.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

 k / o
                                       politics + culture

Monday, January 30, 2006

the Alito cloture vote

{lol, I wrote this last night and failed to post it, I was so tired!}

I worked a long day today and, while I'm aware of the results in the Senate: I don't feel I have much to add to the discussion here in the netroots since I haven't been close to that discussion.

One simple observation that occurs to me, however, is to note that the Dean model of "fighting" in 2004 seemed to offer a response to the "cynicism" of Nader in 2000 for progressive activists.

The two groups of people, Deans supporters and Nader supporters don't necessarily overlap. But....

Dean's call for 'backbone' had real appeal to people in our corner of the political world: Bloggers, netroots and liberal activists, people who like to debate progressive ideas and issues. Dean's fight provided Democratic activists someplace to point when Nader supports argued about the Democrat's lack backbone.

Today's result, as predictable as it was, turned alot of that upside down. There's something to think about in that.

One other note: Samuel Alito feels to me very much like having William Rehnquist on the Court again. I am not looking forward to the test cases we are about to see rise up through the system, or the resulting acrimonious battles.

The same people who resent the politics of pro-Choice activists should now realize that it will be the anti-
Choice activists who will take the Alito nomination as a call to arms, who will force the issue, who will drive this thing.

That's something to think about too.

Bush knew full well this would happen. In fact, he has invited it.

As strange as it sounds. Alito is Alito. He is what he is.

At the end of the day, the Alito nomination, like so much that is foul in our political lives, traces back George Bush, the GOP and the voters who gave them the Presidency and the Senate.

2 Comments:

  • Chairman Dean, what does backbone mean? What does "fight" mean? Do you have second thoughts about making 2005, a year with 2 Supreme Court nominations, the year you embraced "Pro-life Dems"?

    You are stunning:

    ''We do have to have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party,'' Dean said.

    Still, he added, ''I think that we must be absolutely firm in being the party of individual freedom and personal freedom, which means that in the end the government doesn't get to decide, we do.''


    Why you are insisting a promoting this LIE is now bordering on the delusional.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:09 PM  

  • Hmm. I've already responded to you once:

    "The government doesn't get to decide, we do."

    Is way too vague (who is "WE"?...a family, a parent, etc.) Further, after saying that he embraces "Pro Life Dems"...it's not exactly convincing.

    Let me ask you this, since you insist on driving by my blog anonymously and calling me a " delusional liar" time and again:

    Are you saying that Chairman Dean is saying "We embrace Pro-life Dems" but they these "Pro Life Dems" not allowed to vote "Pro-Life"?

    I don't think so.

    My point: accepting and welcoming the term "Pro Life Dems" is an endorsement of Pro-life VOTES.

    I don't see how it can't be.

    By Blogger kid oakland, at 3:49 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home