Sticking up for Byrd

[mikelewis]

I understand that many people are probably very upset by Sen. Byrd's decision to vote for Alito. While I firmly believe hs should not only deny this Nominee and even join the filibuster, I must say that I support his decision to vote his conscience. Sen. Byrd has earned a great deal of respect from me over the years and I will not brand him a fool or a traitor. While I do not support his decision, I emphatically support his right to make up his own mind on issues.

With that said, there is still time for him to change his mind. I believe a few thousand phone calls an hour over the next few days may help this old politician see Alito and his political prospect in November in a different light. Instead of bashing his decision and/or labeling him a traitor, call him and thank him for his years of service and tell his staffer that you would like to ask the Senator to reconsider his vote.

This is his contact info:
# Fax your letter to Charleston office at 304-343-7144;
# Call Washington office at 202-224-3954. If you leave your name and telephone number, your call will be returned as soon as possible;
# Call Charleston office at 304-342-5855;

When you call, please be respectful and remember, Sen. Byrd is on our side, just not in this one issue. Help bring him back into the fold.

[EFerrari]

1. Good call, Mike. Let's go.

:kick:

[blm]

2. FRAME: Who will Alito rule for, Mineworkers or Coalmining Deregulators?

.

[mikelewis]

7. Good call... He was pissed at the Mine Worker hearings.

I wonder if Alito has ruled in favor of Mining companies. A breif from a similar case may be just the thing the Good Senator needs to help change his toon.

[blm]

11. The rulings I recall he came down FOR corporations, and AGAINST workers

and consumers.

[sandnsea]

32. Exactly, relevant to his constituents

The labor and safety rights that the West Virginia miner has fought for for 100 years. We know who led that fight and we stand with them for a Supreme Court that respects those rights.

[G_j]

3. he is supposed to be an expert on the Constitution

did he fall asleep or something?

[EFerrari]

6. Before we strangle him (in imagination), let's talk to him.

:kick:

[G_j]

14. I've already called a few times in the last few days

respectfully of course. His staffers don't say much, just take down comments.
I am just wondering out loud.

[EFerrari]

24. Sure. Sorry. I can't see how he's missing what a threat this vote

is to his great love, the Senate.

[fooj]

35. How do we REALLY know that he is missing it? We don't.

Peace.

[EFerrari]

39. What is your take, fooj? I'd think that announcing his vote this

way would cause an effect that can't be taken back or mitigated later.

What's your take?

[fooj]

41. Here's my take...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2393924&mesg_id=2393924

peace.

[EFerrari]

46. Okay. I can't go there right now, while there's still any doubt.

Give me five minutes. :evilgrin:

[fooj]

50. Ok. Got my timer running...

:evilgrin:

[EFerrari]

4. Frame: Senator Byrd has been very misled on Alito's integrity.

He did not recuse himself on Vanguard, he can't recall his association with CAP and he minimized his position on Executive power.

:kick:

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. All good points!

[Moochy]

12. Interesting take on Vanguard

Not to imply anything untoward in Byrds' approval but perhaps he knows a bit about being vilified for joining racist old boys clubs in his early years... :)

[EFerrari]

26. You think?

:)

[Wordie]

20. Does anyone have a good article on the "handling" by the Bush admin

on the Alito nomination? I found a little bit, in Newsweek:

Getting To Know You
The Alito hearings are as much about human moments as they are about judicial philosophy

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jonathan Darman
Newsweek
Updated: 1:01 p.m. ET Jan. 10, 2006

Jan. 10, 2006 - Stepping down from the podium at Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings yesterday, Christie Todd Whitman slipped quietly into the second row. Her work for the day was done: She’d introduced Alito, her fellow New Jerseyan, to the Senate Judiciary Committee and urged the committee to vote for his confirmation to the Supreme Court. But before she could sit down, a young Republican aide approached her to ask if she wouldn’t be more comfortable seated up front. “I’m fine,” the former New Jersey governor replied. But the aide was adamant: “You can sit in the front row." Whitman paused for a moment and then dutifully shuffled towards an empty seat, a few feet behind Judge Alito.
Story continues below ↓
advertisement

Sure enough, as he exited the hearing room a few minutes later, Judge Alito breezed past most everyone in the room but stopped for a long, close handshake with Whitman. The cameras clicked. The White House, which had invited Whitman to introduce Alito, couldn’t have asked for a better photo-op. Whitman, after all, is one of the Republican party’s best-known pro-choice women. By embracing the judge closely, she seemed to say that other moderate women could do the same. As Alito headed backstage, Ed Gillespie, his Capitol Hill handler, approached Whitman. “Governor,” he said, “excellent job.”

Little, human moments like this could make the difference in Alito’s confirmation. No one in either party doubts the judge’s competency, his fluency on constitutional issues or his ability to write strong opinions. But we still know very little about Alito the human being. What’s his family like? What is he like with them? (Another image from yesterday: the judge affectionately clasping his wife’s hand as he introduced her to the hearing.) These questions matter all the more because Alito is replacing Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court’s first woman and one of the most charismatic justices in recent memory. In the coming days, Alito and the White House will use small gestures to assure moderate senators, and moderate Americans, that he lives in the same world they do. Here are some of the key ways he’ll do that:
The women: Women were everywhere in the first two days of Alito’s confirmation. Seated just behind him as he took the podium yesterday were nine females, including his wife, sister, daughter and mother-in-law. These women were largely silent (though the Alito women were overheard breezily joking with one another on a ladies’ room break). But their mere appearance makes a difference. TV cameras zooming in on his face couldn’t help but capture two striking figures seated behind him wearing robust red. One was the nominee’s wife, Martha, the other, Rachel Brand, the Justice department attorney charged with preparing his nomination. This image, an earnest jurist with a rosy angel on each shoulder sent a message: Let the Democrats say what they like, this judge will remember the ladies.

This might be a hard message to get across. Alito’s record on women’s issues, particularly abortion, is more hardcore conservative than any nominee since Clarence Thomas. (Note to Judge Alito: Don’t follow Justice Thomas’s playbook on how to make your hearings appeal to the fairer sex.) There is only one female member of the Judiciary committee, California’s Dianne Feinstein, and she has expressed grave doubts about Alito’s stances on abortion, voting rights and executive authority. (My note: we should probably leave that part out!) If women’s issues becomes a sticking point, look for more information about Martha Alito to start seeping out. She’s already done a not-so-revelatory Q&A with the Washington Post (Alito likes juggling!) but if Democrats succeed in painting the judge as anti-woman, expect his wife to become more than just the smiling, silent face.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10790380/site/newsweek/

I started thinking along the same lines as the OP. A longshot, perhaps, but worth the effort. We need to be careful about how we put these sorts of comments. I don't think Sen. Byrd would take kindly to being told he was conned.

Also, should this be posted in the WV forum, as well?

[Wordie]

29. Careful how you word it! Better to talk generally about the politicization

the Bush handlers added to the situation, than to insult his intelligence (which I admire, by the way) by suggesting that the * people were able to con him.

I would appreciate any info DUers may have on Alito's preparation by the Bush admin. I think that is a very good way to approach Byrd. If he has objections to the politicalization of the process, he may realize that Judge Alito's conversation with him was probably rehearsed w/ Judge Alito by the * people.

I'm also thinking that we could cite how Roberts voted on the Oregon Death with Dignity law. This is from FOX news (!):

...While Roberts seemed to approach the Oregon law with skepticism during oral arguments, his decision to side with the Bush administration feeds suspicions that he is sympathetic toward the broad powers arguments of the executive branch. If Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito is indeed more to the right of Roberts on separation of powers, as is widely believed, then a visible shift on the court could be seen as early as this year, pending Alito's almost certain confirmation.

"I think there is the expectation that one of things Alito and Roberts have in common is a healthy — or perhaps unhealthy — respect for strong executive power," said Vikram Amar of the University of California Hastings College of Law.

"If this case was a clash between executive power and state power, the fact that Roberts leans toward executive power would indicate Alito would as well. And that places so much more weight on Anthony Kennedy, who in some ways replaces O'Connor as the sole fulcrum of the court," Amar told FOXNews.com.

"These kinds of cases are tricky because it's not entirely clear what it means to be a conservative," Siegel said. "You can have strong views about assisted suicide and drug use but also strong views about federalism. My guess is Alito would have come out with Roberts, Scalia and Thomas."

Any ideas on how Byrd would read that? I read someplace that this ruling seemed to contradict things Roberts had said in his hearing, but I don't know enough about law, let alone constitutional law, to make effective legal arguments to someone like Byrd. Any DU attorneys around?

[EFerrari]

44. There were several threads about the rehearsals here,

including Lindsay Graham's participation. I don't remember the OP poster. But it was a very thorough list.

Re "being misled": Mr. Byrd said that he believed Scalito was a man of his word. The code is: I believe the public representation.

That gives him wiggle room -- a gentlemen takes another gentleman's word. :)

[Wordie]

55. "...man of his word." Well, right there, we know *that* isn't true.

And that's about the Vanguard recusal. Alito promised, but then didn't keep his promise. And though Alito has said that it was because he "forgot," in addition the idea that the recusal wasn't really required was put out there too (by Alito, or his handlers? I am not sure). But the facts remain: he made a promise, then didn't keep it. There should be no such excuses for a person in such a position of responsibility as a judge. Might that be an argument that would resonate with someone like Byrd.

Or would he see it as an unseemly attack on Alito's integrity?

[EFerrari]

59. The most powerful one for him, imho. n/t

[Wordie]

71. Here's the link for that quote from FOX...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181881,00.html

[acmejack]

5. It's a good idea & I'll try in a while

When I calm down and can be rational, which certainly is not right now.

[mikelewis]

9. I know how you feel...

If there was ever a WTF moment, it was that one. I would never have guessed that in a million years. Oh well, it just means we have to work harder.

[acmejack]

10. Specter has called for a vote!

nt

[im10ashus]

13. I can't understand how we can equate a "yes" vote as integrity.

Has Byrd NOT listened to a word of the hearings. Alito has refused to answer the simplest questions. He can't recall his association with CAP (puhlease)! I will give the old Byrd a call, but his conscience should already be telling him to vote NO!

[mikelewis]

22. This may also be a trick too...

Sen. Byrd is no fool. He knows how to play politics better than anyone in the Senate. By announcing he'll vote for Alito, he's inviting a fire-storm of calls. If I wanted to juice up my name recognition or fire up the base in the Democratic party, announcing a Yes and then changing my mind will surely turn some heads. You can't completely trust everything Sen. Byrd does becuase he is a master politician. My gut is telling me that this is a ploy of some sort but of course, DeNial isn't a river in Egypt.

[EFerrari]

30. The same thought crossed my mind. He reminds me of my mother.

She could sell sand in the desert.

I think the course of action you've reccommended is the wisest one for now. :thumbsup:

[im10ashus]

38. Well, they are voting now.

We will see how he REALLY is going to vote. :shrug:

[Hubert Flottz]

72. I think it is a PR deal...

Think about it! Clue...What were the GOPers SCREAMING their heads off about yesterday evening, on every news show??? "A committee vote on straight party lines"... They forget about the fact that every GOPer on the Committee voted along party lines also yesterday. Remember that 41 votes can start a derailment of slippery Sammy. Byrd always being seen as a ring leader, and then going against the flow on this one, makes the case against the Dems voting along party lines a moot argument.


I called before Mr. Byrd spoke, I'll see if they call back.

I'm reeling too! Trying to figure this out! I hope Mr Byrd has a GOOD reason for his strange move.

[napi21]

15. I support his right too, but Specter just called for a vote NOW!

He said he was waiting for Reid to get to the floor, and Reid is now there.

Specter is saying if there are no more speakers, then we should just vote.

[Wordie]

64. Reid has apparently held Specter off, and debate is continuing. n/t

[seabeyond]

16. what a healthy, balanced way of seeing things mikelewis.

i dont know byrd that well. i know a lot respect him, except today, wink. i have never been a huge fan, but i respected others like of the man

good post. good call. thanks

[ScreamingMeemie]

17. Better Yet...OVERNIGHT A WRITTEN LETTER...

He's seems impressed by the written word...on paper.

[EFerrari]

23. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT SUGGESTION!

If you do this, PLEASE BE POSITIVE. Positive about Byrd, positive about the Senate, positive about Congressional oversight.

Then, cream Alito as someone who would gut the power of the Senate. :evilgrin:

[Charlie Brown]

18. Byrd voted for the marriage amendment

One of only three Dems (Nelson and Zell Miller being the other two) to do that.

His idiotic "constitution day" in schools has screwed up curriculum and inconvenienced educators.

He's an autocrat, just like Nelson, and I'm sick of hearing him defended on this board.

West-Virginians should vote third party this November.

Frankly, after all the mud-slinging at Nelson, Landrieu, Feinstein, and others, it strikes me as extremely hypocrtical that some of you go out of your way to defend Byrd.

[ooglymoogly]

33. and who's interests was byrd protecting

on the bankruptcy bill. look up his voting record

[Sydnie]

19. thank you Mike

I agree completely with your statement and your called for actions. :hug:

[EFerrari]

21. His phone is ringing off the hook.

I didn't pose. I said I was an admirer of the Senator's in CA, and mentioned that the internet has changed his constituency -- he has admirers all over the county.

And that I hoped he would reconsider his decision on the Alito nomination BECAUSE LISTENING TO HIS REMARKS, IT SEEMS THAT HE HAS BEEN MISLED ON HOW OFTEN MR. ALITO WAS LESS THAN CANDID BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.

[Wordie]

25. Thanks for the post. Recommended.Are you a constituent, mikelewis?

[mikelewis]

31. No, I live in Ohio but my family is from W. VA

I still have family there around Logan and Beckly though I haven't heard from them in many years. Here in Ohio I have Voinovich and Dewine so Byrd's like an adopted Senator of mine. I love when he pulls out that raggedy assed copy of the Constitution and waves his gnarled old finger in people's faces. He's a true believer. He's like a Constitutional bible beater, I love it.

[Wordie]

47. I think a lot of him too, and his maverick streak appeals to me.

(although I don't like it so much in the current situation). I wonder the best way to appeal to him. I've got a few ideas, but mostly I am stumped.

It's that I don't have the background in the Constitution that he does, so how can I present an argument that will be compelling to him?

What about the Anti-torture Act signing statement by the President...no, in his speech he said he believed Alito really had backed away from those ideas about the expansion of presidential power...jeez. It seems he covered most of the avenues in his speech, and ruled them out.

[EFerrari]

53. That's why I go back and back to his statement: "I believe

Judge Alito is a man of his world."

And dismantle that.

If that were true, Judge Alito could not possibly have anything to do with this administration.

So, my approach is, to be respectful, to be supportive and to point out that Judge Alito AND HIS SPONSORS have not been forthcoming with Senator Byrd -- have in fact obscured a philosophy that seeks to diminish the Senate as an institution.

I hope any of that makes sense. :silly:

[Wordie]

62. OK...well, then there is also the issue of presidential power expansion

Alito backed away from things he has previously said, when he claimed at the hearing that when he said them, he was acting as an advocate for the Reagan admin. But he said similar things to the Federalist Society as late as 2000.

Kennedy mentioned it in his speech:

During his confirmation hearing, Judge Alito attempted to downplay his extreme views of executive power. But he did not disavow them. He refused to candidly discuss his current view of the constitutional limits on Presidential power. Instead, he pointed to the Supreme Court's rejection of the unitary executive theory. He cited the Court's decision affirming that independent counsels who investigate executive branch abuses can be removed from presidential control.

But a speech he gave in 2000 to the Federalist society provides insight into his real view. He stated that he believed that "the theory of the unitary executive best captures the meaning of the Constitution's text and structure." He went on to strongly criticize those rulings rejecting the theory of the unitary executive. He then outlined a strategy for bypassing the Court's precedents, including the same independent counsel case he claimed to support in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee last week.

When Judge Alito made that speech, he was not applying for a job in the Justice Department. He'd already been serving as an appellate judge for ten years. The timing of the speech to the Federalist Society may be significant. In November 2000, the Florida recount was on, and the right wing was salivating over the prospect that George Bush would prevail in that close election. Judge Alito may well have been submitting his application for a Supreme Court nomination.

Judge Alito also failed to satisfactorily explain his controversial advice, as a Justice Department official, that "the President's understanding of a bill should be just as important as that of Congress." He recommended that when the President signs a bill passed by Congress, he should issue a signing statement announcing his own interpretation of the law, in the hope of influencing the way courts would construe the law. That proposal was clearly the recommendation of an activist seeking to reduce the power of Congress and expand Presidential power beyond its traditional boundary. The fundamental role of Congress is to pass laws and define what those laws mean in the text of the statutes themselves or in their legislative history. That power is exclusively for Congress, not the President. As Justice Hugo Black wrote in the steel seizure case, "In the framework of our Constitution, the President's power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad."

Some years ago, the Supreme Court rejected the line item veto as unconstitutional. It reaffirmed Justice Black's view that Presidents may either veto or sign bills that Congress passes. They cannot pick and choose the provisions they will enact. But the kinds of signing statements that Judge Alito advocates amount to a back-door line item veto of congressional actions.

President Bush showed this with his recent signing statement on a bill that contained Senator McCain's ban on torture. In that statement, the President reserved the right to ignore the McCain requirements, and even asserted that in certain circumstances his actions are beyond the reach of the courts.

These views exalting Presidential power are troubling enough on their own. But they are also reflected in Judge Alito's decisions as a judge. His record on the bench only reinforces the deep concerns raised by his broad expressions of support for executive power. His deference to executive power is especially clear in cases where persons claimed the government violated the privacy and security of their homes. He refuses to enforce core constitutional standards protecting individuals against low-level government officials in routine situations, and there is no reason to believe he will say no to a President who violates individual rights under the cloak of national security.

(Of course, I'm not advocating that we quote Kennedy to Senator Byrd! :)

But we can find other links and references to Alito's speeches to the Federalist Society, and that might help. The statements advocating expanded powers evidently were made before the Federalist Society long after he obtained his seat on the 3rd Circuit Court. That might make a difference. He was no longer an advocate, but a judge.

[EFerrari]

63. Very good point. He was no longer an advocate but a judge.

We know how much of his heart and soul Mr. Byrd has given to the Senate. I believe this is one aspect of this nomination that could cause him pause.

[Wordie]

67. :sigh: I covered so much of this in a letter to Byrd already.

I said these things before.

January 21, 2006

Dear Senator Byrd:

As a prominent leader among Senate Democrats, your voice is admired and respected because of your long congressional tenure, your willingness to stand up for what is right, and your deep love of our country. Yet you are an inspiration not just to the Senate Democrats, but to all those who value our noble American institutions and valued rights, for which so many have sacrificed, and stand up to protect that document upon which they are based, our Constitution. Therefore, it is in light of your role as elder statesman of the Senate that I am writing to you about the Alito vote. Although I am not, strictly speaking, a constituent, I am depending upon you as a respected representative of our entire nation to lead this fight.

If confirmed, Judge Samuel Alito, although possessed of stellar credentials and remarkable intelligence, would pose a serious threat to the balance of powers between the branches of our government, a balance that must be maintained at all costs. Judge Alito's answers in the recent confirmation hearings were unsatisfactory. Alito was asked, "If we have explicit authority under the Constitution to pass a law, and we pass that law, is the president bound by that law?" And he replied, "The president, like everybody else, is bound by statutes that are enacted by Congress, unless the statutes are unconstitutional, because the Constitution takes precedence over a statute." On the face of it, that sounded like an appropriate response. But when one thinks about it more carefully, there is a hidden danger lurking in his statement, because as a Supreme Court Justice, Alito himself would be the one determining the constitutionality of any such law.

There is much reason to presume that if confirmed, Alito would percieve the Constitution as allowing the president to assume greatly expanded powers. It was he, in his tenure with the Reagan White House, who developed the concept of the "signing statement," which President Bush is now using to assume powers never granted to the executive by the Constitution. It is crucial that we determine how might a Supreme Court Justice Alito rule if a challenge to the constitutionality of the signing statement were to come before the Supreme Court? Nothing in his reply gave us a clue to the answer to that question. During the entire hearing, he never clearly defined his views on the scope of the president's constitutional authority versus the constitutional authority of Congress. How could such a nominee be confirmed with such grave questions remaining about his committment to maintaining the balance of powers the framers of our Constitution so wisely provided for our great nation? Please do not forget that President Bush recently attached a signing statement to the Anti-torture bill, to override the intent of the legislation, and subvert the will of Congress and the wishes of the American people.

Senator Byrd, you once wisely said this: "As long as there is a forum in which questions can be asked by men and women who do not stand in awe of a chief executive and one can speak as long as one's feet will allow one to stand, the liberties of the American people will be secure."

Judge Alito must not be confirmed. I ask you not only to vote against him, but also, as you have done so many times in the past, to stand up again and with passion and wisdom lead the Senate in securing our nation's valued liberties and traditions. Please stand up, Senator Byrd, and vigorously support a filibuster of Judge Alito's nomination.

Thank you for your consideration of my request, and for your many years of dedicated service to our country.

Sincerely,


...I took a long time writing that letter, because it seemed to me that Byrd's vote was so critical. I'll try again, but I'm not confident.

[fooj]

65. Hasn't the good Senator looked at the PAPER TRAIL

this nomination has?:silly: Geez.....

[EFerrari]

75. I know. But you can only talk to people in terms that they can hear.

(Until you're by yourself. lol)

[fooj]

77. What's so confusing about the fourth amendment?

I'm just soooooo fed up with all of this BS! It's insane...dontcha think?

[EFerrari]

78. Sure but there is all the other stuff. The institutional stuff, the move

of the moment, the next Bushco thing you have to respond too.

I just figure it this way. I can't know his strategy because I don't know his challenges.

But I can keep talking to him, keep letting him know my concerns.

Until the vote. :eyes:

[ClayZ]

27. I just got through easily.

:kick:

[mom cat]

28. Just keep calling and faxing.

[fooj]

34. Look, anyone who has waved his pocket Constitution in our faces...

deserves to be heavily questioned on his "vote of conscience"...

It's just plain hypocritical. Period.

And to think he led the coal-mining hearings yesterday... Unfrickingbelievable. When his pal Alito crushes any rights those miners may still have...I hope Senator Byrd is still comfortable with his hypocritical vote. I guess his dog pissed on the Fourth Amendment this am. Geez.......

[mikelewis]

42. But how is this helpful?

No one is more astounded than I am over this, believe me, but right now we have a filibuster to engineer and a Nuclear option staring us in the face. We are going to war and I want good men like Sen. Byrd with us. He's making a mistake, that is certain, but mistakes can be avoided. He has been a friend for a long time, let's treat him as a Friend even when he makes a mistake. He is a Friend in need and he is a Friend in deed. Don't let this mistake erase all the good he has done.

[fooj]

45. He voted for Roberts, too. Some friend.

Peace.

[Mass]

51. He voted for Pricilla Owen too...

and for the Bankruptcy Bill.

[fooj]

56. Thanks for reminding me.

:mad:

[Moochy]

36. Just called the charleston office

Left a very polite message for the senator with a staffer, about whether Alito would side with the coal mine owners, vs. the coal miners, and that I hoped he would reconsider.

Also I said I want to hear his filibuster speeches, missing out on that would be kind of sad. :patriot:

[EFerrari]

40. Nice!

:)

[pstokely]

37. did Big Coal threaten him?

[autorank]

43. This is politics, not theology...but lets try to change his mind.

The guy railed against the machine. Not agreeing does not mean villifying him.

Great point!

[EFerrari]

48. He's not dead, he just needs to change his vote.

lol

[fooj]

52. Hey...if we can get the pocket toting Constitutional "scholar" to change

his vote...I'll take back everything I've said. If not...well...

Peace.

[EFerrari]

57. You have to remember, I'm a Sagitarian. lol n/t

[fooj]

60. I'm a LEO. Yikes.

LOL!

[fooj]

49. I hear what you are saying...however...

I'm not villifying ANYONE. He did that all on his own. All this from a man who waves his pocket Constitution in everyones face...did he just MISS THE FOURTH AMENDMENT? He voted for Roberts. Now he says he'll vote for Alito. Two strikes, IMO.

Peace.

[autorank]

54. Hey fooj, if you want to villify him, I'm fine with that...just notn every

body...;) You're right.

Read the damn Constitution, listen to Gores speech, read the Declaration.

We'll be at the hustings soon with those very documents

:hi:

[fooj]

58. Just truth, my friend. Just calling it as I see it.

:hi:

[fooj]

61. Gore's speech...

Ah yes....:loveya:

[Senator]

66. Ask him to JUST WAIT

Perhaps he can be persuaded to hold off on giving them his cloture vote until after the SOTU.

It would make for a great "split-screen" coverage with Dems standing up on principle DURING the DC/Euphemedia Analstocracy Dog and Pony Show.

Simply abstaining for a period of time doesn't violate any principle he may have, it's just good old-fashioned hardball politics.

Or is he just running on Viagra now?

--
www.january6th.org

[IndyOp]

68. Damn - this might mean Bayh is going the wrong way, too..

I called Byrd's office this morning to ask him to support a filibuster and the staffer was very, very interested in how Bayh was going to vote. Shit!

:grr:

[fooj]

69. Is this straight out of the Twilight Zone, or what?

:scared:

[Skidmore]

70. Do these legislators ever speak to one another?

[roguevalley]

73. I hope he changes his mind or he's a tool that needs to

go. So much for the Constitution. I have one congressman who is now being implicated in the Abramoff scandal and because he's a pig, I have essentially no representation. Byrd professes to love this country but if he votes for asshole, knowing the constitution the way he does and knowing it would mean that we lost the last hope we have, he's a bastard and a tool. No two ways about it. I will however call respectfully,. I would LOVE to hear his reasoning for saying one thing and ALWAYS doing another. I simpathize with your old father.

[Wordie]

74. Additional thoughts on Byrd, from an earlier ActivistHQ thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=106x26339

[sunnystarr]

76. I listened very carefully to Byrd

Throughout the first part of his speech I really thought he was going to go against Alito because he included "his record" as one of three things to consider. It seemed to me that was the very thing he didn't consider ... we're all familiar with Alito's record.

Then as he continued about all the letters he received ... from people writing while watching TV on lined paper ... I realized he was taken in by constituents who were taken in by the right wing media blitz. In my area, which I'm sure is the same in W. Virginia, the only talk radio is right wing ... so all people hear is Hannity, Limbaugh, Glen Bech, etc. On TV we all know the slant given by CNN, MSNBC, and of course Faux News. So in essence Byrd is making his decision based on right wing talking points. I'm truly disappointed and I do love that man.

[Wordie]

79. Link to a thread with the text of Byrd's speech here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=253846&mesg_id=253846