Oh, absolutely right, the party should not hesitate to back a new candidate in the primaries whenever a problematic senator is up for re-election. That’s the reason a lot of us backed Ned Lamont over Joe Lieberman last year, and right now I bet a lot of Dems in Washington are wishing they had listened to us.

But by “sanctions” you seemed to mean that the other Dems on the committee should have hauled Nelson out into the cloakroom and applied “secret interrogation” methods to force him to change his vote. And I’m saying no one should force any member of congress to change his vote, or punish him (outside of the election process) because of how he voted, no matter how heinous that vote might be. They can try to reason with him or bargain with him or even threaten to withhold support in the next election (which is not something that would be done in public, so we don’t know that didn’t happen). But they can’t force him to change his vote. If they could, that’s what we call “tyranny.”

Then you say,

Do you really think the Republicans vote in lockstep for purely philosophical reasons.

and

I think the U.S.may end up like the Philippines, which has American political structures but not a true democracy.

The Republicans’ voting in lockstep has a lot to do with why we’re already not a true democracy any more. The ultimate goal is to restore democratic government to America. Ending the war in Iraq is a sub-goal.

We cannot restore democratic government using tyrannical means. That makes as much sense as spreading peace through waging war. Like it or not, it is enormously important to apply lawful and constitutional political processes to our problem, even though those processes are slow and often frustrating, because the ultimate goal is to restore the integrity of those processes.

In the second place it is unusual to win both houses as the Democrats did. If you do not use it to advance your agenda then you are likely to lose it.

I’ve made the same point many times. They’ve got to do a better job of pushing back at Bush this year or risk losing ground back to Republicans next year. There’s no question about that.

I understand your position but I do not agree with it. In the first place this has been a very radical government which has trashed the rule of law, human rights, the role of Congress in government etc. If these are not immediately repudiated they become practise. In this you must move fast if you want to rescue what the U.S. used to stand for. If not, I think the U.S.may end up like the Philippines, which has American political structures but not a true democracy.

In the second place it is unusual to win both houses as the Democrats did. If you do not use it to advance your agenda then you are likely to lose it.

Representative democratic government is not supposed to work that way. The only people who are authorized to “sanction” Bill Nelson are his constituents.

So if its ok to be a Democrat but be for or against the war, or be for or against torture then what do they stand for?

That does seem to be up for grabs,doesn’t it? But remember,

It’s not about our supporting the Democrats; it’s about training the Democrats to support us.

If you thought one midterm election would solve the problem of Dems as Republican Lite, you were naive, and your expectations were unrealistic. One midterm election is a baby step. It’s going to take several elections before we clarify in Dems’ minds what they stand for.

Again, time does not permit me to answer this and do it justice. Or perhaps that’s just an excuse, eh? Whatever.

I’ve to got to do this fast, because I have got to go to work to pay some bills.

To make it short and sweet, I’m sure you have forgotten more about politics than I know. I’m an amateiur. So, maybe I got into it over my head by saying you don’t get it. Well, I stand corrected. I’m sure you do.

Secondly, hearkening back to the “Good ol’ days” has a nice conservative ring to it. Real good appeal to a conservative guy like me. I can certainly relate to a few things that I think that have gone badly wrong over the years. I may be an amateur, but I wasn’t born yesterday.

Nice chattng with ya. See ya round.

Secondly, I think in this case anger at the Congressional Democrats is justified and correct and not just at Bill Nelson. Why? Because he will face no sanctions from his colleagues over his actions, no opprobrium for enabling torture.

Imagine if a Democratic Senator denied the holocaust or made a racist remark and refused to apologize. Would there be the mute reaction that Sen. Nelson got from the Democrats?

Do you think that enabling torture and an illegal war is less wrong than racist remarks?
So if its ok to be a Democrat but be for or against the war, or be for or against torture then what do they stand for?
They’ve been given a mandate in both houses and after six months what have they got to show for it after six years of a rogue administration? A change in the minimum wage? That’s their core value? Thats it?

Think. THINK, sir. “The Democrats” did not vote no. ONE Democrat and a bunch of Republicans voted no. “The Democrats,” in fact, voted yes, save one. Why is your wrath aimed at “The Democrats” and not “Bill Nelson” and “the Republicans”?

I’ve been stunned at how much stupid I’ve been seeing on the Left lately.

I’m getting really tired of explaining why this is a stupid idea. Perhaps if you’d care to contemplate the sentence above you’d see the flaw in your “logic” without my having to explain it to you.

From todays NYT
“WASHINGTON, May 31 — The Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday questioned the continuing value of the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret interrogation program for terrorism suspects, suggesting that international condemnation and the obstacles it has created to criminal prosecution may outweigh its worth in gathering information.

The committee rejected by one vote a Democratic proposal that would essentially have cut money for the program by banning harsh interrogation techniques except in dire emergencies, a committee report revealed.

But the committee stopped short of using its budget authority to shut down the program. In a closed session on May 23, two Democrats, Senators Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Dianne Feinstein of California, proposed barring spending on interrogation techniques that go beyond the Army Field Manual, which bans physical pressure or pain. Under their proposal, the only exception would have been when the president determined “that an individual has information about a specific and imminent threat.”

The amendment failed when Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, joined all the Republicans in voting no.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/washington/01intel.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1180689403-DcHZBhkqjgqB6C4p5+YKPg

At the very least threaten this. It’s constitutional, which is more than can be said much of the behavior of the Bushies. But no — they whine about needing a veto proof majority — and on Tuesday I listened to Pelosi’s local office director tell me and other peace folks “getting a veto proof majority is up to you.”

Bush painted a target on our military by announcing we should stay 50 years yesterday. Democratic can put out in a unified, forceful way that if they ever take power the US will hold NO permanent bases, implant NO residual forces. But they won’t. Too many of them think they could have managed the occupation better and won the oil if they’d been in charge.

And truth be told, I do agree with you -= working on the Dems is our only practical alternative. But I can sure as hell despise them for the worthless opportunists they are while I’m doing it.