While I am not going to disagree with you, I would like to point out that what Bush is hoping for is a nuclear like warfare in the senate to blot out the attention of the indictments handed out last week.

His move is obvious and transparent.

For Bush the best thing that could happen to him is nuclear warfare in the senate.

That will remind everyone about the right to life issue. And that will allow everyone to be reminded of Bush’s strong “pro-life” position on abortion which will allow him to pretend to be in the morally authoratative position on the issue.

I would beg and plead that the dems don’t give him the battle that he so wants.

Give him a battle that he doesn’t want.

They have to be careful. They can’t be like Hannibal and just invade Italy, raise hell but be without a plan to win the war.

They need to construct their objection to this candidate around the issue of privacy, not abortion.

Privacy of course is the issue that abortion decisions hinge on. Federalist Society members don’t believe that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy. If you strip that away then their is no right to an abortion.

As an aside, I think the Federalist Society members are wrong. They base their jurisprudence upon the idea that the constitution should be viewed by taking into context the mind of the framers of the constitution. In that regard, I suggest that the framers of the constitution did have a mind towards privacy. Most of the framers were lawyers. Common Law, our ancient inheretence, of torts is based largely upon the notion of privacy, especially nuisance law. English common law tradition was the excepted law of the land for all the framers of the constitution. They did not suddenly throw the law of torts out because they signed the constitution, thats something that republicans are trying to do in the present.

To emphasize this point they created the tenth amendment within the bill of rights which simply reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The hinge of privacy rest upon whether it belongs to the people or to the respective states.

This is where the Dems need to attack this issue. Recently Libertarians are up in arms about the plenary power of the state to take your property at what it decides is a fair market price, and give it to a developer. Historically we thought it had to be used for public purposes, but in fact in the legal environment, the state’s power is plenary.

The Dems can build on this creaping notion of the state’s infringement on the rights of the people: take our property, take our privacy, then next thing you know they will be taking all of our rights and our lives. Without Privacy rights, how can you have any other right?

So, I hope that the Dems would keep their objections reasonable until they see the whites of their opponents eyes, then let out the full volley. I would keep things toned down this week so that we can keep the exposure on Bush’s treason, and then slowly over the weeks ramp up the objections. And expose this guy for the threat he is to core and ancient American liberties as to property and privacy. And I would seldom, if ever, mention Roe v. Wade or abortion, that just gets the reactionaries on his side riled up – which is exactly what he wants.

In Bush’s mind, if he makes this about abortion and the right to life, then he is reminding the people that he really is about morality and you don’t want to give him that kind of victory or even, that kind of defeat.

I wouldn’t be too worried about the press coverage or how the Dems will time their fight. First of all, the nomination itself is timed to take away from the Libby coverage; second, the Dems will hold off their full attack until after the senate gets to interview him; and third, the Libby coverage would have died down in a week or so anyway, but will return full force every time there is a new step or revelation. And I have not given up hope on Rove being nailed, either.

Otherwise, I agree with you on the technique, timing and focus. But the key factor is the Dems uniting and taking a stand and giving hell while not giving an inch.

I told you so. Miers went down, we got a much-worse nominee.

And I hate to say this… but Bush DID win. He’s entitled to nominate whatever nitwit he wants. And Alito does have a ton of experience; just because his conclusions disagree with what you or I would say doesn’t make him automatically “unqualified”.

So on the one hand, I don’t know if it’s really fair for the Dems to try and filibuster the guy.

I suppose the thing is whether we believe the filibuster counts for anything anymore. Here’s my worst-case scenario:

The Dems filibuster and the Republicans manage to hold together well enough to use the nuclear option. They remove the filibuster for judicial nominees, Alito is confirmed and the new Roberts Court goes about dismantling all kinds of things.

The Republicans manage to hold majorities in the House and Senate in the 2006 elections.

Rove figures “well, we might as well go nuts” and the marching orders go out. The Republicans go about completely screwing up Social Security, welfare, Medicare, the tax structure, everything. Why not? They’re driving the bus.

The Democrats put up a fight but their only real option to block things is… the filibuster in the Senate. But now that the Republicans have taken it away for judicial nominees, they see no reason to not take it away for everything else… and so they do it.

Pow. It’s the end of politics as we know it; they pack the courts, they gerrymander their little fingers off, and we’re left in 2007 or 2008 with a giant mess on our hands.

Think it’s crazy? Bill Clinton got impeached for getting a BJ from an intern; Libby (the VP’s chief of staff!) just got indicted for blowing the cover of a CIA agent for political gain. (Yes, that wasn’t the actual indictment, but same difference.)

I’m hesitant to use the filibuster… sigh. I dunno.

Paul: You really don’t have an optimistic view, do you? I mean, I thought *I* was the pessimist! I don’t think any of us expected Bush to come out with a moderate, I even said so when Miers withdrew: “he’ll have to choose someone with far better credentials than Miers. And I’m guessing he’ll go with a hardcore nominee….” It wasn’t too hard to see coming; if he came out with a moderate acceptable to the Democrats, his base would have slaughtered him.

As for Bush being “entitled to nominate whatever nitwit he wants,” sure–but the Senate can reject them and nothing gives Bush the “right” to have his nominee go unchallenged.

And where did I say that Alito was “unqualified”? I believe I said the exact opposite: “though he is experienced, he’s way too far to the right.” That doesn’t mean “unqualified.”

As for the Nuclear Option, it’s not like the Democrats are getting anything out of the filibuster now. It’s not often used, and mostly for judicial nominees. And since the only two Supremes we could expect to leave have gone, it’s not a big chance that Bush will get a third chance. As for Rove saying let’s go nuts and push through everything they want, where have you been for the past four years? The only serious initiatives the Republicans haven’t gotten through are the ones where enough Republicans make a filibuster moot anyway. No, losing the filibuster would change little, but it would give the Democrats a great campaign point for next year. And that’s assuming that the Republicans actually do go nuclear, which I don’t think they will–I think just enough of them will not want to lose their seats next year and will frame themselves as the “moderate voices of reason” and keep the filibuster from getting busted–and that’ll be an even better win for the Dems.

No, I think filibustering Alito is the Dems best chance. If they don’t then Bush and Rove & Co. will know that even at their weakest moment ever, the Dems will roll over and let them have their way. Not going for a filibuster will embolden the GOP and bring on the dangers you forecast.

I see and hear Paul’s position.

What has taken place since 2000 is a slow rolling coup.

Clinton’s bridge to the next century turns out to be a bridge to a Neocon abyss.

The republican’s have buffered their position by gerrymandering.

Furthermore, The Republican’s have control of the electoral system.

As Stalin is reported to have once said: He cast a ballot decides nothing. He who counts the ballots decides everything.

Democrats should be screeming and shouting for hand counted paper ballots.

It will take an overwhelming majority to throw them out. By then the Bus will be deranged and over the cliff lying in waist.

As far as I am concerned, the revolution is over and we lost. Unless a miricale occurs, America is going down the Neocon toilet.

Bush, a drunk, a draft dodger, a desserter from his draft dodging days gets elected president, then re-elected after bankrupting the treasury, destroying the social contract, lieing the nation into war, destroying our well crafted net work of alliances and security arrangements, committing moral treason, there are numerous examples of Bold face lying publicly by Chenney and Bush.

I’m sorry but thats a coup.

The nation you knew as America is dead.

As a friend of mine once said “the avalanche has already started, you just don’t realize it because you are in the middle the turf that is sliding down hill.

We are not only heading towards the abyss, we are already in it. And every time a Katrina, or something pops up it reminds us of where we actually are.

We are frogs, and we don’t know it yet, but the water is already boiling.

Yes this suck and I am angry and at this point, as a pion, there is little I can do about it.

Bottom Line_________________

“Time for the Democrats to Grow Some Balls”

I couldn’t say it better myself !