|
If Dems want to vote their conscience, let 'em wait until a nominee actually comes up for a vote.
Why should Scabs and Wallflowers who intend to vote no anyway be given upward mobility?
unblock wrote:
now that a filibuster movement has been declared, and democrat who undermines the effort is seriously undermining the party's power.
someone needs to say, "if we get a majority, chairmanships will NOT go to cloture voters."
Agreed... chairmanships should not go to scabs.
I don't care if they're DLC, "realists", strategists, or simply waiting for Godot -- er -- I mean, money for Katrina from this administration.
Their only out, IMO, would be if they sincerely support Alito confirmation and are willing to say so in public.
That is the only honest reason for voting in favor of cloture, i.e. if it is a vote of conscience (because they are an anti-abortion red-state Dem, because they are clueless, whatever.) It is, after all, a vote of conscience, according to Reid.
Voting yes and then no is not a vote of conscience.
That is my understanding of a vote of conscience.
I will not say, punish people who are willing to vote for Alito, because it is the constitutional right of every Senator to advise and consent without respect to party.
But, to quash a fellow Democrat's filibuster for reasons of "strategy" alone is not a conscientious act; it is monkeywrenching.
Funny how when Kerry voted no and then yes on the various versions of the IWR, all the "centrists" and "conservative Dems" tarred him with the Republican label "flip flopper" but when it comes to a filibuster it is all of a sudden the "adult thing to do?"
|