Cantwell to vote against Alberto Gonzales (torture and Enron)

[Cocoa]

the Enron angle is news to me, and underreported...

http://www.oregonlive.com/newsflash/washingtonstate/index.ssf?/base/news-11/110682652316050.xml&storylist=orwashington

SEATTLE (AP) — Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said Thursday she will vote against the nomination of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general because of his legal advice on torture and refusal to recuse himself from matters involving Enron Corp.

<snip>

Democrats on the committee also criticized Gonzales, who was White House counsel during President Bush's first term, for his legal advice asserting that the White House need not be bound by domestic and international laws on torture.

"We want our attorney general to uphold the law no matter who the criminal is or who asks for his advice," Cantwell said. "It is essential that the person the Senate confirms for this position is independent. I am unconvinced that he has the independence to be the nation's leading law enforcement officer."

Cantwell, a former Judiciary Committee member whose state was hard hit by soaring energy costs in the Enron scandal, also was unhappy that Gonzales — a former partner in a law firm that represented Enron — did not promise to stay out of the Justice Department's investigation of the bankrupt energy giant.

More…

[ronnykmarshall]

1. Anyone keeping score?

I know that both my senators (Boxer and Feinstien) are voting "no".

[cali]

2. I'm not exactly keeping score

but all 8 members of the Judiciary are voting against plus Boxer and Feinstein. I suspect that we will see 35 or more dems voting nay. What I don't think we'll see is a filibuster. He'll be approved.

[orthogonal]

6. Right

That all 8 on the committee voted "no" suggests coordination (thank Harry Reid?); I expect most Dems have agreed to vote against Abu Gonzales.

Unfortunately, a party line vote'll make it look "political", so Joementum will actually be doing us a favor by being a Democrat who votes against it.

Um, Joementum still calls himself a Democrat, right?

I mean, I know no one else does, but Joe still says it, right?

[jamesinca]

4. Feinstein is voting no

I am surprised. She is a Zell Miller wannabe. Will she have her lips off of Condi Rices ass in time to make it to the vote? Sorry, I hate Feinstein right now, she has fallen into the malignant bitch category until at least Feb 17th.

[4_Legs_Good]

7. I agreee on Feinstein

We have to figure out how to get rid of her without getting someone worse.

She does not belong in California, but she's the politician who will not go away.

david

[ProudToBeLiberal]

22. so you hate feingold too?

you're going to hate person who voted no on the patriot act allby himself?

[jamesinca]

30. I am only addressing Feinstein

I am also only pointing out that I don't care for Feinstein. Since she is the Senator from my state I feel a little more passionate about her votes than those of another states Senator. I realize that she is 1% of the vote in the Senate and her votes do influence national policy as does every other Senators. Because of that, indirectly Strom Thurmond was my Senator, but Feinstein was put in office to directly represent California. Condi Rice may be the values of, lets say Utah. So if Orrin Hatch were to vote for her, he would be representing his constituents. Feinstein is not doing that when she votes for Rice, she is not representing the majority of CA IMO. I may think somebody has their head screwed on wrong when they are from another state and vote differently than I would like, but they are there to reperesent their state and its people, not me and my state.

[ProudToBeLiberal]

33. well that depends

if you believe that a senator should be a delegate or trustee.

[jamesinca]

36. I believe she should be a representative

She needs to represent the values and desires of the majority of Californians. She can be a delegate or a trustee or what ever the hell she thinks she is on her time, while she is on the clock she needs to represent the majority of CA. Not the values of her biggest money donor, not the values of the person in the White House, not even Sen. Boxers values. She needs to represent the majority of CA and I do not think she does that. A few years back she had an interview in the S.F Chronicle and she stated something along the lines of voting for what she thinks is right, not what somebody tells her to do or think. In light of her voting for Condi, it is clear that she does not vote for CA, she just votes for herself. She is not being a delegate or a trustee in this case and she is not voting for the beliefs of the state IMO. Bush lost here and Kerry did not really even campaign in CA. Boxer won by a huge margin and she did campaign. Sen. Boxer won with the most votes ever for a Senator, she won with about a 20% margin of victory over her opponent. I had the pleasure of a breakfast, a brunch and a lunch with Sen. Boxer while she was campaigning. Her message was the same then as it is now and she won with it. If Feinstein were to vote more like Sen. Boxer, she would be voting more in line with the beliefs and desires of CA who she is in D.C. to represent. I make that statement based on the previous election results.

I don't like Feinstein!

[lupita]

10. About time Feinstein started doing something righ n/t

[Rose Siding]

3. Hallelujah

Ashcroft got 43 "no" votes, didn't he? I wonder why it's easier to nix an AG than State.

[moobu2]

11. Because the Attorney General

is responsible for enforcing the law, even if that means investigating the President himself. It's more important to scrutinize his ability to do his job (watergate for example).

The State Department, on the other hand, is only carrying out the policies of the president. there really isn't any point usually, to have any strong objections to approving them. Of coarse in Condi Rices case it was slightly different because she's possibly complicit in war crimes and a known liar..

[spotbird]

12. How many votes does it take for each?

I assumed a simple majority was necessary.

[Wisc Badger]

13. A simple majority is all that is required to confirm

a presidential nominee, be it to the cabinet or to the courts.

[cmf]

5. Good for her

Now I will wait and see what Murray does. They both pissed me off for not voting against Condaliar.

[freeplessinseattle]

8. damn, Cantwell's actually doing something to make us proud! (nt)

[ClayZ]

15. Too bad she didn't

hold the line and vote no for Cond-lie-alot also. I will write to her and apologise for my last letter. <<grin>>

[primavera]

9. About fucking time

It boggles the mind to think that a man who believes in illegally detaining and torturing to death persons simply suspected of maybe possibly having some undefined link to terrorists is even being considered for the country's highest legal office. That he could coast unopposed would too incredible to take seriously.

[yellowcanine]

14. I suspect the letter from the retired generals is swaying some senators.

It should pull in some Republicans also if there were any justice in the world. Wouldn't it be sweet if a bunch of Republicans voted NO also and the nomination failed? I would laugh my ass off.

[Red State Rebel]

16. Am I the only one who thinks all this posturing is stupid?

They knew from the beginning that Condi Rice was going to be confirmed. The same thing with Gonzales.

I think all the publicity is just making the party look petty and partisan.

I've 3 different Minority groups on TV contesting that this is racial descrimination and thats NOT going to win us any votes.

Yes, they should question these nominees and they should vote the way they believe, but the grandstanding and press conferences is, I believe, a mistake.

[Just Me]

17. I view it as a means to inform the American people,...

,...rather than mere "posturing". Moreover, they are making a "record" AND they are re-energizing progressives by taking an offensive rather than defensive approach, both of which are very important.

I guess "everything" is in the eye of the beholder. In my eyes, their more aggressive stands are courageous, smart and inspiring!

[Red State Rebel]

18. Thats what the debates and hearings are for...n/t

[Just Me]

21. Those aren't "rebellious" enough to attract media-sexy coverage. n/t

[ClayZ]

19. Me too! Shout out the truth, loud and clear!

It is probably the first little clips of truth 1/2 of the country has witnessed. I believe they are all brainwashed. Just the look on some of those Republican Senators faces as the truth was outing, was PRICELESS.

ClayZ

"The only thing necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do
nothing."
-- Edmund Burke

[Robbien]

20. So you advocate the Democrats just STFU

The Democratic Congressmen have STFU for four years now and the end result is that the media condemned and scoffed at them.

You are complaining the media is once again condemning and scoffing at them now that they have taken a stand.

The media will condemn and scoff at the Democratic party no matter what it does, so why not at least stand up against deceit, death, destruction and greed?

But no, you want them to STFU. Why? What purpose does that serve?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

23. to save our capital later DUH

like for example to fight social security etc etc

[Robbien]

24. What Capital? The media will never let Democrats have capital.

The media is letting the GOP tear down the Democrats on Bush's illegal invasion. The Media will let the GOP tear down the Democrats on Bush's support of torture. The Media will let the GOP tear down the Democrats on social security.

Not being smeared today makes no difference in the smears tomorrow.

What Capital?

[ProudToBeLiberal]

25. with that pessimistic attitude, then no capital

I tend to be more optomistic of the future you know

[Robbien]

28. If we keep speaking up, the GOPers will have to expend their capital

to counter.

In my opinion, I am not being pessimistic but being an activist. Being quiet keeps the same old status quo with the GOPers easily getting everything they want.

[DearAbby]

38. Save our capital?

What is this save our capital, like a video game we only have so much strength...the little red bar slides to empty? Its a fight, and its a fight for the long haul. The Democrats need to stand up, send our message out. We are mad as hell and we are not taking it anymore!

They have spent the last 30+ years to get in this position. They want the total destruction of any voice of dissent. We may never have another opportunity to have our voices heard...Election Fraud 06 will be undetectable. If we have too, we have to run on fumes. We have to put up a fight to save our way of life, our democracy.

The Fact that they are fighting against a person that condones torture! TORTURE! is that really an American Ideal? How in the hell can we point a finger at a tyrant committing genocide, that they are violating human rights, when we are guilty of the same? Does that sound hypocritical to you? If they don't fight this, what the hell do you think they should fight for?

Sorry sweetie, the Job is a tough one, they have battles. They have to fight EACH and EVERY one of them. WE ARE THEIR CAPITAL...they are not fishing for GOP votes. They are wanting to keep ours, and gain others that are sick and tired of being targeted on THE WAR against the AMERICAN People.

:::steps off of Rant Box:::

[Red State Rebel]

32. They need to pick their battles more wisely.

When the only two nominees they are throwing a hissy fit about are minorities they are begging for trouble.

In the meantime, the Avg. white guy nominees are sailing through with no comment...wtf?????

[Robbien]

35. Rice was a major player in the spread of Iraq propaganda

Her and her aluminum tubes, bah.

Plus she was holding a document which stated "Bin Laden to attack US with planes" all the while saying don't blame me, no one could have expected planes.

Over a hundred thousand people are dead right now because Rice did her job very badly, and you want no one to say one word against her because she is black?

[teakee]

26. As Gonzales has been known to say.........

"Are we leaning forward enough?" (as how far the torture may go)


So what if they have to answer questions about their actions, if their actions weren't questionable ---there would be no problem with their confirmations. IMO, there are a lot of Americans and people around the world who would like some answers.


:grr:

[moobu2]

27. The democrates should have been more prepared for the race baiting

Look who the opposition is, Look at the MSM, what did they expect?

They should have been prepared to launch a ferocious counter attack and pointed out again and again what the issues were.

[spotbird]

29. How could have they known that surprise

tatic would be used?

[Red State Rebel]

31. How could they not???

The first black female SOS nominee and they didn't expect to see the race card played? Bad planning on their part.

[spotbird]

37. My apology.

Clarence Thomas should have been the one and only time they'd be able to pull this shit. The fact that we're unprepared 13 years later is, well, the reason we lose elections.

My sarcasm doesn't come through well, we agree.

[pacifictiger]

34. I disagree!

If now is not the time to speak up for the truth, pray tell when is? To back down from telling the truth because it might not "look good" is pretty shallow reasoning and has led to the mess we are in right now.
The problem with the dems trying to compromise for the sake of harmony is that the rightwingers are not negotiating in good faith and keep moving the compromise line to the right. There comes a time when principled stance is called for.

[NashVegas]

39. kcik

..

[pnorman]

40. Cantwell To Oppose U.S. Attorney General Nominee Alberto Gonzales

I just got the below by email, and assume that it constitutes LBN. My apologies if I'm mistaken.

U.S. Senator
Maria Cantwell
Washington

For Immediate Release
January 27, 2005
[phone]
[phone] (cell)

Cantwell To Oppose U.S. Attorney General Nominee Alberto Gonzales

Questions Torture Memo Role & Enron Connections

WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) today announced that she will vote against the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales to be the next U.S. Attorney General when it comes to the Senate floor next week.

“The Attorney General of the United States, as the chief law enforcement officer in the land, holds a special independent place in the government. While the President selects the nominee, the Constitution requires the Senate to provide ‘advice and consent.’ After carefully listening to Judge Gonzales during his Senate hearings and reading his responses to questions, I have decided to oppose his confirmation.

“Given that Judge Gonzales’ office generated legal opinions that counseled the White House it did not have to be bound by domestic and international laws on torture, and he failed to commit to recuse himself on Enron matters prior to confirmation, I cannot support him for the top law enforcement officer in the land.

“We want our Attorney General to uphold the law no matter who the criminal is or who asks for his advice.

“It is essential that the person the Senate confirms for this position is independent. I am unconvinced that he has the independence to be the nation’s leading law enforcement officer. As White House Counsel, his office generated a legal opinion on whether the President is bound by domestic and international law on torture, which the government recently repudiated as legally faulty. Such a repudiation calls Judge Gonzales’ judgment into question, judgment that is important for our country’s top attorney. It also suggests he is not independent of the President, which is essential for his new Cabinet role. Further, Judge Gonzales’s changed position on the torture memos in the weeks before his confirmation hearings appears to demonstrate political convenience, not a truly self-reflective change in his thinking on these matters. Had Judge Gonzales recognized the serious problems with the judgments he made on these issues and given convincing assurances that he understands that his new role will require a different approach and a new allegiance to the law, I might have been convinced to defer to the President on this nomination.

“Additionally, Judge Gonzales had substantial ties to Enron while he was an attorney in private practice and then a candidate for the Texas Supreme Court, including receiving many thousands of dollars from Enron and its PAC both in campaign contributions and legal fees. These ties could effect the ongoing criminal investigations of Enron officials. Given the significance of this case and the past recusal of the outgoing Attorney General, Judge Gonzales should have made clear his intention to recuse himself from that investigation.

“Outgoing Attorney General Ashcroft recused himself because of similar political ties to Enron. While I have not been satisfied with the Administration’s Enron investigation to date, at least I knew that the Attorney General Ashcroft acknowledged that his former friendship with Enron could pose problems in the investigation sufficient enough to justify his recusal. I want the same assurances from Gonzales, or at least an explanation of why these former professional and political ties to Enron do not constitute grounds for recusal. Yet in his written answers, Judge Gonzales would not state whether he would recuse himself, and he would not be specific about how his former ties to Enron might impact the Department of Justice’s investigation of that company. What Enron did to my constituents in Washington and countless others across the nation was disgraceful, and one of the most important things the next Attorney General will do is conduct that investigation and bring Enron criminals to justice. Having read Gonzales’s answers to the Enron questions, I am not even reassured that he would believe the investigation to be a priority.”

Yesterday, the Senate Judiciary Committee reported Gonzales’ nomination on a 10-8 vote. Consideration of the nomination will now proceed to the full U.S. Senate.

[montanacowboy]

41. But she voted for Condi

eom

[Mojambo]

42. And I'm sure she heard from her constituents about it

I know I let her have it.

[w4rma]

45. I think we might win the Gonzales fight. (nt)

[pnorman]

46. I was aware of that.

Likewise with Pat Murray. Another woman Senator I greatly admire is Barbara Mikulski of Maryland. She too voted to approve. Likewise with Obama of Illinois. I'll dig out their statements and study them very carefully. I KNOW who are the true patriots. These others are still on trial.

But this Gonzales CREEP is a moral MONSTER. In all liklihood, he'll be approved, but THAT vote will be the true Litmus Test. ANYONE failing that one, gets a Failing Grade ... The Order of Lieberman.

pnorman

[Hardrada]

47. The Order of Lieberman

That would be a dreadful looking medal with lots of yellow streaks in the ribbon.

[wryter2000]

48. Even DiFi

Even DiFi voted against him in committee. If DiFi votes against him, an Dem who votes for him in the Senate is no Democrat.

[itzamirakul]

43. Self delete

[KissMeKate]

44. Allright Cantwell!

a vote for gonzales is a vote for torture- Cantwell chose wisely.

[oldtime dfl_er]

49. she sure heard from me

and honestly, do you want to go down in history as one of the Senators who condoned torture? That is tantamount to what a vote in favor of Gonzales is, make no mistake about that.


www.cafepress.com/showtheworld

[struggle4progress]

50. kick

[pfitz59]

51. Gonzales is toast!

Maria must've got hard-drive load of nasty grams after voting for Condie! Maybe she'll finally grow a spine!