Apparently, Joe Lieberman is feeling the heat. He's reportedly said that a filibuster of Alito is a real possibility. And if Holy Joe is on board with a filibuster, you've got to think virtually all Democrats might be too.Personally, I think the use of the filibuster here is completely warranted. Alito has been less than forthcoming in the testimony before the Judiciary Committee -- dodging questions on everything from his past associations to his present ideology -- and the little light that has shone through has only revealed a jurist with a paleolithic view of civil liberties and a faith in executive power that would've made Henry VIII pause.
Now, there are those on the Democratic side who've argued that the Democrats shouldn't filibuster Alito because it will make the public think they're "obstructionists." Screw that. That is cowardice at its worst, and it's precisely that clutching-the-hanky, what-will-the-neighbors-think? attitude that makes the party look like it has more wusses than a squad of mathletes. The only people who buy the "obstructionist" schtick are those already brainwashed by Faux News. The people in the middle seem to like it when the opposition party actually does a little opposing, as we saw all too well when the Democrats pulled their testicles out of cold storage and defied the president -- stubbornly and successfully -- when he tried to dismantle Social Security.
The filibuster would be a great way to highlight what Alito -- and the president who nominated him -- really believe. As long as the American people are hearing about peripheral crap like Alito's failure to recuse himself in a case or his association with a group of curmudgeons at Princeton, this isn't going anywhere. But take the time to spell out what they want -- a political philosophy that puts the president über alles, pure and simple -- and the American people will sit up and listen.
And it would also do a great job of showing people what the Democrats believe. The government doesn't have the right to ride roughshod over the people's rights and invade their privacy. The government does have a duty to provide equal justice to its people and provide for their safety and security, two things that this administration is pretty horrible at. And in sticking to these principles, the Democrats could show that they do, in fact, have core beliefs that they're willing to fight for, and that they'll fight for ordinary Americans too.
Shut it down, people. Shut it down.
13 comments:
Absolutely. Filibuster the fcuk away. Hell, I'd watch that on C-SPAN -- could you imagine Barbara Boxer on Borkalito with regards to Roe V. Wade and a unitary executive?
Moonbats? I'll show you a goddamn moonbat.
Amen to that. I want to see some hot Obama action.
The upshot of that could well be fewer campaign donations and votes for other Democrats later in the year. I'd hate to see that happen.
While I agree with you that is a risk, I am done playing the game that way. Worrying about donations is particularly weak, and in my opinion unfounded. I'm not sure anybody who actually donates money to the party is going to be anything but invigorated by a display of spine.
The biggest problem is boiling down the message to a no-brainer for the public. Compleate fealty to an executive branch out of control is a good place to start. Alito is a strict destructionist who seems perfectly willing to dismantle the separation of powers and equal branches of our governement, relegating the Congress to the sidelines and the Court to rubber-stamp status.
Fuck 'im. Shut it down.
My ONLY caveat to this strategy is the successful formulation of a good message AND STICKING TO IT! No freelancing on this, different Senators running around with their heads cut off with conflicting messages. And the guys who cannot be out in front? Kennedy and Kerry because they look to kneejerk and Byrd because he's too much of a coot.
Bring out the Durbins, Obamas, and Feingolds please.
I hear what you're saying SWA, but I still think the Dems have to take a stand.
If the problem is that the public isn't going to understand what's going on, then the filibuster -- which is nothing but long speeches -- is a way to get it done. And I'm not saying stress the CAP stuff. If it goes to filibuster, it has to be the Big Issues:
The polling right now shows that a slim majority (52%) think Alito should be confirmed based on what they know and that an even larger majority (lost the %, sorry) think he shouldn't be confirmed if he'd overturn Roe. It seems to me that if the Dems can use the filibuster to convince the American people that Alito is anti-Roe they'll have plenty of support for their stance. The issue of executive power is an even bigger one, I suspect.
If Dems play this right, they might not stop Alito, but they'll make a strong case to the American people that they actually do have convictions, they actually do have the courage to fight for those convictions and, upon closer review, those convictions -- supporting privacy, for instance -- are ones the American people share.
We've had five years of the Democrats being scared of their own shadows. I'm sick of it. If we're not going to oppose, then there's no reason to have the opposition party.
SWA pretty much wrote what I wanted to, but he did it much better and managed to avoid using the word "suckers" (Simpsons reference; not calling any of y'all suckers).
I really think the good guys lost the fight before the hearings even started. I think SWA's description of how most people evaluate the nominees is spot on - they just sorta size him/her up, check out the family, and try to get a sense from the headlines what kind of person he/she is.
Our best chance was to get some troubling headlines on this guy before the hearing (yes, the "framing" thing again), so that people would come to Alito with some doubts already in mind. That didn't happen. When the hearings opened, he was, like SWA said, a guy who seemed to have all the necessary credentials and no borkian red flags.
The hearing itself was a disaster, as far as opposing him goes. This CAP thing just seems petty, and the media, right or wrong, has utterly locked on to the "dems are meanies who make women cry" storyline. Filibustering with that as the backdrop seems like charging into a windmill to me.
Everyone keeps saying "if we can make a 30-second soundbyte of what's wrong with Alito, we can win". The hearings are already over, and I have yet to hear a soundbite. I can think of a soundbite that sounds great to me and other Cspan junkies, but not one that would appeal to regular people. Not to mention the dem criticisms would have to make it past the media filter, no small feat in itself.
I do think dems need to fulfill their role as the opposition party, but I think you have to pick your battles. Would a filibuster of Alito last even a day before it was killed?
The dems should oppose Alito by voting against him. You can still have unity and a clear message, and you'll have the vote to refer to when everyone realize how bad Alito sucks.
The dems should oppose Alito by voting against him. You can still have unity and a clear message, and you'll have the vote to refer to when everyone realize how bad Alito sucks.
At the very least. The Roberts vote was 22 against, so maybe we'll see 35-40 against this time.
I should point out that since I didn't watch one second of the hearings, my strategy might be sort of trapped in a "pre-hearing" fantasy mentality.
Thrillhous is right, if we didn't get any traction during the hearings, that's not a good sign going forward. Message and discipline ARE the biggest Dem Weakness. If the only impact from four days of hearings is the guy's wife crying, that ain't encouraging.
Rass'nfrass'n media...
Another thought I had since my previous post... (commence elitism) I'm not so sure Average Joe gives a shit or understands that the branches of governement are supposed to be equal. I think, they do sort of, but I believe most people really think the President is the most powerful branch, and that's the way it's supposed to be.
Partisan Dems like us, will be excited by a Democratic stand, but arguing against a Unitary Executive Branch will fly over most people's heads or come off as Bush-bashing. It's not, but that's how it will play.
In my mind this Executive power/government reshuffling fight is huge—bigger than Roe—but I'm not sure it can be the lead issue.
I still think it's worth going for, but I will say this: Filibuster or no, any Dem who votes to confirm Alito is dead to me. At least take THAT much of a stand.
Partisan Dems like us, will be excited by a Democratic stand, but arguing against a Unitary Executive Branch will fly over most people's heads or come off as Bush-bashing. It's not, but that's how it will play.
Amen, Mr. F. It would also get rejected by the media types as too boring. If it ain't about a stained dress or a coke can with pubes, it just ain't gonna register.
If it ain't about a stained dress or a coke can with pubes, it just ain't gonna register.
I'm sorry -- I must've zoned out there until you got to the stained dress. What were you saying?
Right back at you, SWA. Well played.
Fart.
You're like school on Saturday -- no class.
And you wonder why even the plumper porn stars aren't interested?
LOL!
Post a Comment