This was raised briefly in another diary, ironically entitled
Reid Gives up on Filibuster?"
A link to Democratic Underground indicates that "Kerry's office" told someone that Reid was very lately moving towards support (if not whipping) of the filibuster. No better source on that speculation, but in the resulting action call a good question was raised: are we going about this the wrong way with hesitant members of the Dem caucus? Is it too much to ask those Dems voting Yea on Alito, such as Byrd, to vote for a filibuster? Probably--it is in essence a contradictory vote.
But what if he could have it both ways?
All day we have been counting up from 0. But that's a mistake. As places like Hotline and Roll Call do, we should count DOWN from 100. The magic number is not 41, but 59.
(read on!)
This may seem trivial or pointless, but it's not. As many Kossacks know, a cloture vote succeeds not on the failure to get 41 Nos, but the ability to get 60 Yeas. This is important, because of course there are other ways to vote besides Yea and No. You can also vote "Present," or you can register an abstention. (You can also miss the vote entirely, but that's terribly bad form, and nearly impossible to justify IMO).
What if people told Byrd's staffers not to do the impossible and vote NO on cloture, but to honor his colleagues in the caucus and fail to register a Yea instead? Present or abstention, doesn't matter.
Tough nut? Maybe. But it's politically plausible.
Now, obviously for the No votes on Alito to begin with--like Salazar--it gets even easier. Now they get to register their No vote, but refuse to comment on whether it should go to cloture. Same with Feinstien, same with (I hear) Schumer, et al.
Thoughts?
TJ