What's the political risk to a dem Senator who supports a filibuster?

[funflower]

Either you're for Alito or you're against him. What's so unelectable about a Senator who filibusters a nominee s/he already opposes?

I don't think a candidate who is ACTIVELY pro-choice is going to pay a bigger price at the polls than a candidate who is PASSIVELY pro-choice. Just voting "no" on Alito will already kill you with the religious right. If you're going to vote "no," why not stand up and energize your base in the process?

I agree we need electable centrist dems (as well as lefties where possible), but how does supporting a filibuster make an already pro-choice Senator unelectably leftist?


What am I not getting here?

[patrice]

1. I don't get it either.

Filibuster shows you have the courage of your convictions.

[mike_c]

2. conceivably, only red state dems would have any real risk...

...and they have that all the time, so if they justifiy voting like republicans in order to keep their seats, then those states might as well have real republican senators.

[havocmom]

4. You just hit the nail on the head re DEM Senators in 'red' states.

My 'red' state elected a DEM governor and passed a medical marijuana initative last time. Might not be a 'red' as some long elected gentlemen think it is.

And if my DEM Senator doesn't keep on his return to the path of standing for DEM values and issues, I will work real hard to help a challanger to him in his primary in a couple years.
He's been walking a DINO line and just now returning a bit left. He best be keeping that direction or there's no point in renewing his contract! ;)

[funflower]

13. It's important to have numbers (even DINOs) because they elect the

leadership, and, as we've seen w/ Frist and Delay, the leadership controls a helluva lot.

[cali]

23. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

First of all, just because they vote yes for Alito, or no for Alito yes on cloture, doesn't meant they don't cast other important votes on issues important to dems. Second, and more importantly, dem Senators will vote for Harry Reid for MAJORITY Leader if we can take back the Senate. We need red state dem Senators.

[TahitiNut]

30. Funny the 'blue' state Republicans don't feel the same obligation, huh?

There's something very fishy about that cover story. It'd be interesting to know the real reasons.

[mike_c]

32. yep.... n/t

[meow2u3]

31. It doesn't matter how red state Dems vote

Repunks will demonize the Dems either way. We can't win in the press when the other guys have practically 100% of the power and 0% of the morals.

[DemInDistress]

3. None for Hillary here in NYS....nor Chuck Schumer.. nt

[HockeyMom]

7. Would be a huge PLUS here

As the Freepers say, "New York is the ABORTION Capital of the Country." That is all they care about.

Sorry, you Fundie IDIOTS, I never had an abortion. Maybe by your standards of killing fertilized eggs with chemical birth control pills, but I sure has hell wasn't "open to having as many children in marriage as God wants." NO, THANKS. YOU pay for them.

[mike_c]

27. just to ease your mind, in case you don't know...

...birth control pills don't "kill fertilized eggs." They inhibit ovulation-- no ovule, no fertilization.

[EST]

5. When you are already a non-entity,

when you've become totally cut out of the process, it's the "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose..." --real freedom.
When you've nothing to lose, you can take a stand on character, honesty, and truth without the normal political flim-flammery.

[AntiFascist]

6. According to Sen. Byrd Alito sounds like he's honest when he says...

he will not grant the Executive branch supreme power.

President Bush often "sounds" honest as well....when he tells lies.

[Innocent Smith]

8. They are looking at Daschle

I feel that they think they same thing could happen to them. I'm only talking about Dem Senators in very red states.

[jillan]

9. Well IF that was to happen, at least they will go down fighting.

[funflower]

10. I agree it's a problem in the red states. But what's up w/ Cantwell and

Murray and Schumer and Leahy and Harkin and ....

[funflower]

12. The RNC can't "target" ALL of them, the we they targeted Daschle.

The leadership is always more vulnerable to being selected for assassination by the opposing party. Ten or twelve senators are harder to go after, and it's not as if the anti-choice people aren't going to go after them for voting "no" on Alito anyway.

[Innocent Smith]

20. They'd probably choose two or three to target

So they (red state dems) are keeping their heads down to keep from being targeted? :shrug:

[funflower]

22. I'm sure you're right.

When Bush marches his brown-shirts into the Senate in another year or two, they'll just keep on keeping their heads down - to avoid being "targeted."

[MisterP]

18. but he voted for IraqNam and kept proclaiming his "moderateness"

can we say that maybe this "moderation" is a minus and not an absolute, unquestionable good?

[LSK]

11. Dems will be labeled obstructionists

The Dems will be labeled as delaying the Senates business and being obstructionists. However, considering the Republican Senate hasnt done a fucking thing for America in many years and Bush has 36% approval, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED OBSTRUCTIONISTS. GET A FUCKING CLUE DEMOCRATS.

[AntiFascist]

14. If anything needs to be obstructed, this is it!!!!!

Don't they realize that Bush's attempts to roll back the Constitution and separation of church and state should not be taken lightly?!!!

[LSK]

17. the sheeple are being told its ONLY about abortion

The MSM will not talk about unitary executive.

[funflower]

15. OBSTRUCTING the unitary executive? OBSTRUCTING theocracy?

Guilty as charged.

[LSK]

16. the MSM will never bring up, they will only says its about abortion

[funflower]

21. For Bush, the Alito and Roberts nominations are both about executive

power. Abortion is, as always, a smokescreen and an opportunity to pander to the wingnuts.

Unfortunately, for a lot of frightened young women, abortion is a lot more important than that.

And, for ALL of us who are awake out here, the consolidation of Bush's power is frightening.:scared:

[cascadiance]

19. The REAL obstructionists are the Rethuglicans in power...

... that stall any attempt at investigating the wrongdoing in our government now. Those obstructionists are preventing the oversight that they are responsible for for this government, and trying to put another obstructionist supporter on the supreme court bench that would contribute to a supreme court who is already obstructing us from investigating whistleblower's cases, etc. like Sibel Edmonds!

We need a dose of Lackoff-style reframing of this set of labels!

[Justitia]

24. Smokescreen - won't change a single real dem into a rabid RWer.

scare tactic of the Dead Armadillo Society

[Silverhair]

25. Depends on the state. Some blue sentors are in very red states. NT

[radio4progressives]

26. The Risk is that they might actually Win Elections by a Landslide!

but we can't have that, it's too much like politicising the issue, right?

[Leopolds Ghost]

28. Look, a filibuster is happening. That means any Dem who votes "NO" + "YES"

(No to Alito, Yes to Cloture)

Is a DISHONEST SCAB who should be punished by the leadership if they intend to actually lead the Democrats as a functioning legislative party instead of disband and become independents (which might be preferable at this point, who knows?)

That is how tight-knit organizations function. NO TOLERANCE FOR BULLSHIT.

If they want to vote YES to cloture, they MUST have the courage of their convictions and vote YES to Alito to prove to their constituents that they do not oppose Alito's ascent to the Supreme Court.

Otherwise they are liars who are trying to punish their own Senate leadership by obstructing a filibuster led by leaders of their own party in an attempt to block a nominee they PRETEND to oppose.

All the "no + yes" voters are really worried about is currying favor with the opposition in preparation for a 40-year career in a minority party. The "no" vote on Alito himself is just to prove to their constituents (and donors) that they, indeed, have nothing to lose by opposing the man, when in fact they do not really give a shit.

PUNISH THE PICKET LINE CROSSERS! NOBODY CROSSES THE LINE UNLESS THEY ARE ABSTAINING OR UNLESS THEY ARE ACTIVELY IN FAVOR OF ALITO. Those are the only "conscientious" options.

This is after all, a "vote of conscience" according to Reid.

Screwing a senior democrat's filibuster in order to get the chance to cast a meaningless "no" vote, thereby looking good while pretending to be loyal opposition, is NOT a vote of conscience and should not be an option even in a "vote of conscience" scenario. It is not acceptable behavior in any organization. Either you join in the filibuster (or abstain -- same thing) or you vote for Alito. Plain and simple.

[never_get_over_it]

29. I believe the political risk

for Dems who vote no for Alito but yes for cloture comes from us not the right. The folks on the right that would be pissed by this vote wouldn't have voted for them anyway - but as for us they are alienating us and I for one am through voting for or contributing to these folks just because they are the lesser of two evils.

There has not been a better time for the Dems to stand up against this administration - the poll numbers are in the toilet, the freak in chief is illegally spying on us - corruption stories are everywhere - the Dems have been telling us for years - we're not going to fight this one - we;re going to save ourselves for the BIG ONE - well this is the BIG ONE and the time is NOW. Those who don't stand up are risking losing their base not losing the right wingers who won't vote for them anyway.

[Orangepeel]

33. they're afraid constituents will think it isn't fair

the republicans have done a good job of framing the situation so that a filibuster seems like partisan gaming.

Being "partisan" doesn't sound like a bad thing to most of us here, because, well, we're partisan. But there are a lot of once every two years voters who don't pay attention to much that is political, claim to hate the negativity they associate with politics, claim they "vote for the person, not the party," (which means the candidate that seems like a nice guy).

The senators think that this type of person will understand a "no" vote but will also think that the nominee "deserves a straight up or down vote" to use the republican phrase. That filibustering is the eqivalent of taking your ball and going home or kicking over the checkers board because you aren't winning the game.

[Warren DeMontague]

34. It would seem DiFi managed to make the same calculations as you.

Both my senators are now on board. :woohoo: