Democratic Senators Manchin And Heitkamp Signal Support For Kavanaugh Nomination

[Roland99]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/05/politics/kavanaugh-senate-support/index.html

”Not so far," Sen. Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, told CNN Wednesday afternoon when asked if anything she's heard so far would be considered disqualifying.

"No, I haven't seen anything from that standpoint," Sen. Joe Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, said when asked if he's heard anything that would lead him to vote no. "He's handled himself very professionally."

Multiple instances of perjury mean nothing??

Not knowing the difference between birth control and abortion means nothing??

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

1. They aren't going to paint themselves into a corner

If no GOP defect, then there is no point for them to not support Kavanaugh if its a done deal. I think Manchin doesn't have much to worry about for his election, but Heitkamp is in a touch spot. If the GOP hold together, I'd expect Kavanaugh to pull as many as 4 Dem's.

[Hortensis]

90. Yes. The GOP'd be thrilled to turn those 4 risky senate seats red.

Agree it matters hugely whether the votes count. The actual vote on the confirmation will apparently be after September 20 but before the court's new term starts on October 1.

But it may stop with the Republicans. Murkowski and Collins need plausible deniability to vote for a man they know perfectly well will vote to make abortion a crime. Blabby Trump even said he chose a "pro life" candidate. And the Democrats are working big time to destroy the ignorance these Republican women are hiding behind. They need Kavanaugh so exposed that to vote for him would mean becoming known as the woman who killed Roe v. Wade and was responsible for girls and women going to prison.

And of course, there are all the other issues surrounding this sleazy, extremist candidate to be developed. Kavanaugh is doing very poorly in the polls already.

[oberliner]

2. What is the point of any of this?

He is going to be confirmed.

[Roland99]

4. If we can get them to see reason, pressure on Murkowksi could be effective

[fallout87]

47. If it hasn't happened already...

It isn't going to now. The fix is in.

[still_one]

5. Even if they voted against, the votes are there to confirm. Voting no would definitely not help

them in their very tight Senate races.

It is really unfortunate that some people didn't seem to grasp that the Supreme Court was at stake in 2016.


Not only did some self-identified progressives refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016 by either voting third party or NOT VOTING, but 47% didn't even vote. The Supreme Court wasn't that important to them.


That was the time to something, like VOTE. This is now after the fact.


It should not be forgotten just what that 47% who didn't vote means:


Every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states, lost to the establishment, incumbent, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard.

Those who want to make an issue of this now are a day late and a dollar short

[brer cat]

14. +1 nt

[ProfessorPlum]

17. it's 51-49, right?

meaning that if all the Democrats voted not to put a lying dirty trickster on the Supreme Court, it would only take 2 GOP senators to block this guy.

[Roland99]

19. Flake and Murkowski?

[still_one]

33. Actually I believe it would take one since McCain is gone. It would require all 49 Democrats to

oppose, and one republican to cross over in that case

Which republican would that be? Collins has pretty much said she sees nothing to oppose the nomination, and I wouldn't count on the Alaska Senator at all, or at least if Machin and Hedicamp were considering voting NO, it would be wise for them to see if any republican Senators cross over to see if it is even worth gambling their midterms on this confirmation if he would be confirmed regardless.

Here is the situation we are in. Let's assume for academics sake we were able to block it with Manchin and Hedicamp votes. Unless, they win their Senate elections, and we are able to take back the Senate, at best this would only be a delay.

When Bork was rejected, Reagan replaced him with Kennedy, but the difference then was we had a solid majority in the Senate, and we were just lucky that Kennedy and O'Connor moderated each other. That will NOT be the case after the midterms.

The time when people should have acted was 2016.

The 47% who decided the Supreme Court wasn't an important enough issue to bother to vote, or those self-identifed progressives who refused to vote for the Democratic nominee, WHERE WERE THEY?

Actually, they have been missing in action for sometime now. Voting turnout was dismal before 2000.

When labor decided to vote for Reagan over Carter that is when it actually started, and we were just lucky that O'Connor wasn't as much of an ideologue, and had influence over Kennedy, because we were given ample warning regarding the dangers coming down the pike.

[john657]

37. Not true.

The AZ governor has already named Jon Kyle as McCain's successor, who will positively vote to confirm, so the count is 51-49.

[still_one]

48. Thanks. Didn't realize he would be available for the vote. Then at least 2 republican crossovers

required, and ALL Democrats

unlikely

[john657]

51. It definitely ain't looking good for us.

How the fuck a lying POS like Kavanaugh can be confirmed is beyond me, this is why we need to take back the Legislative Branch and stop the infant Idiot's agenda before it's too late, if it isn't already.

[at140]

61. Taking over Senate will definitely help

But nominations do not begin in senate. First need to get rid of the reality TV idiot who will keep nominating extreme right wingers like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. He is talking about 4 rallies every week until November election, and still has crowds showing up for just pure entertainment because it is free. May be he will collapse from heat stroke during one of those stupid rallies.

[john657]

62. We can only hope. N/T

[Blue_true]

18. The points that you just made is why I want to throw cold water in the face of some on the left.

Last edited Fri Sep 7, 2018, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

The Supreme Court was lost on November 8, 2016. Hillary was very clear that the Court was at risk. Yet, many of the people that are pissing on democrats for not "stopping" Kavanaugh, chose to vote third party, write in Bernie, vote for Trump or just stay home and not vote at all. I just want them to shut the fuck up, I don't care about their opinions or how they feel.

[JHan]

29. All they need to do when they wonder how this came to be is look in the mirror.

[EffieBlack]

36. THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS!!!

And it's usually the same people who both played purity politics in November 2016 and now whine that the Democrats "aren't fighting hard enough."

They're also the same people who got so mad at Obama in 2010 and 2014 because he didn't govern from the far left that they refusd to vote in the midterms, thereby helping the Senate turn Republican, wouldn't lift a finger to fight for Merrick Garland because they didn't think he was progressive enough, and cheered when Bernie promised to withdraw his nomination and pick someone further to the left if he became president.

[john657]

39. I just don't understand why the majority of DUer's don't

get this.
It's like the old saying about insane, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results each time.

[still_one]

49. I actually think they do, at least the one's currently here. I think a lot of it is out of

frustration

[john657]

53. I thought the long game was to take back the Congress, but what some are

suggesting here would negate that.

Hopefully you're right, it's just frustration at the current situation.

[still_one]

57. I agree John, that should be our only objective right now, the midterms. It is critical we take

back at least one of the houses.

[dsc]

135. Bernie was right about that

I think Garland should have been fought for, I certainly think all the people who refused to vote were in the wrong. But Bernie was dead right on withdrawing that nomination. The GOP Senate needed to be punished for that behavior and if we won the election of 2016 we not only had the right, but the duty, to force a left wing version of Kavenaugh down the GOP's throat. The one and only way the GOP will stop this behavior is if it pays a price for it.

[EffieBlack]

142. Bernie was dead wrong and helped to exacerbate the problem

That was NOT the time for Bernie to second guess the president. He should have stood fully behind him in support of the nominee, not go around signaling that Garland wasn't worth fighting for. You don't fight for a nominee by telling people he's not good enough for you and first chance you get you'll find someone else to put in his place. What Bernie did on that, in my view, was unforgivable.

Not only should he have thrown his support behind the nominee, he should have used his position in the Senate to fight for him - at least join with the other senators who were trying to force a hearing. But he didn't lift a finger. He and his people constantly talk about the "revolution" but when they had the opportunity to stop talking and actually DO something, they did nothing. And worse than do nothing, he and his fans undercut those of us who were trying to do something.

So I'm not interested in hearing jack squat from folks who now talk about woulda shoulda couldas. It's all talk.

[still_one]

42. The tradgedy is we were given advance warning of this even before 2000. When Reagan appointed Bork,

we had a good majority in the Senate, and we were able to reject Bork, and Kennedy got in. We were just lucky that O'Connor was able to influence Kennedy, and that O'Connor was a moderating force. It should have been clear to anyone since when Alito and Thomas were selected, that would no longer be the case.

That is why I will NEVER forgive Nader for what he did in 2000. In spite of the irregularitiies which were part of that election, he influenced enough people to NOT vote for the Democratic nominee, that set the course to where we are now

and it is quite sad that those same influences in 2000, preaching the false equivalencies between the two parties were their in 2016, and that those who were naïve to fell for their lies, didn't not remember history.

George Santayana said it best:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Studying history is necessary to avoid repeating past mistakes."


Well, this mistake is a real hum dinger, and a lot of people are suffering because of it

[sheshe2]

69. This.

All this.

They pissed away our future generations because they just had a fucking sad.

JFC!

[john657]

70. A huge K&fucking R!!!!! N/T

[betsuni]

88. +1

[sheshe2]

45. +++

[Tom Rinaldo]

91. Agreed. Except we can only wish that the 47% who didn't vote were all "progresssives"

I realize that you are not saying all non voters are progressives, but progressives in general do make up one of the most reliable voting voting blocks in the Democratic coalition. But (especially in the current political environment) in a close race, any progressive who fails to vote for virtually any (not totally literally corrupt) Democrat running against a Republican is hurting the cause. Still, more focus is needed on getting more of the relatively apolitical non-voters (who tend to break Democratic if they vote) to the polls in November. If voter turnout had not dropped in 2016 from 2012 we would have President Hillary Clinton today.

[yardwork]

92. Some spoiled, entitled ignorant people didn't feel INSPIRED to vote.

[GusBob]

35. Yep. This deal was sealed a long tme ago. Circa Merrick Garland

This ain't our America anymore

Now let's get back to jacking off about that "letter" to the new York times

[john657]

41. LOL

Love this sentence.

Now let's get back to jacking off about that "letter" to the new York times

[still_one]

54. and no one should kid themselves, that "editoral" was NOT by written by a progressive or even a

moderate, by the writers own admission.

[fallout87]

55. Good point.

I dont put it past this administration to have been fabricating most of the scandals that occur every week. It takes attention off the more important things like Supreme court nominees, federal judges, federal regulations (EPA), and a host of other changes they are making behind the scenes.

[mountain grammy]

100. What's the point of anything?

Let’s all just don MAGA hats and join the mob..is that your suggestion?

No Democrat should vote for this madness or what’s the pint of any resistance?

[Bettie]

104. Thank you Grammy!

The fact that ANY Dem would vote for this out of political expediency shows a lack of conviction. A lack of principle.

What's the point if we stand for nothing in the end?

[fallout87]

138. Being realistic is not the same thing as laying down

Oberliner is merely pointing out the obvious.

[mountain grammy]

139. Yeah, give up and go home.

[fallout87]

141. Alrighty then

.

[Eyeball_Kid]

102. Not so fast...

Some politicos believe that Collins will sign her political death warrant if she votes for Kavanaugh, based upon Maine's constituency and her long time "promise" to support abortion rights. Further, Murkowski's in trouble if she votes for Kavanaugh because of Kavanaugh's rulings on the rights of native Americans, which would extend to a good chunk of Alaska's population. The more troubling calculations are being made by conservative Democrats like Manchin. This knucklehead can't, or doesn't want to, get out ahead of the Kavanaugh issue and create a reason for West Virginians to stick with him while still condemning Kavanaugh's nomination. It's not rocket science. Manchin seems to be hiding. He should be ashamed. OH, but anyone leaning toward supporting the GOP has no shame.

[DFW]

3. Kavanaugh sinks if he opens his mouth and says something

So far, he has offered only meaningless word salad, and even his obvious perjuries are not enough to ruffle Republican feathers--after all, who better to be tolerant of lying than Senate Republicans, the most concentrated group of liars and hypocrites to be found on the North American continent?

Our only hope is that the digging into his past quickly uncovers something substantial (like a mistress whose abortion he paid for with a credit card). If all we have is his lying and being thoroughly evil, those aren't faults in Republican eyes. On the contrary--they are assets.

[Chickensoup]

6. The two senators are only interested

in keeping their jobs and the hell with the
country. I say they should be warned
If they go against their party they should
Be kicked out and that is that.

[john657]

7. Or maybe they're getting intense pressure from their

constituents to vote to confirm, you know, the citizens of their state that they answer to.

[RhodeIslandOne]

9. Do you really believe someone who is desperate to see Brent Kavanaugh confirmed.....

.....is voting for any Democrat?

[john657]

12. In those states, pubs and Dems voted

for them, both are red states and it's highly likely that their constituents are putting intense pressure to vote yes.

[RhodeIslandOne]

16. You seriously think someone calling to support a Trump appointee is pulling a blue lever?

I mean, come on seriously?

Why not just call and tell him to vote Trump's way on EVERY issue or else?

[john657]

21. They were elected in very red stated, which means they're walking

a very fine line, and if they go against their constituents wishes, they'll be replaced by a pub, is that what you want?

[RhodeIslandOne]

28. I don't know why anyone would believe a constituant who needs Kavanaugh on the court....

....would vote for them. You do realize Republicans lie, right?

[john657]

30. Of course they lie,

but think about the long game, you know, the one where we retake the Senate and are able to block the infant idiot's SC nominee's.

If they don't vote their constituent's way, they'll be replaced with pubs who'll vote 100% with the infant idiot.

Is that what you want to happen?

[RhodeIslandOne]

32. Susan Collins doesn't have this problem

She knows anyone calling her office telling her to vote against Kavanaugh was never voting for her anyway. She'll satisfy her own party voters by voting for him.

[john657]

34. Collins is in a safe state,

Manchin and Heitkamp aren't, they both are in close races and their vote on Kavanaugh could very well be the deciding vote on whether or not they keep their jobs.

This purity crap is what has cost us the Congress before and has to stopped if we want to keep control of the Congress in the future.

(Disclaimer) My opinion only.

[RhodeIslandOne]

38. Maine is *not* a safe state

In theory it should trend blue.

But she's not going to piss off her base.

Both Manchin and Heidkamp could simply say "I want to be fully informed, I will not support a lifetime appointment until all the national archive files are released. I may very well vote for Mr Kavanaugh, but why the rush?"

[john657]

40. Another point,

they haven't committed yet, they've just said they're leaning to vote yes.

Again, they're both in very close races and their vote could very well swing it one way or the other.

[Volaris]

43. I would counter that they have an ethical obligation

To be smart enough to tell those constituents when what they're asking for is stupid and WILL be detrimental to their own well-being (like a supreme court majority that would sell their rights to the highest corporate bidder).

I think your position is the more politically feasible of the two and so therefore carries the more likely outcome, but that's my 2 cents FWIW.

[onenote]

24. So you would rather have McConnell as majority leader

and not have a Democratic majority leader that can block trump nominations from consideration?

Haven't though this through, have you?

[john657]

27. I've been making the same point essentially

and all I get is derision.

This is how we lost the Senate and House, because of so called "purity" tests.
Go figure.

[standingtall]

59. Refusing to accept standing for nothing politics

should not be confused with purity politics.

[sheshe2]

50. What do you say...

I say they should be warned
If they go against their party they should
Be kicked out and that is that.

What do you say to the Democrats that sat out 2016 for our candidate. The ones that refused to vote or voted third party because their candidate lost. What do you say to them?

[john657]

56. Oh, but that doesn't count.

In case this is needed.

[sheshe2]

63. Hey, John.

Thanks...

[RhodeIslandOne]

8. Neither of them watched a minute of it.

[Vinca]

10. Stevie Wonder could have seen that coming.

[jalan48]

11. So all the blather about getting a few Republicans to vote no is just bullshit. Why would they?

[sarcasmo]

13. Of course they do, that's why the Demcoratic party needs a +3-5 majority in the Senate.

Politics can drive one crazy.

[Thrill]

15. unreal

[onecaliberal]

20. If they're going to sell out democracy and vote with the cons they need to be booted.

[onenote]

25. Think about the concept of majority leader for a moment.

And what you're actually supporting.

[comradebillyboy]

108. Purity is the most important thing doncha know?

[melman]

22. Unacceptable

All the usual suspects will be along to talk about MATH this and red state that, but it's all bullshit because the bottom line is...


It is simply unacceptable for any Democrat to vote for this fucking guy.

[ProfessorPlum]

23. yes

also, for any independent or republican senator to for him. A disaster

[sheshe2]

67. Mel.

You use that term often when referring to fellow Duers.

"The usual suspectct"

What do you suspect us of? Who are these 'suspects' that you refer to. Are they Hill supporters? Obama supporters or those you just do not agree with.

VERB
suspects (third person present)
have an idea or impression of the existence, presence, or truth of (something) without certain proof.

doubt the genuineness or truth of.


NOUN
suspects (plural noun)
a person thought to be guilty of a crime or offense.

Ball is in your court.

[melman]

75. she

If I said someone bought the farm would you ask how much it cost?

No. Because it's an idiom and you know what it means.

Just as you know very well what the idiom 'the usual suspects' means.


On the off chance you don't you could always look it up.



Either way, I'm not going to play this game. So very, very sorry.

[sheshe2]

77. Nice post, mel.

Got ya.

However none of this is a game. Our very lives are at stake. Sad that you think it is.

[sheshe2]

87. Actually

melman
75. she

If I said someone bought the farm would you ask how much it cost?

Nope. I would ask how he/they died.

Someone who "bought the farm" has died. This phrase means to die. If you bought the farm, you'd have the dirt in the ground. This would be for your grave. An example would be "Poor Bob bought the farm last week after he caught pneumonia.".
What does the idiom bought the farm mean - Answers.c…
www.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_idiom_bought_the_farm_mean

[mountain grammy]

71. Yes, simply unacceptable.

The two Senate Independents will vote no with the Dems. One is reviled here, but the Democrats who will vote to confirm this awful, evil man, somehow get a pass. This is remarkable to me; twisted logic. Some folks are pretzels.

[Hortensis]

123. I'm not a pretzel, and I'm also not stupid and ignorant,

grammy. I'm also not mindlessly bigoted against anyone who doesn't fit in my imagining of some black or white label.

The blue dog Democrats who may or may not vote to confirm Kavanaugh are CONSERVATIVES who are the choices of the people of their states. That's the way it's supposed to be in a democracy. They and many of their voters choose to register Democrat, and these senators vote partly on the Democratic side and partly on the Republican side.

Obama could explain it.

But I'll explain that I revile Sanders and all who contributed to the election of Trump and Republican control of congress and many state governments. The evil is on their heads.

Go revile them and say you don't understand why they're getting a pass for their role in all that's happened since. Where's the shame, grammy?

[mountain grammy]

126. I never said you were stupid and ignorant

you said that, Hortensis, and I wonder why? I think you're directing that at me, and that's fine. What's true is Bernie Sanders will not vote to confirm Kavanaugh, who will have a negative affect on the lives of average Americans for generations, and some Democrats probably will. You defend these Dems as CONSERVATIVE (don't know why you had to shout that at me) but I have a problem defending conservatives when they are actively voting to take rights away from people. Could that possibly be the root of Bernie Sanders' support? A reaction to conservative Democrats who buy into weak unions, free markets, for profit health care, and a justice system where inequality is pervasive and entrenched?

Are you talking to me about where's the shame? The shame is in holding on to hatred and anger against Democrats and Independents who vote with us and believe in and work for average Americans. You show a picture of children in cages while you defend the very votes from conservative Democrats that will perpetuate this travesty. Where's your shame, Hortensis?

You think I'm "mindlessly bigoted" because I'm mad at Dems who may vote for this awful man to sit on the Supreme Court? Unbelievable considering your posts. Could it possible be you yourself are "mindlessly bigoted?"

[Hortensis]

127. No, it would be a rejection of democracy.

Anyone who cannot accept that voters elect representatives they believe share their views does not value or respect, much less support government of, by and for the people.

You're joining those who insist on claiming our conservative Democrats are voting all Republican, instead of often with us. Why? To attack and reject them so completely is to attack the Democratic Party, because we are far better off with them in the party than replaced with Republicans.

Manchin is at least honest in his positions, actions matching rhetoric. I don't agree with a lot of them, but he supports those progressive programs most WVans do. Manchin voted with Democrats to save the ACA while many who claimed to want national healthcare matched the demands of Republican legislators to get rid of it from the left.

Manchin voted for Hillary Clinton, and if he wasn't exactly Democrats' biggest booster, at least he did less harm in WV than Sanders did as a national figure. Many who claimed to be progressive but believed what their leader had been telling them about Democrats and about the person we chose to be our first woman president did not. Could attacking him possibly be about diverting and denying guilt for what they brought upon us?

Think about it. Maybe attacking blue doe Democrats as just as bad as republicans isn't a line you should support? Because it's bad for Democrats and, deja vu all over again, benefits the Republicans.

[mountain grammy]

128. I see you and others attacking Democrats on this board every day.

with anger and outrage that progressive Democrats won their primaries. What's up with that?

Guess what, Bernie Sanders also voted for Hillary and campaigned for her. Manchin didn't, but you say he didn't do Hillary harm in WV? Oh really? Did WV go for Hillary? NO, but Manchin is your guy. Well go ahead and love him while hating liberals. The support for Bernie Sanders and him campaigning for Hillary is the reason she won the popular vote by 3 million. You will never accept how unpopular she was in America when nominated. Was it fair or right? no, it was based on lies. But the myth was allowed to fester and boil for decades, as Democrats abandoned their base and embraced far too many conservative policies. Hillary once spoke of a "vast right wing conspiracy" and was blasted for it, but not from me. I agreed and still do, and men like Kavanaugh are part of it. Maybe, if Democrats had backed her up on that we'd be somewhere else right now, but they cowered and she backed down, and a few more voters gave up and said, "oh they're all alike."

I was always taught if you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything. Defending conservative Democrats while bashing liberals is now accepted on DU and is notable. When the Democratic party embraces conservative principles, Democrats lose their base and the "they're all alike" crap really begins to take hold, because it appears to be true even when it's not. Not holding true to our liberal values and abandoning protection of unions have hurt Democrats. My own Democratic Senator is fairly conservative and I've battled with him over unions and universal health care, but he does care enough about our future to vocally reject Kavanaugh, like he did Gorsuch, .

[Hortensis]

129. I want them opposing Republicans.

Not opposing Democrats. It's really simple.

Think: Today the senate is R51 - D49. We have to change that or what the right has become will change our democracy into a pretense fronting for a right-wing authoritarian state.

[mountain grammy]

130. You can want whatever you like, but I'll be working and donating to liberals

across the board because I'm a liberal and believe in liberal solutions.

I'm glad to see liberals on the move, on the air, and winning. It's really simple. you think about it.

[Hortensis]

131. Liberals not only overall tend to be able to respect and

cooperate with each other but those of different beliefs. We're the reason democracy can work. We're the reason people like Manchin and his voters can have a home in the Democratic Party and do more good and less harm thereby.

There is NO political analyst anywhere who says our current problems arise from our not being ideologically divided enough, grammy. If any of our conservative senators are replaced by a Republican it's likely to be absolutely disastrous for everything.

The Republicans have 2 senate seats in danger on November 6. We have 10, and all 10 are in trouble for not being conservative enough.

Joe Donnelly, Heidi Heitkamp and Joe Manchin are among those who define the far right of our caucus. How do you like the idea of 54-46 if they all lost to their Republican opponents? Maybe worth supporting?

Claire McCaskill and Jon Tester are not conservative but vote over the right of our caucus. They're likely to displease by what they say and do to win reelection. Under the bus with those? 56-44?

There are 5 others we could lose, but let's just sit on R54 - D46 to think about.

I don't just WANT these people to defeat their Republican opponents, grammy, I'm scared to death of what will happen to us if any of them don't. We are battling for the future of our nation and desperately need to prove predictions wrong by picking up seats, not losing them.

[mountain grammy]

132. We have to stop being scared. That's our problem..

We have to have the courage of our convictions. Like this:

https://www.jfklibrary.org/Exhibits/Past-Exhibits/Winning-West-Virginia.aspx

Maybe Manchin should be a Democrat with courage instead of one without. We should all have more courage.

[Hortensis]

137. Our nation's problem is that Democrats are scared?

Your post illustrates what bothers me pretty much in a nutshell -- so busy claiming we're the problem that there's precious little time or energy left over for worrying about the rise of fascism on the right. If we weren't scared the reality of over 100 million authoritarianism leaning Americans wouldn't be real? Mostly just an imaginary Republican monster under the bed that we could vanquish with just a little courage and commitment?

So, you think I should stop being scared and develop some courage of my convictions.

I think you should set aside this untimely commitment to improving what's wrong with Democrats -- just for the moment -- and instead take a pitchfork to what's under the bed.

Let's leave it here, maybe muse a bit over what R54 - D46 and D54 - R46 would both mean.

[mountain grammy]

140. Hey, you give up, I'll keep fighting for liberal values.

I will not concede, but you go right ahead.. no courage from you.

[sheshe2]

76. You know what is unacceptable?

Sitting out 2016 because a certain candidate lost. Unacceptable for those that voted third party. Unacceptable to blame Dems now for trying to hold a Democratic seat when others KNOWING the court was at play SAT THE FUG OUT!@!

Mel. Votes count. Sarandon wanted to burn it down as did others so they could build a Democratic Party in their image. We lost, not just an election. We lost the courts for a lifetime. Women,minorities and our basic civil rights are gone...all because people sat out the vote AND! AND! demonized our Presidential candidate. Sadly it was not just the GOPers that did that. It was our party.

[john657]

78. I often wonder if we're are own worse enemy.

We have met the enemy and it is us.

This is true too many times. I don't necessarily mean anyone here on DU, but you get my drift.

[melman]

79. That's a lot of words

But I notice that nowhere among them do you say if you think it's okay to vote for Kavanaugh.

Do you? Very simple question. Do you think a vote for Kavanaugh is okay? Yes or no.

[sheshe2]

82. Yes...

I posted a paragraph. A lot of words, none of which you answered. So instead of an answer you ask a question. Great dodge and I am not surprised.

I will await your full response to my post before I answer your dodge.

I will wait Riiight here.

PS............late gotta go soon so please answer asap!

[melman]

83. Seems to me

that you are the one dodging. Susan Sarandon is not the issue. There's no reason to address any of that.

The issue is Kavanaugh. The question is very simple. Yes or no. Is it okay to vote for him.

[sheshe2]

85. Dodge.

nite.

[john657]

86. See post 80. N/T

[ehrnst]

119. Is it OK to piss away a Dem Senate seat on a vote that makes no difference?

That's another simple question.

Yes or no?

[SkyDancer]

94. What does Susan Sarandon have to do with Manchin & Heitkamp voting yes on Kavanaugh?

She doesn't vote, has no bearing on any sort of SCOTUS nominees at all.
Meanwhile these are 2 members of our party (Heitkamp & Manchin) who are willing to confirm a scum of the earth lying piece of shit for the SCOTUS.

It's completely messed up they would even consider doing this.

[Jim Lane]

124. For some people, alas, Susan Sarandon is ALWAYS the issue.

Judging from the frequency and vitriol of the posts denouncing her, she is apparently more powerful than Fox News, the Russian trolls, and the Koch brothers, combined. Anything that goes wrong in contemporary politics is because of her malign influence.

Starting with that assumption certainly makes it easier to come to a comfortable conclusion.

[SkyDancer]

125. It's odd

If Susan Sarandon is so powerful then maybe we should be recruiting her to be on our side.

[mountain grammy]

133. I know, right?

Grow up people. She's one person.

[G_j]

97. We are talking about the present situation

(as in: NOW.)

[Eyeball_Kid]

106. There are times to be principled and times to be flexible.

Voting for HRC in 2016 was a time to be flexible. Those who wanted Sanders and stayed "principled" caused a problem.

But... the 2016 election of Trumpy was due to a number of related and converging factors. Blaming "principled" Bernie supporters doesn't quite pass the smell test. We know of several factors that contributed to this near-fatal result, any one of which would have changed about 70 thousand votes.

But let's move on. There are more important matters before us. Let's leave the 2016 election alone and take from it the lessons we should all be able to convert to victory in the next two cycles.

[George II]

111. So if you lived in West Virginia, who would you vote for?

[idcdu]

113. Paula Jean Swearingen

Unfortunately West Virginia is stuck with this guy.

[George II]

114. She's not running for the Senate. Now, back to my question in response to your statement:

"It is simply unacceptable for any Democrat to vote for this fucking guy."

If you lived in West Virginia who would you vote for?

[ehrnst]

118. You don't get to vote for someone who isn't running.

That's the way elections work. There is no way to accommodate the preferences of everyone, because candidates are human beings, and the product of compromise (no exceptions), because that is the nature of politics and life as a leader.

The question remains - who would you vote for if you were a WV resident, now, with the choices that WV actually has?

[George II]

121. ........

[ehrnst]

116. Can you specify who the "usual suspects" are?

Curious as to who these people are here who don't know that "MATH" and facts and stuff are "bullshit."

[brewens]

26. I know some conservative women quite well that used birth control because they liked to have

sex frequently and didn't want to be pregnant all the time. So I guess now they should feel like they have possibly had many abortions.

[smirkymonkey]

44. Fuck them.

Just fuck them!

[LenaBaby61]

46. Just fuck them!

THIS ^^^^

[SkyDancer]

98. +1

[standingtall]

52. Manchin does not need to vote to confirm this guy

to get reelected. He is going to get reelected either way by at least 5 or 6 points. If so called democrats are not going to stand up for democratic values at the most crucial time in history. What good are they to us? They might as well just go ahead and switch parties. Yeah the supreme court was lost in 2016. Yeah kinda of like the ACA was going to repealed on day 1, because of 2016. We need stop rolling over and stop lecturing those who refuse to roll over.

[still_one]

65. Bullshit. It's West Virgina, NOT California. Stop locturing those "who refused to roll over"

Roll over what? That the SUPREME COURT WASN'T AN ISSUE in 2016

Screw that. It was an issue, and in fact they were very vocal in spewing the LIE that there was no difference between the two parties, and they were "tired of voting for what they called the lesser of the two evils"

It was that "MODERATE", Bill Clinton, who gave us Ruth Bader Ginsberg. It was that "war monger" Lyndon Johnson who gave us Medicare and pushed through the Civil Rights Act.

They did a great job of undermining the Democrats in 2000 and repeating that in 2016, and they have no remorse or regret.

Every Democratic running in those critical swing states for Senate lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, and THOSE DEMOCRATS WERE PROGRESSIVE BY ANY STANDARD.

Are they that immature that they don't realize what voting means, and that the majority party controls the agenda. Perhaps they need to take a course in civics, and how the government runs. Numbers matter, and the majority party controls the agenda. Did you consider that he currently leads in the polls because he is representing what West Virginia wants?

Manchin is simply a good fit for the state, ideologically. If it wasn't because of the screw-up with Blankenship, these polls would be much closer.

[standingtall]

72. How many people posting on this thread

do you think didn't vote in 2016? Or refused to vote for the Democratic nominee? Manchin voting to confirm this guy is not comparable to Clinton or Lydon Johnson. This isn't some trivial vote. Your talking about giving permission for Democrats to vote for a Supreme court justice who is being appointed by an Unindicted Co-conspirator. A nominee who has been caught lying under oath and shouldn't have the judgeship he has now let alone a seat on the supreme court. A nominee who will vote to overturn Roe V Wade. Instead of making the 2 so called pro-choice republicans have to be the deciding vote. We are giving permission for Democrats to vote for this guy because of red states. Potentially even giving political cover for Susan Collins to vote against this guy sense it wont matter if 2 dems vote for him.

Given the circumstances if Democrats cannot stand up and tell 2 red state Democrats it's unacceptable to vote for this nominee then there is no reason to think when they get back the majority in the Senate that they will do anything meaningful with it.

[mountain grammy]

74. +1000

[melman]

84. +1

Great post.

[Bettie]

112. +1

Thank you.

[Hortensis]

122. Here, here, Still One! Manchin is a good fit ideologically

for WV voters, but that doesn't mean they aren't as batshit crazy and capable of going off on him as any other conservatives these days.

As for who didn't vote in 2016, we all know to look for them among those who can't ever stop badmouthing Democrats.

[dansolo]

93. Manchen should be more concerned about losing Democratic voters

I believe that he will lose more Democratic votes by voting to confirm Kavenaugh. The idea that he will lose votes by voting against Kavenaugh is tenuous, as I believe that anyone who wants to see Kavenaugh on the Supreme Court would never be voting for Manchin anyway. If we are talking about a political calculation, he would be better off by voting against him, and keep Democratic enthusiasm high. There has been more than enough evidence that Kavenaugh shouldn't be a judge anywhere, let alone on the Supreme Court.

[aeromanKC]

58. Sucks now, but good chances are Impeachment is in Kavanaugh's future.

Get re-elected short term for Red State Dems. Kavanaugh is dead man walking so to speak long term. Good chance he'll get Impeached.

[standingtall]

60. I would say stacking the court is a more realistic path than impeachment

[mountain grammy]

73. Yes, I believe that's the only way..

And if we ever get the majority we need to do that, we just might make real, lasting change. No more missed opportunities.

[john657]

64. Impeachment is a real possibilty,

but conviction and removal in the Senate is highly unlikely as it takes 67 Senators to vote for conviction.

I just don't see that happening.

[still_one]

66. exactly

[Eyeball_Kid]

107. Supreme Court justices CAN be indicted for crimes. That's a bigger issue for Kavanaugh.

There are NO rulings, and no Constitutional statements that forbid indictments of Justices. They are NOT immune from prosecution. The Dems have the goods on Kavanaugh. He can be indicted and prosecuted by a Justice Department AG in the future. If indicted and prosecuted, Kavanaugh will be compelled to resign. This real possibility is a reason that it would behoove GOPers to lean away from Kavanaugh. He's trouble. And he'll be trouble for a long time to come.

[john657]

110. Yeah, that's going to happen, as soon as Mrs. Clinton is

confirmed as the AG.

People keep grasping at straws that aren't there.
But you go ahead and live in your fantasy, I'll live in the real world.

That's all I have to say on the issue.

[triron]

68. Dems selling out. Disgusting.

[brooklynite]

80. I've personally told Red State Democratic Senators...

...to be as hard as they can in the Hearings and Debates, but if the votes aren't there, to not die on a hill of ideological purity.

[john657]

81. Exactly!!!

[SkyDancer]

95. We don't need members of our party to help kill Roe v Wade.

If that's ideological purity, a woman's right to choose, so be it.

All you'll hear for a LONG time on any news anywhere is how "Democrats helped kill Roe v Wade" if that happens and chances are high it will with Shitpublican liar Kavanaugh's nomination.

The overwhelming damage which this will do to our party is insurmountable if Manchin & Kavanaugh vote "yes".

[brooklynite]

99. Well the Republican who replaces them will certainly be happy to do so...

...along with gun regulations, tax policy, immigration reform.....

[Nanjeanne]

105. Serious question. Won't the Rs vote for the R running? So how does voting for

a justice that is a liar who is anti women, voters rights and workers rights helpful in getting out the Democratic vote in the state? Or the independents? I hear this argument a lot and I try to u crest and it. Who exactly is voting for Manchin over the Republican who is running against him? And won’t this vote suppress Democrats who want a rep who stands for really important things like a lifetime appointment to the SC?

I guess I’m just unsure how voting for such a dreadful nominee helps a Democrat inspire Democrats to get out and vote for him/her. And if you lose Dems, are you really gaining enough Rs and Independents by voting for an unqualified and dangerous Supreme Court Justice?

[SkyDancer]

115. Because driving Dem voters away from our own

is awesome strategy? It isn't.

[mountain grammy]

134. Sad to think of women's rights as idealogical purity.

Or anyone's rights for that matter.

[SkyDancer]

96. Paula Jean Swearengin tried in WV

I wish she had won.... You'll be hearing more of her in the future though, I promise.

Link to tweet

[ehrnst]

120. But she didn't, did she?

But she certainly is supporting the Democratic leadership position on this.

What do you think that she will be doing in the future?

[Eyeball_Kid]

101. Siding with a traitor and a consummate liar means nothing. n/t

[Devil Child]

117. With Democrats like these who needs republicans

Sacrificing solidarity in opposition to Kavanaugh for short sighted and selfish re-election concerns.

Cowards!

[sarcasmo]

136. This is why the Democratic party needs a +3-5 majority.

Always 2 or 3 DINOS who side with the GOP. Beyond frustrating.