We cannot let our leaders get away with failing to filibuster Gonzales

You don't make a torturer Attorney General. Our Democratic leaders may feel they and their families will safely escape while the rest of us are tortured but we need to make it clear to them that, in the next primary, we will kick out anyone who fails to filibuster Gonzales Gonzales is one thousand times worse than Ashcroft and we cannot let our leaders think that we will forgive them ever if he is made AG. I encourage everyone here to get out letters, petitions, resolutions, etc and let out leaders know that this is a career-making or breaking vote. I'll even go so far as to help organize Democrats behind an independent opponent, if necessary, to defeat anyone failing to filibuster Gonzales.

It won't happen and it shouldn't happen.

Frankly, I'd rather have him as AG, where he has to undergo tough questioning and submit to Congressional oversight than as the president's counsel, where he no one is watching him/

The second coming?

Sometimes I wonder if some of you are freepers, because I cannot fathom Dems would actually be so asleep at the wheel to think we have all this time to hold out and wait. Where the Sam Hill have some of you been the last four years? The Riviera??

Please pull you head out if you think we have any more policies or appointments we can let slide.

The Democrats have to pick their battles. AG is just a cabinet post and when Bushes term is up, he's gone.

Good or Bad he will be there for 4 years. SAVE our filibusters for LIFETIME appointments. We have many more Federal appellate and SCOTUS appointments to worry about.

It will determine whether the Justice Department will be used as a lawless organization to round up and imprison protestors. Remember those tanks on the streets of L.A. That was a warning of things to come. It will be a hundred years because all true Democrats will leave and there will only be Republicans left if Gonzales is confirmed.

four years.

They CAN'T filibuster Gnzales because of that fact.

there are no openings on Scotus. If we wait, we lose. If we stop G now, we gain momentum.

it has to e saved for an important long-term nomination, not something that only affects us for four years.

We cannot base our freedom on what illegal thing they might do and when. If they break the rules, they'll break them and our fight here won't change their moral character. Are we to say no to filibustering an anti-choice justice, because they might use the nuclear option. That way we could save it for gay rights. Of course, maybe then we will be afraid they'll go nuclear at that time and decide to sacrifice gay rights and save the fililbuster again. Either they'll do it or they won't and if they do it. We can't let them control us.

:shrug:

when someone else prove him/her wrong

Gonzales can still be overruled by the courts, as Ashcroft was more than once. There are now precedents against many of the tactics Ashcroft's inJustice Dept. used back when the Bush regime was being given a bit higher benefit of the doubt. There are still more cases pending which will tighten the reigns on Gonzales' options even further.

The posters who disagree to the pointless obstruction of Gonzales are right. He is a horrific choice, but not the guy we want to use up political capital by blocking.

Somebody said (what I consider to be the most ignorant statement I've read all day) that there is not a SCOTUS seat open. Uh ... like Renquist is long for the bench?

The best strategy, at least in my opinion, is to damage Gonzales and Rice (as well as any other unsavory term-oriented appointments) by airing every bit of their dirty laundry and every f-up as often as possible. Let the Bush regime and GOP have their beat up Cabinet.

Then, when lifetime appointments come up, Dems can point to these objectionable characters they opposed but didn't block and lessen the obstructionist rhetoric. They can then repeat every nasty bit of the Cabinet members' records while pointing out that they are regrettably using the powerful tactic of fillibuster (which should never be over-used) because it is absolutely necessary. Throw the blame on Bush for naming horrible people and frame fillibuster as a last resort they had hoped to not to NEED to use.

Really, we should all try to be a bit less alarmist and grab a bit of perspective. The Bush regime in power certainly is crappy and will do a great deal of damage. Our only choice is to work smart and keep working on damage-control, limiting their potential for harm to non-permanent issues and appointments. It's not like if the Dems block Gonzales, the next choice will be any better.

... Or would we rather be knee-jerk reactionaries, shoot our whole wad right away for some illusory instant gratification and risk the long-term?

What PissedOffPollyana said. :)

genius also said it would be illegal to change the cloture rules.

Expose every crappy and shady thing he's ever done with/for the Bushies. Then have all the Dems vote no and let the Republicans put this poor excuse into office. Save the obstructionist label for judges.

n/t

Gonzales wrote the memo that said torture is acceptable. Personally if I had a choice I would not want to be tortured. If he had a say even innocent women who have been falsely jailed's torture would have legality.

Do you like being tortured?

If the dems didn't have the will to filibuster Asscroft, how do you expect them to hold up Gonzalez? We are now in a post 11-2-04 period where repubs control the senate by a 55-45 margin. If you haven't figured it out yet, they put Specter through the ringer and got two commitments from him: 1) He will allow all judges out of committee; 2)He will support the repubs efforts to end the judicial filibusters using a parliamentary procedure (nuclear option). Specter was against this in the past congress and the pubs didn't have the votes to pull it off. Well now they have the votes and will end the judicial filibusters.

You can bet that Bushco will nominate the same judges that were filibustered the last time around (Owen, Brown, Rogers, etc.) and if the dems try a filibuster, the repubs will end that practice by a ruling from the prez of the senate (Cheney). The filibuster game is over -- get used to it. The dems say they will shut down the senate, but they will change their mind after talking to Daschle about what happens to a candidate in a red state who is branded an obstructionist.

It describes the state of the USA at the moment!!

I spent the evening with a very old friend of mine who is not politically active in the least but who was begging me to expatriate with her. If she's terrified about where this is going, I know not to discredit my instincts.

Question (and maybe this is a separate topic but): Do you think I should stop making compartives to Leni Riefenstahl and the corporate media when writing to the latter?

Good comparison to our beloved corporate media, if that's what you're saying.

they can't fillibuster everything even though everything so far cries out for it.. They're going to ask questions to put stuff on the record about him and that's probably about it.

you are actually fighting nowhere none of the time.


Except on DU, where fighting all the time means you have "backbone," even though you pour your political capital down the drain.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2723335

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2721273

Yes, (the arguments go) 1) presidents (in this case "presidents") are given leeway in choosing their own cabinets and 2) what-part-of-majority/minority numbers don't we understand. I like better what others have posted, that we are the loyal OPPOSITION, or ought to be.

I media blasted (200) e-mails and got exactly ONE auto-reply, from BIDEN. Anyway, fwiw, the first item is the e-ltr and the second is a neat link, stopalbertogonzales.com that also contains a media blast mechanism.

---------------
The supposed Liberal half of the pundits on CNN’s The Capital Gang (11-13) have already sounded the retreat regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General with the words, “He’s got a great personal story, only one of eight siblings to go to college, and he maintains contact with them!”

While the Republican majority makes it unlikely that the nomination can be blocked, Gonzalez’s record, ideology, and role as Bush waterboy need thorough exposure and opposition. But the Democrats have to stay focused on those things and not allow the process to be framed on the basis of “ethnicity,” as in, “the first Hispanic, blah blah…”

During the ESTRADA hearings the beleaguered Democratic leaders actually stood firm and eventually won a rare victory, perhaps surprising even themselves, although the deciding factor might have been Estrada’s possible personal baggage instead of ideology. And almost all of the Hispanic organizations joined in opposing him based on his ideology.

With Gonzalez, the Republicans are springing yet again their “ethnic“ or “racial” trap that started with George I’s use of Clarence Thomas: Nominating a member of a minority group, perhaps not too bright or accomplished, but who toes the Conservative line, and, most of all, stymies the Democrats by their having to oppose somebody from one of their traditional constituencies. The payload of the “ethnic” gambit is to derail the vetting process, keeping attention away from the nominee’s record and ideological fanaticism.

During the Estrada hearings, Orrin Hatch was all over the media with a Shirley Temple pout, saying innocently, “How can the Democrats oppose this well qualified Hispanic?”

The answer then should have been, as now, “It is NOT about the ethnicity. That would be racism and quotas. It’s about the ideology and his record.”

This link covers his whole career: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF ...

This link covers his role in the torture policy: http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm (Home Page: http://lawofwar.org / )

-------------
Link with e-addy blast list
http://www.stopalbertogonzales.com /

This is the most important of our fights. If we win all other fights and lose this one, we've lost everything.

You said ending the filibuster rules is illegal - You made that up

You said that Gonzalez can't be overruled by the courts - you made that up

If the Dems fail to even TRY, they can go straight to the hell they'll be enabling.

What makes you think they'd stop the torture lawyer.

And just what do you mean- don't let them get away with it?

Are you going to finally blow them off join the Green Party?

I did.

not fighting Goss- but most on this board supported rolling over...

Another "strategy" thing.

:sigh: Dems seem to never learn....

This is simply how it works. The Democrats will certainly put all of the BS out on the record but I do not expect them to filibuster cabinet appointments!

Bill Clinton didn't get Zoe E. Baird as Attorney General for A LOT less serious matter than conspiring to subvert the geneva Convention.

(as you may recall, Ms. baird had an undocumented nanny).

There's no rule or tradition that says a President gets the cabinet that he wants. Quite the contrary- the Constitution provides that he needs advice and consent from the Senate- and if ever there was a good reason, this is it.

Baird and Wood were not blocked by Congress. They never made it to the Hill because of their own problems.

Labor? Reich and then Herman. What was the problem?

Not one of Clinton's cabinet choices was blocked.

All the congressional dems do is enable Bush. They stopped like 6 of Bush's picks but also confirmed around 200 "less controversial" judges. If we have truly abondoned the core values of the democratic party, which in this case is civil rights, then yeah, it's not worth bothering with a filibuster. Otherwise, they need to recognize the danger to democracy the man represents. They'll make Nixons "cointelpro" program look like amateur hour. I'm talking about people dissapearing in the night. Make Bush appoint someone else.

I disagree w/ the "choose your battles" people.

We have certainly been losing the wars- lets at least win a freaking battle every now & then.

I dont see how getting some press on this could hurt DEMS...

issue, even when you know you're going to lose and make it impossible to win ANY battle?

The Democrats have done a great job in blocking Bush's most extreme judicial nominees - something they would NEVER have been able to accomplish if they had tried to filibuster every one of Bush's nominees. Had they done that, they would have probably satisfied the angriest and least clear-thinking DUers, but the result would have been that EVERY SINGLE ONE of Bush's nominees would have been confirmed, including Owen, Pickering, Pryor, Estrada, Kuhl, Brown and others.

I'm glad that my party's leaders are smart enough to understand that the most foolhearty thing we can do at this time is to allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

of the "perfect being the enemy of the good" or you wouldn't have quoted it in this context.

Your logic is also flawed when you say that had the Dems fought harder and kept all or most of Bush's extremists (and they're pretty much ALL extreme) off of the bench. What do you think Republicans did to Clinton's nominees for so long? Is your memory that short?

Why on earth you would advocate that Dems play by different rules than Republicans- who ARE and HAVE BEEN extremely successful- both procedurally and substantively is beyond me.

My thoughts are that you may not have been around politics very long, so I'll cut you a bit of a break and just say that in the event that the DEMs did decide to fight- the media would have to stand up and take notice- which would put the issues into the light of public controversy and discussion- something the Republicans fear more than most anything.

Expose them for what they are and what they do- and people abandon them in droves.

the media would have to stand up and take notice

That's the funniest thing I've heard all day, and it's been a pretty entertaining day. We have the treasury being emptied, wars based on lies, an administration that committed treason by revealing the name of a covert CIA agent, that hasn't punished ONE person for any of the many failures that led to 9/11, a NSC who obviously LIED about the ODB, a VP who lied and said he KNEW where the NUKES were, and none of it is being reported, but a FILIBUSTER will make them "stand up and take notice"

Don't you know how hard it will be for the media to pull it's ankles back from behind their ears?

And then you top it off with "My thoughts are that you may not have been around politics very long"

Priceless!

The far right- who owns them- would MAKE IT AN ISSUE. They can- as you imply- gain coverage for whatever issue they like- and can seemingly bury issues as they like.

Do you think for one minute that if the Dem's put up a united front and blocked these extemist nominees wholesale that the right they wouldn't scream bloody murder and bombard the media with their faxes and strongarm the CEO's and senior news editors into covering the filibusters as one of the most important issue of the day?

If not, I think you haven't been paying much attention over the past decade.

(you know, where the Democrats put up a united front and blocked a bunch of extremist nominees) including the Fox's virtual gavel-to-gavel coverage of the Republicans' two day marathon filibuster protesting the filibusters.

Sounds like it's YOU who should be paying more attention.

so I'll cut him a bit of a break and just say that in the event that HE ever did decide to face reality - he'd realize the media would have to stand up and take notice- which would put the issues into the light of however the repukes tell the media to put it in - something the Republicans treasure more than most anything.

You and I and others have been going at this left/moderate debate for a long time now- at least for two elections cycles... and it seems to me that one side's strategies and tactics have time and again been found wanting.

Dems may or may not win by standing up for their principles- but the only way to know is if they try. Since the pandering approach hasn't worked- logic would dictate trying something else.

The media is going to favor Republicans no matter WHAT the dems do- rolling over playing nice or "cooperating" hasn't worked and isn't going to work. That much ought to be clear, even to you, at this point.

Better to get the most airplay you can on issues like this that expose far right extremism for what it is and take whatever shots you've got.

Making a BIG issue out of this also make a statement and sets the tone of the next 2 years... and for everyone's sake- I hope that tone isn't anything like what we saw the last four.

You just made several RIDICULOUS claims and you were busted on them, so now you want to distract from that and talk history.

Let's talk some more about the outrageous mistakes you made first. But first, how about I show that my momma is right when she says "You can only be *so* smart, but stupid goes on forever"

Better to get the most airplay you can on issues like this that expose far right extremism for what it is and take whatever shots you've got.

Not only were you shameless enough to say it the first time, but after having this argument shown to be foolish, you merely repeat it.

Yes, after ignoring the VP lie that he KNEW where Saddam's NUKES were, Rice's LIES to the 9/11 committee, the Sec'y of Defense LIES about NUKES, CHEMICAL WEAPONS, AL QUEDA TIES, AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, the TREASONous act of releasing a covert CIA agents name, the passing of US intelligence secrets to IRAN, bush*'s LIES to the UN, and on and on

Yeah, the media will go crazy over a FILIBUSTER. The media won't play boring stories about terrorism and war, but nothing will keep them from the excitement over cloture.

Are you suggesting that my intense interest in cloture motions is out-of-step with the general consensus?

In all the time you've been here, I don't recall you ever ceding a point- heck, at least carlos jaicinto would do that once in a while. It's for that reason I rest my case.

As I said, it's up to the dems to make the arguments when they get on the air. Not the left's fault that they didn't do so forcefully on the issues you mention. They had plenty of airtime. I suppose they must have listened to people who advised them to be "moderate."

Here ya go:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2731186#2731270

it's up to the dems to make the arguments when they get on the air.

"when they get on the air..." LOL, I'm sure when the dems start savaging the biased reporting of the media, the media will respond by granting them even more air time so the dems can expand their assault on the media. And when the dems attack the repukes, I'm sure the repukes that own the media will be so thrilled that they will grant the dems additional air time. After all, we are all aware of the repukes reputation for generosity and fair play.

They had plenty of airtime.

They give the repukes several times more air time than the dems. Check out www.mediamatters.com Then you might be able to include something true facts in your arguments, instead of fantasies about how the media will let the dems run wild on TV.

I am more experienced in and familiar with these matters than you can imagine and certainly don't need a lecture from you about them.

I stand by my point, notwithstanding your disagreement - and rather odd and naive faith in the media's willingness to champion our cause if ONLY we would speak up.

It's not the media taking up our cause that I have faith in.

instead of repeating what the repukes tell them to say.

But I do appreciate your laughable attempt at appearing superior

They're perfectly capable of using their alloted time on TV to their advantage if they choose to. It's no one's fault but theirs if they don't forcefully articulate their positions and get the real issue before the public.

their alloted time

You think the Dems have time reserved for them?

In which dimension?

the Abu Ghraib tapes and photos, while we were only able to see a few of the (unbelievably) less sordid and horrifying ones. There were women and children tortured in this place, and Gonzales is responsible. Senator John Warner of Virginia said he was so sickened by what he saw, he vowed at the time to pursue the torture and it's subsequent cover-up with all the powers vested in his office. Bullshit, he's done nothing since then but roll over. Well it's time to tell him that his avoidance of action, and his broken promises can cost him his job. It's time to tell all of them that, if you've already done it, then do it again.

Is there no way to remind Republican (and Democratic) senators and congressmen of what they saw and remind them that this man Alberto Gonzales should in no way, shape or form, be the highest,justice official in the land, for four years, four hundred years, or four minutes. Is there any decency left in these people, if they had any to begin with. I say it's time to make the letters as accusatory as possible, shame these people who would allow this to happen, who could forget the haunting pictures, videos, and audios of what they saw. What was that about values and morals?

It couldn't hurt to be more confrontational (no threats of violence please) in making accusations and pleas to these 'representatives'of ours. I think it's time to start writing snail mail letters too. It is harder to ignore those, and there is a better chance of them being read. Make copies and send them to our devoted and ethical media!!!

give the idea up. They will not do it.

Even Pat Leahy said so.

I want to see the give Condoleeza Rice a tough time...she lied to the 9/11 commission, she lied about WMDs, she did nothing to prevent 9/11.

She's the one who should be grilled.

What happens then?

Think a chastened Bush will then nominate Ramsey Clark or Alan Dershowitz, or maybe John Edwards?

Or will be nominate someone else just as bad or worse?

And, in the meantime, what happens at the Justice Department? Will Ashcroft stick around until a replacement is confirmed? Or do you think that some completely acceptable liberal will step in as acting AG?

Or will the Justice Department be run by Ashcroft's next-in-command, ultra-right wing Deputy Attorney General (not to mention Ashcroft apologist and civil-liberties hating) James Comey?

Yep - if only those Democrats would stop Gonzales, everything will be SO much better for us all.

The AG spot is a stepping stone for Gonzales to be placed on the Supreme Court.

Confoirmation in these hearings would "rehabilitate" him for his egregious and unethical actions in undermining the Geneva Convention and legitimizing torture as an acceptible part of American foreign policy.

It would relieve him of responsibility for Abu Garib and innoculate him from scrutiny during Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

You sure you want that?

I'd explain why, but given your superior expertise in these matters, you surely already fully understand.

if you can.

As White House Counsel, Gonzales operates far below the radar screen; as an executive department staffer and the president's attorney, he enjoys a double shield of confidentiality (executive and attorney-client privilege) and hardly has any paper trail. He cannot be called on to testify on Capitol Hill and is not subject to any other oversight.

However, as AG, he will not only have his sworn confirmation hearing testimony to hold over his head (and, regardless what you think, the Democrats WILL give him a thorough grilling), he will regularly be hauled up to the Hill to explain himself to Congress. In addition, his actions and policies will be subject to judicial review, just as Ashcroft's were. The federal courts, including the Supremes, smacked Ashcroft down on several occasions, something that never happens to a White House Counsel.

As AG, Gonzales will be forced to take positions that will always piss off SOMEONE. If he fails to measure up to or exceed the example set by Ashcroft, the right wing (no fans of his anyway, see below) will be in his face and if he tries to run to the right to appease them, he will create more and more reason for liberals and moderates to oppose him.

Can you name the last Attorney General who was confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court? No? Why do you think that is?

Moreover, the right wing does not trust Gonzales any farther than they can throw him, feeling that he is far too moderate. Among other things, he supports affirmative action and fought to tone down Bush's attacks on the University of Michigan's program, going head to head with Ted Olsen and winning, completely pissing off Bush's base. They also suspect that he's pro-choice. Conservatives do NOT want him on the Supreme Court, fearing that he would become another Souter. In fact, they have made clear to Bush that he'd better not nominate him to the Court.

Many folks in the know strongly believe that Gonzales' appointment to AG is tacit proof that he won't be nominated to the Court - that this is Bush's consolation prize to his friend to make up for not putting him on the Supreme Court.

THAT's why I believe that Gonzales will not be nominated to the Supreme Court.

So, obviously, I CAN explain my position quite well. Therefore, if you want to discuss this with me any further, I suggest you back off the snide and condescending remarks - I'm being patient with you, because it's obvious you didn't know any better, but you really don't want to tangle with me on this topic.

and before that, I can think of another right off the top of my head, Tom Clark, who was an AG. I bet there are others.

Clearly, Gonzales won't be nominated to replace rhenquist, but Bush will have the opportunity to replace at least 3 maybe four or more Justices over his term in office. If Gonzales if confirmed AG, he'll likely be nominated for either O'Connor or Steven's slots. Bader-Ginsberg has also been ill, and may provide a 4th slot.

Bushco has been grooming Gonzales for the Supreme Court for close to 4 years now. If there's anything you should have learned about these folks is that they are audacious, they'll doanything, they don't give up and they reward unquestioned loyalty.

To see how far they go, all you have to do is look at Pickering's recess appointment. Talk about a person who has pissed people off and been subject to rebuke!

The whole Bush modus operandi militates toward Gonzales being nominated to the bench- and if what you say is true- that the right wing doesn't trust him (who DO they trust?) then all that much easier to get him confirmed once the stain of torture is washed off him.

ps: you crack me up- on the one hand, you tell me not to be condescending- then in the very next breath- you proceed to do just that. LOL. I don't need to boast, though- I'll let my words and facts speak for themselves.

Counter my facts or reasoning if you think I'm wrong.

1. Why do you think it's been more than 50 years since an AG - the country's top lawyer - has been confirmed to the Supreme Court? Could it be that in modern times, Attorneys General cannot help but be either too controversial (Ashcroft, Meese, Reno, Kennedy) or too unremarkable (Reynolds, Bell,

2. You completely ignored my explanation of the difficulties Gonzales will face as AG. Care to address it?

I would love to counter your facts or reasoning. Offer some and I will. :-)

Seriously, as for whom the right wing WOULD be happy (indeed THRILLED) with - among others: Haynes, Boyle, Allen, Olsen, Estrada, Owen, Pryor, Luttig (4th Circuit), Wilkinson (4th Circuit), Shedd (4th Circuit), Cook (6th Circuit), Sutton (6th Circuit), Skykes (7th Circuit), Kuhl (9th Circuit), Holmes (AK),

Moreover, on what do you base your claim that Bush has been "grooming
Gonzales for the Supreme Court for close to 4 years now?" What specifically has Bush done in the past four years that constitutes "grooming?"

Pickering's recess appointment in no way suggests how or why Gonzales would end up on the Supreme Court. In fact, it proves my point. Pickering was far too controversial to be confirmed to even a circuit court - he was filibustered, just like you claim Gonzales should be, so Bush had to take a circuitous route to put him on the court temporarily. Bush can take a chance like this on lower court nominees, but he will not take a chance on having a Supreme Court nominee blocked. That's why he's going to appoint someone who can either appease moderates (unlikely) or someone who so pleases his extremist bast that they will go to the mat for them and drag them over the finish line. That would not be Gonzales.

Make his appointment torture.