Chuck Schumer already rolling over on Gonzales nomination?

[MallRat]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20041110/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/bush_cabinet_29

Even before the formal announcement, one Senate liberal welcomed the appointment of "someone less polarizing" to the position. "We will have to review his record very carefully, but I can tell you already he's a better candidate than John Ashcroft," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Un. Fucking. Believable. :cry:

-MR

[thedailyshow]

1. so, call his office up! Send hundreds of faxes, and be angry

be proactive instead of crying!

[Cuban_Liberal]

2. It's time to face FACTS.

The President gets who he wants for Cabinet positions, as a general proposition, and that principle even extends to George Bush. We're not going to get a left-of-center nominee out of the Bush WH, so it's time to suck it up and be happy he didn't nominate some neo-con shill.

[MallRat]

Alberto "the Geneva Conventions are quaint" Gonzales?!?!

Certainly I wasn't expecting someone "left-of-center," but is it too much to ask for an Attorney General who doesn't have blood on his hands for the torture at Abu Ghraib?!?!

They're shameless. And they're unaccountable.

If this is a sign of things to come, we're really fucked.

-MR

[Cuban_Liberal]

30. That we're fucked was never in doubt.

As soon as Bush won, I knew that much.

[ibegurpard]

3. Look, Schumer, no one's expecting you to be able to stop it

But you CAN raise loud objections, vote no, and use the debate time on the floor to highlight and put into the record what a horrible candidate this guy is for the highest law enforcement position in the country.

[Cuban_Liberal]

4. Why is he a 'terrible candidate'?

:shrug:

[ibegurpard]

8. Describing the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" for one

doesn't exactly engender much confidence in me that the guy has any respect for human rights.

[Cuban_Liberal]

10. You expect better from the *Bush* white House???

I hate to be the one to break this to you, but he's as good as it gets, from that crowd.

:shrug:

[ibegurpard]

12. Jesus Fucking Christ!

Of course I don't but I DO expect the Democrats to oppose him! Is that clear?

[Cuban_Liberal]

14. Jesus Fucking Christ right back at you!

The President gets to appoint who he wants to his Cabinet is the basic bottom line here, and that even includes George Bush..

[ibegurpard]

18. Clue for you

the President only gets his nominees if approved by the Senate.

[Cuban_Liberal]

19. Clue for you.

They have 55 seats.

Next!

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cuban_Liberal]

24. They already own it.

There's no point *whatsoever* in being obstructionists on appointments that will have no long-term impact. We need to reserve our fights for the SC.

I'll also thank you to keep a civil tongue in your head when addressing me.

[ibegurpard]

25. We all know they own it.

And I'm not suggesting they try to filibuster. But there is a big difference between deciding not to filibuster and voting "YES."

[Cuban_Liberal]

26. Did I ever say they should vote 'yes'?

Unless it's written in invisible script, I don't believe I did.

[ibegurpard]

27. This sure looks like it to me:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1345405

"It's customary for the Senate to consent to the appointment of whatever individuals the President sends to The Hill, unless the person is CLEARLY unqualified. That even applies to George Bush, whether we like it, or not."

Are you saying here that everyone in the Senate should vote "yes" because it's customary?

[Cuban_Liberal]

29. No, I'm saying just what I said, no more, no less.

51 votes = consent, and he will get that.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CBHagman]

47. "No long term impact." Well, actually...

And setting fire to the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Covention will not affect the country and the world how?

If you're willing to concede nearly every principle for which you stand and only choose one fight, the Supreme Court, then you are handing your neighbors, children and grandchildren -- indeed, the world -- a hideous legacy.

On edit: While I agree that it is necessary to choose one's battles and focus one's energies, Cuban Liberal, I think we do need to respond each and every time they come molesting our rights -- every time. Think on this passage:

First They Came for the Jews
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller

[MagickMuffin]

15. Research my Friend Research

<snip>

"During Bush's six years as governor 150 men and two women were executed in Texas," Berlow reports in the Atlantic, "a record unmatched by any other governor in modern American history."

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030620.html


<snip>
   
The concern about possible future prosecution for war crimes—and that it might even apply to  Bush adminstration officials themselves— is contained in a crucial portion of an internal January  25, 2002, memo  by White House counsel Alberto Gonzales obtained by NEWSWEEK. It urges President George Bush declare the  war in Afghanistan, including the detention of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, exempt from the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
    
In the memo,  the White House lawyer focused on a little known 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that banned any Americans from committing war crimes—defined in part as "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions. Noting that the law applies to "U.S.  officials" and that punishments for violators "include the death penalty," Gonzales told Bush that  "it was difficult to predict with confidence" how Justice Department prosecutors might apply the law in the future. This was especially the case given that some of the language in the Geneva Conventions—such as that outlawing "outrages upon personal dignity" and "inhuman treatment" of prisoners—was "undefined."

<snip>

"It is difficult to predict the motives of prosecutors and independent counsels who may in the future decide to pursue unwarranted charges based on Section 2441 ," Gonzales wrote.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4999734/

[Cuban_Liberal]

16. And.....

... your point is what?

[MagickMuffin]

36. My point is he is not a good candidate, period

He is not know for his human rights protection.

I would prefer someone who has a heart, compassion, and a love for their follow human beings!

Did you read any of the links I posted???

[Cuban_Liberal]

39. You expect "heart, compassion, etc." from BUSH?

I didn't need to read the links. Gonzalez is the best they have to offer, and he WILL be confirmed.

[ibegurpard]

40. You're not hearing people

we KNOW he will be confirmed. we want him to be confirmed with ONLY Republican approval.

[Cuban_Liberal]

41. My hearing is just fine.

I've said nothing to indicate that Democrats should lend their approval to his nomination. It frequently helps to simply take what people write at face value, rather than trying to read or spin what they didn't write into it.

[MagickMuffin]

43. Of Course I don't expect ANY of

those qualities to be a part of * nominations.

I don't think he knows anyone with such qualifications.

And yes I have no doubt he will be confirmed.

But the Dems should stir it up a bit!

[Cuban_Liberal]

44. We need to pick our battles wisely.

This isn't the right one. SC is another matter.

:hi:

[MagickMuffin]

46. I agree with choosing our battles

But nothing should be as easy as a "Cakewalk", to use a term we heard to the lead up to the Iraqi War....

[LibInternationalist]

5. I don't see the problem with this

he's not good, but he is better than Ashcroft

[MallRat]

7. Isn't that a little like saying "I'd rather be stabbed than shot?"

Gonzales isn't just "not good." He is completely unacceptable.

-MR

[LibInternationalist]

23. well, schumer IS a politician

it wouldn't do any good to say that, especially right away

It is, I suppose, a false dichotomy, though

[Wind Dancer]

6. I'm not the least bit surprised.

We will only see more of the same.

[Teaser]

9. Schumer Contact Info

313 Hart Senate Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]


Call frequently. Call angrily.

[Zynx]

11. Should we try to stop him?

If so, why?

[Walt Starr]

13. The Democrats MUST NOT fight this nomination

A rightwing nutball is a given for this position. Allow it to go through and allow Gonzales to become the polarizing figure we all know he will be.

Save your fight for another day.

[ibegurpard]

17. It doesn't require a fight, Walt

No one expects them to be able to stop it. But they CAN vote against it and put their objections in the record and let the Republicans OWN this fucker.

[Walt Starr]

28. which is precisely what will happen.

Watch.

[WI_DEM]

20. This is good advice

Bush will put up much more extreme people and we can't beat them all, we need to use our resources and power especially on SC nominations.

[Cuban_Liberal]

22. BINGO!

We have to keep our powder dry for appointemntst that have long-term impact.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. That strategy ceratinly worked with Ashcroft

The GOP gained seats in both houses of Congress in 2002. Bush won in 2004, and the GOP gained seats in both houses of Congress in 2004.

[Ranec]

32. Dems should use this to remind us about Abu Ghraib

Just talking about the torture memos will implicate Bush. The Democrats in Congress need to keep up a constant drumbeat of criticism.

This is not about sinking Gonzalez, but throwing dirt at the White House. Every Day!

[ibegurpard]

34. There we go!

Use the time to show everyone what a horrible record he has, vote no, and then let the Republicans own him. And never hesitate to throw it in their faces.

[MadHound]

37. Actually they should Walt, for one reason only

To force Bush to hand over the 88 pages of torture-gate memos that were generated. Force these obscene documents out into the open so that the public can see clearly what monsters they re-elected to office. That is why they should force this. For if they don't, these memos will get buried along with other incrimating documents, and the administration will be unchecked.

[Guaranteed]

38. This is an important position, though. Plame indictments? nt

[sangh0]

33. You obviously don't know much about Schumer

but he is one of the few who fights back and NEVER apologizes for it. He has UNASHAMEDLY said that he has no problem applying a litmus test to judicial nominees - they MUST support Roe v Wade.

And he has ruined the nominations of several right-wing extremist nominees.

[milkyway]

35. WTF? He's my Senator, and I've always respected him. He's going to

get an earful from me.

[MrSlayer]

42. Hmmm I see no evidence of rolling over.

Just about anyone would be better than Asscroft so that's true and he said they are really going to review this Gonzales character's record. Where is the crime here?

[liberalpragmatist]

45. Bush is president and we can't oppose every cabinet appointee

Plus, we're in the minority. We must thoroughly investigate Gonzalez and raise important questions. But we're not going to get someone with a spotless record and the President gets to appoint cabinet members. We're going to have to accept some of these guys, as unsavory as it is.

We have to spend our political capital wisely. We MUST fight some nominees, esp. SC nominees - but we have to save the capital for when it's truly necessary. Simply trying to kill every nomination does no good.

[NewJeffCT]

50. agreed

Bush isn't going to roll over & appoint Eliot Spitzer if we filibuster Gonzalez. Most likely, he'd coax Larry Thompson back from Pepsi... and if we filibuster Thompson it would look really sweet that we opposed the first Hispanic nominee to AG and then the first African American nominee.

Remember, we opposed Robert Bork years back and ended up with the younger Tony Scalia who is probably even further right than Bork.

[CBHagman]

51. We're not suggesting we oppose "every nomination"

Mr. Torture Memo deserves special agreement, no? If Bush were nominating Larry Thompson or even that rascal Giuliani, I would not feel moral revulsion. With Gonzales, the smiles, the proud heritage, the bootstrapping all fade when I'm confronted with someone who disdains the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights.

This IS one of our battles. We are not opposing it just for a hobby.

I sometimes feel half the posts I read claim the Democrats have no spine, and it seems as though the other half claim we have no sense of proportion. Just take a deep breath, everybody, and then start going at it -- research, contacting your senator, writing LTTE, etc.

[liberalpragmatist]

52. I'm not saying they should even vote for him

Defintely raise questions, debate, make it clear we're not gonna be pushovers. But don't go nuclear on him, and expect that he'll be confirmed.

[ohioan]

55. There's a big difference between a presidential appointee who will serve

no more than 4 years and who will be subject to Congressional oversight and a federal judge appointed for a lifetime.

Gonzales is about the best we'll get from Bush. While the Dems should hold his feet to the fire, it is not worth using up all of their energy trying to take this guy down.

They're going to have to deal with at least one and possibly up to four Supreme Court nominations in the next four years, along with countless other federal appointments to the district and circuit courts. It would be foolish to wear themselves out on Gonzales.

[DjTj]

49. You all took the right-wing bait...

Even before the formal announcement, one Senate liberal welcomed the appointment of "someone less polarizing" to the position.

Schumer said this before Gonzales was even named to the position. He assumed there would be someone less polarizing than Ashcroft, but he thought wrong. The press is trying to spin this into something that it's not.

Schumer has been one of the most outspoken members of the Judiciary Committee and has already butted heads with Gonzales many times:

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR02072.html

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01816.html

He's not going to roll over on this one.

[goclark]

53. Saw Shumer on Stewart after the election

He was rolling over big time!
Saying the Democrats would have to reach out more.
Didn't hear him say one thing about how God awful the Rethugs were, just IMO, telling us to move on, nothing here.

[zulchzulu]

54. Did you read his statement? It was hardly supportive

He said he will read Gonzo's record. You can bet he will bring up a few things. I mean, he better.

Add that the issue of Abu Gairub can be brought up again...this could be rather entertaining.