idiotic time to renege and cower in a corner.

If I hear

J-Dog — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:14:15 -0700

If I hear that Muslim babies taste like chicken, we're all in trouble!

Brown's Explanation

Ohio2nd — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:12:06 -0700

http://sherrodbrown.com/road/stories/congressional_update/

you are why democrats are in the minority

RMC2000 — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:10:49 -0700

"if he doesn't vote this way on this bill, i can't support him ever!" yawn. you know he doesn't support torture (btw, the bill doesn't allow torture, it merely defines it, but that's a whole different post), but yet you'll draw a line in the sand on this one issue and base your vote on that. what about any other issue where brown might be more in line with me than dewine? doesn't matter. this is my issue and it's all that matters. i'm not voting or i'll vote for the republican to show him! very mature and productive. do you care about the war in iraq? how about taxes? how about congressional oversight? how about tort reform? how about alternative energy? are you really willing to throw this all out the window because brown made a political choice that had absolutely no impact on the fate of the bill? if so, you deserve dewine.

What would DeWhiny have done

AmberCat — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:10:15 -0700

about the Brown/DSCC ads that say "Just last week, Mike DeWine voted for a bill that all military experts agree would put our troops at risk. Why does Mike DeWine not support our soldiers?" This isn't a "tool" for troops �� that would have been a strategic plan, clear goals, proper equipment, fresh reinforcements etc �� this is a "tool" for the Bush administration to protect itself.

Susan, there's a problem

AmberCat — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:03:40 -0700

I was thinking like this, and suddenly it dawned on my why these votes need to be stopped NOW and not think "Oh, well, we can repeal them later." Even if we retake both houses of congress, our majority is not likely to be great enough to a. overcome a few defectors scared of conservative constituencies at home or, god help us, Joe Lieberman if he gets reelected and b. override presidential veto. Because you will suddenly see Bush becoming a lot fonder of veto power than he has been in the past, and blaming it on obstructionist Democrats who can't govern. So if we retake congress, we need to be ready with OUR "frame" which is that Bush already "broke" our government and anything the Democrats are doing is an attempt to fix it, which Bush is blocking.

Do you work for Brown?

Aris — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:58:47 -0700

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.

If he needed to be a coward

AmberCat — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 10:56:01 -0700

why didn't he just stay home like Strickland? I'm not ultra-happy with that choice, but I can justify it on the same grounds some of you are trying to jsutify Brown's vote: that this vote could be used against him. So he left no track (even though in his case, the Iraq war and terrorism are virtually non-issues that haven't been part of the gubernatorial campaign). I could swallow a non-vote. I just don't get a "yes, please, let's ok torture and absolve Bush of anything he may have done" vote.

A post I should never have had to write

staff — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 18:05:44 -0700

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