Yes, we must keep up the pressure. We may win, we may not. Because we got the number of no votes on cloture from the low 20s to 37 out of the 41 needed tells me that its possible to turn things around here.

Also, you're correct on the fact that we shouldn't let the Democratic establishment get away with this, win or lose, after this is all over. We wouldn't be in this mess today, had they and the anti-Alito groups actually DONE SOMETHING productive to stop Alito.

They've got to stop their just plain WIMPYNESS! I'm so sick and tired (I know it cliche) of these Democrats who expect our unequivocal support, and then turn around and stab us in the back!

Nonetheless, I'm calling and e-mailing as many Democratic and "moderate" Republicans as I can to try and do what I can to do the impossible.

It's called political theater, get used to it.
The Republicans even have a name for their tactic, "catch and release". They let congressmen vote against a proposal that will pass anyway so they can tell the voters back home that they stuck up for their principles, or are independent of the party. When the chips are down, they switch back.

If done skillfully you can even vote on both sides of the same issue and quote the appropriate one depending on the audience.

The one thing politicians listen to is money. If the blogsphere backs some candidates with enough cash that they win over the party pick, then people will start to pay attention.

First of all, I like angry-Stoller. You and and angry-Gore should team up and do some pods. It would be a hit.

I'm not quite sure what to do here. It reminds me a bit of the experience of marching with millions to protest the idea of invading Iraq, and then being dismissed as a focus group.

Clearly, these tactics we're using are ineffective.

But what to do?

It was ever thus. In previous go rounds, these useless people who take up the space where Democratic principles ought to be were a) rendered unable to go into their districts without encountering angry citizens; b) replaced with people we thought would do better. (How do you think MA got Kerry?) The former encourages retirement; the later improves representation for a few years.

Once they have to raise the money to run campaigns (at least at the Senate level) they gradually become beholden to those who can give it to them. And those folks aren't around for any real fights, even if some of them express nice sentiments.

Getting the popular will expressed in politics is a never ending battle requiring jacking up succeeding generations of politicians -- but there is no alternative.

but he was good-looking with pretty blue eyes, so no one's heart was in for blocking him.  Roberts is Alito is Scalia.  We should have started with Roberts.

The Dem establishment are a bunch of pussies.  And, me, especially as a gay man, is gonna have to deal with Alito's (and the goodlooking white boy Roberts') fucking dictates for the rest of my life, probably.

I've got two questions, both of which may be kinda dumb. But maybe my not knowing the answer to either is indicative of what Matt posted about.

1. Is there any real hope of keeping Alito off the court?

and

2. If the answer to 1 is "no", how do we define a "win" in this situation?

You will get no flack from me.

The Democrats had better figure out how to win this on Monday, or they will lose the mid-terms.  No doubt about it.

If they don't win this filibuster for the people who live and breath in America they will be burnt toast and will never regain power in any of the three branches.  It will all be over but the civil war that will come years from now because the Democrats laid down without a fight.

I feel so sorry for us, our elected officials are so blind and that after losing so many battles they are willing to give up on the costitution as well.  My goodness they really are only in it for themselves.  How sad because they won't have anything left in the end and will go down in history as having lost without even standing up to fight.  Blind - purely blind to the rights of the American people but not thier own selfish interests - no not blind to their own needs and wants.

Matt, you'll get no flack from me.  Everything you wrote rang true.

I'm so sick of the DC Dems.  They're like a person who owns a high-performance car, but pushes it instead of driving it.

I'm tired of being considered a brainless Pavlovian ATM for the Democrats.  They don't give a hot damn about anything but staying in office.  By any means.

I'm working for, and donating to, local progressive candidates I know are "real"...not just posing for the cameras.  The Democratic Party has hurt me far more than the Republican Party, because I expected better from the Democrats.  Live and learn.

That is strange, because we all seem to take points for trying. This line reminded me of something you wrote the other day. That no one who turned 18 before 2001 can claim to not have helped make this situation what it is.

The bloggers that reach 1 million people collectivly routinely argue that they should get points for trying and play political theater. Let's get rid of the dvisision for a moment.

Also, winning a vote doesn't need to be the end goal in a situation, it can be standing up for principle. If Democrats did that more often, we'd win more often.

I think you do get somehting out of trying, but I agree with you -- it is depressing is that we have a sneaking sucspicion that they have no interest in winning this fight.

Matt,

I do not disagree with the substance of what you say and your points truly should be heeded by the Democratic establishment, but for the love of God, this is not the time to be putting forth these arguments.  The central problem we have is not that the Republican narrative regarding Democrats is dishonestly negative, or that the media narrative concerning Democrats is Republican spin, it is that the central narrative of the Democratic base and the Democratic establishment is "we suck".  This does not win votes.  The Republican party fought for Clinton's Impeachment, a thoroughly bad fight that the country did not support, lost badly and came out of it strong and secure.  They did this because they refused to recognize that they lost.  We are taking up the undeniably good fight against Sam Alito, we have public support to oppose him on the substance, and our central message to the world is "we are a bunch of spineless wusses who can't fight and just do public relations pitches and don't really stand for anything and don't fight well and always loose and if we loose here we should always loose."  If that is the central message you will project of the Democratic party are you deeply puzzled that you can't get more people to vote for your candidates?  Please, if you are going to spin the Democratic response to Sam Alito's nomination, could I please ask you to at least try to put forth some positive spin.

Most confirmation fights are won and lost during the previous Presidential election.  The fact is the President gets the benefit of the doubt on most appointees sent for confirmation.  You don't have to like it but it is the truth.  

The last time a Supreme Court nomination was stopped was Bob Bork and we controlled 55 Senate seats instead of 45 (including Jeffords).  Counting is an important part of politics and we probably never had the votes to win a Supreme Court battle.  It was one of the reasons winning the Presidency and Congress in 2000 and 2004 was so important.  We didn't win either and this is the consequence.  We need to use this to help win both in the upcoming elections.

What I don't get is these left-leaning judical groups had literally over a decade to learn from Thomas' appointment and plan a strategy to attack a nominee.  They phoned it in on Roberts and told us that they would really raise holy hell for Sandra Day's replacement.  And yet over the Christmas break, nothing happened. No ads in Rhode Island, or Ohio, or Oregon, or Penn. or any race where GOPers could be pressured to defend their Alito vote. Let alone forcing such senators to change their vote.

Why? Where did all those millions go? Sure we didn't have the numbers or the margin of error, but that never stopped the GOP from running ads about judges against would be and sitting senators.  Why didn't we ask a Chafee why he would vote with a racist like Lott or a demogogue like Brownback?

I haven't heard a good answer for why the supposidely super organized special interest groups on the left fell flat on their face on this one.

through a GOP congress

then join the revolution for progressive legislation.

http://www.boycott-republicans.com

Matt--

Please, please, as georgia10 points out, we all understand the likelihood for success.  We all know who was, and was not, around the week after Christmas (hint: you, and Kos, and Jane Hamsher have nothing to apologize for).  We all know what would have been the best situation for us to have gone forward with.

But now we're going forward with the public awareness we've got.  Please, please save it for the after-action report.

A few thoughts:

a) Republican lesson: You don't need heavy majorities to accomplish a goal.  You need control over the story and the inexorable push and pull of the storyline, characters and subtext. No way to put it other than we did lose this. I agree that it is the leaderships fault for this lose. I was left watching the hearings thinking "do they really think Americans will get this?" The time to win was not in 2004 on this issue, the day after the nomination of Alito by Bush. Rather than appearing "fair" they, the Democrats, should have been more worried about figuring out how to win.  People who want to win aren't as concerned about fairness so long as the basic rules of the game are followed.  However, I am not certain that the prior lose means a lose by choosing the fillabuster. To work- it would require Democratic unity, and in that way- I am not certain what will happen. I think the Republicans will be Republicans, and the media, will be the media, and do what they do, but the only way to change up things, is to change our narrative, not theirs. To become, unpredictable. I can tell you what I would like to see happen. I would like to see a fillabuster, and then Kaine show up with a strong convincing gut-level endorsement of why. That's because it would kick off a great narrative. I have no idea why, for example, the Democrats haven't been talking about Alito's mining case decisions considering what has been in the news other than you must be right. I would say that I would like guys like Sen. Obama to stop using Kerry-esque languge and start talking from the heart.

b) There is some hope, at least a small silver lining. It's better late, than never. It's easy to say they all didn't care. But, I think that's too easy. Some of them did toward the end did seem to care. Maybe it's crass politics, and maybe it's inertia- the resulting state of mind which still believes we are the majority party so they don't know how to hustle for it. A lot of what I watch seems to be about entrenched ways of thinking. The democrats are used to leading, and the Republicans were used to being the opposition party. Everyone still reacts that way. The thing that has to change to me is that the Democrats don't just need to learn how to fight- fight is about passion, but not smarts, but also hustle, hustle is about knowing the game and how to play it better than everyone else does on the street. If you have ever lived in NYC- I can tell you this city when  you are out and about on the subways is all about the hustle. Folks are selling shit everywhere- pirated tapes, movies, socks, batteries, singing, you name it. They are all hustling to make it happen. When I look at the Democrats- they seem to be waiting for some magic moment that will never happen where the majority will suddenly like us as we are.

Traditionally the DNC lays out a strategy for victory. The have the money, the pollsters, the data and connections to both the media and the netroots to implement a strategy.

So where is the DNC?

Actually, I argue we lost it about fourteen months ago, not two.

I also continue to argue for the mass firing of DC consultants with losing records.  And I strongly argue for the mass hiring of aggressive and energetic PR firms to help sell our candidates and philosophy.

While last time we hired a consultant that was 0-for-7, they hired PR firms that helped them microtarget voters based on consumer information, not based on strategies that weren't working in the 80's, didn't work in the 90's and will not work now.

Thanks matt!  That was beautiful.

"Democrats: Always standing up for what they later realize they should have believed in." - Jon Stewart, the Daily Show

Of course you get points for trying! They're in the minority. They don't have the votes to win anything else. Remember the bankruptcy bill?

PR points ARE REAL points. Perception is reality. How will they ever know if they can actually win if they never fight?

If your opponents can convince you to keep your weapons in your pockets how can you expect to win a fight with them.

Repubs convinced dems that filibusters are equivalent to nuclear bombs. Now the dems only save them for next time. When is it serious enough to fight? What idiots!?!!

So now dems will only swing if its a homerun, but they end up not swinging at all.

Checkmate -- these losers have been gamed and they don't even realize it.

Yes, you DO get points for trying. I am sick to death of equivocating, strategizing, and being "reasonable." You either believe in what's right and act accordingly, or you don't. Since MyDD has joined the fainthearted faction, I hereby delete this bookmark. I'm 60 years old and have no goddamn time for this.

"...until Alito is off the court.." My God, man. You are obviously young enough to still feel immortal. Trust me, you're not, and neither is the U.S.A.

Best of luck in the future. I have one less blog to frequent.

My note to Matt Stoller:

America DOES NOT WANT Alito on the Court.  

Even FOX News' own polls show this.  Check it out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/29/ 17492/9053

Since WHEN does it hurt us politically to do what the American people are BEGGING us to do?!?!

Oh, and Teddy Kennedy's leading the filibuster, and the NAACP and the DLC and even a Republican pro-choice group are joining in, so I guess they must all be "using" us, too, like you and Aravosis say.  

Geez Louise.  I'm never going to be confused with John Kerry's biggest fan (as a Dean backer, I was pissed as hell at how his campaign staff operated in Iowa and New Hampshire), but the hate-Kerry crowd really needs to take a look at how their hatred is distorting their judgement.

I'm going to get a lot of flack

Then point the flack-giver to a cspan archive of Biden "questioning" Alito. That was painful to watch.

but I did post a completely implausible path to victory over at dKos.  It involves finding 40 votes and then flipping Chafee as our 41st -- flipping him to the Democrats.  He coasts to re-election, makes a huge splash, and adds his special signature to the turd in the punch bowl.  But it is, um, pretty implausible.

I still find all the anti-Kerry sentiment here and elsehwere unseemly. Is it really true that he "phoned in" his call for a fillibuster from Davos or are we just repeating Scotty Mac's talking points?

ANd if he was out of the country, perhaps when he heard that several Sen Dems were prematurely announcing they were against a fillibuster, he had no choice but to make his call then and there?

And finally, Kerry didn't just decide to do this last week; he said in the 04 primaries that he would fillibuster any SC nom who would overturn Roe, which is a lot stronger a position than most of hte SEnate caucus is taking.

I would tend to disagree with the first part of your post Matt.  THIS particular filibuster would only require an act of political will on the part of our leadership, the public is not really paying attention to this.  That is what makes this soooo frustrating.  Our senators are really facing no kind of public pressure to vote for Alito and quite a bit of pressure to vote against, seems like a no brainer.

This post is close to gibberish, an instance of making a series of observations one after the other, each reasonable in itself, but put together in such a way as to be incomprehensible.

What the fuck is going on? Were you that set on this being over a few days ago and disappointed that it isn't? 37 votes, that's pretty remarkable and an index of how business is going to be done from now on, a turning point.

For penance, go read Jane and her posters for an hour.
.

There was never a chance to make a filibuster stick unless Alito flubbed the hearings completely, or some sort of Zoe Baird issue came up.

You need 40 out of 45 non-Republican Senators in order to filibuster. Jeffords is likely a no, making 40 out of 44. Losing four out of the fifteen or so red state Senators is a near-certainty unless a solid majority of the country didn't want Alito confirmed, and that won't happen without a flub.

Successful politics requires two things: principles and winning. Dems were a longshot to win here. They needed to take an early shot, per Matt's suggestion, and then (on the likely chance that it failed) simply vote No and move on to more favorable terrain. This fake-filibuster doesn't make any sense to me. Why intentionally bring focus onto a losing effort?

Appreciate the anger, Matt. As a recovering DC insider myself (long since moved) I totally agree that a lot of the DC Dem establishment is too tired, fat, and frankly old to learn a new trick here, and certainly the idea of launching a PR offensive BEFORE a filibuster would be a hell of a new trick for our side. And not easy to pull off, either. As far as your criticism of the progressive DC advocacy groups goes, I sort of agree. People For the American Way and NARAL are going to take a huge huge hit for this. This is what they've been talking about in their direct mail for years, and they've laid a total egg.

But I have to take issue with a couple things. For one, moving the "Yes" on filibuster count from 20 to 37 is no great accomplishment. Those are free votes, as you point out elsewhere in your post. It's a sop to us, frankly, and until we get to 40 and look for the 41st, it's irrelevant and an easy lift. Sorry, netrooters!

But more importantly, we all need to breathe deeply for a quick second, hug our kids and relax a little. The average American -- and swing voter -- doesn't even know who Alito is. And the folks who are pissed off are going to vote Dem anyway. We won't win or lose a single vote because of this, and for that matter no one really knows how Alito will behave on the bench (although many of us have very good ideas). We lost this debate, as you note very smartly, back when he was nominated. We didn't go after him hard and in the right way, which is personally. All the legal briefs and policy arguments in the world wouldn't have moved the public. What might have done the trick would have been to go after him for dishonesty and sleaziness, but that's now water under the bridge.

And by the way, you're beautiful when you're mad.

And its about time.

There is nothing to be ashamed of--win or lose.  Except for a few arrogant bloggers, this community is sticking together like nobody's business and demanding that the Dem Senate flex its backbone.  And its about time.

Yea team!

i mean, i am not a believer in "things must get worse before they get better" as a strategy, but sometimes, that's just the way it is.

maybe these groups feel like they win more in the long run, by losing this one?

admit it. it's possible. they didn't even mail this one in... they clicked "snooze" and rolled over.

You get public support BY filibustering.  Shutting down the Senate is not an everyday affair, and it should not be undertaken lightly.  But nor should it be subject to permission and endless hand-wringing.  If something is terribly wrong, you filibuster.  It forces your colleagues to show their hands.  That's part of the exercise.  And as the
Rude Pundit points out, it gets the base engaged now and to the polls in November.

More than that, it demonstrates that you have the courage to act.  Failure to stand and fight is what the so-called security gap that's been plaguing the Democrats is all about.

I agree, Matt.

The next right-wing best seller might be "What's the Matter with Democrats: How the Liberals Lost the Heart of America. "

Democrats, NARAL, PFAW and other progressive groups collected our money promising to fight the big SCOTUS battle. Well, the battle came and went, and no one showed up to fight back.

The few anti-Alito commercials were ineffectual: They were weak, aired in too few markets, and rolled-out too late in the process.

Every day during the hearings, Alito was greeted by a throng of well-wishers. The progressive groups, on the other hand, failed to mobilize their throng of protesters to oppose him each day?

We've been hoodwinked and I'm mad as hell. I anticipate a big fight at the upcoming Take Back America conference over this avoidable disaster.

Politics is like a see-saw.

Sometimes you're up and sometimes you're down. What matters most is getting off at just the right moment.

People: If we want Alito kept off the court, then everything that came before is almost irrelevant.

NOW is the right moment to act, the only moment to act. Now we have a chance to keep him off the court. Do we want that? If we do, let's do what we can NOW to get off at the right time.

End of sermon.

In his criticism of the filibuster attempt, John Avriosis asks, "So the question remains, what possible good comes from the Democrats launching THIS filibuster now?"

Now I've got to say I can't imagine why this is a difficult question to answer, if you have a mind to do so.

Look, the politics of this filibuster attempt, successful or not, do NOT end with the attempt itself.

Someday, not long from now, if Alito is appointed to the Supreme Court, MANY unpopular and controversial decisions will be handed down. Given who Alito is, that's a virtual lock. If Roe v Wade is overturned, as very likely it will be, it will be, unquestionably, his vote that will make it happen.

THAT is when the question will be asked, how did this man get on our Supreme Court? Why was no strong opposition to him posed? Why didn't the Democrats pull out all stops to deny him the position?

And THAT is when those who supported the filibuster will look good and principled and will be supported by the majority of the American people.

And I, on my side, can scarcely comprehend the downside of voting for a filibuster. Bush could hardly be a more unpopular President; the notion that he must have his way on nominations is certainly not going to get any real resonance. Support for Alito himself is modest at the very best. I can hardly envision any voter being turned off by a Democrat refusing to endorse Alito, or filibustering the issue. If Democrats are seen as "obstructing" on an issue, this would surely be as harmless case as one could conceive.

But, again, the critical point is that it's simply foolish to imagine that the true political weight of an attempted filibuster is to be reckoned in how it is perceived today. That weight will, in fact, not be calculable until all of Alito's decisions -- and he will for a certainty be the key swing vote in many of the most controversial -- have been rendered.

What's "popular" today, before Alito has enabled a single controversial decision, is going to be very different from what's popular when he begins to do so.

This is really the only way to bust up the coverage that the press and the republicans have given to Alito.  Something as dramatic as the filibuster will force the public to take seriously the democrats concerns about alito and at the same time overshadow the SOTU.

I couldn't agree more. It is important for people to stand up, but if it never translates into political victories, people will continue to suffer. This was never a serious filibuster fight on the part of the dems (partly because they very publicly can't even agree with each other on what they should be doing), but if it is a sign that at least some in the party want to start getting organized and do something again, then it's great and deserves support.

Once (heaven forbid) Alito is confirmed tomorrow, there needs to be a new strategy, on the next big issue coming down the pike. The Dems need to get better organized and improve their timing. The NSA story might be a good place to start. Rove came out fighting; now is the time to begin a long-term strategy to prevent this issue from turning into a national security question and keep the focus on the issue of law-breaking, credibility, and trust.

And for the love of God, don't expect the Dems to come up with these strategies and talking points on their own! They won't just think of the blogosphere as a good place to raise money if they start seeing some fresh, effective ideas coming out of it.

Does it matter to any of you that Alito is not a terrible person, and that he has been judged by the vast majority of those in the field of law to be qualified for the position?  If the only reason you are voting against someone is because of your perception of their political philosophy, and/or of the results you forecast, you shouldn't be surprised when a majority realizes this is bad policy and does not go along.  Remember, the other side voted for people like Ginsburg.  The public knows this and wonders why the senate should be blown up now that the shoe is on the other foot.

You had plenty of time to try to dredge up a silver bullet to bring him down, and you failed.  Deal with it, and prepare for the Stevens or Ginsburg fight(s).

And can only be perceived as right if you are a quitter that has denied that the Democrats can retake the House and Senate. The very last thing an FDR Democrat wants to concede is that a minority of Republicans can legitmately oppose a Supreme Court Justice on ideology alone. Because where is your defense when they put the shoe on the other foot?

Our goal should be to fight and win in 2006, if not to gain both houses at least to close the gaps. And to win the White House and both houses of Congress in 2008. We can do that and legitimizing filibusters by the Minority is exactly the wrong direction to go.

Quitters don't win and winners don't quit. Trite? You betcha. But I have not given up on the Democratic Party being able to install left leaning justices on party line votes somewhere south of 60%. And a bunch of people seem to be intent on legitimizing the judicial filibuster for Republicans.

Dare to dream. And don't give up on democracy. 51% ruling is not a bad thing. Don't legitmize the supermajority option. We can survive Alito, we can't survive any 41 Republicans blocking any action whatsover because Kerry  bloviated from Davos.

Embrace your inner FDR. Then unleash him. We can win on the issues. And filibusters are tools of people who think they are in the beleagured minority. I am not willing to accept that. Alito was a tactical defeat, that doesn't mean that we can't kick some serious strategic ass.

Be a God Damn Progressive Democrat, give all your money to Progressive God Damn Democrats, deploy every God Damn Comment to supporting God Damn Progressvie Democrats. But don't run needy to Kerry because he is offering you a drink.