Hearings aside, why have a democratic party? I am losing confidence

[caligirl]

in a party I staunchly defended and worked to get votes for in '04 and '00. I took both my sons to see Gore and Clinton speeches, to impress on them the importance of participatory democracy. I supported candidates who may have had a single issue I did not like, but who overall had done a great job.(DiFi for one).

John Dean tells us congress has more power than they are using to get Gonzales out of the AG position he abuses for the cabal. Democrats are so far more afraid of something I am not sure of than they are of pulling Gonzo out of his job or hiring a special prosecutor to do it for them.

So until Democrats have the will to remove Gonzo by arrest or find a special prosecutor Bush gets to keep the man who aids and abets his lawlessness.

Correction: According to Dean it is the job of the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor. Oh s***!

John Deans statement:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070518.html

"Congress could hold Gonzales in contempt by a simple majority vote (and that would not be difficult to obtain, given the feelings in both chambers about this Attorney General). It could hold him in contempt for his failure to respond to the subpoena he virtually ignored, or for his lies to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which I will explain shortly.

Congress has two routes to travel, once it holds any person in contempt. It can proceed by the statutory route, which requires the Department of Justice to handle the prosecution. But since the Attorney General could block that route, the Congress would have good reason to use its inherent powers and procedures, instead.

Thus, Congress could --taking a page from Gonzales's playbook -- send fifteen plainclothes Capitol Hill police officers to arrest the Attorney General and take him into custody. Either the House or Senate, alone, would have the power to hold him until the end of the 110th Congress. In truth, a majority of either chamber of Congress has more power than a president, the Department of Justice, and federal courts to take summary actions against those who refuse to honor its processes.

Of course, this is not likely to happen. Congress has the power to do so if it so chooses. But because most of those in Washington with experience do not think like Gonzales, they will exhibit respect for interbranch customs instead of simply jailing the Attorney General. "...

....."It strikes me, then, that the Justice Department has effectively admitted that the Attorney General lied. It further strikes me that Gonzales's repeated dissembling has earned him a Special Counsel investigation. But, unfortunately, that is an appointment the Attorney General himself would have to make. And currently, there is no deputy attorney general. As an interium action, it appears that the U.S. Senate may pass a resolution of "no confidence" in the Attorney General, so members of the Senate can go on record that they do not approve of Gonzales's behavior even if President Bush does.

It is painful to watch this implosion at the Department of Justice. If the Senate does not at minimum adopt a no confidence resolution, I wonder how much longer the career attorneys in the Department will stand for it, before they organize enough support, among themselves, to tell Gonzales that either he goes, or they go - which would simply shut down the Department of Justice."

[aquart]

1. Thank you for your concern.

Maybe you want to look up "veto-proof majority," which is what the Democrats do not have. As long as the Republicans refuse to vote with us, all we can do is expose, expose, expose.

This is because, as Democrats, we work under the rules of democracy.

[caligirl]

5. Last year I was thrilled that oversight would actually take place. But

unfortunately it now feels like Bush, Cheney, Rove and Gonzo are out to once again define the democratic party as weak.

[Clark2008]

2. Not to be the grammar police, but "losing," not "loosing."

(We make fun of freepers for this).

:hi:

[caligirl]

3. thanks. Feels like running around with a zipper down. I would rather know, than do that.

[Adelante]

8. That's becoming more and more common on DU

"Loosing" for "losing" - even by good spellers, I've noticed. I was wondering if it was one of those purposeful things like "moran" or if it has become so ordinary that nobody notices anymore.

Not that it's a big worry, but I can see how easily it's picked up.

[Norquist Nemesis]

4. It's extremely frustrating after the first six years of Bush

and so easy to blame Democrats for 'no-spine'. The Cons had control of every branch of government...including the Judicial. Every Department was and still is headed by a Bush appointed Cabinet member with every Agency headed by a Bush appointee. The courts have been stacked--make that PACKED with Bush appointees.

We have to keep in mind, first and foremost, that the current Democratic Majority does not have anything even remotely akin to the previous six years in terms of 'power'. Your work to get them in Majority IS paying off, as frustrating as it is. But when you're feeling angry or down about it, just imagine what it would be like had the Cons remained in control of Congress.

PS - They've only been in the Majority since January of this year.

[caligirl]

6. I get worried that they are afraid Rove has the dirt on a few of them and

would they not do whatever is possible because of that.

[Norquist Nemesis]

7. Don't think it's Rove they're afraid of, per se

It's the Cons ability to spew things and have it stick for thirty years. Have you heard the Democrats are weak on National Security? Did you know that Liberals are all about Tax and Spend? Oh, and before I forget, they're murdering hundreds of thousands of unborn babies on demand!

[Labors of Hercules]

9. Democrats need to speak out more often and more forcefully.

We all know how the democratic process is limiting, but we need the Democratic majority to raise a little more hell against what the right is doing wrong. Especially the candidates need to do this. I think the one who will win is the one who attacks the current administration most effectively, and I mean the one who can tear them limb from limb, and bring the most people (even Repukes) in line against them (Just my opinion).

[Dhalgren]

10. Democrats should stop talking about what they can't do and start

doing what they can. It appears that the Democrats do less with more. I am not bashing the Party, I am questioning its goals. What are the Party's aims? I do not think that the Party has to worry about a third party challenge, because most of the "leftists" in the Party have given up on doing anything other than toeing the Party line on election day. A third party challenge to the right would hurt the Republicans far more than the Democrats, so there should be no worries there. So it would seem that the Party would be in a position to take a few mild risks to achieve its goals. The only question remaining is, what are those goals?

[LiberalFighter]

11. That's right... AG appoints special prosecutor

The only other way is for Congress to enact an independent prosecutor law.

BUT the language has to be written so that the Whitewater fiasco doesn't happen again. That means the Supreme Court Chief Justice doesn't have the sole right to appoint the panel that determines who is the special prosecutor. Last time we had Rehnquist appointing the 3 to the panel that appointed Starr. It needs to be totally non-partisan and above board.

[LiberalFighter]

12. It is better to be prudent then to charge into a hornet's nest.

It will be difficult for the voters to perceive the Democrats being irresponsible and partisan if they are taking reasonable time to have Gonzales ousted. It would help if the Democrats in office would remind the voters what the Republicans did while in office.

[Igel]

13. If you need something to cheer you up, consider this.

If a dem-controlled Congress does nothing, one would suppose that's better than having a repub-controlled Congress doing something.

Many people only consider the best outcome as good or desirable; there are often lesser, yet perfectly fine outcomes that should not be dismissed. One can do this without being a pollyana.