Samuel Alito

Could they stand on their hind legs? Do you think?

performing pastel-colored poodle,
in a clown and poodle show
[OCRegister]

Ari Berman in The Nation takes a look at the Dems, embroiled in their running soap opera of duck and cover. Hide from it all but be The Alternative --also known as The Candidate:

Iraq returned as a central theme in George W. Bush's State of the Union address this year. With the war on the minds of many members of the public and with the 2006 midterm elections approaching, it seemed natural that the opposition party would forcefully challenge the President's policy.

Instead, the Democrats ducked and covered. Virginia Governor Tim Kaine devoted a mere three sentences to the Iraq War in his official Democratic response to Bush.

Representative Rahm Emanuel, a leading party strategist, didn't even mention Iraq when asked on television what his party would do differently from the Republicans--a hint of how the Democrats have downplayed the issue internally.

On the advice of top party consultants...

[there we go again! If they had any decency, or could close their greasy palms, they'd leave the country, FOR SHAME!],

the Democrats in the run-up to the 2006 midterm vote are either ignoring Iraq and shifting to domestic issues (the strategy in the 2002 midterm elections) or supporting the war while criticizing Bush's handling of it (the strategy in the 2004 presidential election).

Three years into the conflict most Democrats can finally offer a cogent critique of how the Bush Administration misled the American people and mismanaged the Iraqi occupation, but they're unwilling or unable to suggest clearly how the United States should extricate itself from that mess.

Count on the Dems to catch the drift, and depart, vacate any idea of leadership. Remembering that Murtha stepped forward FIVE months ago, read it and weep:

For a moment on November 17, when Representative Jack Murtha boldly called on Bush to bring the troops home, the Democrats seemed to have found such a voice--and with it an opportunity to shift the debate to how to exit Iraq, not whether to stay.

Sure, plans to redeploy US troops within a year or two, sponsored by Russ Feingold in the Senate, the Out of Iraq Caucus in the House and the Center for American Progress (CAP), were already on the table.

But none brought with it the standing and sense of urgency of Murtha, who previously had been known on Capitol Hill as the dean of the defense hawks.

Well, do you think that Pelosi and Reid and others are, you know, hampering a strong anti-Iraq War coalition from forming within congress ?

I do.

Progressives/left/liberal need to break away. there is no place for them in the party.

A Washington Post survey of eight prominent foreign policy advisers found that only one, former Carter Administration National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, proposed a clear plan for how to get out.

The resulting headlines--DEMOCRATIC LAWMAKERS SPLINTER ON IRAQ, DEMOCRATS FIND IRAQ ALTERNATIVE IS ELUSIVE, DEMOCRATS FEAR BACKLASH AT POLLS FOR ANTIWAR REMARKS--reflected the disarray.

As prominent Democrats shied away from the fight, Bush went on the offensive with a series of Iraq speeches, allowing Republicans to caricature Murtha's plan as "cut and run."

Pollster Mark Penn [Penn is Hillpac's pollster] and Democratic Leadership Council founder Al From warned that foes of the war "could be playing with political dynamite" and needed to be "extremely careful."

These Democrats seemed transfixed by the ghost of George McGovern, instead of reacting to the mounting unease with Bush's policies. [...]

Democrats in Congress subsequently went mute on the war.

By mid-February even Pelosi was reassuring nervous party strategists that there would be no specific talk of Iraq when the Democrats unveiled their own version of the GOP's Contract With America later this year.

The bulk of Democratic strategists approved of the no-details-on-Iraq approach.

Do nothings. Newly born. Born again. The No Details New Democrats, Republicrats, Demlicans, Trojan Horses, Republican-Lite... we all know the drill.

And here is a tidy quote from Steve Elmendorf:

"You can't hope the Democrats will ever have a unified message, other than a unified critique of how Bush mishandled the war," says Steve Elmendorf,

a former chief of staff to Representative Dick Gephardt and senior adviser to the Kerry campaign who's helping plan the Democratic agenda for '06.

Begala:

"The point of an agenda is to be unified, and the party clearly won't be." Nor is it realistic to expect they should be, says longtime political adviser Paul Begala:

"I don't think a Congressional candidate ought to presume to be able to solve unsolvable problems."

Let us be clear, the issue is not, any longer, voting for the war. More than half the Democrats in the senate voted FOR IWR, and few have recanted, much less apologised to the American people. Let's get real here, they have provided, already, the heavy lifting to get us there, and keep us there. They now plan to continue with the proven themes.

The issue is a measured plan to withdraw, semi-withdraw -- oh, troops at the ready in the friendly circle of friends we have, Doha Qatar, UAE, Jordan Israel others... We are in the bag for ''war in the region''. We are readiness at the ready!, there to put down palace coups or internal armed insurrection. We stand ready! Our sphere of influence is across 27 countries in the broader region, from the 'Stans westward. As the Iraq invasion took place we "greatly expanded our footprint in the Horn of Africa".

That is all this is about: Sign on to a plan for measured withdrawal.

Understand this: The party will split, whether it cuts the damned baby in half or not, because it, Biz Wing, War Wing, supports war forever, permanent bases forever. They voted for it. And for Negroponte too, 98/2. And they voted for him when Clinton made him Ambassador to the Phillipines. Let's get real.

The short version: The party supports George Bush. Oh they flail around, they rail, they bitch, they moan... but when the cow chips are down? -- crickets -- His poll numbers are down? Cue the crickets.

Those who see it otherwise, see issues of morality and pragmatism in a responsive approach:

It may be impossible to assume that discussion of the war can wait until after November, given the recent events on the ground. If most Democratic strategists have continued to counsel caution on Iraq, a few do not--for moral and pragmatic reasons.
"I think the Democrats are afraid of the issue, but I don't think they should be," says Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. Lake had previously fallen into the camp of consultants who advised Democrats to ignore the war and pivot to domestic issues.

Now she says that approach is no longer possible, and that Democrats must talk about a plan to bring troops home. "Iraq is the essential factor in the voters' landscape," Lake says, the number-one issue feeding distrust of the President and a desire for change.

And Brzezinski, NSA under Carter:

"The tone, unfortunately for the Democratic majority, has been set by the two Clintons," says Brzezinski, a longstanding hawk and vocal critic of the Iraq War, "who have decided that Senator Clinton's chances would be improved if she can manage to appear as a kind of quasi-Margaret Thatcher, and therefore she's been loath to come out with a decisive, strong, unambiguous criticism of the war, with some straightforward recommendations as to what ought to be done. And I'm afraid that has contaminated the attitude of the other Democratic political leaders." [...]
"Prolonging the war is damaging us in every respect," says Brzezinski.

"The costs are quite extensive and if you add the economic costs [$1 trillion] and the costs in blood [roughly 20,000 US casualties], staying the course is not a very attractive solution or definition of victory.

And I think Democrats could make that case intelligently and forcefully."

Berman closes on some notes of hope, but I am very sorry: I say, think back. Did they ever get it, in recent memory? '00?... and '02? Grab a hankie and think back to '04? Kerry at the Grand Canyon? He'd vote for it again! It did not mean war...

Last year? What did they "get" last year? We got primary fields cleared, for the likes of Casey, just ONE example.... Who is pro-war, pro-life, supports defense of the fetus from conception (that heralds criminalisation for drs and women, let's get real) and would vote for ... Alito.

A gift quote, well timed for the administration and the speeches, that Casey and Rendell gave to Bush. Bush, three times, quoted Rendell's support for Alito, identified him each time as a Democratic governor, naming him. It is called "supporting Bush".

I say it makes Rendell and Casey what Bush called "discerning Democrats" who should join with Zell and vote for Bush. I rather suspect Casey did. Rendell may very well have.

Let's get real. They divvy up power.

Caste your eyes back up to the quote from Brzezinski, about the Clintons:

"The tone, unfortunately for the Democratic majority, has been set by the two Clintons, who have decided that Senator Clinton's chances would be improved if she can manage to appear as a kind of quasi-Margaret Thatcher, and therefore she's been loath to come out with a decisive, strong, unambiguous criticism of the war, with some straightforward recommendations as to what ought to be done.

And I'm afraid that has contaminated the attitude of the other Democratic political leaders."

Vote for us, we're poodles! About where it is.

Progressives need to pull away. There is no place for them in the party.

I somehow missed this news item. But really, should we be surprised that Samuel Alito is as hateful and evil as we feared? His mash note to James Dobson, who has found fame and fortune in advocating hate and intolerance of millions of Americans, is quite revealing ... and frightening:

Dobson, head of the Colorado Springs-based conservative Christian ministry that reaches more than 200 million people worldwide through broadcasts and publications, read Alito’s note on his Wednesday radio program.

The note thanks Dobson and his listeners for supporting Alito during his U.S. Senate confirmation hearings.

Dobson said Alito wrote that “the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. As long as I serve on the Supreme Court I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.�

What does that mean? We know what Dobson's ideas are: forced pregnancy and church-run-state-run breeding laws, not to mention sexual orientation laws to keep Dobson and his sheep from turning gay. This note seems to express Alito's affinity for Dobson's opposition to freedom and equality.

Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said Alito’s note was in response to a letter Dobson sent him congratulating him on his confirmation. She said his pledge to “keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me� was a line he included in many replies to congratulatory letters.

Again with the "He didn't really mean it" defense?

Sen. Wayne Allard, R-Colo., who supported Alito, wasn’t concerned about the note.

“His only reaction to the letter was to say that, in his opinion, it just goes to show that both Justice Alito and Dr. Dobson have nice manners,� an Allard spokeswoman said.

Of course, Allard loves that Dobson support, too, especially when it comes from just down the Interstate.

Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the note “grossly inappropriate conduct.�

“He kind of sounds like the winning political candidate doing a victory lap and thanking his backers,� Lynn said. “He’s not sounding like a fair and independent judge.�

He said the note can be interpreted as a pledge to rule as Dobson wants on key issues, such as gay marriage, abortion and church-state separation.

“It sounds like he’s carrying a right-wing agenda instead of being a justice for all the people,� Lynn said, noting he’s never heard of a Supreme Court justice writing such a letter.

Lynn, whose group opposed Alito’s nomination, called Dobson’s reading the note on air “astonishingly strange conduct� indicative of a “self-congratulatory impulse on the part of Dobson.�

Focus on the Family did not return two phone calls Wednesday seeking comment.

Ellie Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority, which opposed Alito’s nomination, called the note “highly unusual� and akin to someone thanking his political supporters.

“What’s happening is, the courts are becoming more politicized,� she said. “So much of it is about private conduct and the agenda of the right wing.�

The Republican response: "Whaddayagonnadoabowdit!"

[Via Jessica at feministing.com]

I have not been a big fan of NARAL's efforts of late. I've written of their ineptitude in hiring hack media companies to produce lame ads that seem to miss the entire point. I've not been alone.

But really, to actually claim that NARAL and Planned Parenthood are responsible for Alito's confirmation?

Puhleez!

South Dakota has now passed legislation making it illegal for a woman to have an abortion even in the case of rape or incest. It's a law perfectly timed to test the new Supreme Court now that Samuel Alito has joined their ranks. How exactly did we get to this place?

Ask Planned Parenthood and NARAL.

They sat back, bilked their membership like an ATM then didn't show up to fight Alito's confirmation, frolicking in their mountain of hoarded cash even as they pissed and moaned. Worse yet, afterwards they told their members to thank those in the Senate -- like Joe Lieberman -- who cast their votes to let this happen.

Here's the problem with this logic: NARAL did not have a vote on that floor. Neither did Planned Parenthood.

For the better part of a year now, big sport has been made by A-list bloggers to kick NARAL and blame them for everything from John Kerry's election loss to, now, Alito's confirmation. When Kos does it, you can see the crocodile tears. After all, seeing a man who avidly endorses forced-pregnancy candidates actually whine and complain about NARAL's political tactics regarding reproductive rights is like listening to a deer hunter complaining about the WWF's ineffectiveness at protecting wild game.

But I really don't get the A-listers' front-page attacks on NARAL, an organization of limited effectiveness and little political clout.

Jane Hamsher gets this much right:

The conventional wisdom in Washington these days seems to be that the Democratic party will be just fine if it shifts dramatically to the right and "goes with the flow." NARAL was birthed by pioneering feminists like Betty Friedan who had fire in their bellies, but somewhere along the line they became an institutional behemoth who wanted to court the rich and the powerful more than they wanted to actually serve the cause that so many hard working Americans entrust them to do -- guard choice.

They began endorsing Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and giving money to Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins. Yet when the Alito cloture vote went down -- the only meaningful vote, which could've been stopped with 40 "nay" votes from getting to the floor -- all of these people voted "aye." People like Chafee and Joe Lieberman later voted "nay" in the final vote which only required a simple majority of 51. They then ran around and huffing and puffing about this coathanger-wielding like they'd done something really brave on behalf of choice. Nobody was fooled.

Well, nobody but Planned Parenthood....

...

...And nobody but NARAL, who said "Thank your senator for opposing Alito!" and then listed a whole slew of Senators who hadn't supported them on cloture.

But to claim that "NARAL and Planned Parenthood Are Now the Enemies of Pro-Choice"? At worst, they're guilty of bad judgment and political ineffectiveness.

The enemies are the politicians who cast the deciding votes. The enemies are the activists who try to marginalize women's control over their own bodies as a "pet cause." The enemies are the political bloggers who push candidates like Casey in PA in primaries and attack (using Republican talking points) those who don't agree with them.

Kicking NARAL may offer some short-term satisfaction, and stir up some controversy. But it won't accomplish much of anything. The problems are the politicians -- the so-called "pro-choice" Republicans who have yet to vote to protect equal rights, and the so-called Democrats who seem to love voting with the Republicans.

"Pro-choice" doesn't count if they don't vote it.

"Democrat" doesn't count if they don't vote it.

That's where the problem is. And at this point, NARAL is at worst simply irrelevant.

The strident right-wing e-rag with the ironic title "Life News" really really hates Hillary Clinton, even though she gave $10,000 to pro-criminalization candidate Bob Casey, Jr.'s campaign to win the Democratic nomination for Pennsylvania's open vulnerable Senate seat this year. Why?

Because they love strict father Rick Santorum, who has unshakable bigotry and misogyny credentials, more. And because Hillary is married to Bill, that unwashed boy from the South who dared rise above his station and become a part of the ruling class. (The good ol' boys are supposed to vet all new entries to the club, and Bill did not even apply. Damn inconvenient sometimes, this democracy thing.)

According to the Post, their campaign blasts Casey as a "Republican-lite on women's issues" and bashed it as a "calculated effort by party leaders to build a so-called 'bigger tent' at the expense of women's rights."

But the reason for Clinton's donation may have nothing to do with abortion.

Casey is running against pro-life Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a Clinton nemesis. Santorum drew Clinton's ire after he published a rebuttal book to her "It Takes a Village to Raise a Child." Santorum's was titled "It Takes a Family."

A white, straight family with none of them queers or coloreds. Yeah. "Tell your neighbor to fuck off," is the Santorum way. Community? Neighborhood? The folks next door? They don't fit into Santorum's values system. There's no room for a metaphorical village in the radical right's view. Not when they're running the federal government and now have the power to invade people's lives. (Is spying on Americans a family value, too?)

But let's back up a sec. Why the hell is Hillary giving money to Casey during the primary, when he's running against candidates who favor reproductive rights?

Meanwhile, HillPAC spokeswoman Ann Lewis, a noted abortion advocate, told the Post, "Sen. Clinton is committed to electing Democrats through contributions and campaigning on their behalf."

Should Casey defeat Santorum, which is a possibility given his 10 percentage point lead in the polls, it would aide Democratic efforts to recapture the Senate in the November elections.

For Clinton, supporting abortion is still a salient issue and she proved her credentials again with her recent vote against Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Not only did she vote against Alito's nomination, she backed a filibuster engaged in by a handful of the most ardent pro-abortion members of the party.

About Alito, Clinton said "He will intensify his campaign to roll back" abortion rights granted in the Roe v. Wade decision.

Of course, Casey already announced that he thinks Alito would do a heckuva job.

So what kind of Democratic Party is Hillary trying to build, anyway?

They are a wonderment

Washington -- Judge Samuel Alito is expected to win confirmation to the Supreme Court today, after Senate Democrats led by the party's former presidential nominee John Kerry failed Monday to block Alito's nomination. The Democrats' maneuver exposed divisions within their party and prompted warnings from Republicans that it would come back to haunt a Democratic president. [...]

Nineteen Democrats voted to end the filibuster, joining all 53 Republicans who attended Monday's session.

Kerry's move to force a filibuster vote heightened the scrutiny by activists of a handful of moderates of both parties, including Feinstein, who already had announced her opposition to Alito.

Sell me a bridge!

Two weeks ago on a Sunday talk show, Feinstein seemed to rule out a filibuster of Alito, saying,

"I don't see those kinds of egregious things emerging that would justify a filibuster. I think when it comes to filibustering a Supreme Court appointment, you really have to have something out there whether it's gross moral turpitude or something that comes to the surface. Now, I mean, this is a man I might disagree with. That doesn't mean he shouldn't be on the court."

But Feinstein spokesman Howard Gantman said the senator's statements never ruled out support for a filibuster.

Ever pliable... and DiFi loves TV, if she can appear to discuss what is already decided (her vote), she will be there.
We know her well in San Francisco.

"Senator Feinstein has carefully over the last couple of weeks been going through the transcript, she's been carefully going through (Alito's) lack of responsiveness to a number of questions on very serious issues facing our nation," Gantman said. "She went back through his earlier writings, through his court cases, and Senator Feinstein reached the point where she felt she could not support ending debate on this."

Sell me the Bay Bridge too!

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who voted to sustain the filibuster but had disagreed with Kerry's decision to use it, said the problem was President Bush's failure to consult with Democrats.

Reid argued that former Democratic President Bill Clinton had avoided nasty confirmation fights by pre-clearing his nominations of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer with Republicans.

Bush actually consulted with Reid on O'Connor's successor, heeding Reid's recommendation of White House counsel Harriett Miers. But Miers' nomination was soon withdrawn under fire from conservatives who suspected her ideology and qualifications.

Reid called Miers "a good woman treated so poorly -- and the people who destroyed her are being rewarded by the Alito nomination."

Well, the Republicans have a demanding base.... notice who got "rewarded".

Kerry announced his filibuster on the liberal blog Daily Kos, and after returning to the Senate Friday, he said he was taking a stand on principle. "This is not the vote of Monday afternoon," he said. "This is a vote of history."

And history is announced on Daily Kos? I don't think so... more likely histrionics take place on the pages there. About it. The FP is populated with Democratic party organiser wanna bees. Lordy, can it get more tawdry? Deflation is on the horizon. Deflated jellyfish is not a wonderful sight...

Poor Democrats. They hung themselves with the Gang of 14. Pure numbers game. You are 44 in the senate, a filibuster requires 41, meanwhile 7, supposedly of your own party are a standing group against filibuster. It would be hilarious if it were not tragic. And obvious from minute one last April.

Seven Democrats who were part of a bipartisan group labeled the "Gang of 14" had indicated Alito's nomination didn't meet the extraordinary circumstances that could trigger a filibuster.

Trigger Cops vs Jellyfish. Down for the count... years ago.

Besides the fact that the filibuster was a hopeless cause, Senate Democrats and consultants worried that the move would put Democrats in Republican-leaning states in a bind during a midterm election year when they had a chance to retake their Senate majority.

Kerry's filibuster robbed these "red state Democrats" of anywhere to hide, forcing them to cast two conflicting votes -- one pro-Alito vote Monday to end the filibuster and another today against Alito's actual confirmation.

One of those Democrats up for re-election this year is Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida, who voted against the filibuster but said he would vote against Alito.

Yes the Democrats used Bill Nelson of FL over the Schiavo mess, they needed his seat badly and could not risk him being plastered with "You killed Terri".

The Democrats lost 2002 for the machinations to "win".

Can they do anything but protect Republican interests?

They lost the ground game in FL in '00, by not being ready. Quess who was ready, with litigation written and a plan to fight thru the last elector. Not the Democrats. They trumpeted they had - scream now - the Kennedy machine on the ground in FL. Keep screaming.

The party to save Nelson of FL. It's a hobby.

The party of the Davos whatever. More hobbies and pastimes. Please, go back to Davos. Alito was lost many years ago. The battles that never were.

DiFi and Blum are, I am sure, preparing for the annual drop in at the Villa d'Este on Lake Como...

Alito hearings and votes are tiresome responsiblities squeezed in. It is a haphazard game, at best.

And get ready for the Big Whopper, you knew it was coming:

Plus, he said, "It doesn't look good to push a filibuster and lose. You want to save it for the next time when you might be able to win it."

January 26, 2006

Honorable Dianne Feinstein:

I must write, tho I hardly bother anymore, to state how ashamed I am of the Democratic Party.

I watched every day of the hearings for Alito. Disorganised, inept and ultimately just weak. For this most vital nomination. The thing for which you all lied and kept your powder forever dry.

Yes, you did, you were eternal virgins for the next "fight".

In how many elections did you drag out, and dust off, "Its for the Supreme Court"?

FOR SHAME.

As the Democratic party morphed more and more to be a lesser version of the MODERN Republicans (I would not fuss if you were old time moderate-to-liberal Republicans) there really is no reason to struggle anymore. Why bother to wish you all were better? You are not.

If only the small number of you still alive would break off. Many of us would follow. Instead we will pull back from national politics and work locally.

We dismiss you. For your failures.

Close the casket on the party. They fight for NOTHING. Certainly not for people.

First voted in 1972. Did not vote for Kerry in '04, why bother, the Republican machine would continue to hound him and he proved HE DID NOT FIGHT.

One point, lest you think I was not paying attention, the Navy records. No excuse, release them. The February 2003 medical records, no excuse, release them. He released neither.

The hell with you all. Yes I am angry. You bet I am.

Sincerely,

XXXX

CC:
Barbara Boxer
Nancy Pelosi

w/ attachments

Andy Stern, David Broder column, WaPo

July 26, 2004

"It is a hollow party," Stern said, adding that "if John Kerry becomes president, it hurts" chances of reforming the Democrats and organized labor. [...]

Later in the day, AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney told The Post that Stern's attitude "is not justified." Sweeney, also a product of the SEIU, the largest and fastest-growing union in the AFL-CIO, said the process of change is already underway within labor, adding that he is impressed with "the unity and solidarity" of Democratic support for Kerry. "I'm optimistic about the future of the Democratic Party," he said.

Stern made it clear that his complaints long preceded Kerry's nomination. He said that when Clinton was president, he demonstrated how little he cared for the Democratic Party.

Calling the former president "the greatest fundraiser of his time," Stern asked: "If you think the Democratic Party is valuable, why would you leave it bankrupt?"

Other elected officials are equally indifferent to the party, he said, adding that if Kerry is elected "he would smother" any effort to give it more intellectual heft and organizational muscle.

I notice Sweeney took the loss on CAFTA very seriously: You don't deliver.

And immediately post Nov. 2, Stern changed the manner in which SEIU supports the party in its quadrennial thrashing. I think they trust you (the group "you") as much as I do.

You don't deliver.

George Felos, atty for Michael Schiavo:

March 18, 2005

And the bill was passed because, ultimately, not one Democratic senator got up and said I don’t consent to the bill being heard at this time.

And I want to say to ... the Democratic senators, don’t do this to Terri Schiavo again. To have this woman’s wishes now, to have her feeding tube inserted by a subsequent act of Congress before she dies, would be a horrific act upon her body.

And if the Democratic minority doesn’t stand up for Terri Schiavo, then they deserve to be the minority party.

If they can’t stand up and one person say, no, we’re not going to ramrod this through. If they can’t stand up for the civil liberties of each and every one of us, then they deserve to be the minority party and the dwindling minority party. It’s time for them to stand up. Yes.

But you did not. You all hid. And before you hid, you cut deals in the cloakroom. And in case you think I was not paying attention, Yes Levin changed "may" to "shall" and yes, Wyden manoevered a delay. But first Reid caved.

You never stand up.

Jonathan Turley on CNN

January 14, 2006

NGUYEN: Yes, going through the motions, but what are we truly learning?

Jonathan, let me ask you this very quickly.

Do you think he will be confirmed?

TURLEY: I think he will, and he will owe that to the Democrats. I think they have done a perfectly horrible job in advancing their interests here.

They lacked strategy, direction, discipline. There's little evidence of a Democratic Party.

And I think most of us are very surprised about it. If they can't muster their troops on this one, I don't understand when they could.

NGUYEN: Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, thanks so much for speaking with us this morning.

I agree.

Just hours after the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee stood together (astonishingly) to oppose the arch-conservative Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court, the chosen golden boy of the DSCC and Daily Kos, Bob Casey, Jr., has announced his endorsement of Alito:

"I do not agree with everything that Judge Samuel Alito has done or said - particularly many of his rulings which too often result in corporate power prevailing over the interests of consumers and workers," Casey said in a statement. "However, I agree with The Philadelphia Inquirer and Washington Post editorial boards that the arguments against Judge Alito do not rise to the level that would require a vote denying him a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court."

Why would he do such a thing?

For weeks, Republicans have called Casey "Silent Bob" and pressed him to say whether he supports Alito's confirmation. Casey and Alito have a family connection because Alito, who serves on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals based in Philadelphia, sided with Casey's father, the late Gov. Bob Casey, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The case challenged a state law requiring women seeking abortions to notify their spouses.

Ah, it starts to become clear why certain parties have liked this advocate of forced pregnancy. No stealth candidate, this Bob Casey; he's as clear about his positions as a Republican might.

Small wonder, their outrage at the surprisingly solid Democratic opposition to Alito. Why? Because when the tables turn, they will be expected to vote against nominees who favor women's reproductive rights, and they don't want to do that because they know it will cost them at home.

Simple as that.

I was watching the daily WH press gaggle and suddenly my tiny ears perked up, Les Kinsolving had asked about contraception.

In Les's inimitable way, it was a very direct question (madmen and court jesters may speak) and a strong message appeared to be sent to the christ-obsessed anti-abortion anti-contraception anti-woman whack jobs.

Yes it came out of Scott's tiny pursed lips, yes it was convoluted, but he speaks for God's own president.

Take a gander:

Q Yesterday, the President, in his phone call to the March for Life, said this, and this is a quote: "These principles call us to defend the sick and dying, persons with disabilities and birth defects, all who are weak and vulnerable, especially unborn children" -- which category means, of course, from conception, when they're invisible.

And my question:

Does this statement mean that the President also believes that unconcieved, as well as unborn children, consisting of living, moving human sperm and egg, also deserve the right to life, rather than being killed by contraception?

MR. McCLELLAN:

I think the President has made his views very clear when it comes to the issues of life. This President has worked to build a culture of life in America. He will continue working to build upon those efforts. And that's the way I would describe it.

Q How does he feel on contraception? Is he opposed to contraception, or not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, the position he has taken is that when it comes to educational programs for teens, we ought to be spending at least as much as we do on teen contraception programs on abstinence programs. And that's what we have worked to do.

Q But he does believe in birth control, right?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what the President has talked about and said.

I happened to be watching MTP the first Sunday after election 2004... and heard this:

MR. RUSSERT: Does he think a right of privacy exists under the Constitution?

MR. ROVE: Griswold vs. Connecticut, I'm not sure. I've never discussed Griswold vs. Connecticut with the president.

Same show, same transcript, Russert, that fine Catholic boy from Buffalo, reminded Rove of Arlen Specter's comments on election night (laugh now if you did not then):

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the issue of abortion. As you know, Arlen Specter, the Republican senator from Pennsylvania, is on line to be the next chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He said some things on Election Night, and this is how they were reported:

"`When you talk about judges who would change the right of a woman to choose, overturn Roe v. Wade, I think that is unlikely,' Arlen Specter said.

`The president is well aware of what happened when a bunch of his nominees were sent up, with the filibuster,' referring to Senate Democrats' success over the past four years in blocking the confirmation of many of Bush's conservative judicial picks. `...And I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning.'"

What's your reaction to that?

MR. ROVE: Well, I saw his letter statement where he said he was not applying the litmus test and then he upheld his commitment to the president that if he were to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, there would be quick hearings, a vote within a reasonable period of time, and that the appellate nominees would be brought to the floor for an up or down vote by the entire Senate. And Senator Specter is a man of his word. We'll take him at his word.

MR. RUSSERT: Is the president comfortable with Arlen Specter being chairman of the Judiciary Committee?

MR. ROVE: That's up to the United States Senate to decide, not the president of the United States. And just as we wouldn't like them to decide who are the staff assistants of the White House, they certainly do not want us determining who's committee chairman on the Hill.

Pigs are flying all over, have been for years. We should be under red alert for falling pig shit.

This is actually a comment on MediaGirl's post That Was Then. It's all in the Past but it's too long to leave in comments.

I am thoroughly sick of the Democratic Party. They're zombies. They have no sense of urgency, no fight, no fire, no sense of timing or outrage and no idea of how to work a strategy. The only position they've taken in five years is to grab their ankles.

Why are those idiots saying they probably won't filibuster the most extreme reactionary nominated since Robert Bork? Why didn't they come out swinging after Al Gore's speech today? Why aren't they spitting nails that the man who stole two presidential elections is now ignoring FISA and spying on American citizens?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised. They did stand by and let those elections be stolen. You'd think all that legal training could have come up with something after the GAO report came out that showed 2004 was fixed. Or after reporter after reporter proved that Gore won in 2000. But no.

You'd think they'd object to pResident Bush claiming to be a "war president" when only Congress can declare war, and they've done no such thing. They did give Bush power to act if Saddam didn't cooperate with the UN inspectors - but he did. Bush sent troops into Iraq anyway, knowing they had no WMD's. Bush lied to congress in the process, which is a crime. Still no outrage.

Using the mythical "war on terror"- for which the administration has done nothing to prepare except to fill vital positions with cronies and fools- as cover, the administration locked up a US citizen for over 3 years without due process. They imprisoned people who had nothing to do with the war, subjecting them to beatings, torture, and death. These acts, including the torture and rape of children, are so heinous that they defy the American psyche. Our frozen populace immobile with fear and denial, hypnotized by a well-trained, well-tamed media chanting today's Republican talking points as if they were scripture, or even fact, begs for news of one lost girl to drown out the loss of 100,000 people who never hurt an American who wasn't trying to kill them. And in our frosty sleep we lost our right to privacy, to the security of our homes, of our phones, of our own bodies. We are not free, anymore.

And yet the party asks for my money and my vote. They will not act to save the lives of my sisters who will die from unwanted or dangerous pregnancies; of STD's that might have been prevented; of AIDS spread through ignorance and deceit. They'll save a fetus and leave the born to starve. Our young and our old, our sick and our poor are being strangled with debt and red tape. They stood silent as we stood aghast at the death of New Orleans from incompetent, uncaring neglect.

They expect us to vote for candidates that see women as less than human? Who would make me the property of the state? So that courts and Congress and the men in my life determine the use of my womb?

I can't pretend to know the reason - are they making too much money to demand change? Are they afraid of getting a real job? Are they lazy, or blind, or in on the game? Whatever the reason, I'm done.

I say this one last time -

Lose Roe v. Wade and the Women in this country will BURY the Democratic Party.

Not a threat, but a promise we intend to keep. They have until January 24th to decide if I remain a Democrat or not. If they don't filibuster the vote on Sam Alito's nomination, I go to the Green Party and I take as many of my sisters as I can with me.

We've begged. We've threatened. Now, it's time to walk.