Weird Scenes Inside The Gold Mind

AFAIK, the vote was 84-15-1 -- and I think it was only to stop the debate (filibuster). The complete list of nay votes:

Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Murray (D-WA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Wyden (D-OR)

But note that all the most prominent Dems voted yea, including Kerry and Clinton. Also note that Obama, whom I previously criticized for his weeney stance on Alito, voted yea. So next time around, Durbin may be getting my vote, but Obama is looking exceedingly doubtful. Time to start donating to the Green party.

I feel very let down by Obama and by our congressmen and women in general. Sen. Paul Simon, who mentored Obama, is spinning the fastest.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record and/or beating a dead horse, here's how it works:

The Republicans tell the Democrats that they'll look weak if they don't support the Republican anti-terror agenda, and they'll never get re-elected if they vote no and some kind of terrorist act occurs prior to the next election. Then when election time rolls around, if the Dems criticize the Republicans, the Republicans just smile smugly and say, "Hey, you voted with us. Who are you to criticize us? You're just a flip-flopper."

Game, set, match.

I don't know if I think that's how it went down, though I admit it's plausible. Obama seems to have something against filibusters. Actually, so do I. If that's the only way a minority voice in Congress can affect legislation, then the government is seriously broken, which we all know that it is. Carrying on a filibuster is tiring and demoralizing, and there has to be a better way. I think the Democrats don't want to look obstructive, but also I think that they are groping for something else. I hope they are trying to reach out to moderate Republicans and that they will exploit the corruption of that party's leaders in future campaigns. But I have every confidence that they will blow this opportunity as well. Maybe they really don't stand for the things I think Democrats should stand for anymore.

Without the filibuster, the Democratic senators might as well stay home and play golf. They're not going to sway any "moderate" Republicans, because in the Rove/Cheney oliagarchy there is no such thing. You're either with them 100% of the time or you're an apostate, a traitor, lower than pond scum. They turned John McCain into a whimpering lap dog. Sit boy! Sit! Roll over and play dead!

Then maybe they should stay home. Refusing to take part is one way to send a message. Is there something about a quorum or something?

Some choice words from Russ Feingold:

"If Democrats can't stand up on something like this when the president's poll numbers are 34 percent, I just wonder how much right we have to govern this country," Feingold said in an interview Tuesday. "You've got to show people you believe in something, not just that you're gaming the issues."

Final Senate vote for renewal of the Patriot Act: 89-10-1. Both Durbin and Obama voted yea. I'm moving up my timetable for moving to Wisconsin. I want Russ Feingold to be my senator.

As I said in an earlier thread. The Democratic party is dead. They're all cowards and whores. They don't deserve to run the country, and won't be doing so anytime in the near future.

I sent an angry letter to Obama right after the vote and just got back his reply, which proclaims that he's quite proud of his vote on the Patriot Act and his role in getting various compromises in the act. I guess our fundamental disagreement is over why this bill, in ANY form, is a good idea.

Mike,

I call it treason.

As defined by Webster's II New Riverside Desk Dictionary:
1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, esp. the betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by conciously and purposely acting to aid it's enemies.
2. A betrayal of trust or confidence.

Certainly most politicians and even most American corporations can be described by the above definition since they both willingly act against the interests of the American people. Hell, they even get together at times and do so with co-ordinated efforts.

It would be interesting to see a modern Senator McCarthy start some hearings on this matter.

Ok, Most of what Senator McCarthy did was just plain wrong and as unamerican as the Patriot Act. I would just like to see that level of passion thrown at these bloodless (insert favorite expletive here).

And, yes. Patriot is a dirty word. Always has been if you ask me. Most "patriots" I encounter are just knee-jerks with a twisted agenda. In my experience it describes someone who is loyal to a governing body or theological ideology instead of someone who loves and defends their contry.

Damn, I'm a bitter man.

You may be bitter, but that was a sweet post.

Just to correct Mr. Gold: Our senators are traitors to the Constitution, to the spirit of the American Revolution, and to the very concept of democracy. If your senator is named Russell D. Feingold (of Wisconsin), Robert C. Byrd (of West Virginia), Tom Harkin (of Iowa), or James Jeffords (of Vermont), or possibly Daniel K. Inouye (of Hawaii), then you are fortunate enough to only have one senator who is a traitor.

In retrospect, it would appear that Sen. Inouye was absent from the Capitol because he was at home attending to his long-ill wife on her deathbed. She passed away last week. I do not know how he may have intended to vote, but either way he has my condolences.

Proudly stands behind her vote for Feingold in the last election. Yes, I'm from Wisconsin. Feel free to come visit.

How does one defend a democracy against the forces of militant totalitarianism? Anyone who believes that a "friend" like Saudi Arabia is not a threat to human liberty is a fool. I say this as someone who can't stand the Democratic Party's "fast and loose" vision for the future of the country, and finds such things as "pro-choice" to be the equivalent of demanding the right to deal with undesirables. But think this out: what would you do? Would you back down to the threat of Islam? And by Islam, I mean what it says in the al-Qur'an, and the Hadijj of Tabhari, Bukhari, and Ishaq? It states that if infidels do not submit, to exterminate them. All of them. I am not here to pound a pulpit or waste your time in that way at all...I am saying that the threat IS real, when you openly investigate it (human rights standards in Islamic nations are among the lowest in the world, yet SUDAN is on the Human Rights Council), and that these opponents will never stop coming. As much as the Republicans are now seeking to establish a damned dictatorship over this country (or a junta, or whatever), would the alternative truly protect us? I have little doubt that a nuclear attack on a major city in this country WILL happen soon, because these enemies simply will NOT stop coming. The Nation of India, specifically its Hindus, seem to realize it, and so does, for all intents, a government as horrifying as China's. How does a republic (not a democracy) defend itself against a force (or civilization?) of fanatics that believes it God's will to blow themselves up?

Which in turn raises one of the "ultimate" questions: which is worth more...safety, or liberty? 1930s Germany was among the safest nations against incursion, whether foreign or domestic, in history.

Robert Byrd the Kleagle, the Exalted Cyclops? The entitler of "white niggers"? I'd rather he not stand as my role model.

If Robert Byrd be the captain, I be jumping ship.