Skip to main content

We are supposed to be thrilled the Democrats are coming together to oppose Alito by voting 'no' - I say big fucking deal.

Seriously - what the fuck?  Where is the filibuster?  Are we saying the filibuster was appropriate for lower level judicial appointments but we can't dare use it against the worst, predictably biased, religiously flawed, and typically corrupt corporate cultured rich white male?  

Another fucking capitulation but this time they can say they voted no but in the end it's another miserable failure - in the end we will lose the battle we had been preparing for fucking 4 years.  

Just when the fuck is this party going to actually STAND for something?

And standing FOR something has nothing to do with standing AGAINST the other party's perspective.  I so fucking sick of Democrats running on the "we are not them" plan.  How about building a platform - something inspirational, something meaningful?

The Republicans have a a platform.  I can understand it. There is a reason they have the majority - people vote for what they can relate to - and that's why they win elections.  They vote Republican because they claim lower taxes, protection against gays, adoption of christian values, and that they are strong on defense.

I hate the Republican platform - I hate how they have fucked up this country. But if the Democratic party's message is going just to anti-Republican - then of course, it's pretty damn obvious the electorate is going to see the Dems representing higher taxes, anti-christian values, a pro-gay platform, and weak defense.  And that's why the Dems continue to lose and will not stand a chance of retaking Congress in 06.

I know this community has good ideas.  I have seen them on this site but why aren't they being promoted?  Why are Howard Dean and Paul Hackett the only ones saying what should be said?  

Where is the fucking party's JFK and inspirational concepts and ideas?  When I worked for Bill Clinton - it was because he had plans, ideas, concepts, and could relate to the emotional side.  All I see is a bunch of blowhards talking about how terrible the other side is but not a damn thing about what the future of America should be.

I am so sick of hearing from has beens and hearing people on this site claim them as heroes.  Al Gore couldn't win in 2000 - and don't give me this Florida bullshit.  He couldn't even win his home state Tennessee and people on this site are claiming he should actually run for 2008? If his campaign had any clue whatsoever, 2000 would have been a landslide.  One speech a presidential candidate does not make.  Kerry makes an appearance on Kos and suddenly everyone forgets about his terrible campaign which couldn't beat the worst presidential record since Hoover.  He's actually a FRONT RUNNER in 2008 - are you fucking kidding me?  

You all can go celebrate the Democratic party's unified stand against Alito.  I call bullshit.  By voting no and not filibustering they are trying to appease both sides of the debate.  

I spend big $ on democratic candidates - but I am holding back any and all financial support this year until I actually see something worth voting for.

Originally posted to runbrown on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:22 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you have some news item to share? (none)
    Have you seen an annnoucment that there will be no filibuster?
    •  My senator says No (none)
      on filibustering Alito.  I haven't seen a single dem say they will stand up and filibuster.  
      •  Who is your senator? (none)
        I haven't heard anyone other than Ben Nelson say no to the filibuster

        Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

        by bawbie on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:10:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ken Salazar is saying he's not filibustering (none)
          as of last night.  
          •  Do you have a link? (none)
            I heard him on Hardball yesterday and he said he hadn't decided about voting on cloture yet.  Where did you hear that?

            Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

            by bawbie on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:17:33 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Call it connections (none)
              I am in the know.  We have business connections.  Hopefully my sources are incorrect but that has yet to be the case.
              •  OK... (none)
                you are the second person I've read today with "secret business connections" that make you know how democratic senators are going to vote.

                To me that's bullshit.  If you can't say how you know, you should call your idle speculation just that.

                Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

                by bawbie on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:26:09 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  LOL (none)
                  There's no bullshit about having paid a premium for access.  Don't you get it? That's the way this system works.  

                  Salazar isn't going to lead a filibuster.  He may join someone else - but he has no intention of leading one.

                  But hopefully my source is completely full of shit.

                  •  You (none)
                    are no better then the stenographers at news sources quoting bullshit stories by "senior administration officials".  

                    And of course Salazar wouldn't be leading a filibuster. That's what Teddy Kennedy and others well to the left of him are for.  

                    I just want to know (with all your expensive premium access) whether he has made up his mind on the cloture vote.

                    Pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space because there's bugger all down here on Earth.

                    by bawbie on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:47:41 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  No idea on cloture (none)
                      Want me to ask?

                      All I know from my 2 Senators and their staff is that this is a done deal.

                      End of day - it's going to be Justice Alito.

                      Call me names and say what you will.  I am pissed beyond belief this guy is getting in.  I hope - as stated - all of my G2 is wrong.

  •  You should be furious, the dems sold out (none)
    Your democratic leadership has sold out to business interests just like the Republicans.

    What people would like to label "incompetence" is the cover story for actually having our policies serve the financial interests of corporate America / Big Oil / Big Defense.  That is what they want Alito in there for, to protect their corporate interests.

    The republicans use "incompetence" as an excuse for policies that seem to "backfire" but really are working exactly as planned, to create more demand for defense contracts and higher oil prices.

    The democrats use "incompetence" as an excuse for being a horrible opposition party, but the leadership of the democratic party are really in on all the policies because they have sold out.

    If your heart is troubled with the moral and spiritual decline and hijacking of America, check out the page

    by PubPolSanford on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:31:25 AM PST

  •  Hmnn maybe the leaders don't have them (none)
    Because they're in a bubble of people saying "Keep the same course" over and over?
    I sometimes wonder if perhaps we look at the wrong person as to being in the bubble.
    Then I realize I'm wrong.
    It's not that the Democratic Party doesn't have a singular message.
    It's that the current Democratic Party has two messages.
    The rights as applied on a federal level and the rights as applied on state and individual levels.
    Do you see where I'm going here?
    Our Democratic Party is now a mix of the pre-Gingrich party and the post-Gingrinch party. Many of the Senators and Congressmen in the Democratic Party, those who wished to serve their country ran into a GOP which essentially said "We will allow Americans to have only the rights as permitted by this interpretation of the Bible. And no more."
    The debate between two parties ended and the debate on how the Democratic Party would proceed began.
    It became a fight for given subjects, abortion, equal rights, capitalism, etc. And all the while with their one message uber alles, the GOP sailed through.
    Until this is fully brought to the public forum, this will not change until it is resolved in the Democratic Party to actually fight against the underlying factor of the GOP. They are essentially a focused dictatorship.
    It is up to us as the members of the Democratic Party to convince our leaders of this.
    There will be no heroes until a focus is gotten.
    Only then will we have the return of the debate on our rights as they truly belong. Not because of a religion, but because we are supposed to be the "Land of the Free."
    Freedom for all, not for one. Not one group, not one religion, not one person. All of us.

    It's now the "Terrorist Surveillance Program"... Which means what? They know of all the terrorists in our country and only LISTEN?

    by RElland on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:36:51 AM PST

    •  Well put (none)
      This is of course the same thing that's happening all over the northern hemisphere right now, i.e, the more numerous left is split and therefore out of power, while the numerically inferior right is unified and hence in power.

      A study of the history of modern democracy pretty much shows the same phenomenon repeated many, many times. A tendency to split seems to be a defining characteristic of the left almost everywhere.

      As we see, Latin America is a definite exception, perhaps because of differing culture and socio-economic situations as well as their more vivid memories of colonialism and racism.

      •  It's inevitable because Democracies (none)
        That have developed come from essentially what are after effects of business decisions versus need for land. The freedoms we have generally come from the ability and need to allow a money market to grow. The more people free to do what they wish the more expanded the market becomes across a larger range of entreprenuership and ideas.
        It works until the money market moves onto a riper ground, in this case, China.
        It tends to leave a part of the country it's moved from in a dispossessed state and a vacuum needing to be filled.
        Religion in this case filled it up.

        It's now the "Terrorist Surveillance Program"... Which means what? They know of all the terrorists in our country and only LISTEN?

        by RElland on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:48:07 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  intriguing! (none)
          I'm not the social/political scientist you are. Do you have any links and/or reference material you could direct me to about what you describe above? I'd like to learn more. Thx
          •  Sorry, it's my own insanity... (none)
            I'm not a social scientist. I do read history though. (And I didn't even have to stay at a Holiday Inn).

             And in that, all I can suggest is that you go back to the beginning of the colonization of this country. When you come forward, instead of focusing on the details given, the given religion, the given poor, or the land owners, or the politics; sort of do a step back. Take a look at what the land owners, the businesses, and the religions represented.
            One starts to get a bit of an idea of where the trends we see today come from.
            Don't follow the specific people presented, but rather follow the groupings around the people. See their reactions as much as the 'winners' reactions to events.
            For instance, during the rise of radio and in the Great Depression, the idea of evangelism started taking off with such people as Billy Sunday a radio-preacher of the time. It was a response to the low morale by the general populace over the loss of jobs and land. Other people took Billy Sunday's idea and expanded it outward.

            We are seeing the same trend again today. The middle part of the country, the essential centers of manufacturing in a low morale type of mood. Televangelism and Evangelism itself have been taking those depressions and giving people who want to know why it's happening an answer.

            Now, in the Great Depression, FDR answered the depression by putting people back to work.
            We don't have that this time. Instead, we have the opposite occurring and in place the Church is strengthening it's hold on the country.

            In this case, the country has always been in a balance between businesses and church, usually with the people caught in between.

            When you apply it to history, the question to ask isn't, what happened to the specific people written about, ask what happened to the people around the events written. What did the radio-preacher do, what did their hard core followers do when FDR pulled the rug from under them?

            Patterns emerge that were always there. It's just that we see the trees and forget that there's not only trees, there are the rabbitts, the foxes, the bears, and yes, the wolves.

            Indeed, there's a whole freaking forest that's been going on out side our points of view.(Though in Hoodwinked you should really watch for... never mind, let's not give it away. :))

            It's now the "Terrorist Surveillance Program"... Which means what? They know of all the terrorists in our country and only LISTEN?

            by RElland on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:24:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  share your frustration, BUT (none)
    this discussion would be largely moot if our side would win more elections.

    Without a majority in one or both houses, we are by definition pissing in the wind much of the time, literally out of the loop.

    Some days I'd like to see a filibuster, but then I imagine how I'd like it if a GOP minority held up a nomination by filibuster. I don't suppose I'd think very highly of that tactic being used by the other side in a similar situation.

  •  Dems are nothing but (none)
    the party of appeasement.

    Occasionally you can see a glimmer of a backbone as in a unified stand against Alito.

    Or when a Dem says something critical of republicans but the next day the Dem rips out their spine and apologizes for the comment made.

    It's similar to the 1930's Europe and appeasement then or now did not and will not work.

    Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.--Dr. Seuss

    by sweettp2063 on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:38:38 AM PST

    •  That's the way I see it (none)
      And it just pisses me off to no end.
    •  Agreed (none)
      And I would add that in light of your comment it doesn't necessarily follow that an Alito filibuster is the right thing to do.

      Opposition for opposition's sake is no substitute for a platform. If the filibuster is not related to a substantial platform issue, then we shouldn't do it.

      Would the filibuster be over Roe? Thin gruel there since we don't actually know what Alito'd do. And Bush is entitled to his own appointments as opposed to ours. He won the election, not Kerry.

      Executive privilege? Thicker gruel, but is limiting executive power a core Democratic issue? Certainly historically it isn't; the opposite in fact.

      What if Hillary were president with a two-house GOP majority? I bet a lot of us wouldn't mind her having some pretty serious unitary executive power in that case.

      There's just not enough dirt on Alito to disqualify. Sorry, but we should have won the election.

      •  See, that's the problem (none)
        Answers like that.

        The man LIED to the Congress.

        He believes in no civil liberties and has consistently ruled against the little guy.

        He doesn't believe in the Constitution and the separation of powers. He believes the legislature shouldn't even legislate but that the President holds all the power!

        There is NO EXCUSE for ANY legislator to vote for him.

        That's the problem -- people keep excusing slimebags like Bush and Alito. They keep moving the morality bar down lower and lower and lower.

        Nobody stands up for anything anymore. He's a liar, he's against the very bedrock this country was built upon, but he's okay. He's not to be fillibustered.

        When did I fall through the rabbit hole, huh? WHEN WAS THAT?????

        "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

        by Dunbar on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:49:56 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Runbrown, (none)
    I'm as furious as you are. Words can't express how furious I am.

    If anyone deserved a fillibuster it was Alito. This is tragic.

    The Democrats can go to hell. I'm sorry. I'm done. I give up.

    They are worthless.

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross." -- Sinclair Lewis

    by Dunbar on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 08:58:41 AM PST

  •  right on (none)
    You are right on the money. Everyone knows that the Democrats have no coherent message and no particular agenda, except to save us from Bush and the Republicans, to "stop digging" further into the hole the Bush administration has put us in. Not an inspiring campaign message.

    The fact is, the Democrats are a rather sorry lot. Gore and Kerry will always remain just Gore and Kerry, Gore vaguely creepy and Kerry unable to compose a simple declarative sentence without hanging a hundred different caveats or multiple perspectives on to it (just like this). Ultimately each is unattractive to a large swath of the public, and there will be no makeovers coming for these two guys.

    Hillary is probably the most articulate, talented and disciplined of the whole bunch. But she's been hiding and looking way too calculated to warm up anyone's heart. And the baggage!, oh! the baggage!

    The congressional Democrats are way too often just embarrassing, often at a loss for words, unsure of their positions or message, latching on to the wrong talking points, listening to and parroting what the media is saying. Who looks good? Tell me, who looks good? Feingold? Sorry, mostly a one issue guy, too attached to all that civil rights stuff, a Democrat with a spine, yes, but who isn't going to bend one millimeter to become a successful politician. Durbin, Leahy, Pelosi, the thundering Kennedy? They try, but they come off too often as weak and intellectually flabby or (Kennedy) lunatic. Reid has been tough and accurate with his moves on occasion but he's not ready to lead the party. Obama? Too inexperienced and uncertain, and by the way, where has he been? And what about outside congress. Edwards? Dropped off the face of the earth, apparently. Dean? Often inspiring and straight talking, but no leader, and damaged, damaged goods.

    OK, ok, so nobody's looking good out there, but then, heck, what were GWB's qualifications, and he got elected just fine, didn't he? Well, let's have a look at that strategy, putting up a (seemingly) good natured idiot while behind the scenes the Machiavelli's and Svengali's draw up the master plan for our comeback, and carefully put just the right talking points in our candidate's mouth. Got any likely Svengali's in mind in our party? We got anything good enough to match the evil of that whole Republican heritage of evil, Rove, Cheney, Gingrich, Norquist,... (ellipses indicating a list with no clear end). But what about Bob Shrum, Joe Trippi, Donna Brazile, James Carville? Yeah, what about them? Their time has passed.

    We do have some money, some grass roots (but so do they), and a lot of smart and capable people on DKos. Will that be enough? Can that be enough?

    OK, the rant must stop! I apologize because I really don't know anything and I don't deserve to rant because I've done nothing. But I'll fall back on my usual excuse - think of me as centrist everyman, watching the news, reading the paper, going to work every day (you call this work?) and trying to find a way out of this mess...

  •  question (none)
    The amount of talk coming from senators about a possible filibuster has been very small.  However, we know that there are definitely some senators that would support the filibuster.  Can anyone think of a reason that the dems would want to keep quiet about a filibuster until the moment it is used?  Perhaps to prevent the Repugs from getting the nuclear option ready?  What about reasons the Dems would want to broadcast filibuster plans to the entire world?  Usually this would be done to force the withdrawal of the candidate, but we all know the Repugs won't withdraw.
    •  I do believe Reid... (none)
      would want to play low on the filibuster thing until the "debate" thing plays out a bit.  

      Funny, I realize the Dems have been played for a long time now, but something tells me to trust Reid.  I am not sure why I feel that way.  

      Maybe I am just a masochist.

      The Moral Majority - all those Christian conservatives left on Earth AFTER the Rapture....

      by sp0t on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 09:19:03 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  answer to your question (none)
    no.  See the diary two entries below yours.
  •  Not One Penny More (none)
    Let's all pop some popcorn and watch the non-debate debate.  If it amuses you to follow the debate over an issue that's already been decided, then by all means follow each twist and turn.

    But be aware that of one fact.

    A majority of senators have already pledged to vote for Alito's confirmation.

    Absent a Democratic threat of a filibuster, Samuel Alito IS a Supreme Court justice.  He may as well measure his new office for drapes and pick out his color scheme.

    The Democratic Party has failed as an opposition party.  They have failed in this one task that they promised so important--derailing Bush's scheme to install a far right-wing Supreme Court that will interpret the legislation of the Congress and the Constitution of the nation for decades to come.

    That's why I want to start a "Not One Penny More" campaign to punish the party (not individual representatives)--not one penny more to the Senate or House campaign committees until these folks show us that they're going to stand up to the Republican fascists.

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm sick of being used as an ATM machine and reliable vote for the Democratic Party after a series of betrayals and failures.  Enough is one.

    Not one penny more--until they've earned it.

  •  A kindred spirit! (none)
    I thought it was just me.  Thanks for saying what I'm thinking.  :)

    "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

    by ssundstoel on Wed Jan 25, 2006 at 10:29:33 AM PST

Click here for the mobile view of the site