Of course I would like Dems to fight Roberts' Nomination. However...

[oxbow]

...there are some consequences to consider if the dems filibuster this guy as he now stands. They could be regarded as obstructionists by the American public, which could hurt their chances in '06. A lengthly confirmation battle could also serve as a diversion from the Rove scandal, no doubt what Rove wants to happen. He could even be planning to leak fake dirt about Roberts to the press as we speak, ala CBS memogate. Fighting is not without consequences in politics, and I think most DU'ers realize that. A filibuster could very well backfire, just as it could succeed.

I also tend to think that Roberts is fairly clean if Rove chose to out him as the nominee over 5 weeks before the confirmation hearings even begin. Surely he did not expect this story to eclipse his own troubles without something juicier for us to bite into?

We all know that Rove has been cornered, and that he is dangerous. Be prepared for some kind of dirty trick(s) between now and the confirmation date.

[Erika]

1. The public doesn't realize he's against Roe v Wade, civil rights

or environmental protections.

[MissMarple]

5. The long view offers a better perspective in the culture wars.

The Republican religious and corporatist wingers understand this. The random shotgun approach will not serve in the long run, I am so sad to say.

[Maddy McCall]

2. Which is it?

Your thread title says that you want the Dems to fight, but the body of your posts says everything BUT that.

So which is it? Do you want to Dems to fight or roll over?

Me, I think they should fight. I think the American public is sick of spineless Democrats and wants a fight from the opposition side.

[oxbow]

6. Honestly, I'm not sure yet, and I think that's because

I don't know what Rove is trying to accomplish by putting THIS nominee out at THIS time.

Let's say I'm suspicious of the whole thing. Things are often not as they seem when it comes to turd blossom, and I would rather overestimate him then fall for something.

Make no mistake, when the time comes, I plan to fight tooth and nail. However, I am going to take some time to think and research before then on what all this means.

[yurbud]

3. you're wrong on the obstructionist angle. Newt tried that BS when Clinton

stared him down on the government shut down.


If you are digging in on an understandable principle, people will understand.

There is no real downside to blocking this asshole. Even if they can't stop him, forcing the GOP to do their stupid nuclear thing will make them look bad.

If we do block this guy, the second nominee would be someone more reasonable as is always the case, and by then, Karl might be jail.

Here's a tip, if when Rush Limbaugh gives the Democrats advice, ignore it.

Hillbilly Hitler art:



Blog:

[rucky]

4. don't get scared on us now!

it's time for us to play scramble, and have them put out the fires for awhile.

how was that for a mixed metaphor?

[evlbstrd]

7. Twisted and Wrong

Firstly, "obstructionist" as you put it seems to be a bad thing altogether. I believe the Declaration of Independence allows, if not encourages, a dissenting voice. Why even good ol" TomJay advocated armed revolution
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

[evlbstrd]

8. Secondly, why would Roberts be a distraction?

Rove is a subject in a grand jury investigation. Why is it a given that we can't focus on more than one issue at a time? Is it our remote control culture? I don't think so.
It's the Right Wing desire. They give us no credit for brains.

[Swamp Rat]

13. Thank you!

You summed it up nicely.

[orleans]

9. ....yeah, let's vote him in because bushie might pick someone worse

next time.

HA! I DON'T THINK SO!

We're talking about a generational decision here.

Sure, rove belongs in prison
but this other guy is going to have the ability to be fucking up my daughter's life until she's in her 50's!

HELLO???? What is the priority here?
besides, this doesn't kill the rove investigation.
and from what i understand the senators won't be dealing with this for five weeks or so anyway.

[bowens43]

11. It seems a lot of people don't get it.

He was replacing Rehnquist or one of the other hard core conservatives it wouldn't be a big deal. But he is replacing O'Conner. The only true moderate on the court. Tis gives the court to the extreme right.

Wait for the next one to filibuster? The next one is too late, the damage will have been done.

[orleans]

18. i totally agree

(i guess i was being a little sarcastic in my post...could you tell?)

[ngGale]

10. He's your typical Bush nominee ...

against civil rights, disabilities, also voted against our vets who sued Iraq for the First Gulf war. He's been ready to over turn Roe, and on top of that he's a lobbyist who cost the US big money. He's absolutely horrid - but I'm also not sure that he's not a Red Herring. Just out to keep the media busy while we fight.

[smurfygirl]

12. I'm tired of us standing idle and not fighting

I'm gladly looking forward to the fight.

[REP]

14. Hi. Let Me Introduce Myself. I AM THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.

Let's see ... do I want a right wing ideologue, who's only 50, on the court for the rest of MY life? No, but thanks for asking!

[radfringe]

15. just enough of an unknown to general public

most people will look at the nomination and go "Who?"

no doubt that the timing of this is designed to bump rove off the front pages. Congress goes into recess for August - so it just leaves September for investigation/debate and voting if they want to meet bush*'s October confirmation deadline

any delay tactics on this by the Dems will be painted as obstruction and whining. best the dems can do is to delay a vote based on not having enough time to review Robert's record and when repugs complain about delays the dems need to say something along the lines of "we care enough about American justice to want to take the time necessary for careful and thoughtful consideration - we don't want to just rubberstamp it though."

[slor]

16. Why can't we oppose him...

AND continue to slam rove. Just because bush cannot do 2 things at once, such as ride a bike and have a thought, does not mean the Dems suffer from this same ailment.

[ddeclue]

17. I agree...

I wrote a similar post in the Kerry response thread...

Question of the day: If fake grass is "astroturf" what do you call fake "dirt"..

Doug D.
Orlando, FL