I'm with Edgar on this, dems that backdown should be put on notice they will NOT be supported. Let the chips fall where they may. I may even join the dem party to have a voice in this. (probably not)
ebrown_p wrote:Finn,
I think the "Democrats must appeal to moderates in order to win" strategy has been completely disproven.
Kerry with his lukewarm war support, opposition to gay marriage, support for tax cuts etc. etc. was an appeal to moderates (in spite of how the right portrayed him). The Republican chants of "flip flop" (which was due to his attempt to carve out the middle of every issue) were far more damaging than their accusations of "liberal".
Kerry lost because he didn't stand for anything, and anyone who is trying to be "moderate" will do the same thing.
Your argument presupposes several things:
1) There are enough Liberals in America to decide a national election
2) Many Liberals didn't vote for Kerry
3) Kerry appealed to moderates
4) There is a tremendous number of people who did not vote in 2000 and 2004 who would vote if only there were a clearly Liberal candidate
All of these assertions are pretty tough to sustain.
I'm not sure how "Democrats must appeal to moderates in order to win" has been disproven. There is no reason to believe that Kerry got the "Moderate Vote" and still lost. Because he may have tried to appeal to the "Moderate Vote", does not mean he secured it.
If Democrats do not need to court Moderates to win a national election then it can only be because there is a majority of Liberals in the country or the majority of people taking the time to vote are or can be Liberals.
Apparently you believe there is a great, untapped resevoir of Liberal voters who can tip the scales if only they are drawn forth from their apathy and lack of participation by a truly Liberal candidate.
Dream on.
Bush is not a moderate. The current Republicans are not moderates. Polling after the election strongly suggest that the Republicans won because they were seen to be standing for something-- even when the majority of Americans polled said that in many cases they disagreed with what they stood for.
The Democrats need to be more like the Republicans. They need to strongly stand behind their core values come Hell or high waters.
So you hang your hopes on the following:
Americans really want Liberal policies, but what they must have is firmly held policies. If the only firmly held policies available are conservative, they'll leap at them. All Liberals need to do is show they firmly hold their Liberal policies and the public will arrive in hoards to support them.
The nervous spineless whining of the Democrats who roll over and play dead when challenged by the annoying invective of talk show Republicans is not any kind of strategy.
Obviously.
The winning strategy is to stand on their core liberal values (which are shared by much of the country).
Yes, I see I was right before.
If the Democrats reject Alito with a filibuster they will get the chance to make their case to the Country-- and I think there is a message that will resonate with many Americans. Even if they lose a real political debate is good for our country.
Let's bring it on!
Indeed. I too welcome such a debate, but in the interest of a fair fight, forcing it on the Alito nomination is ill considered.
I must say ebrown that your unabashed Liberalism is refreshing and admirable. Whether or not we agree on any points, it is a pleasure to find someone who is a proponent of the left (and a pejorative
is not intended), who doesn't seek to mask his stance with a bunch of blather about labeling.
nimh wrote:Finn d'Abuzz wrote:nimh wrote:FAir enough.
But at least then, to go back to McG's sentence, there are apparently easily plausible candidates that half the dems will be happy with on the supreme court.
Modify that to "the dems
in the Senate" and I might agree with you.
Allright, I'll roll with that.
What about you, McG?
Roberst is not applying for Alitos job, Alito is. Again, there is no candidate that Bush would nominate that the Dems will like. Bush isn't about to nominate a liberal to fill O'Conners seat and the Dem's will continue to fuss about.
A fillibuster will kill any chance the Dems have in November.
Quote:
A fillibuster will kill any chance the Dems have in November.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
I hope the Democrats jump at the chance to prove you wrong Mr. McG.
McGentrix wrote:nimh wrote:What about you, McG?
Roberst is not applying for Alitos job, Alito is. Again, there is no candidate that Bush would nominate that the Dems will like. Bush isn't about to nominate a liberal to fill O'Conners seat and the Dem's will continue to fuss about.
Why cant Bush nominate someone like Roberts?
So, you must know the scent of Ted Kennedy's doodie after a three day bender.
The guy basically breezes through his confirmation hearings and now you want a fillibuster?
Shows what low life scum has taken over the Democratic party (if they pursue it).
I find Alito to be overwhelmingly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. I have yet to see any, even slightly, compelling evidence to the contrary.
Oh, my. In threading through this I sense that many of my fellow liberals feel that this Alito nomination is worth going into the trenches to oppose. He would not have been my choice.
My thinking is that the Dems will not filibuster. Instead they will focus on the November 2006, House and Senate races. Politics trumps idealogy, and the lobbying scandal is too juicy to be sidetracked by a Supreme Court nomination. (Republicans, too, will begin distancing themselves from Mr Bush, by the way). The hard core libs or conservatives will, despite some of the comments here, probably stay with their parties. It's the moderates that everyone is after.
When the Dems hand out free guns, ammo, tackle, bait, and a hefty tax cut, then I'll think about voting for them.
Sometimes I wonder if the author of this thread grew up working the summer cleaning crew at the Kennedy compound.
So, opposition to Bush makes one a scum? Interesting.
edgarblythe wrote:So, opposition to Bush makes one a scum? Interesting.
Not at all, but it is amazing how often the two things go hand in hand.
I would expect that comment from you. Very revealing.
revealing? More like expected.
No fillibuster
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito received approval from a Senate panel today, setting up a potentially divisive floor fight later in the week. All 10 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee supported Alito, praising his qualifications and long judicial career. The panel's eight Democrats opposed him, saying he would be too deferential to presidential authority.
Hmmm. Then what is that smell?
Conservative Democrat balks on approving Alito to court
RAW STORY
Published: January 24, 2006
One of the most conservative Democrats in the Senate, Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) today announced he would vote no on Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation to the Supreme Court -- raising the possiblity of a filibuster, RAW STORY has learned. Just one Democrat has said he'll vote to confirm Alito.
Nelson's release follows.
#
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida today announced he would vote no on Judge Samuel Alito Jr.'s confirmation to the Supreme Court.
Alito, President Bush's nominee to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, won a narrow 10-8 approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier in the day. The full Senate is expected to vote later this week or early next week.
Nelson, who withheld an announcement until the judiciary panel had finished its hearings on Alito, disclosed his intention to vote no shortly after the committee's final meeting. Said Nelson:
"I have voted for almost all of President Bush's judicial nominees; and, I greeted Judge Alito's nomination with an open mind. But his many legal writings, judicial opinions and evasive answers both at his hearing and in our private meeting, convinced me he would tilt the scales of justice in favor of big government over the average person.
"Because he is not the centrist voice I believe this nation needs to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who fiercely defended the rights and liberties of all Americans, I'm going to vote no on his confirmation."
All told, during five-plus years in the Senate, Nelson has voted for 215, or 96 percent, of the president's 225 judicial picks, including Miguel Estrada and Chief Justice John Roberts.
Alito a Threat to Our Fundamental Rights'
By Senator Patrick Leahy
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012406Y.shtml
Judge Alito's radical views
The New York Times
MONDAY, JANUARY 23, 2006
Judge Samuel Alito Jr. is exactly the kind of legal thinker President George W. Bush wants on the U.S. Supreme Court. He has a radically broad view of the president's power, and a radically narrow view of Congress's power. He has long argued that the Constitution does not protect abortion rights. He wants to reduce the rights and liberties of ordinary Americans, and has a history of tilting the scales of justice against the little guy.
As senators prepare to vote on the nomination, they should ask themselves only one question: Will replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Alito be a step forward for America, or a step backward? Instead of O'Connor's pragmatic centrism, which has kept American law on a steady and well-respected path, Alito is likely to bring a movement conservative's approach to his role and to the Constitution.
Alito may be a fine man, but he is not the kind of justice the United States needs right now. Senators from both parties should oppose his nomination.
It is likely that Alito was chosen for his extreme views on presidential power. The Supreme Court, with O'Connor's support, has played a key role in standing up to the Bush administration's radical view of its power, notably that it can hold, indefinitely and without trial, anyone the president declares an "unlawful enemy combatant."
Alito would no doubt try to change the court's approach. He has supported the fringe "unitary executive" theory, which would give the president greater power to detain Americans and would throw off the checks and balances built into the Constitution. He has also put forth the outlandish idea that if the president makes a statement when he signs a bill into law, a court interpreting the law should give his intent the same weight it gives to Congress's intent in writing and approving the law.
The White House has tried to create an air of inevitability around this nomination. But there is no reason to believe that Alito is any more popular than the president who nominated him. Outside a small but vocal group of hard-core conservatives, America has greeted the nomination with a shrug - and counted on its senators to make the right decision.
The real risk for senators lies not in opposing Alito but in voting for him. If the far right takes over the Supreme Court, American law and life could change dramatically. If that happens, many senators who voted for Alito will no doubt come to regret that they did not insist that O'Connor's seat be filled with someone who shared her cautious, centrist approach to the law.
