Before we kill each other over Gonzalez, take a look at the big picture

[John_H]

Alberto Gonzalez is going to be AG no matter what. Every Dem senator votes against him, he's in. Filibuster, he's in. Not only is going all in to stop him futile it would enable the right wing agenda for decades to come.

Since there are not enough dems to beat him on the floor we can only filibuster. If that happens Cheney WILL make a ruling from the president's dais that the filibuster violates the senate's constitutional duty to vote on matters before it. This ruling is subject to a simple majority vote, at which point it will pass easily. Once it's gone, it ain't coming back until Dem's retake the senate.

Gonzalez will be confirmed, and people will post on DU how brave our senators are, how giddy it makes them feel. Then, at some point--days, weeks, a year, who knows?--A supreme court justice will retire or die. Then what? Sew the stripes on the robe, folks,'cause he's in. Oops. There go the big smiles.

Couldn't cheney issue the same ruling during a supreme court filibuster? Only theoretically, not in the world we live in. Americans tend to think the president should pick his own cabinet, and that gives the rethugs the cover and bravado to do it. The supreme court is a different matter. I'd bet 1000 bucks the votes wouldn't be there if he tries to kill the filibuster over a supreme court pick. Many whores and more than a few GOP senators will not go there.

Aleberto may be a torturer, but he's a torturer who's going to be gone in four years tops, a torturer who's still bound by Judaical rulings and congressional oversight. A supreme court justice--maybe even Gonzalez himself--is in for life, is subject to no congressional oversight and no judicial rulings save the ones he helps make.

I know there is a great big hunk of instant ideological gratification dangling right in front of us, and I'm as tempted as you are to take a big ol' bite. If you can't resist, if you want to feel groovy 'cause your senator voted "the right way?" knock yourself out. But this anti-war, anti right wing dem is going to save his ammo for a the battle that will significantly influence the kind of country my kids will live in.

Note: this is NOT to say that any dem should vote yes.

[cali]

1. I think your analysis is pretty good

though I admit to a strong desire to see Gonzales filibustered. I did hear Leahy say that if they go nuclear, all legislative business will be stalled because the dems will withold unanimous consent. I don't know how that works, but it sounds encouraging.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. excellent in fact

airtight, and the Dems know it. Save the big cannon for the justices.

[borg5575]

22. I agree with you mostly

I agree with you mostly, however, I am still afraid that they will be able to get some fairly conservative justices on the Supreme Court. We have some brave Democratic senators like my hero Senator Boxer, but we also have some cowards in the Democratic caucus such as the other senator from California, and I think these short sighted so-called "moderate" Democrats will help Bush put a right winger on the court.

Mind you, I hope it won't happen but I think there's a good chance it might.

[Bjornsdotter]

2. Well gee...why even show up

Sorry....I AM proud that Durbin voted "NO" in committee yesterday.

Sometimes it really is the principle, even if you don't receive the desired outcome.

Cheers,
Kim

[atreides1]

You're an Optimist

What you fail to realize is what he can do with the 4 years he will have in office. We already know that according to Alberto, it's not really torture unless there's organ failure.

Think what the federal and local law enforcement agencies can do as long as the AG signs off on it.

Don't count too much on Judicial rulings, the SCOTUS just ruled that the police can have a drug dog go through your car without any provacation, as for Congressional oversight, you seem to have forgotten which party controls the Congress.

Dems have been calling for investigations into several things, and the Rethugs have been blocking them.

The longer you wait for the "right" battle, the better the chance that your kids will be living a Republican world. But you go ahead and wait, it's exactly what the German Jews did when Hitler came to power, and we all know how great life turned out for them, don't we?

[Walt Starr]

3. I'd like to see 44 Democrats and 1 Independent vote against

That makes the statement and reserves the issue for a later time.

The Republicans are ITCHING for a filibuster on a cabinet nominee, but they don't want one on a justice.

[Just Me]

11. With the Hispanic Caucus out, does that take away majority guarantee?

How many Hispanics are (r) Senators?

The Republican majority is pretty slim.

Is there a possibility that Gonzales can be disapproved?

[RuleofLaw]

4. Why would a vote against Gonzales mean a vote for

any Judge, Bush appoints?

I don't get the argument that its either or.

Do you only get so many objections in the US Senate?

[Pepperbelly]

23. they might be able to get away with the nuclear option on a cabinet ...

spot but not on an SC justice. One is a 4 year affliction, the other a lifetime affliction. Let the bust the cherry on the nuclear option on a cabinet position and there it is, a fait accompli and easier the second time around, when Darth Vader Rhenquist retires.

[w4rma]

5. Use it or lose it.

If you never use the filibuster, then haven't you already lost it?

[KissMeKate]

6. another "shut up and sit down when they sell out " message.

Sorry, Im going to hold my elected officials accountable.

Your overblown "kill each other" rhetoric is just as divisive as anything else.

[John_H]

13. Another rove enabling post.

We all sit down and shut up for the next few years if they kill the filibuster.

[dmkinsey]

7. Use an analogy to a football game

If we have the ball and it's 4th and 1.
We should go for it! Everybody wants to go for it. But look, the ball is on our own 10 yard line. If we don't make it we're screwed, the other team will have the ball and they'll ram it down our throat.

My point is that in football the coach has to make strategic decisions. The popular play is "go for it" but that's not the smart play.

Strategy and realism. We'll never see 41 Senators support a filibuster and if we call this play it'll weaken us when the time comes to use this play.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The way NOT to build a movement is to play politics.

The politicians only reflect the will of the people. If they continue to cave in, the people inevitably give up and grow apathetic. The civil rights movement, anti-war movement, the labor movement, the women's rights movement, didn't start with politicians.

We must keep the pressure on the politicians, not give them a free ride, when they don't reflect our values. The few (very few) politicians who look beyond the polls and do the right thing, should be applauded. The ones who waver, who tremble, who sell out, should be ousted and replaced.

The idea that they should "wait for the big fight" is naive, at best. Politicians are primarily concerned with the next election and will vote whatever way they think will garner the most votes. If we give them a pass when they should fight, they won't fight next time.

Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice are worth fighting against. To do less is to become a collaborator in what they will do.

[NV Whino]

9. You make some valid points...

However, it is time for the Democrats to stand up and fight and fight against everything that this misadministration has crammed down our throats. They didn't pick and choose their fights. They hit on all sides at once, from the environment to Roe vs Wade to SS to taxes to Iraq and more. If they can attack on all sides, levels and issues, we must fight on all sides, levels and issues.

[ElectroPrincess]

12. Hello? This guy advocates torture and places the Bush Administration

ABOVE the LAW. If *ever* there was a time to fight and fight like there's no tomorrow, it's NOW!!!

If we let Gonzales become confirmed, our military will be forced to bomb and invade around the world ... spreading death and destruction in the guise of "freedom on the march."

It's truly NOW or NEVER.

[Vinnie From Indy]

14. Some Thoughts

As to the matter of "killing ourselves", I have not read ANY posts advocating a vote for Gonzalez on DU and only a few regarding not using the filibuster on this particular nominee. I am astonished at the number of posts that throw up a straw man argument and then proceed to attack it.

Aleberto may be a torturer, but he's a torturer who's going to be gone in four years tops, a torturer who's still bound by Judaical rulings and congressional oversight

Not to be too melodramatic, but this sentiment has preceded every dictator's grab for power in every country since the beginning of time. You can be certain that this poster's exact sentiments were uttered by intellectuals in Germany in the early thirties and look where that got them.


I know there is a great big hunk of instant ideological gratification dangling right in front of us, and I'm as tempted as you are to take a big ol' bite. If you can't resist, if you want to feel groovy 'cause your senator voted "the right way?" knock yourself out. But this anti-war, anti right wing Dem is going to save his ammo for a the battle that will significantly influence the kind of country my kids will live in.

I applaud the passion in your post and I always like feeling groovy, but I am a bit curious as to how bad it has to get before the ammo is worth using? Trust me, having an Attorney General of the United States, who to this day refuses to disavow the use of torture as understood by the civilized world, will influence greatly the world in which your children are growing. The Democrats MUST be an OPPOSITION party and that entails opposing things - especially important things. I will agree that there are calculations to be made in regard to using what little power Dem's have left, but I think something dramatic has to be done by the Dem's politically to oppose Gonzalez. It is that important.

[rodeodance]

16. a fillibuster would keep the Iraq war in the forefront--which would be

"a good ting"

[ElectroPrincess]

17. Hey Vinny, I guess you didn't get the memo ... they ARE above the law

What part of Bush Co. owns the three branches of government and what used to be considered The Fourth Estate do you NOT understand?

We have nothing to lose, and just perhaps the start of a movement if we try like hell NOW, not later, NOW!

[Just Me]

18. He also implied that his boss could ignore/change/break our laws.

It was one of the most stunning statements he made during his hearing,...when he equivocated on a direct question concerning whether he believed the pResident could breach our laws and finally stated that he was certain that there are circumstances where the pResident could do so.

None of us could possibly ignore the danger of this individual as a USAG.

[Vinca]

15. You're suggesting we sit down and shut up?

No way in hell. If the Republicans vote him in they're endorsing a war criminal. We need to remind them - and the American people - of that on a daily basis.

[Disturbed]

19. Why would a Dem majority of no votes..

on Gonzales be harmful?

[Vinca]

21. ?????

The implication of the original post is that we shouldn't waste our breath kvetching about the Gonzales appointment because it's going to happen one way or another. Of course Democrats should vote "no" and that is a good thing. The bad thing is we have 4 years of dealing with a man who approves of torture and I'm not about to keep my mouth shut about it.

[moggie12]

20. Thank you -- that's a well-reasoned analysis n/t

[gottaB]

24. Bound by judicial rulings and congressional oversight?

You must have missed the hearings. It's not about ideological satisfaction. It's about being bound by judicial rulings. It's about congressional oversight.

Here are some statements from yesterday's hearing.

• http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=1357&wit_id=2629
  
  
• http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=1357&wit_id=1012
  
  
• http://judiciary.senate.gov/member_statement.cfm?id=1357&wit_id=85
  

Feingold's opposition to Gonzales is, he tells us, not motivated by ideology. And he has a voting record that would lend credence to his claim. The man is hardly a fool, much less a Rove-enabling fool.

Are you saying that this position is fine to take so long as its meaning is purely symbolic, but as soon as one has to fight to defend it, forget about it?

We have every reason to believe that the opposition to Gonzales is more principled than symbolic. If these Senators mean what they say about Gonzales, as I believe they do, they should oppose him, loud and clear. They should not pre-emptively rule out any course of action, not cede any powers nor shirk any responsibilities that belong to Senators.

In fact it's the Republicans who are being divisive. If they escalate, the Dems should stand their ground and fight back. On this issue they have right and decency on their side, and the public will back them up. This is not like blocking a Justice Brown or a Justice Pickering from the bench. The public can immediately see what's at stake in the Gonzales confirmation. It can be condensed into a few simple words: Torture is wrong. Nobody is above the law. We all know what those slogans mean in this case. We know what happened at Abu Ghraib, and we know that it is pretty far from all right.


On that note, I commend to the wishywashy brigades the editorial from Wednesday's Washington Post: A Degrading Policy.

[Vinnie From Indy]

25. I agree completely! Well Stated! n/t

[Pepperbelly]

26. Do you remember Henry Hyde's infamous "The flag is falling" speech ...

during the impeachment proceedings in the House?

The rule of law bows to no man. The flag is falling because no man is above the law. Catch the flag, the overbearing, pompous old bag of shit exclaimed.

Fuck him and the rest of the gop skanks and reptiles who slink and slither through the halls of Congress.

[gottaB]

28. I hadn't remembered, but just read it from thomas

That was a lot of rhetoric to heap upon a blowjob. If the Republicans meant even one scintilleth of an iota of it, they will oppose Gonzales. Hark. What sound rises from the sometimes champions of the rule of law? What lion's brool?

Crickets.

Here's a voice the Republicans would do well to heed:
http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1088

[DistressedAmerican]

27. If they can "drop the bomb" over this and end the filibuster forever,

why the hell won't they do it next time. I think the so called "nuclear option" is just another bullshit scare tactic and I won't fall for it. We must stop being intimidated by their threats.

From your post I assume you are willing to risk the nukes over a justice. Please explain to me how that would be different. Would it not also theoretically consign the filibuster to the dustbin of history?

The only difference I see is that Gonzales will be well entrenched in the Justice department with your help and the help of those legislators that agree with you when it finally comes to the showdown.

This logic only forestalls what seems to be an eventuality. Make the stand now. I do not see how this argument changes our need to face that fire eventually. Why not now?

Please, please answer that for me. Your logic fails me. It sounds good on the surface but, it is based on a falacy.

[DistressedAmerican]

30. John_H AreYou There?

Is anyone that agrees with this argument ready stand up and answer this for me?

[depakid]

29. What would the Republicans do if the situation were reversed?

Would they give up? Gonzales only gets in if the Dems give up.

And if the Dems give up this time, they might as well just give up on huis eventual noiminaion to the Supreme Court. I don't see how if you confirm him for AG, you can't confirm him to the high court.

[Disturbed]

31. Any Dem in Congress that votes for Gonzales...

does not deserve another term, period!

[sampsonblk]

32. The situation HAS been reversed

When Dems were in power and Repubs were in the minority, they fought tooth and nail to win, and they used a focused & sustained media effort to do it. They took their views directly to the voters in raw form, and they are now in power.

[adigal]

33. I agree

that we should not fillibuster Torture Boy. BUT, no dems should vote for him, in my humble opinion. Torture Boy should be a straight party vote - the party of Torture -vs- the party of Habeus Corpus. Plain and simple.