walk all over them with his Attorney general nominee.
What is their problem? Bush can barely get anymore unpopular and the majority want the war ended - but Dem politician still act afraid of him.
Why?
2007-09-23 04:40:28 · 17 answers · asked by Your Teeth or Mine? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Despite being a conservative, Mukasey seems to demonstrate independence and might possibly be a decent Attorney General. The hearings have yet to be held and many Democrats may justifiably feel that despite some of his views, this may be the best nominee that they will have an opportunity to review.
2007-09-23 05:00:45 · answer #1 · answered by tribeca_belle 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Funny how a liberal rights group actually listed Michael Mukasey as a good, fair judge based solely on his track record. Having trouble finding the article for reference. Then I decided that I'm not going to find it for you, tired of doing the legwork for people that don't get the full story before making posts. Mr. Mukasey has shown time and again he believes in the rule of law when making decisions. Yes, he does have conservative background, but has also shown willingness to act independently of the republican party when making decisions. At worst, he'll be in the AG position for about 16 months. New president will shake all that up after the elections. If anyone needs to be taken out and whipped at this point, it's congress. Until they get off their party soap boxes and start working in a more bi-partisan matter, they won't get a whole lot done. Can't wait for the day when a true 3rd party is established and has the clout of the big 2.
2007-09-23 12:03:01 · answer #2 · answered by Rob 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Democratic party as a whole isn't left enough and tolerates conservative submarines and political opportunists who get their panties in a bunch the second they think something will make them unpopular.The GOP is far right and dangerous but the DNC aren't exactly hero's either.
Two party system needs to be abolished.The Democrats couldn't pull this off if there was a credible left wing alternative.The anti war crowd can't go to the GOP so the DNC has their votes locked.There are issue's like that on the right too.The big parties don't feel the pressure.Only voters who ever going to change their vote are moderates so it's normal they cater as much as possible to that middle of the road voter.Their base is locked cos there is no credible alternative
2007-09-23 11:55:45 · answer #3 · answered by justgoodfolk 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The nominee is acceptable to the Democrats as well as the Republicans. Its as simple as that. They have already discounted at least one that Pres. Bush has nominated.
They can't get anything done with the war because they don't have enough votes to over ride a veto. They only need 4 votes and would have had them for some legislation about the war but the Republicans who were going to vote for it backed out due to the Moveon ad.
2007-09-23 11:50:25 · answer #4 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Look at the voting records. Even though the Democrats are the majority, the Republicans stop anything that is brought up. We are stuck with a "do-nothing" Congress until the next election. When the Republicans go on break and return to their home districts, they tell the people they are against the war, but vote differently. Just before the next election they will change their tactics in hopes of getting re-elected and "saying" they take the voters wants and needs to Washington.
2007-09-23 11:50:17 · answer #5 · answered by sensible_man 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Maybe Bush nominated the guy because he knew there would be no major oppostion to him becoming AG.Because he(the nominee) supposedly believes in the rule of law.Whereas Gonzalez only believed in interperting the law for the administrations best interests.Also keep in mind Gonzalez was made AG with the outgoing republican controlled congress/senate!
2007-09-23 11:58:19 · answer #6 · answered by honestamerican 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
They did oppose Ted Olsen. And somebody less partisan and less loyal to Bush got picked instead. I see this as a victory of major consequence. One less crony in a major position of power is a good thing.
2007-09-23 12:16:36 · answer #7 · answered by planksheer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The democrat congress pretty much approves of the guy. It's the republicans who are too happy with the choice. But that of course will all change if the guy supports the President.
2007-09-23 11:48:01 · answer #8 · answered by GoGo Girls 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It's not fear. They know more than they can tell us.
That's why politicians say almost anything, call names, spread unfounded rumors, treat our representatives as "guilty until proved innocent", even act seditiously to get elected.
Once they get in, they become, over a period of weeks, the most informed men and women on the planet.
No wonder so many of them look like flip-floppers! They suddenly discover why their opposition held the positions they did!
President Clinton enraged his base with some of his decisions. President Bush did the same.
They know. And we, in our ignorance, jump up and down and scream about things we really know very little about.
I refuse to join such a mob. I will disagree, dissent, and protest, but I do not have such hubris as to think I am better than our President (any of them).
Bless each of them for doing their best for this country.
2007-09-23 11:51:05 · answer #9 · answered by mckenziecalhoun 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
The democrats are going to let Bush have this one--and its the smart thing to do. You have to pick your battles--and expending political energy and capital on this nomination isn't worth it.
2007-09-23 11:52:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋