We need to deal with this problem, but we cannot let "intrapary rifts" undermine our ability to fight elections; we have to find compromises so that we can go after the real bad guys.

Did it ever occur to you t.a. that in fact not all "progressives" or Democrats are actually fighting for the same thing right now as you try to argue? And those "progressives" and Dems who more sharply divide the world into two sides don't do it on the same lines that apprently you and some of the "progressives" here do? I'm sorry, but I see "left coast pinkos" and "red state centrists" as having more in common that not in that based on what I read myself, and that I hear from the majority of "blue" voters I rub shoulders with. Both have failed to offer compelling leadership qualities for many years now. And by that I mean presenting a credible, inspiring vision of where we as a country need to go that resonates with their values.

Although Dean was not my first choice of candidate, when I saw him live in a fairly small room his leadership potential was obvious: He is a critical thinker who understands the differing values people seek in leaders and speaks to that. This means forcefully defending those values he shares, but more importantly taking the time to work through differences when at all possible. (He also was a governor, albeit of a small state, and the oldest tried and true political wisdom in this country is that you nominate governors as Presidential candidates if you want to have the best chance of winning --- governors have run and been elected for the percieved leadership potential as executives.)

That also is what this president's electoral team did, although with a Machiavellan rather than a generous spirit. They identified what set of values resonated with theirs in 50% + 1 of the people and offered a leadership vision that spoke directly to those values and little else.

I'm also interested as the first shot in the 2006 election why this blog has not taken up the issue at all that I have seen (and I may have missed it) of filibustering the Alito confirmation vote?

As a life long unwavering Democrat it seems to me that the real problem we have is that the radical activists within the party are actually SO naive that they perceive themselves to be "the base" of the Democratic party. Sorry folks but you are the fringe...and the fringe began costing us elections back in 1980. We managed to get a moderate Republican in the white house for 8 years (Clinton) but since 1994 we've had our butts kicked in congressional elections. That dismal losing streak will continue until "the fringe" either grow up or grow weary of whining and drop out. It can't happen soon enough.

So in other words, Todd, it's all about winning the elections for the people with 'D'after their names, no matter how reactionary? That sounds like a page from the Karl Rove strategy book.

Let me remind you that Blue Oregon is a progressive site, not the official mouthpiece of the Democratic Party:

"BlueOregon will be the water cooler around which Oregon progressives will gather."

Unless we've redefined Progressive as Democratic, we should welcome the intraparty battles, and fight them with gusto, not with mealy-mouthed trepidation.

The problem is that Democrats campaign as ideologues and govern as centrists. The Republicans govern as ideologues and campaign as centrists. Elections are about winning votes, not debates.

If you look at the central issues in the United States today it is the incompetence and cronyism that have characterized the last eight years from Iraq to Katrina. Its not surprising given that it was cronyism that explains the personal business success of both Cheney and Bush. From the California energy blackouts, to global warming, to Iraq, to equiping our soldiers, to homeland security, to national forests and parks you can find examples of where the combination of cronyism and incompetence have damaged the country and its interests. And you can hear the complaints by democrats in congress about all those things.

But I will bet next fall the election campaigns will mostly be run on pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-labor, pro-peace platforms. And so will the Presidential primaries in 2008.

And I say that as someone who is to the left of center (Paul Wellstone was a moderate in my book) and strongly pro-choice, pro-environment, pro-labor and pro-peace. I have worked in all those movements and plan on continuing to do so for the rest of my life. But instead of campaigning on those issues, I want the people I elect to actually govern on them.

Ross Ross Ross Ross sigh

Pro-choice is fine as long as you aren't an extremist....58% of the electorate is against late stage abortion.

Pro-environment is fine as long as you aren't an extremist....a vast majority of voters see themselves as environmentalists as long as it doesn't adversely affect their job.

Pro-labor is fine as long as you aren't an extremist....union membership is way down and because public employees are so heavily unionized the majority of the electorate gags on a union centric platform. And all that WTO crap from the anarchists? God I hope we aren't identified with that bunch of losers...the American public doesn't give a ratz azz about the WTO.

Pro-peace is fine as long as you aren't an extremist....just the other day Newsweek's poll showed 57% of likely voters actually approved of military action against Iran if they get any closer to acquiring a nuke. AND FOR GOD'S SAKE I hope the Democratic party doesn't rant and rave about the wire taps on foreign elements. The American public is STRONGLY in favor of NSA monitoring. If we Dems get caught on the wrong side of that debate then we deserve to lose.

Of course....I guess you can not moderate your rhetoric, scare 52% of the people, lose the election, and have fun playing the outraged opposition in Pioneer Square for another decade or two.

I'd rather see us govern myself.

58% of the electorate is against late stage abortion.

So what? They don't vote for people for that reason. The only people who vote for someone based on abortion think all abortions are murder. And they don't vote for anyone who thinks any abortions should remain legal. Muchless for anyone who understands that safe, legal abortions were one of the major accomplishments of the last quarter of the 20th century and the foundation for women assuming an equal place with men in society.

a vast majority of voters see themselves as environmentalists as long as it doesn't adversely affect their job.

Again so what? They don't vote for candidates who are pro-environment. They vote for candidates that they think will improve their lot in life and protect the environment.

57% of likely voters actually approved of military action against Iran if they get any closer to acquiring a nuke.

Again, even if true, so what. People aren't going to vote for a candidate who says they want to go to war with Iran. That doesn't mean they won't vote for a candidate who will go to war once elected.

The American public is STRONGLY in favor of NSA monitoring.

That's not true, but again so what? They aren't going to vote for anyone based on whether they are for or against wiretaps.

I'd rather see us govern myself.

Thats essentially my point. You can govern ideologically all you want, the Reagan and Bush's administrations demonstrated that. What will kill you is if you try to campaign on ideology. The Republicans have the formula, campaign as centrists, govern as ideologues. Your base will hold because of the way you govern and the voters you need to win the election won't care enough about your ideology for it to matter.

The Democrats seem to want to do the opposite. Campaign as an ideologue so their base will be happy but scare the bejeebers out of the voters needed to win the election who don't like ideologues of any stripe. And then they govern like centrists and their base is unhappy as well.

Pragmatism is a strength not a weakness.

As for helping the middle class....that's a great idea but we have to re-define what middle class is....statistically it's those making $45,000 - $105,000 a year. Our party for too long has referred to anyone above $75k a year a "rich" and it's hurt us. Upper middle class goes to around $250,000....then MAYBE you can call the ones above that "rich".

About the above: 1) Never forget that people as diverse as Joan Dukes and Hubert Humphrey opposed abortion---they just weren't in-your-face about it. They appealed to voters on the basis of positives, not what they were against. Is someone "pro-life" who believes every child conceived should be born and if the woman dies or has her health permenantly impaired in childbirth that is OK because the baby being born is all that matters? What of those like Humphrey who actively supported programs for poor families with children--as opposed to "we must oppose abortion and oppose all programs for needy families because that money should be returned to taxpayers". Are they both "pro-life"? Do economic issues matter?

2) Generalities (campaign as ideologues, govern as centrists, for instance) don't win elections. I have worked on many "impossible" elections that ended up victorious. There was more hard work than pondering some of the issues mentioned above--boots on the ground canvassing, neighborhood coffees, the sort of thing that takes more effort than money. Nothing flashy, just victory thru hard work.

3) Democrats are more successful when they have active issue debates without declaring X is a "real Democrat" but Y is not. That is why primaries where actual issues are debated are healthy, although slash and burn primaries are not. The abovementioned Iowa campaign left Gephardt and Dean as 3rd and 4th because they were so nasty--a lesson about the value of standing for something positive. There should be candidates who match the district and if that candidate couldn't win in a district several counties away, so be it.

4) Dean and his grass roots "show up everywhere, contest everything" approach works better than consultants telling people who live in a district that targets are the way to go and the professionals who live elsewhere know the district better than the people registered to vote there.

5) If you can have an event (campaign kickoff, fundraiser with low admission charge, neighborhood coffee, local debate, etc.) which attracts a broad cross section of the community, that will be more successful in engaging the general public than all the advice of consultants, all the "identified what set of values resonated with theirs in 50% + 1 of the people and offered a leadership vision that spoke directly to those values and little else.", all the other formulas for winning elections.

In 1982 Jim Hill won a legislative election which he had lost in a recount the previous year--same with St. Rep. Betty Komp losing by less than 100 votes and winning the next time. In 1990 only 5 of the Cong. incumbents running lost--but one was Oregon's Denny Smith losing to Mike Kopetski. I submit that was not done by some grand organizing principle, but by hard work on the ground.

I think the most importrant thing for democrats (and everyone else) to be doing right now is fighting like hell to keep Alito off the supreme court. Also to inform people that the "unitary" (read imperial) presidency was his idea. He is an extremely "activist" judge who doesn't seem to believe in our constitutional gaurantees and thinks the president needn't pay attention to them. I believe he is a grave threat to our democracy. Would he support Bush canceling elections? (for national security reasons of course) Maybe some leaders can rise up that we can follow, and I don't mean those who lead with their finger in the air always testing the wind.

Alito is not an extremist. The fact that you want him stopped makes you one. The rest of us mainstream Democrats will survive with him on the high court.

Alito is a done deal. If you're going to get all twisted up in knots, you had better not watch T.V. on Tuesday.

Let's keep our eyes on what we seek, let's follow our hearts, and let's leave the internecine destruction to the Rs. They deserve it so richly. America deserves, and needs, the victories that come from Democratic tolerance of difference. Including each other.

If a county Democratic Party moves to a bigger meeting space and starts a regular luncheon series and a candidate support effort, or if a rural Democratic Party is fired up in ways not seen recently, is that really because of bloggers and "the activist left"? Are activists merely bloggers, or those who do the work on the ground in their communities? Could it be that volunteers from 2004 decided they would get an early start on the 2006 elections by organizing in 2005?

In 1984, I worked on a Democratic presidential primary campaign which "didn't have a chance"--a challenger to the Establishment, the campaign didn't get organized until Super Tuesday. A joke arose that the stereotype of our campaign was that each person was an "independent cuss" agreeing on little with regard to issues, just interested in the presidential candidate as a leader. The campaign encouraged us to think for ourselves and there was no requirement that we all agree on issues.

We won almost 60% of the statewide primary vote in each cong. district and statewide, and thus got lots of delegates. In turn, we elected lots of county, district and state folks at the next reorganization election. We didn't do that by "agreeing on a set of values" or anything like that, but by excellent organizing and hard work--and being aware of where our candidate stood on issues so we could tell others.

I still think that is the way to win elections, regardless of what Karl Rove has done in the past. Rove didn't carry Oregon either time, did he?

I have never heard a complaint about FP being either "right" or "left" (that they sometimes trust statistics and consultants over residents of a district is "professional politics"--the opposite of ideology).

I would prefer to have volunteers who fit the description "radical activists within the party are actually SO naive.." but they will work themselves into exhaustion every spare moment they have, than have consultants tell experienced volunteers to shut up and take orders from consultants because long time volunteers living in the district know less about what wins elections than "professionals" know.

And a reality check for those like Alice who seem to think reading the NY Times is un-American or some such.

Just saw 2 things on the news, which are related. 1) Gov. Dirk Kempthorne (R-Idaho) complaining that his state is short on trucks and other equipment for the National Guard--when they returned from their Iraq deployment the equipment was left there. He is going to Congress because he worries about fighting fires this summer without that equipment.

2) There was just an earthquake near Portland. Magnitude was under 3, but what if it had been bigger?

If Alice (or someone who thinks like that) was in a forest fire area in Idaho or an earthquake in Portland and the local National Guard had less equipment than needed, would that be OK with those who think like Alice? If the safety of Alice's family or their property were compromised by the lack of National Guard personnel or equipment, would Alice's attitude be "well, that's OK, because we know Pres. Bush is doing a good job fighting the war on terror--nothing else matters"?

That is what this is all about, folks--real life, not debating on a blog.

I guess I am an extremist. I got that way because we have a president who's lies are responsible for more American deaths than al-Queda and a leading democratic candidate without the guts to say she made a mistake in giving him the power to do that. At least she and Harry Reid and our Ron too have said thay will support the filibuster of Alito. Win or lose, it IS a step in LEADERSHIP. What really gets me twisted up in knots is Nevil Chamberlin style appeasement.

Alito is not an extremist.

Uh huh. And the question is why the democrats in congress ever allowed that belief top enter anyone's mind. I assure you the right understands that he is an ideologue. What will people say whan he joins a majority of the court in ruling that a fetus is entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment and therefore legal abortion is unconstitutional? When it happens is will no longer be "extremist" either, it will be the law.

George Bush campaigned as a uniter not a divider. He hasn't made the mistake of governing that way. He has governed as a hard edged ideologue.

Democrats who seek to paint someone like Alito as extreme are watering down the label "extreme" to be meaningless while accomplishing nothing.

Even if late term abortion, parental notification or abortion itself becomes a State's issue as a result of a swing at the High Court that in of itself does not signal, demonstrate or establish any "extreme" movement by "extremists".

Pretending otherwise because of an uncontrollable want to have it that way serves no mission.

At the end of the day abortion will be alive and well, in one form or another, while remaining a heavily overplayed, over billed and distracting issue, by extremists on both sides.

Of which Alito is a member of neither.

Democrats who seek to paint someone like Alito as extreme are watering down the label "extreme" to be meaningless while accomplishing nothing.

Jim Jeffords, the Independent Senator (a former Republican) appears to disagree with your assessment. Here's his statement on Alito:

"After much consideration, I will not support the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to fill Justice O'Connor's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. While Judge Alito is clearly qualified and capable of serving on the high court, I believe our country would be ill-served by his judicial philosophy at this critical point in time. This philosophy would grant too much authority to one branch of government at the expense of the others. There are limits on the power of the Presidency, and Judge Alito, in my view, has not demonstrated the needed respect for those limits. While others will disagree with my assessment of Judge Alito, this will be a lifetime appointment and a lifetime is too long to be wrong."

How should we interpret that except to say that Jeffords is opposing Alito because, though he may be qualified, Alito possesses a very extreme view on the power of the Presidency vis-avis the other branches of Government?

I'm not a lawyer, but when you consider how many of Alito's rulings have been struck down by other courts -- for example, his attempt to strike down a federal ban on the transfer of machine guns that has been in place since the 1930's -- which was rejected by 6 other circuit courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court, and which his colleagues said ran counter to "a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers." -- it's tough to see him as something other than an extremist by any reasonable standard by which jurists are measured.

People whose opinions I trust on such matters have raised concerns about Alito's position on workers rights, women's rights, civil rights, racial equality, and a host of other issues I care about.

I agree with Jim Jeffords. The Supreme Court is a lifetime appointment. It's too big a position to be wrong about.

Jeffords> "Alito possesses a very extreme view on the power of the Presidency vis-avis the other branches of Government?"

Once again it is the accuser, you and Jeffords, who is extreme. Despite even my own opposition to the presidents current perceived power, his position appears to be fairly mainstream and acceptable to many of all stripes. Extreme would be if he extended his power to random and unwarranted searches of everyday Americans.

Alito has not voiced anything near an "extreme" position on this issue any more than on abortion.

So how do we address reality without claiming everything we don't like is "extreme"?

Unless this is all some collective positioning for a possible or likelihood that yet another SC justice will retire during W, I see nothing to be gained from attempting to falsely paint Alito as extreme.

Throwing out another fringe play like Jeffords is weak and same old, same old, by any reasoned measure.

okay, let's say you'd like to learn about an actual political campaign to impeach the president ...

ah, none of this noise about a yearning for somebody to go do it ...

in addition, you'd like to learn about a game plan to snag Osama ...

if all the above meets with your approval, then click, somehow, on the following hyperlink:

http://hewhoisknownassefton.blogspot.com/2006/01/osama-and-our-president-dumass-botch_20.html

and get ready for a ride on a wild blog

toodles .......\ .he who is known as sefton

oh, yes, the above was copied and then pasted by an actual human being, who visited this "BlueOregon" blog.

What a perfect follow to make my point. A link to Randi Rhodes. I ocassionaly listen to Randi Rhodes.

This week I heard her say "Our president is a whore and he's f___ing the world." She bleeped herself but continued with vile and extremity which only hurts.

I'm a pretty radical Democrat, but I also know how to be pragmatic. I build houses for a living, in that process I have to understand that it is a house, not a piano, there is "good enough" for what is trying to be accomplished. That is the trick in applying pragmatism to politics, finding that line. We Democrats would like to win the OR House and keep it for awhile. OK, there are issues that will flat out make that real hard. The politician that can make it clear for ex: "Abortion is the best of a selection of bad options" is going to do better than the one that makes it sound as though it's "convenient." Labor has been ceded to the R's, I don't mean "Labor" as in unions, I mean people who work with their hands. It's been ceded by senseless issues, the only "Gun Control" law in the last 40yrs that's made people safer was the ban on mail-order purchases, but that horse has been beaten by the Democrats ad nauseum and those workers aren't fooled about losing a Civil Liberty for convenience sake, at least not one they can hold in their hand. But, many would have us campaign on Wiretaps and the 1st & 4th. They won't be impressed.

Pragmatism doesn't have to mean standing for nothing, but the issue sure better be well defined and of real consequence to the voters. Do the tax policies of the OR House Republicans resonate with voters? Yep, if you don't make them look at the reality. Capital gains and estate taxes hit a tiny minority in any district, but Republicans run on them. School funding hits a sizable number, public safety hits a sizable number, poor wages, etc ... Alienated gun owners are just about enough in any district to tip the balance to Dems, but that label of "gun grabbers" is going to take a good long while to live down. You may not like those noisy things, but there are two realities; the 2nd Amendment exists and law abiding gun owners are not a problem. You run uphill with cement blocks on your feet in the face of that. Is there a real difference between heterosexuality and homosexuality? Make yourself a real clear mental picture of both acts and then try to convince yourself there isn't a real basic difference, whatever your orientation. Does that mean that homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights and privileges as anyone else? No, but it also doesn't mean it's the same thing and if you let yourself get painted with that brush, you lose a lot of voters.

The general population of America tends to be very fair minded, but they also can be scared into being mean. The Republicans have done a fine job of scaring people, that's the real battle. Take a look at the "Conservative" wins and then measure in the politics of fear and see where that leads you.

At the end of the day abortion will be alive and well, in one form or another, while remaining a heavily overplayed, over billed and distracting issue, by extremists on both sides.

There are no "extremists" on legal abortion. There are those who think it should be legal, those who think it shouldn't and those who don't much care. I am sure abortion will continue to be available, just as it was before Roe v. Wade. - illegally in most or all of the country.

The problem with Alioto is that he is an extremist. But because the democratic party doesn't govern ideologically it focused on carefully considering his moderation, rather than his underlying extremism. Did anyone asked Alioto whether he supported Brown vs the Board of Education? Whether the income tax was constitutional? Whether a fetus was protected by the 14th Amendment? Does the constitution require that anyone born in the United States is a citizen, even if their parents weren't? Can employers refuse to hire women of child bearing age for jobs which might expose their unborn children to toxic chemicals? Can states make it illegal for someone to cross state lines in order to get an abortion. Can the congress make it illegal?

The fact is that they didn't ask about those extreme positions that are being advocated by some of Alioto's allies. If you want to portray Alioto as an extremist you ask him to respond to extreme positions - unless he flat out rejects them he will sound extreme. So he will flat out reject them. But then when he fails to likewise flat reject out more reasonable propositions his carefully nuanced replies will be recognized for what they are, attempts to hide his real positions.

The point of the Alioto nomination for democrats shouldn't have been to discover his extremism, but to expose it to the public.

Ross>"The point of the Alito nomination for democrats shouldn't have been to discover his extremism, but to expose it to the public."

You have neither discovered or exposed any extremism.

Of course there are "extremists" on legal abortion.

There are those who think abortions, on demand, by minors, paid by tax payers and late term should be a "right" and there are those who think ALL abortions should be outlawed, period.

Alito is in neither of these extreme camps.

What you are doing is attempting to cast someone as extreme simply by declaration and without any recognition of how mainstream his positions are.

The questions you think should have been asked and answered by Alito would have been answered much like any of the other questions he was asked. In judicial fashion and temperament. That's why he'll confirmed, you will stay casting him as something he is not, and abortion will continue to be available long after his first seating on the bench.

A majority of the American public is for NSA wiretaps? There have been mixed polls on this result. Americans have shown the desire sacrifice some of their freedom to protect themselves, but those same Americans don't want to be spied on. "It's ok, if its not me!"

A majority of Americans want to go to war with Iran? Let's go for it! The quicker we do the faster this empire will fall into bankrupcy! War, war, war... Americans wouldn't know a history book if it slapped them on the face. All empires fall.... every single one, without exception. The more in debt we are, the more we go to war, the quicker we will fall. But, then again I am just a history major. What do I know compared to the SUV, Survivor culture?

Democrats hearts are in the right place, but the have NO balls. That is why they will continue to lose elections. Republicans fight relentlessly and without mercy. Democrats make sweet talk and wonder why they get screwed.

Let me play my lute while Rome burns! Who needs gay marriage? We'll all be gased soon enough, right?

What you are doing is attempting to cast someone as extreme simply by declaration and without any recognition of how mainstream his positions are.

It seems to me that this is exactly what you've been doing for this entire thread. Anyone who disagrees with you on this nomination, be it an Independent Senator like Jeffords (former Republican), or a conservative Democrat like Lieberman is labeled (by you) an extremist.

Personally, I think you're a misguided Republican plant who thinks somehow that you'll get people to stop opposing the Alito nomination by labelling everyone who does so as an extremist.

Holding aside the fact that 60 percent of this country is represented by the 35-40+ Senators who will filibuster the nomination, and the 45 Senators who oppose the nomination, but who may not filibuster, what positions does the Democratic Party take today that make them extremist compared to the 1970's, when (apparently) they weren't extremist?

anon>"what positions does the Democratic Party take today that make them extremist"

First off I don't think the party position is that Alito is an extremist. Rather some democrats insist he is because they are democrat extremists themselves. Unless you think there is no such animal. Which might be a good question. Are there any democratic extremists?

Second, I have not seen or heard any "Republicans trying to get people to stop opposing the Alito nomination". They don't need to. Especially by "labeling everyone who does so as an extremist". That certainly was not my goal. The fact is Alito is not extreme. A rather large contingent of democrats (possibly a majority) agree.

So what is the point of having Kennedy and Kerry go through the motions of a tizzy fit over imaginary extremism.

It looks very weak and gives the impression they have nothing else to focus on.

Enough on Alito....it's a done deal. This evening CNN has a solid count of 59 votes for the nomination and surprisingly 67 votes opposing a filibuster. Kerry has once again made himself look foolish, jetting back from Europe to fire up a filibuster that was dead from the start. I just hope he flies back to Switzerland tonight so he doesn't drag down the Democratic party. He and Ted Kennedy seem to have a knack for that.

I just hope he flies back to Switzerland tonight so he doesn't drag down the Democratic party. He and Ted Kennedy seem to have a knack for that.

With a nod to Daily Kos...

"Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us understand, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

Alito is in neither of these extreme camps.

Does that mean he can't take communion in the Catholic Church? Because the Catholic Church's position is that all abortions should be illegal. I believe Alito has been quite clear he believes abortion should be illegal. Whether he believes making it illegal is constitutional isn't really in doubt either, but he hasn't been open about his position on that point.

There are those who applaud people who shoot doctors who provide abortions. I suppose we can call them extremists, but, in Oregon, those people are called Republican leaders.

There are those who think abortions, on demand, by minors, paid by tax payers and late term should be a "right"

In Oregon, that is called the majority who have directly voted to pay for abortions for indigent women and to allow abortions to be treated like every other medical decision by minors. Rejecting ballot measures that would have ended public funding or required parental notification.

Enough on Alito....it's a done deal.

It has been ever since the democrats in the Senate decided to deal with this as a non-ideological decision. It wasn't treated that way by the President. He's got himself another member of the Thomas/Scalia /Bork wing of the court. Perhaps to the right of those three in that he is only recently out of the trenches of ideological struggle.

Another point on Charlie's slap at Ted Kennedy and John Kerry...

I have to think that the biggest problem with the Democratic Party is not beltway triangulators, nor politicians who lack strong convictions. It is Democrats who have decided to adopt and regurgitate the right wing narrative about the Democrats who actually do stand up and fight for what they believe in.

If you want Democrats to stand up and fight for what you believe in, it helps if you don't aid and abet the right wingers who are trying to tear them down by repeating their storylines.

Not me. Tomorrow, I'll be calling Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to thank them for calling for this filibuster. I'm calling Ron Wyden to thank him for supporting it. And I'm calling any and all of the Dems who have expressed a lack of support to ask them to change their position.

Alito is an extremist and "activist" judge because of his concept of the "unitary" presidency. George Bush is following this precept now. That is why he added the caviat after signing the "no torture" bill, basically saying, "Unless I say so". Alito beoieves the president is above the law. Can you imagine what our founding fathers would think of that? I wouldn't trust any president with no oversight, absolute power--republican or democrat.

Charley,Those who stand up to fight this nomination look more like leaders than fools. Those who don't look more like doormats.

I suggest that Karl, Ross, and whoever "Kudos for Kerry" might be all take a healthy dose of Prozak if thye intend to watch TV on Tuesday morning.

I for one recognize the political reality of the Alito nomination and intend to be in Palm Springs on my favorite golf course by Tuesday.

Al Gore gave all Democrats a black eye by the way he handled himself during the Florida "recount" in 2000. Kerry and Kennedy seemed to have learned nothing from AL's madness.

We keep screwing ourselves. Karl "the crook" Rove is no genius. He just stands back and waits for our party to HAND him the talking points that put more Reps in office. It all makes me sick.

I for one recognize the political reality of the Alito nomination

You mean the reality that moderate Democrats are going to get rolled by the extremist Republicans. Yep. The other reality is there will be a lot of people out on the golf course with Charlie when it happens because the D's have done such a god-awful job of explaining to them why they should care. Of course I suspect Charlie, like a lot of people, would be out on the golf course no matter who this nominee was.

<<of course="" i="" suspect="" charlie,="" like="" a="" lot="" of="" people,="" would="" be="" out="" on="" the="" golf="" course="" no="" matter="" who="" this="" nominee="" was.="">>

Many of them retired public employees living large in their 50's with early and healthy retirement income courtesy of the taxpayers they gouged.

I suggest that Karl, Ross, and whoever "Kudos for Kerry" might be all take a healthy dose of Prozak if thye intend to watch TV on Tuesday morning.

I'm fully prepared to see the Democrats lose the attempt to filibuster Samuel Alito. What I am not going to do is accept your notion that the best way to deal with a bully is to meekly go along with what they want you to do. That's doubly true when the fight in question involves giving the religious right and big business' candidate a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court.

And I'll reiterate what I said earlier. People like yourself, when you regurgitate a right wing attack points about Democratic leaders who show some backbone are the biggest problem with the Democratic Party today.

Karl "the crook" Rove is no genius. He just stands back and waits for our party to HAND him the talking points that put more Reps in office.

I'm sure Karl Rove appreciates you repeating his talking points about Democrats for him.

soothing post. recent unsubstantiated far-left attacks on hillary, who i think is the one of the left's best chances for taking back the executive branch in 2008, had me hating "our" extremists almost as much as "their" extremists.

but we're in this together, really. i suppose i can withstand a little more idiocy from the nutjobs on our side if it means we take our country back from the people who say "freedom" and mean "spying and christianity for everyone. and bombs. lots of bombs."

I just can't help but think that there were a lot of Republicans who knew that W was a dunce but shut their traps and fully supported him anyway. Kerry was a much more impressive candidate than W, it was our own insecurity that made him look weak, not his.

PS I apologize if this idea was already presented, tough to read through it all.

I fear that the Alito nomination is a done deal, however, standing up for what you believe in... despite political fallout, IS being a true leader. Few Republicans have ever done this. Enough Democrats have castrated themselves to ensure that Alito will go forward.

Apologist Democrats have claimed that a filibuster would cost them in '06, when in reality they have almost nothing to lose and a lot to gain. I WILL NOT vote for any Democrat this did not vote for a filibuster and stands in favor of the war in Iraq.

The fact is today and tomorrow will be historic days. Will the Democrats be hearalded as heros or as failures? Will they ride into the '06 election cycle as having guts or being gutless?

Pat, I agree that Kerry had a little bit of a communication drawback. Of course, maybe that's all the president is anymore: a communicator.

But, compare that to Bush's drawbacks. There were the obvious poor decisions (Iraq, budget deficit, lack of international support). And even thinking back to 2000, before he actually had presidential failures under his belt, he had failed at almost everything he had done (business, drinking, National guard, etc.). We weren't really dealing with a bootstraps guy here. But the Republicans didn't even let it phase them.

I just think it's interesting to compare to what the republicans go through with their candidates.

If we get the right candidate who can actually connect with the people Pat, you hit the nail on the head. I have worked on campaigns where the "impossible" candidate won. It wasn't because of the "party message"--- sometimes quite the contrary.

The candidate was personally attractive, or was running for local or legislative office after already being popular in the community. Or the challenger was young and vigorous and willing to publicly discuss issues, while the incumbent had gotten lazy. Or the winning candidate ran on a particular issue (back in the old days before the legislature mandated it, I recall a successful school board campaign advocating publicly funded kindergarten).

<h2>Message is merely an ingredient as money is merely an ingredient--having lots of both and a candidate who alienates people doesn't equal victory.</h2>