Aren't we glad the 'smart' Dems undermined and attacked the Alito filibuster

and the Dems leading that effort instead of spreading themselves over the airwaves and showing strength in standing together UNITED against Alito?

This SCOTUS ruling against late abortions will give the fascists the cover they need to protect themselves for awhile longer.

This is just the beginning of a generation of pro-fascist, anti-citizen worker rulings, guaranteed by the Alito confirmation.

Bitter thanks to all those 'leaders' and 'strategists' who didn't think Alito was a fight worth having but instead used their influence and firepower attacking those Dems who DID take that fight on.

Thanks I didn't know that. :eyes:

The establishment powered Dems who have long protected BushInc and the fascist agenda.

The DLC is just one small factor in the scheme of things.

they are worse than inept; they pose a danger to America.

And they supported a 3rd party candidate against the DEM nominee.

Their loyalties are on the table for everyone to see.

What do they offer the party? Hell- SOMEBODY in the party has to agree with Bush, the far right and Joe Lieberman (I) on the major issues- right?

They, in fact, did not.

And some folks are not sure if they did or not.

Apparently the DLC didnt say much about it, or there would not be this question.

No one is confused over whether Kerry or the "nut roots" supported it, that's for sure.

Apparently the DLC didnt say much about it, or there would not be this question.

Since when did the netroots ever consider what the DLC actually says or writes when pronouncing their judgement on them?

Surely they have a position paper on it you could show us.

Their bloggers and advocates seem to have weighed in on every other issue that has popped up- what was the general consensus on the filibuster in various DLC musings, literature, etc?

Also- are you a member of the DLC? I'm merely curious as to your connection to them.

While opposing Alito, a New Dem dispatch said a fillibuster would cause the GOP to enact the nuclear option and Dems would be better served to get the votes to block the confirmation.

But DLC policy wonk Ed Kilgore agreed but still expressed support for a Filibuster.

DLC official Hillary Clinton supported the filibuster.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253692&kaid=13... ]

"For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation..."

In any event, your notion that people shouldnt point the DLC as being opposed to the filibuster is incorrect.

"For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation."

<snip>

"The second-best way for Democrats to avoid still more Alitos on the Court is to make major gains in the Senate this November. And the best way is to win the White House in 2008."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253692&kaid=131&subid=192

Too fucking late for the women who will die as a result of their bullshit decision...


The DLC was chicken-shit about the repuke's empty headed "nuclear option" threat in this misnamed article on their website "A Principled Stand on Alito".

The rest of the DLC, as an organization, flat out opposed it, per their very own website.

Nothing else on the official website says anything about the DLC adovocating for this- the only thing at the DLC website is a piece in OPPOSITION to the filibuster.

one WAS for it, another WAS for it but warned of potential consequences.

We don't know if the "The rest of the DLC, as an organization," flat out opposed it, because the OpEd was not signed.

If your argument is true, then you can show us OTHER op-eds on the DLC website where they say they are for it.

Can you?

If the DLC as an org. was FOR it, then by all means, show us the "op-eds" on the DLC site that balances the only stated position we have found there- which is OPPOSED to it.

I never denied anything- I've always agreed that it is possible that there were a tiny handful of reluctant dissenters- at least one or two.

Your one guy acts like he barely supported it- he did suggest he would reluctanlty go along if forced.

For some reason, you claim the DLC as an org. was for the filibuster, but you cant show us an offical statement from the website like I have.

For some reason, you claim the DLC as an org. was for the filibuster

Where did I claim that?

I thought you were suggesting that the DLC might have been for the filibuster, but now you say you never tried to suggest that.

Bottom line is the DLC as an org. was indeed against it.

Just let me know what their position was on the filibuster.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253692&kaid=131&subid=192]

"For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation..."

Or even agreeing with Bush and the far right on HUGE issues from time to time.

Where people ever got that crazy notion, I'll never know either.

Was it the fact that until very recently, the DLC sided with Bush/media over the war instead of with the Democratic base?

Maybe the fact that DLCers support Joe Fucking Lieberman (I) contributed to this. Hell- Joe (I) even has DLCers working for his staff right now, it appears that the DLC as a group still refuses to disassociate themselves from him.


But before we continue- what is your association with the DLC? A member? Contributor? Employee? Volunteer? Or none-of-the above- you just write about how great they are here?

Lieberman is supporting a Republican senator for re-election and will probably support the Republican candidate for president if HRC does not win the nomination. If HRC is a true Dem, why doesn't she show leadership on the stealth Republican at the DLC? She should be calling for him to be expelled--or perhaps the DLC should become the ILC or merge with the newly founded RLC...

DLC members even work on his staff. Current DLC members, writers & bloggers Elected DLC members publicaly supported Joe (I) even after the nomination. They made no secret about it.

I've seen nothing in DLC literature , including a "minority opinion" denouncing this alliance with a 3rd party that endorses Republicans.

HRC should be called on her silence on the DLC/Holy Joe issue.

To describe any Democrat they don't like...DLC or not...

You are right- all DEMS who fight the "left wingers" in the DEM base more than they fight Bush and the far right tend to get lumped in with the DLC.

An example is the DEMS who attacked the anti-war movement as "crazy nut-roots", but swallowed and supported the lies told by Bush/media.

I'm sure most of them probaly dont mind the association, unless there is some stigma from being a DLCer. Is there?

It is the left wing that is constantly attacking fellow Democrats, advocating purging this or that Democrat, threatening to withhold support from party nominees if they don't adhere to a strict left wing ideology, and threatening to vote third party candidates...

It is a myth that the DLC fights the left of its own party more than they do the Republicans...a simple look at their website and that of the PPI would make that clear...

And no, I view membership in the DLC as a positive for any candidate running...my top two choices are DLC (Clinton, and Richardson)...

So I'm right- when it comes to the major, all-encompasing, most important issue of our life time, the DLC did oppose the DEM base and sided with Bush.

It's not just that they sided with Bush, but they actively attacked the anti-war movement for him long after it was proven that we were lied into this war.

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

In the liberal bastion Mecca of the universe that you live, (Berkeley)..

Remember, there's 50 other states and not all Democrats see things through a Kum-Ba-Yah lense.

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

But apparently not easy to spell, at least for you

By the way, have you even been out to Berkeley or are you just spouting more of your ignorant, bigoted nonsense?

Edit: Oh, and if you ever get around to it, you might try SPEAKING TO THE TOPIC. At least once.

I want outta of Iraq and stop the stealing of our Blood and Treasure.

Left wing purge lists of Democrats that the left wing blogs are going to make "radioactive" are posted almost on a daily basis...any time something passes that the left wing does not like, or doesn't pass that the left wing wants, the immediate reaction is to attack the few Democrats that didn't vote their way rather than the overwhelming number of Republicans that did the same...the first instinct among a large number of folks on the left is to attack Democrats first...

And I would be curious to know who you consider "the base"

"... we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253692&kaid=131&subid=192

And yes, I'm SOOOOO sorry that people felt the need to "purge" folks who tend to side with Bush. If you think that opposing supporters of Bush pales in comparison to SUPPORTING Bush, well, why should that be a suprise?- you support the DLC.

The base? Folks who are active Democrats and who generally oppose things that give Republicans more power.

Ed Kilgore, an executive director at the time, advised Dems on how to handle the filibuster:

"I can only hope Senate Dems make a serious effort to stay focused on the Big Case against Alito during the debate, and not provide the GOP with any negative ad material. It's especially important that they deal with the GOP "obstructionist" talking point by relentlessly reminding people that Bush deliberately picked this fight by giving conservative activists their very own Supreme Court nominee."

At least nothing I'm finding. Maybe you can find something.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253692&kaid=13 ... ]

"For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation..."

In any event, your notion that people shouldnt point the DLC as being opposed to the filibuster is incorrect.

And I dont see anything in your quote were Kilgore advocates for the filibuster. Care to share the link from that quote with us?

The OpEd from the DLC is unsigned. Kilgore and Clinton supported the Filibuster

Does not make sense- if a majority of you DLC members supported the filibuster, the offical DLC website would reflect that. As it is, they said the opposite.


How about you personaly- can you show us your posts where you, as a DLC enthusist or member advocated for the filibuster?

And how about the link to the quote that I requested?

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253692&kaid=13 ... ]

"For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation..."

Just the editorial staff. DLC members and officials are not required to fall in line.

And while you are at it,- can you give as a link to the quote you posted above? This will be 3rd time I've politely requested it.

I also asked if you as a DLC type supported the filibuster- and you skipped that too.

I'm not obligated to grant your requests on my personal feelings.

Now, a pro-Fillibuster DLCer does not HAVE to have an OpEd on the DLC site to be a valid pro-filibuster proponent.

Kilgore, policy director of the Democratic Leadership Council:

http://newdonkey.blogspot.com/2006/01/playing-hand-thats-dealt-you.html

Clinton, chair of the Democratic Leadership Council's American Dream Initiative:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Sen._Clinton_to_support_Alito_filibuster_0127.html

I was for the filibuster-I'm proud to say so. Why are you ashamed to say whether you were for it or not?

I have no idea why someone being up front wouldnt want to express their honest opinion one way or the other, but so be it.

As far as your links, I asked for official DLC web site links.
So far, the only things we have found on the official DLC maintained website are anti-filibuster.

The DLC website says they opposed the filibuster- I'll assume that means the DLC as a whole mostly supports what they allow on thier own website.

I far as I remember, I never commented on the filibuster issue on DU pro or con.

As far as your links, I asked for official DLC web site links.

To which I plainly replied: a pro-Fillibuster DLCer does not HAVE to have an OpEd on the DLC site to be a valid pro-filibuster proponent.

You say you are not hiding your opinion- so how about you- were you for it or not?

this snippet "proving" the outrage dump de jour:



was carefully excised from this quote:




One would think with the din of the harangue on the far left that they would know what attempting to exert real clout sounds like; the DLC statement above not so much so. In fact, their reasoning stands up to real debate on the issue as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky bellyaching from the far left. In other words, if you want a real discussion, put up or shut up; this pot-shot is the usual unfocused and poorly argued connection to the DLC.

Not that truth and reality mean anything to some people here at DU, but I don't view the DLC as anything other than another entity within the party that deserve a say in the process. I don't have to agree with them to believe in the nuts and bolts of democracy, and I don't support any call to purge people I don't agree with from the party. However, that tolerance cannot be tolerated by the party of tolerance wherein unfocused outrage kept on the back burner is transferred in an outrage dump as a springboard for yet another round of unfocused blowing off steam.

If this was a serious discussion, the focus would be on those Dems that actually voted to confirm, i.e., Senators Byrd, Johnson, Ben Nelson, and Conrad, all from conservative states which really does mitigate their vote as much as that displeases the mob. The fact is the Dems did their job, a filibuster wasn't feasible, however, they did what they could as manifested in the final vote here:
http://www.c-span.org/congress/alito_senate.asp

I never said they didnt have their excuses lined up, or an alternate view. I correctly maintained that they opposed a filibuster- despite people telling me they did not oppose it.

Make up your minds- some of you are saying the DLC was FOR the filibuster, some of you seem to agree with the anti-filibuster argument in the link I provided- which is it?

You can be FOR something while understanding and discussing the risks involved.

:toast:

All he says is "If we are to have a filibuster..."

He never says "Yes- we should certainly filibuster" The most tepid endorsment at best..

You must be thinking of another time where he was getting the word out on his support for this- can you show us those other links where he advocated for it?

But the quote demonstrates he was for it, was accepting of it, but was aware of the risks.

Sorry he didn't jump up and down and pump his fists in the air for it.

Per their own official website.

You cant show me any pro-filibuster arguments on the DLC website, can you? Why not?

And actually, your Kilgore link was not really in full support of the filibuster- he seems to tolerate it if he is forced to- at best. Where does he actually advocate for his members to support it?

Can you show us what else Kilgore said about a filibuster?

No fist pounding or screaming required- but if he was for it, then I would think he said more about his support for it. Did he?

Semantics tricks on your part dont change history.

And this one at best, he seems to be saying that he will go along with it is the crazy far lefties drag him into it:

"If we are to have a filibuster, let it be one that is short on senatorial bloviation, and long on clear and concise persuasion. And if nothing else, maybe the debate will complicate Bush's State of the Union Address."

I'll take what I can get from the DLC, but it's hardlty a ringing endorsement- with his "if we have to" and "maybes", unless you can show us some other strong statements he made.

Even still- I'll give it to you- we have 2 minority dissenters vs. an entire organization who's official site says they oppose it.

Why does the offical DLC site say the org. as a whole was NOT for it-but against it?

Probably b/c they were telling the truth for once.

A tiny minority of 2 "dissenters" doesnt change the fact that the official position of the DLC, per their very own, offical website, opposed it.

I doubt the DLC would allow positions to be advocated on their own site that a majority of members DISAGREE with.

Besides, if a majority of the DLC was FOR the filibuster, wouldnt there be several "Op Eds" on the site demonstrating that?

Where are the "op eds" at the DLC site where they say they are for it?

Sure- there may have been a handful of reluctant dissenters- but what about the org. as a whole?

The offical statement on their site simply doesnt match your assertion that the org. as whole supported the "nut roots" on this one.

For some reason, the DLC offical site failed to air the opinions of the tiny, minority, pro-filibuster faction.

What we DO have on the site, is a statement that opposed the filibuster.

I would think that if the DLC as an org. had been FOR the filibuster, they would say so to their readers, instead of saying the opposite to their readers.

...does it have to be on the DLC's official site?

LOL!!!

???

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

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

:shrug: Guess you're just not reading.

"And yes, I'm SOOOOO sorry that people felt the need to "purge" folks who tend to side with Bush. "

A complete distortion of course, for the left wing anything less than 100% compliance with left wing dogma is considered supporting Bush...

If the DLC had not have sided with Bush over the war so much, this wouldnt be much of a point of contention for me.

I'm a political moderate, BTW.

They have little or no understanding of negotiation skills or the strategy to attain affirmative goals. Perhaps, if they dumped their leadership, they may see daylight before the year 2525.

And the DLCers who went along with them.

Oh wait- I forgot- DLC/Bush was 100% WRONG and "the left wing" was 100% RIGHT on that one.

with our "left wing idiology"!

Our Evil Ideology:

We're all in this together and should help each other out.
Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Share the wealth.
Love One Another.
Don't Kill.
Everyone has a right to a decent place to live, enough food to eat and health care.
Corporations are NOT persons and should not be allowed to exploit human beings.


Yeah, we're so evil. God damn us!


(Uh, what part of our evil agenda don't you like?)

By "we" I mean the moderates and liberals who were NOT stupid enough to trust Bush.

How DARE a faction that was 100% right mount an opposition against- and question the validity and authority of a faction that was 100% wrong on the most important issue of our lifetime.

there is the guy who lost his US Senate primary and actually RAN a third party candidacy, with little consternation from the DLC and in fact open support from conservative southern (oops being redundant again) Dems.

When the DLC starts fighting Bush as much as they do their fellow Democrats, then I'll stop criticizing them.

But I'm not holding my breath.

Debunked many times...in fact it is the left wing that most often attacks fellow Democrats...threatening to withhold support, third party threats, purge lists of ideologically impure Democrats...a legacy inherited continued from "progressives" from the 30's on that have worked against the electoral interests of the Party

The DLC has been a constant critic of Bush

That information does not compute.

n/t

"When the DLC starts fighting Bush as much as they do their fellow Democrats, then I'll stop criticizing them."

This statement is a distortion

n/t

The poster made a clearly inaccurate statement, and I challenged it.

A familiar tactic used in these diffuse, unfocused outrage dumps.

Yup- the old bait & switch.

First we were talking about how most DLC DEMS opposed the filibuster, then we "switched" it to other examples of DLCers not fighting- but agreeing with Bush.

Yup- the OLD bait & switch.

Sorry-we have memories here, and we can discuss patterns of behavior here.

You might want people to forget the numerous examples of the DLC agreeing with or not fighting Bush, but some of us like to keep that info up front.

DLC: "Why the Iraq War Was Right"

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=252474&kaid=124&subid=307

DLC: "Iraq's Future and the War on Terrorism"

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=252720

DLC: "Valuing Patriotism"

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=253472

DLC: "Iraq and the Vital Center"

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253638&kaid=131&subid=192

"But too much is at stake in Iraq for America to simply give up and come home. What Democrats really should demand from President Bush is victory, not a hasty departure."

The DLC is fucking totally out of touch with that last statement... What the FUCK is a "victory in Iraq"???? Dumb FUCKS!

No wonder we dislike their stupid pro-corporate, pro-war "policies"

And we DARE suggest that the DLC doesnt fight Bush- and attacks the DEM base- on the most important, all encompassing issues.

after their constituents let them have it, but never acted in any way to help filibuster SUCCEED.

It's a legit point to bring up- it's odd that we did have to BEG several of them to fight for us and themselves.

DLC is simply the term left wingers now use

Enlighten me. Aren't Dems considered left wing? Aren't ALL Dems supposed to be "left wing"?

BTW- there are plenty Democrats that I don't agree with on all issues. That doesn't mean I label them "DLC". What's with the ridiculous accusation?

Nearly all of the repukes and the Dems are members of the two right-wings of the business party...

As long as the majority of the Dems remain pro-corporate, they're right-wing pricks...

What good has the DLC done? What programs championed by the DLC have made people's lives better?

Now contrast that with how many GOP initiatives were enabled by DLC complicity.

The bill that went after the weakest members of society and ended their meager support system after an arbitrary time limit expired...

anything approaching reality in those defenses. Never. It's all just spin (aka: untruths).

Fact is, DLC is INdefensible.

And I'll post this yet again because EVERY Democrat or left-leaning anybody needs to know who they really are:

Who Funds The DLC??
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x173238

"Progressives" have an alternate universe definition of truth. To you, if it feels true, it is true, regardless of facts to the contrary.

Who Funds The DLC??

The same folks who fund other Dems.. as was clearly demonstrated in the thread you linked to.

??????

The SNDC (essentially the Senate "arm" of the DLC) has as current and recent members:

Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Carper
Clinton
Conrad
Dorgan
Feinstein
Johnson (SD)
Kohl
Landrieu
Lieberman
Lincoln
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Salazar
Stabenow

and, until 2000....

wait for it...

Gore

Yes, Gore. Gore is a founding DLC member, lest we forget.

Now, the "Gang of 14" that caved on the filibuster were:

Byrd
Inouye
Landrieu
Lieberman
Nelson
Pryor
Salazar

5 of the 7 filibuster-cavers were in the DLC, and 13 of the 20 DLC'ers were not involved in the filibuster surrender. The 4 Democrats who ended up voting for Alito's confirmation were:

Byrd
Conrad
Johnson (SD)
Nelson (NE)

That is to say, 3 DLC'ers and 1 non-DLC'er. All but 5 Senate members of the DLC were willing to continue the filibuster, and all but 3 members voted not to confirm him.

Anyways, I'm not here to wave the flag for the DLC, but they're taking a lot of flak for stuff they don't do.

... the Congressional Democrat's powder is still dry.

something important :sarcasm:

The public has already awakened to BushInc after his Social Security over-reach, Schiavo, and Katrina.

The public would have been with us on Alito if Dems had put up a fullcourt press on the airwaves.

We could have opposed Bush on Alito AND gotten our Congress in '06.

Is congress "do nothign" now- No- a VAST improvement. But that does not mean we dont hold their feet to the fire in case they get any of these "dry powder" notions when it comes to fighting Bush or the far right again.

Bush was going to nominate a pro-life judge and would have nominated people until one was confirmed. That was his right and was going to happen.

The reason for filibstering Alito was that, in addition to being pro-life, he believed in many non mainstream philosophies such as approving of signing statements and the concept of the unitary President. These affect the balance of power and ultimately eliminate checks and balances. This is fundamentally undemocratic.

It is true that the leaders of the party thought the right would hurt Senators in conservative states because it was being framed as an attempt to reject a pro-life judge. In reality, the best way to have stopped this was to have focussed on the constituational issues and gotten that side out - even via ads. They were hurt by the fact that the hearing was awful - with I think only Durbin and Feingold bringing up these isues.

We had enough votes for a successful filibuster, if everyone who voted against him would have voted for the filibuster.

This filibuster was based a range of views that Judge Alito held that made him unfit to be a judge on the 'Highest Court in the Land.' His support of the unitary executive theory of the neocons was frightening then and is frightening now.

If only the Dems who had voted against Alito in the final vote had voted to uphold the filibuster, we might have gotten a different judge. There is such a thing as sticking up for core principles. I consider the Dems who didn't vote to uphold the filibuster as complicit in the Alito appointment. Their lame excuse that they 'did vote against Alito' is inexcusable. They failed at the only vote that mattered and refused to stick up for the idea that a Supreme Court Justice should at least believe in the concept of separation of powers in the government.

that they have the spine to fight this unpopular administration and won MORE seats!

The worm has turned, it's about time the Dem party discovers that fact and, as Thom Hartmann says, get out in front of the parade before it leaves their sorry asses behind!

As soon as the election was over in 2004, the Clintons and their allies immediately whispered to their beltway friends that John Kerry was inappropriately trying to be a party leader. Kerry did have a claim as a (if not the) party leader as a very clear cut winner of the primaries and a man who came within 60,000 votes to being President. Hillary, with no such claim, was declared a leader. But it was Kerry who led on Alito and on Iraq. It was the Clinton wing who triangulated on Alito and were more concerned with the political calendar than what was right on the war.

fuck all o f them. not a penny not a phonecall in 08, you DLC assholes.

DOnt you love those "moderates" AKA people who give the far right everything they asks for.

KEEP YOUR POWDER DRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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

Well, it rhymes, anyways.

Is it copywrited?

What a fucking disgrace, and that prick Scalito is going to be there forever. This is what happens when we lay down instead of fight.

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253692&kaid=13 ... ]

"For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation..."

n/t

for their opposition.

now we have subpoena power that the executive branch and others will ignore in the new age of unitary executive and "impeachment is off the table".:sarcasm:

n/t

were the ones that stepped in and said this nominee wasn't going to be a problem weren't they?

It was so important to get Alito on the SC :sarcasm:

I think we should send them a big thank you from all the women that they threw under a bus.

Bastards :grr:

The seven Dems in the "Gang of 14" joined to threaten to block a filibuster, but the vote actually came down to 19 (24:19 Dems) voting "yea" on the cloture vote (+1 nonvote - Harkin didn't vote). In the end, only four Dem Senators actually voted for Alito: Byrd, Ben Nelson, Conrad, and Johnson.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5080836

You know I knew back then when we were making phone calls during the confirmations that one day we would regret that those group of appeasers would cause us harm.

Elections have consequences. This really upsets me. We have stolen a lot of the wind from the sails of the conservative Christian coalition with the last election. But they have made deep inroads and will continue to fight against abortion rights. This is a huge win in their eyes. They will be encouraged to keep going.

The Democratic establishment didn't have a stomach for a filibuster, then Kerry uttered the one word they didn't want to hear.

Hillary did not support Kerry's filibuster, the critical vote on the Alito nomination, but she cast a meaningless vote afterwards against Alito. The cloture vote was the key vote on the Alito nomination. Kerry and Feingold voted against cloture, to keep the filibuster going.

I am always fascinated watching you qualify (reads: twist) info to use as an intraparty cudgel, in this case "no" votes on Alito:
One NO vote is fab-u-lous, another NO vote is meaningless.

Go figure. :crazy:

Skiing in Davos all the while he was attending a summit there.

A lot of people seem to be under the misapprehension that if the Democrats had "fought hard enough" they could have prevented Alito's confirmation. A little maths shows this is not the case.

One can make a case that doing their best to filibuster would have been a better political tactic (I think it would probably have been a worse one), but either way that was all that was at stake.

If the Democrats had united to filibuster, they might now be higher in the polls, but Samuel Alito would still be a Supreme Court Justice, and "partial birth abortion" (whatever that is) would still be illegal.


A lot of people seem to think that if you feel strongly enough about something, you can always find a way to achieve it. In politics, that isn't the case.

Some of us thought that a filibuster would have forced the media to tell more people about him, or at least give DEMS more of a spotlight to make the case.

We thought that maybe- just maybe- if more people had a chance to hear about his extreme positions, we could have gotten more public support against him. We thought a filibuster would give us more time and a bigger news story in which to make this case.

Also, a filibuster would have UNIFIED, not futher divided the base- or furthered the "myth" that DEMS are scared to take on Bush. The failure to filibuster made the people who called DEMS "spineless" seem right once again.

That was just my take on it- I am sure others had their reasons as well.

I think that you are wrong to state categorically that it would not have prevented his ultimate position on SCOTUS- more of a spotlight could have reaped more opposition to him.

Imagine that.

Keep your powder dry!!!

Isn't that the real question?


In any event, the Dems fought Alito pretty hard. Brought up stuff about his racist past at Princeton, made his wife cry etc.

in a cruel RUSE with the ultimate goal being - to screw over Middle Class America!?! :grr: :thumbsdown:

I can't help but wonder WHY we have so many *gutless wonders* representing us in Congress. :(

would have forced Bush to select slightly less ideological candidates.

But Dems didn't trust the reality that Bush's poll numbers were STAYING around 40. And they DIDN'T want to become targets the way Kerry and Kennedy were.

It rallies their base. The 36% that still support Bush are those that back him because of JUDGES. Nothing indicates that he would have backed down on this.

But they didn't want to take the media heat - plain and simple.

See my previous post.

you can filibuster them all when that one seat matters as much as this one did.

It pisses me off every waking moment of the day. We shouldn't have to put up with this BS. Especially after 2000, the Dems should have been ready for the fight, but instead we had FUCKING CARVILLE open his mouth to his hideous wife and voila Kerry decides to concede. TOTAL BS!

than it was to block an anti-abortion rights nominee.

Kerry caught a lot of flak from his own party for calling for a filibuster. The usual DLC suspects voted for cloture, in effect killing the filibuster, and then they cast a meaningless vote against Alito. Vote Smart will show them as opposing Alito when in fact, they helped put Alito in the Supreme Court by not supporting Kerry's filibuster.

And yet there he sits.

Tell me again how the DLC is on our side.

Heads on pikes, damn traitors.

Are you insinuating they all are DLC? Wow.

I finally put my finger on a strange thing that occurs at DU. It's like a bad marriage where something stressful or unpleasant happens, in this case the Supreme Court ruling, and then familiar themes or ancient history is regurgitated and hashed over, almost always with an unrealistic bent on its retelling, but always with venom and no doubt spit flying with the recriminations and accusations, intrafamily, or in this case intraparty.

It gets stupid and ugly around here.

and if they knew he was wrong in the first place then filibustering was the ONLY honorable choice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason so many dems grudgingly voted for cloture was to prevent the rethugs from invoking the 'nuclear option' and changing the Senate rules to disallow the filibuster forever.

Again, perhaps I'm mistaken, but that's my understanding of how things went down.

That's the dirty little secret the anti-DLC'ers don't want you to know. They want you to think it was all about "selling out" to Bush's agenda..

We already know all the excuses for not standing up to Bush, but feel free to repeat them-that's what a discussion board is all about...

and the Dems should have ACTED like they KNEW that Bush and the GOP were operating with low poll numbers.

The GOP wouldn't let Clinton's HIGH poll numbers get in the way of their agenda.

I would just hate for this info to get buried in a subthread, so here it is again. Count this post as a "kick."

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=253692&kaid=13 ... ]

"...we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation"

Note that they use the word "we"- not some of us, or a faction of us- but "we."

Also, feel free to click on the link and view the full context of the quote.

When you see the words, "we", "us", or "our" in an editorial, it means "I", "me, "my". I assume most DU'ers know this even if you do not.

Once again, there was no way in Hell Bush was going to appoint a pro-choice Justice. As someone else stated earlier, this was not a case of "if only the Democrats had fought harder, this would not have happened."

The blame lies with lefties who insisted that there was no difference between the two major party candidates in 2000. Thank you, Ralph Nader.

If this was just what one single individual at the DLC Organization thought, then you should be able to find some pro-filibuster dispatches on the same site to balance or counter it.

I find it hard to believe that the DLC would put something on it's site that a majority of it's members disagree with- but that is what you are trying to tell us.

3rd parties are to blame for DLC timidness? Well, unlike the DLC, I deplore them. Unlike DLC traitors- I would NEVER support a 3rd party run in any way, shape or form- so you are barking up the wrong tree.

Does your aversion to 3rd parties mean that the DLC now opposes Joe Lieberman (I)- or does he still have DLC employees on his staff, and does the DLC still have members who supported him AFTER the primaries?

Also, there were many reasons to support the filibuster, if we had the whole party behind it, maybe we could have swayed public opinion against the appointment of more extreme, far-right judges.

If you don't know the basics of editorial writing, I can't help you. Serious editorial writers always use the third person form.

What makes us so sure this is a mere editorial- the site calls it a "dispatch" and it reads like it is stating the offical position of the DLC.

Even if it is a mere editorial reflecting a lone, minority opinion, then where are the other "editorials" or "dispatches" on the site with the DLC saying it is FOR the filibuster? If we cant find them, then this must be pretty close to the organization's offical opinion- or it wouldnt be there.

As an aside, I notice that you didnt care to keep on talking about those awful people who support 3rd parties either.

even though they are the minority now. Oh but it was all Nader's fault.:eyes:

I'll say it again, Americans don't vote for Republiks because they like their stands on issues, but because they take and hold those stands.

A group with active members who OPENLY supported him AFTER the primaries- Not to mention the DLC employees who are now his staffers after he won on a 3rd party ticket.

I cant stand these 3rd parties either, but the DLC has ZERO standing to say a WORD about it as long as they are still connected at the hip to a Bush-supporting MEMBER of a 3rd party.

if they prevail, OTOH, it is the party that gave them their opening, remember what happened in '68 and '72. It was made completely clear then that the OG didn't have the interests of the people at heart anymore.

Personally, I am making other plans.

But at the time he was one of the Dem leaders spending his ammunition to UNDERMINE and attack Kerry who was trying to get the Dems to unite behind that filibuster.

Wanna bet those Dem 'leaders' figured it was more important for Kerry to not succeed on this because hillary needed his image tarnished as much as possible?

More Dems spoke to the press attacking Kerry with RW talking points about Davos than were speaking out in support of filibustering Alito. "Some say' rides again.

n/t

Amen! :toast:

n/t