I’ve written and called my own Senators. I made it clear. I don’t care what they have done for me in the past. Alito has got to go. And I told them they were accountable for their fellow Democrats. I wasn’t taking 41+ no votes for an answer. If over 41 Democrats think he ought not to be on the bench, then they have an option. It is to band together and filibuster. Voting no is only symbolic. 41 votes to filibuster is meaningful. And if the Republicans go nuclear, so be it. It is my own “tactical nuclear” option. Get your shit together and stop this nomination, or die trying, or I am walking away from this silly party. No more money. No more volunteering. No more votes. I’ll waste my vote on third-party candidates who at least believe in something. And get my ass kicked that way. But this is the big enchilada. For all the marbles. The Super Bowl of nominations. Get it done.
And when it wasn’t good enough to just tell my own Senators this simple message, I decided to tell every Democratic Senator the same thing. Wrote them all. And the Independent. 42 letters (already had Michigan Senators covered, and Menendez from NJ had no e-mail) in an hour. The wonders of e-mail and cut and paste.
Here is my form letter:
Dear Senator,
I am writing to ask that you filibuster the Alito confirmation vote. I’ve been voting Democratic for two decades. The right of privacy as defined in Roe v. Wade is a core issue to me. I have always understood it to be a core issue to Democrats. I’m going to tell you now, what I’ve written to my own Senators:
It is not good enough to simply vote against Alito’s confirmation. That is mere symbolism. As I understand it, it is very likely that the Democrats will have 41 Senators in opposition to this right-wing extremist of a nominee. And if you cannot come together as a party to filibuster this nomination, then I might as well be wasting my vote on a third-party candidate every year who at least agrees with my positions on the issues. Or not voting at all. Or contributing. Or working on Democratic campaigns.
Let me be clear. If the Republican senate wishes to over-ride your filibuster by the so-called “nuclear option,” so be it. If the Democratic party takes a black-eye in the corporate media for this filibuster, so be it. But you have to stand for something as a party. And if it is not for pro-choice issues, then I am no longer with you. A strong no vote is not good enough. A filibuster is required.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
A concerned citizen,
And a couple of personally tailored notes. Ben “Nighthorse” Nelson — pull your head out of your ass and be a Democrat or I’m sending a check to your opponent. Mary Landrieu — shut the fuck up about how the Senate has important things to do and can’t risk the upset that a filibuster will cause or I’m sending a check to your opponent. Jeffords the I — I wish I lived in Vermont, hope you can help out on this project.
Probably not very effective. But what the hell else can a guy do. Move to Canada and hope that their case of wing-nuts won’t grow like ours did. We have elephantitis of the wing-nuts. And I bet those hockey playing bastards are gonna get it, too. 🙁
I hate to bum you out, but Salazar has no balls.
This article shows him at his most dismissive:
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/government/article/0,2777,DRMN_23906_4414916,00.html
Oh you just wait until he gets my phone call. 🙂
Oh… I wish…
I told hime the same thing, daily. This is zero hour. He could care less.
What now?
Well. If I was at the Trinity test site, when they were about to explode the bomb, I would have bent over and kissed my arse. I was thinner then.
It can only get better. Clicking ruby slipper three times.
Senators get so much, they may not have time to go through it, or so I’ve heard.
Calling, or faxing may be best.
While we have to generate the pressure on all Senators, the decision to filibuster (or not) will also be a leadership decision.
Call the Leadership Offices!
Harry Reid, NV Democratic Leader (202) 224-3542
Dick Durbin, IL Assistant Democratic Leader (202) 224-2152
Patrick Leahy, VT Ranking Member Judiciary Committee (202) 224-4242
Senate Democrats refuse to signal whether or not they will filibuster Alito. They appear to have 41 votes, since Ben Nelson (D-NE) is the only one of 44 Democrats who supports Alito. Jim Jeffords (I-VT) should oppose Alito, and 5 Republicans – Lamar Alexander (TN), Lincoln Chafee (RI) Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), and Ted Stevens (AK) – are undecided.
(Call:
1-888-355-3588
or
1-888-818-6641
For extra credit, use the same numbers to call all the 2008 Presidential candidates who are sitting Senators – Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold, and John Kerry – and tell them to either LEAD THE FILIBUSTER or FORGET ABOUT YOUR SUPPORT. You can also send that message to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (202-224-2447) and the Democratic National Committee (202-863-8000).
CALL YOUR SENATORS!
If Repug, tell them “No” to Alito; if Democrat: FILIBUSTER!
If the Washington lines are busy you can also call your Senators’ home offices, or fax (for info, click here:)< CALL YOUR SENATORS (Click here)
Get the word out about why Alito needs to be filibustered:
Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper. (Click here)
People for the American Way has collected nearly 65,000 signatures to send to the Senate, please add yours: Save the Court Petition
John Kerry has endorsed this anti-Alito petition, signers’ names will be read into the Congressional Record:
http://www.johnkerry.com/…
Plan to make calls this morning.
i’ve been told that every piece of email/snailmail, fax and phonecall gets logged in and are weighted. like one email is equal 10 people’s views. one fax is 15 people’s views. one snailmail is 25 people’s views. one phone call is 50 people’s views. and then they get off their asses and act. so, it all counts, but you’re right, the harder / more time consuming the mode of messaging, the more it counts.
if you see one of these people, grab a hold of them and tell them what you think! but not in a dangerous manner, you don’t want to be picked off by security detail [heh]
That’s an excellent stand you’ve taken. All I can add is thanks for saying that.
Let me know when you start the alternate party.
It is time. I know I can’t be the only former Democrat thinking that.
No, you can’t be and when I find the other one we’ll call it a base. The primary ought to be easy, though.
I think that tomorrow we homeless Democrats are going to need a place to go. Maybe BostonJoe will open a diary for us.
It is time for an alternative. I know I can’t be the only former Democrat thinking that.
Once the vote has started, will you help me hunt for homeless ex-Dems and gather them together to talk? We need a place to get our heads together and figure out where to go.
This filibuster really was our Alamo.
Tenth hour thought – maybe we should have been sending our 12 day letters and all the others to the people who collect and manage the money – maybe they would be heard/read by the real Democratic leadership and the word would come down to the front men/women we call Senators.
Final Action – send your letter to the DNC, theDSCC, and theDLC
And those here at BT who read this and agree will do the same before any vote.
Money talks – maybe we can build ours from a whisper to a roar – overnight delivery.
I will send them as directed. Still. What does it matter. Pebbles. Throwing pebbles at the city walls. We are so completely screwed and powerless.
Given the history of Alito in his memos concerning the executive powers his confirmation would make it nearly impossible to get the SCOTUS to rule against Bush’s power abuses.
This all still comes back to the overhyped GWoT. Without that, there’s no reason to overreach in power. With it, all violations so far seem to be accepted as justifiable. That’s where we’re getting screwed.
: p
please don’t say things like that. i shall cry.
for the more ardent devotees of all those politicians. I can hear the pens scratching in the checkbooks now.
Tomorrow, you will be able to go over to the more right wing “Democratic” sites and see post after post of gratitude for their pragmatism, what a victory, the Repukes were all set to call us obstructionists but we showed them, we should all be very proud of our pragmatic Dems. Go Dems! We are gonna take back that house in 06, here is the one I want, send him money now.
Makes me puke. Best protest I heard yesterday was dKos person who said: “Vote to filibuster or I’m killing myself.” Turned out to be joking. But self-immolation is sounding like a reasonable protest.
There is no need for citizens to take this responsibiity upon themselves. Your elected reprsentatives are efforting to make the immolation of billions a reality with no effort on the part of the citizenry required.
At this point, short of immolation, probably the best thing you can do is put your psychological comfort first, and do that which brings you the largest amount of that, but maintain reality contact. This is important for psychological well being also.
I left the neighborhood of reality a long time ago, I fear. At least the one most people are living in. I’d like to say that I’m living in the real world, and people who think everything is a-okay honkey-dorey are the ones who have lost touch. But there are so many of them. And so few of me. Or us. So if we’re voting on reality, I think I should probably be committed. Not to a cause. But to an institution. But since we don’t have those programs to assist those who have broken with reality, thanks to the lovely Reagan legacy, I move that I be committed to a penal and re-education institution. With bars. And waterboards. Someplace where my right to vote will be forever infringed, even after I am reclaimed by society. Barf. A really heaing barf.
also, a really heaving barf.
I liked “healing barf” better.
This is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. After over a months solid effort, beginning with the 12 Days campaign, petettions w/ who knows how many thousands of signatures, letters, faxes, emails, and phone calls there is no one in DC to stand up for 2/3 of the country. This is a dark time indeed.
The Rude One has a wickely appropriate rant up today comparing this lack of spine with that surrounding the Thomas debacle.
Recommended.
Peace
FReaking ridiculous. How can this opposition party be so completely and unequivocally spineless. Even when they were a majority.
Can’t take it.
The Dems mantra: “I’ll vote no, but I don’t have enough character to back it up with a filibuster to show I really mean it.”
Losers.
Complete Losers. I’m at a loss. Part of me says it is time to officially become a “Green” and start building a party that means something. Another part says we need a new party. And a third part says this is all just baloney. The only practical thing is to work within the present “loser” party framework.
But I’ll have to say this. When I’m daydreaming about party participation, organizing, and possible political involvement — I feel better when my daydreams are about a party that has a genuine commitment to my ideals, rather than one that pays lip service to them and rarely backs the talk with action. I don’t mind losing. I don’t mind getting whupped. I do hate people that compete and don’t give their best effort. And that’s seems to be what I’ve been getting from the current opposition party for all my adult life. Even the Clinton years, in retrospect, and the Granholm years here in Michigan now, were/are pathetic with the way that they ignore progressive principles even when given a chance to wield power.
Years ago, an experienced and nearly retired attorney gave me some excellent advice. At the time, it applied to the family court system, but lately I keep thinking it applies to our current political landscape. He told me that you have to work within the system and that at the same time you must continue working outside the system to find a solution. The goal was to arrive at a workable solution as quickly as possible, and by doing both, we were hedging our bets that a solution would come.
I think we have to work within the current political framework to an extent, and outside that framework at the same time. Push hard on the losers we’ve got, and push more progressive candidates forward at the same time, so we have people who can take the place of our current crop of losers. Whether it takes pulling the Democratic party back to the left (admittedly a tough job) or bringing a third party to the point where it’s either viable on its own or enough of a threat to the Dems to make them behave, I don’t care, as long we make the change.
That’s good advice. Makes me want to party build. Not to the detriment of our present losers. But as a hedge. Until an alternative is viable. Because I am so sick of this team.
incoherent letter to sen. smith
incoherent letter to smith:
Dear Senator Smith and staff:
I have abiding concerns regarding the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Few, if any of them were allayed by watching the Senate debate today.
In all honesty, the Senate should not even be considering his nomination right now – the investigation into Bush’s NSA extralegal spying directive is far more important. It starkly calls Alito’s fitness for the nation’s highest court into question, given his previous support of such increased executive branch powers.
For example, would Alito concur with the administration’s claim that the AUMF permits domestic surveillance, even though the Senate explicitly denied Bush that capability? Would he support the notion that Bush can ignore FISA because he is CinC?
His past encouragement of wiretapping is disturbing in this regard, as is his endorsement of executive “signing statements.” Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the president shall interpret laws sent to him by Congress, but Bush has used these statements to not only evaluate laws, but decide that he can ignore laws based these interpretations. The Constitution is also explicit in that even the president must obey the law – I’m not sure Alito can be counted upon to uphold that.
It is in this context that an imagined deference to the executive regarding nominees is so troubling – why should the co-equal branch of government tasked with evaluating nominees need to “defer” to the executive branch? The Constitution is very explicit on this: the executive appoints justices with the Senate’s oversight and agreement. It does not say the Senate has to agree.
There is no reason the Senate needs defer to the executive whatsoever. He certainly didn’t afford the Senate the courtesy of consulting with them or seeking their advice on this nominee; if he had, I’m sure the Miers debacle would never have happened.
At least he consulted on the second try, but instead of the Senate, he solicited feedback from his Chief of Staff, Harriet Miers and prominent members of the religious right. Where in the constitution does it assign those people the role to advise on judicial nominees?
Samuel Alito, in his support of the “unitary executive” theory, is a threat to Congress’ role as an equal branch of a tripartate government. There are already two lawsuits resulting from the NSA wiretaps; what would Alito’s opinion if they went before the Supreme Court? We can’t know for sure, but his past record indicates that he would be in favor of broader governmental power.
What happens when Bush starts ignoring other laws of inconvenience? Or decides to invoke the CinC “national security” excuse to drill in the Arctic Refuge without explicit consent from Congress? Establishing this precedent in the executive branch is extraordinarily dangerous – I do believe Alito would help set such a precedent.
His nomination is especially critical given that he will be replacing the very centrist Sandra Day O’ Connor. Not everybody in the country thinks like Scalia and Thomas and the Supreme Court should reflect a comparable balance of ideology. Some would argue that justices are not elected officials and therefore SCOTUS doesn’t need to encompass a variety of beliefs as society does. But justices are appointed by elected officials and approved by elected officials. As the popular reminder goes, “elections have consequences.”
In this sense, the resulting judicial appointments should take the national character into account – the federal government represents ALL citizens, not just those of the party currently in charge. As such, the composition of the nation’s highest court should be seated with people of varying perspectives and viewpoints, to ensure balance in our justice system. Protecting the voice and rights of the minority were of paramount importance to our founding fathers – they knew well the dangers of one-party rule.
I was also dismayed at the assertion that being “qualified” is the only valid criterion for evaluating justices. If that is the case, why waste the president’s and the Senate’s time with nominations, debates and voting on confirmation? “Qualified” is a fairly objective measure and one that made many justices suitable choices for this appointment.
If ideology plays no role in the fitness of a justice, why not insist on an equally qualified, yet more moderate nominee? If ideology means nothing in this, why are religious right groups ecstatic over this nomination?
I simply cannot put in strong enough terms how completely inappropriate Alito is for our Supreme Court at this time. I know you have come out in support of the nomination, but I am urging you to reconsider and insist on a nominee that respects the primacy of Congress’ role in our government. Encouraging the development of a strong unitary executive by appointing supportive justices to SCOTUS could well mean dispensing with “advice and consent of the Senate” altogether.
Very sincerely,
an unhappy constituent
That is an excellent statement of where we are. In context. And any sane person with sophisticated reading abilities ought to be moved by it. Unfortunately, in large part, I don’t think we are represented by people a) with sophisticated reading abilities and b) likely to be moved by anything — like seeing the sculpture “David” or listening to “Pink Floyd” in altered consciousness or any other of the great things in life, let alone by a stirring letter.
That’s why I went for USA Today. Simple. To the point. But you’ve gone Rolling Stone on them. And it is good. Intelligent analysis of situation.
One point of disagreement. In reality, calling Justice O’Connor a centrist is like calling Stalin a humanitarian philosopher. She is right. Alito is ultra right. I believe you probably said it to assuage the simple sensibilities of your audience. But I’m just saying. That’s how far we have drifted in this country. On the march to someplace Brown with Red and Black highlights.
o’connor’s a !@#$%& dirty hippie…
: p
Fuck the Senators- obviously they don’t care about their constituents.
Call your STATE Democratic party head. Tell these purse holders that this is the final deal, that there will be no constitution to fight for if ALito is confirmed. Let them know that they will lose us en masse if there is no filibuster.
Anything less than a filibuster is capitualation.
Ramen.
(yes, I’m SCREAMING!!!!)
Bush just quoted our lovely Dem Governor Rendell on his support of Alito in his fucking press conference!
Fucking witless asshole Dems giving that dirtbag loser BUSH political cover!!!!!
I’m picturing you with your hands clasped to the sides of your head, and your head itself waving in a dreamlike quality, not unlike that stolen work of art, “The Scream.”
Yup. We are the party of pro-life, too. And the party of big business, too. And the party of Abramoff corruption, too. One big party.
(Andi, I love the Generator Blog!!!)
What the hell is this. Looks like a really fun site.
Nope. I booked marked it for later. Want to try half of them at least. 🙂
I just called and divorced the democratic party.
Can I still play here?
Tim Johnson (“D”-SD) will vote ‘Yes’ for Alito’s nomination. Story Here
GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!
When I called DiFi’s DC office today, and asked to speak with my Senator regarding a filibuster of Samuel Alito, I was told by the nice woman who answered the phone that she would pass my concern along to the Senator.
I asked if the Senator would be encouraging other senators to join in a filibuster, and was told that the Senator had not stated her position on the matter as of yet.
We went around the circle again. Maybe I tricked the phone answerer into checking the “supports filibuster” box twice.
When I called Senator Boxer’s office and asked to speak with my Senator regarding a filibuster of Samuel Alito, I was told by the nice woman who answered the phone that she would pass my concern along to the Senator.
I asked if she understood that I was asking that the Senator participate in a filibuster against Alito. She let out a gentle laugh and said that she understood. I suppose not too many people are calling asking her to support Alito considering the oppression and the new standards for an imperial presidency that will come along with his service.
So I guess I can sit back and let freedom ring.
I love the crushing grind of our process in the morning. It smells like victory.
in favor of a filibuster!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/26/123745/548
make those phone calls!
All the leadership, my own Senators again, and those who are swing Senators. Raved for 30 minutes. And I have to say, Sen. Landieu deserves to be ousted from office, simply because she is not savy enough to hire more effective staff people. Her staff reflects her own sense of entitlement and her own clueless lack of understanding of the supposed “Democratic people” she represents. I can recall her patting herself on the back here, for the federal response to Katrina.
Her staffer answers curtly, says you can only give your opinion “yes or no.” I said it is not that simple. No is not good enough. No for Alito and yes in opposition to a filibuster is wrong, wrong. She said well you don’t live in LA so we don’t care. I said well I intend to be donating to her primary and general election challengers because this vote is core, and stupid. She hung up.
Every other Senate staffer I talked to listened politely and recorded my concerns in some fashion. Landrieu blows. She goes. Or I go. This party ain’t big enough for the two of us. Oh. Never mind. I already left.
lol
i think landrieu’s staff is really sick of taking calls!