Bloodless Coup

my hat is off to the twelve. would that there were more of them.

also, was i the only one once again transported by byrd's comments during debate? he's the last of a breed; it'll be a sad day when he goes.

To me, this may have been Byrd's finest performance in years. He was great. Traditionally, I'm not a fan of his. But on this he was great. It's a shame that he's one of the last voices in DC that believes in accountability and limits on the power of the federal government.

OK, I'll be contrary. I don't particularly like Rice, but I'm not sure she's really unqualified (and , hence, should not be confirmed). She didn't do a very good job (that we know of) at NSC, but neither did she do anything that would or should have prevented her (more than any other figure of the administration) from being confirmed. Save the energy for people that could practically be opposed, not for Rice.

I just value dissent if you think someone is unqualified. I don't buy Feingold's view that the president should be able to name the team they want to work with. That's true to a degree, but if you think the person will be a disaster in office I think the proper thing to do is to vote against him or her. I saw nothing from her service at the NSC to suggest to me that she can effectively run US foreign policy. I haven't seen anything in terms of a coherent policy vision, or remotely passable administrative skills.

But more than that, the degree to which she's less than candid (way, way less than candid) brings up an interesting point. If I was in Bush's shoes I think that would make her a highly valued member of the administration. But if I'm a member of a regulatory body that's supposed to deal with her for the next 4 years - I wouldn't have any faith at all that she'd be remotely honest with me. Given that, I don't think I could approve her nomination.

truly, i think her candor is very much in question. whether at the end of cheney's strong arm, or on her own account, she has played fast and loose with the truth in a transparently political way that's disturbing. so has everyone else in this administration, and would that they were gone too, but she's a devil we know, and one the dems could have fought harder.

even so, i recognize that her confirmation was a fait accompli, thus it was at best an opportunity to make her answer (or dodge) some tough questions. as best i can tell, the dems did that to an appropriate degree. i'm just sorry more didn't vote against her on principle.

I think this is a remarkably slipperly slope. Let's remember that the Reps could have a majority in the Senate next time a Dem is prez. Do you really want to see rejection of large numbers of Dem appointees because the Republicans question their candor and fitness for office? That's a realistic possibility.

if the dem nominees had the sort of documentable reputation condi has for spurning oversight bodies' legitimate inquiries i'd expect nothing less.

i think to suggest this is a slippery slope assumes the premise that everyone nominated for a cabinet position is necessarily a party hack with no integrity. i had no issue with powell, nor would i have had an issue with someone further right who had a history of service beyond reproach. i have an issue with condi, for very specific, very easily identified and articulated reasons. and the fact that her confirmation wasn't unanimous (as, i learned this morning, sec state confirms usually re) testifies more to this, in my opinion, than to an increased quotient of partisan rancor in the senate.