Democrats considering filibustering Gonzales nomination

[Cocoa]

contact your senators, tell them to make the dem party the anti-torture party.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-02-01-gonzales_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Democrats are considering filibustering Alberto Gonzales' nomination to be attorney general over his role in developing the Bush administration's policies on treating foreign detainees.

No final decision has been made yet, but at least two Democrats — Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois — planned to urge the Democratic caucus Tuesday to consider filibustering Gonzales' nomination, said a Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on conditions of anonymity.

<snip>

Whether or not a filibuster is mounted, a vote by the Senate on Gonzales' confirmation will not occur until at least Thursday, after Bush's State of the Union speech Wednesday night, GOP senators said. They said Democrats don't want to give Bush a success to talk about in his first State of the Union speech of his second term.

"They want the bully pulpit all the way up to and after that to try to taint this nominee with the perceived sins of the Bush administration," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

[Warpy]

1. The stakes are too high not to

but they'll have to expect that filibuster prevention rule change when Stupid nominates his first unqualified, ideologically blind supreme court justice.

When people were outraged about the incompetent Rice being confirmed, I had a sneaking suspicion that this was the reason. First, they knew a second nominee would be worse (and I'm thinking of that religious freak Boykin, for one). Second, they knew they would only have one appointment to block before the crybaby pubbies changed the rules.

[genius]

15. groups, such as patrickhenrythinktank.org have been demandinga filibuster

A no vote is a waste of time. Only a filibuster will stop this guy. No one is worse than Gonzales and those who have seen his record know it. Even the Hispanic Caucus and MALDEF are opposed to this torturer.

Check out this letter to send to waivering Senators.

http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-gonz.html

AGREEMENT NOT TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION - TO BE SENT TO THOSE CONSIDERING NOT FILIBUSTERING THE NOMINATION OF ALBERTO (TORTURE MEMO) GONZALES.

TO ALL SENATORS NOT FILIBUSTERING THE NOMINATION OF ALBERTO GONZALES: PLEASE SIGN THE FOLLOWING LETTER AND SEND COPIES TO ALL YOUR CONSTIUENTS


I _______________(name of Senator) from the State of ______________(name of state) agree never again to run for an office in America. I have shown that I do not care about the Constitution and the laws of the United States by failing to filibuster a U.S. Attorney-General nominee who says it's alright to break the law. The U.S. Attorney-General is the chief law enforcement officer in the United States. In failing to filibuster Alberto Gonzales, I have violated the oath I took when I was sworn in as a Senator. In placing a law-breaker in charge of law enforcement, I am throwing my support behind the right of the Bush administration to break the law at will.

In not caring that Alberto Gonzales has advocated torture and violating the Geneva Conventions, I have shown the American people that I personally support crimes against humanity. In failing to filibuster Gonzales, I also have shown my support and approval for all the torture of detainees that took place at Abu Ghraib. Under Gonzales's reasoning, the broomstick incident in New York with Abner Louima is acceptable. My failure to filibuster Gonzales is also my way of endorsing the use of broomsticks on all detainees in New York and elsewhere. My failure to filibuster Gonzales further shows that I do not care if all the American people and children are victims of torture and lawlessness.

In short, by failing to filibuster Gonzales, I have shown that I oppose the enforcement of the laws, Constitution and treaties of the United States while I do support and encourage crimes against humanity. My failure to filibuster Gonzales further shows that I am a low, sick, disgusting human being who has no right to ever hold office in the United States. In fact, I should apologize for my own existence because only a blight against humanity would fail to filibuster Gonzales.

Therefore, in the interests of the citizens of the United States and the world, I agree not to run for re-election and never again to seek any public office.



_________________________(signature of Senator)

[BOSSHOG]

2. "Perceived sins of the Bush Administration"

They are too slick. Perceived lies Cornyn? Perceived torture and violation of the Geneva Convention? But the lemmings who get their "news" from faux and limbaugh will hate and spit upon liberals whose only crime is telling the truth. It must suck being a human like john cornyn. That is my perception.

[warrens]

3. Durbin's my man...

First time in my life I ever had two good senators at the same time.

[sandnsea]

4. More Gonzales baggage

It isn't just Abu Ghraib. This guy has been complicit in Bush scandals for years.

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/default.asp?view=plink&id=306

[fryguy]

5. dems growing a set?

'bout friggin time....

[Just Me]

6. I support them 100% and hope they go on FOREVER.

The longer they filibuster, the more information about the corrupt and barbaric neoCON predators will get to the American people.

GO!!! GO!!! GO!!! :bounce:

[Ian David]

7. The repugs will complain that it's because Gonzales is a black woman

Yes, yes.... I KNOW

[iamjoy]

8. They Shouldn't Filibuster Gonzales

They need to save that for the Supreme Court nominees Dubya will try to get through, the ones who would make Clarence Thomas look like a liberal. I think we have one good filibuster before Senator Cat-Killer nukes democracy.

If Gonzales gets confirmed, it is four years of torture. But if some one like Gonzales gets to the Supreme Court, it will be 60 years of torture.

My advice Ulysses: Go a little closer to Scylla. That beast will only take 6 of your sailors whereas Charibdis will suck down your whole boat.

[Cocoa]

10. i'm sure that's what they're discussing

some are with you, they want to save their ammo for the SC.

I think the torture issue is compelling enough to base a filibuster on, plus there's the fact that Gonzales is a pretty sucky nominee for this post. Totally unimpressive in the hearings, he looks like an even bigger hack than Condi.

[ORIF417]

14. agreed

I'd save it. They can all vote against gonzalez but he'll still be confirmed. Save filibustering for judicial nominees.

[peacebird]

20. They should stand up against Gonzales -

anything less is unacceptable. To vote for him is to vote for an unofficial US policy where the white house is above all law, where torture is acceptable, and so are gulags where "suspects" can be imprisoned without any legal recourse.

[Just Me]

17. Ever consider "Senator Cat-Killer" intends to "nuke democracy",...

,...no matter what the Democrats do on Gonzales?

If the Dems are going to get in one last shot, THIS IS IT!!!

Hence, although I understand your perspective, I disagree with it.

The neoCONs intend to go all the way and have no intention of acting within any restraints from here forward.

At least this filibuster may lead to the American people getting a bit more information about the level of corruption existent in the neoCON cabal.

[gratuitous]

21. The filibuster isn't like coaches' challenges in the NFL

It's not like if you use one for Gonzalez, you can't use one for whatever slimy piece of walking garbage Stupidhead nominates to the Supreme Court. The Democrats can filibuster them both.

And I think Gonzalez is a fight worth taking on. It's easy enough to frame -- does the United States endorse torture or doesn't it -- and Gonzalez' evasive responses during his committee testimony and the track record of the corrupt Bush administration are ample demonstration that rewarding this war criminal with a high government appointment is not the way to go.

While the Republicans will surely piss and moan about a filibuster, they cannot break it if the Democrats stand together. It's time and past time the opposition party began acting in opposition to the horrible policies and persons of this corrupt administration.

[iamjoy]

25. I Realize That

What I mean is, if the Repubs go nuclear now, they look bad. But, if the Dems have a filibuster then the Repubs can say how they had to change the rules 'cos the Dems were being obstructionist.

That's why I say we have one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

24. They want Gonzales on SCOTUS

According to some of the articles I've seen and buzz that I've heard. (Sorry, no links.)

Part of the rationale behind making him Atty General is so that he will have some necessary experience when a spot opens up on SCOTUS.

If we don't stop him now, I doubt we'll be able to stop him later.

[dkofos]

9. I hope so

He should be in jail.
:mad: :mad:

[bluestateguy]

11. Fine, but Bill Nelson has to be allowed to not join in

We have a couple of votes to spare on a fillibuster, and Democrats facing tough races in red states next year need to be cut some slack.

[saracat]

23. We need people to stand up regardless. The repukes don't back

down in blue states. We need to be united. This is NOT politics as usual!What makes you think they count the votes anyway?

[Fleshdancer]

12. I can't believe Bush found someone worse than Ashcroft

The idea of Gonzales being the US Attorney General is just so f*cking insane. My brain refuses to accept this concept.

[doodadem]

13. Democrats won’t try to block Gonzales

Attorney general nominee’s role on detainees questioned
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:07 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2005

WASHINGTON - Democrats won’t try to filibuster Alberto Gonzales’ nomination to be attorney general but will hold extensive debates in the Senate over his role in developing the Bush administration’s policies on treating foreign detainees, the Senate’s top Democrat said Tuesday.
(snip)
A filibuster, a parliamentary tactic for delaying Senate action, would require Republicans, who hold a 55-44 majority in the Senate, to win over at least five Democrats — or four Democrats plus Vermont Sen. James Jeffords, an independent — to put Gonzales in office.

Democrats were surprisingly united in opposing Gonzales in the Senate Judiciary Committee, something that was not achieved when they voted on current Attorney General John Ashcroft.

Ashcroft was confirmed by a 58-42 Senate vote, the narrowest margin ever for an attorney general.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6895355/

[davidinalameda]

16. not going to happen

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/01/senate.gonzales.ap/index.html

[Ian David]

18. You would think the Republicans were trying to fillibuster themselves!

How LONG can these people talk!

And they're repeating all of the allegaitons themselves!

[AllyCat]

19. Done! Called Feingold and Kohl

They actually took my name and address this time. I can't understand the reason for doing it vs. not doing it, but whatever.

[lovuian]

22. If Democrats don't fight this Nomination then their hand is part of

the torture policy that continues to go unpunished!!!

[iamjoy]

26. Two Ways To Fight It

1) Outright filibuster to block the nomination. Gonzales won't even come to a vote.

2) Extensive debate about Gonzales' role in the "torture memo." Every Democrat in the Senate stands up and voices objection. Then a vote in which all but the most hawkish of Dems vote to confirm him.

#1 - not a good idea
#2 - yes, please.

[spotbird]

27. Gonzales will not enforce the laws.

Filibuster is far superior to two.