The Alito Filibuster - Why We Lost

[joemurphy]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_14>

Basically, we lost because all seven of the Democratic members of the Gang of Fourteen voted against cloture.

Here are the Democratic members of the Gang of Fourteen

Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Ken Salazar, Colorado

Apparently they decided that Alito did not present an "extraordinary circumstance" and stuck to their agreement not to filibuster any judicial nominee except in "extraordinary circumstances".

They have never provided us with a definition of "extraordinary circumstances".

As a result, the Alito filibuster was doomed from the get go. To successfully filibuster the Democrats needed 41 votes. There are only 44 Democrats in Congress. Thus, unless some Republicans could be persuaded to participate in the filibuster (and in fact none did), a majority of the above Democrats would have had to participate.

Thus, as long as these Democrats remain in office, their fellow Democrats will be unable to filibuster the nomination of right wing ideologues to the federal bench.

This is the price that has been paid to avoid the "Nuclear Option"

[Demeter]

1. Cut Off the Seven

They have cut us off from our lives, liberties and any possible pursuit of happiness, not to mention enjoyment of the protections of the Constitution. So cut them off from Democratic funds, information, contacts, etc. Let's see how long they can hold their breath--or learn to breathe vacuum.

[joemurphy]

8. I'm directing my money to any Democrat running against

them in a primary.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. With two exceptions...

...their replacements will undoubtedly be Republicans, or Democrats who are at least as conservative as they are.

[Warpy]

6. Probably

However, it can hardly be any worse for us as a country.

Some constituencies will always elect conservatives. We know that. However, it's imperative to oust conservatives who are doing a bad job, as all these Senators are.

If you don't like the government you are getting, vote against the incumbent. An incumbent is unlikely to change, so voting one back in would seem to be acting according to one definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over but expecting a different result to magically occur.

The best idea is for the party as a whole to field strong candidates in the primaries, conservative or otherwise, defeat them that way. The worst thing is to follow the DLC pattern of keeping jellyfish in position forever under the "better the devil you know" philosophy put to the voters.

They did a bad job. They need to go. It's as simple as that. We can deal with their successors when their time comes.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

10. That's nonsense.

However, it can hardly be any worse for us as a country.

Do you understand that if we were in the majority in the Senate, Alito probably never would have been nominated, let alone confirmed. We would control the committees. You think that doesn't make a HUGE difference?


If you don't like the government you are getting, vote against the incumbent.

Are you actually suggesting that we should vote for Republicans instead of these Democrats? I hardly see how that accomplishes anything.


They did a bad job. They need to go. It's as simple as that.

No, it isn't. If the alternative is a Republican, I'll take a DINO just so we can own the committees. Sheesh!

[bowens43]

3. It was lost because

there weren't enough votes to stop a rules change. It was futile.

Time to move on don't you think? We have a good chance of regaining control of congress. Instead of chastising these few why not work to get the majority? If we had the majority in the senate the Alito nomination would never have made it out of committee.

The Alito nomination is the price we paid for losing control of the Senate.

[xchrom]

5. we have a chance -- not a good chance at regaining

congress.

it's more difficult than ever to vote out incumbents.
mostly people are happy with their own reps -- even is they are unhappy with the status quo in general.

second redistricting efforts around the country have created a good many safe seats for repukes.

because democrats are not effectively nationalizing issues i.e. the alito debacle the public does not automatically make a connection to the idea that republicans who hate government are a bad choice to run government.

just my 2 cents.

[joemurphy]

7. Minor correction to your analysis:

Redistricting only affects the House, not the Senate. The Senate approves or disapproves judicial nominees. We can't affect the courts without control of the Senate. The House, and redistricting, has nothing to do with the judicial nominating process.

[Demeter]

23. To Get the Majority--We Must Clean House

Because the disaffected are not going to vote for business as usual. The hunger for meaningful, significant 180 degree change is palpable in this country, and we must supply the means for that change. People in the desert want water, not pretty blue sand.

[Crazy Dave]

4. What's wrong with Byrd anymore?

Someone needs to see what kind of meds. he's taking these days. Seriously, what has made him get so cozy with the republicans lately? He was a loud opponent of the administration and against the war in Iraq prior to the invasion, so what happened to him? Bad marks in local polls at home?

[CTyankee]

9. I'm going to work for Ned Lamont here in CT

but I have the feeling that CT will stick with Joe because they figure he can "go along to get along" for the state, where a newcomer, even if elected, would be out of his league. I think THAT's the dilemma here in our state.

[Lerkfish]

11. I recall saying that the time the gang of fourteen was formed that

you cannot compromise with a fascist. The gang was all about the dems giving up everything and getting nothing in return


hell, I'm a frickin prophet.

[sendero]

12. I understand Rosanne Rosannadanna now...

.. because with the Dems "it's always something" :)

[Burning Water]

13. We lost because

we didn't have to numbers to stop the nomination. The Republicans were not going to let the nomination be stopped because of this, and they had the numbers to make it so. The Gang of 14 Dems realized this, and, probably wisely, decided to hold their cards for the Ginsburg replacement.

Yeah, I would have liked to see a filibuster, too. Stand up, hold firm to our principles, and get our clocks cleaned. Morally satisfying, probably politically perilous, but in the end, they had the numbers, and we didn't.

You have to win elections, and there's no use whining when you don't. November's coming fast, boys & girls.

[joemurphy]

14. So the Ginsburg replacement will be an

"extraordinary circumstance"? Why? Because then Roe v. Wade will certainly be reversed while with the O'Connor replacement it is only a
good possibility? I don't follow your logic. And by the way, a majority of the Gang of Fourteen (which included 7 Republicans, remember) actually voted for Alito in addition to voting against the Filibuster. Why do you think it'll be different with a new cretin that is selected to replace Ginsburg?

I think your hopes for a principled stand against a Ginsburg replacement are total pipe dreams.

As to our needing more votes, yes, I agree with you. But that's only pointing out the obvious. My problem is I don't see how we're going to get them if, in the public eye, we don't really stand for anything.

[Burning Water]

17. Well, of course,

I don't know what circumstances will be considered "extreme" by the 7, any more than you do. But what does logic have to do with political calculations? Emotions seem to rule on both sides.

And I agree with you that hopes for a principled stand by our Senators is a pipe dream. They are, after all, politicians first and Democrats only second. I don't have a lot of respect for politicians.

As for the votes, how are we going to get them anyway, what with election fraud and all. But let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the next election will be clean as far as actual counting of votes, etc, goes. There will still be the propaganda, and that's fair. Why should the Repukes campaign for us? They have their own political agenda.

Even so, when the Dems held all three branches, mostly since FDR till just recently, the Repukes went along: "Me, too, just not so much". So they never got a reputation with the average citizen as a whacko party. The Dem strategy of standing up against every thing the Repukes stand for is principled, yes, and, I admit it, emotionally satisfying. But, I think that it counter-productive. My impression is that the average citizen is saying, "these guys don't want to do anything, they just want to obstruct."

So we are faced with choices: Do we continue to "obstruct", mostly unsuccessfully, although we did pretty good on Social Security, or do we try the "bi-partisan" route, where we slow down their advances, making them take one step back for every two steps forward, until we can return to power? The less damage that has been done, the less effort will be required to reverse it.

OK, this is a decision that different people will make differently. I don't even pretend to know what the better answer is. I just say that it is a question that is ignored only to our own political peril.

[Silverhair]

15. Is Ginsburg leaving?

Are there any rumors from good sources about that? I know she is a cancer survivor, but I thought she was doing OK now.

Stevens, on the other hand, is 85, and it is asking much to ask him to hang in there for three more years.

[Burning Water]

18. Who knows?

It was just a hypothetical.

[blm]

16. Extending the debate so the PUBLIC learned more about Alito would have

been a positive move for this country.

The unsure numbers in the polls were pretty high. That's because the media didn't give the public any substantive news from the hearings so people could learn about him.

A week more of examining and debating Alito on the senate floor and in the press could have firmed up opposition against him.

[Burning Water]

19. On the other hand,

let's face it. The filibuster wasn't about giving the public more time to make up it's mind. It was about stopping the nomination. We had plenty of time to convince people if we had been able. We didn't have the numbers. We lost.

2006 is here, boys & girls.

[Demeter]

24. 42 No Votes Is Enough To Stop It

But the cowards wouldn't vote NO when it actually would count. Out with the cowards.

[Burning Water]

25. Don't forget, though

it was not enough to stop the nuclear option. And the trigger would have been pulled. Only a ... very politically unobservant person could doubt it. Obviously the Dem Senators knew it. Wish they had done it anyway, and covered themselves with kamikaze glory. It would be remembered in 2006.

[Lloyd Braun]

20. We lost because we had no backbone!

I don't think the repubs would have ever used the Nuclear Option! They know the country would have blamed them first

[Burning Water]

21. Blamed them for what??

Do you think the right to filibuster is a major, over-riding issue with the vast majority of the American people? I don't.

[sandnsea]

22. Change Minds - Change Votes

We lost because red state voters don't know what's going on because local media isn't teling them. People still get most of their news locally. We can counter that with local campaigns that truly inform people and don't just rant.

[joemurphy]

26. Do you see anybody mounting such campaigns? I don't n/t