September 28, 2006

219 vs. 160; 65 vs. 34 - UPDATED

Hatched by Dafydd

UPDATED with cool graphics: see bottom!

No, not basketball scores; those are the votes in the House and Senate respectively on the military-tribunals bill that will go to the president's desk after final House passage tomorrow. The first number in each pair is the Republican vote to protect Americans from the terrorists; the second number in each pair is the Democratic vote to protect the terrorists from Americans.

Here is the roll call in the House: 160 of the 202 Democrats (79%) voted against military tribunals to try terrorists, because they believe it's more important to protect the terrorists' rights than to protect our country (additionally, seven Democrats failed to vote). Only 34 out of 202 (17%) voted for the legislation.

Since the Democrats also oppose detaining the terrorists without trial, I can only conclude that nearly four-fifths of House Democrats want the terrorists released, while 3% are indifferent.

219 of the 232 Republicans (94%) voted for the tribunals, while 5 did not vote. 7 Republicans (3%) voted with the terrorists and the Democrats.

In the Senate, 12 Democrats (27%) voted with all but one of the Republicans for a nearly identical bill; 33 of the 45 Democrats (73%, counting Jumpin' Jim Jeffords as a Democrat) voted against trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other terrorists via military tribunals.

One Republican, Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R?-RI, 12%), joins Democrats in wanting to release the terrorists. Note that the liberal Americans for Democratic Action -- the group I use for the Democrats' ratings -- gives "Republican" Sen. Lincoln Chafee 75%... the same rating they give Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and higher than they give Jane Harman (D-CA, 70%).

In the House, the Republicans who voted against the tribunal bill were:

  • Rep. James Leach (R-IA, 33%)
  • Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS, 96%)
  • Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD, 84%)
  • Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD, 42%)
  • Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC, 80%)
  • Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH, 71%)
  • Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX, 76%)

Let's make sure they remember what they did, especially every other November. (I don't yet have a list of the twelve Democratic senators who voted for the tribunals bill; when I do, I'll update this post and post an addendum recognizing them for rising above party to think first of country.)

No difference between Republicans and Democrats?

UPDATE: Visuals are often a good way to really internalize numbers; try this (sorry if it's a tad raggedy; I've never done this before!):

Democratic support for military tribunals    Republican support for military tribunals

Left: Democrats for and against tribunals; right: Republicans for and against tribunals

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, September 28, 2006, at the time of 6:34 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing:


The following hissed in response by: Wiseburn

has the reasoning for the NO vote put together by the Liberty Committee.

Here's part of their reaction to the vote.

Jacob Hornberger, president of the Future of Freedom Foundation, writes: "The tribunal legislation will confirm once again the power of federal officials to use the 9/11 attacks – attacks that ironically were motivated by anger against wrongful U.S. government policies – as a way to fundamentally alter the American way of life. More important, the enactment of the tribunal legislation will reflect once again how the American people’s fear of terrorism is causing them to look away while their federal officials decimate the Constitution and dismantle a criminal-justice system whose principles stretch back centuries."


The above hissed in response by: Wiseburn [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 28, 2006 7:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu

I'm glad the numbers turned out decisively.

The graphs aren't too bad. Still, you could benefit from using Excel; that way, all of the data will be labeled on the graph itself however you like.

The above hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 28, 2006 9:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Nuclear Siafu:

I did use Excel; I clipped the labels off because I didn't like how they looked.

I screen-captured the charts, saved them as jpegs, then resized them in PhotoShop, because they were humongous. Then I repainted the colors, put them into the blog, and added the captions.

If there was a way to save the charts as jpegs through Excel directly, I couldn't figure it out in the ten minutes or so that I had.


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2006 3:08 AM

The following hissed in response by: hunter

It is beyond annoying for the groups claiming to be worried about the 'future of freedom' in the country to claim this administration is setting up some sort of anti-freedom or uniquely terrible way to deal with terrorists and their supporters. The Constitution does not have anything about habeus corpus for foreign fighters. The Geneva Convention does not have anything about treating terrorists the way democrats and others are claiming it does.
Yet the dems are deliverately lying and claiming it does. Why?
It is not really possible to attribute their claims of concern for fredom to anything like sincerity or patriotism anymore. They have lied too many times about our reasons for giong to way, about our soldiers, about how we treat prisoners, and about our President. It makes less and less sense to me that any group that claims to be patriotic or supporting of the troops would be so concerned about the rights of the enemy, or so convinced on such a lack enidence about how bad we are. So what is their motive?
I used to wonder. I am tired of doing so. They are wrong and at least their leaders, the ones making the claims, no they are wrong. Willfully wrong is another way to say 'liar'. All I know is that in a time or war we have a group of people who claim our civvil rights are being trampled while they trample on the truth and use amazingly similar terms to describe our President, our troops and our mission as the enemy. These same people want to cut and run. To carry out that strategy they leak secrets, tell false stories, ignore good news, disresepct our allies, second guess constantly, dismiss the hard work of our troops and declare defeat.
They assert that terrorists deserve rights reserved to American citizens committing felonies.
They count on the ignorance of Americans about our own history and Constitution. (Which may be why dems like to control education).
We are at war. The only way out of a war that makes sense is to win it.
The democrats are not serious about winning. It has been their leaders who have been inconstant and misleading. It is the dems who have dismissed the 30 million + we have liberated. It is the dems who ignore the good news at home and abroad.
It is the dems who lie about why we are at war.
It is time to get a lot fewer dems in places of power.

The above hissed in response by: hunter [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2006 3:34 AM

The following hissed in response by: snochasr

I do not understand why some idiots are determined to give these fanatics, who are bent on are destruction, the same rights as US citizens, which they are not, and the same rights as lawful combatants, which they are not. If they wanted those rights and privileges they need to follow them, as well, and they have made the opposite abundantly clear, that they will use them against us.

I do not understand how those who want to insist that the Constitution is a suicide pact live with the cognitive dissonance. That is, if these people blow themselves up, or if we blow them up, that's OK. But if we stop them from blowing themselves up or if they surrender before we blow them up (cowards that they are), then we cannot speak harshly to them, or disturb their sleep?

The above hissed in response by: snochasr [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2006 8:51 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Hunter -

Poor guy. It is easy to explain. To most Democrats Bush = Hitler. Therefore anything that Bush wants, any little thing that would help Bush, is inherently immoral and evil. Not just that, but any normally despicable action on their part is now fully justified. Lies? Wouldn't you lie to get rid of...Hitler? Wouldn't it be worth wrecking the country to get rid of...Hitler?

Oh yes, and since you don't think Bush is pure evil, that makes you either a goose-stepping Nazi, or a deluded fool that is beneath contempt. Either way, it is okay to lie to you as well. In fact, it is for you benefit. You should be thanking them.

That is why Democrats can call themselves patriots and do what they are doing. It all seems perfectly logical in Bush dementia land.

I have liberal friends that insist Bush will stage a coup on his last day of office. Don't underestimate the level of madness. I myself look forward to Bush leaving, if only to restore some level of sanity to certain segments of our society. Perhaps then the healing can begin, and they will finally see the Jihadists for what they truly are. Unfortunately, some seem too far gone ever to recover.

I feel a bit sorry for Bush. He inherited a lot of baggage and animosity right out of the gate due to the disputed election. 911 and Iraq only made things worse. I think he could ahve made things better, but only so much.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2006 9:42 AM

The following hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu


Is it feasible to use an intermediary to post photos? Photobucket works for me.

The above hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2006 2:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Nuclear Siafu:

To post photos where?


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2006 5:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu


Once the image is uploaded with them, they supply URLs and other codes needed to display the image on your site. If the image is getting screwed up by resizing, then you could provide a link so you don't have to worry about it taking up too much space on the main page.

Not an elegant solution, but it works. Sorry if I sounded ungrateful for the graphics. They're useful, but it seemed to me it took a second longer to interpret than it ought to.

The above hissed in response by: Nuclear Siafu [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 29, 2006 6:52 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Nuclear Siafu:

Huh, comes up PDQ for me. And I've got tons of space on the server -- I pay for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of megabytes... may as well use it!


The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 30, 2006 2:12 AM

The following hissed in response by: Pyrran

Just FYI, I live in the Democratic Peoples Republic of Austin, Texas and can tell you with complete certainty that in my opinion, Ron Paul is a lunatic. Even though I am a lone Republican in a sea of Democrats, there is no way I could vote for this magpie. Check out this little tirade:

The above hissed in response by: Pyrran [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 4, 2006 11:26 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved