Why didn't we filibuster Rice? - Democratic Underground

Rebecca_Remarks

(30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:36 PM
Original message

Why didn't we filibuster Rice?

Heck, why aren't we filibustering every one of his appointments, whether it is for the Cabinet, the appellette court, or the SCOTUS? We have 40 Senators, right? That's enough to filibuster. Let's put Bush on the defensive and refuse to let him accomplish anything unless it's on our terms.

Rebecca

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

genius

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:36 PM
Response to Original message

1. We didn't have the 40. 32 Dems betrayed the American people

and backed Rice.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NewYorkerfromMass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:38 PM
Response to Original message

2. Maybe you are to pick and choose your battles?

there is not an infinite supply of energy or time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

genius

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #2

3. Why? Should doctors pick and choose which life they'll save or should

they try to save all lives?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

NewYorkerfromMass

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:42 PM
Response to Reply #3

4. Indeed doctors often must make those decisions

ever heard of organ donation? Not everyone is qualified to get one- you have to have a chance of living a substantial amount of time after implantation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DrWeird

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:46 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. Alright then.

What is it we're trying to save by not filibustering on Rice?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

in_cog_ni_to

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #6

8. Maybe they're trying to save the filibuster rule?

Frist keeps threatening to get rid of it. Maybe they feel they need to pick and choose where they use it? Like important nominations... RW wacko judges and people like Gonzales? Just a guess. The RW probably threatened the Dems. "If you filibuster Rice, we will get rid of the filibuster rule forever." Then we are ROYALLY screwed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

genius

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:48 PM
Response to Reply #4

7. But if they could save all lives, why not? The Senate can stop all

extremist nominations. FAiling to do so is like a doctor saying, I have an organ available and no reason not to save the patient, but I think I'll wait.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Name removed

(0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:46 PM
Response to Original message

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in_cog_ni_to

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #5

9. Won't they filibuster Gonzales?????

They cannot let that man be confirmed.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Name removed

(0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #9

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

KissMeKate

(741 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:53 PM
Response to Original message

10. because nice democrats roll over

and beg and bark and ask how high when the bush admin says jump.

Its time to start holding our elected representatives accountable.

UNITY while being wrong is worse than being divided.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Warpy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:54 PM
Response to Original message

11. An alternative would probably be worse

and yes, I can think of several, starting with General Boykin. Rice is an incompetent ideologue who is well known internationally as an incompetent ideologue. She will likely do less harm than an evangelical foamer like Boykin would.

Gonzales is another matter. He is not incompetent. He is pure evil, and should never be considered to head a justice department.

The Democrats need to pick their fights very carefully, I think. Rice lies her ass off, but hasn't done the type of damage that Gonzales's scrapping of the Geneva Conventions has. He is a criminal. She is a twit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

cestpaspossible

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 05:54 PM
Response to Original message

12. " We have 40 Senators, right?" no, we had 13 on this one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Freddie Stubbs

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 06:11 PM
Response to Original message

13. Only 13 wanted to stop the nomination

13<40

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Name removed

(0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 06:29 PM
Response to Original message

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Pepperbelly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 06:31 PM
Response to Original message

15. The fillibuster should be saved for special things ... like

the SC appointments and Social Security. A temporary cabinet position deoes not merit firing the only bullet we have.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rebecca_Remarks

(30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 09:15 PM
Response to Reply #15

17. Why not?

It's not like there are a limited number of bullets in this gun. We can have an infinite number of items held in filibuster.

Rebecca

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Pepperbelly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #17

19. the public will tolerate it for some things but not for everything.

Particularly in cabinet positions. I mean, these are not life-long appointments like the Supreme Court. They are transitory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rebecca_Remarks

(30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-27-05 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #19

21. Even so...

I understand that certain nominations are more important than others. But here we have a chance to shut down his entire administration. If Bush can't appoint a Cabinet, there is very little that he will be able to accomplish. I think we should shut it down.

Rebecca

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

goobergunch

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 09:24 PM
Response to Original message

18. Waste of time, not enough Senators

It takes 41 Senators to block something via filibuster. There's really no point in a filibuster if you don't have the votes to sustain it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Rebecca_Remarks

(30 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jan-27-05 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #18

22. We have the Senators!

But we have more than 41 Senators. If our Senators had some backbone and truly represented us (as they're supposed to!) then they'd do everything possible to derail Bush, including filibustering every nominee from SCOTUS to cabinet to dog catcher.

Rebecca

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

loyalsister

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Jan-26-05 11:15 PM
Response to Original message

20. Say we had

Does anyone here honestly believe that Sushco would not have been able to find someone who was not 100% PNAC and on board with the crime family or what exactly?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Sat May 04th 2024, 10:28 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.