Democratic Party Lets Us Down Again.

[placton]

"Any doubts that may have lingered about Alberto R. Gonzales' chances of being confirmed as President Bush's next attorney general were put to rest this morning, when Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, told the New York Times that Democrats will not oppose the move. Critics had raised questions about the legal advice Gonzales had given the White House regarding the use of Guantánamo Bay, and his suggestions that the facility was outside the reach of U.S. courts and the rule of law. That's a finding more and more judges find plainly flawed. Gonzales was also at the center of the White House's post-9/11 legal strategy that the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete" and "quaint."

But it appears none of that will matter much, because Gonzales has two big things going for him: a strong Republican majority in the Senate, and even more important inside Washington, likability. Said Leahy, "I like him."

This from today's Salon. God, could these guys be any more gutless? "I am gonna support that Hitler guy - he's so likeable."

And Leahy is supposed to be one of the more aggressive Dems. No doubt Harry Reid will fondle some of fascist Gonzales' body parts when he comes for his Senate coronation.

[NJ_Lib]

1. Maybe once Gonzales tells Leahy

to "go fuck himself", he'll change his mind... Maybe not... Maybe he likes being abused... After all, he IS a Dem...

[LisaM]

2. I emailed my Senator about it and didn't even get an auto-reply

I also called my other Senator. Sadly, I don't think they were getting a lot of complaints.

[AP]

3. I think we let ourselves down. Democrats are in the position they're in

because we weren't smart enough after 9/11 and haven't been smart in dealing with Bush.

The party tried to go in a direction that could lead to electoral victory, but we fucked up.

We, the rank and file Democrats, didn't appreciate the nature of the problem throughout 2003 when we were picking our candidates (but got lucky by still getting a good candidate) and we totally were suckered into Rove's replay of the Nixon '72 strategy and we let the war and terror influence our thinking too much.

There are just as many people on the left who aren't elected Demcorats who are to blame as there are people on the right.

For example, I've read harsher criticisms of Daschle here at DU than anywhere. Well, now he's gone. And a big reason Leahy is in the position he's in is because Daschle is gone. And we need to take responsibility for this.

[sangh0]

5. Yep, DUers demand support from politicians NO MATTER WHAT

the consequences, but DUers support for those politicians comes and goes faster than the tides change.

[AP]

6. Just one example of something we, the voters, could have done:

The last three years have been fucking DOMINATED by talk of war. All we did (and I mean voters, and not the Democratic politicians) was talk about war as well. Even Democracy Now!, the voice of the far left, calls its news program "The War and Peace Report." Do they talk about economic justice? Do they talk about issues of liberty? Do they talk about the environment? Well, when they have a few seconds after talking for 59 minutes about the war.

At any time we could have demanded that the debate become about the bigger picture. Fascism is so much more than war. It's a complete, multi-faceted, but integrated political mechanism for shifting power to the top. War, in many respects, is the distraction so that you don't look at the man behind the curtain. It's one part in the much bigger picture.

But Democratic voters were so happy to talk about war that the two most popular Democratic candidates we had -- until John Kerry kicked his campaign into gear in Iowa -- were people who only talked about the war.

We were never going to win by talking only about the war. And, in the end, I believe it was war fear -- it was three years of conditioning about fear and terror -- that probably cost us the election. At any time, we as voters, could have demanded a different dialog and a different debate, or could have followed when the party tried to lead in the direction of hope, economic justice, liberty (and that's what Kerry was trying to do during the periods of the campaign when he was running on all cylinders). But nope. We LOOOOOOOOVE to react to the version of reality the Republicans construct.

[sangh0]

7. That is all SO true, AP

and so sad. Here's hoping we can learn from out mistakes.

[G_j]

8. believe it or not

Democracy Now! is a 'progressive' news show not a partisan 'Democrat' news show. The war happens to need covering since the other media oulets are committed to covering up the truth about Iraq.
Does DN cover economic justice and liberty issues? Yes it does.

[AP]

11. I think there's a bigger picture that Democracy Now! occluded rather than

illuminated.

I think there was a bigger pciture they could have revealed with better coverage that was less of a reaction to the Bush administration and that wasn't so naive about how electoral politics work.

[G_j]

14. maybe not perfect

but the last place I would think to throw blame is DN, since they have done far better than anyone else.

Where else was the report that found 100,000 Iraqi civilians had been killed covered in depth? Who else reported that the Red Cross feared 800 civilians were killed in Falluja?
Who else will tell their stories?

[AP]

16. It's not the facts, it's the way they're contextualized.

I think there's a bigger picture about what the Republicans are doing with Iraq, and I think DN! is missing a great opportunity to illuminate what is going on in the world by focusing so narrowly on simply reacting to war with those facts.

How about tying it ALL together. Like I said, fascism is about so much more than just the war. The war is, in some ways, a distraction from what the man is doing behind the curtain. It's only one part of the bigger picture. I don't think anyone is really surprised that 100,000 civilians died in Falujah. What DN! needs to do is tell you why they're dying, and how that fits in with TX redistricting and destroying small businesses, and the value of America labor, and outsourcing, and the dramatic assault on public education, etc...

[G_j]

20. I don't get to listen every day

but I was under the impression they did cover these other aspects also. They have been fairly consistent in covering "globalization" issues for instance. Anyway, perhaps they could be better, but as I said they are still a cut above the rest IMO.

:shrug:

[sampsonblk]

21. All due respect

that is one of the most bizzare political analyses I have ever read. That's no different than saying that Bush did the right thing in "liberating" the Iraqi people, but that the insurgency is their fault because they didn't recognize Bush's wisdom in invading them.

The Dem party "leaders" should know that they cannot expect wide support from their own party if they change their positions in order to placate Repubs and Fox News. Nothing complicated there. And its not our fault that we didn't go along with it. We are not sheep, and we are not stupid.

Repubs know this. That's why their campaign was about their base. Notice, they still did very well with swing voters.

[AP]

24. I don't understand your intrepretation of my argument.

I think you didn't understand my argument, but I'm not sure.

Could you explain what you're saying in more detail?

[sampsonblk]

28. I could be seeing this wrong, of course...

But part of leadership is knowing where your followers can be successfully led to, and acting accordingly. You suggest that the hardcore Dems (like all of us on this board) are at fault for not sticking with what our party leaders were trying to do. And I say no. Its the fault of the leaders for not recognizing in advance that an sizeable number of us would never accept it.

I guess its a matter of perspective. When a leader turns around and realizes there aren't very many followers anymore, I never fault the followers. Because that is poor leadership in almost every case.

Just for example, if Kerry announced that all homosexuals ought to go to hell "as God intended," maybe some swing voters might like to hear that. But he also should recognize that he's going to lose some of his own party faithful. He can't claim the party faithful are to blame because they didn't "get it." In that case, he'd be the one to blame. He would be the one who didn't get it. No question.

*I don't mean to suggest that EVERYONE turned on Kerry. I'm sure you know I am talking about a small pct of Dems who just went through the motions because they were very disappointed in the nominee. Count me among that crowd.

[AP]

31. K definitely shouldn't have followed us into only caring about & talking

only about the war and criticizing Bush (which is all we wanted, stupidly). That's a losing strategy from the beginning. He tried to lead us towards a winning strategy: being for something and not being solely ABB or anti-Bush.

Kerry took as as far as he could, but we were stupid from the outset. We were suckers for what the media and Bush were framing as the way to think about the world. We almost got there, but we didn't go far enough to not be susceptible to the OBL video and the missing weapons story (the fear mongering).

We should have known from the beginning that you can't fight fear with fear even before the primaries. But we wanted to talk all war all the time. And we wanted ABB.

You can't blame Kerry for all of that. And you can't blame the media for all of that.

Plenty of DU'ers were perfectly happy to unquestioningly work within the frame of hating Bush and only talking about the war.

[G_j]

32. well I know I'm just a 'leftie' but

I wanted him to talk about Global Warming. After all he had the Pentagon to back him up, and a few weeks before the election the most devastating report so far was released showing that Arctic ice is melting twice as fast as previously thought.
The environment is a Dem issue all the way.

I also was perplexed as to why Kerry did not address the PNAC, OSP or how the admin completely ignored warnings prior to 9-11.

hey but what do I know?

[AP]

33. The environment alone is still too small of an issue.

There's an umbrella that includes the environment and war and the tax code and education, and it's about which direction power should flow in America, and whether we reward people who work to create wealth with a fair percentage of the wealth they create, or we reward people who are rich by giving them an unfair percentage of the wealth people who work for a living create.

That's the bigger frame. That's what voters should have cared about after watching Bush operate for the last four years. But they were distracted by terror and war.

[sangh0]

36. We need to stop focusing compulsively on individual issues

We keep tearing at each other over disagreements about one or two issues, when there's so much we share, but what we share isn't going to become clear by talking issues. It's about putting ALL of the issues in context, and recognizing that though we might disagree over some points, we do share a great deal about our overall worldview, and the need to protect the poor, maintain our rights, etc...

[sampsonblk]

34. The war was the most important issue of this cycle

and everyone knew it but the Kerry people and a few others.

The economy, health care, etc are issues that are always with us - sorta like the poor. Because of that, they don't grab and hold our attention the same way that suicide bombings and beheadings do. The decision to go into Iraq was far more important than any healthcare proposal which probably will probably never pass anyway. Its perhaps the most important foreign policy blunder in decades.

No one got duped into focusing on the war and ABB, some got duped (or dupoed themselves) into NOT thinking about them - perhaps because they thought we couldn't beat Bush on those issues. If we tried, we could have. God knows we were right and he was wrong. But sadly, we chose to focus our energies on issues that in the end made virtually no difference at all. Even traditional Dem moms voted for Bush because of foreign policy and "values." All those people aren't stupid.

[AP]

35. so the republicans wanted you to think. The war was cover

for the massive transfer of power to the rich and the declining wealth of the working and middle classes.

Talking about fear all the time was the trap the Republicans set for Dems.

[sampsonblk]

43. I get what you mean

Yeah they planned to use this to mask what they were really up to. No question. I hope I don't sound like a complete Monday morning QB here, but the right thing to do was say NO to IWR. When that failed, anyone who ran for pres had to know that we'd been set up, and that the war was now going to be the main issue.

Hell, Kerry knew it way in advance, that's why he voted YES on the IWR for political cover. Americans dying on TV...that stuff sells a lot more newspapers than healthcare. I don't disagree with what you're saying. But if you saw what they were up to, and I saw what they were up to...ya know what I mean? It seems to me that the Dem leadership...maybe this is why they didn't seem to work all that hard for Kerry this time. All along it seemed to me that a lot of the big time Dem leaders were keeping their distance.

[AP]

50. No to Iraq War is a very difficult position to take when you have voters

who are scared. If you don't want to freak them out more, don't let them think that you might not be willing to protect them when there's a hard choice to make about taking action.

Although you might agree with me, I just want to make this point clear:

Kennedy, during the cold war, ran on a message that he was a bigger hawk than Nixon. That negated the fear issue and they had to turn to issues that separated them, which was caring about people who worked for a living and the middle class.

But when it came to actually fighting communism, Kennedy was the ONE person in his administration who didn't want to attack Cuba during the missile crisis (and the Russians have said that if Cuba had been attacked, they would have launched their missiles). So Kennedy talked the aggressive "I will defend America with a hair trigger" mentality, but walked like a decent human being after he won. That's what Americans want to hear and see in their candidates.

Being anti-war would have been mad, I believe.

And Kerry lost no votes for not being anti-war. He lost votes because people were scared that OBL might have some of the missing explosives and they wanted the bigger hawk in office even if he were the one to blame for the missing explosives and OBL being on the loose.

As for whether the party was behind him, I don't know how to address that. I think there were a lot of signs that he was the one everyone wanted. I think a lot of people also knew just how hard this was going to be. A big reason that Clinton won was because nobody thought anyone could beat an incumbent -- nobody with a bette chance ran because they were waiting for 96. But this year a lot of heroes stepped forward because they knew the damage that a second Bush administration could do. So, there was probably a healthy combination of skepticism and conviction that Democrats could win.

[sampsonblk]

53. Have you seen the exit polls?

Its not about being anti-war, its about THIS war being complete contrived nonsense. Had we waited a few months, the whole situation might have changed toward a wiser and more favorable outcome. Kerry was 100% right about that. Whether he lost votes by being pro-war or not, I will let you decide. But I know for certain there were a lot of people who voted for him reluctantly.

From all the exit polls I have seen, very few Kerry voters were pro-Kerry. The most recent I have seen was 70% ABB, 30% pro-Kerry. That is dismal, and in my opinion, well deserved.

A lot of people did want him. A lot of those are now very disappointed. If we are placing blame, how about the people who disagreed with Kerry but voted for him anyway, because they thought his bio would neutralize the war issue, and they thought he'd play well with swing voters? That may be the biggest blunder of the year.

Let's not forget that Bush is and was an unpopular president. he is hovering around 50%, and even the people who voted for him don't agree with many of his policies. He should have been beaten soundly.

[AP]

55. Stan Greenberg said they had the votes to win with about ten days to

go and then the missing explosives and OBL video dominated the news and they could see fear pulling away their voters. Those people didn't abandon Kerry because he wasn't anti-war. They abandoned him because they were scared. Those stories fed into criticizing THIS war. But people don't care. (And the media was blaming the military and not Bush, anyway.) If OBL is on the loose and might be able to get his hands on missing explosives, then we better vote for the biggest hawk running. Kerry and Edwards positioned themselves has hawkish enough and positioned themselves as critics of this war, but they didn't position the voters to care more about hope and optimism than about fear and danger.

[sampsonblk]

59. No argument from me on that

Even on the afternoon of the election, I thought Kerry would win by an inch. Hell, I invited all my Repub friends over to watch the returns, once I saw the exit polls were going our way. (Ouch!)

Your view of what happened is the same as mine. I thought Kerry was going to win - by running a horrible, stealth campaign that gave us no mandate for anything at all. Instead, he lost by an inch by running a horrible stealth campaign that cost us more than we could really afford to lose.

Bad campaigns can win. Bush's campaign wasn't so great either. But faced with an unpopular president, coming close, or winning by an inch is really nothing to be happy about. Throughout most of the campaign, more people said they wanted someone other than Bush. But when asked, they said they'd still vote for Bush. I can't see that any other way than that people saw Kerry himself as a very poor alternative.

Bourbon time. If I say anything else I say tonight, please ignore.

[AP]

56. A couple more things:

1) ABB is the thing I'm criticizing. I don't blame Kerry for people not loving him. They should have, but the media hit home ABB, and Democratic voters PROUDLY adopted it because they were so focused on Bush they forgot that nobody wins without telling people what they're for. ABB is the essence of what I'm criticizing, and it's really criticizing us and not Kerry or the party. People at DU -- your average activist Democratic voters -- were the biggest proponents of ABB. The argument was that Bush was so bad, we should vote for anyone but Bush. STUPID.

2) Nixon was hated by a lot of people. He turned that into a winning strategy. Get people to focus on hating you so much, they protest, look disruptive, forget what they stand for, and lose. '72 should have been our "what not to do" lesson, or the "how not to run against a very unpopular president". We ignored it.

3) There's a media study I just saw the other day. It said that media coverage of the war PREDOMINANTLY argued that what was going wrong was the military's fault. Of course, when you asked people who we should blame, they said said the military, and not Bush.

So, criticizing THIS war over and over again wasn't doing enough to hurt Bush, and it wasn't giving anyone a good reason to vote for Democrats. It took a lot of time and money, and ultimately it just left voters thinking that the most important issue was war, so they might as well vote for the most war-loving party -- the Republicans.

[sangh0]

37. Kerry did talk about the war.

A lot. A whole lot.

We lost, and it wasn't because we didn't talk enough about the war, and I doubt that there's one particular point that Kerry didn't bring up that if he had, he would have won. There aren't any silver bullets.

But sadly, we chose to focus our energies on issues that in the end made virtually no difference at all

You make it sound like Kerry didn't talk about the war.

[AP]

41. Not even 220 million was enough to run an advertising campaign that

would convince Americans that if they're scared they should vote for a Democrat instead of a Republican.

If people are scared, they vote for the fascists.

[sangh0]

42. It's not just that

Maybe I misunderstood something, but it seems to me that G_j is arguing that Kerry did not talk about the war as much as he should have. To me, it seemed like 75% of the campaign, at least.

[AP]

47. I agree with that.

[sampsonblk]

46. I didn't mean to suggest he didn't talk about it at all

Is it just me or did Kerry spend months and millions of dollars focusing on domestic uses, when he should have been hammering Bush on the single greatest and most important failure of Bush's term?

Let's be honest here: the Kerry people thought they could neutralize the war issues with Kerry's bio, so they planned to focus primarily on domestic issues where they perceived Bush to be weak.

That's beyond being just bad. Had they looked at the history of Bush's poll numbers, this guy has been using the war to increase support for his horrible domestic policies. The war trumped all that stuff. One terror alert, and suddenly half the country thinks Bush has a good economic plan. I am still at a loss about how the heck that worked. But it happened time and time again. The Kerry people didn't realize this? The mess in Iraq and around the world was the main thing going on. But that was NOT the main point of Kerry's campaign. If anything, it was only an annoyance for them - at least until the last part of the campaign.

Thank God for Moveon.org and others.

[AP]

48. Dems worked within the war issue as constructed by Republicans.

They never really stepped outside of it and put all the pieces together for people to make sense of what was really going on. But I don't know how you could really blame them since so many voters seemed reluctant to think of things in terms of the bigger picture, as could be seen by how the Democratic voters behaved for a year up to one week before the primaries. (All we wanted was our candidates to talk about war. Just take a look around here. Who's our biggest hero? It's Mr Pitt. What's are biggest obsession? War.)

The Democrats HAMMERED Bush on the war. They convinced people that Bush was mishandling Iraq. Hell, missing explosives!!! OBL STILL on the lose!!! What could be a bigger indictment of Bush? But guess what. OBL+Missing Explosives = Fear. So, no matter how much you convince people that Bush is bad, if FEAR is setting the mood, then people are going to always vote for the fascists. It only happened by a narrow margin, but it's what happened. In the last ten days, during the OBL+Missing Explosives=Fear mode of the campaigh, Kerry lost the narrow advantage he had eeked out. Ther is no more talking about war or criticizing Bush that could have revearsed that. However, if the Democrats had gone farther in the direction of talking about hope, it might have stopped some people from turning to the dark side and voting their worst instincts and not their best.

[sampsonblk]

54. Your first sentence is a killer point

"They never really stepped outside of it and put all the pieces together for people to make sense of what was really going on." And they should all be forced to write that on the blackboard a thousand times, just for punishment. That was their job!

When they hammered Bush on the war, Bush's approval rating plummeted, and the generic Dem was actually ahead of Bush in a head-to-head matchup. But somewhere along the line, the Kerry people decided anti-war was never going to work for them. So they went with domestic issues as their primary focus.

Just my opinion, but we should have continued hammering him on the war. Day after day after day. But Kerry wasn't the one to do that. Hell, he voted for the IWR (and said he'd do it again). He was the sensible candidate. That's why he was chosen, I guess. He was the one who wouldn't say mean things that would turn off the swing voters. He was the one whose bio would make the war a non-issue. Uh-uh.

Every damn casualty should have been tied around Bush's neck. Every single one.

[AP]

57. According to a study at Media Tenor, the only time Kerry led in the polls

was October 4-10, and that followed a September when the media was very good to Kerry. Bush started dropping from his peak around September 5, after he climbed all through August thanks to the smear vets.

But Bush started to climb back from being down in Mid October when the media stopped being good to Kerry and started hammering home with the fear.

Kerry didn't gain In September and early October because they crticized the war incessantly. It is my theory that people saw Kerry during the debates, saw the crowds at their events, saw Edwards and his wife on TV and saw the Boss, and thought Kerry seemed like a competant, decent guy, and the media didn't get in the way of those perceptions, and didn't sugar coat Bush's bad debate performance.

But when the media shifted the focus to fear, Kerry hadn't built up enough of cushion in September and Ocotober to cushion the fall.

[sampsonblk]

61. Kerry was never as strong as ABB

Check this out
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen2.htm

Looks to me like people wanted Bush out, but not as many wanted Kerry in. Its a problem. Swift toads contributed, of course. But this is not some great outpouring of support for Bush, so much as a lack of support for Kerry. Bush is no more popular now than he was last summer.

I was gloating over the summer when Kerry was ahead.

We should WIN on foreign policy. Bush's policies are disastrous.

[AP]

62. ABB was the problem, not Kerry. Nobody would ever be good as ABB

because ABB isn't about what the Democrats all about, it's, by definition, about Bush.

ABB is a frame which ensures that no Democrat will win.

[sampsonblk]

64. Happens every four years

There is always a strong anti-incumbent vote. The difference this time was that Bush is REALLY bad. So the anti-vote was much stronger than usual. With Kerry as our nominee, I am not surprised that ABB is pretty much all we had. It almost worked too. But we needed a nominee to advance our views and stick with them. Sadly, we did not have that.

Are you saying we made a mistake by focusing on how bad Bush is instead of how great Kerry is?

[AP]

65. Clinton didn't define himself by GHWB.

He was the boy from hope who was going to put people first with policies that would make the economy better and deliver more wealth and opportunity to people who were struggling.

And Nixon won an ABN campaign.

ABB was thing that held us back. It wasn't the thing that almost got us there.

And yes. I'm saying complaining about Bush constantly rather than saying what you're for is a mistake.

Look at the www.mediatenor.com report. The media presented the war as being the military's fault, so no matter how much you crticized it, it wouldn't stick to Bush. And then after you use all your eneergies talking about war, people aren't left with much of an impression of what you stand for.

The war was rope a dope. That's why the Republican got us into it.

[sampsonblk]

68. You don't give up do you?

No one is suggesting that any candidate should define himself by the other. But when a guy's in office, the first thing to do is oppose him, and then let people know why you are going to be better.

No one suggested that anti-Bush should have been Kerry's only strategy. But face it, he had 40% or more from the start - just from ABB. He didn't have to say a word. He already had it. That is NOT a bad sign. Problem is, his campaign was so atrocious, that he never got much beyond that. He never did convince enough people (including myself) to believe in him.

He could have done a better job criticizing Bush on the war and on national security in general. Yeah the media is bad. But Kerry had his chances. He had a convention, he had a half dozen 527 groups helping out, and he could do one-on-one interviews and press conference that would be carried live. He just didn't have the courage, or he thought it would backfire.

Speaking of backfiring: Remember that time Kerry criticized one anti-Bush ad and then called on Bush to do the same against the swift toads? That illustrates the whole campaign for me. Bush to this day hasn't disavowed anyone who was out there trying to help him. No matter how far out wacko they may seem. No matter how clever it might seem at the time, that's just a DUMB thing to do.

[Seabiscuit]

44. Yes, count me in too.

After the Kerry and Gephardt campaigns and campaign sponsored ads as well as the media attacks which skewered Howard Dean's candidacy, my support for Kerry has only been at a level of "going through the motions" because yes, I was VERY disappointed in him about a lot of things. He still disappoints me, especially after going AWOL on his promise to us on November 3.

[gWbush is Mabus]

4. maybe they think it will be good to have a gay AG

[JohnnyCougar]

9. This is a good move

Gonzalez is not well liked by the religious right. With Gonzalez at the AG post, this will weaken the religious right's support for Bush in the near future. The Democrats can't block everyone that Bush tries to appoint. I'd rather see their energy diverted to blocking insane Supreme Court nominations, which last much longer than AG.

[G_j]

10. if they don't have enough "energy"

to oppose a proponent of torture as chief of law enforcement AND fanatical supreme court nominees, then they are not up to carrying out their responsibilities to the American people.

[sangh0]

12. "Energy" isn't what gets nominees rejected

It takes votes.

[JohnnyCougar]

15. You're arguing from a principles standpoint

and I'm arguing from a political standpoint. To save a flame wawr, I'm just going to say that we are going to have to agree to disagree right away. If the Democrats are seen as obstructionists now, they will have less political capital in the future when more harmful nominations arise. Plus, do they really want to lose favor with the Hispanics by obstructing one's nomination? I'm sorry, but 90% of the public is not as in tune politically as you are, and they fail to see how harmful this man's policies are. As bad as Gonzalez is, it could be alot worse. We could have some pro-lifer appointment going on. Opposing Gonzalez might not even be possible. Out of the 44 Democrats we have, 4 will likely just want to get it over with with out a fight.

I'm sorry to say, there's not much we can do unless the appointment is a real whacko at this point. Opposing Gonzalez will just make the Dems look obnoxious at this point, and will prevent support for future fillibusters.

[AP]

17. Seriously. I want Leahy to save the juice for when Bush tries to appoint

Gonzalez to a lifetime judgship on the federal bench. Yikes. At least with AG, he'll be gone. And it's crazy to think that there's a good Republican AG out there whom Bush might appoint and who won't listen to Bush and that the Dems can keep obejctecting appointments until that lawyer comes along.

[G_j]

18. they owe it to us to at least ask questions

(if this is obnoxious, then we need more 'obnoxious')

from: http://www.ActForChange.com .

In order to assure the American public that he is above reproach, Mr. Gonzales should address the following questions.

1) Do you think there are circumstances in which torture is legal?
2) Would you insist on strict compliance with the Geneva Conventions?
3) Would you recuse yourself from the Valerie Plame investigation
4) Would you recuse yourself from all Enron-related matters?
5) Would you recuse yourself from all Halliburton-related matters?
6) Why didn't you give Gov. Bush all the facts about Death Penalty cases?

[JohnnyCougar]

23. I hope those questions do get asked.

I think the Dems should bring them up, and make it public record that they are skeptical of him. They could say something like "We do not want to be obstructionists, but we will be watching AG Gonzalez like a hawk. We have concerns about his views on the treatment of war prisioners, but we trust him to uphold the Constitutional standards he will swear to protect." Plus, having him in the AG spot, if anything breaks about Plame, Enron, Halliburton, or the prision scandals, it will leave more responsibility at the White House's door, as Bush appointed this guy that defended torture.

I think the Deomcrats' best move will be to break one of these scandals. Rove can't cover up fot them forever. And the more connections Bush appointees have to these scandals, the easier it will be to put the blame on the White House where it belongs. I know that's kind of backwards logic, but we're not going to get Bush to appoint anyone we like, so we might as well let one in that the Religious Right is unhappy with, and one with political baggage.

[G_j]

25. and I strongly believe

Gonzales' answers to each of these questions must be in the public record also!

[sangh0]

38. They will be

That's already been made clear by several Dems.

[ibegurpard]

13. "not oppose"

Well, that could mean a number of things. It could mean they won't try to filibuster. They can hold a hearing and bring up and get on the record all of the unsavory aspects of his record. They can then vote "No." I would support a course of action like that.
If they vote "aye" to confirm then I agree you'll have a beef.

[oldlady]

19. I just hope they aren't all

as demoralized as so many of the rest of us -- I find myself less willing to take-it-all-on right now. Maybe in a couple of weeks the old zip will return. Let's hope they get their wind really quick, since it seems this second term is all about pushing fast and hard.

[sampsonblk]

22. Not much we can do now

Now that our party leadership is in full cowardly retreat, the Repubs will not let up on us one inch. Wait and see. Dems will help confirm Condi Rice almost unanimously. And they will be tripping over each other trying to get their asses on camera with her.

Pathetic.

[NightTrain]

26. You know, the Green Party is looking better and better to me.

It's coming to a point where leaning on the Democratic leadership is like leaning on a hill of Jell-O. :(

[Lefty48197]

27. The Senate Democrats will have to "pick their battles"

they can't fight to the death every single time, and there are going to be a lot of important nominations in the coming years.

[Cookie wookie]

29. Kiss his ass goodbye,

which is my feeling a about any democrat who supports the Gonzoles appointment.

You don't go to bed with fascists. If Leahy hasn't the ability to draw a line when it comes to defending democracy, then he needs to be put on the list to oust at the earliest possible opportunity.

[high density]

30. It's customary for a president to have the cabinet he wants

and in four years we can trash Gonzales. We can't get rid of supreme court justices. The senate Democrats aren't going to raise a stink about everything... It's just not going to happen.

[sangh0]

39. Hit and run flame-bait

.

[gordianot]

40. Is this how the Senate operated when Julius Caesar dismantled it?

Oops I forgot how that one ended. Maybe the Democrats are afraid history will be repeated.

At least Julius won a few battles and did not go personally AWOL.

[Pepperbelly]

45. What is it that you want them to do?

They are vastly outnumbered and the only weapon they have is the fillibuster. That knife can be used only a limited number of times before it turns in your hand.

I think they may be keeping their powder dry for the Supreme Court.

[sampsonblk]

63. Easy - Oppose without opposing

The Dems could get together as a group and issue a statement saying basically "we as a group think you are a disastrous nominee, as you have been part of most problems and few solutions since you arrived in Washington, but we can't stop you from being confirmed..."

No need for a filibuster. Every willing Dem member can sign it, and that's that. Plenty of TV time for anyone who has the courage to own up to what they said.

[Pepperbelly]

67. no, that is untrue.

There is no television time for opposing Bush, at least until the powdered and perfumed pundits figure out a way to mock us and hold us up to derision while they lie their asses off. And since they have the power and willingness to edit it to fit their script, then we are S.O.L.

It is not that simple and as far as actually excercising power, the fillibuster is all we have.

[dave502d]

49. The only way we will ever get this country back,is take it back.n/t

[journalist3072]

51. Democratic Party

The Democrats have been letting us down for a while now. It would be nice if we could have a national "come to Jesus" meeting with them, and just lay everything out there, how we feel about the state of the party.

One thing is for certain: Terry McAuliffe has been very ineffective. I'll be glad when he's gone.

[Nordic]

52. there ya go. That's why I am done with the party

fuck 'em all.

[Silverhair]

58. You have to pick and choose your battles.

We simply do NOT have the strength to fight Bush everywhere. We are a minority party. Lots of people here like to act like 48% is a victory, but it isn't. If we try to fight him on everything, we will lose all of your strength and won't be able to fight him where it really matters. Gonzales simply isn't the right battle.

If you stop Gonzales, do you think you will get a liberal from Bush?

[troubleinwinter]

60. Give em enough rope to hang themselves.

[leeroysphitz]

66. I'm disgusted...

The Dems on capitol hill have been rolling over for the last 3 1/2 years! Consistently. They are COMPLICIT in the war, in the current economy, in the plans to eradicate crucial social programs, and in the dumbing down of our education system. I am utterly disgusting by their consistent COLLABORATION.

We are supposed to be the OPPOSITION party. We should be opposing repukes at every turn regardless of votes or futility or the popularity of issues. What the dem leadership has either forgotten are is deliberately ignoring is the fact that people do not vote for politicians they do not RESPECT and you can't respect someone who won't take a stand based on strongly held principles.

We are Pro-choice, we are pro-troops but anti- war, we are pro-environment, we are anti-revenue cuts, we are pro gay rights etc... Thanks to right wing spin in the right wing (nearly all now) media these aren't popular issues with a lot of voters, but so what? These are our principles and even the most ignorant, mouth-breathing, rabidly republican would, no matter how strongly he/ she still HATED us, at least respect us if we fought and fought and NEVER backed down when it came to what we as a party stood for.

I just want my party to represent my beliefs and never compromise them win or loose. I want to respect my elected officials.

Sorry, had to get that out.