"There is always a philosophy for lack of courage."—Albert Camus

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

More on Alito

I'd like to add that Alito would quite possibly not have been confirmed were this not an election year. The Democrats have hopes of re-capturing part or all of the Congress because of perceived weakness in the performance of the Bush presidency. They know that Americans are essentially conservative on the question of judges and do not want to chance making the court a midterm election issue.

Thus, we have the compromise. Hold a dog and pony filibuster show that allows the senators from safely liberal states and those who wish to audition for the primaries in 2008 to prove their love to the Dean/Moore/Move-On faction. Then, hold the real vote, let a few vulnerable Dems vote for Alito while the rest of the caucus votes no, and go back to "Bush lied, people died."

There's the script. Get ready.

9 comments:

JC said...

Pretty much. I've seen that coming for quite a while.

Tlaloc said...

"They know that Americans are essentially conservative on the question of judges"

Sort of. Except that the majority didn't want Alito if he was going to overrule Roe and it was only by lying about his intentions that they got him through. Everyone paying attention knows that the Religious Right were pinning their hopes of killing Roe on Alito, but they lied about it.

If the American people were as on board with your agenda as you claim you wouldn't have to trick them into it, now would you?

Edie said...

The World Socialist Web Site has a really excellent analysis of the Democrats and their flaccid filibuster gesture. You are right to characterize it as a dog and pony show for the liberal wing of the party. I also call into question the notion that Americans are conservative on judges. Are you implying by 'conservative' that Americans are more aligned with the current Republican conservatism, or just a wariness to get involved with the confirmation hearings? If this is what you mean, then I don't think that Alito is a desired outcome of all this, and I think most registered Democrats are beginning to realize their leadership refuses to represent their best interests.

James Elliott said...

Can't really argue with that. The Democrats as an "organized" political entity are a sad, sad bunch right now.

Hunter Baker said...

The Dems have a basic personality problem. They don't know who they are as a party. The post-Vietnam party is essentially socialist without ever admitting it, want judges who will decide the basic questions of national life, and are against a strong America internationally.

So, instead of being who they are, they spend their time claiming Republicans are racists, fascists, or otherwise completely unworthy human beings who pose a threat to the entire American way of life. This has not been a strategy for reclaiming their once completely dominant position, although it has rallied the activist wing of the party.

In other words, Bush Lied is not anywhere close to a program and won't work any better than Billy Had a Cigar did.

Hunter Baker said...

On the other hand, the GOP has done a nice job of creating a personality problem of their own. A government driven prescription benefit doesn't make sense to the GOP identity at all and was a cynical election-time ploy.

connie deady said...

The Dems have a basic personality problem. They don't know who they are as a party. The post-Vietnam party is essentially socialist without ever admitting it, want judges who will decide the basic questions of national life, and are against a strong America internationally.

So, instead of being who they are, they spend their time claiming Republicans are racists, fascists, or otherwise completely unworthy human beings who pose a threat to the entire American way of life. This has not been a strategy for reclaiming their once completely dominant position, although it has rallied the activist wing of the party.


I agree that the Democrats have a problem. But it's pretty bizarre to say they are socialists.

The problem is they've never gotten over the fracturing of the party that occurred in the 60's as a result of the Vietnam war and the emergence of King, et. al.

Democrats used to be a majority party with a low electoral turnout that encompassed a lot of views. As long as they were in power, the completely different factions didn't matter. These days, they haven't decided just what it is that makes them democrats.

They need to get out of the cultural wars and remember that it is the economic issues that defines them.

Hunter Baker said...

Connie, what's bizarre about calling the Democrats socialists? If the party were located in Western Europe it might well style itself a socialist party. The appellation is death in America, so they don't use it.

James Elliott said...

If the Democrats were in Europe, they would be far from socialists. They would be a political coalition within parliament encompassing socialists, independents, greens, labor, reformers, and plain old centrists and religious moderates. They lack the central identity of the Republican party, and this is their downfall.