a Filibuster for Choice
We don't have the first, we won't likely get the second, and I am not alone in having real problems with the third. There is another category emerging now: a movement filibuster driven by principle.
We have a responsibility to communicate in simple and effective terms to the American public. If we fail in that, and we often have, then we fail that public and we fail our party.
On politics and principle, then, I join the call for a disciplined filibuster of Samuel Alito's nomination focused on his opposition to Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.
I throw my small voice in support of: a Filibuster for Choice.
Let me be clear:
Choice is it. This can't be about anything else. We need to be utterly disciplined.
There is no other issue that will cut through to the American public. There are no other grounds for a filibuster that we can explain in such simple terms and which justify the serious step of undertaking a filibuster inside and outside our party.
Of the possible courses of action for the Democratic Senate right now, only a sustained, disciplined filibuster of Samuel Alito on the principle of Choice carries any political danger to George Bush and the GOP. On everything else, we lose.
My message to the netroots and the Senators, then, is that everything else must be pushed to the side. Not because it is not valid, but because everything else in ineffective. No issue has broken through to the public. On no other issue is Samuel Alito so clearly on the public record.
The time to be crystal clear is now.
Samuel Alito does not support a woman's right to choose in any meaningful way. He refuses to call Roe v. Wade settled law.
We oppose him.
If we succeed, all future presidents will know that a nominee who is unwilling to call Roe v. Wade settled law is unacceptable to this nation and unacceptable to the Democratic Party.
I want to be clear: This cannot be about George Bush. This cannot even be about Samuel Alito. This can't be about the big bad GOP. Or CAP. Or Vanguard. Or the unitary executive. Or Harriet Miers. Or Dr. Dobson.
The time for all of that is over. That's all mumbo jumbo now.
The only way a Democratic filibuster of Samuel Alito has any meaning, the only way we will have real political impact and effectiveness, the only hope we have of making it succeed, is if we make it about a woman's right to choose, and ONLY about a woman's right to choose.
We are a Pro-Choice party.
There's been some flirting with other formulations. The flirting has got to stop. This filibuster must be that moment. Our position is straightforward. We support Roe v. Wade; if you are a Democrat, you have to meet that standard.
Taking a stand for that standard will have consequences.
There's been a lot of talks about a "filibuster" being a free ride, a win-win. That's fantasy speak. There is no free ride, folks. There is no free lunch.
If we filibuster Alito on Choice, it will have consequences inside and outside our party.
For the Democrats, it will have consequences in places like North and South Dakota and Nebraska and Pennsylvania and Iowa. To those who've been preaching a free lunch on the issue of a filibuster, I say, You're full of it.
Some Democrats will lose elections, some will bolt our party, there will be ugly primary battles. Pretending otherwise is not reality-based, and forgive me for saying so, but we've still got a lot of that in our party.
If we support a principled Filibuster for Choice, we need to look those consequences for our party in the eye and take responsibility for them. Anything less is irresponsible and undermines the seriousness of this effort.
On the other hand, if we mount a disciplined filibuster of Samuel Alito based on Roe v Wade and Choice, then, pardon my french:
The shit will hit the fan for the GOP.
George Bush and Karl Rove are sitting comfortably in DC laughing their asses off right now because, once again, they have dared us to call them out on this one issue, Choice, and we've been unfocused...we've betrayed our people and our principles.
If our Senators mount a disciplined, focused Filibuster for Choice: the GOP will stop laughing.
The GOP does not want to invoke the nuclear option on choice. They do not. They would happily invoke the nuclear option against a Democratic Senate they could brand as "obstructionist." The GOP, however, really does not want to face what would happen if the Alito nomination became: an up or down vote on Roe v Wade.
The folks doing the bean counting at the RNC really do not want to see what happens if the Democrats call the president's bluff on this one issue: Choice. Now, that political consequence is not reason alone to mount this filibuster, in my view, but it adds politics to our principle.
Choice is the lone principle that, politically, can withstand the threat of the nuclear option.
To those who've argued that our party needs to stand up. I say here that I agree. But I would note that we need to stand up in a way that is responsible and communicates effectively who we are and why we have taken this serious step. Unity of message is the only politically effective way to oppose the GOP. We fail to understand this at our own peril.
In closing, I would like to go back to something I mentioned at the beginning of this essay. There is a kind of filibuster that is not serious...that is not disciplined...that is more about a "laundry list" of grievances..that is more about playing politics. I don't support that. In fact, I'd put it this way. For our Senators to take a stand on Alito and make it come off like the anti-war protests so many folks complain about...where we mention every issue under the sun and dilute our message to the point of laughability...would be disastrous.
It would be disastrous for Choice, disastrous for our Party, and disastrous for its implications of "what's to come" in the fall of 2006. In failing to be clear and disciplined and yet taking such a grave acttion, we would hand the GOP an easy reason to oppose us. The Democrats need to do more than "just take a stand" in the abstract, or offer a laundry list of greivances that cannot be conveyed in simple terms on TV and in the media; we need to take a stand for something clear and significant that the public understands and supports and let the chips fall where they may.
So, that is my message to our Senators and the netroots. If we are going to filibuster, it has to be that simple and that direct. It has to be that clear. That is what I'm throwing my small voice in favor of:
A Filibuster for Choice.