<p>
This does not compute. Explain.</p>
<p>liz: You are right that 23 Dem senators voted against the resolution to go into Iraq, but the Dem leadership at the time, namely Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, supported Bush, and 29 Dems voted for the measure, more than voted against. This certainly does not qualify the Dems as a diisident party on Iraq. I will try to pull up the roll call to see if any of your personal favorites voted for it.</p>
<p>WASHINGTON (CNN) – Friday, October 11, 2002 In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.</p>
<p>Hours earlier, the House approved an identical resolution, 296-133.</p>
<p>The president praised the congressional action, declaring “America speaks with one voice.” </p>
<p>The Senate vote sharply divided Democrats, with 29 voting for the measure and 21 against. All Republicans except Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted for passage.</p>
<p>Ahead of the vote, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle announced Thursday morning he would support Bush on Iraq, saying it is important for the country “to speak with one voice at this critical moment.” </p>
<p>FACT BOX
• “The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”</p>
<p>• The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.</p>
<p>• The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.</p>
<p>liz: here’s the vote to support the action in Iraq, please note the yeas by the Democrats such as Clinton, Dodd, Feinstein, Kerry, etc, etc:</p>
<p>U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 107th Congress - 2nd Session</p>
<p>as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate</p>
<p>Vote Summary</p>
<p>Question: On the Joint Resolution (H.J.Res. 114 )
Vote Number: 237 Vote Date: October 11, 2002, 12:50 AM
Required For Majority: 1/2 Vote Result: Joint Resolution Passed
Vote Counts: YEAs 77
NAYs 23 </p>
<p>Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State</p>
<p>Alphabetical by Senator Name
Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Yea
Allen (R-VA), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burns (R-MT), Yea
Byrd (D-WV), Nay
Campbell (R-CO), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Nay
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Nay
Craig (R-ID), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Nay
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Domenici (R-NM), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Yea
Graham (D-FL), Nay
Gramm (R-TX), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Helms (R-NC), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchinson (R-AR), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Jeffords (I-VT), Nay
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kennedy (D-MA), Nay
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Mikulski (D-MD), Nay
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nickles (R-OK), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Yea
Sarbanes (D-MD), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Smith (R-NH), Yea
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Yea
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Stevens (R-AK), Yea
Thomas (R-WY), Yea
Thompson (R-TN), Yea
Thurmond (R-SC), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wellstone (D-MN), Nay
Wyden (D-OR), Nay</p>
<p>Bush is a divider, not a uniter. He sets the tone - he is the leader. Remember, Bush said he had “a mandate” and had “earned political capital and that he was going to spend it”. Cheney just now on George Stephanopolous said regardless of whether they win the election or not they will “move full speed ahead” in Iraq. Whatever the heck that means.</p>
<p>More Dems in both houses will make a difference because Bush will have to compromise and will be held accountable for his actions.</p>
<p>Bush did have a mandate. Please see vote above, that is a nice majority he had in the Senate for the war in Iraq.</p>
<p>Well my point was that there were “MORE” dems who voted against the war than republicans, and I was right. There are also more Dems who have admitted that the war and voting for it was a mistake.</p>
<p>And where are we today, collegialmom? Does Bush still have a mandate? Are we winning the war? Who do you hold accountable for where we are at as a country? Again, where is the balance of power?</p>
<p>The fraction that voted against does not make the mandate go away. They have not been an effective dissident party. There is no real difference. Vote for the Dems, it is a democratic country, but please don’t think there is that much difference. I think now it seems pretty easy for the Dems to try to distance themselves from their original votes for the war, but the Dems who voted for Iraq are JUST as responsible for the deaths there as the Republicans. And some of the Dems who voted for Iraq want to blame the Republicans. No can do. And that includes our “next democratic president” H. Clinton.</p>
<p>I see no effective platform that the Democratic leadership has, except a vague feeling of regrret that they voted for the war. Where is their plan to get out? Where is their leadership? Putting their foots in their mouths, as far as I can see. I really don’t see being a Democrat or a Republican, most of all of them seem to be fairly clueless at this point.</p>
<p>Deciding on something based on erroroneous information and then changing your mind when you have better information is supposed to be a sign of weakness?</p>
<p>A very nice essay.
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2006-10-29-1.html
</code></pre>
<p>“Deciding on something based on erroroneous information and then changing your mind when you have better information is supposed to be a sign of weakness?”</p>
<p>No but the Democrats are so critical without any apparent solutions. They seem to make random inflammatory statements, without any platform that addresses the issues. They want to discredit people without showing that their own leadership has any better ideas. The best they do in the area where I live is to have a bunch of really obnoxious negative advertising, as if by critizing the current officeholders they look better. </p>
<p>I am tempted to vote for any incumbents just on the basis of their opponent’s strategy. I don’t think the newcomers have anything more to offer that is worth getting people with more seniority out of office, because the current representatives and senators generally can deliver more pork such as highway funds, etc. to the district and get rid of these potholes that are ruining the tires of my car.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>National healthcare seems to be a big one. So is raising the EITC and minimum wage.</p>
<p>The Democrats have no cogent platform on national healthcare that does not involve lining the pockets of the health insurance companies, which was the proposal that H. Clinton had. In addition, they receive huge contributions from both the insurance companies and the trial lawyers, so real healthcare reform would be as watered down with them in control as with the Republicans. Raising the minimum wage is fairly cosmetic next to any plan for economic growth and job creation. I have not heard the Democrats articulate any economic policies that are far reaching enough to deal with this issue.</p>
<p>I do see another round of wealthy people tying to buy their way into politics, whether they label themselves Democrats or Republicans, such as Ned Lamont, or Jon Corzine in the last election. Ford in Tennessee sounds like a bit of a nut case, he seems to end every sentence with how religious he is and how his faith helps him make political decisions. Kerry just said the stupidest thing that I have heard in years, no matter how he spins it (another wealthy man) and Dean at times seems distracted and not in control of his thoughts. Hillary goes both ways on issues, depending on the audience and time of day. Please let me know some Democrats who actually are consistent and thoughtful, and maybe I won’t vote on the pothole issues anymore.</p>
<p>just a point of interest, Driver. the author of that essay, Orson Scott Card, is a great science fiction writer, wrote Ender’s Game, a saga really,… in case you don’t know it for I would guess you don’t care much for the genre, being a real-world type of gal.</p>
<p>I didn’t know that. Thanks. I went through a Harlan Ellison phase a while back, but for the most part I don’t read much scifi. Not that there’s anything wrong with it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s one of the problems with American politics. There’s a large schism between announced platforms and real legislative voting behavior. Part of this has to do with how good American politicians are at delivering pork to their districts (in part because of how the system is set up). As long as the bridges get built, most constituents don’t care what the representative has to say on…oh… anything else.</p>
<p>The trick that Republicans learned was how to play the game and not look like they’re playing it.</p>
<p>Oh no, I don’t think the Republicans are any better. I just happen to live in a Republican-dominated state and for right now, they have the seniority to fix the potholes. And for all of their advertising, I cannot distinguish the Democrats as having any advantage. So I would tend to say that a Senator who has been in office for 18 years will represent us on the little things better. I thought the same when I lived in a Democratic state. By the way, when I lived in a district that had a liberal Republican who was defeated, we did go to the bottom of the barrel with her replacement who was Democratic but not really any different on issues.</p>
<p>well, I just read the article and will re-read after sending it to a few Orson Scott Card fans who will plotz when they read such a thorough analysis backed by historical insight from a writer who has earned their devotion for his studies of evil and innocense in his sublime fiction. Thanks, I needed that.</p>
<p>(still, Bush seems like a dodo. And I block your punch)</p>
<p>collegialmom,</p>
<p>It’s really on the surface that they seem so similar. Go on THOMAS and you’ll find that they’re actually quite different in their voting records. I mean, nothing like we find in parliamentary systems/Westminster-style, but different enough to warrant a second look.</p>
<p>The US and Japan are odd ones. Everyone always complains about the parties, but they always love THEIR rep from that party.</p>