Salazar Deeply Conflicted on Gonzales

[housewolf]

From DailyKos

Freshman Salazar Deeply Conflicted Over Attorney General


<snip>


In the weeks leading up to Thursday's vote on the nomination of Alberto R. Gonzales to be attorney general, freshman Sen. Ken Salazar was squeezed on all sides.

The Colorado Democrat was under pressure to stand with colleagues in his party, many of whom spoke out passionately against the nomination. At the same time, Salazar had to be mindful of the wishes of his mostly conservative constituents -- and his loyalty to another Hispanic.

Ultimately, after weighing those competing interests, Salazar joined just five of his Democratic colleagues in voting for Gonzales....

<snip>

Even as Salazar recorded his support, he took pains to assure Senate Democrats that he was not abandoning them. In a floor speech Thursday, Salazar defended Democrats who opposed the nominee, saying they were exercising their constitutional duty.

<snip>

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/2/4/04029/21602

[Skittles]

1. what the F*** is there to be CONFLICTED ABOUT?

do you SUPPORT TORTURE or do you NOT SUPPORT TORTURE ????????????

[MADem]

2. It's all very well to be PROUD of one's ethnic heritage

...but voting for someone solely because they are a homey is just STUPID. Especially someone with AG's record.

[Skittles]

3. it's like being conflicted turning your brother in

when you know he's a serial killer. HELLO.

[blondeatlast]

37. Precisely. You may be confliicted, but there are some things people of

moral courage rise above.

I don't doubt he was conflicted, but true courage means you do the most moral thing.

Salazar's a coward.

[BikeWriter]

32. Freakin' A right!

[cornermouse]

4. He wasn't conflicted as much as he should have been.

[hlthe2b]

6. He thinks he can have it both ways...

We've elected another fence-sitting Dem, I'm afraid...

[KarenS]

9. He's definately NOT on the fence,,,,,

He fell off & landed on the Right !!!

He is sooooo on my Sh*t List.

Just sign me, another voter duped by Salazar.

[CWebster]

5. Trying to cover his ass, huh...nt

[gottaB]

17. he was in full cya mode yesterday

it was sad

[otohara]

55. Looks Like He's Going To Explain Every GOP

vote he goes along with. When he supported Condi, same pathetic "conflicted" excuse.

[burythehatchet]

7. How to extinguish the hopes of the people who elected you

in one easy step.

[last1standing]

8. So he is worried about his most conservative constituents?

The ones who didn't vote for him? The ones who will be working to get his opponent into office in six years?

Then he felt he should vote for this monster strictly because of his race?

This makes Salazar a right wing racist. He will be jumping ship soon, my friends. He has no place in this party anyway.

[Supersedeas]

58. He could have been more clear about why he would/should hesitate

[Pepperbelly]

10. Geez .... I don't think I'd want any of you guys on my jury ...

talk about not giving a guy the benefit of the doubt. There is absolutely no way for any of you to discern Salazar's motives in voting the way he did. I certainly can't. And in the absence of knowing, I do not think it appropriate to assign motivation when we in fact, do not know.

[marcologico]

11. I'd agree. Hard to know what's really going on.

Could be he's got other promises to keep, like funding for a local project that could get cut by the uber-vindictive GOP.

It already happened to Boxer.

[punpirate]

12. There is, still and finally,...

... his vote. That is what counts, not his motivations. He voted for someone who is widely discerned to be an enabler of torture, something which is a violation of national and international law, and who was being considered for, most ironically, confirmation to the job of the nation's top law enforcement official.

His motivations don't count. His vote does. Salazar's vote excused Gonzales' behavior and his actions, some of which may contribute to soldiers' difficulties in Iraq.

If Salazar put his personal feelings or his notions of ethnic solidarity above that more basic and essential ethical consideration of Gonzales' fitness for the job, then he, too, is an enabler of law-breaking. That is a violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.

[Pepperbelly]

14. I would use a preemptory challenge on you.

:D

[dvaravati]

13. actually it is pretty simple

Salazar voted on race only.
There is no other possible reason, none.

[Pepperbelly]

15. premptory challenge ... can't use you on the jury.

:D

[punpirate]

23. First, the Senate is not a jury...

... and the issue of Gonzales' complicity in the executive decisions to engage in violation of law is based on the prima facie evidence of his own memos over his own signature, the identity and character of which are known. Further, Gonzales refused to supply those documents to the Senate (which is entitled to demand them under both its Constitutional requirements of executive oversight and of its mandate of advice and consent).

Salazar had the opportunity to reject an odious executive policy embodied in a man appearing before the Senate. He chose not to do so. The ramifications of that are greater than your erroneous assumption that the Senate should operate on the same rules as does a jury of one's peers.

For the record, as of today, Gonzales has been formally added to a criminal complaint of war crimes in Germany. The Senate was not deciding his guilt of war crimes, but rather his suitability for the job of top cop of the nation. Someone who advises his administration to evade the law is not suitable for that job.

His criminality can be judged by others. His suitability for the job of Attorney General should have been more carefully considered by the members of the Senate, including Salazar.

Cheers.

[Pepperbelly]

26. loss of sense of humor is the first sympton of ...

Galloping Buzzkill.

[punpirate]

27. Yes, probably...

... and I admit that loss. I do hope you will retain your sense of humor after four years of Mr. Gonzales as Attorney General.

Cheers.

[Pepperbelly]

28. me, too... nt

[gottaB]

18. How many preemptory challenges do you get?

I judge Salazar by his statements on the Senate floor and the vote that he cast. I judge him harshly.

[Pepperbelly]

21. I don't know ... a dozen maybe? nt

[last1standing]

22. Then let's judge his actions. HE VOTED FOR TORTURE!

And I did mean to scream. He voted for a man who's actions led to the torture and rape of innocent people and has put all of us, not just our troops, in danger.

Why he did this makes no difference. Whether he voted for the bastard because of his skin color or because of a gun to his head, he is still despicable.

Does that help?

[Pepperbelly]

24. wasn't looking for help ...

so why would that help and what would it help?

[last1standing]

34. I thought you wanted a real conversation not silly responses.

I won't make that mistake again.

[Skittles]

53. Gonzales = TORTURE

that is ALL I NEED TO KNOW

[IronLionZion]

56. If DUers were on a jury

they'd vote for the death penalty for just about everyone even before the trial. I think the anonymity of the internet makes uninformed witch hunts much more likely.

[Pepperbelly]

59. thank you and we have a winner. nt

[Walt Starr]

16. Ben Nighthorse Campbell II

Watch, he'll be jum ping ship.

[marcologico]

19. You kind of have to ask why Campbell did that.

Could be he decided it was the only way he could accomplish what he went there to do, which evidently was not to lead the Democratic party.

Incidentally I heard that average incomes on all Indian reservations, gaming and non-gaming, is up by like 300% from the 70s, so maybe he wasn't so dumb after all.

[Walt Starr]

20. Campbell was a traitorous piece of shit!

He took money from the Democratic Party to get lected them fucked them.

He's a piece of shit who deserves no respect whatsoever.

[marcologico]

25. Maybe, I'm just saying party loyalty is only part of the picture.

To be honest I don't know much about him but it's an interesting situation.

[Walt Starr]

40. When the party spends tons of money to put someone in office

and then they jump ship, there is no lower piece of shit on the planet than that. Thus, Campbell was the lowest piece of shit worthless waste of human skin who ever existed. He shafted the Democrats to take office and road all the way from there on incumbency. He handed Republicans the Democrat's money like the fucked up son of a bitch he was!

[last1standing]

44. You say you don't know much about him then call my input shallow?

I support having a forum where even the least knowledgeable among us can express their views, but you do push the limit.

[last1standing]

29. What the Hell are you talking about?

Campbell jumped ship literally days after the repubs took over the senate in January of 1995. To suggest he did this because incomes on reservations has gone up 300% since the 1970s is dishonest. Not only does that provide a gap of 25 years, it completely negates the extremely suspicious timing of his defection.


Campbell's only interest was himself. He wanted power and got it.

[marcologico]

31. I'm saying look into the situation before jumping to conclusions. n/t

[last1standing]

33. I did look into the situation.

There are many factors that have helped Native Americans since the 70's and I'm not discounting Campbell as having helped somewhat. However, that does not excuse his obviously sleazy tactics to keep power for himself. Also, he cannot be credited with much that was accomplished without the support of the Democrats in the house and senate. I'm all for jumping parties for the sake of conscience, his was not one of those decisions. History tells us that.

Also, how much got done for Native Americans after the repubs took office?

One of the basic principles for a progressive is that the ends never justify the means. I'm a progressive.

[marcologico]

38. That's a pretty shallow analysis. n/t

[last1standing]

43. What's shallow are your distortions of fact.

You provide statistics that mean nothing and when I call you on them you say my analysis is shallow?

Maybe instead of twisting this to become about me, you should back up your "facts" with something more concrete or understand that some of us don't support your belief that it was a good thing for Campbell to turn repub.

[marcologico]

30. . . . now we know why Condi and Gonzales got nominated.

Dems get to choose being racists or torturers. Meanwhile, minority voters keep trickling into the GOP.

Oh yeah and they're loyal too--good fall guys should the need arise.

[last1standing]

35. There's a difference between name calling and torture.

Are you suggesting we shouldn't be upset about a guy we supported himself supporting a guy who supports torture?

Can you please elaborate on your position here?

[marcologico]

39. That makes no sense at all. If you really want an answer, please reword

the question, thanks.

[last1standing]

42. I'm saying the Salazar voted for a guy who promotes torture.

I'd much rather be called a racist than support the cruel infliction of pain and humiliation on other people.

My question to you, based on your previous post is: Do you think that the fear of being called names (racist) should be put on par with voting for torture (Gonzales)? From the sound of your postings here it sounds as though you do. I'm asking if this is true.

[marcologico]

48. But you're not a senator. People depend on senators to do more than

grandstand their moral superiority, especially when it doesn't make any practical difference.

No, I personally wouldn't have voted for Gonsalez, and wouldn't want my senators to, but the SS fight will be a much better index of political principle than this one, which the GOP handily race baited.

[last1standing]

49. Once again, I don't think the ends ever justify the means.

This isn't about moral superiority, it's about innocent people being tortured, raped, and killed. It makes an extremely practical difference where each and every senator stands on this.

I understand having a different opinion on social security, or welfare or taxes, but not about torture. What is it going to take to get people like you who are Democrats to understand that there is never a justification or excuse for the enabling of cruelty?

[marcologico]

50. Which end? His vote made no difference to the confirmation, but a HUGE

difference as to whether he accomplishes anything for his constituents.

That's politics. It's a means and ends game, sorry.

[last1standing]

51. It's sad that there are some here who would condone torture

Just to get a bigger peice of the governmental pie. That's not politics, thats greed and power mongering.

You've presented a rather dark picture of what it means to live in this society. Sorry.

[marcologico]

52. The ones condoning torture are Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Gonzales is

nothing but a tool, just like Rice. Salazar is obviously not condoning torture and neither is anyone "here."

[last1standing]

54. I think you need to check your facts before you post.

Gonzalez is the one who actually wrote the memo in support of torture. It's easy to call anyone a tool, but we are each responsible for our actions. So yes, Salazar is condoning torture just as you are condoning Salazar.

[tsuki]

36. Ah, poor baby. Maybe he should have toured Gitmo first. No

free pass from me, being Hispanic.

[muse]

41. Salazar's comments don't resonate with me.

"Deeply conflicted" - A vote in support is a vote in support. He should stand up and tell why he voted for and lay out all of those reasons and cut out the "deeply conflicted" bullshit. Stand behind your vote and be a big boy Salazar. He's trying to have it both ways and he's not doing a good job of being very smooth about it.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

45. if he is conflicted on such an easily black & white issue OMFG......

are the Dem's in for another plunge downward...is he retarded? he should be embarrased to have released such a statement! another spineless SOB!

"Salazar had to be mindful of the wishes of his mostly conservative constituents -- and his loyalty to another Hispanic."

BULLSHIT! it is his DEMOCRATIC constituents that voted him into office that he should be worried about and NOT "his mostly conservative constituents" who never cast a fucking vote for him and NEVER will!

this wasn't a red state/blue state thing. The following Red State senators voted "no" or abstained:

Evan Bayh (D-IN)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)

Not present (fighting off Bush misinformation in their home states)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)



god almighty we are so so screwed!

:grr: i've gotta leave before i loose my mind completely

[bunny planet]

46. Really. Was his vote some kind of solidarity vote because they are both

Hispanic? Very misguided. This was a no-brainer as far as I can see, what was to be conflicted about? The man condoned and facilitated torture, in many cases of innocent individuals. Torture is a war crime, plain and simple. Didn't a Hispanic leadership group come out and say they could not endorse Gonzales because of his actions. Couldn't Salazar have followed their lead? I just don't get what there is to be conflicted about. Judge people on the content of their characters not by the color of their skin (as RR says all day long on her show).

Makes me think this administration 'allowed' Salazar to win (translation, didn't steal his votes) because they already had him in their pocket to fold on nominations and issues. Coors was just too obviously partisan and ultra-right wing for them to present a false attempt at bipartisanship and cooperation. Salazar has the perfect cover to shill for this administration, he's Hispanic and a Dem. I hope I'm wrong and he really is conflicted. If he is , he'll be regretting his vote for Gonzales soon enough.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

47. hey CO ...GET RID OF THIS GUY..he is a friggen retarded jellyfish!

[Avalux]

57. Obviously the dark side of his inner conflict won -

reminds me of the guy with a devil sitting on one shoulder, and angel sitting on the other, each pleading their case. Usually the devil would win.