I watched most of the Alito Hearings on C-Span, and I want to say a few things:
1-Arlen Specter completely said two different things during his argument with Ted Kennedy. He first said he did get a letter, then said he didn't.
2-Samuel Alito's wife crying doesn't make me feel sorry for her at all. It just shows me that she doesn't have a very thick skin.
3-We really don't need Senators, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, vying for face time on TV.
4-Joe Biden should never wear a baseball cap in public again. Ever.
5-Orrin Hatch sure does like to ask softball questions.
6-Tom Coburn really can come out of nowhere with some questions.
7-It would be easier to get a hippo to walk a tight rope than it was to get Alito to answer a question straight.
Now, all that being said, go ahead and vote on Alito.
Don't get me wrong. If I were in the Senate, I would vote against him. I believe most of the Democrats will (except for a few who just want to be contrary). But I expect him to be confirmed by a vote of about 59-41 or 60-40. Let's not have a huge fight and try a filibuster, because I know Bill Frist is sitting in some corner, bug-eyed and in a cold sweat, waiting to "push the button" on the nuclear option.
----------------------------
While I'm thinking about it, does anybody know of anyone thinking about challenging State Senator William Wampler when he's up for re-election? Just crossed my mind.
And, to paraphrase Hank Williams: If the Good Lord's willin', and the creeks don't rise, I'll write tomorrow.
-Neal
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't think the Democrats will field a candidate to take on Wampler. He has reached the level of what Boucher supporters call "legend status"--where he will have that Senate seat until he wants to give it up.
Wampler is like the number 3 most powerful Republican in the Senate of Virginia. It would be extremely difficult to defeat him with all the fund raising and money ability he has.
I know that in 1999 and 2003 he faced no opposition. I don't know about before that. If I remember right when he was first elected (1987) he only won by 26 votes and a recount was held.
Right on the recount thing.
In all reality, he cant be beat. And yes, he has achieved Boucher status.
But, however, I do think we need to at least field somebody to contest him. (Not saying we could win)
I have to admit though, he's a nice guy.
Yes, I really don't like it when a race only has one person in it--regardless of who it is. It is "more fun" to have a contested race. It in a way can show party weakness if a particular party doesn't at least field somebody. I know that in Smyth we have allowed some Democrats to get away without opposition in local races and I don't like that. It can be hard to find people to run though.
I'm just saying--we need to retain the filibuster in case we have a big problem down the road.
If it's abolished now for SCOTUS nominees, and a year and a half from now John Paul Stevens retires, and we get a far right-winger who is openly in support of repealing Roe, unless the Democrats are in charge (which we'll be taking a gamble to say they will be), then that nominee will be confirmed. If we hold on to the filibuster, and have 49 or 50 Democrats, we can defeat the nominee.
Frankly, Samuel Alito doesn't seem like as big a threat as he once was.
Post a Comment