Those sonsabitches

[pecunium]

If this is the sort of crap we can expect from the senate, we ought to have accepted Miers. She'd have been a fawning patsy for Bush, and the right, but it might be better to have a well-meaning idiot than someone who is smart, as well as wrong (and looking at his history I might go so far as to say evil).

I was happy-ish, about the cloture vote.

Then I saw the roll call.

Compare and contrast

Cloture 72 Yes 25 No

Not great numbers, but more spine than the (all too) loyal opposition has been willing to show lately.

This morning however, expletives left my mouth when I saw

Confirmation 58 Yes 42 No.

The four dems who said they were going to vote for him, they did. No foul. I think they were wrong, but they told us up front they were going to vote for him and I can't fault them for voting for cloture either, if they sincerely thought he was fit for the bench.

But 40 dems voted against him, as well as Jefforrds. (and Chafee, I know he got a lot of heat. I can't really fault him, much, for not voting a loser; and I don't know in what order he was called, it may have been a known defeat, though I think symbolically standing up to the White House on something like this has merit too).

That means there were enough dems to have sustained a filibuster, if they'd been willing to stand up. Spinless excuses for public servants.

Here are the weak sisters. The one's who are trying to have their cake, and eat it too (becuase they knew that for cloture to pass was to confirm Alito, a yes on cloture was a yes on Alito, it's that simple).


AKAKA (D-HI)
BAUCUS (D-MT)
BINGAMAN (D-NM)
CANTWELL (D-WA)
CARPER (D-DE)
CHAFEE (R RI)
DORGAN (D-ND)
INOYE (D-HI)
KOHL (D-WI)
LANDRIEAU (D LA)
LIEBERMAN (D CN)
LINCOLN (D-AR)
NELSON (D-FL)
PRYOR (D-AR)
ROCKEFELLER (D WV)
SALAZAR (D CO)


If they are your Senators they need to be told what you think of them.

The Senate switchboard numbers are 888-355-3588 or 888-818-6641, call up (toll free, it's on your dime, but as a taxpayer) and ask for your senator.

If your senator voted the way you wanted them too, it might be nice to drop them a line, or a call, and let them know you appreciate that, esp. if they lost, because the press is going to be beating them up about it. It's already started with today's WaPO which said a filibuster was pointless from the get go because, ...Republican control of the Senate meant that more than a few GOP senators plus Democratic opponents would have had to go against Alito or at least agree not to block a filibuster. That's a mistatement. What I'd have lost 50 (out of 100) points for on anything I turned in while I was in college. Not counting Chafee there were 41 votes against. If Jeffords (Ind VT) had voted against, then we'd have lost. But without a single Republican vote a filibister can be maintained. (you know, that "liberally biased" press which ran tens of thousands of words a day about Whitewater [before Monica] and devoted almost an entire evening new broadcast [not Nightline, but the evening news] to trying to exlplain the arcana of a land deal where the Clintons lost money, so we'd appreciate the magnitude of the scandal, but, in comparative coverage, ignores the NSA wiretapping case. Referring to to it, as, "eavesdropping" instead of, "warrantless wiretaps," but I digress).

Hold their feet to the fire (the WaPo too, send them a note pointing out the math of the Senate belies their claim that Republicans had to sign on to a filibuster). Tell your reps that it's ok to be, "obstructionist." If the Republicans could block dozens of judges, for years, and refuse to allow an "up or down vote," on an ambassador, we can do the same. We can do it better, because we can afford to be public about it (we'll have to be, because the White House and the Republicans will try to beat us up with it).

It's time to make the people you elected to represent you, start doing it.

Comments

[lietya.livejournal.com]

I wrote to Lieberman to tell him that if he opposed filibuster, I'd vote for his opponent when they primaried him.

Lamont it is, I guess.

[akirlu.livejournal.com]

I've got a letter to Cantwell written, to be faxed. Also one to Murray, thanking her for being one of the Gang of 25. But you might want to take some courage from digby's post on the matter and some of the comments on it over at Making Light. The money point, from my perspective is that the vote for Alito was 58 to 42, while Antonin Scalia was confirmed with 98 votes. During a time when Democrats held a Senate majority. And the Democrats didn't even think of filibustering either Scalia, or Thomas -- despite considerable public outcry and another Democratic majority -- so those 25 souls represent enormous progress when it comes to rolling over on right wing appointments. There's a lot of work to be done, absolutely. Chop wood, carry water. But for the first time in a long time the grassroots making noise actually got something started -- remember it wasn't that long ago that it looked like nobody would even *start* a filibuster on Alito. And Democratic senators swung to the base rather than the right. That's a big change, too. The thing now is not to let disappointment undermine momentum. Chop wood. Carry water.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I do take heart from those numbers.

And I knew that Bush wasn't going to be offering up anyone I'd like on the bench, but I think Alito is the worst thing I've seen in ages. I'd probabaly take Bork, if he were offered today ('cause he's older).

The more I look at Alito, the worse it gets.

On the other hand I've been doing what everyone else has been doing in how I look at it, and just realised it's not quite so bad as all that.

You might want to go look at Orcinus' letter to Cantwell too.

I hadn't thought of the Scalia/Alito comparison (in re votes) and thats a sort of comfort. Chill, but not as cold as it might have been.

TK

My bitch...

[vanmojo.livejournal.com]

I have been bitching about this for a while now. I am so past-tired of "pyhrric" victories. I am at the point where I would gnaw off one of my own limbs when I hear Dems talking about "moral victories."

How about we spend a less time trying to figure out how to look good losing and a little more time trying to figure out how to win against tough odds...

It reminds me of the what Irish rebel James Connolly allegedly said 1916 uprising leader Patrick Pearse after reading remarks Pearse was preparing for a fenian funeral the year before: "You's keep bletherin on about dead fenians. What you need are some live ones for a chang!"

mojo sends

Re: My bitch...

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Right now, I'm willing to accept that they fought.

For years we have seen the Liberal/Progressive side of the nation deciding to only fight when they could win. This isn't a delicate sport.

This (at least these days) is more akin to a bar-brawl. Back when the hall of the legislative were people by people with principle, instead of party hacks (one of the flaws of a parliamentary system is that it encourages party loyalty over personal principle/constituent interest. Churchill had to cross the line twice, because his Party supported something he didn't. Here we can have people like Chafee go against the grain, sort of) it didn't matter so much, and decorum could be accepted.

Then Newt came to town, Abramoff; and his ilk, came to K Street, and reason; and the public interest went by the boards.

Right now what we have are, to borrow your analogy, half-dead fenians. Those who stepped up (even to lose) were, when the bell rang, up to scratch. Had they been more worrried about living, they'd've sat down, voted yes, and yes, and "Samuel "the White House is always right" Alito would have been confirmed 90-10.

This is, for all the pain of it, a win.

But those 12, are still lily-livered, yellow-bellied and craven lick-spittles who deserve nothing more than the back of my hand and the cut-direct.

TK

[lawgeekgurl.livejournal.com]

I honestly think there was a lot of quid pro quo going on with Louisiana in particular, as they are scared shitless it's going to be all white and GOP filled post-Katrina, as if it hasn't always been conservative and anti-abortion. I know Byrd is facing a serious challenge, but pretending to be Just Like The Republicans is not the way to appeal to a broad section of voters, no matter what the full-of-crap DLC says. I honestly think a lot of these folks have been serving for so long they feel they are *entitled* to their seat, as if they've carried D water for so long they feel D's have to vote for them, after all, what's the alternative? I am all for supporting strong primary challengers. If they had to work for their own party's nomination, maybe they'd pay more attention to the freaking base and their constituents once they were elected.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

My feelings range from Lieberman, whom I expected it of, to Inouye, who I guess has just gotten old.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Yep.

It's time to work the edges. If we want to see the party stop trying to become Republican Lite, then the primaries have to be fought, and fought hard.

Come the general, we need to hold our nose and vote for the better candidate, even if they stink (and right now I can't see any Republicans worth voting for, the way they have run the party, and reworked the political landscape is nothing short of criminal).

But make them sweat for it.

TK

[luna-the-cat.livejournal.com]

Gosh, I like you.

I have no respect for Salazar, none at all; and yep, he'll know about it, too.