Gonzales: Which Dems voted to give him his job?

[dooner]

Here's a list of Democratic Senators that voted to confirm Alberto Gonzales for the job of Attorney General:

Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Salazar (D-CO)

And 3 who didn't vote:
Baucus (D-MT)
Conrad (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)

All other Democratic Senators voted against his confirmation (even Feinstein).

Here's a link to the roll call vote.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00003

*Edited to correct spelling.

[Richardo]

1. So....another purity test?

Good, we need another couple of dozen of those. :eyes:

[frylock]

3. you're right. dems should be given a free pass for their crappy decisions..

because they're Dems.

[GreenPartyVoter]

13. .

:popcorn:

[Richardo]

16. News flash: Politics is not religion.

You want adherance to dogma, look elsewhere.

Orrin Hatch approved Clinton's nomination of Ruth Ginsberg to the SC. We won that one.

(Now you got me defending votes for Gonzales :grr: )

[Dr Fate]

20. No one is asking for Dogma- we are asking them to stop giving Bush everything he wants.

How many times are these same Democrats going to give Bush what he asks for? Why do they still trust him?

The rest of the Democrats listened to their party's base- this handful decided to trust and side with Bush.

It's not about "Dogma"-it's about leadership- and it was POOR leadership for these DLC Democrats to yet again trust Bush- especially when the rest of the party knew better.

[dooner]

5. Some senators have a case of chronic bad judgement

Everyone needs to learn from their mistakes. Many people knew that Gonzales was not going to be a great Attorney General.
It didn't take a psychic to see this one coming.

[LSK]

11. yeah, Liebermann, both Nelsons, Landrieu

I dont need the Gonzo vote to get a list.

[LSK]

9. agreed

[Dr Fate]

12. Purity test? No- just noting that certain "conservative" DEMS are WRONG about almost EVERTHING.

When people give Bush what he wants several times in a row- and it turns out to be a really bad move- you start wondering.

No one is looking for "purity" - just some decent judgement that does not invlove giving Bush whatever he wants.

[BlooInBloo]

19. Hey Mel! 86 accountability for Ricardo!!!

:rofl:

[mmonk]

2. The usual suspects

[Hand]

4. Dang! Ya beat me to it! nt

[sendero]

6. And me..

... you can pretty much count on this bunch to do the wrong thing.

[liberalnurse]

7. The sentiment in the "air" at the time

was one of relief that Asscroft was gone.......but that still is no excuse.

[blm]

8. Knowing Gonzales helped facilitate torture and Rice was uber-incompetent at NSA

there is no excuse for ANY Democrat to have voted to confirm either one. There was plenty of info out there by Jan 2005 to stop ANY nomination in its tracks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. The ones muttering "We don't have the votes"

Which seems to be a very popular phrase among the sellouts nowadays. Right up there with "taking it off the table" and "keeping our powder dry."

[Dr Fate]

15. Good point- even when they "have the votes" they still side with Bush.

Even when they "had the votes" yet still give Bush exactly what he wants- while completely ignoring their party's base.

Good point- a great to use when "we dont have the votes" gets thrown in your face again:

"Well, we HAD THE VOTES for (list attempt to fight Bush here) and the DLCers still sided with Bush- so I'm not sure that counting the votes is the only thing at issue here..."

[bullimiami]

14. the stupid ones?

[Dr Fate]

18. Giving Bush what he wants is idiotic, isnt it?

But they will try to tell you that siding with the far-right is oh so "moderate."

[WI_DEM]

17. looks like the usual suspects

Whoops somebody beat me with that line, but it's true!!