I just thought Id post this, although her confirmation is expected in the Senate...Sen. John Kerry just commented it will have to be carried out without his yes vote. more news is expected on this soon.

Only Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry voted NO for the Rice confirmation as Secratary of State.

I'm glad they voted no, but I hope this isn't the Democrats new strategy to appease their more vocal Democratic constituents while remaining "`republican-lite`." Have one or two Senators make a big deal about opposing someone and then have the rest just go along.

They do have the power to stop some of these nominees. It's called the filibuster. I can't imagine what they're saving it for that they think will be worse than Rice or Gonzales. I guess maybe they think Supreme Court nominees get in for life so they better save it for that.

Yes, I do believe they are saving their fillibuster power for judicial appointments....all of whom will sit on a bench for life.

This could be a new strategey on their part....and to be honest, I hope so, because I wanna believe that they actually HAVE one.

Kerry pretty much had to vote "no" on this one as he spent the past year campaigning against this very agenda....there was absolutely no way that he could now be believable in saying that he placed any confidence in these people at all. On the other hand, the other Senators did have to acknowledge that Bush was going to place someone in these positions that they would most likely not agree with...I thought they were very backhanded in the recommendation, even some of the Republicans, in basically saying that they only voted to approve her because maybe she was one person Bush would listen to, because he refused to listen to them. It was not a vote of "confidence" on the part of any of them....they all emphasized that it was onlt "hope" that sense would prevail against the neocons....and, a very clear message that this bunch had better not come back before them expecting to be believed when all the evidence was against them.

It worries me that Kerry voted no. (Not that I disagree with his vote...) This just leads me to believe that Kerry is playing it safe on lots of stuff, and watching his every move, for a 2008 run.

I have to say that I really grew to like Kerry (even though I would have rathered Edwards been the 2004 nominee). But I still don't want him to run again, and mess this up again.

I wish some of the other Senators had the guts to vote no. Guess not.

-Tiffany

I'm glad that Kerry and Boxer voted against Rice's confirmation. I wish more Dems had joined them. But I think because they knew the result was a foregone conclusion, the others didn't want to engender any more ill will than they have to. I think Boxer is the Senate Democrats' new attack dog. And I think Kerry is attempting to become their conscience. Yes, he is also keeping his eyes on 2008. He'd be foolish not to. But he also said he'd be a strong opponent of Bush's policies, and he's trying to live up to that.

You know I am probably going to get yelled at for this but here goes anyway. I was disappointed in Obama yesterday with his remarks about how a president deserves to have who he has chosen by his side on his cabinet. Maybe in Cinderella world.

I think a President's cabinet should be made up of the most qualified people for the position. Period. The President was elected to serve us to the best of his ability (won't go there about W), not to have a bunch of friends at the table for coffee and donuts in the morning.

[quote=65 Rambler Lady]You know I am probably going to get yelled at for this but here goes anyway. I was disappointed in Obama yesterday with his remarks about how a president deserves to have who he has chosen by his side on his cabinet. Maybe in Cinderella world.[/quote]

I'm not going to yell, but I do disagree. Obviously, you vet out people like Bernard Kerik who just genuinely seems to have mental deficiencies, but otherwise it should be up to the President to choose his own cabinet. If the Senate made a conscience effort to fillibuster all the nominations, you'd be seriously encroaching on the separation of powers, which is at the heart of our democracy.

I don't like George Bush and I despise Condoleeza Rice more than you could ever know, but I agree with Sen. Obama on this. The same standard ought to apply for whoever the President is--Democrat or Republican.

Judges, however, are another matter all together.

Well, I think a cabinet should be made up of the top people in a field of expertise, not friends and family no matter what party they may come from. I feel that as a US citizen I am entitled to know that people who are making decisions, or influencing the ones that do, on my behalf are qualified to do so and are not serving becuase Peter Prez likes the way they dress or bow to him.

I still respectfully disagree with both you and Obama on this and always will I guess. I just stated what I felt and sorry you took offense to it.

If someone IS qualified and Peter prez likes him/her, then fine. You are correct in your arguments.

As far as holding anyone up thru whatever means the House and Senate have, was never part of my observation or opinion. I still see nothing wrong with having an ASE certified mechanic work on my car rather than the guy down the street who is really handsome and friendly and owns 3 big hammers and will beat my car until it DOES run, if even only for a block or two. It's the old adage of you get what you pay for.

So get angry if you must, (I knew someone somewhere would get angry and that wasn't my intention - I was just stating my opinion), but that's the breaks of living in the US of A. Not everyone agrees with everyone, even when they are a rising star such as Obama.

[quote=65 Rambler Lady]Well, I think a cabinet should be made up of the top people in a field of expertise, not friends and family no matter what party they may come from. I feel that as a US citizen I am entitled to know that people who are making decisions, or influencing the ones that do, on my behalf are qualified to do so and are not serving becuase Peter Prez likes the way they dress or bow to him.

I still respectfully disagree with both you and Obama on this and always will I guess. I just stated what I felt and sorry you took offense to it.[/quote]

I didn't take offense to anything, I was just stating what I felt in response. I apologize if my response suggested anything otherwise. I was just seeking to debate your point.

I suppose I'm a bit more open to this idea because of my infatuation with the Kennedys. Robert Kennedy certainly wasn't the most experienced lawyer in the country when his brother appointed him Attorney General. There were tons of lawyers (like ones who had actually practiced) who would have been more qualified, but Kennedy wanted someone who was loyal to him as Attorney General. RFK was confirmed, of course, and went on to make an excellent AG.

Alas, unlike Bobby, Condi has proven herself utterly incompetent, hence her promotion to our nation's top diplomat. Her conduct at the hearing demonstrated her contempt for democracy as well as her contempt for the truth. Had she the skills necessary for the job, she would have concealed her arrogance and abrasiveness better. Congratulations to Kerry and Boxer for resisting this charade. Her attempt to use the race card against those who stood for civil rights (unlike her beloved boss) was pathetic, a ploy used by amateurs. Anyone who thinks this woman will be able to schmooze on the international scene should have his/her driver's license revoked.

As an Illinoisan, I heard Obama's decision in a press conference held at the opening of his Springfield office. He supported President Bush's cabinet choices, as we've seen in the case of Ms Rice, and I didn't want to believe his statement, wanting I suppose, a general condemnation of 'old friends' in 'big jobs'. However, now I think his rationale is that nothing will be served by bringing out the big guns here. Any delay in confirmations might be more of a detriment to the country than the actual approvals. GW has his agenda and won't nominate anyone who disagrees with him. The Congress is not allowed to nominate candidates so we could go round and round until perhaps there would be a decision to dispense with the Cabinet. In my opinion, he's saving his efforts to ensure a more bipartisan appointee to the Supreme Court and try to make changes within the system. This isn't all going away overnight. We all know it will take more than four years to recover from the last four. As for Boxer and Kerry, I applaud their stances. I think Boxer is equal to Cheney and Kerry is fulfilling his promises as best he can.

Maryann

I'm willing to cut Obama some slack, since he's only been a Senator for 2 weeks.

[quote=Teresa22]Yes, I do believe they are saving their fillibuster power for judicial appointments....all of whom will sit on a bench for life.

This could be a new strategey on their part....and to be honest, I hope so, because I wanna believe that they actually HAVE one.

<snip>[/quote]

Teresa, I want to believe they actually have a strategy too. But my point was that I hope their strategy is aimed at effectively countering the Republicans, not just appeasing US by having one or two Senators speak out on our side and then quietly going along with the Republicans anyway. In other words, I hope their strategy is how to deal with the Republicans, not how to deal with us uppity constituents.

A bit ago, heard a "rumor" on CNN....the Senate Democrats are planning on holding up the vote awhile tomorrow....I guess several Democrats are going to insist upon making their opinions known. The session begins at 3:00 pm, and since they figure that most republicans are going to want to hit the party scene by 8:00, they can put off the vote on Condi til next week.

[quote=Teresa22]A bit ago, heard a "rumor" on CNN....the Senate Democrats are planning on holding up the vote awhile tomorrow....I guess several Democrats are going to insist upon making their opinions known. The session begins at 3:00 pm, and since they figure that most republicans are going to want to hit the party scene by 8:00, they can put off the vote on Condi til next week.[/quote]

Interesting. Does putting the vote off until next week buy them anything?

No....but the talking head on CNN thought that it was a message that the intention of the democrats was to not just roll over and that they were going to protest when they saw fit...its also very interesting in light of the new DNC commercial coming out with Terry McAullife saying as much AND there being so much interest in Dean for the new DNC chair.

[quote=Teresa22]No....but the talking head on CNN thought that it was a message that the intention of the democrats was to not just roll over and that they were going to protest when they saw fit...its also very interesting in light of the new DNC commercial coming out with Terry McAullife saying as much AND there being so much interest in Dean for the new DNC chair.[/quote]

Oh, good. You're right. That's very encouraging when taken all together.

Here's an AP article covering this:

[quote]
White House - AP Cabinet & State
AP
Democrats to Delay Rice Confirmation Vote


By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats intend to delay Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites)'s confirmation as secretary of state at least until next week rather than grant her Inauguration Day approval, a spokesman said Wednesday.

"There are a number of Democrats not on the committee that want to have a chance to debate her nomination a couple of hours," said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

He said Democrats would not seek to prevent Rice's confirmation as the nation's top diplomat, and he predicted her approval within a matter of days. Rice cleared the Foreign Relations Committee earlier in the day, `16-2`, a lopsided vote that belied hours of skeptical questioning by Democrats critical of President Bush (news - web sites)'s foreign policy and his conduct of the war in Iraq (news - web sites).

By contrast, Manley said he expected that Democrats would assent to confirmation on Thursday just after the inauguration of two members of Bush's `second-term` Cabinet. They are Mike Johanns, nominated as secretary of agriculture, and Margaret Spellings, named to take over as education secretary.

The Senate developments unfolded as the nation's outgoing top diplomat, Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), bid farewell to the workers he called his "family" at the State Department. Powell has not yet formally resigned his post, and isn't expected to do so until Rice is formally sworn in.

"You were my troops, you were America's troops," the former Army general told the workers. "You are the carriers of America's values."

He called Rice "a dear friend" and said she would bring "gifted leadership" to the department.

Rice surmounted two days of sometimes contentious questioning — mostly by Democrats — on the administration's prosecution of the war.

Pending approval by the full Senate, Rice would be the first black woman to hold the job. The committee supported her with Democrats John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts and Barbara Boxer of California voting no.

Other Democrats, including ranking member Joseph Biden of Delaware, had said they were reluctantly voting to elevate Rice to the nation's top diplomatic job.

At her hearing Wednesday, Rice acknowledged "there were some bad decisions" by the administration on Iraq, as Democrats pressed her on whether the reasons for going to war were misleading.

Rice insisted that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was a dictator who refused to account for weapons of mass destruction. And it was impossible to change the nature of a terror threat in the Middle East with him leading Iraq, she testified.

Accused by Boxer of "rigidness," Rice responded that as national security adviser she had "no difficulty telling the president what I think."

But she also told the committee not to expect her to reveal any differences with Bush as secretary of state. "I want to be clearly understood — we are one administration, with the president in the lead," she said.

At the same time, though, Rice told the committee "I will tell you what I think. that is a promise I make to you today."

Biden suggested Rice also advise the president "to read a little bit of history" and to inform him that in Iraq "it isn't going that well."

Boxer would not be shaken off, even after Rice acknowledged to the Senate committee that "there were some bad decisions" taken by the administration on Iraq.



She accused Rice of "an unwillingness to give Americans the full story because selling the war was so important to Dr. Rice. That was her job."

And now, Boxer said, the toll of American dead and wounded is the "direct result" of Bush administration "rigidness" and misstatements.

Biden challenged Rice to acknowledge administration mistakes on Iraq and said he would vote for her confirmation, but only with "some frustration and reservation."

The Delaware senator, zeroing in on U.S. policy in Iraq as he had during Tuesday's initial hearing, accused the administration of giving shifting reasons to justify the war to oust Saddam.

Rice had steadfastly refused Tuesday to say when U.S. forces might be withdrawn from Iraq. And on Wednesday, Biden cited various rationales for the war, saying "you danced around it, stuck to the party line."

He told Rice that acknowledging mistakes — such as the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was poised to use them — should not be considered "a sign of weakness."

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record), `R-R`.I., meanwhile, urged Rice to consider reconciliation with Iran, which he said was about as repressive as China was when the Nixon administration approached Beijing for better relations.

But Rice said, "It is really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," supports terror groups and is undercutting U.S. peace efforts in the Middle East.

More than 1,365 members of the U.S. military have died since U.S. troops led an invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

But Rice has declined to estimate when even some of the 150,000 U.S. troops may return home.

"I am really reluctant to try to put a timetable on that, because I think the goal is to get the mission accomplished," she had said Tuesday, "and that means that the Iraqis have to be capable of some things before we lessen our own responsibility," she said.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...50119/ap_on_go_

[/quote]

[quote=Teresa22]No....but the talking head on CNN thought that it was a message that the intention of the democrats was to not just roll over and that they were going to protest when they saw fit...its also very interesting in light of the new DNC commercial coming out with Terry McAullife saying as much AND there being so much interest in Dean for the new DNC chair.[/quote]

What new commercial? I'd like to see it so was wondering what it's about?

The DNC is putting out a commercial, to be aired on cable channels, with Terry McAulliffe first congratulating Bush, then going on to state that the Democrats are still going to fight for what's important to them....not sure when its set to debut, but I would look for it on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, etc., starting tonight.

Congratulating Bush for what? Pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and lying and getting away with it (again?).

When is SOMEONE, ANYONE going to call the emperor a naked old lyin Texan instead of calling him 'elected?' :twisted: :?: :?:

[quote=65 Rambler Lady]Congratulating Bush for what? Pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and lying and getting away with it (again?).

When is SOMEONE, ANYONE going to call the emperor a naked old lyin Texan instead of calling him 'elected?' :twisted: :?: :?:[/quote]

"Emperor" Bush is a naked old lyin Texan and he was never elected. Hope that helps. I realize my opinion may not count for all that much. But there...I said it.

Obama and his wife were on Oprah today, but I missed most of it as I got home from work late. What I did see, didn't let me down and I wished I had heard all of it as he was speaking about how elected officials pander to the popular opinion as they like staying in office and all its perks. He also said that he didn't feel that way and was not going to pander. I would have expected no less of one of our future presidents.

So proud of John Kerry for voting NO. In fact, not to sound crude and feel free to edit me but the Man's Balls are Made of Gold today for voting against Condi..
I do not normally descend into raunchy thought and language but
with tomorrow looming, I am bordering on the insanely strange state.
I cannot wait for Friday to come.

Kerry and Biden let her have it. They called her out on every lie she ever told about Iraq. She had the nerve to lie and said there is 120,000 trained Iraq troops. Kerry and Biden both pointed out they were just in Iraq and spoke to those in charge there. It's more like 4,000 trained Iraqi's. I watched the whole thing for 2 days and watched it again. You can watch it on line at
www.cspan.org

Also I think it's funny Rice won't get to celebrate tomarrow with the rest of Bushco. She's not been confirmed yet. With the crap she was trying to spin during the hearing they just might filibuster her butt. I can only hope so cause I really don't like her. After the hearing and Rice left. Before they voted many Senators kept saying she has a SPECIAL relationship with Bush and they hoped she would have his ear. Think they were trying to tell us something.

Personally, I think it would be really GREAT if they filibustered Bush's girlfriend. I'd be LMAO for weeks over that one.

Slightly off topic but...Ya know I hate to say this, but I think CNN maybe trying to return to its roots. I am not nearly as offended by it as I used to be last fall. Time will tell. What is Novak :evil: doing now that his two shows have been canceled? I haven't seen him on CNN lately, thank goodness!

It's new leadership at CNN...and the Jon Stewart effect.

Yes I noticed CNN is not nearly as offensive as before.
Meanwhile MSNBC has taken their place as wannabe Fox.
They are all positively smiles, gushing and partying down with
Bush's inauguration.

Well, I don't watch TV, so I'll take your word on that. But I noticed that CNN had a survey they'd done that was on their web site the other day and in the headline they were trying to spin it like most Americans were optimistic about a Bush second term. When you read the details, it didn't really seem that way. Also the survey was a survey of about 1,000 "Americans," which since they weren't more specific about it, begs the question "Americans from where? Deep in the heart of Texas?" I concluded from that they still have a long way to go before they can be trusted. They also were trying to discredit exit polls the other day in an attempt to legitimize Bush's presidency.