A small political statement

Here in Ohio- I am FURIOUS at Senate candidate Sherrod Brown for his vote in the House in favor of the Boy Emperor Torture Legalization Act. I'm seriously considering not casting a Senate vote, though in the end I suppose I'll have to hold my nose and vote for him- it's going to be a close race.

Ooh, that's scary. With a vicious backlash like that, I'm sure he'll think twice before undermining the foundation of the Republic.

But don't you think you might have gone overboard just a bit, PZ? Why not pledge your support to him, then bake him some cookies? I'm sure that would be an effective way to enact change.

I'm in OH as well, and am also angry at Brown for that vote. The problem is, if you don't vote for Brown, you're helping guarantee another six years of DeWine. Ugh!

I was going to send him an email, but I see he doesn't want one from out-of-staters:

"Note: Due to the large volume of email my office receives, email messages are only accepted from constituents located in the 7th Congressional District of Minnesota to foster better communication between those citizens and myself."

I'll just post it here, maybe an aide will come across it:

Dear Collin Peterson,

See if I have this right:

1) Some idiot judge tries to impose his idiotic religious beliefs on the rest of us by putting up a ten commandments display in a courthouse.
2) I decide to go after him for doing this, at great expense.
3) You declare that I have to bear the financial burden if the court rules in my favor.

So, you have just voted to protect all the people who violate the Constitution and to financially punish those who seek to uphold it. What the fuck, Congressman! WTF!!!!!

Sincerely,

A seriously disappointed Democrat

Hmm. I've done the the things that seem sensible and legal: I've removed any political endorsement of the guy, I've written him a letter declaring my disaffection, my vote is now in doubt, and I've publicized my disagreement. I'm considering writing a letter to my local newspaper, too.

What am I supposed to do? Hire a squad of ninja assassins to silence him? This is a political disagreement, and I think the only reasonable thing to do is follow political approaches to resolve it.

"What am I supposed to do? Hire a squad of ninja assassins to silence him?"

There is a reason that ninjas are known as the "fifth branch" of our government. You know the old refrain: "You ain't seen checks and balances 'til you seen ninjas!."

Better to have Peterson as part of a conservative minority of a Democratic majority than whichever low life is running against him as part of a Republican majority.

Then run against him (or support someone who does) in the primary in 2008.

Ceasing to support the man is one thing. But you haven't even said you'll vote against him, much less actively oppose him.

The removal of a sign simply isn't very noticable - passersby aren't going to know that you formerly supported him, nor will they know why. And guess what? I don't have a Peterson sign on my lawn - and I'll bet most of your neighbors don't, either. Silence doesn't indicate you oppose the decision or the candidate, because silence is the default state.

Would putting up a sign stating that you oppose Peterson's candidacy because he voted to give special legal privileges to religious groups be too much to ask?

Bleagh. I really don't know why you're bothering. I am through with the "moderate" wing of the Republi-nazi party that goes under the banner of "democrats". I recall a famous DEM from my state, Zell Miller, who gave the Key-note address for Shrub at the RNC in 2004
Hopefully, the DEMs in Minnesota are more democratic than they are in my adopted state of Georgia... Because, frankly, the Difference here is either molecular in size, or non-existent.
[Anthony Soprano] Megh, This Country is dead to me, ya hear? Dead to me!!! [/Anthony Soprano]

This election is about one thing and one thing only, at least for the Senate and House races.

It's about Bush. If you like what he has done to this country and the world and you approve of Congress giving him practically unchecked power then you vote Republican. If you don't approve, then you vote Democratic.

It doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is, and it very nearly doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate is. In the real world, in the political system that actually exists, a Republican majority means a virtually unchecked Bush, while a Democratic majority in at least one house of Congress means at least the beginnings of checks and balances.

If someone else was President, someone not so incompetent (at everything except politics) and repugnant, or if the Congressional Republicans had shown any inclination to be something other than cogs in a political machine, then I'd probably think differently. But right now, voting for any Republican for any House or Senate seat is basically a vote for Bush. And failing to vote for any Democrat (for anyone who disapproves of Bush) is basically half a vote for Bush.

(The above also tends to hold, but not as strongly, for state races, since the state legislatures and governors are responsible for drawing districts and setting election rules.)

"It doesn't matter who the Republican candidate is, and it very nearly doesn't matter who the Democratic candidate is. In the real world, in the political system that actually exists, a Republican majority means a virtually unchecked Bush, while a Democratic majority in at least one house of Congress means at least the beginnings of checks and balances."
This seems correct. The time to get rid of Bush light dems is int the primaries. Failing hat hold your nose and vote, and don't waste it on the green party.

The only thing that matters about this election is whether we approve of Bush?

So if some Democrats who were as bad as Bush, or even worse, ran for public office, you'd vote for them to express your displeasure about the previous President?

I think something is very, very wrong here.

I don't know what things are like in Morris, but in my town, it's illegal to put campaign signs in the parkway (the grassy strip between the sidewalk and the street). They say it's technically public property, although I have to mow it. I don't want PZ to run afoul of election regulations...

There is a saying "the ideal is the enemy of the good". Petty vengance against people for not agreeing with yourself on every issue is an excellent way for people you like even less to gain power. For example, I fully agreed that Al Gore was a pathetic milquetoast in 2000, but it was obvious that supporting Nader would serve no purpose other than helping Bush (and even Nader was not without flaws himself). Unless there is someone else running for Peterson's position that 1) agrees with more of your views and 2) has a reasonable chance of winning, why withdraw your support?

Oh, give me a break. First, Bush is NOT the "previous president" in this election, he's the CURRENT one, and voting for a republican is voting for Bush's policies.

In the second place, while Democrats who agree with Bush are (nearly) as bad as he is, voting for them will, we hope, give us at least one house in congress that won't rubber stamp his decisions simply by ending the Republican control of both houses. And Bush has two more years to get his legislation passed.

So, yes: I don't give a damn how nice a man a Republican is or how much a dog the Democrat is. We can't get rid of Bush now, but we can get back the congress.

So if some Democrats who were as bad as Bush, or even worse, ran for public office, you'd vote for them

Most likely. Because ANY Democrat will get the most important vote correct and ANY Republican will get the most important vote wrong.

Which party has a majority in a house of Congress determines the entire agenda of that house. Determines (within very broad limits) which bills get heard and when they get heard, which bills get voted on and when and under what rules they get voted on, what gets investigated, when it gets investigated, and how it gets investigated.

In short, which party has a majority in the House and Senate is overwhelmingly more important than any individual senator or representative. It is, in fact, the single most important factor in determining what will happen in Congress in the next two years. At least the most important factor that we can affect in the 2006 elections. You may not think that is the way it should work, but that IS the way it DOES work.

In the second place, while Democrats who agree with Bush are (nearly) as bad as he is, voting for them will, we hope, give us at least one house in congress that won't rubber stamp his decisions simply by ending the Republican control of both houses.

If enough of such Democrats are elected, people bearing the label 'Democrat' will indeed have control of Congress, but they'll rubberstamp the decisions anyway. So what would be achieved in that scenario? You'd have changed a name, nothing more.

And how, exactly, are people who agree with everything Bush has done "nearly" as bad as he is? What virtue resides in the mere name?

What virtue resides in the mere name?

We're talking about the real world here. In the real world, in the world as it actually exists, switching a house of Congress to a Democratic majority makes that house MUCH less likely to rubber stamp Bush decisions. Switching both houses to Democratic majorities strongly reinforces that effect. And this is true under any remotely possible configuration of any such majority.

Yes, indeed, having the President be of one party and the Congress of another does indeed impede both branches of government from actually doing anything. But how does that make things *better*?

Is all we can hope for political gridlock, interspersed with brief periods of rapid decline? Quite frankly, I don't see what makes that any better.

Our government must be staffed by genuinely sane and rational people, or at least must possess a certain minimum number of such people to eke out the minimum quality governance our society needs to survive. I don't see how your strategy results in that, either.

Uh, Cal?

"Our government must be staffed by genuinely sane and rational people..."

I concur. And let's keep the emotionally damaged out of the performing arts.

And no more fat bowlers.

Just hold your nose and do as Michael says. For the first time in my life I've heard reasonable people say me may be heading for the second American civil war. I'd be willing to do a lot of nose holding to avoid that!

Most likely. Because ANY Democrat will get the most important vote correct and ANY Republican will get the most important vote wrong.

You mean like the Alito vote and the torture vote?

Or the habeas corpus for 4.6% of the world's population amendment?

In the real world, in the world as it actually exists, switching a house of Congress to a Democratic majority makes that house MUCH less likely to rubber stamp Bush decisions.

In the real world, a Democratic Senate voted overwhelmingly to approve the Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Bill, and the Iraq War.

In the real world, the politician has the courage of his constituents' convictions. If the politician won by 51-49, he or she is a weathercock, moving with the wind. If the politician won by 65-35, then he or she is likely to stand firm on issues.

A Democratic Senate did *not* "overwhelmingly approve" the Iraq war.

In fact, the war was never voted on at all. Maybe you should read the joint resolution. It's here.

Basicly, the Senate was mislead into authorizing the use of force *as a last resort*, based on the Bush admin's lies about Saddam, terrorism, 9-11, WMDs and nukes.

****Warning, there's alot of verbiage about "international law", the UN, and peace and security. The hypocrisy of those statements will probably result in the death of some brain cells.******

I am only too happy that I no longer live in the 7th and won't have to hold my nose while I vote for him. The Democrats need him for numbers on key issues such as committee allocation. If not for that, I would seriously take a look at the Independent Party Candidate in that district.

He's no Arlen Stangeland, anyway, despite getting a zero ranking on church-state separation issues. So, you don't have to give him money or even support him publicly, but it may be best in the long run to mark the ballot next to his name.

A Democratic Senate did *not* "overwhelmingly approve" the Iraq war.

In fact, the war was never voted on at all. Maybe you should read the joint resolution. It's here.

Basicly, the Senate was mislead into authorizing the use of force *as a last resort*, based on the Bush admin's lies about Saddam, terrorism, 9-11, WMDs and nukes.

How dumb must a Senator have been to think Bush wouldn't use the resolution as a pretext to attack Iraq? He said so himself: he said he wanted to disarm Iraq by force and made noises about the inspectors' not being enough. It was obvious even then that it would empower Bush to attack Iraq.

And besides, the people who voted for it made pro-war statements at the time, most infamously Tom Daschle's "one voice" proclamation.

Make sure that Collin Peterson faces a serious primary challenge -- from the LEFT -- in 2008. That'll bring him around.

Right now he's more frightened of the mega-churchers who are going around telling your neighbors that he's a potsmoking Commie pederast, PZ.

the people who voted for it made pro-war statements at the time,

..based on Bush's lies about terror, WMDs, etc. Not to mention the hysteria of 9-11.

Yet 21 Democrats still did not vote for it. How many Republicans?

"Just hold your nose and do as Michael says. For the first time in my life I've heard reasonable people say me may be heading for the second American civil war. I'd be willing to do a lot of nose holding to avoid that!"

If you think voting ever stopped a civil war then you've got another thing comin'.

..based on Bush's lies about terror, WMDs, etc. Not to mention the hysteria of 9-11.

"Vote for us: because when the entire country is flooded with hysteria, we go with the flow instead of telling the truth."

Yet 21 Democrats still did not vote for it. How many Republicans?

It doesn't exonerate the 30 Democrats who voted yes.

The most important votes in any session of Congress are the votes that organizes each house of Congress. The party with a majority in a house controls (within very broad limits) of the agenda of that house.

A determined president can work around a majority from the opposition party, but it's HARDER, especially for an unpopular president (which Bush is NOW and wasn't back in 2002). And under most circumstances it takes more time.

A Republican-controlled congress WILL be a rubber stamp for Bush. A Democratic-controlled congress won't be. Bush may still get his way sometimes (or even often) even with a Democratic majority but he'll have to work a lot harder, and a lot longer, and make real compromises a lot more often. A Democratic-controlled Congress won't be perfect, but it'll be a LOT better than what we have now.

My heart is with Alon but my head says I have to hold my nose and go with Michael.

Yeah, but real compromises with what? If the Democrats don't have actual positions (which by and large they do not) it will only be a compromise between what the President demands and nothing - and even Bush can figure out that all he needs to do is demand twice as much as he wants. His handlers probably reckoned on that since the beginning.

Michael I has it exactly right. THE important vote is for the organization of the Houses of Congress, and whatever their weaknesses, the Democrats will be able to attack Bush and keep idiotic legislation from being rammed through. (And in some cases, some very GOOD Democrats will be committee chairmen.)

But there is another reason for voting Democratic. The 'Republican coalition' is, like all coalitions, a very fragile one, with different groups pulling in different directions -- the Religious Right, the small government types, the neo-Cons, the libertarians, and the 'establishment' each have agendas that the others don't share. Already there are CONSERVATIVE voices damning Bush and the Republicans for not being Conservative -- by their definition -- ENOUGH. (See Joe Scarborough and James Dobson for examples.)
If the Republicans lose one or, ideally, both Houses, there will be an orgy of finger-pointing and blame -- they can't throw everything onto Mark Foley's shoulders, though Hastert will be toast whatever happens.
There is NO obvious candidate for 2008, and each group will be fighting to get 'one of their own' nominated -- to the point where, for the first time since 1952, it may be the convention that actually picks the candidate.
But NONE of the wings represent a majority opinion, and the others will not be eager to support a Candidate who has fought them, even against most Democrats. A lot of votes and money will 'stay home.' Can you say '1964 -- Goldwater Debacle" boys and girls?

(The exception is if Hilary runs. She is the only person who could unite the Republicans -- aginst herself. I think she might make a good President, but she'd be a LOUSY candidate, which is why, as a New Yorkers I'll be voting for a minor party candidate against her. She'll win, the NY Republicans are a MESS, but the smaller her vote totals are the better it is. Actually, my ideal candidate would be our next Governor, Elliott Spitzer, but I doubt if he'll have time enough to build up a record, and he will have to defer to Hilary if she is, in fact running. But he'd be a GREAT President.)

First and most importantly, we need a Democratic majority with subpoena authority. Try not to get sidetracked, please, with other concerns.

That's not to say they are unimportant, just that accomplishing the objective above is a necessary first step. And focusing on anything else first jeopardizes any progress at all.

If you were a republican you could punch him in the face and then blame it on liberal thugs.

http://www.mlive.com/news/aanews/index.ssf?/base/news-19/11595986021566…

http://www.wonkette.com/politics/crime/gop-college-nerd-beaten-by-own-f…

I hear what you're saying about the importance of recapturing control of Congress, etc. And I recognize that the Dems who voted for the Military Commissions Act (including one of my state Senators, Debbie Stabenow) are under pressure to *not* provide any further ammunition for the Republicans to paint them as "soft on terror." But dammit, there are some issues that are beyond compromise, and as far as I'm concerned, rolling back habeas corpus rights is one of them. I'm siding with PZ on this one - I've already emailed Stabenow and told her that, while I cannot vote Republican, I will not vote for her this fall.

Exactly. I am still debating voting for the guy at the polling booth only because it helps maintain Democratic party control, but I'm not going to make life easy for him by giving him my unconditional support just because he has a (D) after his name.

We have to balance party politics with progressive principles all the time. It would be much easier if the Democratic party were actually a progressive party, rather than Republicans Lite.

while I cannot vote Republican, I will not vote for her this fall

By abstaining, you effectively ARE voting Republican.

(Or more precisely, casting half a vote for the Republicans.)

And you are REWARDING Bush for pushing the rollback of habeas corpus.

Don't like what Bush did? Don't reward him for it.

Most likely. Because ANY Democrat will get the most important vote correct and ANY Republican will get the most important vote wrong.

That sounds remarkably naive. Take my Representative, Dennis Moore, for example.

His record is appalling in general (voting for corporate welfare all down the line, voting for the Iraq War and every subsequent appropriations bill for it, against gay rights every time, etc. etc.), but the cherry on top is that he voted for HR 6166, the dictatorship bill.

What could possibly be more important than that?

What could possibly be more important than that?

Oops. Bad editing. Should have used the preview button.

What could possibly be more important than that?

Umm, getting rid of the crypto-fascists that stole your country?

Look, you can get rid of the Quislings later. Just ask Joe Leiberman how that works.

What could possibly be more important than that?

The majority party in a house of Congress controls ALL of the committees. At least all of the committees that have anything to do with passing bills or oversight of the White House. Most of what happens in either house of Congress is determined by what happens in the committees.

The majority party in a house of Congress controls when bills come to the floor, in what form they come to the floor, and under what rules they come to the floor.

The majority party in a house of Congress controls (along with the majority party in the other house) the timing and the composition of conference committees (conference committees resolve differences in bills passed by the two houses). One of the recurring tactics of the GOP is to use the conference committee to rewrite bills to whatever the GOP wants. Controlling either house of Congress puts an end to that tactic.

The vote to organize their house of Congress, which ALWAYS takes place along strict party lines, is therefore the most important vote a member casts in a session. It is more important than all of the other votes a member casts put together. And any Democrat will get that vote right, and any Republican will get that vote wrong.

What could possibly be more important than that?

Undoing what has been done and preventing more of the same. As satisfying as it might be, we cannot allow punishing the enablers to become our primary objective if it handicaps us when it comes to preventing further atrocities.

Michael, you seem to be forgetting one thing: Democrats, not to mention Republicans, are not some sort of abstract collective entity. They are represented by people whom, even if I chose to vote for them, would not (in my case) change the overall ideological thrust of Congress.

What does it matter if the Democrats can control the procedural makeup when what gets through all the procedural folderol is indistinguishable from what is put forward by the Republicans? I don't want kinder, gentler fascists and imperialists, I want anti-fascists and anti-imperialists. The Democratic party is the party that started the policy of "extraordinary rendition", it was the one that started using terrorism as a political football to eliminate even the smallest threats to corporations like the so-called 'ecoterrorists', which continued to use the "War on Drugs" to subsidize the murderous right-wing South American regimes in their attempts to exterminate their native populations, and on and on and on.

I have no reason to believe, given the corporate thrust of both parties, that a single thing would change about the conduct of the War on Terror [sic] since they both have their true constituency--corporations--to protect and the power to screw the rest of the world over.

Thank you, KA. I was gonna vote against Menendez in NJ but you just pissed me off so much with that "the system hasn't earned my participation" crap that I came to my senses.

I'll vote for the war-criminal-coddling SOB with a C-clamp on my nose and then I'll volunteer for a primary challenger in '08.

And here's the thing about that: Am I doing jack shit to battle fascism? No, not really. But I'm doing more than you.

Thanks again--you saved a chunk of my soul. Now get a haircut.

By abstaining, you effectively ARE voting Republican.

(Or more precisely, casting half a vote for the Republicans.)

And you are REWARDING Bush for pushing the rollback of habeas corpus.

Don't like what Bush did? Don't reward him for it.

So your argument is that instead, I should reward a Democratic senator who voted against what I consider to be an absolutely essential principle of the Republic, only because she's not a Republican?

Bite me. As I said previously, I am in most cases willing to consider the larger picture and make some compromises when it comes to my political representation. But I consider some issues to be too important for compromise. Habeas corpus is one of them. I sent a very strongly worded (but polite) letter to both of my state Senators before the vote on the MCA, urging them to use any and all means possible to prevent passage. Carl Levin voted no; Debbie Stabenow voted yes. Apart from my vote in November, what other means do I have to show her that she's failed me?

It pains me to see innumeracy in a science blog, PZ, cal, scott M and friends. Michael I is exactly right. Do you think the anti-habeas bill would even have come up for a vote in a house of Congress the Dems controlled? No,it wouldn't have. The lamer Dems that voted for it would not have been given the opportunity to do so.

Thank you, KA. I was gonna vote against Menendez in NJ but you just pissed me off so much with that "the system hasn't earned my participation" crap that I came to my senses.

Glad I could do something.

I'll vote for the war-criminal-coddling SOB with a C-clamp on my nose and then I'll volunteer for a primary challenger in '08.

I hope so, just so you can see how difficult it is to buy into our so-called 'representative democracy'.

Oh, and mind where you put that C-clamp. Breaking your own nose out of spite might show commitment, but it certainly wouldn't be wise.

And here's the thing about that: Am I doing jack shit to battle fascism? No, not really. But I'm doing more than you.

Really? Been participating in any direct actions recently? I've done that at both the N30 and the FTAA protests in Miami, to name a few. At both times listed, we successfully halted the 'progress' (I would say regress) of growing corporatism.

Your turn of phrase, however, is interesting. If you're doing nothing to battle fascism by voting and planning to run for office, then do you like fascism? If you don't like it, as I assume you do not and many people do not, then isn't that a clear indication, out of your very own words, that the existing system does not address nor conform to the wishes of the people, no matter what their level of participation is?

Thanks again--you saved a chunk of my soul.

Brushing up on the religious rhetoric already. Now I know you're serious about running for office.

Now get a haircut.

I currently affect a hairstyle which comes very close to being a buzz cut, but it's nice to see that the old ignorant stereotypes are as healthy as ever.

Do you think the anti-habeas bill would even have come up for a vote in a house of Congress the Dems controlled?

Yes. Why wouldn't it? The Democrats, if in power, would have probably pursued a similar course to the Clinton presidency, and since the Clinton presidency was when "extreme rendition" started as policy, it then follows that they would have had to deal with the same issue of habeas as the current administration, and I have no illusions that they would have chosen to solve it any differently.