Remember, we have to keep up the pressure to filibuster Gonzales

[genius]

Make sure that you call Durbin, along with members of the judiciary committee and your own Senators to get them to filibuster Gonzales. Call as many times as it takes to get results.

Gonzales wrote the Torture memo, expressing the idea that there is nothing wrong with torture and called the Geneva Conventions (a ratified treaty) a quaint agreement that could be disregarded. This guy is nominated to be the chief law enforcement officer in the United States and he doesn't even feel the need to uphold the Constitution by enforcing treaties. Guantanamo was his idea. Which group of Americans will be tortured first? Will you and your family be among those tortured earlier or later? We must stop this guy.

[Padraig18]

1. I'm gonna pass.

Thanks, any way.

[Constitution]

19. I'll call tomorrow. Opposing Gonzales makes us real Democrats.

I can't believe as I look over the messages how many racists think that the only way to impress the Latino community is to support a torturer with a Latino name. Latinos aren't that stupid. They HATE him too. Only lazy Democrats who have given up on being Democrats are.

[indianablue]

2. Bush, Inc would play Race card.

[Padraig18]

3. Exactly. This is a 'no win' situation. n/t

[genius]

7. The only way to win is to filibuster.

By not filibustering we are saying that no better Latino can be found than a torturer. No filibustering is an insult to ALL Latinos.

[genius]

4. ARe you saying that all Latinos are into torture? To approve is racist.

[Padraig18]

5. It's not about what's true.

It's about what is PERCEIVED to be true, and our opposition to Gonzales will either be perceived as'racist' or 'obstructionist. We can't win this one.

[bobbieinok]

31. like that judge Espinoza???? dems were called racist but blocked him

W 'appointed him' with executive order

[Thomas Jefferson]

45. Maybe we should burn a few Democrats at the stake to impress Republicans

That seems to be the sentiment here. Anyone who doesn't support a filibuster of this guy should re-register.

[indianablue]

6. No but the race card wil be played make not mistake about it.

I can hear the Wingnuts now.

Why do Dem's hate latino's. Is it their big Labor Union contributers.

Reid said Thomas was a dsigrace to the Supreme Court and he got called out to be a racist.

You are very naive if you do not think the RACE wil be all over talk radio if you try to block his nomination.

[indianablue]

8. No but the race card wil be played make not mistake about it.

I can hear the Wingnuts now.

Why do Dem's hate latino's. Is it their big Labor Union contributers.

Reid said Thomas was a dsigrace to the Supreme Court and he got called out to be a racist.

You are very naive if you do not think the RACE wil be all over talk radio if you try to block his nomination.

[genius]

9. To NOT filibuster is racist and that's how voters will see it

[Padraig18]

10. No,that's NOT how they'll see it.

They'll see it how CNN reports it, which will NOT be in a light favorable to us.

[Albert Einstein]

23. Gonzales is a racist. He likes to kill black innocent black people.

Ask anyone in Texas.

[indianablue]

11. no blocking his nomination will be seeen as racist.

We have a simple minded majority electrorate.

[Constitution]

20. The Latinos will love those who oppose him because they HATE him too.

They are not stupid enough to buy that the only one of them that is okay is a torturer. I cannot believe how many people here are attacking the Latino community by claiming that Latinos will support a torturer just because he's Latino. Do you support Bush because he's white?

[jasmeel]

12. he must be blocked! Clear and simple. We can't give in to

what ever spin * and Co want to put on it. Call it ridiculous, cite Gonzales's record and move on. The more we give in to it, the more they win.

[Disturbed]

13. Dems allow themselves to be domintated...

by the Rethugs. By allowing the Rethugs to frame the debate Dems fold and appease. This has been the story for the past few years. It's a loser mentality.

[Padraig18]

14. Wrong

The voters will see it exactly how CNN and the other MSM presents and frames it, and it won'tbe flattering to us, I can assure you.

[Hippo_Tron]

15. Nobody that Bush appoints as AG will be good

AG serves at the pleasure of the president, at the very least he could appoint somebody incompetent and have somebody like Gonzales run the thing from behind the scenes.

Save the fillibusters for where they really matter, the Supreme Court.

[Padraig18]

16. Yep.

You hit the nail squarely on the head.

:thumbsup:

[Bridget Burke]

17. I agree--save the filibusters--but....

I'd really like the Democrats to ask some extremely pointed questions of Gonzales. And, since the Republicans have the votes, let them vote him in--with no Democratic help.

[Hippo_Tron]

18. Can't argue with you there

If we can embarass him politically that would be great, too. I bet some dems will vote for him but hopefully it will be a small minority.

[Constitution]

21. If we don't stop Gonzales, its time to give up.

He is the worst thing Bush could throw at us. Go visit a museum of torture to see what could happen to your first born if you don't stop acting like a bunch of cowards.

[Hippo_Tron]

22. Bush was already re-selected, torture is already permissable...

As far as the administration is concerned. It doesn't matter who he puts in as AG. We blame Rummy and Gonzales for the Abu Ghreib scandals because we have extremely good tangible evidence that it is their fault. The reality is, that due to the fact that they haven't been punished, Bush (or whoever is really the commander in chief) has a policy of torture and who he appoints to carry it out makes no difference.

[Albert Einstein]

24. Believe it or not, there are some attorneys who believe in law and justice

I personally cannot think of anyone who has ignored the law or the Constitution more in order to kill innocent African-Americans than Gonzales. He advocates the breaking of treaties and has no regard for law and he has said so. Anyone who fails to filibuster Gonzales might as well openly hire a gang hitmen to wipe all blacks off the face of the Earth. It would be more honest and the result would be the same.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. There are plenty of etichal attorneys, Bush will never make any of them AG

I think our best bet to keeping him from getting the job is making sure that everything said about him on DU comes out during the senate judiciary committee hearings. But still, if that happens, the next guy that Bush finds will not be any better.

[genius]

26. Even Ashcroft was better than Gonzales. About anyone would be.

Gonzales is about as bad as it gets.

[ohioan]

37. Let's say we stop Gonzales . . .

Who do you think Bush will appoint as AG?

[Thomas Jefferson]

46. Let me get this straight. Torture and abandoning the Consitution are okay

I'm sure that Bush appreciates that there are people out there willing to believe this.

[ohioan]

48. Why don't you answer my question, instead of accusing everyone

who doesn't agree with your approach of being anti-Constitution apologists for Bush and torture?

Your "if you don't agree with me you're evil" attitude is much more consistent with the very people you seem to despise than you are probably willing to admit. But if you can't tolerate or participate in a rational discussion of this issue without accusing others of being less concerned about justice and civil liberties than you are, perhaps you're not ready to engage in this exchange.

[Sub Zero]

27. Agreed

unfortunately the repugs already have a nuke option though.

The ONLY thing I think will save us - the non fascists on the SCOTUS for the good of the country HAVE to hold on for another four years. If they retire and allow bush appointments it's over for us. I think this is the only option. Filibusters will only be an option for so long until the repubs get cheney to make a ruling.

[newyawker99]

28. Hi Sub Zero!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[sandnsea]

29. Fillibuster judges and SC

Just expose Gonzales as the same kind of scum as Kerik and let Bush have him. Vote no, but let him explain why he keeps appointing slime buckets to the Cabinet.

Save the fillibusters for where it matters, judges and justices.

[genius]

30. Filibuster everyone who gets to floor and put hold on all others.

One Senator can prevent anything (except the budget bill) from getting to the floor of the Senate. We are the ones with the nuclear option and the Republicans are afraid we will use it. They need consent from all to discuss anything.

[ohioan]

38. A filibuster may be emotionally satisfying to a small segment of

the left wing of our party. But would be a stupid, counterproductive move.

[ohioan]

39. That's not quite true.

One senator can stop something from going to the floor by unanimous consent. But that's not the only way for something to go to the floor. One senator would NOT be able to stop Gonzales' nomination from going to the floor.

[blackangrydem]

32. Do we really want to go after the 1st cabinet nominee?

We should choose our battles wisely. I don't think this is the one.

We will have a Supreme Court nominee to fight soon.

[snippy]

33. Agreed. It would be a tactical and strategic mistake to block Gonzales.

Tactical because we would lose and strategic because it will make it more difficult to win more important battles. Some hills are not worth dying for if you have any intention of winning the war. However, It might be possible to use this nomination to stir up some conflicts between moderate republicans and the Reich wing fundamentalists.

Democrats should hammer Gonzales hard during the confirmation hearings especially on the torture memo and the Plame matter. Democrats should ask lots of questions concerning abortion rights, especially the Supreme Court's decisions striking down late term abortion bans. They also should bring up his stepson working for Hustler magazine and ask about his ability to enforce pornography laws. That should stir up some Reich wing fundamentalist angst if not outright opposition.

[blackangrydem]

34. Best-case scenario is to let some of these cabinet picks implode

all by themselves. Just like Kerik.

[snippy]

35. Yep. But we should give them a little help by asking the right questions.

I was extremely disappointed that Rove made Kerik withdraw. I was looking forward to those hearings.

[genius]

40. Yeh. But as your child is tortured to death, this will be the one you

wished had been stopped. The lack of foresight of Democrats is amazing.

[ohioan]

49. Please explain how failing to filibuster Gonzales will result in his/her

child being tortured to death.

Be specific.

[genius]

42. This is a matter of life and death. If life and death aren't worth it,

nothing is. This man is a torture proponent who does not believe in upholding the Constitution or laws. His confirmation will ensure the incarceration and death of most, if not all, Democrats.

[fnottr]

50. Would you please listen to yourself?

Do you honestly think that anyone Bush appoints will have the power to put to death or incarcerate nearly half of this country? Or even only 10% if you're only counting the hard core supporters? Seriously, Bush is a terrible leader, but there's no way in hell they could actually pull anything like that off, nor do I believe they'd want to.

As for Gonzales, look at it this way, anyone Bush has appointed has either been vile (Ashcroft) incompetent (Rice), both (Rummy) or completely impotent in the administration (Powell). Gonzales is bad, but even if we successfully block him, Bush is going to dig up someone just as bad. We can't just keep blocking nominations forever, the public backlash against us if we did that would insure we wouldn't take office again for some time.

[genius]

53. Listen to yourself. You sound like the German Jews who thought Hitler was

not that bad. There are 6000 camps waiting to hold people and Gonzales thinks he's above the law. Do you really think that it is unimportant that the nominated chief law enforcement officer things that the law and the Constitution don't matter as much as helping Bush get what he wants? Do you have no problems with the idea that he will torture you if he thinks that will help him get to his end.

[fnottr]

61. No, I have huge problems with it,

just like I had huge problems with Ashcroft, Rumsfield, Rice, Abraham, and just about every judicial appointment Bush has made. The point is, everyone Bush appoints is going to be bad, in one way or another, we can't tire ourselves attempting to block every single nomination, because it will get us nowhere. Bush will keep parading out bad candidates, until finally we crack. A permanent filibuster will only guarantee that we lose the 5 seats in 06 so that we can't filibuster anymore.

[snippy]

56. LOL! n/t

[ohioan]

36. It's a waste of time and resources to filibuster Gonzales

and, frankly, not worth the effort.

[genius]

41. My family 's safety is worth stopping him. Is your family safety worth it?

[Thomas Jefferson]

44. My family's safety is worth a filibuster. So is the Constitution.

What is wrong with some of the posters here?

[ohioan]

47. My family's safety will not be impacted whatsoever by a filibuster of

Gonzales.

Gonzales is not the issue - he's merely the tail of the snake. Using up all of our resources fighting him is foolhearty, since Bush would simply appoint someone as bad or worse in his place. In fact, I think that Bush would love for us to shoot our wad going after Gonzales - probably the most moderate nominee he'd put in this position, a person whom the right wing distrusts. Even if we were successful in blocking him - which we would likely not be - we'd just get someone worse in his place. And yes, regardless what you think of him, there ARE much worse nominees in the pipeline.

The AG position is a highly public temporary position subject to Congressional oversight and close scrutiny. Gonzales is far less dangerous as AG than in his current position, where he is protected by executive privilege and operates outside of the light of day.

While it might seem like a good idea to you, it's impossible for the Senate Democrats to filibuster every Bush appointee who comes up to the Hill, so we must pick our battles. The real battle will be the Supreme Court and key Circuit Court nominations.

We can't go chasing down every rabbit hole just because it brings some temporary solace. We have to think strategically and long-term. Filibustering Gonzales would get us nowhere and would do absolutely nothing to keep your or my family safer.

[genius]

52. That's what the Jews in Germany thought.

Were they safe?

[ohioan]

59. We're not Jews in Germany

But if you want to believe that we're in a similar situation, be my guest and live your life in abject fear, hysteria and frustration because reasonable people refuse to take the over-the-top actions you think are necessary. And you will accomplish absolutely nothing. I, on the other hand, will continue to work for change by rationally assessing the situation and taking measures that will actually achieve results.

[cali]

57. Having read the entire thread

and your very reasonable posts, the only thing I have to add is that you cannot hold a reasonable discussion with some of these folks. They're not reality based, and if one disagrees with their party line even a speck, you're going to be labeled a collaborator with evil. It's literally crazy, and quite sad. Thanks for the effort anyhoo.

[ohioan]

58. Thanks for the backup...

I'm afraid you're right, but one can't help but try.

Oh, well.

[Thomas Jefferson]

43. I can't believe all the supporters of torture around here

And the Constitution is not as important to these people as playing nince-nice with the Republicans. Either our party is in a lot of trouble or we've been infiltrated.

[gottaB]

51. We should oppose Gonzales, but we should be realsitic

Ashcroft was described as like the the worst abuser of human rights since Torqemada--fair enough as far as that goes, but look what happened. Ashcroft was confirmed 58-42. Since then we've lost 6 nays (or three for the lameduck session, iirc). We don't have the votes to sustain a filibuster. We would have to convince all nays to support a filibuster, AND persuade some of the Yeas to join us. It's worth making the argument, but none of us should be surprised when Gonzales is confirmed. Even Leahy has intimated that he believes Gonzales will be confirmed.

What we can realistically expect to accomplish is to (a) define ourseleves as opposed to torture and tyranny; and (b) define our opponents as supportive of torture and tyranny.


http://www.stopalbertogonzales.com

[Traction]

54. All filibusters MUST be scrapped

They come across as "The Dems can't win on a straight up vote, so they cheat." It makes us look bad, and the option is soooooooo un-democratic. Has it always been in effect? Did the Repubs ever filibuster Clinton when they were in the minority his first two years? They didn't filibuster Ginsberg, who is very liberal, so why should we filibuster conservatives?

[ohioan]

60. Info on filibusters

Republicans have frequently used the filibuster and did so against Clinton judges as well, despite their bogus claim that the recent filibusters are unprecedented. However, they had much less need for them because they controlled the Judiciary Committee. Nominees they opposed simply never got a hearing and, thus, never came up for a vote.

Republicans did not filibuster Ginsburg or Breyer because, despite their liberal credentials, they both had overwhelming bipartisan support (in fact, Breyer was recommended by Hatch) and there wasn't anything even CLOSE to enough numbers for a filibuster.

Democrats aren't filibustering judges because they're conservative. The vast majority of Bush's judges have been very conservative and have been confirmed. They are filibustering those judges who are so far out of the ideological mainstream that they cannot be expected to apply the law fairly.

Hope this is helpful.

[Rhiannon12866]

55. I've e-mailed my representatives and passed this on to all I could

I agree with you, completely. We do not want the "torture guy" as AG. I'll support any further suggestions as to how to stop this. I hope my Democratic senators will oppose him. My Republican congressman seems to agree with me on social issues, since I besiege the poor man, with numerous e-mail "actions," and he always sends me a letter back, saying that he supports my requests, and has often sponsored the legislation I'm contacting him about, but I am afraid that he will support Bush*, when it comes right down to it. I'm even afraid that my Democratic senators may give Gonzales a pass, since they didn't oppose Bush* on Iraq. What more can we do, other than staging a sit-in in their offices?:shrug: