Reid must go. End of story. He can't be trusted.

[saracat]

No filibuster? What do they have to lose? It isn't as though they have anything to trade with! They better have the votes to defeat Gonzales in order to justify this (fat chance) ! This is a repuke lite Dem at his worst. This is what happens when you give up your ideals and let an anti choice Dem lead.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Filibustering a cabinet choice would be unprecedented

if I am not mistaken.

[Skidmore]

2. Have we ever had a nomination put before the

congress ever with these sorts of issues at stake?

[saracat]

3. So?

So is torture and so is invading a country that didn't attack us, and so is a selected president!

[Guaranteed]

4. Yes, it would be.

I guess the question is, Is torture something worth creating that precedent over?

Would you trust your family's safety to Gonzalez? As DEMOCRATS, do we feel comfortable with this torture thing?

I dunno. Tough call. Seriously.

[genius]

32. And what all Senators who love their families would do.

By failing to filibuster a lawbreaker for chief law enformcement officer, Reid has violated his oath of office and is unfit to hold any office in the U.S. Government. However, he should remain a member of the mininority until we can replace him.

[Zhade]

39. And approving an AG who approved and endorses torture is unprecedented.

NT!

[Eric J in MN]

51. Good point (nt)

nt

[PurityOfEssence]

78. UNPRECEDENTED? Like off-decade redistricting, impeaching over semantics

or running a recall election for a Governor who was left holding the bag for the thieves who then unseat him?

Is it unprecedented like the stealing of Max Cleland's election in '02? I guess it's time to bring up the extreme thievery of 12-12-00. How about the Colorado redistricting?

Fuck precedent. Now is the time to fight.

[papau]

5. I do not see the grand evil plan - but I do see folks picking fights as a

block only when they think they can win them.

[OneBlueSky]

10. if they're only going to pick fights they can win . . .

they're gonna be in for a l-o-o-o-o-o-n-g wait . . . and whatever happened to the quaint notion of standing up for principles? . . . you know, things like "torture is bad" . . .

[papau]

12. "torture is bad" is played by media as not strong on defense -

I really do not like our media

:-(

[saracat]

19. We haven't got the votes to "win" anything. They own it all.

And they are never going to vote with us on anything. There IS NO BIPARTISANSHIP! that is why we have NOTHING to lose!

[pmbryant]

6. This constant complaining is already getting old

Everytime we lose a battle in Congress the next two years are we going to hear the same complaints from the same people?

--Peter

[Padraig18]

7. Of course we are, Peter.

This will be the pattern for the foreseeable future.

[saracat]

22. Damn right. As long as they roll over. We no longer have anything to lose.

Bipartisanship is DEAD.We have no votes to trade. This isn't politics as usual.Anyone who believes it is is delusional.

[Skidmore]

8. We wouldn't be in the position if the Dem leadership

hadn't been so complacent and anxious to be part of the Good Ole Boy system over the past few years. They got fat and lazy and forgot about their base.

[enough already]

14. We elected that "leadership"

We have no one to blame but ourselves.

[saracat]

17. Did we?

With no election reform, how will we ever know?

[OneBlueSky]

13. the complaining has little to do with losing . . .

and everything to do with constant capitulation, with not even trying, with not standing up for basic Democratic (and American, for that matter) principles . . . things like "torture is bad and should never be employed by Americans, anytime, anywhere" . . . if that's not something Democrats can agree to and take a stand on, I think I'm in the wrong party . . .

[xultar]

15. AMEN!!! If we hate everyone who will be on our side? n/t

[gulfcoastliberal]

23. They didn't lose, they rolled over w/o a fight...

Big difference.

[htuttle]

25. There's a difference between losing a battle and turning tail and running

If they put up a fight, I would not have any problem with them losing.

By not fighting, we become complicit. Then when the next election rolls around, they'll shove those complicit votes in our face, and say, "Well, you voted FOR it before..."

I don't know why our Congressional Democrats are so afraid of losing a battle. Since the Republicans have a majority in both houses, does that mean the Democrats will not substantively fight ANY issue (since they can't win) until they regain a majority? That could be a long time at this rate.

[pmbryant]

35. You're wrong

By all accounts, the majority of Dem Senators will vote against Gonzalez.

And new accounts say that every single (Senate) Democrat is on board the fight against Bush's Social Security privatization scheme.

--Peter

EDIT: Added "(Senate)" for accuracy.

[serryjw]

43. Which comes first ...the chicken or the egg?

How do you ever expect to REGAIN majority if they don't fight? Dems will just stay home in 2006, just like they did in 2002 until someone has the spine to fight.Personally, I see no difference b/t the spineless dems and the thugs.....so why bother?

[LSparkle]

9. Maybe unprecedented

but neither is the extent of the hubris, the exclusion of the Dems, and the blocking of Congressional oversight exhibited by this Administration. We haven't got ANYTHING left to lose, and if the Justice Department becomes a rubber stamp for Chimperor, they'll have NO RESTRAINT on whatever they choose to do to the country and all of us in it. Why go along with a f***ing two-party system when the minority PARTY DOESN'T FIGHT? I'm dangerously close to going Green.

[Guaranteed]

18. No, don't do that. We're just getting started.

You know what else is unprecedented? I heard just an hour ago, somewhere here, that it could be 25 Democrats voting "NO" against Gonzalez. Considering the "the President gets to pick his cabinet" tradition, that's amazing.

I know Gonzalez sucks, but unless we think he's going to use torture against his own citizens- which he very well could do- I think we need to make that massive mark on him with the 25 "NO" votes and leave it at that.

If we filibuster, it will be a HUGE, HUGE deal. It could come back to bite us in the ass. Is it worth it?

Again, I'm not saying either way. But we need to be careful.

[saracat]

31. Bite us in the ass, how?

Notice the only popular Dem is Boxer. Standing up didn't hurt her. Twenty five votes is BS. I may go green too, And I 'm a party officer. I have had it with this. All or nothing.

[Guaranteed]

47. They could start filibustering our nominees when we win back

the Presidency, among other things.

The Republicans have ways of hitting back. The question, AGAIN, is: IS THIS WORTH an ALL-OUT charge like you're suggesting, when we're just getting started?

[saracat]

52. Yes.

They will always contest our choices anyway. Look what they did to Clinton. This is an emergency. Our international reputation is in shreds. This is about torture dammit. If even one Dem condones it we are finished. we will have no viability

[gottaB]

59. I will be amazed if Gonzales gets 17 more yeas than Ashcroft got

On Edit: misremembered the Ashcroft vote. It was 58 to 42.

[Red State Rebel]

11. I heard they announced they would then an hour later said they wouldn't

Does anyone know if this is true?

[flpoljunkie]

16. I disagree. Reid is nothing, if not tough. Gonzales will be tainted by

poor showing in confirmation vote. All the No votes the Dems can muster matter--to all those in this country who care about the rule of law--as well as the world.

A poor showing in Gonzales' confirmation vote will be a defeat for Dubya--make no mistake about it.

[saracat]

24. Tough Reid voted to confirm Condi!

[Padraig18]

26. As he should have.

The only question was whether she was qualified to serve as SOS, and she was.

[saracat]

30. You are F-ckin kidding right?

A cold war expert? And a proven liar? Someone who took the nation to war based on lies? The same Condi who said the memo about planes flying into buildings was historical? The same Condi who didn't see Al Queda as a threat? The same Condi who coundn't imagine and said noone could "imagine a plane flying into a building? The same Condi who wasn't familiar with Hart Rudman? She is qualified? On what basis? The fact that she plays the piano?

[Padraig18]

45. No, I'm not fucking kidding.

:eyes:

[saracat]

48. So all those things qualify her to you?

Explain how she was qualified as you say. BTW I really like your name I had a friend with that name once. My grandmother spoke a little Gaelic too! And I'll give you :eyes: right back!

[Padraig18]

49. She meets the Constitutional requirements.

She is under no legal disability, and the POTUS should get the Cabinet he wants, basically. That's how it's been for the 217 years of the Republic.

[saracat]

56. She MAY be guilty of treason.

And the 9-11 Commission said this admin , including Condi were guilty of negligence as well as incompetence. In 217 years I don't think we have nominated anyone else fitting that criteria.

[Cuban_Liberal]

62. Treason is defined in the Constitution.

It's the only crime that is, in fact. How is she guilty of committing treason, saracat?

:shrug:

[saracat]

67. I think betraying the nation with false intelligence would qualify.

[Cuban_Liberal]

69. Unfortunately, that doesn't meet the legal criteria.

:shrug:

[saracat]

70. I think an argument can be made.

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open-court.”

[Cuban_Liberal]

71. That'd be quite a stretch.

As a former deputy sheriff and current law student taking Criminal Practice and Procedure, all I can say is that I think you'd have a VERY difficult time getting the indictment, much less a conviction.

:shrug:

[saracat]

73. Bush may be guilty of treason himself. John Dean is of that opinion, and

Condi certainly abetted him. Read Worse than Watergate.

[flpoljunkie]

36. Voting yes or no on Condi does not speak to Reid's toughness. It is real.

[saracat]

42. Real what? Compromise? Caving ?

She would have been confirmed anyway. He had nothing to lose. It isn't as if you can build up "credit" with the other side. Real what ?Cowardice?

[flpoljunkie]

77. I suggest you watch Reid on the Senate floor and what he says to press.

I think you may be impressed.

[dolstein]

20. I trust him more than I trust you.

NT

[saracat]

27. But I don't have a vote! It doesn't matter whether you trust me.

Why would you trust an anti-choice Dem who voted to confirm Condi? Just curious.

[DETERMINEDPROGRESIVE]

21. My rough draft Letter

To those that act like they oppose, but don't have the courage to fillibuster.

Dear_____

Our country is in dire need of help. She is burning with the flames of corruption, deceit, and fascism, fueled by our governement. She is in a frying pan filled with burning oil. The American people desperately need our 'firefighters' to control the fire. To put a lid on it until it's out and then discard the burnt, disgusting oil of a corrupt government left behind. Why will you not be that 'firefighter'? The words at the Gonzales hearings are nothing without a blocking of the nomination. Have you convinced yourself that you're a hero because of those words? You have not convinced us. You have merely flicked your wet fingers at the oil fire, just enough so that the fire will spit, and show it's anger, and confirm that your presence was felt. But the fire will live on. And you will shrug your shoulders as if to say 'well, I tried', and then not only let it continue to burn, but even then allow another cup of oil to be thrown in.

Well someday true 'firefighters' will come to Americas rescue. They will put a lid on that fire and dump the dirty, burnt, disgusting oil of our corrupt government. They will be the heroes. But we will not allow you to jump in and claim that 'hey, what about me, I helped too', because you didn't help. You just pretended to be a hero while allowing the fire to burn stronger.

[quinnox]

28. Bull, Reid is a clever SOB

He is doing a great job so far.

[saracat]

33. HOW?

[pmbryant]

38. Absolutely!

See this for confirmation: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_01_30.php#004621

--Peter

[Malva Zebrina]

29. So this is unprecedented?

Oh, well then by all means, hand over Dr.Torture to Bush's cabinet so we can impotently bash his decisions in every instance for the next four years, while he struts around like a dancing cock.

That is not fun anymore. It only adds to the frustration and gets the anger up, while pointing out to the poster his or her complete impotence and powerlessness in matter of this fascist government.

How many things has Bush done that are unprecedented? Jesus Christ

Unprecedented?

He rules by presidential decree, and was not legally elected the first time around. Illegal war--doctrine of pre-emptive attack to name a couple. Shock and Awe and and host of other unprecedented tyrannies against defenseless people.

[genius]

34. Thank you. Saracat. You are a true patriot and you clearly love

America and your family.

[EVDebs]

37. Bull pucky ! Reid is saving his ammunition for the big fights (SS) not

a picqayune pipsqueak like Gonzales ! Wake up and smell the napalm...Reid KNOWS how to fight. He's toying with 'em on the dancefloor right now.

[Rose Siding]

40. He doesn't want repubs to use the nuclear option before SCOTUS noms

If dems mess around with filibusters now, the repubs will work rule changes so that ANY Supreme Court nominee bush sends will be approved.

[Padraig18]

41. Bingo!

We have a winner!

:thumbsup:

[saracat]

44. What makes you think they won't do it anyway? Do you seriously think we

are fooling them? Give me a break. All that will happen is our last chance of filibuster will not be used.

[pmbryant]

50. Here's the deal

A few Republicans are not happy with the "nuclear option" of forbidding filibusters. As it stands now, the GOP probably couldn't get a majority to do this.

But if the Dems start filibustering everything, including mere Cabinet appointments, those few Republicans who currently oppose the nuclear option and more likely to change their mind.

So Reid and the Dems have to be crafty in their use of the filibuster. Save it for the extra-crucial issues: issues like SS privatization and Supreme Court nominees.

That's my take, at least.

Now, Reid has every single Dem on board against SS privatization. Every one! They can filibuster that. And the GOP is nervous enough about that that they are unlikely to force the issue without any bipartisan cover.

If you are going to criticize, please tell us what would you do differently.

--Peter


(EDIT: spelling)

[saracat]

54. This is an emergency. If even one Dem supports Gonzales, we are dead fish

Our international reputation is already in shreds.Only the Dems can save us. If we let this slip through without using every available weapon, we will have condoned torture.We will lose any viability we would have had.You say we must save the filibuster for Social Security. What good does that do if we have no world standing?
And you obviously believe this is politics as usual. There are NO republicans that can be trusted.We are fooling no one. All that can happen is that they will repeal the filibuster without our using it.Are you remotely suggesting they will play "fair"
I say throw the book at them NOW , before it is too late.

[pmbryant]

57. Ok, then what?

Say you filibuster Gonzalez and force him to withdraw. Then the GOP passes the "nuclear option" forbidding future filibusters.

Bush then nominates Douglas Feith (or equivalent) for Attorney General, who passes on a party-line vote. SS privatization passes on party-line votes. Three Supreme Court nominations pass on party-line votes.

Et cetera.

Final result: still no "world standing". We've still "condoned torture" (at least by your definition) by failing to block the new AG nominee. And we've let the GOP dismantle Social Security and the pack the Supreme Court decades into the future.

That is not a good result, to say the least.

Reid's plan is better. At least it gives us a chance.

--Peter

[saracat]

60. I still don't get why you think we have a "chance" .With whom?

I guess you still think we can negotiate with the GOP. I can't imagine on what basis. The end result would be the same except that we will not(at least the Dems) have condoned torture. We must send the message that the opposition party doesn't condone this. I guess I don't understand why anyone thinks that politics is being played in the time honored manner. Some appear to be thinking there are elements of bipartisanship left. All you had to do was listen to Arlen Specter to know that isn't true.

[EVDebs]

64. We CAN negotiate with the repubs. Lindsey Graham is looking

to raise the $90K cap on payroll tax to $120K and we can 'fix' SS without private accounts. Make THAT kind of a deal and shaft the repubs, since they can't get the prez's 'dead horse' to ride ! Dems can extract SOOOOO much from these guys just like the Newt'erd repubs before 1994 election. We can also go after a house majority by showing the SCOTUS that wouldn't rule on the War Powers Act lawsuit (shown on today's DU cover - AWOL Supreme Court).

[Rose Siding]

53. Senate rules won't be changed for tactical reasons, mid filibuster

The fact that it would be a naked power grab and the fear that they might live to need it themselves will require caution. They threatened to change the rules before and backed down.

No one's being fooled. But the repubs must be forced to admit that the dems are using the filibuster judiciously, rather than on everything they oppose.

[saracat]

Why?

It isn't as if they respect them as the "loyal opposition" Those days are gone. They even shut them out of meetings. The GOP will accuse them of being abusive anyway and the MSM will never report the Dems caution.

[Rose Siding]

76. The media and the GOP core aren't the audience for this one

Frist wants to change Senate rules to disallow filibuters at all. He hasn't been able to do it yet because of some *repub* opposition- old school and all, maybe even Specter- but they would re-think that decision if the dems won't even give bush his cabinet.

EVERY dem should vote against The Torture Guy and all the rest of Bush's noms, if you ask me- There's not a repub alive that bush would nominate who won't do exactly as they're told. At least let the world get the message that DEMS oppose torture.

The vital reason to preserve that one last tool is for the LIFETIME appt of probably more than one bush nom for SCOTUS.

[genius]

68. This was the most important nomination of our lifetimes to block

Think of your children screaming in pain and the person responsible being above the law. That's small potatoes for you.

[Rose Siding]

75. A rabidly right wing SCOTUS nom will be the most important

And I never said this was small potatoes. I think every dem should vote no on The Torture Guy. But throwing around filibusters on every outrage will lose us the option altogether.

[saracat]

46. Attorney General and head of the Justice Dept is picayune?

WOW! Torture and international relations aren't worth fighting about. ? That is scary!

[EVDebs]

65. Bush's Legacy is picayune...let him win, these guys are losers (have you

checked their records ? Of course you have !).

[Emboldened Chimp]

55. He probably doesn't have the votes

The republicans probably can muster 60+ to break the filibuster, making it DOA.

[The Gigmeister]

58. You're wrong.

Do you understand politics? Are you cut-out for it?

These kinds of posts make me wonder about the authors.

[saracat]

61. My a conclusion jumper that has no idea of the background of this poster.

Sorry. but this is a misconception and you are wrong.

[The Gigmeister]

63. All I know is...

...that every single one of these posts is assanine based on ignorance alone.

They almost seem like disruptor posts, they're so far out of fucking whack. (Not that I'm accusing anyone, just saying is all...)

[Melynn]

66. I agree with you

Maybe if the current Presidential regime had some morals then you could say that the President should have the cabinet that he wants. Its his cabinet after all.

This administration is so far gone on high crimes and misdemeanors that every time the Democrats give in to Bush, he just laughs and does something more outrageous. Bush has nothing but contempt for those who gives in to him.

[DemocracyInaction]

72. Again---total lack of political sense

I don't care if Gonzalas is the Virgin Mary. We need to raise stink in order to be noticed because IF NO ONE NOTICED we don't have the power to pop a pimple!!!! We have absolutely no choice but to raise holy hell about everything from here through midterms to '08 and hope it gets through to enough people to save are ever growing useless hides!!! These idiots so desperately need lessons in Polical Science 101 which every Republican can recite in their sleep.

[saracat]

74. Yessir Agree!