Spanky, Beware!
 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060127/...madcow_deer_dc


(Venison carries mad cow-like agent)

Hamas
 

I liked the quote from Sen. Dick Durbin (D - Ill.), the Minority Whip. "One of the first prerequisites for being in Congress is to know how to count." He doesn't think a filibuster is realistic -- and that is obviously true.

That said, I think that Kerry and Kennedy know it will fail, but are acting to give some satisfaction to the left-wing activist base and keep them on the reservation and (hopefully) motivated for the upcoming elections. Much like the way that most Republicans pay lip service to the religious right.

Alito will be confirmed Tuesday morning.

S_A_M

Hamas
 

I thought he wouldn't change much, regardless of how conservative he ends up being, because I thought Roberts will be more centrist, certainly more center than Renquist. But the first decision i saw he was in a minority of 3 with Scalia and Thomas. Maybe I'm wrong?

filibuster
 

They hardly need a base, but isn't it pretty silly? A vote no is just that. A filibuster leaves them open to charges of obstructionism when the die is cast.

Hamas
 

Maybe so. I think Alito on the S.Ct. will change quite a bit.

Of course we can't tell much from a few cases, but Roberts is not nearly as down-the-middle as he was portrayed, and I don't see him as much more centrist than Rehnquist.

The first abortion case may tell the tale.

S_A_M

P.S. Bush, et al. would be pretty disappointed if Roberts and Alito didn't change much. That was the whole point -- to put conservative agents of change on the S.Ct while avoiding the fights over perceived looney-right candidates like JRB.

Hamas
 

Not until Kennedy dies.

filibuster
 

The Democratic Party needs a base, and some Dem. Senators are under a lot of pressure from the activist left to show some balls and fight hard over Alito -- win or lose.

It may (or may not) hurt the Dems a bit with the average Joe -- but you have to keep the foot-soldiers motivated. (Why do you think the GOP let Pat Buchanan speak at the 1991 convention?)

Again -- Kennedy can do it because he has zero to lose, and I think Kerry is positioning himself to try to take/hold the party's left wing in preparation for 2008. Willingly or not, he will end up trying to outflank Hillary from the left.

S_A_M

filibuster
 

There's a winning strategy. "Vote for me, because I'm to the left of the person that everyone thinks is too far left to win the general election."

filibuster
 

To win the general election, one must first win the primary election, and I think HC is trying to put herself about as far to the right as one can go and win the Dem. primaries.

S_A_M

filibuster
 

She could take pat buchanan's positions publicly for the next two years and still win the nomination.

Hamas
 

You only rage against unbeatable odds when there is no other option. In this case, the Dems have another option - develop a voice and take back the other two branches of govt. Kennedy and Kerry will look like the pair of horses asses they are if they fillibuster Alito. I wouldn't be surprised to see either do it. Kennedy has nothing to lose and Kerry has the political instincts of a... oh, hell, the man's just a goddamned imbecile. I hated Bush intensely and voted for Kerry, and still felt stupid and dirty for doing so....

If the Dems had any sense, they'd play Alito to their advantage in the midterms and 2008. They could spin horror tales about what GOP control of all three branches would do.

But no matter what spin they chuck onto the GOP's actions, they still have to offer a sensible alternative. Which. They. Can't.

filibuster
 

Oh, it will be willingly, since it's the only sure way to make absolutely certain he can't win.

Times like these are when I really miss Penske
 

You get Amex statments more frequently than the man passes stools. I'd be surprised if he knew Hawaii was a state. There should be age and term limits placed on these decrepit fucks. 8-0 and out.

Hamas
 

True. The Taliban stopped stoning women and started shooting them when they went legit.

Psyops
 

I am confused as to why it would be a bad thing if Americans hear messages regarding America and Americans that are intended for foreign consumption. Someone help me with this.

Chief Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita said he rejected the notion the Pentagon was comfortable with the notion of propaganda "bleeding back" from overseas to the United States. "We're not OK with it," Di Rita said.

Is it because "psychological operations [are] restricted by both Pentagon policy and presidential executive order from targeting American audiences and news organizations, as well as U.S. military personnel"?

ETA fixed link, I think.