PDA

View Full Version : Thank you, Senator McCain!



Soflasnapper
05-18-2012, 10:27 PM
Senators McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse submit brief to the SCOTUS to argue Montana's campaign finance laws ought to stand.

The SCOTUS line so far has been that there is no evidence or possibility that unlimited campaign donations from corporate and other wealthy donors might have a corruptive role in elections. (???)

Montana explicitly disagrees, which is why they passed their law(s).

Here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/citizens-united-john-mccain-sheldon-whitehouse-supreme-court-brief_n_1527622.html?ref=politics) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Citizens United Foes John McCain, Sheldon Whitehouse Take Argument To Supreme Court</span>

WASHINGTON -- In an all-out broadside against the current state of campaign finance, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) submitted a brief on Friday morning urging the U.S. Supreme Court to let stand Montana's century-old ban on corporate money in political campaigns despite the court's Citizens United ruling two years ago declaring unconstitutional a similar federal law sponsored by McCain.

They also took aim at the influence of super PACs, pointing to the Republican-leaning Crossroads GPS, the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action and the Tea Party's FreedomWorks.

In late December, the Montana Supreme Court had upheld the state's Corrupt Practices Act, which says that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." The court found, by a 5-2 vote, that Montana's history of political corruption at the hands of corporate interests -- namely its Gilded Age-era "Copper Kings" -- justified the ban, which was passed by referendum in 1912 by voters who had lost faith in the state's political process.

The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit are led by American Tradition Partnership, a conservative interest group dedicated to fighting "the radical environmentalist agenda." They have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the state decision, arguing that it conflicts with the Citizens United ruling's declaration that corporations' independent political expenditures do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption and therefore are fully protected speech under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Montana decision in February and requested formal briefing to give the case a fuller airing. </div></div>

Gayle in MD
05-19-2012, 06:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Senators McCain and Sheldon Whitehouse submit brief to the SCOTUS to argue Montana's campaign finance laws ought to stand.

The SCOTUS line so far has been that there is no evidence or possibility that unlimited campaign donations from corporate and other wealthy donors might have a corruptive role in elections. (???)

Montana explicitly disagrees, which is why they passed their law(s).

Here. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/citizens-united-john-mccain-sheldon-whitehouse-supreme-court-brief_n_1527622.html?ref=politics) <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>Citizens United Foes John McCain, Sheldon Whitehouse Take Argument To Supreme Court</span>

WASHINGTON -- In an all-out broadside against the current state of campaign finance, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) submitted a brief on Friday morning urging the U.S. Supreme Court to let stand Montana's century-old ban on corporate money in political campaigns despite the court's Citizens United ruling two years ago declaring unconstitutional a similar federal law sponsored by McCain.

They also took aim at the influence of super PACs, pointing to the Republican-leaning Crossroads GPS, the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action and the Tea Party's FreedomWorks.

In late December, the Montana Supreme Court had upheld the state's Corrupt Practices Act, which says that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party." The court found, by a 5-2 vote, that Montana's history of political corruption at the hands of corporate interests -- namely its Gilded Age-era "Copper Kings" -- justified the ban, which was passed by referendum in 1912 by voters who had lost faith in the state's political process.

The plaintiffs in the current lawsuit are led by American Tradition Partnership, a conservative interest group dedicated to fighting "the radical environmentalist agenda." They have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to block the state decision, arguing that it conflicts with the Citizens United ruling's declaration that corporations' independent political expenditures do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption and therefore are fully protected speech under the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Montana decision in February and requested formal briefing to give the case a fuller airing. </div></div> </div></div>

I'd also like to see someone petition the S.C. to outlaw any representative, or canndidate signing any formal pledges to any particular policy, or person, before or after they are elected.

Our representatives should not be allowed to sell out their votes, to any unelected figurehead's policies out of fear of retribution from an unelected citizen, who is a pawn of corporate interests, or Party policy.

It is unconstitutional for any Representative to sign away their plege to protect the constitution of this country, or to agree to do anything other than honor the pledge they make to the Constitution, and it is clearly a subversive activity.

Grover Norquist shouuld be in jail.

G.

Soflasnapper
05-19-2012, 10:06 AM
There is a problem with your proposal.

There would be a free-for-all on what kind of campaign pledge constitutes violation of the oath of office.

If the Congress finally substantially cut back 'defense' spending, or if a member or candidate made a campaign pledge to do that, as is high time and long overdue, THAT could be characterized as endangering the country, and be a cause for removal.

Only the POTUS is provided a COTUS mechanism for removal upon unConstitutional behavior, if the Congress can muster the impeachment process. There is no such COTUS mechanism for members of Congress. So, their bad behavior would have to be subject to either a law to punish them, or if made enough of an issue, to remove them in the next election.

So there is a technical bar that is hard to surmount, as well as the practical bar, given the leanings of the current high court. We cannot substitute what needs to be the action of an informed electorate with what you suggest.

Gayle in MD
05-20-2012, 08:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There is a problem with your proposal.

There would be a free-for-all on what kind of campaign pledge constitutes violation of the oath of office.

If the Congress finally substantially cut back 'defense' spending, or if a member or candidate made a campaign pledge to do that, as is high time and long overdue, THAT could be characterized as endangering the country, and be a cause for removal.

Only the POTUS is provided a COTUS mechanism for removal upon unConstitutional behavior, if the Congress can muster the impeachment process. There is no such COTUS mechanism for members of Congress. So, their bad behavior would have to be subject to either a law to punish them, or if made enough of an issue, to remove them in the next election.

So there is a technical bar that is hard to surmount, as well as the practical bar, given the leanings of the current high court. We cannot substitute what needs to be the action of an informed electorate with what you suggest.



</div></div>

Grover Norquist is one person. He is not an elected person. What he does is threaten to bring the power of his organization against any Republican who refuses to sign a pledge to him, to vote against taxing our citizens for anny purposes, even in the best interests of the country at large.

Shouldn't the pledge our representatives take when they put their hand on the bible, and take an oath to the Constitution, supercede any pledge or threat to be coerced, by an unelected citizen?

To sign a pledge to refuse to do any particular things, which might be needed in the interests of thevery survival of our country, seems very unlawful and unconstitutional, to me.

Surely, the need to levy taxes, surely a right of our government, which has been necessary at times, since the birth of our nation, should not be subverted by one powerful unelected person who coerces and threatens our represenntatives by forcing them to sign a pledge, outside the Constitutional pledge, which is taken by all of our representatives, else they will be at the mercy of one radical unelected man, representing the interests of one subversive group.

Isn't the necessity to raise revenue through taxes, as important impostant to our solvency as a nation, as the need to send our soldiers into war? What if there were an unelected man who formed an organization, which required all of our representatives to vote against any and all forms of war to protect the country's solvency? Would that be Constitutional? Wouldn't that be considered subversion to the Constitution, and the solvency of the nation?

G.

Soflasnapper
05-20-2012, 10:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shouldn't the pledge our representatives take when they put their hand on the bible, and take an oath to the Constitution, supercede any pledge or threat to be coerced, by an unelected citizen?

To sign a pledge to refuse to do any particular things, which might be needed in the interests of thevery survival of our country, seems very unlawful and unconstitutional, to me. </div></div>

In so far as such a pledge conflicts with doing ones duty under the oath of office, of course, the oath of office should prevail.

However, it is unwise to criminalize policy differences.

What if someone (say a Ron Paul) said we should return to the Founders position of 'no foreign entanglements,' and therefore end our participation in various alliances, such as NATO, SEATO (if that still exists?), the OAS, and etc.

As those are treaty obligations, ending them legally under the Constitution would require doing it correctly, and maybe it would be a very bad idea to do that. Or maybe a great idea. But I think members of Congress really ought to have the freedom to advocate and vote such positions, even if only because of some or another pledge (the reason why is secondary).

Before the alleged ratification of the amendment to the COTUS allowing the individual income tax (I say alleged as it is in dispute that it ever happened), the country ran on income sources like the tariff, and corporate taxation.

Should the reduction and elimination of the tariffs under the free trade notion have been considered a criminal matter, since all revenue sources for the country might well be considered crucial and necessary?

I don't think resort to the courts is appropriate in such policy matters. The case could and should be made against bad policy prescriptions at the ballot box, by working for the political defeat of persons with bad policy ideas (from pledges or not).

Gayle in MD
05-21-2012, 09:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Shouldn't the pledge our representatives take when they put their hand on the bible, and take an oath to the Constitution, supercede any pledge or threat to be coerced, by an unelected citizen?

To sign a pledge to refuse to do any particular things, which might be needed in the interests of thevery survival of our country, seems very unlawful and unconstitutional, to me. </div></div>

In so far as such a pledge conflicts with doing ones duty under the oath of office, of course, the oath of office should prevail.

However, it is unwise to criminalize policy differences.

What if someone (say a Ron Paul) said we should return to the Founders position of 'no foreign entanglements,' and therefore end our participation in various alliances, such as NATO, SEATO (if that still exists?), the OAS, and etc.

As those are treaty obligations, ending them legally under the Constitution would require doing it correctly, and maybe it would be a very bad idea to do that. Or maybe a great idea. But I think members of Congress really ought to have the freedom to advocate and vote such positions, even if only because of some or another pledge (the reason why is secondary).

Before the alleged ratification of the amendment to the COTUS allowing the individual income tax (I say alleged as it is in dispute that it ever happened), the country ran on income sources like the tariff, and corporate taxation.

Should the reduction and elimination of the tariffs under the free trade notion have been considered a criminal matter, since all revenue sources for the country might well be considered crucial and necessary?

I don't think resort to the courts is appropriate in such policy matters. The case could and should be made against bad policy prescriptions at the ballot box, by working for the political defeat of persons with bad policy ideas (from pledges or not). </div></div>

You're right.

But I do think when the country is in an economic struggle, there could be some kind of sanctions against signing pledges which subvert standard remedies for solving emergency needs in the interest of solvency.

We can't afford to lose multi billions to satisfy loopholes for corporate welfare, yet Grover Norquist dictates our entire economic policy with threats to those who signed his pledge?

Something is rotten about that, IMO.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As those are treaty obligations, ending them legally under the Constitution would require doing it correctly, and maybe it would be a very bad idea to do that. </div></div>

So then I suppose reneging on the Geneva Conventions, like George Bush did, falls within that category? /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

G.

Soflasnapper
05-21-2012, 10:05 AM
So then I suppose reneging on the Geneva Conventions, like George Bush did, falls within that category? ;\)

Sure, it's an impeachable offense, IMO. Ratified treaties become part of the highest law of the land, by direct COTUS language. Intentionally violating them is against the oath of office, and the COTUS charge to faithfully execute the laws of the land. High crime.

Now when he withdrew the US from the ABM Treaty, he did it correctly, as a technical matter-- provided the notice required, etc. That was just a bad idea, in my view, but not illegally done.

Gayle in MD
05-21-2012, 12:20 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So then I suppose reneging on the Geneva Conventions, like George Bush did, falls within that category? ;\)

Sure, it's an impeachable offense, IMO. Ratified treaties become part of the highest law of the land, by direct COTUS language. Intentionally violating them is against the oath of office, and the COTUS charge to faithfully execute the laws of the land. High crime.

Now when he withdrew the US from the ABM Treaty, he did it correctly, as a technical matter-- provided the notice required, etc. That was just a bad idea, in my view, but not illegally done.
</div></div>

Yes, and I love knowing that the war criminals can't leave the country!

I must say, the failure to impeach Bush, while I do believe that the Dems did what they thought was best for the country at the time to take impeachment off the table, something you'd NEVER see the Republicans do, yet IMO, it was the worst mistake I have ever seen the Democratic Party make.

This country wanted Bush impeached! That was what he so richly deserved, and should have been implemented, regardless of costs, because in the long run, the costs of allowing him to get away with all of his lying, corruption, negligence and law breaking, were far greater, in the true sense of cost to our nation, its national pride and respect for their government and for the office of the presidency.

G.

Soflasnapper
05-21-2012, 01:01 PM
I'm sympathetic to all of that, but it could never have happened.

The criminal collusion of the mainstream media on behalf of their tribe supporting all of those fake facts implicated them, not to mention the similar criminal collusion of the Democrats, similarly supporting the tribe, implicated them in that crime of such enormity.

Everyone was in on it, so nobody can be punished, lest the dominoes begin to fall on top of everyone.

Since that couldn't be allowed to happen, any effort to accomplish justice in this regard would have been ridiculed, minimized, marginalized, seen supposedly respectable Democrats opposing it, and a huge joining of the right wing press by the mainstream press, to denounce as cowardly and traitorous anyone joining in the effort.

I mean, where was the alleged perjury about oral sex? There's an impeachable offense! And the obvious reason none of what W did could be considered one. Disgusting array of priorities, but it is what it is.

This is among the key takeaways from this. It is NOT the right wing press alone, but the completely controlled MSM at fault in many of these things, with the existence of the wretched right wing media an excuse and a distraction from how badly the MSM plays the public.

It was mainly the MSM that pushed or allowed, greatly amplifying by supposed mainstream credence, the attacks on Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.

Gayle in MD
05-21-2012, 01:12 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is among the key takeaways from this. It is NOT the right wing press alone, but the completely controlled MSM at fault in many of these things, with the existence of the wretched right wing media an excuse and a distraction from how badly the MSM plays the public.

</div></div>

Very sad and very true.

But also, how could the Democrats be faulted, if the admiistration was lyng all along to them regarding the threat, (or non threat) from Iraq?

The lies they told were completely exposed, yet none of them were held to account?

Just awful!



Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, all of them lied to the entire country and to the world, by, as we now know for sure, "Fixing the intelligence to fit the policy."

Looking back now at all of the lies they told, and kept telling throughout the occupation, changing the mission every other month, lying about the costs, not to mention breaking international treaties, it is a disgrace to our country, IMO, that Bush got away with all of it, and was never impeached for his High Crimes!

Just my personal opinion.

Soflasnapper
05-21-2012, 01:55 PM
But also, how could the Democrats be faulted, if the admiistration was lyng all along to them regarding the threat, (or non threat) from Iraq?

If there had been unanimity of the intel, that might be a true defense of the national security state Democrats who took those votes to ensure their future political viability, by looking tough.

But there was no unanimity of the intel, and those on Capitol Hill knew of those discrepancies unless they willfully blinded themselves to it out of craven political self-regard, or out of loyalty to another country's interest (or both, as they tend to be the same thing).

In fact, despite their later representations, both SecState Powell and NSC Advisor Rice were on public record denying Saddam was any kind of threat, stating he had been put in a box with the sanctions, had no ability to use even conventional weapons in aggression against his neighbors, that his neighbors were not feeling threatened, and that he had not been able to reconstitute his WMD programs.

The DIA said that there was no evidence to support any WMD program's existence, and although W tried to go to war without asking for a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), one was commissioned at the insistence of some Democrats (I think Levin of Michigan), and it did not support the fevered hysteria whatsoever (in the classified form received by the Congress). The publicly released version DID, by lies of omission and by omitting the footnotes that explained the evidence such as it was didn't support the claims of the administration and their paid propaganda agents.

There was plenty of data available to know these claims were entirely bogus, and the number of Democrats who voted no is some measure of that fact. It was the pro-danger side that had the small figleaf of limited and faulty claims backing IT, and that was well known among the lawmakers, IMO. At least any who cared to look into it.

The creation of the forged diplomatic memoes alleging Saddam's interest in yellowcake uranium ores from Africa (when he had some 50 tons of his own! (approx. number from memory)) showed the lying nature of the pro-war side, and even the Bush administration was forced to apologize for the inclusion of that claim in his public speech.

So sorry to say, as I am a lifelong Democrat, my own party acted in collusion with the propaganda effort, as they undoubtedly did on ALL the OTHER false flag casus belli for all the other wars over the centuries.

If there were any honorable members of Congress opposing such wars historically, they were mainly the old school isolationists of the GOP, peace be unto them. I am embarrassed to admit it, but it is true.

Gayle in MD
05-21-2012, 02:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But also, how could the Democrats be faulted, if the admiistration was lyng all along to them regarding the threat, (or non threat) from Iraq?

If there had been unanimity of the intel, that might be a true defense of the national security state Democrats who took those votes to ensure their future political viability, by looking tough.

But there was no unanimity of the intel, and those on Capitol Hill knew of those discrepancies unless they willfully blinded themselves to it out of craven political self-regard, or out of loyalty to another country's interest (or both, as they tend to be the same thing).

In fact, despite their later representations, both SecState Powell and NSC Advisor Rice were on public record denying Saddam was any kind of threat, stating he had been put in a box with the sanctions, had no ability to use even conventional weapons in aggression against his neighbors, that his neighbors were not feeling threatened, and that he had not been able to reconstitute his WMD programs.

The DIA said that there was no evidence to support any WMD program's existence, and although W tried to go to war without asking for a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), one was commissioned at the insistence of some Democrats (I think Levin of Michigan), and it did not support the fevered hysteria whatsoever (in the classified form received by the Congress). The publicly released version DID, by lies of omission and by omitting the footnotes that explained the evidence such as it was didn't support the claims of the administration and their paid propaganda agents.

There was plenty of data available to know these claims were entirely bogus, and the number of Democrats who voted no is some measure of that fact. It was the pro-danger side that had the small figleaf of limited and faulty claims backing IT, and that was well known among the lawmakers, IMO. At least any who cared to look into it.

The creation of the forged diplomatic memoes alleging Saddam's interest in yellowcake uranium ores from Africa (when he had some 50 tons of his own! (approx. number from memory)) showed the lying nature of the pro-war side, and even the Bush administration was forced to apologize for the inclusion of that claim in his public speech.

So sorry to say, as I am a lifelong Democrat, my own party acted in collusion with the propaganda effort, as they undoubtedly did on ALL the OTHER false flag casus belli for all the other wars over the centuries.

If there were any honorable members of Congress opposing such wars historically, they were mainly the old school isolationists of the GOP, peace be unto them. I am embarrassed to admit it, but it is true. </div></div>

Yes, I've done a tremendous amount of reading on the Iraq War lies, including the memo, and the break-in at the Miger Embassy, in Italy, which BTW, was linked to a Neocon, Michael Ladeen, if memory serves, who was seen in Italy several months before the election, with the Italian thugs, whose business is helping to provide fake intelligence, to other countries.

Ledeen, think that is his name, was rewarded later with a big corner office at the American Enterprise Institute.

But, as for the Dems, I thought the majority of Democrats voted against invading Iraq.

Do feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, my friend.

G.

Soflasnapper
05-21-2012, 03:01 PM
A majority of the House Democrats (61%) voted no, meaning 39% voted yes.

In the Senate, 42% voted no, meaning 58% voted yes.

The resolutions were co-sponsored by Gephardt and Daschle, in the House and Senate, respectively.

Notice the names in the Senate you do not see (below) as voting no: Senators Clinton and Kerry, the former Democratic VP nominee Senator Lieberman, Senators Schumer and Dodd, Senator Diane Feinstein, etc.

Here's the breakdown:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 (&lt;3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

21 (42%) of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)
</div></div>

Gayle in MD
05-21-2012, 03:07 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A majority of the House Democrats (61%) voted no, meaning 39% voted yes.

In the Senate, 42% voted no, meaning 58% voted yes.

The resolutions were co-sponsored by Gephardt and Daschle, in the House and Senate, respectively.

Notice the names in the Senate you do not see (below) as voting no: Senators Clinton and Kerry, the former Democratic VP nominee Senator Lieberman, Senators Schumer and Dodd, Senator Diane Feinstein, etc.

Here's the breakdown:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> United States House of Representatives
Party Ayes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3

126 (61%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted against the resolution.
6 (&lt;3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.

United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0

21 (42%) of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)
</div></div>

</div></div>

Thanks for the info. So it was just in the House, that the majority of Dems voted no.

It was, however, mostly Repubs, pushing for the whole fiasco...LOL.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Soflasnapper
05-22-2012, 09:25 AM
With 82 yes votes among the House Democrats, there was plenty of bipartisan support there from the Democrats as well, even though the majority voted no.

Another name we don't find on the no side in the Senate was then-Senator John Edwards. So the 2004 presidential slate featured two Democrats who voted yes, and also implicitly or explicitly defended the false representations, giving ample cover for the Bush war drive.