Reid Allowed Vote On Mukasey In Exchange For Military Funding Bill
Here's some more on what exactly happened in the negotiations that led up to the rushed confirmation of Michael Mukasey yesterday.
According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reid had wanted to get this bill passed before the end of this week, and in fact, the defense bill did come up for a vote late last night and was passed after the Mukasey vote.
One key reason Dem leaders wanted this defense approps bill passed, sources tell me, is that they wanted to be able to argue that they had sent a bill to the President funding the military, if not the war itself. The idea was that doing this would allow them to protect themselves in the days ahead when the battle over Iraq funding heats up and Republicans inevitably charge that Dems are refusing to fund the troops.
"This lets us argue, `Hey, we just sent $450 billion to the military," one leadership source tells me.
According to sources, Reid went into this week with a few primary goals in mind: Get a massive $286 billion farm bill through the Senate, and get action on the Defense Appropriations Bill.
Yesterday Reid entered into closed-door negotiations over the Mukasey confirmation with his Republican counterparts; Reid hoped to use the talks to win quick action on the farm and defense approps bills, sources said.
According to some reports, Reid threatened to postpone action on Mukasey until next week or later. According to a source, this was about trying to force the Repubs to relent on the Defense Approps bill. The Farm Bill was less of the focus and was not a part of the deal for yesterday's vote Reid ended up striking with Senate Republicans. Mixed messages were emanating from the leadership all day about whether a vote would take place on Mukasey. But Reid finally got agreement from Repubs on the approps bill, so the Dem leadership sent out a notice to senators at around 7 p.m. that said there would be a vote on Mukasey by midnight at the latest.
What of the talk that Reid might allow a filibuster of the Mukasey confirmation vote? Asked why this didn't happen, a leadership source claimed that it was because Dem leaders were convinced that Repubs would be able to break off enough Dems to reach the 60 vote threshold and defeat the filibuster.
"They would have gotten 60," the leadership source says, adding: "Some on the Democratic side honestly fundamentally don't believe in filibustering cabinet secretaries. We are on the cusp of a new administration, and we think it will be a Democratic one. Filibustering here would have set a bad precedent."
Of course, this argument will ring hollow to some. Good behavior by Dems now is hardly likely to produce the same on the part of Republicans; indeed, they've already been filibustering like nothing else. And it also seems likely that the Dem leadership preferred to avoid the filibuster because it really wanted to get the defense approps bill passed as a shield against GOP criticism (though it can also be argued that there's pressure on Dems to get defense approps passed for other reasons) and so leaped at the chance to do this. That seems to be the reason that Dems rushed the vote through last night. Critics will point out that Dem worry about GOP attacks was hardly a good enough reason to wave the Mukasey vote through.
"It's important for us to say that we gave money to the military," the source said. "Because when Bush starts coming at us and saying that the troops are running out of money [when the Iraq funding battle fight starts], we'll be able to say, `We just gave you $450 billion.' It kind of gives us a cushion here."
Comments (119)
Anonymous wrote on November 9, 2007 6:22 PM:Great: so the rationale is, the Democrats made a deal to let Mukasey in, so long as they were allowed to keep funding the Iraq War.
Sadly, this makes perfect sense. I'm feeling more and more betrayed every day.
standingup wrote on November 9, 2007 6:28 PM:Harry Reid deserves to be called many things but leader is not one of them.
Mike wrote on November 9, 2007 6:29 PM:Does it feel to anyone else like the Democrats in Congress are trying appease the 24% Bush deadenders, since they feel like they've got the rest of the electorate tied up already?
Like, "who else are you going to vote for the Republicans?"
It's time to drive a stake through the heart of the Reid-Schumer-Feinstein wing of the Democratic party.
P J Evans wrote on November 9, 2007 6:31 PM:Where are the candidates's statements on this?
They should have been screaming about this, starting last night.
All I'm hearing from them is [crickets].
If the Democrats want to win next year, they might want to actually *try* to win. There are a lot of people like me who are looking for a party who doesn't fold like wet tissue.
Anonymous wrote on November 9, 2007 6:32 PM:and that fucking cryptofascist Rockefeller too.
The Liberal Democratic Party of the United States wrote on November 9, 2007 6:39 PM:Disappointed and had enough with the Quislings in the Democratic Party? You can join other people who have joined the Liberal Democratic Party of the United States. We don't run candidates. We get down to everyday politics by joining together in one big buyers union, not for price but to threaten large consumer boycotts against those companies that give money to regressive conservatives in both parties. We demand the action and legislation from the omcpanies that give money to the GOP and conservative Democrats and until then imagine thousands of people saying to these comnpanies on the phone, we will not buy your products. You speak loud when you tell them, no business from us until you get congress to end the war, for example.
We can figuratively hit the Republican party over the left field wall with our boycotts and our telephone campaigns.
Do you want to help end this war in Iraq? The citizens will have to do this. I have a plan to force congress to end this war by having citizens call the companies that give money to regressive conservatives in the house and senate. On the Liberal Democratic Party forum you will see that plan.
Finally a political party for progressives and liberals. We don't have conservatives attempting to turn back the clock on America or bowing to too much corporate power.
You can also reach our progressive forum at
http://progressives.dmocrats.org
for progressives and liberals only.
I consider it the point where we take America back even from our conservative Democrats, who replaced some of the meanest conservative Republicans in congress.
Persona non grata wrote on November 9, 2007 6:44 PM:"Filibustering here would have set a bad precedent."
A "bad precedent" such as standing-up for what you believe in?
Dennis wrote on November 9, 2007 6:47 PM:The leadership of the Democratic Party who supported the nomination need to understand that the American people are not fools, and are well aware that the Democratic Party has now guaranteed that there will be no worthwhile investigations nor anyone held responsible for the fiasco of the Iraq war, what led up to it, nor the war crimes committed in the name of the American people by the Republican Party, confirmed by the Democratic Party. And further, they can already see that those in Congress and the corporations responsible for illegal spying on Americans prior to 9/11 will go unpunished.
When all is said and done, protecting the wrong doings of the Bush administration and the leadership of the two political parties was what this vote was all about in the first place.
If another nation tried to impose on us what our own government is imposing, we would all go to war.
Brilliant move, Harry! This is sure to keep Bush from ever saying the Democrats hate the military. Sheer genius!
I read this and just hung my head. Instead of doing something, we want the appearance of doing something. That's the Democratic motto under Harry Reid (and Pelosi for that matter).
bellumregio wrote on November 9, 2007 6:49 PM:So the Republicans have the Dems permanently bridled and reined in with a threat? The threat of calling them unpatriotic and not supporting the military? That’s all then need to do to keep the Dems running scared and in line? Even when the Republicans and George Bush’s war are staggeringly unpopular? But when the Republicans are in control the Dems get shut out entirely and they have no political tactics to play? These people are incompetent, they cannot construct a favorable political environment for action. They just play on a field defined by the Republicans. They are uncreative, frightened and do not really believe in what they are doing. I guess it wouldn’t matter if just 10 mean Republicans were in the entire Congress; they could still run the show.
chisholm wrote on November 9, 2007 6:49 PM:Does anyone know the process for removing Reid from his majority leadership role? Let's Lott him. Seriously, let's find someone who things strategically and whose goal is to emasculate the Republican Party. That's what I want, and I don't think I'm alone in feeling this way. So who is the person to lead us? Who is the (ethical/non-criminal) Democratic version of Tom DeLay, brainstorming the new Democratic K Street Project? Can it really be true that there isn't one? Ugh, I can't stand all this "getting things done" and "talking about the future" swill. It's bland happy talk that can't actually even be true until the Republicans are banished back to the hell maw they were shat from. I don't want nice-y nice talk, I want a fight. And yet the Democratic leadership is petrified of getting dirty and bloody fighting the Republicans because they're afraid they'll lose, and do permanent damage to the party. They're feverishly, fearfully clinging to the power they've acquired and don't want to do anything to lose it. And it's not better than nothing--it's demoralizing, and it's letting an important, actionable moment go by--to the detriment of the nation and our future. The Republicans are wounded. Now is the time to go in for the kill, and all Reid wants to do is negotiate with them.
aprilrain wrote on November 9, 2007 6:50 PM:So they were willing to give the Dems cover on the defense budget in exchange for Mukasey? He must be really really really important to the Republicans.
Isn't this a sign that all the worst fears about him --especially in relation to the unitary executive, let alone torture--are TRUE?
The Republicans never bargain in good faith and never deal unless they have an ace up their sleeve.
Max Thrax wrote on November 9, 2007 7:02 PM:Man. So all we have to do is vote out the DINOs and then put in good progressives, which, if we work really hard, we can accomplish maybe in what...10 years? Maybe its time to talk secession and taking up the Canadian dollar. All the hope I had a year ago is officially gone. See you in the streets.
Candyce wrote on November 9, 2007 7:12 PM:I'm just sick over this. After hearing Nancy on Ed Schultz yesterday tell us that her goal is the 2008 elections, this just tops it. A House term is two years, and she's throwing away 50% of it in hopes that a year from now, things will be better. How many dead soldiers for your gamble, Nancy?
A year ago it was my intention to keep pushing for more Democrats in Congress. That has been altered. I am now working to rid Congress of Democrats who have betrayed us, and replace them with progressives.
anonymouse wrote on November 9, 2007 7:13 PM:"The leadership of the Democratic Party who supported the nomination need to understand that the American people are not fools,"
Yes, we ARE fools because no matter how bad these clowns in Congress and the Senate are, we will continue to support either the democratic scoundrels or the republican mobsters... because that's what "WE the People do".
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results....
Nestor wrote on November 9, 2007 7:13 PM:I wonder what kind of blackmail the republicans have used against Reid and Pelosi... and where did they get the material?
Could THAT be the reason for the massive data dump the NSA is getting off AT and T?
tomj wrote on November 9, 2007 7:14 PM:I can go with the don't filibuster concept. But here is what I would do: keep a ledger on filibusters from each party. This is kind of like a tab. You keep score of how many filibusters each party uses during a two year session. Then, Democrats can come out and show the chart each time they decide to add add a filibuster to their column. This is simple, graphical, and is pretty honest. It reminds everyone of the score, and it gives cover to use a filibuster and a disincentive to use it.
Heck, why aren't the progressive blogs keeping track of this, maybe the stooges in the Senate will get a clue?
selise wrote on November 9, 2007 7:15 PM:"Mixed messages were emanating from the leadership all day about whether a vote would take place on Mukasey. But Reid finally got agreement from Repubs on the approps bill, so the Dem leadership sent out a notice to senators at around 7 p.m. that said there would be a vote on Mukasey by midnight at the latest."
greg - i think someone is still messing with you.
at 6:50pm last night, this is what senator reid said on the senate floor:
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=8137540&p
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 374, the nomination of Michael Mukasey to be Attorney General of the United States; that there be a time limitation of 5 hours of debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, with the Democratic time divided as follows: Senator Leahy, 45 minutes; Senator Dorgan, 15 minutes; Senator Durbin, 20 minutes; Senator Cardin, 10 minutes; Senator Reed, 15 minutes; Senator Kennedy, 10 minutes; Senator Harkin, 10 minutes; Senator Boxer, 15 minutes; Senator Salazar, 10 minutes; that upon the conclusion or yielding back of the time, the leaders be recognized for 10 minutes each, with the majority leader going last; that the Senate then vote on confirmation of the nomination; the motion to reconsider be laid on the table; the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then resume legislative session; that the Senate then, without intervening action or debate, vote adoption of the conference report on H.R. 3222.
i have a hard time believing that when the "Dem leadership sent out a notice to senators at around 7 p.m. that said there would be a vote," it caught the dem senators by surprise. in order to plan the which senators would speak, and when they would speak, isn't it more likey that the dem senators already knew the vote was at least very likely to happen - long before 7pm?
Seth H. wrote on November 9, 2007 7:17 PM:Did any of you actually read what that said?
"...the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
I think the democratic leadership made exactly the decision they need to. Whiny bitches can't stand the notion that they won't ever get everything they want in Congress. Just because our guys won doesn't mean all of the roadblocks to a sane government suddenly evaporate.
VictorLaszlo wrote on November 9, 2007 7:22 PM:"Because when Bush starts coming at us and saying that the troops are running out of money [when the Iraq funding battle fight starts], we'll be able to say, `We just gave you $450 billion.' It kind of gives us a cushion here."
. . .
Oh, I see. So in exchange for letting Mukasey through, the Dems are being allowed to continue propping up the Republicans' bogus 'money for the troops' frame.
What a deal.
So they voted for a torture supporting Judge for AG BECAUSE why, the party comes before the people?
I'm really tired of this, it does not serve the interest of the American people but merely the interest of the Dem Party - and Bush isn't running for office anymore. Unfortunately Hillary is looking less and less like a change and more like the same Bushism status quo complete with torture and wiretapping ability.
W Action wrote on November 9, 2007 7:38 PM:The explanation is simple: they're relentlessly poor negotiators. The explanation doesn't make sense. The spin is that they've improved their standing by giving an opponent what they want on the promise of getting a chance to vote for an unamended Pentagon budget that's 8% more than last year not counting the upcoming war supplemental.... Who are these people, and what have they done with the Democratic Party. Shameful.
selise wrote on November 9, 2007 7:42 PM:does greg ever read or respond to comments made here?
or is attempting to provide additional information frowned on?
just wondering... haven't commented much here, but it does seem to be an exercise in futilty. hoping some of the long time active commenters can clue me in. thanks!
dcshungu wrote on November 9, 2007 7:45 PM:Beyond words...After capitulating and whoring themselves to get Bush funding for his war, we are to now believe that these same folks are serious about pushing through legislation to begin withdrawing our troops? LOL, but this is not funny at all, hence the tragedy...
hadenough wrote on November 9, 2007 7:48 PM:Greg:
"According to sources inside and outside the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Repubs were slow walking the ag bill and the defense bill. They objected to everything. They had point of orders to objections to point of orders. It was ridiculous, absurd and disgusting. It got to the point where a dem would say a few sentences then look over to the repub side because they knew an objection was coming. It was so bad kay baily stupidson was just saying ‘objection!’ Then she’d laugh as people looked in wonder as to what now. kay: just kidding. That’s how stupid it was. The repub talking point has been/is dems can’t get anything done. Repubs are going to make sure they can’t.
People can blame Reid because repubs act like repubs. I blame the “liberal media.” The repubs act the repubs because they know they can get away with it.
The defense appropriations bill, outside of Iraq and A-stan, is 50 percent pork anyway. Wunderbar.
yellowdogD wrote on November 9, 2007 8:02 PM:selise
I've seen Greg respond to comments from time to time. Must depend on how busy he is working on next story. Same selise as at FDL? Wave from lurking pup.
BG wrote on November 9, 2007 8:04 PM:Nancy and Harry, Are you sure there will be elections next year? You assume there will be but are you sure?
Geek, Esq. wrote on November 9, 2007 8:08 PM:Wait--Reid gave them Mukasey in exchange for the ability to throw ungodly sums of money at the Pentagon?
Must. stifle. Nader. talking. points.
mike wrote on November 9, 2007 8:10 PM:I say give them one more chance, seriously.
Now they have ALL THE COVER they need to seriously challenge Iraqi war funding.
They have the polls and they have the messaging, they are 100% inured from attacks. (Yes, they also got to service their industrial complex folks, I know I know...).
If they go hard after Iraqi funding, then I'm still with them.
selise wrote on November 9, 2007 8:10 PM:yellowdogD - thanks for the response. it's not that i expect greg to respond to me... it's just that i didn't see him respond to anyone. glad to know he reads his comments, that's good enough for me.
... and yes, same selise - howdy!
tiowally wrote on November 9, 2007 8:14 PM:$450 Billion for defense?
I feel -- and you should, too -- cheated! Only *$450, 301 to protect each of us?
*based on a US population of 301 million.
tiowally wrote on November 9, 2007 8:17 PM:Oops, make that $459,301 per person.
I feel so much better ... and safer.
CalD wrote on November 9, 2007 8:17 PM:Something just told me there was some quid pro quo there. Probably not a bad deal and of course Reid wasn't really giving up anything to get it. Any moron could see that nomination was going through anyway. Mukasey just wasn't bad enough in the balance to block.
I do hope they can hold off on the regular Defense appropriations bill until the Administration has had a chance to respond to Pelosi's call for putting them on the installment plan for their supplemental Iraq war funding. When that was tried back in the Spring the Pentagon countered effectively saying they would be unable to commit to purchases of life-saving equipment like up-armored vehicles if they didn't get the whole package.
It was always my assumption that Reid staged that all-nighter stunt last summer as a pretense for pulling the Defense appropriations bill precisely so that the next time the White House came calling for more war money, the regular defense bill would be in process at the same time -- the regular defense bill of course being the more proper place for things like up-armored vehicles.
I do think it's extremely important to get the funding cycle for Iraq operations down to no more than three months. My psychic powers also tell me we're going to see more cracks forming between the Republican leadership and some of their members from more the purple states and districts, once primary season has passed and the general election campaign heats up (particularly if some people I could mention would spend more time beating up on Republicans and less on Democrats). There needs to be a structure in place to scoop those votes up as they start to fall away and turn that into leverage for forcing some changes in Iraq policy.
Jim Faith wrote on November 9, 2007 8:22 PM:Shorter Reid - we had to pass Mukasey so the Republicans won't yell at us and call us names.
Brilliant.
Amos Anan wrote on November 9, 2007 8:34 PM:"The Left," which at this point on matters like a pointless, endless lost war for oil, legalized torture and an executive branch that need not be concerned with matters like .. the law, is about three quarters of the American public, is once again being played by Harry Reid and the Democrats.
We're getting an "inside baseball" story on the maneuvers Reid and Democrats supposedly needed to get some bill passed that would further supposedly provide needed publicity cover in an expected fight that the Bush group will wage for further funding of the Iraq war. Never mind that Reid has already demonstrated a "Lucy" quality with his claims that he gave up on some critical fundamental issue now so that he can fight some fight later. Never mind the phony staged publicity stunts Reid has pulled, like the Democrat (sic) filibuster as some sort of claimed demonstration that Republicans were filibustering too much. Never mind the stunt to force the then Republican majority in the senate to pull an all nighter. All these prior stunts by Reid were to placate the rubes - the left and the American public - that he and the Democrat (sic) party were trying to work for the real traditional American values - a nation of laws, of justice and of the people.
Politically he has scarred three of the Democratic presidential candidates by making their vote on a critical issue impossible. Do you think the Republicans will let those missed votes pass without later comment? Reid did that to the Democrat candidates he supposedly hopes will lead America in a couple of years.
In terms of the actual argument put forth, that by having the Republicans allow a separate spending bill for regular Pentagon defense operations as opposed to the Iraq war specifically - that to my mind doesn't seem all that significant. We've had "supplemental" bills passed for the war alone and .. guess what .. Reid and the other Dam .. Dem leaders told us they had to cave on those so they could fight the fight better later. A fight they never fought ('September! Wait till September when we'll show them what for!'). There's nothing about passing a defense appropriations bill without Iraq war funding that will prevent Bush and the Republicans from doing a full court media frenzy press on Democrats no funding the troops. Nothing. Reid is full of shit. The Democrats are giving the American people the same F.U.s that the Repulicans give us. "Wait! We'll really fight them six months from now. Just wait and see."
And Reid must have thrown his weight around with Democrats. His back of the hand swipe at the presidential candidates was a major insult in itself but consider that not one Democrat (sic) senator thought it important enough to stand up for democracy in America. Stand up for a nation that believes the executive branch is not open to any and all sorts of criminal behavior. High crimes and misdemeanors and war crimes too. None chose to do a Dodd on FISA and stand on principle for democracy and freedom - in America. None chose to filibuster approving as the chief law enforcement officer of America someone that has stated that laws don't apply to the executive branch. And that for an executive branch with years of demonstrated lawlessness, again, including war crimes. Hey! Not even that "maverick" of the Democrat (sic) side, Senator Soupy Sales, err Russ Feingold. Feingold had to wait for Schumer and Feinstein to say they'd vote to approve torture approving Mukasey before Soupy could figure out how he'd vote. These are the Democrat (sic) party's champions of the people. Where's Matt Stoller to tell us what a phony "maverick" Soupy Feingold is?
Don't tell me there was no attempt at filibuster because it would have lost anyway. Make those who vote for torture and against habeas corpus known to the public. Fight an assumed losing battle because it's the good fight. The fight for the people. The loss that would lead to victory, not another future sham battle. No Nathan Hales in this Democrat party. That's for sure.
Anyone that gives money to the Democrat party in general (not some specific political candidate with known and demonstrated views) is not merely an idiot but someone actively working against the American people and America as a whole. That's what the Democrat party is doing and has done for years now. They're the stealth Republicans, robbing America of its past and future.
Breaking news: Rep. Tom Udall is now ready to announce his run for Senate in New Mexico -- which would be great news for Democrats!
VictorLaszlo wrote on November 9, 2007 8:35 PM:tiowally, your calculator's broken.
It's about $1500 per person.
VictorLaszlo wrote on November 9, 2007 8:37 PM:Jim Faith: "Shorter Reid - we had to pass Mukasey so the Republicans won't yell at us and call us names.
Brilliant."
That's also why they don't end the war. Come to think of it it's why they do pretty much everything.
Daddy's drunk again, we mustn't make him angry!
colonpowwow wrote on November 9, 2007 8:38 PM:Not that it would forestall apoplexy on the part of the loony leftist-behind wing of the Democratic Party here, but the key things seem to be:
"Dem leaders were convinced that Repubs would be able to break off enough Dems to reach the 60 vote threshold and defeat the filibuster."
And:
"Defense Appropriations Bill, which contains $459 billion in military spending but doesn't fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Of course, the political geniuses here would maybe not have the Democrats try and pass any military spending right now. Now, where did they put that talking point about the Democrats being soft on military matters. Unjustified, I know, but the GOP has gotten good mileage on this old warhorse for about 30 years now.
Good job of politics (the art of the possible) by Harry Reid, I say.
The budget supplementals passage for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has already been pre-ordained.
The Republicrats "draw-down" was guaranteed the minute the "surge" began in the spring of 2007. The US military does not have the man-power to sustain the force levels in Iraq at current levels much longer.
All the machinations on display in the Captiol are a charade.
tiowally wrote on November 9, 2007 8:53 PM:Thank you, VictorLaszlo. You greatly helped reduce my blood pressure ... somewhat.
Mary wrote on November 9, 2007 8:53 PM:So they could continue the kabuki of sending a bill that doesn't fund the war, when they are going to send a bill funding the war too anyway - yeah, right.
Let's call this the "DiFi blows kisses to her military contracting buddies" sell out.
Upthread, "Politically he has scarred three of the Democratic presidential candidates by making their vote on a critical issue impossible"
Good point about Reid's "maneuvering" and the resulting missed votes.
lambert strether wrote on November 9, 2007 9:00 PM:I think it's gone way beyond kabuki.
Now it's hentai.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 9, 2007 9:01 PM:Yo Harry!
Your choice:
1. No more deals,
or
2. Retire to spend time with your family.
Cranky Observer wrote on November 9, 2007 9:29 PM:> According to sources inside and outside
> the Democratic leadership, Harry Reid
> allowed a vote on Mukasey because in
> exchange the Republican leadership agreed
> to allow a vote on the big Defense
> Appropriations Bill, which contains $459
> billion in military spending but doesn't
> fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Boy, won't Reid be surprised when the Republicans go back on that deal "due to pressure from our constituents" (= Fox News).
Cranky
sandy wrote on November 9, 2007 10:07 PM:Harry Reid is going to shit bricks when they double cross him which they will...What a sap. Harry is mormon right? Wonder if he wears magic underwear too..
Me_again wrote on November 9, 2007 10:08 PM:Because Dems have put a torture supporting AG in the DoJ, the Dems literary are trading our US Constitution for partisan politics in order to control the Whitehouse, to control everything. They are serving themselves and NOT the people of US.
Will Hillary say no to torture? No to wiretapping - I don't think so.
Phoenix Woman wrote on November 9, 2007 10:16 PM:Remember how we thought that Ashcroft as AG was The Worst Thing Ever? We were wrong. Alberto Gonzales was worse. Much, much, much worse. (When Ashcroft on his hospital bed can become a comparative hero for standing up to BushCo, you know how far things have fallen.)
The scuttlebutt in DC is that while he's conservative, Mukasey is actually worlds better than the clowns running DoJ now -- the ones Gonzales brought in. (Yes, that tells you just how awful Main Justice is right now.) And Bush is never going to appoint anyone we like. (Movement conservatives like Richard Viguerie came out against Mukasey early on precisely because he was someone that many Democrats didn't find utterly repulsive. Again, that should tell you something.)
So while Mukasey's never going to be confused with Louis Brandeis, know that -- sadly -- he's as good as we're probably going to get out of the worst group of persons ever to occupy the White House.
Anonymous wrote on November 9, 2007 10:16 PM:While thinking about Mukasey, it occurred to me:
Remember how we thought that Ashcroft as AG was The Worst Thing Ever? We were wrong. Alberto Gonzales was worse. Much, much, much worse. (When Ashcroft on his hospital bed can become a comparative hero for standing up to BushCo, you know how far things have fallen.)
The scuttlebutt in DC is that while he's conservative, Mukasey is actually worlds better than the clowns running DoJ now -- the ones Gonzales brought in. (Yes, that tells you just how awful Main Justice is right now.) And Bush is never going to appoint anyone we like. (Movement conservatives like Richard Viguerie came out against Mukasey early on precisely because he was someone that many Democrats didn't find utterly repulsive. Again, that should tell you something.)
So while Mukasey's never going to be confused with Louis Brandeis, know that -- sadly -- he's as good as we're probably going to get out of the worst group of persons ever to occupy the White House.
Barb wrote on November 9, 2007 10:21 PM:"Harry Reid allowed a vote on Mukasey because in exchange the Republican leadership agreed to allow a vote on the big Defense Appropriations Bill"
The Republicans agreed to allow a vote? I was under the impression that the majority party decided what comes up for a vote.
michael valentne wrote on November 9, 2007 10:33 PM:Well the decorum and tradition of the Senate is far more important then the constitution of the United States of America.
Remember last congress when the Republican Majority leader threatened the "nuclear" option over a judicial nomination saying that the President deserved an up or down vote?
Doesn't the American Constitution deserve an up or down vote?
John wrote on November 9, 2007 10:46 PM:What a bunch of pussies and what a bunch of political bullshit. Harry Reid needs to give way to somebody with a spine. He's the fuckin majority leader? It makes me want to waterboard myself.
In fact, allow me to get a wet rag and a bucket of water...
CalD wrote on November 9, 2007 11:04 PM:must... resist... temptation...
starwheel wrote on November 9, 2007 11:08 PM:With friends like the Democrats, who needs Republicans?
mkolb wrote on November 9, 2007 11:12 PM:Have these people (Dems and Repubs) rung up enough in spending (especially pork) that it leaves each of us unsuspecting suckers with a big enough bill that we can sue them en masse for fraud or even better malpractice? Hmm, can a politician be held for malpractice?
Where's a lawyer who would take on a case like that - talk about class action.
Joe wrote on November 9, 2007 11:17 PM:Maybe Reid felt that Mukasey would do some good at DoJ and was likely to come under continued pressure to rein in torture activities, while the Cheney-approved acting AG alternative would further decimate the place?
Maybe getting the Defense bill out of the way gives the Senate to spend more time on SCHIP and tying Bush's hands on Iran?
I don't get how filibustering Mukasey (by far the best option available) helps Democrats. I really don't. And I am usually pretty critical of Senate Democrats so I don't think I'm just being an apologist here.
CalD wrote on November 10, 2007 12:14 AM:I really think getting a commitment from Republicans not to block a vote on the defense bill was likely a move in support of whatever Pelosi is up to in the House.
oleeb wrote on November 10, 2007 12:52 AM:This is just more of the same old cowardly bullshit.
"Ooooh! They're going to say we aren't funding the military. We don't have the balls to stand up to them and call them the liars they are so instead we'll sell out on torture and allow this two-bit judge who's already clearly corrupted to the point of carrying Bush's water on the torture issue to be approved. Now the mean old President and his mean bully-boy buddies can't call us names on fudning the military."
Hogwash! All of it! They caved in once again and nothing will stop the Republican swine from saying they aren't funding the troops. What idiots! They didn't even get a promise of prosecution for all those who have broken our laws and the Geneva convention regarding humane treatment of prisoners. It's embarassing and shameful, but they are so craven they are beyond embarassment or shame.
urbino wrote on November 10, 2007 1:03 AM:I complained that the previous article on this subject was rather useless, since it contained basically no information that wasn't already obvious.
This one is more like it. Thanks, TPM.
~~
On the issue itself, I really don't know what Reid, et al., think they've bought. The GOP is never going to stop accusing the Democrats of failing to support the troops. The truth value of the accusation has nothing to do with why they make it; they make the accusation because it works. It's going to continue to work, and they're going to continue to make it.
Reid paid an extremely high price for extremely little. It's further evidence of why he's not up to the job: he lacks the political judgment.
AM wrote on November 10, 2007 1:18 AM:Strikes me Mukasey won't be able to make a move without the whistle blowers, highly motivated, making transgressions public. If that's any consolation.
just joe wrote on November 10, 2007 1:18 AM:The logic of idiots. Bringing the defense funding up for a vote should not have related to the Mukasey nomination in any way...but Reid made it fit. Saying we are on the verge of a new administration really pisses me off. "Let 'em do what they want they won't be there that much longer." What happened to values, justice, democratic ideals? Have they all been traded off because they weren't expedient...didn't fit in with the democrats agenda? What causes them to reason this way...they don't even understand why we are angry, furious...they actually believe they are doing a "good job". The war/occupation continues...again...till Bush leaves office and beyond...We have a AG who refuses to call torture torture or hold the administration accountable...which they virtually appointed in secret...they refuse to impeach...they allow spying on Americans and are willing to grant immunity to those breaking the law...and then turn around and boast about a min. wage law and an ethics reform measure. Do they just not see themselves or are they incapable of thinking any other way. They act as if they can't do 2 things at once.
Mukasey, war, torture, spying, no health care, economic collapse, oil up to $100+ a barrel, and threatening another preemptive war. The democratic presidential candidates miss the Mukasey vote because they just didn't want it to be an issue which might affect their campaigns. The center of the democratic party have been there too long...they have forgotten who they are and what they are supposed to be doing. They have forgotten the people and the constitution because they just weren't expedient. Good job Reid, a torturous AG who will protect the administration from accountability for a defense funding vote...good job...heckofajob.
Considering how the GOP has its way with the Dems time and time again, I think it's gone way beyond kabuki AND hentai and now resembles something close to bukaki.
Kjoe wrote on November 10, 2007 2:17 AM:I think the democrats are waiting for the tet offensive.
Gene McCarthy's 1968 campaign which might have cause lbj to step down really took off when there was dramatic military stuff in Vietnam.
I think they will act forcefully when there is a dramatic something or other in Iraq---something which punctures all the positive spin we are being fed now.
They do not want the appearance of causing failure---but they will be willing to act when there is a clear perception of failure on the part of Bush---there are a lot of people who believe things are turning around.
gregor wrote on November 10, 2007 2:48 AM:These sound like the actions of little men who are afraid. Very afraid.
They are definitely not leaders. They do not deserve to be in positions of leadership.
Perhaps I should start believing in God so I can pray that He helps our country.
kjoe wrote on November 10, 2007 3:08 AM:''''''''''''''Perhaps I should start believing in God so I can pray that He helps our country'''''''''
Not necessary. You can just outsource it to Pat Robertson. He knows how to drive a hard bargain with God.
busdrivermike wrote on November 10, 2007 3:56 AM:Evan Bayh voted yea.
Can you say Clinton/Bayh?
Voting for the lesser of two evils, is still voting for evil.
merryll wrote on November 10, 2007 4:30 AM:$459,000,000 poured down a rathole to defend against what?
slcathena wrote on November 10, 2007 5:07 AM:Can we oust Reid and have Feingold as majority leader? Please? This is a joke.
Taylor wrote on November 10, 2007 6:22 AM:The reason for this latest capitulation can be summed up in three words.
Pork.
Pork.
Pork.
Our national government has devolved into a patronage machine.
And the rest of the world knows it, and is bailing on the currency before the inevitable.
Is this what it felt like in the dying days of the Weimar Republic?
tmcm wrote on November 10, 2007 7:04 AM:
Every day, with everything the Democrats do, I realize I won't be able to vote in 08...or if I do vote, I will have to vote for a Republician. I am over 60, and I have never voted for a republican in my life. What a spineless group of Democratics we have in Congress, and to top it off we have Hilary, who will NEVER get my vote.
So now we know the initial price tag for avoiding investigation and prosecution of Republican congressional delegation and the executive branch.
What else is it worth? How much will they give us to avoid investigation? This is where Reid should be threatening to yank Lieberman's chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; Lieberman should have been investigating government every bit as hard as Waxman in the comparable House committee, but his deal with Rove to retain his Senate seat must have cost Lieberman this drive to find the truth.
If Reid threatened to yank Lieberman and replace him with a bulldog like Feingold or Whitehouse, surely we could get a few more chits -- like an independent counsel law, or a special prosecutor, or an end to the war?
Regrettably, Reid simply doesn't have the kind of poker playing skill necessary to pull this off.
Official A wrote on November 10, 2007 8:10 AM:So the treasonous Reid traded the Constitution for a little political cover? What a bargain!
The Democratic Party is dying and soon will be dead, gone the way of the Whigs.
What will take its place?
ramasan wrote on November 10, 2007 8:11 AM:
Mukasey already showed us just how well
Cheney's choke chain works on him.
Looks like we now have a SMART Gonzales running DOJ.
God help us.
I have been making the argument that the Democratic Party will never stand up or make a decision based on conviction...because they don't have any. Indeed, I argue that only when people on the right, like Bob Barr--not bushies-- engage in the fight to save our constitution will it ever happen. Some of my friends who are die-hard democrats argue that things will change only when the D's are power and I say bull. The Democratic Party in its attempt to become more centrist has rejected the progressive values. Today, the difference between the D's and R's is marginal and only exists for the most part around some social issues like gay marriage and gun control. On the more important existential questions, the D's are either aligned w. the R's (i.e., their approach to Iran) or only paying lip service to the rank and file.
The sad part about the Mukasey debate is that while everybody's focused on torture, he got a pass on his position regarding the unitary power of the executive. That to me is equal to if not totally trump the torture question. But if one reads between the lines, essentially Reid wants to save these powers because his party will be in charge so why change them in the waning years of the Bush administration. That, my friend, is the cold reality.
We are to blame. Republicans get away with swift-boating scott free.
If Dems need to play these games to get some measure of control over the war in Iraq, it's because we decide who to vote for based on a 30 second sound bite.
We are not sophisticated voters. We're sheep.
d1invador, you hit the nail on the head. We desperately need a third party, and I would love to see Feingold, Dodd, Kucinich, and a few other relatively principled Dems bolt the party. They'd have more influence as a swing block anyway. The party as it now exists is just pitiful.
After thrity-five years as a "D", I have changed my registration to "I". I will no longer be an enabler.
Thucydides JR. wrote on November 10, 2007 9:39 AM:Was Mukasey the best we would have gotten? maybe. But to me (and D1 Invador nailed it) it's like saying at least Pol Pot is no Hitler.
Maybe, just maybe, DoJ was better without a head. IF GW wanted to recess appoint, go ahead. But you don't have to go along with the mugging.
And you know, let the Repubs stall the defense bills. If you do your spin right (and there really is no spin needed - the Repubs were gonna hold up the defense bill) then hit them with the same "they don't support the troops" club.
But Taylor above got it right. The defense bill is about pork, not the troops. And the Dems do loves them some pork.
It s a sad day when the most lucrative recession-proof industry in the US is "defense". Looks like we need our wars just to keep the country employed.
I can't find the source of the quote, but I remember it goes:
Beware the nation with an army in the field and bankrupt at home."
Read My Dad's book!
Steve wrote on November 10, 2007 11:01 AM:President Bush wins yet again . . .
CalD wrote on November 10, 2007 11:02 AM:Oh, silly. If bush had been allowed to sneak in another recess appointment for AG, it sure as hell would not have been any Michael Mukasey. Dem's almost certainly got the better end of this deal (for a change).
lou wrote on November 10, 2007 11:32 AM:I think representative government is a good idea........... ( sarcasm must be added)
Ethan wrote on November 10, 2007 12:42 PM:Disgusting. Reid's office will be hearing from me next week.
Betty wrote on November 10, 2007 1:20 PM:This story just sickens me. Reid is just plain stupid.
opulent wrote on November 10, 2007 1:23 PM:This entire thing of no presidential candidate being present to vote, smacks of a HRClinton move again.
Clinton could not afford as a NY Senator to vote against Mukaskey as he was being pushed by Schumer. That would have been a tough political price for her. She owes Schumer more than she cares about the US constitution, which is why she was the VERY last Senator to say she would oppose Mukasey.
Bidd,Dodd and Obama were all on record as being opposed to Mukasey, which meant that HRClinton would have had to cast a vote with them or risk more political fallout on the campaign trail.
This whole thing was once again manuevered for Clinton to look good and the same goes for the new funding bill that supposedly will not be used to fund Iran and Iraq...riiiight.
It is nothing but pork money for the defense industry who Hillary has the most money from, so she will get to vote for this while being able to engage in her usual doublespeak by saying it is not money to fund the war....after all she follows Obama's lead every time on this. She waited until AFTER he voted the last time to cast her vote...and now they have turned right around and come up with another funding bill that gives Hillary political cover.
Reid is working for Hillary's campaign as much as his son is, in terms of what votes come up and their timing.
Politics as usual.
We need a new leadership badly in this country. Only Barack offers the promise of new leadership where change is not just a slogan but change we can believe in as he offers leadership with conviction, clarity and purpose.
Thucydides JR. wrote on November 10, 2007 1:30 PM:I think the Dems traded something the Repubs wanted for something the Repubs wanted anyway.
And please - Bush has no one else to put in there as a recess appointment. The department nor Congress would have let another Gonzales run around there without interference.
As I said on another site - the new AG will now get a grace period of most of his/her term to do whatever they want, and it will not be shedding light on any of the misconduct and scandals of the department. So draw the curtain on the politicizing and voter rights investigations. They just got the heave-ho. And the Dems just said it was ok.
It's like a choice for police chief between that guy who shot his ex-wife and their divorce judge and Jeffrey Dalmer. One's only slightly less murderous and crazy than the last one, who had more time to muck about.
wrapper wrote on November 10, 2007 2:05 PM:Reid is the President's Bitch. Sure he gets mouthy once in a while but it's all for show.
Cameron Mitchell wrote on November 10, 2007 2:42 PM:We should waterboard Mukasy, Reid and the whole lot of them who won't stand up for the public who put them in power and then let them define wether it falls under their definition of torture or not.
Anonymous wrote on November 10, 2007 3:00 PM:Why have the Democrats once more caved into Bush and the Republicans on the nomination of Mukasey? Why do the Democrats appear to be so weak?
The answer is that they are counting on the left to overlook their attempts to appeal to the right wing in this country. The Democrats believe they can count on the left to support them in the elections regardless of what they do, because, presumably, the Republicans are far worse. So unless and until the left wing asserts itself at the polls, by staying away, or voting for a third party, such as Nader, the Democrats will continue to pursue the politics of appeasement, in an attempt to gain votes from the right without losing their base on the left.
How bad do things have to get before the left realizes that the Democrats cannot be counted on? When will the left draw the line and say "That is unacceptable"?
The Democrats will not draw the line unless they are forced to do so; and only a viable third party will force their hand.
Do we support our troops? YES
Do we support the Iraq War? NO
Do we support our Country? YES
Do we support this Administration? NO
Do we see a pattern here? No wonder so many Americans are disillusioned and disgusted. There is no correlation between our personal beliefs - honor our country and the fighting men and women who are risking their lives for us, and our political reality - a corrupt government commiting our troops to die in a War we do not agree with.
Egad! It's the late 1960s again, but the Supreme Court is stacked with Ultra Conservatives, the Administration is trying to restore the ties between Church and State, Racism is on the rise, Social Security is crumbling, Health care is unaffordable, the gap between the rich and the rest of us is widening, every other American speaks a foreign language, the National Debt is astronomical, who can afford gasoline and heating oil ....
Who says that there is a lack of bipartisanship in Congress: the Democrats agree to vote with Republicans in exchange for getting to complain about it. Meanwhile, we get to feel like the Jews wandering around in the desert being told that the Promised Land is just around the next bend in the dunes (in our case 2008).
scarshapedstar wrote on November 10, 2007 5:19 PM:""This lets us argue, `Hey, we just sent $450 billion to the military," one leadership source tells me."
Gee, that's great. And the Republicans will argue, "You still hate the troops."
And the Democrats will cave. Again. And again. And again.
Nick Danger wrote on November 10, 2007 6:04 PM:Wow. The tortured thinking of the Democratic leadership is just so weird. Be nice to the Rethugs and they'll cooperate with us has not been true since LBJ was majority leader, about 50 years ago. But that was way back when all Rethugs were not far right radicals or incompetent, sexually troubled predators.
I get these emails from the majority leader that are entitled "Give Em Hell Harry." More like "Give Em Heck, sortof, maybe, Harry"
WILD BILL wrote on November 10, 2007 7:51 PM:CLEAN HOUSE.IMPEACH NOW OR RESIGN!
jay bo wrote on November 10, 2007 8:00 PM:Spineless, mentally impaired cretins. What other possible explanation?
Sick of your constant whining wrote on November 10, 2007 8:03 PM:What a bunch of ignorant, impatient, and ungrateful whiney morons you people are. That's one reason why the right kicks your ass so readily. They understand politics better than most on "the left". In fact, I supect many of these comments come from GOP trolls and Ron Paul spammers. Richard Viguerie was just barely 30 years old in 1964 when he started planning and plotting the rise of modern conservatism that has given us George Bush and ruined this country. He's 74 now. You should all just STFU and quit whining. Think about what it would be like if we had lost seats in 2006, or the balance of power hadn't changed at all, and plan on patiently and deliberately dedicating the next 20 to 30 years of your life to repair the damage done. If you can't commit to that, you should go back to watching soap operas. Most of you are drama junkies anyway.
Horatio Parker wrote on November 10, 2007 8:16 PM:So we have a Bush tool AG, selected by the Dems no less and a half trillion dollars for the Pentagon. And this is a victory?
Hate to think what a defeat looks like.
Angry Illinoisan wrote on November 10, 2007 8:26 PM:I have had enough. Evidently the national Democrats are as bad as the Illinois ones. Every man out for himself, out for material enrichment, out for power, and out for the appearance of cover rather than the reality of achieving goals.
The scuttlebutt I hear is that a lot of the leading Illinois Democrats (i.e. the crooked Blue Dog ones who are all going to end up indicted anyway as long as Pat Fitzgerald doesn't run out of time) want Hillary and the only reason Obama has as strong a base as he does in his home state is because of Penny Pritzker's bullheadedness in getting him networked and funded. It's not the greatest of choices -- but I'll take the darling of the lakefront liberals and the Chicago business community over the crooked crypto-conservative Machine any day.
What I am looking for from a Democratic presidential nominee is a decisive break with the track the Reid-Pelosi wuss-ocracy is taking. Hillary is so lacking in this department that I am approaching the point where I'm not sure I can vote for her in a general election.
Venini wrote on November 10, 2007 8:39 PM:
Cowering
from threats
again
heh...
SOYCW -- it's all about getting even, not just getting angry. It is NOT about signing off on the performance of this alleged Democratic "leadership." You try to connect the two, which is exactly the failed formula for defeat that Bob Shrum has mastered over the past 35 years.
The Republicans during their ascendancy had kind of a hands-off approach toward their own incumbents, but had ferocious primary contests for open seats -- contests that mostly ended up getting won by the hard right. But additionally, liberal Republicans found it hard to raise money and get re-elected, and several fell by the wayside prematurely. Lowell Weicker, anyone? What's troubling now is that the national Democratic leadership gives the same support to a Dan Lipinski or a Melissa Bean -- a crooked right-wing machine stooge, and a classic ideological DINO -- that they give progressives and liberals, and then they lean toward the stooges and the DINOs when it comes time for floor votes. So what else is the progressive wing of the party to do but challenge incumbents as well as open seats in primaries?
Because that's the thing. Republican leaders, given a choice between liberals and conservatives, pick those who are relatively conservative. Unfortunately, Democratic leaders seem to be doing exactly the same thing to the point that they now stand to the right of where the Reagan Republicans did in 1980 on everything except civil rights. So for progressives to take the party back requires far more forceful action than it did for conservatives to take back the GOP in the 1960s and 1970s for the likes of Barry Goldwater, Richard Viguerie, Howard Jarvis and Ronald Reagan.
Utopia wrote on November 10, 2007 11:33 PM:"Good behavior by Dems now is hardly likely to produce the same on the part of Republicans."
"Hardly likely"? Has it *ever* produced good behavior from the GOP?
U
Anonymous wrote on November 10, 2007 11:35 PM:merryll wrote on November 10, 2007 4:30 AM:
$459,000,000 poured down a rathole to defend against what?
--
merryll, you need 3 more 0s. It's billion, with a "B" as in $459,000,000,000.
U
Wait - let me get this straight.
The GOPpers were using vapid "objections" and "points of order" to interfere with passage of a military appropriations bill and the Dimcrats were so incompetent at basic PR that they couldn't take advantage of this but instead had to beg the GOPpers to be nice to them?
Oh. My. Word.
We are so screwed.
Pyre wrote on November 11, 2007 8:56 AM:Amazing that people in this thread are still calling for this Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney -- even after this Congress has just demonstrated, once again, that it is unwilling to give anything but the most superficial appearance of resistance or opposition.
Ah, sure, a quick and quiet surrender on Mukasey in order to (more importantly) defund the war in Iraq, right?
And next week a quick and quiet surrender on funding the war in Iraq in order to (more importantly) take some other stand... which will in turn be surrendered for some other and equally ephemeral show of spine.
Praedor Atrebates wrote on November 11, 2007 9:52 AM:Not only did Reid push to get a torture supporter approved as AG, he also pushed through his defense bill that further guts Posse Comitatus. Down in the bowels of that Reid defense bill is a blurb requiring the SecDef to study the "military-specific capabilities" that could be of use to civil and law enforcement authorities in event of a catastrophic event or disaster. The PREZ gets to determine what is or is not a catastrophic event or disaster that allows the weight of the US armed forces to plunge in and be used against US citizens.
Harry Reid. Traitor and pro-tyrant.
splashoil wrote on November 11, 2007 11:13 AM:Did the military spending bill passed by the Democratic leadership include the bunker buster retrofit Cheney needs for Iran?
thepeoplechoose wrote on November 11, 2007 1:23 PM:This really isn't all that bad. Justice is under a microscope and there is inernal strife that will tend to limit what Mukasey might do. Reid is looking at the longer term knowing it was a good deal for congress to get the defense appropriation bill passed without explicit Iraq funding. Reid knows that at present there are limits to what can be done because of the numbers in the senate. He also knows the circumstances will change a year from now. He is a political realist and rather than waste time going after the impossible he is getting done what is possible. Mukasey will serve fourteen months with everyone watching him carefully.
There will be time to criticize Reid if and when he has some real power and doesn't deliver.
splashoil wrote on November 11, 2007 1:58 PM:Did the defense appropriation bill include the bunker buster retrofit as requested by OVP? Anyone know? Any "political realists" have the answer?
alan1111 wrote on November 11, 2007 3:33 PM:Reid andPelosi walk in lockstep....two puppets on strings doing whose bidding i really do not know..but i know one thing..elections next year for them will be tough...if they keep up this crap..impeachment is off the table ?? when did she become Queen of the house? how is she even allowed to even make such a blanket statement ithout any blowback from other members of the house? has everyone in congress dems been neutered? what has happened? reid is useless? i am sick of his whinning>>>>this latest fiasco is right up there with his greatest flubs....most of everyone now in congress has been there to long.....
Spencer wrote on November 11, 2007 3:43 PM:I wonder what kind of blackmail the republicans have used against Reid and Pelosi... and where did they get the material?
What exactly makes you think that any such blackmail material would even be necessary?
Ron Russell wrote on November 11, 2007 5:55 PM:Wow, how do I ever give to the party again? Answer: I don't. What's the difference anyway? The 109th Congress under the Republicans sold us out for their master, King George. The 110th Congress under the Democrats sold us out for their master, King George. I'm not even sure I'm going to bother to vote in 08, as there isn't enough difference between the parties to make it worth my while and I'm not going to even bother to be polite when I get those calls from the Democratic party. We as a nation are finished.
Official A wrote on November 11, 2007 9:06 PM:Ron Russell wrote: "I'm not even sure I'm going to bother to vote in 08."
I'll vote, just not for either of the establishment parties. It's only fair, since they haven't voted for me.
If I remember correctly when Ralph Nader spoke about how both parties served a "corptocracy", people said he was nuts! Oh how now things are different! After seeing this shameless display of politicking by Reid and other senior democratic officals has led me to believe that Nader might just be on to something.
Evadt wrote on November 11, 2007 11:02 PM:11NOV2007 NPR / WEEK IN REVIEW / SUNDAY - NPR Senior News Analyst/sage Daniel Schorr said Mukasey responded to Senator Patrick Leahy: "The Constitution authorizes the President to ignore or disobey statutory law when he thinks it necessary to defend the Country."
disgusted wrote on November 12, 2007 10:51 AM:The Democrats wanted this defense appropriations bill because it didn't include funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
What am I missing here?...I thought Bush's wars have always been funded thought "emergency" appropriations, never as part of the defense bill.
11NOV2007 NPR / WEEK IN REVIEW / SUNDAY - NPR Senior News Analyst/sage Daniel Schorr said Mukasey responded to Senator Patrick Leahy: "The Constitution authorizes the President to ignore or disobey statutory law when he thinks it necessary to defend the Country."
And if I remember correctly, he followed that by saying that Bush would never nominate an AG who did NOT see things that way.
Al wrote on November 14, 2007 7:45 AM:How in hell is it that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are the "front runners" for the Democratic party? Are the majority of Dems that stupid?
There we were; pissed off enough at the criminal, immoral activity of the Republicans that a large percentage of us got off our asses and voted for change and won a majority in congress. Now here we are supporting two candidates who will return us to where we were. The Democratic party has gone completely FUBAR.
As it stands now, I don't plan to vote at all next year. What's that? It's my duty to vote? Don't vote; don't bitch? Did anybody say that to Biden or Clinton or Dodd or Obama? Hey, if it's okay for them it's okay for me.
Somebody wrote: "Bidd[en],Dodd and Obama were all on record as being opposed to Mukasey, which meant that HRClinton would have had to cast a vote with them or risk more political fallout on the campaign trail."
On record? What in the hell does that mean? Are they saying that you don't actually have to vote; just write it down on a scrap of paper and toss it in a drawer somewhere? Well blow me the fuck down, that changes everything!
