Senator John Kerry is trying to organize support for a Democratic filibuster of Judge Alito’s confirmation, according to CNN. Though it isn’t mentioned in the story, Wolf Blitzer said Kerry may be trying to gain ground for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008. Blitzer also mentioned the move may backfire, alienating voters in the middle.
Thoughts?
Gun, meet foot. Kerry will regret it if he continues. Just my gut feeling here. Unless Alito immediately starts voting the straight Scalia/Thomas ticket, Kerry’s gonna look like an idiot. Have to agree with Wolf on this one, at least about the backfire.
At the risk of sounding chicken, it depends on how the public feels about Alito’s votes. In 2006, I don’t think it’s going to help Kerry, but I doubt moderates have very strong feelings about Alito one way or the other right now. Two years from now, though, who knows what rulings they’ll make and what the public will think?
I sure as hell hope the Democrats aren’t stupid enough to nominate Kerry again. Or Roberts, for that matter.
I’m a liberal and I can’t stand either one of them.
Personally, I think it doesn’t matter if he shoots himself in the foot or not, the Republicans would probably love it if he ran, since he’s an easy target for political smear campaigns and he doesn’t even bother to fight back.
That’s a good point. I don’t think Kerry has much of a shot of getting the 2008 nomination anyway, and I don’t think there will actually be a filibuster. Proposing the filibuster (someone was almost bound to) would be a lot different, and less memorable, than leading it.
This is further evidence of the intellectual disconnect between folks in the Kennedy/Kerry wing of the Democratic party and the rest of the country. He is either looking at it two ways:
A sincere noble effort to draw a line in the sand the only way he can.
A cynical attempt to manipulate the affections of a constituency he values.
If it’s number one, he’s not reading the polls. While the 2006 elections will give us a look at how all voters feel about the current political climate, the following is from a recent Fox news poll:
"By 58 percent to 36 percent, Americans think the president should have the power to authorize the National Security Agency (NSA) to monitor electronic communications of suspected terrorists without getting warrants, even if one end of the communication is in the United States. Furthermore, six in 10 say they are personally okay with the NSA monitoring their international telephone calls.
These results are parallel to those on related questions about the Patriot Act, which after receiving a short-term extension in December is now set to expire in early February. Overall, a 53 percent majority of Americans think the Patriot Act is a “good thing” for the country while less than a third (30 percent) think it’s a “bad thing.”
Similarly, 59 percent of Americans think it has helped prevent terrorist attacks, and 57 percent support extending the act."
There are those of you who will want to keep your heads in the ideological sand and discount these numbers simply because they came from Fox. If so, please join Kerry on the train to political irrelevance.
If it’s number 2, he is appealing to a group that is passionate, but numerically inferior.
IMO, Kerry’s support was always shallow. He was Mr. Not Bush. I don’t think anyone (or any electorally significant group) really looks to him as their champion. He didn’t beat Bush in '04, so the Dems will look for someone else in '08.
So, to answer the OP: it will neither help nor hurt Kerry in '08, because he won’t win the nomination either way.
IMO, when it comes down to it, he won’t run for nomination anyway.
Sua
It won’t matter because there won’t be a filibuster. You heard it here first.
I wouldn’t put it past Kerry to try to run again. He seems like one of those guys who just really, really wants to be president. Which is one of the reasons he probably shouldn’t be. 
The Dems can do a lot better than him. If he couldn’t beat Bush, he sure as hell won’t be able to beat McCain.
Kerry’s odds of winning the Democratic nomination in 2008 are almost exactly as good as the odds that Alito’s ascendancy to the Supreme Court can be blocked.
“In the floor debate of Alito’s nomination, Democrats have been highly critical of the nomination, saying he would threaten civil liberties and fail to act as a check on executive power.”
Too bad Democrats didn’t think about acting as a check on executive power before the invasion of Iraq.
It won’t matter because there won’t be a filibuster. You heard it here first.
I wouldn’t put it past Kerry to try to run again. He seems like one of those guys who just really, really wants to be president. Which is one of the reasons he probably shouldn’t be. The Dems can do a lot better than him. If he couldn’t beat Bush, he sure as hell won’t be able to beat McCain.
Boy, no kidding.
So nice, the hamsters posted it twice. 
Although I said the same thing a little earlier.
On second thought, they did act as a check.
A blank check.
Sorry for the digression, back to the Hopeless Filibuster.
If Kerry would have won in 2004, Alito wouldn’t be nominated to the Supreme Court. Kerry had his chance to stop Alito from being nominated. A filibuster would be useless at this point. Even if Alito is blocked, that would just serve to energize a right wing which has taken a lot of hits lately. Bush is still president for 3 more years and he’d just nominate an even more extreme conservative.
I think you’re right, although it would assuage my reputation for prescience; I predicted that the Democrats would filibuster O’Connor’s replacement in violation of the “Gang of Fourteen” agreement. Of course, that was when Roberts was nominated to replace O’Connor; since then, Roberts wound up replacing the Chief Justice instead and skewed the equation dramatically. But I’m perfectly content to be wrong on this prediction.
Well, leading a filibuster would be an instance of “fighting back.” Good practice for the Dems, they’ve got dropping their trousers and spreading 'em down pat, now they need to work on OTHER responses to Republican initiatives. I’m all for the filibuster.
Ah, yes.
The Thelma and Louise Option.
Naturally, I’m on board. Let’s at least find out which democeratic senators need primary oppo.
Fuck Ben Nelson
Besides, if they hold 60, and force the Nuke Option, so be it. The filibuster has been fucking the left forever. Watch the southern scum squirm when the worm turns.
I think in the unlikely event that a filibuster held against alito and the nuke option failed (ie, six of the pug seven from the gang of 14 refuse to pull the trigger on the nuke option) Bush’s political capital will be overdrawn, and it’s hard to see a worse judge getting through.
not germane to op, bu for your convenience (I couln’t remeember…)
[edit]
7 Republicans:
John S. McCain III, Arizona
Lindsey O. Graham, South Carolina
John Warner, Virginia
Olympia Snowe, Maine
Susan M. Collins, Maine
R. Michael DeWine, Ohio
Lincoln Chafee, Rhode Island
[edit]
7 Democrats:
Joseph I. Lieberman, Connecticut
Robert C. Byrd, West Virginia
E. Benjamin Nelson, Nebraska
Mary Landrieu, Louisiana
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii
Mark Pryor, Arkansas
Ken Salazar
I quoted this post just because it’s related to my opinion on the motivation of the rhetoric, not a personal reply.
Kerry, it seems, knows he’s no more electable to the WH than Kennedy is. He also knows he’s got an electorate that will send him back to the Capitol as long as he chooses to run. He has absolutely nothing to lose here.
What he can do, though, is ratchet up the vehement opposition to the GOP. This not only helps solidify his base of those that see him as fighting for the common man (supressing a smart ass remark), but makes other Dems seem downright centrist and mainstream.
This stunt, and more importantly Kennedy’s antics in the Alito hearings, make Clinton and even Gore seem like very viable candidates. Why would Kerry care about what a family in New Mexico or Tennessee thinks of him? It might help his party’s chances, and that’s what matters. It seems the Dems are seen by most as not neccessarily weaker than Republicans, just not as strong. Or strong-willed. (You know what I mean, I’m not feeling poetic tonight.)
Party loyalty is party loyalty. No matter the party. I can’t really fault Kerry for doing it. He knows it won’t work, but it gets him some ink. If that’s what the Dems think may help, more power to 'em. If a majority agree with the philosophy, they’ll gain control. If not, there’s always the next election.
Just a thought or two. Take it for what it’s worth.