Dem's plan to filibuster Attorney General nomination

[MrVicchio]

Senate Democrats are considering filibustering Alberto Gonzales' nomination to be attorney general over his role in developing the Bush administration's policies on treating foreign detainees.

No final decision has been made yet, but at least two Democrats -- Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois -- planned to urge the Democratic caucus Tuesday to consider filibustering Gonzales' nomination, said a Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on conditions of anonymity.

A filibuster, a parliamentary tactic for delaying Senate action, would require Republicans, who hold a 55-44 majority in the Senate, to win over at least five Democrats -- or four Democrats plus Vermont Sen. James Jeffords, an independent -- to put Gonzales in office.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/02/01/national1351EST0577.DTL&type=printable


The dems are just pulling out the rope to hang themselves with.

Can we say AWESOME?

I can.

This is called pandering to the extreme left, and guess what? The voters have been taking notes on this. Good luck trying to get re-elected in 2006 with these sorts of tactics.

[JohnClark]

Good luck trying to get re-elected in 2006 with these sorts of tactics.

Why thank you, the sentiment is appreciated.

[Biohazzard56]

Its funny that they dont have enough votes to even do it.

[DeepStrikeck]

Vic, I live in the second most liberal state in the country...MA. To the left wingers in this state, Kerry and Kennedy are gods that bless the people with their presence. They would be re-elected if they made a statement saying they were the devil, were going to devour everyone's soul and eat their children. The people here are freaking insane.

[Baneblade]

I don't understand the left anymore.

[SandTrout]

Philibustering is considered a vallid political tactic from what I understand, and pulling it off would actualy give a pollitician a boost in his local support if he is opposing something that his state's populace opposes. It shows his or her dedication to their beliefs in the face of a looseing battle.

I can't hold it against the Dems for trying it.

[Headrattle]

Filibustering is the only power the Dems have left. The Republicans have used it and they would again. Don't pretend that they wouldn't. Filibustering is seen as a valid tactic by BOTH parties and they have used it for a VERY long time.

Pretending that they are doing a horrible action and pretending that they are horrible people because they actually have the balls to use the only political power that they have left is delusionary because every Republican in that building would do the same thing if they were in that situation.

It is politics. Like it or not. I don't.

[MrVicchio]

Deep I live up the road in Maine bro, I know how goes it for you.

The problem with Filibusters is, if you use obstructionist tactics too much, two thing happen:

1. Backlash from the voters. (see Tom Daschle)

2. The other party remembers... and then a vicious cycle begins. The last thing I want to see is everytime one party is out of power they use tactics like this to stop everything the otherside does.

That's not good.

[Mr1337Duck]

You know something? More and more I think the Democratic party is about to kick the bucket and we're gonna see a big political change in this country.

[Headrattle]

We already have. Right now, there is nothing that the Republicans can complain about really. Every mistake and fuck up from now on will be in the hands of the Republicans. No body else. They have no one to blame. The Democrats are impudent. And if they die out, there will be a new party to take their place.

[DaShiznit]

Deep I live up the road in Maine bro, I know how goes it for you.

The problem with Filibusters is, if you use obstructionist tactics too much, two thing happen:

1. Backlash from the voters. (see Tom Daschle)
Oh yeah, that sonofabitsh actually stood up for his beliefs. What an asshole.

[MrVicchio]

Daschle played "small town man" to his voters, and big wi liberal in DC, that's what cost him his seat. He said one thing, and did another too many times.

[DaShiznit]

My favorite quote in this entire thread is this:
This is called pandering to the extreme left, and guess what? The voters have been taking notes on this. Good luck trying to get re-elected in 2006 with these sorts of tactics.
Taking notes? What the hell? I can see it now:
"Marge, the CNN just said that the Democrats may filibuster Alberto Gonzales!"
"But Jim, with Boxer taking deputy minority whip and Reid taking the reins, this seemed like an inevitability seems to be coming to fruition."

Taking notes? How many Americans do you think even know who Alberto Gonzales is?

[MrVicchio]

What's sad, is that you are right, too ew even bother to know what's going on around them..


He's a great choice IMHO, and I'm glad they were not able to block him.

[DaShiznit]

What's sad, is that you are right, too ew even bother to know what's going on around them..


He's a great choice IMHO, and I'm glad they were not able to block him.
Oh, yeah, because torture is just so fucking great.

[MrVicchio]

It is nice to know you haven't got your facts striaght. He never advocated "torture" but alas, you are sure he did, like many other easily conviced individuals who believe what they are told without questioning whose telling them.

Please provide your "proof".

[DaShiznit]

An analysys of the Gonzales torture memo:
http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm

Here, he condones the use of inhumane tequniques:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0126-06.htm

And another article on the torture memo:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-03-gonzales-hearing_x.htm

[MrVicchio]

And he didn't advocate torture. Commondreams? Come on man, thats like me posting from frontpagemag.. well worse but still.

The memo states that the Geneva Convention is outdated in terms of dealing with the war on terror. It does NOT support torture, it just states that the terrorist do not have the right to protections under the genvea convention. Nice try.

[JohnClark]

Of course it supports torture, in the sense that it enables it. That memo was written as a post-hoc justification for actions the DOD and CIA had already decided to undertake, and anyone who would write such a memo would be aware of the consequences.

[MrVicchio]

Very broad accusations and claims. Sadly they are not based in reality, just fantasy.

The memo enables no torture, nor has there been any "official" or even "unofficial torture" that was turned a blind eye too. Has there been isolated cases of people taking things to.. extremes. Yes, that would be abu garib and a few isolated ccases at other times. But to say this is memo was written to enable the wonton torutre at will by the us government... man can I have some of what you're smoking?

[JohnClark]

Very broad accusations and claims. Sadly they are not based in reality, just fantasy.

The memo enables no torture, nor has there been any "official" or even "unofficial torture" that was turned a blind eye too. Has there been isolated cases of people taking things to.. extremes. Yes, that would be abu garib and a few isolated ccases at other times. But to say this is memo was written to enable the wonton torutre at will by the us government... man can I have some of what you're smoking?

Why else would it be written, it essentialy grants a free hand to the President to authorize torture and then pardon those who engage in it. The fact that we've only heard of a few instances does not change the effect of the memo.

[MrVicchio]

It was written because they wanted to know what constituted torture and would they run afoul of the Geneva convention.

Well, beating someone.. is torture.
Stress position is not.
Electrocuting them is.
bread and water is not.
Rape.. torture.
sleep depravation, not torture.
Shooting one and forceing the other ot talk... torture.
Loud Music is not.


Get the picture? These people had information we needed to save lives. There is a line drawn to how far we can go to get information, and this memo set that line.

Also, to be covered BY the geneva convetions requires certain requirements be met. Terrorist do not meet said requirements.

[DaShiznit]

It was written because they wanted to know what constituted torture and would they run afoul of the Geneva convention.

Well, beating someone.. is torture.
Stress position is not.
Electrocuting them is.
bread and water is not.
Rape.. torture.
sleep depravation, not torture.
Shooting one and forceing the other ot talk... torture.
Loud Music is not.


Get the picture? These people had information we needed to save lives. There is a line drawn to how far we can go to get information, and this memo set that line.

Also, to be covered BY the geneva convetions requires certain requirements be met. Terrorist do not meet said requirements.
Great. Tell you what, why don't we put you under said "non-torture" conditions and see if you change your mind?

[MrVicchio]

I'm not a terrorist, the difference between you and me, you care about being nice to people that would kill Americans. I care about saving Americans lives, and if that means makinng some shit bags uncomfortable, so be it.