Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« No Sex, No Problems | Zombie Duke Orsino »

Monday, January 30, 2006

Cantwell Doesn’t Support Filibuster, Murray Does

Posted by on January 30 at 16:14 PM

John Kerry needed 41 votes to force a filibuster on the Alito nomination.
He only got 25 because 19 Dems broke ranks.
Our Senators, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell, split on the vote w/ Cantwell breaking ranks.

That is: Cantwell voted to end the debate (no filibuster) and Murray voted to keep debating (yes filibuster).

Cantwell says she’s voting against Alito tomorrow morning, though, on the grounds that his record on privacy (abortion) and executive power is lame.

I’ve attached a full roll call on the filibuster vote below.

Roll Call of the Cloture Vote

The Associated Press tallied the 72-25 vote:

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to end the debate and a "no" vote was a vote to filibuster the nomination.

Voting "yes" were 19 Democrats and 53 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 24 Democrats and one independent.!

Democrats Yes

Akaka, Hawaii; Baucus, Mont.; Bingaman, N.M.; Byrd, W.Va.; Cantwell, Wash.; Carper, Del.; Conrad, N.D.; Dorgan, N.D.; Inouye, Hawaii; Johnson, S.D.; Kohl, Wis.; Landrieu, La.; Lieberman, Conn.; Lincoln, Ark.; Nelson, Fla.; Nelson, Neb.; Pryor, Ark.; Rockefeller, W.Va.; Salazar, Colo.

Democrats No

Bayh, Ind.; Biden, Del.; Boxer, Calif.; Clinton, N.Y.; Dayton, Minn.; Dodd, Conn.; Durbin, Ill.; Feingold, Wis.; Feinstein, Calif.; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Leahy, Vt.; Levin, Mich.; Menendez, N.J.; Mikulski, Md.; Murray, Wash.; Obama, Ill.; Reed, R.I.; Reid, Nev.; Sarbanes, Md.; Schumer, N.Y.; Stabenow, Mich.; Wyden, Ore.

Democrats Not Voting

Harkin, Iowa.

Republicans Yes

Alexander, Tenn.; Allard, Colo.; Allen, Va.; Bennett, Utah; Bond, Mo.; Brownback, Kan.; Bunning, Ky.; Burns, Mont.; Burr, N.C.; Chafee, R.I.; Chambliss, Ga.; Coburn, Okla.; Cochran, Miss.; Coleman, Minn.; Collins, Maine; Cornyn, Texas; Craig, Idaho; Crapo, Idaho; DeMint, S.C.; DeWine, Ohio; Dole, N.C.; Domenici, N.M.; Enzi, Wyo.; Frist, Tenn.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Gregg, N.H.; Hatch, Utah; Hutchison, Texas; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Kyl, Ariz.; Lott, Miss.; Lugar, Ind.; Martinez, Fla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Murkowski, Alaska; Roberts, Kan.; Santorum, Pa.; Sessions, Ala.; Shelby, Ala.; Smith, Ore.; Snowe, Maine; Specter, Pa.; Stevens, Alaska; Sununu, N.H.; Talent, Mo.; Thomas, Wyo.; Thune, S.D.; Vitter, La.; Voinovich, Ohio; Warner, Va.

Republicans No


Republicans Not Voting

Ensign, Nev.; Hagel, Neb.

Others No

Jeffords, Vt.

CommentsRSS icon

What do you think about Cantwell siding with the Rs? Does that make her a "Republicrat?"

It was definitely a calculated move, but doesn't make sense in light of the face that she'll vote "No" to confirm him...

Cantwell is just plain stupid; she doesn't know what side she's on on any issue. She's a marketing executive, fer cryin' out loud. She hit the jackpot in the Interwebs Gold Rush, out of pure luck, otherwise no one would ever have heard of her. The only thing she's got going for her is she's Not A Republican.

I'm sick of weak half-assed 'democrats'. I'll remember this vote (along with her 'yes' vote for the Iraq war) come November...

I've never liked Cantwell much, other than the fact that she isn't a Republican, but we don't get a viable alternative, right?

And there isn't going to be an alternative to Cantwell in the cards, is there? So... nothing to see here. Ho hum.

She has stridently opposed Ted Stevens on environmental issues. She's certainly not perfect, but opposing that bastard (Stevens) is politically risky, especially in this state.

I don't think opposing Stevens is risky at all in WA; Alaskans are a breed apart, and WA is home to the enviros that make AK furious, and always have. You know, a lot of hunt'n'fish guys in WA are enviros too. That's not that courageous of her. It was a rather clever move, which is the first sign of brain activity the woman has displayed in public since long before Real Networks....

What is it with Josh? What's his point here? Is he doing Op Research for McGavick.

Is he suggesting there's a saliva test that Cantwell must pass or she's unworthy of our support? She fought to protect ANWAR, or did you forget Josh?

Is Josh a reporter or a Republican syops specialist?

Let's put Erica on politics and Josh or the nightclubs listing where he can do less damage.

Something eratic about Gasgirl here, but I agree Erica is more accurate, more reliable and less eratic. Josh at times is a stack of contradictions. How would the clubs react to his coverage?

I will remember this afternoon as the moment our mansion tipped into the sea.

Now one of the theoriticians of "Executive branch supremacy" will take a seat on the juridicial body that might have otherwise ruled against the administration's unlawful usurpation of powers.

Though utterly false as a symptom of practical dangers to the nation, the War on Terror will never stop bestowing wartime privileges on the American executive. Look for a petulant reaction, mostly from the Progressives left behind by the Democrats. (Wait, that's me in the picture!) And then a generations-long, counter-reaction from the Security State. Watch the number of political criminals rise. Watch the invention of new crimes and new rationales for prolonged non-criminal detention. Look for disease metaphors applied to political beliefs and new break-throughs in the early detection of anti-social behaviors.


Some of you may say that the filibuster was already lost. Maybe they could only have kept it up for a couple of days and then there would have been a settlement or the (o-NO, not the - ) NUCLEAR OPTION.

But what do we ever have in politics but signals and images? Real power, like a handcuff, doesn't speak.

Now they've handed Bush an unqualified triumph for his State of the Union address. And against him? Nothing. The party means nothing. Opposition means nothing. Bush's truth is the truth that wins.

And now, there is no way, absolutely no way, that he or his crew will ever be brought to justice for the death, destruction and waste they made out of this occasionally charming, sometimes generous, often cruel but then repentant, bullyboy nation and vandal of planets.


Kinda bummed.

Talk about political calculus, Cantwell is really in uber-politicking gear now!

I think she was holding out to be the decisive vote on the fillibuster. When that dissolved, she realizes there is zero value in signing on to a sinking measure that will give her Republican challenger the fodder he needs to implicate her in the Senate's culture of "incivility".

Unfortunately for Cantwell, it proves she's not willing to stand up for principle, especially when that is precisely what is at stake in the confirmation, that is according to those who pushed for a fillibuster.

Hah! So she announces instead some crap about "eye-ball-to-eye-ball" meeting with Mr. Alito. Don't get me wrong, she is probably voting what her key constiuency wants, but don't you think it's kind of pompous the way she went about it? She should have announced she was against Alito from the get go, why feign impartiality?

Okay, people.

What does a filibuster accomplish? Besides delaying the inevitable? Besides being a giant, prolonged Democrat temper tantrum?

Will it prevent Alito from being nominated? Will it sway the Republicans that are voting for Alito?

No. They can either drop the issue now, and let Alito get confirmed, or they can whine and cry about it, and let Alito get confirmed later, then give the Republicans more ammo to attack their credibility, in the form of their filibuster crybabying.

The filibuster is the backyard bomb shelter to cover the nuclear bomb that is Alito's nomination. It does no fucking good. You can either not use it, and be fucked now, or crawl it and be fucked later, once the air and supplies run out.

The best thing that comes from a filibuster is that the Republicans exercise their nuclear option and ban filibusters. Alito gets nominated anyway, and the Democrats get bitchslapped anyway.

Quit attacking the Democrats for not wanting to exercise an option that accomplishes nothing useful.

I agree with Gomez.
And—for exactly the reasons Gomez lays out—I think Cantwell was smart to vote as she did. She can vote her conscience tomorrow, without being accused of playing idiotic political games. McGavick could've blasted her for an immature fit of partisan b.s. if she had gone with the 25 Senators who voted to filibuster. Now, all he's got is her principled vote.
After the hearings, the Democrats were not going to win this one. They had their chance, during the hearings, to convince the public that Alito was bad news, and they didn't pull it off. To filibuster after that would've looked like poor sportsmanship. Had they changed public sentiment during the hearings, a filibuster may have been a workable option and in that context Cantwell should have gone for it. But her Dem colleagues on the judicial committee didn't provide that option. This was nothing more than a tantrum, and Cantwell was smart to stay away.

"Quit attacking the Democrats for not wanting to exercise an option that accomplishes nothing useful."

Why? The Republicans (not to mention Tim Eyman) have employed this tactic for years, and they've been quite successful. Perhaps it's time for pussies like Cantwel to wise up. Gitrdone.

The vote on confirmation was 58-42.

A filibuster would hacve worked.

The Democratic party is its own worst enemy. Cantwell, and others afraid of alienating Republican voters are a big part of the problem.

NXIII... you assume a filibuster would've swayed anyone, which it wouldn't have. Those 58 yes votes were shrink-wrap locked in.

A filibuster has never been about persuasion--a filibuster is about obstruction. And its of no use if it can only be used in principle. What are the Dems doing, if not using it on this guy? Are they saving it in hopes that Bush is gonna nominate Himmler or Genghis Kahn next?

Spineless, spineless Maria Cantwell.

First, we have to ask whether we are one of the hundred million or more American citizens who believe Bush's team is a criminal, despotic menace to the nation.

If not, then there's no beef. Things are going groovy for you.

But if you are one of these 100 million or so, you might wonder, 'Is there any viable political association that stands against this criminality?'

If the Dem's, who had the 42 votes all along, had signified their opposition to this justice (this engineer and apologist of Executive Supremacy) a citizen might see that there was indeed some major political association active in the nation that stood against this adminstration's radical criminality.

But they did not. They could have, but they did not. Instead they demonstrated that there is no such instrument opposing this administration.

The result is political alienation for the very same hundred million or so citizens that care most about a nation built on truth, liberty and law.

The Democrats have again signified their awesome mendacity. When being a middling go-along to tyranny becomes the most popular political stance, the Dems will be unstoppable.

Oooo, don't get mad, get glad!

Replace Cantwell with Mark Wilson

It's that easy! Yay!

Obstruction of what, N13? Don't you remember the nuclear option? The Republicans would have used their pull to outlaw the filibuster had the Dems used it.

And the vast majority of citizens in the US have either already made up their minds which side they support, or will need much more than a filibuster (most Americans don't even know what a filibuster is) to sway their opinion.

Stop with the crucification of Cantwell, seriously. A filibuster would not have accomplished anything positive. It would not have prevented Alito's nomination. Alito would have been nominated easily one way or another. Not doing so was the best move at this time. It's not a move you like, but it made more sense than wasting a filibuster, all for naught.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).