Democrats throw in the towel on Roberts before the first question is even asked
In a series of interviews in recent days, more than a dozen Democratic senators and aides who are intimately involved in deliberations about strategy said that they see no evidence that most Democratic senators are prepared to expend political capital in what is widely seen as a futile effort to derail the nomination.
Although they expect to subject President Bush’s nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes — enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.
“No one’s planning all-out warfare,” said a Senate Democratic aide closely involved in caucus strategy on Roberts. For now, the aide said, Democratic strategy is to make it clear Roberts is subject to fair scrutiny while avoiding a pointless conflagration that could backfire on the party. “We’re going to come out of this looking dignified and will show we took the constitutional process seriously,” the aide said.
“This was a smart political choice from the White House,” said one prominent Democratic lawmaker, who like several others interviewed for this article requested anonymity because they were departing from the Democrats’ public position. “I don’t think people see a close vote here.“
Oh yeah… the democrats look really DIGINIFIED with Bush’s dick stuck up Harry Reid’s ass.
Democrats said that instead of mounting a headlong assault on Roberts, they plan to use the hearings and the surrounding attention by the news media to remind voters of their party’s values, including the protection of rights for individual Americans. The plan calls for emphasizing rights beyond abortion in an effort to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate.
Let me guess… they are going to headline DFL latest appropriations bill to “abortion counseling services”
“There’s nothing the White House would rather have seen than having us come out reflexively swinging at a nominee in order to accuse us of politicizing the debate,” Manley added. “There was a strategic decision to keep our powder dry, to reserve judgment until the committee does its work. We want Democrats to be able to fight on principles, not politics.”
But the minority party’s signals so far suggest acquiescence. When the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America released an incendiary ad about the nominee last week, a number of prominent liberals joined conservatives in condemning the ad as misleading, and the spot was canceled after elected Democrats offered NARAL no support.
No wonder everyone is climbing on Rosenberg’s raft trying to get paid…GRAVE ROBBERS…picking over the dead bones of the Democratic party… Roberts nomination will be it’s official funeral.
weak ass shit.
They are totally laying down. We’ll see what Leahy is made of, and Specter too, when the hearings start. I bet they both have more balls than the overall Democratic causcus.
The only excuse I can think of is that they want to defuse an argument over ‘playing politics’ until the hearings are underway. But it looks like capitulation to me.
Supposedly the count is up to 70 … if you minus the 56 Republicans that leaves 14 Democrats willing to cross the aisle BEFORE a single question is given.
no one thought Bork would lose before the hearing started. But Biden did his homework. This time will be tougher because Leahy isn’t in control, and he also isn’t as confrontational and competitive as Biden (especially the younger Biden).
That is the jist of the problem. This ain’t the old Democratic party that actually BELIEVED in something… now the ranks are flooded with “non” ideological Dems ..ie “sell outs”.
Who are our champions? Even Obama…toned down once he got in office and has been quite UN-impressive. Is Hilliary going to step up and do the right thing… there is a certain irony that the hopes and dreams of the Democratic party moral compass lies in Leahy’s hands… a former Republican who is now independent… there are NO DEMOCRATS WHO WILL CHAMPION FOR THE BSAE ANY MORE.
Jim Jeffords is the former Republican who is now an independent.
oops
where are you getting these numbers from?
Although they expect to subject President Bush’s nominee to tough questioning at confirmation hearings next month, members of the minority party said they do not plan to marshal any concerted campaign against Roberts because they have concluded that he is likely to get at least 70 votes — enough to overrule parliamentary tactics such as a filibuster that could block the nominee.
unofficial “whip count”: 56 senators are positively inclined to support Roberts, with 44 of those solid and 12 senators leaning toward Roberts. That leaves 44 unknowns. But eight of those are Republicans who have made no public statement, and nine of them are Democrats who have made positive comments about Roberts’s demeanor, intellect or integrity. So the pool of potential outright opponents could be as few as 27 senators, according to the Republican analysis.
It is in the article
Reid is probably one of the 14. He is a pro-lifer, after all.
THEIR JOB.
Leahy decided his balls weren’t worth another envelope full-o-anthrax.
This may sound naive but do we even really have a democrat party anymore? Shouldn’t they all be totally mum on this process until it gets under way?
The cornonation of Roberts will be the offical funeral of the Democratic Party may it R.I.P
And they intend to keep it that way by anointing candidates and clearing the field of anyone else…
So has this been front-paged elsewhere as Harry’s brilliant strategy for a Democratic comeback yet? </snark>
No but someone at Pravda has diaried it:
Brilliance? The Bush admnistration? (runs to throw up)
The way we derail this GOP train is to kick the bums out in 2006 and take back the White House in 2008, not by taking a stand against John Roberts. Believe me, as an attorney myself I am horrified that we are losing Justice O’Connor and have no delusions that Roberts will be anything less than a wingnut in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. But, this is the price we knew we would pay if we lost in 2004. I mean, you have to give Bush credit in the sense that during the campaign he made no bones about the fact he was looking to appoint a Scalia/Thomas type to the bench. The American public elected him anyway.
Being the minority congressional party sucks ass. Being the minority congressional party when the other side also has the White House REALLY REALLY REALLY sucks ass. But the way to fix it is not by taking quixotic stands on every friggin’ issue, it’s to maneuver the overall politics to maximize our chances for 2006 and 2008. Calling Harry Reid, who so far has done an absolutely SUPERB job and far exceeded anyone’s expectations, a “spineless weak ASSHOLE” is not going to help get that accomplished.
Bullshit…
Read the article…
This stunning show of cowardice let’s all the GOP organizations that were gearing uo for battle FLOODED WITH EXCESS CASH they they now can spend in 2006.
The money quote:
The Democrats’ decision to hold their fire — less a formal strategy than an emerging consensus — has allowed conservatives to husband their resources for future battles. Progress for America, a political group working closely with the White House, had planned to spend $18 million to promote the confirmation of Roberts but now may spend less than half that, according to Republican aides.
and this just ONE organization…
COWARDICE NEVER PAYS
Their decision to “hold their fire” is a very long way from asking softball questions for a SCOTUS nominee. After the disasterous NARAL ads the perception is that they won’t fight. But if you read the statements by Leahy & Specter, all they’re saying is the nomination won’t take place in the public press a month before the hearings.
…kick the bums out in 2006 and take back the White House in 2008, not by taking a stand against John Roberts.
Not an either/or proposition. My read is that Specter & Leahy are doing their best to keep the snarling dogs on both sides of the issue well fed and quiet. Slamming Reid is issuing judgement before the evidence is in.
Oh PULEEEESE… not another “cunning plan”… of the Democratic leadership
When we all know they sat on their asses and did nothing…
“Cunning plan”? No. But neither is his statement capitulation.
They like to highlight that Reid was a boxer in his younger days. We hear that he is a “fighting Dem.”
I ask you, though, what boxer talks kindly of his opponent before a match? What boxer walks into a ring, all smiles, warm words and hugs before the opening bell? What kind of boxer all-but announces ahead of time that a match isn’t worth fighting?
A losing boxer does that. A losing boxer, or a sparring partner, and what I see in this Democratic leadership are ringers put in the match to make the real champ look good. Go a round or two, make it look good for the rubes, keep the bets coming in, then BAM, take the fall, hit the canvas, eat the mat.
A REAL fighter goes in with fire in her eyes. A REAL fighter studies her opponent, looking for weaknesses, repetitive tics, blindspots. A REAL fighter goes in with mouthpiece clenched tightly between teeth, breathing deeply through her nose, focused. A REAL fighter knows, even if the bigger champ wins, that she’ll learn from a loss, but only if the loss comes after a real struggle. A REAL fighter knows that next time the champ will remember that black eye, that loose tooth, that nagging feeling of wearing down when the challenger KEPT GETTING BACK UP. “Oh why won’t she stay down,” he thinks. “It’s hopeless, can’t she SEE that?”
A REAL fighter fights, and a REAL fighter becomes the new champ, or goes down fighting.
I mean… it is not like Bush is tanking in the polls right now… I mean his ratings must be through the roof for the Democrats to be so scared to sit on their hands…
Timing being everything, announcing intentions prior to the hearing is a waste of time:
“There was a strategic decision to keep our powder dry, to reserve judgment until the committee does its work. We want Democrats to be able to fight on principles, not politics.”
The “acquiescence” quote is the opinion of the author, and is, as usual, misleading. Watch the hearings – they’ll be televised – and if your questions are left unanswered, flood the minority office with demands.
You’ll find the membership roster here.
Oh… I am sure they will put on a very good “show” worthy of an OSCAR right before they confirm him….
Haven’t you ever wonder what Ried is going to do with all that “dry powered”?
Yunno… it does have a shelf life.
geesh.
If there is some big fight planned, then why the rush to give anonymous quotes (there are new ones every week)? Why the rush to praise him before every mic they can get to? Why is BOXER the only Dem Senator I hear speaking for our base, for women and workers re: Roberts?
I keep hearing about this grand strategy. I keep hearing about picking fights, but I STILL SEE NO FIGHTS.
Oh, one, over Bolton, and that was a pissing match over Senate perogatives so Senator MBNA could crow about important he is.
Fucking sick of it, and sick of my “leader” being a pro-Corporate, anti-woman Bush kiss-ass conservative Mormon who’s best buddy is a Republican Senator whore for the mining/gambling/minerals industry.
You know what really sucks ass? Living in a country where your status as a second class citizen is codified into law by religious conservatives.
I have absolutely no sympathy for Reid or for any senator from any party who votes for this guy. I can’t afford it.
List of Reid’s brilliant accomplishments please.
Patriot Act. No – that passed. Energy Bill – Oops that passed, too. Transportation. Bankruptcy. Passed and passed. Judicial appointments. Not so good to date.
Why the hell shouldn’t they fight. What do they gain by not fighting. The ellusive swing voters? Maybe if they stood for something, more people would come to the polls.
And any Dem who votes for Roberts is a disgrace. If Reid is so brilliant, why can’t he keep his own party in line?
whether it could have succeeded or not would have shown that the Democratic Party is willing to fight for a principle. Not putting up a fight just underscores what a dead dog this party has become.
The dems keep proving to me is that Green Party is the real home for progressives. I’m really hoping that they ramp up efforts to be get more candidates running at local and state levels.
When I have higher hopes for Arlen Specter to put up a fight on this than the Democrats.
Weak ass shit is right.
Before Roberts was nominated proxies for both sides publicly announced their intention to spend millions on advocacy ads. Since the announcement a tremendous amount of publicity about everything down to his shoe size has been analyzed for “judicial intent”.
NARAL blew it right out of the gate with a dumbshit political hit piece – giving a boost to the other side. At what point did the opposition become a lynch mob? An uninformed, and politically reckless lynch mob?
Committee members have been consistent in their statements that the place to judge the nominee is in a Senate hearing, NOT the press.
Please keep in mind last sentence of article:”So the pool of potential outright opponents could be as few as 27 senators, according to the Republican analysis.”
According to republican analysis=to me republican spin. Let’s all take a deep breath here and wait for the hearings before we condemn our party ok?
with you Aloha,!
Pretty much what I expected. Roberts could be defeated trivially, if our politicians wanted to. But they don’t want to, because their friends in the Republican party have told them that doing so will be bad for them in the next election. And hey, for the politicians, Roberts isn’t that bad – he’s in favour of more government control over peoples’ lives.
Roberts be defeated sans filibuster? Which is not trivial.
Ideally, we’d simply filibuster him. He’s so far to the right that if the “14” didn’t include people like Lieberman, I’d say he qualifies as extremist. Though he’s probably less extremist than the judges they’ve already approved at a lower level, so I seriously doubt Lieberman, Clinton, Biden, et al. would even consider Roberts beliefs remarkable or objectionable in any way.
That said, there’s plenty in his background that could be used to defeat him if the “pragmatists” wanted to. The gay rights thing, for example, had already turned the heads of a lot of wingers.
But there’s no chance of that, because Roberts helps these “pragmatists” as much as he helps the enemy. Which should start us asking real questions about whether the “pragmatists” are our allies at all.
He’s a Dubya nominee!
I just don’t agree that there’s plenty in his background that could be used to defeat him.
I think the Ds need to state their objections and vote against him, because I think there’s worse coming down the pike. Ds have limited ammo and pulling the filibuster out once too often will negate its power.
I don’t necessarily think that ‘pragmatist’ is a dirty word, but I agree with you that the ones you’re referring to should be viewed suspiciously.
Good one Parker!
And i’m still waiting for those ‘sanctions’ or whatever Pelosi said was coming to the CAFTA deserters, sounds like they’re plenty scared— not! I’m sure not one of them is thinking twice about defecting again re: Roberts DESPITE Bush’s refusal to hand over documents.
These people deserve our DERISION, not our support!
Fuck derision. These people don’t deserve a penny from progressives until they clean up their acts. And in the meantime, progressives should be throwing well-funded primary challengers at every single one of the “pragmatic” assholes.
oh and check out this love letter to Harry Reid from last nights Recommended List, read it with gloves so you don’t get the drool all over you:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/8/15/204121/984
Gee, Harry the Saint Reid…. 4 lobbyist sons who have already been in trouble with crossing the line and Mormon to boot (i just love so-called religions that shun their gay children, and i’ve met many who have been through the years).
Lord help the Dems that don’t help themselves.
Can I throw up now…? please.
I couldn’t quite make it past the author… 😉
is that the DH tongue bath for Reid (oh Senator, is that deep enough)? (can’t see dKlark from work) …
That was especially galling after the “Sheehan isn’t a saint” bit of hackery.
Truly revolting, he even had his boyfriend chime in.
i hope you’re using the term ‘boyfriend’ in a positive sense?
as in when you see one… you see the other
maybe twin/lackey or sidekick might serve better 🙂
or maybe servant, retainer, henchman, squire, butler, footman, flunky, valet, cadey, lickspittle …
HA! all those say it pretty well 🙂
“He” always reminds me of Crabbe and Goyle, the lackey sidekicks of Malfoy in the Harry Potter books
The past dozen comments or so have managed to turn this into a frenzied attack on another Democrat and respected commenter because of his support for Harry Reid. Way to take the fight to our real enemies! A big high-five to whoever it was above that bashed Reid for being a Mormon! Kudos to the person who threw in the random quasi-homophobic insult! Way to show the freepers that we can cannibalize each other as well as they can!
Fuck yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
respected commenter because of his support for Harry Reid.
You’re welcome to respect him just as I’m welcome to question your discernment in doing so.
Way to take the fight to our real enemies!
Having read said commentator for a couple of years or more I can honestly say that I regard him and those like him as much my ‘real’ enemy as Newt Gingrich and Al From. You should be telling him to attack republicans rather than the vast majority of us who are to his left politically. Is that clear enough for you?
I love it how Progressives are expected to spend all our time attacking Republicans and ignore those “centrists” who espouse an equally repulsive agenda because they’re somehow our “allies” just because they’re part of the same party.
I’ve read DH enough to know that while I may not agree with everything he says, I still wouldn’t unleash the petty, petulant remarks that have popped up on this thread. But my comment wasn’t merely about DH, it was also about the freakish orgy of vitriol spewed at Reid.
While just about all of us share some measure of disappointment with Reid’s message, some of us actually do have a degree of faith in his political sense and tactics.
Then there are those who simply make obnoxious statements about Reid’s religion:
“Gee, Harry the Saint Reid…. 4 lobbyist sons who have already been in trouble with crossing the line and Mormon to boot (i just love so-called religions that shun their gay children, and i’ve met many who have been through the years).”
‘Cause, you know, we’d never unleash our furor if a Republican said something like that. And that’s not the only comment on this thread stating that we should never have trusted a Mormon. That’s the kind of sentiment you’d support?
is not MY leader. In my youth, we would have called him a Republican, or a Dixiecrat. Same narrow shit.
I admire next to nothing about him. He’s fought for nothing. He’s preserved nothing. He’s helped to define NO message for the party.
I still wouldn’t unleash the petty, petulant remarks that have popped up on this thread.
This is a two way street. and I find it mildly amusing that you defend someone whose capacity for shallow petulance is apparently unbounded. Agreement with his positions is not the issue. I disagree with many positions of people I both like and respect. It’s his manner and the way he has treated people over the years I’ve come to find repugnant.
some of us actually do have a degree of faith in his political sense and tactics.
I don’t do faith based politics and I don’t do sectarian politics either. I really don’t. I think that Reid probably has a better political sense than, say, Grey Davis or Daschle but I don’t kid myself for a moment that he’s an ally to those of us who don’t wish to have our lives controlled by religious conservatives. Indeed I believe that a man’s position on the reproductive rights of women and his authority to dictate the same says a great deal about the sort of man he is.
As for religious conservatives of all faiths, no I do not trust them to rule over me, I don’t support them and I certainly do not believe that they have either my best interests or the best interests of anyone who looks like me at heart. I have no reason to; the catholic heirarchy, the Mormon heirarchy and the fundamentalist protestants have made common cause and they’ve been quite open about their intentions.
i do so love sucking up to my oppressors!
yeah, Mormons aren’t too cool if you’re gay but then gays don’t count do we! If you treat me like a human being i’m cool with you but Shunning/Lynching/Imprisonment etc. just don’t fly with me, I’m no one’s inferior as a human being, sorry i didn’t step and fetch for ya!
but literally and fundamentally doesn’t all of Christianity consider gays to be second-class citizens (or worse)? But would you also consider every Christian to be a gay-hating lunatic? That’s a terrible blanket statement to say that because the church preaches against gays all its members blindly agree. Do you know anything about how Reid feels? You wouldn’t run to lead the party that embraces gay rights if you were a homophobe…you’d be a republican.
well, actually … no, they don’t. The majority do, maybe, but that is less and less so as time passes. Christians used to be peachy keen w/ slavery, too.
To be honest, I think Christianity is one of the most fucked up and evil systems of thought to have spread across the Earth. It is built around a hatred of what it is to be human, that we are tainted by original sin. Most of them completely ignore the few words their supposed Savior actually said in favor of a fucked up reading of the Jewish Bible and the ravings of a wackjob former Manichean.
The really sad thing here is that you’re perfectly right… Except an actual reading of an actual translation of their holy book contradicts the beliefs of pretty much every denomination except the United Church and Unitarian Church, simply because they’re so flexible.
Gays, I seem to remember, are only condemned by Levitical purity laws, which were disposed of by that Jesus guy, because they were impossible for a human being to actually follow.
exactly, and some scholars think the prohibitions had more to do w/ the rites of other faiths in the area …
of course, there are those who disagree w/ that interpretation, but so much repression from mainly ONE passage in a huge book written by multiple authors translated over multiple languages.
The mind bogles.
In what ways are “pro-life” Democrats supposed to be so much better than “pro-choice” Republicans? I forget.
Because they’ll vote for spineless weak assholes for Majority Leader. </snark>
I don’t agree that Reid is such, mind you, but that’s always been the argument.
If Reid’s not spineless, please tell me what he’s stood up for? Even if he can’t defeat something horrible (like Roberts), having the entire party caucus vote against it is a necessary prerequisite to being considered “not spineless”.
The first time I heard it, I thought that argument was just an excuse to cover a creep rightwards. Since then, the actions of the “pragmatists” who’ve espoused it have just confirmed my belief.
Bush signs the Patriot Act. Harry Reid is pleased as punch. Pat Leahy can’t resist a photo op.
Holy SHIT!!!!
A front row view….
“Hey guys, after this we can go back to the Oval Office and watch some snuff films we got back from our “detention centers.”
not to answer questions and provide information. Then there can never be an unexpected development.
You could run a truly efficient government this way.
LOL. I was already to read a thread of comments declaring HR is a our Savior (oops, wrong blog) … So it is great to see the response here.
But what now? 2006, sure, but that’s baby steps, and that’s us fighting against not just the GOP but the Dem Party. I don’t see the ground troops lining up to do that. Not in the numbers we need. So now what? Is there any alternative to trying to beat them at their own game of out of control money raising/spending, voterless primaries, and boring in-party backstabbing?
I suppose we are just supposed to keep up the good work grassroots, netroots, liberal blogoshpere-wise. The movement will grow, small successes will breed larger ones, the folks out there will eventually get pissed off at our own Dem. leadership (HD not incl.) enough to go canvass or write some letters to the editors … and eventually we’ll have a chance at taking back our country.
Must be a better, faster way. Cool-headed patience and DIY campaigns are getting us nowhere. (And I’m a cool-headed, patient person…)
So Parker,
besides whining on this blog what are YOU going to do about it??
How about a little more action and a lot less talking – otherwise you sound just like the so called Dem leadership.
is that you?
Dana Milbank is going to be laughing his Cheneying ass off at how seriously you took his bait. You act as if you never have read one of his hatchet pieces.
Just ’cause it’s WaPo don’t mean it’s so.
Jeeeez, can’t we save our ammunition for our real enemies?
Saying that “HARRY REID is a spineless weak ASSHOLE” is just stupid and childish.
I’m sorry, but that’s the way it is.
Please explain to me how Reid is an ally of mine. So far, he has failed to stand up on women’s rights, individual rights (vs corporate power), or anything else that matters. In fact, he’s supported things (Roberts, Abu Gonzales, the Bankruptcy Bill) that actively attack all of the above.
Sounds to me like he’s playing for the wrong team, and would be much more comfortable with an elephant badge on his lapel.
Well, good luck with “your team”… all seven of whom have any gravitas whatsoever.
I’m not sure what your response is about, but I was interested in the explanation Egarwaen was asking about. Do you have one?
Parker!!
I’m so happy the “unedited” version of this diary made the top of the recommmended list, here!
I’m still trying to figure out why the hell Jerome deleted it!
I find it interesting that this diary on Harry Reid discloses nothing that he’s actually said regarding Roberts.
I am from Nevada. Reid is my senator. Perhaps if the diarist had a greater understanding of red state politics he’d be more likely to focus on fact, rather than emotion.
John Kerry wasn’t my choice at all for president, yet I voted for him anyways. But as long as the circular firing squad continues, freepers and neo cons just laugh heartily.
And please, don’t forget that those of you who love Sandra Day O’Connor are conviently forgetting the 2000 Gore vs. Bush decision……
So because O’Connor wasn’t a perfect liberal, we should support Reid when he attempts to help Bush put a fascist on the Supreme Court?
Why?
I could give a shit about “red state politics.” America has been turning further and further away from the finest aspects of the American Dream as we’ve been subsumed in the Neo-Confederate beliefs of “red state politics.”
Politics is about creating a debate, creating a consensus. If you guys want to elect DINOs, then go for it, but appeasing corporatists should NOT be the leaders of the whole party.