Why didn't the Dem leadership

[KT2000]

demand Gonzalez' resignation before allowing FISA to be put up for a vote?

The entire country knows that Gonzalez has been lying and he has no support other than the administration.
The leadership had to have known which Dems were going to cross over. They have done a good job demonstrating the corrupt leadership at DOJ but then turn around and give that same lying, amnesiac more power. Certainly they could have pushed back with some kind of deal, no? They could have been loud about it and called news conferences and put it on the table.

[EFerrari]

1. What an excellent question that is. n/t

[EST]

2. Is this a serious question?

If so, it is illegal and unconstitutional for one branch to interfere with the personnel decisions of another, except at specifically designated areas of overlap, i.e. confirmation, investigation of illegality, prosecution, etc, and there are specific protocols for that.

Democratic leaders can call for gonzo to step down, but they can't make it a condition of legislation.

[eallen]

4. No. But they could fairly and rightly say....

It would be Constitutional, correct, and appropriate for Congress to say that it would pass no new revisions to FISA until it had finished investigating recent abuses of FISA, pointing out that executive branch stonewalling would only delay that.

[KT2000]

9. Exactly!

that is good political maneuvering.
If they can't cross branches regarding personnel matters, there were other ways to get it done.

[EST]

10. That's true.

But even if they studiously avoided the connection, they would rightly be accused of it and, as far as public opinion goes, would achieve the exact thing they did not want. Instant heart attacks all around.

[KT2000]

13. But what we got was worse

the public has accepted criminal activity from this administration for 6 years because it has been packaged as strength.
What the public does not accept is weakness.

[KT2000]

7. Yes it is a serious question

and I appreciate your answer. This is the info I was wondering about.
I am seriously trying to figure out the complete roll-over.

To me it is the dichotomy of exposing Gonzalez and then giving him more power that I cannot put to rest.

[lpbk2713]

3. Part of the package.

The compromise package that we will never know the details about.

[B Calm]

5. They are going to impeach him... so they say...

[mzmolly]

6. Because the "terrorists" weren't offering to wait for such a resignation?

:shrug: Because we don't want to "play politics with national security" in spite of the fact that Bushie does it?

[bbgrunt]

8. great question.

[KharmaTrain]

11. Helen Thomas Nailed It

Democrats...especially Blue Dogs still live in the beltway bubble of "conventional wisdom" where people "support" the war and that Democrats are always "weak on defense". Many Democrats in red and purple districts are scared shit of TV commercials next year saying how they voted against "keeping us safe" or "not supporting the troops". Back this with a leadership that still can't stand up to this regime in fear of a corporate media and hate radio backlash. Dare I say, they hope for the same outrage many others here use as their basis for the reason to impeach...yet inside the beltway the "outrage" is for anyone who dares to challenge this regime. They're sure to face the wrath of Rushbo, BillO, Bowtie Boy and a chorus of stenographers and paid pundits who the networks claim they use as balance.

While we know Gonzo has lied...knowing and having it ready to prove in a court of law are two different animals...and one thing is for certain, you won't see any impeachments unless it has a criminal underpinning...a real crime to put teeth into the definition of "high crimes". Gonzo's close but no cigar. He needs to be charged, at least, with perjury and obstruction...if not convicted. Right now we're waiting on a boooshie toadie as Solicitor General taking his dear sweet time on deciding if he'll either prosecute, recuse or further stonewall things.

This regime is playing out the clock, and sadly I honestly don't see the votes in the Senate to even convict Gonzo. Too many Repugnicans need the RNC money and are even more intimidated by the boooosh regime than the Democrats. That's the real crime going on here.

[KT2000]

12. The disconnect

you describe could be the answer to why the Blue dogs supported the bill.
I still do not understand why leadership did not push back at all.
If they could not forsee the effect of rolling over on this, there is something fundamentally wrong. They neutered their own efforts, still trying to figure out why.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Leadership Can Lead, Not Vote

So many here expect Pelosi to run the House like DeLay did...cracking the whip and holding votes open. I think Pelosi has done a marvelous job swimming across some tough currents. From being demonized for her airplane to her trip to the Middle East and anything else she say...she's target #1 of the Repugnican spin machine as they attempt all they can to mold her into a Democratic Gingrich or DeLay...generate the same hate/unpopularity those goons had.

Pelosi can encourage a vote, but she can't force it. And, more specifically, she can't control what happens in the Senate. This has been a major problem as the McConnell filibuster holds up a lot of the good work she and the Democrats have done. They have to pick their spots and bills carefully in any hopes of getting any kind of vote in the Senate. I'm sure if she could move stuff through the Senate, things would be vastly different.

The fundamental wrong is the corporate media culture in the beltway...the "conventional wisdom"...the unspoken memes that all Democrats get buffeted with day in and out. We can sit back in our blue districts and demand all Democrats think or do as we do, but reality says that's not gonna happen. What needs to happen is to break the cult of personality corporate media that puts mindless goons like Tweety, O'Reilly and so many others as some kind of authority on what people or the body politic thinks.

Plus it doesn't help when you go to your congressional office and see a dozen protestors who bitch you're not doing enough, while on the rest of your day you keep hearing you're doing too much. There's where a big disconnect happens.

[KT2000]

16. Not the vote

What happens before the vote is controlled by the leadership.
Reid should have presented this to the public with his reservations about granting more power to an individual who has already been shown to be untrustworthy. There were other things he could have done, especially behind the scenes, such than when the vote approved FISA, most of the Dems stood for something and were consistent in their principles.

[KharmaTrain]

17. There's No Defending What Reid Did

The leadership works in strange byzantine ways...leaders of both parties supposedly have to agree on what gets brought to the floor and the rules on the vote. Reid caved big time to McConnell on this as, as you state, he could have done several things to prevent this decrepid bill from ever seeing the Senate floor. He could have spoken out or sent it to committee for further review or just stonewall like this regime and just debate the thing forever. Instead, he got over-ruled by the "moderates" in his caucus...many who already had decided to vote and cave-in. He couldn't hold his caucus...and unless he stiffens and soon, he'll get rolled again and again.

I'm hoping, but with a lot of cynicism, that Pelosi and Reid follow through on their promise to call this bill up again in September...and my hopes are that the blue dogs and other "moderates" are getting an earful in their districts right now. Sadly, I'm reading of confrontations with Pelosi and Nadler...people who are on our side...rather than putting the pressure on the Blue dogs and the WINO...the Repugnican "moderates" who say one thing when the mikes are on and vote the other way when it matters.

Cheers...

[EST]

18. Best be cautious-

such a pragmatic approach and penetrating analysis in often not welcome, even among people you like and who like you.

There are two faces to consider, however. I am often made uncomfortable by the uncomprehending and somewhat simplistic demands made by protesters and posters, here and elsewhere, and have learned to spend little precious time attempting to shine a light that illuminates what's possible and where there may be a more complicated "game" going on than is immediately obvious.

One of the things I have to keep learning is that having ever louder voices demanding the impossible is one of the most important tools available to us. If it weren't for those loud and angry voices, I would be considered liberal fringe. They have to be there to define where people stand, what's doable, and what the attitude of the public is.

"Uncompromisingly Liberal" is a label that takes some getting used to but serves to move the body politic back toward an Ideological center more worthy of the name.

The problem with that barometer is that if your scream too loud, too much, you start qualifying for some of the "nut case" epithets that are hurled at you and it starts becoming harder to be invited anywhere.
Not quite the crazy aunt in the boarded up room behind the parlor, but you have to find some other ways of being heard.

Politicians, at least the better ones, have an even more multi-horned dilemma. If they don't show up on tv, they don't exist. It might fry any sense of ethics or morality to appear on a show that is specifically set up to do whatever it can to destroy you and your effectiveness. There are almost zero sympathetic venues available and there you are witnessing to the already converted.
If you don't have the exposure, you won't be there long enough to do the vital work of draining the swamp that you came to do.

And there it is, no one wants to eat shit but there's nothing else to eat and it will keep you alive. Big choice. Do you go down sticking to your ideological guns and accomplishing practically nothing or do you improve your effectiveness and compromise. How much compromise is too much?

[KharmaTrain]

21. Very Well Stated

I've never tried to run for a popularity contest here or in real life...just deal with the cards one is dealt, don't try to think you're too smart and always find a way to make a positive change happen.

There's nothing wrong with screaming loudly...and there have been many occurances over the past 6 years where I had wished there was a louder outrage than what I've heard. Inversely. it disturbs me to see people losing patience with those who best serve as our positive agents of change. Just cause they won't dance fast enough or jump high enough. I see a lot of misdirected anger and frustration...inadvertantly giving cover and time to those who should be critized loudly.

I've long considered myself a Progressive...but I have no qualms with the "L" label...in fact, I see Liberal from its root...Liberty and freedom...as oppposed to Conservative...forward looking rather than stuck in the past. The word may be demonized, but the concept has never been more in vogue.

I grew up with the notion that if you make a complaint, be ready to offer a solution...or else you're adding to the problem. While I admire those who stick to those ideological guns, when it becomes as inflexible as the opposition it serves no purpose. Compromise is a dirty word right now since all efforts on our side to compromise have been abused, thus I can relate to those who say no more...the trick Democrats will have to deal with for many years to come will be if Repugnicans can ever be trusted enough to compromise with again. It's to their detriment that they don't...but they're so short-sighted they won't realize it until they're on the outside with little power.

While we have our individual differences, we all need to if not stick together...at least continue to communicate and find whatever common causes we can.

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

Cheers...

[EST]

22. Oh, the freedom imposed by choosing to live in a world of

dichotomy and paradox.

One of the fundamental axioms seems to be: The truth is what is and is to be preferred, however, if one always tells the unvarnished truth, one will get one's vote cancelled.

[kenny blankenship]

15. They would rather piss on the people who voted for them than piss off those who didn't

[VP505]

19. I think

that's about it in a nut shell. I believe that standing up to Bu$hCo on select issues and damn the torpedo's that will come no matter what they do will go a long way in getting some respect from all concerned.

[defendandprotect]

20. Gonzales should be impeached . . . and we sit in limbo now waiting for Recess to end -- ???!!!!

I wonder if ANY of these investigations/hearings will go forward while Recess is on?

Presumably investigations might -- ?

Hearings???