Given the excellent
NYT Editorial demaning Dem. Sens filibuster Alito because it is the right thing to do. I thought it would be valuable to restate why it is also the smart thing to do... politically!
Last fall I posted a diary about a fundraiser, where Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin laid out their plan to win back the Senate. It coincided with a piece in the LA Times by David Mamet suggesting that the Democrats need to learn how to play Political Poker or risk frittering away all of their chips (read Power).
It is smart politics to make the stakes clear to them.
This is not about CAP and Vanguard. This is not even about abortion, per se. This is not personal. This is about the principles of the U.S. Constitution, and the Balance of Power between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. And we have to make it clear to the Senators that unless they do EVERYTHING in their power to stop the Alito nomination ON THAT BASIS, they risk frittering away their Political Capital, and with it, the power of the Senate.
More below...
In order to sit at Schumer's table at that Fundraiser, I donated $5,000 to the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. Quite a hefty outlay for me. So you'll forgive me if I feel like the Democrats are playing Politcal Poker with my money, and I have earned the right to
whisper shout suggestions in their ear... As Mamet says...
In politics as in poker, the only way to win is to seize the initiative. The Democrats need to make bold wagers or risk being rolled over again...
The military axiom is "he who imposes the terms of the battle imposes the terms of the peace." The gambling equivalent is: "Don't call unless you could raise"; that is, to merely match one's opponent's bet is effective only if it makes the opponent question the caller's motives. And that can only occur if the caller has acted aggressively enough in the past to cause his opponents to wonder if the mere call is a ruse de guerre.
If you are branded as passive, the table will roll right over you -- your opponents will steal antes without fear. Why? Because the addicted caller has never exhibited what, in the wider world, is known as courage.
In poker, one must have courage: the courage to bet, to back one's convictions, one's intuitions, one's understanding. There can be no victory without courage. The successful player must be willing to wager on likelihoods. Should he wait for absolutely risk-free certainty, he will win nothing, regardless of the cards he is dealt...
For example, take a player who has never acted with initiative -- he has never raised, merely called. Now, at the end of the evening, he is dealt a royal flush. The hand, per se, is unbeatable, but the passive player has never acted aggressively; his current bet (on the sure thing) will signal to the other players that his hand is unbeatable, and they will fold.
His patient, passive quest for certainty has won nothing.
The Democrats, similarly, in their quest for a strategy that would alienate no voters, have given away the store, and they have given away the country...
The Republicans, like the perpetual raiser at the poker table, became increasingly bold as the Democrats signaled their absolute reluctance to seize the initiative...
One may sit at the poker table all night and never bet and still go home broke, having anted away one's stake.
The Democrats are anteing away their time at the table. They may be bold and risk defeat, or be passive and ensure it.
Tomorrow, I plan to call Schumer and Durbin and Feinstein and Boxer (my Senators), and tell them that the DSCC will not get $5,000 from me this year unless they successfully block cloture on the filibuster of Alito and force the Republicans to vote on the Nuclear Option. Why? Because I think it is good Politcal Poker. Because it demonstrates the courage to lay out a marker that our opponents will respect. And because it is the right thing to do.
I will suggest to them that their axiom throughout the filibuster should be this...
As duly elected Senators, we cannot allow the appointment a Justice to the Supreme Court who we suspect would strip power from the Legislature and cede it to the Executive. Until we can be sure that the President recognizes the limits of his authority, we must oppose the appointment of a Justice who sympathizes with an extreme view of Executive Power.
They should do all of this without rancor or insult, but with the stoicism of Prophets. They know enough to prophesy how Alito will affect their power. Just as Cicero knew enough to reject an alliance with Ceasar.
They might look back at the Roberts experience for a clue to what the future will hold. His vote in the assisted suicide case indicates a belief in Executive Power which he shrouded during his nomination hearings. There is every reason to believe that Alito has done the same. All you have to do is look at his record.
There are those who will say that we must save the filibuster. They will argue: "The Senators blew it during the hearings..." "Anthony Kennedy still gives us 5-4 on the key issues..." blah... blah... blah... Baloney. This is Poker Time. The Filibuster and the Nuclear Option will focus attention on the upcoming hearings about Presidential abuse of power. It will add to the sense that there is a Constitutional Crisis. Forget the polls about the public perception of this. Forget Rove's little plan to make Democrats seem weak. They are all wrong. This is where we have to have the "courage to bet, to back one's convictions, one's intuitions, one's understanding. There can be no victory without courage."
If we are to show strength for 2006, we must hold all of their feet to the fire. Especially Lieberman.
During the dinner in September, Schumer called Lieberman "Judas Iscariot". As head of the DSCC, Schumer has clout over Lieberman, who is running scared of a challenge in the primary. Lieberman has apparently already put out feelers about a filibuster. So now is the time for Schumer to make Lieberman declare where his loyalties lie. He must call upon Leiberman to take to the floor of the Senate and deliver the words of Cicero (who coincidentally pushed Brutus to stand up to the tyrrany of Ceasar)...
"What is morally wrong can never be advantageous, even when it enables you to make some gain that you believe to be to your advantage."
And then Lieberman must express his support for the filibuster of Samuel Alito.
Cicero with Brutus outside the Senate. Courtesy of HBO.