Very simply - the Rice vote was NOT about winning or losing

[DancingBear]

It was about taking a stand.

Period.

It was about saying "We know you lied, George, and we know Condi did as well."

It was about saying "We will not allow deceipt to go unpunished. We may not prevail here, but this is who we are, and this is what we believe."

The vote was unwinnable - given - but as far as I know democracy doesn't keep score. Rice is viewed throughout the world as the lead dog in the misbegotten hell we call the war on terror, and when her next set of lies cause another spate of terror attacks - and they will - how will those "aye" votes feel?

What is so hard to understand?

[Kerrytravelers]

1. I totally agree.

Any senator who voted for Condeleeza the Skeeza should really reconsider being a Democrat since obviously they support the Rethuglican death parade.

[Freddie Stubbs]

2. Bullshit

There are 45 Democrats in the Senate. Only 41 are needed to block a vote.

[DancingBear]

4. I am missing your point here

Are you saying I am incorrect in stating that it was not about winning or losing?

Could you elaborate please?

Thanks.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. It WAS a winnable situation

Democrats in the Senate had the numbers to block the vote.

[DancingBear]

13. Got 'cha

Thanks for the clarification - I am (in hindsight, of course) tending to agree with you. :)

[Just Me]

24. "Taking a stand" is DISTINCT from the objective of "winning".

MLK had that distinction very clearly in his mind when he "took a stand" for equality. He had NO expectations of "winning".

I sincerely do hope that we all conceive the difference between "taking a stand" and "winning" because,...if "winning" is the only stick by which we measure our worth,...we are gambling on nothing other than L-O-S-S and a very empty LOSS, at that.

[Freddie Stubbs]

39. Dr. King had clear objectives and won several battles

Remember the Montgomery Bus Boycott? That was a success.

[kentuck]

35. I don't think it was a vote that required 60 votes....??

I think she only required 51 votes to be appointed? I could be wrong....

[Freddie Stubbs]

40. 60 votes are required to end debate on any matter

[Generator]

28. Really? now as someone else said so nicely

I need to go vomit.

Why oh why has everyone else said it was a guarantee?

Oh I know why because out of 45 Democrats in the Senate there aren't 41 with a conscience or smart enough or with enough pride guts or understanding of their legacy(dumbass appeasers) in history.

One of most furious days ever since coming to DU.

I can't forgive.

Sorry-I hold Rice responsible for her failure during 9/11-that alone should gather a NO vote-even if the Iraq war never happened.

Hardcore bitch I am. I don't like people that do their job badly and lie about it. It really bugs me.

[Padraig18]

3. No, it was about not setting a bad precedent.

Be careful what you wish for, because you may get it. If we regain the WH in 2008, do you or do you not want OUR candidate to get the Cabinet he wants?

That's how simple it is.

[DancingBear]

6. Oh please

You think the clowns on the Repub side will say "gee, they gave us Rice, we'll give them x?"

They will attack God if we bring him up for a vote.

(Not tough enough on the war on terror, you know).

While it's a noble thought, it ain't happening. :)

[Padraig18]

9. I'll bet they do.

It's how the game is played in DC.

[DancingBear]

14. Not anymore, my friend

These bastards broke the rules years ago.

A while ago, someone here posted a quote to the effect of "they will not stop attacking until you are dead."

With today's Republican Party, THAT is how the game is played.

[BrklynLiberal]

21. Of course you are right...They are bitching and moaning about all

the Bush judicial nominations that have been blocked even though it is a minuscule percentage of Clinton's nominations that were blocked by the Republican Senate when he was President.
Never, never,never expect the Republicans to return a consideration in kind. They will stab you in the back at the first opportunity.
Always remember the story of the Scorpion and the Turtle. They are the Scorpion and will always remain one.

[AntiCoup2K4]

17. When we regain the WH in 2008....

...the President won't be appointing war criminals. Sure the Pukes will try to block nominees, but without justification for doing so, they'll look like the idiots they are.

3000 people died on 9-11-01 due to Condisleaza Rice's incompetency.

1400 or so Americans have died in Iraq because she helped construct a fictional case for a senseless war.

That's hardly comparable to Gingrich & Dole blocking a Surgeon General nominee who talked about whacking off.

[Hippo_Tron]

33. Except that half of America is drinking the kool-aid

Half of America belives that Rice was mis-informed, and that she is not at fault for 9/11 or her statements leading up to the Iraq War. We couldn't convince them before November 2nd and a fillibuster of Rice isn't going to change their minds now. The SAD truth is that only thing that will make them wake up is more of our troops returning home in body bags. We will look like idiots according to that half of the country that voted for Bush and the mainstream media will portray us that way. If we do fillibuster Rice then we have destroyed senatorial courtesy. If we don't, then we have a chance of salvaging the principal and demonize the Repukes when they try to demonize our cabinet appointments for dumb reasons when we confirmed their evil bitch.

Don't get me wrong, we need to fight and we need to fight hard. But I just think that this is a battle that we need to give up so that we can live to fight another.

[TayTay]

5. This war is an outrage, and now they want to invade Iran

These brave 13 Senators stood up and said no! Condi lied her ass off in committee and was determined not to take responsibility for the screwups in Iraq.

Millions and millions of Americans do not agree with what * and the Rethuglicans are doing around the world. I am so glad that these good Senators stood up and represented me and my opinions today. There is still hope. This can be the start of some genuine opposition to the horrible policies of this Admin.

[Goldeneye]

8. They should feel like Bush made a very big mistake.

There is nothing hard to understand about it. Democrats were doing what they saw as right. The majority of democrats voted to affirm. Why? Because they believe the president should get to choose his cabinet. I trust Feingold as much as any senator. He knows the rules as well as anyone and he voted to affirm.
I know Condi is a lying nightmare on wheels, and so do they, and so does Bush. But they also believe the president should be able to choose his cabinet. Lets face it, anyone Bush nominates is going to be bad. They did what they thought was right.

[Padraig18]

12. Bingo!

Well and succinctly put.

:)

[DancingBear]

16. Wait a minute

Now the raison d'etre for confirmation is because "the President should choose his cabinet?" A lying bastard should choose another lying bastard because he wants a kindred spirit, and we are supossed to say "well, she IS a lying bastard, and thousands are dead because of her, but if that's who Georgie wants..."

Christ, we are in worse shape than I thought.

[Goldeneye]

20. That's always been the reason.

Thousands are dead because of Goerge Bush. Condi was part of it, but Bush is a larger part. No matter who he chose, they were going to be bad, and they were probably going to get confirmed anyway...look at Gonzalez. I can't say that I didn't wish things were different. I think America can do better than Condi for SOS, and I think we could do better than Bush for prez.

[jonnyblitz]

27. yup.

:thumbsup:

[BrklynLiberal]

22. So, then what was the purpose of the Constitutional "Advise and Consent"

phrase? Why even bother with the confirmation hearings in that case? If it is all a given, just skip them.
You can be DAMN sure that the Republican s would not be so accomodating...EVER!!!!!

[Goldeneye]

23. Here is what Feingold

said in 2001 about some of Bush's nominees:

The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: ``Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that.'' This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

So Hamilton wrote in Federalist 76. Thus we honor Hamilton's cautionary warning, and we advance the public service, by avoiding partisanship in the confirmation process.

As a matter of practice, the Senate has, for the most part, limited its consideration of the President's Cabinet nominees to an inquiry into the nominees' fitness for office. The Senate must examine, and has examined, the qualifications of nominees. William Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, a work well known among the Founders, that ``ll offices . . . carry in the eye of the law an honour along with them; because they imply a superiority of . . . abilities, being supposed to be always filled with those that are most able to execute them.'' The Senate has thus nearly uniformly sought to test the ability of nominees to execute the office that they seek to occupy.

Mr. President, the second principle that I think should govern nominations is that the Senate owes the President substantial
deference in the selection of the Cabinet. The Constitution vests the appointment power primarily in the President. This choice of
the Founders, in turn, flows from the Constitution's imposing on the President the duty faithfully to execute the laws of our Nation.

more here
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/01/02/020101speech.html

[BrklynLiberal]

25. Sorry, I don't think Rice passes even this simple test.

She does not know the meaning of the word diplomacy...and the thought that SHE would be the face that represents us to the rest of the world, makes my skin crawl.

"The Senate has thus nearly uniformly sought to test the ability of nominees to execute the office that they seek to occupy."

[Goldeneye]

29. That is tough sell considering

almost everyone, including the "nays" said there was no doubt that she is qaulified. There beef with her is that she is a liar not that she isnt qaulified.

[MellowOne]

10. Problem is

Millions of Americans aren't even aware about what happened yesterday or today in the Senate. The news (no shock here) barely covered it.

[ladjf]

11. Simple as that.

[blm]

15. And it was about getting those lies into the HISTORIC RECORD.

.

[BrklynLiberal]

18. 100% right, a fact that 32 Democrats obviously did not understand.

Although I never expected Lieberman to get it.
I wrote notes to Clinton and Schumer demanding an explantion for their votes.
I want to know how they could have okayed the promotion of a person who allowed the murder of 3000 of their constituents on 9/11/2001, a woman who lied to their faces and to America about the reason to invade Iraq.
I want to see if either one of them has the nerve to respond to my note.

[Malva Zebrina]

19. Look

As people defending a Democratic agenda, we have been left with little to debate.

Should we try to point out the lies that Condi told, and point to the facts, we are left with the rebut that only thirteen Senators voted against her and the rest of the Democrats voted for her.

We are up against a wall, and have no argument. So no use anymore of pointing out the lies that propelled us into thus horrible slaughter, because the Democrats have given their approval of a person who fostered and who fed those lies. OK?

So, that is one more point with which we can no longet try to get anyone to see this slaughter, this fiasco called a war on terrorism is indeed a farce begun with lies and continues to be done with lies. We have been silenced by our own. And we did NOT do it--we who try to spread the word have been skunked by our own.

I dare anyone to try to approach a Bush supporter with facts about th e lies and I am willing to bet, you will be faced with the fact that only thirteen Democrats voted against her, while the majority did not.

We have been silenced, humiliated and embarrassed and we have no talking points any longer re the war and the lies that were told that took us there.

[Kerrytravelers]

30. My thoughts exactly.

With only 13 voting against one of the archetitcts (sp) of this attrocity, we have little to hang out hats on.

Thanks for nothing those who voted yea.

[robbedvoter]

26. Taking a stand is the ONLY THING Dems on the hill can do

They are completely powerless, so if they think they can trade anything they are deluded and dumb. The only power they posess (or not) is their conscience at this point.

[w4rma]

31. It shouldn't be "taking a stand" it should be about "drawing attention to

Rice's (and therefore the Republican leadership's) problems". Getting big media to focus on them for a little while.

Now, Gonzales is different. I think he can be beat. And I obviously think he SHOULD be beat.

[robbedvoter]

43. Taking a stand has this purpose: drawing attention to the lies/fraud etc

If it didn't have a purpose, well - it would be grandstanding, I guess.

[fooj]

32. I agree! I think that there's an article posted in Newsweek...

if memory serves me ---it's about losing the vote but considering it a big win for morality! I was so happy to see that maybe someone DID get it!

[kentuck]

34. And each one of the "aye" votes was a vote for continued war...

in Iraq. It wasn't about winning or losing a "vote". It was about something much more important.

[LibertyorDeath]

36. Well said

I wanted every single Dem to vote NO on this abomination of an appointment.

The message should have been loud & clear. This is your Secretary of State
**ush you imbecilic MF not ours.

[opihimoimoi]

37. "Ye shall know them by their BLUNDERS"

[CWebster]

38. Yes, that's all of it. nt

[infusionman]

41. They made more of a fuss about Condom...

being the 1st African American woman(which is great)being the Secretary of State, than anything else.

[CWebster]

42. In addition those who voted to confirm,

like those who voted to back drunken frat boy's big adventure, just tied their hands...again.


Are they going to claim they were misled again?

[robbedvoter]

45. Hillary will continue to say it's for my own good - "she had to protect

me"

[Ken065]

44. It was "purely symbolic"

according to CNN's deer-in-the-headlights White House reporter Dana Bash this morning. I've already emailed CNN--again--with the following:

"Please tell your reporters to stop editorializing the news! Dana Bash's statement this morning that the dissenting Democrats votes against Condoleeza Rice were "purely symbolic" is ridiculous. Is that how the White House told her to portray that vote? Did it occur to her or anyone else at CNN that Democrats voted that way out of conviction for the truth that was so lacking in her testimony? And how nice of CNN to give the administration the free air time for her first day of school at the State Dept."
:mad: