Do you buy the "pick your battle" argument?

[kohodog]

I have written many letters to my senators about various issues. Recently I asked them to vote against Rice and Gonzalez. The response is always that "the president should be able to pick his cabinet, etc, and moderates are always saying that we need to wait for the "important" stuff.

Like what? If lying our way into war and promoting torture aren't important issues for America to deal with, what is? If we cave on these issues what is the point of taking a stand on anything? What are they waiting for? Prescription drugs? (which probably kill us).

Who really cares about social security if they're going to bankrupt the dollar and the nation anyway.

Sorry for the rant, but we have to pressure these guy to stand for each and every issue that they believe is right. To pick and choose is only to concede on a measured basis.

edit: sp

[BeFree]

1. I used too

But now it's balls to the walls. There is nothing left to lose. No more waffling, no more flip-flopping. We have to get our Congress people to fight everything, let the pukes cry 'Uncle' for once.

Really, if torture and Iraq are not reasons to battle, there can never be a reason. Take off the gloves, Dems, this is now a bare knuckle fight.

[Bjornsdotter]

2. Nope....not anymore

I've chosen to pick every battle....I'm sick of it.

I made 14 calls to Washington today and wrote 2 letters.

Screw it, I'm pissed and perimenopausal....watch out.


Cheers,
Kim

[realFedUp]

3. I agree with you....

It's not like the Congress has a finite number
of yes votes and no votes. Each vote should
stand on its own merit.

[MSgt213]

4. You can only pick your battles from positions of strength. We are in a

very weak position now. Our backs are against the wall and we have to continually attack like cornered rats and swarm like bees. Otherwise the Repubs can sit back and deflect our feeble attempts at probing for the right battle ground.

[Bluebear]

5. Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

nt

[kohodog]

9. Right on!

What are they waiting for? We're in real trouble out here. We're hurting and they're worried about their next gig.

Ironic that Rummy bhas literally brought back the SS and our senators are afraid to vote against morally bankrupt appointees.

We have a lot of work to do and not a lot of time.

[noamnety]

6. Why vote for something against your morals?

If the president were supposed to be able to pick their cabinet without congressional approval, then (duh) the congress wouldn't have to approve it. That's the dumbest argument ever.

It's not like the republicans are going to concede anything as a thank you for confirming Rice. What are they going to do, pass more bad laws to punish the democrats? They'll do that anyway.

[Generator]

7. Of course I buy it

BUT and oh baby it's a big butt!

Rice wasn't a small favor. She isn't in charge of the agriculture department. She was big but incompetent. She has the deaths of those on her hands from 9/11 that she won't take any responsiblity for.

I'm outraged. I think lies are not small things.

It's like saying I have to work on getting your murder in jail, so I've got to let your rapist go. Yes maam...pick your battles.. sometimes you can't let the really bad guys go without fighting with all your heart.

She is the epitome of the banality of evil. And she means well.

So c'est la fucking vie-no that's mort.

[politicaholic]

8. You make them fight for every inch like they made us do in the 90's.

That's the only way you shed this "spineless" moniquer that the repuks have been so conveniently allowed to tack onto the democratic party.

Hillary went through it, she should know, but what does she do? She folds. I have 0 respect for her.

[Warpy]

10. Rice is an incompetent twit who lies a lot

She's probably better than what they had as backup nominees, evangelical foamers like Gen. Boykin, for instance. The whole world knows what she is, and the whole world knows full well not to bother listening to her.

Gonzales is different. He's not incompetent. He is a criminal who has done serious damage to this country by dumping the Geneva Conventions. He should never be confirmed.

[Sleepless In NY]

13. Clinton gets impeached for a lie, Rice gets promoted

No, I dont buy it. Republicans gloat everytime we back down.

[DrGonzoLives]

11. So moderates

are the only ones who think in terms of political strategy? I thought I was a liberal, I guess not. Will you please tell me what I am, Great One?

[kohodog]

16. Huh?

Would my post have been acceptable if I didn't use the M word? I don't understand. Sorry, and btw, am I to take the "great one' comment as a compliment?

Seems we're getting a bit touchy around here.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. In a word. NO. It's an excuse for being a coward or a sellout.

[RealDems]

14. No

I think fundamentally the "pick your battles" argument is destined to fail. Think about it -- if you win some battles and lose some battles, then doesn't it make sense to get involved in every battle? That's one problem with Democrats -- we only fight some battles, and we don't even win all of those.

[KissMeKate]

15. no.

stand up and fight for your beliefs, democrats!

[Lefty48197]

17. If we let Condi into the WH, then the average IQ will rise

in spite of her many many failings, hers are still outnumbered by W's. She'll still dilute his stupidity.

[zmdem]

28. Condi is leaving the WH, not going in

As Sec. of State she is a cabinet officer. As NSA she was part of the WH.

[loyalsister]

18. Companion question......

Do you actually work in politics?

[tsuki]

19. The Beltway has a different view of morality. I could never vote for

a person that I know lied and put personal interests above the lives of more than 100,000 people. If the President has the right to have his cabinet, why "advise and consent?" Empty words? Out moded sediments? What the framers of the Constitution really meant was...

[Darranar]

20. No, I do not...

losing one battle is not going to help win the next.

[MisterP]

21. it's the White Queen's offer:

you always get jam tommorow--Alice asks, since it's Wed., she'll get jam Tues.--but the White Queen says no, "Jam tomorrow, and jam yesterday, but never jam today."
It's the MeToo's way of saying "we're 'pragmatic,' you're not, do everything we tell you to, and maybe your silly pet projects like preventing mass deaths might be deigned to be noticed by the overlords, who love us dearly."

[K-W]

22. YES!! Please Read,.

Guys, we cant let our emotions get ahead of our reason. The problem with the current democrats isnt that they compromise, isnt that they believe in the system, and isnt that they choose thier battles.

Its that they compromise with the wrong people too much on the wrong thing, believe in a corrupt system, and choose the wrong battles and not enough battles and fight them wrong.

Lets focus on the things that matter, putting democrats into office who can competently represent us. Even the best of them will have to choose thier battles.

[proudbluestater]

23. That argument is pure bullshit. We are not parents dealing with an

unruly child. We are dealing with the collapse of the United States of America. And the Democrats will rubber stamp the people who are leading us down this path? What battles ARE they willing to fight then?

[bvar22]

24. Go ask Tom Daschle.

Remember him.
He chose his battles wisely; kept his powder dry; played nice and saved it for the BIG things.

Go ask Tom how well this works.

[zmdem]

29. Daschle lost because

as the Democratic leader in the senate he had to espouse views much more to the left of his constituents. If the Democrats wish to be the party of the left, then they should pick leaders in congress from states where this is acceptable.

[oasis]

25. Pick your battle. More important fish to fry. Let them have Condi.

Face it, Bush would just nominate another piece of shit to fill the SoS spot.

[Liberal In Texas]

26. There's nothing to PICK. The're all battles.

We all hang together or we all hang separately.

Hmmm, who said that?

[sandnsea]

27. As far as fillibustering

It's pick and choose. On no votes, tradition isn't a good enough reason to vote yes on Gonzales or Rice. Courtesy among the parties is long gone. But I think some of these people are voting no based on principle. A yes on Rice and no on Gonzales, like Feinstein did, seems to be a vote on principle. I don't get it, but I'm not going to toss somebody like Feingold over on one vote.

[readmoreoften]

30. When dealing with rational people, I'd say yes...

When dealing with theocrats, lunatics, thugs, and fascists I'd say no.

[fujiyama]

31. May have in the past

Not anymore.

The Dems have no chance of sucessfully opposing much at this point anyways.

I'm so pessimistic about the future, that I say fight every small thing with what you've got.

That means cabinet nominees (or atleast the really bad ones), SC justices, and all the legislation including his budgets.

[xchrom]

32. rice = war in iraq, gonzales = torture

what's not to fight?

[Pepperbelly]

33. I think you are both right AND wrong about this ...

They should oppose every egregious, outrageous action that these faithless bastards take and, at the same time, use our only tool, the fillibuster, only for those absolutes that must be blocked at all costs.

[bvar22]

34. It is critically important to show the World,

that there is a competent, rational, unified OPPOSITION to the bush* administration.

Our lives could depend on this one thing.

[JNelson6563]

35. Oh you betcha!!

I am involved in RL politics and only a fool wouldn't subscribe to the "pick your battles" reasoning. If you went to the mat over everything you disagreed with you would soon lose all credibility, not to mention squandering political capital quickly.

Julie