Last fall, before the election, I advocated that Senate Democrats abstain from a vote to confirm Porter Goss to the position of Director of Central Intelligence. Everyone knew that Goss was a corrupt Republican hack (and he has proved worthy of his reputation), but I suggested that the Democrats not give Bush a campaign issue by voting against Goss in a futile gesture, but abstain as a vote of no-confidence.
I have no such tactical concerns now. Every single Senate Democrat should vote No on Condoleezza Rice, and No on Alberto Gonzales. Rice and Gonzales are responsible for selling and implementing profoundly corrupt courses of action, lying in those efforts, and then lying about their actions after the fact. A vote to confirm either of them is a vote endorsing torture, a vote ratifying an immoral war built on lies, a vote for corruption and empire. Make the Republicans own that vote, every odious consequence of it.
Senate Democrats should not have any illusions about avoiding charges of "obstructionism" leveled at them if they do the right thing and vote no: the Republicans will call Democrats "obstructionists" or worse, no matter what the Democrats do, no matter whether the charge is true or not.
The Democrats should not fear that label anyway. Obstructionism is just another name for resistance, the moral response to a regime as immoral, as corrupt, as destructive as the Bush Campaignistration and its camp followers.
Vote No. Resistance is the only moral course.
Amen. Glad to see you take a holiday from your holiday.
Posted by: Abby | Jan 26, 2005 at 07:39 AM
Good post. The Dems have nothing to lose and everything to gain. 2 or 4 years for now taking a stand on the atrocities of Iraq might be political gold. Not to mention the right thing to do.
Posted by: John | Jan 27, 2005 at 07:58 AM
In a few months or so we will have an image to match those hellicopters on top of the American Embassy in Siagon, except this time it will be in Bagdad.
Soon, we will pull out and the real disaster will begin. Thanks Bush, you really made us um...safer, yeah that's it.
Posted by: DaveB | Jan 27, 2005 at 09:18 AM
Well, round one is down and we have discovered 13 Senators with Spines(SWS?). The others no doubt have their rationalizations, include two women from my home WA state. I am hoping for some good primary challengers. This is no time to be wishy washy ... about Rice, Gonzales, Social Security,...
We need a resistance party, without a doubt.
I am starting to think that Teddy Kennedy may be our only hope. Maybe he is ready to say "Yes I am a liberal. Want to make something of it a**hole."
Kennedy/Dean '08 ?
Posted by: Desert Donkey | Jan 27, 2005 at 07:05 PM
The endless floor speeches are the obstructionism, not the voting. I hope they vote(d) as they feel appropriate, but I wish they'd have their endless, old speeches via a press conference.
If Ted Kennedy's the Dem's only hope, then they've no hope at all.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 27, 2005 at 11:59 PM
Brain, Interesting about the speeches as obstructionism angle. You may be on to something there. If a clear press conference message could be delivered instead, while strongly voting no, then Dems could beat the obstruction rap, and offer real resistance.
By the way, those press clips of Kennedy (and Boxer) over the last week is the reason I made the comment about Kennedy. From where I sit in the inland Northwest he is the only one making pointed comments about these lame appointments. He has the ability to draw attention, and if he is willing to use it as the voice of resistance then I am happy to have him on my team.
Posted by: Desert Donkey | Jan 28, 2005 at 05:16 AM
The Senate has a 200 year tradition of unlimited debate. I might not love it, and you might not love it, but that's what the Senate is about, so the use of that tradition in the service of a good goal is hardly obstructionism, just as a filibuster would not be obstructionist.
It's not as if there's some consensus that one or two people are refusing to go along with. There's one party that is trying to translate a <51% bare majority into complete and permanent control of the levers of power. I also think that getting the objections into the public record is important; and the Senate's legislative record is as good a place as any.
Posted by: paperwight | Jan 28, 2005 at 07:27 AM
paperwight, the need to officially record is certainly important. The obstruction message is one that seems to play well to the uninformed as it is easy to convince them that it is simply 'wasting time'. I would most like to see the procedures used to shine light and bring heat AND see Kennedy (and other Democrats) go in public and succinctly explain why they need to represent the 50%+ of the nation that did not vote for Bush and his henchmen(women).
Posted by: Desert Donkey | Jan 28, 2005 at 01:25 PM
Well, a 200 year old tradition of crap is still ... crap. No doubt it's a well-honed tradition. I'm in favor of it ending as soon as possible. I accept that the Dems might not appreciate my point of view at the moment, but when the pendulum inevitably swings, they'll be complaining about the Republicans fillibusters and such.
I'm in line with Desert Donkey. Cut to the chase with a strong, clear message through a means other than wasting my tax dollars on the Senate floor. Well, I can dream anyway ...
As far as Senator Kennedy goes - I may live on the Left Coast, and was born and raised in New England. And I'm no fan of Sen. Kennedy - I find him speaking from a position of moral authority to be the height of hypocrisy.
But either way, it's all over now. Hopefully the Dems will find more strategic items to take a stand on now.
Posted by: Brian | Jan 28, 2005 at 11:53 PM