wow, reed and clinton are quick to fillibuster illegal immigration

[still_one]

but when it comes to censuring the president for violating the FISA act, or not even questioning appealte judges, and some of the supreme court judges, who cares if they violate the citizens civil rights.

I am not saying they should or should NOT do this, but what I am saying is that it should be obvious to fight for the rights of people in this country and not run for the hills when a censure resolution comes before them, or signing a so-called no filibuster nuke options so some of the most radical appeallate court judge could get in without a fight. Somethine is very wrong.

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/newyork/ny-bc-ny--clinton-immigrati0322mar22,0,2312317.story?coll=ny-region-apnewyork

[Tim4319]

1. There is a gospel song by the Williams Brothers that come to mind!

It is called "Sweep Around Your Own Front Door, Before You Try To Sweep Around Mine". That is what comes to mind when I hear stories such as this. When I see how this president it monitoring other countries, America -- regardless of political affiliation -- should sweep around it's own front door first!

[bowens43]

2. It's stupid to fight battles that can't be won.

This one they can and should win.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Holy shit - A RATIONAL post!?!?

Thank you for restoring some of my faith in DU!! :toast:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. I said essentially the same thing in another thread.

But these sorts of posts always get buried under the barrage of all-caps posts screaming for the purge-du-jour of the Democratic party.

[still_one]

13. you are right. It is important to speak up on every issue

especially when your party needs to stand for something

six years should have taught us something.

Russ Feingold was on the Daily Show last night, and he said it more elequently, Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice shame on me. We have been fooled since 2000, 9/11, 2002, where we lost the majority, and even 2004. Enough is enough.

[Lerkfish]

9. everyone who agrees with you, vash, is "rational"

you have a very low threshold for rationality, congruence with your own point of view.

[still_one]

14. If they said that about civil rights, where do you think

the African Americans would be today?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. Last I checked

civil rights wasn't won on a losing filibuster.

[still_one]

20. No, but it represents a general principle of fighting for causes

even when you might not win

In fact, the Civil Rights act is up for renewal, Do you think if the votes aren't there it should be filibustered?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/06/AR2005080600971.html

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Of course I think it should be filibustered.

However, you're making an extremely simplistic, apples and oranges comparison there. Even if we somehow don't have the votes to sustain that filibuster, public outrage would be so completely on our side that we'd win in the process anyway.

Alito wasn't even fucking close. People wanted him confirmed. Even despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, people still didn't believe he was going to overturn Roe v. Wade. It had "loss" written all over it, from EVERY angle. Not only was there no point in filibustering him, it was quite harmful to the cause you claim to care about so much to do so.

Standing up for your principles is fucking useless if it means putting yourself so far out of power that you can never actually DO anything with those principles. Fighting blindly and ignorantly has NEVER, EVER won anything.

[still_one]

24. we are already out of power because of that philosophy

but that is cool, we just disagree

[wisteria]

5. Maybe, but we could have done 100% better during the Alito hearings

and been more outspoken on the wiretapping issues. I don't think the public was served very well on both of these matters. We could have won public opinion on both if we had even tried.

[still_one]

12. just because you cannot "win" does NOT mean you should not fight

a battle, especially when it is the right thing to do

It is interesting to note, that when we got involved in Viet Nam, there were a couple of legislators who voted against our involvement. History, showed them to be correct.

A much better example is civil rights. If the attitude was simply we couldn't win this battle, then there would still be people going to the back of the bus.

You have to stand up when you see something wrong, WIN OR LOSE, otherwise there is no substance in your positions

[mattclearing]

17. Anyone who says that a battle that hasn't been fought yet can't be won

is fooling themselves.

It's unlikely to be won, but not impossible. Bush could yet so embarass himself that the congressional Republicans ditch him.

It hasn't happened yet, but it isn't impossible.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

4. It's "Reid"

And they filibuster what they can actually succeed on so as not to look like jackasses. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but they couldn't (and in Alito's case, didn't) sustain a filibuster in those cases you mention.

[wisteria]

6. That is because we did a piss poor job in the hearings and some

Senators were afraid to go against what they perceived as positive opinions of Alito. The Alito filibuster was done knowing we had very little chance of success. It was done on principle. You know what, sometimes you have to stand for something even if you may not win with it.

[savemefromdumbya]

8. I always thought the Democratic Party stood up for the people

our senators have minds of their own.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

10. Maybe for rank and file.

But our leadership is tasked with the sole purpose of putting us back into the majority, so, you know, we might actually have some power behind those principles sometime this century.

[still_one]

18. If we get power back it will be in spite of our so-called

Democratic leadership. It will be because of people who AREN'T afraid to speak out, like Hackett, Ned Lamont, Russ Feingold, or any one of the people running for elected office NOT afraid to speak truth to power

What are we afraid of?

The public already believes we don't believe enough in our cause to fight for it.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

22. Oh yes, Mr. "I'm taking my ball and going home" Hackett.

Yeah, he's gonna be our ticket to glory. :sarcasm:

[still_one]

25. hey, he is out there working for candidates to win now

because the leadership in the party dissed him, after encouraging him to run, doesn't mean he cut and ran.

but that is OK if you want to be lead around like sheep, and do whatever the "Demcoratic Leadership" says it takes to win. They have done such an excellent job the last three elections, and frankly we HAD THE ISSUES TO WIN, but were afraid to bring up the ABORTION WORD, yet alone BE CALLED LIBERAL, as though that was a dirty word

[still_one]

15. If you don't stand and be counted on principle then you don't stand

If you think that because a filibuster fails you look weak, I respectfully disagree. In fact it is just the opposite. When you stand for something you win.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. Let's compare your gut feeling

to a couple of hundred years of political science.

Somehow, I don't think you're winning this one.

A failing filibuster is weakness - period. There is no positive in a failing filibuster, except maybe for the person who tries to initiate it if they're trying to win a primary election.

[laylah]

11. My sentiments

exactly! I am NOT impressed by their empty threats to fillibuster a cheese sandwich, let alone anything of great importance. They don't want to give up their precious "dry powder" :mad:

Jenn

[still_one]

16. the powder is all wet