IF DEM WHIP is in charge -- then this is a PARTY VOTE...!!!!

RAWSTORY says Democratic Whip Dick Durbin is in charge of rounding up votes for the filibuster effort.

What this means is that the filibuster (cloture) is a PARTY VOTE.

Confirmation itself, if it happens, is not (almost never) a party vote.

In an actual up-or-down vote, Senators are expected to vote their conscience without arm-twisting, according to the ancient principle of each Senator's right to "advise and consent."

BUT THE FILIBUSTER IS BEING LED BY SENIOR PARTY LEADERS.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS THAT THE ONLY SENATORS WITH THE RIGHT TO VOTE IN
FAVOR OF CLOTURE ARE THOSE THAT INTEND TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF ALITO.

ALL OTHERS MUST BE SUBJECT TO PARTY DISCIPLINE.

This MUST be the Dem message if they are to succeed -- if the
Democratic Whip is indeed "rounding up votes".

Horse trading is insufficient. THIS IS A PARTY VOTE AND TURNCOATS WHO INTEND TO CAST A MEANINGLESS VOTE "AGAINST" ALITO MUST AND WILL BE PUNISHED.

And those other few.

yes on cloture. Hmmm. This is VERY interesting!

This is going down better than I dared hope.

by telling the Dems last Friday that this was a "...vote of conscience..." he gave them permission to bolt from the party line....he needs to tell them in no uncertain terms, This is a party vote...violate it at your peril!.

Go back to Poli Sci 101 and then delete your post.

WHY it's wrong? I'm still learning about Senate procedures.:)

Cloture is NOT an internal party vote. Just because the Whip is getting involved doesn't mean a damn thing at all really. Whips are involved in pretty much every vote. They send out emails every day telling members how the party wants them to vote on bills. Durbin's just doing his job on this one. Also, non-Democrats can absolutely be involved in the filibuster as well (Chafee, hopefully, for example).

Honestly, none of what you said really means anything at all, even if it were right.

I have no problem with anyone saying they opposed the filibuster,

SO LONG AS THEY'RE WILLING TO GO ON RECORD SUPPORTING ALITO.

Because that is the truth of the matter.

Possible reasons why they could justify voting "YES" and "YES" in October: (yes to cloture, yes on Alito)

** "I am socially conservative or opposed to Abortion, and proud of it. And so is Alito."

** "I don't think there is anything wrong with Alito's position on executive power."

** "As a member of the Gang of 14, I am a moderate who wields considerable influence
for our State, and I intend to keep that influence regardless of ideology or party labels."

** "The Senate has more important work that it could be doing."

** "Filibustering will make us lose a lot of respect that we have gained from sensible Republicans throughout the Senate who we must work closely with in order to re-form New Orleans, relocate its residents, re-sign the Patriot Act and replenish the coffers of our campaign contributors."

Whereas,

The only possible reason I can think of for voting "Yes" and then "No":

***** "I wish to lose a chance for a leadership position in 2006 because I cared more about making Harry Reid AND all of the 2008 Presidential hopefuls look bad. I would prefer not to see Alito on the high court, but I will go to war with my own caucus before I will allow the Democratic party to once again be hijacked by radical leftists like Kerry, Kennedy, Reid, Hillary and Biden. This is about the future of the Democratic Party as a centrist entity capable of winning elections, not about the future of the Supreme Court."

on its own members JUST LIKE THIS.

Perhaps some democrats should listen for once.

such as what?

what do you mean "only the senators wiwth the right to vote in favor of cloture"?

all senators that choose to attend will vote on cloture one way or the other.

Are senators who sincerely support Alito, as determined by the final vote,
and are willing to defend their vote in the Primaries/elections.

Those Senators are entitled to their own opinion. The Constitution says so.
The actual confirmation vote is a vote of conscience.

Cloture is not a vote in the same sense. It is a procedural motion
that the rival parties CAN AND DO use to FIGHT ONE ANOTHERS' AGENDAS.

Motion to cut off debate, when a colleague within your own caucus is
attempting to sustain a filibuster, is NOT a "vote of conscience."

It is a vote to give the Republicans the right to cut off a fellow senator.
You better have a damn good reason for doing that.

You better genuinely support Alito if you feel strongly enough about it to vote against the Senate Minority Leader and the Minority whip on a vote of cloture.

Else you are sending a big "fuck you" message straight to Kerry, Reid
and the "Fight or Die" crowd -- a message directed at NO ONE BUT THEM.

Senators like Akaka, Salazar, Landrieu and Lieberman chose to run as Democrats. If the Democratic leadership is spearheading a filibuster and they oppose it to make their own leadership look bad, they better have a damn good reason. Since they are opposed to Alito, those senators do not.

We know they are afraid to vote for Alito because they intend to cast a meaningless vote against him.

This tells us that they are afraid of the consequences of voting FOR a nominee CNN claims is popular.

but they are NOT afraid of the consequences of going against their own party leadership and making the entire caucus look like fools for the sake of a foolish consistency or personal self-aggrandizement.

What more reason for party discipline could you ask for???

Why do you think Snowe and Chafee are so unlikely to vote for Cloture?

Because the Republicans ENFORCE party discipline EVEN AGAINST LIBERAL REPUBLICANS
in unsafe seats. They feel it is worth the risk of losing those seats.

And you can BET YOUR ASS they view a procedural cloture motion as a party-line vote.

All I am asking is that Democrats enforce party discipline against Senators
who do not intend to vote for Alito anyway. Is that too much to ask?