My Gonzales Prediction:

[cali]

35+ Senators will vote against him, and Duers will be outraged because they don't filibuster him. How will those who are outraged reconcile this stance with their lavish praise of those who voted against Rice?

[WI_DEM]

1. My prediction

Is that this thread will turn into a lovely bit of flame bait.

[txaslftist]

2. I think that's a safe bet...

I'm going with YOUR prediction.

[cali]

13. Aw, shucks

you got me. I was feeling a bit snippy when I started the thread.

[Walt Starr]

3. Actually, I would prefer no filibuster

save that for the judges.

[StClone]

4. Right on

The coal should be spared for the time when real heat is needed.

[spotbird]

5. I felt that way, but I've changed my mind.

All the judicial nominees are all going to be horrible, some more horrible than others, but the bottom line will be the same. Rehnquist will be replaced with a clone, or they may decide to give Thomas another vote, it won't matter.

A filibuster of an Attorney General nominee would be historic. Even the pathetic MSM couldn't ignore it, or only play the Republican sound bites, the Democrats reasons would have to be given. Our sound bite should be be simple, Democrats oppose torture.

That said, we won't filibuster the judicial candidates or Gonzales because we don't have the votes. It's all a dream.

[Walt Starr]

9. A filibuster of any cabinet nomination invites the nuclear option

and it would only stick in a cabinet nomination.

[spotbird]

12. They're going nuclear anyway.

There is no stopping it, we may as well go out with a bang, this will get attention. Some judge won't get attention and they'll pull the filibuster right on a Friday at 9:00.

We may not have the votes to filibuster anyway.

[keithjx]

6. In many ways I agree.

My thinking is this, though it may be shortsighted. Let's give these guys a little rope to hang themselves. Put up the numbers to show a legitimate resistance, but let Shrub have his cabinet and watch the ruination that follows. (This is a bit of cutting off our nose to spite our face, I know.) But judges will be around after BushCo. has fallen. Those are the ones we need to be careful on.
KJ

[Disturbed]

8. I don't understand...

why a majority of Dem no votes on Gonzales would be harmful?

[Walt Starr]

10. Right, if there is no filibuster, but 44 Dems unanimously vote against

confirmation, every last one of the Democrats can openly condemn the actions of Gonzales and openly discredit his proposals.

[spotbird]

14. Salazar is going to vote for the nomination.

I think I read it somewhere.

If we had the votes blocking this nominee would be best for the country over all. Gonzales will abuse the office and have no independence, none.

[DoYouEverWonder]

7. Gonzalez is a war criminal and a torturer

anyone who votes for this pond scum will never get my vote again.

[jjtss]

11. Ditto

[BlueInRed]

15. I'd be pretty happy with 35+ votes

against him, even if they don't go for the filibuster. At a minimum, he should be put on notice he's being watched carefully.

On filibuster, I'm torn. I see both sides. I always come back to what would the Rs have done in an identical situation. I tend to think the Rs wouldn't hesitate to both vote against him and filibuster if the situation was reversed.

I don't know why it's okay for Rs to go nuclear on Ds for the past decade, but not okay when Ds stand their ground against the Rs. That is my frustration. I'd like to see the Ds be at least as strong as the Rs were when they were in the minority in the Senate over the past decade or so, whatever that means. JIMO.

[saltpoint]

16. With respect, Cali, you ask the wrong question.

DUers may respond however they wish and I don't see that they have to justify their reactions to a given news event. As for a given U.S. Senator, he or she answers to constituents before bothering with this website, is my guess.

A broader question might be why a U.S. president would nominate a man with Hispanic heritage who nevertheless recommended that portions of the Geneva Convention be ignored, and in so nominating, that this U.S. president knew the penalty for opposing a "minority" nominee would damage the political prospects of the loyal opposition.

I would like to see Republican party officials answer this question, and I would ask why you are setting the stink pot at our doorstep when the transgression is the GOP's.