Little has made me as cynical as the Dems approval of Gates

[grasswire]

I've been a Democrat and a booster of Democrats for eons. Through thick and thin, through Gore's throwing in the towel and Kerry's too-early capitulation, I complained but I still believed.

But today, I feel depressed and defeated.

John Kerry said he didn't want to "look back" at Gates' earlier actions. He wanted to "look forward."

Isn't that always the particular opening that allows thugs, thieves, hooligans and traitors off the hook, to continue their murderous looting of our blood, our treasure, our liberties and freedoms?

How many times, OH GOD, are Democrats going to bend over and take another one?

Where is the line? Wasn't it crossed a good many years ago?

When the same bunch nearly took FDR out in a military coup, Democrats should have punished them severaly. That was seventy years ago. And look at all the attacks on the Constitution since then.

I'm feeling really low.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. Hold off on those feelings in until 1-07

I know what you mean. A lot of us have been more than frustrated with our whimpy leaders, but lets just see where this all goes when the gavel is officially handed over.

[OzarkDem]

36. Or when we get new Dem members with some spine

Maybe a few outspoken, principled newly elected Dems will make the old establishment begin to feel a little embarrassed about these kinds of votes.

[KoKo]

2. I had alot of hope for a fresh start

and that vote kind of did me in, too. I've tried to convince myself that they voted to give Bush the rest of the rope to hang himself. But, we've heard about that rope so many times...it got stale after '04.

I don't know what to think of it. I guess we need to keep watching and hope it isn't going to be "business as usual" with that rope that never hangs him.

It was a bad downer....

[grasswire]

3. when Kerry said that....

...and then when I heard Sandra Day O'Connor say about the work of the Study Group that their task was not to look BACKWARD, and not to POINT FINGERS, but to just get a snapshot of what is, I could only think they are all in this together. I feel as if they are all in cahoots! There can never be any accountability; they think the public will punish those who wish to investigate and censure and impeach.

Which is the greater danger? That voters will punish those who wish to dig out the truth? Or that voters will punish those who have committed crimes against the people?

Apparently, most of official Washington thinks it is most likely the former.

[Mass]

4. Why do you not ask Feingold or Harkin why they voted for him.

In fact, those were the two NO votes I was expecting, particularly Harkin who voted against Negroponte.

I was kind of amazed that it was 2 republicans who thought that Gates was too open to negotiation and did not think Bush did it right.

I somehow would assume that they prefered somebody ready to criticize Bush, even if they disagreed with him, that another absolute yesman.

[grasswire]

6. I guess I will call Wyden tomorrow

His office, I mean. There is not a lot of satisfaction in phoning a senator or representative -- all one gets is perfunctory responses.

[beaconess]

12. Voting for him gives the Dems plenty of room to operate down the road -

Even if every single Democrat voted no, he still would have been confirmed, so they can't stop him - and a filibuster just ain't going to happen. So voting no would only put them on record as trying to obstruct him.

For the next two years, the Dems are going to control oversight and will not doubt be on Gates like ugly on a toad. By voting for him and, ostensibly, showing good faith and a willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt,they will have much freerer rein to jump in his stuff when needed and not be suceptible to charges that they came in with a bias against him.

The Dems are picking their battles - as good strategists do.

[grasswire]

14. or...........

...as I wrote in another post, voting for Gates allows Republicans to blame Democrats when things go bad, as they have done with the IWR. "You approved him!"

[beaconess]

34. The only Senators who voted no were Bunning and Santorum

and that was only because they thought he was too candid in saying that we're not winning in Iraq.

So, unless everyone believes that Ted Kennedy and Tom Harkin and Russ Feingold and Barbara Boxer and all of the other "liberal lions" beloved by DUers are either complete sellouts our abject idiots (or both) while Bunning and Santorum are the only Senators who got it right, it's much more likely that there are good strategic reasons for Democrats to vote to confirm Gates.

[OzarkDem]

37. Keeping powder dry

:eyes:

We know from past experience how well that strategy works. Let's give it some time after the new Dems in the Senate take office. If it doesn't change, we'll have to be more activist and start calling on them to act as leaders, not followers.

[katsy]

10. I agree it's been repeated too often...

but when I listen to the words"we're not looking backwards, not
If they're trying to calm the great unwashed impeachment crowd, they better get a new scriptwriter because I'm not laughing.

[silverojo]

11. Of course Kerry, in particular, is in on it

He's with the DLC. 'Nuff said.

[paulk]

18. are you being sarcastic?

[Tactical Progressive]

46. Yeah, Republicans like to look forward, not backward

especially when it's the results of their handiwork that are hitting the fan. Let's not look back at that.

But when it comes to looking back twenty years into Dem land purchases and law firm work and philandering, totally unrelated to anything more than their own rancor and animosity, well, that's different. That's a reason and reasonable to look back at.

They don't even slightly get their own hypocrisy and dishonesty. BushCo has lied comprehensively about every single thing starting with the 2000 campaign right through to Bush saying he's ISG-friendly this week. Serious, deadly things, and lots of them, with real-world impact on the United States. But it's Bill Clinton who's the liar to these nasty, dishonest people because he told a half-truth about a private matter no one had any honest right to know. All this war stuff is nothing to talk about.


My opinion: I'd rather us look back at their actions than work to fix them. We should do both, but in terms of bang-for-the-buck efficiency, uncovering their actions will prevent those things, things like them, and even maybe other bad things totally unrelated to them, from happening again and again and again. Once they realize that the country will go back and investigate.

Republicans hate pointy fingers. Sandra Day knows that history is pointing fingers her way.

[jobycom]

5. I think the Dems are just admitting reality

Gates is a much better leader and much more practical than anything W has appointed or is likely to appoint. I think a lot of Dems feel that W isn't going to appoint anyone better, and that they can work with Gates. It isn't so much that they like or trust him, as that they feel like he at least has the nerve to stand up to Bush, and that Bush might actually listen to him.

I don't like his Iran-Contra connections, or his connections to Reagan/Bush in general, but W just isn't going to give us anything better. Why fight it? In a few weeks we will have the power to investigate, subpoena, legislate, be heard, etc. We can affect policy from there. Gates gives us someone practical and intelligent we can work with. We could stage a fight over him and we'd at best get someone else equal to him. At worst, we'd get a typical Bush appointee, or we'd tie up the whole thing for months or longer and Rumsfeld's appointees would run things until we settled the matter. And we'd still only wind up with a Bush appointee. We can't trust Gates any more than anyone else, but there is at least a level of discourse possible that we just didn't have with Rumsfeld.

Gates is an improvement. To get any better, we just have to win in 08. Until then, I prefer giving the new Congress a chance to falling on my sword in despair.

[grasswire]

8. okay..

...but SOMEBODY could have laid down the marker for history regarding Gates and his history. Someone could have entered those matters into the record and perhaps even roughed him up a little tiny bit. As it is, the opportunity now exists for Republicans to say (as they say regarding the IWR!!) "You approved!!"

[jobycom]

16. Why?

Gates was investigated, he was questioned in 91 before his appointment to the CIA. It's been gone over. The time to get him was back then. What are we going to do now, make a big show about it, but approve him anyway? This nation is too sick right now for symbolism.

Anyway, I think Gates is more a mistake for Bush than for us. He's not going to listen to W, or tell him what he wants to hear. Bush will have more trouble firing him now that he's been so overwhelmingly confirmed. I don't think Gates will be our friend, but I think he'll be better than Rumsfeld.

And the way I see it, Bush only had two real options, anyway, to find someone qualified. Bush could appoint someone connected to Bush now (and that's what everyone is trying to avoid), or he could look back to the Reagan/Bush era. Anyone from that era is going to be tainted by the Reagan/Bush scandals.

[grasswire]

19. really?

Gates will not listen to W or tell him what he wants to hear?

Honestly, what makes you think that? Because he said so??

[jobycom]

31. Because he has no reason to

He's not a W guy, he's a Baker guy. He didn't beg and steal his way into this job, they came to him for it. He was asked to fill a previous role in the W administration and he turned them down. He may suck up to Poppy or Baker, but not W.

That's how I read him. I could be wrong. Convince me otherwise and I'll change my mind. But to me I see him as a former Poppy guy who's been called back in to clean up Junior's mess. He still wants what the Bush clan wants, but he also knows that the way W has screwed things up, no one will get what they want.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. I crossed that line a while ago

If they continue to ahem, keep the powerder dry after 1-07 there will be little choice left

[spindrifter]

9. I'm sick of the compromise that has become the signature

piece for this administration. We are always pointing out the C's of the BushCo, but we have to add one of our own--compromise. We need to shift that "c" to either "b," as in backbone or "a," as in accountability.

[Gregorian]

13. Bush is on a leash now. I don't think Gates is going to matter.

It bothers me too. I want fire coming out of their mouths. They deserve no less. But Congress doesn't seem to work that way. Which is a bit of a shame.


I may be wrong about this. But with the Study Group saying Iraq is a problem. And Gates admitting it's a failure. I don't see much action that Gates will be involved in. Especially since if we attack Iran, or anyone else who isn't an imminent threat, there will be major consequences.

And also, Bush faces huge problems starting with the next session. I think he's going to be so hamstrung that he won't have the ability to start more wars.

I believe they let Gates pass because they have bigger fish to fry. That is, once this new session gets rolling, Gates will be so low on the list, he won't even be background noise.

And still, it would be nice to kick some truth around once in a while. It's almost unheard. It sucks, I know.

I say be patient ONE MORE TIME.

[grasswire]

15. okay.

I'm still gonna be cynical and disheartened, though. They can't take that away from me.

But don't tell me to trust Kerry. I can't go there anymore.

[WildEyedLiberal]

50. Why do you keep singling him out?

Seriously? Is Ted Kennedy or Barbra Boxer just as "bad" for voting for him too?

Here's why to vote for Gates: Dems have been calling on Rumsfeld to resign for ages. Do you really, honestly, truly think Bush was going to nominate someone DU would approve of? Ever? The Senate could filibuster 100 nominees and NONE of them would be acceptable to DU. Meanwhile there would be no DoD and it would be the Democrats' fault - that's a great way to convince America that we care about the country.

But whatever, you seem determined to find some bullshit reason to "not trust" Kerry even though he's been right about Iraq for three years and he's right about withdrawal now.

[gr8dane_daddy]

17. Look at it this way....did you want Dems as did

Santorium and Bunning? Those were the only two descending votes against Gates. I agree with those that we have a leash on bush now.

[bobbie]

20. Yup, business as usual. There is only one party, tho' thats tough to accept

Sorry.

[knowledgeispwr]

21. Be Realistic

Unfortunately, Bush is still president and still gets to appoint many positions, including that of Secretary of Defense.

Do you really think he'd pick anyone that any of us, or the Democrats in office would? (I don't).

So the best we can hope for is that he chooses someone who is competent and not too extreme in their views. The Dems in the Senate seemed to be satisfied with Gates enough to vote for him, and I trust their judgment.

[grasswire]

23. well, there ya go

"The Dems in the Senate seemed to be satisfied with Gates enough to vote for him, and I trust their judgment."

Just as I predicted above.

Welcome to DU.

[AJ9000]

22. The failure to really fight Alito or the MCA didn't prepare you for this?

[sandnsea]

24. Voting for him removes the obstructionist charge

which will be important if/when Gates starts screwing up later. Democrats can say they gave this guy complete support, tried very hard to come up with a strategy for Iraq - and there's just no working with Bush and any of his appointees.

I understand what you're saying, there's right and there's wrong. But I think we'll have more credibility when we need to criticize if the public doesn't perceive Democrats as doing nothing but bitching from before they even had control.

Because Dems don't have control of the Senate yet - you do remember that?

[w4rma]

25. Gates is a temporary nominee. Be concerned with the lifetime ones. (nt)

[DoYouEverWonder]

26. The DEMS need to lay low until January

It's like a poker game and if you want to win you have to know when to show your cards. The DEMS can't rock the boat too much until we have a peaceful transfer of power and they are officially in control of Congress.

At this point, they just want to convene this session Congress as soon as possible. With the Repugs still in charge, Gates was going to get confirmed anyway. It just wasn't worth making a big deal about it.

[JNelson6563]

27. I was far more disappointed with other things

Like when Dems folded on judicial appointments a while back. Something like SoD is only as long lived as this lame duck administration. A judicial appt. can be for life.

Also felt MUCH worse after the IWR vote, the bankruptcy bill and the torture vote.

Besides, I know Levin pretty well, we've spoken many times. I trust his ability to recognize and deal with political reality.

Julie

[Bridget Burke]

28. Apparently some of us have been cynical a bit longer....

Gates represents the old guys who want to take over the world. Their nefarious plans look to the future.

Rummy is an old guy who doesn't seem to mind if the world gets blown up.

With Gates on the job, we might survive until 2008. Then, things can change.

[Jacobin]

29. I'll give them a pass because of this:

ANYONE, anyone at all is an improvement from Herr Rumsfailed.

Gates is Poppy's man tasked with getting us out of Iraq. Poppy's gangsters are not neocons. They are political realists. I'll take a mafia gangster republican over a neocon any day of the week. Neocons are not connected to reality, as is obvious from our foreign policy efforts in the last six years.

[PassingFair]

49. Carlysle is driving the bus now.

Crazy-ass religious freaks and neo-cons are out.

They have eliminated the middle men.


Full speed ahead for corporowhoredom-worldwide.

[Freddie Stubbs]

30. Get over it

It is hard to argue that Gates is not an improvement over Rumsfeld. Gates is likely the best we are going to get until 2009.

[WildEyedLiberal]

54. No, let's attack Kerry instead

And make up lies about him because that's what we DO here on DU dammit!

[AtomicKitten]

32. this is what stands out

John Kerry said he didn't want to "look back" at Gates' earlier actions. He wanted to "look forward."

Considering the nonstop yammering we hear about how he is the only anti-corruption, open government Democrat that will open the books on the BCCI and Iran-Contra, I hope this puts that rhetoric to rest.

[OzarkDem]

39. I agree

That's a huge contradiction, right there.

[ProSense]

47. No, not a huge contradiction!

KERRY: There are all kinds of things that the Senate can do. They can change the dynamics here very significantly, not the least of which, obviously, are serious accountability hearings.

Secondly, we have the ability in the Congress to pass one resolution or another or to put into law certain kinds of policies. I mean, you remember back in the days of the Contras in Central America, the Congress passed what was called the Boland Amendment and actually forbade certain activities from taking place.

So Congress has a certain power here. I think before we get into that, it would be so much better if we could sit down with the president, with Condoleezza Rice, and really talk through how we come together, both parties, take the politics out at the water's edge, and get a policy that works for America.

BCCI, Iran Contra relevance: UAE, Saudi, Pakistan, money and Bush family

[WildEyedLiberal]

51. deleted

You're so not worth it.

But, no one's going anywhere... much to your chagrin, sweetcheeks. Love and kisses!

[ripple]

33. Just look at who opposed him...

Santorum and Bunning, two "stay the course" wing nuts who still believe the US can actually win over there.

Gates' testimony indicated that he would rely heavily on the advice of generals on the ground when making strategic decisions, that a swift change in strategy is desperately needed, and that it should have happened yesterday, not today. I'm still a little bit cynical about him, but he said the right things at the confirmation hearings.

Unfortunately, the situation in Iraq is far too dire to have the luxury of parading three or four candidates before the senate before one is actually confirmed. Action needs to be taken immediately and I believe our senators recognize that.

[conscious evolution]

44. You may have something here

"Unfortunately, the situation in Iraq is far too dire to have the luxury of parading three or four candidates before the senate before one is actually confirmed. Action needs to be taken immediately and I believe our senators recognize that."

I have been thinking that the Dems passed him in order to set him up for something.Now I am thinking that they confirmed him so as to not give the pukes a chance to start yelling 'Dem obstructionist's put troops in danger!'
You know they would.Pukes never pass on a chance to try to paint us as beeing weak on national security or that we hate the troops or some sort of bullshit along those lines.

[WildEyedLiberal]

52. They're better than all our Senate Dems obviously!

:sarcasm:

[bobthedrummer]

35. I hear you, it's beyond cynicism for many of us. n/t

[enough already]

38. I suspect we were sold down the river in this last election

I've seen nothing that leads me to believe anything is going to change.

[martymar64]

40. From here on out

We need to tear into the Rethugs like the Red Army did to Berlin at the close of WW2. No prisoners, no quarter. The future of our country depends on it.

Smash the Fascist Scum!!!

[dansolo]

41. Not blocking Alito was far worse

Gates will only be around for a little bit, relatively speaking. Alito has a lifetime gig. Alito has the potential to do far more lasting damage to this country.

[Clarkie1]

42. They're politicians. What do you expect? And Kerry's a politician's politician.

:puke:

[WildEyedLiberal]

53. Wow, you're trashing Kerry again

:puke: Big surprise.

[Generator]

43. Great post, you are not alone

My outrage has completely dried up. I no longer expect anything. It died back over the MCA, which was pretty much an outrage against being human. Politics OF COURSE is more important than human lives. I've learned to never ever ever ever expect a politician to save your life. You gotta do it yourself. Which is DAMN bleak. They are supposed to protect our liberties and our lives, and instead their main priority is their fucking job. (first time I've used fucking since the Jesus avatar but damn it fits)

I didn't even know that Kerry said that. Wow. Of course looking ahead is important if it actually changes something. But how can you change the future when you don't even acknowledge the lies and wrongs of the past? And CONTINUE to install those that are part of the problem???

What I want to know is what..what all this wise compromising that is the foundations of politics has gotten our side? WHAT? What have we gained? Supreme court justices? BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES? The truth? The end to the war? WHAT? Nothing that I see. Not one damn thing. The Iraq war will go on and on and on. The criminals will never be brought to justice. But yes, I can still go shopping. What a great country! (by this I mean I know exactly what we've got-a secure economy-can't risk a constitutional crisis oh no no no-the horror-if we as Americans had to face what absolute thieves and murderers are leading us, there might be a run on the banks and we CANNOT have that-captalism is our relgion and our soul)

It's not a compromise unless you give and they give. All that happens is the Democrats give and give and give in. They have given US nothing.

Politics:the art of compromise, or the art of surrender? To me it looks like the later for the Democrats during the Bush years. That's ALL I've seen.

[grasswire]

48. I just had an insight

You said "All that happens is the Democrats give and give and give in."

My God. This tension between Democrats and Republicans is like being in the worst kind of abusive relationship. I was married to a pathological narcissist who was quite skilled in emotional abuse. I was convinced (as many wives of abusers are) that if I only tried hard enough, I would make him contented -- not understanding that he derived a lot of satisfaction from the damage he did to me and others.

The relationship between Democrats and Republicans is like the most codependent family system. Democrats act like victims of emotional abuse. If we only try harder, maybe they will stop?

Aghhhhhhhhhhh!

[UrbScotty]

45. It was either gonna be Gates or someone worse. (nt)