How bad is our memory? This is exactly like the Iraq War Resolution.

[jsamuel]

They attacked John Kerry as being a flip-flopper for voting for the Resolution. The Dem base didn't like him very much because he voted for the Resolution.

It was a disaster for the 2004 presidential election.



Would you rather have had the Dems do everything they could to stop the Iraq War Resolution or would you rather have them vote for it?


I am sorry, but this insanity in the Democratic Party needs to stop. We need to stop forgetting and learn the lessons that we should have already. The Democrats FAILED both in what is right and in elections because they FAILED to even TRY to stop the Iraq War Resolution. Learn your lessons...

Edit:
Some use this argument:
"This will forever alter the way court choices are dealt with and I am not sure to the benefit of liberalism."

But the same argument was used for the IWR:
"If we ever need to go to war again, we don't want to set a precedent that congress will defy the president."

[mike_c]

1. ding ding ding-- we have a winner....

You are spot on!

[samhsarah]

2. Learn their lessons?

I'm not holding my breath.

[jsamuel]

3. well, we have to make them learn them, damn it!

[EVDebs]

4. The two Authorizations to Use Military Force "...at his determination..."

The Sept 14, 2001 AUMF and the Oct 2, 2002 AUMF both contain the phrases "...at his determination...", meaning whatever whim Bush has that day to target whomever he pleases, including domestic political opponents.

Hence Ted Kennedy on the NoFlyList; vegetarians in Georgia; CodePink; anti-draft protesters in CA along with the Raging Grannies singing troupe...and the list goes on.

Wake up citizens.

[jsamuel]

5. Which Bush would use for Iran or Syria or whoever he "Determines"

[EVDebs]

6. Congress must step up and require yet another AUMF ...OR....

Re-assert their Constitutional authority re Wars. The War Powers Act of 1973, which is embedded in each of the AUMFs btw, provides the current AUMF's undoing.

The AUMFs openly violate the WPAof'73 despite embedding it ! The irony of ironies.

[CTLawGuy]

7. Some people are so deluded as to think that the IWR

was supposed to PREVENT war and not act as a pass-off of the authority to go to war.

[Peace Patriot]

8. I think we have to realize that Diebold and ES&S election theft machines

are not just "selecting" Republicans.

[jsamuel]

9. Posted at DKos:

Alito is exactly like the Iraq War Resolution. How bad is our memory?

[jsamuel]

10. if anyone has DKos accounts, please recommend

[jsamuel]

11. kick

[TahitiNut]

12. I said it then and I'll say it again.

John Kerry lost his chance to win in 2004 when he voted on the IWR.

If they don't stand up for their base consistently, they'll get justice from thier base. Chamberlain showed the result of appeasement. I vote for principle, not appeasement.

[jsamuel]

13. Exactly... I have YET to see a single argument against my point in the op.

[jsamuel]

14. still waiting

[jsamuel]

15. kick

[jsamuel]

28. kick

[Carni]

16. I agree

Same for the Patriot act--only two senators had enough balls to vote against that abomination for fear of being seen as "weak on terror"

[jsamuel]

19. And now one of them is a possible presidential candidate in 2008

after getting re-elected in 2004


Feingold...

[Carni]

22. I knew Levin voted against it

Couldn't remember who the other one was--speaking of Levin I will be very surprised if Levin doesn't back up the filibuster but there is no word on him yet!

[jsamuel]

26. yeah, Feingold was silent until today too

[Armstead]

17. From anotehr thread

Please don't repeat mistake of 2002
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=264746&mesg_id=264746


Much of the same political calculations were being made during the debate over the Iraq War in 2002 that are being made now about how far to go on the Alito nomination.

Well, here's a simple argument from a purely opportunistic, political standpoint. It boils down to -- Remember the Iraq War debate.

From a purely opportunistic political standpoint, there's an important point to remember. If Democrats had unified and stood their ground in 2002, the Democratic Party would be in a lot better position today.

Today, with a majority of the country admitting that the Iraq War was a mistake, the Democrats could have been capitalizing on being the smart and principled opposition. Even if they could not have stopped it ultimately, the Democratic Party would still have had a selling point. "See? We stood against this terrible mistake of a war when it mattered. We were right, ultimately."

But because too many Democrats waffled and gave into the GOP/Media spin of "inevitability," the Democrats today can't do that. They are seen as just as complicit in the Iraq Mistake as Bush and the GOP. And worse, the division within the party added to the stereotype of "ineffectual wafflers."

And, back then, the "go along to get along" path of least resistance strategy didn't do any good anyway. The GOP/media still attacked the Democrats as the "party against national security" and "indecisive" and made they made gains in 2002 and 2004.

This is a similar situation. Most Democrats (moderates included) KNOW that Alito is a bad choice who will do damage to America....But the "pragmatists" are once again buying into the same Aura of Inevitability as they did with the Iraq War. The "pragmatic" strategy is not being driven by Democrats, but by the GOP and the Presstitute Media.... "Obstructionists, lost cause,catering to the far left..." the whole ball of wax.

But if Alito gets on the court, a principled fight to the end can still have advantages for the Democrats. Once the "mainstream" sees what happens when Alito cements the power of the Scalia/Thomas/Roberts brand of ultra right-wing justice, the public will regret it. There will be a similar belated recognition of the awful results of Bush/GOP policies.

The question now that Democrats must ask -- from a purely strategic, pragmatic standpoint -- is do they want to be perceived at that point as having been strong and principled on Alito when it mattered? Or do we want to be stuck in the same no-win position we currently are on Iraq?

[jsamuel]

18. Thank you, I didn't see this before I posted. Glad someone else thinks

the same!

[jsamuel]

20. still waiting for a counter-argument

[jsamuel]

21. kick

[gordontron]

23. indeed

kick

[KoKo]

24. As bad as Senator Byrd looks on Alito...He tried so hard to stop it with

Ted Kennedy. So even though our "Hero" has fallen on a dirty sword...let's not forget those Democrats who voted AGAINST the Iraq Resolution and the wonderful words of Robert Byrd who kept those of us AGAINST Iraq Invasion inspired.

They (Dem War Hawks and Repugs) want to say that there's an "Anti-War Faction" to the Dem Party. And there is. But, for us mainstream Dems the Iraq war was an Invasion of a Sovereign Country over a vendetta by Cheney supporting his NeoCon Sympathies and Bush who wanted to AVENGE his POPPY.

I and many other Democrats, had no problem with our going into Afghanistan to destroy the bases the Taliban had set up to train Al Quaeda supporters. But WE DREW THE LINE...with Iraq Invasion.

Just giving you some perspective from that time if you weren't here on DU when the battle was raging and the words of Robert Byrd were music to our ears...even though on other issues he's been sorely lacking for us Dems who were horrified at his vote for Bankruptcy Bill and now his support for Alito along with Roberts which seems so "condradictory" to his support at all costs for the Constitution of America. :shrug:

[KoKo]

25. BTW! NO! We still have Justice Stephens Replacement...It will be Worse!

So...it was important we went after Alito...because the next one would have been for the jugular vein by the Repugs.

We've now shown we can stand up to them..and they better be very careful about the next appointee or two by Bush.

This fight is crucial no matter what our reluctant Dems think. They are run by "Think Tank Stragests" and would never get the gumption to come out and fight now...to lay a ground work for later.

GOOD ON US! We now can head off the Posse "at the passe." :D

[jsamuel]

27. kick

[jsamuel]

29. kick again

[mcscajun]

30. You said it: It's Prinicples, NOT Politics that need to be the focus.

Standing on a principle will never go out of style.

Equivocation rarely gets you new followers/votes.