[quote]Democrats might try to block Gonzales
Attorney general nominee's war role questioned

The Associated Press
Updated: 2:21 p.m. ET Feb. 1, 2005

WASHINGTON - Senate Democrats are considering filibustering Alberto Gonzales’ nomination to be attorney general over his role in developing the Bush administration’s policies on treating foreign detainees.

No final decision has been made yet, but at least two Democrats — Sen. Edward Kennedy, `D-Mass`., and Democratic Whip Richard Durbin of Illinois — planned to urge the Democratic caucus Tuesday to consider filibustering Gonzales’ nomination, said a Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on conditions of anonymity.

A filibuster, a parliamentary tactic for delaying Senate action, would require Republicans, who hold a `55-44` majority in the Senate, to win over at least five Democrats — or four Democrats plus Vermont Sen. James Jeffords, an independent — to put Gonzales in office.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6895355/[/quote]

They better filibuster him. I do NOT want this guy representing the United States in any capacity. The Repubs aren't going to be able to get Jeffords, I don't think. Jeffords voted against Condi, probably for some of the same reasons. That means if the Dems filibuster, they'd have to get 5 Dems to break ranks.

They may not have enough votes from people willing to filibuster him. BushCo probably has a few DINOs in their pocket on this.

Maybe, but I was surprised to learn that even Dianne Feinstein voted against him in the Judiciary committee. She's usually one of the first to fall in line behind the Repubs.

[quote=rox63]They may not have enough votes from people willing to filibuster him. BushCo probably has a few DINOs in their pocket on this.[/quote]

Rox

great. Did you adopt that from RINO.

By the way, Judy, what happened with your man Lindsey Graham's vote in the Judicial committee? I thought he was ready for a fight on this one. (Ducks.) Sorry. I couldn't resist.

sirius,

He voted for Judge Gonzales in the Judiciary Committee. He is not confirmed until the floor vote. I will not predict his floor vote. but will wait and see. I am hooping that he speaks on the floor because he was not too happy with Judge Gonzales' answers at the hearings. I will not assess what he might do until I hear what he has to say on the floor (If they let him speak). He has not ducked yet. There is still a chance that he will vote against on the floor. That vote will take place sometime this week.

Appearantly Judge Gonzales did provide the documents requested because Cornyn (I wish it were Graham) was on the floor today during the debate with a binder claiming it was full of the documents requested by committee membres.

I think we should all go back and read those memos carefully. The right people need to be blamed (Bybee and Haynes). Judge Gonzales asked for a legal opinion.

By the way the Geneva Convention does not apply to GITMO but it does apply to Abu Ghraib. However, weather Geneva alpplies or not there should be humane treatment of all detainees under the law. Judge Gonzales did repudiate the torture and did say we needed to trreat them humanely because our nation believes in humane treatment.

[quote=sirius]They better filibuster him. I do NOT want this guy representing the United States in any capacity. The Repubs aren't going to be able to get Jeffords, I don't think. Jeffords voted against Condi, probably for some of the same reasons. That means if the Dems filibuster, they'd have to get 5 Dems to break ranks.[/quote]

I agree, they had better filibuster this guy he deserves it.

Confirming Gonzales is confirming we agree with torturing people. I watched the whole thing on `C-Span` today. The repugs kept saying that Al Quada did not sign the Geneva Convention and there by are not protected by them. But I say WE DID sign it and are bound by the rules no matter who we fight. I'm sorry but I HATE REPUBLICANS. They do not care what this administration is doing as long as they have all the power. They even want to get rid of the filibuster which is the only tool the minority has against the ruling majority. Sorry Judy but your party makes me want to puk. They want to destroy everything that has made this country great.

[quote=beinlicht]Confirming Gonzales is confirming we agree with torturing people. I watched the whole thing on `C-Span` today. The repugs kept saying that Al Quada did not sign the Geneva Convention and there by are not protected by them. But I say WE DID sign it and are bound by the rules no matter who we fight. I'm sorry but I HATE REPUBLICANS. They do not care what this administration is doing as long as they have all the power. They even want to get rid of the filibuster which is the only tool the minority has against the ruling majority. Sorry Judy but your party makes me want to puk. They want to destroy everything that has made this country great.[/quote]

Mr. Gonzales for one thing did not right the memos in questio, Bybee and Haynes did. Secondly, we cannot expect that Judge Gonzales or anyone else will remeber topics let alone specific discussions that took place at meetings that were between a year and two years ago.

The Geneva Convention does not apply, even by its own language to terrorists. Terrorists do not wear uniforms adn are not members of a reconized state military. Yes, they deserve humane treatment, even the GOP agrees with that. However, they are not entitled to the protections of Geneva.

I can aceept your dislike, I never say I hate anything, for the GOP. I do not always exactly love my party. I disagree with some things they do. I am very tolerant of disagreements. THe GOP does not wnat to destroy what makes this country great anymore than the Dems do. We have some party members that are not good news, but they will have to be marginalized in the future. I most dislike that the bad GOP are hurting good GOP like me, former Gov. Whitman, Gov. Schartzenegger, Sen. McCain, and Sen Graham. We are honorable people. Some of us have warned our prty about the direction they are taking. We are disappointed. I hope the leadership eventually listens.

beinlicht.

Judge Gonzales, for one thing, did not right the memos in question, Bybee and Haynes did. Secondly, we cannot expect that Judge Gonzales or anyone else will remeber topics let alone specific discussions that took place at meetings that were between a year and two years ago.

The Geneva Convention does not apply, even by its own language to terrorists. Terrorists do not wear uniforms adn are not members of a reconized state military. Yes, they deserve humane treatment, even the GOP agrees with that. However, they are not entitled to the protections of Geneva.

I can aceept your dislike, I never say I hate anything, for the GOP. I do not always exactly love my party. I disagree with some things they do. I am very tolerant of disagreements. THe GOP does not wnat to destroy what makes this country great anymore than the Dems do. We have some party members that are not good news, but they will have to be marginalized in the future. I most dislike that the bad GOP are hurting good GOP like me, former Gov. Whitman, Gov. Schartzenegger, Sen. McCain, and Sen Graham. We are honorable people. Some of us have warned our prty about the direction they are taking. We are disappointed. I hope the leadership eventually listens.

Honorable? Whitman? Ahnuld? JUDY!!!!! Stay away from the kookaid!!

Marginalized? Just how in the heck are you gonna do that when your pres, ok, your party's prez, has them so damn scared they can't even vote thier conscience becuase of them being called unpatriotic by the bumbling smirky? And they like good little kiddies go along and do whatever because they want to ride for a longer time on the good times gravy train.....

Judy, Judy, judy......I am shaking my head at your last post.......I am disappointed and am truly hoping that the techno gremlins distorted what you wrote from the time you pressed submit to the actual post......

RL

no one distorted what I said. I accept your disappointment. Most of these people do vote how they feel is right on issues. Whitman quit her post at the EPA after because she could not go along with something the administration did. Ahnold, point taken. McCaiincessently criticizes the administration. Graham does not just get pulled along either.

It is possible that if the party dies not start accepting its moderate wing that they will be marginalized. Graham, I think is already mainly ignored by the president and the leadership because he supported McCain in 2000.

It is true that it was Bybee and Haynes that wrote the memos and not Judge Gonzales, who asked for a legal opinion. I watched the hearings in their entirety and he did disavow torture several times. I also read the Geneva Convention and it does say what I calim it says. about humane treatment.

He might have said that he was against torture....but remember, his definition of it was something that caused death or extreme bodily pain equivalent to organ failure. The point many of the democrats are trying to make is that he does seem to believe that the law is whatever the president determines it to be....that he alone can decide which treaties he wants to abide by and those that he does not. He also works very hard at finding ways around the laws...this is not something that we want in an AG...we want someone who upholds the law the way it is.

And I am sorry...but I am becoming more and more alarmed by the tone of the conservative conversation about torture....its not about whether or not they are terrorist, or whether they even have a right to Geneva Convention protections....its about us, as a people...and we have long been a people who don't believe in torture, although I guess there are some who do. Our claim to moral superiority cannot be that "at least we aren't as bad as Saddam, or Osama, or the terrorists"...

Do we need discussions as to what is considered humane questioning techniques? Yes, we do....but what Gonzolez and the whole administration did was prevent the rest of us from having any part in that conversation. They took it upon themselves, in secret, away from any type of public discourse. This is not the American way, and it certainly isn't conducive to the idea of democracy.

Teresa,

That was Bybee's memo and he was appointed to the circuit court a year after the memo was written. That is the OLC's interpretation of the torture statute. No he does not. He will follow the law and enforce it.

If Geneva is the law than we need to uphold it don't we? We can't have it both ways. Geneva does not protect terroists eccept for guaranteeing them humane treatment. Humane treatment does not include what went on at GITMO or Abu Ghraib. If we want to change the Geneva Convention we need to, together with the other signatories call a meeting and amend the Convention to reflect the new reality so there is no ambiguity. For now the standard is humane treatment and not full protection.

There are standard interrogation techniques that are taught are in the Army field manual that deals with the subject. No conservative is condoning torture or the terrible stuff that went on at the prisons.

We do not typically discuss legal policy of the administration in public. This happened this time because of the contents of the Bybee and Haynes memos being given to the press. This was good. After this we need to take a good look at our laws and have a public debate about how to best make the Torture staute more specific as to illegal activities.

Again....its not about Geneva Conventions...its about WHO WE ARE. We have never been a nation that promotes what anyone could define as torture...it doesn't matter who the prisoner is, our conduct must always be above any question if we want to claim moral authority.

Based on the argument you and the Republicans are making, it sounds as if the implication is that since the Geneva Conventions might not recognize terrorists as "true" POW's then we are obliged somehow to treat them badly in order to uphold Geneva....this is ridiculous. It comes really close to the "frontier justice" that led to lynchings....

[quote]Alberto R. Gonzales, the White House counsel, intervened directly with Justice Department lawyers in 2002 to obtain a legal ruling on the extent of the president's authority to permit extreme interrogation practices in the name of national security, current and former administration officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Gonzales's role in seeking a legal opinion on the definition of torture and the legal limits on the force that could be used on terrorist suspects in captivity is expected to be a central issue in the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings scheduled to begin on Thursday on Mr. Gonzales's nomination to be attorney general.

The request by Mr. Gonzales produced the `much-debated` Justice Department memorandum of Aug. 1, 2002, which defined torture narrowly and said that Mr. Bush could circumvent domestic and international prohibitions against torture in the name of national security.

Until now, administration officials have been unwilling to provide details about the role Mr. Gonzales had in the production of the memorandum by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. Mr. Gonzales has spoken of the memorandum as a response to questions, without saying that most of the questions were his.

[snip]

Mr. Gonzales's request resulting in the original August 2002 memorandum was somewhat unusual, the officials said, because he went directly to lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel, bypassing the office of the deputy attorney general, which is often notified of politically delicate requests for legal opinions made by `executive-branch` agencies, including the White House. Officials dispute how much senior Justice Department officials knew of the memorandum as it was being prepared. A former official and a current one said that neither Attorney General John Ashcroft nor his deputy, Larry D. Thompson, were aware of the memorandum until it was about to be submitted to the White House.

[snip]

A senior administration official [said] that the memorandum's conclusions appeared to closely align with the prevailing White House view of interrogation practices. The official said the memorandum raised questions about whether the Office of Legal Counsel had maintained its longstanding tradition of dispensing objective legal advice to its clients in `executive-branch` agencies. http://tinyurl.com/6c7uu[/quote]

[quote] In response to questioning by Senator Sessions, Mr. Gonzales said of the Bybee memo, “the opinion represents the position of the Department of Justice, and as such, it’s the position that I supported at the time.” He stated that he “didn’t have a disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the department” in the Bybee memo but could not recall “whether or not [he] was in agreement with all of the analysis.”
http://tinyurl.com/5exbn[/quote][quote]The biggest strike against Mr. Gonzales is the now repudiated memo that gave a disturbingly narrow definition of torture, limiting it to physical abuse that produced pain of the kind associated with organ failure or death. Mr. Gonzales's attempts to distance himself from the memo have been unconvincing, especially since it turns out he was the one who requested that it be written. Earlier the same year, Mr. Gonzales himself sent President Bush a letter telling him that the war on terror made the Geneva Conventions' strict limitations on the questioning of enemy prisoners ''obsolete.''

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/012705Y.shtml
[/quote][quote]They asked for a legal review -- the first ever by the government -- of how much pain and suffering a U.S. intelligence officer could inflict on a prisoner without violating a 1994 law that imposes severe penalties, including life imprisonment and execution, on convicted torturers. The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel took up the task, and at least twice during the drafting, top administration officials were briefed on the results.

White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales chaired the meetings on this issue, which included detailed descriptions of interrogation techniques such as "waterboarding," a tactic intended to make detainees feel as if they are drowning. He raised no objections and, without consulting military and State Department experts in the laws of torture and war, approved an August 2002 memo that gave CIA interrogators the legal blessings they sought.

Gonzales, working closely with a small group of conservative legal officials at the White House, the Justice Department and the Defense Department -- and overseeing deliberations that generally excluded potential dissenters -- helped chart other legal paths in the handling and imprisonment of suspected terrorists and the applicability of international conventions to U.S. military and law enforcement activities.
http://tinyurl.com/5gokk[/quote][quote]GONZALES APPROVED MEMO AUTHORIZING TORTURE: An August 2002 Justice Department memo "was vetted by a larger number of officials, including...the White House counsel's office and Vice President Cheney's office." According to Newsweek, the memo "was drafted after White House meetings convened by George W. Bush's chief counsel, Alberto Gonzales, along with Defense Department general counsel William Haynes and [Cheney counsel] David Addington." The memo included the opinion that laws prohibiting torture do "not apply to the President's detention and interrogation of enemy combatants." Further, the memo puts forth the opinion that the pain caused by an interrogation must include "injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions—in order to constitute torture." The methods outlined in the memo "provoked concerns within the CIA about possible violation of the federal torture law [and] also raised concerns at the FBI, where some agents knew of the techniques being used" overseas on `high-level` al Qaeda officials. [Gonzales 8/1/02 memo; WP, 6/27/04; Newsweek, 6/21/04; NYT, 6/27/04]
http://tinyurl.com/5emvz[/quote]

Theresa,

Noone is condoning less than humane treratment for the detainees. What occured certainly was not humane treatment.

I would argue that we already did the damage by allowing Jay S. Bybee to be confirmed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Then Assistant Attorney Gneral Bybee is the one that wrote the erroneous August 2002 memo from the Justice Department Office of Legal Council to Judge Gonzales. some of the Democrqats now standing up against Judge Gonzales and Secretary Rice actually voted for Mr. Bybee to recieve the appointment.

It seems like some of those standing up against Judge Gozales now should go back and reexamine their vote to confirm Mr. Bybee to the 9th Circuit. I have looked at Judiciary Committee members and those in leadership positions. I also added the 13 that voted against Secretary Rice.

[quote]Bybee Nomination
Y
Akaka, Bayh, Jeffords, Reid, Leahy, Kohl, Schumer

N
Boxer, Byrd, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Feinstein, Harkin, Kennedy, Lautenburg, Levin, Reed

NV
Biden, Kerry
Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...on=1&vote=00054

Rice Nomination
Y
Biden, Leahy, Kohl, Feingold, Feinstein, Reid, Schumer

N
Akaka, Bayh, Boxer, Byrd, Dayton, Durbin, Harkin, Jeffords, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenburg, Levin, Reed
Source: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll...e=00002[/color]

We need to look carefully at the especially Bybee vote. Mr. Bybee actually wrote the memo. Many of the people outraged about Judge Gonzales have let Bybee go. If we are going to deny Judge Gonzales Attorney General then someon ought to look into impeachment of Judge Bybee from the bench. He actually wrote the memo that answered the inquiry and got this mess started.

No, just because terrorists are not recognized by Geneva does not mean that they do not deserve humane treatment. Humane treatment does not include the things that are happening. Noone condones these acts. You can give terrorist detainees humane treatment, but deny them full protection of Geneva. Humane treratment is the standard and does not include the barbaric things that went on in those prisons.

You make a good point in emphasizing the importance of district judges....thats why we need to stop yelling "obstructionist" every time one of them is kept from being confirmed. It should be conceivable to every logical mind that there are some who should not be confirmed....

The objection to Gonzolez is not just about the memo...its about his unwillingness to share what his views were on it, therefore calling into question what his beliefs might be. There's also the question of his willingness to back the notion that the President can and should claim wider powers...again, he gives non answers to these questions. He often seems to follow the letter of the law while abandoning the spirit of it.

Teresa,

Part of the problem is that nearly all of the hearing was spent of the memos and very little time was spent on asking other questions. He answered written questions. I would like to see the answers for myself so I can judge without the adi of a Senators filter.

Theresa,

Bybee is on the Circuit Court, not the District Court. Circuit Courts hear cases and have the opportunity to overturn District Courts decisions. For example, the State of Nevada has only one District Court. This court has original jurisdiction of federal cases. Appeals go to the 9th Circuit, on which Bybee sits as a Circuit Judge from Nevada. So he would have power in determining weather an appeal from the District of Nevada is heard becuse the briefs are shown to him first. He would also likely sit on any panel that heard a case from Nevada.

Judy, thank you for the information...however, the point would be the same...there are some judges who should not be confirmed.

Theresa,

You are welcome.

All I am asking is that we not blame Judge Gonzales for things he did not do. I think we should try to copies of the Judiciary Committee report so we can see what his answers to the written questions were. I do not know what to think until I see those answers for myself.

Judy you are a republican. You go right along with the party line. You make the same excuses as the rest of them. Gonzales may not have wrote the Bybee memo etc but he did not oppose it, which he should have.
No, terrorist are not covered under Geneva BUT THEY ARE HUMAN BEINGS! Your party line on torture is DISGUSTING and has shamed America in GOD'S eyes and the Worlds. I blame YOUR party for all the beheadings. The terrorists knew about the torture in Iraq and it was their response. Do unto others before they do unto you is your party line. I say what goes around comes around.

Do we lower ourselves to their level? Do two wrongs make a right?
Keep making excuses for your party, but no ones listening. I think I can safely say you cannot convince anyone here that Gonzales is a good man.

And as far as I can see your party hates the poor. They are trying to get rid of ALL our social programs to pay for the permanant tax cuts to the rich.

And you party's SS reform is BullS**t. I think you posted that your in you mid 20's. Well let me tell you. If you retire at 65 that private account will have made 100,000 bucks. But what they aren't telling you is that 3% you put in is a loan with interest. Yes your money that you put in that PRIVATE account is a loan. When you retire you must pay that 3% back with interest and of your 100,000 bucks you get 20,000. That's the deal.

YOUR party's main mission is to destroy the legacy of FRD (a Democrat) and the middle class. YOUR party hates the common man. :twisted: And all who oppose them. Today one of your party people said the Democrat party is dead. Well I wouldn't bet on it. Your partys numbers are at an all time low on every single one of Bushco's reforms, none of them are even 40%. Come 2006 we'll see who's dead and it won't be the Democrats.

He who laughs last, laughs longest.

He may not have opposed it, but he did not pass it on to the PResident either. That memo went from Bybee to Haynes also and ended up incorporated into a working group report that became policy. Judge Gonzales has nothing to do woth implementation. I am reasonably sure that he did not expect it to become part of that report. He has no control over the OLC or the DoD General Consel as these are two seperate and independent offices.

I have said that the standard is humane treatment. YES terrorists are HUMAN BEINGS and deserve humane treatment. What went on at Abu Ghraib, GITMO, and in Afganistan is not humane. I have not heard one GOP senator condone torture and certainly Judge Gonzalrs, he said this several times during the hearing. We should not be blamed, the GOP was as upset by this as the Dems or Independents were and there are those that want to investigate further, but are being blocked from doing so. NO it is not where torture is concerned. We do not condone torture!

Judge Gonzales made a bad judgement, all lawyers make mistakes. He does not condone torture. He is a good man that made a bad judgement. Two wrongs do not make a right.

However, now that he is the AG I know we will watch every move he makes, as we should, and he will be under scrutiny like no other AG has ever been.

What about the Democrats the voted for Judge Gonzales (Salazar and others) these are your guys.

NO one hates anyone. What is wrong with tightening standards.

Example: My mom and brother are homeless and on Public assistance. They are saying in a shelter in Lincoln Park (Chicago neighborhood). The shelter has requirements for them tomeet in terms of job search and other programming. They had to take a letter down to Public Aid to prove that they were in this shelter. My mom is completing her tasks and my brother sits an plays computer games all the time, gtting very upset whe interrupted or told to fulfill his requirements. The consequences of his behavior will be that he gets thrown out from the program and possibly loses the aid.

If one of the standards is to be a part of a Job training program and he is not then he should lose the benefits and have to learn the hard way.

I also have a problem with the benefits going to people who do not use them properly. They commit fraud or use them to buy items they are not supposed to. They trade out food stamps to get cigarettes. They get into substance abuse programs and some never finish or they finish and go back to the bottle. How many times should we pay for someone to fail? I think that if we have a alcoholic or drug addict we should test them before giving them their check. And one other time during the month do a random test. Make sure our tax dollars are not paying for failure in these social programs.

All I ask is that people who recive government benefits make an honest effort to better themselves.

The real problem is he leadership, not the rank and file.

I cannot retire until I am 67 anyway and we do not know what changes will be made as to retirement age. Nothing is free. We must pay for any change we want. How can 3% of what we put in be used for something else? Of course that is why I liked Sen. Graham's plan so much because there was an addition contribution option. I think that the goverment also matches dollara for dollar the original contribution.

The GOP oes not hate the common man any more than Dems hate the rich. I will agree that those in powerful positions appear to show this animous. I do not agree with it. Mr. Bush does not even hav the GOP on board completely. I think neither party is dead. The GOP needs to come back from the far right more toward the center.

I think we need to remember that there are good and not so good and even bad people on both sides of the aisle. And yes, some Democrats voted for Gonzales. Shame on them. And that doesn't excuse all of the Repubs for voting for him, either.

I am not excusing anyone for their vote. I do not dislike anyone because of their vote. I also do not think that hte GOP and Dems that voted for Judge Gonzales are bad people. Most of them in fact I believe to be good people.

This is the OLD Repub party line, Clinton had all this fixed as well as it could be.
In fact he hurt a lot of women in the south because there are NO jobs to get. We have men here with families and Master's Degrees who can't get a job, too qualified for flipping burgers. They are homeless with children now...and more are soon to be.

There are NO Food Stamps anymore, there hasn't been for years. It's a secure card and it's hard to even find a super market to take one, it has to be a big chain. Your calls are also monitored when you check your balance. Social programs take up 2% of our budget - 42% of our deficit is tax cuts for the wealthy - but all social programs will be gone within two years. This type of thinking makes me furious as my friend told me yesterday that she has only one more year in her apartment and she doesn't even understand why. She works her butt off with two jobs and has minimum pay. Along with the military circling her two daughters like hawks because they have NO future.

There was a very good forum on `C-Span` yesterday about Poverty. Bush's budget comes in next week and they expect Medicaid and HUD are to be cut 40 to 60% more than the last four years. Infant mortality in this country is now back to the worse in 67 years. Clinton worked like a dog trying to help women have healthy babies. Bush cut their help too, now their babies are dying. Wanted babies, 'the culture of life', excuse me! Women divorced and working their butts off trying to raise their children can't do it anymore. You have the government on you 24/7 watching, listening, questioning every thing you do. You have no privacy and no life - they control you completely.

Wise up and stop believing that Repub 'party line.' People are dying out here Judy and the 'corporate welfare' just keeps getting bigger as the middle and lower class - especially women, children and the disabled are getting the shaft. I'm not hearing any compassion from the right - they lump all people as no goodniks and I'm totally sick of it. That's exactly what keeps me working - it keeps JRE working - live in reality, start looking into programs, I hope not but you may need help one day. No safety net anymore - people don't care because they are uninformed.

You are too smart for this Judy, get informed. Start with South Carolina as they are worse than we in NC. While you are researching, take a good look at Mississippi, Judy because they live in a living hell.

End of my rant, Judy.

Well geez Mindy, I think you got a lot off of your chest didn't ya? Don't feel bad about ranting...we all do it and you raised many many good points.

I have a lot of friends who have numerous degrees who are also underemployed.

Oh geez JRE is speaking right now about exactly what you were ranting about and all I can do is try and smooth down the goosebumps. Gawd he's good.

Anyway, Mindy, we all know the reality of the world and please don't let your friends' daughters go to the military unless it IS the last resort - at least until Bush is impeached and we are out of Iraq, Iran and Korea and god knows where else he'll have us.

Mindy

I said that if you were trying to better yourself you should not be cut off. They should try to help you more. My problem is with those who do not try to find another job or get other training.

I feel for thise who have hoestly tried and can not find something. I have no sympathy for those who do not help themselves. I see much of this behavior in the city. I have absolutely no problem with those who absolutely trying their best. I would actually argue that we should take the benfit away from those that I speak of and give it to people who actually appreciate it and use it properly. I wish your fireind's daughters did not have to gothrough what they are with the military.

I can not have a reaction to Bush's budget until I see it on Monday. Let's wait to see what the document actually says. I have a feeling that no matter what the President wants because Congress does not want the Budget dictated to them. THe jealously guard their power to create the Budget. There will be many showdowns on budget matters of all types.

I understand what you are saying, but I think we may see a war between congress and the president. Congress is tired of the supplemental bills for Iraq. THey want budget numbers. The CBO's budget projections are not accurate because there are no figures for the war.

I do not beleive the GOP party line completely. Nor do I ever categorize all people in a category. I beleive that most of the people on welfare are those who honestly ran into hard times. It is the small percentage that is not that need to be cleared off the program. Corporate welfare needs to stop.

Thanks for the compliment. You think I am not reading about SC. I get news bulletins from SC. I also watched Gov. Sanford's State of the State Address. And of course everyone knows that I follow whatever Sen. Graham does. I know much of what goes on there. For instance I know that Sen. Graham has tried to do much to help the state and can't do it alone. Sen. DeMInt had to admit during the camapaign that the trade deals he voted for hurt the state. I am aware of the poverty along `I-95` and the school problems because of NCLB. My problem is with the GOP leadership and not most of the rank and file. I will look at MS, but that is not a guarantee that I would become a democrat. I will stay a GOP and try to change the party from within, that's the only way.

Mindy, happy to listen and respond to the rant.

I am not a big fan of Judge Gonzales. I think he got to where he is because of who he knows rather than for his legal brains. Having said that, I agree with Judy that I would like to see for myself how involved he was in the memos, etc. I would love to see a discussion on the floor of the senate surrounding his nomination.

I am a liberal Democrat but I also agree with Judy that Bush may have his hands full with his own Party on the budget and other issues. It should be very interesting to watch. Another interesting thing to watch will be those GOP members who lost committee assignments that were supposed to get them based on seniority. The GOP decided to change the rules to stick in their hand picked people rather than go with the seniority system. I bet you will have some angry GOP members itching to get even. For a Liberal Dem it should be great fun to watch! (sorry Judy).

Patty,

No apoplogies needed. I can't wait to see the caming GOP civil war over the budget and other issues. The future eleaders will be born in these moments. Old leaders will be beaten. I know that SS Reform will also be a battle within the party. NO matter how many Dems support the idea, if you do not have your own party on board it doesn't matter. Mr. Bush target the same Dems that Sen. Graham has been meeting with to discuss SS Reform. This and immgration will be a large issue. The congress is ttired of the supplemental spending for Iraq, it messes up the budget. We cannot get accurate projections because of the figure not being in there. I see a bttle between the supporters of a flat tax (Lindsey Graham) and those who support a National Sales Tax (Jim DeMint). Trade is going to light up the Senate because of the `Schumer-Graham` bill. Another difference between the two Senators mentioned above. We not only have divisions with in the party as a whol there are also divisions in individual delegations. This will be interesting to watch. It will be fun for me as well.

Why thank you, Judy.

My daughter had a friend who NAFTA retrained - 3 times. Can you believe they sent her to Mexico to train someone else for her job. Bush cut off that training program here. Also, I have the sweetest cousin who is qualified in 4 different fields and couldn't get a job. She found one way up in Northern Virginia and had to leave her small kids to take it. She took it because her husband lost his job - then he started his own small business and they didn't qualify for any help. His father got sick and they are having to take care of him. Today, I just couldn't take it anymore! I completely lost it!

Thank you again Judy, I wish all Repubs were like you.

BTW - 65 RL - JRE has that NC fire when he fights an issue.

Just to get the thread back on track...
The Dems that voted for Gonzales I don't approve. The ones who didn't vote at all I think worse of because it's like ignoring the problem.

Mindy,

You are so welcome. I feel I learn much from listening to others. I am very young and need to learn.

It is difficult I understand. It soulds like you needed to get this off your chest. So, it helps tha I am a GOP, huh?

You are very welcom, again. I wish all Dems were like the JREGers as well. But we both know that there are unffirtunately people in both parties who refuse to listen.

Yes, Mindy, JRE does fight for issues with a fire in his belly. If I may say, without irritating anybody so does Lindsey Graham.

Off topic is not always a bad thing. but I digress....
I am not in complete support of Gonzales because I am sure of his role. I do wish that Lindsey or anyone for that matter would have just held him in committee and insisted an investigationinto the memos and Gonzales's role. OF course a lot of good this does becasue Lindsey has been trying to set up an investigation and no Democrat seems willing to help. I am not proud of his vote adn do not completely agree with it but I accept it. I just hope that Judge Gonzales proves all of us with the slightest doubt wrong. It is hard I always tend to cheer for someone that I feel is the underdog and at this point Gonzales goes into his new job as an underdog because of our doubts. I pray that our doubts are wrong and he turns out to be a fine attorney General.

One can only hope, thanks Judy.

[quote=ncMindy]One can only hope, thank Judy. [/quote]

I am very hopeful. I actually wish we would put someone like Lindsey Graham in control. He would cahnge our tune and our tone. He wants to do some of things that the GOP seems not to do. We just need a goo dleader who believes in what he says and believes in our country beyond ideology.

With all due respect I must say that "changing a party" is not that simple...there are deep philosophical differences. Thats how the two party system came into being, and thats how it will remain. The most that we will ever see happen is a couple of `off-shoot` parties, but you can bet that they will line up along philosophical lines.

The republican party is not going to "change" to suit the whims of a minority of its members. It is a party that believes the country is best served by the generation of wealth and uses this as its primary benchmark. They are willing to overlook those left behind by this "generation", much in the same way that the military views civilian death as "collateral damage". Now, personally, I have nothing in particular against the idea of "generating wealth", but when that becomes the sole goal and aim, then we have a problem....this goes back to the differences between Hamilton and Jefferson...we are, in reality, fighting the same philosophical differences.

Now, ofcourse, being that most people do not benefit greatly from "wealth generation", the Republican party must throw out a few crumbs to induce others to "buy in" to their philosophy...they accomplish this by pandering to a few groups of people who have particular axes to grind against society...whether its the rascist set, or the religious extremists. They also play "divide and conquer"....while all of us serfs are out here fighting it out over things like gay marriage or who's most patriotic, who is profiting by this?? Its not you and me....its simply diverting us from realistically looking at our world around us and whats really happening.

So, don't ask democrats to ever trust republicans to "fix" anything... many of their "fixes" are at the root of what our problems today are from.

The party differences will always be there because it's their platform.
Early in my life I learned what the differences were. Republican party is the 'white collar' party and always catered to the corporations. The Democratic party is for 'blue collar' workers, unions, middle to lower class.
They try and help pull you up out of poverty and fight for higher wages as hard as the Republican party fights to get rid of the unions. It's all about power and money, but at this point there is such a large disparity between the top and middle class. The middle class is disappearing and more will be put in the 'blue collar' area. Small business were always considered Blue because they needed help to attain some wealth. The Dems can lift you up and the Repubs can put you down. Bush is the best example I've ever seen. But, I do admit that both parties have fallen prey to lobbies and corporate money. It hurts the Dems the most as they are the party of the working class and you cannot have divided loyalties. That's why I became a Dem, we are a caring people and try to make a level playing field. JRE is a real Dem and I know he will make a difference. Kerry isn't doing to bad himself, he's a really nice guy.

Our party has to go back to our base and I think they will.