Every Dem who fails to filibuster must be defeated in primaries.

[genius]

Such a Democrat is no better than a Republican. We need to run some real Democrats. A pretend Democrat is worse than a Republcan because he lulls us into a false sense that he is on our side. Let's call these guys up and explain that this is an election-deciding vote. There are a lot of good people in our Party. If no one is jumping into the race. Let's sit on the doorsteps of some of the stars we want to run. They'd get the votes of Democrats and of the star-struck Republicans if we nominate them.

[In Truth We Trust]

1. KICKED & NOMINATED

[iwantmycountryback]

2. That's some pretty incredible bullshit

Have fun in fantasy la-la land. Filibustering Roberts WILL make Democrats look bad. I think they should vote against him, but filibustering him would be a mistake.

[Hippo_Tron]

7. It's not that fillibustering him is necesarilly a bad thing...

But eliminating so many dems that the GOP will have a fillibuster proof majority on everything IS a bad idea.

[MintOreoCookie]

12. I agree. I think the dems are saving the filibuster for the next

candidate. Remember, confirming Roberts will not change the overall make-up of the Court.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg won confirmation easily (93-3). She was a former ACLU lawyer. You can bet the republicans were not thrilled about her. She freely admitted at her hearings she was pro-choice.

I have listened to Roberts's answers. I am a lawyer, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of what he is saying. I would be disappointed with the dems if they attempted a filibuster with him. I think he will be okay.

[Lexingtonian]

3. enjoy yourself, but it might make you go blind

I always click on your threads to see whether you actually get within a stone's throw of an idea anywhere within the ballpark of your nic.

No luck so far.

[Lecky]

4. LOL...

[applegrove]

5. I think they already cut a deal. I think unless he anti's up to his

position on Roe vs. Wade - they don't have a choice.

[OzarkDem]

28. They do have a choice

to stand up for telling the truth about the incompetent, corrupt people Bush is appointing to the Supreme Court - even if it doesn't change the vote, its their job to educate the voting public about what Bush is doing.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. How about we win back the Senate so we don't have to fillibuster

If Dems controlled the Senate right now, Pat Leahy would be head of the judiciary committee and we would be able to hold Roberts up in committee until he actually answere dthe damn questions and Bush released the documents.

[applegrove]

8. Really. Dems didn't win enough seats. Hopefully - with another year

of boy wonder - the seriousness of elections and our need to show up in solidarity & en mass will sink in to all 60% of Americans who hate Bush.

Apathy is the enemy.

[Ignacio Upton]

23. Don't underestimate the power of the apathetic

They will get outraged at whoever BUSH tells them to (ie. Democrats that are out of power and don't control anything.)

[LoZoccolo]

26. That would give us what we want, and nothing to complain about.

Therefore, it should not be done!

[Zynx]

9. So total civil war in the party is your answer to taking back Congress?

Some "stars"? There are many people who wouldn't vote for them just because they are celebrities.

[Goldeneye]

10. You're mom goes to college.

[Mass]

11. There will not be a filibuster - you can as well start to look for

candidates for each seat, including Roberts and Kennedy.

Now, we could simply focus on those who will vote for Roberts.

[sendero]

13. Right idea..

.....wrong judge.

Roberts isn't that bad. Wait until the nominee to replace O'Connor comes along, then most likely we'll have a valid reason to filibuster.

[emulatorloo]

14. "Let's sit on the doorsteps of some of the stars we want to run."

1. First lets purge the few Democrats left in the Senate.
2. Then Lets fill the Senate with TV and Movie Stars

What is step 3?

[JNelson6563]

15. Your moniker makes it seem like opposite day

Hard to imagine a worse idea.

Julie

[ramapodem]

16. Understand the Situation before doing something Rash

Filibustering Roberts will be a terrible idea. First it will destroy any gains we made sadly to the bungled federal response to Katrina. Secondly, he is replacing a conservative Chief Justice so the Courts balance is not in question. Secondly he is not a Thomas or Scalia, he is the textbook Judicial Restraint judge. In other words he is going to let congress use there implied powers and sit back and watch. Lastly he has given every indication that he follows Stare Decisis or deference to past precedent. I do not believe we need to worry about Roe yet. As much as I disagree with his ideology we can live with him.

[Ignacio Upton]

21. Because he is being nominated for Chief Justice

I am not too concerned about him getting confirmed because it won't change the balance. However, if someone like Roberts is nominated to replace O'Connor, then a filibuster will be necesary.

[newyawker99]

24. Hi ramapodem!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[blondeatlast]

17. Let's make it even easier for the BushBots to step around the bodies.

There's a good plan for us to win back the country...

Sheesh.

[seabeyond]

18. this is about as unreasonable as we can go

go after dems. cause chaos and destruction within the party. ya that will show bush. let bush off for all he has done and blame the dems. there ya go. good thinking. do it my way, regardless of productivity. only my way. nothing else is good enough.

[emulatorloo]

19. you forgot the part about filling the senate with TV and Movie Stars

see orig post

[seabeyond]

20. lol lol because i stopped reading after a point. lol. oh funny

then to follow up after doing all this lets put more people in that dont know what they are doing, like bush to create more chaos and mess. lol

thanks for making me read more

[Arkana]

27. No kidding. Purging the Democrats in the Senate?

Please. :eyes:

[DaveinMD]

22. more self defeating

tripe.

[wyldwolf]

25. so, how much money will you contribute to each primary challenger?

Ya know, Lieberman's primary opponent dropped out because he could only manage to raise $1000.

Takes money to mount a primary challenge - especially against a popular incumbent.

How much will you donate to each primary challenger?

[OzarkDem]

29. No one posted

anything about Lieberman's challengers here or in other progressive sites.

Things might have been different if they had. Look at how much help Paul Hackett received.

[wyldwolf]

30. Yes they did. DU was how I found out about Orman

For example:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=143x1206


... and at KOS

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/4/15/114220/432

Did Paul Hackett challenge a Democratic incumbent?

... but, still, the question remains unanswered. How much money will the OP give to primary challengers?

(crickets chirping)

[ladylibertee]

31. I just let Two Key Democrats know that. Thanks.