January 19, 2005, Advise and Resent
Ignoring my (rather intelligent and sound) advice, Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry were the only votes against Condolleezza Rice's passing through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a 16-2 margin.
My regular readers are aware that my sentiments toward Dr. Rice are probably comparable only to my sentiments towards the President himself. Disdain would be putting it politely. Outright hatred (at a completely visceral and irrational level at that) would probably be more accurate. But that's not the point.
No matter. Senator Boxer gets a pass, here, and actually, she gets my admiration for tilting at windmills: everyone loves an underdog, and though the late Frank Capra's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is hokey and dated, it still brings tears to myeyes. Good for you, Barbara Boxer. As crazy and ill-conceived as this was-- you go girl.
Ah, but as to that loathsome slug of an excuse for a homo sapien John Kerry (who, DEMOCRATS should hate-- with a passion reserved only for the likes of George W. Bush-- I know I hate him MORE than I hate Bush-- which is almost inconceivable)... as to him, I urge DEMOCRATS to work for his defeat at his next senate election (run a primary challenger, and failing that -- vote for the Republican-- ANY Republican) before his kind of cancer metastasizes (analogy supplied by Unseen Editor; I would have just said "disease spreads") and decimates remaining Democrats and people of good will forever.
Why? The most important senate vote of this generation, that's why. The only time I can think of the United States Congress was actually in a position to stop a war, simply by denying the President the political cover to pull this one off. We really were at a tipping point. A no vote by either house of Congress, and the war would not have happened. (I'm serious.) Instead, the (thankfully ousted) insect of a Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, allowed this matter not only to come to vote despite knowing that no "case for war" existed-- out of fear that he and Democrats would be portrayed as political wimps-- but he and the majority of Democrats then voted to have the war. Senators (and this includes my own two senators, Chuck and St. Hillary), the blood of over a thousand dead Americans is on your hands. We won't even talk about Iraqi blood.
Anyway... who was among that courageous group of 22 senators voting nay? You got it: Barbara Boxer (and to his credit, Linc Chafee (RINO-RI), who voted in support of "Dr." Rice's confirmation today). Ah, but where was John Kerry?
Of course. He voted for the war. Because he knew he was running for President, and he knew he voted against the first Gulf War, and he couldn't take a chance that GWII would go swimmingly and he'd miss out on it.
You see-- John Kerry has no principles save one: John Kerry is always right. This is the arrogance Democrats have been tarred with now for years, but in Kerry's case, it's sincere. Well, we deserved this. We picked him. We picked someone we didn't like-- didn't really even agree with-- because somebody swallowed the kool-aid of "only a war hero can beat Bush."
It made no sense, as the last three presidential elections had been won by draft evaders defeating war heroes-- but when Democrats go into expedience mode, the facts don't seem to get in their way. Howard Dean was craaaaaaaaaaaazeeeeeeeeeee!!!! (He said crazy things, like capturing Saddam Hussein made no God damned difference to the security of this nation, for example, for which John Kerry duly attacked him.) Thank you Iowa. Thank you New Hampshire. Thank you Democrats.
And most of all, thank you John Kerry. Because you helped make Condolleezza Rice everything she is now, including Secretary of State. How DARE you think you can go back on it now. Senator Kerry, you are not fit to spit-polish Al Gore's boots, Sir. You offend me, Sir. If enough other Democrats join me in this feeling, maybe we'll get our parties' soul back, and maybe our party, and our nation, will have some kind of viable future. If not, well... we can look back some day and remember longingly when we had a country and a party that stood for something... once...
Comments
That had a bite to it.
Posted by Thomas Ware at January 19, 2005 11:16 PM
...not sure that I have the same degree of...uh...emotion about the whole thing, but when I started hearing the talk about Kerry positioning himself for a second run for the White house in 2008, I certainly felt that such a scenario would be a make-or-break point for the Democratic party. I'm enough of a political animal to allow a certain amount of craven behavior on the part of political professionals, but I don't believe in "do-overs". Kerry has been afforded his chance at the big prize, and there's no reason to assume that he would manage a second chance any better than he did the first. I'm not a wild-eyed radical progressive, but I won't vote for John Kerry for President again...
Posted by Jack K. at January 20, 2005 12:02 AM
Right about Kerry, the shtunk.
Wrong about Boxer. The only Democrat left with balls. All five foot nothing of her.
Today is a sad day. I tried to watch the proceedings and had to turn it off when Trent Lott began to bloviate about freedom. That was just too much.
Posted by Diana at January 20, 2005 11:48 AM
D--
I think you're missing my point on the pluck shown by Boxer. Right now, I think she should be the Senate Minority Leader. She seems to be the only Democrat in either house of Congress willing to take chances designed to piss off the Imperium that aren't calculated for a presidential run.
If she continues to show this kind of moxie, I will probably try to initiate a "Draft Boxer for President" movement (naysayers ask why?; I say why not?)
My point here is that my advice as to these cabinet appointments is Get out of Bush's way. Bush gets his team: that's the rules. Once in a while, someone gets mau maued-- but that should be a very rare exception. Condi seems to be "law abiding" in her day to day life, and is certainly qualified by experience for the position, even if we all know she will do a piss poor job for exactly the reason she was nominated. But this said, "advice, consent, and shut up". Or at worst, beat her up in questioning, and abstain. Boxer's new-found backbone is welcome and unexpected... but these people are getting confirmed anyway. There are mmore important battles to come where party cohesion and discipline will matter more. Just my opinion.
As to John Kerry... if he wanted to show disgust for "Dr." Rice,, he should have either abstained or gone to the bathroom and asked to be marked "absent" from the vote. It must be hard in the Kerry brain to constantly have to revise history so that you were always right in light of what you later have to correct it for.
Then again, he was a Yale debating champ, and I was not.
But "Boxer comes out Swinging" should be as good a headline for our next Senate Minority Leader (Harry Reid voted Yea on the war; hence he can go f*** himself, as far as I'm concerned).
I can dream, can't I?
Posted by the talking dog at January 20, 2005 2:07 PM
My point here is that my advice as to these cabinet appointments is Get out of Bush's way. Bush gets his team: that's the rules.
The rules? More like "custom and tradition," which in America are pretty thin concepts. If I were a Senator or a Congressman, I would want my "No" vote against Rice and Gonzales recorded for posterity. I am the worst strategist on the planet, so the strategy of "getting out of Bush's way" baffles me. It's like letting a drunk drive get behind the wheel of a car, the thinking being that odds are he'll kill himself en route and then the roads will once again be safe. An awful lot of collateral damage can occur during the trip, though.
Posted by Grace Nearing at January 20, 2005 7:03 PM
If Boxer shouldn't be able to vote "no" then they shouldn't have a vote at all. What's the point of voting?
She's doing the right thing by opposing this disgraceful nomination.
BTW she voted against the war, unlike Kerry, the shtunk.
Posted by Diana at January 20, 2005 11:15 PM
GN--
Note my next post, re: the reason why, strategically, "getting out of Bush's way" on cabinet appointments (I didn't say judges- especially supreme court judges-- though those challenges should be used... "judiciously"!...), but obstructionism for its own sake IS A BAD HABIT, and only reinforces the rap on Dems (led by Kerry... and Hillary...) that we don't stand FOR anything-- just AGAINST Bush. The more cohesive we can be WHEN NECESSARY-- and pissing on COndi right now is NOT NECESSARY (the backup is probably WOlfowitz)-- the better...
D--
What do I have to do to tell you I'm DELIGHTED with Boxer's "no" vote on Condi? With Wellstone dead and Feingold quiet and Pelosi feckless, we need SOMEONE willing to step up and throw PRINCIPLED bombs, and if it's going to be Barbara B., then I'm jiggy with that. My point is that since the Dems would ultimately cave on a fillibuster here, there's not much point in staging one. But if some individual members (who didn't vote FOR the war) want to express their disgust, then by all means...
Posted by the talking dog at January 21, 2005 10:44 AM