We know that no matter what the Democrats do that they will be accused by Republicans of being partisan and obstructionist. That's their broken record theme song for the last 5 years and they aren't going to change it now.
What is partisanship? Its my understanding that partisanship is blindly following the position of party leaders with little consideration for the public interest. So far, Democratic leaders have expressed an open mind about John Roberts and a desire to further examine the man and his record. That doesn't fit the definition of partisanship.
The Republican response so far is very different. GOP Senate leaders immediately and universally expressed support for Bush's nominee. They did it before any hearings could be held or any time could be taken to thoughtfully examine the nominee.
In other words, they are acting like a cult following that accepts dictates from their leader without question. That fits the definition of partisanship.
Republicans would like to re-define partisanship as any opinion that differs from the dictates of King George. If the Senate chooses to fulfill its constitutional role to advise the President on this matter, that will be called partisan. Its an insincere propaganda tactic.
Bush doesn't seem to understand that bi-partisanship is a two way street. If he wanted an easy confirmation with bi-partisan support from Democrats then he should have nominated someone likely to receive some Democratic support. Instead, he picked someone who has twice previously been rejected by the Senate.
In the coming weeks you can expect the partisan and obstructionist label thrown at Democrats repeatedly. This post will serve as my pre-emptive debunking of that baloney.
Republicans took partisanship to new levels with Newt Gingrich, the Clinton impeachment, and their blind loyalty to Bush. I'm tired of hearing them project their own faults onto others.
cross posted from DownLeft