Dem Senate strategy - pick your battles vs. fillibuster everything?

[gWbush is Mabus]

what is the point of picking your battles?
should Dems oppose every cabinet post and judge appointment?
i haqve a feeling we will be labeled obstructionist regardless.

[K-W]

1. Lets just keep handing the right more seats.

Of course the republicans will say we are obstructionists, but if we actually are, nobody will vote for democrats ever again.

To most of America it would look like the democratic party is just a bunch of sore losers making the country suffer for thier inability to get elected.

It would be political suicide.

At the same time it would remove any power we actually have in congress. By blanket opposition, we take away the sizeable leverage we have in the senate if we selectively oppose. If we are going to oppose them no matter what, the republicans have no interest in moderating thier policies.

Think about judgeships. If we selectively oppose the worst judges, we could get them to put in a less extreme selection.

If we blanket oppose all judges, they face the same battle no matter who they pick, so they can pick the craziest crazy they can find.

We are talking about the difference between roe vs wade standing or not standing here. People should protest, legislators should legislate.

[ProfessorPlum]

2. They will do neither

as usual.

[emulatorloo]

9. They fight back all the time, they just don't show it on the TV

EOM

[K-W]

11. Seriously, congressional dems did an aweful lot.

They were the minority, so it wasnt glamerous. Keeping things moderate may not be impressive, but it is the right thing to do in this political situaition.

[wug37]

3. Fighting back would get us more support

People are voting repub because they stand up and fight. Dems aren't doing that anymore. Maybe if they stood up and fought against what they don't agree with and accepted things they do instead of just rolling over all the time and saying "That's not a battle we want to fight right now", we would get somewhere. This policy of not fighting back is what's causing us to lose.

[K-W]

4. We need to fight back, obstructionism is political suicide.

The few people impressed by the belligerent opposition would be far outweighed by the millions of americans who dont appreciate the party that lost an election deciding to try and shut down the government.

[wug37]

5. Are you kidding?

Look at what the repubs did during Clinton's years. They fought back with everything they had and now control everything. How can you say that fighting back would lose us support? People like to have someone stand up for them.

[aprillcm]

6. AMEN!

[K-W]

7. You seem to be confusing verbal opposition and legislative strategy

Obviously we need to oppose them. That is not the issue we are discussing here.

The issue we are discussing is legislative strategy. What is the most effective way to oppose them.

I think committing political suicide in an arena that few americans pay any attention to is NOT a good way to oppose the republicans. It is in fact a good way to give them way more power. While our congressmen are obstructing congress, the republicans will be all over the media telling America that in a time of war the democrats are shuttingdown the government because they just cant handle the fact that America rejected them.

You are 100% wrong if you think the republicans ever took the obstructionist tact. For starters, when you have a congressional majority, it is impossible to be an obstructionist, you are the one who writes the laws.

The right legislative strategy is to use the legislative power the dems have to keep debates going, keep things moderate, get some dem measures through, and have as much influence as possible on appointments, especially judges.

Obstructionism makes it harder for democrats to do things the right way, it takes away all thier leverage and poisens the nation against them. Nobody wants to see the democrats throw a temper tantrum except a small group on the left.

[wug37]

12. The repubs go on tv and make some wild claim and that's the end of it?

Why can't we go right back on tv and say that's a lie, we stopped these thing because they are really going to hurt us? Why can't we use what little power we have left to stop this RW transformation? We went ahead and accepted Porter Goss because he said he was going to be non-partisan. We just said ok despite your previous record. And now he's saying that the role of the CIA is to support the president and his policies. Was that not a battle we should have fought harder? When they let Gonzolas through despite his lack of respect for law (use of torture is ok, we don't need the Geneva convention) because he says he'll uphold the law, is that ok? When are we going to fight back and try to do something? What battle is going to be appropriate? If we don't fight back now, we aren't going to have a chance to later.

[emulatorloo]

8. Apparently Presidents are always given lots of latitude on cabinet posts

So while I expect DU to villify the Dems as cabinet confirmations move ahead, I think Dems outta pick their battles -- JUDGES. . .

However, that doesn't mean that our Senators shouldn't remind everybody of the serious flaws that both Condi and Gonzales have.

[K-W]

10. Definately

Who cares who is what in the cabinet, they are all Bush's people. They will all be following the same game plan.

Judges are what matter and democrats can not waste political power on anything except battles we need to win.

[YNGW]

13. Pick your battles,.....

.... make your case, let it go to a floor vote.

[The Blue Knight]

14. Pick the battles.

Fillibuster when they try to ram right-wing bullshit down the front of the country.

[RaleighNCDUer]

15. They blocked 40+ of Clinton's judicial appointment over 8 year,

if I remember right. We blocked 10 of *'s appointments in 4 years. And we got called obstructionist.

This entire administration is illegitimate. I say screw em. Block everything. Don't give an inch.

[ProfessorGAC]

16. Fillibuster Everything

They already call the dems obstructionist. The dems should show them what obstructionism is. "Call a man a thief, and he'll see what he can steal."

There is no mandate. There is no shift right in the country. There is no compelling need to appoint conservative judges. There is no compelling need to ammend the constitution. There is no need to reform social security.

Don't let them do ANYTHING that isn't provably in the greatest interest of the greatest number of people.
The Professor