The Democrates had some pretty apocalyptic things to say about what it would mean for Mukasey to be confirmed:
"Torture should not be what America stands for . . . I do not vote to allow torture," said Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy. Russ Feingold said: "we need an attorney general who will tell the president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress. And on that fundamental qualification for this office Judge Mukasey falls short." Feingold added: "If Judge Mukasey won't say the simple truth -- that this barbaric practice is torture -- how can we count on him to stand up to the White House on other issues?"
But they didn't do what the Senate Republicans have done on literally every vote where they opposed the legislative goals at stake: Require that the opposing side come up with 60 votes to get the legislature they want passed.
Why not???
I don't know.
But I think we need an answer to this question, because - to me - in this single, Reality Busting Moment we have The Central Question Of The Democratic Party laid out for all to see.
That question is: Will the Democrats Save America From Itself, or Is This All Truly Just A Show, Distracting Us From What Is Really Going On Behind The Curtain?
Greenwald's essay is a fascinating description of the parallel worlds in which the Democrats and Republicans appear to live... and how the Republicans continue to be MUCH more effective in how they pursue their goals than the Democrats.
I wish someone would explain what is going on here... because there is No Way - based on what was said about Mukasey on the floor of the Senate - that he should have been confirmed!
As I said at the top, I am mystified.
I will be calling my Senators on Monday, reading them Greenwald's essay, and demanding an explanation for this massive process / reality disconnect. Oh... and Senator Harry Reid too - 1-202-224-3542 (or toll free: 1-866-SEN-REID).
I suggest you all do the same.. and pass Greenwald's essay on to everyone else you know.
I cannot think of a clearer example of the Democrats saying one thing and doing another. But it just may be that this vote has finally pulled back the curtain on what's going on...
A little silly? Sure. But only to emphasize a serious point.
The future of our nation is at stake as never before.
And one question historians may ask when writing about this period is "Why didn't the Democratics filibuster the Mukasey nomination?"
Senator Reid, I'll be calling you on Monday to find out what the truth is.
-------------------------------------
Late Saturday Addendum:
The lead editorial in The Sunday NY Times is on this subject. Towards the end, the Times' editorial board says "All of this leaves us wondering whether Mr. Schumer and other Democratic leaders were more focused on the 2008 elections than on doing their constitutional duty. Certainly, being made to look weak on terrorism might make it harder for them to expand their majority."
It's hard for me to believe that "looking tough" was what drove the Democrats' thinking. (Given recent polls, how many Americans would feel rejecting Mukasey constituted being soft on terrorism?) But I'll include this in the questions I ask the senators I contact on Monday.
Monday Afternoon Addendum:
Sorry, folks, but when I wrote "Senator Reid, I'll be calling you on Monday..." I forgot that on Monday (today) all Federal offices are closed for Veteran's Day. I have to smile when I call and hear the computer voice say "The mailbox for Senator... is full." Reminds me of that great old movie "The Mouse That Roared", in which a small invading force (from a tiny country that wants to attack America and quickly lose so they can benefit from the "post war" support we showed enemies like Japan) actually wins the war, because when they arrive all government offices are closed for the day.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the
comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the
comment you replied to
Quite frankly, I think it has to do with the fact that until Bush and Cheney, Americans rarely, if ever, paid close attention to how the politicians in the Congress voted. But now, a majority has become more politically savvy and watches almost every vote. The Congress is not used to this demographic and so they play these little games in Congress so they can pull the wool over the public's eyes. They never expect us to notice.
I am almost to the point that I will NOT vote next election. And I have voted for over 45 years in every election. Straight Democratic. But, really, what is the difference?
1. There were 53 votes to approve Mukasey's nomination. The votes of any of the absent Senators would not have affected the outcome.
2. What do Pelosi or Hoyer have to do with a Senate confrimation vote?
3. Almost all of the votes to confirm were Republicans.
4. The Democrats who actually voted to confirm (as opposed to ALL Democrats) deserve your vitriol. I live in CA, and I will never vote for Feinstein again. Sadly, 2012 is a long way off, but you can't recall a Federal electee. I've been a lifelong Democrat, but I will forever regret not voting for Tom Campbell in 2000. Sorry.
Quite frankly, I don't think the NYT piece went far enough. I am less concerned with democrats "being made to look weak on terrorism" than with them failing to protect our constitution. In addition, one would think that the concern about our country engaging in torture would transcent party lines. As Benjamin Franklin stated, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
I also must disagree with those who blame the democratic leadership for the confirmation of Mukasey. The real problem is us. If we keep writing checks to charlatans who have no principles or spine, we are ultimately to blame.
We must take a stand, and pledge to give not a cent to those who will not unequivocably oppose the use of torture by the United States. This holds true for those in office, and for the hopefuls running.
Not a cent. This is why we have formed notacent.com. You can't get any more grassroots than this. And we are putting our money where our mouths are.
Methinks the pussilanimous aposeopesis of the anorchic Democrats is a direct result of having their mouths stuffed with money -- a sure sign of their neo-conservative proclivities. Gore Vidal's adage that America has one propertied party with two right wings...still holds firm.
It's going to take an Edwards or an Obama, or an Edwards/Obama to bring integrity back to this country. Vision is a gift, as well as a skill, but when it gets "bought", it becomes a mere commodity...and the gift is taken away. And though some mechanical skill may remain, the source of inspiration dries up, flees, and finds a more deserving soul to inspire.
Do not mix water and acid. Acid is corrosive, water is restorative. We need more water in the Democratic party, in America and in the world.
The water crisis is real, even on a metaphorical plane.
While your LieberStroms are content "living like a Republican", others think the Democratic Party could become the envy of the world. The bodhisattvas of the new millennium. Not fake giants among real pygmies.
We are not there yet, obviously.
You and I know that the potential is out there. There are still good stewards. They are just not in Washington.
Peace
David
The lead editorial in The Sunday NY Times is on this subject. Towards the end the Times' editorial board says "All of this leaves us wondering whether Mr. Schumer and other Democratic leaders were more focused on the 2008 elections than on doing their constitutional duty. Certainly, being made to look weak on terrorism might make it harder for them to expand their majority."
It's hard for me to believe that "looking tough" was what drove the Democrats' thinking. (Given recent polls, how many Americans would feel rejecting Mukasey constituted being soft on terrorism?) But I'll include this in the questions I ask the senators I contact on Monday.
You may all think I'm off the deep end here but ever since the writers strike, which came at such a convenient time, I've been hearing over and over again...."Hollywood and Washington, D.C. are the same DNA".
Somebody should really investigate this strike and find the real driving force behind it.
Look at what the supposed Democrats are doing during it, and look who got hit the hardest...Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Bill Maher - all our *real* news sources.
Goddamn...what a lucky break for the neocons huh? I don't believe in luck.
The Dems had the power even when the Thugs were in power. They refused to ever stop a single freaking bill put forth.
NOT one.
In FACT they gave the power of the filibuster TO THE MAJORITY. The deal that Tailgunner Joe Lieberman brokered was that the dems would promise not to filibuster anything unless the Thug party members agreed to LET THEM FILIBUSTER!
In return the Thug party promised not to take away the power of the filibuster.
CAN ANYONE ON EARTH EXPLAIN WHY THE DEMOCRATS WENT ALONG WITH THIS IDIOTIC PLAN????
"We promise not to use the filibuster unless you let us, and in return you won't take the power of the filibuster away from us".
HELLOOOOO?
Now that the Thug party is in power they use the filibuster on a weekly basis.
WHEN DID THE DEMOCRATS LOSE EVER INCH OF THEIR SPINES AND TURN THEIR BALLS OVER TO THE THUG PARTY????
No wonder people have such a low opinion congress. They refuse to take a stand ON ANYTHING.
Well that's not entirely true, they take the public stand, then cave at vote time.
SURE there are dissenters in the Democratic party who vote against these things, but think about it. Look at the voting record. It's almost like they are taking turns opposing certain bills, if not all, just so they can all at one time or another stand up and pretend to have taken the righteous stand.
What a bunch of fucking losers. I can count the real democrats in Congress in both houses on two hands.
The democrats have supported everything Bush has done. They have opposed nothing he wants to do.
If you believe that they are not in bed with the same people as the Bushies you really have to have your head in the sand.
It's like being crazy about some love interest. You express your feelings in some way or other. The other person is not interested. You persist. They start out being polite. They they start to ignore you. You persist. Finally you find your love interest in the sack with someone else. Do you finally believe that this person is not on the same beam as you - or do you believe your eyes are lying?
The capacity not to know something is both seductive and dangerous.
You know who the democrats are by the way they behave. Take it in.
The collusion of Democrats in the leadership of their party, with the criminal thugs who have usurped the "Republican" monicker from the once GOP, is something to behold indeed. At least 40% of Americans consider ourselves truly "Independents", and for good reason. Some of us were disaffected Republicans who knew that the use of 9/11 was a pretext to invade Iraq, a blatant and criminal violation of our laws, treaties, and principles. Others of us are disaffected Democrats, tired of the bickering and simpering, ... and recently, nauseated by the obeisance to King George's whims, ... to extend illegal wiretapping and to foist still another toady AG on us who seems to have no problem with allowing this president to torture. Take his pulse, ... by his appearance I'm not sure this doddering retired judge wasn't himself tortured to accept the post!
Rest assured the actions of Harry Reid helped to Shepherd the rush to vote on Mukasey, leaving party presidential candidates a convenient excuse not to vote, due to their absence, and to avoid the need to call torture by its true name, to its face. Schumer and Feinstein, on a quiet Friday evening, had slipped into the Mukasey Camp to join in the fest of support.
What we are left with is a "Party-and-a-Half System" of politics in America. Where the line begins for the one, and leaves off for the other, we Independents are not certain. Not some old-fashioned power of wills, a "political dogfight", ... no, it is more reminiscent of a "Mating-Ball" of snakes, ... a slithering mass of serpents sliding among one another, mindlessly unconcerned with anything beyond themselves, nor with whom they just "struck a bargain" as they set out to screw or be screwed by anything in sight, or in touch with themselves.
It is not that the Public has lost interest, but rather that It is so bewildered by the behavior of politicians, we choose to stand back and not risk life and limb in a fight, nor a mating ritual. We independents will keep our votes, and shovels, ready.
The Senate has a tradition of granting a sitting President the appointments he proposes, absent some seriously disqualifying characteristic on the part of the nominee, so the confirmation of Judge Mukasey is entirely understandable.
What is not understandable are the actions of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Strong and effective Senate leaders in the past, such as Lyndon Johnson, would never have tolerated even an appearance of the disarray and weakness Senator Reid has created. Where an LBJ never picked a fight he couldn't win, Senator Reid seems incapable of picking a fight he can win.
LBJ was famed for his abilities to twist arms and enforce party unity behind the scenes, exacting at least a quid pro quo for distasteful accommodations. Senator Reid apparently has no conception of how to effectively work the levers of power at his disposal.
It's too late at this point to replace Senator Reid with a more adept Majority Leader until the next election cycle. One would hope Senate Democrats at least recognize the problematic nature of Senator Reid's leadership and find a more effective leader when the occasion presents itself.
Well, I'm for giving Mukasey a fair shake.
I think he'll be an improvement over Oh Boy,
Alberto, I think Gonzales was a simpering
yes-man whereas Mukasey might just stand a
ghost of a chance of retaining some kind
of integrity, I don't know what role an
attorney general might play in an impeachment,
but I'll bet you he'd watch every second
of it on C-SPAN...the person/people holding
that job are supposed to be independent,
and that's what he's claimed that he'll
be. I say give him a chance, can't be any
worse than the guy he just replaced...
Bush continues water-boarding the country towards norquist's dream of drowning this Constitutional government in the bathtub, and the donkeys have been part of the game that has led us to this point for so long, like a beaten animal wearing blinders, they just follow along with no spirit to fight back. The founding fathers that risked their lives to be free of king george's absolute corrupt tyranny centuries ago, must be looking down with total disgust!
Angry, damn we are an angry bunch! We tell everyone would listens how we feel but congress isn't listening. I understand why the guy cannot say waterboarding is torture is because it would put him in a place to prosecuit those who have done and ordered it done from oval office down the minute he was sworn in. The country is in such a state and things done while secrecy has reined and the signing statements have flown off the desk of bush while gonzo just nodded and did what he was told to do. I believe the new guy agrees with us and waterboarding is torture at it's best and he will have to sit in the seat and read the things done to make the Justice department become bushes personal lawyers and then try to either fix it as he can or go on as it has. Congress I think knew like with the other positions open bush would just wait until congress went out of sessions and then have his day with someone less balanced. They other piece is bush and darth have one more year and if the guy is good he might help us keep our country from total destruction before they are gone. If he's gonzo in white he will have only one year before they can replace him.
Why? A great question. A possible answer: The Democrats do not want to do anything that could in anyway be construed or misconstrued as being soft on war, the real ones or the one on terror. They believe they can win big in 2008 with this strategy. Mukasey's confirmation was always assured (sponsored by his dear friend Schumer, abetted by Feinstein) as was/is more war funding, and FISA, including communication company immunity. At first, it was we do not have the votes--we must have 60, lately, it is the Bush ideas or appointments are getting better. The voting is orchestrated, just enough yes votes (by Democrat Senators with four years left in their terms, banking on short memories) to give it to Bush, with the rest voting no--to show that they are still fighting for the people, just not enough votes. The Democratic senators absent were paired with the absent Republican senators. The absent Dems are presidential candidates, so no record and no floor speechs, other than verbal statements of opposition and silence on their reasons. Next question: can you spell Kabuki?
Loading comments…
Posted November 10, 2007 | 01:02 PM (EST)