The Most Important Thing You’ll Do Today
by matt at 12:00 am on January 30th, 2006 in Congressional Man Date, Supreme CourtIt won’t come as a shock to anyone that we don’t think much of Democratic elected officials. Sure there are exceptions, but not many. We watched closely as they bungled the politics of the 2000 Florida recount and continued to stand with the President long after it became clear that he was using 9/11 to enrich his supporters and expand his powers. We looked through crossed fingers at the Iraq war resolution debate where they proved themselves both unable to expose the obvious motives of the Republicans and incapable of using their support of the resolution to ward off Republican accusations of being “weak on terror.” Their losses in the 2002 Congressional elections only foreshadowed deeper losses in the 2004 elections including the failure to unseat George W. Bush, a President hampered by negative approval ratings just months before the vote. Time after time, they have misread the polls and opted for the path of least resistance. They have explained away their dismal record of opposing Presidential nominations (even in the cases of Alberto Gonzales and Condoleezza Rice, who lied to Congress about torture and pre-9/11 intelligence respectively) by claiming that they were “keeping their powder dry.”
Everything they have done since losing the White House has amounted to “if we don’t make any mistakes, Americans will eventually see the need for change.” The irony, of course, is that in itself has been a huge mistake; even as voters have turned away from Republicans, Democratic gains remain elusive. Rather than listening to members of their party, Democratic leaders have chosen to follow the advice of political hacks and journalists who have repeatedly counseled against firm opposition. By taking this misguided advice, they have ensured that no one, not even their party’s rank-and-file, has any idea what principles they will fight for.
This continued through the confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito, even though it is crystal clear that, should he be seated on the Supreme Court, critical rights from privacy to speech and beyond will be in grave danger. By letting Alito off the hook with non-answers and evasion, they placed themselves in position to do little more than wave as he takes his place alongside John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas for the next 30 years.
As I mentioned on Friday, John Kerry plans to lead a filibuster against Alito’s nomination today. I’ve been predicting a filibuster for a little while now, but guessed that it would be lead by Barbara Boxer or Dick Durbin, so the fact that Kerry is running point is as surprising as his motivation is elusive. Now that the planned filibuster is public knowledge, the whos and whys take a backseat to its execution. The stakes have become incredibly high, and for once, the potential upside dwarfs the downside. The worst that can happen is exactly what would have happened in the absence of a filibuster. Since supposedly pro-choice Republican Senator Arlen Specter decided to sell out his mostly pro-choice constituents to avoid the wrath of James Dobson, and other pro-choice Republicans like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee and Ted Stevens have indicated support for Alito, the only choice for Democrats has been to lose on a party-line vote or gamble on a filibuster.
Whether or not Kerry’s filibuster is the result of a man desperate to regain the respect of his former supporters or a coordinated behind-the-scenes surprise attack is currently unknown. But by announcing his intentions so late in the game, Kerry took advantage of countless media items calling Alito’s confirmation a done deal. With significantly lowered expectations, a loss is just another loss, but should Kerry manage to round up the requisite 40 votes, his win would have far-reaching consequences.
Rather than deferring to the vocal minority of extremists who like to give the impression that they speak for the country, Democrats have a singular opportunity to stand tall and fight on their convictions.
These short term wins would be welcome developments, and victories unto themselves. But the real payoff comes in the chance to change the thinking of Democratic elected officials. A successful filibuster would empower the downtrodden party and likely lead to similar stands on other issues, an absolute requirement if they are to regain power in November’s elections. If you want to see Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, you have nothing better to do today than to call your Democratic Senators and ask them to support Kerry’s filibuster and vote against Alito’s confirmation.
Only in rare cases do we ask our readers to contact their representatives in Congress because in most cases outcomes are decided long before a constituent call or email can do any good. This case looked to be another example of that until Senators previously opposed to a filibuster stopped ruling one out or even began voicing their support for Kerry.
===
The following information was posted on Kos and I’m recycling here for our readers:
Senators indicating support for Kerry’s filibuster:
- Barbara Boxer (D- CA)
- Dianne Feinstein (D- CA)
- Christopher J. Dodd (D- CT)
- Richard J. Durbin (D- IL)
- John F. Kerry (D- MA)
- Edward M. Kennedy (D- MA)
- Paul S. Sarbanes (D- MD)
- Debbie A. Stabenow (D- MI)
- Harry Reid (D- NV)
- Hillary Rodham Clinton (D- NY)
- Charles Schumer (D- NY)
- Ron Wyden (D- OR)
- Russell D. Feingold (D- WI)
- Barack Obama (D-IL) (?)
- Joseph R. Biden (D-DE)
Senators in need of persuasion:
Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D- AR), 202-224-4843
Joseph I. Lieberman (D- CT), 202-224-4041
Thomas R. Carper (D- DE), 202-224-2441
Daniel K. Inouye (D- HI), 202-224-3934
Tom Harkin (D- IA), 202-224-3254
Evan Bayh (D- IN), 202-224-5623
Barbara A. Mikulski (D- MD), 202-224-4654
Carl Levin (D- MI), 202-224-6221
Mark Dayton (D- MN), 202-224-3244
Max Baucus (D- MT), 202-224-2651
Frank Lautenberg (D- NJ), 202-224-3224
Jeff Bingaman (D- NM), 202-224-5521
Jack Reed (D- RI), 202-224-4642
Patrick J. Leahy (D- VT), 202-224-4242
Maria Cantwell (D- WA), 202-224-3441
Patty Murray (D- WA), 202-224-2621
Herb Kohl (D- WI), 202-224-5653
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D- WV), 202-224-6472
James M. Jeffords (I- VT), 202-224-5141
Robert Menendez (D-NJ), 202-224-4744
Bill Nelson (D- FL), 202-224-5274
Daniel K. Akaka (D- HI), 202-224-6361
Mary Landrieu (D- LA), 202-224-5824
Byron L. Dorgan (D- ND), 202-224-2551
Olympia Snowe (R- ME), 202-224-5344Capitol Switchboard: 1-888-355-3588. All Senators can be reached through that number. Email addresses can be found here.
===
Remember, you will likely be speaking with a very low level staffer in your Senator’s office, so be understanding and polite. If you are unsure of what to say, feel free to use the following text I wrote on Friday for a few readers who called then:
I’d like to encourage Senator XXXXXXX to support John Kerry’s filibuster by voting against cloture today. I was happy to hear that Senator XXXXXXXX indicated that he was going to vote against Judge Alito, but given the math in the Senate, I still feel that a woman’s right to choose is in grave peril. That right to choose is very important to me, and it is important that my Senators go the distance for that right. (Otherwise being pro-choice is all talk) Thank you for passing on my sentiment.
Durbin’s whip count last week had the total within three votes of the 40 needed. We can do this and get our party back in the game. Even if we don’t make it to 40, these Senators will see that their constituents are watching and demanding Democratic principles.
Take five minutes and make a call to your state’s Democratic Senators whether they are on board or not. Take five more and email this to friends and family urging them to speak up. These calls count, and the more the better. We’ve tried the way of deference and compromise, and all we have to show for it is shrinking representation. It’s time to stand up.
This is the most important thing you can do today, get it done.
*Update: **Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), (202) 224-2921
Chafee has decided to vote against Alito. If you are from Rhode Island, let him know that this is not enough. If he really wants to stop Alito, he must support Kerry’s filibuster.
JimC wrote:
This continued through the confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito, even though it is crystal clear that, should he be seated on the Supreme Court, critical rights from privacy to speech and beyond will be in grave danger.
You have no real foundation for these accusations…but good luck with your filibuster hail mary….
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 6:24 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Hallelujah! He said “filibuster” not “fillabuster”! Glory be to all the gods!
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 9:20 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Why are you removing my comments?
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 9:40 am ¶
matt wrote:
>Why did you remove my comment with the Foxnews poll results? Because it shows a different result than your poll numbers? Or do we not allow opposing poll results here?
if you want to post fox news stories wholesale, you may start your own blog.
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 9:41 am ¶
JimC wrote:
So you censor my comments, nice.
How’s this?
More Americans would vote to confirm Alito, poll finds
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 9:44 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Can I add this quote from the article?
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 9:52 am ¶
JimC wrote:
From DailyKOS
Ouch! That’s going to put a political pinch on those who choose to filibusta
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 9:56 am ¶
Matthew Tobey wrote:
What’s your point, Jim? Did you not read this post? You know, the post that begins with, “It won’t come as a shock to anyone that we don’t think much of Democratic elected officials”?
Gang of 14? Please. Some fucking gang.
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 10:35 am ¶
JimC wrote:
The point is the perception of the American public. If the Gang of 14 to the average Joe American didn’t see a reason to filibusta, tehn having left wing dems attempt to filibuster presents a potential fallout with mid-America, that’s my point…
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 10:52 am ¶
Nick in Beantown wrote:
“Mid-America” isn’t incredibly hot on this nominee. Christian America might be. The fallout you’re hoping for will come from the right. Nothing new, there.
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 10:58 am ¶
T. Monty wrote:
I don’t get it with guys like Chaffee. If you don’t want the guy to be a Supreme Court justice, why do this: “He’s the first Republican to say he’ll reject President Bush’s nominee. Chafee also says he’ll vote against a filibuster on the nomination. “
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 12:41 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>I don’t get it with guys like Chaffee.
political cowardice and banking that the dem voters in RI won’t understand that by not supporting the filibuster, he let Alito go to the court.
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 12:42 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>I don’t get it with guys like Chaffee. If you don’t want the guy to be a >Supreme Court justice, why do this: “He’s the first Republican to say he’ll >reject President Bush’s nominee. Chafee also says he’ll vote against a >filibuster on the nomination. “
>
Makes perfect sense, he doesn’t want to vote for his confirmation but thinks filibuster requirements have been met. Filibuster shouldn’t be used lightly and having simply a opposing view to some perceived possible future ruling *isn’t* enough to back a filibuster. Unfortunately the climate today is that if you don’t get your way, filibuster. This is not the intended use for this process. This was only meant for the minority party to check a radical vote of the majority party. Alito is considered radical by the far left.
I repeat…simply having a opposing political view is NOT justification for filibuster.
For example, the majority party is set to confirm a person that has openly racist, declared he would subvert the court and make law from the bench becuase he hates liberals, which Alito has *not* done, then filibuster would be warranted. Yes, Alito *is* more conservative than the left would like, however, that’s why the President gets to nominate them. That is how it works. President wins election, he wins right to send up nominees.
The dems at this point are abusing the filibuster power. The burden to show that Alito is a radical has not been met as shown by the gang of 14…..
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 12:54 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Correction:
thinks filibuster requirements have *not* been met
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 12:55 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>I repeat…simply having a opposing political view is NOT justification for filibuster.
luckily you aren’t the go-to authority on Senate rules. there have been filibusters for far less.
>That is how it works. President wins election, he wins right to send up nominees.
you forgot: minority party opposes nominees. or should they just lie down for the king?
>The burden to show that Alito is a radical has not been met as shown by the gang of 14…..
do you have any idea about the so-called gang of 14? show me where in the constitution or the rules of the senate they draw their power from.
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 12:59 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Perhaps you can debate this with Sen. Barack Obama, he seems to get it…
Several Democrats sounded unhappy about having to vote whether to filibuster Alito, considering they don’t have enough votes to successfully stop him. “There is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers,” Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
>you forgot: minority party opposes nominees. or should they just lie down for the king?
You can oppose a nominee and not filibuster…to oppose a nominee does not automatically require you to filibuster. The majority party is just that, a representation of the majority of the people. They were elected to represent their states in the senate. For the minority party to use a filibuster on an issue that doesn’t warrant it, is an abuse of procedures…
>do you have any idea about the so-called gang of 14? show me where in the constitution or the rules of the senate they draw their power from.
They are a voting block, they get their power from their numbers, or did you not take basic math?
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 1:07 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Perhaps you can debate this with Sen. Barack Obama, he seems to get it…
i’ll debate him anytime, anyplace.
>The majority party is just that, a representation of the majority of the people.
i guess you didn’t know that of the current senators, democrats garnered more total votes.
>is an abuse of procedures…
according to jim the great of ohio.
>They are a voting block, they get their power from their numbers, or did you not take basic math?
their numbers mean nothing as they vote singly.
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 1:13 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>i guess you didn’t know that of the current senators, democrats garnered more total votes.
Being a political science major, I would have thought you knew how our elected goverment works. You see we elect Senators, 2 per state, each state elects their own senators, based on the majority vote of that state, the candidates will represent that majority in that state to go and represent them in the Senate. But it sounds like you are arguing against the same pricinpal of the Electoral College. You would rather direct votes by the people and get rid of the republic, eh?
So we wouldn’t have Red and Blue states but red and blue people, fine…let’s get a constitutional ammendment to abolish the Senate and House and let the avg Joe vote on fiscal budgets…
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 1:25 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
>their numbers mean nothing as they vote singly.
Not if they adhere to their pledge to act as a voting block…which is basically the idea…
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 1:26 pm ¶
matt wrote:
>Being a political science major, I would have thought you knew how our elected goverment works.
you are the one talking about majorities representing a majority of the people. in fact that’s not the case.
96 Democratic Candidates, 2000-2004
99,670,071
47.1%
99 Republican Candidates, 2000-2004
97,300,545
46%
>Not if they adhere to their pledge to act as a voting block…which is basically the idea…
the point is that whatever they do, there is nothing binding them but their own stupidity
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 1:35 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Here we go…vote is starting….
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 1:41 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
See you tomorrow! :-)
Posted 30 Jan 2006 at 2:39 pm ¶