« Covert Military Actions | Main | Blue America Triumphs! »
Gonzalezmania
A correspondent points me to this Newsweek story suggesting that Alberto Gonzalez is dishonest and has no respect for the rule of law. But of course we knew that already! And by appointing him, the president has made it clear that he is dishonest and has no respect for the rule of law. But of course we knew that already, too!
January 23, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d834579ae669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gonzalezmania:
» We Write Letters from Pudentilla's Perspective
If you won't reject Mr. Gonzalez' candidacy because he refuses to condemn torture, and you won't reject his vision of executive authority that holds that the President has the inherent authority to ignore laws that Congress might pass, would you at l... [Read More]
Tracked on Jan 24, 2005 10:20:38 AM
Comments
Shocking.
Posted by: praktike | Jan 23, 2005 4:39:38 PM
Why do you hate hispanics?
Posted by: abb1 | Jan 23, 2005 4:55:59 PM
Matt hates jews and hispanics.
Posted by: Fake Al | Jan 23, 2005 4:57:09 PM
So given that this is all the case, what makes it so hard for dems to oppose gonzalez?
when will congressional dems realize? they are the minority, and as far as bush, rove, and delay are concerned, they are the irrelevant minority. There is no downside to opposing a man who favors torture and the divine right of presidents....
Posted by: howard | Jan 23, 2005 5:17:04 PM
I'm sorry guys, but its just politically impractical to oppose this nomination. The difference between idealogues and winners is that winners know when to choose their battles. By opposing the first Hispanic nominated for AG, especially given his personal story and academic accomplishments, Democrats waste valuable political capital that they should spend elsewhere.
Posted by: Ronnie | Jan 23, 2005 6:42:07 PM
Must disagree with Ronnie. By opposing Gonzales, and not giving a damn whether he's brown, black, or motley, the Dems elevate principle above their reputation for kneejerk PC, which has done more to hurt them in Red America than any particular policy position they hold. The Dems need many more "Sister Souljah" moments if they're going to break the sterotypes that defeated them in 2000 and 2004.
Posted by: Anderson | Jan 23, 2005 6:57:35 PM
Anderson makes an interesting but ultimately misguided point--The Democrats do need to confront knee jerk "PC-ness" in their own party...but remember the Clinton Rule...only do it when you get something out of it.
Opposing Alberto, who is a close friend of Bush, will not win over red state partisans who have been inundated for years about how Democrats like to block judicial nominations. What's more, there is real chance that Gonzalez could be appointed to the Supreme Court next, which some Hispanic interest groups are very excited about. Pointless oppostion now will harm the Democratic Party's increasingly tenuous relationship with Hispanics and not win over any moderates. So why bother?
If you want to confront "PC-ness", choose another battle. The recent Larry Summers mess would be a good place to start.
Posted by: Ronnie | Jan 23, 2005 7:05:26 PM
I can see Ronnie's point, and might even be inclined to agree, with two important caveats: playing political positioning with Gonzales opens up the Democrats to a whole series of left flank attacks, as Gonzales' behavior is reprehensible; the second problem is that Democrats seem to be terminally stuck in "we'll get 'em next time mode."
So I appreciate the sentiment, we need to choose our battles wisely. But, Democrats do need to start fighting SOME battles, dammit, and Gonzales as a nomination to the chief law spot in the country is completely indefensible, as he doesn't care a whit about American law.
Posted by: Timothy Klein | Jan 23, 2005 7:28:33 PM
Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate at large waste absolutely no political capital by opposing Gonzales. They separate our party from the policy of torture. I plead with readers here to fax letters to as many of the Judiciary Committee Democrats as possible, plus your own Senators.
In your letter, be sure to spell the nominee's name correctly: Gonzales. (Matt, please fix your post.)
Fax #s (all area code 202):
Patrick Leahy 224-3479
Edward Kennedy 224-2417
Joseph Biden 224-0139
Herbert Kohl 224-9787
Dianne Feinstein 228-3954
Russell Feingold 224-2725
Charles Schumer 228-3027
Richard Durbin 228-0400
Ronnie, opposing torture is not "PC". It's basic human decency, respect for the rule of law, pragmatic concern for the effects on U.S. servicemembers, and seriousness about our relationship with the rest of the world.
Posted by: Nell Lancaster | Jan 23, 2005 7:35:30 PM
"While Gonzales's account tracks with the official court transcript"
He said, she said, in other words. This the best you can come up with? I thought you were on better grounds complaining about the torture memo, frankly.
And, anyway, after 8 years defending Bill Clinton, do you really think anyone takes Democrats seriously when you claim to find lying offensive, and to be concerned about the rule of law?
This is pathetic.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Jan 23, 2005 7:35:44 PM
Mark Kleiman notes Gonzales lied to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Perjury? Guess that's no reaosn to vote against him as AG.
Posted by: pgl | Jan 23, 2005 7:53:46 PM
I think Nell and others completely misunderstood my comments. The "PC-ness" to which my comment referred was not related to torture. We were discussing the politics of opposing the Gonzales nomination. The PC thinking would be that we should not oppose Gonzales, simply because he is Hispanic, even though we do not believe he would be a good AG. Anderson suggested that to confront Gonzales would be a healthy step against the PC-ness that weakens our party. I dissented, noting the significant political cost that would come from opposing this nomination (and the inevitable defeat that would ensue), and I suggested that Democrats choose other battles and confront PC thinking in other wings of the Party. Please do not misinterpret this as an endorsment of torture.
Timothy, I also agree with you that we need to stand up and fight for something---I too am frustrated when our party leadership backs down. But, we should not let these emotions lead us to choose the "next" battle, simply because it is next. When we choose carefully, we can win the major battles and then the war.
Posted by: Ronnie | Jan 23, 2005 8:17:59 PM
Brett, since there was no problem with the rule of law under Clinton, we had no problem defending it.
Since the Bush administration lies about anything and everything - including the right of the president as commander-in-chief to do anything he wants anytime he wants to - we have no problem attacking it and them.
And since Gonzalez is the chief torture enabler, the idea that Dems shouldn't resist him because he's hispanic is offensive beyond measure: the people who should account for themselves are Hispanic leaders who think such behavior should be overlooked....
Posted by: howard | Jan 23, 2005 9:09:42 PM
Sigh. Another Day of Fire....this time, a fire lit by liberals. A good man with a good heart, a Spanish good man, who has honorably served our Leader, is now being impugned by the liberal media. The MSM Liberal Lap Dog Brigade is rolling out its cannons and smearing Mr. Gonzalez with lies. How dare you put forth this filth? Don't you know that it cannot possibly be true? You liberals cannot do anything but lie and hate. You have been tested. And you have failed.
And your pathetic party can't even promote the Spaniards to high positions. Look how far we have appointed the Africans. What a fine record of truth and achievement Condoliza Rice has, and you must tear her down. How sad. I am sad for you. But I am resolved to continue loving the leader that God gave us, George W. Bush, and the fine Hispanical speaking hombres he is appointing to serve our great nation.
Posted by: Free Lover of Freedom and Free Liberty | Jan 23, 2005 9:15:28 PM
I couldn't disagree more with the assertion by some commenters that the Democrats best interest lies in not choosing the Gonzales vote as a battle to fight.
I don't discount the need for political pragmatism. Posters in this thread have argued that the course of political pragmatism lies in not making an issue over Gonzales. For those who believe the pragmatic thing to do is confirm Gonzales this vote is an intersection of political pragmatism and political ideals.
The argument seems to be that the Democratic Party should not stand it's ground on the nomination of Gonzales because:
Too many Americans implicitly support torturing "terrorists"
The Republicans will hammer Democrats as soft on terror
Gonzales is a Hispanic and they are afraid to alienate the Hispanic vote
Given the conflict here what should the Democrats do?
My own idealistic belief is that torture is not an issue where you can compromise. Thankfully, I've also managed to rationalize a reason why it is in the best interests of the Democratic Party to not only vote against Gonzales but also to raise the rhetoric level to it's highest setting when talking about this issue.
Republicans constantly look for wedges to move voters to their side. Gays, flag burning, prayer in school. The list is long. The key though is the concept of the wedge.
I'm convinced that Republican support for torture is a wedge issue that can peel off many religious voters from the Republican Party.
Democrats do agree quite strongly that the current policy of the U.S. on torture is morally wrong. Regardless of its pragmatic utility, opposition to torture is a core ideal of the Democratic Party and is not an issue on which we should compromise.
Republicans however do not have unanimity on their ideals about torture nor on whether their policy is correct.
Republicans are divided on this issue.
Democrats should stick together on torture and use it to attack the Republicans. Torture is a classic wedge and we need to hit that wedge with all our force to peel off Republican voters. When the word torture is used we want the first thing to pop into peoples heads to be "Republican Party". People who consider themselves "good" do not want to be part of the "Party of torturers". We should call them for what they are and do it loudly and insistently.
Let's say it again:
The Republican Party is the Party of Torturers.
The more justifications they use the more we should repeat that simple line. Because we know it is not just and we can certainly convince many Americans of just that fact. Most already believe that but are uneasily rationalizing right now that their trusted President MUST have some good reason ... right?
No reason is good enough.
The Republican Party is the Party of Torturers.
The first step in making that phrase pop into peoples minds with the ease of an advertising jingle is to vote no on Gonzales. Let Americans see the Democrats for once steer away from the obvious political path and NOT pander to Hispanics by denouncing the immorality of the actions of Alberto Gonzales.
Democratic Senators should vote no on confirming Alberto Gonzales.
Posted by: Curt Matlock | Jan 23, 2005 9:31:36 PM
Ignoring his reflexive Clinton bashing, Brett is almost right here. He's right that this isn't really a substantive criticism of Gonzales and that responsibility Gonzales bears for torture is a much better one. He's wrong that this is a he said/ she said situation. First of all, Gonzales hasn't yet issued a specific denial of the story, and he won't, because the story both true and old news. It was published originally in 2002 and the administration didn't feel any need to dispute it. The Newsweek story tries to make it seem new, but the only new part is that in response to Leahy's question Gonzales failed to mention something. Since the scope of the question isn't known, it's impossible to judge Gonzales' action in not mentioning it. It's also strange because the story would be less likely to make the news if there wasn't this new element to add to it. If Gonzales had talked about the conference in exactly the terms that the people interviewed did, there would be no story here. All of that information came out years ago.
Posted by: washerdreyer | Jan 23, 2005 11:17:27 PM
Brett:
If it had been Larry Tribe accused of getting Clinton out of jury duty to protect some past indiscretion from surfacing, you'd have been all over that story and Democrats for defending Clinton -- as in fact you do implicitly in your post.
Regardless, to accuse your opponent of "being pathetic" for allegedly not practicing what he/she preaches is the logical fallacy of changing the subject, specifically an ad hominem tactic.
It has no bearing on whether or not the allegations against Alberto Gonzales have merit. But I can understand you using such a tactic when faced with an indefensible position.
Good luck with all that.
Posted by: glitter | Jan 23, 2005 11:19:20 PM
Ronnie, I did misread your use of "PC." But I still disagree completely with your assessment here:
I agree ... that we need to stand up and fight for something---I too am frustrated when our party leadership backs down. But, we should not let these emotions lead us to choose the "next" battle, simply because it is next. When we choose carefully, we can win the major battles
This IS a major battle, and it has to be fought not becuase it's next, though it happens to be, but because it is about crossing a line we cannot uncross. This is about promoting the man who helped design the legal framework for the kidnaping, detention, and torture system that this administration has geared up since 2001.
And we don't have to succeed in blocking Gonzales' confirmation to "win." This vote is about acquiescence to torture, acquiescence to stonewalling and lying about torture. I'm not expecting a filibuster; I'm asking every Democratic Senator to vote no. If a miracle happened, a crisis of conscience in several Republican senators... well, it's a heartening dream. But just because we can't stop the confirmation doesn't mean we have to buy into it. We GAIN self-respect, without which we can never really win anything.
Posted by: Nell Lancaster | Jan 23, 2005 11:25:29 PM
Nell,
I respect your position, especially now that you have explained it so passionately. Unfortunately, those "no" votes do have a cost. Based on the electorate the way it stands now, I don't think a united Democratic opposition gets us much support, except with the left, and limits our options to obstruct later. Religious conservatives are narrowly focused on a few issues right now, and I don' think torture is one of them
But, I am speaking in political terms, while I view your argument as a moral one. So, in a sense, we are talking about 2 different things. My point is, the Democrats need to win political battles if we ever hope to be in a position to articulate our moral vision.
Posted by: Ronnie | Jan 24, 2005 12:27:57 AM
Ronnie's policy of strategic withdrawal also costs political capital. One of the big problems the Democrats has is an overabundance of supersmart realist losers. I sat and watched for about a year while the Enron issue gradually evaporated, and the smart Dems were telling me then that The Time Was Not Ripe Yet. Of course, Lieberman working for Enron had a lot to do with it.
Posted by: John Emerson | Jan 24, 2005 12:39:28 AM
To be more explicit, there are two things we have to do. One is to deal with today's situation, communicate with the electorate as it is today, and come up with some kind of immediate victory. That's what Ronnie is talking about.
The other task is to think ahead, to set up successes 3, 5, or even 10 years from now, and to transform and persuade the electorate. The Democrats have been failing in this part of the job for God knows how long.
One of the most deadly perceptions of the Democrats is that they're wishy-washy, wimpy, and insincere. Overly-smart strategic thinking is one of the reasons why we have this reputation.
One reason why I have stayed off the "reality-based" bandwagon is that "realistic" thinking of the type Ronnie advocates always seems to lead to passivity vis-a-vis the electorate -- guessing what they think and following them rather than persuading them. What Rove and his team want to do is change the world, not deal with it as it is. They don't let their short term strategy (dealing with the world as it is) interfere with their long-term strategy (changing the world).
Posted by: John Emerson | Jan 24, 2005 1:01:34 AM
Please tell me: which Democratic Senators do you think are going to lose their seats for voting against Alberto Gonzales?
Obviously, it is just implausible that anyone would lose their seats over this in the 2008 or 2010 elections. So all but 17 Democrats can safely vote against Gonzales. And since torture is quite unpopular in polls, you'd think that it's mainly that Gonzales is Hispanic that's got us worried.
So. Vulnerable democrats in states with large hispanic populations.
I can come up with one: Bill Nelson.
But you know, I would be frankly SHOCKED if this vote caused even him to lose his election....meaning, he would win if he voted yes on Gonzales, but lose by voting no.
We're not going to oppose torture, two full years before the midterms, because it could maybe possibly sort of cause us to drop slightly in the polls?
And we wonder why people think only the Republicans have values. It is this pathetic attitude that has us ceding every vote to win, and losing anyway.
Posted by: Katherine | Jan 24, 2005 2:24:27 AM
Well, y'all are assuming that the Gonzales/torture thing is obvious to everyone. You underestimate all those hundreds and thousands of little goebbelses sitting in the offices of Washington Times, Heritage, AEI, etc, etc, etc.
Like if you don't know that any Senator voting against the little crook will be sodomized with a lightstick and come out as a racist defender of Al-Qaeda.
Resistance is futile. Save yourself, move to Canada.
Posted by: abb1 | Jan 24, 2005 3:31:49 AM
Actually, Glitter, I'd be delighted to see Gonzales defeated. Which is why I'm suggesting that you stick to substantiative matters, and avoid moral posturing on subjects where you've (Democrats, I mean, not you specifically.) lost all credibility.
Oh, and pretendint that Clinton never did anything seriously wrong was part of the defense, so you're STILL defending him to this day.
Torture is your best card, as Republicans generally DO find it offensive, and there isn't a lot of reason to believe Democrats are insincere about opposing torture. Might I suggest another approach, though, which might seem counter-intuitive to you, but which could prove effective? Try having prominent liberals compliment Gonzales, in such a way as to imply that he's not really a conservative. Kennedy, for instance, while attacking him, could "reluctantly admit" that Gonzales' views on gun control are at least reasonable.
See, your opposing Gonzales is a given. It's already discounted. In fact, that YOU oppose him is actually a point in his favor, as it suggests that he's a stronger ideological opponent to the left than he really is. You're not fighting to get Democrats to oppose him, you're fighting to get Republicans to find him objectionable. Because THEY are the ones who matter, much as this distresses you. If Republicans continue to support this nomination, there ain't squat you can do to stop it. You must frame your arguments to appeal to Republican sensibilities, if you hope to win.
Posted by: Brett Bellmore | Jan 24, 2005 6:13:13 AM
As Katherine points out, it might not make sense for democrats to make this the issue they lose the filibuster over, but there is no possible strategic reason for them to vote yes.
So if they vote yes something else is going on.
My natural hypothesis is that the FBI is working for the republicans. The FBI didn't work for Clinton, it didn't help him blackmail republicans into going along with his programs. But it's working for Bush. Chances are, the democrats who vote yes on this topic each have some scandal -- dancing girls, dancing boys, cocaine, bribes, something -- that the republicans can blackmail them for. For that matter, probably most of the republicans do too. We talk like it's party discipline but really it's probably some other sort of discipline entirely. Maybe after they discuss it with each poor shnook and get it all laid out they hire a dominatrix and get photos of her flogging him while he's wearing only a diaper, just to make sure there's no doubt at all just how compromised and submissive and blackmailable he is.
Maybe it's time to hedge our bets. If each of us joins either the Libertarian or the Green party, and we work to bring them together and also encourage them in traditional Democratic values, we might get a party that can win in 2008. Or if not then, in 2010.
Posted by: J Thomas | Jan 24, 2005 8:22:20 AM
