Greg writes:
If Kerry was serious about mounting a filibuster, why didn't he get Reid on board? Why did he wait until he was in Switzerland to announce it? If you think Alito's extreme enough to filibuster, why not get the ball rolling earlier in the week?
It's a scam folks. The Democrats may see the attempts to block Alito as the equivalent of putting a speedbump in front of a runaway train, but even their half-assed opposition is only a facade to ensure that we, the liberal base, stay calm and help deliver the votes in November. They'll turn this defeat into another fundraising appeal, fretting about the out-of-control Republicans while hoping we all forget how much they've folded time and again to the extreme right.
Word. But unlike Greg, I don't blame "Democrats" for this, filibustering was a bad idea with an invisible upshot. You want to stop bad nominees from getting on the Court, you turn out more votes, donate more money, and win more elections than the other guy. A filibuster, in the best case scenario that we win the aftermath, simply sets up the nomination of Michael Luttig. And then we filibuster him? How many times do you think voters will support that? And if your number there is smaller than the number of bad but qualified nominees in this country, then you see my point. If Democratic Senators think Alito is bad, their job is to vote no, it's not an abdication of duty to refuse a quixotic procedural delay.
I do, however, blame Kerry for cynically seeking rapprochement with the left by dangling the hopes of a filibuster he knew would never happen, would never succeed. If he'd truly wanted to stop Alito and had never, as he wrote, doubted that conviction, he shouldn't have been hanging out in Europe when the time came. It's not like the Senate doesn't release it's schedule in advance. As it is, his move not only looked fake, it opened him up to the same accusations of opportunism, ambition, and elitism that helped sink his campaign. has he learned nothing?
Switzerland. Jesus.
