72-25?! Senate Dems Surrender...

I most of last week and all day today faxing and calling Senators to urge them to vote NO on Cloture and filibuster.  It felt as if there was a groundswell in our behavior.  But it wasn't even close.  Only 25 Dem Senators had the guts to vote against Cloture.  I will not donate any money or in anyway assist any of the TWENTY Democrats who betrayed us on this issue!

You realize that?  Of our 45 Dem Senators TWENTY voted with the Republicans assuring that Alito will sit on the Supreme Court.

WE NEED A PROGRESSIVE THIRD PARTY!!

Tags: Alito, Senate, Supreme Court (all tags)

Comments

13 Comments

Re: 72-25?! Senate Dems Surrender...

YEAH! EIGHT MORE YEARS OF REPUBLICANS! LET'S GO WITH THAT THIRD PARTY!

by bluenc 2006-01-30 12:40PM | 0 recs
How would that be worse?

With the current condition of the Democratic Party we are going to have Republican control for as long as the eye can see.  Why not stake out a future and establish a Progressive Party now so we have a future?

Do you think the bizarre weakness and capitulation that the Senate Dems showed today lends itself to a winning party in the future?  Why would America vote for Republican-lite when it can have Republican?

Its time for a Progressive Third Party!

by Bridget Dwyer 2006-01-30 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: How would that be worse?

There was a recent national poll that asked Americans: Who has a better plan for America, George Bush or the Democrats in Congress? 51 percent said Democrats, 35 percent George Bush. In almost every generic poll, people say they are more likely to vote for a Democrat than for a Republican. The Democrats have made more than their share of screwups, but we're in good shape for November.

by bluenc 2006-01-30 02:23PM | 0 recs
Polls at this point are meaningless...

Polls at this point are meaningless.  Kerry led Bush by 5 to 12 points in March of 2004 and lost handily on election day.

Especially the "generic" poll,it is famously misleading.  Actually when you look at the internals of the generic polls they show overwhelming support for the status quo with people overwhelmingly supportive of their particular congressman.  Any schooled and experienced reader of the generic polls predict a possible but not majority changing pick up for the Dems.

We have lots of hard work ahead of us and must not rest until the day after election day.  Plus, keep in mind the scary part.  We pound and pound on Bush constantly and his polls are low.  But they haven't even begun to fight back yet.  Rove knows to time the response to peak on election day and that is what he'll do.

We need to work hard and change minds.  Just because someone is mad at a conservative leader doesn't mean they suddenly decide to vote liberal, they just seek a different conservative.  There is more of them then there is of us... so we need to change minds and hearts...

by Bridget Dwyer 2006-01-30 05:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Polls at this point are meaningless...

My point wasn't that polls tell us Democrats will win, it was that the polls tells us that people are actually agreeing with Democrats and are thinking about voting for Democrats. This proves that the American people aren't so frustrated with the Democratic party that they're throwing their hands up and wishing for a more liberal party.

by bluenc 2006-01-30 07:01PM | 0 recs
Re: 72-25?! Senate Dems Surrender...

I'm not going to drink the coolade on a third party.

I'm taking this as a signal that I need to get more involved in my local party. I'll work this summer and fall (I might take off a semester of school) to recruit new, activist precinct captains, get donors who will give money every month (through an automatic recurring donor program), help out progressive candidates, and do whatever else I can to reform the Democratic Party and America.

The problem today with the Democratic Party was that most of these elected officials are pussies and can't vote their convictions. It maybe time to weed them out, one by one, year after year.

by gatordemocrat 2006-01-30 12:41PM | 0 recs
Re: 72-25?! Senate Dems Surrender...

Only idiots talk about Third Parties....the ones who still feel they were cheated because their idealist didn't get elected at some election somewhere.

There will be another day. And that's when we take back the HOUSE. Work on that.

by BigDog 2006-01-30 01:05PM | 0 recs
Amen.

by gatordemocrat 2006-01-30 04:32PM | 0 recs
Senate Dems are chumps

They were cowarded by the nuclear option. They thought it was okay to support a filibuster when it became clear that he would be confirmed anyway.  Hilary, Reid, and Durbin I find fault with.  It is simple Reid's leadership is not working.  He isn't getting us any closer to the 51 votes we need to get the majority, currently we are only up to 45 and we might be back down to 44, if we lose NJ.  Reid needs to go and so does the entire Senate leadership. Chris Dodd would have been a better leader than Reid to stave off the nuclear option and stave off Alito.  Hillary is at fought too because she is part of the leadership and she calls shots in the leadership as well.  Durbin is at fault.  Dems are Rep lite and they shoot their own supporters in the foot like Pat Cadel said on Fox.

by mleflo2 2006-01-30 01:03PM | 0 recs
Re: 72-25?! Senate Dems Surrender...

Granted that the Democrats didn't make the case against Alito as they should have. They totally fumbled the ball.


Personally, if you look at the way the Senate seats are distributed, with the Republicans holding 55 seats, and Democrats holding numerous seats in Red states, such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Louisiana, Nebraska, Indiana, etc, anything under 60 votes for confirmation tomorrow would be a victory to me.

But if that's a victory to you when a filibuster was completely possible, justified, and justifible to the American people (unitary executive, defering to the executive, throwing the concepts of seperation of powers and checks and balances out the window) then you're far too easy to please.

A loss is a loss; we didn't even come close. There's no victory here.

by Quinton 2006-01-30 02:57PM | 0 recs
Re: 72-25?! Senate Dems Surrender...

I do think that 25 votes to sustain a filibuster is a pretty poor showing...

by MadProfessah 2006-01-30 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: 72-25?! Senate Dems Surrender...

Yes, because we have a rep lite leader in Reid, who doesn't want to fight Roe.  The Senate leadership shoot their own supporters in the foot.

by mleflo2 2006-01-30 04:44PM | 0 recs
Blue state, red state

Only two Democratic senators from red states voted for the fillibuster, perhaps each for other motives: Bayh (running for President) and Harry Reid (voting with the majority of Democrats).  

On the other hand, six senators from states carried by both Kerry and Gore voted for cloture: Akaka, Cantwell, Carper, Inouye, Kohl and Lieberman.  Akaka and Inouye may have been influenced from Ed Case's primary attack from the right (as well as the slow shift rightward in Hawaii).  Carper and Lieberman did their usual routines.  Neither are dependable.  Perhaps 9 months ago I wrote a diary on Kos called Tom Carper: Corporate democrat.  I was attacked but boy was I right.  That leaves Kohl and cantwell, both from tight states.

We can help our situation more than one way.  Senators seem to have more couirage when they come from a democratic state. Of course, if more states voted Democratic, we would not have to deal with an Alito nomination in the first place.  Second, senators from Democratic states who routinely stray should be more afraid of an attack in a primary than in the general election.  Are you listening, Joe?  I guess not.

by David Kowalski 2006-01-30 08:16PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads