I refuse to condemn those Democrats who voted for Cornyn's resolution

[brentspeak]

Voting for Cornyn's dog-and-pony show resolution is just one of those stupid "message" resolutions that Senators have felt that have to do on behalf of/for fear of their local constituencies. It does nothing concrete, even if the resolution is stupid. It's a game that's been played in the Senate for over 200 years.

However, some people have brought up a very good point: Why did Harry Reid, as Majority Leader, allow Cornyn to even bring his resolution to a vote? Unless I'm wrong, and there's something I overlooked, didn't Reid have the ability to stop Cornyn in his tracks?

Harry Reid has to step aside as Majority Leader. Period. He is not the guy to deal with the Republicans' many tricks and dirty tricks. Cornyn's resolution should never have come up for a vote.

However, it's extremely embarrassing for any party to have its Majority Leader step aside. But not so much at the beginning of a new session of Congress. IF the Democrats can hold onto the majority with the upcoming elections, Reid should relinquish his role to someone else when the new session starts.

[madfloridian]

1. You are dead wrong. They do NOT have to vote on those things.

The GOP never did when they were in control.

Reid needs to go, but they all need to stop being scared.

[derby378]

2. Our Senators could learn a good lesson from Samuel Adams

If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our country men.

[LSparkle]

3. I'm with you -- we need someone who can act as a MAJORITY leader

Harry Reid is not that guy (IMHO). He was fine when we had to be conciliatory (while in the minority) but we need someone who can be effectively confrontational when necessary now that we're in the majority.

[cali]

4. I don't understand why he

allowed a vote either. I suppose it's possible that he was trying to fry the issue as a campaign year weapon, and stop them from being able to use it as a talking point, but they'll find something else anyway. Maybe it's because Reid is from a reddish state, but he's not up for re-election this year.

[L. Coyote]

5. Ahaa! You found trap number 2. If Reid does not allow R amendments

then there is another issue to club Dems with....

Politics is not a game for honest men or women :rofl:

[mitchtv]

6. they had to vote for the war too

remember. I am on the verge of leaving the party

[hisownpetard]

10. The time for a solid and viable third party to come into existence is here. Too late

for the upcoming election, but maybe the next one.

[Tempest]

7. What does Feinstein have to fear from her constituents?

She now has more to fear from them because of her vote.

Your statement is bullshit.

[brentspeak]

11. I don't know what goes through Feinstein's head

I can't say I'm her greatest fan to begin with. Better her in the Senate than, say, Darryl Issa, is how I can put it.

Other senators, though, have to contend with large portions of their constituencies who traditionally have been all-too-receptive audiences for Cornyn's type of red-meat statements. Every state has them, including mine (NJ).

[Eric J in MN]

8. Republicans bar amendments from the minority.

Democrats allow them. It's a way that Democrats are more democratic.

[Inkyfuzzbottom]

9. Well, I felt compelled to email McCaskill

She once again voted with the Republicans. I once again felt compelled to email my disdain at her decision. I just finally received a response from her regarding the email I sent to her last month expressing my dismay when she voted with the Republicans on the Protect America Act of 2007 (S. 1927)or Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. For any who might be interested, here is her response:

Dear XXX:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Protect America Act of 2007 (S. 1927). I appreciate hearing from you, and I welcome the chance to respond.

On August 1, 2007, I was faced with a stark reality: the Director of National Intelligence sent a letter warning the Senate of the heightened threat of international terrorism, and urging us to modernize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) before the August recess “to ensure that we do not have critical gaps in our ability to provide warnings of threats to the country”. The call to quickly revise FISA in order to reflect developments in telecommunications technology was echoed by four Democratic members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. I chose to heed these urgent warnings.

I voted for two measures to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I preferred the legislation offered by Senators Rockefeller and Levin; however, it failed to gather the 60 votes needed to pass. I also voted for the Bond-McConnell version, which did receive enough votes to pass. Corresponding legislation was later approved by the House of Representatives, and the President quickly signed the bill into law.

It is important to recognize that this legislation is a temporary fix to provide our intelligence community with the most immediate tools needed to protect our country – it will be in place for only six months, and it cannot be renewed before it is thoroughly reviewed and authorized by Congress. This gives us six months to create a more acceptable permanent intelligence collection process that that allows us to effectively monitor terrorist communications overseas while also protecting the privacy of law-abiding American citizens. I can assure you I will be one of the Senators working hard to re-establish the constitutional protections that have been eroded by this President and this temporary FISA legislation.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

All best,
Senator Claire McCaskill

[SalviaBlue]

12. I condemn the Democrats who voted for Cornyn's resolution

Move-on serves as a voice for many Democrats.

If Democrats want to condemn someone, let them condemn FOX, or rush, or CBS, etc. etc. etc.

[endarkenment]

13. Of course you do.

Sorry to disagree once again with your position here, but a vote for this resolution was a party line vote for the Corporate Kleptocracy and War Party.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

14. Uh, Amy Klobuchar represents Minnesota

and the Twin Cities area is very anti-war.

There was NO political gain for her in voting for the resolution, and it just added to the growing list of ways in which she has annoyed the people who voted her in.

[brentspeak]

15. self-kick, with clarification

Reid should relinquish his role the next time Congress reconvenes from a recess.

[jpgray]

16. Why condemn when you can criticize? Recognizing the bad -and- the good is healthy

Recognizing just one or the other isn't.