I am not going to spend my time dissecting why Alito deserves to be defeated. I am not a lawyer, and to me it's so goddamned apparent that I just roll my eyes when I see the media coverage. Clearly, they are not watching the same hearings I am, and clearly, they have issues to clear up when one day they taunt Dems for being too light on Alito, then the next day "break" the news that all the squabbles were between the senators, not the nominee, and then the next day lead with Mrs. Alito crying because of "meanie" Dems named Lindsey Graham (?). If you take his defeat as a given, it is about time to figure out how exactly this is going to happen, what's feasible etc.
In other words, great, we've officially figured out he is extremist. Pat yourself on the back. Now what?
The four trajectories the nomination could go down as follows:
- Allow a vote, anticipating that six pro-choice/moderate Republicans will cross the aisle and defeat the nominee in an upperdown vote. This is obviously the most desired outcome as it is a straight up smackdown of Alito's belief structure and has a sort of supreme legitimacy and would send a distinct message about what the next nominee should look like.
- Filibuster, and the Gang of 14 holds together. Nomination is successfully pummelled.
- Filibuster, and the Gang of 14 falls apart, and we have the long awaited Nuclear War.
- Allow a vote for confirmation without the proper number of votes to defeat.
Of these three options, confirmation is a non-starter. I would argue that the first option of successfully defeating the nomination with a vote is at this point, while not out of consideration, not a wise course of action. In my opinion, the following senators might possibly jump fence over Roe, etc:
- Specter
- Chafee
- Warner
- Snowe
- Collins
- Smith
- Murkoski
- Stevens
and add on McCain who might jump ship over executive priv. Realistically, at this point, I am crossing Stevens and Specter off the list. Specter because of how he's handled the hearings. Stevens because that was more of a possibility in the 80s than today, when Alaska really isn't moving in that direction. In fact, I would say Murkowski is highly unlikely, as well. That leaves
- Chafee
- Warner
- Snowe
- Collins
- Smith
with the possibility of 6. McCain for unrelated matters.
Warner is unpredictable, but unless there's some major re-spinning, I don't look for a repeat of his Bork performance. He's likely not running for re-election, and his desire for a conservative general philosophy and uncontroversial demeanor will out-trump this one issue. Also, I think he'll view the CAP mess as impugning Alito's honor. Warner's old school like that.
So we're down to
- Chafee
- Snowe
- Collins
- Smith
,
with McCain, who I will now remove because he wants to be president, and can't afford to be the critical vote on big issues right now.
So we're two shy, assuming the best of Smith.
That leaves a filibuster. Well, I don't think the Gang of 14 will hold. Lindsey Graham has been pleased as punch about jumping ship since he decided to be the better person and join the Gang in the first place. He's prepared Alito for the hearings, and is not going to let the nomination fall apart. So he is out. DeWine is out. He has suffered too much from his orignal decision in fundraising, and his upcoming Senate race is too tough. His questioning at the hearing and strongly worded support for Alito removes all doubt from my mind about his intentions. He also, along with Graham, has claimed that he only joined in order to later break the pact, to which I say, what the fuck kind of code of honor is that? You clearly did not understand the spirit with which the Gang was formed.
- Warner
- McCain
- Collins
- Snowe and
- Chafee
will all hold with the gang. Lieberman has said he hasn't ruled out a filibuster, and I really am not worried about any of our guys so much, well, I'm concerned, but not too worried. Because really, we're pretty much right on this one, and partisanship removed, if it was done by secret ballot, we would win a Nuclear war by a landslide.
But, given that our guys hold (and we wouldn't try to filibuster if we didn't know our guys were going to hold), we are one man short of preventing the Nuclear option. Which brings us back to Arlen Specter. I have crossed him off my Nay Vote List, but still think, when push comes to shove, he will vote to sustain a filibuster, though not without a lot of complaining and self-important speeches stating how grumpy this whole process makes him. But I'm not confident enough to rest all my hopes on him. I need at least one or two, realistically three, names on the table to feel good about a filibuster. Logically, Smith would seem to be a choice considering that I put him under the "Nay" vote category. But I don't fully believe that Smith can be counted on to save a filibuster even if he would vote against a nominee. He didn't before. Lott knows damn well the value of the Senate, but he's battling for a leadership post after Frist leaves. The senators from New Hampshire might be worked on in the name of civil liberties and the NSA documents, but don't count on it. Sununu is the more likely of the two.....And then there are always surprises lurking in the woodworks.
So, how do we get our extra man? If you focus on NSA docs, you most likely lose Specter. Hagel is worth trying, but it would be entirely on Ben Nelson's shoulders. Lugar knows better but isn't going to budge....as does Orin Hatch if you want to be truthful, but he's a lost cause. Burns, Talent, Ensign, and Kyl are too close to elections, and besides, aren't likely to turn regardless of that.
So let's do old-fashioned whip counts and strategy. Find a senator, and figure out what you would lobby him with. And try and figure out a realistic picture of how this confirmation is going to be stopped, if it's up to us to do the stopping.