Senate votes 72-25 to condemn MoveOn.org ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bruxley

New member
Today the Senate voted on a non-binding resolution to state the Senates sentiment of the MoveOn.org ad. The 72-25 vote is highly revealing. No Republicans voted against it and the 1 independent in the Senate voted for it. 28 Democrat Senators that don't condemn it. 25 voted nah and 3 Dems ducked out. Quite a party split for the Dems.

Very revealing. Anyone want to guess who is among the nah voters. HRC, Biden(ducked out), Reid, just list the Senators that are considered Democrat leaders.

The 'freedom of speech' cover won't float. This wasn't a resolution to prosecute MoveOn.org for their expression, it was a resolution to state the sentiment of the Senate concerning it.

We now have a more clear list of who in the Senate is serving their country and who is serving the far left activist group. Becoming more apparent why these folks would push legislation that is clearly counter to the will and interests of the people they are there to represent (immigration, WOT).

They sure work hard to get there seats back as vice-chair and minority leader.

EDIT: Vote tally edited for accuracy. Thank you for that link BoringAccountant, wasn't available when I started the thread.
 
We now have a more clear list of who in the Senate is serving their country and who is serving the far left activist group. Becoming more apparent why these folks would push legislation that is clearly counter to the will and interests of the people they are there to represent (immigration, WOT).
Click to expand...

In at least some of those cases, supporters of that far-left activist group might actually be a significant portion of their constituents. At which point they'd be voting for those they represent.

Just saying.

Any chance of a link to the vote? I'm a little busy at the moment, or I'd go find it myself. Just curious to see where my two Senators fell.
 
Notice Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton voted against it and Obama did not vote...

I think this is a line in the sand for some of these swing voters...well at least I hope it is.
 
The 'freedom of speech' cover won't float. This wasn't a resolution to prosecute MoveOn.org for their expression, it was a resolution to state the sentiment of the Senate concerning it.
Click to expand...
Awesome 'possum but is that really the best use of their time? Perhaps they could have focused more on that other little thingamajig that would have given soldiers more time at home in between deployments? :o
 
There are many things that I look to in evaluating a candidate for President. Mentally I rank them, but one of the most important to me is the ability to rise above petty politics and "do the right thing", even when it may hurt you in the primaries.

Hillary cooked her goose in my book. Obama showed cowardice. I would hold my nose and vote for Paul first and thats about as low as I can go. Thank god I will have better choices than him.


WildthanksforthisthreadAlaska TM
 
Awesome 'possum but is that really the best use of their time? Perhaps they could have focused more on that other little thingamajig that would have given soldiers more time at home in between deployments?
Click to expand...

Well, in fairness they did spend plenty of time on that one too...they just voted against it. I guess it's easier to chastise a dirty left-wing extremist group than it is to let soldiers get a little time with their families during a war that will supposedly last decades.

EDIT: Also, I fail to see why not condemning the MoveOn ad isn't a valid position. I mean, I think it was in poor taste, and I may have voted in favor of this...but I can see how others would not. I figure it's up to the constituents of these Senators to decide on that one...and as I said, I imagine for some of them they were actually representing those who voted for them.
 
I think the person who looks worst in all of this is Obama...not voting, I mean that just screams I dont know what to do so I will be silent...that mentality is not what we need is The Office.

However, strategy wise I can see how its almost better than putting the nail in the coffin like Hillary did by voting no.
 
Hillbama and the others didn't even have the guts to vote for the resolution?
Are they so beholden to MoveOn (and so dependent on the MoveOn money) that they were afraid to vote for the resolution?

Alternatively, perhaps they believe that the General is really trying to "betray us."

Ah yes, yet another stellar example of how the Democratic leadership/presidential candidates "support the troops." You know, they really do support them. Really.

Until MoveOn decides otherwise. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps, as has been suggested, they realize this is the position their constituents support.

:eek: omg, a politician doing what they were elected to do - represent the people that elected them. the sky is falling!
 
All this talk about a bill that will "require" soldiers have more time at home is nonsense. It's an attempt to tie the Pentagon's hands, forcing them to bring troops home to meet the letter of the law.

If Congress is serious about giving troops more time at home, authorize and fund a doubling in troop strength. It'll take a little while to get guys through the training pipeline, but then everyone could go half as long or often.

But of course they're not serious about it, so they propose cockamamie legislation to make a political statement, without really doing anything.

"See, look at me! I voted to make sure your son is home for Christmas! My opponent wanted him to spend another holiday in Baghdad. Aren't I wonderful?!?"
 
The bill over troop rotation is overstepping of legislative authority and that is why it got struck down. The execution of the military is an Executive power as Commander and Chief.

If they really wanted to stop anything they would just stop funding it. They are trying to effect failure but hang that failure around the Presidents neck. It's obvious.
 
hey guys, I wasn't giving a position on that one way or the other :p I was giving an example of something they should spend more time on. replace that with whatever other piece of legislation that actually gets something done, not a waste of time like coming together to "tsk-tsk" a bunch of hippies
 
As Wild said, in matters like this, one doesn't vote as if one had taken a referendem of one's constitutents. One votes for what's right. One could just as easily assert, absent any concrete information to the contrary, that the cowards who voted against the resolution were NOT voting as their constituents would have wanted. Votes like this come down to individual principles and courage.
 
Good point. Constituency didn't elect them to slander General Petraeus did they? This isn't a matter of policy or law. It was an expression of the sentiment of the body of the Senate and a litmus test of principle.
 
This resolution was a silly waste of time, nothing but playing for political points, and avoiding the big issues they should be working on.

Are we going to see the Dems introduce a resolution next time Ann Coulter writes something offensive, demanding the Senate condemn it?

They weren't elected to be editorial critics. They need to get back to work.
 
Good point. Constituency didn't elect them to slander General Petraeus did they? This isn't a matter of policy or law. It was an expression of the sentiment of the body of the Senate and a litmus test of principle.
Click to expand...

Wait...the Senate slandered Petraeus now? I thought it was MoveOn.org, possibly with help from the New York Times.

As far as sentiment goes, are we arguing that there is a "right" or "wrong" sentiment on this?

This passed, suggesting the overall sentiment of the Senate is that MoveOn shouldn't have run the ad. Which, at least from what I've seen, is about the same as that of the country. But *gasp* individual Senators don't seem to have a problem with it. Much like individual members of the nation. Much like near majorities in some areas of the nation.

I'm still failing to see an issue here.

Are we actually expecting such a thing to pass 99-0? Or is this just an excuse to go "RAR! I don't like these Senators, most of whom don't represent me and the ones that do I likely voted against...RAR!"

Then again, maybe I'm not objective...while I think the ad was in poor taste, but I also don't exactly buy what the good General is selling. To me the only real problem I had with the ad is that they didn't wait until after he said his piece before Congress...smear people for what they say, not what you expect them to say soon.
 
I don't know what to think about the ad. I have a hard time thinking Bush really cares what US Citizens think, feel, need and want from his administration. Considering the facts surrounding how they tally deaths in Iraq, I can understand the animosity toward Mr. Patreus. I don't really know what to think about the ad.

But, I do know what to think about this vote. Our government should be worrying about more than persecuting the free, non-violent speech of private companies. We have illegal immigration, the threat of terrorism, rapists, murderers, government corruption, theft, gangs, drugs...things that actually effect the safety of our community.

To waste time on something that DOES NOTHING, is a waste of time and tax payer's cash. It makes me sick to think they are sitting on their butts saying: "All in favor of calling these guys bad for calling someone else bad, say AYE!"

And on another note...I am sick of hearing talk shows, radio and TV both condemning The New York Times.

Bill Oreilly, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and so many others constantly bash this newspaper. Then they turn around and talk about their book or some buddy's book and talk about how it is "New York Times Best Seller." HAHAHA Talk about hypocracy.... It is only convenient to use their name for good when it can make a person some cash I guess.

Not to say that I think New York Times is good or bad...I just think these guys' use of that news outlet to prove their point on one hand and then to promote themselves and others on the other is pretty pathetic and poor judgement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top