If Daschle won't filibuster Goss, Daschle needs to resign as min leader

[genius]

Daschle bears the responsibility for Ashcroft's confirmation and for all the bad that Ashcroft has done. There were the votes for a filibuster but Daschle didn't go for it. Goss wants to use the CIA within the United States against Americans and proposed a bill to do just that. A great many people are calling him Ashcroft II. Clubs and county committees have called for the Democrats to stop nomination by filibuster or all means possible, Americans already have the fear of Ashcroft sending his gang to break into their houses. Now they may have to fear that Goss's gang will do likewise.

If you look at the computer rigging and the polls, Kerry might not be declaring victory. With Goss and Ashcroft teaming up against our civil liberties, Americans will be powerless and will have to either risk going to the camps or leave the country. If Daschle does not stop this dangerous fanatic from getting into a position where he can harm the people of America, then Daschle needs to resign as minority leader and allow someone with courage to step up to the plate to fight the Republicans.

[K-W]

1. Im usually the first to defend Daschle, but

if they could successfully fillibuster, then they should. It would be a tactical mistake to dodge this fight for fear of losing the PR battle around it.

[still_one]

2. This is why the democratic party is having such a rough time

[K-W]

4. No, its because they are completely a minority party.

So they have very little ability to do anything, and have to constantly watch thier backs for fear of making themselves obsolete.

[quaoar]

3. You might get your wish

Daschle is down by three points in the polls to John Thune.

A filibuster of Goss will not help him get re-elected in South Dakota.

[K-W]

7. Even the Daschle haters here need to be worried about this.

For his percieved failings, this would be a very politically potent win for the republicans.

[genius]

8. He needs to give the Dems a reason to vote.

In California, the Democratic registration is down and the decline to state and third party registration (not Republican) is way up. I'm willing to bet this is not just a California trend. The problem is that people see Daschle as an extention of Bush. I've been arguing with the undecided voters and they are leaning Green because of garbage like this. They want to make a statement and don't see the overall picture. We don't need Daschle destroying our chances of winning. Perhaps he should resign as min leader now and concentrate on his campaign. That will help us and him.

[K-W]

15. So its Daschles fault that voters are ignorant of the system?

What exactly is Daschle supposed to do? He is a minority leader in a government where his party doesnt control a single branch of government. He is treading water. His only option is to generally go with the republican flow, if he tried to fight the republicans all the time, the republicans would decide it was too much trouble to even bother to work with him and the democrats would lose what small say they have in what goes on. There is a reason the republicans are very interested in defeating Daschle, he does in fact fight them, he isnt a republican lap dog, if he was, why on earth would they want him removed? Really, think about that. Why would they go out of thier way to fund his opponant if he was helping them out in the senate?

The fact is, he is doing what minority leaders do. Swinging the little power he has to temper the majority as much as he can. He doesnt have the power to make policy, he doesnt have the power to say no to the republicans, so he doesnt try. He just says "if you dont want a fight, you will change the bill just a little bit to make it a little more tolerable to us" that is the only power he has right now, and we need to accept that it is the best he can do in this situation. And that it would be counterproductive for him to sacrifice that power in order to protest something.

I am not saying fillibuster is the wrong move here. I am not educated enough on the details of the situation political to know. Niether is anyone on this thread. Daschle may be a little too cautious, but he is hardly the boogeyman DU'rs make him out to be.

[genius]

23. He's supposed to be the OPPOSITION leader. That's how oppositions win.

They oppose the bad guys who are in power. They don't win by agreeing with them on all the wrong things.

[K-W]

31. You are getting confused by words. That isnt how it works in government.

You are getting confused by the many connoatation of the term opposition.

The opposition wins by winning. It doesnt always win by opposing. For example, if you were fighting a war, sometimes you can best win the war by retreating from one battle. You are oversimplifying things to an amazing degree.

Right now the democrats have control over nothing. Absolutely nothing. They have very little political power right now. They dont even get the opportunity to really fight the republicans. In the senate, the democrats have enough power to be able to make things very difficult for republicans if we so choose. That is a little bit of leverage. The problem is, it only works as leverage if the republicans feel like the democrats can be appeased within the bounds of thier goals. As long as the republicans feel that it would be easier to compromise a little than it would be to ride roughshod over the democrats, than Daschle will retain the ability to have some small say in what comes out of the senate.

You want him to give up that power. To use thier small amount of leverage to stand up and fight at every turn and to refuse to compromise and support republican policies even if they have been tempered a little.

The end result of this course of action would be the republican majority deciding it no longer needs to take the democrats into account, they are too difficult to deal with. The democrats would lose the little power they have to check the republicans. We would see even more outrageous bills coming from congress than we do now.

Meanwhile you, and those who think like you do, would probably still not be satisified with Daschle because he would look like a failure.

[genius]

36. No. Opposition means opposition - not following Bush lead on bad things

That's what the voters are demanding. You saw it in 2002. They won't settle for voting for Bush-supporters. They won't vote for the guys who compromise their rights by letting Ashcroft, the IWPR, Homeland Security and Goss get through.

[K-W]

44. Do you have any desire for more than a superficial understanding of this?

If the party is the opposition party, it must always oppose everything... that is your logic. It is absolutely 100% rediculous. You are making the issue the word opposition.

It is called the opposition party because, as a party, it opposes the other party in electoral politics. It is not called the opposition party because it is obligated to oppose everything the other party does. Suprisingly enough, opposition parties are allowed to agree with each other on issues. In fact, they often do. By your logic, if the republicans wanted to pass a perfectly good bill to do something useful, like road repair or something, the democrats should fight it, because they are the opposition party, they must oppose everything.

So get over the word opposition. It doesnt matter, it has nothing to do with the situation.

The problem here is partially with the democrats, but it is mostly you. It is your flawed understanding of the system and your flawed expectations of the system. You want a system that conforms to your ideals. The problem is, that isnt the system we have. But rather than accept this, you act outraged and demand that the people in this system start to act as if this was a system of your ideals. You want a system where the minority democrats can stop the republicans. Im not sure what kind of system would ever do that. But this one certainly doesnt.

The democrats dont get to choose policy when they control no branches of government, and the sooner you realize this, the better for you. They didnt let Bush go to war, they ddint let the civil rights get destroyed. They didnt have a say.

All they can do is use what little power they have to temper things. They dont really have the power to stop appointments. That power belongs to congress, and they dont control congress. They can fillibuster, but that is politically expensive. So they can only do it if they really think they will accomplish something. Stopping Ashcroft or Goss accomplishes next to nothing. Both men take thier marching orders from the top.

I am almost positive you have no idea what you are talking about with the IWR. That was an ideal example of democrats doing things right. You want to see how a minority party can act as opposition, look at the IWR.

Bush wanted carte blanche, he didnt get it. The IWR said he had to exaust all peaceful means to assure Saddam did not have weapons capable of harming us. So Bush had to throw up a big dog and pony show and lie about having done so. Bush violated the IWR, had the democrats not tempered it, and then voted for it, it probably would have given him carte blanch.

It is not entirely the democrats fault that some voters dont understand the nature of government, just as it isnt thier fault that the media is controlled by wealthy individuals who want to be an aristocracy.

[ReadTomPaine]

34. Then he should sacrifice his position to make sure Goss is ditched.

The Goss nomination is more important than his position in the party or than South Dakota.

RTP

[genius]

38. The can use the Moore-Goss soundbyte to show Goss is bad for security.

This will show Daschle has the courage to only back competent CIA directors.

[Sugarbleus]

5. Bob Graham on C-span a day or so ago said Goss

'was a good man'intelligent, capable etc. :shrug:

[Leilani]

9. I watched some of the hearings today on C-Span

And Bob Graham & Bill Nelson were there & opened the hearings by making speeches, recommending Porter Goss.

I was sort of amazed, because Goss, who used to be very bi-partisan, has recently become a political hack, who has attacked the Dem party.

[genius]

14. Bill Nelson generally votes with the Republicans.

[JohnKleeb]

10. Graham was called a Goss supporter in the WP article I read

[genius]

26. Graham voted for USA-PATRIOT. He sometime has bad judgment

and gives away our liberties.

[JohnKleeb]

32. I know that

[BootinUp]

6. The dems need to filibuster Goss

My main concern with Goss, is that he was doesn't appear to be the man with the vision for such an important job, in addition to being too partisan. Sen Durbin was grilling him pretty hard, I hope the rest of the dems are listening to Durbin.

[JohnKleeb]

11. Durbin is good, hope they follow his lead

[genius]

12. Durbin would be excellent.

[Pallas180]

18. Toll Free Phone # To Congress 1 800 839 5276- call Daschle

or any other Senator or Rep for free

and let him know that Goss didn't even know there were hijckers and major drug dealing in his backyard,....or worse yet did know and covered....we want a fillibuster not to allow Goss to become the Uberdictator and we dont want anyone who continues to sneak in portions of the patriot act into bills; portions that did not pass
previously.

If you want to make it short and sweet tell your Senators and Reps and
Daschle:

""Porter Goss is dangerous to the Constitution of the United States and the liberties of the American People" Fillibuster or do anything to stop his confirmation."

[Yuna]

13. Here is how I see it

There are two options.

1. We can not filibuster and let him in.

A. Kerry wins - It won't matter if he is in because Kerry will remove him in less than 6 months from now.

B. Bush wins - we are fucked. He's in AND bush. NOT a good situation.

2. We filibuster and stop him.

A. Before the election "terrorist attack" comes. Bush blames it on the democrats for holding up the nomination and disrupting intelligence. CNN/FAUX/etc repeat 24/7 that it's the democrats fault for intentionally disrupting intelligence. (Rove will think up a better line than that, though) Kerry drops 20-30 points in 24 hours. Bush gets another 4 years.

B. Before the election nothing happens. Kerry wins, and he doesn't have to deal with getting rid of him.

Now - which option do you think is best?

[genius]

16. If Goss gets in, he'll help Bush start a war with Iran or Syria before Nov

If Goss gets in, I doubt that Kerry will have a chance. Goss will close the intelligence truth gap (the cap that has allowed truth to get in the way of Bush's war plans). Currently, the CIA's opposition to Bush is our only hope of staying out of a new war between now and the election. If we are at war, Kerry might as well concede. He won't win.

[K-W]

22. That just isnt true

The CIA isnt stopping Bush from doing anything. Nor will they ever. Bush will go into Iran or Syria if he and his people think it is the right move regardless of what the CIA says.

Kerry can win with a new war. Stopping Gross would have no effect whatsoever with whether we go to war. These decisions are not made by the CIA they are made by the Bush administration. Look at Iraq, they decided before hand they would invade Iraq, then they started worrying about intelligence. And even when things werent panning out they just lied away and did it anyway.

So no, the stakes are not what you say. Stopping Goss would not win Kerry the election. It is more likely to lose him the election. If the democrats had a majority, it would be a different story, but this fillibuster would run a very big chance of backfiring all over the democrats.

[Yuna]

28. The CIA is not opposed to Bush

I trust you are aware bush controls the CIA? Any disloyalty and he can have it quickly taken care of...

[K-W]

17. Good analysis.

The question is, will the filibuster work, and will we be able to win the PR war that will ensue.

If the answer to either of those questions is no, we shouldnt fight this battle.

Who the heck cares whether we keep him out now if we end up with Bush and the republicans in power for another 4 years.

[genius]

20. The best approach is to run ads relating false Iraq info and Goss

The reason we went to war was because we did not have independent accurate info. Goss will make sure that the CIA is on board in falsifying reports next time. Goss has said he's unqualified. We can run Moore's soundbyte on TV and that will also call into question why Bush is appointing someone who admits he's unqualified as CIA director.

[K-W]

25. But all our money is going to campaigns, where would we get the funds

to run ads about a Bush appointee.

[genius]

39. Only an incompetent President would appoint an admittedly unqualified

CIA director when America is supposedly in danger of a terrorist attack. This works both ways. The Dems know that Goss has admitted to being unqualified and, if Daschle fails to filibuster him, that makes Daschle incompetent too.

[K-W]

45. You are oversimplifying a complex political situation

until you have lost any connection to reality.

Bush isnt appointing an unqualified man, he is appointing a man who will follow the orders of the Bush administration. They dont need him to be a genius, they just need him to follow thier plan.

Daschle doesnt control the senate. He does not get to choose whether to allow Goss or not. The most he could possibly do is lead a fillibuster and maybe succeed. And maybe force them to find someone else for political expediency.

Now what on gods green earth makes you think the next Bush selection wont be equally incompetent, or, more importantly, equally a tool for them?

What on earth would Daschle accomplish by doing this?

[0007]

41. I vote for one - but it goes against every grain in my body.

[DURHAM D]

19. As regards using our politcal capital for a filibuster at this time -

and to quote Arianna Huffington - "That would be like trying to remodel the kitchen while the house is on fire".

[genius]

21. It would be like pouring gasoline on the fire to approve Goss

Are you willing to gamble your child's life on Kerry's victory. The German people learned the hard way. If Goss gets in, Kerry probably won't.

[Yuna]

24. Hm

I don't think Goss will be able to do anything before the election.

Come Nov 2nd he will still be getting his desk organized.

[K-W]

27. You are way way over exagerating Goss's effect on things.

Him being in place will not change anything in the administration really. Other than making things just a tiny tiny bit smoother for them. This isnt a fight that will decide the election and the democrats know that.

[genius]

30. That's what they said about Ashcroft. Aren't you glad they didn't listen

to his detractors. What a great Attorney General. Of course, he couldn't have any negative impact on real Americans.

[K-W]

33. That isnt what they said about Ashcroft,

Goss is being nominated 2 months before the presidential election. Ashcroft wasnt. This is a completely different situation. If Bush wins four more years it doesnt matter if we block Goss. Bush will find someone else who will do the job the same way. Just like if we had blocked ashcroft, Bush would have just found someone else.

The Democrats do not have the power to force Bush to nominate moderate people. They simply dont. Unless they win back the senate along with Bush winning, but I dont think anyone sees that happening.

For the democrats they must win something in this election. They must win the presidency or the senate. The Goss nomination just isnt that big a deal in the long run. If Bush and the republicans win, they are going to do what they are going to do, regardless of whether goss or someone else gets the position.

[ReadTomPaine]

35. Check his background - he's more dangerous than Ashcroft in many ways.

[K-W]

37. You are missing the point by a long shot.

Ashcroft isnt some rogue jerk in the administration. What he is doing is part of the overall plan of the administration. If Ashcroft wasnt in power, somebody else would be who would be doing the exact same things, because this is what the Bush administration wants. You think Ashcroft sat down and wrote the patriot act? It was written by republican operatives. It would have been written by the same operatives had someone else been made Attorney General. The same is true of Goss if Bush and the republicans get reelected.

It doesnt matter how bad Goss is, it matters how bad Bush is. The democrats have no choice but to win either the senate or the presidency this year. If they dont do one of those two it doesnt matter whether Goss or some other republican takes the position. It will be controlled by the Bush administration.

[ReadTomPaine]

40. I disagree. Everything they try must be obstructed on some level now.

This worked quite well for the right, and it must at some point be adopted by the left. No victory should be uncontested on the right, esp. ones that matter. Government by consensus or compromise doesn't work in this climate. Work in government for a decade or more and you'll see what I mean firsthand. DC is a battleground now, and you either fight every step of the way or learn to be the prison wife of American politics. Grim, but true. The time for your approach ended around the Clinton impeachments.

RTP

[K-W]

46. That would be a horrible idea. Your theory helps only the republicans.

Nothing could be worse than the democrats suddenly dedicating themselves to blind opposition. It would make them look petty and stupid. It would mean an easy republican win. It would potentially mean the end of our republic.

Why dont you actually think about the specifics of your theory and what would happen.

You need to pick your battles. Nobody with any sense would ever advocate to anyone a policy of unthinking combativeness.

[ReadTomPaine]

48. I have plenty of sense, and I disagree.

Since Goss will likely be nominated, I have to hope that your judgment is correct. The sources in DC I speak with share my opinion however, and they actually work in government. Lets hope you are right.

RTP

[K-W]

49. Regardless of what the best move on Goss is,

how can you possibly argue that they should give up trying to figure out the best move in every situation and adopt a strategy of blind obstructionism.

The american people dont like obstructionism. It backfired on the republicans when they tried it with Clinton. And in the end, the strategy that worked best with the republicans and clinton was compromise. That is why the clinton years were marked by such incredibally muddy legislation. And why clinton could not get anything of not accomplished. Had the republicans stonewalled him, they probably would have gotten themselves thrown out of congress.

Now this doesnt mean that in this one particular situation fighting might not be the answer. Myself, with the info I have, I dont see that fighting is the right answer. It is only two months before the election. If Bush gets reelected and the republicans hold both houses, we are gonna get a crazy Bush appointee no matter what. The goss nomination means nothing. Everything depends on whether the democrats can get the white house.

The only way fighting the Goss nomination would make sense is if the Democrats thought they were going to win the senate, but not the presidency. In this case it might be worthwhile to force Bush to wait until after the election to make the appointment when the democrats truely could have a say. But even then it might not be a battle they would want to fight.

We need uncompromising fighting on the political front, not on the legislative front.

[genius]

42. Are you saying that confirming Goering is a good idea?

Because Goss will be running the American concentration camps. BTW, if you don't know that the CIA has admitted to secret prison that don't play by the rules and don't provide names of detainees around the world, then you haven't been paying attention. Goss claims that these are good.

[K-W]

47. As long as hitler stayed in power, what difference would it have made?

Come on genius, think. As long as Bush and the republicans win, Goss will just be replaced by a different person who will do the same things.

[genius]

29. This is the same as when they voted for the IWPR before the 2002 election

It will make the voters wonder why they should trust the Democrats and the consequenses won't go away after the election.

[Cocoa]

43. they should just wait til Kerry's president

then fire Goss.

[Kanary]

51. Did you actually read any of the posts previous to yours?

[Pallas180]

50. I just called Daschle's office. They never even heard of Dem Underground

but I told them there were 50,000 democrats over here who are against
Goss being confirmed, that it's equal to appointing Herman Goerring,
and we want Daschle to fillibuster, do everything to stop it, that
Goss was with the Bayof Pigs, involved in the drug smuggling...he wrote it down and asked where democratic underground was..

I gave him the URL - can you imagine Daschle doesn't know about DU...

cheezus.

If we dont work on this stuff and call these people up at free number 1800 839 5276, we wont get this:

[Cocoa]

56. you shouldn't have spoken for all of us

you stretched the truth when you said we all hold that position. I, for example, don't care too much about Goss. Whatever CIA director Bush appoints will be bad by definition.

Makes me wonder, are you stretching the truth about whether Daschle's staff heard of DU?

[Kanary]

52. Sadly, I agree he needs to go. He used to be a fine Dem.

This is why I am so adamant about not continuuing to elect DLC. It invariably leads to just this.

Kanary

[K-W]

53. He is still a fine dem.

It isnt his fault that the Democrats dont hold a single branch of government. He is playing the cards he has been dealt, and playing them just fine. People on DU have amazingly high expectations for what a minority leader in a minority party can accomplish.

Unless you can present an argument as to how a fillibuster to the Goss nomination is going to help the democrats win elections in november, there is really no reason to question Daschles move on this. Unless it helps them win, there is no point to fighting this.

[CityDem]

57. Filibuster will lead to disaster

If the dems filibuster Goss prior to the election, it will be a disaster. If Cleland lost his seat because he had problems with the homeland security bill, this move would cause the dems to lose every contested senate seat in the south. It would more than likey cost Daschle his senate seat as well. The rethugs would be all over the cable news stations claiming the dems are diminishing our security. And if a terrorist attack were to happen during this period, I cannot even imagine the damage to the dems running this year.

Stall as long as possible, but do not filibuster. Let Goss have an up or down vote. If Kerry is elected, he can fix the problem in a couple months. If Bush is elected, we have much bigger problems than Goss at the CIA.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

54. Should have been gone long ago.

He is at best, a "moderate", at worst a DLC shill. I wish S.D. would come to it's collective senses and make a try at putting a fighting Democrat in.

[K-W]

55. They are more likely to replace him with a republican

than a more liberal dem.

We cant have a more liberal senate leader until we put more liberals in the senate.

[Kanary]

58. Would that *every* state would put in a fighting Democrat!

Colorado just wimped out.

:thumbsdown:

Kanary

[K-W]

59. :) Indeed, things would be alot better if everyone just elected visionary

liberals.


Its a thought that puts a smile on your face.