Sen. Reid is going to lay down like a beaten dog...

[Roland99]

and let Gonzalez be confirmed.

Just watched an interview on The Today Show and for one, Mitch "the son of a bitch" McConnell (My lovely Senator) said the memos that Gonzalez wrote re: interrogation of prisoners is not a problem and won't hurt his chances of being confirmed. I shall be writing a strongly-worded letter to his office this week.

Secondly, Reid was interviewed and his words were:

"I think a President should have who he wants to have working for him."


WTF????

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I'm Not A Big Fan Of Rice Or Gonzalez...

If we equate political fights to real fights in our own lives we have to ask ourselves two fundamental questions...


Can I win?



And what do I get by putting up the good fight and loosing...


The answers in the instant case are no and nothing...

[gulfcoastliberal]

19. Right

The "spineless" strategy has worked wonders for us, hasn't it?

[GRLMGC]

34. Dems might as well vote against it

even if he does get appointed, at least the Dems can say its not their fault :evilgrin:

[Sugarbleus]

2. Nooooooooooooo, say it isn't so!!

I've had my fingers crossed that Reid would be okay...better than Daschel at least... :scared:

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

14. Daschel was OUTSTANDING!!

He lead the fight to stop the Idiot's crazy judge appointments and also played a big part in getting Jeffords to switch.

The man was a fine leader...Please stop trying to re-write history just because he wasn't "Pure" in your eyes. I suspect no one will be.

[Sugarbleus]

36. Excuse Me?

I believe he did do some fine things; however, he wasn't the stalward dem I would have liked. He rolled over when they gutted (virtually killed) the MEDICARE "reform" package. As an aging citizen, that was THEE most OUTRAGEOUS thing our Dems allowed to happen to us!!!!!!!!

Mr. Daschel prevented a filibuster or any other type of protest to keep that damnedable bill from passing. I WATCHED IT. I was FLOORED!

I'm sure he is a wonderful human being in private; he was NOT the leader nor the Dem I expected him to be. NO CAJONES! TOO MUCH GOP ASS KISSING!! Lest you forget, He was the one who helped "smoothed over" the hit and run incident with his republican counterpart there in South Dakota! You remember, the SPEED DEMON who KILLED a person then got only a few months in jail???

Thank you very much.......frankly, I think most of the politicians are as crooked as sweetpea vines.. :grr:

[CTLawGuy]

37. yeah

outstanding at passing the Iraq war resolution...

and getting 1200 of our soldiers killed...

What a great leader...

[Hephaistos]

3. No surprise

Presidents DO traditionally get more latitude with their admin appointments than with judicial appointments. Even Clinton got *most* of his appointments through, with a few significant exceptions.

The real test is what Reid does with judges.

Meanwhile, it is important to get the cabinet appointees on record in a tough grilling during confirmation.

Sorry, I have exactly ZERO hope that Gonzo won't be confirmed. I do have hope that he will be made extremely uncomfortable. That will be Reid's other test. Make the f****s sweat.

[Hephaistos]

4. Reid's job will also be very difficult

In order to prevent anything in the senate other than through a filibuster, he will have to draw at least SIX repug senators to his side, and have NO defections from our side.

This will not be possible at all if he gets off on a bad foot with the few 'moderate' repugs. He will have to keep his powder dry.

Give him a couple of years and a majority in '06, then we reevaluate.

For now, Reid is leader, and it is pointless to waste any energy on questioning his effectiveness.

[OneBlueSky]

9. that "no defections from our side" ain't gonna happen . . .

I can think of several senators who will likely vote with the Repugs on most issues of importance . . . he'll probably need about ten Repugs rather than six, and that ain't gonna happen either . . . bottom line: it's filabuster or bust . . .

[Protagoras]

31. while I don't want to weaken our side

I think it's time for us to take a look at those who claim to be on our side but in fact are not.

We have some DINO's sitting there pumping up our numbers while destroying our cause. It's time to promote them over to the other side of the isle officially so that we can replace them with actual democrats. That's the only way to survive as a minority party or become a true majority party.

[okieinpain]

16. good point.

[WyLoochka]

10. There is a very strong case for

the Democrats to stand up for the rule of law and fight the confirmation of Gonzalez. Even if they lose, they gain in the long run by riling up their dejected, depressed base - us - and going on record as advocates of civilization and law while drawing a clear line of distinction between us and the advocates of neobarbarism - today's GOP.

It's the "framing." It is not "obstructionism" to fight against installing a person who has been responsible for giving advice to the President to go ahead and break the law - the law is for everyone else to adhere to - not for the Pres and others in the exec branch to pay any attention to at all.

The Attorney General is the top law ENFORCEMENT officer in the whole country. He is NOT the President's lawyer - that's what he has been for the past four years and as such he didn't need Senate confirmation. Now he is going to be the peoples' "top cop?" How can the Dems even consider not going on record with a unanimous vote against this odious law breaker?

These people - all of them, including the Pres and Cabinet officers are ultimately our EMPLOYEES. I wouldn't hire a criminal as my top law enforcement officer - how bout you? Let's start doing what we haven't done effectively before - let's overwhelm our elected Dems and demand that they stand up for US, instead of rolling for BushCo, and take a loud, visible, raucous stand against this atrocious appointment.

See below to refresh your memory of some of Clinton's appointments. Remember Zoe Baird? Oooohhhh - she was a big threat to everyone because - gasp - she broke the law by paying her kid's nanny under the table. Consigliere Gonzalez tells the exec branch it's just hunky dory to break laws against torture, it's OK to commit war crimes, it's OK to invade a country that hasn't done diddly squat to anyone for 12 years, no big deal. And the Dems will go along with confirming him? That pisses me off no end. I damn well better see a NO vote from John Kerry at least.


Cabinet Nominations
Rejected or Withdrawn

As of January 1, 2001, the Senate has considered 716 nominations for cabinet positions. Since 1789, eighteen nominations have been rejected or withdrawn. (Former senators are indicated by an *.)
Cabinet Nominations Rejected by the Senate

Name: Roger B. Taney
Nominated by: Andrew Jackson
Nomination Position: Treasury
Date Nominated: June 23, 1834
Date Rejected: June 24, 1834
Vote: 18-28

Name: Caleb Cushing
Nominated by: John Tyler
Nomination Position: Treasury
Date Nominated: March 2, 1843
Date Rejected: March 3, 1843
Vote: 19-27
Note: President Tyler responded to the rejection by renominating Cushing twice on the same day, March 3, 1843. Both times, the Senate rejected the nomination, first by a vote of 10-27, and later by a vote of 2-29.

Name: David Henshaw
Nominated by: John Tyler
Nomination Position: Navy
Date Nominated: December 6, 1843
Date Rejected: January 15, 1844
Vote: 8-34

Name: James M. Porter
Nominated by: John Tyler
Nomination Position: War
Date Nominated: December 6, 1843
Date Rejected: January 30, 1844
Vote: 3-38

Name: James S. Green
Nominated by: John Tyler
Nomination Position: Treasury
Date Nominated: June 14, 1844
Date Rejected: June 15, 1844
Vote: not recorded

Name: Henry Stanbery
Nominated by: Andrew Johnson
Nomination Position: Justice
Date Nominated: May 27, 1868
Date Rejected: June 2, 1868
Vote: 11-29

Name: Charles B. Warren
Nominated by: Calvin Coolidge
Nomination Position: Justice
Date Nominated: January 10, 1925; renominated March 5, 1925
Date Rejected: March 10, 1925
Vote: 39-41
Note: After the Senate rejected Warren, Coolidge renominated him on March 12, 1925. The Senate again rejected the nomination on March 16, 1925, by a vote of 39-46.

Name: Lewis L. Strauss
Nominated by: Dwight Eisenhower
Nomination Position: Commerce
Date Nominated: January 17, 1959
Date Rejected: June 18, 1959
Vote: 46-49

Name: John G. Tower*
Nominated by: George Bush
Nomination Position: Defense
Date Nominated: January 20, 1989
Date Rejected: March 9, 1989
Vote: 47-53

Cabinet Nominations Withdrawn
or No Action Taken

Name: Lucius Stockton
Nominated by: John Adams
Nomination Position: War
Date Nominated: January 13, 1801
Date Withdrawn: January 16, 1801

Name: Henry Dearborn
Nominated by: James Madison
Nomination Position: War
Date Nominated: March 1, 1815
Date Withdrawn: March 2, 1815
Note: In Dearborn's case, the Senate voted to reject, but then allowed the nomination to be withdrawn.

Name: Edwin D. Morgan
Nominated by: Abraham Lincoln
Nomination Position: Treasury
Date Nominated: February 13, 1865
Date Withdrawn: February 13, 1865
Note: Edwin Morgan declined the appointment.

Name: Thomas Ewing, Sr.*
Nominated by: Andrew Johnson
Nomination Position: War
Date Nominated: February 22, 1868
Date Withdrawn: Not reported from committee.

Name: Benjamin Bristow
Nominated by: Ulysses S. Grant
Nomination Position: Justice
Date Nominated: December 1, 1873
Date Withdrawn: January 8, 1874
Note: Benjamin Bristow declined the appointment.

Name: Robert C. Wood
Nominated by: Lyndon Johnson
Nomination Position: Housing and Urban Development
Date Nominated: January 9, 1969
Date Withdrawn: Not reported from committee.

Name: Zoe E. Baird
Nominated by: William J. Clinton
Nomination Position: Attorney General
Date Nominated: January 21, 1993
Date Withdrawn: January 26, 1993

Name: Anthony Lake
Nominated by: William J. Clinton
Nomination Position: Director, CIA
Date Nominated: January 9, 1997
Date Withdrawn: April 18, 1997

Name: Hershel W. Gober
Nominated by: William J. Clinton
Nomination Position: Veterans Affairs
Date Nominated: July 31, 1997
Date Withdrawn: October 27, 1997

[ohioan]

21. So, the Dems are supposed to exhaust the little political muscle they have

in hand-holding and coddling its sniveling base rather than doing what it takes to stem the Bush juggernaut and get themselves into a position to win back seats in 2006?

I didn't realize it's all about us and our hurt feelings. I figured that I'm a grownup who doesn't need my political leaders to wipe my nose and kiss my boo boos, but can take care of my own personal wounds and give them the backup they need to actually get something done.

[Vickers]

5. Pick your battles.

Gonzales, as offensive as he is, is a lapdog. Let's not get tagged with the obstructionist label until we HAVE to.

*dons flamesuit*

:P

[w13rd0]

7. When is the right time to stand up for principles?

The purging of the CIA?
The subversion of the DOJ?
The use of the military as ones own private army?
One Supreme, the second, the third?

[Vickers]

8. Well, I would have to say the day the Congress-critters were asking

a Senator to co-sponsor the request to take a closer look at the electoral votes in 2000, but we missed the boat on that one.

Let him have his stupid cabinet, let's block the whacko judges. Don't blow your wad on bullshit like this.

[WyLoochka]

11. Every single damn day

I am sick of this shit - we'll wait to fight "on principle" until the Supreme Court pick comes along. That is one dumb "strategy."

By that time the few Dems remaining in the Senate will be nothing but bloody pulps - because the GOP will fight every damn day, we know that, and our guys will just sit there taking it and not fight back over and over and over again? When, when, when will they ever learn? This has been going on for 25 frigging years! So much "principled" ground has been surrendered in that time, it is extrememly painful to even think about.

If the Dems plan to just sit there taking up space while getting beaten up - we would be better off if they just flat out refused to participate in this gigantic fraud, packed their bags and went back to their home states and rallied their people from there. Maybe enough of us would get steamed-up enough to physically go to DC and shut the place down.

Never happen I know - the Dems going on a massive, in the streets, strike. I can dream can't I?

[Cuban_Liberal]

6. "I think a President should have who he wants to have working for him."

Reid is right, unfortunately. Gonzales was asked to write a memo in favor of the Bush administration's policy, which he did. That's what your lawyer does--- what you ask him to do. It doesn't mean the Gonzales is unfit to serve as AG.

[WyLoochka]

12. That's what an unethical lawyer

with a criminal mind does, Cuban. And I disagree, it DOES make him unfit to be the "top cop" in the country.

Gonzalez has more than demonstrated he cannot be trusted at all to adhere to the law. He is not qualified, plain and simple.

[Cuban_Liberal]

15. I'm sorry, but it's not unethical at all.

I happen to be taking Ethics and Professional Conduct this semester, and if your client, George W. Bush, asks you to write a memo finding all case and statutory law in support of a given policy position, you do so. In point of fact, it would have been unethical for Gonzales not to do so.

[w4rma]

24. It's unethical to take the case at all then.

To take the case is to accept money to do evil.

Lawyers might think that is ethical, but most people don't and your argument, Cuban_Liberal, would lose in the court of public opinion.

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. It's an argument about legal ethics.

I personally think Gonzales is slime, but as a lawyer, he had theethical obligation to do what he did. That's all I was sayin'...

:shrug:

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

13. Reid will do a fine job.

What do you want? Do you want Reid blocking the Idiot's cabinet appointments right out of the gate?? As his first order of business??

Presidents don't have their cabinet appointees challenged...Period. Have you even considered looking into a little history on the subject?? Or, are you just looking for ANY reason to bash Reid?

Learn to pick your fights. Stating he should have blocked Gonzalez is short-sighted, at best.

[DELUSIONAL]

27. Bull SHIT --

This mans record makes him another ZELL MILLER.

The dems are trying to morph themselves into GOPigs.

I'm outta the party as of the election of the FUCKER Reid as Senate Minority leader.

One thing I do remember about the GOPigs when they were the minority party -- those sucker fought and fought hard over everything. They were troublemakers -- nasty and disagreeable. They were rude and nasty to Clinton -- nearly non stop.

Now THAT is how a minority party has to behave -- making nice will only make the GOPigs stomp the dems down even harder.

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

28. Why do you care if we're stomped down more?

You've already said you're out of the party...


Now...Have fun NEVER winning. Have fun NEVER advancing an agenda. Have fun HELPING the pukes. Have fun being a LOSER with the rest of the Greens.

[Forkboy]

30. Well hell,if one is going to be on the losers side

it might as well be a losing side one agrees with.I dont exactly see the Dems racking up a whole hellof a lot of victorys.

Guess you're on the LOSER (capitilized in honor of your love for the effect) side too :shrug:

[Reality Not Tin Foil]

33. That's where you're wrong, young man...

...I've been around a long, long time...I've enjoyed my share of winning, and am currently making my way through a down-cycle while I await the next uptick.

But you...Well...You're a Green. You'll never win.

Sorry.

[PurityOfEssence]

17. If Mr. Quaint the torture guy isn't a worthy battle, there is none

His stance on the Geneva Convention shows him to be just another thug.

[Roland99]

35. Is this a case of feeding them rope with which to hang themselves?

[ohioan]

18. Yes - if only Reid would stand up like a man, he could defeat all of

Bush's nominees, even though Democrats only hold 44 seats to Republicans' 55.

Right.

[gulfcoastliberal]

20. I agree 100% - fuck enabling this insanity

Because that's what we/dems are doing. We have enabled Bush since 9/11, and apparently the smart thing to do is keep it up. So we filibustered a handful of judges. Bush still used recess appointments and we did confirm, oh, what like 200 of his judges the last 4 years? Remember how Daschle did a deal with Bush, allowing 24 judges to go through in exchange for a promise not to do more recess appointments? 24 fucking judges at once. The judiciary is pretty much part of the collective. The pugs fucking own/control everything, so if we don't fight, who will?

[w4rma]

22. Democrats *could* hurt Gonzalez/Bush. And *would* win political points.

All they have to do is repeat "torture memo", "torture memo", "torture memo", "torture memo", "torture memo", "torture memo", "torture memo", "torture memo". Dems could start laying the foundation for the midterm elections right here.

Many Repugs don't like his position on that either.

I hope he has the instincts to know to pounce.

And, note if he doesn't pounce Repugs will paint Dems as "pro-torture" because they didn't try to stop the torture memo guy.

[Uzybone]

23. You dont know politics

55-45...who do you think will win. Rake Gonzales over hot coals, but he will be confirmed. You think they should filibuster him?

[w4rma]

25. If they don't do whatever it takes to get Gonzales = "torture memo" in the

court of public opinion, then they will have failed. If they don't do whatever it takes to let folks know that the Democratic Party is opposed to such policy, then they will have failed.

This is a chance to make the news and define both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, to our advantage.

[tedzbear]

26. Amen.

eom

[ohioan]

32. I guess you didn't know that Senate and House Dems have been talking

about these memos for months and months. It's not for lack of trying on their part that this isn't in the "court of public opinion."

Perhaps your attacks should be aimed at the media that would rather focus on Scott Peterson, Janet Jackson's chest and the Apprentice - and the vast majority of the American public that changes the channel whenever the news coverage veers away from any of these cutting edge topics - rather than with the Democratic senators who are breaking their necks trying to get people to pay attention to such issues as the torture memos.