Are votes actually swinging in our direction?

[senseandsensibility]

I've been at work all day, and the only thing I've heard about the filibuster since early this morning was Ed Shultz saying it was all over a couple of hours ago.

Then I come home and it doesn't look that way on DU. I see threads about Senators changing their minds within the past couple of hours, and others about Senators who are taking tallies.

Please help me catch up. I boycott the corporate media, but I wouldn't trust them on this anyway. Is the truth that the tide is turning our way since this morning, or are Will Pitt and Ed Shultz right that it's over? Or is it somewhere in between?

[patrioticliberal]

1. Ed Schultz is an asshole.

We're getting some people. We need to keep fighting though.

Even if we lose, that jackass attitude isn't going to get you anywhere.

[stepnw1f]

22. It Sucks When We Have People on Our Side Sabotaging our Efforts

I have lost all respect for the guy.

[Mr_Spock]

50. Ed calls it as he sees it

If you don't like it, don't listen. He will at least admit when he's wrong - unlike so many here...

[FreedomAngel82]

53. So did he when he bashed John Murtha and Howard Dean?

[Mr_Spock]

55. I've heard massive compliments of Murtha on his show...

...and he gave Dean a kick in the pants like so many of us do to get our guys moving.

Is pragmatism unrealistic in a radio announcer who supports your side, or is rah rah rah the only choice?

[rzemanfl]

2. It amazes me that any Democrat can think John Kerry was smart

enough to run the country, but not smart enough to know when to filibuster. Landrieu is in a special situation, her state a shambles, begging alms from the corrupt * administration, the others have no excuse for disloyalty.

[LSK]

3. the vote is 4:30 pm EST MONDAY

Nothing is over until then. I DONT CARE WHO THE FUCK SAYS OTHERWISE.

[electropop]

61. I just called every single Dem's office,

plus the offices of Warner, Allen, Chafee, and Snowe.

My tally:

Left messages for:
Jeffords, Warner, Nelson, Biden, Johnson, Conrad, Akaka, Pryor, Rockefeller, Leahy, Reed, Bingaman, Baucus, Obama, Harkin, Inouye, Carper, Feingold

Mailboxes were full at:
Allen, Byrd, Dorgan, Landrieu, Salazar, Kohl, Murray, Cantwell, Chafee, Lautenberg, Dayton, Levin, Mikulski, Bayh, Lieberman, Lincoln, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Durbin, Reid, Dodd, Stabenow

Repeated busy signal:
Boxer, Feinstein

No answer:
Sarbanes

[doublethink]

4. It ain't over till it's over .......

NO VOTE HAS BEEN TAKEN YET. NOT ONE VOTE ON HIS NOMINATION, OR CLOTURE HAS BEEN CAST. DIEBOLD HAS NO SAY SO IN THIS PARTICULAR VOTE EITHER. We got till Monday afternoon to convince and change some minds. :) Now I gotta get back to getting busy. Peace. :hi:

[mvd]

27. And just think..

at least it's not Republicans that we have to convince.

[doublethink]

41. ........

:thumbsup: GOP Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, yea I kinda gave up on that one earlier today, but may still send a few comments her way. Balls in our court, that's the way I look at it too. It ain't over till it's over. Peace. :)

[wookie294]

5. Well, Sen. George Allen is on Hardball right now to whine about Filibuster

Is this a good sign? Maybe!

[senseandsensibility]

6. Any time we make George Allen whine

we've done something worthwhile!:) And it's a sign that he's scared, poor baby.

[karynnj]

33. Tweety and the WP guy are so ill informed that they think Kerry

is in Davos.

Apparently, they have no idea he spoke on the Senate floor today. So, his comment that it's Kerry and a few Senators like Kennedy should be considered in that light.

[FreedomAngel82]

54. And they're supposed to be the "news" and didn't even know that

:eyes:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

68. Hmph! I bet they know exactly where he is.

That's a GOP talking point that's been being spread around in an attempt to take away from his effort.

Lying propagandist they are one and all.

[Surya Gayatri]

72. Precisely, Lone_Star,

it suits their agenda to keep painting Kerry as an elitist Europhile over here (Gawd forbid!) speaking French with those 'amurika haters'.

[electropop]

62. I called "Make My Day" Allen and told him if he supports Alito,

we will "ruin his day" in November.

[Wheezy]

7. Yes!

Feinstein changed her mind and decided she would support the filibuster.

Salazar, both Nelsons, Chafee, Snowe -- all potential and are waiting for your phone call! :)

[rox63]

25. Clinton also changed her mind

After the onslaught of calls from people like us. :)

[senseandsensibility]

48. I've called them

Will do again. Feinstein is my Senator! Woo-hoo!

[Dale Axelrod]

8. To Paraphrase Henry Ford, "If you think it's NOT over...You're Right!"

SENATORS NEED TO BE CONTACTED and told why to SUPPORT A FILIBUSTER today and early Monday (Senate offices will be closed over the weekend):

http://caricaturist.com/pics/Filibuster-Alioto!.jpg

"What we have here is a failure to communicate." ---Cool Hand Luke

Go to http://www.democrats.com/alito-48 for the latest tallies and strategic senators to contact.

Dale Axelrod

[e-mail]
www.caricaturist.com

[NewJeffCT]

9. In my 2 1/2 years on DU, we do tend to get overly optimistic

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but it's been my experience.

[senseandsensibility]

10. I know where you're coming from, my friend

And thank you for wording that so diplomatically. But the drift I'm getting is that some minds have been changed. I don't think it's time to give up yet.

[NewJeffCT]

13. I won't give up...

but, I've been a pessimist my whole life... the times I've been optmistic, I tend to get shot down hard. (see my late October 2004 thread where I posted "Suddenly I feel strangely optimistic")

That won't stop me donating to DU and other progressive causes, writing several LTTEs a week, calling the occasional local talk show, etc.

[electropop]

63. How about instead of pessimism, DO SOMETHING:

I called every single Dem, every Rethug fence-sitter, and Jeffords. I feel 100% better. Try it, you'll like it!

Edit: plus "my" senators Allen and Warner.

[WatchWhatISay]

12. If you dont have hope

What else is left?

[TheVirginian]

11. The frenzied masses of DU have never been ones to let math get in the way

...of a good time.

Alito has 53 confirmed Republican "aye" votes, plus Johnson, Byrd, and Nelson, for a total of 56 confirmed "yes" vote. The other two Republicans, Snowe (or Collins, I get them mixed up) and Chafee, are on the fence about voting to confirm Alito, but will almost definately not vote for a filibuster.

So with 58 votes almost guaranteed not to filibuster, all Democratic Senators voting no on Alito must be unified behind the attempt. So far, Pryor, Salazar, Biden, the other Nelson, Akaka, Landrieu, Dorgan, Conrad, and Mikulski have said they wouldn't support a filibuster. Rumor is Obama said this, as well. So, assuming all the other Democratic senators support a filibuster, they are seven votes down. But that's a large assumption. Many of the Democratic senators in that bunch of 33 have simply not given an answer about it, which is a far cry from actually supporting it.

This nonsense about not being over until the vote is counted goes against the way the Senate operates. Senators rarely, if ever, go into a vote without knowing how it will turn out. Especially on something this high profile, they make sure the votes are in place before bringing it up. If there truly are "secret filibuster supporters" hiding in the Democratic ranks, it does no good to the cause, because some Senators aren't going to support the filibuster unless they know it will pass.

The other side, which explains why Kerry and Clinton, among others, are making such big hay out of this, is because both have wronged the far-left of the Democratic Party in the past, and making a "principled" stand on an issue that is at the core of the far-left's heart (and if you don't believe me, look at this forum) will play great in the next two years when they ask for your vote, and more importantly, ask for your money.

Get some popcorn. This mad fun will continue up until Tuesday afternoon, when Alito is confirmed, then everybody can break out the booze and play the State of the Union drinking game.

[NewJeffCT]

14. Probably why Lieberman is voting "no", too

Because he's being challenged from the left in the state, and could possibly face Lowell Weicker as well.

[TheVirginian]

19. Exactly.

After facing tough criticism for supporting Bush on so many occasions, he needs something to pull at least half of the Democratic votes in his state into his column.

[Niche]

16. I thought it took 60 votes to say "over"?

[wookie294]

17. Which Dem senator wants to be associated with voting NO on filibuster ??

Imagine if Alito is voted into the Supreme Court and his opinions look like Clarence Thomas. If only a handful of Democratic senators are blamed for Alito's confirmation, that would be a lot of water for them to carry in the future. It would tarnish their reputations.

[TheVirginian]

21. Who is going to blame the minority party for a confirmation?

If people are going to point the blame for Alito getting on the bench, they'll blame the White House and the Republican-controlled Senate that confirmed him. Beyond that, they'll blame the people that voted Bush into the Oval Office, and voted a majority of Republican senators into the chamber.

As has been said many times before, this is why elections are important. The reason why Democrats have to play catch-up every time a tough issue comes up is because of losses at the ballot box.

[wookie294]

26. Nope, they'll blame the tiny group of Democratic Senators

This is a different day. This nomination is not like others. Biden will run for president. If he votes against filibuster, he can kiss his ass goodbye in terms of becoming president.

[TheVirginian]

28. No, they really won't.

In all mainstream press reports that covered Alito's certain nomination, they mention that 11 Democratic senators broke ranks to confirm Clarence Thomas. Without looking it up, can you name all 11? Can you even name one or two?

Biden doesn't have a chance for the Presidency anyways. Regardless of that, when he runs, he'll run along the lines of what he is: a centrist Democrat. The far-left will hate him because he didn't support a filibuster. He couldn't care less; in fact, he'll probably post a press release celebrating how moderate he is. That's the only way he'd have a chance competing with Mark Warner and Evan Bayh for the "not Hillary" vote in the primary.

But in reality, twenty years from now if Samuel Alito is pointed to as someone who moved the country in a right-ward direction and the question is asked, "why?", the answer will be because the country voted for a Republican president, then voted for a Republican Senate. An unsuccessful filibuster attempt won't even be a footnote in history.

[wookie294]

30. Again, this nomination is more important than the Thomas nomination

The nomination of Alito will be particularly remembered by Democratic voters since a confirmation of Alito will solidify the Court's rightward turn. How many Democrats want to be remembered for that? How many Senate Democrats want to be remembered for causing Roe v. Wade to be overturned?

[TheVirginian]

34. Remembered by whom?

Only those with an axe to grind will point the blame at a minority party in Congress. I don't blame the Democrats for not filibustering; its not feasible. The numbers aren't there. I don't blame any Democratic senator who votes no on Alito but doesn't support a filibuster.

If Roe is overturned, it will be because Alito was on the Court. Alito is on the Court because Bush nominated him, and Republicans had a majority in the Senate. Bush was in the White House and Republicans were in the Senate because they won elections.

Really, you have to look at this logically. I understand your fervor about this and your never-say-die attitude, but its not going to prevent me from being rational about it.

[wookie294]

37. Quoting YOU: If Roe is overturned, it will be because Alito was on the Cou

rt."

Well said.

This nomination will go down in the history books and will be remembered by EVERYONE.

[Surya Gayatri]

77. Wish you'd put a rider on that "won" business--

I think most of us could at least agree that election fraud & BBV have been undeniable factors in all of these "wins" since 2000 . SG

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sandnsea]

18. And then listen to Kaine

and the rest of the centrist Dems from states like Virginia because you won't pressure your own party leaders on something as important as the Constitution and Supreme Court. And backward we all go. Gee thanks so much.

[TheVirginian]

24. You're welcome, actually.

Not everybody that posts on this board is as far-left as the majority here.

And there is value in moderate or centrist Dems. For one, they win elections, as proven in Virginia. Also, look who are the only two Democrats to make it to the White House in the last 25 years. The last time a liberal Democrat won a national election was 31 years ago.

[sandnsea]

60. And the country's in such great shape

First of all Jimmy Carter was no far left liberal and neither was JFK, or Mondale or Dukakis or Kerry. That aside, if we'd listened to him on energy, foreign relations, nuclear arms, we'd be alot better off. Not to mention his grain embargo that contributed to the economic problems in the USSR and his appointment of Volcker that broke the skyrocketing inflation and interest rates. Reagan Democrats were duped then and are duped with triangulating centrism now. Workers run the economy and until centrist Democrats remember that, it's going to continue to be all downhill, with layer after layer of worker being sold out and outsourced. I blame the moderate Democrats for the problems in this country because if they're smart enough to know not to vote for Republicans then they're smart enough to correct the misperceptions that Republicans spew out, and they just won't do it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. WRT Alito, Not everyone in the USA shares the attitudes that were so

prevalent in Virginia until not so long ago. The reality is that there are CULTURAL differences between states where so-called "centrist Dems" (i.e. conservatives) predominate, and states where "social conservative unionists" predominate, and states where traditional liberals predominate. It is NOT a question of which states have a preponderance of "down to earth, sensible, REAL Americans" as you seem to imagine.

Virginians will never support the sort of social welfare state that might fly in, say, Pennsylvania.

Stop pretending this means you have more "moderate" or more "sensible" voters than more northern states. You pride yourself on being able to find candidates who are capable of running in one of the more conservative states in the Union. If it weren't for increasingly liberal Northern Virginia, your "moderate/conservative, card carrying Democrat" southern neighbors would keep "moderate or centrist Democrats like Kaine around strictly for amusement, like harmless pets.

That is my opinion.

[TheVirginian]

71. I wasn't claiming that centrists or moderates were more sensible...

Only that there seem to be more of them than extremists on either side. And in any democracy, or democratic republic, it is a numbers game. While some regions will elect a true-blood liberal into office, and some states will elect the reddest-blood conservative they can find and put on a ballot, most politics occurs in the middle ground. I don't believe that centrist policies are more sensible, or are in some way more correct, than other policies. I do believe that centrist parties are, more often than not, more active than extremist policies on either side.

[Cats Against Frist]

75. Can I ask, exactly, what it is that you think that "moderate"

Dem's believe? And how are they different from Republicans?

[TheVirginian]

78. For one,

Moderates oppose extremism on either side, and filibustering a Supreme Court nominee who, while conservative, is not out of the mainstream is percieved as an extreme position.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You also have people on here who think it would send a strong message to shut the Senate down if Alito is confirmed. You have people on here who think that walking out of the State of the Union would send a strong message. I think both of those actions would be disastrous for Democrats, and would lead to the political demise of the party.

[Surya Gayatri]

82. OMG, you've hit

the proverbial nail on the head! How could we have been so obtuse, so oblivious?

This frustrating fact can surely be explained by the existence of too many of us "far-leftists" and "frenetic masses".

Dayum, how did we miss what was staring us in the face all along? Whoa, time for a total rethink here...

Hey, everybody, the Virginian here has got the answer to our woes pegged down, pigeonholed and packed in bubble wrap. Take heed!

And to think they pay high flying consultants major bucks for this kind of
incisive analysis. Hot diggedy-doo! SG

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cali]

20. LOL

Don't expect kudos for touching base with reality and understanding how the Senate actually works.

[Justitia]

35. OK, so I'll just lay down & play dead right now. Why bother, right? -nt

[TheVirginian]

38. No one is asking you to play dead. But yes, why bother?

Especially if it backfires on Democrats? Alito has 2-to-1 public support. What is there to gain by supporting a losing filibuster against a nominee the people want to see confirmed?

[Justitia]

39. Obviously I don't believe it will "backfire" - how? Potential RW voters?

[TheVirginian]

44. Not just RW...

but especially moderates and independents. Even if moderates and independents don't support Alito, I don't think they support a filibuster of him, either, especially if they see Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton appealing to the far-left of the Democratic Party and associate a filibuster with that. Moderates and independents go back and forth between candidates that they support, but mostly, they shy away from extremists, on either side. And the filibuster is an extreme step to take.

[Justitia]

47. Moderates & independents don't give a flying fuck about filibusters.

You are nuts if you think for a minute that moderates and independents will throw their votes to one party or another based on a 3 yr old filibuster.

What will they remember? Who took a stand, who went down fighting, who took on the impossible and (gasp!) maybe won.

The better story always wins out. WE have the better story my friend, going-along to get along is FUCKING BORING.

[TheVirginian]

51. They care about extremism, on either side.

They don't see Alito as extremist. They do see a filibuster of him as extreme. Do the math.

[Justitia]

57. Bullshit - you said it was a popularity contest earlier, so which is it?

Moderates (aka uninformed indecisives) don't win or lose elections.

Perception is everything.

People like to see people fighting for what they believe in.

Nobody "punishes" candidates of conviction by CHANGING THEIR VOTING HABITS.

If they vote repub, it's because they ARE A REPUB.

[Wordie]

74. Some poll results on that question are contradictory:

Poll results on the issue appear to be contradictory:

Republican pollster Ayres, McHenry and Associates found that 82 percent of registered voters believe that "well-qualified" nominees should receive an up or down vote.<35> An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released May 20, 2005, found 78 percent of Americans believe the Senate should take an "assertive role" examining judicial nominees rather than just give the president the benefit of the doubt.<36> Democratic pollster Westhill Partners found that only 30 percent of Americans approve changing "the rules to require only 51 votes to end a filibuster — thereby eliminating the current system of checks and balances on the majority party."

And there's this, too:
Polling indicates public support for an active Senate role in this "advice and consent" capacity. An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released May 20, 2005, found 78 percent of Americans believe the Senate should take an "assertive role" examining judicial nominees rather than just give the president the benefit of the doubt.<80> Democratic pollster Westhill Partners found that only 30 percent of Americans approve changing "the rules to require only 51 votes to end a filibuster — thereby eliminating the current system of checks and balances on the majority party." <81>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_(filibuster)

So, do we really know that the public won't support a filibuster, or are we presuming that because the msm tells us so?

Here is some info of interest from PFAW:

...staunch nuclear option proponents like Senators Hatch and Frist have their own histories to explain.


In 1994, when some Republicans were opposing a cloture vote on a judicial nomination, Hatch defended the minority’s right to filibuster, declaring that the filibuster is “one of the few tools the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents.”

More recently Senator Frist voted to support a Republican filibuster of a Clinton appellate nominee, Richard Paez, and even voted for a motion to postpone consideration of the nomination after cloture had been invoked – an exceedingly rare tactic used to avoid a final vote.

Senator Howard Baker Jr. (R-TN), stated during the successful filibuster waged against Abe Fortas (which he supported): "On any issue the majority at any given moment is not always right."

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=18350

If a filibuster happens, some of this stuff will come to the fore. It will be hard for the RW to keep using that "up or down vote" meme, once people find out that the Repubs only mean that for their own nominees, imho.

[TheVirginian]

79. Perhaps,

But get somebody other than People for the American Way to say it.

[Wordie]

86. How about wiki?

Here's wiki with evidence of Senator Frist's hypocrisy:

...opponents of the nuclear option point to Senator Bill Frist's vote to filibuster Paez in 2000 as evidence that Frist does in fact support the idea of a 60-vote threshold when it suits him. When a vote for cloture on the confirmation of Paez was called, 14 Senators voted to continue the filibuster, including Frist.<58>

Republicans in general have supported the filibuster in the past:

Republicans were staunch supporters of the filibuster when they were a minority party and frequently employed it to block legislation. Republicans continue to support the filibuster for general legislation--the current Republican leadership insists the proposed rule change only affect judicial nominations. According to the Democrats, arguments that a simple majority should prevail apply equally well to all votes where the Constitution does not specify a three-fifths majority. Republicans state that there is a difference between the filibustering of legislation -- which affects only the Senate's own constitutional prerogative to consider new laws -- and the filibustering of a President's judicial or executive nominees, which arguably impinges on the constitutional powers of the Executive branch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option_ (filibuster)

The argument to that last part would be that the Senate has the responsibility of "advice and consent" and a filibuster is a way of refusing to consent.

And although I haven't googled it yet, I'm quite certain that quite a paper trail could be established on how many Republicans have voted for and made statements in support of filibusters of Dem nominees.

[zanne]

84. So, what is a "moderate"?

I've asked this question before, but nobody answers me. Is a moderate someone who takes his opinions from the Left wing and the Right wing, or is a moderate someone who is moderate in all his opinions? I think this is an honest question.

[TheVirginian]

85. It is an honest question, thank you.

The answer is not clear-cut. Some moderates are apathetic. Some moderates pick from both sides. Some moderates simply oppose extremism. I think most moderates can be defined as people who don't want elected officials to value partisanship above moving the country forward. All rational people should be able to agree that those elected to office want to better the country, only they have different ideas on what that looks like. Some officials see bettering the country as strengthening an ideaology. In my opinion, most moderates reject that notion, and would rather see a focus on the issues, and not a focus on political battles.

If you want more specific answers, there's really no other way to go except asking every moderate you can find. There really is no clearly defined answer.

[Surya Gayatri]

83. Justitia, honey, don't waste your finger muscles,

the Virginian is so far beyond our meager powers of political discourse and analysis that we'll never keep up with him. He's got us all outclassed and knows it. Yep, ya' just haf ta recognize when you're in the company of a better. SG

:sarcasm:

[Cats Against Frist]

76. Here's my problem: You're posing the model of a rational voter

who would weigh Kerry, Clinton, Kennedy, et. al., against the GOP, and would run screaming into the arms of Tom Delay, Bill Frist, Rick Santorum, Dick Cheney, Orrin Hatch, Tom Colburn, Saxby Chambliss, and their mouthpieces Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh -- because they look more moderate???????

Doesn't pass the sniff test, sorry. The delusional voter, maybe -- the rational voter, no.

[TheVirginian]

80. You just listed seven GOP elected officials who represent ...

You just listed seven GOP elected officials who represent the far-right of the Republican Party. There are plenty of moderates, on both sides.

[wookie294]

42. A filibuster won't backfire

Chill, baby! Chill.

If, as you say, people won't remember the Democratic Senators who voted for Alito, then voters won't remember the filibuster either.

[TheVirginian]

43. My point was that people won't remember five, ten years from now.

If a moderate Democrat in a red state votes to filibuster Alito, it will certainly be an election issue ten months from now.

[wookie294]

46. Bush will nominate a more "reasonable" conservative after Alito is nuked

Any pro-filibuster red state senator can say, "I voted for a centrist jurist, not a rabid right winger (Alito)." Most Americans don't know that Alito is anti-choice. This kind of info could come out in the filibuster proceedings.

[TheVirginian]

49. None of that would happen.

First, if Alito is filibustered, the only future step Republicans would take is the nuclear option. Bush isn't going to back down on Alito.

Second, nothing is going to come out during the filibuster... the only news will be that the filibuster is happening, and it will look obstructionist. This confirmation was lost during the hearings. In reality, it was lost at the ballot box two years ago, but its not going to be won with an 11th-hour no-huddle manueaver.

[wookie294]

58. During filibusters, senators stand at the microphone and "opine"

As the senators "opine" on the Senate floor, a whole lot of information about Alito will be released that was not released by the MSM. The filibuster will become the REAL "hearing" on Alito's credentials, not the sham hearing we heard when his wife was weeping. A filibuster will allow Americans to FINALLY understand the views of Alito since neither Alito nor Sen. Specter will have control over what is said on the Senate floor. A majority of Americans say they would not support Alito if he's against Roe v. Wade. This kind of info will be released during a filibuster -- info that most Americans are currently ignorant about.

[senseandsensibility]

59. That's interesting

and exactly why the repukes are so afraid right now.

[Leopolds Ghost]

69. Lemme guess... it was lost at the ballot box two years ago because us all

did not listen to folks like you who would have counseled supporting centrist Dem candidates who wouldn't oppose Alito in the first place?

Even someone like me who doesn't have a problem with, say, Kaine's position on abortion has many other reasons to oppose Alito. You,
on the other hand, do not seem to have any more reason to oppose Alito than your "sensible, moderate" neighbors who you claim would agree with Dorgan or Nelson on the subject in any event.

[TheVirginian]

81. No, not at all.

It was lost two years ago because the majority of people in this country favored conservative policies than liberal policies. It has nothing to do with me being centrist.

I have reason to oppose Alito, and I do oppose Alito, but I don't think the filibuster is the correct step to take.

[knight_of_the_star]

64. Not five ten years from now

But then again the Primaries for some of those senators are this year. They could get ousted now instead of 10 years down the line.

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. Of course it will be an election issue -- with those scab Dems

who you claim nobody will remember or punish for breaking ranks and supporting cloture.

I am speaking of the no votes who nevertheless vote to end a filibuster.

In any case, quit contradicting yourself.

It is the job of party leadership to punish scabs by denying them upward mobility. That is how parties develop "loyalty on important issues" whether you like it or not.

You want a big tent, advise the party elders to make future votes a matter of conscience. Don't advise them not to punish scabs who choose to break ranks on a filibuster that all the senior Dems are involved with. There should be no upward mobility for such people in any selfrespecting organization, regardless of how non-authoritatian it might be, regardless of how "centrist" it might be, regardless of how big a tent it might be.

If they want to oppose a filibuster, they better vote yes. That is the message Reid should be sending.

[suffragette]

15. I heard Ed, too.

But then I saw on DU that Feinstein switched and confirmed that she is now saying she will vote no to cloture from her website. Tried to call into his show, but all I got was a busy signal, so emailed him and went back to calling the senators.
Are we persuading other senators? Hard to say, but well worth trying.

[mvd]

23. Chances are slim, but DUers are working hard, and..

we can still throw a Hail Mary pass. Don't give up!

[senseandsensibility]

40. NGU

I agree.:-)

[AX10]

29. Yes! Ed Schultz's information was old.

Things are changing as we speak. Make those Calls.

[senseandsensibility]

32. Thanks!

When was Ed's show taped? I heard it at about two o'clock westcoast time, or about five eastern. He sounded very definite about it.

[MissWaverly]

31. he backpedaled later

said that he would like a filibuster if it was possible.

[senseandsensibility]

45. But didn't he still say it wasn't possible?

I didn't hear the whole show.

[MissWaverly]

70. no, he softened it down

He said he just didn't think it would happen

[FreedomAngel82]

52. Check out this site for an update

http://www.democrats.com/alito-48

[senseandsensibility]

56. Good stuff.

Thanks. I'm feeling energized, and I haven't even started drinking yet. LOL!

[DeepModem Mom]

66. Feinstein and Dodd apparently changed their minds this afternoon...

and will not vote for cloture.