Skip to main content

View Diary: On Reacting to Roberts: It's Not Just Fairness, It's Smart Politics (225 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Let's suppose you're right (none)
    Let's suppose that playing "smart" means playing mellow statesmen.

    Wouldn't it have been wiser to say nothing at all in response to Bush's nomination?

    Wouldn't it have been wiser to do our research, keep mum about potential issues we may have, and wait for this appointee to appear before the Senate for confirmation hearings?

    I think that could have been effective, as well as smart and collegial. I don't think bending over backwards to kiss O'Connor's rear end, to let everyone know that's what we expect of this nominee, was especially smart. I don't think being openly reasonable about the possible interpretations of this nominee's legal history was especially smart.

    In doing so, we've changed the dynamic. We gave Bush and his team the ball and now we're playing defense again. That isn't smart. So what else is new?

    •  On the issues (3.50)
      No I disagree with that.

      Indeed, where Democrats are failing in my estiomation is creating the expectation of what Roberts MUST do in order to win their support.

      I try to do that with my post last night.

      Set the bar. That is what we need to do. And what we can do.

      Yelling today with no evidence hurts the  cause IMO.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:18:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Likewise, I disagree (none)
        I think it would have been so much clearer to the public that a potentially unsuitable nominee was being foisted onto the Supreme Court if we let Republicans go into spin mode alone, before confirmation hearings had begun. They'd have to wonder, "What the hell are people like Dobson hammering this into our skulls for? We don't vote for the guy. That Donson dude was behind the whole Shiavo thing, wasn't he? We're getting hustled again, right? Goddamn mobsters..."

        Handling it like this - keeping our mouths shut - we've let our political opponents set up a preexisting public skepticism for us.

        Meanwhile, Democrats commit to nothing more than, "We look forward to the confirmation process," dig up everything they need to do a thorough examination of this nominee's fitness for the highest court in our land and hit him, hard, with everything we've got when he's under oath (if not figurative, then literal) at the hearing - capitalizing on the skepticism we let his overzealous supporters set up.

        That's the way I would have advised handling this if the Democratic Party was determined to be the personification of reasonable, collegial statesmen.

        Otherwise, I would have advised Democrats to get out in front of this nominee and bang away, night and day, at the role that partisanship has played in his career. It isn't fair but, then, politics isn't fair - especially now.

        We'll never know which approach would have been more successful because we're stuck playing our typical "Bronco's defense".  We're going to end up having to punt for points - again.

      •  Yelling vs. arranging the battlefield (none)
        "Set the bar. That is what we need to do. And what we can do."

        That's part of what Billmon is calling for.

        "Yelling today with no evidence hurts the  cause IMO."

        The other point that Billmon makes is using what we already know to our advantage.

        I don't see him calling for moonbat rants at high noon.  Just a simple reaction that spins the choice in our favor (see my comment upthread in response to mcjoan and add your comments about him being a blank slate), to plant a seed of doubt in the public at large.

        Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.-- Blaise Pascal

        by Pandemoniac on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:47:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site