72-25?!?
That's fucking pathetic. Terrible optics. Terrible for party unity.
If I had to guess, it would be that a lot of Democrats wanted to screw John Kerry for what they perceived as his quixotic grandstanding / playing to the online base. But that the Dems could muster only 25 votes for a filibuster... awful.
Update: I would add that, had the Dems fallen short of holding open the debate til eternity with 35 or 37 votes, they would have presented a compelling reason, a concrete, real-world, tangible argument, to elect more Democrats: we'll block people like Alito from getting to the court. But now, since we've clearly got no stomach for the filibuster, it'll take at least nine more Dem Senators, and not all in red states given the Johnston-Byrd-Nelson-Conrad votes for Alito, to keep wingers from getting to the court on an up-or-down vote. And we're not going to gain those kinds of numbers any time soon.
The Dems either should not have tried this stunt in the first place or they should have hung together enough to get close-ish to 41. But this was the worst possible outcome. Blame John Kerry -- who, unlike Kennedy, is a national figure, in fact, still the nominal head of the party, and who has a responsibility not to lead his colleagues into a trap of their own making. But there is no reason, none at all, why liberal-state Dems like Maria Cantwell and Joe Lieberman should have voted for cloture. Shame on them too.
Update 2: Actually what I wrote about what the filibuster says about how many Dems it would take to block winger judges was written with more anger than accuracy. I wasn't thinking about the judicial committee, which voted on Alito along party lines. With even a small majority in the Senate, the Dems could block winger judges. But that means we need another seven, rather than nine or ten, warm bodies with Ds behind their name, even Harold Ford-types would do, to stop originalist ideologues from polluting the court with their crackpot decadent legal "theory" (like supply-side economics for lawyers).
Assuming we can get the electorate to think this way. Still a bad day. Still a bad outcome.
If I had to guess, it would be that a lot of Democrats wanted to screw John Kerry for what they perceived as his quixotic grandstanding / playing to the online base. But that the Dems could muster only 25 votes for a filibuster... awful.
Update: I would add that, had the Dems fallen short of holding open the debate til eternity with 35 or 37 votes, they would have presented a compelling reason, a concrete, real-world, tangible argument, to elect more Democrats: we'll block people like Alito from getting to the court. But now, since we've clearly got no stomach for the filibuster, it'll take at least nine more Dem Senators, and not all in red states given the Johnston-Byrd-Nelson-Conrad votes for Alito, to keep wingers from getting to the court on an up-or-down vote. And we're not going to gain those kinds of numbers any time soon.
The Dems either should not have tried this stunt in the first place or they should have hung together enough to get close-ish to 41. But this was the worst possible outcome. Blame John Kerry -- who, unlike Kennedy, is a national figure, in fact, still the nominal head of the party, and who has a responsibility not to lead his colleagues into a trap of their own making. But there is no reason, none at all, why liberal-state Dems like Maria Cantwell and Joe Lieberman should have voted for cloture. Shame on them too.
Update 2: Actually what I wrote about what the filibuster says about how many Dems it would take to block winger judges was written with more anger than accuracy. I wasn't thinking about the judicial committee, which voted on Alito along party lines. With even a small majority in the Senate, the Dems could block winger judges. But that means we need another seven, rather than nine or ten, warm bodies with Ds behind their name, even Harold Ford-types would do, to stop originalist ideologues from polluting the court with their crackpot decadent legal "theory" (like supply-side economics for lawyers).
Assuming we can get the electorate to think this way. Still a bad day. Still a bad outcome.
2 Comments:
It IS terrible optics. When I mentioned this to Jeff in Linguistics his response was: "see, I told you so, no one can tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans". And I've got to say if you have to be a political junkie like me to see the difference, it's going to be hell for the Dems to ever take back house, senate or presidency. These guys need to LOOK different because in politics, like everything else, perception is reality.
your in bitterness,
Donald Derrick
Although it does look bad, the 'not even trying' alternative was worse. At least they showed a pulse, which rolling over on it would not. What the episode shows is that the Democratic caucus doesn't have anything like the party discpline the Repubs have. But then, it was always thus: 75 years ago Will Rogers said "I belong to no organized party; I am a Democrat."
Just remember that 10 months from now, this will not be remembered, let alone influence the congressional races. Americans have the attention spans of tsetse flies. The election in November will hinge entirely on what happens the 30 days prior to the election.
Of course, that does NOT cheer me up in the least; almost anyone can 'wag the dog' for 30 days.
Post a Comment
<< Home