updated 7:18 am, 1/31/06

If there are more than 25 "no" votes against Samuel Alito tomorrow, then the Democratic tally in the Senate will have shrunk by exactly that number. I don't know if you can call them Republicans, but I don't think it would be appropriate, or fair to the original 25, to call them Democrats.

The proposed filibuster against Alito was defeated today by a vote of 75-25. Nineteen former Democrats voted to invoke cloture, which is Senate-speak for ending debate. Those 25 Democrats felt not only that Alito's ascent to the Supreme Court should have been prevented, but also that there could have been substantive debate on the subject. They felt that there was more to be said.

Many of the nineteen former Democrats who voted to end the discussion have announced that they will vote "no" on Alito. Only four of the nineteen have officially stated that they will support Alito. I have this simple question, which I will pose to those who voted no to filibuster and then no to Alito, in advance of this vote:

What's the point?

The logical fallacy is basic and obvious. If a Senator was opposed to Alito strongly enough to vote against his confirmation, then why wouldn't that Senator want to continue the debate in the hopes of convincing those whose minds have not yet been made up? If you don't favor a continued debate, then what conviction is driving you to vote against the nominee?

The answer, of course, is soulless, contrived politicking. Red-state "Democrats" have to pick and choose their outlets of liberalism, and thus dance to the ridiculous drumbeat of the "up-or-down vote. The overly-conciliatory moderate Democrats can look liberal by voting for filibuster knowing it will fail, and take comfort in the assurance that their final vote on Alito's confirmation will be meaningless. Red-state "Democrats" prostitute themselves to the crazy wing of the Republican party (and the easily-fooled libertarian-types who elected them). Moderate Democrats throw their more liberal partymates under the bus to satisfy the least intelligent members of the Democratic party by being "more liberal than the Republicans and less crazy than Kerry and Kennedy."

All of this is contingent on one sad truth of modern American government: THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF MEANINGFUL DEBATE. Most Republicans, and a lot of "Democrats" apparently, have already closed their minds to discussion, instead indicating the entirety of their future decisions by the animal on their campaign buttons.

If there was even the shred of likelihood that minds could be changed by intelligent discourse, then a filibuster would be respected more and derided less. It would actually mean something. Instead, only a small handful of statesmen put the courage of their convictions behind a vote for filibuster, and the vast majority use it as a piece on a chessboard, and poorly played.

###

On a much more positive note, I have some doggie news to pass along. Our little Monty has fought through the sorrow of losing his nuts, instead channeling it into ringing the bell to go outside all on his own initiative. Twice.

Success!

There's a gubernatorial race in Wisconsin this year, and the incumbent Democrat, James Doyle, is facing a challenge from Republican Congressman Mark Green. The race is starting to heat up now that it's finally 2006, and Green has decided that in order to get a job in Madison, he's going to try something novel.

Insult Madison.

Okay, so it's not that novel. Wisconsin Republicans and anti-intellectualists have been trotting out that old chestnut for decades. Since expertise and higher learning became undesirable traits in American politics (thank you, Ronald Reagan), Madison has borne the brunt of conservative booger-flicking in my state. Green's fresh attack on this long-deceased horse is not so much surprising as it is pathetic.

Green's specific comment referred to the case of the Madison grade school teacher who had her students write letters against the occupation of Iraq to officials in Washington. This was, as it should be, fairly universally derided as a good idea gone too far. No one, even on the far left, is taking the position that this was a good thing. Yet, Green felt he just had to ask, "On what planet would it be OK to use students as political pawns? Planet Madison. And it would be entirely humorous except — the bad news is — Planet Madison is running the state".

Again, I have to restate that I could not find one defense of this assignment. I have, however, seen Green's good buddy George W using firemen, rescue workers, soldiers, levee repairmen, the city of New York and the American flag as political pawns. When W gave his speech in front of the levees in New Orleans, to highlight their rebuilding, it made most people feel hopeful and good. Few people heard that as soon as he left, and the media turned away, all but one crane were removed from the repair work. It was theater, created for political benefit. Same thing with the New York (ahem) firemen who were kept from doing relief work to walk around with W and Brownie with their rolled-up sleeves. Where is Mark Green's indignation at this manipulation?

And, it should be pointed out, that Green's decision to slam Madison when he's running for governor is not just pathetic, but (as the Mayor of Madison points out in a letter to Green) probably self-defeating. I would compare it to trying to buy a new house, but not liking the paint colors inside, so you throw a Molitov cocktail through the living room window. Mark Green is aware that, should he win, he'll have to live and work on "Planet Madison"?

Isn't he?

My vacation was wonderful. Now back to business.

CNN Headline News has hired Glenn Beck.

"Who?", you say?

Here are some samples of Glenn Beck's work:

"It took me about a year to hate the 9/11 victims...But the second thought I had when I saw these people [in New Orleans] and they had to shut down the Astrodome and lock it down, I thought: I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims."

(regarding murdered businessman Nick Berg and his father) "Can you let your son's body become the same temperature as your son's head before you turn this into a political campaign against the president—could you do that? ...I find this guy despicable. Everything in me says that. The want to be a better person today than I was yesterday says he's a dad, he's grieving, but I don't buy that. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I think he is grieving, but I think he's a scumbag as well. I don't like this guy at all."

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure."

Terrific! This is some fantastic stuff! I'm so glad that Headline News has deemed this man's intellect and worth sufficient to represent an international news agency on television.

If you have any, oh, I don't know, opinions on the kind of message Mr. Beck has been putting out there, please click here to send CNN Headline News a comment. Be sure to mark whether your comment is positive or negative.