Despite overwhelming opposition from Democratic voters, activists, and donors - not to mention the editorial page of the New York Times - a large group of Senate Democrats remains utterly clueless about how to vote on a filibuster. Click on each name for the latest links from Google News.
Mark Dayton (MN)
- 1/27: "We know in advance that we do not have those votes this time, which makes it an exercise in futility," Dayton told reporters on a conference call. "And I question the value of doing so, especially on something of this significance." He added he would support a filibuster if it had a chance of succeeding.
Hey Mark - it has a GREAT chance of succeeding if you VOTE for it!
Tom Harkin (IA)
- 1/28: "If we had 40 people, I would be a part of that, but there's not. I’m just against wasting time and doing useless things."
Hey Tom - you'd take a big step towards 40 votes if you added your vote to the list!
Barbara Mikulski (MD)
- 1/28: Pontificator at Political Cortex reminds Sen. Mikulski of what she said when Sandra Day O'Connor announced her resignation: "In choosing a nominee, I urge the President to consult with the Senate to find a moderate, consensus nominee, just like President Ronald Reagan did in choosing Justice O'Connor." Well, he did the opposite. So filibuster!
- 1/27: Democratic officials said Mikulski had said during this week's closed-door caucus that the 2006 and 2008 elections were more important than a symbolic last stand that would fail to prevent Alito's confirmation.
Hey Barbara: why will Democratic voters elect more Democrats in 2006 and 2008 if the ones we elect don't do shit for us after we elect them?
Barack Obama (IL)
1/28: "It’s pretty clear the votes are not there for a filibuster."
Hey Barack - the votes would be there if you added your vote to the list!
