Am I the only person who does not understand why we should be mad over the

[dorktv]

lack of a filibuster over Alito?

Honestly, who else would Bush nominate? We know what kind of a person Bush is going to nominate and unless we control the Senate, we are not going to be able to force him into a corner without causing more problems then benefits. I just do not see it.

[nickshepDEM]

1. Eh, Altio is better than Pryor or Brown.

[inthebrain]

2. It's really simple......

The Dems could have fillibustered every bush nominee from now till November w/o fear of reprisals.

Wanna know why?

Because the Repugs were on the verge of becoming the minority party!!!!!! THEY NEEEED THE FILLIBUSTER MORE THAN THE DEMS DO!!!! Look at their polling numbers for chrissakes.

The Dems did a god awfull job of calling the Repugs bluff on this one and it will cost them dearly.

[dorktv]

8. they filibuster this one, then the senate rules change and there are no

more filibusters possible.

[inthebrain]

9. Didn't I just explain that to you?

The Repugs were in no position to do so. They stood to become the minority party and the fillibuster would have been for valuable to them.

Get it?

06' elections?

Poll Numbers?

[dorktv]

10. Um hello, nine months until the election, still have a lot of other things

that can go on that would make it impossible to filibuster...Those recess appointments expire after a period of time you know and at least one of them is due.

[blm]

17. That was a bluff - they wouldn't do that in election year w/28% approval

.

[orleans]

3. yes. n/t

[leftstreet]

4. Bush nominated Harriet Miers. His handlers knee-capped her

and forced him to go with Alito.

We didn't even get to see Harriet in senate hearings.
Although we know Harry Reid was okay with her.

It's only Bush's fault insomuch as, even as President, he has no control over what he's told to do.

[Eric J in MN]

5. Bush might have nominated someone more moderate.

Now we won't know.

[dorktv]

7. Considering what happened to Harriet Miers...I doubt that the right

would have stood for it.

[Eric J in MN]

20. It's possible the next nominee would have been as bad, but

I still think it's important for the Democrats to stand up for civil liberties, abortion rights, and honesty.

[madfloridian]

6. Just get mad at the right people, though.

It is out of control here about people holding the wrong politicians responsible. They are hurting good people doing this.

If you don't reward the people who work for us, why should they bother.

It is getting sad here, hurtful

It was the SENATE. Not the DNC. Not the House. The Senate.

Some people are just talking out of their hat and going after the wrong ones.

[bliss_eternal]

11. Thank you for making this point

madfloridian! It needs to be said. :hi:

[dorktv]

12. they are also I think overreacting, yes Alito was horrible and godawful

but when we take back the White House in 2008, I do not want our judges to be filibustered and there is nothing to say that will not happen.

[sendero]

18. Strategically...

... I would have much preferred the GOP kill the filibuster than us. Make no mistake, it will eventually die, make them do the dirty work.

Not filibustering Alito was a huge opportunity missed. It has nothing to do with Alito per se, sure they would have just nominated another wingnut, that is not the point.

The point is it is time to hand the GOP an in-your-face defeat. It is time for an administration that has failed at almost every endeavor, that is polling in the thirties, to eat some dirt and accept that the country is no longer behind them and their swaggering gait is fooling no one.

[OneBlueSky]

13. I for one am just beyond frustrated that my party can't get together . . .

on ANYTHING in opposition to BushCo and the fascist police state they're trying to inflict on us . . .

just once I'd like to see the Dems stand up as a party and say NO! . . . just ONCE! . . .

just to show me that they understand the depth and breadth of the problem that BushCo poses to the very foundations of our nation . . .

Do Dems Have a Death-Wish?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=309575&mesg_id=309575

[lynne]

14. You are not alone -

- I often use the first part of the "Serenity Prayer" as a guide on when to get upset and when to focus my energy elsewhere.

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.

A filibuster was an exercise in futility. Every politician on the floor knew that and that is exactly why it didn't happen.

[windbreeze]

15. This is WHY, I wanted them to filibuster....

Grover Norquist gave an interview on 9/12/04 to a Spanish magazine....and in that interview, he laid out the plans the Rep's have, in the future, for the Democrats..I will include the link in this post..and please understand that it has been translated from Spanish, so you have to take your time when you read it...it is oh so chilling...chilling...

I wanted our Democrats to STAND UP as a UNIT..as ONE..and show the Republicans that we CAN do something as a unified party..even if it failed...If we can't see how far that would have taken the Democrats at midterm election time...I don't know what to say...It very well may have shut down the Senate...It may have brought about the "nuclear option"...BUT...in the END...it may have been what tipped the scales forever in our direction...because OUR ELECTED SENATORS would have shown us they were willing to fight for us, and that in turn would have made us form a solid wall of support and resistance to the Republicans behind them....unfortunately, now we will never know what it could have accomplished...because it didn't happen...

the link: http://tinyurl.com/5v07e

quote:
"If we take control of the legislative and the executive branch, we will reinforce our control of the JUDICIAL BRANCH to direct it AGAINST THE DEMOCRATS" Grover Norquist 9/12/04 (before the pres. election...which gives you a clue as to why they had to steal it again)

Read the following paragraph from the interview...and tell me, it is not exactly what we see happening in this country, right now....The interviewer was asking Norquist a set of questions about the then coming election..and what happens if Kerry vs Bush wins..
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
P. - And if Bush wins?

R. -" the Democratic Party will be finished for always. If we have the control of the Legislative one and the Executive, we will reinforce our control of the Judicial Power to direct it against the demócratas.Llevaremos to end a modest limitation of the capacity of people to initiate legal processes against the companies, which will damage to the specialistic lawyers in those cases, that they are one of the props of the Democratic Party. We will accelerate the declivity of the unions. We will trim the financing to groups of employees public, like the professors, who are one of the great sources of votes of the democrats. And we will begin to move the State of Well-being towards a deprived system, in pensions and health."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I know the wording is a little awkward...but I'm sure you get the gist of what he's saying, and if you don't...email me, and I will explain it to you...This speech is WHY, I wanted a FILIBUSTER...no matter WHAT it did or did NOT accomplish right away...It wasn't immediate gratification I wanted....it was LONG TERM...I wanted to feel as though I finally had something to stand up and cheer about...I will not forget, Cantwell's vote...it cost her mine...Thanks Maria..
windbreeze

[rniel]

16. what i'm madder at

senate extended the patriot act I think 95 to 3 in favor.

Are democrats in on the whole joke and actually furthering the bush agenda while pretending to fight against it. If they did what could we do about it. We would have to overcome the 2 party system which would be very hard.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. They had the votes to pull it off

but not the discipline or the backbone... that is what shoulld bother you. When the ball came down, they punted.