Let me get this straight..torture wins elections?

So in the comments and in the diaries, I am hearing this one point again and again...See it's all just peachy that the Nelsons, Mary Landrieu, Sherrod Brown, Harold Ford etc. voted to allow the president to arrest any of us at any moment, keep us imprisoned and tortured forever with no legal recourse (YES, I understand that in reality this will not happen) because see, when we're in the majority, we won't have all of these bad bills. Excuse me? And the assumption that this disgusting piece of crap will be a guaranteed win for Ford, Brown, Menendez etc. already in very tight races comes from where?

Yes, they capitulate on a disgusting bill and this means Mr. and Mrs. Fickle voter who buys this horseshit about supporting terrorists and believes this propaganda will be swayed? No, Ford and the gang will be called teorrist supporters ANYWAY. The vicious ads will run against them ANYWAY. Good girls like Mary Landrieu will still face a vicious senate fight next year..at her they will throw "supporting terrorists" and "Not doing enough to stop Katrina.." bullshit.

So I ask all of you who say, "When we take the senate...we", what is the goddamn indication that supporting this vile piece of legislation will be cince the deal for Brown, Ford, Menendez? Do you think the public will remember this fabulous vote in FAVOR of Mary Landrieu when the viciousness starts in 2008? No.

Have we learned nothing from John Kerry? If you do not stand firm on your principles, you lose. People think you have no character. People think you are no different from your opponent.

Also, where is the floor for the Democrats? A bill to put Muslims in concentration camps? How about a bill saying that DailyKos and other sites promote treason? The bar is being raised higher and higher and Democrats continue to capitulate out of fear of being called soft on terror. Where does it end.

And I repeat my question: What indication do all of you have that this vote will cinch the deal for Ford, Brown and others in tight races. And another question: What if they lose? So we get Senator Corker, Senator Dewine, even Senator Kean..oh and we have now given our overt approval to detention of American citizens forever and torture.
Tell me how this makes sense?

•  Here's the really funny part:

  When the curtain gets lifted and the stories come out about Americans torturing detainees at will and on phony pretenses, rightwing radio will claim "but even the Democrats voted for it."

  by doorguy on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:11:30 AM PDT

  •  Yes, that's why principles are important n/t

    by Spud1 on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:40:03 AM PDT

•  no, torture doesn't win elections

  and every dem who actually voted FOR this bill needs to be held accountable come primary time.

  BUT--filibustering this bill would love elections.

  Americans don't like torture--but far too many of them think that the provisions of the bill could never happen to THEM.  And they don't honestly care if some Mohammed or Ahmad Six-Pack gets waterboarded.

  by thereisnospoon on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:11:34 AM PDT

  •  Actually...

    a majority of them do support torture.  That's why we heard no impassioned speeches and saw no filibuster.

    by YetiMonk on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:13:56 AM PDT

  •  They better care

       because Ahmed's brothers are going to join the Jihadists when they find out how we abused Ahmed. And so are his cousins and uncles and sons and his buddies too.

       How do so many people not get it? Bushco is creating the very thing we fear.

    by happy camper on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:30:17 AM PDT

  •  No, filibustering this bill would not have

    cost the Dems the election.  Most people don't even know what a filibuster is, and many would not even know it happened.  All they would know is that the Dems stood up strong as a unit.

    And whether or not the Dems filibuster, they would still be called weak and obstructionist.  Bush did it yesterday as the fucking vote was underway.

    No, this capitulation, this failure to fight, this failure to prevent the bill from even coming to a filibuster will cost the Dems the elections.  Why?  Because a sufficient number of liberals will stay home or vote for a Green party candidate.

    Bob Menendez is in a tight race in NJ and its not because he is too liberal.  It's because he is corrupt, too much like Bob Torricelli.  Do you think Mendendez can win in NJ without the liberal voting bloc?  Well he just threw that away.  It's a little hard to make the argument that he is the only guy who will oppose Bush when he just voted to make him a dictator.

    And by the way, these guys are supposed to uphold the Constitution.  They threw away their oath for nothing, and they should be roundly condemned.

    by landrew on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:50:55 AM PDT

•  Take a look at this article by

  Richard Cranium.

  by YetiMonk on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:12:08 AM PDT

  •  what really surprised me...

    ..in Richard Cranium's article is the wide difference in opinion on torture - the Christian-based religious were much more likely to be "for" torture than the secular!
     Do the Catholics and non-catholic Christians REALLY think that Jesus would torture?  Apparently so...

    by drchelo on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:43:17 AM PDT

    •  Apparently so.

      by YetiMonk on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:46:31 AM PDT

•  It's simple, really

  Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

  --Herman Goering

  by scorponic on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:14:50 AM PDT

  •  Goering

    Committed suicide shortly before his scheduled execution for crimes against humanity.  So how's that working out for him now?

    by slippytoad on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 06:19:01 AM PDT

    •  Um..

      It cost millions of lives worldwide before we got to the Nuremberg trials. Care to try again?

      by gladkov on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 06:33:05 AM PDT

      •  What I'm saying is

        Anyone can say all that shit and it can be temporarily true, but after a time it's going to rebound.  Goering's statement was brassy and confident, and he did succeed but the price of his success to him personally was more than he could afford to pay.  As it will be for all who subvert human decency and use fear to deceive others into accepting tyrrany.

        by slippytoad on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:22:32 AM PDT

•  the WWF generation

  weclome to it, if you don't understand the white trash mentality permeating American culture then you don;t understand American Politics...as I feel most of our current advisors do not.

  They still think it's the 70's in America where everyone has a decent job, 2 vehicles and a will to do what is right.

  Wrong!!!!

  It's the year 2006 and the races are battling eachother on the downward spiral to tribal battles.

  by lightnessofbeing on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:26:59 AM PDT

  •  sorry for dyslexia

    it's bad in the mornings

    by lightnessofbeing on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:28:03 AM PDT

    •  Dyslexics untie!

      by Spud1 on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:41:38 AM PDT

•  I think

  I am beginning to think places like this are the last bastion for sanity here in the US.  

  As I see it, yesterday was the undersea earthquake, the tsunami is on the way.  Most americans are to busy, stupid, apathetic, greedy, or non caring to notice.  
  All our parents and grandparents lived through real world wars, real depressions, real riots, and civil unrest, to think that we, the generation from the 70,80,90s were going to just skate on through life without encountering these things is just not realistic.  Historic days are ahead, and the fate of the country lies in the balance.

  by pissedpatriot on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:41:09 AM PDT

•  Sadly ironic part is

  We have seen how the right loves to throw around the 'terrorist' label at anyone who doesn't espouse the radical right wing agenda.  Are we really that far off from carting off Ned Lamont or Jon Tester voters because we're 'terrorist appeasers'?  I wonder.

  These last 2 days have witnessed the final steps towards a fascist state.  Our 'elected leader' now has the power to arrest anyone suspected of aiding and abetting 'terrorists', of throwing said person in a Haliburton built jail indefinately, without a trial by a jury of his peers, of being tortured at 'elected leader's whim, then marched infront of a 'military tribunal' show trial, accused of crimes which said person is unaware of in Kafkalike fashion and have evidence presented which said person cannot argue against because it's 'secret'.

  The only thing remaining is martial law and an end to elections for the 'good of the country'.  Even our press is either controlled by the state or compliant as Newsweek has shown us.  Hatred and fear are the norm.  9/11 was our Reichstag, the Orwellianlike Patriot Act is our Reichstag Fire Decree.  

  The ironic part is that the very same Vichy Dems who voted for all this will only be one step behind me towards that Haliburton built prison when/if that day comes and nobody will be left to speak up for them.  They're traitor and in the end they'll be no better off than us and more reviled than all the Benedict Arnolds in American history until now.

  by DisNoir36 on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 05:43:33 AM PDT

•  Pure political desperation on Bush's part

  It needs to be labelled that. Make people see his twitchy nervouness in a new light

  by bernardpliers on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 06:09:17 AM PDT

•  Please don't be hopelessly naive....

  Do you imagine that these senators' opponents are going to run on a pro-torture platform? That isn't how they would phrase it, and it isn't how the media would report it, and you know this. You also know that the vast majority of voters will not be educated, in spite of all that we may wish for them to learn. If John Kerry and Al Gore taught us anything, it's that taking power requires the ability to not tell the truth about certain things until one has power. That's sad, but it's true. We have been running Democratic presidential candidates up to the podium since Carter, and most of them insist on "being honest" with the American people. "Oh, no, I can't promise that your taxes won't be raised under my presidency." And they keep getting their asses handed to them. So yes, in tight races, Democrats aren't going to stand in the way of Republican foolishness, even if they quickly turn around and reverse it once they've taken control.

  by steve davis on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 06:12:09 AM PDT

  •  The "Let me repeat"

    comment below was for you.

    by gladkov on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 06:19:46 AM PDT

•  Let me repeat

  There is zero indication voting for this bill will help us retake control faster. I am going to go on a limb here and say Ford and Brown lose anyway. I don't want that to happen but let's see. So we vote for this AND get Republicans in who vote for more of this shit.

  So should there be no limit to what the Democrats will vote for in the hopes of not alienating voters or being labelled pro-terrorist? And sorry, the vague promise that it will be repealed is weak. Um, won't Ford and Brown and all the other folks be just as afraid THEN about being labelled pro-terrorist? Think Mary Landrieu is suddenly going to become this great progressive and support the repeal of this bill when she is facing reelection in 2008, I think not. Think Ben Nelson who whos pretty Republican in all but a handful of issues will suddenly turn around and vote to repeal? Think Harold Ford, so eager to get a 2nd term in a conservative state won't vote just to the left of Mussolini to stay in for a second term?

  by gladkov on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 06:19:16 AM PDT

  •  Mary landrieu is in an incredibly conservative

    state in which most of the blue voters got driven out and won't return. She isn't going to win re-election if it looks like she is denying the president the ability to fight the war on terror. Think about how monumentally stupid the Republicans looked as they offered rationales for this bill and for denying the amendments. Byrd was virtually speechless, because Warner's arguments were so stupid that Byrd couldn't even find replies that didn't simply confirm that Warner is stupid. Now, those are U.S. senators, who are not intellectually challenged, by any means. If THEY'RE this stupid, imagine how uninformed and moronic the general population is.

    by steve davis on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:39:33 AM PDT

    •  So you are missing the point

      Yes, Mary Landrieu IS in a very consservative state. Which is why voting yes for this shit will ultimately mean NOTHING. In 12,13,14 months, Mary will be accused of coddling terrorists anyway, she will be blamed for Katrina etc. etc. etc. She will be in a very tough race and most of the ignorant voting public won't remember what happened yesterday, they'll just remember the latest ad when Mary morphs into bin Laden.

      So what is the point? There is no benefit to voting for it. She will be painted all disgusting things and a terrorist supporter prior to the election anyway. But in the meantime, this most aggregious of bills says ANY American can be arrested and held forever without charge. Sorry, conservative state, not-conservative state. If you vote for something like this which can damage the very foundation of our democracy, especially when there is no clear benefit AT ALL, that's a deal beaker for me. (By the way, I give people like Mary a HUGE latitude and look the other way for about 97% of votes she makes. But failing to support an Alito fillibuster? Saying that habeus corpus is dead? Sorry, cannot support that person).

      by gladkov on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 11:03:10 AM PDT

•  Note to vehement, reenergized Brown haters

  You might say that this vote is going to turn off a lot of voters who say: "what's the difference between Brown and the republicans (whatever)".  Sorry to tell you, but there is about nobody in Ohio who is talking about this.

  The nuance of his vote is not in the newspapers in Cleveland, Toledo, Akron, Cincinnati, or Columbus.  I searched them all.  Nobody is talking about it at the water cooler.  This was not even covered on Ohio public radio.  What does that tell you?

  Enjoy your 36 hours of anger while you can, because this story is dead.

  by LakeThomas on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:01:53 AM PDT

  •  Oh really

    But the bill that says Americans can be taken away and imprisoned without trial FOREVER is not dead. And you think the corageous Brown will be less chicken shit about being seen as pro-terrorist when he gets it? No, he won't be voting to repeal this, cause, guess what, the bar is even higher now.

    See that's the point: it's not about the fucking newpaper stories. It's about a bill that strikes at the foundations of our democracy. It's about people who will support it because of perceived political gains. Get it?

    by gladkov on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:14:14 AM PDT

    •  The Cle paper editorialized against the bill...

      ...Sherrod's home town newspaper.

      If Sherrod had voted against the bill, they would not have given him any credit.  The Plain Dealer certainly would not have endorsed him.  The PD is going to endorse Mike Dewine.  The PD is a republican newspaper and the voice of Senator George Voinovich.

      by LakeThomas on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 08:29:55 AM PDT

      •  So all the more reason NOT to do this

        Brown gains NOTHING from this. Won't get endorsements. The public won't remember this in 6 weeks but will remember the next ad of Brown morphing into bin Laden and other smears. There is a chance he may not win and then we are left with this abomination of a bill.

        So it is worth abandoning habeus corpus and saying ANY American can be arrested and held forever without charge for something for which Brown will not gain any real advantage? Hell no!

        And I ask the question again: Brown gets in, eager to win a second term. Do you really think he will stand up to rescind this and be called a terrorist supporter? No he will not. People who make these awful choices do it again and again, cf. Joe Lieberman. Oh, and they often lose anyway after making these disgusting choices.

        by gladkov on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 11:07:02 AM PDT

  •  This story is dead?

    It will be in the history books as a tragic moment in our nation's history, and the greatest villains of all will be those that dismissed this fundamental assault on our constitutional liberties and scoffed at what it meant for America.  Houghton-Mifflin would like a copy of your picture.

    by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:22:34 AM PDT

  •  And if I may add..

    I agree with you, buddy, this story will not resonate at the water cooler. Mike Dewine will still air airds comparing Brown to Osama bin Laden and say he coddles terrorists, so it does not matter. He may well not win.

    So then why the fuck vote for a bill that strikes down the foundations of our democracy when there won't the vote won't make any difference to the voting public:
    A) Because Brown really believes Americans should be arrested with no charges and held forever?
    B) Because he stupidly sensed some political advantage when there is none.

    Either way, what makes you think he will vote differently when a senator? He will cave again under the same pressure. What will it be for next time? Internment camps? An easy-breezy treason law that can get us all arrested?

    by gladkov on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:52:12 AM PDT

•  Naive

  YES, I understand that in reality this will not happen

  Oh, really?  Just what do you think all those compounds encircled with barbed wire will be used for?  Illegal aliens?  Nope.  They're for you.

  by tle on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:02:49 AM PDT

  •  Fuck off.

    I am very much in your corner on this. Read the diary for fuck sakes. My point is that you, me and the average Joe will likely not be rounded up...for the time being at least.

    by gladkov on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:15:23 AM PDT

•  A modest proposal

  For building a movement that punishes those responsible for this American tragedy and revive our democratic traditions.  Let's make sure torture LOSES elections with The Spirit of 76 Movement

  by ActivistGuy on Fri Sep 29, 2006 at 07:20:08 AM PDT