A Democratic compromise of our own (Torture Bill).

[yebrent]

Most of what I have read at DU on this subject since the Rethug "compromise" (more like cowardly caving) is that the Dems need to do everything in their power to stop this bill. (Which I assume means filibuster). That they shouldn't care what happens to them in the upcoming election, that they should shut down the government over this issue.

IMO, this strategy seems like a huge gamble with the Dems currently set to make giant gains in both the House and Senate.

I'd like to propose a compromise of our own. Don't vote for the bill, but also don't filibuster it.

Let it pass on a party line vote. Let the Rethugs tie their own long-term noose by passing the bill. Filibustering it would hurt the Dems in the upcoming election, with a constant Rethug and media blast that the Dems are weak on terror. By voting against it, but not filibustering, the Rethugs and the media won't have as powerful of a spin. The public won't be as interested, because there is no stalemate on the issue. Without the filibuster, the story won't be as intriguing and get as much air-time.

Once it passes, then the Dems can constantly refer to the Rehugs as the Torture Party. It will eventually sink in with the general public that the USA has become a country that tortures (it can take a year for these ideas to cement firmly in the public's mind). The Dems will have political cover for voting against it, (unlike the authorization to invade Iraq). We could label them the Party of Torturers for at least a generation. However, it is key that they have no bipartisan cover. THIS CANNOT BE ANOTHER IRAQ AUTHORIZATION. All the Dems need to vote against it, except Lieberman of course. Lieberman can vote for it if he wants. That will just further support the meme that he was no longer a Democrat, and it was good for the Party to purge him.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. "Once it passes"

"Once it passes, then the Dems can constantly refer to the Rethugs as the Torture Party."

And never mind about those who will be detained without charges legally, tortured legally, tried in star chamber proceedings legally, executed legally. Never mind about the criminals who will have had their crimes wiped forever off the slate with the stroke of a pen. Never mind all that. By once again not taking a stand on principle, not taking a risk, not DOING WHAT IS RIGHT, if our party is very lucky enough voters might see the clear difference between us to actually bother voting and actually vote Democratic. I don't know why they would see the difference, but they might. This will be another Iraq War Authorization, and once again spineless idiocy will have triumphed.

For an alternative view on this subject see my post here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2210179&mesg_id=2210179

[yebrent]

2. Re

I'm sorry if my post offends you. But it took the American public three years to be against Bush's war in Iraq, even though some of us recognized it as being illegal and profoundly stupid from the get go. I guess I don't have much faith that the American public will make the correct decision in the short-term. Fear will drive their short-term decisions, and a filibuster would likely cause the Dems to not gain either the House or the Senate in November. I've seen for too long, the Dems falsely accused of being weak on defense by Rethugs and the M$M, while the public laps it up unquestioningly.

Also, I don't have much faith that there will even be enough Dem Senators who are willing to support a filibuster to the end. Just like with Bush's Supreme Court nominations, a handful of them will "strike a deal" which will be nothing short of a complete cave in. Then the Rethugs not only will have passed the bill, but will have bipartisan cover, and be able to continue the false claim that the Dems are weak on terror.

Plus, I don't have faith that a Democratic filibuster will stop the torture. IMO, only a Democratic House with subpoena power and a Democratic Senate to decide the outcome of the impeachment trial can do that.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Your post doesn't offend me the situation offends me.

If I seem angry, it is because I am helplessly hopelessly paralyzed yet again with anger over yet another outrage from the criminal bush cabal. I understand your point, however I think it is wrong.

How can the american public be expected to make the correct decisions when the opposition party refuses to take a stand? If we won't stand up against torture, against abolishing the geneva conventions, how can we expect the less politically astute to do so? How can we expect them to not be fooled by the soft on terra meme when we are falling for it ourselves?