Alito's Confirmation

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

Hello. I am a bucket of cold water for everybody who thinks that the Alito Confirmation can be blocked and for those of you who are threatening to bolt the Democratic Party if he's confirmed.

WE DON'T HAVE A FRIGGIN' MAJORITY!

Now if you wondering what that statement means, let me elaborate. The Senate votes on the nominee, and whichever side has the most votes wins. A filibuster is technically possible, but considering that this nominee has nothing against him other than his conservative politics, there's not much chance that a filibuster will happen in the first place, and even less that it will result in a different nominee -- much less a nominee who is more liberal than Alito.

I say again: WE DON'T HAVE A FRIGGIN' MAJORITY!!

If you're thinking about signing an on-line petition the Senate Judiciary Committee, you're doing so under the assumption that Mike DeWine gives a rat's ass about what you think (Hint: He Doesn't). Candle-light vigils against Alito's nomination will have precisely the same effect as the massive protests that occurred before the invasion of Iraq. Only less so.

Until we have a Democratic majority in the Senate or a Democrat in the White House, there is very little we can do to stop a Supreme Court nominee. I'm not saying that you have to like it, and I'm not saying that Alito's nomination isn't a good time to talk to Independents and Moderate Republicans about the right-wing leadership in Washington. But for the sake of your collective blood pressure, try to control your rage and channel it into something that can do some good.

Word is there's another election on November 7, 2006. Find a Democratic candidate and get to work.

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. You'll be painted as a "powder-dry" Dem

Simply for talking sense instead of ranting like a lunatic.

How awful you must be. ;-)

[Dr Fate]

38. Ed Schultz just said "Keep your powder dry"- I swear to god!!!

And it was in reference to Alito!!! I have to laugh.

The "dry powder" talking point was contrived by DLC types during the Roberts hearing.

What was it that we were keeping our powder dry for?

I'll see you in my dreams!!!

[Webster Green]

2. Why bother?

THE ELECTIONS ARE FRIGGIN' RIGGED!!:shrug:

[Blutodog]

4. Ur right !!

The Elections are rigged but we can't prove it can we? Or better yet even if we can prove it do they care? NOT!!!

[Rambis]

19. Not to mention

we really haven't had a constitution or a bill of rights since * took over so what does it matter anyway? They aren't going to touch Roe v Wade because it is political suicide. We can over turn the patriot act once * is gone.

[Vincardog]

51. Roe is not the point UNITARY PRESIDENT IS

Alito wants to let aWoL decide what is the law. He must be stopped. We do not have to take the majority before we make a move. There may even be a few real old fashioned Republicans who do not want the Radical Right Wing Nuts to take over for the next 50 years.

[waiting for hope]

3. You're right and it sucks.......

Thanks for the slap of reality..

[hwmnbn]

5. The future of America depends on.....

democratic hackers. If our hackers are better than their hackers, we might regain the majority.

I am all for participating in the political process, if it were fair and transparent. I have no confidence in the integrity of Diebold elections. THAT'S what raises my blood pressure.

If we wait until then and don't scream bloody murder at this nomination now, the dems have rolled over yet again, regardless of what excuses are used.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. Seem to be missing the point...

They have the votes. It's not a matter of "rolling over" when there is no possibility of winning. The eternal problem with Democrats is that we have almost no talent for waiting for the right pitch -- we swing for the homerun ball every time.

My advice is for us to start agressively running candiates for local school boards and city council seats. It's precisely what the Religious Right did back in the early 1980's, and it's worked out pretty well for them. There are more of us than there are of them -- crowd them out of the political arena.

[enough already]

8. You assume we can't walk and chew gum at the same time

Nobody arguing for the current Dems to fight, in this case filibuster, is against aggressively running great candidates. It doesn't matter if they have the majority. The filibuster gives us a chance. Roll over and play dead if you want, I'm fighting this nazi.

[bowens43]

10. The filibuster does NOT give us a chance.

The repugs will change the rules. We can't stop them from doing that.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

12. That's exactly what I'm assuming...

The filibuster gives us no chance. It is an allusion. Alito will be the next Supreme Court Justice, and until we win more elections, nothing is going to change that.

I saw again, until we win elections, nothing is going to change that.

If DU'ers are looking for something to be passionate about, start working for candidates. Have a house-party for a local Democrat. Raise money, stuff envelopes, make phone calls. Canvass a neighborhood.

Pissing and moaning on the internet never got anybody elected.

[Nederland]

23. You fight now you lose

Half the trick in winning a war is knowing when to fight. If you fight now they will change the rules and you will lose the ability to filibuster forever. That is not an acceptable loss IMHO.

[ClayZ]

22. The Fifth Hope

http://www.2600.com/

http://www.the-fifth-hope.org/hoop/indy-article.txt
The Fifth Hope

>snip<
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Patriot Act and other related
legislation and trends affecting tech make it impossible to do the sort
of things people once did without getting thrown in jail," says Mike
Castleman, a conference organizer. "Politics has forced itself upon
hackers."

Organizers and speakers worked to dispel the convictions of some that
hackers' intentions are less often benign than criminal.

"Hacking is often just some kid trying to be funny," said Apple
computers co-founder Steve Wozniak. "We're only a threat to those who
want to innovate with money rather than with brains. Looking around this
room you can tell we're not motivated by money, and that scares some
people."
>snip<

[satya]

66. I would like to see our hackers set traps that would catch their hackers

rather than actually tampering with the votes themselves.

Then we'd finally have the evidence we'd need court (assuming we still have an impartial judiciary).

[earthside]

7. We're Still Losing

I remember the giddy days here at DU when Bush's poll numbers dropped and dropped -- and they've never really gone back up.

There was excitement that perhaps the corner had been turned and that Bush would start to be politically hobbled because of his unpopularity.

I knew then that that hope was a vapor.

The Bushites, radical Republicans and neocons are still winning. They don't care about polls -- because they are not small 'd' democrats, they are proto-fascists! They do not care about what the people want. Bush and his radical cronies believe elections are only devices to be manipulated to give their power grab some kind of legitimacy.

The sad thing is that the inside-the-beltway, establishment Democrats just do not seem capable of seeing these political thugs for what they truly are -- political criminals.

Of course, Alito will be confirmed. The Senate Democrats will not stand outside on the Capitol steps and declare with a forceful and determined voice that they will vote against any Bush nominee that will overturn Roe v. Wade and believes in a "unitary executive". The Democrats in the Senate are too dignified and too civil to rally the liberals and progressives and centerists to their cause by making a public, principled stand.

And the chances of winning back the House and Senate diminish everyday. Beside the possibility of vote rigging, the Democrats still have not proposed a clear, bold, plan to clean-up the House and Senate from the Abramoff corruption. Again, every House and Senate Democrat should be on the front steps of the Capitol next week and propose public finance of federal elections and an end to ALL gifts, trips, meals, etc. from lobbyists.

What are they waiting for? If they do not take the initiative soon -- believe me, the radical Republicans will do a propaganda job for themselves like I just described. I can see it already, Hastert and Blunt and Frist and Santorum WILL be out on the steps with a sham lobbying reform plan and they will look like the leaders on this issue.

That's why we're still losing.

[Child_Of_Isis]

11. Whoa! That's a scary thought.

But, I bet you are right. Another thing I have noticed is when the dems have a good game plan, the pukes come a long and claim it as their own. So, if the dems were to act according to your plan, most likely the pukes, with the help of the media would steal it and get full credit.

[earthside]

14. State of the Union

I was thinking about this a bit more.

Don't you suppose that in his State of the Union, Bush will propose Congressional lobbying reform? (We know it will be a sham, but the point is WHO is taking the initiative, who looks like they are leading?}

So, the Democrats have maybe two weeks to make themselves the leaders on cleaning up campaign and lobbying practices in Washington.

If they don't make for themselves a "Contract on America" moment, then Bush and the radicals will turn the issue upside down on the inside-the-beltway Dems.

If this is what happens, and I have an uneasy feeling that the establishment Democrats will disappoint me again, then we all better look for alternatives to taking back our country through the ballot box.

[lthuedk]

33. Thats why we can not use a system now controlled by the fascists.

Since the neocon coup was, in fact, a bloody one, it should be clear that the only language they respond to is magnitudes more "to the point."



And if the republican party refuses to come to the aid of their country while it is under attack from within, they may very well drown in stubborn ignorance and dilusion.

But leave my country alone.

And, um, where's Soros and Turner?

Stephen Pitt
http://www.light-to-dark.com/Stephen_Pitt_Cartoons.html

[Child_Of_Isis]

9. I don't feel that winning is the issue here,

I think showing the American People that there is a party on the hill willing to fight for them is.
I may be wrong though.

[formernaderite]

13. Stand for something.....damn it

the repubs win because even when they stand for unpopular issues....they keep standing. It doesn't matter whether Alito still gets confirmed.

A filibuster would mean we stand against Alito and the Bush/republican philosophy. That act in itself, may be hated by the public, but they are left with the view that WE STAND UP FOR OUR PRINCIPLES!!!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

15. There's a difference...

between standing for something and doing one's best inpersonation of the 7th Cavalry on every issue. Alito's confirmation gives us a chance to talk about the dangerous right-wing tilt to the court and how the Bush Administration is out of touch with normal Americans (letters to the editor, conversations with co-workers and neighbors, etc.). But people around here seem to think that we can stop this nomination -- let me say again and most emphatically that we cannot.

It doesn't serve any purpose for people to start believing that they can block a fait accompli by this administration and then become furious with themselves and other Democrats when it doesn't happen. We spend far too much time fighting battles that we can't win, and not nearly enough fighting those that are within our grasp. I've worked for enough candidates (and been a candidate myself) to know that the Democratic grassroots is anemic compared to with Republicans have at their disposal.

We're getting steam-rollered, and it sucks. But standing up and getting flattened will not do anyone any good.

[BigYawn]

59. I have been saying and thinking the same thing....what we really need is

we do need a "contract with America" type campaign
platform for coming elections. It has to be simple,
short and to the point. Just like Newty's 1994 contract.

A long winded platform is useless. Most Americans do not
have the time and patience to read through it, much less
understand it.

And I hate to say it here on DU where majority is to the
left of center, our contract has to appeal to center, where
the voters are.

Would'nt you rather have a centrist democrat nominate future
SCOTUS candidates rather than the any repuglican?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

68. Candidate I worked for had a "Working Famlies Bill of Rights"

It fit neatly onto a third of a sheet of paper. Ten issues (job security, health care, educational opportunities) that would ring the bell with any working class or middle class family -- and any other kind of family that gave a damn about the long-term future of the country.

I've been trying to find a copy of it (somebody else on DU requested it), but I'll be damned if I can find it anywhere.

[oneoftheboys]

16. Excellent post.

It's nice to read something that is so well reasoned.

[robbedvoter]

17. Earth to Jeff: WE DON'T HAVE FRIGGIN' ELECTIONS!

So. I got news for ya: WE'LL NEVER HAVE A FRIGGIN' MAJORITY!
Now, you get to work, cuz I am done being insane. I am sure the good folks at Diebold appreciate all your efforts there.
Thanks for all the patronizing,
One more thing: that's why they created fillibusters - TO GIVE THE MINORITY A VOICE.
WE ELECTED ENOUGH OF THEM FOR THAT.
And if they don't want to be heard, what's the point to elect more (assuming it's up to us)?

[HomerRamone]

20. THANK YOU ROBBEDVOTER!!! n/t

[robbedvoter]

21. Thanks for letting me know this is not a strictly rah-rah-rah thread!

All - "we need to work harder next time - reality be damned" seems some party strategy session cum mutual admiration society.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

43. Hyperbole aside...

We do have elections. They may be flawed (they always have been - ask Samual Tilden) and they're certainly in danger of becoming even more flawed. But for Democrats to scream "fraud" every time the lose an election serves only to marginalize our argument in favor of a verified voting trail.

Sometimes we lose elections.

After the 2004 Presidential Election, people were screaming bloody murder about Diebold (an Ohio-based company) and its ties to the Bush Administration. One Problem -- According to the Ohio Democratic Party, there were no Diebold machines used in the state of Ohio. Only six counties used an older style of electronic voting (which with an audie trail) and the rest used old-fashioned punch-card ballots.

As the risk of going horribly off-topic -- perhaps a grassroots intiative to ensure verified voting in all fifty states would be a better use of our collective energy.

[RandomKoolzip]

18. FINALLY! Some common sense.

Thank you, Jeff! :thumbsup:

It's too bad you'll be called an "enabler" or a "freeper" or even worse for simply being reasonable. Sorry about that.

[babsbunny]

24. The Dems Should Still Filibuster!

They have to show Americans that they are on the right (good) side! The majority of Americans are against this Alito, and this Administration! Why are the Dems bothering to do anything to help America if it does absolutely no good? Because it will be recorded in History that they fought for the GOOD of America! The majority of Americans want Someone to DO something to stop what this Administration is doing! They HAVE to fight! Or they are just as bad as the NeoCons!

[RandomKoolzip]

26. Calm down. Alito will be confirmed.

Yes, it sucks, but it's gonna happen, so get used to it.

Let's just hypothetically say that the Dems filibuster. They knock Alito off the page. Who's Bush gonna nominate next? Another fucking right wing asshole. And then what? Another filibuster? Nuclear option, anyone?

[babsbunny]

27. Whatever the Dems have to do

to show America that they are fighting for the real Americans!

[RandomKoolzip]

29. That's symbolism.

Why don't the Dems follow the strategy of the Republicans in the immediate post-Johnson period and continue the great grassroots work Dean and others have started? Why don't, instead of empty brinksmanship gestures, concerned Dems join city councils...start small, like the repubs did back in the early 70's...and look where they are now.

Filibustering Alito will be a disater. Let's make positive moves forward on other fronts.

[robbedvoter]

32. Calm and used to it - just the way they want you....

Are we supposed to emulate you? Cuz, dayum, it sounds like a pathetic way to go down!

[Lerkfish]

25. rolling over and playing dead makes it worse, though.

[Warren Stupidity]

28. So what?

Until the Democratic Party starts fighting the bastards tooth and nail at every opportunity with every weapon at their disposal we will continue to NOT HAVE A FRIGGIN MAJORITY.

I say stand and fight. You say oh but we will lose. We lose either way, but one way we stood for something and presented an alternative, the other way we are just another compliant agent in the theft of our republic.

[robbedvoter]

30. Fighting the good fight - quaint on this "strategery thread"

But always welcome! Thanks!

[progressoid]

31. I'll give this a FRIGGIN' kick and rec!!

Iowa caucus starts on the 16th!!!!

[babsbunny]

34. Don't Bother!

The Dems can't stand together on anything, and I guess DU is an example of this.

[Snivi Yllom]

35. You want to pick the judges? you have to win the elections.

Period.

It does not get much simpler than that.

[robbedvoter]

36. WHAT ELECTIONS???????WE HAVE ELECTIONS?

[Snivi Yllom]

64. spare me the conspiracy garabge

If you want to win, stop using crutches.

Kerry lost...correction...blew it in 2004.

You want to win in 2006. Do better.

[specimenfred1984]

37. Still, Standing up for Women's Rights is Never a Bad Thing

and Scalito is definitely not pro-women's rights.

Lose or not, losing is still no reason not to stand up for what you believe in. Standing up means different things to different people. Personally, I won't be marching on Washington but I will cheer those who do. And, I signed a petition. Yes, it's probably a waste as far as the vote goes but at least I was heard and joined a group that also was heard.

The Scalito nomination isn't about winning or losing, it's about women's rights and all equal rights. That's a much bigger issue than one SCOTUS nominee.

And I'll be doing everything I can this year in Va..

[Dr Fate]

39. Can you provide one example of how giving in to Bush has benefited DEMs?

Can you provide just one single, solitary example of how giving Bush what he wants has helped Democrats?

[babsbunny]

41. THANK YOU!

We have to fight! John Edwards says FIGHT!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

45. Not the point...

What I'm saying here is expending energy (volunteer hours and financial resources) in pursuit of a lost cause leaves fewer resources for those fights that we can win.

Senate Democrats should be rough with Alito -- who gives a shit if his wife gets all weepy. They should hold a press conference on the steps of the Supreme Court building to denounce right-wing judicial activism. And I'm not saying that the shouldn't filibuster Alito -- at least for a few days to get the country's attention.

But people shouldn't hold false hopes that we can block his nomination. And there's really no point in threatening to "leave the party" if Senate Democrats don't do more.

[Dr Fate]

48. No, it is the point, you just cant answer the question. n/t

n/t

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

50. It's a stupid question...

But here's the answer.

Expending resources on fights that we can't possible win leaves us with fewer resources for those fights what we can win. Put resources into verified voting campaigns, so that the next election will be clean. Then target those Republican districts that are either open seats or were won last time by fewer that ten percentage points.

Those are the fights we can win.

Alito is yesterday's news.

[Dr Fate]

52. Wrong, off topic , and wrong.

"Expending resources on fights that we can't possible win leaves us with fewer resources for those fights what we can win."

Exactly what "resources" would be expeneded by a filibuster? It would rally and unify the base like never before- and give a great talking point for fundraising- somthing I know somthing about.

"Put resources into verified voting campaigns, so that the next election will be clean. Then target those Republican districts that are either open seats or were won last time by fewer that ten percentage points."

Okay- I like this- but this is not an example of giving Bush what he wants-which was the topic of my question. And we could still follow your suggestion this AND filibuster. Sort of off topic.

"Alito is yesterday's news."

Wrong- Alito will be news for the next 40 years.

It's not a stupid question, it's just one that you cant answer.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

55. Thanks for your helping of demagoguery

A filibuster could just as easily blow up in our face -- as when the Republicans shut down the government ten years ago. And our base doesn't need to be rallied -- the problem is that our base won't win an election. We need the base and a vast swath of the independent voters. And these are precisely the voters who are put off by this behavior.

Let me be clear, however. I'm not saying that a filibuster is necessarily a bad idea -- a three day event, if properly stage-managed, could be enormously helpful. The point of my original post is that it won't change the outcome of the vote and we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that it will.

[Dr Fate]

57. demagoguery? Nah- just a point-by-point refutation of your arguments.

"And our base doesn't need to be rallied"

Wrong. Very wrong. Words cant express how wrong this is. The active base is quite frustrated. We need to be rallied like never before. We need hope, we need to be 100% sure that DEMS will stand up. We dont have that assurance at all. A refusal to fight Bush yet again will only verify that notion that "DEMS are afraid to fight Bush." A phrase I heard every day when fundraising for the DNC.

"We need the base and a vast swath of the independent voters. And these are precisely the voters who are put off by this behavior."

Okay- plausible, but I believe it to be incorrect. The "measured", "Swing voters dont want to see a fight" approach failed us in the last 3 elections, did it not?

Over half of the country believes that Bush is corrupt, dishonest and incompetent- perhaps standing up to this is exactly what they are waiting for. Swing-voters are more likely to respond to a "Clint Eastwood" or a "Mr. Smith" as opposed to the "measured" approach of the last 3 failed elections.

"Let me be clear, however. I'm not saying that a filibuster is necessarily a bad idea -- a three day event, if properly stage-managed, could be enormously helpful..."

I agree, 100%

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. The base...

Howard Dean just set a record for fund-raising in an off-year; twenty percent higher than in 2003. At party meetings I've attended this past year, the number of volunteers in attendance is nearly as high as it was in the months before the 2004 Election. I have never seen our base this motivated.

That being said, I think that maybe we're in agreement, but I'm not making myself clear.

I don't mean we should throw up our hands and do nothing. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a planned 72-hour filibuster that becomes a three-day press conference and symposium on Republican misrule. For three days, we grab the spotlight and the microphone and tell the American people that this country is headed in the wrong direction and what we'll do to change that.

I stress, however, that at the end of the seventy-two hours, Samuel Alito will almost certainly still become a Supreme Court Justice.

Failing a filibuster, Senate Democrats should strongly denounce this nomination from the steps of the Supreme Court. And they should keep jamming the Senate with amendments that would curtail the President's ability, for example, to conduct covert surveillance on American citizens. Democrats in the House should be cramming campaign finance reform down Dennis Hastert's throat.

Again, I seriously doubt that any of these amendments will be approved, but it keeps pressure on the House and Senate, and gives us talking points while we organize out in the boondocks for 2006.

People on this thread and others have demanded that Democrats "stand and fight." Democrats should stand and fight. But standing and fighting sometimes gets you massacred -- and unlike the Olympics, you don't get any medals for taking second place in politics.

Our day is coming.

But it's not today.

[Dr Fate]

62. Everything you wrote is great, but your comforting conclusion is wrong.

"People on this thread and others have demanded that Democrats "stand and fight." Democrats should stand and fight. But standing and fighting sometimes gets you massacred -- and unlike the Olympics, you don't get any medals for taking second place in politics."

This is a variation of the same excuse for not fighting that I've heard over and over again- begining in 2000 with the first of 3 election cycles we lost.

The "keep your powder dry for the battles to come" talking point is comforting, but I aint buying.

The time to fight is now. I've seen the "lets be measured in order to impress swing voters" tactic lose over and over again. It got us into Iraq, in fact.

We will have to disagree as respectfully as it is possible on that.

I apologize for the "boot-licker" comment- you are alright.

I'll see you in my dreams!!! ;)

[yodermon]

40. You GO Jeff.

Smack those upstart minority Dems to the back of the bus where they belong.

[Dr Fate]

42. Actually, the boot-licker wing is the minority in the active DEM base.

I never meet any of these dry-powder DEMs at actual Democratic meetings, GOTV drives, speeches, etc.

I dont even meet them when I happen upon fellow Democrats on the bus or in line at the grocery store.

Apparently they only exist on web-sites.

I don't know who these people are- who are these people?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. When you've rung as many doorbells as I have, we'll talk...

[Dr Fate]

47. Okay- let's talk. I have. I've raised more money than you too.

I'll see you in my dreams.

[AtomicKitten]

44. nail on head n/t

[nancyharris]

49. Clueless....

"Until we have a Democratic majority in the Senate or a Democrat in the White House, there is very little we can do to stop a Supreme Court nominee."

Until we begin to actively oppose (with all the tools available to us) the Republican majority we will NEVER gain that "Democratic Majority" OR the "White House".

Just how many times do you have to be poked in the eye before you realize that it is someone else doing the poking?????

[babsbunny]

53. What Will The Dems Tell The American People, who are now looking

for someone to lead? What are they going to give as THE REASON for letting this Alito person in without a fight?

[Dr Fate]

56. The official reason is that we are "Keeping our powder dry"

for "the battles to come."

I'll see you in my dreams!!!!

[nancyharris]

61. The REASON is the truth

We are filibustering Alito because we believe he is too conservative in his views to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States. That is our prerogative as an opposition party. That is what we stand for. That is why we elect certain officials and reject others. The Senate rules ALLOW us to filibuster the nomination of any Supreme Court candidate. We are executing that right BECAUSE we do not think this man should serve on the Supreme Court.

We don't need any other reason - it is our prerogative and our choice to exercise a filibuster.

Those that don't like it will exercise their right to defeat the filibuster.

To do anything else is a tacit admission that the right of filibuster has some unwritten prerequisites that simply do not exist.

[Cults4Bush]

54. ahhhh yes we must obey you!!

Do you remember what the repigs did when they didnt have a majority?

Also your posts upthread about election fraud was an ill informed insult to those who have been busting their collective asses on electoral reform. You also used a repub frame in your argument up there.

If you think not having a fucking majority is a good excuse to lay back and take it up the ass unlubed than I hope someone tells me you do not represent the majority of the party. Also the utter arrogance with which you prsented your case like some fucking gym teacher cum psychologist really dilluted your message. Telling people what to do so brashly does your cause no good at all except to rally the people who already agreed with you 100% anyway. Me, Im fighting for a bit of KY and a condom.

There are millions of Dems feeling dejected and disaffected by the party at this time the last thing we want to hear is excuses.

[BigYawn]

58. Sadly, I have to agree with you n/t

[SONUVABUSH]

63. Yes you are right

Roberts and Alito are both young for the supreme court, they will be in there for 25+ years. Get ready to do the Goose Step America.

[Chomskyite]

65. One problem with your scenario: you're shortsighted

If Frist uses "the nuclear option" to end a Democratic filibuster against Alito, it backfires on the Republican party. Frist guarantees a Democratic Senate and House for years to come. He'll have handed Democratic contenders one of the best campaign gifts possible: he'll have made the GOP the party of dictatorship. Game-set-match. Pelosi is House Speaker. Reid is Majority Leader. Bush and Cheney are facing impeachment.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

67. Just the opposite...

People always accuse me of being the "glacially evolutionary" type. I'm into building a grassroots party, and that could take two or more election cycles. I'm always looking at the farthest horizon.

I'd love it if you scenario for the nuclear option came true, but that's a might big "if."