Since losing the majority in the Senate and House of Representatives, Republicans have been sneering at what they call symbolism. They use it as a taunt against the symbolic time lines imposed in the vetoed Iraq funding bill and now they are using it to describe the no-confidence vote against Attorney General Gonzales scheduled today.
The word symbol stands for many things; a token, a sign, an authoritative summary of faith or doctrine, a visible sign of something invisible. The inner workings of the Bush government are the invisible, Republican refusal to examine those inner workings are the visible symbolism that the Republican party believes in. And that is what We the People see the Republican party standing for.
The symbolism of the investigation is the token and sign that represents an attempt at visible accountability. And whether it works or not is irrelevant at this time. Like the harsh winter at Valley Forge, it wasn’t the act, but the symbolism that rallied those soldiers. So, for what it is worth, the Democratic majority passing symbolic reprimands can rally We the People where doing nothing would bring despair.
I realize that, like Paris Hilton, when that Ivory Tower you have been living in is under attack, the urge to scurry into dark places and lay low is overwhelming. But out here in Real World sometimes symbolism is all we have. And the symbol of the Democratic party trying to do something to check the unchecked executive power of George W. Bush is better than winning the Battle of '06 but not claiming the victory.
Perhaps Republicans, holding a majority in all three branches of government, thought that the 2006 election removing them from both the House and the Senate was merely symbolic and not the sign that the People considered them detrimental to their well being. They seem to act that way, especially in the Senate where Senator Jon Kyle (R-AZ) stated that "I’m not going to comment on the kind of job [Gonzales] has done. The vote is whether we should take a vote to express a lack of confidence by the Senate. That’s wrong". Obviously Senator Kyle feels that holding Gonzales to the high standards Clinton’s Attorney General (and nominees) were held to was wrong; but I don’t recall him bravely speaking up for any of them.
We expected the Bushies to uphold any Bush ideology. But Mr. Bush has put himself above the Constitution when he makes this statement in a foreign country (Bulgaria):
"They can have their votes of no-confidence but it’s not going to make a determination about who serves in my government".
Now, that’s the way to spread the message of Democracy since the Constitution clearly states that it is not Mr. Bush’s government at all but he is only a caretaker of the Constitutional government he is supposed to defend. And nowhere in that Constitution will you find the right of the president or commander in chief to make the determination of who is and is not above investigation. It clearly states in Article I who has the authority to approve who serves in the Bush administration and it is not the president!
Besides, if there was some kind of intelligence test (which I assumed "advise and consent" was sort of meant to be) for Bush appointees, every person he appointed would fail the lowest standard because they can’t even remember what their job responsibilities are, what meetings they attend, or what orders they gave.
And Republicans can call it "symbolic" and Bush can call it "political" but the end result is:
It is the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people.
And you can add to that, We the People have no confidence in the Bush administration or those chosen to serve in it. We want them gone; and that is more than symbolism; it is a fact which both parties seem to still be ignoring.