Democrats decide against filibuster

[Freddie Stubbs]

CAPITOL HILL Senate Democrats won't filibuster the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be attorney general.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid says there's a general feeling among Democrats that "this wasn't the time" to filibuster. Reid says he expects less than half the Senate Democrats to vote to confirm Gonzales.

more: http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=2886717

[merwin]

1. weenies

[Julius Civitatus]

32. They love their PINK TUTUS

For shame!!!

What these PINK TUTU clad Senators are saying is taht teh yare ok with torture.

[WillyT]

65. Did Somebody Say.... PINK TUTUS ???

Ok... now I really am goin to the bar.

Cheers... if ya can...

:beer:

[regnaD kciN]

94. What's a little torture between friends...?

:shrug:

Maybe the Democrats are thinking that, if they don't confirm Alberto de Sade, Bush might keep Ashcroft on as an "interim"...and never replace him.

[TaleWgnDg]

69. Why be caught in pettiness? Politics is politics, after all . . .

Tuesday, February 01, 2005
UPDATE ~ Democrats Won't Filibuster Gonzales Nomination
Chris Buell at 4:33 PM

(JURIST) Following up on a story reported earlier (JURIST report) today on JURIST's Paper Chase, Senate Democrats said Tuesday they will not try to filibuster the nomination of Alberto Gonzales (White House biography; JURIST Newsmaker) as attorney general, although they are expected to delay a final vote until at least Thursday. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (official website) confirmed that Democrats would not stand in the way of a final vote on Gonzales following a weekly planning session. Reid said a substantial number of Democrats, likely between 25 and 30, would vote against Gonzales however. Democrats were expected to delay the final vote until Thursday to prevent President Bush from mentioning it in his State of the Union address Wednesday night. AP has more.

. . . more at . . . http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/02/update-democrats-wont-filibuster.php

---

Jurist is an online legal news source compiled by University of Pittsburgh School of Law, professor and law school students

---

Why won't the Democrats filibuster Gonzales as some have expected? or requested that the Democrats do? Why? Because the Democrats fully understand that it is politically expedient and prudent to save the filibuster for lifetime appointments such as federal judicial nominees instead of instigating a waste on political appointments that only last the years of a sitting (lame duck) president.

Tis far better to prudently plan ahead than be caught in the mire of pettiness in the larger picture of politics.

---

[w4rma]

2. It sounds like you and the rest of the DLC are happy. (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

16. Actually, I think that a filibuster would have been a good idea

But it doesn't appear that there are the 41 votes to do it.

[htuttle]

3. Big Sigh...

Just don't know what else to say anymore.

[Kadie]

4. When will it be time?

How much more do we have to witness and endure before it is time to stand up and fight?

[Journeyman]

39. My big hope is they're saving the filibuster. . .

for Supreme Court nominees.

If they use the filibuster too much, they'd run the risk of alienating the public and allow the Republicans to paint them as "obstructionists." That's not to say I didn't want to see them stop Gonzales' appointment -- we need to make moral stands whenever the need arises -- but maybe this is part of their rationale (spineless though it may be). I just hope they start pushing back and pushing back hard real soon.

[Dark]

48. Yea, but Gonzales? How could anyone with a conscience vote for him? n/t

[Journeyman]

52. I agree. It's where I wish the line to be drawn. . .

but if not here, then it'd best be on the SCOTUS nominees.

[TaleWgnDg]

73. A filibuster and an "up or down vote" are two distinctly different

A filibuster and an "up or down vote" are two distinctly different political animals.

For example, whereas filibusters are saved for most egregious instances such as ideologues as federal judicial lifetime appointments, a vote up or down -- even if on the losing side -- that demonstrates distaste for a candidate is okay for appointments that will only last as long as a sitting (lame duck) president. However disdainful Gonzales may be, and he is, he falls into the latter category not the former. The up or down vote on Gonzales will demonstrate finite distaste for his appointment as U.S. Attorney General.

Prudence in politics means you stand to fight for a better day.

---

[Zhade]

63. Yes, because the Republicans will NEVER call them obstructionists anyway.

NT!

[Laurab]

74. RIGHT - well, except for the couple I heard today

calling them obstructionists, anyway. If they're gonna be called that, they may as well BE that. Maybe they should save the filibuster, I don't know, I'm not a politician.

But - if I were them, I'd be afraid the rethugs were getting rid of the filibuster option behind closed doors somewhere. I'd use it early and often.

[bearfan454]

70. Exactly Journeyman

We cannot let them stack the SCOTUS with ultra right wing neocons like Reagan did.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. why exactly should we not obstruct morally depraved behavior? (NT)

[leesa]

87. Wow! Are you out of touch. The Republicans will paint them as

obstructionists no matter what they do. Exactly WHAT are they saving themselves for???


Wrong is wrong and it is their sworn DUTY to speak out against this criminal. Man, I despise appeasers!

[hippiechick]

60. Now THERE'S the question of the day.

:yourock:

[On the Road]

82. Filibusters Can be Used for Proposed Legislation

Let's say Bush pulls something out of his ass and gets enough votes on a Social Security package to pass it. THAT deserves a filibuster.

If Bush want a resolution to attack Iraq, THAT deserves a filibuster.

If he wants another $300 Billion tax cut, THAT deserves a filibuster.

It's hard to pedict what kind of radical proposals the White House will make. Don't underestimate them. Gonzalez (compared to whomever his replacement would be) is far less of a threat than some other things. Many of which we can't even predict.

[Gothmog]

5. too bad, it would have been a fun filibuster

Perhaps it is best to save the filibuster for the next supreme court slot that comes up.

[moobu2]

12. I dont like it but I think it's a wise move n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. If less then half the Senate votes for Gonzales

doesn't that mean he won't be confirmed?

If that's the case, then the DEMS don't need to filibuster.

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. Are there six Republicans who have said they will vote no?

:shrug:

[DoYouEverWonder]

17. If what Reid is saying is correct

then that means that some REPS must be voting against him too?

If this is true, it will be a huge victory for our side.

[Rebel_blogger]

14. The article said half of DEMOCRATS not all of the Senate

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. Darn, I had my hopes up

I guess it was too much to expect for the DEMS.

Shit.

[lancdem]

36. He said less than half the Dems

[trotsky]

7. Senate Democrats Check Their Pants Again...

... And Discover Those Weren't Balls, But Some Leftover Grapes That Fell Into Their Pockets At Lunch

[KoKo]

15. So bad...........but funny...

[Nothing Without Hope]

28. In fact, some of the most prominent stander-uppers lately among the Dems

have been WOMEN.

If we absolutely must have sexual organs in our political discussions, how about "gonads"? At least the metaphor doesn't leave out the people who are doing a lot of the fighting.
Or if we can sometimes leave these rather irrelevant (at least in this context) organs behind, how about "courage" or some of its many synonyms?

[MuseRider]

33. How about

intestinal fortitude? I have always been a bit partial to that one and am tired of saying balls and then realizing I can't be courageous since I don't have any but I have a hell of a lot of intestinal fortitude.

[BrutalEntropy]

44. hmm

I used to have intestinal fortitude, but then I had a colon pow.







Yes. That was bad. Oh well.

[Nothing Without Hope]

47. yup, that'll do, also "guts," which has a similar sense n/t

I realize that a lot of people think pointing out unintentional slurs in insult language usage is sort of pissy, but I do think we need to be aware of it and do what we can to change it.

I'm adopting the slogan on this that DUer Pigwidgeon coined on Saturday:

"RETHINK, RELOAD & RESUME FIRING!"

[MuseRider]

57. I like that! n/t

[Carolab]

76. It's called "integrity" or having the "courage of your convictions". n/t

[ForPeace]

109. I think better stick to courage

I think better stick to courage. Some of us are intestinally challenged but can still be courageous.

[trotsky]

34. Just an expression.

I hesitated to click "Post Message" because I figured someone would get upset. Yes, I realize it can be taken as sexist. You try to make a little joke using "courage".

[Nothing Without Hope]

46. Not upset, just concerned about some of the framing language

in common use in this country. I've used it myself on occasion and so can hardly point a righteously indignant finger. I imagine you're not a sexist person, but the LANGUAGE in common use IS sexist, and it DOES have a cumulative impact. I think we need to try to change it.

Think about it.

When someone lacks courage, we so often hear "doesn't have balls" or some other expression explicitly equating this cowardly state with either being a woman, being an impotent man, or being a passive-side homosexual.

Other sayings equate laziness or other ugly states with physiologies - often with obesity.

I think we need to choose different words in our insults, so that we are insulting the people we WANT to insult. Having the language full of these slurs tends to perpetuate unthinking intolerance - have you heard young teens calling each other the same kinds of names? Just an expression, yes, but it does have an impact.

As DUer Pigwidgeon recently said re this reframing of insult language:
RETHINK, RELOAD, AND RESUME FIRING.

[IronLionZion]

75. I like nads, guts, salt, mettle, grit, pugnacity, and conviction

especially nads.

but there are plenty of excellent synonyms for courage. We don't need to sound like mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging freepers.

http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=courage

[kath]

93. "spine" or "backbone" works well for me. Granted, saying "Dems are a bunch

of spineless jellyfish" is an insult to invertebrates everywhere, but oh, well...

[Nothing Without Hope]

104. "Nads" for gonads! I love it and will henceforth use it.

This is the first time I've heard this great contraction, which has real zip. If you introduced it, you had a moment of genius! If you are passing it on to us from elsewhere, thank you very much.

Part of the problem was, the sex organ words often have gutsy zip in their sound and many of the replacements don't. Nads does, though, and it doesn't sound clinical either. Excellent!

(The other part of the problem, besides dealing with habits so ingrained as to be invisible, is that people don't perceive that it makes a difference to perpetuate these usages.)

I'll pass the word where it seem appropriate. And thanks for the other words and the thesaurus link as well.

[IronLionZion]

106. It's common usage around colleges and young people

Please spread it along. Not everyone can have balls, but we can all have nads! :toast:

[jdj]

29. I keep thinking they are giving the people what they want.

In truth the only way to wake up the general public to fundie encroachment is to let it expose it self like a trench-coat perv. on a street corner.

They have gained so much power that they will have to implode from within, I don't think dems just pushing back with the little bit of power they have is helping.

What goes up must come down.

[Zhade]

68. Didn't work in Nazi Germany, won't work now.

Going along to get along is as flawed an approach as any I can think of.

[Karmadillo]

8. Frist told us we couldn't. What else could we do?

n/t

[Stuckinthebush]

9. The next four years is the time to filibuster

Filibuster just about every damn thing this crooked administration wants to do.

[DancingBear]

10. Lost: One large spine

If found, please return to Senate Democrats.

[gulfcoastliberal]

43. I think it's a little more sinister than mere spinelessness

It's so bad that many must be thoroughly corrupted; a bunch of bought and paid for stooges..

[Demit]

13. Bah! What the hell are they saving themselves for? By the time they

decide the time is right, our democracy will be swirling down the drain.

At least Ted Kennedy is giving em hell.

[Sandpiper]

18. An Advocate of Torture doesn't deserve a filibuster?

Well who the hell does then, Senator Reid?


I guess this is just you being true to your word that you'd "rather dance than fight."

[On the Road]

23. Wise Move

I'm glad it was 50-50. Looks like most Democrats will vote against Gonzelez.

Sadly enough, regardless of the situation in normal times, this is NOT the best use of the filibuster There are many other situations when it will have a better chance of accomplishing its goals.

[TankLV]

64. 50 % of the DEMOCRATS only, not the whole senate.

Sickening, isn't it!

[On the Road]

79. No, I'm Glad it Was That High

It shows that a lot of Democrats are willing to use the filibuster, which is good news. A lot of them felt this was the wrong place to use, it, which I agree with. I hope every Democrat votes against Gonzalez. A cabinet nominee is tough to dislodge if you're in the minority and there is no public dissension in the opposing party.

Personally, I think every Democratic senator who gets up to speak should make the point that Gonzalez is the spokesman for the Republicans' position on legal issues. And the Republican Party is thus the party supporting torture. It will make some Republicans uncomfortable, and work on splitting the opposition.

The Republicans acted very highhandedly in threatening to kill the filibuster. On the other hand, it's a real threat. Even without it, filibusters have to be used judiciously and strategically. I believe they are better saved for an appointment or a vote on which there is some Republican opposition and a better chance of success.

[WildEyedLiberal]

20. What the hell difference will it make if they filibuster or not

Jesus Christ, you people act like it's the end of the world. They will vote no, they are excoriating Gonzales on the floor, and a filibuster would NOT mean that Gonzales' confirmation would be blocked.

Seriously, all this gloom and doom goes so far over the top it's pathetic.

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. A filibuster would have blocked the nomination

They can't hold a voted unless debate has ended. A filibuster is basiclly voting against ending debate.

[borg5575]

42. Not necessarily

The Democratic leadership may have been afraid that the Republicans would trot out their so-called "nuclear option." And the problem with that is that if they succeeded in using the nuclear option then that would have set a president that they could have used down the road when a Supreme Court vacancy happens.

The Supreme Court is what the Dem leadership is waiting for. That's when they will draw a line in the sand. Or at least they had better or it will be the effective end of the party IMO.

[juajen]

49. OK, very, very sorry, but the Spelling Police took over my body!

It's "set a precedent", not president. However, it would be nice if we could set a President. LOL

[borg5575]

50. Sorry

I was thinking about President Gore.

[Freddie Stubbs]

85. They will use the nuclear option eventially

Why? Because they can. If we were in the same situation, we would probably do the same thing.

[Warpy]

21. Stupid, stupid, stupid

They know the crybaby pubbies will change the filibuster rules on them if they filibuster against Mengele Gonzales, and they think they'll need the filibuster later when Idiot appoints annother anti American SC justice.

However, they just don't get any worse than Gonzales. He is completely unsuited to be the chief law officer in the country because he is a fucking criminal!

This is just the latest in a long string of stupid moves by the Democrats in Congress, and the one that will give the most ammunition to the "both parties are exactly the same" crowd.

Either that party grows a little backbone, or I'm outta here, too.

[Habeus9]

40. It can always be

WORSE!!

[mudderfudder77]

22. Wheres Dacshle when you need him? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

27. Probably living in DC

His wife is a lobbyist there.

[Just Me]

24. Hmmm. It would be cool if they're sending mixed messages on purpose.

I would definitely like to see them do a SURPRISE 'buster and kick the neoCONs' asses (along with their blindly loyal constituents).

*sigh* OH! I! WISH!

[Dhalgren]

26. I think that the Senate Dems are looking at the long term,

for the use of the filibuster. Here's my take on it (for what it is worth): Gonzalez's nomination is for AG, an office that ends in less than four years - why waste a filibuster on that; wait for the life long terms (judges) for the fb.
Also, when you have the most blood thirsty moron in US history in the oval office, what real difference does it make who is AG? Anyone Caligula nominates is going to be at least as bad as Gonzo, so why waste the firepower on this? That, at least, is how I see it...

[Neecy]

30. All true...

But the message that's being sent is that the Senate is meekly voting to confirm an advocate of torture to the top law enforcement position in the country.

We can't block him, but at least demonstrate in some feeble way that this nomination is so grotesque, so unacceptable, that it cries out for action.

[Old and In the Way]

37. True.....whoever Bush nominates will be sufficiently pliable so as to give

legal cover to his actions. The vote will reflect that a majority of Democrats are against torture.....but how many Republicans will support it is the question. Do they have a conscience or are the just rubber stampers who are unable to go against their boyking?

[TankLV]

67. It make a differenct to those currently and about to be TORTURED!

[Wind Dancer]

78. Yes it does!

It's hard to support ANYBODY that endorses this nomination.

Our senators are sending a message that is OK to violate human rights, international law and the Constitution.

[Dhalgren]

89. If the Democrats actually had the political balls to

sustain the filibuster, then yes, it would make a difference. It would force the admin to nominate someone else and the Repubs would have to deal with their support of a torture advocate. But what I am afraid of is that only half, or less, of the Dems will vote against Gonzo - and that will just point up how dead the Democratic party actually is.

[Skidmore]

31. This is exactly the type of issue a fillibuster should be used for.

Once confirmed, there will be no control over this freak. Do they remember the Ashcroft years at all? How many more civil liberties need to be obliterated and rights ignored?

The scope of wrongdoing here is huge and can be easily repeated because they will have just sanctioned the lies and coverup as well.

Spine? Hell, they don't even have skeletons.

[Habeus9]

35. not surprising

[progressivebydesign]

38. Some of you still think Howard "the spine" Dean is a bad thing? n/t

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Will Dean tell the Senators how to vote?

:shrug:

[DoYouEverWonder]

45. Dean will be just the beginning

of the major change in DEM leadership that is sorely needed.

[Nothing Without Hope]

51. I agree. It's summed up beautifully in this Danziger cartoon

(In case you didn't see it when it was briefly on the DU Home Page in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1546783)

[MadHound]

53. Well this shouldn't be suprising.

We are, after all, living under the two party/same corporate master system of government.

After the performance of the past four years, were you folks actually expecting the Dems to fight? And for those of you who are saying that we should save filibusters for the Supreme Court nominees, what makes you think that the Dems will filibuster then? Certainly your opinion can't be based on the Dem track record. Another question, if these spineless Dems aren't going to oppose a man who believes in torturing people, why do you think they will oppose anybody that Bush puts up? The morality of Gonzalez's beliefs and practices should spark outrage, yet all the Dems offer up is a ho hum. What makes you think they'll do anything more when it comes to the Supreme Court?

[aikido15]

101. I agree...

Time for a new party, this ones DEAD!

http://www.socialismandliberation.org/PSLsite/whoWeAre.html

[lovuian]

54. Well it makes the Democrats look terrible by not!!!

:argh:

[VegasWolf]

55. Just as I thought, I will definitely be voting 3rd party next time.n/t

[William Bloode]

59. Myself as well.

I cannot support such a pack of lily livered panisies. I fight my butt off for what i think is right, and i mean i have literally thrown the dukes, and been beaten by batons amongst other things. Being a fighter i have no respect for such a group of cowards.

No wonder so many people have no respect for our Democratic representatives. The party might actually get a few more votes if they were to grow a spine and take a stand.

I personally spit on such weakness.

[aikido15]

102. A couple of suggestions...

http://www.socialismandliberation.org/PSLsite/whoWeAre.html


http://www.solidarity-us.org/

Anythings better than being pissed off and disappointed all the time by these fools.

[Rockerdem]

56. Translation: they counted noses and only had 2 dozen that had stones

[RedSock]

58. it's never the right time

it's never the right time with these gutless idiots.

we hear them say "we have to pick our battles" but when do they EVER battle?

as jon stewart said, their new slogan is "a moment of resistance, a lifetime of capitulation"

[leftofthedial]

61. torture and incompetence aren't worth fillibustering over

we'll wait for a legit target, like someone who is a threat to one of our corporate sponsors.

i'm sick of this country.

[iamjoy]

80. Four Years Vs. Life....

That's what the Senate Dems are looking at.
They filibuster Gonzales for AG, the Repubs invoke the "nuclear option" and there is no legitimate way of stopping the most extreme judicial nominees. Not to mention the Repubs would be all over the media labeling the Dems as obstructionist.

Then, they put Gonzales up for SCOTUS.

Or, we have long debate, but eventually let Gonzales come to a vote. Democrats vote against, Gonzales is confirmed. Then we get to say that we had legitimate concerns about this man and wanted to have a debate. We had it. Many could not in good conscience vote for him. His story is compelling, we don't question his qualifications, our disagreements are largely idealogical (he thinks torture is okay, we don't). But (turn the argument back on the Repubs) his (Gonzales) ideology seems to be reflective of this administration and Presidents have always had the privilege of choosing a cabinet of people who match their ideals. Judicial nominees are a different story because they serve for life, not any one particular president, so their ideology must not be too partisan or too extreme. Any judicial nominee with a narrow view and an ideology out of step with mainstream America is not qualified to receive a lifetime appointment.

[Zhade]

62. Well, of course - it's never the time to oppose a torturer.

So he breaks international law, that's so last century! Get with the (approved by some DLC leaders) New American Century, people!

</sarcasm so thick I'm going to drown>

[txaslftist]

66. Candy-pantses!

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

71. "If not now, WHEN? If not you, WHO?"

Fuggin' town full o' wussies.

[goodboy]

72. fuckin' cowards. we will lose every time with pansies like these.

[IronLionZion]

77. I disagree with them, but they must have their reasons

I mean come on, you can't filibuster everything. The pigs will just change the rules or some shit like that.

The Dems are probably saving it for something important like Supreme Court. We need to put that in the news when the time comes. If they filibuster everything, it won't be newsworthy and they'll be called "obstructionists" and worse.

[VegasWolf]

83. Democrats decide against courage. Maybe we should send most

of the democratic leaders to Oz.

[KissMeKate]

84. why would anyone vote for torture?

eom.

[leesa]

86. Figures. Heaven forbid we show the world and our country what kind of

monster they are foisting upon us!

The world is right to crash our economy. We need to be stopped because our country is nuts and no one in power is doing one damned thing about it.

[genieroze]

88. Pussies! eom

[in_cog_ni_to]

90. *sigh*

This is so damn depressing. They make it VERY difficult to support their party. Damn weasels. What the hell is wrong with them? They have been besieged with emails, phone calls and faxes by their constituents. Who the hell do they think they are? Who pays them? They make me sick.

[Don1]

91. Torture Trainer?

I heard a caller to the Randi Rhodes Show make some outrageous comments about Gonzales today. The caller said that he himself served in the Air Force under Gonzales and that it was Gonzales' job as a seargant to be a "torture trainer." No, it does not mean what you think. He did not train people on how to torture. He trained soldiers on what torture was. How did he do so? By having them tortured (to a minor degreee): sleep deprivation, feces smearing, noise, and beatings. If true, then it would make sense that he would not want these types of acts to be defined as torture...

Randi questioned the caller on some details like what year he was talking about and where. The caller's details about Gonzales' service were correct. The years of service can be confirmed in his bio which is available from the white house at http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/gonzales-bio.html.

Here is a sentence from that site:
"Gonzales served in the United States Air Force between 1973 and 1975, and attended the United States Air Force Academy between 1975 and 1977."

While the caller's outrageous claims can neither be immediately confirmed nor denied, I think it is important for someone to bring this to the attention of the Congressional Dems. They should seek out the details of his service immediately. If it is true, then they should in fact fillibuster. In that case, now would be the time. In that case, then waiting for a SC judge is just too little too late.

Between Social Security and this issue, I don't think that the Bush regime would be able to politically recover from all the details brought up at such a fillibuster by the Dems. (assuming that this is all true).

So here are some thoughts on this issue. Do any of you have a way to confirm/deny the caller's claim on the Randi Rhodes Show? Will you contact your Senators/representatives or do you think it is not appropriate for lack of information? What about FOIA requests for Gonzales' military record?

[Algomas]

92. Every vote for this fascist pig..

is an admission of complicity in war crimes. I heard an interesting remark made by Michael Ratner on Democracy Now (01-28):

<Someone told me this incredible story about Germany and what happened with torture. One of the key people, Keitel, who got a death sentence in Germany was the man who scrawled on a memo to the high command about Russian soldiers that said, “Geneva Conventions? Obsolete rubbish.” Remember the word that Gonzales used to describe Geneva, “obsolete”. And when they sentenced Keitel to death, what they said was one of the reasons we're giving you the death penalty is for basically saying the Geneva Conventions are obsolete. So this is a very serious issue in Germany. that the Nazi general Kietel was sentenced to death, in part for declaring the Geneva conventions "outdated rubbish".>

The constitution of this country spells out that international agreements are the law of the land. For Bu$hco to violate the Geneva convention is an impeachable offense.

[Swamp Rat]

95. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:mad:

[ClayZ]

107. We need to turn around,

and NOBODY is steering!

[burrowowl]

96. Rotten

CHICKEN LIVERS! :mad:

[Straight Shooter]

97. I draw the line at Gonzales. A vote for him is a vote lost for my Senator

I hope you're listening, Ron Wyden. "Birds of a feather flock together." If you vote for Gonzales, you condone torture. I don't want rationalizations. This time the issue is black and white. If you vote for "Mr. Torture," I will never vote for you again. I will abstain. If I can't tell the difference between you and a Republican, then why should I continue to enable you? I want no part of this sh*t. This will not be on my conscience.

You want job security? Vote no on Gonzales.

[aikido15]

100. Me too.

http://www.socialismandliberation.org/PSLsite/whoWeAre.html

This is who I'm supporting...this was the absolute final straw for me.

The Democrats DO NOT represent me, just their vested interests, the corporations.

[aikido15]

98. Fucking wimps!

This isn't the time to filibuster? When is the time then?

HOW CAN ANYONE SUPPORT THESE IDIOTS?

I quit!

If we keep supporting this two party system we will never achieve any real social change. I hate the CORPORATE STATES OF AMERICA.

http://www.socialismandliberation.org/PSLsite/whoWeAre.html

[barb162]

99. Reid: I had bad vibes about this creep the minute they

announced his name. The vibes were right on target as usual. What kind of Democrats are these? Are they Democrats at all?

[drummer55]

103. wuss ass no spine muther fuckers ----dems as a party are dead---

Boxer please please please please

cut and run from this dead party and start a bold new path with a new energized party for the people!

[tom_paine]

105. wow, WHO could have foreseen THAT coming?

:crazy: :silly: :crazy:

[AngryAmish]

108. Cowards

Sto[p sucking, get off your knees and fight those Nazis.