Kyl/Lieberman votes--let's make it simple. No candidate bashing, if possible.

[blondeatlast]

It's a major issue in reference to the Dem prez candidates, but let's try to blind ourselves regarding GE 2008 if possible.

I know it's non-binding. I know it's not directly a call to attack Iran. I know some (but to me, not nearly enough) of the offensive language was struck out of it. Yet some of our major Democratic players in the senate DIDN'T vote for it, for which I personally applaud them. Even two prominent Republicans didn't vote for it.

I'd even give a pass to the "ayes" IF:

A)We DIDN'T have a megalomaniac chickenhawk in the WH, not to mention hordes of his enablers and billions of tax-exempt think tank money pulling his strings;

and

B)We didn't have the history of the IWR, which, at the time, also seemed rather benign for the most part, but--see point A.

Reference: Nay votes
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dodd (D-CT)
Feingold (D-WI)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Leahy (D-VT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Sanders (I-VT)
Tester (D-MT)
Webb (D-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

I promise that I will, however I MAY (not will, I'm a proud yella-dawg) have to hold my nose, vote for the Dem in 11/08. The alternative is unthinkable to me (my state is becoming an ever-more swining one).

But how could the majority of Democrats roll over on this one? Maybe I don't understand something, but I'm trying. Please help, if you would.

[WilliamPitt]

1. Theory

Once the crazy language was taken out, it became an empty bill and a symbolic vote.

So.

Dem Senators who need to come off as tough-on-terra in order to satisfy their home constituency were able to vote "Yes" without consequences and as a symbolic act.

Dem Senators who need the support of the activist base were able to vote "No" without consequences and as a symbolic act.

In essence, it turned into political theater and a free shot at whatever each Senator may have needed in order to gather constituent support.

Craven? Hi, have we met, this is politics... :)

From this perspective, Lieberman and Kyl wound up doing the Dems a favor; they gave the Dems a chance to vote symbolically to buttress their standing with the home voters....who will decide whether they come back next November.

Just a theory.

[Emit]

3. A "yes" vote still runs the risk of being spun in the future, IMHO.

As does the "no" vote, depending on who's doing the spinning, I suppose.

[BootinUp]

2. Comparisons between

that resolution and the IWR are stretching the imagination to say the least. One authorized an invasion based on conditions. The other was a compromise dependent on no inclusion of military force and was non-binding to boot. And those that do not see the difference between economic sanctions and penalties for aiding terrorists are missing the key reason it was in there.