DLC suggests Democrats not filibuster Alito. (This is NOT the DNC.)

[madfloridian]

These last four paragraphs explain their stance. I totally disagree, I think our Democrats should filibuster. There is a factor that the DLC did not mention. There is an off chance the GOP just might be hesitant to use the nuke option in this atmosphere....seeing poll numbers down.

But then again they could. I understand that if they did use the nuke option it could bring up old circuit court judges who were rejected. Not sure, just read that recently. Could pose a problem.

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

"Democrats in the Senate, and elsewhere, have no obligation to help Bush redeem this divisive campaign pledge. Given Judge Alito's long and consistent record of conservative activism on and off the bench, it is prudent to oppose this confirmation as a matter of principle, reflecting the gravity of a lifetime appointment to a closely divided Court.

But we stress this last point: in the Senate debate on this confirmation, Democrats should focus on Alito's judicial philosophy, and discard the personal attacks that figure so prominently in some of the interest-group campaigning against his confirmation. Such attacks at best distract from the principled case against Alito; at worst, they undermine it.

For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation. A filibuster is certain to fail; indeed, the Senate is certain to respond to a filibuster by outlawing them permanently in judicial confirmations. Using this weapon now would stake Democrats to the implausible argument that Alito's inevitable confirmation is the most egregious act of the Bush administration and the Republican Senate, going into a critical midterm election.

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."

I don't like at all their mention of avoiding personal attacks. That should not even be considered. I think our Democrats need to weigh the odds and do what they have to do.

Contact info at this link if you feel the need.
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=1238

[cascadiance]

1. So they confirm that THEY are the guilty culprit!

They also confirmed that we should push their sorry ass out of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic Party listens to the DLC instead of us than we should boycott ANY funding to the Democratic party and donate money to counter-DLC organizations to lobby the Democratic Party to GET RID of the DLC influence so that we can have a true Democratic Party again. If not, we will start a new party and leave the Democratic Party to hold hands with DLC as a minority Republican Lite party!

[madfloridian]

2. The DLC is NOT the DNC...please stop that. The DLC is a think tank.

The DNC is the party. Please donate to the DNC which is what Howard Dean is chair of. Please don't equate the two.

Here is the party.
www.democrats.org

[cascadiance]

9. There, is that better?

I'm not confusing the DNC with the DLC... I'm substituting the DNC for the Democratic Party here. I'll spell out the Democratic Party every place here where I mean it ... The bottom line is that the Democratic Party needs to DIVORCE itself from the DLC!

[madfloridian]

10. Thanks, we agree on that.

Much appreciated.

[madfloridian]

You confuse people when you do this. Could you please edit?

Please?

I swear to God if this turns into a "bash the DNC" thread I will delete it.

[benburch]

3. I would like to see ALL the DLC Democrats leave the party.

They have proven themselves to be "summer soldiers".

[BigYawn]

31. Don't Bill Clinton & Al Gore belong to DLC? Who else??

[madfloridian]

33. Clintons still are, Gore not anymore.

http://www.dlc.org/

You can find the members and leaders listed down the left hand side at this link.

Leaders:
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=137

Many of the members don't bother me, but the reasons it was founded and the leadership do bother me a lot.

Members
http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ka.cfm?kaid=103

[mmonk]

34. Sorry but Al Gore doesn't seem to like

or would want the dems to confirm Alito.

[Bluebear]

4. Oh quelle surprise.

:eyes:

[Cha]

62. Shocking isn't it?

Who would have thought the dlc would want alito to be on the supreme court in all his fascist glory? :crazy:

[dchill]

5. The DLC must be right...

'cause they're sure not left. Filibuster: because it's the right thing to do.

[madfloridian]

6. Don't attack the DNC. Please. pretty please.

I thought we were pretty much sure which was which now.

[TygrBright]

7. WHAT?!? The DLC thinks Dems should bend over...

...spread their cheeks, and smile?

I'm ASTOUNDED!

Really!!

wearily,
Bright

[thefloyd]

8. Conservatives would look more lawless and authoritarian

if Frist decided to use the nuclear option. Fillibuster would help Democrats because "Fillibuster" is definitely a word average Americans link to our constitution. Nuclear option would echo "Abuse of Power" throughout America.

[madfloridian]

14. Does anyone know if circuit judges from the past would be involved..

if the nuke option were used? I am not sure on this, but it is risky. I think we need to take the chance anyway.

Edit...responded to wrong post, but ok.

Edit to say I meant circuit court judges.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. Okay... where's my "Dead To Me" chart?.....

They just made the top of the list. Cowards!

[stillcool]

12. my email...

Good evening. I fail to understand what part of the democratic party you propose to represent. I read your statement on the inadvisability of a filabuster of Judge Alito. I am sure you are very aware of what this confirmation means to the outcome of various prosecutions of government officials, as well as presidential powers, and the litany of other rights soon to be 'quaint'. Democratic? Not. The word is complicit.

[cascadiance]

20. Here's my email I just sent to the DLC...

With your latest appeal to Democrats to not support a fillibuster of Samuel Alito, that is the final straw with me, as it will be with many other Democrats I know. From this point forward, our number one objective, even with voting against Republicans, will be to push your influence away from the Democratic Party or else we will look to build a new party that is TRUELY an opposition party that represents PEOPLE, and not corporate elite as a "Republican Lite" party, which is what our party has morphed into and shrank into a minority party as a result of your control over the last few years. Your organization is destroying this party and this country, as an "acceptance" of Alito pushes us that much closer to unchecked executive power and a fascist dictatorship. No longer am I going to accept corporate special interest control over the Democrats that will allow this destruction of Democracy. This is WAR!

[Coexist]

52. Mine:

Way to show that the Democratic Party can't stand strong against adversity. Your position on not filibustering Alito is craven. No wonder people perceive us as weak. The DLC is an embarrassment.

[jsamuel]

13. FALLACY! - Not fighting means you will win elections

That is a fallacy!

[Nite Owl]

15. So they don't even have to

actually nuke the filibuster, the threat of it does that already.

We should discard personal attacks but they won't that's a sure bet. It's like fighting with one arm tied behind our backs. Being 'nice', being ladies and gentlemen hasn't won us anything. People want to see the dems have some spirit, some fight. They translate that into meaning they will fight for them, for what is right.

[LiberalAndProud]

16. DLC:

Dizzy Limp Chumps,
or does it mean something else?

I think perhaps Ben Nelson holds some influence there, no?

[bunkerbuster1]

49. Dickless Lazy Cowards?

golly, I hope that's not too shrill.

[bettyellen]

17. our Senate DID avoid personal attacks... the DLC sounds like Rush

when usually, it sounds like tweety. fuck them.

[cdsilv]

19. I've posted elsewhere....

That I pledge to donate $100.00 to the DSCC if they filibuster, successfully or not.

If they don't my money goes elsewhere.

F the DLC!

Oh yeah, George W. Bush eats boogers.

[madfloridian]

18. Ok, just found this Kos discussion going on. They are upset as well.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/24/215426/891

[madfloridian]

24. Apparently this just went out tonight as an email.

According to the Kos diary.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/24/215426/891

Maybe they saw the Democrats speaking out powerfully on opposing, and figured they'd better chime in. Also this comment from Howard Dean probably did not please them.

http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/01/governor_dean_a_1.php

Posted by Tim Tagaris on January 24, 2006 at 01:14 PM
Email this Print this Blog this
Governor Dean:

Today, an outside the mainstream nominee who refused to be forthcoming with the Senate moved one step closer to confirmation. Over the course of his confirmation hearings and through an evaluation of his writing and records, Americans learned that Judge Alito is committed to a radical agenda that threatens Americans’ individual rights and freedoms. Because Judge Alito simply must not be allowed to use a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court to advance that agenda, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee stood together to protect Americans' individual rights and freedoms in voting against this nomination.
While Judge Alito dodged legitimate questions about his judicial record and philosophy, his agenda is clear. His troubling support of unchecked executive power, in light of current scandals over the President's domestic spying program, should concern all Americans. He supports intrusive government power over individual liberties, and has failed to protect crucial Family Medical Leave protections. He used legal technicalities to excuse gross sexual harassment, and supported prosecutors who constructed all-white juries to try black defendants. Worse still, Judge Alito broke his promise to the Senate to recuse himself from cases in which he had a clear conflict of interest-a deeply troubling failure in light of the current Republican corruption scandals.

When the full Senate votes on this nomination, Judge Alito should be rejected.

Timing is a little suspicious tonight.

[Coexist]

45. In their survey "no, and they are a drag on the party" 86%

THE DLC FUCKING SUCKS.

[magellan]

21. Are the DLC deaf or just borrowing Bush*'s ironic wit?

"Using this weapon now would stake Democrats to the implausible argument that Alito's inevitable confirmation is the most egregious act of the Bush administration and the Republican Senate, going into a critical midterm election."

IMPLAUSIBLE? Nominating/rubber-stamping Alito isn't the Repukes' most egregious act, but it's a most egregious threat to our judicial system and if he's confirmed the corrupt, self-serving touch of this administration will be felt by this nation for many years to come.

"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."

Verified voting...("We don't hear you, la la la")...Non-proprietary vote tabulating software...("Not listening, la la la")...The election system is BROKEN, you idiots...("Sorry, still can't hear you, la la la")

[madfloridian]

22. I am writing them that I will donate to the DNC because of that.

That will piss them off because Howard annoys them so.

[AX10]

23. Filibuster!

[ladjf]

25. How can we disassociate the real Democrats from the DLC?

They guarantee that the Democratic Party will be split and therefore weakened.

[Coexist]

47. I wish they would do it themselves (the politicians)

why do we have to push them to abandon a platform that has lost elections consistently for 6 years.

[mikelewis]

26. You can never win a fight if you don't fight back... (K & R)

waiting for your opponent to grow tired beating the living shit out of you is hardly a strategy for success. What sort of spineless coward would write such drivel?

[WildEyedLiberal]

27. What personal attacks?

The Vanguard crap? That has a direct bearing on Alito's judicial integrity. What the hell are they talking about?

[Mojambo]

28. Well, now we know how the Republican wing of the Democratic party feels.

[Individualist]

65. The only thing worse than a republican

is a republican enabler with a D after his/her name.

[yurbud]

29. why do they think doing nothing will help Democrats win in 06 & 08?

[jsamuel]

30. I am beginning to think they don't...

[PBass]

32. DLC = "We'll fight them next time..." ad infinitum

It takes courage to be a leader and stick your neck out for what you know is right. I'm not sure that the DLC has what it takes.

Dems need to start playing HARDBALL because that's certainly what the far right has been playing, all along.

DLC needs to Lead, Follow, or Get Out of the Way!!! If you want to lead you have to get out IN FRONT on the issues, not bring up the rear.

[yurbud]

38. DLC has shown they are only qualified to replace GOP at corporate trough

[Quixote1818]

35. Dems should do what is in their heart

and I am willing to bet that they want to filibuster. If the Dems do nothing then the public will think Alito is fine, if Dems take a stand the public will take a closer look at Alito. I am willing to bet if the public looks close they will be on our side. If the Republicans go nuclear then Democrats can shut down the government. FUCK THEM!

[Marr]

36. We're not fighting them over here so we don't have to fight them over here

:P

[madfloridian]

37. LOL

Funny.

[LaPera]

39. Fuck the corporate (republican) sponsored "moderates" at the DLC!

When, if not now...use the filibuster!

[Moochy]

40. I summon thee!!

Hastur Hastur Hastur!

poof! Some entitity will soon appear to defend this idea. I can feel it in mah bones man!

[bowens43]

41. They're right. Alito is a done deal.

A filibuster will harm our chances of taking back congress in November.

[Coexist]

46. No it won't. There are WAY too many other issues right now

the 'obstructionist' bullshit will get lost in the shuffle. With all the fuck-ups of this adminstration and the republican party in general, if we can't deflect this - we don't deserve to win elections.

[bklyncowgirl]

42. I agree partially--lay off the personal stuff--but filibuster the bastard

Democrats should drop the stuff about Concerned Alumni of Princton and the the Vanguard fund. While these may show him for a pandering liar who'll say anything to get a job, I'd like to see them concentrate on his judicial philosophy, particular his concept of the unitary executive.

If the Democrats don't filibuster Alito he will be confirmed. If they filibuster there's a chance, just a slight chance, that he will not.

Even if a filibuster fails--and there's no guarantee it will fail--it will set the Democrats up for what could be their best campeign issue in the fall--you need US in Congress to stop THEM.

[Vinca]

43. They think they're seeing the big picture, but they're not.

There is no tomorrow on this confirmation. This is too important. Our entire democracy could change as a result of Alito on the court for decades. The only "up" side to me is that I would feel comfortable betting every dime I have that he'll overturn Roe and then have a pile of winnings to move to another country. More important (to me) than Roe, is the powers he may grant King George. We have to take every measure, including filibuster.

[flpoljunkie]

44. R's may want to think twice on nuke option, as they may not have the votes

Republicans may want to think long and hard before they change the rules of the Senate on filibusters for judicial nominations--especially when we may well kick their asses in November and take back one or both houses of Congress. Do they really want to go down this road?

Call their bluff! Make Dick Cheney come in, if necessary, and break the tie to change the filibuster rules on judicial nominations.

Article from when this last came up in April, 2005:

Filibuster Vote Will Be Hard to Predict
Undecided Republicans Are Big Unknown

By Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 28, 2005; A04

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Republicans are angry that Democrats have used the filibuster -- which can be stopped only by 60 votes in the 100-member Senate -- to block 10 of President Bush's appellate court nominees. Senate GOP leaders want to ban such filibusters, but some of their 55 members dislike the idea. All 44 Democrats and the chamber's lone independent flatly oppose it.

Democrats say a two-thirds majority is required to change Senate rules, but Republicans plan to use a constitutional argument to contend that a simple majority will suffice to ban judicial filibusters. For three months, lawmakers, aides and lobbyists have speculated on whether Frist can muster the 50 votes needed to enable Cheney to put him over the top.

Frist can lose only five Republicans, and three appear almost surely gone. Sens. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) have condemned the proposed rule change so sternly that party leaders assume they will side with Democrats. Many Republicans also expect to lose Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), although she remains publicly uncommitted. Collins "believes that the filibuster has been overused but would like to see the situation resolved through negotiation rather than a rule change," her office said yesterday.

If Collins, Chafee, McCain and Snowe oppose the change, then Frist could suffer only one more GOP defection. Speculation hangs most heavily on Sens. John W. Warner (Va.), Chuck Hagel (Neb.) and Arlen Specter (Pa.), all of whom say they are undecided.

[mattclearing]

48. Actually, this is the first sensible thing I've seen the DLC say in ages.

Not the part about not filibustering, but the rest of it. A filibuster of Alito does give Republicans a lot of ammo in the fall, but then if Dems play their cards right, it could play as the backbone voters thought we lacked.

But politics should never be the basis on which policy decisions are made. The fact is that Alito is an extremist, totally enamored of executive authority, and has no business on the Supreme Court.

And that is why the Democrats must filibuster.

The fallacy of the DLC is that they believe that you win by making policy decisions based on politics.

The reality is that you win by demonstrating that you are better than your opponent. That means keeping anti-Constitutional authoritarians off the Supreme Court.

[Puglover]

50. If this filibuster will fail

then tell me which one will succeed? If the pukes are going to go nuclear then why not let them do it now?

:shrug:

[Coexist]

51. I agree - they need to put up or shut up

Why can't WE spin the nuclear option to paint THEM as obstructionists?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

60. Fight now or start building concentration camps for yourself and family

There's so little to lose here.

Are the repugs going to be nice if we cave one more time? No.

Is the media going to lie any more than they do already if we fight? No, frankly that's impossible.

There is open talk of impeachment in DC and on the talking head shows and we have fraWd boy, Wanna-be dictator trying to pack the court with another yes man for executive authority. W is very unpopular and the nuclear option is even less popular.

[MadHound]

53. Not suprising, disappointing, yes, but not suprising at all

After all, the DLC is the Democratic wing of the Republican party. Hopefully none of its adherents in the Senate will listen to the DLC on this one, but sadly, they probably will, and thus this country will be saddled with a pro-corporate, right wing court that will take us ever further down the road towards fascism. With the DLC cheering all the way.

[oc2002]

54. DLC = RNC, one and the same.

They have demonstrated time and time again, they only care about corporations, and the money flow from the corporate lobyists, and not a damn about YOU!

[klook]

55. Great strategy: Cower in the corner.

And beg them not to hit you again. :puke:

[Coexist]

56. DLC = Don't Lead, Cower

But they take the long view, dontcha' know - if you keep speaking about what you will do in the future, you don't actually have to do anything NOW.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

61. It reminds me of the nuclear attack drills we had in grade school

Sit down
Spread your legs
Bend way over
Kiss your ass goodbye

[mod mom]

57. DLC connection to PNAC

Al From is founder and chief executive officer of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). Mr From is founder of the DLC -- birthplace of the New Democrat movement and the Third Way in America -- and its companion think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI).

info from DLC Website



Will Marshall, the head of PPI signed PNAC letters.
(Called "Bill Clinton's idea mill," the Progressive Policy Institute was responsible for many of the Clinton administration's initiatives...)
Starting right after 9/11. 

More about Will Marshall
Note the PNAC link to the left.
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295 

[grace0418]

58. HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Have they completely lost their minds?

"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."

Uh, yeah, great plan. Except for the little detail about how they don't need any more Alitos because BushCo have all the right winger fuckers they need to turn this country into a fascist state. Do the Dems think they'll have an infinite number of chances to turn this country back from the brink? Do they think a changing of the guard in 2006 and 2008 is going to fix a SCOTUS that so biased they make three right turns to make a left? Do they think the game has five quarters instead of four? Do they not get that this fillibuster is the hail mary pass with 10 seconds left? Are they totally fucking clueless or are they willfully ignorant? That's the real question.

[The Backlash Cometh]

59. DLC: out, OUT, DAMN SPOT!

[SOS]

63. Alito prefers capital to labor

And as far as the DLC is concerned that's all that matters.
The DLC has about 5,000 members. Not even enough dues-paying members to fill Radio City Music Hall.

Here's who pays the rent for these fifth column phonies:

"While the DLC will not formally disclose its sources of contributions and dues, the full array of its corporate supporters is contained in the program from its annual fall dinner last October, a gala salute to Lieberman. Five tiers of donors are evident: the Board of Advisers, the Policy Roundtable, the Executive Council, the Board of Trustees, and an ad hoc group called the Event Committee--and companies are placed in each tier depending on the size of their check. For $5,000, 180 companies, lobbying firms, and individuals found themselves on the DLC's board of advisers, including British Petroleum, Boeing, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Coca-Cola, Dell, Eli Lilly, Federal Express, Glaxo Wellcome, Intel, Motorola, U.S. Tobacco, Union Carbide, and Xerox, along with trade associations ranging from the American Association of Health Plans to the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. For $10,000, another 85 corporations signed on as the DLC's policy roundtable, including AOL, Blue Cross Blue Shield, Citigroup, Dow, GE, IBM, Oracle, UBS PacifiCare, PaineWebber, Pfizer, Pharmacia and Upjohn, and TRW.

And for $25,000, 28 giant companies found their way onto the DLC's executive council, including Aetna, AT&T, American Airlines, AIG, BellSouth, Chevron, DuPont, Enron, IBM, Merck and Company, Microsoft, Philip Morris, Texaco, and Verizon Communications. Few, if any, of these corporations would be seen as leaning Democratic, of course, but here and there are some real surprises. One member of the DLC's executive council is none other than Koch Industries, the privately held, Kansas-based oil company whose namesake family members are avatars of the far right, having helped to found archconservative institutions like the Cato Institute and Citizens for a Sound Economy. Not only that, but two Koch executives, Richard Fink and Robert P. Hall III, are listed as members of the board of trustees and the event committee, respectively--meaning that they gave significantly more than $25,000."

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

[DeepModem Mom]

64. I think someone posted, If we can't use it, we've already lost it.

This confirms their fear is losing the right to filibuster.

[smartvoter]

67. Yes. We just discussed this yesterday:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=227411&mesg_id=227411

Is this not self-evident?

I don't get it.

[DeepModem Mom]

87. Yep, it was you, smartvoter -- and you're right! nt

[robbedvoter]

66. Sell our future for... possible elections? That's smart.

Cuz we sure have many of those - Alito in SCOTUS will only make surerer of it.

[AZBlue]

68. Personal attacks should stop.

I personally don't know of any Senators who have been guilty of it but some other groups have. There's no point in lowering ourselves to the Rep's level - when we do that, they've won.

What I don't get is this:
Using this weapon now would stake Democrats to the implausible argument that Alito's inevitable confirmation is the most egregious act of the Bush administration and the Republican Senate, going into a critical midterm election.
If the Dems filibuster and the Reps outlaw it, wouldn't that give us even more ammunition in both '06 and '08? We can then point out that when they don't like a rule, they just change it, no matter how right or just it was in the first place and that it's no way to behave in a Democratic government. I don't get that stance at all!

[Kurovski]

69. Blecchh.

Gag...barf.

Yes, by all means let's save the filibuster for when the Repukes want to block a Dem.

The DLC is too fucking STUPID or CRAZY or COMPLICIT to know that the most egregious act of the Bush administration will indeed be the legal cover that an Alito SC seat will offer to past and future egregious Bush crimes.

FUCK YOU, DLC. Or rather, what is a more accurate statement: fuck you TOO, DLC.

Stop destroying our country.

[LoZoccolo]

70. You basically agree with the DLC.

But then again they could. I understand that if they did use the nuke option it could bring up old circuit court judges who were rejected. Not sure, just read that recently. Could pose a problem.

You basically point out how they can see things as they do on this one. So where's the controversy? That they're not advocating a futile fireworks show for the small emotional contingent? What?

[jsamuel]

72. it's not that they aren't advocating for filibustering Alito, it's that

they are advocating AGAINST filibustering Alito...

[LoZoccolo]

75. Yes, and they are advocating voting "yes" too.

Oh hey wait, they're not.

[jsamuel]

77. yeah, and I disagree with that, but you consider that bashing

:shrug:

[Coexist]

78. Oh, yes... let's all be in for the empty gesture

[cascadiance]

82. Yup, that's typical DLC style... Visibly vote uselessly ...

for what the base wants to try and keep them happy, even though nothing is accomplished, but ensure that a certain outcome that might upset their corporate sponsors doesn't happen. THAT is what is happening here. The corporate sponsors know that a fillibuster might succeed, but that a yes/no vote (whether it is yes or no by Democrats) won't make any difference if no fillibuster is done.

It's kind of like the way the Republicans allow more "moderate" members of their party to vote against their bills in certain instances when they know they have the votes to pass it anyway. Keeps their corporate sponsors happy, but tries to keep the base from getting alienated too much.

[Coexist]

84. It sucks, doesn't it.

Then they can just throw up their hands and say they tried.

:nopity:

[madfloridian]

74. No, I basically seldom agree with them. I don't agree here.

I just realize that the fact that previously rejected judges could be resubmitted has been mentioned as an issue...and I am not a lawyer and don't know.

I think they should filibuster.

[LincolnMcGrath]

94. "futile fireworks show for the small emotional contingent?"

WTF? Poll after poll has proven that Alito is out side the mainstream and not wanted.

[LoZoccolo]

96. I never said he wasn't. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

71. DLC-bashers: show me any real effects of filibustering vs. voting "no".

No talk of how it fulfills some emotional want of yours or other people; show me how it will keep Alito off the bench.

If you can't, you basically concede to the article's main point, and have no case against the DLC based on this.

[jsamuel]

73. credibility, beliefs, principles, possibilities...

[LoZoccolo]

76. *yawn*

You didn't answer my question. Stay off this sub-thread please.

[cascadiance]

80. It forces a test of wills!

They cannot either approve or reject Alito as long as the fillibuster happens. The Senate's business basically stops until either the Dems stop the fillibuster, or the Republicans stop the nomination process. If they stop the nomination process, the Dems win in that instance. Just voting no without an attempt at fillibustering is a guaranteed failure, unless we have suddenly a number of Republicans voting no at the last minute on approval. The Dems would probably not want to let it get to that vote unless they KNOW that these Republicans will vote against them.

The key question to ask the DLC is WHY they don't want the Dems to fillibuster.

1) It being a "useless exercise" doesn't work. There IS a chance to stop Alito's nomination with a fillibuster. There is NO chance at stopping Alito's nomination without it.
2) Voter backlash? I would challenge that this is a corporatist propaganda message that doesn't necessarily reflect reality. I would venture to say that there is likely to be a greater voter backlash amongst those likely to vote for Democrats if they DON'T fillibuster.
3) It will invoke the nuclear option if they do it. Well, do you KNOW that they will get enough votes to do the nuclear option? I and many others here would say that many Republicans in battleground states might be more hesitant at voting for nuclear option now, as it could be voting them selves out of office in those states. And even if they are successful in voting for the nuclear option, what have you lost? Sooner or later for the fillibuster to be useful, you have to use it. If there is a situation where there is more "extreme circumstances", what would that be. What good is a fillibuster if you don't use it? And the nuclear option on judicial nominees isn't the "end game". The Dems would likely respond by shutting down (fillibustering) all other congressional business. The costs of invoking nuclear option on other fillibustering would potentially be a LOT more than judicial nominees after 2006 if and when the Dems take over congress. There would be real consequences of Dems passing their legislation then without threat of fillibuster from Republicans.

And lastly, by doing a fillibuster, you keep the Democratic base loyal and faithful to the party, and likely will get a RASH of campaign donations if they do a fillibuster (especially if it is successful). If they don't Fillibuster, expect to see a LOT less money being donated to the Democratic Party itself from its base. That is a real COST if they don't fillibuster.

[jsamuel]

81. Well, show me the difference between voting yes and voting no then

If "he is gonna get it anyway," then why bother voting no either. Why not vote yes. I mean if we are going to go to war anyway, why not just vote yes on the Iraq War Resolution instead of voting no or filibustering... why bother...

[Moochy]

88. Hey i thought you were already told once

to stay off this sub-thread... :evilgrin: :popcorn:

[OzarkDem]

83. Well, first, it makes a strong public statement

that in turn educates the public about the poor choice Bush is making.

That, in turn, motivates people to put pressure on their public officials to oppose the nomination.

Filibustering makes a much stronger statement than simply voting no. It will likely result in greater media coverage which, if used properly, will allow Alito's opponents to sway public opinion.

Pretty simple, no?

[mwooldri]

79. the DLC need to learn from Tony Blair's New Labour.

This is one time that I am actually going to agree with Karl Rove, but for different reasons. The Republicans are living in a post-911 world, and the DLC are living in a pre-911 world. However it's not about responding to terrorism; it's how politics are played. If sleaze and scandal and corruption are the order of the day in this post 911 world then a different ball game needs to be played. Since 911 politics has become more partisan. Why I say the DLC need to learn from New Labour? They're king at partisan politics (well most multi-party democracies are). They called then PM John Major on the scandals. They voted against the government. They caused constitutional crisis. Now ultimately Major hung op and limped on to the end of term - and then New Labour came in with a stonking majority.

The DLC need to remember that they're no longer dealing with reasonable gentlemen on "the other side". The Senate and House Democratic Party members need to organize into more of a parliamentary system. Shout out 'Shame' when the other side really put their foot in their mouth. And dare I say it shout out 'Hear Hear' from time to time.

No I am not advocating turning it into a clone of the British Houses of Parliament. However it's a game the other side started and it's time we "bring it on".

Mark.

[Pithy Cherub]

85. The DLC: professional doormats!

What a non-surprise! :eyes:

[K-W]

86. They call the grass-roots an interest group.

And they think that we should assist the republicans by giving them a victory on alito without forcing them to show thier hand and destroy another governmental check. We should let them have the same outcome as if they had exposed themselves without forcing them to expose themselves.

If the Republicans are going to be thugs, the Democrats should stand up to them and force them to show thier true colors to the American people. Instead the DLC wants the Democrats to mask the thuggery.

[JetCityLiberal]

89. What in the cornbread hell

are they thinking??!!!
AAARRRGGGHHHHHHH....this does not help IMHO.

I am feeling like a madwashingtonian today madfloridian. But as always thanks for your efforts here. I need to know these things.

[desi826]

90. My email to the DLC

Hello,
I read your missive on the Alito nomination and filibuster and was so stunned that I felt the need to reply on a few of your points.
Listed below:

"But we stress this last point: in the Senate debate on this confirmation, Democrats should focus on Alito's judicial philosophy, and discard the personal attacks that figure so prominently in some of the interest-group campaigning against his confirmation. Such attacks at best distract from the principled case against Alito; at worst, they undermine it. "

There have been no personal attacks against Alito at all; simply a focus on his behavior with regards to his career. The right has been trying to characterize the hearings in that way because their champion was being exposed as exhibiting less than "Supreme" motivations and they needed a distraction from that fact. But, this was by no means out of bounds, as this appointment is to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, responsible for making decisions that will affect millions for decades to come, not the 7-11.

What I find most amazing is that your organization chooses to legitimize a move so blatantly obvious it becomes more of a reflection on the person that *falls* for it, than the person that perpetrated it.

"For the same reason and others, we do not think Senate Democrats should try to filibuster this confirmation. A filibuster is certain to fail; indeed, the Senate is certain to respond to a filibuster by outlawing them permanently in judicial confirmations."

Again, amazing statement from an organization that calls itself "democratic" and "progressive"
Besides the obvious illegality of the fact that the Senate would have to break its own rules to achieve this rule, and considering today's political environment for Republicans when it comes to breaking the rules, I cannot see how you could advise such a thing.

You are essentially saying: don't use the filibuster because Republicans will make sure you can't use the filibuster.

Surely you can see the clear flaw in this way of thinking?

If you never use the filibuster out of fear of the mere *threat* that Republicans will take away the filibuster, then...1) the filibuster is essentially dead anyway and....2) Republicans got what they wanted without having to suffer the political consequences they would surely face if they tried to end the filibuster by force(polls showed that even their own supporters rejected this idea and they would have suffered heavily at the polls.)

Where is the "progressive" in this way of thinking?

"Using this weapon now would stake Democrats to the implausible argument that Alito's inevitable confirmation is the most egregious act of the Bush administration and the Republican Senate, going into a critical midterm election."

That is only *one* way of interpreting the situation and is not even close to the reality of it.

Poll after poll after poll have shown that large majorities of the American people have clearly and repeatedly stated that they want Democrats to "do whatever they have to do" to put the breaks on the Bush agenda.

These are polls that your organization has repeatedly ignored, prefering to duck and hide from being a true opposition party, than standing up to a man that has the lowest approval ratings of any president in history.

This has, in turn, has emboldened him to repeatedly break American law, knowing that he doesn't have to face an opposition party that will challenge him on his behavior.

Filibustering Alito shows America that you are not just engaging in useless hyperbole when you oppose him because you find him dangerous for our country and it's future, but are willing to back up that conviction with action.

On top of that, it proves to the American people that you tried absolutely everything in your power to stop him which is exactly what they have repeatedly said they want from the Democratic party.


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

Making gains in the Senate this November is like closing the barn door after horse has already gotten out.

What good is any "gain" in the Senate when Alito will complete the group of judges needed on the Supreme Court to make the Senate irrelevant?

This has always been a stated goal for Bush and it will be achieved if Alito gets on the court.
If you don't fight now, there is no use in fighting at all.

" And the best way is to win the White House in 2008."

And this should go without saying. If you are irrelevant in '07 then you are living in a dream world about '08.

Again, it is amazing to me that your organization both considers itself progressive, and would give Democrats such defeatist advice.

Democrats are bound by oath to defend and adhere to the Constitution.
I am aware that your organization is not bound by the same covenant as you do not have to answer to the great people of this country and are not elected officials.

But I would think you would, thinking of the future of this party, be able to give Dems better advice than "don't stand up, stand down", and the only thing worse than that, is that there would be any elected Democrat that would actually take it.

Here's a tip: If you want people to believe Dems are credible on on any issue come November, but especially security, then it is time to start standing up to Bush and the Republicans; because if you cannot stand up for what's right(as in the case of Alito and the filibuster), or stand up *to* a President that is repeatedly breaking the law(as in torture, illegal spying, etc) then there is not one American that is going to put their country, their community, their family and loved ones, in your hands and trust you to stand up to a terrorist.

No one.

This kind of counsel is a big part of the reason why the party that has the most members in this country, is the minority in Washington and if you cannot realize that only *action* is going to save you, then 2006, and 2008 is already lost.
Des

[Swamp Rat]

91. DLC is run by alien lizards.

... and so are a few lizard drone posters here. :eyes:

[Mass]

92. I agree, but I also do not hear Reid calling for a filibuster.

I do not Byrd calling for a filibuster.

I dont hear (add the name you want) calling for a filibuster.

Unfortunately, the problem is not limited to the DLC.

[cdsilv]

93. no filibuster by dems, no $$ for dems, hell, I'll move out to belize....

F the Imperial States of America. If we don't have a constitutional republic then why live here?

I'd go to Canada, but I've lived the last 20 years of my life south of I-10 so I don't think I could handle the altitude/winters.

Oh yeah, George W. Bush eats boogers.

[LincolnMcGrath]

95. Sir'prize Sir'prize