There's always someone worse waiting in the wings

[cali]

So dems in congress stop an administration or judicial appointment; so what? The immutable law of bushco dictates that someone worse will then be nominated. He's never going to nominate reasonable moderate people. Never. Ever. Stopping appointments will bear no practical fruit. I guess the argument is that at least we'll show the administration and the country that we're determined to be an opposition party. Still seems a pretty futile exercise.

[charlie]

1. Nothing wrong with being an opposition party

once in a while. They could use the practice.

[K-W]

3. Id rather have effective opposition than symbolic...

but sometimes it seems like that makes me the minority on DU.

I frankly appreciate all the work Tom Daschle and the democrats did to tone down the republicans and get small things done as the minority party and Im glad that even if the Dems are absolutely lost as far as getting elected and having good ideas, they can still fight the procedural battles. At least we have that, and we shouldnt take it for granted.

But symbols can be effective, picking your battles doesnt mean never choosing one, it just means choosing the right one. The democrats do need to fight more, but they still need to fight smart.

[UL_Approved]

2. Do you advocate complacency?

Why are you nay-saying about efforts to stand up to the Republicans in congress? Don't you realize that they need to show some balls and that maybe they can delay the stuff until times change.

You seem really eager to think that Bush will not ever be removed. This attitude you've been sporting has been tried by people in congress, and they have been dubbed GOP Lite®. If the Democrats don't show some spine, people will abandon them completely.

People wonder how Dems got killed in the election. This is how. THEY SHOWED NO STRONG OPPOSITION TO REPUBLICANS. I know we all have our theories, but until the Democratic party can show that it actually IS a strong and viable opposition to the GOP, things will NEVER change.

[cali]

8. Sorry, they can't delay the stuff until times change.

I wish it was that simple. I totally back those in the Senate who have delayed confirming Rice; It serves a useful purpose by continuing the public debate on the disasterous foreign policy of this admin.

"You seem really eager to think that Bush will not ever be removed. This attitude you've been sporting has been tried by people in congress, and they have been dubbed GOP Lite®. If the Democrats don't show some spine, people will abandon them completely."

Uh, no, I'm not eager to think that bushco will not ever be removed, though I'd say the probability of such happening is extremely low. That's not defeatism, it's realism. Don't give me that mindless spewing of GOP lite. You know virtually nothing about me. Like the poster above you, I prefer, generally, effective opposition, not merely symbolic posturing. I would hope that my Senators cast no votes on both Rice and Gonzalez, but should they not do so, I'm not going to immediately turn on them and consider them bush minions. I know better. The crazy thinking around here that elevates a politician to divine heights of moral goodness one day, and tears him/her down as lower than scum, the next, is disturbing.

Finally, I agree with the poster about judges. The dems need to actively fight against wingnut judges, and if that means filibustering, fine. If that means the repugs use the 'nuclear option', OK. I'd much rather the dems use their limited firepower on judicial appointments.

[UL_Approved]

17. We need to show some opposition

I'm sorry if I got sharp yesterday. But the fact remains: Democrats need a better opposition campaign.

Kerry got killed because the GOP successfully put doubt of his ability as a leader in the minds of people. Kerry needed to show some classic presidential poise, but didn't have time to effect it for the press.

Now, Kerry has a good start for four years of strong opposition. He can fight the good fight, and make the GOP's scandals and under-handed deals come to the light of day. He won't get many things done, but he will bring the name of the Democrats back.

People are scared right now. They are still scared, and look to power over intellect. Many U.S. citizens still can't come to grips with September 11th. This is the reason that a show of strength is necessary for the Democratic party. It may go against our altruism and moral high ground, but we are in the trenches against the Republican onslaught.

I do have to wonder why Kerry and Boxer did vote no. This will cost them in the future, and I'm sure they know it. They gave up ground in voting no. The thing I would like to see is a couple more no votes once in a while. That wouldn't be too much to ask, in my opinion.

[LiberalEsto]

4. Their strategies

It looks like part of their strategy is simply to wear us down. Proposing appalling nominee after nominee is, I think, designed to wear out our side by sheer numbers.

Offering these wingnut nominees is also a planned diversion to keep us from noticing what else they are doing -- messing with EPA rules, the FCC, etc.

Finally, I'm reminded of a negotiating tactic: demand double the amount you really want, so the other side will think it has won by cutting your initial demand in half. Even if only half their looneytunes nominees get confirmed, they've gotten what they wanted.

[K-W]

5. I agree on cabinet positions, not on judicial nominations.

The cabinet will be evil no matter what, judicial nominees are a different story entirely, who the individual is matters alot more as they will be there for a while.

[Solly Mack]

6. Silence is consent

and I will not consent to a Bush rule.

To just do nothing sends the message that it's OK for Bush to do whatever he wants to do.

You can't always win the fight but that's no reason to be a coward

[DrGonzoLives]

13. So the statements they make during the debate

are silence? Isn't silence the complete absence of sound? I may be mistaken here, I don't have the 2005 Official Liberal Dictionary, since, you know, I'm obviously a DLC appeaser traitor.

[Solly Mack]

14. Never said that did I?

But you go ahead and attribute me with statements I did not make.

I think statements made about how bad someone is, and then say you're going to vote for them is pretty much the same as being silent. I know those in Congress can't vote no on everything, nor do I expect them to, but on some things, yes...they should vote no. Gonzales and Rice are 2 such things they should vote no on...however, as you're not in Congress, those statements wouldn't apply to you, now would they? So, I never called you anything. Fact is, I didn't call anyone anything...not even Dems in Congress. Never once mentioned the DLc, in point of fact.

And it also doesn't mean I called you a "DLC appeaser traitor". If that's what you heard, I can't change how you hear things.

[ktowntennesseedem]

7. Simply opposing everything solves nothing.

I agree with you, if all we do is vote no on everything, we'll be seen as obstructionists and sore losers. We can't stop the agenda, and at best can only slow it down marginally.

What the Dems can and must do, IMO, is ask the tough questions, raise issues, speak out clearly and repeatedly for the truth. We have to open a lot of eyes and ears, so that when the legislation and appointees continue getting rubber-stamped, people will see how extreme they really are. Then when (hopefully when, not if) enough people are awake, we can stand up and say we were right all along and finally start to put an end to this nightmare. We can't stop them, and we can barely slow them down; but we can sure as hell shine a spotlight on it!

[seabeyond]

9. i havent said it but so what we impeach bush, for who.......cheney

oh ya that is better. and we get both of them, then we get house speaker, hastert? who is it. i know he isnt a prize either

[cali]

10. Yeah, I've thought about that too. n/t

[Spike from MN]

11. If you look at the line of succession

no matter how deep you go they're all assholes.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. "better the devil ya know than the devil ya don't know" mamma's words

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. That may be true, but taking out their leaders causes chaos in

the enemy camp. The trajectory of their plans will be disrupted and they will be less effective.

Besides, an impeachment on policy issues, like starting illegal wars, reaches far beyond the white house and taints everyone in the administration. If it is proved that * committed high crimes and misdemeanors, then everyone who assisted him is complicit. It would discredit the neo-con agenda for years.

I say, impeach.

On Edit -- Of course, the implementaion of impeachment through a republican controlled house and senate is an entirely different issue. First step is winning a few key elections, and regaining control of the house and/or senate.

[seabeyond]

16. of course you are right,......you know what i almost see

that even high crimes and treason will so be played by our retarded msm that the repugs will get away with even greater instillation of government take over of the wolrd, lock down, martial law......i mean really

the people so uninformed, the media so bad.

[flygal]

18. I've thought of that too

and I have to agree with you there!