September 29, 2006


Democrats See Strength in Bucking Bush (CARL HULSE, 9/29/06, NY Times)

The Democratic vote in the Senate on Thursday against legislation governing the treatment of terrorism suspects showed that party leaders believe that President Bush’s power to wield national security as a political issue is seriously diminished.

The most vivid example of the Democratic assessment came from the party’s many presidential hopefuls in the Senate. [...]

Over all, 32 Democrats voted against the measure while 12, including some of those in the most difficult re-election fights, backed it.

So it was necessary to vote against it if your main concern is competing with other Democrats in primaries, but deadly if you're facing an actual election, and the Times this means the politics of the issue is good for them?

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 29, 2006 10:25 AM

The Times Square area has always been full of pretzel vendors, both in their real and logical forms.

Posted by: John at September 29, 2006 10:33 AM

12 Democrats voted for the bill, including both Nelsons, Landrieu, Menendez, Lautenberg, and a number of other Red staters. Sounds more like they are running scared to me.

But the NYT doesn't have the courage of its convictions, and won't criticize them.

Posted by: jim hamlen at September 29, 2006 11:31 AM

Stabenow voted in favor, too. Won't help her - she's going to lose. She will be the Cleland of this cycle.

Posted by: ratbert at September 29, 2006 11:48 AM

"I am completely against this legislation and I will support effots to tighten interrogation guidelines in the next congress. However, I am the servant of my constituents, and they support it. So I voted for the bill. Remember two things folks, that I listen to the people in my great state, and that I am opposed to what the senate just approved. Thank you."

Posted by: Senator (D) at September 29, 2006 11:50 AM

Does this mean you voted for it before you could vote against it, Senator (D)? Or that your vote for it was a "fake but accurate" vote against it? Did you suggest a recount to see if other votes against the measure might turn up hidden in the ballot box? (Hey, it works here in King County.)

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at September 29, 2006 12:38 PM

Sherrod Brown here in Ohio is a VERY liberal Dem comgressman who voted for the House version. Just a coincidence that he is also running for Senate.

Yes, the only conclusion possible is that the power of natioanl security as a political issue is seriously diminished.

Posted by: Bob at September 29, 2006 2:18 PM

Initially read the headling as "Backing Bush," instead of "Bucking." Almost made more sense that way.

Posted by: John Thacker at September 29, 2006 3:41 PM

We all can see that the facts presented in the article support the opposite conclusions.

Posted by: Lou Gots at September 29, 2006 8:56 PM