Last night the Senate confirmed Mukasey as attorney general, but they didn’t have to. They could have filibustered it and made the Republicans come up with 60 votes, just like the Republicans do to them ALL THE TIME!
Someone showed me this article this afternoon a it pisses me off! The title is “Reid Allowed Vote On Mukasey In Exchange For Military Funding Bill” which is disturbing enough, but this is the part that’s really disturbing:
What of the talk that Reid might allow a filibuster of the Mukasey confirmation vote? Asked why this didn’t happen, a leadership source claimed that it was because Dem leaders were convinced that Repubs would be able to break off enough Dems to reach the 60 vote threshold and defeat the filibuster.
“They would have gotten 60,” the leadership source says, adding: “Some on the Democratic side honestly fundamentally don’t believe in filibustering cabinet secretaries. We are on the cusp of a new administration, and we think it will be a Democratic one. Filibustering here would have set a bad precedent.”
Why is the leadership concerned about “a bad precedent” when the alternative is to let every other country and all of the future Americans will think that WE think torture is OK. Also, this strategy won’t work and now democratic voters will think that the Democrats in the Senate are all wimps. Greg Sargent, the author of that article, says
Of course, this argument will ring hollow to some. Good behavior by Dems now is hardly likely to produce the same on the part of Republicans; indeed, they’ve already been filibustering like nothing else. And it also seems likely that the Dem leadership preferred to avoid the filibuster because it really wanted to get the defense approps bill passed as a shield against GOP criticism (though it can also be argued that there’s pressure on Dems to get defense approps passed for other reasons) and so leaped at the chance to do this. That seems to be the reason that Dems rushed the vote through last night. Critics will point out that Dem worry about GOP attacks was hardly a good enough reason to wave the Mukasey vote through.
Forget critics. Who DOES think that last night’s vote was a good idea?







A new amendment, called Section 123, was quietly added to Title I of the 2007 Farm Bill a few weeks ago, and it is a huge step backwards on food safety. If passed, it would hamstring state and local food safety efforts by wiping out critical authority on meat, poultry and biotechnology.

September 28, 2007
Who does General Pace report to?
Posted by frecklescassie under Code Pink, Commentary, LGBT, News, Pentagon, Political, Politics, U.S. military, Washington, civil liberties, congress, current events, first amendment, homosexuality, hypocrisy, religion[4] Comments
photo from ABC News
General Peter Pace is the chairman of the joint chiefs, making him the most elevated military office in the United States. He is not our priest-in-chief or our parent-in-chief, but he seems to think he is, and that his “upbringing” and his beliefs make him qualified to tell the rest of us, the entire military, and the United States Senate what is immoral. Why is that his job? It isn’t, but he doesn’t seem to know that!
.
The first amendment to the United States Constitutions says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” This may be why Pace refers to his upbringing and not his religion, but it is commandments from his RELIGION that is causing him to repeatedly condemn homosexuality and adultery.
.
In a March newspaper interview the general said that:
You can listen to that here.
.
Two days later, the Washington Post reported this,
But ….. the general repeated all his opinions again this week in a Senate hearing, and this time the Code Pink protesters replied by quoting (very loudly and repeatedly) their favorite bible verse, “THOU SHALT NOT KILL! THOU SHALT NOT KILL!” They are absolutely correct — if we need any religion at all mixed in with the military, THAT is the kind of morality we should be following.
Like most of my political posts,
this is cross-posted at Political Teen Tidbits
and at YouThinkLeft.