Skip to main content

View Diary: A Baucus Betrayal (433 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes indeed (none)
    It seems as though many of the Democrats are going through the motions of voting no in order to please the base, without a real sense of what the issues actually are.

    This is the point of having a Karl Rove, a message setter who fits issues into an overarching theme.  Unless the Democrats provide a clear message for why they think Roberts is bad news - and it's too late in the day to get that message out, really - it's hard to make any future electoral hay from a no vote.

    It's like I said once upon a time:

    If you send a clear message to the American people that "we oppose Roberts because X will happen if he is confirmed," and then X does happen, now you have your campaign issue for 2008, 2012, and beyond. "Elect Democrats so we can roll back X and make sure it never happens again."

    Right now, we haven't agreed on what X is. It might be Roe v. Wade, it might be destruction of environmental laws and other protections, it might be a lot of things. I will guarantee you this: if the Dems don't settle on a unified message, if it ends up being the same old shotgun approach that "Roberts will outlaw abortion, birth control, favor corporations over people, destroy the environment, reverse the civil rights movement, etc." it's not going to get us anywhere. We need a straightforward argument that people can understand, and we can use in future elections, not a boundless rant that says Roberts is the spawn of Satan who will destroy everything good about America. Fortunately, we have over a month before the confirmation hearings, time we can use to get the message straight.

    Wishful thinking on my part.  I know, I know...

    •  the smartest thing you've said isn't that, though (none)
      It's this:
      Republican candidates talk about judges all the time in their stump speeches.  Activist judges, overruling the will of the people, pushing their liberal agenda on us all, blah blah blah.  How come I never hear Democrats giving speeches like this?  How come I never hear Democrats talking about the stakes at issue on the Supreme Court?  How come I never hear Democrats pleding to appoint only judges who will uphold the Constitution and protect our fundamental liberties, including the right to privacy?

      Where the hell is our Heritage Foundation already?
    •  We oppose Roberts because Roberts (none)
      subverted the constitutional process of advice and consent by stonewalling.

      Roberts is not nominated to head a covert agency, but to clarify the application of our most fundamental principles of law.

      His history and his behavior before the Senate only confirm every fear that his polite opacity fronts a low opinion of the people, and of the right of the people to self-government, and of the right of the people to a government answerable to the people and the elected representatives of the people.

      Can we say, "This is what Chief Justice Roberts would do protect democracy in a crisis?" No. We cannot even be confident, if he did act in a constitutional crisis, that we would ever find out.

      As representatives of the people, we must reject Judge Roberts because Judge Roberts has undermined the constitutional process of consent by refusing to answer questions or to disclose his associations with covert crimes later requiring Presidential pardon, except where useful for political show.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site