OpEdNews - Page 2 of Article: Alito Filibuster: It Only Takes One

In effect, the filibustering senators would be saying that the future of democracy is worth an all-out congressional battle and that Alito 's theory of a "unitary executive " is an "extraordinary circumstance " deserving of a filibuster.

A filibuster also could force other senators to face up to the threat now emanating from an all-powerful Executive.

Democrats would have to decide if they 're willing to stand up to the pressure that Bush and his many allies would surely bring down on them. Republicans would have to choose between loyalty to the President and to the nation 's founding principles.

For some senators, the choice might define how they are remembered in U.S. history.

Republican John McCain, whose law against torture was approved in December but was essentially eviscerated when Bush pronounced that it would not be binding on him, would have the opportunity to either demand that the torture ban means something or accept Bush 's repudiation of its requirements.

Democrats who think they have the makings of a national leader the likes of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton and Joseph Biden could either demonstrate a toughness for meaningful political battles or confirm their reputations for ineffectual gestures.

The American people also would have a chance to rise to the occasion, showing that they are not the frightened sheep as some critics say, but truly care about democracy as a treasured principle of governance, not just a pleasing word of self-congratulations.

An Alito filibuster could be a galvanizing moment for today 's generation like the Army-McCarthy hearings were in the 1950s when red-baiting Sen. Joseph McCarthy finally went too far and was recognized as a dangerous demagogue.

Dangers

On the other hand, there are reasons to suspect that the Senate will recoil from a battle of such constitutional magnitude.

Democratic consultants already are saying that the Senate Democrats should finesse the Alito confirmation letting it proceed without a big fight and then focus instead on corruption as an issue with more "traction. "

This advice parallels the party 's strategy in 2002 when Democratic consultants urged congressional leaders to give Bush what he wanted in terms of authority to invade Iraq so the debate could be refocused on the Democrats ' domestic agenda. That approach turned out to be disastrous, both on Election Day and in the Iraq invasion that followed.

Nevertheless, a similar approach was pressed on Democratic presidential nominee Kerry in 2004. The goal was to neutralize the national security issue by citing Kerry 's Vietnam War record and then shifting the campaign to domestic issues.

So, instead of hammering Bush on his recklessness in the Iraq War, Kerry softened his tone in the days before the election, turned to domestic issues, and failed to nail down a clear victory, allowing Bush to slip back in by claiming the pivotal state of Ohio.

The strategists are back to the same thinking now, urging Democratic leaders to withdraw from a battle over Alito and to keep their heads down over what to do in Iraq, so they can supposedly gain some ground on the corruption issue.

There is, however, no guarantee that corruption will trump national security in November 2006 anymore than domestic issues did in 2002 and 2004.

1 | 2 | 3