How pathetic is it that Democratic SENATORS couldn't

[Eloriel]

figure it out and explain it to the American people that:

* SOME things are important enough, grave enough, and have long enough potential repurcussions that they SHOULD take 60 votes for them to pass the Senate.

* If the President can't get 60 people of good will (and they're all mostly quite collegial) to agree that a nominee is good for the country (not just good for the party, or base, or a certain ideology), then that should be an indicator of a problem. The Democrats have already proven by passing 200 judicial appointments that they DO negotiate this in good faith and NOT purely along partisan lines (else far fewer of the 200 would have been approved). Now it's up the the Republicans and especially the President to nominate people who CAN pass the mere 60-Senator standard.

* We ought to at least require a "passing grade" out of the Senate. Rarely is 51% a passing grade in most of our schools. Somewhere between 60 - 70% is usually required to pass a test or a course. If that's too high a standard for a JUDICIAL nominee, there's a serious problem.

* If the Constitutional requirements for "advice and consent" were intended as a mere rubber stamp, rather than an important gatekeeping mechanism requiring Senators to help keep people who are NOT good for the country off the bench and out of appointed office, the Founders wouldn't have bothered with it. If it was important enough to include, it's important enough to require a passing grade.

* Republicans conceded that legislation should be subjected to this higher standard (by limiting their "threat" to do away with filibusters to judicial nominees only, not legislative filibusters), why wouldn't it be true for judicial appointees who have lifetime appointments? Horrible judges who show themselves to be a mistake can 't be voted out, they can only be impeached and for cause -- severe unethical or criminal behavior.



Why couldn't we simply explain some of this? Okay, so we don't have the media on our side. To my knowledge, THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY. And that makes me very angry, and very sad.

[BillZBubb]

1. The Democrats were just playing political judo.

They know if they let the Republicans do whatever they want for as long as they want, eventually the sheeple will get annoyed. Then we will claim victory! :sarcasm:

[Jim Sagle]

2. Sounds like a plan.

A thousand-year reichplan. :puke:

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

3. I do not think you heard the Dems on the floor.

Each one of them (with very few exceptions) was splendid and chock-full of information, passion and frustration -- Schumer was the best with the graphic 2703-1 chart. (2704 votes cast by Rethugs in the senate for the Resident Thief's judicial nominees and only one dissent by Trent Lott protesting the renomination of a Clinton reject!)

Over and over on the Senate floor, they repeated the 208-5 statistic, the extreme nuttery of the nominees, Clinton nominee rejection rates, this manufactured crisis of vacancy in the courts, the long term ramifications of rubber-stamping, how many people the Dems actually represent etc etc etc. C-SPAN has some of the speeches (Kerry etc). So does crooksandliars.com. Check them out before you run around starting a thread, no less, with false information and not much more. I do not mean to be rude, but I do want you to be a bit more armed with the truth. In the end the truth is the only thing that will set us truly free. Our main problem with the thugs is that they do not care for the truth -- we cannot become that which we despise...

When presumably conscious people like you keep perpetrating self-defeating and untrue myths like this, there really is not much hope of getting everyday folk to see that the alternative is a decent, caring, intelligent party...

[Eloriel]

8. I'm sorry, saying it on the Senate floor doesn't get it on the news

That's not a press release, it's not a joint press conference or a bunch of separate press conferences, or a media event of any kind. It's not multiple appearances on ALL the cable talk shows and ALL the Sunday morning shows. It's not op-ed pieces in the NYT and WaPo, USAToday and the WSJ.

It's a nice start and good on 'em, but that's their job, not a media strategy. It just oesn't get the public's attention because the 25 people who watch C-Span just don't have that much collective power and aren't particularly noisy types anyway.

[blm]

40. Media only used the "allaboutabortion" storyline and booked accordingly.

I read op eds and press releases from Dems and then watched NO broadcast media bother to discuss what they wrote. The media followed Rove's storyline making it all about abortion and religion.

[KoKo]

17. Yes,we've heard excellent speeches on the Senate Floor for

five years now. Impassioned eleoquent speeches that could make the tears stream down one's face. We've done many threads here on DU with live blow by blow commontary on these speeches.

In the end, it's the VOTE that counts, though. And, the votes always seem to come up "lacking" in one way or the other for our Party to be taken seriously. Our party for all it's seeming passion, seems to come up short on results. While the activists are out here working almost alone in little loosly cobbled bands of dedicated people donating their own time and money to get Information out about the criminality of the Bush Empire. :shrug:

[rucky]

29. I only care how they vote

Byrd's yes vote is a prime example of great rhetoric not backed up by action.

[rucky]

30. I only care how they vote

Byrd's yes vote is a prime example of great rhetoric not backed up by action.

[CWebster]

34. True

but was it all for naught since the Lieberman team seized the moment and "saved the day"?

[LittleClarkie]

4. I heard various Senators on the floor make all those points

Plus Ron Reagan on his show.

It fell on deaf ears. To Tweety, for instance, it was just so much bitching and moaning.

[KoKo]

18. To many here, some of the rest of us are

"bitchers and moaners." It's very disheartening to hear when someone like Tweety continues the jabs and lumps all those who wish for the party to be more centrist by ignoring the "Progressive Rabel" who are out there with the pitchforks.

[mike_c]

5. call me cynical...

...but I honestly believe that most-- not all, but most-- Senate democrats are fundamentally little different from their republican counterparts. They all view "principle" as a malleable concept, and therefore fear populist appeals to absolute standards, perhaps because they know they themselves will be held to those standards, but also because they distrust the very people whose welfare they oversee. It doesn't surprise me at all to see them make cynical use of public sentiment-- for example milking patriotic war fervor-- but avoid making honest appeals for popular support of principled stands.

[KoKo]

7. Many of our DINO DEMS do distrust the People and Trust

instead the Corporate Lobbyists. Not listening to the "People" has cost them three elections ....plus their not carrying that Election 2000 was stolen from them by Bush, Supreme Court, and the very Thug Helpers like James Baker, Ted Olsen, and John Bolton.

When the Repugs stole the first election many of us here got active and worked our butts off to make sure it would never happen again. With the exception of the Black/Progressive Caucus in the House and a few in the Senate we've gotten very little help or thanks for our efforts.

The Republican Party has won because of the constant support of their hard core Right. The Democratic Party has not listened to it's new hard core Left that worked it's butts off to give an oppostition to Bush. At every turn we are ignored or blown off.

Even here on the Democratic UNDERGROUND we are told we are disrupting Party Unity which might attract more "Conservatives" to our side. Many of us don't want to attract Conservatives or Repugs to our side. We want our party to stand for something besides "Republican Light."

[ashling]

6. There should be a constitutional ammendment

requiring that any vote in the Senate for a nominee to a lifetime appointment should be a supermajority.

[Eloriel]

10. Not a bad idea at all n/t

[stillcool]

9. i am just snapping out of....

the funk brought on so often these days by mind-blowing chagrin. The fact that there is no opposition party is not easy to swallow, but events verify the fact. Time and time again the bald truth slaps me in the face, and i'm tired of being a sucker. There are many here on DU that have way more experience with this than i, and i've always wondered how y'all do it. One of these days i'll just stay down.

[Eloriel]

11. So sorry, I can't help you

I'm pretty much permanently down by this time. I lasted a good long while, but the most effective thing I can think of to do about all this is just tend to my garden. It's the only time I'm not actually or in serious danger of being depressed. This doesn't seem like the life I signed up for, and at age 57, I don't know how to cope with it other than that (the gardening -- and some knitting, and more network sitcoms and junk than I've ever watched before, and so forth).

[stillcool]

16. Can't help me?....

you have helped me way more than you could possibly imagine. Have you any idea of how much information you have given me? How much my mind has been expanded and how i in turn impart that knowledge to others?

[Dora]

12. Recommended

Eloriel - thanks for sharing this. You've condensed quite eloquently some feelings that I've been having but couldn't put together coherently.

[Eloriel]

13. Thank you -- and a question

I presume you mean "nominated" by your "recommended" post title -- but unless you nominated after you posted, this thread already had 2 nominations before your post. ???

I appreciate your comment. Thanks.

[Dora]

15. I was #2

First I "recommended." At least, that's what the link says I was doing.

Then I posted.:applause:

[Eloriel]

19. Okay, thanks -- very much!! n/t

[paulk]

14. the American people didn't support the "nuclear option"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2004/10/26/AR2005032201677.html


they opposed it by a margin of 2-1...


So what's your point? Just more of the usual Dem bashing? Feel better now?

[KoKo]

20. In case you've not read the DU rules

Dems hear are allowed to "criticize" the Democratic Party. Unlike the Republicans we are still free to criticize the political direction of our Party. :eyes: Your snarky comment is offbase.

[paulk]

23. this "criticism" isn't based in reality

The Democrats did do a good job of informing the American people, as the WaPo polling shows.

Of course posters are free to criticize the Democrats here on DU; you do it constantly. But this thread isn't honest criticism - it's "when did you stop beating your wife."

[Eloriel]

21. Actually, you're supporting my point

If the people were against any nuclear option (and they were), if OUR side would have made a big deal about it (instead of no freaking deal at all), we probably could have forced the Repugs to step all the way down from the nuclear option, abandon it completely, WITHOUT the Pyrrhic victory of a compromise we forged.

And as for your "Dem bashing" comment -- yes, I guess I am being critical. But I mostly just. don't. understand.

I don't. I don't get it. As you point out, we won this argument (with the people) without lifting a finger -- had we merely lifted those fingers and capitalized on the popular sentiment already there, we could have won BIG, and perhaps begun to shame the Repugs back into some semblance of reasonableness.

So, perhaps since you know so much better about this, perhaps you can explain to me why we didn't bother?

[paulk]

24. we did bother

People for the American Way ran a tv ad campaign. Didn't Howard Dean talk about it on MTP? Most of our Senators gave very compelling speeches - but, like you say upthread, no one watches c-span. And, of course, the media didn't cover what was said.

If you want to blame someone, blame the American people for not paying attention. For not understanding the basic tenets of our system of government. Blame Republican constituents for not putting enough pressure on their Senators.

Blame Bill Frist for being a shameless whore to the religious right.

Blame Bush.

[understandinglife]

22. To explain anything requires effort, including suitable metaphors.

We need those brave and creative folk, like the 128 who voted 'yea' today on Congresswoman Woolsey's HR 1815, to do as recommended here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3688434#3690417

As to a metaphor, here's mine for the current status of "America" post May 23 2005:

It is a simple 'forest and trees' metaphor for post Dec 9 2000 (the day clear-cutting of the republic's forest began), and post May 23 2005 (America's "Neville Chamberlain event").

While some folk are hugging the 'filibuster tree' (which was lethally infected with the virulent 'extraordinary circumstances' virus on May 23 2005) they have failed to notice that the forest (our Constitutional republic) has been clear-cut.

The logging started in earnest on Saturday, Dec 9 2000, and has not abated for a second, since.

Everyone can keep hugging that last, lethally infected tree.

Or, they can decide to climb the very steep hill to the RAP tent, see the decimated forest for what it is, and, finally, begin all the legal and peaceful actions required to remove the dictator Bu$h and his neoconster vermin from the land and beginning restoring the forest.

Any doubt any person could have about Bu$h being a dictator should have been readily dashed by his 'catapult propaganda' and 'don't listen to your constituent' comments -- all made in the 24 hours after that remaining tree was lethally infected.

It has happened, Mr Lucas


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - how ever long it takes, the day must come when tens of millions of caring individuals peacefully but persistently defy the dictator, deny the corporatists cash flow, and halt the evil being done in Iraq and in all the other places the Bu$h neoconster regime is destroying in the name of "America."


edit: nominated.

[tritsofme]

25. Then we should have a constitutional amendment proposing this

The Constitution lists seven instances where a supermajority is necessary, and judicial nominations are not among them.

That's in an ideal world of course.

I also think that our presidents should return to the tradition of seeking advice from members of the Senate, especially on the Judiciary Committee, and the home states of justices.

[Helga Scow Stern]

26. That is pathetic.

While I still want to think there may be sparks to be kindled in bits of honesty and integrity, we do get in the habit of accepting crumbs when we should all be eating a feast, or at least a meal.

[Tigress DEM]

27. DEMS are speaking up.. they just don't get heard.

- Senator Edward Kennedy on THE NUCLEAR OPTION
"As the world’s greatest deliberative body, we respect the power of persuasion, whether it is Senators persuading other Senators, or Senators persuading the House, or the President. We have never allowed a bare Senate majority to silence the minority"

http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.asp?sProxy=80_sflr051905_052.wmv,80_sflr051905_053.



May 09, 2005 SENATOR KENNEDY, CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS STAND UP FOR CHECKS AND BALANCES

April 06, 2005 SENATOR KENNEDY URGES BUSH AND FRIST TO CALL A HALT ON RECKLESS REPUBLICAN RHETORIC

[Eloriel]

35. They have to make it their business to BE heard --

and that means making a little NOISE, and if it means making themselves slightly obnoxious to do that, then so be it. They seem to get press (albeit "bad" press) when they say unflattering things about Repugs, maybe they ought to adopt that as a strategy, and wrap their real message in such pronouncements.

Maybe they need to figure out some silly publicity stunts.

I don't much care WHAT they do to get attention of the MSM, as long as they do it.

That they dropped the ball on this key issue, with the American public ALREADY on their side, is -- almost unforgiveable. I mean, how freakin' out of touch ARE they? (Thus the danger inherent in all ivory towers.)

[Tigress DEM]

39. There are more of US than them.... maybe WE need to make it

OUR business that they are heard. If they are getting it on the record by getting it in the Senate record, that is where the legal aspect comes into play.

When you are up against someone who controls the media (CNN co founder, Reese Schonfeld, actually said on National TV that it is the media's responsiblity to lie for the government in times of war.) then you have to document, document and then use that information to get your power back when the tide turns.

I have never seen such smarmy media. The stuff that is happening out there is big and exciting. It would sell lots of papers or air time just because it is so vital and interesting, but they are all in it with the pResident.

We need numbers. We need a huge protest where we hand deliver the information that the Senators are putting out there to the people who don't know how screwed they are. We need to pick the most solid information and go with it.

Weekend of July 4th - STAND UP for Democracy wherever you are and bring signs and such denouncing the lies and deceipt. Flags too. We have a right to the TRUTH even if the media has no courage to fight for it with US.

[snot]

28. I too am concerned. Like, Nov. 2 '04 was a bigger wake-up than 9-11

. . . and it doesn't seem to stop. (Not to minimize the genuine and extereme tragedy and trauma of 9-11; but these days, I'm more afraid of my gov. than terrorist.)

[Eloriel]

36. You know, that's a good point

Nov. 2, '04 was nearly my undoing as a hopeful citizen of this country. I don't know that I consider it a "wake-up call" as much as a death knell.

[Ell09]

31. Well stated

Even though I thought Dean had a disappointing performance on Russert, it's a major problem with the party when guys viewed as not "electable" such as Dean and Al Sharpton are the best communicators we have. If I was running for President, I'd go to both of these men for help on verbalizing my stance on issues.

I do think the media is very Pro-Republican, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the Democratic Party as a whole gave such a poor effort in defending their position here.

[ElectroPrincess]

32. All those representatives are millionaires (or very close to) ...

Why should they give a damn about what happens to us "little people" in this Country? Vote these gutless wonder DINOs OUT!

[CWebster]

33. Me too and sadder still

that so many were swept up with the latest concession as a rousing success.

[NightOwwl]

37. I'm afraid it's even worse than you think...

the "compromise" on Social Security has begun. Topic is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1811047&mesg_id=1811047

[Eloriel]

38. Yep, one bad compromise just necessitates another, just as one lie

leads to another and another and another.

It hurts so bad to watch all this happening and be so totally powerless to "reach" them at all. It's as if they're blind, deaf and dumb to us, isn't it?

Thanks for the link -- ruins my day, but :shrug: why should THIS day be any different? :evilgrin:

[KoKo]

41. Some of us have to feel like "Cassandra's" tearing our hair out

by the roots screaming "We Tried to TELL YOU...Why did you NOT LISTEN?"

As the articles come in about why this compromise was wrong for our Democratic leadership to agree to, naysayers will still be saying.."But it was a Good Thing to compromise because it shows that WE are the Good Guys and that will attract more voters.

And We, the "Cassandra's" are left to watch it all go down the way it was intended to by both parties from the beginning. There's never a deviance from "The Script," it seems no matter how much many of us had hoped otherwise, and how many of us tried to right a new script for this terrible Tragedy/Farce we are living through.

It's so disturbing for many of us older DU'ers who have a sense of history to live through this. It's a great burden that we couldn't sidetrack this disaster waiting to happen. That's hard to accept, but maybe the acceptance is what we need to come to terms with whatever way we can. :shrug:

[Al-CIAda]

42. Rec'd. n/t