To filibuster would also require that the Democratic party establishment expose the real threats that Alito's confirmation poses - threats that go far beyond Roe vs. Wade to include constitutional government itself. The Democratic party, however, has been unwilling to expose such threats from the Clinton impeachment drive to election 2000 to the more recent administration declarations of the 'new executive powers' of Bush as the 'commander in chief' in 'war time.' Given this history, anything beyond token Democratic party opposition to this nomination would be out of character and not expected.

On the contrary, over the recent period the Democratic party has consistently served as an essential prop to this administration (while making some opposition noise for domestic consumption). While the piece above articulates a viable strategy for an actual opposition party, why the character of the Democratic party establishment should now change is not posed. Therefore, from a historical basis at least, a change of course (a serious filibuster effort toward this truly reactionary nominee and the resulting tilting of the court ) would not seem to be a reasonable expectation.

Or, in bush speak, 'Not gonna to do it - wouldn't be prudent.'

Re: I'll continue to live in NYC, vote for prochoicers and celebrate the reasons that we're better and smarter than they... And the hidden progressives in Kansas and Oklahoma will have to get on a train or a jet and come to where the light shines brightly!

---

Do these rays of light include Guiliani, Pataki and Bloomberg?

If so, I'll not be rushing over from my domicile in Kansas any time too soon.

If Medvid objected to every other movie that alluded to marital infidelity to the degree this one does, he would be a laughing stock.

Of course, he doesn't. So Medvid's original (and real) 'criticism' of the movie as 'promoting a pro-gay agenda' stands. In other words, any film that in any way is sympathetic to the conundruns and challenges posed by an individual's homosexuality is out of line in Medvid's undeveloped view of the world. Unless, of couse, it comes with a 'warning' in advance, which is quintesential O'Riley (that is, laugh-out-loud hilarious).

Naturally, O'Riley offers Medvid a platform to promote such infantilism - par for the course in the FOX and corporate media news world. Coincidentally, I heard this very same criticism (the film's pro-gay agenda promotes infidelity) in my work place. Now I know (once again) where it came from.

Apparently (and as incredible as it may seem - it never ceases to amaze), such reactionary social pablum is consumed, digested and then regurgitated (as their own!) by millions in this nitwit nation.

It's hard to tell which pro-war, pro-big business party will be more discredited by November of 2006 - the war mongering, quasi-fascist Republicans or the prostrate, groveling Democrats.

"But Bush may have become such a universally tainted figure that almost anything he says, especially in the language of idealism, is now discredited."

True enough in the eyes of ever more millions, but NPR still seems to start every morning with 'President Bush said..,' at which point, I turn it off.

At this point, who cares what the intellectually challenged 'president' said? Does it have any significance whatsoever?

This would be a perfect incident for an anti-war party to exploit. Too bad we don't have one in the political establishment today.

Silence from Democratic party leaders on this quite visible incident (unless I missed somthing in my general avoidance of the corporate media) goes to the heart of the Democratic party's essential role as a political prop for the Iraq and Afghanistan occupations, along with the increasing assaults on democratic rights and living standards at home that the increasing dependency on militarism will continue to inevitably breed.

One supposes that Ms. Clinton would spend half her time praising her opponent in such a matchup.

As far right wing as McCain really is, Clinton is the last one to paint this picture of him, though don't ask me which Dem would. They would all no doubt try to outflank him from the right while praising him.

Of course, if the Dems don't change their tune and run another right wing campaign, it won't matter who the GOP or Dems run, the Dems will likely lose once again. The only consolation is, it doesn't really matter; there won't be a significant change in the political status quo either way.

He even has the same self-righteous smirk as Falwell and most of the other religious right con artists.

The idea that McCain is some kind of 'maverick' because of a few stances - stances that basically amount to minor differences in strategy from the Republican party as a whole - is essentially a media concocktion, if repeated ad-nauseum.

If this right winger is elected president in 2008, no doubt with the support of many Democrats and probably also the praise from the Democratic candidate him or herself if I know the Democrats these days, there are going to me a lot of unhappy Democrats come 2009 and some very delighted Republicans.

Then again, maybe rank-and-file Democratic party and liberal pundit support for this supposed 'maverick' when juxtaposed with likely Democratic party candidates is more of an indication of just how far to the right the Democratic party and liberal media establishment has now become - often posturing to the right of Bush on such issues as 'the war on terror' and 'national security' and even embracing, to some extent at least, the religious right as well.

Anybody out there know of a viable left party out there? All we seem to have are two, practically indistinguishable, right-wing ones today.