Rice wins Senate confirmation to be secretary of state (85-13)

[Freddie Stubbs]

The Associated Press

January 26, 2005, 12:13 PM EST


WASHINGTON -- Condoleezza Rice won easy confirmation Wednesday to be President Bush's new secretary of state, despite strong dissent from a small group of Democrats who said she shares blame for mistakes and war deaths in Iraq.

The Senate voted 85 to 13 to confirm Rice, who succeeds Colin Powell as America's top diplomat and becomes the first black woman to hold the job.

Plans were made for her to be sworn in at the White House Wednesday night, take her place in the State Department Thursday morning and have a more elaborate swearing-in by Bush at the agency on Friday.

The Senate vote showed some of the partisanship that delayed Rice's confirmation vote by several days. Most of the votes against Rice were Democrats, including some of the Senate's best-known members such as Massachusetts Democratic Sens. Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry, who was the party's presidential candidate in last year's election.

more: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usrice0127,0,6697599.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

[yinkaafrica]

1. Bush will be denied nothing

Wait and see.

[StarsEncore]

31. Exactly!

Bush will get everything and everyone he wants. Just wait.

[yinkaafrica]

53. We are off to a horrible start

[tom_paine]

90. Things don't change much from one Totalitarian Regime to the next, do they

He sure will, as surely as Stalin got what he wanted from the Duma, as sure as the German Social Democrats caved to Hitler, as sure as Ferdinand Marcos' Legislative Branch was as independant as the Imperial Congress of Amerika.

[Ian David]

2. In related news, America paints target on itself that says "Bomb Here"

Congrats.

We've just declared Condi's actions to be national policy and told the world that when they talk to Condi Rice, they're talking to America.

The world is now justified in telling us to go fuck ourselves.

[fob]

3. rice "wins" confirmation? Too bad she didn't EARN it.

[ogradda]

54. yes, that is a shame, isn't it? n/t

[teakee]

75. Sick of hearing --Black and female.........

I never looked at Dr. Condi as being the FIRST black woman to serve as Secretary of State. On other boards, one is accused of being racist because they don't believe in this lying person.

I was one of the naive idiots that did believe in the beginning (or wasn't paying attention to the facts) what Bushco. was spouting about WMDs, tubes, mushroom clouds, nuclear weapons, and so on......Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, and Dr. Condi all spoke the same language. Thank God, my brain kicked in before MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

This doesn't have anything to do with her being black or a woman. It has to do with her manipulating the facts to fit the Bush agenda. If Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, Wolfowitz were all getting confirmed, I'm sure the same questions would have been asked of them, they all manipulated the facts.

Because of the race card being used to 'defend' her lies, Dr. Condi has an even greater job to do, being the first black, woman Secretary of State, ---but will she still lie for Bush? Is she the correct person for the job based on her past actions? Maybe people who use the race card need to remember that everyone bleeds red.

[fob]

81. Condi Rice is a Black WOMAN? Are you SURE? Because when I

judge her by the content of her character, I SWEAR she appears to be a 65 year old WHITE MALE NEO-CON REPUKE that has gone through the revolving door of government/multi-national corporation and FAILED at both. Oh, and with silver hair and soulless eyes!

[Protagoras]

129. Exactly.

Gender and Race are being hypocrically pulled out by the RW Bigot party in the most cynical way I've ever seen.

Loathing Rice is NO different for me than loathing Rumsfeld and Cheney...I detest them because they are evil, greedy, lying, neocon warmongers. And that is ALL the reason and the ONLY reason I need.

Too bad almost all of our erudite democratic politicians can't seem to articulate that concept.

[renaissanceguy]

94. Funny how Repugs are using that argument

when they are the ones against affirmative action, and they tend to have the racists and bigots in their party.

This goes to show you what happens when one's superficial qualities override her/his qualifications (or lack of).

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/479727

[genieroze]

132. I never thought of her like that but now that you mention it, she's a

disgrace to both her sex and her race.

[The Zanti Regent]

167. MY ONLY CHILD BLED RED IN IRAQ

and HE DIED thanks to this LYING slut!

[Damien]

4. any republicans?

The article said MOST votes against were dems. Does that mean some republicans voted against her? That would be interesting.

Anyone have a breakdown of votes (who which way)?

Every notice that votes never add up to 100? Must be nice not to have to show up to work on a regular basis.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Nice to not have any clue what Senators do.

Just because they're not on the floor, that doesn't mean they're on the golf course or something. Being a Congressman or Senator is a 24/7 job, and the truth is they put in far more hours than you likely do. If the vote isn't going to be close, sometimes they're better served by doing work either in their district or meeting constituents, which is what they do pretty much every minute that they're not either travelling or on the floor.

[Damien]

18. I can assure you

That I know what a senator's job entails. I know it is a lot more than just being there for votes.

However, it is common that senate barely has quarum to meet -- that seems like a problem to me. This is one of the highest turnouts I've seen. 80% turnout is norm. For "important votes" like this, more turnout, but it should be all -- if for nothing else than for them to have on the record what they believe on an issue

BTW: please don't assume you know what I do for a living.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. I don't assume what you do for a living.

I just guarantee you that no matter what you do, unless you're a medical intern, it's not likely you work more than they do.

BTW, not voting is sometimes more politically appropriate. If you don't vote, you don't HAVE to go on record. So if you're a Democrat from a state that elected Bush, you don't go on record against Rice, which would piss off your constituents, while at the same time, you don't go on record FOR her, which would go against your values.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

27. you're assuming that senators do jobs alone

They have staff you know, like chief of staff etc. I bet the chief of staff does alot more work behind the scenes than the senators themselves. Oh by the way may I ask your last name so I can see what senate seat and in what state you reprent or represented.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

78. I worked on Capital Hill.

Now I'm a lobbyist. Funny, I don't think I ever said I was an elected official.

Yeah, the staff does an insane amount of work and are vastly underpaid. The Chief of Staff is essentially a doppleganger for the Senator or Congressman. But the Senators and Congressmen themselves do the most work, by far.

[Damien]

29. Imagine a gov.

where everyday the newspaper would list what every elected official voted on and how.

If our gov. was more transparent, we would have no need for jockeying with votes -- we could have elected officials actually vote the way they should.

Then again, I've always been a fan of direct democracy anyway...

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

79. The newspaper COULD do that.

They just don't. And it's simple enough for you to find out how your elected officials vote. Go to thomas.loc.gov. It's that simple.

[Damien]

83. sure

any of us that float around political websites and discus politics can and will do that. But most people won't. And it's not us that get people elected, it's most people.

Ultimately it comes down to the fact that most people have no idea what their elected officials do and do not do on the floor (and elsewhere) unless it's the occasional big headline vote.

I guess this is just ultimately another comment on how corrupt all politics are -- its not about what they vote for and against, but how they make friends.

[cinci_democrat]

147. Much thanks for the http://thomas.loc.gov/ site..eom

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. 12 Democrats and one independant voted against her

No Republicans voted no.

[Damien]

20. thanks

[StarsEncore]

32. No Republicans voted No

(According to Reuters)

[serryjw]

156. Here it is!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002#position

[AspenRose]

57. Nope

Jeffords voted against (Independent).

[calimary]

152. And what the hell is wrong with Patrick Leahy? Why did he go along

with this? I'm glad Jeffords remains independent-minded.

[CreekDog]

131. There isn't 100% daily attendance at any workplace

Or school, or event or whatever.

I mean, what are you saying?

By the way, politicians may be a lot of things, but most of them are not lazy, because to get elected takes a lot of work, and someone willing to work harder to get elected can take your job.

Please think through what you say before you say it.

[CreekDog]

133. Damien, you got jumped on for the "not showing up for work" comment

Your, "it must be nice to not have to show up for work" comment was what got people criticizing you and rightly so.

[SemperEadem]

168. total vote breakdown

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=ap/senate_rollcall_senate_rice

Voting "yes" were 32 Democrats and 53 Republicans.
Voting "no" were 12 Democrats and one independent.


Alabama
Sessions (R) Yes; Shelby (R) Yes.

Alaska
Murkowski (R) Yes; Stevens (R) Yes.

Arizona
Kyl (R) Yes; McCain (R) Yes.

Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.

California
Boxer (D) No; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado
Allard (R) Yes; Salazar (D) Yes.

Connecticut
Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (D) Yes.

Delaware
Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.

Florida
Martinez (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Georgia
Chambliss (R) Yes; Isakson (R) Yes.

Hawaii
Akaka (D) No; Inouye (D) Yes.

Idaho
Craig (R) Yes; Crapo (R) Yes.

Illinois
Durbin (D) No; Obama (D) Yes.

Indiana
Bayh (D) No; Lugar (R) Yes.

Iowa
Grassley (R) Yes; Harkin (D) No.

Kansas
Brownback (R) Yes; Roberts (R) Yes.

Kentucky
Bunning (R) Yes; McConnell (R) Yes.

Louisiana
Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) Yes.

Maine
Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland
Mikulski (D) Yes; Sarbanes (D) Yes.

Massachusetts
Kennedy (D) No; Kerry (D) No.

Michigan
Levin (D) No; Stabenow (D) Yes.

Minnesota
Coleman (R) Yes; Dayton (D) No.

Mississippi
Cochran (R) Yes; Lott (R) Yes.

Missouri
Bond (R) Yes; Talent (R) Yes.

Montana
Baucus (D) Yes; Burns (R) Not Voting.

Nebraska
Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada
Ensign (R) Yes; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire
Gregg (R) Not Voting; Sununu (R) Yes.

New Jersey
Corzine (D) Yes; Lautenberg (D) No.

New Mexico
Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) Yes.

New York
Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.

North Carolina
Burr (R) Yes; Dole (R) Yes.

North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.

Ohio
DeWine (R) Yes; Voinovich (R) Yes.

Oklahoma
Coburn (R) Yes; Inhofe (R) Yes.

Oregon
Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.

Pennsylvania
Santorum (R) Yes; Specter (R) Yes.

Rhode Island
Chafee (R) Yes; Reed (D) No.

South Carolina
DeMint (R) Yes; Graham (R) Yes.

South Dakota
Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) Yes.

Tennessee
Alexander (R) Yes; Frist (R) Yes.

Texas
Cornyn (R) Yes; Hutchison (R) Yes.

Utah
Bennett (R) Yes; Hatch (R) Yes.

Vermont
Jeffords (I) No; Leahy (D) Yes.

Virginia
Allen (R) Yes; Warner (R) Yes.

Washington
Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.

West Virginia
Byrd (D) No; Rockefeller (D) Yes.

Wisconsin
Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.

Wyoming
Enzi (R) Yes; Thomas (R) Yes.

[tridim]

5. And with that, America now stands for and endorses the big lie

and if you are a Republican, the more you lie, the more power you get. The world is laughing their collective asses off at us, and we deserve it.

[joanski01]

6. Here's my list of those who voted "NO"

Barbara Boxer
John Kerry
Ted Kennedy
Mark Dayton (MN)
Carl Levin
Evan Bahy
Robert Byrd
Jack Reed (RI)
Jim Jeffords
Dick Durbin
Mr. Akaka
Frank Lautenberg
Tom Harken

YAY for these people!!!!!!!!

[truebrit71]

9. Obama isn't on that list?

Hmmmmmmm......

[barb162]

11. I am VERY disappointed he isn't and with every other Democrat

who voted yes for Liar Condi

[oldtime dfl_er]

28. BOTH my female Democratic senators voted aye????

If this list is accurate and complete, then both of Washington state's senators (Murray and Cantwell) voted to confirm the liar?? I will be writing to them TODAY and urge all Washingtonians to do the same.


www.cafepress.com/showtheworld

[barb162]

47. I just wrote a really nasty note to Obama asking him how many the

hell lies did Condi have to tell (aluminum tubes, the mushroom cloud, etc) without ANY corroborating evidence before he'd vote no on that fucking Liar Rice. And my last line to him was: are you sure you're a Democrat?

I am so pissed right now I could spit. I feel so damned disenfranchised. You vote for these Democrats and then they vote for the pukes. What the fuck is going on?

[VegasWolf]

67. Saw Obama on CSPAN smiling sweetly at Rice and throwing

her soft questions. The "future" of the democratic party huh.

[barb162]

71. she should be tried for treason IMHO. If he's the future of the Dems

then this party is dead in the water. It is becoming (has become) a subgroup to or wing of the GOP

[NNN0LHI]

163. I have to agree with you it ain't looking good for the Democratic party n/t

[TankLV]

158. What are you saying?!?!?! Don't you know that Obama is PERFECT

and no criticism will be tolerated for this newly minted disappointing DINO in the rough?

You will be tarred and feathered here for sure!

[NNN0LHI]

165. Obama is the junior Senator from my state

And if you do not think I will be as critical of Obama as I would of any Senator you don't know me too good. I won't be cutting him no slack. So far my box score has him Ø for 3. Not good for a rookie.

Don

[Cats Against Frist]

50. That's what I was going to say

Neither one of those *ahem* ladies voted no. I think Cantwell is kind of a DINO anyway -- but that's just me. Neither she nor Murray are EVER at the forefront of anything.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

143. Yes, Ms. Cantwell can only be considered as not hugely

disappointing if one considers how crappy Slade Gorton would have been. Murray has been better but she failed to note that she was a corporate "mom in tennis shoes."

[inslee08]

162. I forget which one

but one of the two (Cantwell or Murray) voted against the war in Iraq. That certainly was a gutsy vote...

[uppityperson]

65. Here's my letter to her, off to email Cantwell too

Ms. Murray,
I am writing to express my disapproval at your voting to confirm C. Rice to be Secretary of State. I do not understand how you could support her in gaining this position, given the number of outright lies she gave in her previous position and the total incompitance she has shown. She lied repeatedly in order to force us into war with Iraq. You voted to give the President the power to start this war, based on these lies. She had no facts to back up these lies, and the "facts"/opinions she gave have been proven false. How could you vote for her now, knowing this?

Have you forgotten 9/11 attacks happened on her watch? Did she have no responsibility for the failures leading up to these attacks? How could you vote for her now, knowing this? Why do you think she will be capable of doing a decent job as Secretary of State, given her past history?

I am very disappointed in you.

Sincerely,

[oldtime dfl_er]

130. NICE!!!

I'll compose and mail mine (to both of them) tonight. Im damned pissed. I havent given money and time and sanity to their campaigns in order for them to NOT represent me and the good people of Washington state. They're too compromised at this point, I think.


www.cafepress.com/showtheworld

[ClayZ]

104. Washington State hangs collective head in SHAME

Argh.... I can not believe these two! What is up with them? I too, will write and give them a piece of my mind!

[PROUDNWLIBERAL]

139. I will not vote for either of these two again

This is the reason I am leaving the Democratic Party after many years of being with them.

[calimary]

146. Don't forget that TOLL FREE number: 1 (800) 839 - 5276 - to Capitol Hill

You can call 'em, FREE, First Thing In The Morning, and either THANK them for doing a serious public service in resisting this schmuck-ette, or read 'em the riot act and remind them that THEY WORK FOR US - NOT FOR bUSH!!!!

[uppityperson]

157. Reply from Cantwell. Black female=good?

I think she's the one who told me that her OK vote for Iraq war actually meant Bush could only threaten, that he really wouldn't/couldn't go to war without congress giving more ok. Off to write her a reply about which counts for more, lieing or being a black female. Only politely of course.
------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for contacting me regarding the confirmation of Dr.
Condoleezza Rice as the Secretary of State. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

As you know, on November 16, 2004, President Bush announced that he
nominated National Security Adviser Dr. Condoleezza Rice to succeed
Colin Powell as Secretary of State. She was confirmed on January 26, 2004, with my support, by a vote of 85 to 13. Dr. Rice is the first African-American woman, and only the second woman, to be confirmed as the nation's top diplomat.

I vote for Dr. Rice because I appreciate her diverse professional
background as a Professor at Stanford University specializing in Russian affairs, her experience as National Security Advisor, and her demonstrated understanding of world affairs and diplomacy.

However, my support for Dr. Rice does not come without reservations
about the direction this Administration has taken with regard to foreign policy. The individual charged with running the State Department will set the direction for our country's policies around the world and will have the power to decide whether to nurture and develop, or halt our Nation's great diplomatic efforts.

I hope Dr. Rice works to promote democracy throughout the world, not
just by employing our ample military force, but that we seek to develop democracy organically, where it has not taken hold. I am placing my trust in her that she will embrace her duty to take into account the future and foreseeable consequences of her actions, and that she will be guided by the knowledge that this Senator will raise those consequences at all appropriate occasions.

Thank you again for contacting me to share your thoughts on this matter. Finally, you may be interested in signing up for my weekly update for Washington state residents. Every Monday, I provide a brief outline about my work in the Senate and issues of importance to Washington state. If you are interested in subscribing to this update, please visit my website at http://cantwell.senate.gov. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,

Maria Cantwell
United States Senator

[ronnykmarshall]

14. Obama got "the memo"

Be nice, don't make trouble.

[joanski01]

16. Obama also voted Yes

in the Committee vote. Hillary voted Yes, as well as Chuck Schumer, Brian Dorgan, Harry Reid, Mulkulski, Sarbanes, Stabanough, etc.

[still_one]

24. The democrats in control stand for nothing

therefore they DO NOT STAND FOR ME

DAMN THEM

[StaggerLee]

38. Stabenow?

NOoooooooooooo!
:(

[Vadem]

95. I saw Stabenow on Washington Journal on C-Span yesterday...

and she said she would vote to confirm Rice because "the President needs to have the cabinet he wants to have" (paraphrased), even though she pretty much agreed with people calling in to the show that Rice lied.

[jdj]

138. translated: we know she comes off like an icy bitch, and

we want to keep it that way. We aren't going to help him confirm someone actually competent.

[barb162]

48. do these Democrats have FUNCTIONING brains?

[Lori Price CLG]

22. No, Barak O'Sellout is not on the 'no' list...

LieberBush, O'Sellout... with such 'friends,' we don't need enemies...

Cheers,
Lori R. Price
Gen. Mgr., Citizens for Legitimate Government
http://www.legitgov.org/

Receive the (free) CLG Newsletter every day!
[e-mail]

[renaissanceguy]

97. Obama is dissappointing

which is why I never supported him in the primaries. He'll say whatever is politically popular at the moment.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16781662

[Nailzberg]

118. Quite daring of you.

Seem to get in a lot of trouble for not showing unconditional love to Obama around here.

I agree with you. And the Rice vote validates the opinion. Durbin voted No and Obama should have followed his lead.

[Az_lefty]

88. neither's Hillary. Really disappointing.

[ally_sc]

102. everybody seems to want to kiss bush's *&^%

i am surprised at hillary...and obama, but what is up with all the rest i heard lieberman's speech today...crapola! i guess we all better get out the plastic and the duct tape...

[Laurab]

161. Sadly, I'm not surprised at Hillary

She's my senator. Everything she does seems to revolve around how it will affect her politically. While I do try to stay away from all the bashing of dems, I have to say I'm disappointed. I really can't figure out why she's mentioned so often as a candidate for '08, or a star of the democratic party. In my opinion, playing it safe is no longer an option under this regime, and anyone that does it is NOT helping themselves, politically or otherwise. Nor would it appear that they really care about this country. I hope I'm proven wrong, because I think there will be a lot of opportunities to stand up to this regime, and every single one of them has to take the gloves off.

[zann725]

169. Why am I not surprised? It is that 'caution' that makes him so desirable

to the powers-that-be...and why he has NO appeal whatsoever to me.

His similar stand on the Jan. 6 vote was equally as 'telling.'

That IS who Obama IS.

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

10. Introducing the "short list" of 2008 Democratic Candidates

Anybody who voted in favor of confirmation doesn't deserve a sniff. It was a purely symbolic vote -- she was going to be confirmed regardless -- and they didn't have the balls to make a statement.

...and I still want to live in a country where Tom Harken is President.

[LisaM]

30. Me too. I love Tom Harken

what a loss that he hasn't held higher office.

[MaggieSwanson]

80. Tom Harkin

Has made Iowa proud today!
:toast:

[demnan]

85. I got to shake his hand once.

It was a great moment, I very much admire your Senator.

[barb162]

34. that's just it: they didn't have the balls to say no so what the hell

good are they? Who are they representing? The Repukes? I voted for Obama and I now realize I should have not bothered voting that day.

[Wisc Badger]

105. No Insult intended but isn't Harkin to old???

just asking?

[Jeff in Cincinnati]

108. Listen up, sonny...

He's sixty-six years old. And being young didn't stop Bush from completely fucking up the country.

Tom Harkin taking a nap is a better chief executive than Bush.

Just kidding about the "sonny" part - I know no offense was intended.

[Wisc Badger]

116. Okay I stand corrected - I thought he was in his mid 70's

sorry :pals:

[melissinha]

127. Yay Harkin!

As a former constituent of Harkin.. I was very happy to hear that he voted nay! .... When Randi read the list... I swear I cheered out loud at work.... wohoo....

Gee, lets see what real veterans have to say about the whole war debacle... Thanks Harkin


For the person who asked about his age....Harkin is only 66 not too old.

[IA_Seth]

119. That would be Harkin...n/t

[liberal N proud]

25. These are the GOOD guys

The hell with the rest!

[TomClash]

40. 13 voted against her

Same as the number of original colonies.:-)

[dhinojosa]

63. Yep, it only takes 13 (colonies or senators) to start a revolution

[KamaAina]

42. Mr. Akaka's first name and middle initial are Daniel K.

just like our other Senator, you remember, the one who rose to national prominence by denouncing repuke lies and chicanery during the Watergate hearings. Too bad he didn't seem to have any left over for this.

Repukes, most recently McCain (sorry, fan club members) have been playing dirty for years in an effort to block Akaka's legislation that would give native Hawaiians recognition on roughly the same basis as the Indian tribal nations. I can't even imagine what they'll do now...

[saltpoint]

62. Hi, Kama Aina. I include Daniel Akaka in most of the --

-- issue campaigns when I write to senators.

He unfailingly writes back with thoughtful letters. I have been impressed with his quiet public service for a while now.

Hurray for this guy. He's a winner.

[joanski01]

113. I'm sorry, Kama

I just couldn't think of it when I was typing that list. I apologize. Didn't Mr. Akaka reintroduce that legislation about tribal rights? He either did or said he was going to.

[tlcandie]

144. A lot of people did not get what he was saying about the

ousting/overtaking/invasion of Hawaiians in relation to the Condi nomination. Although it has to do with the here and now...it is also some history for which to learn from which Hawaiians are so apt to do! Everything he had to say was very appropo to the Condi nomination!!

Interesting tidbit of info: Before Christian missionairies there were no thorny plants in Hawaii. Missionaries planted them so they would wear shoes.

*gives the hang loose sign

[Laurab]

164. Speaking of McCain - any respect I ever had for him

is long gone. At one time I thought he might be a rethug with some type of conscience. His quote from the article posted above:

"On the Senate floor Wednesday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., suggested Democrats were sore losers.

"I wonder why we are starting this new Congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion," McCain said. Since Rice is qualified for the job, he said, "I can only conclude that we are doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness over the outcome of the election."

that is above and beyond the call of ass-kissing duty. He's as bad as the rest of them.

[dhinojosa]

51. Where's Hillary?

Hillary? Uhm, Hillary? Kiss your 2008 goodbye.

[BrklynLiberal]

72. HA! Surprise! Surprise! Surprise?? Schumer's name is not there

either. What a total embarassment. I knew before this that I would never vote for either of them again. And I don't expect any pleasant surprises from either one of them on Gonzales.

[MsMagnificent]

93. Schumer is a coward

He's an embarrassment to NY Democrats

[Danmel]

114. Schumer apparently voted NO on Gonzalez in committee

And plans on voting NO in the confirmation itself. I called both Clinton and SChumers offices to urge them to vote NO on Condi and of course, they both voted for her. I wonder what Hillary will do with Gonzalez.

Schumer was my Congressman years ago when I lived in Bkyln (I grew up there). He is totally self serving- he irritates the crap out of me. They are both embarrassing right now- I wish they'd act like New Yorkers ( OK- Hillary at least act like you're from a real CITY) and stand for something.

I just don't what to think anymore.

[jswordy]

84. How about a list of YES Democrats? All of 'em. n/t

[JNelson6563]

100. I knew it!!

I knew Levin would vote no. He loathes her, it's evident when he talks about her.

Not surprised to see Durbin on that list either. Cheers for all who are on there!

Julie

[progressoid]

123. Yay Tom Harkin!!!

[jdj]

137. Boxer was the ony woman?

Hilary voted yes? Scuse me while I retch.

[earthside]

7. So are Most Democratic Senators Saying ...

... Lie to us all you want? It's okay. Truth doesn't matter much to us either.

I truly don't understand these Democratic senators that voted to confirm this demonstrated liar.

Will someone please it explain this to me?

Why is it so politically beneficial for so many of these Democratic senators to give Bush almost everything he wants? Why?

[tridim]

Apparently that's exactly what they're saying

and it freaks me out.

I don't know what to do any more. Except for a few exceptions, we (Democrats) are not represented in Washington. Doesn't that mean I don't have to pay federal taxes?

[barb162]

15. Answer: democrats in name only? Kissing up to damned shrub

and there is NO reason for it.

[ixion]

21. yes they are, and why?

because of the money and power, and because they no longer care to look out for the best interests of the world, the country, nor their party.

[barb162]

110. and the voters who voted for them.

[primavera]

23. What a hell of a good question!

Has the administration pulled some backdoor deal with these Dems to give up on Social Security deconstruction if they go along with confirming Kindasleazy? Have Senate Repukes promised to support Dems in passing any of their resolutions, such as the Civil Liberties Restoration Act? Or are they just worried that the administration will drop them from its Christmas card list? What the hell is in it for Dems that could make it worthwhile to support a homicidal, warmongering, ideologically extreme, pathological liar for one of the most important cabinet posts in the government?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

35. I can't believe my two (NY) Senators didn't vote no!!

Their jobs are pretty safe no matter which way they vote. Do they really think she's competent or qualified to be Secretary of State?

Cause I sure as hell don't! Especially after she lied about the info they had on 9/11.

Damn! I wanted to see Shumer and Clinton go "no" solely for that reason. She utterly failed to protect their constituents on 9/11. A promotion for the National Security Advisor who let 3,000 people die on her watch. Some Security! Bang up job, Condi. Literally.

Lying incompetent worthless.

[Zebulon]

58. Re: Will someone please it explain this to me?

Will someone please it explain this to me?

The only thing I can think, is that they figure Rice was going to be confirmed anyway, and that they'd be better off saving their fire for other issues.

The real test, IMO, is how the Senate Democrats handle Bush's Supreme Court nominees.

[Zhade]

112. That doesn't explain post #35.

Neither of those voting "yes" are in any danger of losing the next election based on a "no" vote.

[tlcandie]

145. It means they are all dirty, too and can't point the finger unless

it pokes out their own eye. :cry: Many books point this out...that the Dems (most) are just as dirty as the other side of the aisle because in order to survive in DC it's the way of it. It's the rare bird who does not and if they aren't before arriving in DC...then they will be upon being there!

[FlyByNight]

13. I hope she doesn't get a hold of any more PDBs

She's got a lot more to ignore now.

:thumbsdown:

[Bethany Rockafella]

17. I would expect every Dem senator would have voted No.

Because we all know the repukes will vote their party no matter what. But I wonder if those Dems that voted yes are in a quandry. If they had all voted no for Condi, the repukes would have wailed night and day "see how the Democrats treat a black woman!" They would beat it to death that the Democrats had an opportunity to vote for a black SOS woman, but instead voted no. I know one thing, I better not hear one of them say they voted yes because we didn't have the majority. That won't cut it.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

19. Who is the only Red State DEM Senator to vote against Condy Rice?

Evan Bayh, that's who. For that alone he should be on the ticket in 2008. There really shouldn't be any debate about that.

He's been a governor, a senator, & he's obviously one of the only DEM senators who can stand up to this lying administration. Plus he's from an important RED state with 11 electoral votes that is right next to Ohio.

If Bayh had delivered his home state of Indiana in 2000, Al Gore would be giving the state of the union address next wk.

This is an absolute no brainer unless the Democratic party simply wants to continue on its irrational path.

Given the ongoing war on terrorism, the only logical ticket to challenge McCain in 2008 is

CLARK/BAYH !

[Democracy Died]

37. Uh. I don't want DLC Bayh.

Forget it.

DLC is history. Even my friend who was an original DLC member think so.

I'd rather have a DFA/Dean-influenced Democratic Party being run. Now, that's REAL grassroots support.

[bloom]

43. no

one vote with a lame argument does not a president make.

[Tacos al Carbon]

44. "There really shouldn't be any debate about that."

Yes, let's not debate that at all ...

"If Bayh had delivered his home state of Indiana in 2000, Al Gore would be giving the state of the union address next wk."

But he didn't deliver it, did he? You'd think that would be a mark AGAINST him. Oh, and McCain doesn't have the nomination quite yet and Clark certainly has a very, very long way to go.

[Wisc Badger]

107. Sad to say but Indiana does not vote Democrate

in Presidential elections, it simply does not.

[IA_Seth]

122. Actually that would be Harkin...Iowa turned red this year

And IIRC Harkin is up for a vote next go round.

The man has principles!

[Massachusetts]

33. Hey, don't blame me I'm from Massachusetts.

Everyone else must follow the Bu$hco bouncing ball.:bounce:

[Chico Man]

76. Don't blame me, I'm from Rhode Island

Well, you can actually sort of blame me as is looks like Chaffee voted aye.

[calimary]

151. Don't blame me, I'm from California - well, BOXER Rebellion Country

anyway. Uh, Dianne Feinstein? Er - WHO? Ahem! Um... never heard of her. Certainly looks like it'll be that way when she comes up for reelection and I (probably will) notice her name on our primary ballot. She has some work to do before she wins my support again. But Barbara "Backbone" Boxer - YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

36. It's not surprising when DUers have been arguing that

"The Dems should just confirm anyone the Bushboy nominates, because they're going to be confirmed anyway."

There are two ways to be in the minority: one is to let the majority dominate you, and the other is to fight back. Mark Dayton's speech against Rice was the top story on the Twin Cities local news, so a large portion of the population of Minnesota, including the ones who don't pay much attention to politics, got to hear that she lied on behalf of the administration.

If the other Senators had voted against Rice and given speeches, THEY would have made their local news, too, and their constituents would have heard the truth about the buildup to the Iraq War.

But no, they all had to play nice and be "bipartisan." :grr:

[Zebulon]

68. Re: There are two ways to be in the minority

There are two ways to be in the minority: one is to let the majority dominate you, and the other is to fight back.

If you vote straight party line against everything, you're setting yourself up to be painted as 'obstructionist'. I'd really rather not see what the Republicans would do with a filibuster-proof Senate majority.

Madelaine Albright was confirmed as SOS on a 99-0 vote.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

136. Madeleine Albright was competent and didn't have a track record of

lying to promote an aggressive war.

Also, there's nothing wrong with being obstructionist against the indefensible. We have to stop worrying about what the Republicans will think or what the MSM will think. That gives them more power than they deserve, and it's granting them power that they don't automatically have.

[lyonn]

117. great point Lydia

Getting it out in the local news. If people don't hear what this dabate has really been about it was almost for nothing. I was so in hopes our MSM would do more with this, silly me.

[truebrit71]

39. The more I think about this the more pissed off I become...

Are these "democrats" insane?
Have they taken leave of their senses?

Yes, the pResident has the right to choose whomever he wants for Cabinet positions...but it is NOT required that the opposition party rolls over and plays dead...

This is disgusting!!!

Well at least we know we have 12 Democratic Senators working for us, the rest of them can go pound sand... :grr:

[TomClash]

41. LET'S HEAR ONE BIG BOO FOR THE NEW YORK DELEGATION!

Both Schumer and Clinton voted to confirm the unqualified and incompetent Ms. Rice.

[bloom]

45. "she got the most "no" votes since World War II."

thats something.

[AspenRose]

59. Can't wait to see what happens with the vote involving Torquemada

Gonzales.

[luckypunch]

46. Both MA senators vote no!

Thanks to Senators Kerry and Kennedy. Its good to live in a very blue state.

[primavera]

52. Can we seek asylum there?

Massachusetts is starting to look like one of the few sane states left...

[luckypunch]

55. You probably should

It really is comfortable to live where most of the people you encounter are on your side.

[Vadem]

49. How about this for an idea to notify spineless Dems that we....

are mad as hell and will not take it anymore?

We set up an internet small donor funding mechanism, such as Pay Pal or whatever, and every time Dems show courage in voting for the benefit of all that is correct and good (such as against the Rice confirmation), they get many small donations from us on the "internets" to their campaign kitties, with a letter from our "committee" telling them exactly why they are receiving the little shot to their financial arms, with a cc to all the others who voted against our interest. We may not be the big corporate donors that they all love so well, but we could make them notice us, just as Howard Dean woke up the Dem party with all the small donations under $200 that he received from we, the people! We could even send to Indy's like Jeffords or, even Pubs, who vote courageously on issues against their party line.

What could we call our "committee"--The Democratic Underground Committee to _______ _____ ______ ?

[Damien]

66. good idea...

but you have to make sure it doesn't come of as bribing votes (which it could).

[Vadem]

98. You're right.....We would probably have to register as lobbyists...

or as a 527 group.

[hootinholler]

69. An interesting idea....

Can it be done legally?

As for the name... The committee to Prime the Truth Pump.

-Hoot

[Vadem]

99. LOL! Love the name "Prime the Truth Pump".......n/t

[geniph]

56. 13 No votes is hugely significant

Even if we'd all prefer the same lockstep uniformity in our party that the Republicans have been trained to (yuck), it's still hugely significant that SOME Dems openly opposed any cabinet nominee. Do you realize how rare that is? Most Presidents get their whole slate pretty much as a matter of course, without opposition. The only real opposition usually comes if the person can be found guilty of something actually illegal, like failing to pay an employee's Social Security taxes, things like that. No matter what, this would have been a symbolic opposition. We haven't a hope in hell right now of breaking the Republican lockstep, not without enticing some of the moderates over from the dark side. I'm kind of hoping the Republicans do that themselves, alienate the moderates so badly that they pull a Jeffords. But I'm not holding my breath on that one.

Refusing to vote for incumbents solely on the basis that they failed to join a symbolic opposition is not in our best interests. Look at their WHOLE voting record, over the course of the entire Administration, and decide then whether they're a DINO. Opposing a cabinet appointee is damn near unprecedented - it's a very big deal that anyone did it. Like voting to investigate the Ohio voting problems, it's purely symbolic; it's not as if Obama and Hillary and a few others joined the protest, suddenly the outcome would change.

Refusing to vote for our incumbents in 2006/2008 because of one or two votes we didn't like is a good way to guarantee we have a Senate with 90 Republicans in it, instead of 55. 55 is bad enough; the worst thing I can imagine right now is to give them even five more seats. That's enough to break a filibuster. That means they get EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING.

[Zebulon]

70. Re: 13 No votes is hugely significant

Most Presidents get their whole slate pretty much as a matter of course, without opposition.

Yep.

I don't have a problem with the Democrats giving Bush the cabinet he wants. I'm much more concerned with how they handle nominations to the federal judiciary.

[Robbien]

77. Nixon held the previous record of 7 votes against his SoS

Or so I read. So yes, this is very significant. Too bad the so called main stream media does not point this out. Of course since it is not on the RNC talking points memo, the so called main stream media does not deem it fit to print.

[coreystone]

86. EVERYTHING is the whole game; no checks and balances..

of any kind. Everything is total control of EVERY BRANCH of government in this country.

:-(

[Kimber Scott]

103. They already have EVERYTHING. Even the majority of Democrats.

So what's the f'n difference? Republicans, or Democrats who act like Republicans. Either way, we're screwed.

[geniph]

115. There is a world of difference between 55 Senate seats

and 60. 60 is enough to break a filibuster. 55 isn't, not unless they force through their insane "nuclear option" - which someday will come back and bite them in the ass.

They don't quite have everything. Remember those 13. Those 13 will be the ones doing the filibustering. So yeah, those 13 deserve our accolades, our praise for their bravery and spine. My point is that not every single Democrat had to join them to make the symbolic protest. So let's not go totally overboard and throw those babies out with the bathwater here.

I believe in standing up for principles and having spine. I do not believe in total ideological purity to the point of preciousness, though.

[lyonn]

124. But the actions and deeds by Rice caused enormous

unnecessary deaths along with giving the terrorist more amunition. Her actions along with the rest of this admin. have done irreparable damage to this country, in my opinion. At least Gonzales only allowed torture, and an occasional death, and some ill will, (fascious). I realise the Dems can't vote no on all things but this one was BIG.

[geniph]

134. But they knew they had NO CHANCE of winning

so why do all the Democrats have to join in the symbolic protest vote? As is, it's set a huge historical precedent.

Also, bear in mind that we don't want to fight them on every nominee, or the next Democratic President will face the same opposition to their cabinet. We have to pick the battles we can win. Without loosening some of the pod people Senators from the Republican lockstep, we had no chance on this one.

[jdj]

140. I don't agree. They will torch ours because they can.

Not because of what we do. They will act based on their own best interests.

[Mills Street]

141. Yes! Historical context!

Thank you!

[TankLV]

159. You are free to vote the way you wish, we are perfectly justified in

basing our future votes on what we see as one of the most important votes a person can make.

You can be free to vote for those who we see as making a verious serious decision to support the indefensible. It IS one vote - but it is a most repugnant vote!

If you don't like it that we may base our judgement of certain persons on this one vote, that is too bad. I and obviously most here feel that this was a very important vote. There have been others, like the IWR. It has been pointed out that this or that individual voted for the IWR or Partiot Act along with practically all the others. So, just because everyone was for these horrible things, that go against everything we believe in and fought for, we should just accept it?

We did - we held our nose and supported these people against our better judgement just to vote for ABB.

This is just one more vote of many for me - it is adding up to an awful lot of votes against my beliefs and wishes. They are certainly "free" to do so - but they pay the price of steadily losing my support till I have NO MORE support for these sell-outs.

NEVER AGAIN!

[saltpoint]

60. The Newsday account tilts the vote toward --

-- a partisan response rather than a principled objection to Rice. Bill Moyers would have written the piece differently.

I'll send 13 thankyous to the vertebrates in the Senate who voted against this nomination, and a handful of others to Obama, Feingold, Mikulski, etc. to tell them their vote for Rice was disheartening.

The biggest surprise for me was seeing Evan Bayh rise in opposition to Condi. I would have lost that bet for sure.

[crimnos]

73. That's the AP at work

It infuriates me that so many newspapers look to them as the gospel.

[jswordy]

91. HOW THE AP WORKS -- PLEASE READ THIS!

Uh, do you even have any idea of how the AP works? I doubt it.

But first, let me say I just looked through all the AP versions of the Rice story in my raw wires here at the paper, and you are wrong. The insinuation the OP pointed out is not in the AP stories. That puts that to rest.

Now, first let me say that the AP is by far the biggest news cooperative left in the biz in this country. It overshadows all else on the landscape.

Here is how AP works: Member newspapers (and broadcast outlets) submit their stories to AP, which then makes them available to all the other member newspapers. That's it! There are some writers who do write expressly for the AP, but their number is small in comparison to the stories submitted by members.

Editors (the largest job class at AP) take the stories submitted and edit them, update them or whatever, then put them onto the appropriate wires, where they are picked up by members nationally.

Newspapers "look to (AP) as gospel" because the stories are submitted b the papers themselves in the vast majority of cases.

If you see a reporter's byline, and underneath it is "The Associated Press," you can rest assured that reporter actually works for a newspaper out there somewhere. The paper's name has been removed and the AP slug has been added after the story was shipped to AP.

On the other hand, if you see a reporter's byline and under it is "AP National Writer," or other AP title, that is a writer employed by the AP itself. Feel free to ciriticize these as AP material. But all the rest really isn't. It comes from the members.

A paper can subscribe to as many news services as it wants or can afford. Some chains have their own news services, like Newhouse News Service or The New York Times News Service. The AP's old rival, UPI, is still around after years of financial troubles and downsizing. It has transformed into a quasi-conservative news service, and is available. It no longer has near the size or reach to compete with the AP.

But here's the rub: the smaller the market, the fewer news services a paper can afford. That is why AP has become the baseline backbone for virtually all papers using a news service. They can tailor the membership to suit even the smallest markets and allow those papers access to state, national and world news they otherwise could not get on their own.

I hope this helps. It supremely irks me to see people criticize the news media out of ignorance.

[saltpoint]

106. As I read the piece, it tilts toward partisan objection --

-- as opposed to principled stand.

Are you saying the Newsday piece does not do this?

[hootinholler]

61. Not one word about basing the war on bold faced lies.

I should know better this coming from AP, and *then* they topped it off with:

Now, she will be at his side trying to improve relations with European allies, pursuing a Middle East settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, seeking a way to stop North Korea and Iran from developing nuclear weapons -- and, above all, trying to pacify Iraq with limited additional U.S. casualties.

For some odd reason I thought N. Korea already had nukes?

-Hoot

[k8conant]

64. Hooray for Robert C. Byrd...

At least one of my senators stood up. Jay Rockefeller has been a disappointment.

[coreystone]

74. From Vermont!

I am proud that Senator Jeffords (I) voted NO! Although, I am extremely disappointed that Leahy voted YES, I understand that he has been quite vocal in his stance to vote NO on the Gonzales confirmation. I haven't the foggiest idea how the Democrats are playing all of this out, or, even if they have arrived at a consolidated "game plan" to neutralize the lies of this administration collectively. I sincerely hope that there is MUCH more going on behind the scenes, but, I am really not that trusting of my blind faith anymore.

I was disappointed that the "big dems heavy hitters" on C-SPAN were not scheduled at a later time for the average American to be able to view their comments. Most of the really good stuff was earlier in the afternoon.

We all do the best we can on DU, and, that is all we can do! I do think that the "Rice Thirteen" sent out a very clear message that has been historically unprecedented in Cabinet level confirmation votes being cast "against" the nominees of the President.

[coffeenap]

82. Do you think they chose "13" on purpose? nt

[coreystone]

87. I assume you mean as a "symbolic" representation of the 13..

colonies. Gosh, I don't even know if I know who "they" refers to. Sorry!

:-)

[coffeenap]

111. "they" refers

to the Democratic Senators. Do you think they vote individually? Surely you know this is the job of Mr. Reid and Mr. Durbin--to gather and distribute votes as deemed appropriate?

[VegasWolf]

89. Calling Hillary Clinton!! Hillary! Hillary! How did you vote Hillary?n/t

[mcscajun]

92. Dayton speaks out; Lieberman makes you gag.

From the NY Times article:
from the NYT:

Ms. Rice's severest critics accused her not just of making mistakes on Iraq but of outright deception. "We cannot get the truth from this administration," Senator Mark Dayton, Democrat of Minnesota, said in debate on Tuesday.

But Ms. Rice's critics were far outnumbered by those who favored her, on both sides of the aisle. "This nominee is more than qualified," Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, said today.

(snip)

Despite the overwhelming vote, White House vote-counters were somewhat disappointed, having hoped the nominee would glean well over 90 votes.

Those who voted against Ms. Rice, besides Mr. Jeffords and Mr. Dayton, were Senators Barbara Boxer of California, Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts, Carl Levin of Michigan, Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey and Tom Harkin of Iowa.

==========
I'm so heartbroken the WH is disappointed
/sarcasm

[uppityperson]

96. Onion take on Rice Confirmation = Pissed off terrier, etc. linked

http://www.theonion.com/wdyt/index.php?issue=4104

Ted Ramos
Upholsterer "Great. Now the public face of U.S. diplomacy is that of a pissed-off terrier."

[Ashamed_American]

101. Well scratch New Year's resolution #1 off of my list.

Now to #2, get rid of Gonzales. What?! He's going to get the green light as well? It can be!

Unfortunately it is, and it's disgusting. While we would and should hope that every Democratic name would find its way to the 'NO' list, thats not how these things work. With the much discussed movement so many Dems are making closer and closer to the center of the aisle and beyond, its no suprise.

For that reason, Hillary Clinton's name being absent doesn't shock me at all. It infuriates me, but doesn't shock me. While a lot of her actions are up for debate, it's no secret that she has been taking baby steps over time to atleast peak over the wall to see what's on the red side. Just a political positioning ploy? Of course. But if that is the direction she goes, she has to stick with it unfortunately (being that if she were to be elected President '08, she would then start her positioning to be re-elected in 2012).

More disheartening then that of Clinton is the goose egg Obama layed on this one. You probably feel as I do. Here comes along the future. Young, handsome, charismatic, intelligent. The Great Blue Hope as I called him. The preface was wonderful. We scanned over the contents and were excited. But this is what we receive as we turn to chapter one? Not a good way to win my heart.

So on we march, as that is our only choice. This incedent allows me to focus more of my time and efforts in the rise of the TRUE Democrats.

www.blackeyedsundays.com

[VegasWolf]

109. Too damn funny! n/t

[6th Borough]

120. Quicky question: Anyone know if Bill Nelson (FL) voted YES or a No Vote?

[6th Borough]

121. Just feel like mentioning that I miss Bob Graham...

:cry:

[Name removed]

125. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[crossroads]

126. A Sad Day!

When failures are rewarded! The really sad part is how the dems have rolled over on this!
:crazy:

[pinniped]

128. Freaking disgusting. I guess most didn't want to worry about...

secret envelopes with a bunker as the return address.

[geomon666]

135. Biden and his flock are nothing but republican slime...

and anyone else who supports these appeasers should just fly on off to Freepland where they belong.

[Mills Street]

142. I don't understand what's the big deal

about how the senate democrats voted on this.

Strategically, it makes sense for many senators to approve whoever the opposing party pick for their cabinet. It is a good way to pick up "bipartisan points" something unpopular here but very popular at the polls, while preserving the important votes for what really matters.

So you see senators secure in reelection or in heavy democratic areas voting against Rice, while those thinking about reelection in split states approving her. It is purely political.

In this case, it makes extra sense to approve Rice. Three reasons.

One: If we learned one thing about Bush, if you don't like who he picks, he will pick someone worse. Yeah, I know it seems like it can't get much worse, but he always surprises me.

Two: Let Bush make is own bad decisions. If Rice fails, like I think she will, the blame will fall on Bush (though he will try as hard as he can to either deny the failing or blame someone else.)

Three: It is not like she will make any decisions anyway. We know that comes from Cheney/Rumsfield/PNAC.

[VegasWolf]

148. Ugh, she was instrumental into getting us into this neo Vietnam.n/t

[Rockerdem]

149. What a charade

Shes worse than Ashcroft and slides through nearly untouched compared to him.

[superconnected]

150. oh how nice, we have a total of 13 democratic senators in the senate

I didn't realize we'd gotten so low.

oops my mistake.

not all of the 13 votes were from democrats, but most were.

I'm so happy the dems made a majority of their part of the 13. Well actually not very happy, because I feel the rest of the democratic senators should be booted out with the republican ones.

I guess I'm just turning more and more green everyday... To bad the greens don't have a chance to win an election.

But heck, neither do the dems, and I don't plan on joining the dem movement to the other side anyway. Ah ralph, I almost forgive you for 2000.. almost.

aaaaahhh...aaarrrggg......it's so bad it hurts...

[IndianaGreen]

153. We started with only 13 colonies

at least we know we have 13 Senators that we can count on, including Evan Bayh (shock!).

[blackspade]

154. barf 'o fuckin rama

How these tools can rationalize a vote for Condilier is beyond me.
Any Democrat that votes for *'s nominees is a sell out.

[PassingFair]

155. Don't you think this is what Dean was talking about when he

...referred to the cockroaches in congress?
I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!

[oppositionmember]

160. What a farce!

[EndElectoral]

166. I don't know how anyone can call themselves a Dem and vote to confirm her!