Why does Pat Leahy like Gonzales?

I read the Cliff Notes about this guy, and the threads in this forum, and I cannot figure it out.

The only thing I can imagine is that Leahy enjoys the fact that this guy pisses off the ultra-conservatives because of his judicial rulings in TX.

But that should be trumped by his Halliburton relationship, his death penalty advice to GW, and the torture memos.

What's the deal here?

But then I've been disillusioned aplenty this past week.

1. Bill Clinton, who used to be a hero, suddenly decided that the Deocratic party should abandon human rights and support bigotry.

2. Kerry conceded way too early.

3. Etc., etc., etc.

Starting to wonder if up is down, and vice versa.

this week and the DUers keep jumping me for it! Thanks for listing them. I was beginning to feel alone!

As I stated above, Leahy is doing the smart thing. Gonzalez is pro choice. He is probably destined for the Supreme Court. he's not exactly Thurgood Marshall, but he is the best we are going to do and if he makes it the pro-lifers are going to go ape shit.

...as george w butcher is. He was the fucker's WH Counsel for gosh sake. These people will say anything, do anything to con their way into a position of power. Any amount!

I am looking and the only information I can find that indicates that Gonzales is pro-choice is that ONE ruling he made in TX about parental consent. This is not a record of pro-choice voting, this is one damn opinion where he sided with the majority.

Here's what I read:
"In a 6-3 opinion, the Texas Supreme Court agreed with Jane Doe (the minor seeking an abortion without parental consent). Gonzales filed a concurring opinion, in which he deferred to the legislative intent of the statute at issue: "While the ramifications of such a law and the results of the Court’s decision may be personally troubling to me a s a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the Legislature."

If there's other evidence of this guy being "pro-choice", I'd like to see it, before Leahy and the rest of the Senate decide he's hunky dory.

The Texas Republican Party is about as close as you can get to real Nazism. They have the most extreme state platform of the bunch, and it is run top to bottom by rabid fundamentalists. These guys consider Gonzalez pro-choice because he doesn't wave pictures of dead fetuses around, and they are extremely suspicious of him because he doesn't play ball with them on the abortion issue. But Gonzalez is a Republican, so he is not exactly going to be a rabid pro-choice activist. the whole point is the Robertson crowd, who control the Texas Party THINKS he is. Leahy is trying to stir up a fight between them.

what matters is what he is perceived to be, and the religious fascists don't trust him. Like I said, the pro-life crowd hate his guts. Robertson and Falwell are going to have a cow. No Ashcroft and instead a guy who isn't theirs.

Gonzalez is pro-choice. He's going to be a big slap in the face to the religious fascists that put Bush in the White House. Personally, I think Bush is about to move the Repug Party left, not right, so he can hand the party to McCain and Guiliani in 2008, who are then going to take another big bite out of the Democrat Party's moderate wing. If we don't smarten up and start cultivating moderate center voters we are dead meat. Bush can shit all over the religious kooks - where the hell else are they going to go? The reason we lost this election is because the center is shifting to the Repugs. This is what Clinton is trying to tell you.

I know how he ruled in that parental consent case, but has he said that he is pro-choice?

I've heard that theory, too, about * moving to the left to hand it to a moderate Repub in 2008, but that doesn't seem logical given that they need the millions of extreme fundie votes to win.

He's got the fundies in the bag. When he is x-prez they will trot him out to wrap them up every election like we do with Clinton and the black vote. Its a smart move by Bush. McCain sold his soul to Bush for the nomination in 2008 - he kissed Bushie ass to get it. He and Guiliani are going to go after the heart and sole of this party and the Dems are going to lose it all if we don't see it coming.

or at least not in good enough health to be President.
They'll want another true believer anyway.

Guiliani gets it for sure. Hero of 9-11, great charisma - I've seen him work a crowd, he is an instantly likeable guy. If the true goal of the Repug back room potentates is to grab the middle permenantly from the Democrats, he's their man.

Gonzalez is the play on moderates. He is hispanic, and ambigous on abortion. The pro-lifers in Texas hate his guts and fought him every step of the way on state politics. Bush has always had this guy on his right hand. Its always been odd that he is even there among all the fascist nuts who hang with Bush.

has played that card for his benefit BUT in reality, the whole Neo con, Neo fascist party really WANTS to abort or "kill off" "lesser people" and their generations. The poor for example? "Criminals" offspring maybe? etc etc.....................

.....................?

I've lived in Texas for 30 years and I've caought Bush's whole act. He even tells two different "conversion" stories - one for the South, where he was saved by an intinerant tent preacher, and one for the North, where it happened in a walk on the beach with Billy Graham after he insulted Big Momma. Its all an act. The entire religious thing is bullshit, and I think he sees it has run its course. Bush ran as a pro-choice candidate in the first election he ran in, which he lost. He started winning after Rove converted him him to Mr. Fundie.

I believe the women in Bush's life have some control over him.

Quote: .....BUT in reality, the whole Neo con, Neo fascist party really WANTS to abort or "kill off" "lesser people" and their generations. The poor for example? "Criminals" offspring maybe? etc etc.....................
Unquote


That does happen when right wing movements move from conservatism to National Socialism. Hell, Savage is just about advocating that now.

As a young woman in the late sixties early seventies, I seem to remember an uproar over forced sterilization of "poor" women in places like Haiti and the like.. I don't remember who pushed that agenda but, at the time, I was/am living in a very liberal/progressive town.

I was interested and moderately involved in the progressive ideology of the time. All around me, my fellow progressives were shouting out about the violation of Human Rights/civil liberties etc when this "sterilization" project was learned of..... sooo, me thinks it was the "other side" that pushed this, not us.

Weird..at the same time, our side was calling for zero population growth... I'm so confused. :crazy:

I'll wait to see if he undrapes the statue of Justice. if he does that, I'll reserve judgement.

Take away his voting with the majority on that parental consent case, and another ruling on affirmative action, and you have a guy who:

- took a lot of money from Halliburton, Enron, et al during his Texas career as a lawyer and a judge

- advised TX Gov. Bush on Death Penalty cases, ignoring details of the cases including mental capacity, defense misconduct and, oh yeah, FACTS. You know how we berate GW for his role in all those deaths in Texas? Gonzales is the guy who advised him on all of those cases.

- argued against awarding POW status to the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, etc. etc.

I am trying to be open-minded, but I don't think this guy is any kind of improvement on Ashcroft, other than that he might not be so wickedly crazy.

But Leahy's not stupid, I really respect him, and I'm wondering why he claims to like this guy. The death penalty briefings alone are enough to turn me off him forever.

It's hard to believe that a reasonable person (isn't Pat Leahy a reasonable person?) would support Gonzales, a man who believes to be quaint the Geneva Convention's rulings on torture, etc.

This is THE definitive reason NOT to support Gonzales under ANY circumstances. We have our sons and daughters in combat right now, and abandoning the Geneva Conventions puts possible American POWs in even worse danger... to horrible to think about.

FUCK Gonzales!

I suppose Leahy can wait for Bush to nominate a Democrat. That should happen right around the time hell freezes over. Look man, this is how politics is played when the other side is calling the shots. Your not going to get Hillary Clinton in there. Bush will end up getting pretty much who ever he wants. This guy offers certain advantages to the Democrats.

...but your explanation makes the most sense, that Leahy is happy to stir up shit among the conservatives about this guy.

It may be an effective strategy, we shall see.

And you're right, we aren't going to get someone we like in this position under any circumstances. So we might as well take what we can get.

If you did, you'd understand why Gonzales is to be rejected AT ALL COSTS!

:grr:

Actually I do have family in combat. My nephew is in Tillil, the base those GIs who refused to drive those trucks were heading too. Why is Gonzalez a threat to him? The whole fucking adminstration is a threat to him, stopping Gonzalez doesn't mean jack, especially when one considers the Attorney General has nothing to do with combat soldiers. He's a domestic guy for chrissakes. Lets get a grip.

Here you go:

http://tesibria.typepad.com/democracy_is_coming/2004/11/alberto_gonzale.html

These are the Cliff Notes on Gonzales, posted here today by some wonderful DU'er whose name escapes me. There are lots of links and references to more info as well.

I think perhaps the poster above (kvining) has the best guess I've seen so far, that Leahy knows this guy pisses of the ultra-wingers and is enjoying watching them squirm over this appointment. The real irony is that most of Gonzales' behavior has in fact been right up their alley -- they are just too blinded by his one opinion that may or not indicate his stance on choice.

I know enough about Gonzales to consider him as bad as Ashcroft.

http://us.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/10/bush.cabinet/index.html

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the judiciary committee's ranking Democrat, wrote in a news release, "I like and respect Judge Gonzales and look forward to our committee's consideration of his nomination.

"The Justice Department in the first Bush term was the least accountable Justice Department in my lifetime. Meaningful oversight and accountability were thwarted for years. We will be looking to see if Judge Gonzales intends to change that."

There was also another post quoting him on MSNBC I think saying that he would definitely vote to confirm.

Now that I read Leahy's press release, I think maybe he's really trying to get to the bottom of Abu Ghraib, and not necessarily give a pass to Gonzales. CNN left out the rest and put a spin on the whole thing.

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200411/111004.html

U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY
CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
VERMONT

Reaction Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),
To The President’s Intention To Nominate
White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales
As Attorney General
Wednesday, November 10, 2004

“I like and respect Judge Gonzales and look forward to our committee’s consideration of his nomination.

“The Justice Department in the first Bush term was the least accountable Justice Department in my lifetime.  Meaningful oversight and accountability were thwarted for years.  We will be looking to see if Judge Gonzales intends to change that. 

“These confirmation hearings will be a rare opportunity for the Senate and the public to finally get some answers on several issues for which the Administration has resisted accountability, including its use of the PATRIOT Act, the lack of cooperation with Congress on oversight, and the policies that have been rejected by the courts on the treatment of detainees.  This also may be the only remaining forum in which to examine more fully the steps that were taken to weaken U.S. policy on torture in the period that led to the prison scandals at Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan.” 

# # # # #

The confirmation hearings should be interesting.

Hope I can get them all on TiVo.

Get plenty of popcorn and and extra HD storage for your TiVo (can they be upgraded?).

you have to live in Texas to understand what is going on. Gonzalez, Bush all these guys played it out on the Texas stage for 20 years until they hit the big time. Gonzalez has been a sore spot to the religious fascists for years in Texas. They bitched and moaned about him all the time. Personally, this is actually a great tip off for us of where the Repugs are headed. Years ago, Gingrich, who is really the spirtual and philosophical forefather of all this, said the aim of the Republican Party was no longer to beat the Democratic Party, but to destroy it. They hate us with a passion they we don't even get yet. This is all a culmination of a plan they have worked up and executed for years. Its working. We lost the working class whites as a constituency. Next they are going after the professionals and the blacks and a, surprise - the Hispanic vote. Gonzalez is a big part of that and a big reason Bush became Texas governor in the first place. They are a two man tag team, which is why the guy is always nearby. Not to many people leave a state Supreme Court seat to become a White House lawyer. You got to ask - why?

Right before they voted for tax cuts for the wealthy, NCLB, the patriot act, the Iraq war, union busting with the dept of homeland security, the second tax for the wealthy, etc. ect... you know, all those things we criticized Bush for during the campaign.

Want to know why we lose? Because our leadership caves, as quickly as possible, on everything. Apparently that is easier than developing a coherent message that informs the American people that the republicans are wrong.

We will never win until our reps grow some co'jones and march lockstep. People won't vote for cavers. Not in a million years. They will vote for people who exhibit a commitment to principles that are communicated in a coherent fashion. It seems so simple to me, yet I have been screaming it for a decade.

Howard Dean for DNC chair. Maybe he can perform a permanent spinal transplant on these guys. Otherwise it IS going to be up to you and me to build the party from the ground up.

I blame Dashcle for a lot of the spinelessness. The guy was a wimp. Hopefully that will change. I do definitely agree on Dean as the best choice. We need a banty rooster fighter and a guy who sees the Internet as our best bet to counter right wing hate media. Lets hope the Senate dems get some balls and Dean gets picked for party chair. But you can't expect the Senate dems to fight every nominee Bush sends up. It looks to the public like government is being held up and impeded for partisan purposes, and can actually cost votes. They have to choose their battles carefully. Sounds like between the pro-choice angle and the Abu Garib angle, they should hold long drawn out hearings to get some dirt out in the open, and then give the guy a pass. I think Leahy's doing the right thing.