Skip to main content

View Diary: A Baucus Betrayal (433 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  cooperation? (4.00)
    Reid himself has said 'no filibuster', so we are, in fact, "cooperating" by ensuring there will be an up-and-down vote.  

    I am thoroughly frustrated by the amount of sentiment here that seems utterly untethered to any tactical goal.  That people don't want Roberts to be CJOTUS isn't going to make it not so.

    •  hmmm (4.00)
      "I am thoroughly frustrated by the amount of sentiment here that seems utterly untethered to any tactical goal."

      I respect your posts as a rule, acbonin.  But as far as what you say above:

      Right back at you.

      You're projecting a lot of strategy hand acumen here that we don't know is actually in play.  And frankly, What IS there it looks like the same old weak-Democrat play: fold, say "the next fight's the REAL big one"....then fold when that one comes, too.  The fight is always in the future, always being saved up for a golden moment which rarely seems to actually arrive.

      And just who are the Dems supposed to be playing to at this point, if the goal is to appear reasonable?  To WHO?  The GOP?  The political press?  Good god, man!  That has never bought us anything but scorn for being wishy-washy, flip-floppers, etc. etc., ad infinitum.  Those P.R. factors need to be ignored if the Democratic party is go foward, because it's a stacked deck.  When Dems show some <b<real</b> fight, they will have plenty of respect back.

      I also don't understand how you figure that saying AYE to Roberts forces Bush to nominate someone more centrist next time.  Where's the logic there?  A better case is that it emboldens Bush to go even further right, or less qualified, because he sees that Democrats will vote YES even for someone who refused to turn over the documents necessary to make a sound decision.

      •  Who are we playing to? (none)
        It's largely the media, which frames the whole fight -- which we should have been able to frame in terms of A Weak President Finally Gets Something Passed, Given That We've Killed His Domestic Agenda And New Orleans Is Dead -- but we didn't.

        Merely voting 'no' isn't enough if we can't use this as a way of demonstrating why our principles are better.  And we haven't.  We failed at that task for the past two months, for the past four years.  

        Having some Democrats vote for Roberts says two things: the nominee had better be ridiculously qualified, and not overtly ideological.  Given that we've got a Republican President and 55 of them in the Senate, that's about all we can hope for.

        •  Patriotism (4.00)
          Is it not patriotic to attempt to obstruct the worst president ever?

          Sight unseen, it's a safe bet that whatever Bush wants to do is a terrible idea and should be resisted until we know that it is at least harmless.

          etrans.blogspot.com

          Tracking energy and transportation news.

          by joel3000 on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 08:03:22 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  unfortunately (none)
            It's a Supreme Court slot.  We're going to have to confirm someone to fill it, and soon.
            •  or what? (none)
              What happens if they're missing a justice or two for a while? It will just take them longer to launch the  SCOTUS revolution they surely have planned.

              A man as criminally incompetent as Bush doesn't get to put whoever he wants on the SCOTUS without a real vetting. Roberts isn't answering questions and gov is denying requested info. To vote for him is to approve of the tactics they used, and those tactics were dirty.

              etrans.blogspot.com

              Tracking energy and transportation news.

              by joel3000 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 04:44:24 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  There is no way (4.00)
          that we have the votes to kill the Roberts confirmation.  Therefore Dems should vote against him for party principle.  A president with judgement as bad as Bush's deserves no validation.

          If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything-Mark Twain

          by Desert Rose on Tue Sep 20, 2005 at 08:04:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Continual & Relentless Skirmishing (4.00)
      Is a classic tactic used by the powerless against the powerful.

      The goal of such relentless opposition is to wear down the resources of the powerful.

      It's all about making George go further into the hole beyond the political capital he has already squandered.

      He's stuck in Iraq. He's stuck in Afghanistan. He's stuck in North Korea. He's stuck at the UN. He's stuck in the Gulf Coast. He's stuck in the burgeoning Abrahamoff Affair. He's stuck in the Plame Affair. He's stuck on Able Danger.

      Why play nice with the enemy when he is taking multiple wounds and he would destroy you in an instant if given the opportunity?

      This is the time to pile on. We take no damage from taking a hard line, just as Gingrich took no damage from shutting the government down.

      It inspires and expands the base. That's how you win.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site