If Dems don't keep Alito off the bench, will you leave the Dem Party?

[prolesunited]

[PWRinNY]

1. I refuse to let them run me out

A few spineless dems is no reason to run out on our principles. Just time to work harder.

[longship]

3. Ding!!! We have a winner!!!

Nicely put.

Why give the Repugs what they want?

[LSK]

48. welcome to DU and HELL YEAH!!!

:toast:

[Jo March]

2. We won't have to leave the Dem party

There won't be a Dem party. It will be outlawed quickly enough, I'm sure.

[Bobbieo]

4. Alito On The Bench

What makes you think there will be a Democratic party to leave?

[prolesunited]

15. Yes, I'm sure their first order of business

is going to be outlawing the Democratic Party. :eyes:

And your basis for this is what?

[crispini]

16. Hee hee hee hee!

:thumbsup:

[mopinko]

5. hey you-

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=150&topic_id=10388&mesg_id=10388

but, other- til a viable populist/workers party comes along.

[Bjornsdotter]

6. I didn't leave

...they did. The party is leaving me.

Cheers!

[prolesunited]

12. Who is the party?

The party is us. What are you doing to reform the party? To shape it in a form that is palatable to you?

[Bjornsdotter]

25. Maybe not as much

...as I would like.

We all act in different ways....I send the letters, I call the offices, I show up to protest, I used to donate money, I've driven the elderly to the polls to vote, I will talk to anyone who will listen about what is going on...could I do more, probably.

However, I am human and I do have a line in the sand. Iraq put me right on the line....Roe vs Wade will put me over. If the party would stand up and fight, I could respect that....even if I didn't get what I want, but to not fight....that I can't accept.

It's my party and I'll cry if I want to...sorry, just had to say that.

Cheers!

[Generator]

50. Exactly this has been my snappy line for some time

The Democratic party left me. Next up: I say we all register Republican so we can force someone to represent us. Since there is only one party rule now and all. Stealth Republicans anyone? At least the illusion is over. Wake up from the denial people. WE can't even keep the basic rights of women and you think Hillary or ANY woman or Obama can be president? Stop deluding yourselves. The war is coming home eventually. There is no way to VOTE our way to happiness. It's over.

[prolesunited]

89. No thanks

Have fun in the Rebublican Party?

And, funny, the only people who want Hillary to run are Republicans.

[waiting for hope]

7. Dem till I die....

take a look see at my user name....:)

[TahitiNut]

8. As an independent, I gladly face no such angst.

I abhor the corporate political parties which have absolutely no clear structural accountability to the people and the partisan attitudes engendered to which I ascribe the current blind adherence to the enablers of the current fascist regime.

[Pastiche423]

67. Same here

Having been w/the Dem Party for over thirty years, I became an Independent after the 2004 primaries.

[peace frog]

9. Maybe, that depends on...

... the likelihood of a viable third party represented by disaffected but effective leaders being established (there hasn't been one yet IMO but I'm open to the possibility).
Dems have just about lost me... but not yet, not yet.

[Old and In the Way]

10. I'm not going anywhere.

I'm standing with Al Gore next week.....time is on our side; we'll wear those bastards down over the long haul. I want to see the label "Republican" become an insult in this country.

[stocksthatgoup]

13. We Need New Leadership

We need to push our positions even harder.

[quinnox]

11. No

but some tacking and adjusting course would be nice. I don't see Alito as such a big deal like some Duers evidently think. Basically, it means there are 4 conservatives now on the court when he is confirmed {Alito, Thomas, Roberts, Scalia} balanced by 4 liberals {Souter, Ginsberg, Stevens, Breyer} and one swing vote that leans conservative but by no means extreme {Kennedy}

It still is extremely tight, now what I worry about is the NEXT Supreme Court vacancy, if it is one of the liberal justices replaced and his successor chosen by Bush then it would be a critical change of direction in the Court.

So hopefully all the liberals can hang around until 2008 and a Democrat can become president and replace them with liberals. By that time Scalia might even be heading toward retirement and it would be a bonus to replace him {8-years of a Dem president term}

[prolesunited]

24. Quit being so logical

The entire fate of the free world rests on this ONE moment in time. It's much better to jump ship now and let the GOP continue their march toward fascism. Who cares if the NEXT one is the one that will truly change SCOTUS? Why work even harder now to create the conditions that that nominee will be appointed by a Dem when we can simply throw our hands in the air and cling to our smug ideological purity?

[quinnox]

27. lol

[mmonk]

14. If they don't try, yes.

What in the hell would be the use if they solidify descrimination into law and extra-constitutional activities for the executive branch by allowing the possibility to happen?

[in_cog_ni_to]

17. If Alito is confirmed, I doN't think we will need to worry about

a DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

We're facing FASCISM HERE PEOPLE! This is not a minor issue. This guy is a Federalist. He thinks the prez should be above the LAW. He doesn't think the Constitution supports a woman's right to privacy. He more often than not, supports corporate interests over the little guy. HE'S A RACIST!!! HE'S ANTI-WOMEN!! He thinks it's OK for a 10 year old little girl to be strip searched. HE SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT ON THE SPYING ON AMERICANS ISSUE!

This is much, much more than "not being a Democrat anymore." THIS IS ABOUT NOT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL HAVE A PARTY TO SUPPORT.

ALSO.....any administration issue that goes before the SCOTUS will be found in their favor. Plame? Evoting? Spying? Illegal invasions? Abu Ghraib?

NOT TO MENTION THE GANG OF 14!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WTF WAS THAT ALL ABOUT???? TO SAVE THE FILIBUSTER, RIGHT???? WELLLLLLLLLL?????????? Then use the damn thing! What are we saving it for if not for THIS guy?

[WI_DEM]

18. 80% of the Democrats will probably vote "No" I will not

leave the party because of the 20% who are spineless. I will work to nominate somebody who will lead the "Real" Democrats to victory in 2008.

[jsamuel]

19. I am not a Dem, I am an Independent...

Doesn't mean I don't side with Dems 98% of the time though...

[G_j]

22. me also

who votes Dem, Independant & Green

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. I'm not in the Democratic Party to begin with

n/t

[meganmonkey]

21. Other: Independent forever

Always have been, always will be

:shrug:

[mmonk]

23. Let me put it in a simple way. If they can't defend our rights,

they are of no real use to us.

[prolesunited]

31. and who is any position of power to defend our rights?

The way our system is structured, a third party will never be a viable alternative.

We could learn something from the neocons and Religious Right here in how they took over the Republican Party through disciplined, methodical and patient organization. Do you know how many years this has been in the works? Do you know how many defeats and setbacks they had to endure before they began experiencing success?

Can we muster up one iota of that strategy and commitment here? Or, are we all just going to bail because times our tough? Quit waiting for Dems to stand up for you. Stand up for yourself and make it happen through organizing, canvassing, donating time and money to the candidates you want in there. And, if no one measures up to your ideals, run for office yourself.

[mmonk]

37. I didn't mention a third party.

As a person, I could support individual politicians. I don't have to remain registered as a dem or contribute to the party in general. If a party can't stand up for something as basic as my rights as a citizen, does it represent me?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. I'm still a registered Dem but my "loyalty" is to issues not the party.

The "not as bad" party has become the "nearly the same" party and I have no trouble voting against both of the corporate parties.

[bowens43]

28. This is ridiculous.

There is no way that Dems CAN keep him off the bench. If the Republicans want him, there is no way to stop them.

What exactly do you want them to do? If they filibuster, the Republicans use the 'nuclear option'.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. close down the Senate by following Senate procedures. n/t

[bowens43]

41. That would be great but

it wouldn't stop Alito from being seated on the court.

[prolesunited]

33. Who cares if it's actually possible?

We need them to be heroes and all line up for the firing squad. Better to stand tall and lose the battle than ultimately with the war.

[txindy]

40. Then nuclear option, it is

That'll go over large with the voters in November, esp. with the Abramoff scandal coming to light. The nuclear option will finish the repubs up for re-election. Let them use it. Please.

[bowens43]

43. I disagree.

IMO a filibuster will do more harm then good. We can't maintain it so it's a wasted effort. It's not going to happen.

I seriously doubt that there is anyone out there who has voted republican in the past that is sitting in front of the TV saying "Dang, if only those Dems would filibuster, I'd vote for them".

[txindy]

46. Maybe not. But they'll vote against those who closed down the gov't.

We shouldn't try because we'll fail, then? I couldn't disagree more.

Let them use the nuclear option. It'll finish them politically.

[bowens43]

51. You're right,

they will vote against those who shutdown the government and in this case, it would be the Dems. Using the nuclear option will not shutdown the government.

[in_cog_ni_to]

61. It's not shutting it down as in everyone leaving

and going home. They just call for every bill to be read...word for word. They are all still there.

Let 'em use their Nuclear Option....they are treading on dangerous ground politically already.

[txindy]

68. A filibuster doesn't shut it down. "Nuclear Option" is very descriptive

Let them use it. Let the public decide and then bring on the ballot box come November.

[bowens43]

69. We'll easily win at the ballot box now.....

why take the risk? Most Americans are not as passionate about politics as we here at DU are, they won't see it as striking a blow for freedom. Hell, most of them won't even understand it and the press will spin it as obstructionism on the part of the Dems. The Republican party is self destructing, for the most part, we should just stand back and watch.

[txindy]

70. We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Because I don't believe laying down on this is taking a risk and the press will spin any little thing they can into obstructionism. The Abramoff scandal is unfolding. Let them use their nuclear option and see how well the public takes it. It'll sound like a convenient coverup.

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. They can still do IMPORTANT business.

They can still get funds to the soldiers, fund SS and Medicare ect.... it's not REALLY closing down the gov. it just slows it down by reading every word of every bill. They don't walk out and leave. They are still there to do business, but it's just S-L-O-W-E-R....but faster, if need be.

.

[txindy]

66. True, I was just using the interpretation the MSM will give it

If the Dems filibuster and the repubs use their nuclear option, who will be blamed? The MSM, of course, will point fingers at the Dems, but the public isn't that stupid. Using something called "the nuclear option" is descriptive enough to place the blame exactly where it belongs - in the laps of those who used it, the repubs.

Blaming the Dems, or believing they'll be blamed (as someone posted above), is absolute nonsense, imo. They'll be the ones carrying on gov't. business. The repubs will be busy whining for the cameras.

Let them use the nuclear option. Please, let them sink their careers this November.

[mmonk]

74. I'm confused by your logic.

It's best not to defend our constitutional rights when they are under attack and may soon be part of the past? How in the hell will not fighting back be WORSE than losing our CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEED liberties and rights? Democrat first, a free constitutionally protected American second?

[bowens43]

76. We DID fight back. Didn't you listen to the hearings?

But we can't win. Don't you understand the situation? If the Republicans want him, they get him. We are unable to block him. We don't have the votes. What do you suggest, armed revolution? Storming the Supreme court and removing him by force?

The people who destroyed our Constitution are the ones who voted for Bush and Nader in 2000 , not the current batch of Dems in congress. They need to play this strategically. Filibustering when they know they can not block the appointment is not a good idea. It will alienate many and look like a colossal failure. Thier best stratigy is to give him a vote and unanimously vote not to confirm. Either way he's in but that is the price we pay for losing control of the Senate.

[mmonk]

hearings? Why if they are going to lie down in the final analysis?

That's kind of like going to war with a cap pistol. Sound, but no effect. Filibustering is fighting back.

[sendero]

59. MAKE THEM USE IT..

... MAKE the Republican use the nuclear option.

I totally agree that nobody can stop Alito. But we can force them to make a drastic move that will eventually bite them in the ass. At least we get SOMETHING.

[KamaAina]

29. I'm from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party

to coin a phrase :-) ; apparently there aren't enough of us in the Senate to mount any kind of serious challenge against this stealth right-wing ideologue. :puke:

I mean, come on, guys! Either the creep lied to the committee about not remembering CAP, or he lied to the Reagan administration when he used it to show them what a red-meat conservative he was. Either way, he a damned liar, unfit for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, and should be opposed. By somebody. Anybody...

[bowens43]

52. Opposed how?

The republicans can bypass a filibuster. You are right about there not being enough dems in the Senate to stop him. That would take 51.

[AntiCoup2K4]

32. If any "Democrats" vote to confirm this fucking piece of shit......

...it will only confirm what I have said all along. The cancer on this party known as the DLC will have succeeded in its mission of rendering the Democratic party completely and totally useless.

And what would be the point of remaining in a party unwilling to fight the fascist tyranny, and in fact aiding and abetting it?

Prove me wrong, DLC senators. Just this once. I dare you.

[prolesunited]

34. Why not just concentrate on getting rid of the DLCers?

And getting more progressive Dems in office. Oh, that would be work. Let's just throw our hands in the air and concede defeat.

[AntiCoup2K4]

36. That's my preferred course of action.....

..But once the ChimPNAC Reich has control over all three branches of government (and they already control the media), what does it matter? You have seen the new laws they're passing, and the intent of those laws is obvious. Kill any chance of a protest movement. Disable the Internet as a source of spreading the Truth (as opposed to "The Official Story")

The only reason they wouldn't outlaw the Democratic Party at that point is because they have already neutered it from within. And then it becomes as futile as forming a new party in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany.

Basically, I'm saying that if the DLC gift wraps the Supreme Court for Chimpy this time, things are going to go downhill very rapidly in this country and at that point saving the Democratic party will no longer be a priority, saving your loved ones from tyranny will be.

[Cats Against Frist]

35. I'm already an independent, and a libertarian, but I vote Dem

What I think that I would do, possibly, and would be good for some Dems and Libertarians to do, would be to join the Republican party and try to change it from within. If they have the fascist grip on the country that we, on DU, and elsewhere, claim they do -- the only thing left is to sow discord, within.

There may be enough small-government devotees left, disenchanted in the puke party, to stand up and say no to all of this executive power, spying, torture, etc. The neocons and theocons and corpo-fascists do not have limited government in mind. They have "targeted" limited government in the areas that suit them, and a crushing authoritarian philosophy as an outline, and goal. They truly are fascists, and may have to be infiltrated.

[prolesunited]

38. Infiltrate, yes

But are you advocating that we actually vote for them?

[Cats Against Frist]

62. I knew someone was going to ask that

I guess I would say "yes," but only in some cases, and that would also include continuing to vote for Democrats, as well, who are of the un-spineless type, and continue to support smaller, more responsible government, less corruption and antagonistic unilateral war.

I guess the idea would be to identify legislators in the Republican party -- even if they don't follow the "identity politics" script -- who are dedicated to limiting executive power, are not war hawks, are not the overtly religious type, want balanced budgets, and would stand in a fight against corruption. I'm not saying that there are that many -- but there are some. Reason being, I would rather have a Republican representative who is in favor of a balanced budget, against spying, torture and pre-emptive war, and against creeping executive power, who holds less favorably progressive views on welfare, or some of the elements of identity politics, i.e. affirmative action, hate crimes legislation, Roe v. Wade, gay marriage advocacy, etc., than a Democrat who doesn't take a stand against the corpo-fascists, bloated, top-down, executive-branch-heavy government, pre-emptive war and domestic spying, citizen retention and military torture. I realize that most Democrats are more preferable, but when it comes down to confronting fascism, I don't see why we cannot help built, at least, anti-fascist forces in the Republican party, by appealing to some of their more "conservative" roots, and supporting them, while continuing to support Democrats who are concerned about state power.

I am sympathetic to identity politics, and the individual human rights issues that make up the politics of race, sex, sexual orientation and religion, but I'm far more concerned about the debt, wiretapping, secret courts, energy planning, torture, corpo-fascism and war. I would trade identity politics to get these things, however, I would NOT trade identity politics for worst, big-government authoritarian outcomes. I would trade them, possibly, for federalism, to put the politics of the regions closer to the people whom they govern.

My feeling, however is that Bush Co., and the corpo-fascist-neocon-theocon triumvirate have the intention, when all power to protest/subvert/civil disobey/discuss is taken away, to then attempt to legislate or de-legislate at the FEDERAL level (and they've already started) to compound their ideas of cultural supremacy, patriarchal society, and order.

The long and short of it is, that, for me, I would back federalism and conservative ideals, including anti-tax legislation, if that kept them from consolidating federal power, and becoming totalitarians, I guess. And I feel that we have to start seriously considering this, now.

Add on edit: A practical example would be to identify moderate or libertarian Republicans: Ron Paul and Jim Leach, in the House, come to mind, and let them know that they have the support of Democrats, to stand against their own party -- and to try to encourage the election of these types, within the GOP, by appealing to small-government ideals.

[NoPasaran]

39. No

The Supreme Court is a battle that was lost on November 2, 2004. I didn't leave the party then, no reason to leave it now.

[mmonk]

75. According to the way we do things here in America,

it should take 60 votes to confirm a justice unless the Senate rules are scrapped. So, technically, the Supreme Court has not been lost UNTIL they break the rules or the democrats confirm him.

[Historic NY]

42. Remember when Democrats were in control for 40yrs...........

we did things Republicans didn't like and they didn't run away.....they consolidated their anger into putting us out of power. Well, the shoe is on the other foot. If we agree to disagree on issues it makes us stronger. Democrats can't be all to end all for everybody. The Republican party is on the ropes as long as we keep them there, together. I personally don't think we can muster the Republican votes we need to knock Alito out of the box. At best all we might be able to muster is a temporary delaying tactic, that will be overcome in the end.

For people jumping ship to third, fourth or fifth parties, fine but remember no third party has ever captured control. At best these movements drain off potential voters because of one or two issues out of many we can agree on. My advice is to put our anger to good use and direct it at defeating those Republican bastards. We need 7 Senators to gain control.

[Walt Starr]

53. You're WRONG, a third party took control and now holds all power

remember, the Republican Party was a third party once upon a time.

[Historic NY]

58. I should have said 20th century.....n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

54. Democrats NEVER had the kind of control the fascists have now.

Despite what the Puke fantasies believe, we NEVER controlled the media. We certainly never controlled the voting machines (Daley family notwithstanding). The Republicans had a chance to get elected every time just as we did, and every opportunity to get their message to the voters.

It isn't even remotely the same situation.

[depakid]

65. We need 7 Senators to gain control.

Which isn't going to happen- becuase the Dems don't stand for anything- and show no courage or discipline as a party.

Obviously- we DONT NEED any Republican votes to stop Alito. All we need is for almost every Dem to stand together for a change and stop selling out their supporters.

[meisje]

44. Yeah, just like you were going to move to Canada after 04!

[Fox Mulder]

45. No.

Dem since birth, Dem until death.

[Cooley Hurd]

47. No! I will NEVER capitualte!

[Strawman]

49. No, because there are still plenty of good Dems

I will be profoundly disappointed in many of the elites and so- called "moderates" if there is no filibuster, and I will try to see to it that there are more good fighting Dems in the future.

But honestly, what's my alternative here? Seriously. Vote for some lost cause organic shit farmer or whatever friggin' goofball with no experience the local Greens are running over a good Dem like Levin or even less impressive Dems like Stabenow or Granholm? Until I conclude that Democratic Party politics are totally hopeless and corrupt and immoral (and I won't say never there), I'm happier as a liberal inside the Democratic tent than outside.

[stray cat]

55. Its the peoples fault that dems don't keep Alito off the Bench

Americans gave all branches of government to the republicans. The Dems don't have the numbers to keep Alito off the bench. They can filibuster sure, and the republicans can vote to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees because they do have the votes. If you need someone else who actually has the power to change the outcome look at the moderate republicans. The powerless voting together are still powerless.

[Yollam]

56. None of the above. I was done with them last year.

nt

[DanCa]

57. I ve been wondering if people leave the party will the leave DU? :D

I am a Dem thru and thru.

[derby378]

63. Simple - just vote out any Dem who votes for Alito

Sorry to sound like Palpatine, but sometimes you gotta do what must be done.

[depakid]

64. I already have-

Maybe some people in good conscience can stay within a party that repeatly- over and over and over- sells out its major supporters and the interests of the country at large- but I cannot.

I also can't in good conscience be associated with the cowardice and ineptitude I've seen from the Dems for so many years.

Maybe if they decide to show some courage and fortitude as a party -if they decide the actually want to win- if return to traditional Democratic principles again- I might come back. Til then, they can pretty much forget about getting any money or support from me.

I may still vote for the lesser of two evils, but not with any enthusaism.

[AZBlue]

71. Of course not!

Giving up = never having anything change. I care too much to do that.

[DancingBear]

72. Perhaps the question to ask is this

How many more times do you need to be kicked in the head before you realize your head hurts?

The Democratic Party in its present DLC form is a farce. If your question asks will I continue to support a Democratic Party that brings forth Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Lieberman as its face, the answer must be no. That is NOT an opposition party, that is merely a low calorie extension of what currently exists. It saddens me to watch some folks here jump in glee when we stop the Artic drilling fire from starting, but what nobody seems to realize is that the Republican Party starts 8 fires at once, and our "firefighters' are too damn timid to put them all out. Once Alito gets on the bench, you see, the fires will be permanent, and no amount of "gee we'll work real hard next time" can put them out. If anyone here doesn't think that once Alito gets on the bench the Artic drilling scenario won't come before him in some way shape or form disguised as "corporate rights" (and he believes that corporations have rights just like you and I) then please come forth and buy my bridge. There will be untold number of cases like this, and of course there will be a run on coat hangers, which Hillary and Joe can then decry while they close the barn doors and watch the horsies.

We must also understand here that there a a HUGE gap between "support for" and "vote for". If Hillary got the nomination, I can assure you that moths will fly out of my wallet before any money goes to her campaign. On the other hand, if I see Dean working for grassroots change and advocating candidates that actually (gasp!) stand for something, then not only will I volunteer time, but money as well.

What would be missing in the former is passion, and passion is what wins elections. Passion to the point that you will engage strangers in conversation about your candidate, to the point that you will make phone bank calls until your voice gives out, and passion to the point that you will stand in the below zero cold of New Hampshire directing traffic so those who want to hear your candidate speak will be able to do so. I've done that.

Will a DLC candidate make me do that again? Not a chance. Until this party shows me and millions of others that they are willing to kick back, then I shrug my shoulders, say "well, at least they're not Republicans", and trudge off to vote.

So the question is not will I support the party - the question is, will they let me?

[prolesunited]

79. I don't see them as the real face of the Dem Party

It's what the GOP and MSM put forth as the face of the party. Take Hillary, for example, they treat her as the annointed '08 candidate, but most Dems I talk to won't be voting for her. So, how will she win the primary?

I really hear what people are saying and agree with most of it. Bottom line, though, switching parties or not voting not only won't change anything, it will make it even WORSE.

I can name a number of people in the party who are NOT DLCers and stand up for the people. WORK to get more like them elected.

[prolesunited]

73. I'm almost surprised at these poll results

but I've been here long enough not to be. :-(

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

77. To the 43 Yes votes so far:

Bye...

:hi:

I also love how many final straws there have been for some that voted for yes. You can only have one final straw LOL

[OKNancy]

78. We will miss all you at DU

You are not permitted to use this message board to work for the defeat of the Democratic Party nominee for any political office. If you wish to work for the defeat of any Democratic candidate in any General Election, then you are welcome to use someone else's bandwidth on some other website.

Democratic Underground may not be used for political, partisan, or advocacy activity by supporters of any political party or candidate other than the Democratic Party or Democratic candidates. Supporters of certain other political parties may use Democratic Underground for limited partisan activities in political races where there is no Democratic Party candidate.

Do not post broad-brush smears against Democrats or the Democratic Party.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[hundred6]

80. why the hell...

would you leave?

the repugs already have the votes to confirm him. he was a shoe-in before this all started.

[DemGirl7]

81. I won't leave the party...

I know there are going to be some backstabs within the party so I understand, and also I know that the Repugs are probably all going to vote for him so he'll probably be confirmed. But there has be something done soon, I don't know what, but something, because I refuse to wait forever.

[Catchawave]

82. No.

[QC]

83. The whiners will never leave.

The promise to again and again but never follow through on it.

[cally]

84. Yes, if they don't filiibuster I will change parties

I won't send money to any central Dem organization nor volunteer. I'm dismayed Dems are not standing up for us.

[prolesunited]

86. Please explain to me how that will help

or create any change?

What party will you be joining?

[cally]

87. I'll join the Green party and work to elect local candidates

and build the party. I'll still support Dems for President and Governor because a vote for Green is essentially a vote for Repubs at the national or state level. If Dems can't make a stand on this, then I think it's time to work to develop a new party. It's all a matter of where my time and money should go. I support Dems because I believe they are better on the environment, privacy, and women's issues. If they aren't and even a Dem like Feinstein caves to the RW zealots, then I've lost faith in the party leaders.

[prolesunited]

88. I think working with Greens at the local level IS viable

That's the only arena in which they've won. Still, I think we need to work from inside the party to get more progressive people elected.

[mtnsnake]

85. How the heck could Alito be the final straw? The final straw for me would

be if the Democratic Party doesn't get their collective asses together and start taking advantage of the fact that there is a country of people just WAITING for the Democrats come to their rescue....waiting for them to do SOMETHING that suggests they have a fucking backbone! The Republicans are in total disarray and are in the most vulnerable state they've been in for some time, yet the Democrats are doing NOTHING to take advantage of the situation. If they continue to do NOTHING but stand by and watch, then THAT will be the final straw for me. Fuck Alito. Our problems go way deeper than that right now. A golden opportunity has been staring us in the face for months on end, yet we do nothing but watch. Right now, we are a party of do-nothings who are afraid to be Democrats.

[SammyWinstonJack]

90. No. nt

[MisterP]

91. no, but I won't play by unfair treehouse rules

[skipos]

92. I am not a one issue voter. Dems won 05 and I will help them win 06.

[AgadorSparticus]

93. The pacifiers will never change status quo.

[Clarkie1]

94. Dems can't keep Alito of the bench.

There is nothing to stop Republicans from "going nuclear" if it comes to that.

This is the result of choices Americans made when they elected 55 Republican senators.

Alito will be confirmed, sadly.