home

Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:20:55 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Markos at Daily Kos reports that 30 Democrats, including Minority Leader Reid, will vote "no" on Gonzales. Nice to see them take a stand.

Update: Raw Story reports the number is 40 Dems who will oppose him.

Update: Reuters confirms.

< Pre-Blogging the State of the Union Address | Tom Tancredo Ready for His Spotlight >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales | 14 comments (14 topical)
    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 12:37:49 PM EST
    Its good to to see some people may or may-not say something about this bush boy, but in the end he will be the main guy for Bush and business.

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:29:00 PM EST
    Its funny how leftie/losers have been on the wrong side of everything for sixty plus years but you still keep on plugging on in hopes of falling to new depths of abysmal stupidity... Thanks for the entertainment value... I'm betting you just hate the following: Cato/Zogby poll: Majority backs individual accounts for Social Security

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:29:45 PM EST
    I still have mixed feelings about Gonzalez, but there was never any real doubt that he would be the next AG once Bush nominated him. As I've said before, we'll survive. I just hope that the Democrats have not so poisoned the well with their rhetoric that this kind of scene becomes the norm for all future cabinet nominations. It makes amusing political theater for the hyper-partisan crowd, but the country deserves better.

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:42:48 PM EST
    So it's "hyper-partisan" to believe that the nation's highest law enforcement officer should not be an enabler of state-sponsored torture? Got it.

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 01:51:46 PM EST
    Basharov, Not at all. It's hyperpartisan to revel in the breakdown of our established democratic system in the Senate for short-term political gain. Many people here have been screaming "filibuster!" at every turn (although it looks like Harry Reid came to his senses on that one since he now says that won't happen). My point is that the Republicans are probably going to return the favor when Hillary starts nominating her cabinet in 2008, for the same BS partisan reasons. The country deserves better.

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 03:31:47 PM EST
    et al - Great. Let's have a vote. It is called, "advise and consent," isn't it?

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 01, 2005 at 09:55:05 PM EST
    Anybody know the number of Republicans opposing Gonzales?

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 12:46:54 AM EST
    "It makes amusing political theater for the hyper-partisan crowd, but the country deserves better" Yeah, this country deserves fair elections again, something we haven't had in five years. Stealing another election will NOT cover up the blood.

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 06:59:23 AM EST
    The recent successful elections in Iraq and the hope of freedom by the oppressed only demonstrates the totalitarian ,powermad Democrats on the Hill for what they really Are. Reactionary, Socialist demagogues whose doctrine of turning their heads away from atrocities and brutal dictators in a mindless game of greed and self-interest,arms control , corruption and containment bred the resentment behind 911. W.is the modern Jefferson.

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#10)
    by soccerdad on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:30:42 AM EST
    Its amazing how fast the wingnuts have forgotten about WMDs.

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#11)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:47:40 AM EST
    “I'm betting you just hate the following: Cato/Zogby poll: Majority backs individual accounts for Social Security” Folks here might be a little sensitive about Zogby polls after the preemptive victory parties of Nov.2.

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#12)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 07:51:49 AM EST
    “Its amazing how fast the wingnuts have forgotten about WMDs.” SD, not to through myself in with the wingnuts, but; I was disheartened but unsurprised to see the reaction of the feds to the revelation of our miserable intelligence capabilities. Another department, another bureaucracy, more money. All bureaucracy knows is how to generate more of the same, and we are drowning in it. I guess when all you have is a hammer…

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 02, 2005 at 11:36:13 AM EST
    I'm of the opinion that the architechts of the war knew all along there were no WMD's. But they couldn't sell their war without them.

    Re: Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Feb 03, 2005 at 12:47:08 AM EST
    "Posted by Joy Richards: "The recent successful elections in Iraq" After destroying at least one city, killing at least 100,000 persons, possibly 50,000 of which were children. Hooray for Iraq. Hooray that the thirty years that the US kept Hussein in power is over, years in which he committed acts of genocide, including with biological weapons that some guy named Reagan (or was it Bush?) sold him. Now they have CIA puppet Allawi, who shot five untried detainees point blank a few days before assuming the office Bush put him in. That's freedom from tyranny, and how! " and the hope of freedom by the oppressed" How about the freedom of the possibly thousands of persons the US is holding (and often torturing) with NO evidence of their having committed any crime whatsoever? How about the freedom of the Iraqi civilians to get REPARATIONS for the slaughter of their families, and the fact that electricity in the country is still LESS than it was before the invasion? How about water supply in Bagdad? What about Bechtel makes them incapable of reconstruction? They've been PAID. Where are the results? " only demonstrates the totalitarian ,powermad Democrats on the Hill for what they really Are. Reactionary," Reactionary means 'ultra-conservative.' Don't you mean Stalinist?? " Socialist demagogues whose doctrine of turning their heads away from atrocities and brutal dictators" Did you support Ronald Reagan and Bush's father? Bush's dad was probably directly involved in Hussein's installation. Ever hear about the criminal deathsquads in Central America, some guy named Negroponte? Real evil dude. You probably still applaud that stuff. " in a mindless game of greed and self-interest," Greed and self-interest. Good thing that no-bid contracts for billions of dollars to Bush's VP (Iran-dealing old company) hasn't caused any problems, like the shipments back and forth we paid for that carried NOTHING. And that guy Ken Lay. He's still walking around free, while a lot of grandmothers are eating cat food. Good show!! "arms control , corruption, and containment" Containment? Arms containment is supposed to be US policy. Too bad George and Donald passed out 4,000 shoulder-fired missiles to hostiles, eh? "bred the resentment behind 911." Gee, what about the half million Arab children Bush's father's sanctions killed in the 1990s? Or Bush's father reneging on his promise to support revolt in 1991, which got an unknown number of marsh Arabs wiped out? " W.is the modern Jefferson." W wouldn't stand a chance of being Jefferson's comode.

    Report: 30 Dems to Vote No on Gonzales | 14 comments (14 topical)