Feinstein Warns Against Alito Filibuster

Feinstein Warns Against Alito Filibuster

Jan 15, 12:44 PM (ET)

By HOPE YEN

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.

"I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.

"If there's a filibuster of this man based on his qualifications, there would be a huge backlash in this country," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. He is one of 14 centrist senators who defused the Senate's showdown over judicial filibusters last year, saying such a tactic is justified only under extraordinary circumstances.


More here: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060115/D8F58K600.html

Diane Feinstein, no less.

Damn! :mad:

People might even think that we have an opposition party.

what is? This man broke a promice to recuse himself in cases that involved Vanguard...then broke his promice. His decision, which favored Vanguard was a clear conflict of interests, a breach of ethics and should be enough th have him thrown out of the postiton he now holds. Do we care about ethics at all?

problems of her own vis a vis her husbands venture capital firm and other companies that have Defense Contracts with the DoD, Pentagon and the Military.

Alito must not be filibustered. I got the picture.

His perverted view of the Constitution is why he doesn't belong on the court. It's not just a matter of Feinstein's opinion.

She's another sell-out.

I couldn't get through on the phone, but I will when her office is open again.

No joke! She is acting like such a sell-out.

EVERYBODY PHONE AND EMAIL HER!!!

Let her know that the vast majority of Americans do not want Alito as a judge.

Sue

I'm tired of this rubbish what will the voters think? OUR voters want some action!

Look, I don't like Alito either. He's clearly a pretty extreme right winger and will possibly tilt the balance of the court so far to the right as to be completely out of the mainstream. BUT, I don't think the Democrats can win public support for the filibuster because, lets face it, the Republicans won this political battle. The Democrats tried to stir up controversy with the CAP thing, the Vanguard thing, and the Executive Power thing, but none of it stuck. So what do they do? Belligerently filibuster anyway?

I'm actually not against that course of action, believe it or not. I think that even though the Democrats won't have public support for the filibuster, the Republicans also won't have public support for the nuclear option. So it would force quite a showdown in the Senate, and if the Democrats had their ducks in a row it could really hurt the Republicans. But, I also fully admit that its quite possible a filibuster would blow up in the faces of Democrats.

So when a Senator like Feinstein says she opposes the filibuster, I don't jump all over her because I think thats a completely legitimate viewpoint. It doesn't mean she has sold it, it means that she is being pragmatic, and there is a place for that.

Anyway, this talk of a filibuster is really pretty pointless, IMO, because the fact is that Democrats don't have 40 votes for it. Had they come up with something that really resonated against Alito the story might be different, but you can't just ignore reality because you don't like it.

She doesn't care about the people she is supposed to represent, she cares about the vast amount of money her husband is pulling in from defense contracts.. There is nothing to defend, the women, and her family are war profiteers.. She sold us out for the money! Alito is a racist, a bigot, and a liar.. Anyone that would allow that filth on the bench has no business in our party!

You are right, its hard to see how she can be a true democrat.

The alito nomination was one of the criteria I was using to test the democrats. I will call her office on Monday to confirm this, and if it is confirmed NOT only will she NOT get my vote in November, but neither will the DNC

I will then change my party affiliation to independent, and start working for individual progressive candidates

The democratic party as a whole no longer represents me

If you say that NOT recusing yourself about Vanguard, when you promised to, and lying on your application about your affiliation in a racist group, makes someone qualified to be in the supreme court, then senator feinstein, you standards are trash

For some reason, they seem to hate that.

If Finkstien isn't doing her job to your liking, offer to take it from her and do it yourself- raise your hand and nominate yourself as a candidate who can represent the "opposition party" as a REAL opposition party and not an "endorsement thru silence" party like may Dem reps have become. Were I in your district and found someone like you who presented an alternative to this, you would have my support. I sincerely believe I am not alone with this idea.

In short- don't leave the party- change it.

ps- thanks for letting me vent...

I plan on sending my senator a letter asking for his support of a filibuster. I cannot wait for his reaction!

She is nothing but a Republican Lite bitch who is married to a rich corporate pig. No wonder she's a traitor.

excellent point

Anyone else out there getting sick of this, she lost my vote, and let's vote for a third party crap.

Just leave already, I'm sure the Free Republic website will take you in.

How did that third party work out in 2000. I can't vote for Gore, he is the same as Bush.

Do you feel stupid, yet? I think the diffence in Gore and Bush is striking.

So back a third party and bring us eight more years of Bush. Sounds like a great plan.

Better yet, run for Senator and you can fillibuster all day. Sure is easy to spout how you would be different, sitting home on a computer.

Democrats are nothing but whiners. NO ACTION, JUST WHINING. And I mean US.

If she doesn't represent her constituents, she gets tossed. And if she has a Dem challenger in this upcoming election, that might just happen.

Idiocy like the loyalist nonsense from the poster you replied to is one of the many reasons I became an independent.

If Dem politicos (especially war profiteers like Feinstein) don't support US, why the HELL should we support THEM?

but DiFi is the most popular elected official in CA. Thus, it appears that represents she constituents very well.

that CA Dems seriously considered as a challenger to Arnieboy during the recall.

of votes received in the 2004 election.

The only way I want Boxer leaving the Senate is if she can be in the White House.

And also note this. The supposedly "overwhelmingly Republican" district here in San Diego that has been putting in Duke Cunningham over the years to congress, also voted a majority of its votes to re-elect Barbara Boxer last election. She IS a popular senator, and not just with the "liberal left" that some folks try to make her out to be.

Feinstein also needs to understand that though she's being told that there will be a "backlash" against Dems if they fillibuster Alito, there also will be a backlash from the Democratic Base against those that don't fillibuster or vote no too (which the corporate media doesn't want them to understand). Look at what's happening to Liebermann now! It will come her way soon too if she keeps acting like a DINO or a Republican-Lite senator instead of the Democrat that this state wants and needs.

I will either give to an opposition Dem, or to the Green. I will not donate, time, money, or votes to someone that doesn't represent me. That's still the ONE freedom I have.

after residing in this state for 50 years and counting, she absolutely is not "the most popular elected official." I'm afraid you're working on outdated information.

CA has always had more than it's share of progressives (thank the goddess) and a WHOLE lot of us turned against her when she voted for the war. Remember, this is her first election since that vote. I've no doubt she will be the Democratic nominee -- Torres is in the pockets of the DLC and will make sure challengers are, er, "discouraged." But if a suitable progressive third-party candidate comes along, I can foresee Diane running for her Senatorial life against the third-party and the Republican candidates.

And if it's close or DiFi loses, it's nobody's fault but hers. She had chance after chance to do the right thing and time after time she went with the "safe" vote. We'll see in 2006 how "safe" those votes really were.

And one more thing. Might I suggesting attempting to think beyond a one-dimensional level? Posts on DU should be better than that.

this poll from September clearly demonstrates her popularity. Among Democrats, there is 77% - 14% split with respect to those favoring her re-election vs. those who do not.

Unless 2 or 3 million conservative christians have moved to CA since September, she is still the most popular Dem in CA.

http://field.com/fieldpollonline/subscribers/RLS2170.pdf

"among Democrats." Never understimate the number of progressives in this state. Most have been fed up with Feinstein since her pro-War vote and have no problem voting for, donating to and working for a more progressive alternative. IF there is a viable, progressive, third-party candidate, opposition votes will be from TWO directions, resulting in a closer race for "DiFi."

There are other "ifs" as well. Let's say the Greens run a REALLY great candidate and the Republicans run a pro-life, MOR candidate. She's in trouble.

Polls cannot possibly take into account the unknown variables and should not be used in place of actual debate.

(he knows he will be crushed) so it is clear to me that DiFi will be elected to her 4th term in the Senate.

Thanks to the Greens we have Bush, but CA Dems are not going to let the Greens give us a GOP senator.

You need to thank the SCOTUS and then you need to thank a limp campaign from Kerry and DIEBOLD.

I suppose the blame can be shared.

The long and the short of is clear to anyone examining the election returns. Nader and the Greens gave us Bush.

refuse to impeach dictator Bush.

The Supreme Court gave us Bush, and not one single Democratic Senator stood up in support of the House Democrats' challenge to the Florida Electoral College votes.

The cowardice of the Democrats and their failure to act as an opposition party is what has brought us to this mess.

Thank G-d for people like John Conyers, Dennis Kucinich, Russ Feingold, and Al Gore.

to run candidates in any election they choose. But to claim that they did not cost Democrats the 2000 election is to ignore the fundamentals of that election. Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida. The difference between Bush & Gore was 537 votes. You do the math.

As far as the IWR goes—I blame the entire congress for granting its power to declare ware to one miniature minded individual. Furthermore, to blame Democrats for not impeaching Bush is nonsensical. What do you propose? That they take over the government by bringing M-16’s with them to the house floor?

That renders null and void ALL of Nader's support in FL.

That, plus the THEFT OF THE ELECTION, refutes your argument.

Are locked into a chronic state of denial?

Your post confuses me. Are you claiming they did, or asking?

If the latter - evidence?

Who are the pro-fascists?

You're on this website and don't realize that?

I guess weren't paying attention in history class.

You guys are so transparent.

if 538 out of 97,488 Greens would have voted for Gore in FL, we wouldn't be having this debate.

And you don't need any tin foil to figure that one out.

Either you're what I suspect, or you're so uninformed you don't even realize that the very website you're on was formed as a protest against the very real, very documented election fraud of 2000.

I mean, shit, it's only in the About section. Maybe you should read what you're implicitly agreeing with when you sign up at a website, eh?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Vote third party when we're IN power. Progress comes in small steps. Let's take whatever we can get and elect moderate Dems before we go all out to get the flaming socialists in office. I want flaming socialists in office as much as anyone else, but you can't just jump the Democratic ship and expect third-party candidates to start winning.

This is Republican bullshit in Dem clothing.

She does this with EVERYTHING THAT MATTERS.

I'm not a socialist, but Senator Feinstein pisses me off like no one else.

If we want to take the party back, we need to drive her out in in shame.

They better realize there are much worse things to fear than Republican backlash.

Us!

The parrots are squawking, but Alito is NOT A DONE DEAL!!!

It's about whether the Democratic party as it now exists can be fixed. It's possible that only a complete collapse - a la the Whigs - will ever solve the inherent problem that the modern Democratic party is full of cowards and mercenaries.

California IS a bellweather state. If enough progressives actually vote their conscience, we can have a Green candidate. What do you think that would show the rest of the country? It would be a progressive tidal wave sweeping the country. A chance for real change! The DLC would either be history, or be forced to listen to us. I will no longer jump off the cliff just because the DLC tells me to.

People must think about 06 and 08! Threats of filibustering will only add to problems that Progressives do not need. The GOP should be the only party that is creating its own troubles right now.:headbang:

Let the recriminations begin!

What the Democratic Party needs right now is a concerted campaign to devour their own.

Instead of realizing that politics is a game of compromise, especially compromises that require you to hold your nose, we should stick to unyielding principle, damn the consequences. Here's to losing 7 out of the next ten Presidential elections because we can't build a coalition.

KICK HER SORRY ASS OUT!

I'm a woman, and I CHEERED when Kennedy told her to be quiet, at Alito's Hearling.

fascists, but not bitch please.. ;)

C'mon man. The answer is to get MORE dems in office so were not in situations like this going forward. Feinstein is THE holdout according to Kennedy's office. The DNC opposes the Alito nomination.

Can you elaborate?

I don't have a link, sorry.

:hi:

WELCOME!

crap.........
Some opposition party!

I hope some runs against her in the primary. I'm sick and tired of this DINO.

she will NOT get my vote

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but to anyone who has a clue, that a vote in favor of Alito's confirmation is a vote to establish a despot ruler, virtually ignoring the will of Congress on matters that go to the core of our democracy, will care very much - and do consider this an End All/Be All issue.

And we'll never ever get "our message" through to the media under such a regime.

Do you want to live with "days like this" for decades to come?

a moderate Santa Clara County Republican like Steve Poizner - or Tom Campbell. Try Darrell Issa or Dan Lundgren or Duncan Hunter or Tom McClintock or Rich Pombo (ok - Pombo represents some Santa Clara County districts -BFD).

She will win whether she filibusters or not. She is not doing this just to be re-elected. I have to wonder exactly how she would define "extraoridnary circumstances."

So far no democrats has had the nerve to challenge her.

Fuck Feinstein.

What can you you do, support the Green anti-war, pro-choice alternative, Todd Chretien?
In an election where there is no serious Republican opposition to her?

in a world of her own. She hasn't been a Democrat for a long time. The death of our country is directly in her hands. Well, sit yourself down, Ms. Feinstein, and let the others do it.

The end of the world is because of Diane Feinstein. What are they serving in the campaign.

I would put the problem with Democrats that sit here and bitch while our votes are stolen.

We are the problem, People. We have done nothing to stop this. Until we get the votes, what do you think will happen. Bush will be Bush and the Democrats will fight with what they have. Which is NOT A WHOLE FREAKING LOT. So until we can organize. Until we can go over the Bush media machine. Nothing will change. And getting a third part to get the ususal 1% of the vote, and swing a race to the Republican candidate, is not really a good idea.

to read or ignore my unending posts about our privatized vote and the myth that we can vote somewhat out in certain states or precincts.

Telling someone what they should do (take a valium) is a very typical directive that I encountered when I participated on other blogs. It is very tiresome to read what other people think everyone else should do in their attempt to shut them down or take a superior position. On the other hand, the posts are interesting when people ask for help and others genuinely respond.

Everyone take a valium, just not you.

And sorry the world ending will be blamed on Feinstein. But where are the great liberal radical leaders. Don't seem to be getting elected. No they just sit at home and bitch. Me, as well. And no I am not new here, have been here since day one. Just don't think saying all day, yeah, Bush lied, Dems are pussies, we are screwed accomplishes anything. Where are the ideas. We have no Senate, House, White House, Media. What the hell can be done about this.

NO MATTER WHAT THE DEMS DO THE MEDIA WILL ATTACK THEM?

HOW THE HELL DO WE GET PAST THIS?

ORGANIZE, ORAGANIZE ORGANIZE

to Scalito. One pundit said Kennedy's office should have attacked him on one issue like affirmative action, Biden's office on another like the Princeton CAP, etc. Instead, they went at Judge Incognito in very disorganized way and no one seemed to have any compelling evidence against him except that he's a conservative.

However, it seems to be blame the democrats day instead of lets mobilize to make the party powerful enough to be an actual counterforce to the republicans.

the grassroots get it. Our Congresspersons don't. Why do we have to chose these people to stand in the primaries. Many of them haven't proved that they are capable of representating us.

and do you possibly think with Alito on the court when we have all the proof nessessary ..he would rule against these filthy neo cons??

pleaseeeeeeee.....

we did get the votes..and if you didn't notice we had more dems working on the election last year than i can ever remember in my 54 years!

fly

come back in fashion

to lay out what she thinks the penalties should be if reversed. Does the doctor, building landlord, female, parent all go to jail if someone receives an abortion should abortions become a federal (or state) illegal act? No one says what the outcome is. It is something that could burden us financially in yet another form.

Would she consider making it a law for Christians only? - since only Christians appear to want this 'il=legalized'.

What does she think about the Federalist Society pursuing this on a State level? Would she welcome no-abortion laws for CA?

Would she welcome a clause in the naturalization process that a new citizens would sign an addendum to their application that they forfeit all attempts at an abortion and are willing to be deported if they do it.

Ridiculous - yes, because the invasion of the womb is ridiculous.

No one EVER talks about the practicalities of reversing it and containing it and penalizing it and all the fingers of cost and lawsuits and defenses it would entail.

I want her to talk about that because it is inevitable that Alito would vote for reversal. You can tell it in your gut. Someday, if voted in, you may hear people placing Alito's name ahead of Scalia and Thomas in their severity of right deciding rulings.

Why would she care about what happens to younger women?

she's my senator too.

...that blocking Alito through a filibuster would stop the Bushies from nominating someone worse next time. (And there are worse, believe me.) They have three more years to keep throwing nutjobs up against the wall. One of them will stick.

While the Dems blow their wad on Alito, NSA wiretaps, dirty Pug money, Iran and Syria wars can all fly under the radar.

The Dems should begin now to develop the memes of "the Imperial PResidency", "Culture of Corruption", "Bankrupting America", to take down this group of clowns where they are weak.

If they can vote him down in a clean vote, more power to them. It would remove the "partisan" excuse. But a filibuster would play right into the Pugs 2006 campaign strategy.

And it's the reason that the Dems have lost 6 congressional elections in a row- and are bucking for a 7th.

The Dems have ALL the issues on their side here- especially dishonesty and corruption. And you're saying punt (for the umpteenth time), look ineffectual and demoralize the base?

The LACK of a filibuster is what plays into the Republican strategy. It makes the Dems look cowardly and weak. AGAIN.

...the Dems lose because they have no "spine" where it counts. They fight intense battles that are meaningless, and disappear in battles that mean something. (Remember the Patriot Act?)

They walk from election reform and public financing of campaigns, two easily definable and popular issues, and raise the flag over divisive social issues. Remember Mayor Newsome's "courageous" stand on gay marriage. Now there's a winner! Whose game does that play into?

If the Democrats hit home on issues that are supported by the majority of people and are critical to people's daily lives, they would win elections.

They should be talking about and proposing real solutions to health care costs, loss of liberty, lack of justice, crony capitalism, ending the Iraq quagmire, the decline of morality, one party rule, spiraling deficits, domestic job loss. These are the issues that are on people's minds. If they could narrow it to the "logo" of "liberty and justice for all", they would tie it all up in a nice package that everyone could identify with and understand.

The Cons are counting on a filibuster. They have already set it up. They would knock it out of the park. The country would see it as obstructionist in a bad way, not a good way. Good obstructionism is when President Clinton faced off the Republican Congress over the ballooning spending. He shut down budgetary process. They blinked. It made Clinton look strong, resolute, and most importantly fiscally responsible.

It's time that the Dems break the loser pattern or they will lose again. If they want to defeat Alitio, they should do it with the up or down vote. A filibuster would be political suicide.

You don't defeat an entrenched enemy by doing what the enemy expects. You do it with surprise and well-crafted strategy and tactics. As the Democrats showed in the confirmation hearings, they are far from both. The only one who scored was Kennedy with the line of questioning about the Alito's notions of the unitary executive and the broadening of executive power. That even had conservatives cheering. Then everyone else, quite predictably, dropped the ball, droning on about "stare decisis", taking 20 minutes to ask a 30 second question.

These Dems are either clueless or quislings. The Republican party is handing the 2006 midterms to them on a platter. But the Dems are too stupid to take it.

Again, that's loser talk.

Did the public punish the Republicans for shutting down congress or blocking Clinton's nominations OVER and OVER?

No- they kept and/or increased their majority every time.

When Dole was the minority leader in 93-95 he (unlike the hapless Harry Reid) blocked all sorts of things via filibuster and any other means he could find. With only 41 Republicans! :evilfrown:

Did the American people call him obstructionist. Maybe. But they rewarded him with the House & Senate the very next election.

This obstructionist bullshit is intimidating and EXACTLY what the Republicans want the Dems to do and think. It makes them look weak and disorganized.

Who's going to trust a party like that with leadership?

NT!

I just don't believe filibustering Alito would be a winning strategy. MAYBE, MAYBE people would say "well at least the Dems are standing for something" and respect the party even if they don't agree with the move, but I think its MUCH more likely that it would completely blow up in their faces.

That's what apologists say every single time the Dems won't fight- Every single time.

How many times does that make now? I dunno. I lost count.

Really? Where? Would you please cite some evidence that that's the case? Because I SURE as hell don't see it happening, at all.

In fact, it's clear that the Republicans' real strategy is to continue to thwart a filibuster through the 'Gang of 14' deal, whereby they DON'T EVEN HAVE TO THREATEN TO USE THE NUKE OPTION. Instead, so-called 'moderate Republicans' declare that they don't feel that a filibuster would be justified. Though the matter isn't stated this way in news reportage, what they're really expressing is a threat to vote to end a filibuster by changing the rule. But that threat is now masked by the 'Gang of 14' arrangement.

This strategy strongly suggests that the Republicans DON'T wish to be put in the position of creating the spectacle of making the rule change before the eyes of the nation. They've already, in effect, taken away the Democrats' ability to filibuster effectively, as the Dems would have been able to do under these exact circumstances, IF the nuke option hadn't been put on the table, and secured with the '14' deal. Clearly, the Republicans LIKE having the Democrats just lie down and mutter, rather than having them take action that would gain the attention of the public.

Also, the fake-moderate Republicans in the '14' are plainly serving the wants of the hard-right Republican leadership in taking this course. After all, part of the specifications made at the time the '14' deal was announced was that the bipartisan 'gang' wished to encourage the president to consult with the Senate prior to making a choice for a nomination -- which was NOT done, so we can now conclude that that didn't really mean shit. Furthermore, Alito is undeniably a hard-right and highly political jurist -- the 'movement conservative' which hard-right lobbies insisted upon when they sought successfully to 86 Harriet Miers.

IF the Republicans wished to 'lure' Democrats into filibustering because that would (as you claim, on the basis of nuthin') offend the public and doom the Democrats in '06, the so-called moderates would NOT be announcing that they oppose a filibuster beforehand -- because a filibuster, with the nuke option on the table, can only succeed if enough moderate Republicans refuse to vote for the nuke to keep the 'yeas' under 51.

Unless you think that the 'moderate' Republicans are good-heartedly trying to SAVE the Democrats from making a supposed fatal error...

...the Republicans win because they set themselves up in no lose situations.

This is the basis of succesful risk management. If you leave your opponent with only losing options, you have "won" no matter which option they take. This is what "framing" is all about.

The gang of 14 nonsense which you cite is Framing 101. No matter which option the Dems take, they have been politically flanked. The Cons have forced them to do battle on their turf. It is like asking the question "would you rather die of lethal injection or firing squad?" The correct response is to punch the clown asking you the question in the nose before he finishes the sentence.

Bush won the last election through a fairly obvious rig job. He is going to select the next Supreme Court justice. You either make the annointed jerkwad odious enough to both Bush haters as well as Bush lovers through your line of questioning, or you fold your tent. This is what was done with Harriet Miers. That was a successful strategy. Both sides opposed her. But Reid supplied the mouse trap early on with his "thumbs up" to Bush's obvious tactical blunder. He set Bush up to lose by choosing Miers in the first place. Reid defined the field of battle.

The worst scenario for the Republicans at this point would be to lose 51-49. Then, not only does Bush look weak, but they can't claim Democratic "obstructionism." The best scenario for the Cons would be for the Dems to try to filibuster and fail(...and they would.) Then the R's could claim the Dems tried to be "obstructionists" to this "fine man" but they couldn't even convince all the Dems to vote against him. Even if the Dems filibustered Alito and succeeded, the R's would claim that he was Borked, that the Dems are out of touch with the mainstream, that they were "cruel" to Mrs. Alito, that they don't have the votes so they filibustered instead, that they wouldn't give him an "up or down" vote,,,blah blah blah...

I can write the talking points myself.

And what does that do...It takes the light and heat of the growing corruption scandal, off the constitutional crisis over the NSA wiretaps, off the growing debacle in Iraq, off Iran and Syrian warplans in the pipe. In other words, the classic bait and switch of Con distraction has a wide open playing field. Touchdown!

And Bush nominates Janice Rogers Brown or Pickering to the bench. Game, Set, Match...

At some point, when you have gotten your ass kicked time and time again, maybe its time to think differently.

Define the rules of engagement. Define your battles. Define your battlefield. Filibuster is defense. Learn to play offense. Attack where the enemy is weak, where they don't expect it.

Maybe then, we'll stop getting our butt kicked...

Alito lied to the first confirmation committee he faced when he said he would recuse himself if there were a case in which he had a conflict of interest. When the Vanguard case came before him, in which he had a financial interest he did not recuse himself. That, in fact is cause for impeachment, not just the lie to congress, but also the fact that he violated bar rules in the case by sitting in judgement of a case in which he would profit from his decision.

But it would require that Dems have the congress. And frankly, I believe that the Alito confirmation will determine whether the Democrat Party lives or dies. Stand up and they'll have the support of the grass roots. Give in and they will lose much of the support they had in 2004 and will fade into the mists of history.

Too bad. America....a good idea while it lasted. Some of us will miss it.

I'm fucking sick of this shit.

In 1998, immediately in the aftermath of the Republican lewinsky overreach, the Senate was a draw and Dems picked up 5 seats in the House in a midterm election in which Dems should have lost seats:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/11/04/reaction/

In '96 Dems lost 2 net seats in the Senate and picked up 2 in the House. That's a split.

In '98 Dems broke even in the Senate, despite defending many more seats than the Repubs during an off-year election, and they picked up 5 in the House. That's a win.

In '00, Dems picked up 4 Senate seats and 2 House seats (and won the popular presidential vote). That's a win.

In '02 we lost 2 in the Senate and 4 in the House and in '04 we lost 4 in the Senate and 3 in the House.

This looks worse than it is because the two elections that we actually lost have been the last two so they're more recent in our memories. We're set up for significant gains in '06 (oh God, please help us, here come the Diebold Doom and Gloomers from the basement in 4-3-2-1 seconds...)

One year from now pundits will be writing obituaries for the Republican party just like they regularly did during the '90s and they did for the Democrats this time last year. One long-term, structural advantage we have is that the Dems we do have are far more liberal on average than they were a decade or two ago, now that the Blue Dogs have died out and been replaced by Republicans.

We're in much better shape than people think; the worst thing we could do would be to start eating our own--it's the Republicans turn to do that.

A few seats here or there does not a victory make.

Do they control one or both houses of Congress- or do they not. That's where the line is drawn.

As we've seen- close means nothing.

6 times in a row- the Dems have been shut out, and look at the price.

If "a few seats here or there does not a victory make" then gawddurnit, the Repubs have been shut out five in a row. What silliness. They control the House because of the '94 blowout. Blowouts are rare and there are those who feel we have the chance for one in '06 (or at least a mini-blowout big enough to grab back control of the House). Just so we're clear, the definition of Democratic victory (at least from 1996 to current) is a blowout. The Dems need 15 seats in the House to take it back over--if we get 14 it won't be a victory according to you.

They control the Senate because they've won the last two elections. Before that we controlled it for almost two years after Jeffords switched. So even by your disingenous standard, we had control up until the '02 elections.

So are you going to keep spouting nonsense or could you possibly do the unthinkable and admit that this is not nearly as clearcut as you're arguing?

I'm sorry to be blunt but it seems that you and all the other Multiple Last Straw Dramatics (That's it! I'm leaving if they don't do X and they'll never get my vote again!--Yeah, right) have an irrational take on politics. We must get back control of the Congress (implying both tacit approval and understanding of the underlying ugly truth of politics) and to do so we must be pure like the driven snow (implying the exact opposite).

Control of the House or the Senate is. Close doesn't count.

If events of the last 12 years haven't taught you that, I don't know what will.

1) You're wrong according to your own internal logic: the Dems controlled the Senate for almost two years. Therefore we have not been shut out for six elections. How did we get that victory--by popular reaction to Republican overreach, IMO. If you've got a better opinion, let's hear it. But no more of this refusal to admit that we haven't lost six in a row.

2) Your internal logic is illogical. Let's apply your def'n of victory to the following scenario: We win fourteen seats in the House in '06, leaving us in the minority by the thinnest of margins. We win two seats in '08, leaving us with the thinnest of majorities. We win 5 Senate seats in '06 despite defending many more seats than the Republicans; we are left in the minority by the thinnest of margins. In '08, we win one seat, despite the Republicans defending many more seats than the Democrats, leaving us with control of the Senate by the thinnest margin. According to your def'n, the '06 elections would be a Republican victory and the '08 would be a Democratic victory. The '06 elections would be yet another occasion for Democrats to cry in their beer and mourn their ineffectiveness.

Any logical analyst of the above hypothetical would recognize the '06 as the crucial, tide-turning victory on which the '08 takeover was based but, hey, what's a little logic when we've got a dumb, dogmatic point to defend.

Let's try another hypothetical and try answering honestly: What number of net seats would you take for '06 knowing what we know now? In other words, if you could wake up the day after the '06 election with the Dems having won 14 House seats and 5 Senate seats, would you take it?

You're perfectly welcome to have your own def'n of victory but it is externally illogical to put it mildly. If you can get some defenders, I'll take it more seriously. Will anyone here defend your def'ns?

Edited for clarity.
Edited again for clarity and promised to check spelling from now on.

If we are still afraid of being called "partisan" or what the Republicans might say, we are lost already. At this point, we are fighting for the future of our country, not just our party.

"save it for next time" is a recursive loop, and any computer jockey knows that that's what made Ctrl+Alt+Delete functions so vital!
Besides, I thought Alito WAS the "big one," or will it always be in the future: "Jam yesterday, and jam tomorrow, but never jam today."

There's no reason not to fight, and EVERY reason to fight, this racist liar of a nominee.

If you're willing to let him in based on some mythical future battle that must be fought but won't be when it comes up, I pity you.

I wish she'd run for governor and get her corrupt and counter-productive ass out of the Senate.

She's detrimental to the party- and any chance they have of EVER becoming relevant again in national politics. If I were in California, I'd be voting for the Green party candidate this year for sure

I found Lindsey Graham warning against a filibuster, but not Feinstein.

made the statement on Blitzer's show this morning. There's probably a transcript up by now.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/le.html

I'll believe it when I see it, and in the meantime I'll wonder if the Feinstein warning occurred during Blitzer, why didn't this story mention that?

The reporter suckered a lot of people.

The Dems have one more chance to show that they have principles. This is IT!
If you don't show the American people that the party stands for something, the people will have no reason to vote for the party.

Literally. If he gets to the court, it's over. Our country ... our democracy ... our future ... kiss it all goodbye! :cry: :scared: :grr:

Alito is going to be confirmed. What are the advantages of a filibuster?

Fight until you have no other options. I'm not necessarily expecting the Dems to win, but the question is why DON'T they fillibuster. The following excuses seem to be given:

1) It won't do any good. He's going to get nominated anyway:

If the Dems took this attitude towards every bit of business in congress, then why do they even go to the congress at all! Why don't they just stay home. It's about negotiation and playing hardball at times to force the others' hands!

2) There will be too much of a backlash against those that fillibuster:

I think that this is a distortion foisted on us by the corporate press that more Americans would switch votes away from Democrats if they supported a fillibuster than if they did do a fillibuster. There are some voters that won't vote for a Democrat in any case. They shouldn't be counted in this poll. The ones that would vote for Dems I believe are more likely to vote against Dems that don't do fillibustering than ones that do. They want someone in office that fights for their own values and positions, not someone that's constantly knuckling under. This is all B.S.

3) Doing a fillibuster will cause the Republicans to go nuclear and shut down fillibustering as an option.

Well, if we don't ever fillibuster (and this seems like a special case circumstance situation if there ever was one), then what's the point of worrying about whether the nuclear option is used enough. If we're too slapped around to even use the fillibuster for anything, then what's the point of even worrying about a nuclear option. AND, if they do go nuclear on fillibustering of Supreme Court nominees, then one can do a wider fillibuster of other Senate business too and basically shut the government down until negotiation happens. The Republicans will think twice of going nuclear on other Senate business than court nominations. Going nuclear on court nominations won't have any adverse effect on them until at least 2008 (if and when a Dem gets elected president then), but nixing the fillibuster on other Senate business (where the Senate itself authors bills), will potentially hurt them after 2006 if and when the Dems control the Senate then. I say we call their bluff on this!

4) Doing a fillibuster is not in good principles of Democracy.

It certainly is. The public needs to be reminded why this rule exists to start with. The Dems elected to the Senate actually represent a majority of citizens in this country (they just happen to represent larger states). The fillibuster is a means for the "majority minority" to prevent an oppressive "minority majority" from ramming legislation through that is against the interests of a majority of Americans that they would represent. Going nuclear would be in effect, anti-Democratic (and we're not just talking anti-Democratic Party here).

5) Only the Dems are doing fillibusters and trying to use it for court nominees.

The Republicans should be reminded that it was THEIR party that first used the fillibuster on a supreme court nominee when they fillibustered LBJ's nomination of Abe Fortas to Chief Justice of Supreme Court. There IS precedent and THEY set it!

6) Doing the fillibuster will sidetrack the senate from giving more priority and attention to other issues

Tell me, what is more important NOW than voting in or out someone that will stand in the supreme court of our land for the rest of most of our lifetimes! Priorities in my mind dictate we pay attention to this and get it right. Now I do agree that getting the president impeached may be as or more important than this. But it is NOT going to happen now like this nomination is. Stopping the war in Iraq is also important, as well as many other issues, but how many of them have a timetable like this one does that needs to have them addressed NOW! Supporing Alito going onto the court too will likely make it that much harder to solve these other issues too, with a more packed court standing in their way. This IS the most important issue now!

Now tell me, are there any OTHER reasons not to do a fillibuster?

What the hell is Feinstein talking about? We're talking about what he's going to do on the court!!!!

Goerring had an even demeanor at Nuremberg....Gimme a break

then a tie goes to the filibuster route IMO. I think politicians use these hearings, which aren't that useful since the change of strategy after Bork, to cover themselves.

It's about our system itself. Wake up, for God's sake! You "might disagree" with the continuance of our democratic system as we know it, but Alito's qualified, so it's okay???

it's about being worthy! :eyes: :grr:

to their surprise. The dem "leadership" is counting on a Bush backlash for the spying and corruption. But the polls don't indicate that the spying is a big deal. The sheep are more worried about being "protected". As far as corruption, people think that all
politicians are corrupt, so that's a draw. I voted for DiFi each time, but I would vote
3rd party this time because of my opposition to the war.

I am thinking that the dems will lose more votes than they think to 3rd party anti-war candidates and gain far fewer votes from the middle because of the weak-knee handling of the Alito confirmation ( they have been all bark and no fight so far, people will see that).

All in all, so far '06 is not shaping up well with this weak "leadership". Just my thought.

In which races are 3rd party anti-war candidates running and how are they polling? And the moderate part of the electorate is going to vote against the Dems because of their "weak-knee handling of the Alito confirmation"? Are you kidding? The public doesn't give two shakes about Alito--that's the whole point.

In generic party preference polling, Dems are way outpolling the Repubs. We've got a bunch of war vet candidates running in Republican districts, we've got Repubs jumping ship, we've got Repubs being investigated, we've got Dems out polling and out fundraising Repubs across the board.

We'll win '06. The only question is how much.

I did not claim that the Dems would win. I said they won't do as well as they think and that the Republicans will continue their sweep. I think the dems will lose more than they gain. I, like many others, will vote my conscience and if the DINOs lose to Republicans, then to bad. At least I will be voting for a candidate that reflects my views. The blind fealty of some people here that will vote only a label is as bad as FReeperLand.

People may not care about Alito, but strong liberals do. And they care about the war. In a battle where every vote counts 3rd parties will be decisive. Not for the 3rd party itself, but for one of the two major parties.

My opinion of your opinion is that pulled your prognosis straight out of your nether-regions.

You did not in fact "claim that the Dems would win." You claimed that they might lose big. That's the nonsense part. The Dems are not going to lose big, they are going to win and quite possibly win big.

"People may not care about Alito, but strong liberals do. And they care about the war. In a battle where every vote counts 3rd parties will be decisive. Not for the 3rd party itself, but for one of the two major parties."

Speaking of FReeperLand--substitute the word "Schialvo" for "Alito" and the sentence could have been pulled straight from FR. And I would love for Repubs to be as purity-driven as you want the Dems to be.

As for blind loyalty, that's actually a fair criticism. I should make it clear that I'd rather have someone more liberal in office than Feinstein and that by supporting her rather than a more liberal 3rd-party candidate I'm making a difficult choice. I don't deny the existence of the dilemma and I don't mean to poo-poo (speaking of my nether-regions) your dilemma.

As far as my prognosis being pulled straight out of my nether-regions, well, hell, you're probably right there. That's where I do some of my best thinking.

up.

I responded to specifics aspects of your response. I granted one of your points (or one aspect of it) and responded to a scatalogical reference with self-deferential humor in an attempt to find common ground during an argument. That's what grown-ups do.

"You claimed that they might lose big. That's the nonsense part." I never said the democrats would lose big. I expressed my concern that the democrats would not do as
well as they think, that they are likely to lose votes from liberals like me for every middle ground vote that they gain. That is my position. You do not appear to follow the english language very well. All you do is constantly repeat your "opinion" for whatever that is worth. It is redundant.

Here's your post in its entirety:

"Actually I'm starting to believe that the dems will lose big in '06 much
to their surprise. The dem "leadership" is counting on a Bush backlash for the spying and corruption. But the polls don't indicate that the spying is a big deal. The sheep are more worried about being "protected". As far as corruption, people think that all
politicians are corrupt, so that's a draw. I voted for DiFi each time, but I would vote
3rd party this time because of my opposition to the war.

I am thinking that the dems will lose more votes than they think to 3rd party anti-war candidates and gain far fewer votes from the middle because of the weak-knee handling of the Alito confirmation ( they have been all bark and no fight so far, people will see that).

All in all, so far '06 is not shaping up well with this weak "leadership". Just my thought."

And now here was my response to your response in its entirety:

"Yep, that's what you said and it's nonsense.
You did not in fact "claim that the Dems would win." You claimed that they might lose big. That's the nonsense part. The Dems are not going to lose big, they are going to win and quite possibly win big.

"People may not care about Alito, but strong liberals do. And they care about the war. In a battle where every vote counts 3rd parties will be decisive. Not for the 3rd party itself, but for one of the two major parties."

Speaking of FReeperLand--substitute the word "Schialvo" for "Alito" and the sentence could have been pulled straight from FR. And I would love for Repubs to be as purity-driven as you want the Dems to be.

As for blind loyalty, that's actually a fair criticism. I should make it clear that I'd rather have someone more liberal in office than Feinstein and that by supporting her rather than a more liberal 3rd-party candidate I'm making a difficult choice. I don't deny the existence of the dilemma and I don't mean to poo-poo (speaking of my nether-regions) your dilemma.

As far as my prognosis being pulled straight out of my nether-regions, well, hell, you're probably right there. That's where I do some of my best thinking."


As you can see, you clearly predicted the Dems might lose big in the subject line of your post. And as you can see from my response, I did in fact do more than reiterate my point. I did all of the things that I earlier stated that I did and do not want to reiterate here for fear of being accused again of excessive reiteration and I know how you feel about that.

my concerns "nonsense" and I consider your constantly reiterated point "rubbish." Are you happy?

:sarcasm:

She only thinks Bush is in the wrong party! :evilfrown: We don't want another backlash against the President do we?

!#%@

How much money has your husband made on the war, you war profiteer?

going to hurt the democrats in any way? Let alone cause a "huge backlash in this country"?

When the hell are the democrats going to wake up and realize that they would pay no political price in saying NO to bush's insane demands?

Following is the text of an email I have just sent to her:

Sen. Feinstein:

I am writing to you, to express my extreme disappointment that you have spoken out against a filibuster on the nomination of Samuel Alito to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

Specifically, you said: "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster. This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

Sen. Feinstein, there are several issues at work, which do indeed make the nomination of Samuel Alito filibusterable.

First, the Vanguard case. As you very well know, he promised the Senate during previous confirmation hearings, that as a judge he would recuse himself from any cases involving Vanguard. And you know that he failed to live up to that promise.

I was very disappointed when Sen. Chuck Grassley told Judge Alito not to "lose any sleep" over the fact that he lied to the Senate, and failed to recuse himself from the Vanguard case. I find it unacceptable that a United States Senator would tell a nominee for the Supreme Court to not "lose any sleep" over having lied to the Senate about recusing himself from certain cases.

Secondly, I believe that the issue of Judge Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton (CAP) makes his nomination filibusterable.

As you are well aware, Judge Alito bragged about his membership in CAP when he applied for a job in the Reagan Administration. During his confirmation hearings, he disassociated himself from the organization, and said he did not subscribe to their views.

If Judge Alito joined an organization without knowing full well what the organization was all about, but subsequently bragged about his membership in the organization to get a job in a conservative Administration, that clearly calls into question his integrity. Did he falsify a federal job application simply to gain employment?

Thirdly, I believe what makes Judge Alito's nomination filibusterable, is his failure to fully disclose his views on vital issues. He refused to say how he would have ruled on Bush v. Gore, a case that obviously has already come before the Supreme Court. He refused to answer whether or not he thought Roe v. Wade was the settled law of the land, a question that John G. Roberts answered during this confirmation hearings. He also refused to answer whether he thought an innocent person had a right not to be executed.

Sen. Feinstein, one of your colleagues, Sen. Arlen Specter, published a book in 2000 entitled Passion For Truth. In that book, he wrote:
“The Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate’s expressed views.”

I'd also like to remind you, Senator, that contrary to the talking points of many Republicans, and George Bush himself, the President of the United States is NOT entitled to an up or down vote on any nominee.

Sen. Feinstein, because I am not a constituent of yours, I do not expect to get a response to this message. But I felt compelled to write to you today. As a resident of the District of Columbia, I pay federal taxes just like every other American citizen. However, I have no representation in the United States Senate. I have no Senator from the District of Columbia, working on behalf of my interests, who I can write to and urge to vote against Samuel Alito.

Yet, if Judge Alito is confirmed, the decisions he makes on the Court will affect me just like they affect other American citizens who do have representation in the Senate.

Lastly, I am afraid that many Democrats are resisting a filibuster of Samuel Alito, for political expediency (fear of backlash from certain constituents). I believe many Senators know filibustering Judge Alito's nomination is the right thing to do, but fear backlash.

So I would like to leave you with these words from Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., and urge you to filibuster Samuel Alito.

"On some positions, cowardice asks the question, is it expedient? And then expedience comes along and asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? Conscience asks the question, is it right? There comes a time when one must take the position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must do it because conscience tells him it is right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Several months ago there was a thread on DU about he husband getting a generous gov. contract in the defense industry. Feinstein is no Dem. Her head can be turned in the direction of the $$$.

industry bought her votes on file sharing. with alito on the court you can kiss any freedom we have on the internet good-bye

and quit pretending.

If this is her stand, she is next to worthless.

Really, folks - I think some of y'all are getting sucked into the GOP corporate media machine...

Feinstein said "I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster" and *by golly* you are making her statement come true!

She did not say:
"I warm against a filibuster" or
"I recommend against a filibuster" or
"I will not support a filibuster"

She said she didn't think it was likely -- well, THE LIKELIHOOD COULD CHANGE

Alito "Not a DONE DEAL"

Alito Failed the Test, Senators Say

:kick: :kick: :kick: :kick: :kick:

from Sen. Kennedy's staffers. :(

I'm SHOCKED....
.
.
.
No, Really....

Shocked I tell you....... not

.
.
.
(sigh)
.
.
.
.
.
.

"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans,
family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."--- Senator Paul Wellstone

Kay Bailey Hutcheson
or
Diane Feinstein
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.HAH!!!!! TRICK QUESTION!!!!!!!!
They BOTH are!!!!

Graham, we do know she's walzing with Zell Miller.

Screw her!

Isn't she pro-war also?

As long as her husband keeps pulling in the :evilgrin: $$$$$$$BIG BUCKS$$$$$$$:evilgrin:
for defense contracts she will be pro-war!

We need to open their eyes to the REAL Danger. Backlash if they FAIL to give 100% to the fight. Make it crystal clear that capitulation to fascists is a risk they can’t afford, unless they really want to face primary opponents willing fight and demand Impeachment or recall petitions for dereliction of their duty to protect and defend our constitutional democracy.

Nothing the Dems (and rational repubs) fear -- smear, "backlash," whatever -- compares to the fears the members of our military must overcome to do their jobs.

We expect the men and women of our armed services to risk life and limb to protect our constitutional democracy. We can expect no less of our elected officials.

The parrots are squawking, but Alito is NOT A DONE DEAL!!!

The actual grassroots bush* supporters (ALL of them) rally at the Mall in a HUGH effort to turn out Conservative supporters from across the country!


On the other hand, the PAID Republican Media Operatives have done a fabulous job making Americans believe that there is IN FACT a backlash (snicker). The CorpoMedia Talking Heads (AND Diane Feinstein) deserve a little something extra in their envelops this week!

everything---Roe v Wade, affirmative action, presidential power

Feinstein is a wimp, but it is Graham that warned against a Backlash.

Feinstein just indicated she didn't think one would happen. She's a weasel, and must be straightened out or replaced, but she is not as big a weasel as they are making her out to be.

But, it is all part of the squawking.

Alito is on record as supporting expanded presidential powers. Feinstein needs to reconsider her position. His answer to her question in the hearing was not enough.



And here is a WaPo article on his views that Feinstein should re-read:


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/04/AR2005110401861.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=146536&mesg_id=148694

And, more on why we MUST reject Alito and the fascist fantasy that Bush's actions can possibly be anything BUT abuses of power.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=146536&mesg_id=149936

I do not care at this point who my vote goes for as long as she doesn't get it. If some repub gets it, that's fine as long as we get rid of the so-called "centrists" and "moderates" who keep crippling the party.

Is it any wonder that Bush starts getting a beating after the likes of Terri McAuliff and Tom Daschle have gone away? It shouldn't be since they did more to enable PNAC and the right wing agenda to go forward than any foaming-mouth right wing dumb shit. The democrats could have re-taken congress and ham-strung Bush to the point where he would be looking at a possible conviction for treason. Thanks to them however the Patriot Act materialized into something that did more to curtail civil liberties than to protect them.

Feinstein, the DLC and the likes of James McDougall are just as responsible for what has happened to this country. Bush and the right-wing are too narrow minded (and therefore incapable) to have been so successful so quickly. They need to be thrown out so that the left is no longer weakened or silenced.

GOP Senator from CA....How dare she cop out like that and on the one hand say she is going to vote against him, but not support a filibuster.

I've absolutely had it with her...

Bye bye Di...:hi:

I think Democrats just don't see it. If they don't make a stand now when will they ever! Democrats At least 50% of this country want someone to speak for them. What we will have will be a right wing junta! Yes, don't confirm him/her and let Bush pick another and then don't confirm him/her. Trouble is we don't have the media on OUR side.

A POLITICAL PARTY HAS TO STAND FIRM AND GIVE REASONS WHY THEY DON"T WANT HIM - THE REASON IS THAT THIS COUNTRY DOES NOT DESERVE A RIGHT WING JUNTA WITH A PRESIDANT WHO THINKS HE IS ABOVE THE LAW!

He's a member of "the centrist coalition" that was formed during the last filibuster standoff. So, relative to the US Senate (rather than the US population or worldwide representatives), he is centrist. And he has become far less wingnutty than during the Clenis hearings, so much so that he has become something of a target of the ringnut-o-sphere.

"...'I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. "This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court.'

She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week's hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination." ...


:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

a filibuster would only make things worse. Besides, you can't filibuster with 38 votes.

If the Dems were to filibuster at this stage, the Republicans would change the rules, the mass media would blame it on Dem partisanship and remind us all of the hit the Repubs took during the Clinton years over shutting down the gov't. Polls would then respond by showing that voters were opposed to this kind of partisanship that, as the mass media would remind us over and over again for two to three weeks, had been caused by the Dem filibuster. And a couple weeks later Alito would be on the court.

If, on the other hand, we don't filibuster, a very right-wing judge who would have been approved, would be approved and we would more or less move directly back into the fights that we can win--Republican corruption, unpopularity, Iraq war, nat'l deficit, etc. One side of this was Specter's usage of the word "impeachment" this morning on the Sunday rounds.

We're killing them in candidate recruitment, in generic voter party ID, in fundraising (relative to our usual performance).

Feinstein's right, arguably for the wrong reasons, but right nonetheless.

Changing party IDs, supporting unelectable third party candidates, focusing anger on the purity of those on one's side of the aisle is what we want the Republicans to do, not the Democrats. When the Republicans do it, we recognize it for what it is--potential party splitting and base slippage. And then we turn around and threaten to do the same, just when most polls show us whooping tail?

They CANNOT back down. That would be a worst case scenario. So if it does happen (and I really don't see it going that way), Harry Reid had better make DAMN sure that he's got 40 Senators absolutely committed, no matter what, to keeping Alito off the court. Does ANYONE here think that is possible? Because anything less would be a tremendous mistake.

I can think of three or four Dems right off the top of my head who are likely to vote for Alito. You only need one or two more to make a filibuster impossible. I just can't see any way they can get/retain the votes. It simply isn't possible.

enough said

can't sit on her ass and collect money from special interest groups. I won't vote for any DLCer.

What a crock of crap.

I hate the "two party" system.

Obviously the party hacks do not want the Dems in the Senate to filibuster Alito, just as they won't impeach Bush, and they won't end this war.

Why do we even bother with them?

I disagree with him, but he should be on the court.

Fascinating.

She probably disagrees with burglars entering her home, but doesn't want to discourage entrepreneurship.

She's voting against him.

I'm sorry, I was in error about her voting intentions, but I don't think she could do any more damage if she DID vote for him.

You can bet Rush Limbaugh, Hannity Limbaugh, Jr. et al will be using that quote gleefully tomorrow.

One more battle lost.

and Feinstein knew it. Of course they're going to use her quote but then what? Now they have to get back to defending the indefensible--flat out lying about corruption, Abramoff ("It's not a Republican scandal" doesn't exactly ring true when Rich Lowery and George Will disagree with it), spying (we're not opposed to spying, but the warrantless kind, which, it is starting to be reported a little bit more and more, is not legal. In fact Specter has used the "I" word and promised hearings), Iraq (it's a clusterfuck and Limbaugh and Hannity go on their shows everyday screaming at the top of their lungs how GD great Iraq is going--only the lunatics believe this).

They now have to go back to talking about things their natural constituencies don't even agree about, let alone the moderates of different stripes who make up the soft middle. If Feinstein had supported a filibuster and the Dems had been "lucky" enough to garner and hold together the 40 votes, we would have been hammered by Hannity and Limbaugh for weeks and months in a way that their constituencies would have wholeheartedly agreed with and much of the soggy middle as well.

We were never going to win this battle.

I'd rather have a small Democratic party populated by liberals with integrity and fearlessness in the face of opposition, then these DINO pseudo-liberals who do NOTHING but bow to their corporate masters and lick the boots of their Repuke overlords.

I'm predicting a larger number of Green Party voters in 2006 and 2008. As a lifelong liberal and Dem, I've reached the point where I'm starting to think that I'm backing the wrong horse (donkey) and maybe it's time for a fresh party vote.

JB

Doesn't it make you happy when you see (or hear tell of) Freeper division? It invites images of right-wingers jumping ship, right-wing third party candidates siphoning off votes, etc. So what is their reaction to division here?

We're never going to get a congress that represents us. If we work hard, stick together and stick to our guns we can get a Congress that kind of sort of represents us. That's life; that's politics; that's all.

Go if you must but ask yourself if you'd really, truly rather have a continued Republican-controlled Washington and the chance of a strong backboned opposition party or the chance at a heterogenous Democratic-controlled Washington.

Seriously, my microscope can't tell the difference between DINOs like Zell Miller, DiFi, and Lieberman and moderate Republicans.

My FReeper remark is about political strategy, a perfectly reasonable thing to contemplate in a conversation about, well, political strategy. Big congressional gains are ours for the taking if we can stick together, grab the soggy middle voters, and split the Republicans.

a person who represents our ideals. DINOs do not any more than Republicans do. I will vote my conscience when I walk into the booth, and that will be for a liberal who is against the war and who has the balls to stand up to Bush.

or 40th pronouncement. I get it, I really do. You guys really, really, really don't like Di-Fi and really, really, really wanna vote for someone better because you're really, really, really tired of DINOs and you're really, really, really mad as hell and you're really, really, really not gonna take it anymore. And you really, really, really mean it this time.

How's that for grownup?

I get the point. I just don't agree with it. There's a difference. Vote your conscience all you want but not a single 3rd party candidate will beat a Republican in the 2006 national election. There's a prediction fer ya--something new to the debate so you never have to accuse me again of repeating myself. I promise from now on that all my responses to you will be fresh and envigorating, so help me Di-Fi!

don't agree with it. BTW, you still don't get our point, it is about voting our conscience while our children are dying rather than voting for a label. Reeeeaaallly!

Because I did get the conscience and label bits. Despite all of our fussing on this thread (and my sarcasm), you guys do have a point. I understand the urge to vote for someone who much more closely reflects your views than for any old non-liberal with the Democrat label. In a way it is not unfair to accuse me of voting for a label. But in a way it is because if Di-Fi, label and all, winds up tipping the balance of power toward the Democrats than we will have gained more than we lost, dying children and all.











Edited for clarity.

A religious fundamentalist murdered City Supervisor Harvey Milk and Mayor Frank Moscone, the finest of the finest. San Franciscans ended up with Feinstein who used her unexpected promotion as a stepping stone to a very profitable (for her) political career.

.

Hmmmm, I agree w/ Senator Feinstein who is not a lawyer . . . and as for Lindsey Graham, he's so full of b.s. and arrogance that it gleans through his teeth. I still *see* Graham hamming it up for the lights, camera, action as a "House Manager" for Clinton's impeachment in the Senate. I'll never forget Graham in that role and how he used it to get a U.S. Senate seat.

As for Diane Feinstein, although not an attorney, she asked some of the best questions of Judge Samuel Alito and great follow-up questions too. The former is expected even of non-lawyers because Senators have lawyers on their staff who can, and do, frame excellent questions to be asked by Senators in these hearings. However, how does a non-lawyer accomplish the latter? That is, query again w/ a follow-up? She did it. She was good. No, she was great.

And, I agree with her because (after listening intently all last week as well as read some of Alito's 3d Circuit Ct of Appeals written opinions), Alito is "ultra-conservative" but -- and here lies the rub -- his legal theory does not lie as far to the right as does Scalia! Lemme repeat that. Although Alito is a conservative, he is not as far to the right, overall, as is Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. Not to mention Associate Justice Clarence Thomas because Thomas is so damn far to the right that Thomas is off the map, entirely!

So. How the hell can any Senator justify, politically justify, a filibuster for a SCOTUS nominee who is left of Scalia? My educated and experienced guess is that Alito falls between Roberts and Scalia. That means that Alito will add to the 3-some, making him #4, conservatives already on the bench -- Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas. The 5th vote will be Justice Kennedy who will deepen his stance as a swing vote.

What that means is that SCOTUS will, indeed, fall farther to the right than at any time in its recent history -- the history of the last one hundred years or so. That being said, however, how does a minority party in the Senate prevent it? No, filibuster(s) cannot be entrenched for more than two years! The only way to prevent such a take-over on the bench is for the votes to exist in the Senate and not through a filibuster.

As an added issue, Alito will be the 5th member of the Roman Catholic religion on SCOTUS. This is a precedent. Never before in the history of SCOTUS has there EVER been a majority of Roman Catholics on SCOTUS. Unfortunately, 4 of these Roman Catholics make up the far rightwingers on the ultra-conservative side, Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas! How long ago were we, Americans, protesting Roman Catholics due to their (perceived) inability to Separate Church and State?


.

There really are no grounds for a filibuster on Alito. I'm not sure where everyone got the idea that it was even a possibility? I hate to see DiFi get slammed over something that was never in the cards anyway.

NEW ACTION PAGE TO FILIBUSTER ALITO: http://www.nocrony.com

CALL YOUR SENATORS RIGHT NOW at 888-818-6641, 888-355-3588 or 800-426-8073

When they surrendered on the original filibuster confrontation without a fight
they told us they were "saving our ammunition." Strike one.

When they waved Roberts through without demanding access to any of his records
for the last 20 years they told us they were "keeping our powder dry." Strike
two.

Don't DARE try to tell us that now rubberstamping the most radical jurist on the
appellate bench is yet more "picking our battles."

A number of senators in the last couple days have made statements to the effect
they did not hear anything at Alito's confirmation hearing that would make them
vote against him. Of course not, because he did not actually say ANYTHING!

Alito is on the record stating that he believes in a dictatorial model of the
president and that a woman's private decisions are up for grabs. He lied about
his position on the former and categorically refused to repudiate the latter.
Robert Bork himself stated the other day he believes conclusively that Alito
still holds that view. THAT is the evidence to filibuster Alito, not what he
might have evaded saying at his hearing.

This is our litmus test. If our senators will not protect us from this
constitutional outrage, we call for each and every one to be defeated in their
next election. We call for candidates to arise in their own primaries if
necessary to punish them for their cowardice and their complicity. If putting
their own job on the line is not a circumstance "extraordinary" enough for them
we don't know what is.

Alito has been called a "walking constitutional amendment." Let our senators
clearly understand that for them he represents a walking pink slip. And don't
think because you are not up for re-election in 2006 that we will not remember.
If you blow this one you will come to find out what a "done deal" really is.
Nothing you can do in the future will redeem you. We the people can do better.

CALLING ALL POTENTIAL PRIMARY AND GENERAL ELECTION CANDIDATES

If you live in a state where your senator has expressed support or indifference
on the Alito nomination we need you to immediately contact us about mounting a
primary or general election challenge with yourself or someone else you know as
the candidate. Be ye not concerned where you will get the money to run. We will
provide you with the tools to run a campaign with no money and win. All you need
is the courage to want to represent your fellow constitutents and do what they
want their senators to do . . . for a change.

Did you catch Alito's snaky answer when asked if he thought Roe v. Wade was well
settled? He said it depended on what you meant by "well settled." And they
ridiculed Clinton for quibbling about the meaning of the word "is". When he says
stare decisis is not an inexorable command, what he really means is Katie bar
the door to the Supreme Court.

He doesn't always rule against the "little guy" he said at this hearing. And he
gave as his primary example the machine gun case. Oh swell . . . if you are a
little guy with a machine gun you can get a fair shake in judge Alito's
courtroom.

On issue after issue he refused to comment, on the grounds that it might come
before him. MIGHT come before him? Of course these issues will come before him.
That's the whole plan, to systematically revisit every one of these decisions
and roll them back one century at a time. The members of the Federalist society
have been plotting this judicial coup since their mentor Bork was rejected for
admitting his extremism. Since then they have been packing the courts with true
believers who refuse to disclose their agendas, accelerated by the Bush neocon
cabal. And Alito is the last piece of the puzzle they need to fall into place,
WITHOUT WHICH THEY CANNOT PROCEED.

That is why it is so critical. That is why you must speak out again now. That is
why you must submit this action page now.

http://www.nocrony.com

That is why you must ignore even now the voices on our own side who have been
conned into parroting the right wing line that this is a foregone conclusion.
Our senators did not have the burden of proof to stop Alito. It was his burden
of proof to earn the position with straight forward and honest answers to the
American people about what he stood for. The Federalist society knows EXACTLY
what he stands for. They dropkicked Miers because they weren't 100% sure about
her. It is the American people they are so desperately trying to keep in the
dark.

This one is a ringer. You don't run with the wolf pack for so many decades
without being a wolf. But they could not nominate a wolf without outfitting him
with the sheep's clothing of "I'd have to carefully examine the facts of the
case." They played up a weepy wife to trivialize the monumental danger this man
represents as the fifth and deciding vote to overturn absolutely everything we
ever cared about. And his supporters admit it even if he will not. Yeah, sure
they say, that's what they want, to roll to clock back to the mid-thirties for
starters and work backwards from there.

One of the most pathetic reasons we've ever heard for inaction is that they'll
just nominate somebody as bad if Alito is rejected. What kind of defeatism is
that? C'mon folks, snap out of it. No, not only are we going to turn thumbs down
on Alito, but the next one, and the next one, until we get a true moderate at
the very worse. That is what the American people deserve, if only you will
demand it by calling your senators right now at one of the toll free numbers.
There are three we know of, 888-818-6641, 888-355-3588, 800-426-8073.

Tell them if they do not filibuster Alito their own jobs are in jeopardy. Those
who will not exercise the power they have will have whatever power they do have
taken away from them. The OTHER side will do that if we do not do it first. Hold
a press conference and declare your opposition and willingness to run in the
primary of any state where such a senator dwells. You won't have to worry about
raising money. You will be drafted so fast it will make your head spin.

Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed to be
ours, and forward this message to everyone else you know.

is to prevent bad things from happening when you're in the minority! If the filibuster was supported by more than half, we wouldn't need it, nor would it have been provided for in Senate rules! If more than half supported it, we'd just vote it down on a straight up vote.

This man Alito is an admitted perjurer and a now-closet, formerly open, woman-hater and racist. We don't need him for the next 30 years (that's probably all I've got left) helping corporations gouge what's left of freedoms in this country, and all for money.

I have written and called both my Senators (yes, I'm in Texas, so it's like talking to a brick wall, but the walls of Jericho fell from enough noise, some say). We can't quit, and we can't give in. I'm 53, and I'd like a little bit of the country that I thought we could become before I die.

Thank you for the great post and the great resources! Now let's do it!!

I fail to see why people are a ginned up on supporting a filibuster. The GOP is simply going to change the rules and Alito will be confirmed. What will have been accomplished by the filibuster? I suppose if you you feel that is more effective than focusing on Iraq, Abramoff, or domestic wiretaps.

If you are so afraid of the Republicans then you shouldn't be part of the OPPOSITION!

Does anyone remember how well that worked out the last time it was tried?

This government is a dictatorship that should be overthrown!

Stop going by the rules when the game and the officials are crooked.

branches of government today?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

showing indeed that you don't get it.