It's 2008. The Supremes gut Roe. Which Dems would get your full support?

[bigtree]

Those who filibustered?

Or, those who wouldn't filibuster?

I frankly don't know where these Democrats who refuse to filibuster will find their support. I don't just mean votes, I mean the kind of support that they may need from our party's base to overcome the zombies in the GOP. The anger from those in the majority of our party who oppose Alito now would overwhelm those Senators who are thinking that by not offending some moderates they are protecting their seats. By 2008, the frustration from the Bush second term will have whipped us into a frenzy of activism. The midterms should see a plethora of activism from our party faithful.

Who's going to pat these accomodating senators on the back and give them credit for a job well done? Bush? Conservative media hacks? They're foolish if they think that group is going to give them any boost. They're also seriously deluding themselves if they think the potential carping, that'll surely come from republicans if they filibuster, is going to match the fury from our party regulars if this nomination is allowed to proceed unfettered and Roe falls.

Alito is a shill, nothing more. Bush and his entire gang of thugs are nothing but a band of corporatist thieves, raping our treasury for greed and conquest. There will be no principle to stand behind for those who refuse to bar the door to these republican traitors if Alito is allowed to set up his patronage shop on the court. We know what republicans will do, want to do, to the court. It's no mystery, there's no question about what the result will be. Even Bob Byrd said plainly that Alito is a conservative judge. We oppose that. Our representatives should oppose that as well, with every tool available.

I keep hearing that the election gave Bush the power to seat anyone he wants on the bench. That same election gave us the congressional balance of power we have now. It's in the Democrat's power to stop this conservative shill. That's what matters, not whether they should give deference to Bush because HE was elected. They were also elected, as opposition to the republicans and Bush.

republicans have used every lever of power to lock our party out of most of our exercises of democratic responsibility. It's high time that we used every tool and resource at our disposal as well. The future demands it. A lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land demands it. We should continue to demand it.

[stray cat]

1. ones I respect that could also win in a general election

[bigtree]

4. too narrow a view huh?

well, I think Roe could be just one of many alarming rulings that Alito's conservative toadying could affect. Things could really be severe in the future. That conservative court could keep this administration from accountability, or allow them to continue to reinterpret laws they disagree with. Everything that we elect our leaders for is at stake, from civil liberties to worker's rights, to the regulation of industry in the environment and elsewhere, from corporate crime to worker safety, from availability of affordable medicines to malpractice meddling.

Issues matter to some folks. Maybe we'll demand more from the candidates the next rounds.

[OneBlueSky]

2. Alito filibuster (or lack thereof) will not be a determining factor . . .

in deciding who I will or will not support in 2008 . . .

assuming, of course, that there are actually elections in 2008 . . .

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. Knowing where I live,

there will really be no choice. Mark Pryor will be up for re-election, and I doubt if anyone will be opposing him in the primary. If they do, it will be someone who is much more conservative. When the choice comes between Pryor and a repuke, my choice will be Pryor.

One thing that might happen if Roe is overturned is that a Democrat might finally have a chance of taking over the 3rd District of Arkansas. A lot will depend on how drastic Roe is curtailed. If women are denied abortions that would save their lives, I think that would do the trick.

[bigtree]

6. You'll come out and vote for the Democrat. That's not in question.

It's still going to be a matter of numbers who are willing to show up on either side. Who has the most committed base of support may well tip the balance in these close elections. I always wonder at the strategy of appealing to moderates and republicans when a sizable, possibly determinate, number of folks who identify themselves as Democrats sit out these elections. You know the ratio of registered to those who actually show up is way short of where we should be to be effective in some states, especially in close races.

Any moderate stance now is a waste, and will possibly have a dampening effect on our liberal base. That is what should concern senators as they choose to cozy up and let the republicans have their way. Who will love ya baby?

[jobycom]

5. These are my thoughts, and you won't like them.

I'd give my right nut to block Alito. Left one, too, I ain't using them for much. But keep in mind what we are facing.

Two nightmare scenarios: One, we filibuster, win, and the Repubs go nuke and Alito is confirmed anyway. The Repubs then use the votes (or abstentions) against the Dem senators in red states. In these states, Dems don't win by sticking up for liberal principles. They lose that way. Instead of gaining seats in the next election or two, we start losing them. Which puts us further out of control, and locks the Repubs, and especially the Bush branch of the Repubs, into power.

And remember, in this scenario, Alito is confirmed, so we won nothing except a sroke of our ego.

Second nightmare: We win the filibuster, they nuke the filibuster and Alito is in. In 2006 we gain a couple seats. The vote is now 48-51, with Jeffords as an independent, voting our way. So it's really 49-51. That means we lose every partisan vote, but we can maintain a filibuster. Stevens retires. Bush appoints another Scalito to replace him. Now we have conservatives replacing liberals, which really will swing the court. Now we have the possibility of four complete right-wing nutjobs on the court, who will always vote in lockstep against everything we believe. We have four liberals. We have one swing voter who has sided with the nutjobs too often. The whole nation is opposed to this. We clearly have the votes to filibuster. Oh wait, we can't. We gave it up to stroke our egos for no gain back in 2006!

Third situation, though not really a nightmare. Let's say we do defeat Alito on his record and his evasive answers. Who will Bush follow him with? A liberal? A moderate? You know Bush will appoint Scalitos every time. Eventually one will win. Alito is just a place holder for the Repubs. He might as well not even have a face. He votes for an ideology, and there are plenty more where he came from.

Alito is not the most dangerous SCOTUS nominee in our history. The next one Bush nominates will be. Maybe Stevens and Ginsburg hold on for two more years. Maybe their bodies don't let them. Maybe Bush gets to appoint two more SCOTUS justices. Ever read The Pelican Brief? You don't really believe Ann Coulter was joking, do you? Even if she was, others won't think so. Maybe things go right for us. Maybe we win a majority in 2006. But that's a lot to bank on.

Oh, but let's make this great symbolic gesture anyway, you may say. Since we don't know the outcome, let's just stick to our principles! And I won't argue with that. Maybe that is the best option. But no field commander--and that's what Reid is--wants to give up his one weapon of last resort for symbolism. And no field commander wants to lose some of troops for symbolism. You don't often see soldiers say "We can't win this battle, and their is no strategic gain for us in our loss, and we won't do anything bu strengthen the enemy by fighting, but let's fight it anyway to show them how mad we really are." They pull back, so they are still alive for the battle they can win in the future, maybe after reinforcements have arrived.

If Reid can sustain a filibuster and not lose the filibuster in the process, he will know that going in, and he will no doubt do so. He will force the other Dems to vote for their party. But if he can't, and all the filibuster will accomplish is the loss of the filibuster and the appointment of Scalito anyway, he won't force everyone to comply. He may not even want them to comply. He won't force the red state Dems to kill their careers (because it doesn't matter one little bit what people outside of their state think of them) for symbolism, and he won't want to lose the filibuster for symbolism.

So I won't have a problem voting for a Dem in a red state who doesn't back the filibuster. I'm in Texas. I'd love to have Ben Nelson or Mary Landrieu or Robert Byrd or Joseph Lieberman as a senator, even if they don't support a filibuster. They'd be the most liberal thing to happen to this state since Ann Richards, and the most liberal senator since Ralph Yarborough. I'd support them even if they do side with Bush now and then. And I'd frankly be very angry if they threw away their careers to vote for something they had already lost, anyway. It's damn hard winning in red states. And it's even harder knowing that your senators are john Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, and your governor is Rick Perry. A DINO would be a damn fine thing over here.

Anyway, I'm not trying to change your mind and I damn sure am not saying we should give up the fight. But it's more complicated than some make it out to be, and sometimes the Dems that are getting bashed as being conservatives are still a damn sight more liberal than what would win in their states if they weren't there. And there is a lot to lose if we play this wrong. It can get a lot worse than Alito.

Sorry for the ramble. Donning flame suit now.

[bigtree]

8. no no I can't bash that. I never vote republican and I always vote

I'll bet that's the way with most of the posters here. Pug or Dem? Dem all the way.

I think this will dampen support. That can make a big difference in a tight race. It can make a big difference in initial fundraising. It can foster apathy among our base voters.

It might not have come to this if there was somewhere, one place, where our party put their foot down. They have the power, but they are hesitant to use it. They're getting rolled over and more than a few seem to want us to accept that.

Are we out of the majority in the Senate and the House because our candidates aren't conservative enough, or is it the other way around? I think the stake in this fight, for the constituency, is for the future direction of the party. If they won't stand for Democratic values no one should be surprised to be overwhelmed by a committed conservative opposition. Voters need a clear choice. Those votes are far enough in the future for us to show these politicians which direction will garner the most support from us. If we are seen to be half-hearted in our liberalism (that is the base of Democratic support) and don't prod these politicians now, future candidates will have license to ignore our base and flirt with the zombie right. That's how our agenda is eroded.

So vote. Vote Democratic, always. But don't give these pols any notion that your vote can be taken for granted.

[DanCa]

7. That's the problem with electing a sentaor as a presidential nominee.

They get burned by thier votes either way. That's why I like Wes Clark first and foremost.

[saltpoint]

9. I expect McCain or Allen to be the GOP's nominee, and against either

I'd prefer a pro-choice, left-of-center Democratic ticket that's strong on the environment, social issues, and is capable of writing a goddam sentence in English.

As if to imply a contrast to the current White House administration.

A President Gore (2000) or a President Kerry (2004) would not have nominated a nitwit like Harriet Miers in the first place, and Sam Alito wouldn't have been considered either, I don't believe. I'd prefer to vote for a Democrat who opposed the nomination of any right-wing nutcase, but plan to support the Democratic ticket, absent the off-chance that Joe Lieberman is somehow involved with it.