Should Dems filibuster? Here's someone who doesn't think so:

[babylonsister]

I don't know if it'd do more harm than good, but think they need to do something!

http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blog/flavius/2006/sep/22/the_democrats_should_fight_but_not_filibuster

flavius's Blog

The democrats should fight but not filibuster the torture "compromise". And we should not stay home in November to punish them for not attempting a filibuster.

Clearly, I can't count the votes, but I suppose they might prevail in a filibuster unless Frist is able to retry last spring's plan to change the change the rules on cloture.. And the consequence would be to lose any chance of taking either house in November. That's the wrong answer.

The filibuster would dominate the headlines for a week - once again blanking Iraq- and would cost them the November votes of a segment of security moms who have been gradually shifting to them because of Iraq. Sadly five years of playing the fear card have worked and a filibuster would shift them right back.

more...

[enough already]

1. Not filibustering anything has been such a successful strategy thus far

Maybe if we just ask nicely, they'll stop torturing people.

[ShortnFiery]

5. Good Point! Filibuster NOW! n/t

[gully]

2. Very interesting perspective. Bookmarked/recommended.

I think we at least have to consider if not "WHY NOT."

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. what ever happened to doing the right thing for its own sake?

Oh, right. You need a shadow of a memory of a impression of a SPINE TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

I am sorry, but this is all bullshit. We would have MORE support if we simply stood up to the Bushita torture regime now.

[gully]

6. Some might argue the right thing is winning. If we win we can

undo some of the damage.

I see your greater point however, and I can't believe we are even in a situation that we have to even "consider" torture.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

10. You mean like Cheney, Abramof and DeLay? Yeah winning is everything

sorry about the sarcasm, but I've not had my tea.

I agree with you, though. WHO HERE would have even considered that debating how to torture would have become a topic of discussion in America?

[gully]

14. No problem.

It's a reminder of who we are battling - "Cheney, Abramoff and Delay" demonstrates the importance of a "win." We'll be debating this kind of insane shit for years if we don't pick up enough seats to have a say.

[AlGore-08.com]

16. That argument is basically: we need a majority to have moral principles

It's an argument that can't ever win votes. Why should an undecided voter believe that Democrats are the party of principle if we never stand up for our principles?

Why should independent voters believe that Democrats will keep their campaign promises in the future, if we don't keep our campaign promises now? And standing up for civil rights has been a basic Democratic party campaign pledge for (at least) the last 76 years.

The idea that we need a majority to "have a say" is dead wrong. It's a basic part of the job of an elected official to convince other elected officials to vote the same way. The Republicans are running away from Bush. The Republicans have already had a public "split" over the torture issue. Among those leading the split was John McCain. If there was a single Democratic Senator with leadership skills, they could parlay that split - - and the presumption that McCain will be the 2008 GOP nominee - - into enough support to at least filibuster.

If the Senate Dems cannot get 41 Senators to agree "Torture is un-American", they don't deserve to be in office. All of them should be voted out in the next primary in favor of other Democrats. And those Democrats should be dumped in the primary if they can't deliver. And so on and so on and so on. It's long past time for minimum performance standards for Congress.

Otherwise, we will be debating this kind of insane sh*t - - and excusing Democratic inability to stop this kind of insane sh*t - -forever.

[gully]

17. So filibustering torture uhm, "interrogation" will win who's votes?

The left? The middle? The disgruntled Republicans?

Why should independent voters believe that Democrats will keep their campaign promises in the future, if we don't keep our campaign promises now?

What specific campaign promise do you refer to? We weren't debating torture until very recently. Further voting NO is voting NO, why the hell must we continually demand that not only should Dems be against X, but that they should shut down government every time a vote comes up. There have been many important issues that people shout FILIBUSTER on and we'll be shouting for years to come if the R's maintain a majority.

The idea that we need a majority to "have a say" is dead wrong. It's a basic part of the job of an elected official to convince other elected officials to vote the same way. The Republicans are running away from Bush. The Republicans have already had a public "split" over the torture issue. Among those leading the split was John McCain. If there was a single Democratic Senator with leadership skills, they could parlay that split - - and the presumption that McCain will be the 2008 GOP nominee - - into enough support to at least filibuster.

So you bought the fake Republican split huh? I didn't. This was orchestrated. Allow me to demonstrate - "Gosh if John McCain now thinks the "interrogation bill" is fair and upholds geneva conventions, it must be so. Why are them Democrats refusing to keep us safe!?" :eyes:

FAKE, ORCHESTRATED COMPROMISE.

f the Senate Dems cannot get 41 Senators to agree "Torture is un-American", they don't deserve to be in office. All of them should be voted out in the next primary in favor of other Democrats. And those Democrats should be dumped in the primary if they can't deliver. And so on and so on and so on. It's long past time for minimum performance standards for Congress.

Surely you jest? Which insane Republicans do YOU think they should approach for a reasonable solution? R's have demonstrated they'd leap off a cliff if * asked them to. Further, not everyone is calling this "torture" they're calling it "interrogating terrorists who are about to attack Americans."

I AM glad you suggest replacing Dems with Dems however, I don't dispute that as a possibility.

Do I personally think we should filibuster, hell yeah - but not if it means another 2 years of having to filibuster insane bullshit. If we filibuster and lose the battle in the house, it's all for naught two months from now.

[cally]

19. I agree we won't win in November if Dems fillibuster this

This is another Rove strategy to paint Dems as weak on terrorism. My hope is that we win in November and then change this policy. I just see it as a lost cause unless we win in November.

I'm sickened that our country has come to this where we advocate torture as a national policy. I just want it reversed and I want my country back. I don't see a fillibuster as more than a temporary fix that may make me feel better but not in the long run.

[niallmac]

4. Who the hell are the security moms?

Moms who want us to torture people who someone thinks is a terrorist?
Hello! American Inquisition calling. Dark Ages looming.

And to think now I have to go to work and pretend everything in the
world is peachy.

America is going to underwrite torture. I really cannot believe this is happening.

[ShortnFiery]

7. IMO, there's no MORAL argument to NOT Filibuster. :( n/t

[babylonsister]

11. No, they are moms that buy into the meme that dimson

is fighting them over there... blah blah blah ad nauseum.

[ima_sinnic]

12. my question exactly. who the (*#% are these BEASTS who call

themselves "mom"? I resent having my sensibilities ruined by a bunch of insecure, brainless, misinformed, SUV-driving, consumeristic, conformist, "family-oriented" females who think it is in the interests of "the children" to torture people. Go to one of the "-stans" if you think torture is the answer, "mom."

[Goblinmonger]

8. "We have to keep the powder dry"

So if something really crazy happens, we can counter it.

I am so sick and tired of the Senate dems bending over and grabbing their ankles for the Repugs. Grow a goddamn spine, please.

[wisteria]

9. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I just don't get the people

who call for staying home and not voting in November. Are they really Dem's? With supporters like these, we don't have to worry about the Republicans. Don't they care that we may end up in the same situation we are in now if the party attempts to filibuster or if Dem's stay home and don't vote.
My opinion is to allow the Democrats to vote as their conscious dictates and we don't filibuster now. We wait, gain some power and numbers in November, then work to changes this bill. We are talking less five weeks here.

[babylonsister]

13. I guess this week will tell the tale since they're off after that.

It's going to be a busy week - or not.

:hi:

[KKKarl is an idiot]

15. Stand up for truth

We do not need anymore politics. This country needs leaders who will stand for what is right. Right means no torture. We do not have a Karl Rove in the democratic party. If we do not gain a majority in the house in November at least we will still have our morals. Which is more than any Falwell fundies can say. I say we need a filibuster on this issue.

[gulfcoastliberal]

18. "Blanking Iraq"?! Yeah, Iraq is sooo dominating the 24hr news cycle!

That statement right there is pure BS.