The failed "no confidence" vote on Gonzo
Overview
So, the Democrats' attempt to get a "no confidence" vote against General Attorney Gonzales did not make it through the Senate. What waste of time and energy--in at least three ways.
A "no confidence" vote would carry no actual authority.
First of all, even if the vote had succeeded, it would have been almost completely meaningless. The vote would have had absolutely no authority. It could not have directly produced any results. The only vote from the Congress which would have had any actual impact on Gonzo's job status would have been a vote to impeach him--and that has to come from the House, not the Senate. A "no confidence" vote was not going to change Bush's mind one bit. To reiterate, the "no confidence" vote in the Senate was not going to have any direct impact on Gonzales's job.
The Democrats handled the immediate aftermath poorly.
Despite the foregoing analysis, the Democrats had an opportunity to use this "no confidence" vote move as an effective tool in shaping public opinion, but--as usual--they blew it. They could have issued a simple statement along these lines: "Gonzales has lied repeatedly before Congress. Alternatively, his allegedly faulty memory shows he is not capable of running the Department of Justice. He has shown that he is far more interested in political agendas than justice. And yet President Bush refuses to get rid of him. We feel that Gonzales is hurting the country, and we have expressed this to the President repeatedly. We felt like we had to do this to get the President to face reality." This explanation would have accomplished two things: 1) it would have kept the focus on Gonzo's misconduct, and 2) provided a non-whiny reason for seeking the vote. Instead, what did we hear from the Democrats? We heard that a majority of Senators showed they have "no confidence" in Gonzales, that some of them were Republicans, and that no Republicans actually defended Gonzales. All of that is true, but so what? What was needed was a direct response to all the charges that have been made (and will continue to be made) that this was meaningless and a waste of time. What the Dems actually said in the aftermath did not do that.
Strategically, this was a bad move.
Did the Dems need a "no confidence" to keep up the pressure on Gonzales and Bush? NO. Here's a list of things that would keep up that pressure: continue the investigation and hearings on the USA firing and hirings and the politicization of the DoJ; hold press conferences on these matters; write op-ed pieces; go on TV and radio and internet talk shows; send more letters to Bush; etc., etc. While it is true that these options are still open, there is a chance they will not be as effective now. Why? Because the effort to get a "no confidence" vote failed. Instead of pursuing these other efforts, the Democrats chose to try something that would have been no more than a symbolic gesture, and they couldn't even get that accomplished. At best what this has done is produce a "one step forward, two steps back" situation. Whatever momentum had been built up has been lost, and now time and effort has to be spent getting that back to the level it had before the failed vote and explaining why the effort was undertaken in the first place. As a result, the Bush administration and its supporters have an opportunity to criticize and downplay every effort made from now on. That hinders any attempt to influence public opinion on a wider scale.
I think the attempt at a "no confidence" vote was, is, and will continue to be a bad idea. However, if I was going to undertake such an effort, I would not have done so now. I would have waited until I had more evidence of wrongdoing. I would have waited until I had made more public complaints about the whole situation. I would have waited until all Democratic Senators could have been persuaded to show up for the vote. None of the Dem Senators running for President even bothered to leave the campaign trail to show up for this deal. Knowing that 60 votes were needed, the Dems have the slimmest of majorities, and that only a handful of Republicans were going to break ranks, the Dem leadership should have known that getting 60 votes was not going to happen at this time.
All in all, this "no confidence" vote was a gambit that had no chance of succeeding, would have been largely meaningless even if it had succeeded, and has--in my opinion--done nothing to help get rid of Gonzales.
Whoop-dee-damn-doo.
So, the Democrats' attempt to get a "no confidence" vote against General Attorney Gonzales did not make it through the Senate. What waste of time and energy--in at least three ways.
A "no confidence" vote would carry no actual authority.
First of all, even if the vote had succeeded, it would have been almost completely meaningless. The vote would have had absolutely no authority. It could not have directly produced any results. The only vote from the Congress which would have had any actual impact on Gonzo's job status would have been a vote to impeach him--and that has to come from the House, not the Senate. A "no confidence" vote was not going to change Bush's mind one bit. To reiterate, the "no confidence" vote in the Senate was not going to have any direct impact on Gonzales's job.
The Democrats handled the immediate aftermath poorly.
Despite the foregoing analysis, the Democrats had an opportunity to use this "no confidence" vote move as an effective tool in shaping public opinion, but--as usual--they blew it. They could have issued a simple statement along these lines: "Gonzales has lied repeatedly before Congress. Alternatively, his allegedly faulty memory shows he is not capable of running the Department of Justice. He has shown that he is far more interested in political agendas than justice. And yet President Bush refuses to get rid of him. We feel that Gonzales is hurting the country, and we have expressed this to the President repeatedly. We felt like we had to do this to get the President to face reality." This explanation would have accomplished two things: 1) it would have kept the focus on Gonzo's misconduct, and 2) provided a non-whiny reason for seeking the vote. Instead, what did we hear from the Democrats? We heard that a majority of Senators showed they have "no confidence" in Gonzales, that some of them were Republicans, and that no Republicans actually defended Gonzales. All of that is true, but so what? What was needed was a direct response to all the charges that have been made (and will continue to be made) that this was meaningless and a waste of time. What the Dems actually said in the aftermath did not do that.
Strategically, this was a bad move.
Did the Dems need a "no confidence" to keep up the pressure on Gonzales and Bush? NO. Here's a list of things that would keep up that pressure: continue the investigation and hearings on the USA firing and hirings and the politicization of the DoJ; hold press conferences on these matters; write op-ed pieces; go on TV and radio and internet talk shows; send more letters to Bush; etc., etc. While it is true that these options are still open, there is a chance they will not be as effective now. Why? Because the effort to get a "no confidence" vote failed. Instead of pursuing these other efforts, the Democrats chose to try something that would have been no more than a symbolic gesture, and they couldn't even get that accomplished. At best what this has done is produce a "one step forward, two steps back" situation. Whatever momentum had been built up has been lost, and now time and effort has to be spent getting that back to the level it had before the failed vote and explaining why the effort was undertaken in the first place. As a result, the Bush administration and its supporters have an opportunity to criticize and downplay every effort made from now on. That hinders any attempt to influence public opinion on a wider scale.
I think the attempt at a "no confidence" vote was, is, and will continue to be a bad idea. However, if I was going to undertake such an effort, I would not have done so now. I would have waited until I had more evidence of wrongdoing. I would have waited until I had made more public complaints about the whole situation. I would have waited until all Democratic Senators could have been persuaded to show up for the vote. None of the Dem Senators running for President even bothered to leave the campaign trail to show up for this deal. Knowing that 60 votes were needed, the Dems have the slimmest of majorities, and that only a handful of Republicans were going to break ranks, the Dem leadership should have known that getting 60 votes was not going to happen at this time.
All in all, this "no confidence" vote was a gambit that had no chance of succeeding, would have been largely meaningless even if it had succeeded, and has--in my opinion--done nothing to help get rid of Gonzales.
Whoop-dee-damn-doo.
posted by WCharles @ 6/13/2007 07:00:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home