Gerstein's argument seems pretty unpersuasive. Even if, ultimately, the fillibuster of Alito would have failed, that doesn't make supporting it pointless, particularly for a politician who makes such a big deal of acting on principle. Moreover, given Lieberman's self-image as a principled, bipartisan legislator, presumably he would believe that his support for the Alito fillibuster would have lent it credibility it would have otherwise lacked. So highlighting Lieberman's failure to support the fillibuster, far from being an unreasonable criticism, shows precisely that he is strangely unwilling to use his position to stand up for principles (limits on executive power, women's right to choose, etc.) to which he is supposedly committed. And that's why he is fighting for his political life.

I wish they would've had a filibuster.

Not a shadowy, gentleman's agreement filibuster, where a wink, nod and handshake is enough to scuttle the issue.

And not a mindless, reading from the phone book stall tactic filibuster that only seeks to run out the clock.

Democrats should've staged an actual, honest to goodness, 24-48 hour, interesting, substantive debate.

They should've made an entertaining, compelling, tag-team presentation to explain why Alito was such a terrible nominee, and why Bush is leading the Court and the country in the wrong direction. It would've been the best thing to happen to the Senate in years.

That they chose instead to more or less let him slide by is no more or less Lieberman's fault than anyone else's.

-- 

-- All successful revolutions are the kicking in of a rotten door. (John Kenneth Galbraith) --

Sure there was a risk that a filibuster on Alita would have triggered the nuclear option.

If Frist, a supremely hapless parliamentarian, had managed to get his act together.

Rather than find out, the Democrats chose to cave and give away the farm.

Do you think the Republicans, in a similar situation, would have been as gutless?

Hell no, they would have fought like demons, and even if they lost they would have hung the nuclear option around the Democrats' necks at the next election.

The Republicans enjoy this kind of hand-to-hand combat. The Democrats give the voters the impression of cowering and begging not to be hit. And what is more pathetic than their craven desire to win the approval of the DC punditocracy?

I would say the "angry base" is not necessarily looking for a shift to the left (even if many are). The base would be happy just to see their side getting out there and fighting. Look at the respect Reid gets when he bloodies the GOP nose.

A filibuster has always been mostly about reading from the phone book, and the like. Jimmy Stewart does more or less that in Mr. Smith, and that's got to be the archetype of the filibuster in American popular consciousness. A real filibuster is not about having a substantive debate. It is about making sure you keep talking hour after hour, day after day until either the other side gives up or your side can't go on anymore. It's about physical endurance, not about making substantive points, which can easily be made (and were, in the Alito case) in the normal course of debate. A filibuster is about stopping legislation, not about debating tactics. Although I do agree that I would rather there were more actual filibusters, with talking. I wonder how many bluffs would get called that way.

Yowza. What a lame comment! The very people on these here internets who are most energetic in supporting Lamont are also energetically supporting Webb. Indeed, Kos was publicizing Webb's candidacy very far ahead of the curve. And Webb, I hasten to point out, opposed the war in Iraq from the get go and believes in fighting the Republican agenda, not enabling it. Be for Lieberman if you want to be for Lieberman, but be honest about it. Jim Webb is no Joe Lieberman.

if Lieberman were on the right side on that one

"If my granny had wheels, she'd be a wagon."

Gang of 14 deal was a huge victory for republicans. They eliminated the judicial filibuster as an option for Democrats and saved it for the GOP to use at a future date under a Dem president.

Under the Gang of 14 deal the GOP was able to get all its extremists nominees confirmed. Thanks to useful tools like Lieberman any GOP nominee no matter how extreme got a green light. The deal basically said Dems can have the filibuster as long as they don't use it. What did Dems get in exchange? Nothing. The GOP will be able to filibuster the nominee of the Dem president in the future.

The filibuster was "saved" for the GOP to use. The "nuclear option" prevents Dems from using it.

It would have been better for Dems long term interest to not enter into a terrible deal with the GOP and let them use the nuclear option. It would have eliminated the filibuster for GOP to use under a Dem president.

"The Republicans enjoy this kind of hand-to-hand combat. The Democrats give the voters the impression of cowering and begging not to be hit."

This, more than their position on this or that issue is what is responsible for the perception of Democrats as "weak on national security".

How can the public trust Democrats to fight for America if they can't fight for themselves? How can the public trust Democrats to stand firm against our enemies when they are so willing to surrender?

It is all perception and Joe Lieberman types have perpetuated this perception.

I don't trust Joe Lieberman with national security. He is too eager to raise the white flag. He would compromise for the sake of a photo up and praise from the DC pundit class.

Ummm.. once again, what you're saying doesn't make any sense at all. First off, Webb is not a Democrat, and is demonstrating all the zeal of a convert in his campaign. Moreover, no one in the progressive blogosphere is opposing him. On the contrary, he's been getting all sorts of support from the very persons - Kos in particular - who are cited as having played an important early role in publicizing Lamont's run.

As for the rest of it, you may be interested to learn that the challengers to Tom Dodd included not only unnamed older Lamont supporters, but a young Joe Lieberman.

Other than that, I can only suggest that you return to taking your medication.

"Gang of 14 deal was a huge victory for republicans. They eliminated the judicial filibuster as an option for Democrats and saved it for the GOP to use at a future date under a Dem president."

What a perfect description.

We shouldn't forget what the Alito issue was and wasn't about. It wasn't about collegiality in the Senate or about preserving Senate rules -- it was about fighting the nomination of an extremist to the Supreme Court.

If Joe stood up for principles at that moment, he stood up for the wrong principles.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Lieberman's joining the "Gang of 14" and voting for cloture to forward Samuel Alito's confirmation is a perfect example of why Lieberman is being handed his backside in a Democratic primary.

A true leader would take up the cause, no matter, according to Gerstein, how futile. For God's sake, STAND FOR SOMETHING. In parlance we all can understand, Lieberman was for Alito's confirmation before he was against it.

If you want the mantle of leadership, have the intestinal fortitude to make one decision and stick to it. Yet given how many times Lieberman has delighted in torpedoing Democratic causes, his lack of a definitive moral compass doesn't surprise me.

Other than that, I can only suggest that you return to taking your medication.

Rich C, I am new at these internet discussions, so you need to excuse my naiveté. While my comments about the Lieberman-Lamont fracas have been sarcastic, I assumed that as long as the comments were substantive, they would be considered valid.

My intent may have been aggressive, but it was still in the realm of ideas. I did not make a personal attack. Why did you?

And you're not alone; two people have labeled my comments with a Zero. Weird.

When I started reading the TPM in 2002, I thought I found a place of intellectual political discourse for the left-of-center. But from what I read in these comment sections of the TPM-Café, there's just a lot of hate.

Gerstein might have a point if Lieberman hadn't been a supporter/apologist for Rice, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld and Hekuvajob Brownie.

As things stand, not so much.

To paraphrase Digby's response to Jonathan Alter, we keep hearing how valuable Lieberman's bipartisanship is to the Democrats, but no one can offer any proof. Can anyone, Gerstein or Jonathan Alter or Joe Klein or Laurence O'Donnell or any of Lieberman's other 'liberal' apologists name a single thing Bipartisan Joe has done for 'his' party in the last six years? That's a question, not a statement, 'cause I sure as hell can't think of one.

"While my comments about the Lieberman-Lamont fracas have been sarcastic, I assumed that as long as the comments were substantive, they would be considered valid"

and had they been substantive, they would've been treated as valid.

"But from what I read in these comment sections of the TPM-Café, there's just a lot of hate."

Isn't it crazy? You insult people, address them with contempt and derision, and they actually respond in kind!!

You also forgot to mention that you were a lifelong member of the Democrat [sic] party, but now you wonder if the party has drifted so far left blahblahblah.

Let's not forget how Lieberman voted for cloture on the bankruptcy bill, then voted against it on the floor. He's practiced at playing these things both ways. No real Democrat had any business doing anything but opposing that bill.