Posted by
Dawnsblood on Friday, September 29, 2006 6:59:03 PM
The NY Times looks at Democratic
votes on the Bill and they determine:
The most vivid example of the Democratic assessment came from the
party’s many presidential hopefuls in the Senate. All of them voted
against the bill, apparently calculating that Mr. Bush’s handling of
Iraq has undercut the traditional Republican strength on national
security and will insulate them from what are certain to be strong
attacks from Republicans not only this year but also in 2008.
Democratic opponents of the legislation said their political
position was driven by a substantive determination that the bill, which
creates rules for interrogating and trying terrorism suspects, is
fundamentally flawed and a dangerous departure from founding American
principles.
“The only reason to worry about the politics of it is if you don’t
understand it and don’t have the guts to stand up and defend your
vote,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, who is considering a presidential race.
Over all, 32 Democrats
voted against the measure while 12, including some of those in the most
difficult re-election fights, backed it. Among the latter was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, whose perceived support for Mr. Bush has brought him political trouble at home.
Interesting to see it put out in plain words but the Times. If you want to be a Presidential hopeful try giving national security the shaft, but if you want to be reelected hmmmm...
H/T Ace of Spades