Redstate

That was an awfully quick roll by the Democrats . . .

The Democratic Party is probably realizing they do not have the votes for an attempted fillibuster so why bother? Saying no to a fillibuster idea just shows the complete weakness of the current Democratic party even when conservatives are supposedly going through difficult times.

They are afraid of a duel on competing philosophies because they know they will lose everytime.

 

This is just the initial assessment.  They'll keep digging and keep spinning the media.  We still need all hands on deck to get this one through.

It's E-R-I-C-K.  We clearly have not properly hazed you.

it has nothing to do with fear that the liberal philosophy is somehow inferior to the conservative philosophy.

It has to do with the fact that alot of the leaders of the democratic party are quite frankly wimps.

I saw your post on RedHot yesterday, but its good to hear the general nature of your sources as well.

I think there are two possible issues here --

#1) They may not have the votes to do the filibuster

and

#2) They may feel the need to avoid the constitutional option to stave off a JRB nomination the next time around :-)

To the Senate Dems, not looking bad is more important than advancing an agenda.

First, you use the term "liberal philosophy".  I've looked at history and I find that liberals offering programs that worked, stopped with Harry Truman's integration of the Armed Forces.  The Civil Rights laws were passed by Republicans and were filibustered by Democrats for 20 years (see Robert Byrd).  The next breath we have from the left side of the aisle is the War on Poverty.  That destroyed the black community & we still haven't recovered.  Bill Clinton had some success in passing legislation but it was legislation that had been mostly crafted by Republicans (see Welfare Reform).  Today, the only thing that could pass for liberal philosophy would be healthcare systems that are bankrupting other countries and not providing health care and then there is hating Bush.

Second, the Democratic Party leaders aren't necessarily wimps, but they are pretty stupid.  See Harry Reid and Babs Boxer.  Don't forget Dick Durbin.  Again, they have no program and no philosophy so they are forced to bluster.

Finally, the one thing they can do is count.

McCain knows that in order for him to have a fighting chance to win the Republican nomination he needs: (1) for social conservatives to support him (or at least not view him as the anti-Christ) and/or (2) for conservatives to feel a little satisfied with the Court situation so that they don't feel like whether Janice Rogers Brown or Edith Clement is the next pick is the event on which world history hinges.

If McCain stands up to the Dems and says something to the effect of: "There will be no filibuster here.  This is a good judge and an honorable man who deserves an up or down vote in the U.S. Senate" in the face of strong Democratic opposition and threats of a filibuster he will be lauded as the man who saved the day for the conservatives.  McCain won't pass that moment up.  

At the same time, the Dems know this too.  Their worst nightmare is John McCain as the Republican nominee in '08 with the blessing of the conservative base (or at least not outright opposition).  Thus, the Dems will not give McCain that moment.  They will talk the talk, but will stop just short of doing anything that will cause the nomination to appear seriously jeopardized and allow McCain to call his press conference to defend Sam Alito.  

I don't know about vote totals. Alito may not get 60.  But there will be no filibuster and he'll be confirmed.

if they are really being rational if they roll over on the filibuster. I checked dkos yesterday afternoon, and those guys were all adamant about filibustering Alito.

The question becomes- if the Dems don't filibuster, does their base get mad and stay home in 2006? Maybe the more rational thing to do would be to fight like hell and filibuster so, even if they lose, their troops are fired up for 2006.

in 2006, they'll stay in their dorm rooms.

I agree that McCain is something that some Dems know they have to deal with.

As my Pappy used to say, "Never get in a battle of wits with an unarmed man."

The Democrat Party of the 21st century is devoid of an articulated positive political philosophy. All they can do is obstruct, oppose, and delay.

We know what they're AGAINST: all things Bush, the expansion of free democratic states, Israel, all things military, traditional Judeo-Christian morality, what used to be known as Western civilization, individualism, and self-determination.

We don't know, nor can they articulate, what they are FOR.

And perhaps people here are knowledgeable enough to agree or disagree.

The national Democrats are really conflicted and confused by their base. In other words, the split between radicals and left-of-center types is real. The radicals' numbers are actually far smaller than you would guess, given all the noise they make and their self-image as the future of the Left (just because they know how to write HTML). Howard Dean makes nice to them because it would make no sense not to, but Hillary handles them with kid gloves.

Bottom line, the radicals are just what the name implies: they want fundamental changes in the American social order (including a major curtailment of capitalism), whereas most Americans (including most Democrats) would prefer refinements in the existing system.

National Democratic politicians basically just want to get some power back. Radicalism won't do that for them, so the far Left is deeply frightening. Dems can't win with them or without them.

So my bet is the Dems are thinking that they better not go out too far on Alito, especially since they think they can nail the Republicans on corruption next year.

Comments?

I agree that there will not be a successful filibuster, but they will yell and scream and make the Senate take a cloture vote (which will pass by about 61 votes, with several dems voting to cut off debate, but then voting against Alito on the floor).  They will make such a fuss to satisfy their base, and to preserve their options in case there is an unexpected "silver bullet."

i promise I won't hold it against you that you have democratic friends.  Do you check for your wallet and watch after you talk to them?  Regarding the phrase "very damaging" , it is highly subjective and damaging assertions don't even have to come cose to the truth.  My hunch is that what happened to Judge Bork will look like tea and crumpets before this is over.  The left believes that the Supreme Court is their very private possesion and in the interests of diversity only leftists should be appointed.  Any nomination that threatens the balance and threatens such life giving decisions as gay marriage,curtailment of free speech, equal rights for people unfortunate enough not to be atheists,the whole panoply of that meandering mainstream,will be fought tooth and claw.  

But it goes to the question of who is really the Democrats base that turns out for off year elections?

They will get whatever black vote turns out- and maybe not that passionately unless there is an issue with Alito and Civil Rights. The union vote continues to dwindle and is not uniformly democrat. The feminists are clearly gunning for Alito, and will be ticked if there is no filibuster. The radicals- maybe there aren't that many of them, but in terms of volunteering time and contributing $$, I would still guess that they have a meaningful impact in an off year election.

I don't really know enough about who turns out to vote in off year elections, but I've always understood that it was disproportionately driven by getting the base out vs. winning independent votes. Still seems like going down fighting on an Alito filibuster would better serve that purpose.

Couldn't it be, just maybe, that they are sticking to the reasonable rule that individuals shouldn't be filibustered only because of their politics?  Alito is obviously highly qualified, and saying they intend to grill him is not the same as saying they think he's not fit to serve as a justice, or that he's objectionable to the point that they should override the president's power to appoint him.  The liberal strategy is to pick on the aspects of his record which can be portrayed as most "out of the mainstream," and to have as loud a discussion as possible about them.  But in the end Alito will pass because he deserves to pass, and they know that this guy has been vetted enough, and is polished enough of a communicator, that there will be no "silver bullet" which takes his nomination down, no matter how long they stall.  But they will make a stink over anything they can, to call attention to their issues and to satisfy their base.  They have the right (by virtue of having 45 elected representatives in the senate) to oppose his nomination as vocally as they want, just not to block it.

Honestly, the attitude around here was first "they better not filibuster because Alito is a qualified and deserving candidate" and now it's "they aren't filibustering because they're wimps/they're afraid of a fight/they know they have a losing philosophy".  The truth may lie closer to "they aren't filibustering because Alito is a qualified and deserving candidate, but we can't publicly say so because we are against his politics."

Finally, this is exactly what the right would do to a liberal appointee:  make a big stink about his/her politics, then allow him/her to be confirmed because that's advise and consent.

...do they win more by firing up the far left than they lose by looking like a bunch of fire-eating fools?

As ridiculous as it is, Mr. and Mrs. Public will look at Alito on their television sets, notice his respectful manner and his lack of funny whiskers, and they'll say, "well my goodness, that nice man isn't like Bork at all! And he sounds smart too!"

To my ear, the stuff flying around on Kos is even more unhinged than ever. It's been a bacchanal of pure rage since "Fitzmas." The Dems can't possibly want to feed that maw. Again, this is just my theory.

Does the time come when we admit that McCain may have been right on the deal?

If Roberts and Alito get confirmed without filibusters because when Dewine, Graham, Warner, McCain, etc come out FOR Bush's picks, they have credibility as being above it all and it's worth like double votes...

I was so mad at first but I think the deal may have been sheer brilliance. It completely neutralized Schumer, Kennedy and Reid on judges...

you can believe if you like that the civils right wasn't a liberal cause.  But that just means you dont understand the meaning of the word liberal.

If you dont even understand what it means to be liberal, what is the point in even discussing the validity of the liberal philosophy with you?

I apologize if I misunderstand you, but your comment definetly left me with the impression that you were confusing the philospophy of the "southern democrats", with liberal philosophy.

The nuclear/constitutional option is a fillibuster killer. If push comes to shove, the Republicans have the procedural process to kill the supermajority fillibuster. So, if the Democrats actually attempt to fillibuster a nominee, THEY have to know they can get 51 votes to stop the procedure. Even with Collins and the other purple Republicans, they'll have a very tough time getting enough Republicans to vote with their block. If the Democrats don't win the vote, they can't even THREATEN a fillibuster again.

Therefore, for the radical left, the politically safe thing to do is to make a lot of noise about how unacceptable the candidate is, and vote against him at the confirmation hearings, but not force the fillibuster question. You can always threaten to fillibuster the next nominee and maybe you'll win on that one. For the rest of the Democrats, they get to vote for whatever they think will get them re-elected next time around.

many on the left are urging the filibuster for exactly the reason you point out.  That is, if they can stop the filibuster with just 51 votes, then the filibuster was not real to begin with, and may as well get rid of the sham of pretending it exists.

Plus they argue, it will be interesting to if the Republicans really want to kill the filibuster.  For the filibuster will be useful to Republicans in the future.

I think the dems won't filibuster because they know that if they do, the Republicans will invoke the rule change.  And after that deal, they will have the votes now.  And the dems will lose everything.

but the Democrats can't risk it if they can't portray Alito as an extremist.  

If the general public views him as acceptable and the Democrats filibuster him then it will have two negative impacts.

1. The Democrats will be viewed as partisan obstructionists more intent on getting in the way than being cooperative.
   
2. It will provide the Republicans cover for the Nuclear option.  If the Republicans can invoke the Nuclear Option without political backlash they will do it in an instant and will render the Democrats emasculated.

I agree with MCM that Senator McCain could play a crucial role in having conservative justices confirmed, including Judge Alito.

Senator McCain has, at times, been a thorn in President Bush's side during his first term, but now that Bush is ineligible, McCain knows that he needs the conservative base (including religious conservatives) to get the Republican nomination for President in 2008.

In 2000, McCain made the mistake of criticizing then-Governor Bush for making a speech at Bob Jones University in South Carolina, and Bush promptly won the SC primary, and McCain was criticizing conservative Catholics shortly thereafter. This probably cost him the nomination, and he probably does not plan to make the same mistake again.

McCain's ability to make deals with moderate Democrats should win him enough independent voters to beat Hillary in the general election, but he needs the Republican nomination first. McCain is more fiscally conservative than Bush, but he can't afford to alienate the religious conservatives at a time when they are vigorously pushing confirmation of Judge Alito, so he will probably negotiate with Democrats among the Gang of 14 (he's good at that) to break a filibuster, and would probably vote the "nuclear option" for Alito if the negotiations broke down.

Things might be different if a liberal SCOTUS justice retired in 2008 after the Republican convention and before the November election. If McCain had already received the Republican nomination, he might try tacking to the left to deprive Hillary of an issue. But we'll cross that bridge when and if we come to it...

What good is a filibuster that can not be used?  Democrats ought filibuster if only to get Republicans to invoke the rule change.  Otherwise, the when the tables are turned Republicans can and will filibuster Democratic nominees.  Let's not forget the Republican party invented the use of the filibuster to block judical nominations when they filibusted Abe Fortas.

I think you need to update your talking points.

That is a significant mischaracterization of the Fortas situation.

Fortas and LBJ both knew that, given Fortas' ethics situation, he would not have been approved even if he had gotten a successful cloture vote.  Therefore, his nomination was withdrawn.

Fortas only got 45 votes for cloture.  That's not enough to get approved.

That is a far cry from the filibustering now attempted by the Democrats.  Every one of the nominees filibustered by the Dems would have been approved by the full Senate.

liberal philosophy 2005 / liberal philosophy 1965

as evidenced by the behavior of the the Democrat Party.

There is definitely some confusion between classical liberalism and modern liberalism.

there is also confusion between modern liberalism

and the democratic party.  The Southern Democrats who filibusted the Civil Rights acts were not modern liberals.

In terms of the words conservative and Liberal,

conservative tends to imply more traditional, Liberal tends to imply seeking change.  Therefore

by definition people seeking to prevent the passage of civil rights acts, are by definition not seeking change and hence not liberal.

Please don't miscontrue my comment, to mean that I am saying that moderen conservatives are against Civil Rights, I certainly believe they are for Civil Rights.

I can see the deomcrats being viewed by the public if they succeed at the filibuster.

but will the democrats be viewed as obstructionists, if they attempt a filibuster but fail it because the Republicans use the nuclear option?

First, you have opened your mouth and removed all doubt.

"Let's not forget the Republican party invented the use of the filibuster to block judical nominations when they filibusted Abe Fortas."

Second, Fortas was filibustered for 4 days by both Democrats & Republicans. The filibuster was not indefinite, it was used as the filibuster was originally intended - to allow further debate and not to forever block something that has majority support (see Civil Rights legislation for an example). The filibusters of yesteryear are not the same as the 'gentlemen's filibuster' that started in the 1990s.

your Talking-Point-o-Matic™ has run amok. Get it fixed then come back to visit.

The Dems throw out their usual opening salvos to appease PFAW and others, but it's usually nothing too crazy.  They say they are disappointed in the President's choice and look forward to the confirmation hearings to learn more about the nominee.  They try not to be so outrageous in their accusations up front so as to try and maintain some semblance of decency.  If they fire all their bullets in the first week, they've got nothing left for the hearings.  

I believe these Democrat sources probably said that the filibuster wouldn't happen, but I just don't think its that simple.  

Nan Aron, Ralph Neas, and others will be putting extraordinary pressure on the Senate Democrats to filibuster, and those groups carry tremendous influence.  Remember that the Democrats can't raise money on their own, but the special interests groups have generated an enormous amount of fundraising in their stead.  Senate Democrats may be able to count and see the writing on the wall, but the folks who write the checks could care less and won't allow what appears to be a second originalist in a few months onto the Supreme Court without a filibuster - especially when the filibuster has worked every time they've employed it up to this point.

This is a battle of public perception.  The Democrats start off playing catch-up because a nominee is going to be given the benefit of the doubt.  

The Democrats need to portray Alito as being extreme.  If they succeed then they can safely filibuster.  The Republicans would then need to determine which is worse for them.  The politcal backlash of appearing to ram a "extremist" through or the heat they would catch from their base for withdrawing a preferred nominee.

No matter how much a DKos or RedState complains about a nominee it is the middle of the road that sets the tone for a nomination.

To my ear, the stuff flying around on Kos is even more unhinged than ever. It's been a bacchanal of pure rage since "Fitzmas." The Dems can't possibly want to feed that maw.

Did you ever see "Little Shop of Horrors"?  Funny movie.  You should see it if you haven't.

Anyway, the main character (Seymour - played by Rick Moranis) got a carnivorous plant as a small thing.  It took very little blood to keep it happy.  But then it grew.  It became more and more demanding.  It sang "Feed Me Seymour" and demanded more and more of his blood until finally it became a life and death struggle between Seymour and the plant.  (I won't give away the ending.)

DKurse is the carnivorous plant.  The Democratic party is Seymour.  The Ds used to just throw the plant some red meat on occasion, and they were pacified.  Now, their appetites are insatiable.  They won't be happy until they have consumed the Democratic party.

Next comes the life and death showdown.  Stay tuned to see who wins.  Unlike the movie, this one doesn't end in 1 1/2 hours.

The filibuster ghost haunts the Dem caucus.  It must be obeyed.  Crying out for satisfaction.  Ghost is supernatural: cannot be banished.

Wise GOP to prepare for howling, prepare for contest word for word in January.  Fear is stimulant.  Like good militia, be afraid; use fear to drive scholarship, wit, morale.  Fighting ghosts needs speed, plenty of water, luck, and sound sound sound, articulate reason.

The right-wing version of that plant just ate Harriet Miers.  I wonder if you understand that.

Is there a point to this comment?

Disclosure:  I was in the coalition of the chillin' during the recent unpleasantness.  Willing to give the Pres the benefit of the doubt, though the speeches shook me to my core.

Do you really think that the people who opposed her were as far off base as the DKursers?  

From what I heard, they opposed her because of her thin qualifications or they opposed her because she did not have any information publicly available that would allow us to see whether or not she was a strict constructionist.  I fail to see any similarity between that opposition and the psycological disfunction of the Kurse crowd.

specifically on the rational complaints with Miers, and in general the contrast in the level of pure rage on their website vs. this blog, I don't think you can just say we are two sides of the same coin.

But OTOH- if a "semi-coherent boob and his corporate/oil puppetmasters"- or whatever leftwing equivalent- had run the table on us for 5 years running, maybe we'd be howling at the moon too?

but at least we'd be coherent about what we wanted to be different. I can never get a straight answer from any far-leftie about exactly which laws and policies they want changed and how they want to change them. It's like they don't have to explain anything to you because if you're not on their side you're too stupid to understand anyway. And as far as the rest of country goes, all they need to do is come up with the right "frame."

This has to be because either

1. No far-leftie actually knows what they want to change, or
   
   
2. They don't dare say in so many words that they want to destroy all the big companies.
   

I honestly don't which it is.

was a lot of people who wanted to throw Miers back because they saw her as a blank slate, and they felt that with the current GOP majority in place, they were in a position to demand better.  It's also the case that a lot of people opposed Miers for a lot of different reasons, so I don't mean to overgeneralize.

If you want to compare RS and DKos based on how many bad words get used, that's an easy one.  If you want to compare degrees of extremism, I think many of the pro-life views on this site are no less strident than many of the pro-choice views on the other side, to pick an issue.

What it really comes down to is not who is a moderate and who is an extremist, but how much political power is actually wielded by the respective extreme wings.  Both sides tend to assume that the other side is at the beck and call  of their most extreme wing, while the extremists on their own side are just this vocal fringe group that no one really listens to.

If you're a Republican, you see that Michael Moore gets invited to the convention and that's all you need to know.  Personally, I think the fact that Jerry Falwell gets consulted on Supreme Court nominations counts for more than that, in terms of influence, but I acknowledge my bias.

My personal litmus test is an easy one to pass:  if you opposed the invasion of Afghanistan, you're too far to the left for me.  You could have taken a poll after 9/11 (or today), and you would have found some measurable number of leftists who felt that way.  But you need only look at the votes in the House and Senate to see that that particularly wing of the party is a political nonentity, even if it's fun to point at them sometimes and pretend they represent the Democratic mainstream.

The Dems will offer bluster without a filibuster, but many will vote against cloture to make their base happy. What if, just to be ornery, enough Republicans joined them to cause the cloture vote to fail? Then the GOP could force a nuclear vote and nail the Democrats at their own game. It'll never happen, but it would sure be funny as heck if it did. It would be a trip to watch the screaming we'd hear from Chuckie and company.

Drudge, Rush, etc. are calling the upcoming Alito fight "Armageddon."  Do we have the troops on the Senate (R) side to fight a war of this magnitude?

Vox please don't disuade the rabid left from this Filibuster! After thinking about it... we want a Filibuster!

So you think we win and we get Alito right? WRONG!

We get Alito and ANY OTHER JUDGE THE R's WANT... Once the Judicial Filibuster is dispensed with they can't stop any Judicial appointment of the Presidents anymore except for State Rep shenanigans holding up the review (or whatever is happening in Michigan).

Those two guys that got left out of the deal in the Gang of 14. IN. Pickering. IN. Who else?

many more small campaign contributions, while the Democrats recieve the big money contributions. It shows an inherent difference in the appeal and support the two parties enjoy.

The Republicans work for the middle class; the Democrats work for the rich, while conning the poor.