Marble Composition

Joe Biden (D-MBNA): Utterly Useless

I'll have to confirm this, but I just heard Ed Henry on CNN say that Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein see no need to filibuster the nomination of Judge Alito to the Supreme Court. They may believe that launching a filibuster makes for bad politics for Democrats. Fair enough, but what is an opposition party if it never opposes anything? Thinking about this stuff reminded me of a post Josh Marshall wrote a few weeks back which nails it. I feel it needs to be quoted at length:

For folks of my political persuasion, last year ended on a very bleak note. But things started going badly for the president from the beginning of 2005 and went down hill from there. Looking toward next year, a lot of stars seem to be in alignment for the Democrats. And history, scandal and the comeuppance of past mistakes and villainies all seem stacked against the president and his party.

A moment so pregnant with possibility has inevitably turned to speculation about how the Dems could blow it -- which is a possibility well worth considering. And that leads to all the questions of which issues should the Democrats pursue, which will position them better, should they have more new ideas -- those and a thousand other questions that, together, all amount to paralysis and a morbid self-indulgence and introspection.

I say let's forget about all of that. Far better to concentrate on two things.

First, attack!

Saying that amounts to a lightning rod in itself, hoisted up for battering from all sorts of scolds. But it's nothing to be ashamed of. The point of a political opposition is to oppose -- if there are no grounds for opposition, then there is no reason for such an opposition to exist. Better to join the president's party or go out of existence. And certainly, for those who share the perspective of this site, there is plenty to oppose. To say 'attack!' simply means to maintain the initiative in the debates of the day -- always. And when it's lost to get it back as soon as possible.

Second, you can't be an opposition without knowing what you oppose and what you're for.

Bad writing is usually imprecise writing -- and its badness usually stems from the bad writer not having taken the time to think through just what he or she means to say. The cobwebs and vagaries of their minds are revealed in bad prose.

Bad politics usually stems from people not having a clear idea of what they're trying to achieve, where they're trying to go. Once you know where you're trying to lead the country, strategy and tactics and optics and gutting the other side all tend to fall into place. If not perfectly, then a whole lot easier. Where do we want to take the country? Forget the rest and think about that. That's the guiding star.

He emphasized his own thoughts on opposition above, and I couldn't agree more. Veering back to the Alito issue, I also agree with Matt Yglesias here:

To be clear about the nature of my defeatism, I don't like it any more than you. I'm not of the school of thought that says the issues at stake here are trivial or that substantially rolling back the Roe and Casey precedents will generate an electoral windfall for Democrats. Confirming Alito will be a bad thing, and almost certainly an unmitigated bad thing. But I think it's wrong to blame liberal interest groups, Democratic senators, progressive bloggers, or anyone else's insufficient savvy or zeal for the problem. The Republicans won a majority, the Republicans are bad people, and so they're going to do something bad. It's their fault, and the only remedy is better performance on Election Day.

He's right, we need to win at the polls. Period. So why, you ask, are you picking on poor Joe Biden in the subject of your post? Seeing as he's a Democrat running for president? For one, he voted for the egregious legislation known as the Bankruptcy Bill. He's a Senator from Delaware, where, because that state has the most lax rules for credit card companies in the country, he apparently felt he needed to appease his corporate donors. How bad is that bill? Mr. Drum, take it:

Bottom line: you don't need to understand all the intricacies of bankruptcy law to know what to think of this bill. Through their actions, its sponsors have made it abundantly plain that abuse of the system isn't their real aim: protection of major campaign contributors is. The poor get shafted, the very real crisis of medical bankruptcy is ignored, the rich are allowed loopholes that let them off the hook, and credit card companies can continue on their merry way knowing they won't have to pay the price for their own folly.

Welcome to America.

If you want the gory details about the bill itself, go read the whole post. Moving along, we have this blatant clowning by Biden at the Alito confirmation hearings:


How dignified, Joe. Maybe he is the personification of the Centrist Democrat: Complete Jackass. I'm not a huge fan of late hits in football, but in this case I'm calling pigpile on Joe: (from James Wolcott in regard to Condi Rice's confirmation hearings. Who, let us recall, had an oil tanker named after her):

...Fineman went on to scoff at John Kerry's vote against Condi's confirmation as an empty gesture, but I have more respect for Kerry's gesture, futile though it may be, than I do Joe Biden's windmill arm action and posturing. He makes a big show of saying that he has little faith in Rice being anything other than Bush's translator and message-machine--that he hoped she would be a firm advocate for the State Department rather than simply a loyalist, but that his instincts told him this was unlikely--and then voted for her anyway!

Biden is like a slugger who never quite gets good wood on the ball, no innuendo intended. He gets into the batter's box, scuffs up the dirt with his cleats, gets settled, takes practice strokes, and--here comes the pitch--lets rip with a mighty swing...and pops up. Again and again, he goes through his Rocky Calavito rituals, and each time he hits an infield fly.

Now, let's look at part of the statement Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid gave today (via Kos):

I have not forgotten that Judge Alito was only nominated after the radical right wing of the President's party forced Harriet Miers to withdraw. The right wing insisted that Justice O'Connor be replaced with a sure vote for their extreme agenda. Four days of hearings have shown that Judge Alito is no Sandra Day O'Connor.

Senate Democrats will meet next week to discuss the nomination.

If we're to take CNN's word, there really isn't any point in Democrats meeting next week to discuss anything at all, is there? Given the arguments I've heard, I'm still on the fence as to whether filibustering Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court is good politics or not. But based on the reporting and Harry Reid's statement, Democrats either need to get on message, or shut their mouths. There's just no way to build a strong opposition caucus when the Senate Minority Leader says we'll decide next week, and then two prominent committee members basically say "we won't oppose". If Democrats can learn anything from Republicans, it's that you never open your mouth until you know what the shot is. No talking out of school, no leaking about where might you stand, and no public statements until there's a consensus. Playing the media is simple, but what seems most difficult to achieve is Democratic solidarity. It's pretty straightforward: either act like a coalition or give up the ghost. This from Josh really bears worth repeating:

Bad politics usually stems from people not having a clear idea of what they're trying to achieve, where they're trying to go. Once you know where you're trying to lead the country, strategy and tactics and optics and gutting the other side all tend to fall into place.

A clear idea thrives on a clear message. Here we go: stick together, present a unified front, or keep losing elections. Over and over again.

posted by FuzzFinger @ 1/12/2006 06:43:00 PM