Excuse me, what did Republicans vote against today?

[sandnsea]

There were four amendments. Excuse me for my short term memory lapses - but what exactly did Republicans just vote against -

Sunsetting this extreme emergency war bill?
Upholding habeas corpus?
Right to trial?
Allowing torture that the military doesn't even allow?

What else did the Republicans vote AGAINST??

Maybe, just maybe, having these votes in black and white really is better than a failed filibuster?

No, not spinning - just thinking. Did Reid outsmart us even? :shrug:

[Blaukraut]

1. the Kennedy amendment, the Byrd amendment

both of which could be used to make some election hay with. Still, it's rather like a lipstick on a pig scenario. The desirable outcome, no matter how you try to turn it, would have been to vote this thing down.

[sandnsea]

2. This was never going to be voted down

At one point, Smith was supposedly on the fence. He's my Senator, he votes how he's told and voted yes. I was reading the post from Reid's office, where they chose the amendments over the filibuster because they didn't even have filibuster votes. And they didn't, only 35 on the final bill. So 4 Amendments to make hay with may well be a pretty good trade after all.

[Blaukraut]

3. I agree with you!

That's why I said 'desirable'. It wasn't even as close as I thought it might be. Yes, we do have four amendments that can be used against the rethugs in the election. But frankly, it's getting a little tiring to always look at the tiny sliver of silver lining in a cloudy sky. I want sunshine again. It seems like we're grateful for every little crumb that's thrown our way, but the crumbs are getting smaller and smaller, yet our gratitude is supposed to remain the same.

[sandnsea]

4. I'm not saying be "grateful"

I'm just saying if the guy managed to get us a crumb, my god don't sweep it off the counter when you're starving!

And yeah, I was pretty disgusted with the vote too. I thought we'd at least have over the 40 number. I just don't understand what is wrong with this country.

[sandnsea]

5. Here

This is what I meant:

"By mostly party-line votes, the Senate rejected Democratic efforts to limit the bill to five years, to require frequent reports from the administration on the CIA's interrogations and to add a list of forbidden interrogation techniques."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2250786&mesg_id=2250786

[TayTay]

6. Will Pitt is a smart man and he has a powerful point

Give it time. These arguments will sink in.

Karynnj has remarked that she is disappointed in her Senators for voting for final passage of this bill. But she is still in there, still focused on the greater good of this election.

Others will be too. Just give it a little time. This one hurt a lot. People will rally, only the weak will give up.

[ProSense]

7. Whatever the strategy, there is

still no explanation as to why both NJ Senators voted for the bill. That's why I'm shocked. There is absolutely no threat to opposing this bill.

Grant that this is a liberal site, but people are shocked:

http://www.bluejersey.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2656

[sandnsea]

8. Lautenberg backing up Menendez??

I understand Menendez has a tight race. If Kean hasn't played his daddy on the 9/11 Commission card, maybe Menendez is concerned he's going to. With both Lautenberg and Menendez voting for this bill, they remove the opportunity for Democrats to be bashed on security. Mind you, I don't think anybody should have voted for this bill for political reasons at all. This should have been a straight conscience vote. But I can't figure any other reason Lautenberg would have voted for this monstrosity, except at Menendez' request.