Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
What Happened to the Senate's '60-Vote Requirement'?
Every time Congressional Democrats failed this year to stop the Bush administration (i.e., every time they "tried"), the excuse they gave was that they "need 60 votes in the Senate" in order to get anything done. Each time Senate Republicans blocked Democratic legislation, the media helpfully explained not that Republicans were obstructing via filibuster, but rather that, in the Senate, there is a general "60-vote requirement" for everything.
How, then, can this be explained?
The Senate confirmed Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general Thursday night, approving him despite Democratic criticism that he had failed to take an unequivocal stance against the torture of terrorism detainees.
The 53-to-40 vote made Mr. Mukasey, a former federal judge, the third person to head the Justice Department during the tenure of President Bush . . . Thirty-nine Democrats and one independent [Bernie Sanders] opposed him.
Beyond that, four Senate Democrats running for President missed the vote, and all four had announced they oppose Mukasey's confirmation. Thus, at least 44 Senators claimed to oppose Mukasey's confirmation -- more than enough to prevent it via filibuster. So why didn't they filibuster, the way Senate Republicans have on virtually every measure this year which they wanted to defeat? Numerous Senate Democrats delivered dramatic speeches from the floor as to why Mukasey's confirmation would be so devastating to the country. The Washington Post said the "vote came after more than four hours of impassioned floor debate."
"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?"
Wow -- it sounds as though there was really a lot at stake in this vote. So why would 44 Democratic Senators make a flamboyant showing of opposing confirmation without actually doing what they could to prevent it? Is it that a filibuster was not possible because a large number of these Democratic Senators were willing to symbolically oppose confirmation so they could say they did -- by casting meaningless votes in opposition knowing that confirmation was guaranteed -- but were unwilling to demonstrate the sincerity of their claimed beliefs by acting on them?
The Post said the vote "reflected an effort by Democrats to register their displeasure with Bush administration policies on torture and the boundaries of presidential power." Apparently, they wanted to oh-so-meaningfully "register their displeasure" but not actually stop confirmation.
[The most amazing quote was from chief Mukasey supporter Chuck Schumer, who, before voting for him, said that Mukasey is "wrong on torture -- dead wrong." Marvel at that phrase: "wrong on torture." Six years ago, there wasn't even any such thing as being "wrong on torture," because "torture" wasn't something we debated. It would have been incoherent to have heard: "Well, he's dead wrong on torture, but . . . "
Now, "torture" is not only something we openly debate, but it's something we do. And the fact that someone is on the wrong side of the "torture debate" doesn't prevent them from becoming the Attorney General of the United States. It's just one issue, like any other issue -- the capital gains tax, employer mandates for health care, the water bill -- and just because someone is "dead wrong" on one little issue (torture) hardly disqualifies them from High Beltway Office.]
Over and over again this year, Republican filibusters were depicted (both by Senate Democrats and the media) as nothing more the routine need to obtain the "60 votes required" for passage of any measure in the Senate. That "requirement" was said to apply to everything, including immigration ("The Senate voted 52-44 for the DREAM Act, but 60 votes were required to end debate"); Iraq withdrawal timetables ("Support is expected to top 50 votes but fall short of the 60 required"); troop leave requirements ("Webb's Iraq bill inches closer to 60 . . . . Winning at least three of those Republicans over could give the Democrats the 60 votes they need"); and warrantless surveillance ("Democratic-sponsored bill failed to reach the 60-vote majority").
As Steve Benen recently documented (emphasis in original):
The Republican minority has created a de facto 60-vote minimum to do anything of substance in the Senate. They'll allow routine up-or-down votes on renaming post offices, or those rare bills that enjoy near-unanimous support, but otherwise, it's filibuster time on the Senate floor. And while the number of filibusters has been going up pretty consistently for 20 years, these Republicans appear to be in a league of their own.
Benen quoted John McCain as explaining: "You can't say that all we're going to do around here in the United States Senate is have us govern by 51 votes -- otherwise we might as well be unicameral, because then we would have the Senate and the House exactly the same."
But it isn't true that there is a "60-vote requirement," because only Republicans are willing to impose it. Democrats won't, even on what they claim are the gravest of matters, such as confirming someone as Attorney General who is "dead wrong on torture" and who won't even "tell the president that he cannot ignore the laws passed by Congress."
The so-called "60-vote requirement" applies only when it is time to do something to limit the Bush administration. It is merely the excuse Senate Democrats use to explain away their chronic failure/unwillingness to limit the President, and it is what the media uses to depict the GOP filibuster as something normal and benign. There obviously is no "60-vote requirement" when it comes to having the Senate comply with the President's demands, as the 53-vote confirmation of Michael Mukasey amply demonstrates. But as Mukasey is sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in America, the Democrats want you to know that they most certainly did stand firm and "register their displeasure."
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com
95 Comments so far
Show AllAs soon as we have one quintillion Democratic senators and the entire Republican Party has been wholly erased from historical memory & removed to the 11th Dimension, Democrats will be able to introduce progressive legislation, honestly! Just you see!
Does anyone know whether Mukasey will enforce the Waxman (and other Congressional) subpoenas? Was that even asked?
I filled out the paperwork earlier this week. I am no longer a member of the Democratic Party. I can no longer support a party that caters to big business at the expense of the majority. The Democrats are a gutless version of the ruthless GOP. At least the GOP doesn't even pretend to represent the average American anymore. Their utter contempt for non-wealthy Americans is evident with everything they do and say. The Democrats contempt is hidden behind cowardice...
We are looking more and more like Germany in the 1930's and the majority of Americans are merely sleepwalking into the abyss.
We need to elect grassroots independent candidates to Congress, replacing long term representatives who seemingly feel invincible enough to vote against the will of the overwhelming majority of their constituents. Although I live in New York, I have already volunteered to help Cindy Sheehan unseat Nany Pelosi in San Francisco. I believe we should now do the same here in NY with the formerly honorable Chuck "will cave for a buck" Schumer.
Its all a sham. Its a sham designed to fool people into thinking the Dems oppose the Bush agenda when they really don't. Thus the non-binding resolutions and tactical decision by the Dem leadership to use methods that need 60 votes to succeed etc.
I'm seeing another of these on other sites this morning as the Dems are starting to push another bill providing more 'bridge funding' for the fighting in Iraq, doing it with no real strings attached, but trying to spin it as a major effort against the war. Read the fine print and you'd see its instead a major effort to fund the war for a bit longer while pretending to be the opposite.
In this case, its the sham of a symbolic vote that they knew would fail, letting phony, lying Dems claim they opposed Mukasey, while at the same time they once again deliberately ignored a tool that would have effectively opposed him and stopped this nomination.
The Dems are liars. And with any liars, watch their actions and ignore their words. The action in this case is that the Senate with a Democrat majority and supposedly enough votes to sustain a filibuster just once again pulled out the rubber stamp for yet another Bush appointee.
Remember, the Dems could have blocked Ashcroft, Gonzalez and now Mukasey from being AG. That means these three men have all been in this office with Dem approval and that the Dems are equally as responsible for the damage done as Bush is.
The Rethugs impeached Clinton while he was far more popular than Bush/Cheney are today. Whereas the Democrats took impeachment "off the table" despite the fact that Bush/Cheney have multiple reasons to be impeached, very low opinion polls, and a public which leans in FAVOR of doing so. I wouldn't even call them Vichy Democrats. More like crypto-neocons.
The Kucinich campaign called me last night. And while I support the guy somewhat, I don't think I can give him money unless he splits and runs as an Independent, Green, or something else. The Dems would have nothing to run on if the 10% among them who might be called "liberal" (though probably not "progressive") bolted. The country would have a far-right party (Republicans) and a center-right party (Democrats).
Americans who wanted to vote center, liberal, or a progressive populist alternative would finally wake up and look at all their options. The Democrats are a disgraceful batch of enablers and crypto-neocons. If we have only neocons to chose from in '08, the election for all practical purposes has been cancelled.
"What evidence is there that the Democrats want to win." ?Paul DeArmond's great question.
Is the role of the Democrats to offer token resistance and then roll over? Like TV Wrasslin, "Oh man he's hurtin me"!
Walter Karp starts from the premise the hacks in the D and R parties have more in common than with the reformers in their own party. The hacks in both parties work in collusion to keep reformers out of power. I.e. working together to keep Nader and Perot out of the debates.
Karp shows how the hacks in both parties together have a shared monopoly on power and collude to maintain the monopoly.
The only thing which will allow reform is to flood the parties with activists and fill up the PCO slots and boot out the hacks.
The hacks will never give Progressives what we want. You have to flush them out of the parties.
This is surprisingly easy to do in towns an small cities. It is very difficult in large cities. The parties are so hollowed out the hacks are in control of the levers of power but have no grassroots support.
"Indispensible Enemies" is the missing puzzle piece of American politics.
Bo in Bellingham
tommybones...
You are not alone! In my voting district alone there has been a dramatic INCREASE in the number of new Independent voters and a DECREASE in Democratic Party registrations! It is probably happening in other places as well but for sure you won't hear it from the media or the corrupted Dem Party.
and Paul Bramscher...
Democrats like Kucinich are Dems in name only. If one were to investigate all his platform issues you would see he belongs smack in the leadership of the Green Party. But, alas, as with so many congressional politicians, it's so hard to leave a position of "influence" after fighting for so long to get there. Of course, there would be no reason why Kucinich couldn't simply announce his switching to another party that matches his real positions.
It's like the old joke that goes:
"The Democrats and Republicans were playing a game of football. A whistle at a nearby factory blew and the Republicans thought the game was over and left the field. Three plays later the Democrats scored."
I can't believe that people keep talking like there's still a difference between Democrats and Republicans in the current Congress. If you can't see past the smoke and mirror tricks by now then you are way behind the curve.
They just appointed an AG that can't explain what torture is. If he can't decide on something as simple as that, there is no way that Mr. Mukasey will be able to fulfill the obligations of his post. The reason he was appointed and there wasn't any 'filibuster' on it is that Congress simply doesn't care anymore. This WGAF attitude is central to the corruption and it's spreading like a cancer throughout our society. Even our youth is affected.
Impeaching Cheney and bush is useless. That's the same mentality as removing the puppets from a puppet show that offended you. The question you should be asking is "Who's the puppeteer?" They are the one's offending you. If you don't recognize and prosecute them then new puppets will replace the ones you removed and the same offensive script will continue.
Who is pulling the strings of the bush and Clinton families?
1980 Election - Bush
1984 Election - Bush
1988 Election - Bush
1992 Election - Clinton
1996 Election - Clinton
2000 Election - Bush
2004 Election - Bush
2008 Election - Clinton
If you think it's just a coincidence you're living on the Moon.
Strange that the candidates who are senators did not BOTHER to vote on something as important as Attorney General. Oh, my God, something stinks really bad!
tommybones November 9th, 2007 11:33 am
You are not alone in switching out of the Democratic party Tommy... I did the same last week...
If you're still a Democrat then you're not helping anybody.
Only the fear of losing their cushy jobs will move politicians to act in the public's interest.
Tell your local people and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that you are leaving the Democratic party because she and others like her do nothing to put the crazies back into their box.
Tell Ms. Pelosi that you are sending money to Cindy Sheehan because Cindy supports impeaching Cheney.
In order to save the world we need to get Cheney's finger away from the button.
This morning, I received my Democratic congressman's e-newsletter, boasting that he was voting for a bill that would provide $11.6 bn for new fighter jets, $11 bn for full-armored vehicles, etc., etc., with all the rhetoric about "keeping America strong". Meanwhile he taps about with his cane, "Impeachment? why? what for? No high crimes and misdemeanors here."
The bait and switch enablers now have a new name.
Robert - the Bruce
The Surrendercrats never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
I've read a mainstream media column somewhere on Kucinich's impeachment motion that claims the Democrats are caught between their liberal base angry with the Bush administration and the larger number of centrist voters who want them to be strong on national security (or words to that effect). It would be interesting to know what average I-don't-care-about-politics-I-wanna-watch-TV American thinks about our government torturing people.
Quit trying to separate the Democrats from the Republicans. It can't be done. There is one party in D.C. and if Americans don't see that then they are asleep. We will continue to see selective enactments and enforcements as the legal infrastructure is being put into place to justify the tactics in our "War" on terror. The Constitution has been sold, and is in the hands of the Uncle Buck Party. They are going to take us back a few centuries and start all over. Something like what Pol Pot wanted to do. Keep on rockin in the free world.
Hoa binh
Very good, people. Let's all take time out now to
HATE THE DEMOCRATS!!!!!
DEMOCRATS! oooOOOoooOOOH HOW WE HATE THEM!!!
NANCY PELOSI! HATE!!! DICK DURBIN! HATE!!! JOE BIDEN! HAAAAATE!!!!
DENNIS KUCINICH! HATE! JESSE JACKSON SR. & JR. HATE!! HATE!!
BARBARA BOXER! BARBARA LEE! RUSSELL FEINGOLD! HATE! HATE!
WE HATES THEM WE HATES THEM WE HATES THEM ALL! DEMOCRATSES!!
DUMYCRATS! VICHYCRATS! LOYAL OPPOSITIONEERS!
CORPORATE SHILLS! SPINELESS SELLOUTS! RULING CLASS DELUDERS!
HATE THEM HATE THEM HAAAAAAAAAATE!!!!
Okay, now go back to your job.
Sorry Nader - the feeling is betrayal, not hate.
Sadness, because they were our only hope.
Cut off, because if the Dems don't stand up for the Constitution, who will?
Disappointed - because WE thought they stood for the rule of law, accountability, oversight, and honor.
We were wrong.
Where are these centrist Democrats? The DLC's job has been to herd the country to the right, to deliver it to the neocons, not to represent some "center".
The majority of Americans believe we're on the wrong direction economically, and want us out of Iraq. A slight majority -- ALL AMERICANS, NOT JUST DEMS -- favor an impeachment of Bush and/or Cheney.
militantliberal:
Think don't miss an opportunities so much as showing their hand. You'd have to go back to before the rise of Reagan to see Republicans in such a sorry state. Politics is a no holds-barred match, and it's okay to take a punch at your opponent when he's down. Indeed, that's the best time to do so. The sorry state of this country can be attributed less to the success of the Bush machine directly than to the co-option of the opposition.
I've been following my freshman congressman from CT Chris Murphy (D) quite closely since he's been elected. He has like a 95% voting record for voting against the Bush administration, and the neo-con policies. He's 33 years old btw.
I think it's time to throw the old democrats, baby boomers from both eisles, and elect new progressive democrats to lead us into the new century, and (unfortunately) clean up the mess that these old timers have made for us.
I should have mentioned I've since moved to CT's 1st district, represented by Republican Centrist Christopher Shays. For a republican, he actually has a decent record of opposing Bush... but it won't save him this time around. I think the CT Dems will nominate a solid progressive Dem in this district as well.
You really have to pick and choose with the Senate and Congress. Not all the dems are bad, remember 142 out of 233 voted for impeachment.
As far as the Presidency goes, neither Obama nor Hillary really represent the progressive party- they represent imperial and corperate interests. John Edwards and Kucinich have my vote, but once again, you see how the media ignores them (Edwards) and marginalized them (Kucinich).
We have no hope for the executive, but I really think we can make a difference if we can get the congress finally going.
Btw... our state is collectively full of morons for voting in Lieberman for 6 more years. I personally voted for Lamont, and can't believe Lieberman won.
How do I hate thee? Let me list the ways...
No spines,chickenshit, backbone of a chocolate eclair, wimps,republican enablers, wine-drinking, hedge-funded surrender rabbits, toads.
the senate has its efficient saboteurs such as senator lieberman schummer feinstein undsoweiter.Third party?
first we need a second one that stands for justice and its power.
democrats + republicans are spinners of same deception. a shameful historic complicity.
Paul B,
"Politics is a no holds-barred match, and it's okay to take a punch at your opponent when he's down. Indeed, that's the best time to do so."
Leaping to my feet & punching the air -- EXACTLY. The only reason Republicans moderated after Hoover was that they kept getting smacked across the teeth; in fact, they're still smarting from remembrance of being smacked in the teeth, it fuels their resentment to this day. They should be pushed back into the gutter they rose up from -- and never permitted to get up again.
Silly rabbits! Debates of Democrats vs. Republicans are meaningless. Both parties are owned by AIPAC, contractors, and big business in general. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, and the artificial differences between the parties makes people believe there's a real choice. There isn't.
OK, so you're bummed the Dems didn't step up to the plate, right? Did it occur to you that they won't take a stand against oppressive measures because one day they'll regain power, and would like to have those same oppressive tools available to them?
Democrat = war = Republican
Democrat = liar = Republican
Democrat = torture = Republican
Democrat = corporate government = Republican
If you oppose Republican policies, and you truly want to waste your vote, then vote Democrat. If you want something different, then don't vote Democrat.
If you aren't a lying, war loving, torturer in the service of corporate power, get out of the Democratic Party.
Nader2000, you can stay right where you are.
Don't waste your time and energies voting. It does nothing.
RichM - Sorry, but I am still chuckling from Nader2000's post. His intent was not to present or analyze evidence etc., as it wasn't about a lot of other things. He's just suggesting that we lighten up a bit. This chorus of betrayed liberals (of which I am a member) does sound a bit strident if you get some perspective on it. A conservative looking in on us would take satisfaction in our general consternation.
As soon as I vote for Dennis in the primary, I am changing my registration back to "No Party". I am ashamed to be registered as a member of a party that is so weak and obtuse and Repub light!! Geesh!!
mastershake, don't misinterpret that impeachment vote. It wasn't really for impeachment, it was against a debate on impeachment. By sending it directly to the Judiciary committee without a debate, it was being consigned to languish. Conyers won't dare bring it forward, for Pelosi would have his head on a plate if he did.
And it's true, the Democratic leadership isn't spineless, they are doing exactly what they want to do. COMarc is right. Watch their actions, not their words. What shocks me is how many of you are still Democrats after all your howling about betrayal. How much abuse do you want to take?
Nader2000 very surrealistically let the truth of the Democrats slip in.
just go back to your jobs. watch tv. don't pay attention to what we are doing. if you vent your anger, we aren't listening. just make sure you go back to work and make more money for the corporate bosses behind both parties. bunch of idiot liberals. go back to sleep.
Or, you can get active in a independent party that can easily destroy the political hacks in the Democratic Party by denying them the majorities they need to win. They need to win to survive. They need to win to attract money. And we can force their constant defeat by simply withdrawing our support. They need us, we don't need them.
And, you can come to Denver next year to tell the Democrats to their faces what you really think of them. I'd love to see a few million people here telling the sell-out Democrats and their corporate backers just what scum we think they are. A few million voices raised together can make a lot of noise!
BeForKids has it exactly right.
The vote to send impeachment to the Judiciary committee was a vote to kill the resolution. John Conyers has been being a good Democrat and keeping impeachment off the table for the last year. He'll do the same to Kucinich's resolution. The 140 some odd votes for that motion were all votes to PROTECT Cheney from impeachment.
BeForKids--- Good question about abuse, but then how many self described victims lament their victimization but somehow manage to defend their perpetrators claiming they really will (or want to) change. It's a powerful and sticky relationship and what needs to happen to break its bonds is to become empowered. Many here seem to forget that they do have the power to change the system they so decry. But they refuse to embrace their power because they can't be insured of a winning outcome. What all of us continually fail to realize is that by taking charge of our own choices---by refusing to accept the tyranny of limitation that is being foisted on us, we have already prevailed.
Feinstein said she voted for Mukasey because if they didn't confirm him, Bush said he would not put up another person for consideration, thus letting him put in place an interim AG without any input from the Senate. And that one could be worse because they would have no control over confirming him.
So let me get this straight. `The Dems gave up control of the confirmation process because they were afraid of losing control of the confirmation process.
I'm dumbfounded.
I'm not sure I buy Feinstein's excuse. But even if true, politicians who operate out of fear rather than principle cannot technically be called leaders.
We're reaching one of these interesting tipping points in which title/authority/power do not mesh with one another.
Real leaders of the people are the activists out there. I don't know what the people in the beltway are -- their job is to keep the people at bay while the ueber-elite gouges them?
crypto-neocons I like that. It describes the democriters very well. we need to get together on this: We need to vote for a third party candidate or a write in candidate in 08. I have no intention of voting for either branch of the Corporate war Party. I will write in Mickey Mouse but it would be better if we could all get together and vote for or write in the same candidate. Nader? Kucinich? If they get a decent percentage it will scare the shit out of both parties at the very least. Let me know what you think about this.
Glen Greenwald is excellent. Now if only his voice could get a bit more amplification.
I'm not holding my breath.
This week, Sen. Bernie Sanders, in a seeming lament, described the democratic party as "officially centrist." But he then went on to say that "...it is not representitive of the Middle Class;" observing further that the party has lacked a genuine progressive agenda for years.
Being one the few, real progressives in congress, I wondered how Sanders could define as Centrist, a Party that doesn't even represent the middle and lower economic strata --the overwhelming numerical balance -- of the country?
The bigger [begged] question that Sanders did not elaborate on, is whether the Dems' so-called Centrism reflects the actual absence of a wish for progressive representation among voters? Or instead, just the unfortunate absence of a new political Party that could represent the widespread progressive wishes that are actually 'out there?'
It's obvious why Bernie Sanders doesn't label himself as a Democrat. Not clear is: why he and others who see the truth about the duopoly, don't even try to organize a new, progressive Party.
Some will say: Sanders, et al, are waiting for the Democrats to re-center Lefward in 2008, and that will be good enought for them. But I can't believe Sanders, et al, are that politically naive about the present, pseudo 2-Party system.
How about an answer, Bernie?
Get over it GG and stop pretending like you're clueless. The loyalbushieDems did what they've been doing all along - WHAT THEY'VE BEEN TOLD TO DO.
Seven years of Blue ballessness and, still, so many have "hope" that Dems will "do the right thing" and then they act all shocked and surprised that the Blue balls are owned and operated by New America, Inc.
Maybe y'all will accept the truth after another seven years of ballessness. Or not - I hear hope and $1.89 gets ya a grande at Starbucks.
Speaking of Feinstein's capitulation to the continued crimes of the Bush administration, she now backs immunity for the gross violations of U.S. law by telecom corporations.
Somebody explain to me how anyone still thinks these traitors actually represent the American people?
Judith..That is exactly my plan. Dennis deserves all the help we can muster. He's the only member/candidate showing any courage, integrity and INTELLIGENCE for that matter.
Are there any lawyers in here who know if there is any feasible way for Democrats to start a class action suit against the Democratic Party and / or Nancy Pelosi for failure to enforce the law of the land?
There must be some legal recourse. I would certainly support such a suit with a financial contribution and as a volunteer.
I found it to be very interesting that none of the Democratic candidates running for president could be bothered to vote last night on the Mukasey Attorney General confirmation. I believe the vote passed by only 3 votes. 53-40 I think. And all this is supposedly where the Senate has been running on a rule of "60" to win any major legislation for several years. Neither Sen. Biden, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Obama nor Sen. Dodd, all of whom had publicly said they opposed Mukasey showed up to vote or debate.
My friend is actually so cynical that he believes they all agreed to not vote so no one would be able to throw it in anyones face during a debate. Now that's politics at it's ugliest.
The fact that not one of them showed up to speak against Mukasey, a Zionist shill for AIPAC and Israel, is so disgusting. Between Bush, Cheney, Mukasey, Chertoff and the Congress....well, you can all just finish the sentence I think on your own.
The only good thing I can see coming out of all this is that Kucinich will be able to smear them all on the fact that they are cowards who will not even speak up against a man who is an obvious liar (I'm sure he really didn't understand what "waterboarding" was) and also who appears to already be acting as the President's private attorney to protect Bush from prosecution on the issue.
It's all revolting! (In my dreams....)
Then the House has the audacity to pass the "thought crimes legislation". Hello?! By like 404-30 or something! It says that to discuss any transformation of the United States government or it's basic social foundations is a FELONY!! Thought crimes!!
Just Google it.
I think the Senate hasn't passed it yet, but they will. The Congress and the Executive are building their fascist prison for all of us one piece of legislation at a time.
The saddest part of all of this is that when I mention anything of a political nature at a bar or restaurant or Starbucks, people look at me like I'm a Vulcan or something.
Hey! Independent third party? Where do I sign up?! How do we get this show on the road???? The sooner the Democrats feel all their loyal Progressive base jumping ship, the better. And we need to make it a PUBLIC SHIP JUMPING!!
The registered vote is an old political trick. A sufficient number of Democratic senators wanted Mukasey appointed AG, including those who did not vote for him. Assured that Mukasey would be confirmed permitted Democrats to speak out in opposition and vote no. That's called posturing and it's done at all levels of government. Clearly, Mukasey is the preferred choice over available alternatives. Schumer can take the heat for one of his fellow New Yorkers. Feinstein must have negotiated a trade for one of her issues, perhaps the Senate outcry over dismissal of two federal attorneys in CA. resulting in the ultimate resignation of Alberto Gonzalez. It's all a game and the world's a stage!
How dare Greenwald suggest that 'our' Democrats aren't fighting to the death on these issues?
"Welcome ladies and gentlemen to the WWF '08 tag-team grudge match of the universe between — in the red corner, just tagging out we have 'killer' Bush, and tagging in his partner, Rudi 'the ripper' — and in the blue corner, just tagging out the exhausted and bruised Nancy 'the mat' Pelosi who fought so hard in the preliminary bout, and now tagging in is her partner Hillary 'heroic' Clinton [cheers, applause, screaming fans] who will undoubtedly use all her strength and positive powers against this nasty red team.
Boy folks, tonight you are really going to see a knock-down, drag-out battle royal with all the marbles on the line. Someone will come out of this ferocious match the new champion, and nothing will ever be the same!!!" —————–
Nothing, that is. except the next phony match.
I think there is a reason for the House and Senate's lack of interest in curbing Cheney/Bush's excesses and it is pretty well explained here.
http://www.populistamerica.com/whatever_happened_to_we_the_people
Whoever wins the next round in 2008, We the People are going to be in for one hell of a shock, but I imagine it will be way past too late.
Another part of the problem is explained here.
http://www.populistamerica.com/the_black_hole_theory_of_government
Ah well, as HAL asked Dave, "Will I dream?"
Brasscupcakes -
Much as our law firm could use your financial contribution to help float our loyal staff through the traditional fourth quarter economic downturn/holiday season, and much as I'd love to enlist your volunteer efforts to "bring a class action suit against the Democratic Party and/or Nancy Pelosi to enforce the law of the land", alas I must concede that in my humble opinion, it can't be done.
The closest thing to what you're suggesting was a suit brought against the Democratic Party of Texas back in the early 60's, when the Democratic primary was the de facto general election because there basically was no Republican Party, or second party, in existence in Texas. The plaintiffs in that class action were African and Hispanic Texans who were prohibited from taking part because of their race, since back then only white people were allowed to register as Democrats and vote in the Democratic primary. Passage of the Voting Rights Act eventually put an end to that form of widespread, blatant race discrimination, even when it was practiced by a private, nongovernmental entity like a political party.
Litigation is not the answer here.
Turning to the heavy theme of this thread, the vast majority of the savage invective being leveled against the current beltway Democratic leadership by many Common Dreamers (see above) is indistinguishable in tone and content from from the rantings of Rush, Coulter, Hannity, and the other right wingers inhabitating the hate radio end of my AM dial. Wussy, inept, treasonous, hypocritical liars - whores who've been bought out by the big special interests - all totally lacking in principle, who'll say anything just to seize and hold on to their personal political power.
Sound familiar? Karl Rove is laughing all the way to the bank already.
It's apparent to me that the same DC insider fools who advised the Kerry campaign how to steer their message away from the angry grassroots and pander for the elusive moderate/center/right/independent vote have now worked the same black magic on Pelosi, Reid, and most of the Democratic Presidential candidates.
Given the choice of at least four more years of war in Iraq regardless of which of the two major parties prevail in 2008, a disheartened public eventually will probably opt to keep the GOP in charge of the executive branch for four more years, figuring if we can't end the US mmilitary occupation, then we might as well let the folks who believe in the bloodshed run the show.
Thus, we have one political party (the GOP) that has rigid ideological orthodoxy up the wazoo, and tight internal discipline. We have another political party (the Dems) that has no coherent ideological principles at all anymore, and abysmal internal discipline.
Small wonder every time the Republicans run parliamentary circles around the hapless Democrats on issues like torture, warrantless wiretapping, ballot integrity, and even life and death, the percentage of the population that tunes out in weary disgust just keeps growing.
Bill from Saginaw
It's all show biz.
To the Democrats:"Kiss me."
Democrats: "What?"
To the Democrats:"Kiss me. When I'm being fucked, I like to get kissed a lot."
above quoted lines come from the movie "Dog Day Afternoon' (1975)
Just found a little hint of good news:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18697.htm
The goal is to be getting a Democratic AG appointment on 1/20/09. The fact that Democrats in the Senate are disappointing to some for not staging the knock-down, drag-out over Mukasey DOES NOT CHANGE the goal.
Some will raise heck with me for that (as they often do), and try to convince you the DEMS deserve to lose 2008. Only problem with that is that YOU as a citizen don't necessarily deserve to lose along with them. Yet that's what happens when Repubs win, you (citizens) lose some things and corporations gain them.
I have recently become an Independent...for whatever good that will do.