Posted on 02/07/2005 5:27:59 PM PST by RWR8189
Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, intensely ambitious and partisan, was uncharacteristically caught off balance. He had worked so amiably on federal judgeships in his state with Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel that the senator effusively endorsed his nomination as attorney general. Now, weeks later, Schumer was not only criticizing Gonzales but opposing his confirmation.
How did a four-year relationship suddenly sour? There was no revelation about Gonzales causing scales to fall from Schumer's eyes. Instead, the inner circle of Senate Democrats determined that the previously non-controversial Mexican American from Texas would be the prime target of President Bush's second-term nominations. Schumer, caught leaning the wrong way on a party matter, recovered and was one of 35 Democrats (out of 41 present) plus one nominal independent who voted Thursday against Gonzales.
This is confirmation politics, an especially noxious form of partisanship. Unlike the parallel Democratic campaign to block confirmation of conservative judges, there is no effort to prevent non-judicial nominees from taking office. Rather, it spotlights negative Bush issues -- prisoner abuse for Gonzales -- by attacking the failed policy's supposed architect.
The Democrats' course was tipped off Jan. 19 by Sen. Joseph Biden during Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Condoleezza Rice's nomination as secretary of state. Biden, the committee's ranking Democrat, told Rice he would vote for her with "frustration" and "reservation" because "I believe strongly the president is entitled to his Cabinet." Yet, a week later, he opposed Gonzales in committee.
Actually, Biden has a long record of opposing Republican non-judicial nominees. In the elder George Bush's administration, he voted against John Tower for secretary of defense and Robert Gates for CIA director.
Biden's propensity to vote no increased during the second Bush's administration as Senate Democrats, in the minority, used the confirmation process to underline issues. Far from giving the new president the benefit of the doubt, Biden in 2001 voted against John Ashcroft for attorney general, Gale Norton for secretary of the Interior, and Theodore Olson for solicitor general.
The good-natured senator from Delaware was no lonely dissenter. At his side were such senior Democrats as Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Patrick Leahy of Vermont. Sen. Harry Reid, the new minority leader who advocates a less partisan Senate, was a no-voter in every case except support for fellow Westerner Norton at Interior.
Democratic memoranda earlier revealed a coordinated Democratic campaign to derail Bush judges, and Senate sources say the party's stance on Cabinet nominees also is orchestrated. Party leaders decided to use the debate on Rice to rehash Bush's Iraq policy without really opposing her confirmation, but to oppose Gonzales while trying to tie him to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
Of the six Democrats who broke party ranks to vote for Gonzales, five were from "red" states. The sixth was from "blue" Connecticut: Joseph Lieberman, 2000 nominee for vice president and 2004 candidate for the presidential nomination. Freed of national political ambitions, he can be Lieberman again. In the most closely reasoned speech supporting Gonzales, he demolished the case against him.
Lieberman pointed out that the case was based on a Justice Department memo to Gonzales about illegal combatants. "I have to ask myself," Lieberman told the Senate, whether to deny confirmation "because of a memo written by somebody else." As for Gonzales' refusal to tell senators his comments to the president on the memo, Lieberman said, "I respect the right of the counsel of the president to keep private . . . the private counsel he gives to the president."
When I first covered the Senate 45 years ago, confirmation battles were rare. It was considered a stain on the Senate in 1959 when President Dwight Eisenhower's nominee for secretary of commerce was rejected because of one powerful Democratic senator's personal animus. Today, nothing is personal. Bush's 2001 nominees were attacked because of their opinions and his 2005 nominees because of administration policies. The decline of the Senate continues.
Noting recent polls, the decline of the Democrat Party continues unabated!!!
The dems demean themselves. They are a disgrace to the country.
Even 'ol Novack might be on the Bush train before too long. Doubtful, but funnier things have happened.
Coop: Novak demeans journalism.
The Democratic Party doesn't care about demeaning the Senate, or anything else except political power.
First Novak column that I have agreed with completely in a long, long time.
Which is why they so richly deserve to be stripped of it.
Well, there's another election in 2006. Try to encourage good candidates (John Hoeven of North Dakota, for example).
Maybe Novak is beginning to realize that it's a choice between President Bush or these clowns. But I'll believe it when I see it.
And thus the kiss from Bush after the State of the Union address. Lieberman of course will always have differences with the Repubs, but he's basically an honest guy. I'm glad he didn't give up his Senate seat when running with the Goron.
Novak was alluding to Lewis Strauss, 1896-1974, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission from 1953 to 1958, who had removed the security clearance of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and who had antagonized a powerful Senate Democrat, Clinton Anderson of New Mexico. The Democrats had a heavy majority in the Senate at the time of the vote (June 1959) but Strauss lost only narrowly, 46-49. This was the first time since 1925 that the Senate refused to approve a cabinet nomination (the next time was John Tower in 1989).
Schumer. What a POS.
Lieberman, as a Jew, has not been included in the "group" - the socialists, who permeate the dem party...he is on the outside and, I believe, a decent man who loves this country. I think it is very hard for him for him now, being in the midst of a den of traitors....
He's on the outside now, but must have been inside when the Goron picked him for VP, a move that always mystified me. Have the Rats changed so quickly?
agreed - I think they picked him merely to assure the powerful Jewish vote - - but, I must say, I was deeply disappointed when he joined in the shenanigans during that ludicrous time (2000)
Based on which source you use, the percentage of Jews in the US is between 1.3 percent of the population and 2.2 percent. The URLs for these figures are below. So how powerful can the Jewish vote be?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1010/csmimg/amreligions.pdf
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.