Senate Democrats Vote for Cornyn Resolution to Condemn MoveOn

The Senate votes 72-25 for a resolution criticizing the controversial MoveOn.org advert in The New York Times that targeted Gen. David Petraeus. The toothless resolution—against a newspaper ad, no less—and its principal sponsor John Cornyn (R-TX) never address the substantive claims of the ad. Not surprisingly, Cornyn has historically opposed "meaningless" Democratic-led resolutions against the war.

This is a major disappointment. Twenty three Democrats—full list HERE—joined the Republican minority and "one after another," notes progressive activist Lane Hudson, of the "allowed the not-so-invisible hand of Karl Rove to make them fear" they would be accused of not 'supporting the troops.'

Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton were the only Senate Democrats running for President that voted against "this ridiculous waste of time." Clinton deserves credit. She's taken a number of hits from progressives and the netroots community, but, notes Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake, is too smart to "repeat right-wing talking points to attack your own."

Joe Biden and Barack Obama were missing in action and abstained from voting. If you're interested, Obama's response explanation rationalization was that he abstained because voting for or against the resolution is the "kind of political game-playing that makes most Americans cynical about Washington's ability ... "

More Iraq coverage HERE.

Senators Who Forced Debate on Ad [Think Progress]
Hillary Gets it Right [Firedoglake]
Obama; By Not Casting a Vote ... [Open Left]
Senate Democrats to Netrots: F$#@ You [HuffPo]

Did You Read? ...
Republicans Questions Escalation, Statistics [R20]

Comments

[Darnell]

Just a bunch of cowards with no backbone, these trifling Democrats.

Are we ever going to get a viable third party in this country?

Until then, it will continue to be a country where the majority could care less about politics.

[Andy in Seattle]

Yes, Darnell, reprehensibly spineless. But to answer your (perhaps rhetorical) question--no, we'll never see a viable third party in United States so long as it clings to its 51%-wins-all system. If, however, we had proportional representation, a multitude of parties might be forced to creat working governments, sometimes finding consensus... oh I'll stop there, as it all sounds too dreamily civilized.

[derrick]

Good point--you never used right wing talking points to attack your own. Hillary does get that.

[greg g]

The Democrats are too passive and always react to the right wing. Thats why I like the Clintons, they fight back.

[timothy]

Good question, Rod. WEHT Barack Obaam?

[Derrick from PHilly]

Hillary makes a another huge step toward locking up the Demoratic nomination. Whether that's good or just "ok", I still don't know. Now, I don't believe it's bad.