Since my more optimistic friends in the blogosphere are taking the opportunity to thank the 25 Dems who supported the filibuster (at least, since late last week after getting harassed by their base), here’s the list of the Democrats who didn’t support the filibuster.
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Inouye (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Pryor (D-AR)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
What’s the point of having a Democratic Senate when almost half of the caucus (like the 19 listed above) is too afraid of their constituents to do the right thing? Is there any issue these men and women are willing to ignore the polls and fight for? Based on what we’ve seen, we know they aren’t willing to fight to protect freedom of privacy, due process, or checks and balances. These men and women (most of whom voted against Alito, btw) care more about their job security than protecting your personal freedoms. This is the worst form of pandering and the Democratic leadership should keep this list handy if the Democrats accidentally regain the Senate any time soon. Don’t support the party? No committee chairmanship for you.
Speaking of pandering, as much as I love Digby, I’m gonna have to disagree with him on this one :
I keep hearing that it’s bad that these Senators “pandered” to the blogosphere and I don’t understand it. We want them to pander to the blogosphere. In their book Politicians Don’t Pander; Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness Lawrence R. Jacobs and Robert Y. Shapiro argue:
Politicians respond to public opinion, then, but in two quite different ways. In one, politicians assemble information on public opinion to design government policy. This is usually equated with “pandering,” and this is most evident during the relatively short period when presidential elections are imminent. The use of public opinion research here, however, raises a troubling question: why has the derogatory term “pander” been pinned on politicians who respond to public opinion? The answer is revealing: the term is deliberately deployed by politicians, pundits, and other elites to belittle government responsiveness to public opinion and reflects a long-standing fear, uneasiness, and hostility among elites toward popular consent and influence over the affairs of governmentBingo. It isn’t actually pandering. It’s responsiveness.
The difference between pandering and responsiveness is that legitimate responsiveness isn’t patronizing. If Kerry was legitimately moved by the extremity of Alito’s views, he wouldn’t have announced his plan to filibuster at the last minute while he was in Europe. He would have stayed home and tried to gain the support of his fellow Democrats. At the very least, he would have given Harry Reid a phone call. If the red state Dems who voted against cloture really didn’t think Alito was extreme enough to filibuster, they wouldn’t have voted “No” on his confirmation. These weren’t decisions based on conviction, they were attempts to kiss the asses of various segments of the electorate. It’s the sincerity, stupid.
Now I know this next part is going to sound hopelessly naive, but I don’t want a party that’s only able to act in reaction to events on the ground. I want a proactive Democratic party that doesn’t need to be harassed in order to see that Justice Alito is a wingnut. While other bloggers find it refreshing that netroots activists were able to convince 25 Senators to support a filibuster, I’m saddened that trying to block Alito’s confirmation didn’t come as second nature. I thought we had similar values, but if it still takes a massive effort on our part to get this far, then we’re probably just better off pretending to be evangelicals and calling the Republicans. If we’re going to have to get on our knees and beg our Representatives to do the right thing, we might as well beg the people who have the power.
For years now, the Democrats have been promising us that their flip-flopping and brown-nosing was no big deal because they wouldn’t buckle when it came to the big fights. Yet we’ve been tricked into excusing this sort of behavior time and again. You guys supported the Patriot Act, the Iraq War resolution, the Medicare Drug Bill, the President’s tax cuts, the promotion of torture advocate Alberto Gonzales, and now the appointment of two conservative ideologues to the Supreme Court. Sure, a plurality of Dems are usually in the opposition, but when you’ve got Obama supporting “tort reform”, Feinstein supporting the prescription drug debacle, Kerry and Clinton supporting the Iraq war resolution, Feingold voting to confirm John Roberts and almost everybody supporting the Patriot Act, this isn’t something that can just be laid at the feet of the usual suspects like Joe Lieberman. Over and over again we see Democrats support the President’s agenda and we’re supposed to believe everything will magically get better once you guys get into power? If the Democratic-controlled the Senate from mid-2001 to the end of 2002 is any indication, the Dem weakness on the Alito confirmation, the President’s unconstitutional spying program, and the Republican bribery scandal is just business as usual.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
I’m totally with you on this one. I usually agree with Digby, but no matter how you cut it, I can’t be even slightly optimistic about the lifetime appointment of a rightwing nutjob to the Supreme Court. We lost, and we lost big, and it’s because a lot of Democratic Senators were too spineless to take a stand. Where’s the silver lining in that? Just like you said–they promised they wouldn’t buckle on the big fights, but what could be bigger than the control of an entire branch of government? Sigh…
January 31st, 2006 at 2:15 pm
MOTION: From this day forward, every post that has *anything* to do with Congress shall be titled “Will somebody get rid of these people?”
January 31st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
The people touting the bright side comes from their acknowledgement that we at least and at last provoked some action from several party hacks. I’m with half-full crowd and think that eventually these efforts will win us these battles. In short the bright side is that a great deal of the dead weight in our party has been fully exposed, and we’re going to have to replace them, or the entire party, but our voices of reason will win out.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Yeah! How dare they think and vote independently of the Politburo’s diktats? The nerve!
January 31st, 2006 at 2:34 pm
Patrizio, buddy, thanks for stopping by, but I’m not going to let you hijack every thread.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:35 pm
The “Bright side” is that it could have been worse…
Well, forgive me if I don’t cheer then.
The fact that Alito wasn’t shot down as soon as his name was mentioned is bad. The fact that these people who mostly voted against him didn’t have the strength of their convictions to do whatever they could to stop him being put into the Supreme Charade (after all, Bush has said he is more important than everything else) is terrible.
Yes, it’s nice that some Democrats stood up for what they claim to believe in… But what happened to these sorry excuses?
If just sixteen of these nineteen had voted for a filibuster then it would have happened.
I can’t say I’m surprised about Lieberman but what sorry excuse do the others have?
Z.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Patrizio,
Right on! Punishment for disobeying the Politburo’s diktats, ukases, etc. is usually associated with the Republicans.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Patrizio -
25 Senators stood up for civil liberties.
72 Senators rolled over and let our civil liberties be crushed.
The notion that standing up for civil liberties is equivalent to a Soviet system which lacked civil liberties is the worst analogy I’ve seen today.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Two words
VOTE GREEN
January 31st, 2006 at 2:43 pm
It’s not that the Democrats in office are too spineless to take a stand. They are taking a stand - they think voting against Alito (in the final vote where they know he’ll be confirmed) is a public stand for their base, while voting against the filibuster is their actual view.
The problem is that the Senate is currently about 72 right-of-center to right-wing conservatives and about 25 left-of-center to slightly-more-left-of-center liberals. The conservatives have a filibuster-proof majority, and they know it. The Democratic party leaders are split, about 75%-25%, between conservatives and liberals. That’s the problem. The two main parties in the U.S. are both conservative. That’s the problem.
Trying to whip the conservative Democratic Party into some other shape is like trying to make a sword out of butter. It just won’t work, no matter how hard you try. It doesn’t matter how we got to this point, but the only action possible now is to abandon the Democrats entirely and create an actual liberal party. It’s not that difficult. Plenty of parties have been formed and risen to national prominence in U.S. history - the modern Democratic Party was formed in the 1830s, for example. It’s time to dump them.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:52 pm
look, if the democrats who voted for alito suffer chickensh**itis and really will only ever vote with the congressional majority (lieberman), that’s all the more reason we need a blue congress.
ideally, we’d replace the jerks with someone better. but sometimes chickensh**s are the best we’ve got. they’re still better than republicans, who actually WANT our liberty to be taken away.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Yes, I don’t get it either. On Cantwell’s sight she states how Alito is not a good candidate for Supreme Court. Yet she still decides not to join the filibuster and just goes for the no vote. And I saw where Feingold is going after Alberto Gonzales for lying about knowing about the secret spying. Imagine that! Someone in the Bush administration lying?! Gee do ya think Alito was telling the truth? Guess we will just have to wait on that one. Both parties have lost credibility-which is why many true Republicans and Conservatives aren’t happy with their party either (not that you would ever know that by watching the news or listening to talk radio). So yes, until those in Congress actually get a spine, we are all in trouble.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:53 pm
SO true and so to the point they need to pick up there skirts and be men and stand up! I thank you for our good article very nice!
January 31st, 2006 at 2:55 pm
I agree that it is time to abandon the Democratic party. Let it be folded into the Republicans and then they can split into the only major differences they have: the Pro-Life Republicans and the Pro-Choice Republicans. Meanwhile, we can create a new Progressive party which actually will fight for civil rights, not grant corporations anything they want, and not roll over in every meaningful battle. I don’t know how strong such a party would be, but as long as I’m casting losing votes anyway, I’d rather cast one for someone I believe in than someone the party thinks is “electable”.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:18 pm
I read on a lot of liberal blogs that no matter how moderate a red-state senator gets, the fact that they would vote for Democratic leadership lets the Senate/House finally set a more progressive agenda, and of course, have subpeona power.
While I fiendishly relish the chance to see any Bush crony have to answer to someone not in the afterlife, this Alito vote demonstrates that there are really 25 or less Democrats that contain some kind of worthwhile convictions in a type of political battle where a principled stand is probably the most appopriate, since with a lifetime appoitment you can’t erase past mistakes when you are back in power. I’m doubting from this cowardice that there are 45 Senators just itching to initiate a progressive or even center-left agenda once the D count gets to be 51.
I’m trying to think what would be better. 25 strong Democrats who raise hell whenever a conservative agenda that a majority of Americans DON’T support is shoved through Congress, or 45 useless Democrats who as Greg has shown have each taken turns in lending bipartisan support to everything we hate about the Bush administration’s agenda.
I thought after reading this about a line in Kill Bill 2 (sorry if this is too obscure) that those 19 Dems who voted for cloture are about as useful to us as a certain orifice would be on our elbows. These folks should just become R’s already or serve as lobbyists to ensure their state gets pork projects, because there’s nothing principled they are providing to us as Democrats.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:22 pm
By far, the best commentary I’ve read (and, sadly, that includes my own) on the Democrats (non?) response to the takeover of our country. A takeover that required little force, only 19 maniacs willing to take on unarmed pilots and force planes into buildings.
That single violent action against America has led to us allowing an unarmed force of radicals who despice America’s history, values and traditions to begin the shredding of our Constitution, force the loss of civil rights, authorize the spying on innocent Americans and granted the opportunity for the Bushies to steal a second election while using “TERRORISTS” as cover.
I too was uncomfortable reading Digby, because I usually find myself in agreement. But this time, he had it wrong. It’s whistling through the graveyard to pretend that being a member of the Democratic Party has become progressively less Progressive, and quite liberally more Conservative.
If things don’t drastically change, I agree with Bernard Weiner at The Crisis Papers. It’s time for action!
January 31st, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Look, there’s a reason why these folks are career politicians and it isn’t because of their high moral principles. You have to assume that anyone who gets to be a US congressman or state governor or president is pretty corrupt. The difference between Republicans and democrats is mostly hopw that corruption manifests itself, not in whether either really has much moral fiber. The democrats believe the best path to power lies in a balance between socail programs and corporate benefits, the Republicans believe the path to power lies in all corporate benefits, all the time.
However, neither side really wants to upset the applcart and destroy the current system which has brought them such wealth and power. From what I can tell, the Bush administration DOES want to destroy the current system so as to maintain complete control forever.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Yes, I’m unhappy that a lot of Democrats didn’t filibuster Alito.
On the other hand, twenty-five did want to. Versus zero Republicans who wanted to.
Had there been a Democrat majority, there would have been an excellent chance of defeating Alito’s nomination. He might not even have gotten out of the committee.
I can sympathize with the frustration, but I can’t help getting the feeling that suddenly, just as polls are showing that the Democrats have a shot at retaking at least one house - which would allow the investigations to start - that some on the so-called “left” begin feeling an obsessive compulsion to attack the Democrats.
The realistic first step to getting this country on anything resembling a road to sanity, let alone progress, is to get some Republicans out of Washington.
It didn’t even make sense to say that the Democrats were the “same” as the Republicans in 1999. It makes a lot less sense now.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Progressive, liberal change will no longer be effected through government in the US. There’s a possibility that small changes can begin at the extremely local level, but it’s doubtful. We need to stop looking to these people to function as they ought to; and from the looks of our national congressional election statistics (i.e., less than a third of us bother to vote for our hallowed representatives and senators), most of us have already.
And let’s be a little more creative about the function of this NSA / FBI surveillance program. Everyone with a good idea for a business or a product should be swapping cell phones and encrypting emails like crazy. If the government is closed off to those without money, then it’s equally important to prevent the public from making enough money to be able to influence the government. What better way to do this than to track the best and the brightest of the middle class?
Seriously: is anybody under the impression that your phone *isn’t* tapped right now? Combine the president’s program and the Patriot Act and I’ll wager that the entire nation was wired for listening within six months.
It’s not as though small groups of entrepreneurs haven’t met in secret in order to do business in the past. Wasn’t Benjamin Franklin a notable organizer of artisans and tradespeople?
Change begins underground; the internet is far too bright these days.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:52 pm
It’s more than frustration, it’s despair. Despair that enough Democrats have enough political courage to support traditional Democratic values any more. I distinctly remember that when Democrats caved on John Roberts, they promised to put up the good fight if Bush nominated anyone further to the right. Well, true to form Bush did, but once again the Democrats, at least those 19, refused to stand firm. And even those supporting a filibuster didn’t make too much noise about it.
In the 1850’s the Whig party disintegrated because too many of them began haggling with each other over various party issues (especially slavery). They then morphed into the Free-soilers, which became the Republican party. The Democratic party is undergoing a similar slow death, although not because of internal disagreement, but because of too much agreement with the other side (at least by those in control). I’ve given up on these folks. I won’t vote Republican, but I am hopeful that another party can eventually rise up to challenge the right. Think about it; nineteen, OR ALMOST HALF, of the left-leaning Senators refused to do what it takes to keep a guy like Alito off the Supreme Court. We need something different than this.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:54 pm
The Dems asked for my money to fight Bush, protect Roe v. Wade, stop conservative supreme court nominations, etc.
So much for that. I won’t give another penny to a Democrat until they start fighting together.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Gotta disagree on your assessment of Sen. Kerry. He was pushing for a filibuster among his fellow senators all along, and not getting very far til he got the public to start putting pressure on them. It took him a while to make the decision to just go for it and start leading publicly, instead of waiting for Harry Reid to lead the charge, but if he’d been obviously leading the charge 2 weeks earlier, the blogosphere would’ve been full of the usual cant: “Kerry’s such a showboat, he thinks *he’s* leading, when is he going to learn to be a team player, when is Harry Reid going to tell him to sit down and shut up?” I certainly wouldn’t try to get a read-out on Kerry’s convictions based on how long he worked on his fellow senators quietly before he took it to the blogosphere. It’s clear he feels strongly about Alito, and I feel he did a great job of stepping up to the plate under difficult circumstances.
Oh, and as for the fact that he attended one day of the Economic Summit in Switzerland — he also canceled a very prestigious speech in Ireland on Sunday in order to be here over the weekend working on the filibuster. I wouldn’t put too much stock in the right-wing talking point that Kerry’s absence from the U.S. for one day has great significance.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:21 pm
Greg: Well said. There are times when reading the progressive blogs can be an incredibly depressing experience, and watching Digby (and others) gamely attempting to slap lipstick on this particular hog definitely counts as one of those times.
Cast your thoughts back to 2000, gang. Anyone else remember the nonstop screaming abuse directed at Nader for daring to suggest the Dems and Rethugs collude to hold onto power? Much of that abuse exploited the issue of the Supreme Court, and now we see just how much the screamers genuinely intend to live up to their lofty claims now that push comes to shove.
And, yes, for the record: I’m well aware that (1.) Nader’s been walking down the road to Crank-hood since then, (2.) he’s also turned out to have a major case of what we call ‘feet of clay’, and (3.) the Greens have been all but useless. That doesn’t change the fact that much of what ol’ Ralphie said back then was pretty much spot-on. How Democratic apologists can continue deluding themselves by this point is beyond me.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Who says Greens have been useless? We continue to build locals, gain ballot access, and elect people to office.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:26 pm
The bitch here is that way back in the early 1900’s , the two main partys rigged it to make a 3rd party lame. There was a time when a 3rd (or 4th or 5th) party candidate could take his percentage of the vote (say 13%) and throw it behind which ever main party candidate his party felt best represented his constituancy. (Can’t remember what it’s called, any help here?)
This is something that should be brought back and would encourage more voter turnout, less voter apathy, etc… but asking either party to allow it now is like asking them to vote themselves a pay cut, or to limit lobby $$$ (which they also should do) Ain’t gonna’ happen. So much for Democratic principals.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Well said, lifeinhandbasket; given the choice of “no power at all” v. “sharing power with friends” wouldn’t you think the democrats would choose the latter? What POSSIBLE REASON$ could they have for abandoning their principles like this?
January 31st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
I think Proportional Representation is the term you’re looking for Handbasket.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:41 pm
I actually don’t believe a filibuster is appropriate for judicial nominees. This is my opinion because the filibuster is a Senate procedural rule, not a constitutional construction.
Secondly, I feel that Justice O’Conner deserves to retire and to filibuster is inappropriate for her situation and disrespectful to her desire to step down, but remained until her position was filled. Let’s respect Justice O’Conner.
Third, this is a no-win situation for the democrats anyway you slice it. Democrats (me included) after witnessing the incompetence of Michael “Heckuva Job” Brown (ex-FEMA) and the equally incompetent decision to nominate Harriet Miers to replace O’Conner can only hope for a sane, competent jurist to preside. Unfortunately, he has some right-wing ideological baggage…but so do Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts.
Fourth - We just need to move on. If Abortion is abolished, then the Republicans will feel the wrath of the better half of society. I just don’t believe it will.
January 31st, 2006 at 4:52 pm
For those who bemoan the non-stop rightward drift of the Democratic Party, and who yearn for a progressive alternative, please don’t forget the Green Party. As Robb notes, the Greens continue to build locals, gain ballot access, and elect people to office across America… all without a single penny of corporate cash. Hey… how’s the Democratic Party ever gonna notice your disgust (and respond appropriately) if you keep supporting them time and time again?
For those who would rather not leave the Democratic Party, but still want the opportunity to vote for more progressive candidates without “wasting” your vote (and inadvertanly helping the Republicans), please support Instant Runoff Voting. IRV is a simple and constitutional electoral reform that allows you to give your first-choice vote to the guy you love, and your second-choice vote to the guy you kinda like, without worrying about throwing the election to the guy you hate. IRV is in use in Australia, London elects their mayor with IRV, and San Francisco recently adopted IRV for their municipal elections. Greens and progressives have been working for years to bring IRV into voting booths nationwide. Won’t you help?
To learn more about how to end the spoiler dilemma with IRV, check out the Center for Voting and Democracy at www.fairvote.org
January 31st, 2006 at 4:54 pm
Two words: primary challengers! Even if they can’t win, they’ll sure as hell let the Alito Democrats know we’re pissed.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:00 pm
i definitely agree, greg, though i am not quite sure why you are so surprised… these are the same democrats who voted for a whole slew of “free trade” agreements, for welfare “reform,” etc. when they had their man in the white house, and who confirmed clarence thomas when they had a strong control over the senate.
i dont see why anything the democrats do really surprise us anymore… as a whole, they have had no real vision beyond their own self-centered interests for so long now, why would we expect a change?
January 31st, 2006 at 5:04 pm
Thanks for the heads up on IRF Patrick. If we had had that in 2000, Al Gore would now be Prez, we would not be wasting lives and billions in a War purchased with lies, and who knows what the Supreme Court would look like today. Funny how a few thousand votes and butterflys changed the total coarse of American history. (*Sigh*)
January 31st, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Hello All this my first time posting here. I have loved Dan’s work for years. I am glad to see he has a board.
What is amazing is that I just got this email from John Kerry. I’ll post the text then if I can double post give you my responce to it.
Here is the Text:
Yesterday, 25 Democratic Senators joined our effort to filibuster the Alito nomination — that’s more votes to filibuster the Alito nomination than there were votes against Justice Roberts’ nomination itself just a few months ago.
This morning, 42 Senators voted against Alito’s nomination. That’s the highest number of votes against any Supreme Court nominee since Clarence Thomas in 1991.
It’s hard to lose — but it’s important to fight for what we believe in. I want to thank the hundreds of thousands of you who signed our petitions, called your senators, wrote letters to the editor and, most important, refused to stand silent while President Bush worked to pack the highest court in the land with far right ideologues. We fought a fight that needed fighting.
We made sure the nation knew the truth about the Alito nomination. We made sure America heard how a right wing ideological coup sandbagged Harriet Miers’ nomination and replaced her with Judge Alito. No one will be able to say, in five to ten years, that he or she is surprised by the decisions Judge Alito makes from the bench. People who believe in privacy rights, who fight for the rights of the most disadvantaged, who believe in balancing the power between the
President and Congress had to take a stand.
We also made it clear to the Bush administration that no matter what they throw at us in 2006 — whether it’s extreme nominees, special interest giveaways, shortsighted policy or Swift Boat-style attacks against Democratic candidates — we will never surrender. We will always fight back.
Now, we must be clear about something else. Winning the 2006 congressional elections is the only way to change the dangerous path George W. Bush has put us on. We need to defeat those Republicans who have overlooked this administration’s incompetence, turned a blind eye to its failures, and lent a helping hand to its dangerous ideology.
Together, we have to act to make sure 2006 is the year Americans, led by Democrats, stand up to incompetence, cronyism and corruption, take back Congress, and get our nation moving in the right direction again.
I look forward to fighting alongside you.
Sincerely,
John Kerry
What are your thoughts on this?
January 31st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Haha!! LOL @ liberals/progressives who still think that the dems are “their” party!! I’m glad to see that some people in this thread are talking about abandoning them– cuz they’ve sure as hell abandoned YOU, and quite some time ago. The “debate” between Dems and Repugs is exactly the same as the “debate” that takes place before professional wrestling bouts– it’s an act for the benefit of those chumps who are still buying the “two-party” lie. The Dems and Repigs might talk a lot of crap about each other, but behind closed doors, they’re all buddies, and they take their orders from the same people.
There is ONE party in this country– the Conservative Party– and it only pretends to be two parties. Too many liberal/progressives seem to be sticking with the Dems out of some sort of loyalty– well, they’re not your favorite sports team, they’re a bunch of con artists. I mean, seriously, come ON– the Dems ALWAYS BACK DOWN and they ALWAYS LOSE, EVERY TIME there’s a political fight. For ten frigging YEARS this has been the case, time after time after time– you don’t think professional politicians would have caught on by now?? People, they’re LOSING ON PURPOSE.
What makes me shake my head in wonder is how everybody keeps focusing on Dems v. Repugs and buying into the fake debate, and they end up so distracted by all the BS that they don’t notice the inexorable rightward movement of US politics. Or they DO notice it, but they keep telling themselves “It’s OK, we can pick up some seats in the next election…!” “WE??” It isn’t us Dems v. them Repigs– it’s us liberal/progressives v. them politicians. “We” don’t HAVE a party.
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY DOES NOT REPRESENT YOU. That’s really all that needs to be said. Stop looking to them for salvation, because they’re laughing at you just as heartily as Bush is.
And I would be too, honestly, if I didn’t have to live her in the mess that the Two-Headed Conservative Party is making of America.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:18 pm
And another thing– WHO CARES about the make-up of the SCOTUS?? Bush doesn’t listen to them anyway– Checks and Balances are a thing of the past, and he does whatever he wants. Even if we could could make a magic wish and suddenly see the Court packed with “our guys,” it wouldn’t make a difference. The Neo-cons have made already made it clear that the Executive doesn’t have to listen to the other two. They’re irrelevant now– Bush just smirks at them and says “You’re not the boss of me!”
And besides, the Court as it was previously composed, before Thomas and Alito, is the same group of A-holes that installed that fricking USURPER in the first place!! What does it matter if Bush fills the bench with conservative pricks? The SCOTUS was ALREADY corrupt!
January 31st, 2006 at 5:26 pm
Oops, I meant “Roberts,” not “Thomas”.. but you guys probably caught that.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:38 pm
I can’t want until Alito gets to decide who can be the president in 2008. I hope his vote is the deciding factor against the duly elected democrat candidate. On that day, all of the lame democratic senators can go on Fox news and talk about how Alito decided correctly to put in office the republican candidate.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:48 pm
as long as we’re making corrections, I meant IRV… Instant Runoff Voting.
January 31st, 2006 at 5:48 pm
My response to this was to be taken off his email list. I cannot believe that that anyone would spin this into a victory. The glass not half full it is broken.
For those of you saying elect more Democrats, a third party or the Greens might be missing something. Even if this country goes the left. There are 72 firm progressives in the Senate, 300 Progressives in the HOuse, a very liberal President and all of them have huge popular support it won’t matter. Any progressive changes (Examples Single payer health care, more ballot access, Kyoto Treaty, global warming measures, workers rights, woman right to choose, etc, etc, ) will go to the Supreme Court and be ruled as unconstitutional.
Result no changes can happen with all the popular will in the world.
The hope of a silver linning is that maybe now that they don’t have to kiss ass Roberts and/or Alito will become like Brennan, Blackmun, Warren, Souter and become more moderate and even closet libeftists. Is this much of a hope? No! I think that I would rather bet on the lottery or the Detriot Tigers winning the world series than this happening.
I have done my best to work inside the system. I have been involved with the Democrats for a long time. At times, I think I like the rationlizing member of a dyfunctional relationship. If I just stick in there a while longer they will turn around. (Tom if you want to use this as a cartoon please go ahead. A tip of the pen would be nice if you do.)
What is the solution? stick with the Democrats? Join the Republicans and try to change the machine from within? Give up politics? Start a new party? Go to a more Saul Alinsky/Jim Hightower model of action? Help the greens? Revolution? Rebellion? Become a member of the 700 club? Try out for the Vatican bobsled team? I really don’t know I have more questions then answers right now.
(Now see Tom you are not the only one who is verbose.)
January 31st, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Opps that the second sentence in the second apargrraph should read even if there were… . My bad!
Editing is good thing.
January 31st, 2006 at 6:09 pm
“I have done my best to work inside the system. I have been involved with the Democrats for a long time. At times, I think I like the rationlizing member of a dyfunctional relationship.”
I like this metaphor. I posted something similar on another blog’s comment section a few days ago– I said that liberal/progressives who still think the Dems are on their side are like “the ex who can’t let go.” The Dems have moved on with their lives, and the poor lib/progs are busy filling up their answering machines with impassioned pleas for “one more chance.” I said that before the lib/progs resort to stalking their ex (and truthfully, some already HAVE, i think), they should just let go and try to get a grip on reality. IT’S OVER. Accept it, move on. Find another party if there’s another one out there you think represents you. Otherwise emigrate (while you still can).
January 31st, 2006 at 7:33 pm
I got kicked out of another liberal blog site for stating I would not vote Dem again, not donate to any Dem fundraisers. The partisan webowner said he’d let me back in after the Alito vote today [LOL!] but I think I’ve outgrown that blogsite and I won’t be back. By the way, this one seems so much more civil in discourse, no mysogynistic remarks, no namecalling. How pleasant.
They’ve definitely been playing us for patsies. No more. My disappointment has helped me to differentiate, to mature, to become more realistic about my choices. To stop waiting for them to change, to stop paying them, to stop enabling them. To stop letting them control me.
Yet I can’t not vote. My voting strategy will have to change. I shall vote for an obscure candidate as a means to register my protest, rather than vote for a ‘winnable’ politician who always sells out. I would prefer to vote for a ‘women’s party’, if there is one, to drive home the point that I have finally realized how truly disenfranchised and marginalized I apparently am in this country.
January 31st, 2006 at 8:17 pm
here’s an idea: the green party.
January 31st, 2006 at 10:15 pm
If nothing else, we can at least spend the next 25-40 years rubbing his nose in the Doe v Groody decision by labelling him “Judge Shame a Lolita”.
January 31st, 2006 at 11:52 pm
Hey gylangirl– I don’t know whether Mr. Perkins would want me plugging another blog, but check out http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/ … It’s a wonderful, wonderful place, and based on what you said, I think you’d dig it (very feminist, very friendly, very accepting of the fact that the Dems do NOT represent liberal/progressive interests).
And of course, I’m fairly certain Dan would have no issue with people sending readers over there– after all, I only discovered that blog thanks to Bob Harris, whom I only discovered because of THIS site…
January 31st, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Hey, what’s with the italics? I didn’t want that…
February 1st, 2006 at 1:01 am
Here’s another idea, one I e-mailed to Bernard Weiner at The Crisis Papers.
Reclaiming our own country.
I’m not talking about a violent revolt. I’m talking about a Second Declaration Of Independance. Read - really read - the Declaration. We all know the beginning… “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…”
But the part that is more important - that Jefferson ofeten pointed to as a key idea - is this: “…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, [The creation and protcetion of the unalienable rights of mankind] it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
It could be easily done. Set up a website - hosted from outside the U.S., by a government hostile to illegal U.S. spying interests - with a Second Declaration, that would require people to digitally sign their name. If the Document was written properly, it could potentially garner the support of a majority of Americans. When the site reached a large enough number of signators, the Document would be presented to several groups, including the U.S. Government and the United Nations. If the U.S. Government would not then acknowledge the massive problems that have then accumulated within our borders, we - the dissassocited citizens of the U.S. - could then request military intervention in the most disgusting effort to subjugate the will of the people in the history of represenative democracies.
I think this is not only a good idea - but it is one who’s time may be at hand.
Your response - and possibly help in making this happen, if necessary - would be greatly appreciated.
And if the rightie scare socity of Bush Boy wants to scare me by reading this and getting all freaked out, I have but one thing to say: “Bring it on, Monkey Boy.”
February 1st, 2006 at 4:06 am
I am actually in a minority and agree with Joe Holcomb. Yes, I disagree with Alito’s values and general philosophy. However, he is more than qualified, has received the backing from judicial authorities and received high praise from colleagues, regardless of their political backgrounds. I know the knee jerk reaction is to say ‘but he’s a wingnut!’ and I understand that, but I think that when you look into a nomination for the Supreme Court, you have to wonder whether that person has the right background and experience for the job. And as much as it displeases me, I have to admit that Alito ticks those boxes. Of course, as a liberal, I wish someone else had been elected, but I try and wonder, well, what would have happened in the opposite situation?
Imagine that Al Gore or Kerry was president. Imagine that they had nominated someone with great experience in legal issues, as well as impeccable references and high marks from judicial bodies. Now imgaine that this person is a committed liberal. Now obviously, we would all be more than happy for this person to sit at the Supreme Court.
But how would you react if the Reps tried, and maybe even succeeded, to filibuster him? You’d be raging, asking how come someone with such a great experience and talent can be refused an up or down vote. You would say that the Reps may not share his values, but that they have to acknowledge that he’s experienced enough and have the qualities to sit on the Supreme Court. You would be calling it an insult to Democracy to have a President not being able to get a simple yes or no vote on the matter.
And this is my point. The Reps are in control, which is shit, Alito is very much right wing, which is shit. But at the end of the day, I think it’s legitimate that a Conservative president should elect a Conservative judge, and that considering that the guy’s resume is, let’s face it, perfect for the job, a filibuster would not be legitimate. Again, would you think it would be if the situation was reversed?
February 1st, 2006 at 10:10 am
Just making an attempt to turn off the italics, folks…
February 1st, 2006 at 10:44 am
You know, I’m from Arkansas (Deliverance theme plays) and we have TWO DEMOCRATIC Senators that don’t take a stand for diddly. I’m like the other guy that posted. Not a penny nor another vote for these two. I’m sick of so-called ‘progressive Senators’ that won’t take a stand on one damn thing that is progressive. I’d hate to have to vote for a Republican the next time but considering the action I’m seeing from these two, Lincoln and Pryor, what’s the damn difference?