Why did only 2 of 8 DEM senators vote against Condi?

[bigwillq]

Why wasn't it a 10-8 vote?

Is it because of that typical political game of trying to look good in case one hopes to run for higher office?


I've just been wondering about this a lot this week.

[aquart]

1. Who were the other six?

[bigwillq]

6. I think Biden and Feingold were on the committee

But I thought they said it was 10 REP and 8 DEM

[Freddie Stubbs]

12. Biden, Feingold, Sarbanes, Dodd, Bill Nelson, and Obama

http://foreign.senate.gov/about.html

[aquart]

16. Obama????

Why????

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. Maybe he disagrees with some of her views but believes that shes qualified

[flaminbats]

41. How many of Clinton's appointees were qualified but rejected?

Fighting this administration at every step will only weaken the Republicans. Only one of these Democrats came from a red state, and even that is debatable. For the remaining seven Democrats from blue states, a vote against Condi would only help them politically.

[Freddie Stubbs]

43. None of Clinton's cabinet appointees were rejected

[AuntiBush]

27. Humiliated to say, but...

1 of them was my own Sen. Sarbanes! It's his last year.

You'd think he would have taken a final, last brave stand for Democracy, but nooooooooooo!

I called Senator Boxer and Kerry's office thanking them, emailed them and the letters are in the mail!

[FreeStateDemocrat]

44. Has Sarbanes announced he is not seeking another term?

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. No, he has not

And he actually has a little less then two years left in his term.

[Chico Man]

2. That is the anti-strategy

Old fashioned, fake, shallow, and simply iresponsible.

[Vincardog]

3. hey know the shrub can get anybody he wants it is the rules

I do not believe anybody should vote for his llying puppet but WTF.

[DaveinMD]

4. because

its not worth wasting political capital on cabinet appointments.

[matt819]

10. What capital?

Do you really think any Democrat will get any consideration on any legislation over the next four years? Not a chance. The repubs have already made that clear, with secret, exclusive committee meetings excluding democrats.

Unless there's a plan to fight this on the floor of the Senate, the fact remains that caving on these appointments gains nothing.

Perhaps there are brighter strategists out there, but my view is that we should start voting down party lines and hope to erode some of the more moderate republicans' support of this mad regime.

[DaveinMD]

14. the point is

that there are bigger fights ahead. Mainly supreme court justices and stopping privatization of Social Security.

[AuntiBush]

30. True, but still...

What happened to standing-up for the voters. I just feel so dis-enfranchised! Sorry, but I'm 1 gal weary of making excuses for those that will not stand-up and be heard for "We, the people that placed them there!"

[tabasco]

39. If I were a Senator, I would have one question for Ms. Rice.

"Who was the National Security Advisor on Sept. 11, 2001? "

No further questions and I give the remainder of my time to Senator Boxer.

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. Nope. Fight 'em ALL every step of the way.

If the 'Pukes want to call it "obstructionism", SO FUCKING WHAT?

Remember what Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole did to Clinton and the supposedly Democratic congress from Jan 1993 - 1994 theft/election?

They obstructed EVERYTHING. And they obviously didn't suffer for it in the mid term election.

Maybe if there had been a little of that from Daschle & Gephardt in 2001-2002, the last midterm, and maybe even 2004 might have turned out differently.

Keeping Ken Starr or John Asscrotch off the Supreme Court is good, but you don't have to put a war criminal in as attorney general or an incompetent liar as secretary of state in order to do so.

[In Truth We Trust]

19. I hope you're being sarcastic. If not then that opinion is truly

unprincipled as are the fucking sellouts who didn't vote according to principle. They are just as bad as the repugs imo.

[DaveinMD]

21. you need to know what fights to pick

The real ammo needs to be saved for the fight over privatization of social security and to stop nominations to the Supreme Court. Voting against Cabinet members serves no purpose. So call me a sellout. I don't care. I know what's right.

[leesa]

25. You are wrong.

[DaveinMD]

28. I think I'm right

but good people can disagree about these things.

[leesa]

24. It was extremely important to demonstrate to the American public, and to

the world, that we do not approve of the lying and deceit of Condoleeza Rice and, by extension, Bush. It was an unforgivable sin. They failed us in a terrible, irreparable fashion. Do you not remember how Kerry's voting for the war hurt our cause???? Did your short-term politics only memory fail you???

Your comment is shallow and very, very foolish. It was EXTREMELY important they not support this war-mongering liar. How can you not get it???

[DaveinMD]

37. if they rejected her

they'd fine someone just as bad. Don't blame the cabinet people. Its Bush that needs to be blamed.

[AuntiBush]

29. Dave!

I'm sorry but Sarbanes should have went w/the vote! It's his last year. He's retiring, so WTF!?!?!

[DaveinMD]

36. his chief of staff told me

she doesn't think he's retiring.

[ynksnewyork2]

5. Fraidy

Cats.

[vpigrad]

7. Exactly!

The better question is why are so many party members afraid to stand-up to Bushie? Why?

[GreenInNC]

8. Sen. Boxer

I have more respect for her than any other senator up there. She seems to be the only one fighting.

[meppie-meppie not]

9. I so agree with you!!! n/t

[AuntiBush]

33. BOXER - Our Hero!

She stood-up before anyone of them did or would! What a true patriot. What a high-powered, morally pure politican!

The rest have a lot to learn from her, but they won't.

[theboss]

11. Because you can't turn every battle into D-Day

I agree with what so many have said: the president should pretty much have free reign in choosing his Cabinet. If I were in the Senate, I would be tempted to fight Rice's appointment, but I think I would ultimately keep my powder drive. Especially since it's not going to matter in this case anyway.

Bottom line: Dems control no branch of government. We are probably going to be fighting a rearguard action for the next four years.

Here are my priorities:

1. Keep Scalia-clones off the Bench, particularly at the Supreme Court level.
2. Fight a scorched earth policy on Social Security. Bush can be allowed no victory on this matter. None. Treat it like HillaryCare and gut him like a fish.
3. No more approval for wars. Bush got two wars. He's not allowed anymore.

[chieftain]

23. I think you nailed it , but in addition to your 3 points

the Democrats have to vote against the Gonzales nomination . We cannot condone torture . We cannot accept the expansive view of presidential powers that this guy champions . I hope that our other Senators take a lesson from Barbara Boxer and grow a spine .

[leesa]

26. "Bush got two wars. He's not allowed any more" Well, maybe if he asks

real nice. Appeasers like yourself make me sick.

[theboss]

40. Well, I am sorry to sicken you

But I've decided that your scorched earth policy is best. Democrats must vote no to everything Bush proposes even if it is "Free Kittens for the Elderly." We must turn ourselves into radical obstructionists at every turn and treat every vote as if it were the Cuban Missle Crisis of politics.

I figure the Party will be utterly exhausted, bankrupt, and defeated by May 2006 and there will be 65 Republican Senators in November with that strategy. Good times.

[AuntiBush]

34. Agreed!

I'm with you. No wonder you're called "theboss!"

[DrGonzoLives]

13. Jesus Christ

How many fucking more of these threads are we going to have? This is getting tedious.

I guess there are a number of reasons, but I think the chief one is that they are obviously Republicans in Democratic clothing, who are seeking to further alienate the left wing as much as possible. :eyes:

[bigwillq]

18. Sorry, I have not posted in a few days and did not search through

the archives to see how many threads were posted on this subject.

I like to hear DUers opinions on certain subjects because many of the DUers here are much smarter than I am.

[AuntiBush]

31. Thank you.

I thought it was me w/those thoughts.

[bemildred]

15. The Democratic Losership Council doesn't want the confirmation threatened.

:puke:

[manhattanite]

42. So Feingold and Obama are with the DLC?

You can't blame everything on them.

[bemildred]

46. That is a non sequitur.

They need not be members of the leadership to go along with the leadership.
It's really the default thing to do to go along with the leadership.
That's how parties work. What was notable was that a couple high-profile
senators chose to object, to break the illusion of consensus.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. They're good doggies. They want to get their treats.

Disgusting lack of ethics or decency.

[Orangepeel]

20. possibly because they think that a president deserves the cabinet he picks

so she's an incompetent liar. Anybody he puts up will be an incompetent liar. might as well be her :shrug:

sucks for the country, though.

[autorank]

22. Can you spell C-H-I-C-K-E-N S-H-I-T There is no excuse.

This is obviously a club. It represents neither the public nor any modicum of common sense. Let's see...she lies, she is incompetent; her lies and incompetence get us attacked and murdered at home and attacked and murdered overseas. Well then, I guess * has a right to the monsters he chooses so I'll vote yes. This is dereliction of duty, violation of the oath, the ultimate example of chicken shit behavior.

[fryguy]

35. they're using the jedi mind trick....

....these are not the droids you're looking for.....you will vote the devil child out of committee.....