Senate

In another thread, "liberalrob" calls women's reproductive rights "ideological purity." He's not alone.

What liberalrob doesn't seem to realize is that what he dismisses as "ideological purity" is actually a matter of life and death. liberalrob and friends seems to think that the Democrats must avoid taking stances, even in matters of women's survival.

The problem is that when reproductive rights are positioned as "special interests" -- one of several Republican-forged labels that so many Democrats and party-line supporters have adopted without question -- then they can be dismissed as not important, down at the level of tax breaks for ball-bearing manufacturers and pork-barrell contracts for rubber companies.

It's a way of dismissing human rights -- or at least women's human rights -- as unimportant.

Of course, one of many possible explanations for this kind of attitude is that these ostensibly well-intentioned folks simply cannot see the implications of their attitudes due to male privilege. They have not had to negotiate their rights over their own bodies with the government. They have not had to consider legal implications over healthcare choices. And they certainly have not had to weigh the decision of whether or not to abort a pregnancy.

Other folks like to consider abortion as "something other people do" -- until it comes to their own lives and own decisions. And so it's easy to say, "Icky," and then judge all others who have to face such situations.

What's striking is how the Democratic retreat from reproductive rights has been part and parcel of a larger flight from any stances at all that might get labeled as "liberal" or "progressive." It's been going on for at least 18 years, since when Michael Dukakis ran away from George Bush the Elder's accusation that the Democrat was "a Liberal!"

And the Democrats have been losing ever since.

Now liberalrob and friends offer a profound prescription to reverse this trend: More of the same, only with more vehemence, employing right-wing frames, right-wing labels, and right-wing ideology.

What they miss is that the real lesson to take away from the "conservative revolution" is that "conservatives" engaged in the war of ideas. They offered up ideas, plans, visions of the future. And they have offered up simplistic, unrealistic and even delusional "moral values" frames for social issues. And the Democrats have refused to respond, refused to engage in this war of ideas.

And now we have a Democratic Party that cannot stand together for much of anything. They are so diluted that they cannot agree. They come out with a tired slogan, something like "Together America can do better" (I honestly cannot remember), and call it a plan. And whenever someone stands up and takes a moral stance, a dozen others go onto talk shows to say, "So-and-so doesn't speak for me."

And so the Democratic Party does not speak for me. And it's been that way for quite a while now. Oh, I tend to vote Democrat more than Republican, mainly because the Republicans have become modern-day fascists in love with authoritarian government, but I could not stomach registering as Democrat, and I sure won't be donating to them.

What's ironic is that while the Democrats are stampeding towards forced pregnancy laws and anti-choice candidates, the Republicans are running into resistance to their own state-run-breeding agenda:

HB1216 would have allowed women to sue abortion doctors for negligence if they later developed problems that they believed were linked to their abortions and felt they had not been fully informed about those problems.

The bill, which was killed 8-5 by the House Judiciary Committee, also would have required an abortion doctor to have patient admitting privileges at a nearby hospital if a woman needed emergency care.

The bill is legally questionable because it would set up two classes of doctors in South Dakota, said Dave Gerdes, lobbyist for the South Dakota Medical Association.

"It's completely unreasonable and unworkable," he said.

If heart surgeons had to meet the same requirements as those proposed for doctors who do abortions and had to worry about later getting sued for failure to inform patients of some potential risks, heart surgery would stop in South Dakota, he said.

"Not only is it illegal, but it's grossly unfair," he said of the bill.

Kate Looby, state director of Planned Parenthood, characterized HB1216 as a bill designed to harass those who do abortions.

"It's about forcing abortion doctors out of South Dakota by passing laws that are nearly impossible to comply with," she said.Democrats should take note. Forced-pregnancy candidates are not a winning plan. And further retreat from progressive values embracing civil and human rights is not going to win anything but sour grapes and resentment.

And come November 8th, we'll be having this same conversation.

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?

Since the not-at-all-surprising confirmation of Samuel Alito, there's been a lot of hand-wringing going on in the so-called "liberal" or "progressive" blogosphere.

"I'm shocked -- shocked! -- that the Democrats didn't all stand firm!" come the mealy-mouthed cries.

It's time to wake up.

Matt Stoller offers one perspective:

The netroots needs to get serious. Our culture is sick. On every conference call with elected officials, I hear preening, sycophantic questions towards elected Democrats. That time is over. They work for us, the people. Or rather, I am an American, and I am not going to bow down to someone because they are a Congressman or a Senator. I don't have to say that someone pursued 'great leadership' just because they wear a Congressional pin. I don't have to care about titles, about nobility, about respect for the office. I am an American.

It's time that we start acting like Americans again, and stop acting like we are courtiers worshipping at the throne of high officers, be they D's or R's. Be an American, not a courtier. Be skeptical of your elected. And take responsibility for your country. If they fail we fail, and that's why we will hold them accountable. That's why we need power, because without it we cannot prevent failure and drive the changes we all know we so desperately need.

So take heed, blogosphere, let's get back to being Americans again. We are the people. We have a responsibility to act like it.The thing is that that power is earned, and right now the electorate, by and large, gets no respect from the elected. They try to play us like chumps, giving us bloviating speechifying and imperious poses while they do business as usual.

Choiceless

The Republicans in power right now are just about the worst political ruling class in our country's history. Look at the deficit and debt. Look at the wars. Look at New Orleans. Look at the regressive bills passed over the past year. These folks are dangerous!

But the Democrats have no spine. And that is largely because they do not have any sort of collective vision or cohesive purpose. The "big tent" of the Democratic Party has rendered it ineffective for over 20 years now.

And the Party itself is trying to diffuse its caucus even more by backing more regressive politicians like Bob Casey, Jr., who just had to go on the record to let us all know that he thought Samuel Alito was just a fine judge, just fine. Can a Party build strength when it continues to work against its progressive base and undermine its progressive principles?

Jeffrey Feldman couldn't help but notice the problem:

Tim Kaine's speech, last night, while well-presented, demonstrated that the Democratic Leadership is making decisions that are almost completely detached from anything I recognize as the day-to-day political condition of this country--particularly the past two election cycles, setting up the scenario whereby the Democratic party runs in 2008 virtually the exact same race it ran in 2004, using the same professionals, the same strategies, the same metrics--and resulting in the same, dire outcome.

For reasons I will elaborate in the extended post, I used to think that the netroots were working exclusively in the interests of the Democratic Party. Today--this morning, specifically--I now believe that we in the netroots need to start thinking about 'Our' gains in relation to 'Their' gains. This is a complicated step to take. It is risky and involves steps that, while I describe them, I do not fully understand how they should happen on the ground.

But I believe, this morning, as a result of this week, that the future of our country depends on our willingness to start seeing ourselves--starting right now--as a distinct political entity in U.S. politics. And that means recognizing where we are in realistic terms, defining the gains we want to make and how to measure them, and building, building, building towards larger and larger possibilities. There seems to be no doubt about that. When it comes down to it, I think the largest political bloc in this country is the bloc that goes totally unrepresented by the elected officials of either party. The bloc that largely stays home and doesn't soil itself by endorsing the posers they're offered in the pseudo-choices offered up on election day.

The bloc that believes that the government should largely leave people's private lives private.

The bloc that believes that the government should protect people not just from crime, but from fraud, abuse, exploitation and depredations by anyone so-inclined, including multinational corporations.

The bloc that believes that people should be treated equally.

Feldman's analysis has some sharp observations:

The Democratic Party has abandoned any effort at creating and defining a social experience of being a Democrat. It has given up. Instead, we have an increasingly isolated leadership that hires experts to launches plans--plans conceived in a private culture of celebrity consultants and society fundraising--in an effort to achieve their goals in our world. This will not change simply because we want it to.

The netroots, by contrast, is steeped in a new kind of liberal politics as social experience. This new experience is build of routines, ideas, and a growing diversity of long-distance and face-to-face relationships. This new culture of netroots politics is as distinct from the culture of the Democratic leadership as the Democratic elite is distinct from the rest of the nation.What's more, the netroots -- at least the netroots that aren't just playing the DNC game -- more closely reflect the views of the people. After all, the netroots have roots.

At least that's the theory.

Unprogressive

There are self-proclaimed "netroots" who have been bellowing at everyone who has dared express skepticism that culture-of-death Democrats like Bob Casey, Jr. and Tim Kaine deserve our support.

And this leads to an area where I believe Feldman misses the mark:

The Democratic Party currently competes with no other party in the marketplace of Liberal politics in the United States. This must change and the only way to change this is to create an entity--a branded entity--thereby allowing for mass identification with and support of the netroots. What form this will take remains to be seen, but it will need to be capable of circulating at economic, social and political levels. The netroots will not be a 'party' in the conventional sense, but also not a 'club' in the conventional sense. It will be somewhere in between, with the brand affixed to ideas, media as well as activities and places. I would submit that the Democrats are not competing in the marketplace of Liberal politics at all. In fact, they're still running from the "liberal" label, following in the frantic footsteps left by Michael Dukakis 18 years ago.

And as long as the largest political blog continues its repeated attacks on liberal values and progressive politics and fails to get over its phobia of standing for something, I don't see much hope for any sort of truly progressive netroots gains in the 2006 elections.

Unrepresented

Like many people holding progressive views, I feel that I have no party representing me. There's no party that fights for the people -- or even talks about how we're doing as a country in terms of how the people are doing as people. There's no party that fiercely defends the civil and human rights of American citizens across the board.

There's no party even talking the talk, let alone walking the walk.

Feldman says:

A few words about what I am not advocating, here. I am not calling for the netroots to leave the Democratic Party or to work for its downfall. I believe a party, as an institution, has valuable aspects that far outweight its component parts. I am not calling for an end to working with and for the Democratic Party, neither at the level of campaigns or broader efforts to strengthen the party. All those efforts most continue. I am not calling for increased hostility towards the Democratic Party. In fact, I am calling for the exact opposite. I am not calling for a departure from the 'people-powered politics' outlined in Jerome and Markos' new book. That vision is important and it is within every aspect of what I describe above.While I would agree with the first part -- if it's possible, it would be much better to reclaim the Democratic Party than to ditch it for an untested, unmonied, unknown third party -- I do not think that Jerome and Markos' anti-progressive, conservative-Dems-or-bust agenda is the way to pursue it.

Roots required

The Democratic Party is not working because it no longer stands for traditionally Democratic ideals. It no longer defends liberal values. It no longer advocates progressive policies. The Democratic Party has been the "go along to get along" party. And that is not going to change as long as Democratic voters are attacked by Kos and others for caring about their civil and human rights, or wanting to breathe clean air, or demanding fair and open elections.

If there's going to be a real netroots resurgence -- and make no mistake, it will be a resurgence -- then it will take roots. The netroots are about the people, and if there's no room for what the people believe, then the "netroots" is nothing but astroturf.

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.