All you doom and gloomers need to wake the fuck up.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

The fact that Kerry and Kennedy called for a filibuster never EVER meant it was possible to sustain one.

Why would he do it? Two reasons. Firstly, this helps himself in a big way. Look at how many people are praising Kerry here on DU, when not long ago, half of this place called him a traitor (which, I might note, was equally, if not more ridiculous than what's happening now). Taking this opportunity, Kerry has re-established himself as a leader of liberals, which will go along way towards earning the nomination in 2008. The other reason is that it gives vulnerable red-state Democrats a way to go home and show their CONSTITUENTS (whom are NOT, I repeat, are NOT the Democratic party and ARE the citizens that elected them) that they are not party drones. Contrary to what many believe, a "true" Democrat cannot win in most of those states. They voted for Bush, and are highly likely to support his Supreme Court choices, whether you like it or not. Finally, you don't seem to understand the avalanche effect in politics. You see, when a vote is not expected to go the way they want it to, a lot of Congressmen and Senators whom were likely to vote one way otherwise vote the other because their votes do not matter in terms of the outcome, but DO matter in terms of their constituents' expectations. Your "heroes" are almost always those that do not have to worry about this because they are re-elected comfortably. You don't seem to understand that one either.

Alito was going to be confirmed come hell or high water, and anyone who didn't know that needs a serious education in politics. Even if by some miracle the filibuster was successful, nuclear would've been used, and quite frankly, we'd have lost that battle in the court of public opinion as well. And though I know a lot of you have this idealistic notion of what politics are, the bottom line for the people in charge (and what their bottom line SHOULD be) is to regain the majority. Shows of "principle" are completely hollow unless there is any kind of power behind them, and without being in the majority, there is none. Fortunately for all of us, they understand this.

[KitchenWitch]

1. Thank you, Vash

Very well put!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

12. Thanks KW!

:hi:

[The Backlash Cometh]

2. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

We know all about the political games that were played. Some of us can now hone our dollars to those who better represent us. That's what we were looking for.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Your "better represented" constituency

will always be in the minority.

[The Backlash Cometh]

13. My donating dollars are in the minority too.

Might as well stretch them, while I can.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. well, that's your right.

You have fun with that.

[The Backlash Cometh]

18. Oh, yes. Supporting Democrats is turning out to be a laugh a minute.

Obama was right. The Democratic party needs to do a better job of defining what they stand for, so that when the next filibuster-style issue comes up, it doesn't become a cause that only the liberal blogs understand.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. The same Obama that's been called a traitor here hundreds of times?

[rpannier]

33. You know...that's what people said when the Republicans under

men like Viguerie and H. Rollins decided it was better to rid the Senate and House of as many "moderate" Republicans as they could. All you heard was, "Republicans eat their own." "Gingrich is just a bomb thrower." etc.
Their rationale for getting rid of these people? Because they were preventing their Party from having a clear message. They got rid of Sen Weicker and others who they viewed as instrumental in dividing the message.
Guess what? They took control of both houses of Congress and a major part of that reason is because they stay unified on most key votes. Even Chafee is an 80% on key votes. 80% is a term coined by Viguerie to mean that 8 out of 10 times you better be with the Party on key issues or you pay.

[Crazy Dave]

3. "because they are re-elected comfortably"

And they know it too. They know that democratic voters have short term memories and if they don't, they only have one other option in the elections.
How predictable and convenient for them huh?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. What they know is that their districts/states are pre-disposed to voting

for them repeatedly. Believe it or not, there actually IS something behind the whole "red state/blue state" thing. Some places are more liberal than others.

[Crazy Dave]

20. I live in a red state in a town that's even more red and....

we get a dumb-ass like Corrine Brown (D) re-elected in landslides every year. Her district lines go down roads for miles and circle mainly black populated areas. Since she's been in office she's done nothing for them or the rest of the community as nobody in Washington, DC takes her seriously. She's just a "gimme" that the republicans give our side as far as keep the balance of power fair. But power without progress doesn't mean shit. When you got someone as stupid as she is you basically have no representation. Do a Google about her on the fake story the Washington press played on her to prove it. It was based on a Marx Brothers movie about an evil dictator and when they asked her what should be done about Groucho, something like that she said shit like "it's all Bush's fault".
Someone with a big stupid mouth that hurts our cause more than helps. A republican "gimme" or is it strategy?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

41. Corrine Brown is in a heavily African-American district.

You have no point.

[Crazy Dave]

77. Sure, the way her district is drawn up...

but it's idiotic and corrupt as the black population is not the majority population as far as counties and landwise. What the fuck do you call that?

As far as her stupidity goes:

"The magazine successfully convinced several Congressional members, such as Corrine Brown, to issue statements condemning the "ethnic cleansing in Freedonia," without their realizing that Freedonia was a fictional country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedonia

Like I said, between her and Bill Nelson, as a democrat I feel as I have no representation. You worry about your folks up there, I'll worry about mine down here.

[G_j]

4. tell that to MLK Jr.

Shows of "principle" are completely hollow unless there is any kind of power behind them..

there is power in principle
Some of the greatest and finest human beings who ever walked this earth knew that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. If MLK had to win an ELECTION, he'd have lost repeatedly and in a big way.

Apparently, you think every situation is the same and the world is painted in only black and white.

[G_j]

14. yes right

I real stupid.. uh huh..

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Very substantive response.

:sarcasm:

On the other hand, perhaps you did say something of substance there. :eyes:

[G_j]

23. wow

clever!


any further insults?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

42. You insulted yourself, pal.

[G_j]

53. pal ?

:rofl:

[rpannier]

47. Ignore him

Men like Gandhi moved the world because they stood on principle and not on expediency. What he fails to understand is that the American public admires dogged determination and men/women who stand for what they believe. We get beaten soundly about the head over appearing weak and ineffective. Clinton won because he made Bush-I look weak.
People like him they spend more time listening to what rightwing pundits say, than what the history of elections shows -- and that history is most of the time men/women who stand on principle, even if they fail on the issue, they get re-elected.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

55. Gandhi wasn't running for office.

Something which should not be overlooked.

And Clinton won because Ross Perot was in the election and because the economy tanked.

[rpannier]

68. Uhhh. You need to take a closer look at the way the electorate views both

parties. To a high number of the American electorate our Party looks weak and ineffective. The members of their Party look bold and decisive. This is part of the reason why they are willing to take unpopular stands and why they seem to hold together so well. It's also why the term "flip-flopper" sticks to our candidates and not theirs.
Ask people in this country to describe the qualities of Reagan, you get a lot of adjectives like, decisive, confident, etc. (I would use other adjectives myself)
As to your Gandhi reply -- No Kidding. But, by being principled and sticking to what he believed he rallied people to a cause under much more trying conditions than the Dems have. But, maybe that's the difference, since he wasn't running for anything he had the "luxury" of principle. A characteristic that some other people are greatly lacking in.

[G_j]

72. compelling points

I agree that Americans tend to admire and support people who stand up for principles. It is a kind of tradition.
I think people like Rush have attempted to cast these types of people as extremists and wackos etc., but there are deep roots in the American psych that can still be tapped.
It goes all the way back to the founders and unknown to many, the Iroquois Confederacy whose form of government we borrowed from.
These 'ideas' and seeds of Democracy were based in 'principles'.
School children are taught to admire those who stood up to tyranny.
Bush and others have abused and distorted this American 'value' by masquerading tyranny as principled strength.
Better to expose the lies than ignore the 'better angels' of the American psych.

(see, it is possible to have a respectful discussion)

[Mend]

5. My 2 cents from Florida: Senator Bob Graham never

lost here and he never would have voted for Alito. I am disappointed in Bill Nelson for not voting for what is right. The repukes in this country don't worry about liberals and progressives, they just vote for their base. We have no one here who speaks for us and it is sickening.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

8. Bob Graham first got elected when Florida was blue.

Florida has shifted, and he got re-elected on the power of incumbency.

[Mend]

21. Bill Nelson is an incumbent....and this state was never very blue.

I have lived here for thirty years. It has always been a dixiecrat kind of place. But good Democrats like Lawton Chiles and Bob Graham always won. You can really tell who is straight and who is oily. Of course I will vote for Nelson but I personally think he is pathetic trying to play both sides when it is proven that you just don't have to do that here.

[converted_democrat]

22. Right on target.. n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

58. I know a number of people that were high ranking members of Chiles' staff.

They were with him while he was Senator and Governor. They don't think Chiles could win today.

No, Florida was never very blue, but it was still significantly more so then than it is now.

[peace frog]

19. Amen and halleleujah

to that, Mend... I've lived in Florida my entire life and have never felt so "alien", so invisible since the Jeb/GW Bush regimes.

[RememberWellstone]

148. Nelson is a DINO

He never votes the "conscience" of the party. The whole freaking state is polluted with Bushites or Katherine Harris horndogs. We need a strong leader to step up as Senator, hopefully Wexler will consider the jump to a higher seat.

[0007]

9. I'm not that big on John Kerry either, but I certainly can't fault

him for his effort.

And if the filibuster was successful, I don't think it would have raised the price of John Kerry going any further than where he is right now!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. I agree, but that is not the point at all.

The point is some here are all pissed off at the Democratic party for failing in the filibuster and want to throw out "traitors" when they have no fucking clue what actually happened in the first place.

[0007]

38. And you're trying to clue us in that John Kerry was

out only for politican gain, and that there was no way in hell of stopping Alito?

I don't buy it!!

Alito is not fit to be a Supreme Court Justice.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. We could? What part of the scenario I laid out do you take issue with?

How, pray tell, could we stop Alito?

[0007]

80. Sorry if you can't figure that one out! See ya' - Bye

[br7598]

17. You also missed on key point...

Democrats have been losing for 12 years because they no longer stand for anything. I hate Bush is not a platform. As long as democrats continue for give quotes, bitch and moan, and demand filibusters without the intent of following through, they will contiue to lose.

We have to stand up for our values. People will follow. You just have to stand up. Stop looking at it as a political game.

If they would have filibustered, and made a clear point of why they were filibustering, then people would agree in large numbers. For christs sake just look at the polls.

However what we did was start a filibuster, without the intent of ever winning, and therefore once again everyone sees democrats as something of a nuisance or obstructionists. The result is that the republicans won the confirmation, and they won the political battle as well. This cycle will continue no matter how much we bitch and moan. If we would have followed through with the filibuster, even if we lost the confirmation in the end, we still would have won the political battle. And next year with the supreme court agrees to give Bush the authority to strip search people on demand, on the streets, with no warrent or probable cause. Then people will look back and blame the republicans while embracing the democrats. Instead they will still blame the democrats for "agreeing" with the republicans on the confirmation. Thats what the record will show. That the democrats agreed that Alito was best for the court (see patriot act voting record, or use of force voting record, etc, etc, etc)!

Dont you see, we lost a lot more than a confirmation here. We are losing in the bigger picture of political leadership.

So flash forward, next month or whenever it is that we vote on the patriot act. We will bitch and moan and cry, and then vote with the republicans and pass the patriot act. Deja...freaking....vu!!!! How many times do we have to get our asses kicked before we stand up and fight?

[Mend]

24. exactly....the repukes came back into power by being strong

and tough and vicious in their beliefs. On bi-partisan lists, even baseball lists, we Democrats are referred to as pussies and wimps and losers. We all tried to get Gore to see this in 2000 and Kerry to see this in 2004. You have to stand up and stop being appeasers to get respect out here amonst the populace. Not everyone has the ability to reason in a complex manner but they can sure pick out tough and that is what they want.

[Cobalt Violet]

27. They own the voting machines!

That's how they came back into power.

[rpannier]

35. Uh..no

Voting machines did not sweep them into power in 94. They developed a unified message they explained it simply and directly.
It's something we ought to try sometimes.

[Cobalt Violet]

49. 94 was not 2000, 2002,2004,

Nor will it be 2006, 2008.

[rpannier]

56. And I understand that, but when you said "Came to power.."

I understood you to mean the Party as a whole. I misunderstood what you meant. I apologise for that.
Thank you.

[lastliberalintexas]

57. The point is that the republican ascendency began in earnest in 1994

before the use of voting machines. And their planning for that day of victory began long before that.

Republicans became who they are today by imposing very strict party discipline and actually penalizing members who voted against the party. They didn't lose a single Senator yesterday, despite the fact that so many here lionize Chafee and Snowe (and even a few others). And that is because when the chips are down, republicans will vote with the party because they have to, while Democrats are all over the place because the party and we let them.

[Cobalt Violet]

65. I don't think we should be another lock-step party.

And I get a little pissy when people use the right-wing talking point that the "democrats don't stand for anything". We stand for a lot.


Republicans became who they are by trampling our rights in many ways from stealing election.

People fought and died for those rights for generations. There isn't one of our rights that they don't want to take away from us. I see nothing to emulate.

[Cobalt Violet]

26. WRONG !!!!!!!!!

Democrats have "lost" because the elections were stolen! STOLEN!

STOLEN!! STOLEN!

[rpannier]

37. You keep telling yourself that

But the fact remains there were few-to-no voting machines in 94. The Republicans came out with a strong, coherant message and we floundered, again, trying to play catch up. Which to me was sort of a surprise at how bad we looked, given that in 92 Clinton had shown that by being aggressive and direct we could win.
In 94, we just sort of looked incompetant and divided.

[Cobalt Violet]

52. How many more elections do they need to steal for you to believe it?

BTW:
Gore won in 2000!

[mtnsnake]

82. Democrats will continue to lose if they keep blaming Diebold, like you do

because we'll never be able to solve our problems if we don't live up to the reality that we lost the election because we fucked up, not JUST because of the possibility of voter fraud.

While I don't deny the POSSIBILITY that they stole the election in Ohio, this "They stole the election and nothing else matters" rhetoric is the most annoying and counterproductive aspect of this forum.

As always, when you get someone trying to come up with a positive suggestion and using sound logic, the "stolen election" people appear out of the woodwork and come in and hijack the thread and change the subject, and the original message ends up being suffocated.

[Cobalt Violet]

158. Okay how about 8 hr. lines to vote for the poor.

Is that okay? We fuck up by not demanding better than that.

[mtnsnake]

161. That's a valid point for sure

It has to improve and we do have keep vigil on it or they'll take full advantage otherwise.

However, what bothers me is this popular assertion that the ONLY reason we lost is because the "election was stolen"...as if there is no other reason why we lost, and that's that. I just don't think it's that simple. The way I saw it, the people running the campaign...Kerry's managers and advisors...ran a campaign that was full of holes and prone to defeat in its own right. If someone like Ron Brown (god rest his soul) was still around at the time to manage the campaign, I doubt we would ever have seen him allow Kerry to be run through the mill in the manner he was. What those scumbags on the rightwing did to Kerry was horrible, and the fact that Kerry's campaign managers let them do it to him with no reprisal whatsoever was a crying shame. It was a disservice to Kerry and a disservice to us.

I wish someone was in jail for fixing the election, but until that happens we also have to focus on fixing the things that we know we did wrong.

Peace

[gilpo]

32. Well said, br

I hope we can rally as much effort to defeat the Patriot Act as we did on the Alito filibuster.

[lastliberalintexas]

36. Very good analysis- it's like the IWR vote all over

Welcome to DU.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

51. Republicans spent 40 years out of power.

You have to create the conditions to fight, and that does not happen overnight. They had started making in-roads in the 60's and 70's, but lost them when Nixon was caught. The conditions are just beginning to form to the point where we can truly mount an offensive, but they are most certainly not there yet. We have a lot of Democratic Senators in places where they still actually like Bush, and you can see that plainly from this vote. We can't regain the majority without them.

[More Than A Feeling]

103. Republicans didn't take just any majority

and they were in more dire circumstances than we are today. They, as you said, created the conditions that would elect the kind of people who appeared to stand for strong principles. So, yes, some of us will work for a majority, and some of us will make sure its the right KIND of majority. It will take time, but it starts by getting angry and determined to obtain the goal, not by a "majority at all cost" outlook, which by the way, is fine in the short run, since we still have lots to lose.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

117. I have the majority at all cost outlook.

Because you're right - we do have lots left to lose, and I don't want to lose it. I think you start with the majority, and then you begin shifting yourself to the left, which I might add, is exactly what Republicans did. They started out in 1994 a lot more centered than they are today, and then, using the power of office, they began to convince people that the right was actually the center. I think that's how you have to do it. Ideological shifts in countries take decades to accomplish, and personally, I don't think we can afford a few more decades of being a right-wing nation.

[wndycty]

25. Kudo's Vash. . .

. . .kudos!

[G_j]

28. and so you think "wake the fuck up"

in the subject line is something worth applauding?
Why can't people discuss something without insults?
I am sick of condescending lectures.
Say what you want to say without implying that others are stupid, thank you very much.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. You'll stop receiving such lectures

when you learn the basics of politics.

[joemurphy]

29. In your analysis, you totally omit the question of principle.

You seem to imply that the Alito cloture vote was really a cynical ploy by Kerry to reclaim his lost mantle as the leader of the Democratic left.
You may not have intended to so impugn his motives, but your statement sounds that way. In your world, you seem to be saying that Democrats should always vote in a way that insures their reelection. This analysis might work for Kerry (although, personally, I think Kerry was merely trying to do what he thought was right). It doesn't work for Kennedy, who, as always was true to his principles.

Now, you may say that Kennedy, as a Blue Stater, had nothing to lose by calling for a filibuster. Point taken. Does that explain Lieberman?
Hardly. Connecticut was Blue and Lieberman was an incumbent.

Your analysis also fails to explain when a Democrat should stand up and be counted, irrespective of the possible negative fallout. Take Cantwell, for example. She was supposedly pro-choice and highly rated by Emily's List and NARAL. She undoubtedly took money from both groups. Is it OK for her to ignore those constituencies by voting for cloture? She was a Blue Stater and and incumbent, by the way.

And Byrd. Do you seriously think Byrd isn't going to be re-elected in West Virginia? Given Alito's "unitary executive" and Byrd's vaunted reputation as a Constitutionalist, how do you view his action? Is what he did OK with you? Byrd didn't just vote no on cloture. He's actually going to vote for Alito.

So my question to you is, what makes a Democrat? When should they maintain party discipline and when not? Or do you even see party discipline as important? Should Democratic principles even come into play in the equation? Or do Democrats even have any principles?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. I address the question of principle quite clearly.

Perhaps you failed to read the post.

[joemurphy]

70. And perhaps you failed to read mine.

All you said about "principle" was that principles are unimportant unless one is in the majority and have the power to impose them. I would respecfully disagree. Without principles we really aren't a party at all and stand for nothing. Under your scenario, Democrats should just be pragmatic and vote any way that preserves their seats in hopes that doing so will ultimately get them into power. Only then, you seem to be saying, you can pay attention to "principle".

Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Sometimes core values come into play that differentiate us from them. For me, a Supreme Court nominee like Alito was an occasion when our core values are supremely tested. In such instances we need to stand up and be counted. Filibustering was such an opportunity to let the country know what was at stake and that we stood for something. Maybe idealism means nothing to you, and pragmatism everything. I hope we are more than that.

By the way, you have a pedantic, know-it-all manner that is extremely offensive. You'd be more persuasive, I think, if you weren't so patronizing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

71. I'm the know-it-all?

That's pretty funny, given all of the people, including yourself, whom seem to be speaking in absolutes around here. I'm offended by the people I'm addressing with this post - the people who seem to think everyone who didn't fully support exactly what they want are traitors to the country. If you find me offensive, put me on ignore. I certainly don't give a damn.

[enough already]

30. Spare me your patronizing "you don't seem to understand" crap

We can see how successful the GOP/Nazi-lite approach is working for us. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. A "true" Democrat can win anywhere. Those 25 brave souls who stood up for us yesterday are heroes and so is everyone here who had the balls to fight. As for the rest of the Senate "democrats", fuck 'em all. I've never been more embarrassed to be a part of this party as I am today. And good luck to all those women out there who can now look forward to back alley abortions.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. Really? A "true" Democrat can win anywhere?

:rofl: Pass me what you're smoking.

[woo me with science]

31. THANK YOU

This post was sorely needed.

[lastliberalintexas]

34. Regaining the majority is meaningless if we lose the Court

I truly do not understand why this is so difficult to comprehend- barring some unfortunate accident or illness, Roberts and Alito will be on the bench when my young son is 40. My child will grow up knowing nothing other than the Roberts Court and the America that is shaped by an activist, corporatist, archly conservative Court.

In that same time period there will be *16* Congressional sessions, each with varying membership. The people in the Senate today- both the "heroes and zeros"- will very likely be long gone by the time my son is 40. But their votes to confirm both Roberts and Alito will still be remembered because of the physical reminders sitting on the Court.

The Roberts Court, by every indication, is going to be the republican equivalent of the Warren Court. And you're worried about regaining the majority in a mere Congressional session? :eyes:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

45. We lost the Court in 2004.

Not enough people took it seriously enough and voted to put Bush in power and extend the Republican majority. We have no power to "win" the Court.

[lastliberalintexas]

50. Yes, we do, we just won't use it

Republicans are not stupid and wouldn't go nuclear because they know they'll be back in the minority at some point. But they also know that they only have to threaten the Democrats and we'll back down. We never even come close to calling their bluff.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

54. Republicans have backed themselves into a corner.

They would go nuclear because they HAVE to. Isn't it plain to see from Harriet Miers that the rational portion of the party isn't in control anymore?

[lastliberalintexas]

61. Do you actually believe that?

God, the Corporatists play the fundies like a fiddle and use their votes, money and energy- but they have no desire to go down in flames with the rank and file. The republican party leadership wants to be in power and control things, and they put on the dog and pony show necessary to accomplish that.

Will they overturn Roe to satisfy the fundies? Probably, because that doesn't hurt Corporate America. But you can bet your ass if it comes to choosing between the fundies and Corporatists, the republicans will bow to their true masters every time.

And anyone who believes to the contrary needs to wake the fuck up.

[William769]

43. Very well said thanks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Smile. Be Happy with the Not as Bad Party.

And, then complain that 40% of the people don't bother to vote because they know it's a waste of time.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

60. 40% don't bother to vote because they think American Idol is high culture.

40% of this country hardly know who the President even is right now. They most certainly don't have enough of a clue to think what you believe they do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. Yet you seem to think that the ones who vote for VichyDems DO have a clue?

Try again.

[SammyWinstonJack]

62. K&R nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

75. K&R?

Please translate

[Pirate Smile]

85. Kick and Recommend, Vash. It is a good thing.

:)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

89. Thanks!

:hi:

[Strong Atheist]

64. Agree with 100% of this. Brave of you to post this. nt.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

74. Thank you.

Though I don't consider it brave. I'm not running for office and don't really have anything to lose by doing this. Yeah, a bunch of people are pissed at me, but so what? I don't require everyone to like me, ya know?

[Strong Atheist]

78. True. Hey! I see we are neighbors!

:hi:

[mmonk]

66. I am awake and that's the problem.

Many people have no clue what an Alito addition means. It's up to the opposition to point it out. Red state republicans vote republican, not for democrats. Therefore, their constituency IS NOT republican.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

73. You're right - most don't understand what Alito means.

Unfortunately, they needed to understand in 2004, not 2006. In 2006, the damage is already done.

And how can you possibly deny deep conservative leanings of states that almost always vote Republican?

[Pirate Smile]

88. I cried for this following the 2004 election. I knew this was coming.

I hoped no one would retire or die. That was our only hope until 2006.

[rucky]

67. The Monday morning quarterbacks are out in full force...

now THAT post was defeatist. and no, you're not "just being realistic." Reality takes hard work to create when you're a doer, and it "just happens" when you're not one.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

76. Working hard and working smart are totally different.

Working hard and doing the wrong things don't create positive change. Merely saying "I tried" might let you sleep better at night, but it doesn't achieve your goal.

[no name no slogan]

69. Thank you, Vash

When I first heard about it, it smelled like the kickoff of the Kerry for President 2008 campaign. There was no way in hell a filibuster would have worked or even gotten off the ground.

The dems have a 10-seat deficit in the Senate-- and they couldn't even muster ALL the Dems to stand behind it. If nothing else, this provides something for Kerry to run on in 2008, but it had as much chance to work as hell does of becoming a Frigidaire dealership.

[Czolgosz]

79. Do you remember the result of the cloture vote on Roberts? Do you remember

which Democrats voted to confirm Roberts and which voted against him?

You do not remember the result of cloture vote on Roberts because there was no cloture vote, and I bet 99% of the people here will have a better idea which Democrat are going to vote to confirm Alito than those who voted to confirm Roberts. The fact that we had a cloture vote and we'll have some better identification of those who vote for Alito are both positive things. Kerry and Kennedy did those things.

Your disparagement of the motives behind Kerry's and Kennedy's efforts is poorly reasoned for at least two reasons. First, Kennedy has no ambition for any office higher than the one he holds, and it's an office where he is unbeatable. Certainly, of all Senators, Kennedy doesn't need to shore up his support from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party. Second, with respect to Kerry, his efforts probably lost him as much support from the DLC wing of the party as it gained him in the Democratic wing of the party. The extent to which Kerry's efforts help him with progressive party activists, it is because he had a choice to become passively lumped in with the DLC or to actively stand up for the progressives, and he chose to stand for the progressives and we progressives are glad; the net effect was not that great. Kerry's stand helps and hurts him in the same way that taking a bold stand on gay equal rights would help him tremendously with those who consider that a key issue and it would not help him with the DLCers so the net effect would not be very great.

You think the nuclear option would have been used. I think you are wrong. If we had 41 votes on the cloture issue, that number would have necessarily have included several members of the gang of 14 (at least 5 to 7 depending on whether non-gang-of-14 Republicans joined us and we held more non-gang-of-14 Democrats). If at least a third of the gang of 14 had voted against cloture (including at least 1 or 2 Republicans), the remainder of that group wouldn't have been able to say that exercise of their vote was in bad faith, and therefore the remainder of the gang of 14 wouldn't have supported the nuclear option. It's moot now, but if we could have obtained the 41 cloture votes we needed, I doubt we'd have failed to get the 51 "no nukes" votes we needed.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

81. You misunderstand, I was not disparaging Kerry.

I rather think it was a brilliant move, but not one that was intended to actually produce a filibuster. And perhaps you haven't been around here all that much since 2004, but the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party hasn't been enthused with him after he didn't fight in Ohio.

And I disagree with your nuclear scenario, but I acknowledge that might've happened. All we can really do is speculate on that one, but I certainly didn't see us winning the nuclear vote.

[0007]

83. Thank you for spelling it OUT.

[ProSense]

98. Excellent post! Thank you! n/t

[mtnsnake]

84. Everything you say is so true, Vash,

and the truth sometimes hurts, especially if you happen to say anything negative about someone else's favorite candidate.

BTW, your post was helpful, educational, and inspiring. Good job, and nominated!

[samhsarah]

86. Horseshit.

There are 45 Democrats in the Senate. Only 41 are needed to sustain a filibuster. If the Democrats wanted to stop Alito, there was ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY NOTHING stopping them except for their own cowardice. That being said, If I open up another thread telling me it's time to join the Green Party or Ralph Nader was fucking right, I'm gonna SCREAM!!!!!!

[br7598]

90. What are you talking about?

Where do you guys get the idea that people want you to join a third party? You dont leave the democratic party and join a third party and vote straight party tickets. All we are saying is that if I lived in conneticut and I was given the choice between Leiberman, a democrat, and John Doe, a liberal party member, I would definately vote for Doe. Because Leiberman does not have liberal values.

It doesnt mean I would strip my democratic card forever more. If you vote a straight democratic party ticket, then they dont have to listen to you. They have to listen to the republicans because thats the only votes they hope to gain. Hence you get fake democrats like Leiberman.

[samhsarah]

91. What you are talking about it supporting a progressive in the

primary. That is very a very constructive way to solve the problem. Much more so than bitching about how Dems and Pukes are all the same, blah, blah, blah, and that is what I was referring to, not you.

[Dr Fate]

87. I've heard these kinds of lectures a lot over the last 3 elections we lost

Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now.

"Taking this opportunity, Kerry has re-established himself as a leader of liberals, which will go along way toward earning the nomination in 2008."

So what? The pro Bush DEMS could have followed his lead and have been just as popular. It's odd that you have to to detract from a DEM that stood up to Bush to make excuses for those who refused.

"The other reason is that it gives vulnerable red-state Democrats a way to go home and show their CONSTITUENTS (whom are NOT, I repeat, are NOT the Democratic party and ARE the citizens that elected them) that they are not party drones."

If true, then they can get these noble, non-partisan types to give money and volunteer their time for their re-elections, while real Democrats can work for real Democrats. This makes it easier. Great point.

"we'd have lost that battle in the court of public opinion as well."

Yes- that was our "excuse" for voting for the Iraq war, wasn't it? Should read "temporarily lost battle in court of public opinion"

This "you radicals need to shut up and listen the adults" business might carry some weight if it actually brought results. It does neither.

[janx]

92. I think you might misunderstand Vash's post.

Too many people on this board seemed to think that the filibuster would somehow have blocked the nomination.

It couldn't have. It would have dragged things out, and it was good in theory, yes--but it would not have blocked the nomination.

We don't have the votes, period. And until we do--until people elect enough decent representatives--we won't.

[samhsarah]

93. 41 Votes to sustain a filibuster, 45 Democrats......

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

[Dr Fate]

95. These excuses were contrived over a week ago- no make that 6 years ago.

Have you not heard it all before?

[janx]

97. There's no need to be unpleasant.

So there's a filibuster.

Then what?

[samhsarah]

102. Then no Alito, that's what....

I'm sorry, was yesterday about something else? If it was, I must have missed it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

101. What I don't understand is expecting the 45 to have a hive mind.

Heaven forbid someone think for themself, right? :eyes:

[samhsarah]

104. Yeah, Robert Byrd, Mr. Constitution man

was really thinking for himself when he decided to support the nomination of a fascist that doesn't believe in checks and balances to the Supreme Court. Give me a effing break.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

131. Mr. Constitution Man has a tight re-election campaign this year.

In a state that has been trending Republican for quite a while now.

[samhsarah]

132. Mr. Constitution man is 300 fucking years old,

maybe he should have taken the risk at his own personal peril to give back to the taxpaying voting AMERICANS that have fattened his coffers for quite some time now. Ya think?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

133. The taxpayers of West Virginia will make the decision as to

whether or not he is giving something back to the people. And I'll take this opportunity to remind you that THEY are his constituents, and not a single other person.

[samhsarah]

135. Yeah, right....

NOBODY else is affected by Alito. If the constituents of West Virginia are all a bunch of dumb ass back woods heathen freepers, such as you are implying, then the rest of the country needs to pay for it too? I guess you think Shrub is a good thing for America, you know since half the people voted for him. If half the people voted for him, then he does have a MANdate, doesn't he? A MANdate to piss on the constitution, like Byrd just did? Whatever. I'm done with this.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

138. Perhaps you haven't read your Constitution lately.

Or maybe you've forgotten the Federalist papers.

And if West Virginia is the same place that believed Kerry was going to ban the Bible if he were elected, then yes, they are that dumb. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/152/story_15297_1.html

Edited to remove insult and apologized-for comment.

[samhsarah]

142. I'll apologize for the comment...

If you apologize for calling me(edited to remove apologized for comment). And I didn't mean that YOU think Bush is a good thing for America, just that if you follow that kind of logic as to why it is OK for Byrd to screw us over then apparently it is OK for America to be taken over by religious nutjobs, because that's what Shrub's constituency wants. But anyway, I'm sorry that I was not clear enough about what I was saying or the fact that I was saying it with sarcasm and you got offended. Obviously if you really thought Bush was a good thing for America, you wouldn't be here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

145. I apologize too.

I hope you can understand how little I liked the inference that I was a Bush supporter, but I was still out of line.

[samhsarah]

146. I understand.

I was out of line, too. I really hate what this situation has done to all of us, lately. But I know emotions are running high right now, and it will pass soon. I guess we all need to vent a little. Just sucks that we end up venting on each other.

[Dr Fate]

109. B.S. Any DEM who claims to "trust" Alito is either lying or stupid.

I dont pay them to "think for themsleves"- I pay them to think for MY interests and to uphold the constitutuion.

[rockymountaindem]

106. The Republicans would have used the "nuclear option"

Which is just what Kerry is talking about when he speaks on the win-at-all-costs attitude of the Republicans. There was no way Alito wasn't going to make it to the bench.

[samhsarah]

112. Oh you're for the "let them Nuke us so they don't Nuke us"

train of thought. Very productive.

[rockymountaindem]

144. No, all I'm saying is filabuster or not

Alito would have gotten on the court. Let's not pretend that there was any way to stop him. There wasn't.

[Dr Fate]

114. I predict they will use it for our next "measured" filibuster.

So that all this unpleasantness does not come about once Bush gets to pick a 3rd SCOTUS nominee.

[Dr Fate]

94. Did I say somthing that was incorrect?

If so, please point it out.

I do indeed understand AND disagree with all these excuses.

A filibuster may have shined a light on the process and forced the Repubs to resubmit a new O'Connor style nominee-or at the least would have unified the base and gotten us pumped for '06.

But we will never know- apparently many of us already had their "why we cant fight this one either" excuses ready well ahead of time.

The "Strategists" who lost the last 3 elections are determined to ignore the base, no matter how many times we have gotten it right.

[janx]

100. A filibuster wouldn't have accomplished that.

We don't have the votes.

And until we do something at the local level to get decent representatives elected, we won't. It's always going to come down to the vote.

[Dr Fate]

105. We have how many Democrats in the senate?

And how many votes were needed to continue debate over a lifetime appointment?

[samhsarah]

107. Need 41 votes, Have 45 Dems,

I know you know this, Dr. Fate, but apparently some here are having a little trouble with the numbers.

[Dr Fate]

110. I know, looks like excuses dont negate 2nd grade math.

If some of these DEMS spent as much time fighting as they did concocting elaborate excuses, we would not be in this pickle.

[janx]

113. "continue debate"

That's ultimately not the issue though. The ultimate matter is the VOTE. That's my point. It's pretty clear how the vote will go, and additional debate at this point isn't going to change that.

I would have liked it (as I said), in theory. But as a practical matter, the filibuster would not have blocked Alito's nomination.

I wish it weren't so, Doc.

[Dr Fate]

115. They could have voted "no" instead of "yes."

And no amount of pre-contrived excuses changes that simple equation.

The "DEMS have no spine" perception will continue, stronger than ever before, whether warranted or not. Excuses wont help.

[janx]

122. No instead of yes on cloture? Is that what you're talking about?

?

[Dr Fate]

151. I thought that was the topic. n/t

n/t

[janx]

153. Well, it's part of it.

But voting no on cloture would not have stopped the nomination. It was a valiant and principled thing to do, to be sure, but in the end it would have been futile.

Dems should concentrate on the 2006 elections at this point. That's the only way anything will really change.

[Dr Fate]

159. The "DEMs have no spine" perception IS about the 2006 elections

n/t

[Straight Shooter]

99. Regardless of whether it would have blocked the nomination ...

... it would have given Americans an opportunity to sit up and pay attention to WTF is going on. Sometimes, despite an almost certain outcome, you do the right thing for the principle behind it, not because you necessarily expect to win what you're fighting for. Sometimes, once in a blue moon, you can change the course of events and turn things around.

Democrats are supposed to be the party of principle. If they won't stand in unison (not lockstep, which implies automaton obedience), then they send a message of capitulation and appeasement to unbridled power. Appeasement is not a very admirable trait in the eyes of the everyday American who can't see the substance because she/he is so blinded by the style.

We can all on DU go round and round as to what Kerry's intentions were and who did what and why. I will always believe we lost the golden opportunity to get our message out to a vast audience tuning in to maybe what they thought would be a circus but would turn out to be a classroom on the importance of politics and its players. Now we just look like the Repubs took another one of their power clubs and beat us to death with it again.

[janx]

108. I agree with everything you say here.,

but there has been so much hysteria and confusion about what the filibuster might have accomplished.

There were people on this board who actually thought that the filibuster itself could have blocked the nomination.

[karynnj]

125. In reality, without trying there was no chance

One possiblity was that a filibuster COULD have led to pulling a few of the libertarian Conservative Senators away on Alito. They voted against everything they believe in. With Bush's falling poll numbers and the fact that they likely at heart agreed with some of Senator Kerry's arguments, they could have overcome the fear that exists in the Republican party. (Only fear would explain the atypical constant lockstep voting)

So, it was the right thing to do - to say how outside American values he is. Also, eventually something will happen and the Republican coalition will split. This could have been that issue - it was a very remote possibility. If McCain was really a maverick, he could have stood with Kerry and Kennedy to say that the unitary president was wrong. That he can get 90 plus Senators (and similar house numbers) against torture - fight with the President to keep the provision in the house/Senate bill - then have the President despense with it with a unilateral signing agreement. (Taken to an extreme why should people in Congress even come to work.) He is a hypocrite who believes in nothing.

[More Than A Feeling]

96. Two responses to that:

The first is that the parties themselves have become much more ideologically "pure". No more large numbers of conservative southern democrats and northern liberals sharing the same coalition. Now, whether that is a good thing or not, the perception is that Democrats are expected to share much of the party line, regardless of where they are elected, unless they are complete outliers like Nelson of Nebraska. Cantwell and Lieberman don't have this problem at all, and the other senators have it to varying degrees.

The other thing is that brand of pragmatism tends to influence the party in unhelpful ways. The perception becomes that our politicians only stand for what will get them re-elected. That perception lessens whatever trust and comfort people still have with their elected official. I believe that it contributes to an "anything goes, go along to get along" mentality that pulls parties in the direction of their opponents, and saps their strength.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

111. I don't think this ideological purity is a good thing at all.

We're trying to find solutions to a world full of colors with only two crayons. There's no more compromise. There's no more working together to find the best solution for the country. There's only fighting to the death. I think it's horrible.

Pragmatism is not "anything goes, go along to get along" at all. Pragmatism is fighting the battles that are worth fighting and making intelligent decisions on where and when you make your stands. It was pragmatic for the Party to attempt a filibuster here and it was also pragmatic for certain Senators to not vote for the filibuster too.

A lot of people see this as a complete loss, or that some Democrats are "traitors", but neither could be further from the truth. Think about what you hear in this story - DEMOCRATS made an attempt to filibuster, but failed. Why did they fail? Because of a few red state Senators that voted against the filibuster. What does that tell you? That the party leadership took a stand on principles, and, in the eyes of their likely conservative constituents, so did the Senators that didn't toe the line. Like it or not, we have Senators in power that, until we re-assume the majority, are going to have to make votes that most of us here don't like, and that's fine. You want to talk about standing on principle? Well, Democrats weren't afraid of failing and attempted to do what they felt was right. And, despite pressure from the party, a bunch of our Senators can go back home saying they stood on principles and did what THEY felt was right.

I think you fail to realize that there are differing matters of perspective involved here. Just because YOU don't see the principles, that doesn't mean others don't.

[janx]

116. It really is horrible.

And there are going to be some tumultuous times ahead. But maybe this taught people something about the need to build from the bottom up.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

118. ....looking at this thread, I don't think anything was learned.

[Dr Fate]

119. The capitulators & excuse makers are the ones who need to learn somthing.

The people who have BEGGED the DEMS to fight for the past 6 years have been right on nearly every issue- the "lets go along with Bush & public perception" crowd are the ones who need to learn somthing.

[janx]

121. Bush and public perception?

:wtf:

Where did that come from?

[Dr Fate]

123. The Iraq war yes votes and the Alito yes votes...

...It has been argued that "DEMs had to vote that way, because the polls told them to"


The classic "They would have lost the battle in the court of public perception" excuse.

You know, the whole "lets set ourselves up to be flip-floppers" strategy.

[janx]

126. I can see your point there, but I don't think that analogy

is quite accurate.

How many Dems voted for Alito today?

[Dr Fate]

127. The issue is how many voted to continue debate on an important appointment

Which is one of the purposes of a filibuster- to allow the minority to continue points of debate and to educate the public.

The ones who vote "no" today but voted to end debate are not fooling anyone.

I think the analogy is perfectly accurate- I was describing WHY some DEMS cave, not the number of them that do so.

[More Than A Feeling]

124. This isn't a teacher/student relationship.

All of us are equals, here on this board. Adopting the teacher perspective doesn't exactly give those of us who disagree with you the same respect you'd want from us, because it assumes you already know better than us, and that we need to be "educated", rather than engaged as people who might know as much as you do. Maybe it didn't facilitate the discussion very well. Just a thought, from someone who wants to keep this a friendly and productive critique of ideas.:-)

[janx]

128. We all learn together as we go.

But the fact is that a number of people on this board, during the last couple of days, either misunderstood or acted as if the filibuster could have stopped the nomination.

That's not the case. A filibuster would have been a strong and principled way to go, yes--but it would not have prevented the nomination, sadly.

But it's all good. I know that I have learned some things in the last week or so. ;-)

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

130. Believe it or not...

some of us ARE formally educated in politics and have significant professional experience in the field, while most of us here do not. :-)

[More Than A Feeling]

120. We worked together to find the best solution

when Democrats had solid senate and house majorities, and frequently, the presidency. We were dealing from a position of strength, and until the 80's, the elected Republicans went along with it. Now we are not, and the rules have changed. You can't work together when one side has a significant number that are not dealing honestly. We don't have that luxury any more because we are not in power. The Republicans did not regain power by working with Democrats, they did it by coming up with a long-term plan for dominance, and ideas that clashed with ours that they sold to the people, in many cases using methods that would be considered dirty pool, but the fact remains.

Republicans got where they are today by changing the playing field, making structural changes like economic policies that stressed people so that they would start caring more about "values", and revoking the fairness doctrine, to enable their propaganda. They bought media, started think tanks, ran for local offices and utilized their power under the radar.

Focusing on a majority at all cost is, as i said, fine in the short term, to try to preserve the past. But it won't ever return us to a time when we could work together with Republicans to find the best solution for the country.

You say it's was pragmatic for certain senators to vote for cloture? Fine. They are the elected officials, who want to preserve the status quo where they are already in power. We want change. We are the base, and I believe it is our job to make it so that it becomes pragmatic to vote for what we want. That includes using the means at our disposal, like primaries, to push said senators to understand that their interests are served when they do what we want.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

129. Your last paragraph is exactly what I've been saying for a long time

Calling members of our own party "traitors" doesn't create those circumstances. Sure, it might drive some out of the primaries, but it won't get a Democrat elected in the general election.

And you are also right about why things are so "ideologically pure" today, though I was not advocating pragmatism as a way to return to the good ol' days. I think those are gone for good, if not for a very long time. I was just making the statement that it's incredibly harmful to our country for these conditions to exist.

[springhill]

134. Oh just go away!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

136. There's an ignore feature.

Feel free to use it.

[Speck Tater]

137. Playing the people is what politicians do...

Kerry is playing DU. So what? Nothing new or unique going on there. Just a politician playing the constituents.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

140. But DU apparently doesn't understand it's been played.

Just look at the reactions here.

[blm]

149. YOU HAVE YOUR FACTS WRONG to begin with, so it hurts your argument.

Kerry didn't WANT to lead a filibuster. He had a heavy schedule out of the country on SENATE BUSINESS for the Finance Committee which he is on - filibuster should have been taken on by Judiciary Committee members straight out of the hearings, but no one would support Kennedy on a filibuster.

The people needed to hear more about the dissent on Alito and the only way it was going to happen was filibustering.

Kerry stood with Kennedy because he had spent two years saying straight up how important the Supreme Court was and promised to stand up in 2003 IF HE HAD TO.

He HAD TO. He cancelled his appearances at the Economic Forum and his major speech in Ireland to stand with Kennedy, even KNOWING he would be targeted by 99% of the media for doing so.

Kerry never took on heavy burdens for glory - his experiences all taught him that heavy burdens HURT politically, not help. IranContra, BCCI, gays in the military, and CIA drugrunning ALL hurt Kerry because he became a GREATER target for the BFEE.

[pinklefoot]

139. Well put Human Typhoon

But where do we go from here? Grassroots? All out war? Subversion? Tempering our focus? I see where you are coming from, and I agree. Just looking for your opinion on where we should go after this.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

141. Continuing grassroots efforts

If you want Democrats to say and do the thing you wish for, you have to create the conditions for them to do it. They are slowly, but surely, turning as it is now, but more work needs to be done. Not enough people seem to understand that this isn't going to be an overnight change. In fact, if not for the Republicans' ineptitude, we wouldn't even be as far as long as we are now.

On edit: Welcome to DU! And thanks!!

[FreedomAngel82]

143. Than you don't know shit about John Kerry

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

155. That's a funny assertion.

I lived in Massachusetts for 19 years, worked in the Massachusetts delegation, and worked on Kerry's presidential campaign. Yep, I don't know shit about Kerry, even though I've met him privately several times. :sarcasm:

[Snivi Yllom]

147. partial agreement

Thanks for peeling back a few lawyers from the big stinky onion that is American politics

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

156. I really shouldn't have to.

I don't know where this idealized image of politics came from. It's never been pretty.

[NotThatNolan]

150. Well put, Mr. Stampede

[DemonGoddess]

152. Shows of principle are NOT

hollow. If that was so, this country wouldn't even EXIST.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

157. Shows of principle without POWER are hollow.

If you remember correctly, we exerted a little bit of power in forming our country too.

[newspeak]

154. yes, the Republican party is pushing

all those out who do not tow the neocon line. And, some think Democrats should do the same? It is dangerous not to have different points of view to approach a problem, as can be seen by what the all glorious administration is doing in Iraq. So, "my way or the highway" should be the new Democratic mantra? We are talking about complete control by one party through bullying, lying, and blackmailing. Should we compromise our conscience? The media lock-steps to these neocons, every step of the way. Afterall, they're corporate greed heads who, like GE, are making a killing by going along with the Neocon game. The elections were stolen, if you cannot admit it, then 2006 will be no different. 1994 was different, I believe the people wanted a balance between a Democratic administration and a Republican Congress. However, to gain a balance now, with the machines in place, will be hard. Those precincts that did not use Diebold, ES&S, or Sequoia in the last election were more in tune with the exit polls. The neocons now have the courts, the legislative and the executive branch of government, all bowing down to the all glorious neocon king. Can we change that? I don't know. But, if we don't we are looking at a despotic government that is taking our country further away from our founding principles--further away from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Very dangerous times, indeed. The attempted coup of FDR by the corporate elite should have been a wake up call, instead of it being almost hidden from the citizens of this country. Iran-Contra-BCCI, should have been imprisonment for the perpetrators instead of these same felons now holding positions in this administration. It's how much the American people will tolerate, and the elite have tested the waters time and time again. Apparently, many of the American people are still apathetic. It's unfortunate, but true.

[wixomblues]

160. I agree.

Good luck though. you threw a lot of blood in the water with that post.

[Clarkie1]

162. BEST POST RE: ALITO OF THE PAST MONTH!

Well said, well reasoned. Onward!

:toast:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

163. thanks Clarkie

:toast:

[ComerPerro]

164. Ignore, double post

[ComerPerro]

165. I am a doom-and-gloomer who knew all along that Alito would be confirmed

That's why I am a doom and gloomer.

The fix is in, already. And the Republicans just keep laying more and more groudwork so that they can have a complete takeover of the Government, and eventually completely eliminate any opposition.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

166. Well, that's not really the type of doom and gloomer I'm talking about.

And that's not even really doom and gloom - that's reality. Of course that's what they want.

[ComerPerro]

167. Yeah, but its not an optimistic outlook to have

Because, honestly, I don't think we can stop it anymore

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

168. Oh, I think we can

But it takes time. It starts in November. If we can take back some seats, which honestly, there's no good reason why we shouldn't, that puts us in a better position for 2008.

[ComerPerro]

169. I hope you're right. But we are gonna need a lot of things to change

before we can really take back Congress. It will be hard enough getting a majority back.

We need to get this media under control, because right now they are brutalizing us and seem to be actively campaigning for Republicans.

Unless that changes, we will never be able to fairly communicate our message.

[Dancindays]

170. A newcomers viewpoint

I am new to DU but I am a long time observer of American politics. A filibuster attempt would have done us no good. Americans hate a sore loser. It goes against the grain, if you have a minority of votes, you should not dictate the direction on an issue. We would and have been viewed as obstructionists. You want more of a voice in the Senate proceedings, you need to win more votes and place your elected officials in office. It’s that simple.

Where have we gone wrong? As stated previously, we lack a united message, hell; we seem to lack any message. On one side, we have Gov. Dean who opposes the war in Iraq and on the other side; we have Ms. Clinton who is hawkish on the war. We do not send a concise, unified message.

Look at the 2004 election. Most people today don’t sit and watch political speeches first hand; we don’t even watch a complete televised speech. We rely on the news to bring us speeches and political viewpoints. We get our news in short snippets, we watch TV for a few minutes; we glance at the news on the internet for a few minutes; we read the paper for a few minutes; we listen to the news on the radio on our way to work for a few minutes; you get my drift. We gather information and thus make determinations based on a few minutes (or seconds).

When Kerry and Bush made campaign news, the networks would air just a few seconds of speeches and move on to the next news story. Bush would speak for a few seconds and he sent a message, we may not like the message but a message was sent and received, all of this in the span of a few seconds. When Kerry speaks, you have to listen to the entire speech to get his message; we don’t get the entire speech on the news. People would listen to Kerry for a few seconds on the news and receive no message. Nothing to rally the troops so to speak.

We need to send a concise, precise, and united message to the voters. Only when we get more elected officials in Washington, will we have more of a voice in government.