Is it just me? Or did anybody else fail to grasp the logic behind encouraging this Quixotic Alito “filibuster?”
If the debate was clear in the public mind, and/or the public was even remotely behind the filibuster movement, this might have made sense. But it wasn’t, and it didn’t. Which is precisely why Reid reluctantly went along with this, even while rolling his eyes and trying to move people along to the next WINNING battle.
It was always a LOSER. Especially when you consider who would likely be the NEXT HORRIBLE NOMINEE, and the fact that even should they get the votes to extend debate, Frist could Nuke ’em, and minority Democrats in the Senate WOULD BE LEFT WITH NOTHING except open ended irrelevancy.
Make the strongest case against Alito in public debate. Vote no. Get out of the way of the nuclear bomb.
This is a guerrilla war in the Senate. You don’t beat superior firepower by charging head on. You win by living to fight another day. I believe any far-sighted Democrat advocating such suicidal tactics at this moment is in error…
Before the flaming retorts begin, let me say I would not oppose a filibuster “attempt” had the Dems on the Judiciary Committee actually been able to successfully frame the debate coherently, and garnered some public support. Perhaps by posing questions that let America get a clear picture of the problems with Alito, and the implications for the country. But they didn’t. As a result they will be cast as “losers” again to Joe Sixpack, who will be wondering why they “wasted time” on this LOSING battle, when there are SO MANY other issues he is finding himself agreeing with them on!
In case some people missed it, Bush’s got a FOUR YEAR TERM. The Senate has a LARGE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY who want EXACTLY this kind of Supreme Court Justice. They have the votes, and they have at least two more years to get their guy through.
AND WHY DID ANYBODY EXPECT THE NEXT BUSH NOMINEE WOULD BE BETTER???
We’ve been winning in the court of public opinion because the issues have been clarified over time. Iraq, greedy corruption, domestic spying, religious nuttery, presidents who can’t speak complete sentences. The public GETS these things.
It is possible that a skilled questioner on the Judiciary committee could have exposed the real Alito in a way that would have crystalized the threat he represents to our democracy, in the way that Iraq and other issues have become clear to Americans. But that did not happen. And a filibuster lost whatever tiny chance it might’ve had to get traction.
Elections MATTER. This fight was really lost in November 2004. (Note to non-voters and Naderites.) The court will shift even more rightward. And all sorts of wacky, horrifying decisions will start coming down from the new Federalist Supreme Court.
The battle will shift to the states where abortion becomes outlawed, and Christian prayers become mandatory in schools.
Republicans will have to defend this shit.
And Americans will start to realize that Republican RELIGIOUS ACTIVISTS on the Supreme Court are BAD for America.
Hopefully the public will GET IT THEN.
Only when the damage to our democracy by Republicans becomes apparent to the public, will we be able to regain control the political agenda. It will be a long, tedious, often depressing struggle. Many of us are obviously not up for it. We want to make quick suicidal charges into the teeth of the enemy.
But we will have to start winning political battles BEFORE it gets to this point, if we want to be the group appointing Supreme Court justices. We have to end the Republican stranglehold on government. The long range battle for this country is going to be won by regaining majority public opinion, and WINNING ELECTIONS. Not by picking more short term losing fights like the Alito “filibuster.”
Forcing Democrats to play and lose this filibuster game was a tactical error. It may have let some delusional Dems feel better for about four hours, but resulted only in the public seeing another “Democrat loss.” Instead of the loss it was for our country.
We won’t win political battles if the Democrats fold like a wet paper towel every time Karl Rove says “Boo”.
This failure will hurt them in the 2006 elections, and hurt them badly. Unless progressives can cause some serious candidate turnover, I expect a fillibuster-proof Republican majority. Why? Because all the Republicans have to do when the Democrats bring up something horrible they did is say “So why didn’t you stop us? You voted for it.”
oh shit! did Karl Rove say ‘boo’?
I can’t completely agree. Yes, the Democrats were ineffective in making clear to the general public the dangers of Mr.Alito. But, it is also my belief that the general public will not take any greater notice of this “filibuster game” than other political goings on. It is likely that people will see it, if they see it at all, as just so much enigmatic DC maneuvering. They will be unable to connect the ritual to their daily lives. And yes, this represents a failure of Democrats to make clear the impetus for filibuster. But again, few will notice. So many opportunities to sieze the reins.
I just watched my local news. There was a brief mention about two thirds through the newscast. The big news was the usual local killings/robberies and Bob Woodruff.
The Senate is not the field for guerrilla war.
It is the field for open, public opposition.
Its job is to hold open the field of official public discourse, even when–no especially when–winning the votes is not possible.
When opposition within the government is not possible, that leaves only opposition to the government.
Do you understand what that means?
I didn’t see any “opposition” today. I saw rather a minority getting beaten in slow motion.
Sometimes fighting the “good fight” only gets your ass kicked. Being streetwise means knowing when NOT to fight. Like when you’re outnumbered. Because when you get a rep for losing fights, you’ll end up losing even more. Which is where Harry Reid, and the “guerrilla” metaphor comes from.
The Dems could, and DID, make lots of speeches condeming Alito, and opposing his nomination. And nobody seemed to care. It was the gratuitous “loss” on the “filibuster”/vote for cloture that I’m suggesting was ill conceived.
Luckily the losing itself, in this case, seems to be largely ignored by the public — outside the blogoshere.
Or maybe watching Democrats “fight the good fight” and get beaten has become so “normal,” that it’s not even interesting to middle America anymore.
That’s the real danger of picking unnecessary losing fights like this “filibuster.” Getting a rep as a loser.
picking unnecessary losing fights like this “filibuster’
What you say would make sense if the Alito nomination were irrelevant.
But in fact it is the most important piece of business the Senate will conduct, or could conduct, this year.
Once Alito is on the bench the US Constitution is in effect suspended permanently. According to Alito, the President’s whim is the only law, and he is enough to swing the Court, and that is how it will be.
There will be no further “fights.” (Maybe some professional wrestling, but that is not the same thing.) Barring a miracle Tuesday, this was it.
I doubt there are any reliable polls (yes, oxymoron) that could answer this, but I do not get the sense that an overwhelming majority of Americans see the president’s whim being the law as a bad thing.
And as usual, the underclass seems to have a more realistic and sophisticated view than their affluent brothers: the president’s whim already is the law, with or without Alito.
Disagree, these thugs need to be opposed.
everywhere, er….LOUDLY.
I’m not expecting adoration for this opinion. Pointing out the futility of picking losing battles is never well received by people who just fought and lost one.
I DIDN’T say it was wrong to oppose Alito. Only that one needs to know when to “cut the losses.” We had a losing hand to play with. We’re a minority right now. But it was important to be on the record as having opposed him, so we can tell our grand daughters it wasn’t our fault. We DID a lot of explaining and the country still didn’t care. So picking a losing “fight” on an illusory filibuster didn’t add to that debate, it only handed the Repubs an easy “victory” and needlessly deepened our sense of “loss.”
It also risked the permenant loss of the filibuster (maybe not so bad in the long run) on any future nominees. Should we get lucky and pick up some Senate seats this fall.
risked the permenant loss of the filibuster
No risk: I’ts lost. You just watched it go down.
The filibuster ought to have worked; all the Dems had to do was hold together. Winners would have held together, but being losers they bailed. We don’t call them Vichycrats for nothing: The resemblence of their behavior now and the transition of France to Vichy France is just . . . stark.
Well, water under the bridge.
Tell your grandaughter to flee to a free country while she still can. That window will close this year.
Just out of curiosity, though–isn’t refusing to filibuster because you know it’s not going to work just as bad as sitting back and doing nothing?
Seems to me like it can just as easily be seen as a brilliant tactical move. It drew the White House out, so that they demanded Frist move up the cloture vote. It made it clear, on public record, that Republicans couldn’t be bothered to allow debate on a crucial nominee. And more importantly, it’s a big in-your-face to Frist and his Bushite buddies–we’re not afraid of your nuclear option.
Depending on your point of view, the filibuster attempt could be seen as a huge show of force by a minority party that thinks it might have enough votes to block confirmation. Sure, it looks different because we don’t have a majority. But think of the message it sends to the rest of the Senate–we’re so against this guy we’re willing to try a filibuster. Come join us.
Maybe it won’t work. But what do we need, 10 or 15 votes to block, max (overestimating the # of Dems who won’t oppose Alito)? It could work.