Pacific Views
You've been had. You've been took. You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok. - Malcolm X
|
| Pacific ViewsYou've been had. You've been took. You've been hoodwinked, bamboozled, led astray, run amok. - Malcolm X |
I'll let the title of the diary entry, Hunter Goes REALLY REALLY Postal indicate to you in part that Hunter is taking no verbal prisoners in his opposition to voting for the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to the Justice Department. Really, it's a pretty blue post. But as he said, if you've seen the Abu Ghraib pictures and you're still frightened of a little rough language, run away now.
I don't have high hopes for our Democratic Senators, only 13 of whom summoned the spine to vote against Rice, but maybe this time they'll pull through. As Hunter says:
...Alberto Gonzales was one of the principal players in the Administration effort to legalize the worldwide torture of prisoners.
You are either for that, or you are against that. There is no f[******] "on the other hand". There is no possible "on the other hand" that would rationalize the endorsement of that. If you vote for Gonzales, the entire world will take that for exactly what it is -- an explicit endorsement of his past actions, of the Administration's past actions in the purposeful, planned, and worldwide torture of men, of women, and of children in the custody of American soldiers and "contractors."
In case local readers were wondering, both of WA State's Senators voted for Rice. Cantwell's up for re-election next cycle, I believe. If she votes yes on Gonzales, particularly considering that she also voted for Iraq, I'll be happy to remind people about that loudly, and often.
Posted by natasha at January 27, 2005 09:56 AM | US Politics | Technorati links |...and down here next door, Ron Wyden also voted for Rice. I was kinda stunned...
Posted by: Jack K. at January 27, 2005 10:48 AMWe split in NJ. Lautenberg voted no to Rice and Corzine was a disappointing yes.
Posted by: Scott at January 27, 2005 12:07 PMCantwell announced this morning that she's a NO on Gonzales. Haven't heard from Murray yet.
Posted by: N in Seattle at January 27, 2005 12:15 PMRead Liberal Oasis. He found the following in an LA Times article yesterday:
But Senate Democratic leaders did not attempt to rally their ranks to vote against Rice.
Instead, the Democratic leadership was reserving its political capital for a stand against...Alberto R. Gonzales.
"Frankly, there is much more angst over Gonzales, and there comes a practical choice: Having been (branded) an obstructionist party for so long, do you lead with Rice ... or do you take on a candidate who is more problematic?" one staffer said.
I think we will be seeing a real opposition to Gonzales that is totally different from what we saw with Condi. It's our job to make sure they know they have the backing to vote their conscious this time.
Posted by: Mary at January 27, 2005 03:13 PMI called both Cantwell and Murray's offices yesterday afternoon about 4:40 pst. Murray's office was still open, Cantwell's was closed (?!) so I lest a msg re Condi and Alberto for Sen. C.
The young man I spoke with at Murray's office seemed perturbed that I voiced my oppo to Sen. Murray's vote for Condi. Have you looked at Madam Senator's statement on the website, he asked...yes, I said and yes, I realize Mad. Rice will be confirmed anyway, but I said I expected opposition to the unacceptable nominee by the opposition party. Too much to ask, I suppose. I guess RealPolitik just ain't my strong suit.
C'MON DEMOS' GET SOME SPINE!!!
"Having been (branded) an obstructionist party for so long..."
When are they going to realize that this is a bs argument cooked up and perpetuated by the very people who profit from a spineless Democratic party? Do they never think to themselves whether the Republicans paid a price for being obstructionist when Clinton was in office, other than getting elected?
Posted by: natasha at January 27, 2005 06:08 PMAgreed, natasha. But I do think we should now be twice as persuasive in getting them to vote right on Gonzales. It will definitely be a good thing if the Democrats stand together against torture.
Posted by: Mary at January 27, 2005 09:16 PMI completely, totally 100% disagree with the "pick your battle" sentiment at Liberal Oasis, and for that matter amongst many of my Dem friends.
Rice is incompetent. Gonzales is evil. How hard is it to vote no? I think the fact that they voted for Rice is disgusting, and I'll be writing both of their offices this weekend.
I'm a lifelong Democrat, and I'll NEVER vote Republican. But if these two vote for Gonzales or the elimination of Social Security, forget it. They've lost my vote.
Posted by: paul at January 27, 2005 10:12 PMThey may or may not be saving "nays" for Gonzales. I think they're waiting for the real battle: when Rehnquist passes on.
David, Seattle
threetreejournal.blogspot.com