Why should Dems not fight every chance they get?

[cally]

I see and hear too many Dems saying to not filibuster this nominee or not raise too big a ruckus. What do we have to lose and what has appeasal ever gotten us?

By fighting this, we help educate the country what is wrong with * choices. We point out that women's right to abortion and birth control is threatened. We point out that environmental protections may be weakened. We point out that an open government is threatened. We point out what Democrats value and stand for.

I'm not sure we can win this one but we have to try. The issues are too important to rollover for. We let most of * appointees go through without a fight and what did that gain us. Nothing!!! All it did is make us seem like a party with no values and unwilling to fight for anything.

Fighting to stop overturning decades of privacy law, environmenatal law, and governmental accountability law is critical. We may not win but we have to fight for this.

Excuse me while I go write a letter to my Senators and make a donation to People for the American Way.

[mmonk]

1. Yes

but not on the opposition's terms or timetable.

[cally]

2. The nomination is now. We don't have a choice...nt

[FloridaPat]

3. But I would think that in 25 years of being blasted by the repubs

the Democrats could come up with a plan. Any plan. An idea. Something besides being scared puppies hiding behind their desks. This has been going on since Reagan. The repubs do anything they want and condem the Democrats and nothing is done. Today Reagan is a hero. 35 of his people went to jail for crimes commited against the US Constitution. One person went to jail during Clintons years and he died there and really didn't have anything to do with the president. Reagan and Bush 1 should have been put in jail. The Democrats let them off. The repubs have been let off ever since. The message the repubs have is they can do anything they want and there are no reprisals.

[mmonk]

7. We need to stay focused

we have them on the ropes. We need to move in for the kill. The nomination fight comes in September. We need to move it until after we hear from the prosecutor's office. In the meantime, we have the organizations to expose the nominee in preparation for that fight.

[TahitiNut]

4. Heaven forbid anyone call them names!

It's always easier to give up. After all, Kucinich was 'unelectable,' right? Never mind that he has continued to voice values and principles with which 95% of the 'liberal base' agrees ... it's far more important to create the self-satisfying illusion of 'control' by giving up (under Democrat control) rather than being defeated (under electorate control). (Let's ignore the fact that defeat came anyway.)

I've never heard the judges and referees give points to the boxer who ran away from his opponent ... or spent time in the clinches trying to kiss him.

Fucking cowardice! :grr:

[cally]

6. Your rant is better than mine.

cowards.

[TahitiNut]

10. It's what happens when 'winning' is more important than 'why'.

This is part of the intellectual corruption of 'ends justify the means.' Partisans lose sight of why (the values and principles) and substitute 'party' for 'values.' Once that substitution takes place, the next step is to 'avoid losing' (which is DIFFERENT than 'winning') ... and, in particular, to deprive the opponent of credit for causing you to lose. One way to deprive the opponent of credit is to take a dive.

The Democratic 'leadership' and Democratic 'base' has been taking dives for over ten years. The Clinton impeachment should have never gotten out of the House. The "Contract on America" should have been exposed for the hypocritical piece of crap it was. "Supply side" economics should, at this point, be well-known for the obscene hoax it is. Kucinich should have been on the 2004 ticket. The "Quisling Compromise" should've gotten seven fascist-lite Democrats cut off from any kind of Part funding altogether.

Unless people stand up for their values and principles, no matter the outcome, then they're taking a dive ... surrender ... cowardice ... moral bankruptcy.

[bryant69]

5. There are three levels of fighting

Level one - no fight - we praise President Bush's choice and the hearings are convivial.

Level two - fight - in hearings we ask the tough questions, we slam into Roberts and let people know what a jerk he is, we underline the difference between the kind of law that Republicanoids want and the kind that we want.

Level three - scorched earth - we do everything up to and including filibustering the candidate. We pull out all the stops to stop the candidate.

I don't know of anybody, even in Washington, who favors level one. I suspect what we will get will be level two, and that's what I favor as well.

Level three would feel good, but I think it would turn to our disadvantage; but other people disagree with me.

Bryant
Check ito ut --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TahitiNut]

12. "Leave it on the field."

There are three levels of boxing: (1) Refuse to enter the ring, (2) Put on a good show and then take a dive, (3) Give it your all.

If you can't handle a bloody nose, don't get in the ring.

Sure... the "smart people" advocate taking a dive. After all, the pay is better, right?

:puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke:

[bryant69]

13. Thank you for totally mischaracterizing my point

And throwing up at me.

[The Stranger]

8. Hold on. Maybe Dick Durbin will apologize again.

[gman16]

9. Treason

It is about Treason, that's why.
The focus should be on National Security and Treason. Roberts is a diversion.

[TahitiNut]

11. Since when is Fitzgerald being diverted by Roberts?

Since when is placing a neoconservative in the Supreme Court for the next thirty years a 'diversion'?

Fucking nonsense!

[mmonk]

14. Not a diversion

but the public is not politically sophisticated. To win, public opinion has to shift. Without the scandal, will it? Will the media point things out?