Should Senators Who Vote To Confirm Dr. Rice Be Punished By The Party

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Poll question: Should Senators Who Vote To Confirm Dr. Rice Be Punished By The Party

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. no

a lot of people believe a president should have the right to choose his/her own cabinet members

[sophie996]

14. true, BUT ...

with the advice and consent of the senate. boxer, et al, are advising the resident that he's made a disastrous choice.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

15. the president himself is a disastrous choice

rice is only half bad as bush is

[genius]

36. Send the cowards this letter. It may change their minds before the vote.

http://patrickhenrythinktank.org/sen-rice.html

AGREEMENT NOT TO RUN FOR RE-ELECTION - TO BE SENT TO THOSE CONSIDERING NOT BLOCKING THE NOMINATION OF CONDOLEEZZA RICE.


I _______________(name of Senator) from the State of ______________(name of state) agree not to run for re-election. Through my failure to oppose the nomination of Condoleezza Rice, I have demonstrated that I lack the intelligence and integrity needed to represent the people of my state. When Condoleezza Rice saw a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States" prior to 9/11, it did not occur to her that Bin Laden was determined to attack inside the United States. Now, though I may have also lacked the intelligence to make that connection, there are a great many other Americans who do have the intelligence to make that connection who are eligible to become Secretary of State. Ms. Rice helped lead the charge to war with two countries who were less responsible for 9/11 than the incompetence of Ms. Rice. She worked to make the whole world hate us. As a result of the actions of Ms. Rice, Americans are in more danger now than ever before. If Ms. Rice continues this pattern as Secretary of State, the future of all Americans will be in grave danger. I lack the concern for the American people and the integrity to block this nomination and demand we do better. In failing to block this incompetent war-monger of African American origin, I am also demonstrating my racist belief that the best African-American for the job is a stupid war-mongerer and that we can find no better African-American for the job. In conclusion, I will never again run for public office because I am a stupid, gullible Senator who has no concern for the welfare of my constituents or the American people.



_________________________(signature of Senator)

[AntiCoup2K4]

16. Well, that belief presumes a few things

1 - That a President is legally elected by the majority of the American people.

2 - That said President legitimately has the best interests of America in mind. Meaning that Americans may have legitimate differences on policy, but it's understood that at least the first 39 presidents in this country (and presumably the 42nd) legitmately wanted to protect the American people in his own way.

3 - It is the legitimate, constitutional duty of the Senate, under the seperation of powers, to determine whether a President's nominee is fit for the job for which he or she has been nominated.

In the case of Rice and Gonzales, they both did their previous jobs VERY BADLY and America has sufferred as a result of both of them and their incompetency. I don't believe any other President - not even Reagan or Poppy - would even be trying to promote these failures.

The reason we HAVE seperation of powers/checks and balances in the first place is to prevent one branch from appointing people who are not compatible with America's best interests. And I applaud every Senator - even the usually detestable Evan Bayh - who realized that fact today and acted accordingly.

[me b zola]

18. Senators Byrd & Boxer both spoke to this issue

They both whipped out the Constitution and reminded all of the sheep what their responsibilities are as Senators regarding cabinet positions.

They both also quoted the Federalists papers and reminded the sheep why there are checks and balances...No singular person <the Executive branch> should not be allowed to posses much power.

[tyedyeto]

38. Many people believe * has that right but do we, the American people, have

the right to say 'NO' to someone who has lied to us?

What credibility will our country have throughout the world if a person who has lied to her own people becomes the spokesperson for what we stand for?

What will the world community at large think when our Senators tell the world that it is OK for our representative to nations throughout this planet that our spokesperson is a liar who would not blink at mimicing the neocons, be it lies or half-truths?

Will we ever have credibility in the world governments when someone of such questionable character is our spokesperson?

The President does have that right to choose but it is also the right of our Senate to question and decide if that person has the credibility to be 'our' spokesperson.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

2. no they should be terminated by the voters!

[rzemanfl]

4. I agree and voted "No."

[me b zola]

22. I agree.

As long as they are masquerading as Dem's we will continue to lose elections. The Nation needs to remember what a Democrat is, and Senator Boxer is doing a wonderful job of reminding us.

[in_cog_ni_to]

3. yes.

If they COULD BE terminated by the voters, that would be peachy, but we vote on evoting machines. THAT will never happen again.

[Last Lemming]

5. Punish a senator

stand in the corner in the oval office?

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. NO... The time-out chair!

sit there for 6 damn years! :grr:

[donheld]

12. Make'm wear this for a day

:dunce:

[Hippo_Tron]

6. YES, Republican senators should be punished by the Democratic Party

n/t

[LittleClarkie]

7. No

Depends on what you mean by punish of course. Should they be campaigned against and should you find someone to your liking to replace them with. Maybe. Up to the constituents, really.

Punish is such a chilling word. It sounds like what Repubs try to do to Dems who have fought the RW agenda. So unless we're talking about electoral accountablility, I have to say no.

So, what do you mean by "punish?"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. I Am Not Expressing An Opinion ...It Would Bias My Poll....

I think we will learn a lot about ourselves by the responses....



I think any reader of my posts knows where I stand on these issues...

[noamnety]

9. I'm not sure what it means to "punish" a senator

but if it means preventing them from doing their job in some way, and being an obstructionist, then no, of course not.

I don't like the republican witch hunts.

If it comes time for reelection and the consesus is they haven't represented us well, then hopefully we'll find someone better to run against them.

[annabanana]

11. We should hit them upside the head!

And if they don't mend their evil ways.. we should run against them!

[LittleClarkie]

20. Bag o' oranges

'cause it don't leave a mark, har har.

[Mend]

13. Yes....does rice represent any of us

does she represent any Democratic ideals, ideas, beliefs? Why would any Democratic senator vote for her? That is validation of her crap: war, torture, lies, failures to protect this country. Any senator who calls him/herself a Democrat and votes for her should be called on it.

[Zynx]

17. No.

There are serious problems with virtually anyone Bush would nominate. If you expect Bush to pick anything other than a neo-conservative you are sadly mistaken. Rice may be particularly bad and I would vote against her confirmation, but I understand the point of view of those who will vote to confirm her.

[Walt Starr]

19. Absolutely

[RaulVB]

21. No, the American model doesn't include the "political punishment" tool

They are part of the culture of politics elsewhere but not here.

Supposedly the voters "take care" of it...

[journalist3072]

23. Absolutely Yes

They should be punished for their yes votes.

Any Senator who votes "yes" on Rice is essentially doing the same thing George Bush loves to do: reward incompetence.

And I'm bothered by some Democrats who seem to say that they will vote for her confirmation, and then hold their real fire for the next Supreme Court nomination.

This is NOT an either/or situation. The do not have to choose between taking a principled stand on Rice, OR the Supreme Court nomination(s) to come. They can and must take stands on BOTH.

[DistressedAmerican]

24. Hell Yes! The new buzz word is "obstructionist"

Well, I wrap myself in that word the same way they wrap themselves in the flag! Fight every move they make. Creat gridlock. Show them that 49% of American will not put up with this crap!

[Clarkie1]

35. Obstruction is appropriate when faced with lies of this magnitude

Any senator who was lied to by Rice should vote against her if they have any integrity or honor whatsoever.

[mcscajun]

25. No. The President should be able to stew in his own juice.

the Dem Senators should save their firepower for the onslaught of judicial appointments "coming soon to a theatre near you". If they flub Those up, THEN we should be talking retribution of the electoral order.

[DistressedAmerican]

27. It is not like they have limited ammo...

that is just some justification put forth by Dems who seek to selectively appease this tyrant and his ilk. That has never worked and never will.

Fight them every chance you get. If we fight them on Condi can we not still fight them on judges? Why is it either/or?

[PassingFair]

37. Beat me to the ammo, Distressed!

Dems look and act wishy-washy. We have unlimited firepower.

[mcscajun]

43. Because like it or not, they are a collaborative body…

…and if we expect to get any of the things we want (big stuff like the Supreme and Federal court appointments; ordinary stuff, like appropriations, legislation on routine matters) we have to be able to work with these people Sometimes. I'd like to fight them on everything, too — problem is, we can't win on Anything that way. We don't have the numbers like we used to, and to get Anything done, we need to win a couple of Repubs on occasion. We don't get them by fighting Everything.

Yes, there have been a few notable cabinet appointments that were fought and won; that was in other times where we had the numbers. We Don't Now.

Say we get all the Dem Senators to vote No; she still gets the office. It's not like we beat back Condi and * doesn't come up with somebody else just as venal and just as much in support of what he does as she. Inside the White House, there really is Nothing we can do to change the Administration. Anyone * appoints to his Cabinet is going to be an embarrassment domestically, and for some offices, on the world stage.

We really should fight what happens day to day in the Senate and the House, and fight for some semblance of sanity in the Supreme and Federal Courts. Because much as we'd like to, we really can't oppose them on everything.

[DistressedAmerican]

50. I couldn't disagree more...

There is nothing that We are going to get in the next session that is not handed down to us by THEM. I don't care about their freaking charity and I for am certainly not willing to kiss their asses to get it. I'd prefer gridlock where nothing changes, nobody benefits. to a system where appease them what they want in hopes that they will let us get a bill through in the future.

[mcscajun]

51. Okay then; your way they get everything they want and we get: Nothing.

We can't stop them now; I most fervently wish it were otherwise. We can stand and scream "No" for the next four years and vote against everything they want; it won't change a blessed thing. They're going to get everything their votes can get for them. Gridlock is a pipe dream. We used to have the votes to create it; we don't anymore. Would that it were otherwise.

[rumpel]

26. punish how? They are supposed to vote their conscience, if theirs

differs greatly from mine (a constituent) , I just simply would not vote for them again.

[Quixote1818]

28. If they gloat over how wonderful Condi is like Lieberman did, YES!!!!

You all in Connecticut need to run another Democrat to oust the bastard.

[genius]

29. Someone send them the results of this poll. It might scare them.

[LittleClarkie]

30. Please don't, it's embarrassing

It makes us look like Lefty freepers.

Punishment. Scare tactics. I'm so proud.

[genius]

31. These people need to either reform or leave the party. We don't need them

We need competent Senators who have the courage and integrity to oppose people like Rice.

[Clarkie1]

32. I agree

Lying to the senate and the American people is unacceptable. Voting to confirm Rice on the part of any senator shows a lack of integrity.

The message against lies of this magnitude needs to come from the ENTIRE democratic party, in unision.

[Clarkie1]

34. They ought to be punished by the voters, who are the democratic party

No more bullshit lies.

Period.

[LittleClarkie]

39. No more bullshit lies. Agreed.

Great. Wonderful. All for it. BUT, also, no more scare tactics, no more "punishments." Vote em out, stop paying into their coffers, support somebody else. But what the flying F is all this about "punishment." That's freeper talk.

What punishment? What, an ad campaign? "This dude disagreed with me so I'm gonna hound him til he's out of office?" Oh my god, he exersized his democratic right to disagree with you. The horror! Recall the bastard for disagreeing with me!

[Clarkie1]

41. This goes beyond disagreement

To suppot a liar who supported lies that took us to war is not disagreement. It is a lack of integrity and moral fortitude. To advance the cause of a person who has lied in your face and not apologized shows a lack of regard for oneself.

We don't need people who lack integrity in the party. We can do better. They ought to be voted out by the we the voters.

What is the process for running democratic candidates against democratic incumbents?

[LittleClarkie]

42. Hell, that's not "punishment" that's just the democratic process

That, I don't have a problem with.

I still wonder at the original poster's use of the word "punishment," is all. I'm so sick of repub threats that I'm kind of sensitive not doing such things in our own party.

Besides, I suspect that would mean trying to get rid of alot of Dems. I suspect most of them are going to vote yes. So far, we have "The Magnificent Eight."

Hope there will be more in the end.

[mcscajun]

52. Bless you.

We get nowhere by playing a "more intellectually pure than thou" game.

Let's spend our energy fighting the other guys; not looking at every vote made by Dems as a "you're with us or against us" situation. Sounds too much like repuke behavior to me.

The French "Reign of Terror" and the Politburo were into intellectualy purity, too. Don't think I want to go there.

[gordianot]

33. Yes

Obama has another chance to redeem himself. He is really off to a bad start in the Senate.

[cestpaspossible]

40. Not officially by the party, it is up to the caucus.

and it really depends on how united they are on the issue. But we the voters will punish them.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

44. No, Social Security is the true litmus test for party loyalty.

Let us not split the party anymore on lost causes but pick our fights where we can and must win. Anybody that sells out on Social Security needs to be harshly punished by the leadership since they should not longer be considered as party members.

[bunkerbuster1]

46. Hear, hear.

Condi is an interesting diversion. I can accept that some Dems might feel a need to vote to confirm. Not happy with it, but I can live with it.

Condi pales in comparison to the SS fight. Let's keep some perspective. Much as I'm absolutely loathing Joe Lieberman these days, if we get his support (and ANY republicans who see the light) on SS, we work with them to defeat piratization.

[Ramsey]

45. Yes

Because it is time for those wayward Dems to show a unified front. They are the opposition party, completely out of power and with no recourse but to oppose. Bush will get want he wants, but he won't get the veneer of "bipartisanship". Bush and Rice LIED to us all, repeatedly, and that is totally unacceptable. No excuse about the president's prerogative should trump dishonesty. The country deserves better. We deserve better than sycophantic yes-men and women who kiss Bush's ass and enable his cruel tendencies.

And when Bush implodes under the weight of his own horrible policies and practices, the Dems can stand tall and honestly claim to have been against him. The Republicans will go too far, and there will be a backlash. We need to stand tall, for principle and for political gain. And stand firm against the atrocities of the Bushies, including Rice and Gonzales.

[leftofthedial]

47. EVERY Dem should fight EVERY repuke nominee

and EVERY repuke initiative EVERY step of the way

[robbedvoter]

48. They should hear from their constituents.

[John_H]

49. Can one of the Political geniuses who voted yes exxplain

how "the party" goes about punishing a U.S. Senator? Will the senator who runs the dscc do it. Would Chairman Dean of the DNC, which senators raise huge amounts of money for, do it? The DCCC? Wait, they fund congressional races.

The only person who could punish the senators who vote yes is Harry Reid. And he's voting yes too.

Do you donate to a work to elect your senator? Is s/he voted yes, why don't you do the punishing? After all, you're the only one that can do it.