Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  We don't have to yell, just tell the truth (none)
    We don't have to yell and scream. They've given us a 'blank-slate' candidate, but everyone knows what they want. They want a hard-right, Scalia-type justice. One must go on the assumption that they've nominated this 'blank-slate' candidate becuase they believe that he will be what they want. The Democrats' ammunition is that the country is divided to moderate. That a majority supports the fillibuster. That Democrats want their elected officials to fight. That we know that this administration is corrupt and power-hungry. And that we don't know enough about this candidate.

    Nominating a candiate without a strong history of cases to judge them on is unacceptable in every way. The country deserves to know what they are getting. Yes, fight smart, but have an ultimate conviction that we can't give anymore to these people.

    •  So tell the truth (none)
      Whio is saying not to?

      But if the guy is blank slate, which he largely is as a judge, what truths do you propose to tell?

      So far, the suggestion is to tell the people we OPPOSE because he is  Bush's nominee.

      Sorry, I don't think much of that approach.

      My approach is top say what Roberts NEEDS to say to get Dem support.

      Set the bar.

      If he does not reach it, then no is the Dem response.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 12:34:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Am I saying to oppose him at this juncture? (none)
        That's not what I said. I said define the parameters of the discussion. That's a different point. He may still be confirmed, but he will be confirmed with the Americna people having a sense that he is not a moderate. But, to define what is a moderate will require more than waiting until the confirmation process. You assume that people have your knowledge of politics. They don't.

        Look, I have a friend who works in organizational management. We have had this discussion that you and I are having. People can retain only so much information, and only have time for so much information. In terms of messaing to them, you have to gvie them enough time to absorb it. Among Kerry's many strategic mistakes last year was waiting until the debates to define the parameters of the discussions. People didn't have the context so a lot of what he said to fully, and could not fully sink in. If we let the Republicans over the next month and half or so define what is the meaning of the word moderate here, then we go into the debate handicapped even for our long term goal of just defining the word. The win here from the acceptable lose for me is that we would sacrifice this pawn for the purpose of the overall picture. You said it yourself on Rove, what his value is- is that he defines the administration, and in the process Republicans. The same is true here in a different way.

      •  The truth I would like spoken is... (none)
        ...that Bush is profoundly untrustworthy. That he's trying to slip in an 'uncontroversial' candidate and that in and of itself is disturbing. That the likelyhood that this guy will give truthful and complete answers to where he stands on issues, what his biases are, and how he'll rule during his hearings is unlikely in the extreme.

         I agree that he's the nominee and that he should have a fair hearing. But when he doesn't answer questions--and he won't--then the filibuster should and must be the first thing on the table.

        If President Bush wants to nominate someone who's essentially a mystery (but is a known right-wing hack), why can't the Democrats come out and say  'this guy's a mystery and that is very troubling, we probably need a better candidate?'

        What I don't understand about this discussion is why the importance of it is being blown off for tactical reasons, and for reasons of appearing 'fair and moderate?' What more important fight could there be than in replacing the swing vote on the Supreme Court? Any political capitol we might gain isn't going to be able to be used on a more important issue.

      •  Probably our... (none)
        ...only real disagreement is that you are saying, I believe, that the nominee should be given the benefit of the doubt. We both agree he should be opposed if we don't hear what we want to hear.

        I'm saying that there can be no benefit with this adminstration and that it would be wise for the Democratic Senators to come out and say so, and act on that. That these are extraordinary times and it would require extraordinary evidence to prove that Roberts isn't a Scalia-type nominee.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site