I expect the nominee of my party in 2008 to have supported and fought for Democratic positions; in other words, to be a partisan wrangler. This comment of yours bewilders me.
I speak of political courage here. With Bush courage doesn’t even enter into the equation because he’s too arrogant to be afraid of anything.
What the fuck is “partisan wrangling” supposed to mean anyway? Fighting for the ideals his party is supposed to stand for? Hasn’t Bush done plenty of that?
Blalron
I like that clarification. 
I thnk its more a case of “Fools rush in, where angels fear to tread.”
John Kerry as a winning Presidential candidate, to start with.
Liberals have never been wrong? Your pig-headed arrogance is simply stunning.
Keep it up though, it suits you well.
So you ain’t got nothin’, right?
Wow Updike you were so upset with that “liberal” posting you felt it required 2 consecutive replies?
I’ll admit that the SDMB is decidedly liberal. However, I also feel that the SDMB liberals are more tolerant of the SDMB conservatives than the other way around.
Yep, I ain’t got nothin’. But you’re always right, of course.
Kerry was nominated by the national Democratic Party, a group that is far from congruent with “liberals,” something that is generally understood outside Foxfantasyland.
Chill out, I just added a second comment to my first one. I’m not like alaricthegoth who posts 4 or 5 replies in a row. Jeez.
Which makes liberals like our friend **Elvis/b] even more irrelavant, don’t you think?
At least he can be witty and observant when he chooses.
Really, do you have evidence of “witty and observant” on his part? If so, please share.
Take a stroll through his current Pitting, perhaps pausing here, for example.
You, on the other hand, offer only regurgitated talking points, masticated in the slow jaws of willful obtuseness.
Yep, that is witty and observant all right. Not.
BTW, the whole “if you don’t agree with us, UR TEH STOODPID,” thing is really, really old.
Hmmm. I didn’t think that partisan wrangling needed to be defined, but apparently it does. Hoping we’re OK with the ‘partisan’ portion, wrangle: to dispute angrily or peevishly, to bicker, to engage in argument or controversy, to quarrel.
The point here is and has been, Alito is going to be confirmed, no matter what the two from Mass decide to do. If it were close, if there was any remote possibility of blocking the confirmation, then by all means, act upon your conscience, do as the electorate would have you do and launch a filibuster. But. it. won’t. work.
It’s time to comport yourself as a gentleman and a pragmatist, accept the decision of the majority, and save your mental energies for a battle at which you’ve a reasonable chance of success.
Clear now?
And I’m telling you, the MA voters, the only electorate that matters at this point to either of them, wouldn’t stand for it. It’s not simply a matter of partisanship in this case, it’s a matter of representation.
The closest Kennedy ever came to not getting re-elected was during the last hotly-contested SC nomination, that of Clarence Thomas. MA voters sided with Anita Hill, and felt betrayed when Kennedy’s own history of debauchery and sexual objectification of women prevented him from saying more then mumbled platitudes during the hearings.
While they understood the political relities of the situation, they didn’t fully forgive him until he made a very public mea culpa about how his personal failings prevented him from doing his job effectively, and greatly cleaned up his act.
The MA Democratic party hasn’t managed to field a palatable new candidate for any high-profile office in years. A quick look shows that most if not all of their US Representatives are very-long-termers, and they’ve more or less given up the governor’s office to the likes of Mitt Romney and the three, count 'em, three Republicans who preceded him.
Kennedy knows the Oval Office will never be his. He’s up for re-election this year, and has nothing to lose but his Senate seat. Don’t expect him to let the Alito matter slide anytime soon.
Kerry’s face is covered in egg after voting for the war and, shall we say, not making anyone in MA foget the humiliation of the Dukakis campaign. He either has misguided notions of running again, or is simply preparing for his 2008 Senate campaign. He doesn’t want the MA voters having one more instance in their memories of when Kennedy was right, and he was not.
Disclaimer: I have not read all the posts, I am only responding to the OP.
I believe the problem with the Mass Senators is they are two old fashion, liberal Dinosaurs. The Senators that do the most damage to the democratic Party with the independent and moderate voters.
Jim (I will now read the thread, but I wanted to post without being influenced by others)