Rather than penalize the senators that voted to confirm Rice,

[geniph]

let's praise the 13 who defied tradition to vote against confirmation. For one thing, I think positive reinforcement works better than negative, but the major point here is that the symbolic protest vote of those 13 has great significance. Almost every President gets the cabinet he chooses without much fuss or bother. It's become routine. To buck that tradition at all is a very big deal.

Every Senator did not have to join the symbolic protest. The ones who didn't aren't somehow ideologically compromised; it only really needed one to register that there was opposition. 13 is a historically significant opposition.

Let's give accolades to those 13, who will be carrying the flag of our ideals through their filibusters and more protest votes. If the other Senators see that this kind of thing wins them widespread support, others will join them. Remember, Boxer was alone on the Ohio protest vote. A dozen more have joined her on this one. The next vote will have still more. Let's let them see that we will support them, we will back them up when they register this kind of opposition.

Bravo to the 13!

[Cha]

1. I was thinking along these lines, too,

geniph..thanks for articulating it!

[wryter2000]

2. Good point

Thanks.

[Zhade]

3. They're probably deaf to anger by now anyway.

I mean, so many of them have betrayed their constituents so often that they don't even hear the anger.

I agree in part: praise those who consistently do the right thing with words and financial support, ignore or work to replace the others on a case-by-case basis.

[geniph]

6. Right, Zhade...

the ones who really are DINOs will count on getting support from the dark side, but the ones who are still reasonable folks will pay attention when the praise and donations and volunteers go to those who stand up for their ideals.

It makes more of an impact to praise the 13 to the skies and support their actions.

[Ruby Romaine]

4. good point- the other dems are afraid they won't get their share of pork.

at least a few w/a backbone is a start.

[sophie996]

5. absolutely!

[MadisonRush]

7. Can someone tell me who the other 11 are?

I know that Kennedy was one. Was Kucinich in there anywhere?

[KC21304]

10. Kucinich is not a Senator. He's a Representative. nt

[MsAnthropy]

8. Here's the link to the roll call

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-4757760,00.html

[LeftHander]

9. Coordinated pacification of liberal opposition

Drink the cool-aid people....

the Democrats negortiated this whole thing with GOP....let a few raise thier voice but the GOP marches on....

wake up and smell the deception

[geniph]

12. That seems an extreme overreaction to me

It's going to be a hell of a long four years if we fight them on every single solitary one. We were never going to win this one anyway.

What you have to remember is this has actually got quite a bit of historical significance as a protest vote. Almost every President gets his whole cabinet slate without much botheration. It's exceedingly rare to have any organized opposition at all. Usually the only basis for a challenge is if a nominee can be shown to have violated the law. Any vote against a Cabinet appointee is significant; the fact that it was 13 is hugely significant. it's purely symbolic, of course, there was never any question there weren't enough votes in opposition to prevent her confirmation. However, it sets a precedent, and hopefully not a dangerous one. We don't want every Cabinet nominee for the next Democratic President getting Bork'ed, so this kind of symbolism needs to be used cautiously.

We have to pick our battles. Hopefully, we'll pick ones we can WIN and use this kind of protest vote for really offensive candidates like Rice.

[sweetheart]

22. " Usually the only basis for a challenge is if a nominee can be shown to."

...have violated the law." Well... hmmm. it seems we have a match.
This (pardon the word) bitch needs to go down, she's guilty of war
crimes, crimes against the humanity, high crimes and treason.. .and
she should have her neck stretched at the gallows.... but i accept that
she is the choice of other war criminals and the supporters of war
criminals... so we must accept the domination of the brown shirts.

Good that protest vote... even better if we can win a battle... as
this is just fluff compared with the coming supreme court challenges.

[ktowntennesseedem]

11. As angry as I am at the "yeas" I agree with you.

I've got far too little time and energy to waste on those who voted to confirm. I know they've got different reasons, but I don't want to hear it right now. I'll just turn my back, shake the dust off my feet, and give credit where credit is due. Kudos to the 13!

[huskerlaw]

13. I'm sorry, I don't agree

is asking them to participate in a symbolic protest too much to ask? If we can't count on them to stand up and say "You know what? Someone who has lied repeatedly about matters which caused us to go to war should not be promoted." ?

Rice's actions, lies, mistatements, falsifications, incompentence, etc. have led to the deaths of well over 1000 US soldiers and countless hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. She should not be promoted, she should be in jail. Asking our senators to stand up and say so is hardly asking very much of them.

I do not advocate the Democrats making a symbolic gesture out of every single vote, but seriously, if this wasn't important enough, what is? Each of the Senators that voted for her sent a message to the rest of the world. And that message was "Yes, we know she's a liar. We know this war is being fought for absolutely no purpose and based on a mixture of incompetence and lies, for which Rice is directly responsible. But we don't care. Our votes wouldn't stop her confirmation anyway, and frankly, I couldn't spare the political capital." I'm sorry, not goood enough. Not even close.

As for those 13 Senators that DID stand up and say no, by all means thank them profusely. They did the right thing, and should be commended for doing so.

edited to rephrase a sentence

[geniph]

18. It would have been nice if they'd all joined, yes

but remember, the Senate's role is "advise and consent" to Cabinet nominees. If we start obstructing them en masse, it will come back to bite us in the end, next time we have a Democratic President (which I hope will be in 2008).

The 13 did it beautifully. They made their point, but cannot be accused of being obstructionist. It was a very well done protest vote.

[huskerlaw]

29. I do see your point

but to me, this particular instance would not have been a case of "obstructing en masse" this was the nomination of a Secretary of Defense. To me, that's important enough to stick our necks out. It's right up there with blocking Supreme Court nominees...and the next Attorney General as well.

[Withywindle]

14. Exactly, thank you!

POSITIVE reinforcement does work far, far better.

For one reason, everyone who works in a field that generates a lot of hate mail (I've been a rock critic) learns to tune it out VERY quickly. You're always going to be getting it, from all sectors, and it'll paralyze you if you don't desensitize yourself. I can only imagine what it's like for a politician. That doesn't mean you close off to constructive criticism--you just harden up your shell and get your shoulders well-muscled from shrugging. Especially if you're in the minority party; your opponents are always going to be the ones reaming you harder.

For another, thank-you letters are much rarer. They stand out. It's human nature that more people are motivated to write in anger than in gratitude or appreciation. So a thank-you carries much greater weight; it cuts through the signal-to-noise ratio.

[Not_Giving_Up]

15. I already have

I sent thank you e-mails, and filled web forms with praise for all thirteen who voted against the liar.

[Disturbed]

16. "We know this war is being fought for absolutely no purpose."

"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."
Condoleeza Rice, April 2001

Here are the purposes for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq by the U.S. and Britain.

Why was Iraq invaded?

1) Iraq being cleared of WMD by the UNMOVIC/UNSCOM meant Desert Storm (when Saddam went off the reservation) was over and sanctions had to be lifted.

2) Iraq had European contracts for their oil.

3) Iraq was going to trade the oil in Euros not petrodollars.

"Remember, Bush/Saud are the same thing. BDM/Vinnel (Carlyle at the time) arm, train, equip man what keeps Saud in power. Saudi crude funds the whole Bush/Saud crew. Iraq suddenly free again to sell its oil, and in Euros not only screws Bush/Saud, but would cripple the US economy along multiple fracture lines.

First and obviously, having the 2nd largest oil reserve of accessible crude come onto the market will drive the value of Saudi crude into the basement. That Iraq would end run the rest of OPEC to make up for a decade of being starved would scatter the cartel members into the winds to fend for themselves. So what is better, to let Iraq crude take out your own operation at the knees or take it over and roll it into the same portfolio.

Second, because Iraq was gonna devalue your own assets in the first place, doing so outside our traditional partner firms and with European (French, Russian, German) firms visions of Chinnese orders means you are not getting a swing at that crude even in the rest of the chain.

Third, and most critical (and actually more "forgivable" in a strange circumpolar way) is that trading in Euros not petrodollars collapse our capital market funding of our debt and deficits, both Governmental budget and general economic. If China (as its demand for oil goes through the roof in the next 10 years) starts trading with Iraq, and the Euro becomes the currency for oil (not to mention it is already on the edge of surpassing the dollar for capital markets anyway base don value as it is) suddenly China has no need to continue to buy our debt. It would get more of a return in Euros, plus it buys oil form Iraq in Euros."
Christian Parenti

[slipslidingaway]

17. Praise is important and if your Senators were

split as mine were they both should here from you.

Here is the Senate list of votes.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00002


When I signed Senator Boxer's petition I did not donate to her fund, but I will tonight after hearing the media.

[JohnnyCougar]

19. You are right. Positive renforcement works better than punishment.

Punishment is very different from negative reinforcement, though. Negative reinforcement still encourages the behavior. It consists of taking away something that is painful, such as if you gave someone a painkiller.

Punishment is meant to stop a behavior. Punishment rarely works as a behavior modifier, except in extreme cases.

Sorry to nitpick, but I am in Psychology. ;)

[journalist3072]

20. Sorry, but I totally disagree.

Any Senator who voted for Condoleeza Rice essentially rewarded incompetence, just like Bush does.

The evidence is overwhelming that Condoleeza Rice has lied, that she did not understand or do her job as National Security Adviser, and that she's not qualiified to be SOS.

The United States Senate has the responsibility for advise and consent. They are NOT there to be a rubber stamp on Bush's nominees if those nominees are not qualified.

[Johnyawl]

23. Advise and consent

The Senate Dems did just that. They advised the country that Bush's pick was an incompetent moron, and then they consented to Bush's choice.

The Senate has, for over two hundred years "rubber stamped" the Presidential cabinet picks. And the next time we have a Democratic President we're going to expect the Senate - regardless of who has the majority - to do just that.

[journalist3072]

27. LOL!!!

You know, that's sad, but true.

However, I don't even want the Senate to rubber stamp a Democratic President's nominees.

If a Democratic President nominated a liar and an incompetent dork, I would expect the Senate to do the right thing and oppose that nomination.

[Tigress DEM]

35. Condi does supposedly have qualifications..... but.....

her inability to understand how terrible the things Bush asked her to do and/or if she understood it beforehand, her complicity with his awful plans and lies override her other accomplishments.

[Johnyawl]

21. let him have his morons and yes men...

...Geni's right, we have too many potential fights during this session of congress, fights that the Dems will HAVE to be obstructionist about, to go to the mat on this one. Besides, the Dems pushed hard on this, they made Condi defend her record on Iraq. They made sure that Rice, and Bush, are linked in the publics mind with the failed policies in Iraq. And those failures are becoming more and more undeniable. She has been forever smeared with it. And her pathetic defense of it.

[OneBlueSky]

24. my two senators . . . Ms. Clinton and Mr. Schumer . . . will hear from me

in no uncertain terms . . . if they have opposition in the next primary, I'll support their opponents . . . if they are the nominees (probably a certainty), I will likely vote for a third party candidate . . . when the choice is between Republican and Republican lite, I don't much care who wins . . .

[Tigress DEM]

36. Good that you will write, but curious....

Why does it have to be so flat out ... I'm going to vote for their opposition? You might get someone worse because you'll be voting for an unknown. Push ahead to the next important issue and remind them that a "real Democrat" would....

I sent an email to Edward Kennedy, doubt if he got it, but I asked why Boxer was the only Senator with cajhones? Next day, he and 7 other DEMS cast a strong Nay for Gonzales - worse than Condi by far.
Probably just coincidence, but I think they are finally understanding how strongly we feel about these issues.

[KissMeKate]

25. yes, never hold them accountable for their actions!

they only represent us, after all.

[Tigress DEM]

34. How about accountable for both good and bad deeds?

Why ignore any progress they make and then expect them to jump when all we do is complain that they don't do better?

Would you be able to do a good job in that kind of environment?

[geniph]

26. I say let him have his fucked-up Cabinet

The country as a whole was informed of Bush's lies, Rice's lies, Rumsfeld's lies, and still 51% of the people in this country voted to let him continue to fuck things up. I say fine. The worse they perform, the better a chance we have of destroying them.

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, there have been few Cabinet officials so horrific as the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General, and there was virtually NO opposition to him. The fact that there's spirited opposition to Rice is wonderful progress, in my book.

The more we encourage the Senators to take principled stands, the more Senators will join them. If we yell and scream and say we won't vote for the others any more, why would they want to ever bother listening to us on anything else in the future?

[Baconfoot]

28. Is it penalizing them if I refuse to pound pavement in '08 for Dem YEAs???

Because I won't do it. It demonstrates poor judgment at best, lack of a sense of duty to the well-being of the nation at...well I was going to say "worst" but I suppose there are worse things the vote could demonstrate.

[eridani]

30. Accolades?? Hell, give them MONEY!

I have a suggestion. It is really important to reward legislators that display backbones. I am sending $5 to each, with an extra $5 to Boxer and Dayton for being particularly eloquent. If enough of us do this for critical votes, and say why, they might get the idea that displays of resistance to the Bush agenda pay off. I’m also sending letters to Cantwell and Murray telling them what I did.

[earth mom]

31. We all need to say Thank You to the Senators!

Remember how Boxer said that she felt stronger knowing that we were all behind her? Well, these other senators need to know that too! And it will counter the nasty emails they have no doubt received from the rethugs!

[Tigress DEM]

33. Started my emails yesterday....

Asked Edward Kennedy why it was only Senator that had any cajhones was Boxer?

But I did thank him for opposition statement on Gonzales and his general track record of putting people first.

[Tigress DEM]

32. 8 of 8 DEMs gave thumbs down to Gonzales

10 repubs on the Judicial Committee pushed him through.

[loyalsister]

37. I agree

In the reality of politics, they were not at that hearing AS the opposition party. No matter how badly people here want that it is just not the case. There has been no massive outcry to avoid confirming her.
They were basically conducting ordinary mundane business as opposed to lining up against an agenda. The question I have for the outraged is-- Do you honestly think there was a preferable (as in one who would oppose Bush's agenda, etc) candidate for this position that would have been confirmed?
There was no room for improvement here. Why waste time?