1/12/2006

alito hearings: like really bad sex

it started with a whimper, then it picked up a little, then it whimpered to an end.

no climax. if the alito hearings had been a lover, you'd have been smart to kick it out of bed.

this is the oppostion party? this is how they do the brave stands?

i'm not talking about a filbuster. 1 of the nelsons brothers (that's how i see the 2 senators named nelson, they're like the really bad pop band of the 80s) has already given indications that he's willing to vote for alito.

so i'm not talking about that. i'm talking about asking tough questions and then asking follow ups. too often i felt like i was watching toy poodles who'd been housebroken long ago.

they'd bark a little at you while you were sitting on the couch but if you stood, they'd whimper and run out of the room.

that's not an opposition party.

it's sad that the democrats think that makes 1.

when alito kept fudging and refusing to answer, they should have treated him like a hostile witness. by the last day, every 1 of them should have used their time to hit on the same issues.
over and over.

diane feinstein, to name 1 of the worst offenders, could shoot scattershot (although she acted as though she were tossing out lillies throughout the hearings) in the other days but on the final day, she didn't need to be bringing up new issues. this is where you make the case to the people.
not where you suddenly introduce a new topic.

and for some 1 who interrupted ted kennedy repeatedly the day prior as he asked about caps, wasn't it strange that she didn't have a question on that? when kennedy was speaking yesterday, she couldn't stop interrupting. today? she's moved on.

miss diane gets my vote for most useless and i'm not fan of kohl. but miss diane was supposed to be fighting for women and instead we got a timid school marm trying to get the rowdy class to like her.

it's not just her. that's a point c.i. made tonight in the roundtable. c.i. pointed out that arlen specter couldn't stop treating her like she was a 'special' and not a real senator. he referred to her 'dramatic entrance.' there was another specific example c.i. brought up but i'm forgetting it now. but the point is, she is treated that way by others on the committee.

as an adult, she should ask them to cut it out. instead she seems tickled by the patronizing attitude.

i'm looking for the non-action figure miss diane. she comes non-fully poseable. she's in a seated postion. you can extend her legs or bend them depending upon whether you want her to sit in a chair or to sit on the floor. she wears a lovely dress with several layers. she comes with white gloves and the cutest little purse that matches her hat, her belt and her shoes. the non-action figure has a silly grin pasted on its face and is called 'miss diane, girl senator.'

the tea set is purchased separately.

so where we are we?

in it by ourselves. we can Take Action: Call Your Senators Today (link from now, the national organization for women). but let's not make the mistake of thinking our opposition party will fight or even knows how to.

'good sports,' they want the press to fight their battles.

that's the sort of thinking that's led them to the huge defeat of 2002, a history breaking moment as the repubes took control of the white house, the senate and the house.

but they just can't learn.

'what if the press gives us a mean editorial?' well they have. but even when they give the dems a nice editorial, it doesn't really have any effect.

people need to know that you will fight for them. not that an editorial board thinks you are all 'swell guys' and 'a respectable lady.' you're not trying to gain admittance to a country club, you're trying to reassure voters that you have what it takes.

they blew it on the alito hearings.

i could note the exceptions like charles schumer, ted kennedy and russ feingold. but what's the point?

i don't mean that in a defeatist mode. really, what's the point?

the democrats can have many strong fighters but it is meaningless if they can't get behind the fighters. instead they run from murtha, for instance, or they leave barbara boxer out to dry.
it's stupid.

i think every 1's getting the idea that tom delay isn't that popular in his own party. but until the all scandals, did they break ranks and say 'tom delay is crazy!'?

no, they supported their strong members. (i think tom delay is nuts but for his party he is a strong member.) a democrat takes a stand and there's no natural tendency to say 'yeah! me too!' instead the other elected members rush to distance themselves from murtha, or howard dean, or barbara boxer, or . . . go down the damn list.

let's put it in sports terms since that's the only thing many seem able to understand. you can have some 1 who can slam dunk the ball everytime they make it down the court. but if the rest of the team can't do defense, you're not a championship team. the la lakers were unbeatable when they worked as a team. when that fell apart, so did their winning streak.

dick durbin, i'll single out. he was strong. i'll note that today because i might not tomorrow since he's another example of a problem. he takes a strong stand and then, under pressure from astroturf and the echo chamber, apologizes. if the criticism isn't coming from your base, tough it out. that's what the republicans do.

democrats and republicans stand for different things.

the vision of the 2 parties is different (or is supposed to be). instead of realizing that they had acted weak repeatedly and that's what hurt their election turnout, they've made a point to seek out 1 guru after another to help them craft a message or some other nonsense.

the message matters somewhat. how you present it, this is coming from some 1 who made a living in public relations, matters even more. you can sell tons of crap, and it happens every day, not because it's any good, but because you present it effectively.

part of that requires showing strength. the democrats can line up 1 guru after another and it won't make a damn bit of difference. they can frame until their little heart's content. or they can demonstrate repeatedly 'we support religion too!' none of it matters if you come off as weak.
there needs to be some discipline in the senate and in the house.

the hearings demonstrated that there's not even any discipline from a small group serving on a committee.

that doesn't mean overdose on the macho. (the way the republicans do.) that does mean that diane feinstein, for instance, could have tried channeling a little marcia clark in her questioning.
and a single topic should have been agreed upon for the final day of the hearings. 'we'll hit on this over and over.'

feinstein may have thought her 'oh here's another thing' questioning today was helpful. if the issue mattered to you (and it did matter to me, i just wish she had been effective and pressed alito on it), you're thinking, 'why hasn't she brought this up before?' it's a distraction. this was the summing up to the jury, closing the sale day. they treated it like the 1st day of the hearings.

let me close by quoting c.i. because we all agreed that c.i. captured the final day of the hearings perfectly:

So what has today been like? Not as lively as yesterday. "Enough of that. Let me move on." Who said that? Which Democrat? Does it matter? Doesn't that seem like those two sentences summed up much of what's gone on so far today? (Diane Feinstein said it today to Alito, for those who missed it.)

and check out kat who wrote something yesterday that can make you laugh as you cry.







Posted by at