Senator Obama: Do you support, or are you against, torture?

[Caro]

In case you're not aware of it, the bill to authorize Bush to torture people is coming up for a vote today. A number of the blogs are asking us to call Barack Obama to ask him a simple question. I called Obama today, and I hope you will, too as well as both your senators.

Obama's office said they're tallying phone calls. Get this, friends, THEY'RE TALLYING VOTES ON WHETHER SENATOR OBAMA SHOULD STAND UP AGAINST TORTURE! I'm afraid I did a bit of yelling.

This is from Eschaton:

Dial
Senator Obama:

Washington D.C. Office
713 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
[phone]

Ask when his office is going to issue a statement in support of or against torture.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Nozebro]

1. Tell me again the difference between members of the two major parties.

Thanks.

[oasis]

5. If you don't know the difference by now then you'll never know.(eom)

[Jacobin]

17. I'm 56

I've voted Democratic for 99.999% of my life.

I'd like to know the difference, too.

Tell me how taking polls on whether torture is good or bad is part of what the Democratic party used to be.

Please

[oasis]

25. "Torture: good or bad"???That's your assessment of the 2nd hand info

provided by the OP?

[Jacobin]

26. I'll call myself and see what they say.

[oasis]

30. Thanks but, junior staffers and office receptionists are not always

your best source. I'm willing to wait until tommorrow and check Obama's website for an "official" comment.:-)

[Caro]

48. I asked to speak to a policy wonk ...

... but the girl (and I mean girl, she couldn't have been older than 22) who answered the phone said she could take the message. So I gave her an earful. I asked how a man who claims to be a Christian could even be on the fence about torture. I said Sen. Obama should be using that bully pulpit he's been building to rail against this immorality that's about to pass the Senate.

When I had finished, she said she was taking a poll for the senator, and what was my zip code.

Spin it if you will, but I was offended. And I'm a constituent.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[bobbolink]

87. So much for accountability, eh?

You'll prolly get yelled at here for your stand, as I have, but I'm with you completely. This has GOT to stop.

Enough with the wishy-washy DLC, and their minions!

I'm glad you stood up to her. It'll take many, many of us doing the same thing.

:yourock:

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Another "Profile in insipid political calculation" from Sen. Obama.

Hmmm. Maybe after he gets through deciding whether he's for or against torture, he can chuck a few more rhetorical body slams at us immoral atheists, again.

[Kagemusha]

3. There's a reason I started this thread earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2233140&mesg_id=2233140

It's all Obama's fault for some reason I can't quite fathom.

I'd think Reid not being onboard is a bigger issue but, that's me.

[Caro]

49. It's not all Obama's fault.

No one is saying that. The reason for calling Obama is that he's been claiming that he's so religious.

How difficult does it have to be to see that what these people want to be free to do to other humans is what was done to their lord and savior.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAcccountable.com

[MADem]

4. Oh, horseshit--call a fucking REPUBLICAN, they've got the clout

Call ANY Republican, it doesn't have to be one of the Warner-McCain-Graham troika. Ask THEM the goddamn question.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2233140

The question "Why pick on Obama?" is appropriately posed here in the above cited thread. And it IS a curious question. How dare the brother raise issues of morality in a (holy shit) RELIGIOUS or FAITH BASED context, and not cover them ALL perhaps???

Give me a break.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. So when he raised those issues, was it necessary to slam atheists in

the process?

Or was it gratuitious pandering?

I think the "problem" with Sen. Obama's behavior is that many of us expected so much more from him. I certainly did.

[never cry wolf]

13. Show me where he slammed atheists?

I read none of that into his speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

19. Here's a quote:

"It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God."

Bullshit. Bullshit again.

THIS one did.

[never cry wolf]

24. I don't find that offensive, and I am sure it was not meant that way

More excerpts from the same speech:

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.

----------------

So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.

-----------------

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

----------------

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

----------------

Sounds to me like he wants to accept all faiths, and atheism as well.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. I've said repeatedly, most of the speech was good.

But the potshots at atheists were unacceptable. I wonder if he would be so okay with forcing (and yes, kids are FORCED) other people's children in public schools to recite an oath every morning "Under Allah" or "Under Buddha" or "Under Zeus".

The pandering context of that quote was one of "yeah, those out of control secular whackjobs, tilting at windmills like the pledge". Sorry, Sen. Obama, but there is no "both sides" to the Separation of Church and State "debate". There are people who understand the Establishment Clause, and people who want to do away with it. Would it be okay for a Senator to talk about "both sides" of the racism "debate"? As in, "you know, yes there has been racism and racism is wrong, but we should be honest about the fact that some minorities can get awfully uppity"

That is the equivalent of his "both sides need to tone it down" argument.

The other problem with that speech was that he trotted out a whole slew of Religious Right straw men and gave them legitimacy. No one- NO ONE- wants religious people to "leave their faith at the door" when entering government. What we want is for them to LEAVE THEIR FAITH outside OUR DOOR.

Big Difference, That. What it means is, don't like abortion? Cool. Don't have one. Don't like gay marriage? Cool. Don't have one. Don't like Dr. Assisted Suicide or Medical Marijuana? Don't use 'em. Think the birth control pill is "Vitamin Satan"? Great. Don't take it. But stop using YOUR FAITH as an excuse to run OUR LIVES.

It's very, very simple.

[MADem]

29. Well, fine, YOU did. He has a different view on the matter.

And like it or not, he's not alone in this view. There are more than a few people who think this "Under God fundie divisive bullshit" isn't the most important matter in this cruel world nowadays. His constituency doesn't seem to have a problem with his views, either.

If I had to pick between bringing the troops home or resolving the Pledge issue, I'd bring the troops home. You can't always get what you want....and you can't always get EVERYTHING you want.

Run against the guy in the next primary, if you oppose him so vehemently. But he, like everyone else, has a right to his views, including his religious ones. If we all agreed with each other completely, there would be no need for debate of any kind, and we'd all be boring as hell.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. Excuse Me. His "view" was that NO kids feel discriminated against

or oppressed by that line. Not that HE didn't feel those things--- that NO ONE did.

Well, here's one who did. Right here. So his "View" on the matter is FACTUALLY WRONG. In fact, right after the speech, a whole slew of people agreed; they felt, as I did, that it was fundamentally discriminatory to be forced to pledge every morning to a deity they didn't believe in.

I agree that the fundies -and their agenda- aren't the most important thing in the world. Which is why I am fucking baffled, sir or madam, as to what in high holy hell certain members of our party are thinking when they constantly push this blather about "courting values voters" and how we're just one or two Jesus references away from total victory.

It's bullshit, and frankly, the fundy crowd has way more power in politics than they deserve. What we OUGHT to be doing is going after the disaffected SOCIAL LIBERTARIANS in the GOP and the independent sectors of the electorate; by doing the exact OPPOSITE of what these conventional wisdom waterheads keep telling us to do- instead of "moderating" our stances on personal freedom, privacy, reproductive rights and the separation of church and state, we should unapologetically and emphatically shore up our commitments to them. Give the people at least ONE party that hasn't gone totally overboard with pontification, whose agenda isn't being written by out-of-control church lady control freaks.

As for bringing the troops home: Yep, I agree, that's pretty important.

Out of curiosity, what's Obama had to say on that, lately?

...

[MADem]

53. Look, here's the bottom line

The IL voters elected him. They LIKE him. They LIKE what they are hearing from him. He's not MY Senator. Mine are Kerry and Kennedy, and I like them just fine.

When Obama courts those 'values voters' that you disdain, he's courting HIS constituency. The people in HIS state, who might be inclined to vote for HIM. If he's got his eye on a VP slot with Hillary (who I'm not yet convinced is running) well, good for him--he's courting those 'values voters' again, the ones you are making fun of, who actually get off their fat values and waddle off to the polls, unlike the anarchists, the college crowd, and the young singles who claim to be politically active but forget to go fucking vote, year after year. If that's his agenda, let him get in there and mix it up with the rest of them. I'll listen to him, and everyone else.

The Democratic Party is, really, a BIG tent. That means it's got a right side as well as a left side. I don't agree with a lot of viewpoints espoused by people that I can otherwise support, simply because I like what they say eight out of ten times. If the fact that he thinks having a kid skip or mumble "Under God" is a dealbreaker for you, well, so the fuck be it. Unless you're voting for him, will shut off your maximum contributions and fundraising efforts on his behalf, or will stop precinct walking for him, well, your opinion isn't as important as you might want it to be. Don't be insulted by that, it's just the simple truth.

And as I said elsewhere, he doesn't OWN his vote. He's not independently wealthy, and does not fund his own campaigns--he relies on DNC cash, the cash he raises, and support from other Democratic political fundraising arms. As for how he votes, he votes the way he is told. The Majority Leader, via the Whip, gives him his direction, because he's not up for reelection this year and can afford to abrogate principle if the leadership wants him to because they are working some kind of deal across the aisle, either watering down a bill that will pass anyway, no matter how hard they try to stop it, or inserting language into it, or adding separate, unrelated riders or provisions to benefit specific states or agencies.

That's how politics works. It's not always principle, even though some would like it to be. It's a MACHINE on most days. Principle rears its head rarely.

[Warren DeMontague]

58. I spent half my life in Illinois. I KNOW who his constituency is.

And he's courting the WRONG people. The "conventional wisdom", the one which tells us that these "values voters" are the people- and the ONLY people- we should be trying to woo, yeah, it's been WRONG. It's been LOSING US ELECTIONS. It's time, in my ever-so-humble-not-very-important-opinion, to try something DIFFERENT.

And you know what? Republicans. Conservatives. THEY say that the weak spot in the GOP coalition is the Libertarian wing. THEY know that's where the barn door is open. They'll laugh themselves silly at the idea of the Democratic Party pissing off the base by abandoning commitments to gay rights, reproductive rights, separation of church and state, to win over members of a Jesus crowd that isn't gonna vote for us anyway.

I'd appreciate it if you not lecture me about politics. Ahem. I know about politics. I also understand that Obama may be trying to triangulate his way into the #2 slot on a HRC ticket. But you know what else? HER reasoning, her logic, is wrong too. She is NOT going to be the nominee- the right wing hates her, she annoys moderates, and the base of our party -people like me, who used to like her and now just tolerate her- does NOT want her to run.

Meanwhile, what does Bush do? If nothing else, he keeps his BASE HAPPY. That's what "politics" means for the GOP. And they WIN ELECTIONS. Maybe the reason our people don't get off their butts like the glassy-eyed "left behind" Bible bangers do isn't because we're the party of don't-give-a-shit college students, but because we don't give those people any real motivation TO get off their asses. How about some inspiring, new ideas, instead of "we're not quite as bad as the other guy?"

I understand that we're a big tent, I think we can win over the Heartland Values Crowd with real-life solutions to their pressing problems, like a SPHC system. Playing the "we want to protect traditional marriage, too" game isn't going to accomplish jack diddly shit.

Now, back to the topic at hand: I LIKE Obama. That's why I hold him to the standard I do. I have high hopes for him. But I think that the Hillary route, the pandering route, is the WRONG route for him and it's the WRONG route for our party. The people who last, who come out of this era with their integrity and POLITICAL careers intact, are going to be the people who understand that even sometimes the MACHINE has to acknowledge and stand for core, basic PRINCIPLES. Obama is an excellent orator- who better than him to passionately, eloquently explain why torture is WRONG and Bush- with all his constitution-destroying shennanigans- is making us LESS SAFE, not MORE?

[MADem]

62. Well, it's Obama's decision. You might have been a constituent once

but you aren't now. If his approach doesn't work, those voters you claim to know so well will reject him on his next go-round. Stop worrying about him.

Heck, I live in MA, and the political landscape here has changed mightily in two decades. Nothing is static.

All I am pointing out, again, is, that if your concern is torture, go after the GOP. They're the ones with the preponderance of pro-torture votes, not the Dems.

All I'm seeing is cannibalism, another game of 'fracture the party.' If Rove special-ordered it, he couldn't have done a better job.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Actually, if you're so right about where all the votes lie

having pro-choice, pro gay rights, secular whackjobs like me mad at him could be just what the Dr. ordered for Sen. Obama.

[MADem]

66. I'm not claiming to be right or wrong, I just think the fire aimed his

way is sorely misdirected, IF the goal is actually to push back on the torture matter. Making the lives of the GOP senators, particularly those up for reelection, miserable, seems to be the smarter tactic, IF the real goal is registering dismay at the Monkey's wish to define what is maltreatment. It's GOP votes that rule in the Senate, after all.

Hectoring a Democrat about this issue, one who isn't even on the ballot this year, is a colossal waste of time, IMO. But it does benefit the GOP, as well as other Dem factions that don't go for triangulation like Obama does. Otherwise, it's spitting in the wind in terms of making a difference on the actual issue of torture legislation.

[never cry wolf]

75. Sen. Obama is pro-choice, pro gay rights and pro secular

Firmly pro separation of church and state... I have no idea what your beef is, nor your agenda....

[Warren DeMontague]

77. Read the context and the rest of the thread before going off wildly please

I've said repeatedly, I *like* Obama. I think part of that speech was clear pandering, but most of it was good. Although if you're dead set on being convinced that ANY measure of constructive criticism (lets see how the torture bill votes fall, shall we?) means I have some super-secret "agenda", then so be it.

My point was, if (as has been argued upthread) Obama's courting of "Values voters" makes so much sense, then having "atheist whackjobs" such as myself- (and a good many other DUers, if you bother to check the archives) call him on the intolerant, stereotype reinforcing parts of the speech -which came at the end of a long week of atheist bashing, by the way- would probably be a net gain for him with that allegedly all-powerful constituency.

Dig? If folks like me are working for Karl Rove by criticizing Obama for being too "moderate", wouldn't that only endear him further to the demographic he's supposedly trying to woo? Something tells me Karl didn't really think that part out terribly well.

Meanwhile, perhaps someone can explain HOW "we" are supposed to woo "Values Voters" without watering down commitments to reproductive choice, gay rights, and the separation of church and state. As long as I'm being accused of.. whatever the hell I'm being accused of, I'd like some SPECIFICS.

[bvar22]

60. Bulls**t. LEADERS LEAD!!!

The RIGHT thing to do here is painfully clear.
STAND UP!


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[MADem]

63. Oh, please. Stand up for what? He will vote the way Reid tells him to.

Or he won't get any money for his next run.

That is how it works. You might not like it, but that is the way it goes.

[bvar22]

68. So...

you support the status quo?
You "go along to get along"?
You think "Centrism" regardless of the issues is a valid position?
You LIKE the way things are?

I have had the privilege of living in the State that elected Paul Wellstone.
He is a perfect example that refutes your position.
Your "that is the way it goes" philosophy sucks ass and contributes to the problem.
Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way!


I will continue to fight. No one should need direction on this issue!
Have fun on the sidelines! :hi:


The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[MADem]

69. Oh, put the strawmen away, it's short of stuffing and can't stand anyway

Paul Wellstone, rest his soul, is dead. He could get away with tacking far left for two reasons--first, he could raise cash hand over fist. Second, he could compromise--hugely--when he had to in order to get what he needed. That means when the Leader told him to vote a particular way, HE DID. That's how he kept getting money from the DNC coffers.

And he DID compromise, just like Obama does. But it's more politically acceptable, apparently, to kick a live young brown man who is doing the exact same thing that a dead liberal icon did. Why this is the case, I've no idea. A quick refresher on Wellstone's viewpoints, from admirers of the man: http://logosonline.home.igc.org/wellstone.htm

He took risks that few politicians would dare, usually confident that he would somehow persuade enough people to make it worthwhile. But Paul also knew how to pick his battles: he was willing to compromise. More than that: he understood that the politician—not the academic and not the advocate—but the politician cannot help but compromise. What made him unique was not his purity, for that is the quality of saints not politicians, but his ability to make clear that his retreats were tactical and that he was committed to a broader vision. ... He wore his flag in his lapel; he voted for the Patriot Act; he voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, something he later regretted, and there were other times he cast his vote with those or different convictions or those with no convictions at all.


I don't support the status quo, I'm pragmatic. Like Paul Wellstone was. Like Obama is. And I don't waste time beating up our own, when there are so many wonderful targets on the other side of the aisle.

Anyone who actually thinks hectoring Obama's office is going to change the outcome of the Senate torture vote is smoking crack.

Try being a tactical activist, and start calling the GOP bums who are up for reelection and directing your ire at them, instead of following along behind a curious "let's hassle the new brown guy who just maybe might end up as Hillary's running mate" internet campaign of dubious origin.

Sidelines, indeed. :rofl:

[bvar22]

70. And you think Paul would "compromise" on torture?

Excuse me, but there goes YOUR credibility.

[MADem]

71. Excuse me, but show me where Obama has even voted yet.

You can't. Because he hasn't. NO ONE in the Senate has. So get off your high horse and rachet down the dramatics. You KNOW nothing, least of all what "Paul" would do. Who would think "Paul" would compromise on DOMA? His gay supporters were devastated by that vote, that COMPROMISE vote. The PATRIOT ACT? Who would have thought he'd "go along and get along" on that one? Well, he DID compromise on those, and they were biggies. So you really "know" nothing about what he might do.

We don't know which Senate Democratic staffers are still at work now, rewriting the legislation. Watering it down, trying to add codicils or caveats to amend it so that it inflicts minimal damage...but I wouldn't be surprised if there are a slew of people still on the Hill on their fourth pot of coffee. That's what they DO up there....they COMPROMISE.

You know nothing except what you read on the internets, and what you read, apparently, is "Let's pile on the new black guy from IL." A POINTLESS exercise. Go ahead, feel superior because his ideological purity doesn't meet your standard. But then, if you look closely, Paul Wellstone's didn't, either. But since he's dead, so you can say you "KNOW" what he'd do without any fear of him contradicting you, eh?

And while you are so busy beating up on a SENATOR, perhaps your time might have been better spent making a few phone calls and trying to prevent THIS from happening today: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/4220025.html

Why didn't I see any efforts here today to go after House members? Why just this one black Democrat in the Senate? Why no attempts to target GOP Congressmen or Senators up for reelection, who indicate they will stand with Bush on this?

Something stinks around these parts. And it sure as hell ain't MY credibility, much as you might like to misdirect the matter at hand. I'm quite frankly astounded at the number of overly energetic do-gooders up in here who suddenly feel the desperate, frenzied need to crawl out and attack Obama, as though HIS vote is the deciding one.

When it ISN'T. Ummmm hmmmmm.

[bvar22]

72. Number ONE:

1) I haven't criticized Obama. Go back and read my posts. Calm down. Read BEFORE typing. Think about what you have read. Your blood pressure will drop, and your credibility will improve.
All I have done was state that standing UP against TORTURE is the RIGHT thing to do. Obama still has time to do the right thing. Since I haven't criticized Obama, your 1st two paragraphs are worthless.

2)You said:
"You know nothing except what you read on the internets, and what you read, apparently, is "Let's pile on the new black guy from IL." A POINTLESS exercise. Go ahead, feel superior because his ideological purity doesn't meet your standard."

This is fantasy & pure invention. You don't have a clue.
Less than worthless.

3) You might have scored one minor point. Paul Wellstone IS dead, and I miss him. I don't KNOW ABSOLUTELY what he would have done, but I can be pretty sure.






STANDING UP AGAINST TORTURE IS the RIGHT THING TO DO!!!
Damn the Polls and the Professional Politicians who use them instead of a conscience.
WRONG is ALWAYS WRONG!!!

[MADem]

76. My blood pressure is fine, thanks for your sincere concern

I'm not the one with the dramatic and excitable bolding, multicolors, large fonts, illustrations and exclamation points, mind you. I hope you take your own solicitous advice.

If you aren't here to either pile on or defend Obama, why are you here on a thread about him at all? The subject of this thread, in case you missed it, is this:

Senator Obama: Do you support, or are you against, torture?

Not "Joe Blow, do you support..." and not "Generically speaking, do your support or are you against..." Nope. The subject here is the Senator, so all comments made here are construed by those who follow the basic rules of logic to refer to the subject at hand. So, unless you are off in your own world, railing at the Invisible Man about torture, the logical assumption is that you are railing at the young brown senator, the one who has not even cast a vote yet.

So "Number One" -- it might not be a bad idea to read the subject and the full thread before putting your beak in. Credibility indeed. Or do you always just pop in out of the blue to make commentary that has nothing to do with the subject at hand?

My comments are not 'fantasy and pure invention,' as you aver while taking them completely out of their full context (as well as ignoring the word 'apparently'), they are a realpolitik response to your OTT strawman challenges to my character (go along, get along...support the status quo...blah blah) in your post 68.

I actually DO 'have a clue,' and neither I nor my opinions are 'less than worthless.'

Remarks of that sort makes further discussion unproductive. But thanks for playing.

[never cry wolf]

74. Where does in Obama's quote, "it is doubtful that"

or in the entire tenor of the speech is he as absolute as you paint him as? He did not say NO kids feel discriminated against. Listening is a skill and apparently one you need to aquire. Either that or you have another agenda.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. "It is doubtful that any kids feel oppressed or discriminated against"

There may be a hair's difference between "no kids feel discriminated against" and "it is doubtful any kids feel discriminated against", but not a whole lot more. At this point in the post, like you I could make some cracks about your ability to listen and grasp of the English language, too- but that's not my style.

How many kids did Obama ask before deciding it was "doubtful"? I'm one who DID feel oppressed AND discriminated against. There were a whole slew of others that came out saying the same thing here on DU right after the speech. How hard would it have been for him to find a few of the many, many people who DO have a problem with that part of the pledge, or for him to leave that line out entirely, instead of trying to score points with his audience through a body slam at those ridiculous atheists who don't like having their kids FORCED to pledge under a deity every morning in public school?

I'm sure you're familiar with the search function. You can find the threads. A LOT of people here had problems with that speech. Maybe we all have some super-fucking-secret agenda (I guess atrios does, too?), or maybe, just maybe, there were real god-damn problems with the cheap shots in that speech.

[never cry wolf]

82. I remember the threads

and I remember a few who had a problem with the speech being very vocal and trying to quote bits and pieces out of context in order to make their point.

Have you ever heard any speech by any politician regarding religion, ot the lack thereof, that you have agreed with? Obama's speech, at a religious convention, emphasized not forcing ones views on another through policy and the importance of separation of church and state.

I am sorry your were traumatized or offended by saying the pledge including "under god" while in grade school. Obama wasn't, I wasn't and I'll wager well less than 1% were. Maybe if Obama had phrased it "it is doubtful that the vast majority of kids..."

[Warren DeMontague]

84. It would have been far more accurate to phrase it that way.

Even better to have left it out entirely, because it was an unnecessary cheap shot. You should read the blog entry I linked below- it might clear up a bit why I seem to have higher expectations from the Jr. Senator from Illinois than I might from some other members of the Senate.

[Warren DeMontague]

83. You know what? I can't lie anymore. You're right. I have another agenda.

You found me out. Want to know what my agenda is?

...

I want members of our party to fight back against the GOP slime machine. I want them to STOP falling for this Karl Rove pre-election bullshit. This torture vote is the 2006 version of the 2002 Iraq Vote, and I fear the long-term consequences could be just as bad, if not worse. I'm tired of our people playing this chickenshit game of living in fear of a couple weeks of attack ads, and letting that fear render them COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of doing the right thing.

But you know what? You seem to think I'm "out to get" Obama, that I want him to fail. Nothing could be further from the truth. I want him to LEAD, which is why I'm sad that he has been -in my mind- something of a disappointment so far in the Senate.

Yeah. I'm out to get Obama. I have a "secret agenda". You know it. But while you pat yourself on the back for seeing through my thin, weak Democrat disguise to my pure, naked Obama-loathing, why don't you read what I had to say about the guy immediately after the 2004 convention:

http://impeachdubya.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_impeachdubya_archive.html

(I had a little bit of odd prescience, there, with the line about the pledge, didn't I?)

Then, please, go ahead and tell me ALL ABOUT my "other agenda".

[LSK]

16. filibuster

[elehhhhna]

45. YOU'RE ALL right. fuckall I just want my country back. Maddem,

You
're the rightest of all imo. Dems can't do shit. WILLFUL IMPOTENCE? wtf?

[SmokingJacket]

7. What about the rest of the Democrats?

Am I nuts, or are people picking on Obama for some reason?

[Eric J in MN]

8. It's a negative reaction to Obama's faith-and-values speech.

If you'd rather call your own Senators, please do:
http://contactcongress.blogspot.com

[SmokingJacket]

20. I read the whole speech and wasn't bothered by it, in context.

I've been disappointed by some of the ways Obama has voted, but I like him a lot -- and I think he's the most exciting Democrat we have.

I get tired of people tearing Democrats down for being imperfect -- though certainly they should ALL be speaking up about torture.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Obama showed tremendous promise, like at the 2004 convention.

Unfortunately, I think he's been a disappointment.

And I think it's ridiculous: ri-fucking-diculous: to argue that the ONLY way to win voters is to stake out the "middle ground" between what is constitutional and right, and where the torture apologists and crazed, gay-hating theocrats stand.

How about this, Sen. Obama- there are MILLIONS of disaffected socially LIBERTARIAN voters in and outside the GOP who are WAITING for a party to speak to them.. to come out clearly, for instance, for the right of people to make their OWN end of life decisions. (Remember how Terri Schiavo bit the GOP on the ass? Where were your vaunted, all-powerful "values voters" then?)

People who are ready for government to get OUT of the personal morality business ENTIRELY.

Who is "courting" them?

[MADem]

31. Well, like I said, what about the fucking REPUBLICANS?

Go after THEM, fachrissake. They're the Torture Brigade, not the damn Dems. Who owns the House? Who owns the Senate? The GOP does...if the heat is out, ya gripe to the landlord, not the tenant in the next apartment...

[Mass]

9. They need to be told what to vote on this one?

[Eric J in MN]

11. Please ask your Senators and Rep. to oppose...

...the Military Tribunals bill.

More about it here, "Rush to Error:"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/26/AR2006092601475.html


Contact info here:
http://contactcongress.blogspot.com/

[Zodiak]

10. Still, taking a tally to see if one should stand up

for a basic human dignity is beyond the pale. Democrat OR Republican.

We know the pukes don't care. But our guy should care more than taking a poll before he takes a stand.

[Eric J in MN]

12. Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA) seems to be against the bill

...based on his speech this morning.

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) said this morning that he'd like to vote for a Military Tribunals bill, but not in the current form.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Now, how hard was that?

Anyone taking notes? One Senator from Illinois manages to seem coherent on the issue.

[MADem]

32. Who actually said those words, though? Not Obama.

Some asshole on his staff "supposedly" said that, yet everyone takes it as though it came from the Oracle's lips.

I think the number of people getting curiously, suddenly exorcised over the only damn black in the Senate not being sufficiently "PC" on a singular issue to suit them is really, really strange.

Suddenly, like weeds after heavy rain and sunshine, there are threads on boards all over the place on this VERY issue, about a guy who has his seat and IS NOT on any ballot this year (but he's helping, raising dough for those who are). There are plenty of others who would make equally good targets, so why pick on this JUNIOR guy?

Something smells fishy in this whole Obama bashing--it's suddenly EVERYWHERE, in organized fashion, and I have a feeling a lot of sincere, well-meaning, unsuspecting do-gooders are hopping aboard a wagon driven by a GOP operative, if you go back far enough to the origin of this so called outrage....I'd love to be able to pull the string and see where it's tied off.

It smells like bullshit to me.

[Eric J in MN]

35. It's from Atrios.

http://atrios.blogspot.com/2006_09_24_atrios_archive.html#115936471821493335

[MADem]

47. Yeah, I know...it ain't from Obama's mouth, is it? NT

[Warren DeMontague]

42. Funny, though, he could put a fast end to it with one sentence:

"Torture is ethically wrong, and this bill has been written by an out-of-control administration that has done more than enough damage to our constitution already. We can stay safe without compromising who we are. I will vote no, and I will support a filibuster."

Like you said, Obama's not up for re-election this year. So what's he afraid of?

There's nothing "PC" about the "singular issue" of opposing torture. It's a moral no-brainer. Any senator who votes for this turd is equally wrong.

[BL611]

43. Did he vote for it?

No. Did he make a statement supporting it? No. Did he personally answer the phone and say that he would base his vote on the pro/con tally of phone calls? No. Please explain to me what I am missing?

[MADem]

46. Did you ever think he--or more correctly, REID, may have a deal working?

Obama doesn't OWN his vote. People like to think so, but he doesn't. The real NO BRAINER is that Senators don't have to USE their brains to push the button their whip points to.

They play this game where people up for reelection get the "principle" vote and those that aren't up have to vote the way the leader tells the whip to tell them to vote--and if they don't, they don't get any national campaign money. And they could end up getting "Lamonted" if ya know what I mean.

Reid could be working a deal across the aisle, and what sort of deal, who knows--it could be a language issue in the bill to water the thing down substantially (and that would be a victory if they don't have the votes to stop it), it could be a trade off; we'd have to be flies on the wall to determine it...and more likely, if there are MORE than enough votes for the Monkey to get his way, you play a game where you can point to instances of supporting the Monkey as much as you could, based on his assurances, which gives you room later to go off on him.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. Oh, yeah, those "games" work REAL well.

Like the Iraq War vote. Worked like a charm.

Particularly since, now that all The Preznit's OTHER rationalizations have fallen through, the one and only argument he has to fall back on is "Look who voted for it!".

Maybe Reid is "working a deal". (Based on the track record, I'm not gonna hold my breath.) But if Obama's vote isn't his own, why is he bothering to ask people how they feel about it?

[MADem]

56. Are you actually suggesting that OBAMA's vote is the "decider" here?

HE holds the cards?

Who knows why he's asking his constituency. Maybe he wants to get a sense of how those pesky "values voters" who voted for him feel about the issue? Maybe they actually BUY the Monkey's rationale? Maybe he just wants a DIALOGUE with his constituency?

Give me a break. If the Dems needed Obama's vote to get their way, they'd HAVE it. Reid would make SURE of it. But piling on this guy because he seeks voter feedback is asinine. People get pissed when legislators DON'T want feedback, now people are mad because he does? There's no pleasing some folks.

Some asshole, for some reason, has managed to get everyone across the web all riled up about this young man, and it has spread here to DU, like a sick virus. Some operative, somewhere, planted this seed. Someone has decided Obama is getting a bit DANGEROUS (read POPULAR, read MODERATE, read APPEALS TO A WIDE SWATHE OF SOCIETY, to include middle of the roaders, independents and liberal republicans), and it is getting past time to pick on the brother, who isn't gonna be the one to decide how he votes anyway.

Where this is coming from, I am not sure. Someone, perhaps, on our own team, who backs another segment of the party, is concerned he might have his eye on national office, and wants to block him? Or perhaps some GOP asshole has looked at private polls and fears that a team of Clinton and Obama could two-fer the "firsts" (the black and female one-two punch) and win in a landslide?

Someone is afraid of the new little brown lad on the block. That's why people are getting all nasty about him. I'm not accusing ANYONE here, it's just a bit of nudging and whispering going on all over these internets, and well-meaning people can get conned.

It has NOTHING to do with this particular vote. Why?

Because Obama is gonna vote the way REID tells him to.

People should be calling REID if they don't like how OBAMA votes.

[Warren DeMontague]

59. You may be right. But the way things are going

the people sabotaging Hillary and Obama's chances are... Hillary and Obama.

The thing the widest Swath of the voting populace in this country craves is INTEGRITY and an ability to stand up clearly an unequivocally for the things that are important. Why is what Hillary is doing, on Iraq, for instance, "practical" when MOST AMERICANS ARE OPPOSED TO THE WAR?

You want to know how the self-proclaimed "Values Voters" feel? Here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2226301

Now, please tell me again how important it is to "court" these folks.

[MADem]

61. Look, I'm not going to be distracted with an argument about Obama's

"qualities." I'm not even going to worry about the faint possibility of him running for President, or for VP with Hillary, who is a convenient demon for some. That bridge can be crossed when reached.

All I am saying is this: Obama is NOT going to be the decider on the TORTURE question. So why is there this "grassroots" effort to lean on him? Whassup with that? Why are you cheerleading this effort, when Obama is not going to be the DECIDER? Is it because he won't snark at religious folk? Is it because he isn't sufficiently "left" for a black man? What????

Why is everyone suddenly worried about Obama's integrity, and most aren't even his constituents? Hell, where's the calls to get ole "Joementum" in 'correct' mode? Surely Obama isn't the ONLY Senator with a problem, here, and SURELY his vote isn't going to make all the difference!! Why are so many acting like it is??

All I am saying is that if Karl Rove didn't light this shit off, he should have. More Democratic cannibalism, and for what? A shitload of spinning, twisting, spitting and high dudgeon, over a junior, brand new, brown skinned Senator. Can't let him get too uppity?? What??? This makes NO sense at all. It only benefits the GOP. Heckuva fucking job.

I have to say, that shitty cheap shot, tossing that bomb of a thread on the so-called "values voters" was well beneath you. That thread deals quite specifically with GOP whackjob conservatives, not the independent voters and Democrats who also identify themselves as "values voters," but who wouldn't be caught dead at a gathering of hate like that.

Not ALL of the so-called "values voters" are "fag haters." Your citing of that thread suggests that they are. I thought Democrats didn't DO that "lumping" shit. Some break with the party on the abortion issue, others feel that those who are religious are ridiculed. There are plenty of people who are a bit to the right of center, but who still hold dear many Democratic principles, and there's no need to ignore them or be rude to them. They vote, too, and are more reliable getting to the polls than many of the dramatic "take my ball and go home" spouters who insist on a lockstep, way left attitude--or ELSE.

The moderate, slighty righty, and Democratic "values voters" also are, I suspect, underrepresented here, because people tend to be rude to them, I've noticed. They get chased off. So much for our big tent. I try to be respectful, even though I don't agree with them all the time, because if you give them a decent reason to vote (D), like our record for caring for the weak, the sick, the elderly, and children, they'll do it.

[Warren DeMontague]

64. You got me figured out, yessirree.

I'm totally a Karl Rove plant. :eyes:

Now, the thread I linked dealt specifically with self-identified "values voters". It was a "values voter summit". That's the name THEY give themselves. I'm certainly not "lumping" anyone in with anyone else, but I do find it interesting that EVERY time we're hectored to "court" anyone going by the label "values voter", it invariably seems to involve us watering down our committments to gay rights, reproductive rights, and the separation of church and state.

Hmmmm.

Now, I'm all for talking "values". Seems to me, 45 million Americans with no health insurance is a MORAL issue. What I'm NOT in favor of is telling the gays, the atheists, and the pro-choicers to "fuck off" because it makes a small segment of the electorate happy. I also don't think Obama needed to "snark" at religious voters. What I *do* think he -or someone- needs to tell a certain segment of religious voters is this: You know what? If you don't like abortion, if you don't like the birth control pill, if you want your kids to pray every day to Jesus-- WONDERFUL! I'm so happy for you. What you CANNOT do is legislate those beliefs onto EVERY FUCKING BODY ELSE. That's it. That's all us "secular whackjobs" are asking for. And standing up for that core idea is not "ridiculing" or "bashing" religious voters. I don't know what kind of weird mental wiring defect causes some people to think that not being allowed to impose their religion on everyone else amounts to discrimination.

As for voters. I've said it before, I'll say it again- the few so-called "values voters" who are in play are DWARFED by the number of SOCIALLY LIBERTARIAN VOTERS that we are doing a piss-poor job of appealing to. People who either go to the polls or would if they actually felt at home in either party. People who think it's ridiculous that we spend $40 Billion a year to lock up pot smoking cancer grannies. People who are FINE with religion- as long as it keeps it's long, intrusive, controlling boot out of their bedrooms, their entertainment choices, and their kids' public school science classes.

Frankly, I think the folks doing Karl Rove's bidding, intentionally or not, are the nabobs who say that the only things wrong with the Democratic Party are that it's too pro-choice, too pro gay rights, and its pols make too few references to Jesus in political speeches.

Lastly: as far as Obama. I've said elsewhere, the reason I hold him to the standard I do is because I *do* think he has incredible leadership potential. But I think Hillary's recent behavior -and the "conventional wisdom" she's following (as to where the so-called "moderate" votes are and everything else) is the wrong model for him to follow. I will hold all Senators equally accountable for this vote, don't worry.

[MADem]

67. Now that's blatantly unfair. If you bothered to read what I wrote, I took

PAINS to iterate that I didn't think anyone here was a GOP tool. Please go back and reread post 56, where I specifically said I'm not accusing ANYONE here, it's just a bit of nudging and whispering going on all over these internets, and well-meaning people can get conned.

So, nosiree, I don't have you figured out. I don't especially want to 'figure you out.' I just find this Obama bashing unrelated, in the big picture, to the all-important torture vote, because he isn't the deciding voter and he will vote the way Reid tells him to if there's a shot at getting the thing to fall the (D) way.

And while people are busy calling Obama and whining about something he hasn't even done, they aren't calling GOP Senators who are standing for reelection and could actually be MOTIVATED by a lot of phone calls this year. It's a great way to pointlessly vent a bit of outrage, misdirecting fire at someone who isn't going to decide how he will vote on this issue, who will defer to Dem leadership, no matter how much give-and-take is going on between his office and his constituency, and letting the GOP guys not hear the telephones of outrage ring in their offices.

The value voter thread you linked to discussed a GOP sponsored event, chock full of Snowjob, Hannity, Coulter, George Allen and the like as invited guests. The GOP, though they like to claim it, does not OWN values. And I doubt that any of the people at that summit were registered Democrats, so my point that it was a cheap shot on your part stands. Those Democrats who consider values like religion important would be appalled at that sort of thing. But, whatever.

I don't think we should tell any segment in our big tent to fuck off either, FWIW. And like it or not, that INCLUDES the ones that stand to the right of me, yet still vote for the Dem.

You can disagree without being disagreeable, and disagreement doesn't have to result in a 'take my ball and go home' moment.

Obama seems pretty savvy to me, and I get the sense he'll walk the tightrope between his personal values and political pragmatism to keep his seat or move onward and upward. Ya can't always get what you want, as a Senator or as a constituent--sometimes you have to bend. Compromise is part and parcel of politics, and that's just the way it is.

All I'm saying is the time spent griping at/about him would be better spent griping at the party in power, and specifically, the GOP Senators who have to vote on this issue who are on the ballots this Nov.

[never cry wolf]

78. Maybe he has said that sentence, how would you know?

The MSM sure hasn't said boo one way or the other about Obama's stance, nor would I expect them to cover a freshman senator's personal statement on a particular issue... Hell, we're lucky if a ranking member of any committee is quoted...

This is all BS!!!

What is Jimmy Carter's stance on torture? Why hasn't his office issued a statement?

Substitute anyone's name...

[MADem]

81. Well said. Excellent point. NT

[TahitiNut]

15. These people would be arrested if they treated their animals that way.

:grr:

[BuyingThyme]

18. Obama is a dim bulb. Take his word for it.

Figure it out now before you put this guy up for president or something.

[flyarm]

21. i just called his office!..i said

this torture bill is immoral

that it goes against the very fabric of what this nation was founded on

that anyone who signs onto this is historically stamping their name in our history books as UN-AMERICAN and is betraying our American values of rule of law,and putting our entire military in jeopardy of likewise treatment, and putting a bullseye on the backs of every one of our soldiers!
I said i believe any congressperson or senator that signs this in the affirmative should be held in our courts and international courts for war crimes!


oh i also said that if Obama signed this he would be giving away "my" and MY childrens rights to habeas corpus..and that i would make his life a living hell if he did so!
fly

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Why do I get the feeling he's trying to convince Hillary to stick him on

the '08 ticket?

[carpe diem]

27. i have been reluctant to criticze Obama...

but taking a poll to find out it it's o.k. to show LEADERSHIP ?!?! ...this just @#$%^& breaks my heart...damn!

[DTinAZ]

33. "black or white" thinking

(soapbox mode on)
He's either "for it" or "against it" -- no, sorry, life isn't that simple. Not that there's "good" vs. "bad" torture, but really, there are a lot of posts here that demonstrate the false premise that things are either "black or white," which is rarely the case.
(soapbox mode off)

DT

[BuyingThyme]

34. Yes, it is that simple. It's called voting.

It's the basis for our form of government.

[DTinAZ]

36. Flipping a coin is, but not voting.

The decision-making process that *should* precede a voting decision is not "black or white," nor are the details of the matters being voted on, in most cases. You've just proved my point about posts here.

DT

[Exiled in America]

37. Sometimes it is the case.

There ARE actually times where it IS a matter of black and white. A bill that includes the saction of torture demands a no vote. It's that simple. Period.

[Caro]

51. There's no excuse ...

... for voting for this bill. It gives Bush a license to torture.

That's immoral. Pure and simple.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Imagevision]

39. All these opinions when Obama hasn't spoke a word about the question

No wonder dems have such serious problems getting their sh*t together, hey, ya'll have Kerry?
try that one on again...

[Generator]

40. I don't want to post too much on this

as it is a waste of my time. The Dems have capitulated to evil. I'm not angry anymore. I need to live my life and do the best I can. And SO MANY people on DU are such good people that fight so hard that I admire and I would never want to trash them and what they believe.
But when I heard Amy Goodman on Democracy now say that the Dems weren't going to fight this, that's it for me. I don't think I want to call myself a Democrat anymore. It's meaningless. This is how dictatorships happen. With a whimper.

[BL611]

41. So let me get this straight

You guys are angry at Obama over a bill that he has not voted on nor made public statement on, and now you're even more angry because some intern made a supposed comment about tallying the calls he gets (guess what every time you call a candidate whether its Barbara Boxer or Bill Frist they tally the calls)? Alright, take a deep breath, now think about what you're saying....

[A-Schwarzenegger]

44. Is this one of those "concerned threads"? Or just a circle jerk?

How about "OBAMA TORTURES DU!"

[Caro]

52. It's an action thread.

I asked people to call Obama and their senators and put a stop to this.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[MADem]

54. Like that's gonna help. Tell them to call the GOP instead. NT

[A-Schwarzenegger]

55. Is this what you were told on the phone?

"THEY'RE TALLYING VOTES ON WHETHER SENATOR OBAMA SHOULD STAND UP AGAINST TORTURE!"

[MADem]

57. It sure sounds a bit "horseshitty" to me!!!! NT

[A-Schwarzenegger]

86. Yep, she made up some horseshit & then pointed at it as proof

that she made it up! :hi:

[MADem]

88. All that angst, and it was all DEAD wrong. Is his name on this list?

WHY NO, I don't see his name on this list, do you?

But, hey, way to get a bunch of knickers in a twist. Way to keep people busy calling the WRONG GUYS, way to make the WRONG people accountable...sheesh, sometimes we are our own worst enemies. All those calls to Barack might have been better directed to these shitheels on both sides of the aisle:

YEAs ---65

Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Carper (D-DE)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...

Gee, no OBAMA in that list. Perhaps the OP confused the man with the delightfully tanned Representative Harold Ford, who had no problem championing the measure in the House, as he's fighting for a Senate seat amongst a significantly (though not entirely) unenlightened electorate...I thought only the GOP had problems distinguishing minority and female legislators, though, so maybe that wasn't the problem at all. Maybe it was some other reason, but what it was, I've no clue. All I know is that this drama was a massive waste of time, and in the end, it wasn't even TRUE. If not a shameful exercise, a stupid one. One of those idiotic "get excited" drills that grind down the activist tendencies in the average voter....



Rep. Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., who is in a close Senate race in Tennessee, has praised the Senate detainee bill negotiated Rep. Harold Ford Jr., D-Tenn., who is in a close Senate race in Tennessee, has praised the Senate detainee bill negotiated by Sen. John McCain, R- Ariz., and the Bush administration.

[Caro]

85. See this response

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2233930#2234429

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[leesa]

73. This surprises you? He's about as spineless as they come.

He's always got his finger to the wind to see what he should do or say. Can't stand the man.

[never cry wolf]

79. Can you provide even one example?

I find him quite independent and non-beholding to anyone.

[Caro]

89. The only example I can think of ...

... offhand is that he had to be pushed into supporting a filibuster against Alito.

Most often, he votes the way we want him to, but he has to be forced into it.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com