Deathbed conversion to the religion of filibuster

[cosmik debris]

Now that the heat of battle has subsided I would like to present an opposing view.

We all knew 2 months ago that Alito was a right wing extremist. So did Kennedy and Kerry. But they waited until the last minute for their deathbed conversion to the religion of filibuster. If they were even half decent politicians, they would have started the filibuster effort a month earlier and tried to build consensus and momentum. But they didn’t because they are incompetent ivory tower liberals who are completely out of touch with political reality outside of Massachusetts.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with them on almost every issue. But that doesn’t mean that they are competent to lead the Democratic Party out of the wilderness. We need leaders who know how to make our party work. Kennedy and Kerry don’t meet the minimum qualifications.

[BR_Parkway]

1. You agree with them on almost every issue when they are completely

out of touch ivory tower liberals?

I think there's medication for that type of thing

[tatertop]

7. So Kennedy is an ivory tower liberal now?! Love it.

[cosmik debris]

16. I agree with George Carlin

But that doesn't qualify him to lead a national political party.

[Mass]

2. If Reid had been competent, he would have done his job and

started the filibuster himself. I think this is what Kerry and Kennedy expected, until last week, when Reid made it clear where his position was.

Dont ask who the incompetent is.

[samhsarah]

8. I think it's what we ALL expected.

That's what a leader does.

[MADem]

9. Reid is a PRO LIFE DEM--there is no way he would have gone for it

He's also a bit of a states-righter, so Alito is right up his alley.

Not all Dems are Teds and Johns, would that they were....

[samhsarah]

10. How is ALITO a states-righter?

I didn't realize states-righters were all about the unitary executive. I would think a states-righter wouldn't want a dictator. That would take many rights away from the states.

[MADem]

13. On the issue of abortion, there will, should Roe go, be abortion states

and no abortion states. Women will have to "go to Massachusetts" or "Go to California" if they want that service. It won't be the settled law of the land anymore. Get on the bus, honey, that will be the rule; rather like women in Ireland getting on the ferry for birth control and pregnancy termination.

The unitary executive has more to do with the control of the president, without any sayso by Congress, of all aspects of the Executive Branch--most particularly the national security matters that are of special interest to the Monkey.

[samhsarah]

20. I understand what you're saying....

But I'm not letting Harry off the hook on this one, him and Durbin. I know Harry's a pro-lifer, but that's no excuse for letting a fascist on the SCOTUS. They need to learn how to get these Dems in line. And now. Especially since there could be another SCOTUS nomination soon.

[MADem]

22. I'm not letting him off the hook either, but I knew he wouldn't do shit

I just wish a few other Dems on the Judiciary Committee had gotten off their asses and led the charge. They left it up to Ted, who called in his junior partner to help. It sucked. No guts, and as a result, no glory.

Nevada likes states' rights--I mean, look at them; they've had gambling and legalized prostitution for years. Those are cash cows for them. All politics is local....

[karynnj]

26. This was NOT about abortion

Alito wants to shift rights from the individual to the government and the corporations and he wants to shift the balance of power to take power from the Congress to give unprecedented power to the President.

If Alito was rejected, we would obviously get another conservative pro-life nominee - but we might have gotten one who was less objectionable on other issues.

[RaleighNCDUer]

17. Exactly. Kennedy and Kerry are leaders in the party but are not

the leaders of the party - and the difference is more than semantic.

It was Reids job to organize the fillibuster. It's in the job description.

[tatertop]

3. I cannot blame Kennedy and Kerry for the gutless votes of other Dems

If every Dem Senator were a Kennedy or a Kerry we would
be in great shape right now.

[cosmik debris]

14. I don't blame them for other's votes

I blame them for a failure of leadership. Too little, too late!

[tatertop]

19. Please read post #6 for the skinny on what happened

I am no blind defender of Kerry,
but this was not Kerry's fault.
Quite the contrary.

Moreso, both men spoke with eloquence and force
before the vote. Those Dems who did not
rally to the cause are gutless bastards
who have to go.

[Botany]

4. please

[TayTay]

5. The whole party waited

And you are attacking the people who actually fought this in the Senate. Maybe we should list and name the other Senate Dems who didn't give a rat's ass about this.

Please tell me: Who else came forward in the Senate.

[cosmik debris]

12. Only the Senate Dems waited

The rest of the party,especially the blog sphere was working for filibuster from the day Alito was nominated.

[blm]

24. Please show me your FACTS that led you to believe Kennedy and Kerry were

"converted" to filibuster at the last minute.

Every fact I have seen points to Kerry supporting a filibuster of Bush's RW picks from June 2003 through to the cloture vote.

It's not Kerry's fault that hearings are held FIRST before filibusters begin. Or that media slammed Dems incessantly after the hearings to assure that filibuster would be not considered by key Dems.

However, Kerry waited for someone to step up and stand with Kennedy as he had a very heavy schedule OUT OF THE COUNTRY on Senate business for HIS committees - Finance and Small Business. And a major speech in Ireland - all of which he cancelled to stand with Kennedy for the filibuster, since everyone else was too reluctant to do so.

Now.... where is your proof for YOUR charges against Kerry and Kennedy?

[blm]

6. Poor analysis - Kerry didn't WANT to have to lead on it. The Judiciary

Committee Dems had that responsibility.

And you don't PLAN filibuster until after you give a nominee a fair hearing.

Kennedy didn't have any judiciary Dems standing with him, so Kerry DID. He cancelled his longtime planned schedule for the economic conference and a major speech in Ireland to STAND WITH KENNEDY.

Your blame is poorly targeted.

[MADem]

11. Thank you, blm, for paying attention--I agree with your excellent analysis

If only some of the other Judiciary Dems had shown some backbone, Kerry would not have had to stick his beak in...except to encourage and support the effort.

[IndianaGreen]

15. I will join my distinguished DUer in her defense of Kerry

One cannot filibuster until the Committee has voted a nominee to the floor.

[cosmik debris]

18. And that is why the filibuster failed.

If the K&K team had started a month earlier to generate a consensus that might have won. But their deathbed conversion looked too much like a political stunt to satisfy a small part of the electorate. If they had planned to win they might have won, but they didn't plan and they didn't win.

[blm]

21. They were always FOR a filibuster, they weren't CONVERTED to it

at the last minute.

It was up to Judiciary Dems to stand together on it. NONE would stand with Kennedy, so Kerry stepped up because it was the RIGHT THING TO DO.

Try using FACTS to convince us otherwise. Kerry led successful filibusters in the past - on ANWR for instance. He knows how. But Judiciary was not his perview until too many on the committee FAILED to do the right thing.

[The Backlash Cometh]

23. No. They didn't start it early because WE didn't start it early.

Something had to come first. I think you're being way idealistic to believe that anybody, except Kennedy, would have come out in the open on this one.

The Dems were not prepared for us. That's why the Senators are mad at Kerry. They never saw us coming. Obama was accurate in stating that the Dems need to define the principles they're willing to fight for, because there was no plan in place to handle the populace uprising. No plan in place for the Senators to take the lead. They were led by the nose instead.

[karynnj]

25. So, they should have started talking filibuster BEFORE the hearings

and before interviewing Alito? That's simply ridiculous.

That said the Democrats, overall were awful at the hearing - especially Biden and Kennedy (who is one of my favorite politicains). Kerry was in the ME, doing his job for the SFRC when the hearings ended. From Israel, he told Blitzer that he needed to review the hearing when he got back before commenting. He returned, a week ago Friday and declared he was voting against him on the following Sunday on THIS WEEK. A few days later he and Kennedy asked the Democratic caucus to filibuster after the leadership chose not to.

Kerry in his 3 speeches may an excellent case for rejecting Alito. Others, like Kennedy, Dayton, Menendez (new NJ Senator), and Stabanow made outstanding speeches as well. (There were many I didn't hear - so I'm sure I left some out.)

Both Kerry and Kennedy said from the beginning that it was a very steep hill to climb to work. Even if they started earlier, what could they have done. IF we had the media on our side, Kerry could have essentially given an informal version of his Monday speech on various talk shows - getting people not usually involved to see that Alito was outside the mainstream.

Look at what the media was doing instead - mocking Kerry as having started the filibuster from the ski slopes. (Knowing that Kerry spent 12 days on a gruelling ME tour, spent last week in the Senate and then left for a world economic conference - it is infuriating that they attempted to make it seem as though Kerry was still on vacation from his job.)