Postings on Daily Kos regarding Filibuster, Alito-sis

I responded to this comment by McJoan, who had a passionate argument for going to war in the Senate over Alito:
McJoan: You put your finger on something
important.
One of the biggest difficulties we have in this issue is trying to talk about the intricacies of Senate rules.
Keeping it simple is key. People's brains just short of shut down at the words like "cloture," "procedural votes," etc.
We need to make it as straightforward as possible if there's any hope that the traditional media will report it correctly. "This is an extremely, out-of-the-mainstream nominee. We don't think he should have a lifetime appointment to the Court, and the Republicans want to break Senate rules to get him on the Court."
"I have a philosophy about elections. I believe issues divide and values unite."--Gov. Brian Schweitzer
by mcjoan on Tue Jan 17, 2006 at 07:23:10 PM PDT

CST(that's me): Rules, Rules

You are so right about this problem of excessive insider-game detail getting in the way of the issue's exposition. As an example, today's Washington Post had these comments in a news story--emphasis added:
"Democrats, anticipating that Alito ultimately will be confirmed, are trying to deny the White House that victory as long as possible, particularly in the days before the State of the Union address President Bush is to deliver Jan. 31. Although Senate rules do not enable them to defer the confirmation vote until after the speech, Democratic senators would like to reduce the victory period immediately before the speech, one of the broadest public stages the president commands each year."
OK, this looks like Republicans trying to ascribe motives to the Democrats and the Post taking steno, but this point concerned me. I could find nothing in the Senate rules which says a debate must be interrupted for the State of the Union, or if so, that it cannot be resumed afterwards, but I'm no parliamentarian.
Forget about the questions of filibuster, nuclear option, vote-counting, etc. One week of debate or less allowed for this topic of enduring significance is a rush to judgment and unseemly. I agree with the poster who said there should be no vote until there are satisfactory hearings on the NSA wiretapping.
I do not, however, agree with those who say the Democrats should fight with everything in their arsenal. The Democrats need to show that it is not just the ends, which are easily faked (see "Mission Accomplished") and rarely achieved, which count. The methods of accomplishing one's objectives also matter. The Democrats need to show that they will follow the rules--this "strategic pause" (my choice of phrase) will then fit well into the 2006 platform. If the Republicans improperly try to cut off debate, they will pay, whether they have 51 votes or 60.
I believe Harry Reid is thinking along these lines and has a stratagem to propose. That's why they're having the meeting at all. I say, Support Our Troops in Washington in this battle. When it's done, that's when we reckon who might be traitors to our own personal causes.
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 01:48:32 AM PDT

This post probably has a short shelf life of relevance. The Democratic Caucus meets today (Wed., Jan. 18) and will probably announce something afterwards. Maybe they'll lie low, though, and sandbag the overconfident Frist yet again. I'm betting Cheney will show up at the time the Majority schedules the floor vote.

Here's part of a second Kos posting, in a discussion of Armando's view that Supreme Court justices approach their cases with the decision in mind, and search for the right rationalization for that decision in the case law:

I do take your point that these SCOTUS folks have a result in mind and cast about for the argument that supports it. The question of the moment is the political one: how to make it clear what Alito will do--when he has denied any intention--and dramatize that sufficiently to capture the attention of the American people. So far, all they've picked up from the hearings was its unmistakable odor of "Alito-sis" (defined as "intensely jargoned stale air with a distinct Bushite scent").
by chinshihtang on Wed Jan 18, 2006 at 02:34:09 AM PDT

So far, it's the only reference in Google to "Alito-sis" (the spelling is the Spanish one for "halitosis", in fact). Apart from the reference to this posting.