Skip to main content

View Diary: Surrender Dems (442 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not only the "next nomination" (4.00)
    It is not only the second vacancy that is at stake here - this moment of failed leadership by this administration is an opportunity to demonstrate the enormous ideological difference about the purpose of the federal government and differing policy priorities between the two parties.  Democrats are losing a critical opportunity if they roll over for Roberts.

    Alas.

    •  YES (4.00)
      This is what I said last night:

      You don't win in today's Washington by "keeping your powder dry".  That's bad advice -- the kind of advice that comes from proven losers (like Kerry's campaign staff, who told him not to fight back against the Swift Boat Liars), and from active enemies of the Democratic Party (like Karl Rove).  Why on earth should we listen to these people?

      Establishment Dems like Schumer are shackled by the belief that their "powder" is a limited resource that must be hoarded against a rainy day sometime off in the future.  The Republicans in the White House and Congress, on the other hand, blast away at every moving target they can see.  And let's be clear -- by "powder" we're not talking about money (which is a finite, but renewable, resource) or actual governmental power (which Dems obviously have less of).  I'm talking about exerting political influence.  

      You don't have to control any branch of government, or have more money than the other team, to exert influence.  You exert influence by what you say, and by what you do, whatever your current situation is.  Influence is not a finite resource that is gone when used.  If you believe it is, you will always be a loser.  Did Newt Gingrich take Congress for the GOP by "keeping his powder dry"?  I think not.  The Rule of Political Influence is: Use it or lose it.

      Just because voting against Roberts is a losing proposition, vote-wise, doesn't mean that voting "no" will diminish Democrats' political capital.  Do they truly believe that voting "yes" will cause BushCo to become moderate, respectful, and conciliatory when the next nominee is picked?  Sure, Chuck, and I've got a bridge here in your home borough to sell you, cheap!

      On the other hand, reminding your party -- and the country -- of what your principles are, and proving that you'll stand up for them instead of playing another game of Washington CYA... now that's a way to build political capital.

      Once again:

      The single most shocking fact of our political system is that for the past decade, the beltway Democrats have been face to face and toe to toe with an aggressive, partisan GOP, and have watched that party win almost total power in Washington with an attack-dog, take-no-prisoners attitude -- and yet the Dems have neither learned from nor emulated it.
      •  Roberts played it cool, but the next one might not (none)
        Roberts is a lot smarter and slicker than your average wacked out winger, and he played well and did not give up the big play.  This does not mean much for the next player, because the whole game can change when memes get going.

        You have to ask why so many people felt this was one not to waste powder on ?

        Normal Dem pussitude ?  Naaa, not this time.

        The guy is slick.  Gotta hand it to him...

        Out of my cold dead hands

        by bluelaser2 on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 10:55:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  What do they have to lose?? (4.00)
          There is almost NOTHING TO LOSE by voting against Roberts, and plenty to gain.

          That's what I was criticizing.  The Dems act like they'll be "punished" for voting against Roberts -- and like they WON'T be if they vote for him.

          It's battered spouse syndrome.

          •  No, Reid said vote your conscience (none)
            there is no consequence either way.  And they will do just that.  A yes vote means simply that the individual feels that Roberts deserves to be confirmed; a no vote means the opposite.  Nothing more.  Neither necessarily indicates either strength or weakness.
            •  Sorry, there's a lot to lose (none)
              Voting "yes" says that Dem's are not unified, that they are willing to accept a candidate who dodges, weaves, and refuses to answer reasonable questions. It also says that they are willing to accept someone they know almost nothing about and that they trust Bush's judgment and integrity. Those are very dangerous messages to send.

              The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

              by Psyche on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 01:27:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  you exert influence by boycotting GOP contributors (none)
        Hold Republican contributors accountable for the poor functioning of this Republican administration and Republican controlled congress.

        If you have come to the point where complaining about the Republican party does not do much for you then browse this web page and take action. If you don't like the content of a television program, you call their sponsors and demand a change or you will boycott the sponsor. If you don't like the content of the Republican Party program, you call their contributors and demand the CEO call the Republican Party and get the  Republican Party to accede to your progressive agenda demands or you will boycott the contributor.

        http://tinyurl.com/8ghl8

         

      •  Your're wrong (none)
        The Republicans voted for Ginsburg. Why? Because they knew they couldn't win. Did they agree with her not answering questions? No. But, there wasn't much they could do about it. They fight where they can win.

        People on this site assume that other people vote for candidates based on the Supreme Court. Only the extremes on both side even care about the Court. The rest of the people care about putting food in their kids mouths, getting affordable health care, the war, American Idol, etc. etc.

        get more Evil at http://evilsite.blogspot.com

        by Evil on Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 12:39:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  WRONG! - Republicans voted for Ginsberg, because.. (none)
          She had already been cleared by the GOP Senate leadership.  In fact, the senate minority leader gave Clinton her name!
          •  Not Quite Accurate (none)
            It was Hatch, not the minority leader that gave Ginsburg the nod. However, he probably did that for reasons very similar to Leahy's. Both Ginsburg & Roberts were well-qualified candidates within the mainstream of their party's judicial philosophy.
          •  So, they really wanted Ginsburg? (none)
            No. It is true Hatch gave Clinton her name, but that doesn't mean that's who they wanted. They unederstood that Clinton was not going to appoint a conservative Justice. For some reason some on the left think we can make Bush appoint a liberal Justice. It won't happen.

            get more Evil at http://evilsite.blogspot.com

            by Evil on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 09:37:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  MaximusNYC Is On Target (none)
        A great comment and worthy of compulsory reading for EVERY Democrat.

        They are giving away the store.  

        We should  figure out how to blast them into unified action if it is still possible.

    •  Rolling For Roberts (none)
      You are so right. Democrats have been playing indecisive opportunistic politics for so long, they simply have forgotten what political unity and action means.

      Democrats have been rolling over for a long time, and their lack of political mission and vision has seriously compromised their ability to appear very different from the corrupt pork laden Republicans whose vile positions and destructive policies they actually endorse through inaction.

      This is the worst administration ever, and the Congress is back in 1935.  Democrats, while in the minority haven't shown that they are smart enough and brave enough to know how to pick their fights.

       Democrats have nothing to lose now as a damaged administration shows its ineptness to the world aided and abetted by a President whose promises have been broken.  Republicans are in a maze of corruption, lies, fiscal disaster, incompetence on every level brimming with cronyism, and still the Democrats are not coming out swinging.
       

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site