What Nominee Would Be Bad ENOUGH For Us To Agree They Must Be Stopped?

[DistressedAmerican]

There has been a lot of discussion of the confirmation of Bush's cabinet nominees. I have been arguing that we needed to stand firm on Rice and Gonzalez. Many moderates argued that they were not the person to make a stand over.

So, I ask you all who would be a bad enough nominee that we could ALL agree that they had to be stopped? Rice wasn't it. Gonzalez wasn't it. I can only assume based on comments form the Dems that Negroponte will be embraced. After all Pelosi says she is looking forward to working with the guy.

How bad would they have to be? Child molester? Apparently war criminal isn't much of an impediment. Help me out here!

[cestpaspossible]

1. You want all Democrats to agree on something?

Don't hold your breath.

[genius]

31. Anyone who thinks Negroponte to be Nat Intell Dir

is himself/herself unfit to hold any office. Anyone who fails to filibuster this guy should resign - and the sooner the better.

[cestpaspossible]

43. Pretty sure Boxer is going to vote to confirm him. She should resign?

[genius]

44. Don't give up so easily. Let's get her to listen.

[cestpaspossible]

45. And if she doesn't?

[Ralounews]

2. War Criminals Collect More War Criminals

Sadly, the only way to stop them is to get them all out. They're war criminals, and it's perfectly natural for them to flock together. The Congress has sold us out, Reps and Dems, and it's up to us now.

[phish420]

3. Ashcroft

According to those newly released tapes, shrub suggested that Asscroft would make a good supreme court justice...if anyone could actually be worse than rehnquist when he retires/dies, it would be ashcroft and I dont know of a single democrat that would support that.

[DistressedAmerican]

5. JESUS I HAdn't even pondered that possibility!

Mark my words though. There'd still be someone holding out to not make trouble.

[Ralounews]

6. Rehnquist

And they already said Rehnquist isn't coming back to the bench. I wouldn't ordinarily be willing to believe we'd end up with Ashcroft on the Supreme Court, but it makes sense. If you want to pass unconstitutional laws, there's no better way to guarantee you'll be able to than to put someone on the bench who likes unconstitutional laws!

[DistressedAmerican]

8. With Bush's history, It Makes TOTAL Sense.

He nominated him got AG even though he was clearly controversial. Bush is not a man that gives a shit what WE think. He has a "mandate".

[Toucano]

18. Agreed.

The line is drawn at Ashcroft.

That doesn't mean I won't object to others, but that man must not be allowed to take the bench.

[Blue Wally]

53. Ashcroft is out

The guy now has serious health issues. Bush is going to want relatively young and healthy nominees who will be around for 20-plus years.

[Blue Christmas]

4. I was disappointed to hear Barbara Boxer say she was planning...

to vote "yes" on Negroponte (about an hour ago on CNN)

[DistressedAmerican]

7. Saw that too. It was what got me started on this thread!

How can she of all people? It may well be the seventh sign (sigh)!

How much flack will she take after gaining her new found status as Liberal Warrior in the party? Poeple will turn if she really does come out and vote for him.

What the fuck is going on?

[LittleClarkie]

29. Considering the background of Negroponte re: Iran/Contra

the vote I'm most curious about is Kerry's.

[Zhade]

48. THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT!

Finally, a Kerry fan actually mentions this.

So, maybe you can answer the question that no other Kerry supporter has even attempted to answer: why did Kerry vote for Negroponte to be U.N. ambassador, knowing what he knows about the guy?

[genius]

32. Is she mad? On Jan 6th she appeared to have a brain.

[Zhade]

47. Well, fuck. She did at least once before.

I had forgiven her previous vote based on her protesting the election results. Perhaps I was premature.

In fact, I'm starting to wonder if the "protest" was a big sham to get us to back off.

[woofless]

9. What part of OPPOSITION PARTY don't they understand?

[phish420]

12. LOL...no doubt! n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

24. I Know A Lot Of Dems And We Do Know How To Party...

Apparently its the opposition part we don't get!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Some of them would vote for Himmler to be AG.

And, Dr. Mengele to head HEW.

[DaveinMD]

11. fire is being saved for judges

they get lifetime appointments.

[DistressedAmerican]

14. We Do Not Have A limited Number Of Filibusters!

Why Wait? I do not understand. It is not like we get one veto. Please explain WHY we should hold our fire to a justice. That is exactly what I do not get.

Some claim that they would change the rules and end the filibuster, The so-called nuclear option. If they are going to do it, they are going to do it. What difference does it make when they do it?

Personally, I do not think they will even do it. I say we call their bluff.

[DaveinMD]

15. its a matter of political capital

Personally a filibuster of cabinet appointments make no sense to me. The President is the problem. The cabinet implements his policy.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. If we never invest our political capital it dwindels to nothing

What is the point of having it if you NEVER use it. Look at the past 4 years. Name one time the Dems really went full bore to stop a single thing he did.

Stopping his nominees is a political victory and it would make hm think twice about putting folks up that are obvious targets. Right now there are NONE because we never take aim. His nominees ARE part of his policy.

On Edit: Do not forget that cabinet members help FORMULATE policy as well as implementing it.

[DaveinMD]

34. I understand your argument

If I was running the show, I'd fillubuster every damn thing until they enter into real compromise with the Democrats.

[DistressedAmerican]

37. Welcome To The Fold. Now We just Have To Become In Charge!

:toast:

[Ashamed_American]

13. I would say Osama,

but that's a big money family, so there would still be a few to vote 'yes.'

Maybe David Hasselhoff?


www.BlackEyedSundays.com

[DadNascar5]

17. Thee aren't any!

Unlike the Republicans, we have no party unity.

[Hippo_Tron]

19. 36 Dems voted no on Gonzalez

Because we have written proof that Gonzalez has no respect for the law. The others were scared of the ramifications of voting against a hispanic nominee, but it's pretty clear that most Democrats were against Gonzalez.

Rice, on the other hand has less justification. Rice lied to the American people, but there's simply no proof like there was in the Gonzalez case. The administration simply uses the "misinformed" excuse and until proven otherwise, there is no proof that she lied. Did she lie? Of course she did, because the best intelligence services in the world don't report "nukes in a year" and "stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons" when there are no weapons, period. I'm glad that Barbara Boxer and 12 other senators voted against Rice to make a point that her statements have beenhighly questionable and highly contradictory. Unfortunately there is no solid proof that she is unfit to serve as Secretary of State and Democrats don't want to set the precedent that you can fillibuster a cabinet nominee based on the fact that you think that she lied.

I'd much rather not fight these battles once, then have to fight them again when we get a Democratic president.

[DistressedAmerican]

20. Good Of The Dems To Protect Their Option To Nominate A Liar.

[Hippo_Tron]

35. It's the right of the President to have HIS cabinet

These aren't people that occupy highly independent positions in the federal government, these are the people who are directly subordinate to the POTUS and are charged with carrying out his will. Like it or not, George W. Bush was elected on November 2nd and inaugurated on January 20th. He is President and the President deserves the right to have a cabinet of his choice just like other Presidents are given. No President would be able to enact their agenda if his cabinet was picked by the members of the US Senate, the government just would not work.

[DistressedAmerican]

36. What Right? What I Remeber Is The Congress Has "Advice and Consent"

That does not mean Bush advises and we consent.

Is there no repugnant fool that you would reject?

If not, you are George Bush's dream Democrat.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Advice and Consent is vague

You're right, the Senate does have a right to advise and consent on the President's nominees for office. However, because of long-standing traditions in the US Senate, advise and consent means different things for different appointments. Advise and consent means for judges that they must be highly-qualified and non-partisan and that usually means that the approval of at least 60 senators is required. Advise and Consent for the President's cabinet is rightfully given less scrutiny because these people do not have lifetime appointments, are not free from political pressure, and serve at the pleasure of the President.

I don't want to see the traditions of the US Senate broken because I think that it is one of the most important institutions in our government. It is a body that gives the minority a voice and makes sure that the majority does not have the power to do whatever they want. If we start to break some traditions, then we are setting precedent to break all of them, including the fillibuster. I do not want to imagine what the Bush gang will do with no fillibusters. If I feel this way about the Senate, think about how the members elected to the Senate must feel. That's why they voted to confirm Rice, because preserving the institution of the Senate is far more important than keeping Rice from being Secretary of State.

[DistressedAmerican]

39. That's a nice story about Saving the institutional and all.

But it is a fantasy. They operate based on their own political future.

The speak against nominees then turn right around and vote for them to avoid being labeled "obstructionists".

These folks are driven by their own pursuit of power little more. That is why I will be trying to remind them as often as possible that they are turning off their base by trying to cozy up to the repugs.

Please, point out a single instance where the democrats in congress really went full bore to stop ANYTHING Bush was doing! You should be able, given that we have 4 years to work with.

Bottom line is that they are AFRAID to fight. Learned helplessness.

We are the opposition party but we act like the cooperation party. Lets opposed SOMETHING for a change! Just see how it goes. Maybe you'll like seeing Bushco. take an actual political hit for a change.

[Hippo_Tron]

42. Many of the Senators who voted NAY on the IWR voted for Condi

Voting NAY on the IWR was arguably most politically risky moves for a Democratic Senator at the time, as * had approval ratings in the high 70's and America was all gung-ho for the Iraq War. If you opposed it, you were labled a traitor. So do you mean to tell me that these senators who took a REAL political risk by voting NAY on the IWR but supported one of Bush's cabinet appointments have no balls? Oh yea, Russ Feingold, one of the 23 NAYs on the IWR, and the lone NAY vote on the Patriot Act voted for Condi claiming that he believes in senatorial courtesy. Do you mean to tell me that Russ Feingold casted that vote because he was concerned about his political future? Maybe I'm just not cyncial enough.

Oh yea, as far as saving the institution of the Senate goes, it is not a fantasy. Senators, on both sides of the aisle, commited to saving the institution WILL be the only thing standing between Bush and complete control of the federal judiciary when Frist tries to use the "nuclear option". That's far more important than fillibustering a cabinet secretary who serves at the will of the President anyway.

BTW, there IS going to be a big fight over social security and Harry Reid has stated that he has 44 NAY votes (45 with Jeffords) on any sort of privitization. The real question is if they can translate this into an issue to unseat Republican senators in 2006. Basically, there should be ads of senior citizens doing manual labor in every vulnerable GOP senator's state.

[Zhade]

51. That's a misrepresentation of Americans.

They were for the war WITH UN APPROVAL - which, remember, we DIDN'T get.

You left that fact out.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. And do you think that they actually gave a shit about UN approval?

Don't you recall the whole, we hate the French, we won't sell our national security to the UN, blah blah blah bullshit. Only when the first dead soldier was shown on CNN did Americans start to realize that the war may have been a mistake.

[Zhade]

50. So what happens when not breaking the tradition means breaking the law?

There was an ethics truce, too, for all the good it did the Dems. When the person up for the job is a liar and a criminal, FUCK tradition. We're talking rule of law here.

[Hippo_Tron]

56. Could Condi Rice be convicted of perjury in a court of law?

The fact that the best intelligence in the world doesn't say "Nukes in a year and stockpiles of chemical and bio weapons" when there are really NO weapons at all, is clear logical reasoning that she lied to the American people. This wouldn't hold up in court as proof that she lied or commited perjury, though.

[PassingFair]

40. And it is the right of the people to protest the installation

of known liars, killers and corporate whores to those positions. Even with our no votes, these abominations will be sworn in, so why not protest with a NO vote?
Does no one speak for the common people? Write to your senators and demand an honest accounting.
If Senator Levin can go out on a limb time after time after time, why can't the rest of them?

[DistressedAmerican]

41. We have to keep pushing them HARD. Sad But, We Do

You'd think they knew who got them the jobs.

I just do hot buy ANY argument that suggests Bush Has Rights to ANY cabinet official he wants. What kind of "tradition" is that if it gets us the worst odf the worst?

[Zhade]

49. May I quote that? It's devastating.

NT!

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. Which one is a war criminal?

:shrug:

[DistressedAmerican]

22. How About The Guy Behind A Memo Justifying Prisoner Abuse?

Sounds like a war crime to me.

If Hitler had a lawyer that wrote the legal opinion that the final solution was all legal and good to go, would he not have ended up in Nuremberg?

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. Actually, Rice and Gonzales were the ones to make stands over

Rice for documented dishonesty and incompetency in her former job, Gonzales for attempting to circumvent the constitution in his legal opinions to the President, as well as his advocacy of torture.

I accept the rational that cabinet appointments are people who serve the will of the sitting President, and therefor should not be denied confirmation purely on issues of policy. But Rice and Gonzales fell below that standard, more so than Negroponte even since his death squad connections are harder to prove, and he has been confirmed for other posts more recently.

[DistressedAmerican]

25. I'd Argue Tat We Should Have Started With Ashcroft In The First Term!

[Tom Rinaldo]

26. I agree. There was a good case against Ashcroft

Democrats were bending over backward to promote national unity after the disputed 2000 Election. They got rewarded with a kick between the legs.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. Post contentions election, post 9/11, etc.

I will NEVER understand this urge to come together. It is our biggest weakness as a party.

I'd split the country in two if it was me.

[Tom Rinaldo]

28. Oh I understand it, BUT...

There is an old cliche, "It takes two to Tango". I can cooperate with my relatively well intentioned Republican neighbors who voted for Bush, on this or that local matter, and they the same with me. It presupposes a degree of good will and common interests to do so however. It must be mutual. It's the proverbial "water's edge" where politics is supposed to end.

The current Republican Junta sees no limits and creates divisions for the sole purpose of consolidating power. They prove another old cliche, "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile".

[DistressedAmerican]

30. You can say that again!

Here, I'll do it for you.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile!

[Blue Wally]

54. Gonzales

Gonzales for attempting to circumvent the constitution in his legal opinions to the President, as well as his advocacy of torture.

Maybe I didn't hear everything in the Gonzales testimony, but it seems to me that it could be very arguable as to whether or not the US Constitution covers enemy combatants outside the US. It is also certainly arguable as to whether or not the Afghan or Iraq detainees meet the standards of an armed force for treatment as POW under the Geneva Conventions. I think a convincing case could be made for executing the combatants under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions. All of these points are certainly arguable in a legal brief. Torture is wrong, but under which legal provision??

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Zhade]

46. "Pelosi says she is looking forward to working with the guy."

Oh. Well. Then fuck her. If she's looking forward to working with a guy who looked the other way when death squads ran rampant on his watch, then I'm looking forward to the sane Americans who will try to replace her with someone who doesn't toady up to IRAN-CONTRA CRIMINALS.

[DemDogs]

52. I hope they stand up against Janet Rogers Brown

California African-American woman judge, great story, terrible judge.

[ChiciB1]

57. What Would Be Really Fantastic....

is if our Democratic Leaders would get some "shit in their necks" and stick it out there!

As it is, they seem to have adopted a turtle shell so they can duck in and duck out. No back-bone, just shells!

How I long for some REALITY instead of everyone simply playing the same old games.

How I miss Paul Wellstone!