That does it. Salazar votes in support of Gonzales.

[saracat]

I am about ready to give up. Reid has to go. First they don't filibuster and now he can't even keep a new senator in line. There is absolutely NO reason for ANY Dem senator to vote for Gonzales. Period. This is a very important position. If we do not take o stand on this we have taken a stand on nothing.We can forget election reform too, because the AG is head of the Justice Dept. We can't even keep our people together for a protest vote on the trashing of the constitution, let alone the approval of torture. Byrd said Bush defacto made himself king. And Salazar votes for the guy who made it possible? AFTER talking to Byrd, who he sayd he "respects" God help us. They would probably not had the votes to defeat the nomination but we have proven we don't have enough strength to mount a protest! No wonder they have contempt for us! Is anything important enough to some of these people? One poster told me Colorado was proud of Salazar's vote! And so were they.Because Salazar wasn't a "liberal". So conservative Dems support this kind of thing and wipe their butt with the Constitution? Some will say I am overreacting, but history says otherwise.
These people are not Democrats. Even if we had control of the Agenda they would NOT be voting with us. I am so angry I am seriously considering changing my registration to Green. I still support John Kerry but it is killing me to see the death of this party.

[JI7]

1. i don't understand what the complaint is about

Senators are elected in various states for different reasons many times.

Salazar won because he ran as a conservative and he was seen as having more conservative values than his republican opponent coors. coors support for lowering the drinking age and opposition to death penalty turned off conservative voters.

Reid doesn't have control over other senators. i'm not sure how reid is to blame here.

and it still comes down to bush being the problem.

[saracat]

3. Reid is supposed to control the Senators.That is the job of the Minority

Leader. Anybody remember the great Majority Leaders of the past? Like LBJ? Do you think he would have let a new senator do that to him? Minority Leader is the same as Majority Leader only for the opposition. LBJ would have broken both his legs so he couldn't vote.That was when we KNEW how to handle power.

[JI7]

4. Reid doesn't control the Senators

Salazar was elected by Colorado voters . he isn't in the Senate because of Harry Reid. in fact he would probably lose next election if the republicans are able to make him appear as if he does what Reid wants rather than what Colorado voters want.

[saracat]

8. Then Reid isn't Minority Leader! That is procedure and protocol.

He was elected by Colorodo but the leader calls the shots on something like this. LBJ used to threaten ,and bribe and punish. But he got the vote out. That is his job. The Minority Leader is accountable. Read Master of the Senate. It really lays out how LBJ did things.And if he loses because he votes Dem., Colorado didn't really vote for a Dem. Better to go down with some decent votes cast than be reelected to support the Repukes!

[JI7]

12. Reid has nothing to threaten Salazar with

Salazar has not been in the Senate long enough to have any special position anywhere. if he had then he could be threatened with losing Chairmanship of a committee. but he isn't.

LBJ wasn't able to get everyone to do what he wanted.

and Salazar is opposed to Bush's social security privitization plan.

[sandnsea]

26. Durbin is the Whip

It's actually his job to get the votes in line.

[saracat]

32. At the order of the Leader.

Accountability. The buck stops here.

[TayTay]

2. Actually, Reid is dong a good job

The fault lies with Salazar, not Reid. They predicted 25-30 votes against Torture Boy. I think Reid will get 42. (Maybe more.) This is waaaaaay better than I would have thought possible back in early January.

It takes time for all the wavering Senators to get the spine implant. Then they have to heal, learn how to walk again, etc. (Home care is so expensive.)

Give it time. We are not doing too badly.

[Withywindle]

5. Sadly, this is true

Reid can't force anybody to fall in line.

It is now looking like EVERY Dem except Salazar might vote against Gonzales, which is a lot better than we (and Reid!) thought we'd get even two days ago. It's awful that it has to get to this point, but, well, here we are.

[JohnKleeb]

6. Salazar pisses me off

[JI7]

7. what was funny

was some of the leftists out there who always attack Kerry were saying Kerry lost because he wasn't liberal enough. and they used Salazar as an example of how you can win while running as a liberal.

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

the reason Salazar won was because he convinced them he was a conservative.

i don't expect much from Salazar. i don't listen to him when he comes on either. but we do need him so we can add to our numbers and try to make Harry Reid Majority leader in 2006.

[saracat]

10. I will actively work to blackball Reid. We need someone like an LBJ in

this post. It is like herding cats , and Reid can't do it. In addition it is a disgrace that the Minority Leader is anti choice. Pro life is one thing, but he is anti choice.

[JohnKleeb]

13. Who do you think would be good like LBJ?

People aren't as ruthless as they once were. He was a good leader btw, LBJ.

[saracat]

21. Oddly. The only one who comes to mind, who

might be able to both persuade and bully them is Hillary! Maybe.

[JI7]

23. Hillary voted for Condi Rice to be confirmed

[saracat]

30. I know that makes me sick. But I still think she might be a good

manipulator. I would much rather see her as minority leader than President. She might be able to force through a liberal President's agenda better than forcing through her conservative "i'm running for prez and am all things to all people agenda".

[JohnKleeb]

24. Hiliary? I dont see that because Hiliary hasnt been exactly

the leading opposition democrat.

[saracat]

31. She is probably the only one who might have a little clout on

both sides of the aisle.She would guarantee visability.Did you know Nancy Pelosi told me that at one point she and Tom Daschle had twenty press conferences in one day and no one covered them? They wouldn't do that to Hillary. She is news. I don't like her voting record, but I think she could accomplish someone els's agenda is all.

[LittleClarkie]

42. I dunno, I'm kind of sick of Texas politicians right now

or anything vaguely resembling a Texas politician.

I'm not sure you could get Dems to sit still for a Democrat version of Bush, which in some ways is how I see LBJ.

[JohnKleeb]

43. Nah LBJ genuinely cared about people unlike Bush

[JohnKleeb]

11. What?

Thats the most hilarious thing, hey youre making my day a little better, thanks thats funny, Salazar ran and distanecd himself from Kerry. God is that a riot, thanks.

[angrydemocrat]

9. Reid cannot control how other Senators vote or what they say

I don't care if he is the minority leader. Hell that would be like him telling Kerry he had to vote against a issue dealing with a womans right to choose in some way because he did. He doesn't have that kind of power. Reid is not to blame here. Each senator is responsible for what they say and how they vote not Reid. He can't make them do anything.

[saracat]

14. LBJ could do it and so could Tip O'neill.

I guess we don't have good enough people anymore. Certainly none with the balls to force the issue.The Minority Leader should be able to Blackmail his grandmother if he has to in order to get the vote out. Reid can't do it. Like Daschle, he is being "nice" Nice doesn't work.

[JI7]

15. not always

they weren't able to get every single Dem Senator to do every single thing they wanted.

democrats from conservative areas often voted in support of things Reagan wanted.

[saracat]

18. LBJ was dead then. And O'neill didn't get everything

but there used to be bipartisanship and the Repukes weren't violating the constitution!

[angrydemocrat]

16. Blackmail

With what? What can Reid do to blackmail a senator that is new and has only cast a hand full of votes? And take Kerry for instance do you think he would listen to Reid or let Reid's threats stop him from doing anything? No way. Kerry is the type he will do what he feels is right wether it is popular or not. And I don't agree with Salazar at all but I seriously don't see what Reid can do here. I can't see blaming him for Salazar's stupidity.

[saracat]

17. Read Master of the Senate.

LBJ didn't want to be Vice president because he had made Majority Leader the most powerful position in the nation next to the president and he didn't want to give it up to be a nonentity.
Senators that are a the right agenda don't need to have arms twisted or be blackmailed or whatever. Salazars stupidity is Reids failing. He is supposed to prevent that. Slazar needs to be punished for this. I hope he has a committee appointment pulled or something. That is what is usually done. There must be consequences.

[JI7]

19. only ones who can punish him are colorado voters next time he is up

for re-election. at this point as a new senator he has no special position which they could threaten to take away if he doesn't do this or that.

[saracat]

20. You don't have to have a chairmanship to be hurt.

You can make sure Colorado doesn't get something that Salazar wanted. There has to be a constituant favor or something he needs. No one is untouchable. He needs to be slapped. He can even be pulled from a committee. They can derail hjis career.And NOW would be a good time. It is easier.

[JI7]

22. why ?

you act like he did something surprising. he ran as a conservative. why are you surprised at his actions ?

it's not as if he ran as a liberal and he is suddenly showing his true colors.

[saracat]

27. Because he betrayed his party.

They were asked to block vote on this. It is looking like he may be the only Dem pro vote. He is making us look weak. He couldn't even do the first thing he was asked to.And he does this after talking to Byrd. Byrd, who is no real liberal, ought to hang his (Salazars) ass out to dry. Salazar put himself above the good of the party. Repukes don't do that and that is how they win. It is because of jerks like Salazar we don't win. We can't hang together.

[GRLMGC]

28. I have to agree with you there

If the party was unified, it'd look a whole lot better to the voting public that is not always well informed. That's one of our biggest problems, among other things!

[angrydemocrat]

34. Now I Do Agree

That Salazar needs his ass hung out to dry for this. And it is Salazar that was the weakest link and in turn it weakens the fighting power of the Democrats when you get people like Salazar standing up on the Senate floor talking down what others are fighting for. That kind of shit even pisses me off. And I'm not going to disagree that he should have his ass hung out to dry over it. And I agree that is how republicans do better than us because it is rare you will ever see a republican talk down another one. If republicans don't agree with what they are fighting for they keep their ass seated and their mouth shut they don't stand up and talk down others in their party because they disagree. They do that with their votes not their mouths. But the point I was saying is you can't blame and punish Reid for Salazars stupidity. I still don't see blaming him for the mistakes others make.

I personally think Reid is doing a good job and he is trying to work to get the party unified. I also feel he is working close with Kerry and is planning on helping push Kerry's legislation. And the way he acts he may be taking a little advise from Kerry. Because regardless if you personally like or agree with the man on everything or not you have to admit the man seems to have gotten his second wind and fighting republicans a hell of a lot better than what people ever thought he would. So again I don't see him catching the heat for the mistakes of others.

I agree this shit has to stop and they need to stand together and it pisses me off when one of our own talks down the others. They could take a damn lesson from republicans on that.

[saracat]

39. I was merely talking accountability. And like it or not ,the Leader is

held accountable.As you say, Reid may be trying to unite the Party, but he failed in this case. We can't ask that Bushco be held accountable when we won't hold our own accountable. It is Reid's job to hold the Party line vote together. Durbin is to be the cat herder. Both missed at least one and that doesn't bode well. Reid better be beating himself up over this as it couldn't have happened over a worse nomination. We probably couldn't block Gonzales unless there are repuke votes we don't know about but to look divided on this issue is a disgrace. And I am sure Reid knows it.
Salazar is the ultimate disgrace.He has managed to insult Reid, Byrd, Durbin and the rest of his fellows, as well as all of us in the Democratic Party and the entire civilized world ,all at once and with one vote. A vote in support of the disregard of the constitution and torture! Pretty good if you ask me. He should be lynched. Politically.

[JohnKleeb]

37. agh what a jerk

[angrydemocrat]

38. Salazar Is A Jerk

Did you hear his sorry ass talking on the Senate floor? He needs to get his damn head on straight thats for sure. At least as far as we know he will help in the fight on S.S. and that is a plus. But seriously he has been a ass about everything so far. Sheesh!

[JohnKleeb]

40. If he's supporting Salazar just because they're both Hispanic

I am gonna be furious, I wouldnt vote for George Voinovich in Ohio just because hes part Slovenian also.

[angrydemocrat]

45. I Don't Know What His Reasons Are

But I do know this he is still a democrat that will help in alot of fights such as S.S. and right now we need all the help we can get. And there in no one Senator going to vote the way we want them to everytime. So while he has been a ass so far he is still needed and will be a help on many issues. And Yes he pissed me off today over him getting up on the floor running his mouth the way he did and I feel it would have been better kept his remarks to himself and just voted if he was against what the others were fighting for. He didn't have to add insult to injury so to speak.

And when I say he needs his ass hung out to dry I'm meaning he needs a tongue lashing from a few of the others behind closed doors for getting up on the Senate floor running his mouth the way he did and against all those who were fighting this nomination. Because did he not agree all he had to do was vote yes not do as he did today. I don't think that fighting against any of the democratic leaders will get us anywhere. We here to fight the republicans and there agenda not other democrats. And I don't see blaming Reid for others mistakes.

[sandnsea]

25. It's a reality we have to face

Perhaps if we'd focused as much on the corporate cronyism and that Gonzales is Bush's whitewasher, someone like Salazar would have had something to base his vote on that his constituents understood. It appears he's in a state that believes the "bad apples" stuff.

Democrats are fighting a hell of a battle on Gonzales, and yet there's still no real outrage from the people.

I don't blame Reid. I really don't know what is going on in this country, I don't recognize it anymore. The red state Dem Senators are trying to hang on to their asses right now. And I think the left wing is in for some real rude awakenings over the next months. Most things are going to be just like this because the overwhelming sentiment in this country is anti-liberal and everything they think that means. Which includes pampering terrorists.

[saracat]

29. I don't think there is that sentiment. The country doesn't even know or

about this vote thanks to the MSM. Only junkies like us watch this stuff. Remember 59 millionof us voted against this Administration. And all accounts indicate the divide is still deep. I think that even the Dems are beggining to realize that it is indeed possible that Kerry might not have lost. That is why they just put $200,000 into investigating the vote in Ohio. Something is up. The majority of this country is NOT anti-liberal.JMHO

[sandnsea]

33. *sigh*

There is a difference between being against, say, ss privatization; and being anti-liberal.

The Republicans start any debate based on an existing anti-liberal mindset. I can't believe you don't see it.

They push the appropriate buttons and people respond. With Gonzales, they push the bleeding heart button, the people respond. Then they push the obstructionist, anti-Bush button, and the deal is wrapped up. They don't even have to try hard anymore.

Do you understand what these people have to admit if they accept even one piece of the claims against Bush and his administration? And even for those who voted against Bush, they don't know all the gory details, and probably aren't even sure they believe all of what they do know. If they did, we'd have had a landslide.

I know it's hard to accept, but there's a huge chunk of this country, a huge white chunk mostly, that is totally behind George Bush.

[saracat]

36. The republicans , yes. But do you realize that there are actually

more Dems in this country than Repugs? And the fastet growing group is the Independents. I don't care about the repukes. I don't care what they think.They are beyond hope. Again 59 million people DIDN'T vote for Bush. That we KNOW about. The Repukes are NOT the majority. You make it sound as if they are. They may be louder, but that is it. We need to be louder and get off our butts and get our Dems out to vote and pick up these other people and forget about appeasing these facists.We will not win them over, and I for one don't care. As my Mother used to say, there are plenty of other fish in the sea.

[sandnsea]

41. Not in the RED sea

And that's what Salazar has to think about. I love how the Dean mantra is "we have to show up in the south" but never mentions the little detail of listening once you show up there.

I'm not saying Democrats ought to abandon ANY party principles, not one single one. But I am saying it's a bigger battle than DUers think and we're not going to win it by thinking it's as easy as rallying people who already think like we do. Independents are the fastest growing group, yep, and why aren't they signing up as Democrats if they think like Democrats do? I'm telling you, the issues are much more complicated. And the politics of personality, or identity politics as Naomi Klein described them, are ten-fold more complicated. And while she gets the problem, she doesn't remotely get the solution.

In the meantime, I understand perfectly why people like Salazar vote the way they do. And I'd still rather have him in there, even if he only pulls for traditional Dem values 75% of the time. Beats the hell out of another Santorum. I'll be damned if I join in the beat up the Democrats campaign. Nobody wants to be a part of a group that stands around and throws rotten tomatoes at each other.

[saracat]

44. For the record, I live in a red state. I still say, as a New Yorker by

birth"forgedaboutit" ! Appeasement never works. Let us create "New" Dems and the only way I think we can attract new Dems and Independents is with a show of strength. We can't be all things to all people.We have to stand" for" something. We are stronger when we are for things than against them .We must return to our roots and define what we are for.And not everyone is going to support what we represent.That is why there are two parties. If some in our party are not really supportive of what we represent, they shouldn't be Dems. I think a lot more people support us than some think. But we must be clear on what we support. Salazar was a perfect example of the muddying of the water that we don't need to do. I am not going to throw tomatoes but I will work toward bringing this country back to the issues of the people.

[sandnsea]

46. You know what

Those voters you're talking about, the ones that aren't already with us, they don't think we've been appeasing anybody. They think we're obstructionists, liberal idealists, utopians. It doesn't help when our Dems don't vote together. But the other side of that coin is that alot of Dems couldn't win at all if they aligned themselves with the national party. My own Congressman, in a purple district in a blue state, runs "As Independent as Oregon". He's one of the most liberal Congressmen we've got, but he doesn't run that way.

If you live in a red state, you need to start listening with both ears. It isn't just a matter of standing "for something". What that something is, is critically important. How that something is presented is critically important. And for most of those independents, being willling to say no to your own party, especially the Democratic Party, is critically important. We have an image makeover to do, for certain. But until we do that, these officials have to look to election issues. And many of them just cannot get elected opposing every single thing Bush wants to do.

I wish all the Dems would vote no on Gonzales, I've opposed him since I found out about his death penalty briefs and it's only gotten worse since then. But I'm just not going to throw a temper tantrum over a new Senator who has a different set of constituents to consider.

[saracat]

47. In my red state I haven't noticed that Independents hold the point of

view that you attribute to them. Many were afraid to come out as Dems for fear it would effect their employment.Many just don't like either party. Some are apolitical. But few think of us as "obstructionists or liberal idealists or Utopians. Those sound like RW talking points. But I can tell you, we have lost voters for not being clear about what we represent. And we have lost many more for being republican lite. I will agree with you that it would be ridiculous to censor every new Senator every time he doesn't vote against Bush. But this is a really unique vote, historically and internationally. This was a vote supporting Bush "anointing himself king" as Byrd said and approving torture as defined by said king. This vote brings disgrace on this country. This wasn't like voting on the Sec. of Agriculture.
My state party has decided to vear to the left, a position I never thought I would live to see them do. This is a position I wholeheartedly endorse. We are liberal and proud. And we will replace all those republican lite voters with angry liberals, and they are coming out of the woodwork in droves.They worked for us this election and those that didn't are blaming themselves. We cannot lose these people by waffling.I am a District Chair and we have tons of new PC's and the only reason is they want to change the face of the party by returning to our roots.And I am pledged to represent them on both state and district level. We will prevail because we are the voice of the people. I am not having a temper tantrum. I am voicing displeasure at a true obstructionist. We will have to agree to disagree as to the state of the country .But I will listen with both ears and thank you for an intelligent debate. And good luck to you in your red state , Sandnsea.

[sandnsea]

50. That's your view

I hate that I always have to come here and appear to defend views I completely disagree with. But still, there is an opposing view on those memos and Gonzales. There is an opposing view on what constitutes torture. It is possible that Salazar just doesn't see the situation the same way. You want Salazar to vote straight-line Dem because that's the way you see this vote. But on another vote, you might well say he should vote his conscience. Well what if he is voting his conscience on this vote? I disagree with it, I'd like to see a straight no vote, but I'm just not going to engage in wholesale Dem bashing over these votes.

And by the way, I live in a purple district in a blue state. So I see up close the lines between very liberal blue and rural red. I lived in Montana and watched it go from blue to red. I have family in Arkansas and a sister in Utah. I watched several of them go from blue to red. I know how it happens. If you haven't heard people belittle Democrats by calling them treehuggers and gun grabbers and appeasers and anti-business and freeloaders and every other name under the sun; you haven't been listening. And those are not RW talking points, that is what I have been hearing from rural America for 20 years now.

There is a huge difference between being a party of the working people and a party of liberals. We don't need to give up our principles, but we are going to have to speak about them in different terms. And we are going to have to give some of these red state Dems some room on these issues as well. At least until the party has an image that working people can relate to again.

We have people coming out of the woodwork here too, Dean people have completely taken over the party. We'll see how that works out in 2006, alot of it depends on Dean himself. But if the party makes a big lurch to the left, it won't matter how clear we are about it. People will just say "I was right about those Democrats" and go to the Republicans permanently.

[saracat]

51. Of course that is my view. And I grew up in a blue state hearing

dems called "tree huggers , freeloaders, appeasers"etal. But I still, in my red state, see more liberals than conservatives.The Repukes are better organized nationaly, but statewide, we are going to be able to kick their butt. That is the one good thing about election 2004.We are mobilized. As far as giving the red states "room on these issues". I think that is dumbing down our message.Would anyone think it was okay to give the red states a "little room" on civil rights? I think not. BTW , I do understand what you mean when you say that "there is a huge difference betweem being the party of the working people and the party of liberals" But they should be the same. That is where we must fix our image. It doesn't make any sense for a working person to be Republican.
What is funny about the "Dean takeover" is that it is being feuled by the moderates , who know we can't lose these people and must establish an identity. I was not a Dean supporter.I was for Kerry since , actually since Vietnam when I think about it! I was in grade school but wth! Grin. I am very optimistic about these woodwork dwellers. I am hoping we can take this nation back.

[sandnsea]

52. Gee

And you were so rational in post #49. I said the exact same thing rockymountaindem did, Salazar voted according to his constituents.

No, working people do not see everything exactly the same as liberals. All Democrats are not liberals. I live in Oregon, we had a chance to vote on single payer here. It went down, 60/40. Gay marriage passed 55/45, or thereabouts. And we've got some of the bluest liberals in the country here. In some ways, they're part of what has pushed rural people to the right. Almost everything they do in regards to the forest is based around the spotted owl and the vole they eat. We did make some headway talking about logging and salmon spawning. But mostly, they just don't know how to frame the issues in a way that makes sense to rural people. When they have anti-WTO protests and bust up Eugene and Portland businesses, they don't exactly create an image rural people want to be a part of.

We ought to be the party of working people, but we aren't going to get there until we're more practical about how we talk about these issues. Just moving left isn't going to do the trick, at least not with the kind of liberals we have in Oregon.

[saracat]

53. I didn't say they did. I said they should. We have to get them to

understand it is to their benefit! And you know what? I voted for Kerry because he was the most liberal. And I didn't support Dean because he was too moderate and now I am having to defend liberalism to Kerry supporters! Life is ironic isn't it? Thanks again for a great debate. Nite!

[sandnsea]

54. What about me?

I'm defending Salazar for voting for Gonzales when I've been harping against Gonzales for a couple of years now! And yes I totally relate to the liberal voting thing, I made the exact same decision. You do not have to defend liberalism to me. But we do have to figure out a way to present it to rural and suburban voters, because that's where the missing votes are! Until we do that, I understand people like Salazar appealing to their constituents.

[saracat]

55. I have no problem in educating the voters

as to why voting Democratic is in there own interest, but nothing would justify a vote like Salazar's to me. We must agree to disagree. I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it.

[saracat]

56. Salazar spoke again, reiterating that he is voting for Gonzales.

This time he tried to clarify the fact that it is not an Hispanic oriented vote. I am sorry to say, I understand his vote even less, and have more contempt for him. I realize why now. Torture is wrong and I can't possibly respect any person who dismisses the issue for a political expediency regardless of their party.

[paulk]

35. as a Colorado resident I'm disappointed but not surprised

this is why I voted for him -
from the Rocky Mountain News


Newly minted U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar didn't wait for President Bush's upcoming State of the Union address, or even for a renovation of his new Denver office to be completed.
Salazar held a news conference amid fresh paint and boxes Sunday to attack the president's plans to privatize Social Security. Bush's State of the Union address on Wednesday is expected to focus heavily on reforms to the 70-year- old system, intended to provide a financial safety net for the elderly and the disabled.


Salazar said Bush's plan would reduce the amount the average Social Security beneficiary in Colorado receives from $10,000 to $7,700 per year. About 650,000 people statewide receive Social Security benefits.
The president wants to allow younger workers to divert some of their Social Security taxes into private stock and bond investment accounts in return for lower guaranteed future benefits.
Repeating the position of many congressional Democrats girding for battle over the issue, Salazar - as always, wearing his cowboy hat - said the Social Security system may need adjustments, but that it's not in a state of crisis.
Instead, Salazar said the domestic agenda should focus on fixing the nation's health care crisis and curtailing the ballooning federal deficit, which he says would grow even worse under Bush's Social Security plans.

The Congressional Budget Office recently projected that this year's deficit would hit $368 billion, excluding war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We would continue to dig a hole in the federal deficit that I don't think we as a nation can stand," Salazar said.

Salazar said Bush was "fiscally irresponsible" for glossing over the deficit.
He also said the plan would cost an additional $2.2 trillion in its first decade, adding $7,500 to every American's share of the national debt.
While Salazar acknowledged the system needs some fixing, he did not outline any potential remedies.
Salazar said he has met with the president twice in the past month to discuss homeland security, rural revitalization and relationships with other nations.

[rockymountaindem]

48. I think the person you may be talking about was me.

In which case I think you misunderstood my comments. I don't want to see Gonzales be the AG either, however as for the "he's not representing his constituency" argument, I think that is mistaken. He probably is representing his constituency, which did after vote for Bush as well. So the people who argue that he isn't representing his constituency are incorrect. That's all I'm saying.

[saracat]

49. Your argument is okay. I am hearing other versions of it that aren't as

rational!