Hospitality

It seems I'm not the only one who's a bit frustrated with how the Alito hearings came off. Speaking for myself, I admit I had few illusions that Alito could actually be blocked. The far-right wingnut faction of the Republican Party dominates their agenda, and has been good at getting all their folks to toe the line on the big battles. And let's face it: the whole elected GOP is pretty far right compared with the country at large, even the Republican base at large. No, Alito was likely to sail through no matter what.

But the Democrats have proven quite inept at framing any debate or discussing anything relating to values. Part of that problem is that the Democrats have become so amorphous that it's hard to find any single thing that the Party agrees on. But also the more progressive Senators didn't really do well at making clear what's at stake. It was a rambling, uncoordinated Restoration comedy, with few wits and all too many fops.

There've been some other interesting observations on the Alito hearings, and other oddments.

Eleanor Clift at Newsweek, "Abortion Politics":

The Alito hearing couldn't have come out better for the Republicans if the Supreme Court nominee himself had chaired the committee. Even though it was a Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who brought Alito's wife to tears by asking her husband if he was "a closet bigot," the Democrats got blamed for hectoring the nominee with questions he wasn't going to answer.

The shock of the rhetorical ploy briefly drove Martha-Ann Alito from the hearing room and gave Graham the stage to defend the judge's character and bemoan the "guilt by association" tactics employed by Democrats. It turns out that Graham had a hand in helping prep Alito for the hearings, which raises the issue of whether the line was scripted.
Factesque, "Our Own Echo Chamber":

The progressive netroots, especially the A-listers, largely enable the Democratic leadership which, according to Daou, is either complicit in the sorry state of affairs or too confused to figure out how to tap into what we offer. For proof, you don't need to look further than Dick Durbin's tearful apology on the Senate floor and the candidacy of Bob Casey, Jr.
Pam at Pandagon, "Rights going down in flames":

What I saw up there were Dem Senators in the end, just enjoying their face time on TV, pontificating, looking outraged for their constituents — they were already pre-programmed by their staffs to ask the same lame questions over and over, and left room for Alito to obfuscate so easily.

The system is broken.egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women, "Snow Won't Support Filibuster":

There are 44 Democrats and one Democratic-leaning independent in the Senate. As Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently acknowledged, the only way to stop Alito is with a filibuster. It takes 41 votes to sustain a filibuster, and we certainly can not count on all the Democratic senators.

Obviously, if Alito is to be blocked, all pro choice senators must be on board. That includes Republican senators, Snowe, Specter, Chafee, and Collins.
Jeff A. Taylor at Reason, "The Death of the Abortion Debate?":

For all the complaints on the right about runaway courts and unelected judges ruining America, it is fascinating to see the depth and breadth of the conservative Justice-in-waiting farm team. Alito and John Roberts are top-notch legal minds in an arena demeaned almost hourly by pundits on the right. The storyline does not square with reality.

A Justice Alito on the Court may force the body politic to confront this new reality, where abortion does not play a central role on the socio-political scene. The left will have failed to stop a nominee that, in their construction, threatens to reverse one of the singular civil rights advancements of 20th century America. Moreover, the American public did not pay much attention to their failure.
Morgaine at What She Said!, "Democrats: ask not for whom the bell tolls...":

It’s this simple. The Democrats may or may not win an election with the women, but they cannot win an election without us. If they screw around and lose Roe v. Wade, or any other civil rights, the women in this country will bury the Democratic party. The party has been a complete failure in its role as an opposition to the creeping fascism of the Bush junta, and we’re tired.

Cleis at Sappho's Breathing, "Torturing children may be necessary":

When you hear Judge Alito defending the concept of the unitary executive, draw the connection between that concept and the practice of torturing children.
Glenn Greenwald at Unclaimed Territory, "A Nation of Jonah Goldbergs":

The whole point of the Bill of Rights – really, its principal function – is to prevent the Government from punishing those whom the Government claims (but has not yet proven in a court of law) are bad people deserving of punishment. That’s why there is a sequence mandated by the Constitution before rights can be abridged and punishment inflicted – first, charge someone with a crime, then give them the right to defend themselves along with other protections of due process, and then convict them. Only then are they considered criminals whose rights can be abridged.

What people like Jonah Goldberg stupidly refer to as these "procedural niceties" happen to be the only things which distinguish our country from every two-bit dictatorship around. If the Government has the power to simply decree American citizens to be criminals -- or terrorists -- without bothering to prove it in accordance with "procedural niceties," then the Government has the power of tyranny. It means the Government can act against whatever citizens it wants without limits, strictly on the Government’s say-so. That’s why we have a Constitution - to impose those limits and to prevent the Government from exercising exactly this power. That is so obvious. It’s basic civics. It’s something we learn in the sixth grade.
And for more of a wingnutty run-down....

TravisG at WireCan, "Scalito Scallopini":

As promised, the Red Meat Players are back to with another dramatic interpretation of the day's biggest news stories.
Last, but certainly not least, Ampersand at Alas, a blog offers us, "Worst. Newspaper error. Ever." You just have to go look.

The charade of loyal opposition during the Alito hearings hasn't escaped notice of several members of the progressive blogosphere (aka the "real netroots"). Part of the problem is that Beltway politicians don't read blogs.

On Salon, Peter Daou paints the hard-reality-based political landscape:

Last September, I published an essay laying out what I saw as the scope of blog influence, with 'influence' defined as the capacity to alter or create conventional wisdom. I used a triangle construct to set out the relationship between the netroots, the media, and the political establishment: "Looking at the political landscape, one proposition seems unambiguous: blog power on both the right and left is a function of the relationship of the netroots to the media and the political establishment. Forming a triangle of blogs, media, and the political establishment is an essential step ... Simply put, without the participation of the media and the political establishment, the netroots alone cannot generate the critical mass necessary to alter or create conventional wisdom."

I concluded that "if the netroots alone can’t change the political landscape without the participation of the media and Democratic establishment, then there’s no point wasting precious online space blasting away at Republicans while the other sides of the triangle stand idly by."

Can you guess what comes next?

A flurry of activity among bloggers, online activists, and advocacy groups is met with ponderously inept strategizing by the Democratic leadership and relentless - and insidious - repetition by the media of pro-GOP narratives and soundbites. It's slow-motion-car-wreck painful, and most certainly NOT where the left's triangle should be a half decade into the new millennium, as the Bush-propping machine hums and whirrs, poll numbers rise and fall, Iraq bleeds, scandal dissolves into scandal, terror speech blends into terror speech. The landscape is there for everyone to see, to analyze.

So that's the frustration with the right wing's success at pressuring the media to treat their dogma as facts and to treat facts as "liberal bias." But there's more:

Which brings me to the Alito hearings, a perfect instance for the left's triangle to change conventional wisdom, to shape public opinion. But rather than a Democratic triumph, the Alito hearings have thrown the dichotomy between the netroots and the Democratic leadership into even starker relief, illustrating the profound dysfunction of the left’s triangle.

And then...

[P]rogressive bloggers and online activists - positioned on the front lines of a cold civil war - face a thankless and daunting task: battle the Bush administration and its legions of online and offline apologists, battle the so-called “liberal� media and its tireless weaving of pro-GOP narratives, battle the ineffectual Democratic leadership, and battle the demoralization and frustration that comes with a long, steep uphill struggle.

What are the implications?

Unfortunately for the progressive netroots, the intricate interplay of Republican persuasion tactics, media story-telling, and 21st century information flow seems beyond the ken of most Democratic strategists and leaders. The hellish reality progressive bloggers have acknowledged and internalized is still alien to the party establishment. Dem strategy is still two parts hackneyed sloganeering and one part befuddlement over the stifling of their message.

That's all very interesting. However, I think Peter Daou misses another pernicious problem that undercuts the "netroots'" effectiveness in affecting and influencing Democratic Party policies and tactics: The "progressive netroots" as a unified influential force on politics is an illustion.

There are "progressive" bloggers who are actively working to undercut and undermine real progressive netroots activists, citizens and (most importantly) voters.

On the front page of Daily Kos, Armando cites a New York Times editorial that states it plain:

The single most important thing a senator can do to support abortion rights is to vote against Supreme Court nominees who would take such rights away. Given Judge Alito's record and his testimony, it is hard to see how Senators Specter, Chafee, Snowe and Collins - or any other pro-choice senators - can call themselves strong advocates of abortion rights if they support him.

That's a fair point. Armando uses it to focus in on the Republicans:

This holds for Dem Senators who claim to be pro-choice as well. We'll see how they vote. But one Republican Senator who claims to be pro-choice has already demonstrated that there really are no pro-choice Republicans....

Yet what about the Democrats who do the same? Where is the outrage at the Democrats who will roll over (and you know there will be many)? Ben Nelson has already declared his fealty to the right-wing icon. Where's the call for Democratic unity on this?

Amando's ongoing spirited opposition of Alito comes on the very selfsame site that has vigorously advocated for: Bob Casey, Jr., who is against a woman's right to her own body. Same for Tim Kaine, Tim Dunn, Eric Massa, Tim Ryan, Dan Boren, Charlie Melancon, Robert Cramer, Mike Ross, John Salazar, Joe Baca, Dennis Cardoza, Jim Costa, Sanford Bishop, Ben Chandler, Charlie Melancon, Wm. Lacy Clay, Collin Peterson, Gene Taylor, Dan Boren, John Murtha (!), Lincoln Davis, Henry Cuellar, Jim Matheson, Nick Rahall -- all card-carrying opponents of women's rights over their own bodies.

And it's not just Markos who's endorsing anti-choice Democrats. Even ActBlue gets into the act.

If defending a woman's right to her own body is so important to the biggest "progressive" blog in the world, then why do they push so hard for anti-choice candidates, while attacking defenders of women's reproductive rights as "single-issue voters" who "demand ideological purity" to conform to our "litmus test"?

What about this so-called "progressive netroots'" own litmus test: Democratic candidates who oppose women's rights and consider women's bodies property of the State?

I think what Peter Daou needs to realize is that the Democratic Party's apparent apathy towards -- or, at best, inept opposition of -- women's rights opponent Samuel Alito is abetted by the right-wing ana-progressive "netroots" push for candidates who are over on the right with Ben Nelson and rank no better when it comes to women's rights over their own bodies.

And the real question is whether the Democratic Party can thrive, or even survive, while it continues to alienate its progressive base while it chases the dream of being the kinder, gentler owner of women's wombs.

One expects the Republicans, who represent the government, to cheerlead for -- and help coach -- Samuel Alito and his affection for governmental authority over the people. Their speechifying in the hearings employed rhetoric more in line with the WWF than the US Senate (though some would say it's the same difference). I was especially nauseated when the these white men of the ruling elite, sitting in the halls of power, "discussed" oh-so-reasonably as to how much right, if any, a woman has over her own body.

But I am not impressed by the Democrats, either. While some seemed to press Alito on his beliefs, much of it seemed rather inept. As to how sincere it was, we'll see.

But we've already seen that many Democrats -- the very same ones who have stretched the so-called "big tent" far outside of the normal constituent base and traditional values of the Democratic Party -- are already on board for Alito's approval.

Since there are 55 Republican senators, many of whom have already described the nominee in glowing terms, Judge Alito would still appear to have an excellent chance at confirmation, if by a less decisive margin than the 78-to-22 vote that elevated Judge Roberts. Exactly half the Senate's 44 Democrats voted for Judge Roberts. Those Democrats included Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who told The Associated Press today that he had heard nothing that would disqualify Judge Alito.

And yet, and yet -- we still get self-made blog pundits, Party strategists and would-be arm-twisters for the astroturf version of the "netroots" pushing for all of us progressives to shut the fuck up and support more candidates who are at least as far right as Ben Nelson.

Already we see a Democratic Party that is so amorphous, so diffuse in views, so much the "big tent" that it cannot hold a united front against a radical nominee like Alito. Hell, the Party can't even seem to come up with its own version of the '90s Republicans' "Contract On America."

What does the Democratic Party stand for, what does it represent, if it can't even put together a coherent message about progressive values, civil rights, human rights and basic equality?

What good is a Democratic Party if it won't even stand up to the egregious and offensive push by the now-so-radical Republican Party to regulate one's body and one's bedroom?

In this Alito anointment confirmation process, we're reaping the fruits of the "big tent" seeds already sown by the Democratic Party. This summer we enter a primary where the Party is pushing for more Ben Nelsons and Joe Liebermans -- people like Bob Casey, Jr. And if the Party and its boosters get their way, we can expect even more of a wishy washy Democratic Party -- a Party that pretends to be different while it aspires to be ever-more Republican.

And thus we can expect more Alitos in the federal courts and, should someone else retire, the Supreme Court.

I say listen to the spin. Watch the floor debate. And count the Democrats who vote for Alito. And think about what kind of Democrats you want winning the primaries this spring and summer.

Liberal Street Fighter

Much is made by the anti-women zealots of an old "documentary" called Silent Scream, which is credited with arrousing the passions of this oppressive political movement. (For a thorough debunking of this work of exaggerated agitprop, go here). As we watch an extremist movement conservative slouch his way onto the Supreme Court this week, helped along by radicals in the Republican Party, a lapdog media and a disinterested "opposition" party, we must sadly note that the "screams" of undeveloped masses of human tissue matter more than the actual screams of an a majority of Americans.

We scream at our televisions as CNN's news-poodles regurgitate GOP talking points, apparently fed directly into their teleprompters from RNC fax machines. We scream through faxes, letters, emails and phone calls to our "representatives" in Washington, but apparently those faxes arrive blank, or garbled into incomprehensible hieroglyphs when they pop out on a staffers desk. The emails must arrive rearranged into UNICODE symbols, the letters wet with ink and graphite running together and our phone calls must sound as though we're calling on cheap cell phones as we drive into tunnels, because it's quite plain that our alarm, our absolute disgust and FEAR of what this country is becoming, HAS BECOME, is manifestly not having an impact.

So we can look forward to an America where more young woman scream into their pillows, fearful of an abusive parent finding out about an unwanted pregnancy she can no longer get help ending. More and more women will cry in their bathrooms, quietly so as not to upset their children, as they look down at a positive pregnancy test knowing that they can't afford another mouth to feed, horrified that there is no way out. More husbands will cry by their wife's bedside as high-risk pregnancies go bad, left to watch helplessly as she suffers, no trained doctors available to save her with a now-illegal lifesaving procedure. Hell, that America already exists in far too many states, but it can and will get worse under this new court, as this lying, Bork-worshipping conservative activist joins his buddies Scalia, Roberts and Thomas on the bench.

What else can we look forward to? More people screaming as their mouths fill with flood waters, as their lungs fill with noxious gases and their children's cries are silenced by asthmatic hacking, as more and more enviromental laws, workplace safety laws and public health systems are gutted by a rapacious corporate culture and their Republican shocktroops. These citizens will find less and less recourse from the courts as the Supreme Court will be packed now with corporate friendly ladder climbing ambitious assholes who've made it painfully clear they were willing to say anything, join any hate group to advance either their careers or their own bigotries. It's hard to tell which, since they are utterly unable as a group to speak honestly and forthrightly about what they do believe. Monsters cloaking themselves in Hallmark platitudes.

In today's America, the only tears that matter are of the crocodile variety, leaking down the privileged cheeks on cue of the wealthy woman standing by her man, political theater for the Oprah nation. No, the tears in flooded neighborhoods, in Appalachian mines, in low-rent bedrooms and bathrooms and over-crowded public hospitals don't matter a whit, nor do the screams crying out for justice and representation and an actual fight for civil rights and a better tomorrow.

Those screams may as well be silent, because no one is listening.

...grease the wheels on his right wing chair... and shove him onto the Supreme Court... move that court to the right.

At least when the SCOTUS, dragging us along, falls off the far right edge of the flat earth (we can join the Flat Earth Society and forget we did), we will know where to hunt for it, if we want the damned thing back that is...

Wave to Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Darwin too!, and Einstein (for his Manifesto alone!) on our way over the edge... ;)

Blow a kiss to Djerassi and the shabby Mexico City lab that managed The Pill. It will be under assault forevermore.

Hieronymus Bosch, detail from a tryptich

Democrats, first they bitch then they capitulate. Yes I heard Kennedy, Yes I heard Schumer: I am fucking worn out with senatorial pique.

Little evidence of a concerted push back, no evidence of a tactical offensive assault (be honest now, no one expected anything much of them) on Alito and the Republicans...

I surely do agree with Rude Pundit: Democrats are Pussies and They Are Getting Fucked (in public)

How about this for a Democratic strategy now and in the debate after - act like the general public is fuckin' sick of the Republicans and how they've led the nation.

Act like Americans are begging for someone to stop the crazy train we're on. 'Cause if you can't pull the emergency brake, then you need to get thrown onto the tracks.

Slam this motherfuckin' Alito for being the weaselly bastard he is.

Stop making him into some noble, nice guy - fucker defended a warrantless strip search of a ten year-old - what more do you need?

Remember: no one gives a shit beyond CNNMSNBCFox how badly Republicans slam Democrats for being "obstructionists." No one cares when Bush says the same thing.

What the public will remember in November is that Democrats stood for something, that they drew a fuckin' line, man.

Dry yourselves off and slap those hard Republican cocks out of the way, or it's just gonna be another sad right wing rape.

Coburn, Graham, Cornyn and Hatch spoke for Alito... I heard them loud and clear.