Which came first? Ha Ha.
One of the big questions is...why don't the Democrats just stand up to the plate? What do they have to lose? Why are they acting like..ahem chickens?
One thing that was reported on the Kennedy con-call really struck out..that there were a lot of Democrats that were worried about a "backlash" from standing up for something that most people say they support. But that got me to thinking...
What do the Democrats actually have to gain from a filibuster at a political level?
I'm not sure what the Democrats have to gain. Now, I'm definately open to the argument, in fact, I used to agree with it that a show of strength is what's needed to convince non-voters that we're strong enough to support.
But let's take this aside for a second. Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that the Democrats not only had the strength to start a filibuster of Alito, but enough to turn aside his nomination. A way that some good could actually be done.
What would that gain the Democratic party at a political level? Absolutly nothing. In fact, less than nothing.
What happens if Alito is blocked? Do you know what that proves? That proves that as a nation, voting Democratic is not necessary to protecting privacy rights. I think that this fact is what is frustrating Kennedy and Obama. The message, that vote Democratic because of supreme court nominees..well it's not that urgent...
So 'mise well vote for those tax cuts, right?
Elections have consequences. Alito is the consequence.
It might piss off a bunch of true patriots and technocrats...
I'm wondering if a lot of the doubt going on in DC isn't a sort of thinking that bitter medicine is needed.