Skip to main content

Update [2005-3-26 11:59:3 by Armando]: From the diaries by Armando.

From the Washington Times:

Sen. Ken Salazar has backed off the position he took during his campaign last year that Democrats should not filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees. Republicans had been counting on Mr. Salazar, a Democrat from Colorado, as a key vote against the filibusters. His defection is a serious blow to the hopes of Senate Republicans who wanted more bipartisan weight behind their "nuclear option" to dislodge filibusters.

Salazar has caught a lot of heat--and rightly so--after endorsing Gonzalez. He also previously advocated an up-or-down vote on the judicial nominees, and the GOP needed him desparately in their attack on the filibuster.

It should also be noted that Salazar, who wrote a letter of support for William G. Myers III, nominated to the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, has since withdrawn his support.

It looks like, given the recent attacks on the judicial system, some on Capitol Hill are thinking maybe the filibuster has been around for a couple hundred years for good reason...

Update [2005-3-26 10:31:15 by georgia10]: I don't think there can be a doubt that he has been under enormous pressure. Perhaps his recent trip to Iraq with Reid gave the two of them some time to look at the bigger picture?

Additionally, he is possibly eyeing the Governor's seat in 2006, which will obviously shape his behavior over the coming months.

Update [2005-3-26 18:45:31 by georgia10]:: As many pointed out below, this article seems a bit fishy, implying a sort of abrupt turnaround. As Luam noted below, on Sept. 27, 2004, Salazar said:
As non-partisan as Salazar might hope to be, what would he do as senator if the Democratic leadership asked him to join a filibuster against a Bush judicial nominee? "I would hope all nominees get up or down votes," Salazar answered. "And the decision on an up-or-down vote should be based on whether or not the president's nominee is qualified for the position." He said a mandatory up-or-down confirmation vote on any nominee within 120 days of the nomination being submitted (an idea that Bush himself has advocated) "is a thoughtful proposal and maybe one that should be pursued."

Is that as clear an opposition to the filibuster as the Times make it out to be?

But Salazar has modified his position somewhat as far back as Feb. 18th, 2005, when he said:
"I think that the powers of the Senate need to be protected, and there are nominees where I think it's appropriate to use a filibuster."

So it seems that the Times article is misleading in its portrayal of an abrupt reversal in position by Salazar. Rather, it appears that Salazar has been gradually backing away from statements made during the campaign which, in and of themselves do not reveal any steadfast position on the issue.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 08:59 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  What I don't understand is... (4.00)
    How could he possibly support any of these judges?  They really are the radical Taliban wing of the GOP.  The Senate already let through probably quite a few that bordered on this description.

    Well at least he has come to his senses on this (or at least it appears he did).

  •  great news if it's true (4.00)
    but is it?

    There was no quote from Salazar,and no attribution that I saw to anyone claiming to know his current thinking.

    •  I agree (none)
      The story is ver strange.  It says Salazar has backed off, but gives no source or quote.  And the story is from the Washington Times.  I couldn't find a source other than this "story".  

      Maybe this story is being put out there, so that pressure will be brought to bear on Salazar so he won't filibuster.

    •  Why?? (none)
      Its the Washington Times...why would you expect things like quotes or attrubution??? Why do you expect standard journalism ethics from them...these things are only required by creditable newspapers like the NY Times or the Washington Post.
      •  Besides, (none)
        Salazar is out with Reid in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East to get an idea of how bad things are out there.

        The only international crime is losing a war

        by Luam on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 09:26:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  well - to ask another question (none)
        why would the Wash Times report this at all?  

        It reads like a pre-emptive strike by the Repubs who are likely the paper's sources, trying to put Salazar on the spot--most of the story focuses on the claim that he has broken an earlier promise not to support filibuster of judicial nominees.

        Put together the lack of attribution with the likely goals of the paper and/or its sources, and there's good reason to be suspicious here.

  •  Another victory for Harry Reid (4.00)
    This is all about politics, not principles. I don't know how Harry did it, but he must have found just the right way to lean on Salazar in order to enforce party discipline.

    With leadership like that, maybe we actually can win back the Congress. And the White House.

    Especially if the Republicans keep stinking it up like they have been the past couple of months...

    It's always the old who lead us to the war, always the young to fall -- Phil Ochs

    by litho on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 07:09:59 AM PST

    •  It does (none)
      feel like the leader had an impact here doesn't it?

      "One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal." Bill Moyers

      by Lahdee on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 07:19:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  fly on the wall (4.00)
      I can just imagine the conversaton: "Hey Senator, would you like to take a little trip with me to Iraq and see what our soldiers are having to deal with?  Give us a little time together to get to know each other.  ;^)  

      My imagination about those conversations is making me smile from ear to ear.  GOOOO REID.  Almost, ALMOST but not quite, makes up for the bankruptcy vote.  That was a down right shame.

      •  Reid to Salazar: (4.00)

         "You know, Senator, politics is a lot like baseball.  One person can excel on his own; but for the team to succeed, everyone must work together as one unit. Everyone has to be pulling together for the same goal. To be successful, you need to be part of a team."

        [Salazar nods his head in agreement.]

        Reid continues: "There is no room for anyone who places himself above the good of the team. There is no room for any stinking, slimy rat who sells out his teammates!" (Ahhh . . . you know the rest)


        Awaiting your calls, Chairman Dean, Senator Reid. Lines are open!

        by BenGoshi on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 08:50:38 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  retake Congress (none)
      Im not familiar with what Salazar said during his election-campaign, but if he did say he would not support filibusters on nominations, and now (after being pressured by the dem leadership) has changed his mind, then Im not sure if thats positive or not in the fight to retake Congress.

      There's more red states than blue states in the country, and alot of the dems in red states get elected by saying they will be an independent voice that wont vote along partylines at all times. If voters start getting the impression that thats just talk, and that once these candidates go to Washington, they will vote with the leadership ... well, then we'll see alot fewer 'red' dems in Congress in the future...

      •  Colorado (none)
        is trending blue, though, and Salazar should know that.

        Put on your jumping shoes, which are intellect and love--Meister Eckhart

        by smusher on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 10:50:54 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (none)
          I was thinking more in general terms.
          Bush carried 31 states in '04 and 30 states in '00. If the democratic party wants to regain the majority in the Senate, they need to win in red states. Alot of red states.

          Now, like it or not, the way to do that is to have democrats that sometime cross party-lines. If red staters get the impression that a vote for the dem Senate-candidate is a vote for Howard Dean or the rest of the dem leadership, then they dont vote democratic.

          Now, if Salazar really did make a promise to vote against filibusters, and now appears to break that promise (after being pressured by leadership), then that strengthen the view that both the democratic and republican party are moving toward a 'national party' (like what they have in for instance most European countries), and if that impression takes hold, then thats bad news for future dem candidates in red states.

      •  Isn't it also possible that (none)
        this latest abomination - the abuse of Terri Schiavo by certain (mostly Republican) Senators and Congressmen  - may have helped firm up Salazar's position?

        I don't believe that he voted with the Repubs did he? And I have to believe that Coloradans are just as appauled by the disgusting politicization of a very personal family matter as people everywhere else, and it just made it easier for Salazar to do what's right.  

        I'm not from Colorado so I don't know the man except what I've read or heard. But if he was feeling pinched between his Democratic party and more conservative voters, I think this matter is enough to show why we need independant-minded and judicious Judges and not extremists. Therefore, fillibuster allows the minority to rein in the excesses of the majority.

  •  Nice to see (none)
    that Salazar may be swearing off the kool aid. Nice also to see that accountability starts at home. Keep paying attention Senator.

    "One of the biggest changes in politics in my lifetime is that the delusional is no longer marginal." Bill Moyers

    by Lahdee on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 07:17:37 AM PST

  •  Salazar Easy for Reid to Turn Into a Democrat (4.00)
    Compared to Lieberman.

    We the undersigned urge you to support Federal funding for research using human pluripotent stem cells. -80 Nobel Laureates to Pres. Bush

    by easong on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 07:33:53 AM PST

  •  It seems Salazar (4.00)
    has recognized which way the wind is blowing.  Sticking with unpopular positions to curry favor with Republicans is not a really smart idea right now, given their current predicament.  If he ever wants Democratic support in the future, he needs to straighten up and fly right.

    Welcome back to the Democratic Party, Senator Salazar!

    A day may come when the courage of men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day -- this day we fight

    by jsmdlawyer on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 07:59:03 AM PST

    •  welcome back? (2.00)
      had you already banned the new senator for from the party?

      he's only been in washington for, let me see, 3 months?

      i'm glad he's now in the filibuster camp (if the story is true).

      it's funny that people on this blog seem to be taking credit for this change.  

      i agree that harry reid deserves a lot of credit for keeping the troops in linve, but maybe just maybe salazar decided on his own that this filibuster was legitimate?

      "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

      by tmendoza on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 09:19:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Attacking that comment (none)
        is marginal.

        "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

        by Armando on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 09:24:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why not take some credit? (none)
        People lobbied the Senator, his constituents you know, and seeing how Kossacks dumped a good chunk of change in his campign kitty to back up their support, it does make a difference when they voice their displeasure to him.

        Freshmen Sneators should not be making waves or bucking their party.  Period.  But Salazar did.

        Democrats should not be voting for torturers, it weakens our moral authority.  But Salazar did.  And more then that, he introduced the prick to the Senate.  I think that was the part that rankled the most.  He physically appeared in conjunction with an advocate of torture, the "man" who said the Geneva Conventions were quaint.  That's more then just a little straying from the fold.

        I'm sure that Leader Reid had more impact on Kenny then Kossacks, but it's all of a part of the responsibilities of his job.  It isn't all about campaign cash and making speeches.

  •  Write a letter, a phone call, or an e-mail (none)
    to show your support!

    People vote for sunshine, not for gloom and doom!

    by missliberties on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 08:13:39 AM PST

  •  for the Filibuster, doesn't that only leave .. (4.00)
    Ben Nelson of Nebraska?

    I must say, while I wish he had a more progressive record, he did vote for ANWR, unlike Mary, and as Kos said on Majority Report, he doesn't bash Dems like Lieberman does, even when aggressively baited by the RWCM.

  •  Former position (4.00)
    The Washington Times claimed that he had promised in a interview in the Rocky Mountain News not the filibuster judges, a promise which his spokesman denies.  I can't find that interview with a quick google...

    He said Mr. Salazar has not taken a position on filibustering any of the nominees and said his boss made no such pledge during the interview with the Rocky Mountain News.

    "I'm not sure how that question was phrased," Mr. Wertz said.

    Whatever Mr. Salazar's position now or then, Republicans had the clear impression they could rely upon him to vote against the filibusters. When Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter publicly counted votes in support of stalled nominees, Mr. Salazar has always been among them.

    Does anyone have access to the Rocky Mountain News archive?  It seems you need to pay for back issues and it would be nice to find out what the quote they are talking about in the Wa Times is.

    The only international crime is losing a war

    by Luam on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 08:40:02 AM PST

    •  I found this from Feb. 2005 (4.00)
      Although he hasn't decided what action to take on Myers, he opposes Republican proposals to do away with Senate filibuster rules and allow all judicial nominations to get up-or-down votes on the floor of the Senate.

      "I think that the powers of the Senate need to be protected, and there are nominees where I think it's appropriate to use a filibuster," Salazar said. He said President Bush could avoid such fights by consulting more closely with senators from both parties before making controversial picks.

      Which, of course, contradicts the Times article.

      Oh, and on a side note, this snarky gem from that same article:

      "People are so outraged. I look at them and say, 'What part of stupid don't you understand?' " said Hicks. "We said during the campaign that he has always been a conservative. He wasn't going to change just because we sent him from one state to D.C."


      •  so shouldn't the title of this article/diary (none)
        be changed in light of that? it's actually more interesting anyway that the right is trying to portray salazar as having backed down from a position he apparently never took. wonder why.

        We get a lot of advice. We tend to listen when somebody's won something. - Joe Lockhart

        by yankeedoodler on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 10:26:30 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  added a question mark (none)
          Does wonders for the ambiguity :)
          •  Found Something... (none)
            Its on from Sept. 27, 2004.

            As non-partisan as Salazar might hope to be, what would he do as senator if the Democratic leadership asked him to join a filibuster against a Bush judicial nominee? "I would hope all nominees get up or down votes," Salazar answered. "And the decision on an up-or-down vote should be based on whether or not the president's nominee is qualified for the position."

            He said a mandatory up-or-down confirmation vote on any nominee within 120 days of the nomination being submitted (an idea that Bush himself has advocated) "is a thoughtful proposal and maybe one that should be pursued."

            That is not quite a campaign promise.  It is an answer to a question.  In fact it is actually a non-answer.  All he has to say is that he doesn't feel that these nominees are qualified for the position...

            The only international crime is losing a war

            by Luam on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 10:55:52 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Could you update with the MSNBC article. (none)
            There are a number of people who read primarily the body of the diary and not the replies.

            Quite frankly, adding a question mark doens't help any.  Some could take it to mean that he hasn't backed down from the no-filibuster position.

            The Washington Times doesn't seem to have their ducks in order...a strong acknowledgement of that is warranted in the main entry, I think...especially, since so many have been ticked at Salazar in the past. No reason to give them a reason to distrust him even more when a right-wing "news"paper really twisted the facts around.

            "Minimize our defensive posture, maximize our offensive posture."--Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)

            by Newsie8200 on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 01:46:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Good point, updated (none)
              Like I mentioned above, I think the Times is trying to make it seem like Salazar suddenly changed his mind and backed out on a campaign promise.

              Me thinks this is meant in part to make him seem less credible since his name is being floated around for Governor and since the Dems themselves are having a bit of infighting in Colorado.

  •  Gosh, We Might Even Want To Keep Democracy... (none)
    What with theocracy not looking so good where it's been tried recently in the Middle East.

    Just a thought....

  •  I donated to Salazar (none)
    He's a rookie, but I think his heart is in the right place. I expect him to represent small family farms and the people of Colorado. In 20 years, I think he might be President.

    Meanwhile, he's feeling his way through the issues that were not a part of his campaign. I'm glad to hear that he's headed forward towards his conscience.

  •  He's still Ken Nighthorse Campbell to me. (none)

    When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

    by The Truffle on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 09:11:18 AM PST

  •  Well (none)
    I don't think Salazar would leave the Senate just after winning his seat.
    •  of course (none)
      But it is still odd that he has left the option of running for Governor on the table.  

      Which, incidently, leads me to what some on the right are making of this Times article.  Over in Freeperville, they are calling to "Impeach the S.O.B. ...I think that can be done in Colorado by having a petition signed by 5 or 10% of the voters who voted in the last election...there should be enough Coors drinkers to do least send those political whores who say one thing to get elected and do another when elected, a very stong message."

      Which made me wonder....did he say explicitly he was against filibuster prior to his election?

      •  A run for Governor... (none)
        ... was his original plan.  The diversion into the Senate was a blow to more than a few Democrats.  Myself included.  His conservative tendencies would serve us well in that seat with his knowledge and interest in water rights and rural issues.  I'm not particularly fond of the man, but I would have busted my ass in his campaign for the Governor's seat.  His interest has always been the good of Colorado.  

        Frankly he doesn't do much for Colorado sitting in the Senate.  And it took out the all-around best candidate for Governor the Dems had.  Now they're floating Hickenlooper because he has such high positives. [shakes head]  I think the Mayor's great but can we give him time to do his work for the City and County first?  Let's not do to him what we did to Salazar.  Let's not pull him off a successful train for short term gain while we blow up the tracks behind us.

        The chips are down. Find your outrage.

        by sj on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 12:47:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  totally (4.00)
      the level of rancor people have toward salazar, is a little disturbing/sad/pathetic.  so the guy helped gonzalez.  that is not so great, but let's let the guy have the benefit of the doubt for a while.

      kossacks love to talk you to death about how that support just legitimizes torture (i'm about to get trolled), but the fact is that torture is the official policy of the usa.  its not gonzalez.  its bush and rumsfeld.  at best, it would have been a symbolic victory to defeat gonzalez.

      so wait a while on salazar.  if he actually does join in on a filibuster then he is fine by me.  if he bails on us, then....

      "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

      by tmendoza on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 09:28:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  to be fair (none)
        It wasn't just Gonzales.

        He also voted to confirm Rice as secretary of state.

        And he also voted for the bill that would limit class-action lawsuits.

        It is not unsurprising then that many have called him Republican-lite, considering these are huge issues that needed full Democratic support.

        •  He's not the only one... (none)
          It's not like it was his vote that allowed these things to pass.

          We have to pick our battles, simply because we are out numbered and the Democratic spin machine is apparently broken or without batteries or something.

          I think the Senators who feel the President can choose his own advisors are right.  And to vote against the hispanic Gonzales would not have sat well.

          So long as he stands firm on the issues where one vote does make the different (ANWR, now the Budget, etc...) then he's alright by me.

          •  But that's the problem, I think (none)
            With the entire Democratic Congress.

            "So long as he stands firm on the issues where one vote does make the different"

            If Salazar was by himself, fine. But what if every Senator were to adopt this attitude?  Then I don't think there would BE that many issues where on vote would make a difference.

            •  actually no (none)
              even if the entire democratic caucus voted against gonzalez and rice they both would have been confirmed.

              i think it would have been a mistake to try and block either in the senate.  we should save the filibuster for judicial nominees and major legislation.  we can't filibuster everything.

              "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

              by tmendoza on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 02:22:22 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're right about (none)
                a perpetual filibuster, it won't work.

                However, my point was not about filibustering, but rather voting as an opposition party on key (controversial) legislation, and in those times, the Democrats need to vote as a bloc.  The class action lawsuits, or the bankruptcy bill....if we start giving a senator here and there a pass, it ultimately dilutes the power of the party.

          •  Senators' votes don't really count? That's BS. (4.00)
            I'm sorry, but I'm really tired of attacks on democracy like yours, especially at kos.  A Senator's vote always counts, whether he's siding with pre-declared "winners" or voting his conscience.  

            Your "pick our battles" rhetoric might be honest when applied to activists and petitioners who could exhaust their funds, but it's really unhealthy for you to imply Senators should only vote their conscience if they think theirs will be the deciding vote that turns the tide.

            He doesn't have to scream himself hoarse or call for a filibuster himself.  He just has to quietly say "Nay" to things he thinks are wrong.  If If he's convinced his vote doesn't count, he can abstain.  If he's 'horse trading' in hope of coralling other Senators on some other vote, we and his constituents deserve some transparency about it.

            Of course Salazar's vote for Gonzales was wrong, and when you claim Gonzales' ethnicity mattered, that's racist.

            That said, it sounds like Salazar is on the right side of this issue, with the Moonie Times struggling to re-spin it as a flipflop.  

            So I'm grateful the party is starting to get traction when it needs it - there might actually be some leaders in there.

            •  a little lame dude (none)
              i think its a little lame to say someone is anti-democracy because he/she disagrees with you on the tactics of a particular vote.  doing so is anti-democratic.

              "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

              by tmendoza on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 02:26:33 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  read it again (none)
                Looks like you didn't read my message.  It was about every vote, and making sure it counts.  The "pick your battles" mantra is a sure way to lose most battles before they start.  A Senator has already won the hardest battle, and should represent us and his conscience for every vote.

                Thanks for translating "Rick Santorum" for us though.  

                "I'd rather have Michael Jackson babysit my kids than leave Rick Santorum alone with my dog."

                •  Wait a second... (none)
                  Picking your battle is not a losing straegy.

                  Look, every Senator should vote the way they feel is right in all cases.  When I say pick your battles, I'm talking about large-scale, filibuster-type battles where it is imparative that every Democrat stick together.  I'm not going to crucify this man because he voted for Gonzales.  I don't care what his reason was.  And like I said, I agree with the Senators who feel the President can pick his own advisors.  That's not where the fight needs to be.

                  Maybe I'd be more angry if the vote was 50-50, but it wasn't.  Let's focus on those votes.  Let the Senators know how we feel about every issue, but something like this needs to be let go.  It's not worth attacking him over.  Let's focus on building support for when it comes down to a showdown on judges or the Budget/ANWR or any number of real issues.

                  Every Senator is not going to vote the way everyone wants them too all the time.  Picking your battles is the only way to be affective - especially in the court of public oppinion.  We don't need to get into a PR battle, because we have every Senator blocking everything the President wants.  Even if they have a reason.  We cannot win a PR battle like that.  We need to get rid of the idea of a "Always say no party".  This is one of those times when it's the best time to let that happen.  It's a non-issue.  Let's focus on the fights we must win, because whether or not Gonzales was AG doesn't change much.  

                  And don't be dumb to think that race doesn't play a factor.  Republican's played the card and people picked up on it.  I've seen a lot of comments from hispanic groups supporting him for that reason.  It's there.  It's sad that it's there, but it's there.  We didn't make it into an issue, they did.  But they did make it into an issue.

                  •  pandering ain't power (none)
                    I don't mean to beat this to death, but you're dead wrong in several respects.

                    Pandering to racism is an ineffective way to exert power or fight racism.  Salazar had (and still has!) a unique opportunity to say he supports good candidates and opposes bad ones regardless of their race.  Instead, he plays the race card and tries to blame others - I didn't think anyone could be more pathetic than Clarence Thomas was in this regard, but Salazar achieved it.

                    Precisely because of race, Salazar has unique chances to influence his colleagues' votes on these issues.  He had an opportunity to say, "Only a supporter of war crimes could support this Latino," and he missed it.  He could even have said, "Senator Lieberman, don't betray the nation's law abiding, honest Latinos with a cynical vote," and it would have been all over the front pages, putting Lieberman, the other 4 Democratic traitors, and even Republican Senator Martinez on the spot.  Silly, he's the only Senator who could vote his conscience without being accused of racism!  Salazar (like Obama) has unique opportunities, responsibilities, and potential credibility in this area, but pandering defeats us all.

                    Would Obama support corrupt black idiot Armstrong Williams over white civil rights activist Tim Wise, because of race?  He's not that stupid.

                    It's past.  Salazar's finally finding his balls.  Let's hope he doesn't miss his next opportunity.

                  •  picking fights is always the way to go (none)
                    in war and politics carefully deciding when to fight is always the best strategy when your side has less power.  

                    if you are a general of a smaller army engaged in a war with a larger force, your best strategy is to avoid engagement until you can maximize your chances for victory.  wait for good ground, good weather, or some intangible that gives you a good chance of winning.

                    harry reid should do the same thing.  he has fewer votes.  he can't fight every battle and hope to win.  he needs to pick the most important fights that he has the best chance of winning.  i don't think cabinet nominations are either very important (in comparison with social security and judges)  or very winnable.  the president should get to appoint who he wants.  it's his executive branch.

                    the judiciary is a different story and much  much more important then say an attorny general nomination.

                    "Rick Santorum is Latin for Asshole."

                    by tmendoza on Sat Apr 09, 2005 at 06:42:49 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Yup (none)
      Waaay to early. Build up a good record serving the people of Colorado, THEN run for Gov. He'll be in a much stronger position to not just win, but be a more effective governor. He could be a key to our Mountain-state strategy.
      •  Salazar and governorship (none)
        There were a lot of Democrats in Colorado who wanted Salazar to run for Governor rather than Senator.  I wonder if he won the governorship, could he appoint Udall for the Senate seat?  Udall stepped aside for Salazar to run this last time.

        Put on your jumping shoes, which are intellect and love--Meister Eckhart

        by smusher on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 10:54:44 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Anybody else............... (4.00)
    skeptical about this story, as suggested by Hprof above?  

    He makes a claim that a Senator has changed his position on a major issue for Democarats.  No source, no confirmation from Salazar or a spokesman.

    Anybody know this reporter?  Some of his recent byline articles from Washington Times:

    Support falters for the 'nuclear option'
    Panel gives nod to Bush judicial nominee
    Reid strategy called 'desperation'
    Democrats threaten shutdown
    Pressure building for national language

    Sounds to me like this reporter is spinning a story.


  •  Still forming my opinion of Salazar (none)
    I've been waiting to form my opinion of Salazar. Campaign rhetoric is one thing, but seeing his actual performance as a Senator is another, and so I've withheld my judgement on him until he had a record to judge.

    While I was disappionted with his vote for Gonzalez, this is certainly a good sign. If his time with Harry Reid is what caused his reversal on the issue of filibuster, this speaks much of Harry Reid, and his effectiveness as the leader of the Democrats. It also says something about Salazar, who will get in line with the party when it is important (not that Gonzalez wasn't important, but hopefully that vote will be an outlier, and not representative of his record).

    BTW, how did he vote on the bankruptcy bill? I think he was one of the ones who cross to the dark side on this one, wasn't he?

    •  Salazar has voted Rethug (none)
      On every money vote.

      He voted to support voter suppression and dodgy elections.

      He voted for incompetence and mendacity by approving Condiliar.

      He voted for torture as official US policy by supporting 'Abu' Gonzales.

      He voted for seriously damaging your right to collect from a major corporation in a class action suit.

      He voted for cloture on the bankruptcy bill.

      He voted for the bankruptcy bill.

      So right now he's 0 for 6 in terms of voting Democrat.

      I don't trust that sorry bastard at all. I think that he'll fuck us over by voting for Meyer's appointment to the bench. He'll fuck us over by voting for John Bolton to be Ambassador to the UN - assuming John makes it out of the Foreign Relations Committee. He'll fuck us over by voting for Negroponte as Head of Intelligence should he make it out of the Intelligence committee. I think he'll vote to fuck us over by voting for whatever Dumbass finally presents as his Social Security plan.

  •  Salazar and judicial nominations (none)
    I thought I remembered reading something about Salazar and the Bush judicial nominations. A quick Google News search gave me this.

    Earlier this month Salazar asked Bush to withdraw the names of the 10 previously nominated judical candidates. It was seen at the time as a blow to Bush.

    I'll take the Moonie paper's claim that he was previously pledging not to filibuster with a kosher-sized grain of salt, until a source appears.

    I've got blisters on my fingers!

    by Elwood Dowd on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 10:07:07 AM PST

    •  I'd Forgotten about that (none)
      Good catch.  He did request that all the re-nominated judges be withdrawn.  That has to have been a testing of the waters.  Since Bush didn't budge an inch it makes it clear that his intention is never to compromise.

      Often the path in the center has its advantages, but bipartisanship is not the same thing as caving into an uncompromising partner.

      The only international crime is losing a war

      by Luam on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 10:11:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fishy (none)
    This story is fishy to me.  I remember during the campaign reporters were trying to get Salazar to commit to not filibuster judges and him not committing.  I also know he has always gotten lots of support from the pro-choice movement and it is hard to see that he would have gotten that support if he was going around saying he would not support filibustering unacceptable judges.  So I think this is a "conversion" from a position he never took.
  •  Well, considering the articles from (none)
    above, it seems as though the Washington Times got the story wrong.

    Salazar doesn't seem to have moved his position anywhere.  He was never in the "no filibuster" position. He's in the rather reasonable "up and down vote only if a candidate is qualified" position, which would only apply in nominations of the moderate type that Presidents Reagan, Bush41, and Clinton often chose to nominate.  Now obviously all three also nominated judges that would satisfy the base of their parties, but I don't see anything wrong with up and down votes in the Senate for even-handed, qualified judges (e.g. like some of clear-minded ones who have ruled in the Schiavo case).  Filibusters should be reserved for the radical right wingnuts, and the clearly unqualified nominations from Bush43.  Considering that one of the more controversial nominations is a guy who practiced law without a law license for several years, the Democrats should just go ahead and paint those judges that they are filibustering as "law breakers who have no business being on the bench."

    "Minimize our defensive posture, maximize our offensive posture."--Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)

    by Newsie8200 on Sat Mar 26, 2005 at 01:43:21 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site