Surprise! The Democratic Leadership is asking colleagues to cave!

[rateyes]

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Senate_Democrats_give_up_on_blocking_1106.html

<snip>

The committee's chairman, Patrick Leahy (D-VT), voted against Mukasey's bid to replace long-embattled Alberto Gonzales. But Leahy encouraged other Democrats on the panel not to request delays in a vote on the nomination, which is scheduled for Tuesday, and he let committee Democrats vote as they please.

“As you know, Sen. Leahy and Sen. Reid have not made this a caucus vote, and as chairman, Sen. Leahy has not twisted any arms,” a Judiciary Committee aide told The Hill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has similarly expressed concerns about Mukasey's refusal to declare that waterboarding -- a controversial interrogation technique that simulates drowning -- constitutes torture and is illegal. Reid has not announced how he will vote, but he is encouraging members not to filibuster the nomination.

" been encouraging people to have a full-throated debate, but ... he’s actually been discouraging people from filibustering or slowing down the nomination,” one knowledgeable Senate Democratic source told Roll Call.

<snip>

More at link.

It just takes 40 votes to defeat Mukasey if there's a filibuster, and the leadership who SAY they are opposed to Mukasey know that he will be confirmed without a filibuster.

Any bets that there will be at least 40 NO votes on Mukasey? The nomination can be stopped...the fact that the leadership is discouraging the action that can stop it is revealing, to say the least.

[iconoclastic cat]

1. Time for some serious protests against these bastards. nt

[rateyes]

2. I'm ready to go to Denver and have a repeat of the 1968

Democratic National Convention, and then to Minneapolis and do the same at the Republican Convention. We need to put our leaders on notice that accountability is just as fair for the Democratic Leadership as it is for the Republican Leadership.

Accountability is the word. We need to use it. No.excuses.from.anyone.

[blm]

3. There must be some REALLY powerful Dem voices urging this acquiescence

along with the other support for Bush's decisions and policies on terrorism and Iraq war over the last 6 years.

Who has such power within our party that so many Democratic lawmakers would act on their advisement?

Didn't we see this type of capitulation on Downing Street Memos and Alito filibuster?

[rateyes]

5. We've capitualated at every turn when it comes to executive

power. My only explanation is that we hope to have a Democratic president, and that those who capitulate to Bush want that president to have the power to abuse the Constitution for their own political interests, as well. :shrug:

[blm]

26. Yes - but it is definitely a Dem who has been pushing this capitulation and don't

we risk REWARDING that powermonger if we don't start wondering aloud WHY this seems to keep happening time and again that BushInc finds protection from powerful Democrats?

I DON'T want a Democrat who believes in closed government and protecting the secrecy and privilege of the powerful elite any more than I want a Republican who believes in it.

With a Republican closing government their deceit can be displayed and countered - if a Democrat is doing it, the Democratic rank and file will be enlisted to battling for them and spending our time and attention protecting that person.

[rateyes]

33. I'm with you. nt

[paulk]

36. and who is that, BLM?

who are you making completely unsubstantiated smears against today?

[robinlynne]

40. well said.

[Didereaux]

31. Nope really powerful $$$-NEOCON $$$ n/t

[blm]

45. heh - same bottomline over the decades - bought or persuaded.

,

[stirlingsliver]

4. This Makes Me Sick

This just makes me sick.

Sick to my stomach and sick to my heart.

I just can't believe what appears to be a massive betrayal of the highest values we treasure.

And by people we elected, too.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

[rateyes]

6. Looking cowardice in the face works better than

syrup of ipecac. :puke:

[rateyes]

7. You know, Leahy doesn't want any delays on this, yet he is the one

who said he would delay hearings on this guy until he got all the subpoenaed material. Talk is cheap.

[riderinthestorm]

8. Jayzus, fucking Christ. Keeping our powder dry again dammit!

:nuke: :nuke: I am so fucking sick of this shit. My heart and head hurt.

[rateyes]

9. That powder is so damned dry,

that anyone walking into the powder room wouldn't be able to spit.

[bbgrunt]

10. so once again, exactly WHAT is the difference in the parties?

[rateyes]

20. It's getting harder and harder to tell them apart. nt

[sandnsea]

11. Hillary will lead the filibuster!!!

:rofl:

[rateyes]

Hillary?

Lead?

:rofl:

[Tatiana]

21. LOL... I needed a good laugh this morning. n/t

[Solly Mack]

12. Well, we wouldn't want to do anything to upset people

you either fight against the horrors and the crimes of the Bush admin. or you don't

and if you don't...what does that say about you?

[rateyes]

15. True that. nt

[cali]

13. LOL! you really are desperate to attack Leahy

wherever you can. And I should believe this why? Last week I spoke to an old friend who worked for Leahy for years, and he said that Leahy had several discussions with both Feinstein and Schumer trying to persuade them not to vote for Mukasey, and that it was only when he gave up, that he flew back to Vermont to make his own announcement.

When DU craps all over someone like Leahy, it's really missing the mark.

[Truth2Tell]

53. So he'll filibuster then?

:shrug:

[graywarrior]

14. I'm torn between suicide and homicide right about now.

[rateyes]

16. Hey graywarrior!! Good to see you...

Please don't opt for suicide. :D

[graywarrior]

17. Hey, I've been saving this for a special occassion. . .

[rateyes]

18. That would be funny,

were it not true. That sums it up quite well.

[graywarrior]

22. It is too, too true.

[rateyes]

24. How's the Sunshine State? nt

[graywarrior]

28. Sucks.

Although the weather is fantastic. I have some job apps pending in NH.

[rateyes]

32. I hope you get the job you want.

Sucks to be in one you don't like. :hi:

[graywarrior]

34. I'll take it just to get out of here.

I'm on the move.

:toast:

[Individualist]

19. DLC prevails again

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html


Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows

[rateyes]

23. I agree. The DLC is harming the party, and the country. nt

[paulk]

29. Leahy is a member of the DLC?

or do you just make gratuitous attacks on Democrats because... well, because you can, I suppose?

[orleans]

25. somewhere on the telly last night (olbermann maybe) the idea that

they'll pass this guy out of committee so he can be confirmed to prevent a recess appointment of someone worse.

however, didn't we learn recently that we are able to stop recess appointments by keeping someone on the hill during the recess?

[rateyes]

27. If they don't recess, there cannot be a recess appointment. nt

[paulk]

30. Bush doesn't NEED a recess appointment!

He'll be quite happy with the situation as it is. He's already got his man as acting AG!

I posted this to you once already, and you ignored it.

[rateyes]

35. Sorry. I didn't see it.

By law, the interim can only stay on the job for 4 months...during that time, Bush has to make a nomination and get consent from the Senate.

[paulk]

37. and what happens after the 4 months are up?

and there's still no appt?

[rateyes]

38. Then we have no attorney general, I suppose...

which would be a helluva lot better than having the current interim or Mukasey in charge.

[paulk]

44. no...

Bush would just appoint someone else. Except that it wouldn't get that far - Bush would just do a recess appt. at some point - which the Senate would have no say over.

[rateyes]

47. I they don't recess,

there's no recess appointment.

[paulk]

48. you really expect that to happen?

try setting a reasonable bar for the Democrats.

[rateyes]

50. What's unreasonable in expecting Democrats to keep

their promises? Reid already said that he would keep the Senate in session to prevent a recess appointment of an AG. But, as you say, seeing as how they haven't kept their word on funding the war, timelines, subpoenas, contempt, etc....I guess it is unreasonable to expect them to live up to their word.

[leftofthedial]

39. the "democrats" have become the enemy

[NavyDavy]

41. oh not another attack the Dems thread....same s**t different day...

[rateyes]

42. You're right.

The Democratic Leadership keeps giving us the same old shit, every day. They have neutered themselves.

[nashville_brook]

43. good answer.

[rateyes]

46. Thanks.

:hi:

[bbgrunt]

49. k & r

[Ganja Ninja]

51. I'm beginning to question the use of the word "cave" with these

people.

Caving would imply that they are inclined to vote one way and are giving into pressure to vote another. But in this case they are so consistent in their "caving" that I think they are inclined to vote with the GOP right from the start.

[rateyes]

52. You make a good point. nt