POLL: What if no filbuster materializes?

No chunkalicious lovely has soloed yet, that much is true. I, for one, have been calling Senators a lot, including Reid, Chaffee, Snowe and Collins.

I also wrote letters to every Dem member of the judiciary committee.

The theme I used in every contact is: Filibuster and my basic message is "Alito doesn't deserve to be on the supreme court of a country that loves liberty."

I am sure many of you have done the same and more.

But what if it is not enough? I have no doubt that Democratic Senators will be happy to vote no, to oppose him, and except for Ben Nelson, to stand solidly together. Depending on possible local pressure, a few Republicans may vote no as well.

Presuming that the vote is not delayed again (fine by me - gives us more time to convince Democratics voting with the majority of Americans on Roe can't hurt them)                                                                                    

And when the rest of the Senate votes to confirm ?

What then?

Do you believe that the Democrats will filibuster? I think if Reid has everyone in line it is definitely possible.

But what if the Dems live up the the current standards of honor and morality and freedom?

•  You forgot

  store up food and water.  Develop escape and evasion plan for family when martial law sets in.
  Hide the guns and ammo in a secure location.
  Avoid urban areas altogether.

  by Lasthorseman on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:31:21 AM PDT

  •  You know,

    I have always been anti-gun and pro-gun control, but now with this crowd in charge, I'm beginning to have a better appreciation of the way gun advocates interpret the 2nd amendment.

    I hope they are as enthusiastic about defending the 4th and 1st amendments.

    Your advice is good and sound Lasthorseman.

    by sfgb on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 07:06:21 AM PDT

•  There will not be a filibuster.........

  period.  If there was more balance between GOP and Dems then a filibuster would be useful.  But since there is no such balance the filibuster is useless. There is a GOP majority, Alito is in.

  What we must do is work hard this election year to get more Dems in the Senate and in the House.  I may get flamed for my next comment, but I don't care.

  A filibuster is useless when the GOP controls everything people!  Wake up!

  by Mz Kleen on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:33:13 AM PDT

  •  or a fillibuster may be

    the only way to get important messages heard when your party doesn't control anything.

    by Mosquito Pilot on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:39:07 AM PDT

    •  No because then the Dems will be

      portrayed as obstructionist (again) and the GOP will make much hay from that.  Especially since the Dems are a little slow on getting out the message.  A filibuster is the wrong approach at this point.

      Like I said before.........What we must do is work hard this election year to get more Dems in the Senate and in the House.

      by Mz Kleen on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:44:18 AM PDT

      •  Well

        Maybe a larger percentage of the public would appreciate a little obstructionism right now.  A little fight.  Less "not a dime's worth of difference" between the parties.

        by TarheelDem on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:46:14 AM PDT

        •  Why?

          A filibuster is a useless tool at this point.  The GOP has the majority and Alito is in.  Why waste much time and energy on a filibuster?

          There are other things coming down the pike that the Dems can pick a fight about.  Like the Patriot Act for example, that's coming up soon.  You have to learn to pick your battles, ones that you know that you have a pretty good chance of winning.  You don't  go into a battle where you know you're not going to win. That's sheer stupidity.

          by Mz Kleen on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:05:00 AM PDT

          •  WHY?

            Because this guy is going to tip the balance on SCOTUS for everything we hold important.  That's why!!  And if we don't even try to do something, then fuck us -- we deserve what we will get.

            NO -- no other battle is as important as this one.  Sorry...

            by CalDoc on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:24:19 AM PDT

            •  Pastor Niemoller n/t

              by Mosquito Pilot on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 10:34:19 AM PDT

              •  Exactly. Thanks!

                by CalDoc on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:05:04 PM PDT

            •  Alito is in no matter what

              happens.  Why can't everyone understand that?  We are in the minority and a filibuster isn't going to change the fact that Alito will be confirmed.  Nothing is going to change that outcome, nothing.

              We must work hard this year to make sure that the Dems can take back either the House or the Senate.  This is where our battle lies.

              by Mz Kleen on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:19:45 PM PDT

              •  Are you so sure that real protest

                by Democrats might not lure some of the moderate Republicans into the fold??

                by CalDoc on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:06:25 PM PDT

                •  On the evening news tonight.......

                  ABC's George Stephanopoulas has it that even the 3 moderate GOP Senators Snowe, Chafee, and what's her name, the other woman from Maine, I'm sorry I can't remember her name, but anyway George says that right now those 3 aren't saying anything about how they'll vote, but he expects them to vote for Alito in the end.

                  If anything, some of the Dems will end up voting for Alito.  Ben Nelson and a handful of others have been mentioned as defectors on the Alito vote.

                  by Mz Kleen on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:40:59 PM PDT

                  •  If they aren't saying how they will vote, let's

                    take them at their word and show some leadership?
                    Maybe you are accepting media lies and distortions as truth? Just because all these corporate whores (pardon me) are shilling to the ceiling, doesn't mean it's true.  And if  everyone accepts their crap, well then it's all over.  

                    by CalDoc on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:48:43 PM PDT

        •  There is not even enough votes

          to sustain a filibuster. Not only will the moderates begin to feel sorry for the candidate, they will also see republicans as more moderate than democrats and democrats as being the party of polarization. If that happens, 2006 elections will give republicans more success even in the face of their corruption and Bush scandals. Besides, there are at least 8 democrats and possibly 12 who will not vote to sustain a filibuster. I will bet the farm on that regardless of Reid's clout. I guess this one issue is that important to some to jeapordize whatever gains can be made in the 2006 and 2008 elections just so they can make a point. In the end, this is not the major Supreme Court nomination of Bush's term. The next one is. Bush replaced two republicans with 2 republicans. His next one replaces Stevens. If you fuck up the democrats chances in November because of your incessant demands to play martyr, that pick will turn the Supreme Court into the most lopsided in the history of the country. Many will blame the "crazy, unrelenting and uncompromising liberal bloggers for turning the mainstream moderate voters against the democrats." Personally, I hate the prospect of Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court, but I am not fool enough to drive away moderates because we need them.

          by tazz on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:15:50 AM PDT

          •  How do you know

            there are not enough votes?

            by MadRuth on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:19:33 AM PDT

            •  Fox news told us?

              by CalDoc on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:07:37 PM PDT

          •  I agree with your

            comments:
            

            In the end, this is not the major Supreme Court nomination of Bush's term. The next one is. Bush replaced two republicans with 2 republicans. His next one replaces Stevens. If you fuck up the democrats chances in November because of your incessant demands to play martyr, that pick will turn the Supreme Court into the most lopsided in the history of the country.

            I was watching a news program last night that pointed that fact out.  This is why we must work hard this election year to make sure that the Dems can take either the House or the Senate back.  Personally I feel that our chances are better in taking back the Senate.

            by Mz Kleen on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:25:46 PM PDT

      •  Dems need to quit being afraid

        of the names Rove and his minions call them.  Hasn't past experience taught them that they will be called obstructionists no matter how much they cooperate.  Ask Max Cleleand.

        by MadRuth on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:13:45 AM PDT

  •  They will pull NUKE-U-LER option?

    Well, if'n they do that, it would certainly show everyone watching just how badly they want their top lap dog, eh?  
    Then what?  Over time when the balance comes back, and we know it will, they can't filibuster anymore either?  
    This admin is outta control!

    by valeria on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:45:31 AM PDT

    •  Rules can be reimposed

      A future Senate under different control could restore rules permitting filibusters.  But if Democrats win back the Senate substantially, this should not be the first order of business but should wait until there is a more humble Republican Party.

      by TarheelDem on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:49:02 AM PDT

  •  I disagree

    the filibuster is one of the few weapons left to the minority.  It is our unwillingness to use it that makes it useless.  

    by MadRuth on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:09:39 AM PDT

•  A much more serious question

  What will you do if there is a filibuster and against all reason, the Republicans do strike down the rule that permits filibustering judicial appointments?

  Will you stand behind the Dems as they slow Congressional business to a crawl?

  Will you permit the Dems to just slink away in defeat, telling everyone "I told you so".

  Will you double your contributions to Democracy Bonds?

  What is the upside for Democrats in Congress if they do stand up on this one?  Being taken for granted?

  And how will 150 million potential voters be told what is at stake if we do not tell them.  Each Member of the House has about 300,000 potential voters to convince.  Without us, their choices are go door to door and talk to maybe 1% of that total, or carry out a very expensive media campaign.

  If you become a Green, you don't get out of that task, you just make it bigger.  You also have to convince voters that you're not an "ecoterrorist" like ALF and ELF.  Guess what that little law enforcement operation was about?  You also have the hard work of building a party infrastructure to at least better that being built by Howard Dean.  Not to mention splitting the anti-Bush vote at a critical time.

  If you go to Canada, you cannot really participate until you become a Canadian citizen.  When you do, the numbers are much easier to deal with but the political landscape is more complex.

  I don't know what I will do, but for now we need to keep hammering the Democrats to stay together on this.  If you are in Nebraska, don't stop calling Ben Nelson.  And we need to make the pro-choice Republicans show whether they're the real deal or whether they are frauds.  And for now keep the hope that when the fat lady sings, it will be the aria "Twilight for the Republican Right".

  by TarheelDem on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:43:54 AM PDT

  •  I've agreed with this position forever

    But seriously, when is enough enough?

    At what point do you abandon a party that won't stand up for the principles you believe in?

    What event would put you just over the line to support a party other than the Dems?  Not what egregious behavior would most certainly move you out of the party, but what would be just enough to get you to cut your line?

    That's not a rhetorical question - it's one I'd like to hear the answer to, and one I am currently struggling with.

    by nightsweat on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:18:55 AM PDT

    •  Practically?

      It's easier to take the party over than it is to succeed with a new party.

      Form an independent bloc designed to take over the Democratic party (leveraging the fact that they can't keep you out of the primaries).  In other words, be a Democrat, but don't cooperate with the national "leadership" if it doesn't support you.

      This is very feasible.
      

      by neroden on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:50:37 AM PDT

      •  Ding ding ding

        We have a winner! The Democrats have turned course since bottoming out in 2002 and are painfuly, slowly learning to become a progressive alternative again. The leadership is still essentially centrist, but they at least have an ear open to the left side of the party now - more than we can say for the period from 1994-2002.

        These are dark times for the USA, but I believe they are the most hopeful times for progressives within the Democratic Party. We have returned from exile in the wilderness. Did we think the center would just melt and repent?

        There is only so much a minority can do in congress. There is even less that a divided minority can do. Where Daschle and Gephardt tended to capitulate quickly, Reid (not one inch to Daschle's left, but much more willing to play hardball) and Pelosi (both tougher and left of Gep) are doing pretty well with what they've got.

        Patience is a virtue. I predict that with hard work and smart strategy, the Democrats will be as much a progressive party in 6-8 years as the GOP is a conservative party today. But if they are still an opposition party in all branches due to defections and apathy, all that will be for naught.

        by pHunbalanced on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:27:39 AM PDT

        •  The Thug minority in the Clinton years sure

          did a hell of a lot more than the Dems in the past 8 years have!!  And it sure didn't hurt their chances of getting control of Congress.

          I'm so sick of this argument!  It's like the UK and Munich!

          by CalDoc on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:10:06 PM PDT

          •  Clinton

            That would be because Clinton himself was no fighter and in fact often agree more with the GOPers than the progressive wing of his own party. Bush is no Clinton. Perhaps if Lincoln Chafee were president your analogy would make at least a little sense.

            by pHunbalanced on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:59:11 PM PDT

            •  And Dumbya is a fighter?

              by CalDoc on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 07:22:06 PM PDT

              •  I wish it were otherwise, but yeah

                He fights tooth and nail. He is willing to go to the mat over his power to accumulate more power and pay his friends in oil and banking. He leaves the dirty work to his minions, but he loves conflict nad never backs down from a fight.

                by pHunbalanced on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 08:11:56 PM PDT

                •  And his friends in pharmaceuticals? And his

                  polluting friends?  And his Fox friends? And his MSNBC friends?  And his Walmart friends?  And his religious wacko friends?

                  Gawd.  Sorry.  He just drives me nuts. Rove and Cheney drive me nuts.  And the Democrats that just roll over and don't even try drive me nuts.  

                  I'm devastated about Canada.  Now we can't even escape to there...

                  by CalDoc on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 09:00:08 PM PDT

                  •  Canada won't change much

                    Harper can do very little damage with his hands tied by BQ. He'll devolve some power to the provinces and lower the sales tax (not bad since it's regressive anyhow). The worst thing he'll do is shift to a US-butt-kissing foreign policy for 12-18 months.

                    He'll fall on a budget if not sooner. Our neighbors to the north just wanted to clean house. If only they'd been wise enough to do it with 50+ NDP MPs.

                    As for me, if the Dems can't gain one house in '06 and the prsidency in '08, I'm gone.

                    by pHunbalanced on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 06:28:52 AM PDT

                    •  Where to, pH?? We've been checking

                      all over for where we might escape to, with limited success.  

                      by CalDoc on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:42:14 AM PDT

        •  yes

          The conservative party has the same tensions and conflict.  But the key is to hold the triangulators feet to the fire--is it not?  

          Consider that 1992 for the GOP was a lesson for both sides.  My point here:  we need solid reassurances in exhange for our patience and unity.  

          The leadership is still essentially centrist, but they at least have an ear open to the left side of the party now - more than we can say for the period from 1994-2002.

          by markymarx on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:44:24 PM PDT

          •  There are smart ways and not-so-smart ways

            I agree that the feet of capitulating Democrats in locales where progressives are electable need to be assaulted. For example, I let my senator with presidential ambitions know that I would not support his efforts for higher office any longer if he voted for Alito, and that I'd think twice about supporting his next senate bid. Characters like Lieberman, Biden and Feinstein ought to feel heat day after day until they are replaced or become progressives.

            On the other hand, trashing "The Dems" as weak and ineffectual merely feeds the GOP talking points that the press coughs ought and progressives abandoning the Democratic Party as they are finally improving, albeit slowly, help neither a progresive takeover of the party nor a Democratic return to power in the USA.

            by pHunbalanced on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:48:12 PM PDT

      •  You and pHunbalanced are so right!

        This is exactly how the ultra-right took over the Rebpublican party--starting at the school board level and moving up from there.  

        In addition, they formed "think tanks" aka propaganda factories, the Federalist Society to recruit law students and law professors and prepare the law students for the federal bench, and so-called journalism training seminars.  

        Moreover, they took over the Southern Baptist Convention, pushing out Jimmy Carter style moderates, and infiltrated the Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Methodist churches using gay priests/ministers as their wedge issue.  They've torn the Episcopal church in two.  

        All of this took 25+ years.  One of their biggest assets has been access to the very deep pockets of the vast right wing conspiracy financiers, Scaife, Olin, Bradley. etc.  Check out how many graduate schools of business and law are supported by Olin.  It's frightening.

        We progressives have work to do, and we've got a roadmap showing how to do it.

        by sfgb on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 07:21:19 AM PDT

  •  Personally I want them to

    force the nuclear option and make them pay the price for it.  Its a violation of the rules as they now stand.   I want to see Robert Byrd stand on the Senate floor and excoriate them for it.  I think they should slow the Senates business to a crawl if the rules are tossed out the window.  At some point the Democrats need to show a willingness to stand on principle, to fight for something, anything.  What better thing to fight on the the fate of the Supreme Court.  

    Unfortunately, I don't think its going to happen.  Its depressing.

    by calebfaux on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:22:52 AM PDT

•  As

  a woman I would want my representatives to defend my rights as an American.

  If Roe v Wade is overturned, then part of my body is then controlled by the state and all women, in effect, are slaves.

  It is sad that a constitutional amendment is needed to say a woman has control over her body but it is.

  When people start moaning about Alito, I will turn to them and say "And what did you do to stop it?"

  when the Dems ask me for money I will say "You need my money? Well I need control of my own body more."

  by joojooluv on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 04:46:05 AM PDT

•  Please...

  don't put the words "loins" and "chop" so close together on a poll.  Makes me uncomfortable.

  by teenagedallasdeaniac on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:03:11 AM PDT

•  Other

  Defeat in the primaries every single Senator who didn't support filibuster.  Keep trying to turn the Democratic Party into what we need it to be.

  Meanwhile, have your ducks lined up for emigration to New Zealand.

  by neroden on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:48:12 AM PDT

•  My response

  If they don't vote to filibuster, my pocketbook closes. End of story.

  I'll still vote democratic, but I have no interest in giving my money to people that won't stand up to this lunacy.

  by fblau on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 06:28:44 AM PDT