Many years ago, the Republican Party was filled with “moderate” Republican office holders who believed that it was necessary to appeal to the “center” to win elections. And you know what? They lost — badly.
It was only after they switched to running candidates that appealed to their conservative base (Reagan being the first and the template) that Republicans began to make inroads in Congress. Of course, many people within the party condemned them for running such candidates, but in the end the Newt Gingriches of the world were proven right (pun intended). Now we see a dominant Republican Party, one that doesn’t know how to govern, but one that does know how to obtain and retain power. And it ain’t by playing to the mythical center folks.
Today, we have a Democratic Party that is also dominated by politicians who try to “triangulate” in order to appeal to “independents” and “moderates” just like the old, failed GOP used to do. And they have lost elections and power all across the country because of it. Sure, occasionally Dems can win a Presidential election with a unique candidate such as Clinton (or in the case of the Republicans, Nixon) but ultimately a strategy of trying to be all things to those who are not members of your party is a failing proposition.
Because, inevitably the public begins to see through the charade. Those who are the most committed to the ideals which the Democratic Party is supposed to stand behind grow weary of the fight and begin to abandon you, because you give them nothing in return for their loyalty, their sacrifice and their passion. And those of that great, unwashed middle of the political spectrum discern that you stand for nothing, and so they naturally gravitate to the Party that clearly does, even if what it stands for is harmful to them.
Because faced with a choice between someone who is passionate and committed about their politics, and someone who meanders all over the map, one day appealing to “Soccer Moms” on a particular issue, and another day to “NASCAR Dads”, they will choose the person who is sure in his or her beliefs.
Now I know the Democrats do not control the Senate or the House. I know that the media is not friendly to political parties who are out of power. I know it is difficult to gain the public’s attention, and to take action to demonstrate that the Democratic party has defined ideals and a vision for the future of this country. But that is all the more reason why, in those few instances when Democrats can act, that they must act.
Which is why I say to Senate Democrats that you must filibuster Alito.
(More after the break)
I don’t care that he didn’t make any glaring missteps in his answers at the Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on his nomination. I don’t care that the media says Alito’s nomination is a done deal, and the Gang of Fourteen’s Republican members have indicated that his nomination doesn’t meet the standard for a filibuster. I don’t care that you’ll be smeared as “obstructionists” and partisan hacks and all the rest.
Because now is the time to give something back to your base supporters, the idealists and activists who have supported the Democrats with our passion, our activism and our hard earned dollars. We know you don’t get many opportunities to strike a blow for us. We know your power to act is limited. But we also know that you cannot continue to pledge allegiance to our causes and our issues and then abandon them the minute support for us begins to look a little dicey.
If you don’t filibuster Alito now, you won’t lose all of us, but you will lose some, and you can’t afford any defections. Whatismore, those of us left behind still holding out hope that things will change if Democrats come back in power again, will be disheartened. We may still contribute our time to your campaigns, but not as much. We won’t stop contributing money, but the dollars will be fewer, and come less often into your coffers.
Think about it Senate Democrats. If you won’t fight this unpopular President now, in the midst of his myriad scandals, on a Supreme Court nominee whose views everyone agrees are far outside the mainstream, when will you fight? If you won’t fight for what your most avid and devoted supporters want, why should we support you?
I know what Newt Gingrich would do if he was in your shoes. I suggest you do the same. For all our sakes.
Why the hell are the vast majority of politicians on both sides fighting over representing the wingnutty 25-30% of the population, and abandoning the rest of us by the side of the road like an old mattress? I’m sick to death of the media telling us we’re all not moral enough for our votes to matter.
Re the dollars part of the equation, I think we’ve all been outbid by the corporations.
Enough with the wimpy Dems, and smug and obscuring bloviation from Republicans, it’s time WE veto Alito:
John Edwards has endorsed this petition for FILIBUSTER!
Phone, fax, and email addresses for the Judiciary Committee.
Write a letter to the editor of your local paper and contact your congress critters — all with one click.
People for the American Way has collected over 60,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours:Save the Court Petition
Move On.org’s Stop Alito petition
Democratic Party’s Reject Alito Petition
Stop the NRA’s Oppose Alito Petiton
And while you’re at it, sign: Planned Parenthood Petition
Naral Anti-Alito Petition
Urge Congress to support Plan B: Plan B Petition
I’ve got a link to your diary up as a featured action item diary at Howard-Empowered.
Seriously think we need to do the viral/guerilla marketing thing with the word filibuster. We can get back to pushing “impeach” once the current crisis is over.
That 25-30% happens to be the ones who vote, and also overlays very closely over the 25-30% top income tier.
Both furks are “playing to their base.”
What we see here, and on a few other blogs, is some dissatisfaction and denial regarding the nature of that base, and some wishful and wistful thinking that they (the bloggers) were in fact considered part of it.
The reality is that neither furk needs the small but vocal minority who actually oppose US policies.
“fighting” Alito (and “fighting” Dems) are just empty fundraising slogans. They’re not going to fight … if they do I’ll be shocked. They’ll delay the vote for a week (maybe), just for show, then Alito will get several Dem votes for confirmation.
I’m willing to bet that Alito will get confirmed by very nearly half the Democratic Senators. The blocks that vote to confirm and those that vote against him will be split evenly between “left-leaning” and “right-leaning” Democrats, to “avoid typecasting”.
Certain Partisan Bloggers will praise this as a stroke of strategic genius.
It’s not genius. It’s defeat … but we can’t trumpet defeat. .. we need to trumpet the Republicans’ problems …
I am heartsick we failed to stop Alito, but life goes on …. and we must seize the Congress …
even though now the Supreme Court will be skewed against us, if we can keep a STRONG CONGRESS and seize the Presidency, we can have two branches of government to stand up to them.
I am heartsick we failed to stop Alito, but life goes on …. and we must seize the Congress …
Susan, In the first few paragraphs of this FP post Steven has analysed ‘our’ dilemma. The problem with the current Democratic leadership is that they don’t represent us and they don’t even represent the majority of voters. Not on domestic policy and not on foreign policy.
The basic strategy electorally and in terms of policy issues and priorities in all areas is flawed and the basic strategy has been flawed for a good long time now. Untill this is understood and examined we aren’t going to win squat.
The fact of the matter is that the Democrats are fundamentally adverse (and indeed, when pressed, often viciously resistant) to populist appeal and the GOP has, over time, capitalised on this with enormous success. Untill the Democratic party ceases to be dominated by ‘centrist’ politicians and strategists they won’t win squat.
Now I am wondering if the dems won’t adopt populist values/ideas as a means of self-preservation/hanging on to their seats. If that is the case, we’re better off w/o them!
Now I am wondering if the dems won’t adopt populist values/ideas as a means of self-preservation/hanging on to their seats.
Indeed, I’ve been wondering this for a good long while. I think the most grotesque example to date of the utter failure of ‘centrist’ strategy and governance can now be found in the state of Louisiana where a good portion of their base has either died or been forced to leave the state and where the main publically expressed concern was looting and property damage. Those were the very people who voted for them and who made it possible for them to hold office. It blows my mind.
Y’all will have to forgive me for returning to Katrina time and time again, I’m still trying to get my mind around what has happened and continues to happen there and around the cultural response to it. It’s too large and too terrible.
Do you know that two weeks after the storm hit, MSNBC was back to endlessly prattling on about the non-news story of Natalie Holloway and her unfortunate disappearance in Aruba. I mean, that’s just shameless…
I woke up this morning and discovered much to my delight that the headlines that screamed that Alito was in are now gone. Headlines focusing on the fight (or if the publication doesn’t want to the give the Dems any credence at all it reads that Bush requests the Senate to give Alito a speedy up or down vote). If you give up you are certain to lose. If you fight you may lose. It is still likely that we will lose, but I’m going down in flames and I’m leaving a few booboos on my foe. My father always told me that the only way to really handle a bully is fight a bully, even if you lose they always think twice after that because they got hurt the last time they tangled with you.
As a not real tall or large person I learned at a young age that it’s best to charge that bully and hit the sonofabitch as hard as you can because being nice doesn’t work.
I have to identify with that.
Sometimes you don’t even have to hit the bully though, depending on the bully. A lot of aggressive people fold like cheap knickers if you simply stand up to them and call their bluff.
However, if you’re good at that you discover that it’s best to call them as early as possible because once they get used to you backing down they wont believe you mean it when you finally stand up to them
I think the Bush admin is a classic example of the above.
(you in the general sense , here )
Yup. Neither does “give-’em-enough-rope-and-let-him-hang-himself.”
Amen, Tracy. The only way to deal with a bully is to fight a bully.
And if the Senate Democrats had fought Roberts as hard as they could have…. yeah, he would have still been confirmed, but it would have drawn the line. Bush would have thought twice before nominating someone as extreme as Alito the next time around.
But no… they let Roberts pass, and so Bush realized he hadn’t gone far enough. So then came Alito… And if the Senate Democrats do not stand up and make a HELL of a fuss, pull out the filibuster or whatever it takes, even if they still lose, Bush will think the same thing… he hasn’t gone far enough. And if there’s a chance for another Supreme Court apointment, he will pick someone even worse.
Bullies always escalate. The kid who demands your lunch money one week will demand your entire allowance the next. The only way to stop a bully is to fight back. Appeasement NEVER WORKS. It’s a law of human nature.
I’m not giving up …
I’m facing the fact that the party is full of shit. They make big promises when they want to make money. That’s it.
Giving up on a pimp, that’s all.
Then my friend we need to take over the party. And we will, because depite all the happy talk, I don’t see the Dems picking up significant seats this year. Why? Because too often the old guard is still calling the shots. They are dangerously close to going the way of the Whigs.
Understand what you are saying, but, the fact of the matter is that it is damn near impossible in this area. Yeah, at the local level, there was a suprise victory for school board last year. At the national level, I really have difficulty seeing it. I mean, the party is closed off. They say one thing (that leaders are needed) and do another (cling to the past ways of losing).
And people are so pissed about that that, quite frankly, most have given up. The pessimism/defeatist attitude is really tough to deal with and accept.
Yeah, new ideas are needed. And no one listens.
Hate to say it, but I agree with you. The dems have lost their any respect from me they once had–and I used to be a loyal dem voter. Gonna talk to one gal around here w/the Green Party. Unless there is a miracle during the elections…
One worry I have is that we have no dynamic speaker on our behalf. Feingold at least isn’t caught up in Senate-speak, unlike Biden or bless-his-heart Leahy, but he has no prosecutorial drive-it-home skills. Dianne Feinstein would be powerful, but I think she’s far too “realistic” to do it.
Another worry is that — as Ohio St U law prof predicted on C-Span on Dec. 28 ( i quoted him so i remember when he spoke) — we do NOT HAVE GROUPS that rally around “checks and balances.” We have no powerhouse constituency to loudly fight that issue. (Privacy, yes — and there we have friends with all libertarians and many Republicans.) But not checks and balances.
I’m just trying to present some real-world considerations. We don’t want to do tthis if it’s going to fail, and Alito is going to end up with 62 votes (as an informal whip count came up with yesterday). That means we don’t even have enough votes to avoid cloture!
Did you notice how much more subdued Leahy was when he came back from the Rosenbaum memorial service and he and Specter closed the hearing? He looked absolutely defeated and like he had surrendered his soul.
I missed that, Rumi…. that’s so sad. Leahy is the dearest man. I loved it when he brought up his own immigrant background as a quiet counter to Alito’s parading of his own.
Isn’t Leahy the one that pushed Cheney’s buttons well enough to have Cheney caught cursing on the Senate floor? I can’t understand Leahey rolling over unless it’s a force more powerful than politics alone. I still think there’s more to the Rosenbaum tragedy.
What happened? I spent too much time with C-Span this week and missed all the news bites. Who is Rosenbaum? (I heard they were going to a service for him, but there was no explanation on C-Span about who he was …)
David Rosenbaum was the 30+ year chief of the NYTimes Washington bureau that had covered politicsway back to Watergate and beyond. He retired at the end of December and planned to freelance to the Times and work on other projects. His last few articles were hard on Alito’s memos from Reagan days that promoted immunity for the AG in particualr and generally gave govt a free pass to exploit the public.
He was mugged under suspicious circumstances last Friday(week ago) and subsequently died last Sunday.
Short diary – David Rosenbaum ‘what if’ questions
He would’ve made the best witness in any upcoming trial,..
Why don’t we want to do this if we fail? I’m with Steven – even if the Democrats fail to block Alito, they will win in the longer term by at least beginning to show that they have principles we are willing to fight for.
You and I are agreed – the Nov 6 elections are critical to the future of this country. Democrats must get Congress back. But if the Democrats don’t show that they are willing to fight for this country – for the future of all of its citizens – I fear they will lose again.
The nuclear option? The Republicans will enact it or something like it eventually. What is more worth fighting for – and risking that – than this is?
I’m just exploring ideas here … so don’t hold me to them ….
one BIG reason I can see that we do not want to do this if we’re guaranteed 1) failure, and 2) the non-support of half the Senate Democrats (or thereabouts) is this:
WE DO NOT WANT TO BE THE HEADLINE — as a laughing stock — pilloried morning, noon, and night by the media, which has already excoriated the Democrats for their weak performance this week …
We especially don’t want to be the headline as a failure
Reality is that we will lose on Alito. Reality is also that we want to keep Abramoff and the Republican Congress on the front pages as much as possible … we want to keep the terrible situation in Iraq in the headlines …
(I HATE saying this but Alito was coached well, dodged well, got a passing grade … he didn’t blow it … he didn’t Bork himself. If we can’t even get the votes to avoid cloture, we’d better make sure we don’t make ourselves look like fools.)
The base is sufficiently angry with Bush, Iraq, etc. …. We ALSO NEED TO APPEAL to the middle if we want to win in ’06 and ’08.
Do you think those moderates aren’t most likely to wander back to the Republican candidates? Of course they are! How do we capture these wishy-washy people? By making the Republicans look so horrible that they’ll even vote for a Democrat as an anti-GOP vote.
I was glad to read JanetStrange’s response cause I was thinking the same thing.
And your response – oh good, a discussion. 🙂
What frustrates me so with the Dems in the hearing is this sense that we, here at BT, are more informed and aware of Alito’s danger to our very governmental structure than they are.
IMO, the only course the Dems have to show STRENGTH is to filibuster. One by one standing and speaking out. To me, failure will be not doing this.
As to how the Republicans will use this. It doesn’t matter.
And as far as the future elections, more people care about issues that are affecting them directly. Individuals running against Republican have plenty of those to use in the primaries and fall elections.
(And please remember that I’m regarding this like a high school debate — which I so loved in high school — where we had to argue both sides of an issue, and it was a marvelous intellectual exercise … and I wish every kid could do it.
So my arguments with you have more to do with bringing up all the possible considerations rather than arguing with you.)
The Democrats who stand up to the Alito nomination are also speaking out for many moderate Republicans who don’t like the nominee’s potential. A good fight will go a long way in their eyes.
I agree with you JS
If not now, when? Why were we told that they were kepping their powder dry? A contemptable phrase btw since they’re pretty soggy now. But I’m not convinced yet that this is the end of it.
Because their corporate sponsors don’t want what we want. It’s that simple.
The corporate sponsors/Those Who Rule don’t mind pandering to the Republican base because the stuff they want doesn’t hurt corporations. Corporations don’t want women’s rights — equal pay, paid maternity leaves, etc. They don’t want to pay the taxes to provide support and opportunities for the poor. They don’t want to reduce their profits to clean up the environment. On and on.
I sadly agree with Madman. We’re punked. We’re screwed. Those Who Rule have all the money and power and a police state suits their feudal ambitions.
We are not the first people on the globe to have to deal with tyrants. When you deal with tyrants you must fight! I know it is sad and I know it sucks and I know we are all shocked to be here and we grieve all that we have lost in such a short time. Even if you are having your worst day from hell with it all go ahead and have it, and then when you feel a bit better pick up your sword even if all you can manage is one thrust! It is one more than we would have had without you!
comparable to the Republican base.
Remember: the Republican base is organized authoritarian religion which includes both Protestants and Catholics.
This is the largest and certainly best organized, best mobilized and best-integrated-with-the-power-structure grassroots political movement in the nation’s history. This entire block is put in motion each time at a cost of barely a few 10’s or 100’s of thousands of dollars, and a very few hundreds of party person-hours.
All that Democrats have is masses of potential voters scattered individually or among small, weakly organized economic or cultural groups.
And there is no easy way to message these masses except by using the private media properties of Republicans.
Organized labor’s been cut in half and further cut down by the culture war. With the civil rights and anti-draft movements of the 60’s ended, there simply is no Democratic analogue to the Republican base.
I’m pretty new at this politics stuff, and probably very naive. However, it seems to me that Democrats represent a very broad coalition of interest groups that share some common concerns. I think our elected leaders tend to take the party faithful for granted. They do pander to the undecideds, or Independent voters.
I’m afraid we continue to put the cart before the horse. In my view, we need to collectively define what it is to be a Democrat, no matter what interest group we come from. Once we can summarize that, we have a product to sell to those independents without, as someone said earlier, losing our soul.
If we continue to ignore what gets all these groups to come together in the first place, we will continue to be unfocused, trying to be all things to all people.
What is a Democrat? At our core is a belief that we all benefit from the labors of other folks, we all share a responsibility to take care of our own people and to make a positive contribution to the common good. We view the role of government as an entity that promotes the common welfare of our people.
Now you can disagree with and modify my definition of what is at the core of all Democrats if you want. I just put this out there as an example. However, we must move from general statements like this to very specific talking points that are consistent to our core values, but also define the Democratic Brand to the American Voter. For example, Alito is bad for all Americans because inconsistencies in his answers make him untrustworthy. Balancing the Federal budget is a Democratic goal. Developing a national energy policy that will reduce our dependence of foreign sources of energy is a Democratic goal. Maintaining a strong defense while using diplomacy to solve international disputes is a Democratic goal. Protecting our Social Security system is a Democratic goal. Meaningful and enforceable election finance reform is a Democratic goal. Affordable health care for all Americans is a Democratic goal. Protecting the jobs of Americans is a Democratic goal.
If I am way off base here, please let this neophyte know. If I’m not, you will understand my new signature line a little better.
I am not a part of the democratic base, but I am their ally. Actually, I think I one of their strongest patrons. NOw after having said that, I say to you all, we must hit the alito nomination on all corners. Shame on the dems for sitting around with frowns on their faces…I want to suggest we get our voices heard by doing what we are all good at doing..and sometimes, I even get forelorned, but we must do this or else what have we to cry about. If they do not start to get off their butts and fight, I will not vote for or with them again… and I am telling them that too..
Democrats don’t “play to their base” because the base of the Democratic Party is the African-American vote. You have to go back to Lyndon Baines Johnson to recall the last time the majority of white people voted for a white Democratic Presidential candidate. My guess the same would hold true in Congressional elections tallied nationally, with the possible exception of the 1974 Dem landslide in aftermath of Watergate. White Democrats take “the base” for granted because it is assumed that the Republicans are not a viable alternative for black voters. White Democrats also fear that “playing to the base” opens white Democrats to accusations of ‘pandering to special interests (i.e., giving black people more benefits),’ thereby driving even more white people into the ranks of Republicans. Therefore, Democrats don’t “play to the base” because they feel that while “the base” provides Democrats with a reliable floor of votes on which to build, it is also an albatross around the neck of white candidates nationally when trying to patch together an electoral plurality. White Democrats don’t seem to know how to appeal to white Americans facing the same economic hardships as the African-American community. It probably has to do with the fact that many poor white people would rather believe that they couldn’t possibly be as bad off as black people and to imply that they are is an affront to their ‘status’ as white people. Therefore, Republicans and Democrats alike try to get these votes by making conservative appeals on social issues which poor white people can relate to because it allows them to ignore their low economic status, and provides an illusory interest in the conservative status quo.
Ok…I need a defination of the dems base, for I did not assume that at all….