Friday, February 04, 2005

Most Senate Dems grow spines and take a stand against torture.

Only a few weeks ago, it looked like Alberto Gonzales, referred to lovingly as "Torture Boy" by such noted writers as Maureen Dowd and Bart, would skate easily through the confirmation hearings to become the next Attorney General. I was already missing John Ashcroft. And despite the fact that I am indeed missing John because the whole Senate voted his evil replacement in today, Americans of good conscience should be celebrating the hope that some real opposition seems to be budding. 36 Democrats voted against Gonzales, which in anybody's book, is a very hopeful sign.

Considering this sweeping vote, one must challenge the Democrats who voted FOR torture as American policy. They have betrayed the party and indeed the nation by endorsing this behavior.
Here they are, don't forget their names. Oh, and don't forget that Bush actually KISSED Joe Lieberman as he left the stage. With friends like that, who needs enimas? And to think that Gore chose this man to be next in line for the Presidency. It's just the kind of madness that gives my friend Branmuffin the cause to believe that Dems and Repubs are of the same cloth. It is votes like today however that gives credence to the difference between rancid black sail cloth and heavy cotton with some stains.

(1) Senator Ken Salazar (Colorado).

(2) Senator Joseph Lieberman (Conn.).

(3) Senator Ben Nelson (Neb.).

(4) Senator Mary Landrieu (La.)

(5) Senator Pryor (Ark).

(6) Senator Bill Nelson (Fla.)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

He KISSED Lieberman? Whoa. Aren't these the folks sponsoring Constitutional amendments to keep gay people from threatening their own utterly empty marriages?

I'd complain about the Nelson guy, but both of my erstwhile "representatives" in the Senate are Repugs, which means I'm not represented. Funny... here we are with a soldly Democratic governor and both state houses, without any real representation nationally.

Still, the tally oddities this past November did manage to throw the state races into such turmoil that I heard just YESTERDAY that we have a new Ag Commissioner - but only because one of them conceded on the less-than-dozen votes in that race that was headed straight for the Supremes per a whole new election. Wouldn't want that to happen, would we? Just might say something really significant about November that nobody really wants to hear.

Taxation without representation. Is that a good reason for revolution? ;)

12:19 AM, February 06, 2005  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home