Why didn't we filibuster Rice?

[Rebecca_Remarks]

Heck, why aren't we filibustering every one of his appointments, whether it is for the Cabinet, the appellette court, or the SCOTUS? We have 40 Senators, right? That's enough to filibuster. Let's put Bush on the defensive and refuse to let him accomplish anything unless it's on our terms.

Rebecca

[genius]

1. We didn't have the 40. 32 Dems betrayed the American people

and backed Rice.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

2. Maybe you are to pick and choose your battles?

there is not an infinite supply of energy or time.

[genius]

3. Why? Should doctors pick and choose which life they'll save or should

they try to save all lives?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

4. Indeed doctors often must make those decisions

ever heard of organ donation? Not everyone is qualified to get one- you have to have a chance of living a substantial amount of time after implantation.

[DrWeird]

6. Alright then.

What is it we're trying to save by not filibustering on Rice?

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. Maybe they're trying to save the filibuster rule?

Frist keeps threatening to get rid of it. Maybe they feel they need to pick and choose where they use it? Like important nominations... RW wacko judges and people like Gonzales? Just a guess. The RW probably threatened the Dems. "If you filibuster Rice, we will get rid of the filibuster rule forever." Then we are ROYALLY screwed.

[genius]

7. But if they could save all lives, why not? The Senate can stop all

extremist nominations. FAiling to do so is like a doctor saying, I have an organ available and no reason not to save the patient, but I think I'll wait.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[in_cog_ni_to]

9. Won't they filibuster Gonzales?????

They cannot let that man be confirmed.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

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

[KissMeKate]

10. because nice democrats roll over

and beg and bark and ask how high when the bush admin says jump.

Its time to start holding our elected representatives accountable.

UNITY while being wrong is worse than being divided.

[Warpy]

11. An alternative would probably be worse

and yes, I can think of several, starting with General Boykin. Rice is an incompetent ideologue who is well known internationally as an incompetent ideologue. She will likely do less harm than an evangelical foamer like Boykin would.

Gonzales is another matter. He is not incompetent. He is pure evil, and should never be considered to head a justice department.

The Democrats need to pick their fights very carefully, I think. Rice lies her ass off, but hasn't done the type of damage that Gonzales's scrapping of the Geneva Conventions has. He is a criminal. She is a twit.

[cestpaspossible]

12. " We have 40 Senators, right?" no, we had 13 on this one.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Only 13 wanted to stop the nomination

13<40

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Pepperbelly]

15. The fillibuster should be saved for special things ... like

the SC appointments and Social Security. A temporary cabinet position deoes not merit firing the only bullet we have.

[Rebecca_Remarks]

17. Why not?

It's not like there are a limited number of bullets in this gun. We can have an infinite number of items held in filibuster.

Rebecca

[Pepperbelly]

19. the public will tolerate it for some things but not for everything.

Particularly in cabinet positions. I mean, these are not life-long appointments like the Supreme Court. They are transitory.

[Rebecca_Remarks]

21. Even so...

I understand that certain nominations are more important than others. But here we have a chance to shut down his entire administration. If Bush can't appoint a Cabinet, there is very little that he will be able to accomplish. I think we should shut it down.

Rebecca

[goobergunch]

18. Waste of time, not enough Senators

It takes 41 Senators to block something via filibuster. There's really no point in a filibuster if you don't have the votes to sustain it.

[Rebecca_Remarks]

22. We have the Senators!

But we have more than 41 Senators. If our Senators had some backbone and truly represented us (as they're supposed to!) then they'd do everything possible to derail Bush, including filibustering every nominee from SCOTUS to cabinet to dog catcher.

Rebecca

[loyalsister]

20. Say we had

Does anyone here honestly believe that Sushco would not have been able to find someone who was not 100% PNAC and on board with the crime family or what exactly?