Democrats say Mukasey filibuster would have been wrong move

[babylonsister]

Democrats say Mukasey filibuster would have been wrong move
By Manu Raju | Posted 11/09/07 04:08 p.m.
November 09, 2007

Senate Democrats on Friday downplayed their decision not to wage a filibuster to derail the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, arguing it would have been a fruitless endeavor that would have set a dangerous precedent if a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.

For weeks, Democrats had lodged strong concerns with Mukasey’s contention that he could not say whether the interrogation tactic known as waterboarding constitutes torture. But the Senate ultimately confirmed the nominee late Thursday on a 53-40 vote, which was seven shy of the 60 that would have been needed to cut off a filibuster.

Democrats on Friday argued that votes on a procedural motion, like cutting off a filibuster, should not be equated with a vote on an underlying nomination or bill. A Democratic leadership aide said there likely would have been enough support to cut off a filibuster, making it frivolous to schedule a time-consuming procedural vote to end debate. The aide also said that “filibustering a Cabinet nominee is a bad precedent,” given that there is a possibility a Democrat may occupy the White House in 2009.

Similarly, Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, who chairs the Democratic Policy Committee, said Friday it would have been an “extraordinary” move for Congress to filibuster a presidential Cabinet nominee.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) said Friday he wasn’t going to say “one way or another” whether his party’s leaders asked Democrats to hold off on a filibuster. But he said he was pleased with the vote, arguing that it sent a “strong signal” that the administration’s torture policies “are not acceptable here.” The Senate confirmation vote was the lowest for an attorney general in over 50 years.

There may have been other factors at play, too.

more...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/democrats-say-mukasey-filibuster-would-have-been-wrong-move-2007-11-09.html

[angstlessk]

1. ohhhhh, so they think, since they played nice the republics will do the same

when we have a democratic president,..NO FUCKING WAY...DUDES AND DUDETTS!

[SammyWinstonJack]

22. They never learn, do they?

:banghead:

[Virginia Dare]

25. Aw c'mon, don't you think they'll cut Hillary a break when the time comes..

out of respect for the office and all...:eyes: How many times do they have to be played for fools before they learn?

[mike_c]

2. democrats say taking their thumbs out of their butts...

...would be a bad decision. Those folks give new meaning to the term "hapless."

[BuyingThyme]

17. Hey, what's the difference between Hillary and Nancy?

One keeps it in the air; the other in her butt.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. When one is scared shitless, that might be correct.

Wasn't that a Crosby Stills and Nash song? "We are hapless hapless, ha-apless"?

[tsuki]

3. Wow. The lowest confirmation vote was the lowest for an

attorney general in over 50 years. So Bushco cares. All Bush sees is that the Dems cave again.

[lame54]

39. It still wasn't low enough

[gratuitous]

4. Gee, in six short years

We've gone from a nation that used to be against torture to one where torture is now a debatable subject, just like free trade, clean water, and health care. But we're sending "strong signals" that torture isn't acceptable here.

A filibuster might have been a wrong move, but you can always end a filibuster. What's the remedy when it turns out that Mukasey is every bit an administrative toady as his predecessor was, one for whom the rule of law is subjugated to his loyalty to the Bush administration? And it's not like Mukasey didn't flat out say that he was going to regard the law as inapplicable to Bush administration crimes.

I guess the remedy is a shrug and "Well, that's one on us!" Of course, Chairman Leahy could have just not held a vote on releasing Mukasey's nomination (it happened again and again with the Republicans under Clinton), and forced Bush to come up with another name. Instead, the Democrats gave away all their leverage for a nominee confirmed with a snappy 53 votes. Brilliant maneuvering.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. Remember when Leahy was going to get those subpoenas out of this?

That was awesome! (Channelling the late great Chris Farley.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chris_Farley_Show

[Spazito]

5. To anyone but a political afficianado.....

this point means exactly squat, imo:

"The Senate confirmation vote was the lowest for an attorney general in over 50 years."

The majority of Americans will hear "Controversial Attorney General confirmed by Democratically Controlled Senate" and that will be the message sent and the ONLY message sent to the public.

Edited to add: Democratically Controlled as that is how the media is describing this.

[Richard Steele]

6. Just keep on keeping that powder dry, ya worthless bunch of....n/t

[onethatcares]

7. the dems say anything they should do is a wrong move.

why? As a life long dem I'm wondering what the hell they feel isn't a wrong move, ag, impeachment, Iraq, you name it they've folded, spindled and mutilated everything they were elected to at least start, even Conyers. I'm lost at this point as to who to vote for.

[old guy]

8. Pure, unadulterated BS!!

[fasttense]

9. They have more important things to do then filibuster the Torture Czar.

They have to ignore Impeachment bills, fund the Iraq war and generally assist the most disliked president and vice president in the history of the nation.

[OzarkDem]

10. Who's ready to pull a petition and run for Congress?

Come on, its time we all get out there and show them how its done.

Seriously, this isn't sarcasm. Let's do it.

[AZ Criminal JD]

21. A little late

Filing deadlines in most states are already passed.

[OzarkDem]

35. Get ready for the next election

its never too late to get involved.

[sampsonblk]

11. We've been had

Some of these people are truly useless.

[Warren Stupidity]

12. And the right move is:

Seems like once again we are being told the same old same old. Who exactly is our leadership standing up against? Who are they fighting? Why they are standing up against us and fighting us tooth and nail. The Democratic Party leadership has its eyes on the enemy all right.

[in_cog_ni_to]

13. Well, of course! Torture is so much more preferable! They're all a bunch of weasels and now

everyone knows it.

[NMMNG]

14. Yeah

And I'm sure they have a bridge somewhere for sale.

[BuyingThyme]

15. I guess only Dems can set precedent.

[Selatius]

16. Yet again, Dem politicians perpetuate the notion that they stand for nothing.

To your average voter, either you fight or don't fight. There is no half-assing.

[iamthebandfanman]

19. yay lets play politics with important issues!

oh wait, thats what everyones done for the last 7 years already...

[calimary]

20. "...It sends a strong signal"??????? Aw, FUCK!!!

I'll tell you what kind of "strong signal" it sends:

It screams out that our people have NO backbone, NO willingness to fight, but EVERY willingness to bend over and fall on our knees - AGAIN.

If we don't have the guts to put up a fight on something like this, how can we possibly convince voters we have the guts to stand up to bin Laden and friends?

No wonder we're laughed at and viewed as wimps.

:grr:

It "sends a strong signal" that we're still weenies, that's what.

:nuke:

[blm]

23. I knew it was all about 2008. Big surprise...not.

Schumer and Feinstein were carrying water for WHO?

[mzmolly]

24. Do Republicans ever concern themselves with setting a "bad" precedent?

:eyes:

[VP505]

29. No and they don't bother

to apologize when accused of it, and that doesn't seem to hurt them either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. keep the powder dry, keep the powder dry, keep the powder dry

keep the powder dry, keep the powder dry... and so it goes

Oh and I forgot, we need a majorty.. shit we have one... we need sixty votes

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. But..but..they are sending "signals" to Bush.

[angstlessk]

30. yeah, but I think smoke signals went out with measle infected blankets n/t

[Warren Stupidity]

32. Nice picture.

I was thinking more like foot tapping stall signals.

[Poiuyt]

31. I think the next time Charlie Brown tries to kick a field goal, Lucy won't pull the ball out.

[Solly Mack]

33. Weak

[depakid]

34. More rationalizations for cowardice and complicity

It's pretty easy to see why no one has any respect for the Democratic party.

[redqueen]

36. Typical.

It seems like they just do not give a shit.

Either that or they're trading their votes for something...

Either way: :puke:

[Blackhatjack]

37. If they expect Repubs to adhere to the bar-setting they did here, they are mistaken....

Repubs have and always will play 'hard ball' on every possible bill, issue and nomination. Guaranteed.

Once a Democratic Pres is in office, you can expect nothing but obstruction until Dems gain a 60/40 majority in the Senate.

[warren pease]

38. "There may have been other factors at play, too."

Such as... They're all members of the same club? They all get their bribes from the same corporate king makers? They have absolutely nothing in common with the people they allegedly represent? They wanted to outdo Pelosi and Hoyer on the sycophant meter? They were scared Fux Nudes would say bad things about them? They actually believe that torture is acceptable because, well... 9/11 changed everything, you see.

How in hell can they possibly have thought this latest exhibition of forked-tongue cowardice would help them get reelected? Are they so insulated from the rest of the world that they actually believe an administration enjoying approval ratings in the low 20s deserves any respect or accommodation?

What is wrong with these people? How did they get so co-opted that they've become indistinguishable from their alleged opponents?

Only thing I can think of is they're so thoroughly corrupted by the system of legalized bribery we call campaign financing that the only constituents they listen to any more are their masters in corporate America. And, for some reason, their masters want an attorney general who sanctions torture.

However, I've come to expect this kind of behavior from the 110th congress and, deities willing, there will indeed be hell to pay when they have the gall to stand for reelection and cite their voting records as proof they deserve another term.


wp

[Paul_Weyrich]

40. Oh, they are a stupid bunch in congress.

They should have used the filibuster

[Baby Snooks]

41. Well, at least we know what Karl Rove is doing now...

Karl Rove is now a consultant on "bipartisan negotiation" and is doing quite well with it.

"The aide also said that “filibustering a Cabinet nominee is a bad precedent,” given that there is a possibility a Democrat may occupy the White House in 2009."

As if the Republicans won't block each and every Democratic nominee they can. Unless, of course, the nominee is one of theirs. Quite possible given the current Democratic leadership.

I'm waiting for the media release from Pelosi's office announcing that in an act of unprecedented bipartisanship, the Democratic Party has merged with the Republican Party. Which will be called the Republicrat Party.