Gonzales is a torturer. If Reid fails to filibuster, he needs to resign

[genius]

his position as minority leader. Every person, every child who is tortured or wrongfully detained will deserve an apology not from the NAZI terrorist we have allowed to run our country but from the supposed leader of the opposition who let a lawless torturer take over law enforcement in America. If Reid cannot stop Gonzales, we need a leader with the ability and courage to do so.

[eyesroll]

1. If Reid does this now...will Frist unleash the nuclear option

and move to prevent filibusters of judicial nominees?

Sorry, much as I loathe Gonzales, I'd rather have him as attorney general for four years than the equivalent on the Supreme Court for 30.

Would there even be 40 Senators for a filibuster?

[LittleClarkie]

2. That's what an unnamed Dem in the NYT said today

They're saving their wad for the Supreme Court nominees sure to come. But I suspect that Gonzales' nomination will go even less smoothly than Condi's, considering even Biden and Feingold voted NO in committee.

[genius]

35. The nuclear option is a violation of the rules absent a rule change

They cannot do it. Only gullible unthinking Democrats believe the Republicans when they threaten this. Next we'll worry they'll bring in attackers from Mars to eat the Democrats who filibuster.

[orleans]

40. They will?

(just kidding)

[genius]

60. The trouble is the freepers are working overtime to stop a filibuster

They think that if they get to us, they'll win. In groups like the US Democratic Network, they check out the backgrounds of the members and check the postings for potential infiltrators. This is a little more open.

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. So what?

Frist will unleash the 'nuclear' option, whatever that is, no matter what Reid does, so we might as well bite the bullet and get it over with.

I promise one thing, I will not support any DEM who support people like Gonzalez and Rice.

[Pepperbelly]

7. Do you seriously not know what the nuclear option is? nt

[librechik]

14. he might as well whip it out now as later

if it will make our Dems stand together as an opposition.

Seriously, why delay? Let's call Frist's bluff and see how it works. Either way a) we get Gonzales and b) we lose the filibuster tactic.

The Dems have NOTHING to lose. Now is their chance to act crazy and obstruct on every issue worth talking about.

[Pepperbelly]

24. you really think that ...

"acting crazy" will serve the party in some fashion? For elected officials?

Should they like ... foam at the mouth and roll around on the floor of the Senate? Or perhaps go full blown shit-smearing psycho, lobbing turds at Frist and Jim Inhofe?

I must say that is a smile inducing scenario but still ...

Or maybe Kerry doing the Moe going nutso with the repeated forehead slaps while Feinstein kicks in circles on the rug ala Curly. And Landreau and Lincoln like Carrot top and Gallagher with the props and shit. Maybe you're on to something here.

On maybe Boxer and Teddy Kennedy can, like on the Simpsons, go crazy Broadway Style! Or should that be Schumer and Clinton? Don't forget the Jazz Hands Chuckie and Hillery.

[librechik]

28. all I can say is, it works for the Republicans

they have us hesitating to attack because they act crazy. We should too.

[Dookus]

41. LOL!

<--- hands Pepperbelly the Dookus Award for Excellence in Posting

[RafterMan]

45. Cute, but

if you're going to protect your right to filibuster by not filibustering because Frist might change the rules to take the option away, what the hell good is it?

If you don't use it because of a rule change or you don't use it out of fear of a rule change...how are these different? Your behavior is equally constrained in either case.

[Pepperbelly]

64. nope ... I disagree and here's why.

A cabinet secretary has, at tops, 3 years and change. The constitution clearly gives the power to appoint to the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. However, the Secretary stays in office only at the President's pleasure and, even with his continued pleasure, the secretary is still out with the next inaugeration.

The fillibuster of a cabinet secretary could well be a juicy target for the nuclear option, far more than a Supreme Court Justice who serves for life. Plus, the Fortas nomination in the 1960s was fillibustered by the gop so that puts them in a pretty tenuous spot on trying to stop the fillibusters of SC nominees.

Social Security is another issue that I believe the Democrats will fillibuster. The already fillibusted ANWR as well as several circuit court judges (i.e. Pickering).

I think they should keep their powder dry on fillibusters for the really big things like the SC or SS. I think that those who oppose Bonehead's nomination for AG, Torture Boy, should certainly speak out plainly against his confirmation and vote against it but I do not think that they should fillibuster.

[gottaB]

67. a few points

a. On there being a precedent. From your argument, ANY filibuster that was not a filibuster of a court appointment would be a juicy target for the nuclear option. You can't reasonably argue that the Social Security vote is worth filibustering, but the AG confirmation is not, on the grounds that there is no precedent for the latter, because the former is also without precedent. Many of us believe that the Gonzales nomination is a really big thing.

b. On the nuclear option. I don't believe it would end with Cheney. My understanding is that it would have to be adjudicated, and nobody really knows how the Supreme Court would decide. Furthermore, were the Republicans to take this path, I would expect the Democrats to harden their opposition. I don't like the prospect of a walk out, or similar forms of protest, but it would be improper to conduct business as usual in a postnuclear environment. It would be a setback for the country, but it would not spell the end of the Democratic Party. What would truly suck would be for the Democrats to give in to the Republicans on fundamental issues because of the mere threat of the nuclear option. The Republicans would still get what they want, but without bearing the political costs of going nuclear. The Democrats get what exactly?

[Pepperbelly]

90. no adjudication ...

Each chamber of the legislature has absolute control over its own rules.

[gottaB]

91. Senate rules: the nuclear option would involve a constitutional challenge

In a nutshell:

Frist could launch the nuclear option on the Senate floor, aides say, by contending a filibuster of judicial nominees violates the constitutional directive for senatorial "advice and consent" on such appointments. The presiding officer -- probably Vice President Cheney -- would agree, and a Democratic challenge to his ruling would be subject to a simple majority vote, not a filibuster, under Senate rules.

If five Republicans joined a solid bloc of Democrats, Cheney could break the 50-50 tie in favor of banning judicial filibusters. If a sixth Republican defected, Frist would fall short.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12517-2005Jan15.html

[Pepperbelly]

92. they're almost right ...

but that doesn't breach Article 1, Section 5: Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

No checks and balances for what occurs within the Rules.

[gottaB]

93. Well, that becomes an issue after going nuclear

Many see it as a way of doing away with Rule XXII by a simple majority rather than a supermajority as would ordinarily be required. But the Court could find that the filibuster is inconsistent with "advice and consent," and make a separation of powers argument that would nullify Rule XXII in the case of judicial appointments, or other appointments.

At this point, I think my argument about the Social Security vote lacking precedent is flawed. Rule XXII would still apply to that debate. The Supremes do not have the power to invalidate it. But they could invalidate it in the case of an appointment. However, I'm not sure that there is a substantial difference between cabinet appointments and judicial appointments. I think the constitutional issues would be the same. So I would amend my argument to say that filibustering Gonzales is not essentially different from filibustering court apointee X.

The strategic question is one of timing. Would filibustering Gonzales at this time give Frist his 51 votes? Because I'm of the opinion that if Frist had his 51 votes, he would go nuclear. We should not spend the next two years cowering before this possibility. Our political values and positions should be clear to the Majority Party. If they decide to go nuclear, they will be handing power over to the extreme right wing of their party. That power will be wielded against moderates as much as against Democrats. I think they understand that, and that is one reason Frist doesn't yet have his 51 votes.

An interesting take on the nuclear option:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dean/20030523.html

[Pepperbelly]

94. but ... remember the Fortas precedent...

When the Senate gops fillibustered LBJ's appointment of Abe Fortas to the Supreme Court in the 60s. LBJ had to withdraw the nomination.

[gottaB]

98. That's not a legal precedent. Johnson withdrew the nomination.

One could use it point to Republican hypocrisy, but that's really not in doubt. In the event of a legal proceeding, I don't know what weight if any the Justices would give to such evidence.

[Pepperbelly]

99. I really don't think that the Justices would accept jurisdiction.

Particularly Darth Rhenquist's Court. I don't see any way that they would agree to hear the case. Not with the Bush v. Gore majority still sitting there. The Fortas precedent is not a legal precedent but a political one. And it would be far more valuable than as a demonstrator of hypocracy. It would be an unmistakable and undeniable instance of gop attempts to circumvent democratic safeguards against tyrany within the USA.

And that would be powerful stuff. And it would be true.

[gottaB]

100. If SCOTUS declined to hear it, U S v. BALLIN would apply

Or so I've seen it argued. This is the case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=144&invol=1


Actually, it does not seem completely analogous to me, so I would expect SCOTUS to pick it up and clarify. Here are some bloggers debating that point:

http://boffo.typepad.com/boffoblog/2005/01/bluster_about_t.html

(scroll down to the bottom, follow the links)

Likely Scenario: 4 Justices would more or less agree with Boffo's interpretation of Ballin, and, placing a heavy emphasis on custom, would regard the Fortas nomination as significant. The other 5 would not. Also, as you may know, there is some debate about whether Fortas was genuinely filibustered. I happen to strongly agree with Senator Leahy on this point, but there is much bluster and obfuscation of the record here. It's quite possible that some of the Justices would view the Fortas nomination in a way that does not advantage the Democrats.

[Pepperbelly]

101. that was sort of my point ...

a Court challenge to this would not benefit our side. The strongest use of the Fortas precedent would be to argue loudly, with a unanimous voice as a party that this is a usurpation, a raw dictatorial power grab, and attempted murder of American democracy.

That is very powerful stuff. It is not in a court except the only court that really matters ... the consent of the governed. I think this would be a dealbreaker between the gop and many of the people who voted for the Dauphin marginally.

[gottaB]

106. Well, that goes back to John Dean's point about Nuclear Winter

And my view that Dems should not allow themselves to be bullied by the threat. If the Dems follow Frist's advice--it does give one pause to hear Dems arguing that we should--that is no guarantee that the Republicans won't go nuclear as soon as they get their 51 votes, which could happen during the debate over *any* nominee. The hope that by giving in on Gonzales we may avoid the confrontation and thus be able to effectively use the filibuster down the road strikes me as vain. It leaves the Democrats with nothing. Nothing but hope. Of course the Republicans would rather get everything they ask for without going nuclear. So we should oblige?

On the public relations front, I don't believe the Abe Fortas filibuster will have greater resonance with the public than the torture scandal. Everybody knows about Abu Ghraib, and many are becoming aware of abuses at Gitmo. Of course the far right is hunkydory with it, and many are content to pin it on a few bad apples. But the evidence shows that Alberto Gonzales is one of those bad apples. We need to have this considered in the court of public opinion. If the public turns on the Dems, for whatever set of reasons, then we can rethink our options.

[The Flaming Red Head]

89. No, acting crazy is attaching electrodes to someone’s genitals

Or smearing fake menstrual blood on someone’s face. Acting crazy is approving of those actions. We have the moral high ground and the evidence to prove it. We’re not the crazy ones in this battle unless we step aside and let this man get in unchallenged and if we do then we are as guilty of these acts as the ones who perpetrated them.

Oh and I'm not smiling.

[Pepperbelly]

95. you want them to attach electrodes to Frist's penis?

Now I'M smiling.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

16. These People Wouldn't Give A Fuck If We Had Less Than Forty

Senators making the nuclear option academic...

[KittyWampus]

Some People On DU Excel At Posting Ultimatums For Sitting Democrats

"If Senator Red States doesn't perform a Kamikaze run on "X" they need to ......

I wish said posters would just threaten to hold their breath til they get their way.

[Pepperbelly]

20. You made me chortle out loud at an inappropriate time ...

My daughter said, "There's nothing funny about that woman (on City Confidential) getting shot in the head."

That's exactly what they ought to do ... threaten to hold their breath.

:D :bounce:

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. Wake up

there are millions more like me, who busted our asses this year for the DEMS and at this point are not coming back.

The DEMS are going to have to make some radical changes if they are ever going to be a viable party again.

You can either stick your heads in the sand and pretend that the old rules still apply or you can wake up and get past your party loyalty bs and start to rebuild a party that really represents the American people. Until then, the Democratic Party is dead. Get use to it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

33. What difference does it make

it we are just going to go along and vote for everything anyway?

I don't care about the filibuster but I do care about the votes. Any Dem who does not vote against these horrendous nominees might as well be a Repug as far as I'm concerned.

[genius]

61. The nuclear option is a freeper diversion. It cannot happen.

True, they violate the rules all the time. They could even dismiss Congress and declare martial law. But if we stand up and filibuster Gonzales, we will have the American people on our side.

[Pepperbelly]

65. that sort of eventuality is exactly why our powder needs to be dry and ...

explosive. And it is not a Freeper delusion. It is a product of Senate arcana. Cheney chairs, rules the debate out of order and the point of order is upheld by a simple majority.

[0007]

30. Are you a blonde?

[DoYouEverWonder]

111. No

and I've go more balls than most men.

[NVMojo]

71. I agree, let them smash the supremes nominations ...some battles are

better wins. But use the hearings on this creep to air even more information in the hallowed halls of DC ....it's about damn time. We have to help America wake the feck up!!!

[Warpy]

4. Gonzales has shown no respect for the law

and the Geneva Conventions have been the law of the land for over a hundred years.

He simply doesn't belong in the position of chief law enforcement officer. He obviously has no clue what the laws are and why even his little tin Jesus in the White House has to obey them.

[Walt Starr]

5. The Nuclear option can only truly be used on a cabinet nomination

filibuster.

Anything else and there would be so much outrage that it would never fly.

Filibustering Gonzales is foolhardy. Having unanimous Democratic dissent against Gonzales puts it in the record and allows Democrats to constantly and consistently condemn his actions.

[genius]

6. They lost the ability to use the neclear option this term.

They were unable to get through a rule change on the filibuster when the Senate reconvened.

[Pepperbelly]

9. not true at all ... no rule change is needed ... here's the deal ...

With Cheney presiding, the nuclear option means that Cheney rules the debate out of order, the Democrats object and the chair can be upheld by a simple majority.

:nuke:

[Walt Starr]

12. Rule change is NOT the nuclear option

The nuclear option is to call a point of order during debate asking the chair for a ruling on the constitutionality of filibustering a judicial nomination. The Chair then declares the filibuster unconstitutional. A straight up or down vote is then called on the ruling of the Chair and a simple majority rules.

That's the nuclear option.

[Pepperbelly]

8. Take a photo of this Walt because ...

I concur wholeheartedley with you on this. In all respects, both to the fillibuster and the uniform opposition.

[KissMeKate]

10. they will unleash the nuclear option ANYWAYS.

you really think they are holding back because of some sort of beneficience on their part?

[Pepperbelly]

11. We haven't yet fillibustered anything as yet this term.

When they do, they may well go for it. Or maybe not. The implications are far reaching and perhaps quite severe for the ones who do it. Stiffling debate in the United States Senate will not be a pretty sight politically and unless we force them into it with repeated fillibusters, I think they might hold off.

[Walt Starr]

13. Nope, our best chance to blow away the nuclear option is on a

judicial nomination as there is precedence for it and failing to follow the rules of the Senate is unconstitutional. It would go to the SCOTUS and the Republicans have no legal or constitutional leg to stand on.

[librechik]

15. wise words worth considering. Thx Walt.

since this would be the outcome, though, I seriously doubt it's anything but a threat.

[Walt Starr]

18. The key is, there is a precedence for rejecting a SCOTUS nominee

Abe Fortas, nominated by President Lyndon Johnson to head the Supreme Court, was defeated by a Republican filibuster in 1968 because of his activist stand on civil rights issues. After his supporters failed to win a cloture vote, Fortas's nomination was withdrawn.

And this is what would devestate the nuclear option.

[Pepperbelly]

21. excellent point ... I hadn't considered what happened to Fortas.

A perfect precedence.

[John_H]

25. No they're holding back because we haven't given them the excuse.

They know they can't do it if the Dem's filibuster a supreme court judge, because they won't have the votes on their side to do it. So, they sit in the republican cloakroom saying, "Wouldn't it be great if the Democrats are stupid enough to filibuster Gonzalez."

Thank god the isn't being run by naifs or the disruptors that impersonate them.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. I Would Rather Preserve The Lawrence Supreme Court Majority

Than Blow My Wad On An Attorney General confirmation battle which we are destined to lose...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. There's As Much Chance Of Reid Resigning Than Of Brittany Spears Growing A

Penis....

[DistressedAmerican]

22. Held our fire for 4 years. What did it get us?

Ashcroft, the Patriot Act, and a quagmire of a war!

See also:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1536084

AND

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1532703

[John_H]

26. LOL! The Charge of the Left Brigade!

[Guaranteed]

70. I guess you're more of an Alamo kind of guy. nt

[Lexingtonian]

23. Hmmm, more Righteousness Policing

The resorting to torture has everything to do with Rummie and Cheney and their failures, and you're being ridiculous that doing anything about Gonzalez as a person changes anything one way or another.

Please...get real. You're tempting me to start counterthreads. It's not that your sensibility is wrong, but it's emotionalism on that plane of politics rather than the integrity you imagine it to be.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. A little policing of these warmongers is WAY overdue! (n/t)

[Lexingtonian]

29. I wish for that too

But this hysterical obsessiveness that is all about punishing Democrats who have no real culpability, who are doing what is situationally appropriate enough, that's unbearable. This righteousness sans understanding is the behavior appropriate to a lunatic fringe Party activist.

The distinction is abstract thinking vs. situational thinking. To be a competent person and competent politically involves knowing the distinction, respecting it, and applying each where it is appropriate. The most famous American example is the thing about screaming 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. In the abstract it is correct to do so, situationally it is wrong.

[DistressedAmerican]

31. I believe that this is situationally way over due.

As previously noted failure to stand our ground got us Ashcroft, Thje Patriot Act, the Iraq war and many other fiascos.

Do you suggest we just wait them out? We tried that for 4 years. Now let thopse of us that want to do something for a change have a shot. Could it really turn out any worse?

As far as abstraction, Yes rejecting these nominees has the added benefit of being the morally defensible position. Sometimes political expediency shouldn't outweigh doing what it just plain old right.

[Lexingtonian]

37. yeah...and two wrongs makes a right

You apparently really don't remember what the political actuality of any of the things you mention was at the time. Invading Iraq was supported by 70-75% of voters at the time, for one example. The PATRIOT Act was a bad bandaid measure, passed because Congress had to demonstrate that it was doing something to enable pursuit/foiling of Al Qaeda. And so on.

(And if truly no one has clued you in how these games play, the idea with unConstitutional laws of the kind is that when the job they were intended to do (here: foil more Al Qaeda attacks launched from within the U.S.) is done, the USSC stops stalling and declares the law or executive order unConstitutional on a minor technicality. The minor technicality is chosen so that there are no overturns of guilty verdicts of people held to be truly guilty of something intolerable obtained via the law/order. That's how it was done during the Civil War and during WW1 and during WW2.)

No, saying something is 'morally defensible' doesn't make it so. Beating up a strawman, i.e. Rice, for the failures of Cheney and Rumsfeld isn't as just as you claim. You just feel it to be right to do so. Notice also that you keep on focussing on what is 'right' versus what is fair, or due, or merited, or just. The distinction is between the subjective/emotional argument and a more objective, wider, perspective. Like I keep saying, it's all the assumed moral rightness, the righteousness, that is a Democratic problem rather than a solution.

No, the trick is not to 'wait them out' or something like that. It's finding and raising the few objections that really are important, getting the answers that break up the assumptions and propaganda the moderate Repubs cling to and make Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld directly responsible for the indefensible. Beating on the Administration hack and lever-pulling monkey pool may be emotionally satisfying but doesn't get at any of the real problems.

You don't realize it, but you're calling for revisionism on a grand scale. Again, okay for a fringe party and ridiculous for one that intends to govern realistically and responsibly.

[gottaB]

32. Huh? If the theatre were on fire, it would be wrong to yell "Fire!"?

Have the Democrats grown so accustomed to the whiff of sulfur that they have effectively lost their senses?

Maybe it's time for somebody to warn them. Shake them up. Yell, "Fire!"

Fire!

[Lexingtonian]

36. You never 'got' that one, did you....

Far more people have gotten killed in the stampedes from burning theaters, night clubs, temples, etc than from the fires themselves.

I think Democrats have gotten used to their grassroots people proving to be hysteria-driven loudmouth twits who think their righteousness makes up for a coherent, grounded, political logic.

[gottaB]

38. Did you get it?

Did you get it when I showed your claim to hold the intellectual high ground to be spurious? Your distinction bewteen abstract and situational thinking is misapplied here, as is your idiomatic interpretation of the argument that one should not be permitted to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre (for the canonical view of what that expression means, see the opinion of Justice Holmes in Schenck v. United States; Note the use of the word "falsely": "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic."). I also have a sense of what the situation is, and a sense of the strategic objectives and possibilities open to the various parties. It seems to me that all that you have established up to this point is that hysterical loudmouth twits come in a wide variety of flavors. When you have tired of tilting at strawmen, I would welcome the challenge to a reasonable debate of our respective positions.

In the meantime, I maintain that (a) the advantages to a principled and forceful opposition to the confirmation of Gonzales are many; and (b) the disadvantages to such opposition are few. The arguments against opposing Gonzales that I have heard thus far--and I will gladly give you credit for meaning more than you have stated--, seem to me to be allpurpose arguments against opposing the Republicans, or at best, arguments against opposing the Republicans at this particular juncture. As I see it the first class of arguments are worthless, the preliminary "not at this juncture" arguments have been rebutted, and it is now incumbent upon those who advocate Democratic inaction to defend their view. Furthermore, I have yet to hear coherent, logical, grounded arguments for not opposing this particular nominee, Judge Alberto Gonzales.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. A Lot Of Fifty Dollars Words And Analysis....

The odds of actually defeating Dr. Rice or Counselor Gonzales are about as long as the odds of the Atlanta Hawks winning the NBA championship this season... Say 300-1...Probably greater because I can only see a theoretical possibility of any of these things happening...


There is no way Bush would have withdrawn those nominess...Both are close friends of the Bush family and nominally popular...


We are not even discussing achieving Pyhrric victories but trying to achieve Pyhrric losses...


More Americans dig Bush than not or at least at this juncture more Americans passionately support him than passionately oppose him... Until that is reversed all this talk about purges and filibusters is masturbation of the intellectual nature but unlike the real thing there is no pleasurable release at the end...

[gottaB]

43. Nuts!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. Nuts

Right...


Briittany Spears has a better chance of growing nuts than of Bush withrawing the Rice and Gonzales nominations....

You get a cookie...

[gottaB]

46. nevermind n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

48. I Can Cite Three Historical Events Of Similair Futility

Masada- rather than submit to Roman rule a group of Jews took refuge at Masada and comitted suicide...


Nat Turners Rebellion- Instead of fomenting a rebellion that overthrew slavery Nat Turner got himself and a bunch of slaves hanged... Also, a lot of poor whites who didn't own any slaves got killed in the melee..


John Brown's rebellion-Rather than ending slavery he got himself and some of his family hanged...


I respect the passion of the Masada Jews, Nat Turner, and John Brown and can even understand the righeous anger that led to their actions but history has proven their futility...

To our present circumstance...Instead of lambasting the senators who have been doing what senators have been doing since the days of the first congress which is giving the president the presumption of correctsness and the ability to have his "own people" advising him we should focus on ways to not be in that dilemma ;i.e. electing Democratic presidents...

I give no ground to my contempt for Bush and his cabal of neoconservative fellow travellers but wisdom compells me to conclude that chest beating which is ubiquitous on this site will do us no good...

We are where we are...

[RafterMan]

50. You're comparing a Gonzales filibuster

to Masada?

Plus I think you're overlooking the amount of hay to be made here. When the memos came out, Gonzales was not a widely-known figure. Now that he's front and center, why pass up the chance to smack him around?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

51. Only That's It An Exercise In Futility....

George Bush is not going to withdraw his nomination...


I would be happy to see the Democrats vote en masse to deny him confirmation and move on...

You only filibuster when you determine there is a reasonable chance of success or you want to make a statement that garners public support...

When the segs filibustered against integration it helped them with the voters at home and maintained their grip on power... Filibustering against Gonzales will pacify the base while alienating the persuadable voters we need to win over to defeat Bush...

In the post you referred to I concluded that the only logical way to not be in this dilemma is to elect a Democratic president...

[RafterMan]

53. Well we can't stack Bush into a naked pyramid

but we can humiliate his nominee.

I guess I don't really see the persuadable middle being alienated by this. Who is his constituency? I also think it's okay if Bush doesn't pull him -- but keeping debate open and hammering at "Bush nominates torturer" for a while might have some positive trickle-down effects even if they ultimately pull back and just vote no.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

55. If "Dirtying Up" Gonzales Is Your Goal Then God Bless Ya Because

Lord Knows He Deserves It...


To call the Geneva Convention "quaint" is to begin on a slippery slope to the abyss....


All I am saying is as long as the Republicans control all four lever of government our impact on policy will be minimal..


It reminds me of Goldwater's complaints about Republicans who acquiesced to Democratic spending programs when the Democrats were the majority... He called them "Dimestore Republicans" To get along they they supported the Democratic programs as long as they could do it cheaper.... That's all a relatively weak opposition party can do....

When we have Democratic control our dilemma will end...

It's not abstract... It's not sexy... And it's not worthy of Foucault but it's the truth...

[RafterMan]

57. You're right about that

And even if Bush pulled him and nominated Mr. Clean, there would still be no noticeable effect on policy. Bush will still do whatever he wants, no matter who the AG is.

So I'm 100% with you when you say the only way to change policy is to win elections. In the meantime, throwing a few beanballs can't hurt.

[Pepperbelly]

96. exactly right. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. As Orwell Said "Some ideas are so bizarre only an intellectual can believe

them"


Just because you pose your arguments at such a high level of abstraction doesn't mean they are right but only complex...


Genius is making the simple complex not the complex simple...


We can "dirty up" Gonzales all we want and Lord knows he deserves it for his criminal advice to Bush* but there ain't a damn thing we can to stop his nomination as long as we have 44 or 45 senators and the opposition has 55..

But I am glad that you derive self esteem from the complexity of your prose....

[depakid]

54. You need to re-read

your parliamentary procedure.

Unfortunately, that's ONE book Republicans are well versed in that democrats seem to ignore.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. What Am I Missing...

It takes sixty senators to end a filibuter...


The Democrat's have forty four senators...Jeffords is an indy who often votes for the Democrats...


If the Dems filibustered Gonzales they would be doing it with the hope that Bush withdrawed the nomination so the Dems will end the filibuster...


There is no reason to believe that Bush would withdraw the nomination to end the filibuster...


Why would he withdraw the nomination?

Because Gonzales counseled circumventing the Geneva Convention..

Bush is the one he gave the counsel to...

[gottaB]

58. I am truly perplexed

I deleted that post 45 minutes before your reply. I gather from your previous posts that you saw my reply, as you are no longer discussing Rice, and you seem to have understood the historical reference to "NUTS!" Abstraction? Yes, there was a metacriticism. I'll try to explain it. If, in lieu of debating substantive points, you critize the use of "fifty dollar words" and such, then I see little point in using language to resolve our differences. I reject your offer to debate on those terms. Nuts.

Are you seeing any text there, at post #46?

What bizarre ideas could you possibly be referring to? Are you really satisfied to throw insults around, or would you rather discuss ideas? The difference between the simple and the complex, for example? That strikes me as a rather intellectual concern. But perhaps you are seeing complexity and bizarre ideas where I see nothing. I am truly perplexed.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

77. No Matter How Sophisticated Your Analysis

there is not a damn thing we can do to stop this nomination...


What part of that don't you understand?

[gottaB]

84. I don't understand why you replace "will" with "can"

and expect us to all agree.

We are still at the stage of making exhortations, forming opinions, and deciding a course of action. You are in fact doing just that, making an exhortation. As long as the votes have yet to be counted, as long as the possibility of filibuster remains open, it is not true to say that nothing can be done.

Has Reid done a tally of no votes on the Democratic side? Has he done a tally of no votes on a possible cloture motion? If you know of such a tally, then you might have a basis for talking about what's realistically possible. Otherwise, we are in the same boat as far as advocating what action should be taken in response to the Gonzales nomination.

My position is that a filibuster should be discussed, and that tallies should be conducted by the Minority Leader. I believe that is his duty as Senate Minority Leader and spokesperson for the Democratic Party. I believe he should take to heart the words of the Democratic Senators on the Judiciary, understand the gravity of this confirmation vote, and proceed accordingly. That means impressing upon all the Democratic Senators the gravity of this vote, and explaining the reasons why the Democratic Party is opposed to Judge Gonzales' confirmation. Furthermore, the Minority Leader should be trying to reach out to Senators across the aisle, testing the depth of support for this nominee among sympathetic Republicans. I understand that not all of these efforts may be fruitful, but they should be undertaken in good faith, with every expectation that the undertaking is worthwhile, and that the aim of blocking this nomination is within the realm of the possible. That is all.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. Lots Of Things Are Theoretically Possible

It's theoretically possible I could beat Mike Tyson in a street fight...

It's theoretically possible the Atlanta Hawks could win the NBA championship this year....They are currently 8-34...

It's theoretically possible Alan Iverson could cover Shaquille O'Neal in the low post all night and hold him to no points...


It's theoretically possible the Patriots could beat the Eagles 73-0 in the Super Bowl...


I could waste more of Skinner's bandwidth coming up with all kinds of theoretical possibilities that have no realistic chance of occurring...


Even if the Democrats held tough and had no defections denying a cloture do you think Bush is going to cave..

That's the question...

Everything else is an exercise in intellectual masturbation as I stated in my first post about the matter...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

81. 95% Of DU Agrees Bush Won't Withdraw The Nomination...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1540916

[Guaranteed]

69. I thought it was dead-fucking-on. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. Really....

You think Bush will withdraw the nomination...


I have a better chance of beating Mike Tyson in a street fight....

[Guaranteed]

102. No, I just think our representatives could use the exercise.

You know, maybe get out of bed, get the blood flowing. At least TRY to do their job.

[DistressedAmerican]

39. Offer something useful or stop wasting our time

All you have is hollow criticism to offer. What the hell are you doing to make things better? Paying lip service to accountability then happily confirming war criminals to MORE powerful positions?

At best the crowded theater metaphor has nothing to do with the issue. I think the "loudmouth twits" have soundly shut down your unoffered, most likely nonexistent political logic.

Bashing those that actually have the balls to fight them just serves their purposes. Be their bitch if YOU want. I certainly will not.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. What's your plan to stop Bushco?

eom

[LynneSin]

47. This one I will agree on....

Condi Rice was Bupkus compared to Gonzales. The fact that every democratic senator voted against him should send a strong signal to the rest of the party!

[leyton]

59. Let's just blame the wrong people, shall we?

Every person, every child who is tortured or wrongfully detained will deserve an apology not from the NAZI terrorist we have allowed to run our country but from the supposed leader of the opposition who let a lawless torturer take over law enforcement in America.

So it's not the fault of the soldiers who committed the acts, their superiors who ordered it, the lawyer who wrote the memo, and the President who looked the other way? It's the fault of the guy who was elected Senate Minority Leader after the fact and who may choose to spend his political capital not on the President's pick for AG but maybe for SC?

You seem to think Reid has unlimited power. You think wrong. He's got limited abilities in the position he's in, and I'd rather he pick the battles he can win.

[Generator]

62. Jesus Christ!

And I mean that. Where do you personally draw the line? Of course Reid isn't responsible-but where do you draw the line? What kind of person are you? What are your values?

I PERSONALLY felt repsonsible for my TAX dollars going to death squads in Central America during the Reagan years. I know I wasn't the killer-but I thought the reason I am a Democrat is because I know the difference between wrong and right. I can think of no greater wrong than torture and murder being committed in my name, and allowed by the person supposed to uphold the law of the land being in league with the worst of this country or any other.

Forgive? Nah, this is just another deal breaker of the soul of what I thought my country was. Apparently, it's no better than Saudia Arabia. How those that actually have a voice like Reid can sleep at night is beyond me. And yeah, the supreme court-heh as a woman there is nothing I want to keep more than my right to choose-but I also want to be able to sleep at night and not know I did nothing to stop innocent people being tortured IN MY NAME.

[leyton]

63. What do you expect to accomplish with a filibuster?

I despise Gonzales just as much as you do, I was just as appalled at the Abu Ghraib scandal. Yet there's really little Reid can do - I doubt he can truly muster the support to get past cloture, and I doubt that a filibuster would stop the nomination. If he filibusters and succeeds, I'll do the Tucker Carlson thing and eat my shoe, but you expect way too much of a guy who nominally commands only 44 votes in the Senate and probably not even that many.

As for your question "what kind of person are you?" I'm pissed off just like you, and am doing my part by joining and donating to Amnesty International, writing letters to the editor, etc. But I'm also pissed off that people here expect Democrats to hold up every single nominee Bush puts through. I'm pissed off that people here are going out of their way to attack Democrats and make ridiculous statements like "Reid is just as guilty." That's like blaming Hubert Humphrey for Watergate because he lost the election to Nixon. There's a line drawn between those who support Bush and those who oppose him, including those who pick their battles.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

82. I Don't Believe In Vicarious Responsibility

eom

[Guaranteed]

68. Newsflash: We can't win ANY battles. We are the minority party.

So, let's fight them all.

May as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

83. Maybe We Should Filibuster Every Piece Of Legislation Till We're

Down To Five Senators...


At least some us will be another step higher on the ladder to self actualization....

[Guaranteed]

103. Sure...but down to five senators? Where are you coming up with

that?

You know there isn't even an election until 2006. Maybe by then we'll have made our point about what we stand for.

In the meantime, I think we should do our best to make sure that our country ISN'T fucked over. Or do you care about that part?

[catbert836]

66. Let's save the filibuster for

when Torture Boy gets nominated for the Supreme Court. As AG, he won't be any worse than his mentor Ashcroft.

[NVMojo]

72. ...just hope he doesn't sing!!!! Literally!!!

[mvd]

110. Have to disagree in part

As bad as Ashcroft is, he's a bit of a bungler. Gonzales is very calculated.

If we can make the torture thing have legs, a filibuster would be justified. Otherwise, let's save for the Supreme Court nominees.

[incapsulated]

73. Will the rethugs ever really go nuclear?

That wouldn't just apply to the Dems, you know. They can't be so drunk with power that they believe they will never, ever be in the minority themselves again. It's cutting off your nose to spite your face, and I think it's a hollow threat. They don't want to lose the ability to filibuster, once the inevitable happens and they are back in the minority, powerless.

:shrug:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

79. It Has Nothing To Do With Going Nuclear...

Bush is not going to withdraw the nomination...


Bush know Gonzales countenanced torture because Bush is the one he countenanced it for...


We can filibuster to Easter Bush isn't withdrawing that nomination...

[loyalsister]

74. What good is a wasted filibuster?

A filibuster will not stop this appointment.
There is not enough public support for it for one thing. It would be a waste of time. The best they can do with this is protest the nom.
The potential filibusters that will have public support will be judges and legislative initiatives. If they don't keep powder dry right now "here they go again" will be the drumbeat later.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

76. Public Support????????????????????

I doubt 5% of Merika would support a filibuster against Gonzales.....


A higher percentage oppose his nomination for sure but that doesn't mean tieing up the Senate...

[progressiveright]

78. that's what i say

forget rice, we can bitch but bush did run on his platform of 'saddam was a threat an i did the right thing', and with republican majority in the senate she's getting confirmed anyway. so forget about rice, gonzales is the grandstand that we need to concentrate on and pull all the stops, say no to torture. one battle at a time.

[progressiveright]

80. fillibuster

republicans hold the sword over our head - they can take it away if they can spin it to sound like we are abusing the option, since they hold the majority now and make all the rules. now the most important thing here is to use fillibuster to prevent really phsyco fundamentalist judges from being on supreme court. can we afford to waste it on gonzales? i think we can if democratic legislators get on the the same united message. we'll see what happens.

[Disturbed]

86. There will be no filibuster.

If every democratic senator voted against him that would send a strong signal to the rest of the world!

That's the least a Democratic Party should do.

[progressiveright]

87. realistically

i agree with you. i don't see democrats fillibustering gonzales, but they can do a better job of opposing his nomination than they are doing right now. i just hope against hope that they will fillibuster conservative partisan appointments to supreme court, if they fail to do that they are dead to me and i'm moving to canada.

[The Flaming Red Head]

85. I agree

This is where we need to draw the line.

[ElectroPrincess]

97. Exactly!

Biden, Clinton, Reid, et. al. are all *kiss ass* to money and power democrats. The do NOT represent the people. We need to make it clear to these gutless wonders that the gravy train will cease to exist for them IF they continue this waltz.

Translation: Take off your damn knee pads and do your job = a true OPPOSITION Party ... Dammit!!! <eg>

[Lydia Leftcoast]

104. According to the standards of the Nuremberg Trials, Gonzales

would be considered a war criminal for writing the justification for torture, as would Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and everyone on down the chain of command.

We may not to "waste" a filibuster on him, but I'll look askance at Dems who cannot vote against a man who does legal gymnastics to "prove" that torture is lkay.

[brindis_desala]

105. tactically a filibuster would be counter-productive

Gonzales is just a shill and don't kid yourself into thinking torture has never been a U.S. option. The difference with the Bushites is that they WANT the rest of the world to know they're macho wacko crazies, (and guys like Thomas Friedman think it's fine and dandy.) Vote en masse against Gonzales then let the Repukes defend him every time there's another disgusting disclosure..

[Lostnote03]

107. Photos introduced in the confirmation process(torture photos)

.....(ala fetus shock on the Senate floor) could go a long way in diffusing the issue amongst the GOP faithful.....That is to say public association with an almost internat'l symbol of abuse may not sit well with the GOP moderate faithful......The Constitution imo, is fairly clear on this topic.....Has the Palestinian image of a hooded adolescent, armed to the teeth now been supplanted by the hooded electrode prisoner on an internat'l scale?....Geesh, we are soooo screwed.....Moral certitude is not a defense!!!

[gottaB]

108. It wouldn't take much effort to show the connections

Thumbs Up!

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/Gonzales/main.asp

[Lostnote03]

109. If they (Dem)could just keep it quite.....

....NOT allow the Govt. sponsored media the opportunity to pre empt the effect....Take it to the floor with Seymour Herschs entire photo portfolio....Let the so called Christian base make up their own damned minds.....Those big words get confusing after a while however a picture tells a thousand words, slice by slice.....

[Jack Rabbit]

112. Such hyperbole. Bush is not a NAZI terrorist

He is a neoconservative terrorist.