What Dems must do next: Go nuclear on next SCOTUS nomination

A strategy for the next nomination: Dems go nuclear
Now that Miers is out, it's time for the Democrats to get tough.  My advice: Block the next nominee as being too far right no matter who that person is.  Start planning a filibuster now - regardless of the nominee.  And five minutes after Bush announces the nominee announce that ___ (fill in the blank) is D.O.A. as far as Senate Democrats are concerned.

It doesn't matter who Bush actually nominates. Bush could nominate Thurgood Marshall from the dead and the Dems should proceed as planned.  "Marshall's a radical right-winger.  The president is cowing to special interests of extremists.  We won't stand for a radical conservative like Marshall."

Harry Reid should start the assault by questioning the president's motives.  "We were willing to give Miers a chance, but the radical right stopped the process and didn't even let her have her day in committee.  I don't think most Senate Democrats are going to stand for a radical extremist like Marshall."

Next, Edward Kennedy should lead the Left Flank.  The word filibuster should enter the debate on day.  Every conceivable right wing connection should be made, with Sens. Boxer, Feingold, Clinton, Kerry and Obama going on separate attacks all within hours of each other.

The debate should shift immediately from the nominee (in this example, the zombified Marshall) and to the strong and principled stance of Democrats against Bush's nominee.  

Next Howard Dean should say something controversial, like any Democratic Senator who doesn't back a unified front (hinting, only, at a filibuster) should ask themselves if they're really a Democrat.  The Party's Center should then go on the attack against Dean, demanding a clarification.  In time, Dean would say that he was misunderstood - he was only referring to the Party being united in general; his comments had nothing to do with the filibuster.  Each Senator should vote their conscience when it comes to voting for or against a filibuster to stop Bush's radical right nominee from moving forward.

Next, the Democrats should encourage a fight about up and down votes, by taunting the Republicans over Miers withdrawal.  They should start to leak information about how Miers was a closet moderate.  Democratic strategy papers about keeping a low profile over Miers (the closest moderate) should be leaked.  The point: Democrats wanted a moderate like Miers.  She was ousted by the Right wing of the Party and now they want to "force" an extremist (remember, it doesn't who Bush actually nominates) on the Court.

As this is going on, MoveOn.org should target rightward Democratic Senators with divisive rhetoric that demands they go on record on if they will or won't support a filibuster.  The entire Left of the Democratic Party should be on the attack - demonstrating that they can fight and will fight against extremist Right-wing judicial nominees.  From this will flow a mass of discussion and controversy about the tactics and the push for the filibuster.

Why do this?  Because the Democrats should force the Republicans to win.  

Right now George Bush is a wounded, lamb duck President with no political capital to speak of.  The Right of his Party has just mortally wounded him, and this provides the Democrats with a once-in-a-Presidential-term opportunity to define the power in power as extreme and out of touch with ordinary American values.  

Core message: If Bush is too weak to stand up to the extremists in his Party, we'll do it for him.  

In 2006 Congress will face reelection.  The only way for Democrats to win seats is to run strong local candidates who are seen as an alternative to the Party in power.  And the reason to have an alternative is because (1) it's not the same as what's in place (i.e. it is truly an alternate); (2) the Party in power is causing unrest by being too extreme and by wanting to change things in radical ways.

The next nomination is a rare chance for the Democratic Party to behave as an unmovable opposition in defense of moderation.  Since the Right just blocked Miers, all's now fair game.  And since Miers was a "closet moderate," anyone that Bush nominates can be labeled either an outright extremist or a closet extremist.

For the Democrats to define themselves as the opposition they need to force the Republicans to fight for a win - even if that means that the Democrats get beaten in the process.  So long as the fight defines the Republicans as extremists, and the Democrats as defenders of moderation, the Democrats will win in the long run.  In fact, such a fight provides just about the only reason for throwing the current Party out.

Moreover, a single strike strategy is a better one than to be forcing universal gridlock.  Bush has just delivered to the Democrats a single strike like none other.  Let's see if the Democrats take it, or if they just waddle of into permanent minority status instead.

A final note, this is serious advice.  For those who (correctly) note that a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court is too high stakes for this kind of game (especially since I say the Dems should do this for any nominee), my response is this: Turning back everything Bush has done by sounding defeating him at this time (when it can happen) may be the most important historical opportunity for any opposition Party in the history of the Republic thus far.  George Bush has destroyed many of the conventions, principles and traditions of our Republic.  He should be repudiated for this, and there are few things less important than stripping Bush of his legacy and his power now.

Cross posted: Political Porn

•  I agree with you, insofar...

  as I believe that Bush will respond with a far-right wacko.

  But if he does wise up and come with a consensus pick, the Dems should play nice.

  by peacemonger on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 09:45:00 AM PDT

  •  Yeah

    Let's see what Bush does... he may try to shore up his base by nominating a hard-right justice, in which case we shouldn't back down, but if he's weak enough that he has to nominate a moderate, we should save it.

    After all, we've got to start putting some energy into defeating those up for election in 06, and while putting dents in Bush's armor should help, it's not the end goal here.

    by matt le w on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 09:58:22 AM PDT

•  This is a fantastic diary WHY WHY WHY???

  did you post it today to be lost in the Fitzmas deluge. Will you and others please regurgitate this diary over and over again, over the next 10 day. I will.

  by Lawdog on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 10:08:29 AM PDT

  •  I will send it out on Monday again

    by Tom Kertes on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 10:55:36 AM PDT

•  Looks like the Wingers are setting the rules now

  According to CNN, the religious right is feeling very full of themselves now and is dictating terms of the next SCOTUS nomination:

  "I think [conservative groups] will swing into action again" if they disagree with his next pick, said Phyllis Schlafly, president of Eagle Forum. "The judicial issue was a major issue in the 2004 elections, and it was a reason why many people voted for Bush even though they might have been unhappy [with him] for other reasons."

  No announcement concerning a new nominee was expected Friday.

  Schlafly said Bush has "a dozen" possible people that conservative activists would accept, while she singled out U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as a nominee they could not embrace.

  by I like Ike on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 10:31:02 AM PDT

•  Yes, we'll have to stiffen our spine

  real soon.

  One thing Miers was right about, we were supposed to have given up infusing religion in our judicial process.

  Bush doesn't realize that.  So we'll have to remind him.

  A filibuster should be called for if he wants to impose the views of the rightwing on the court.

  by joan reports on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 11:00:41 AM PDT

•  No matter who Bush nominates?

  How irresponsible can you get?

  I think there's about a 50/50 chance that Bush is going to try to nominate a middle-of-the-road candidate. Such a candidate (if they make it through confirmation hearings) should be approved.

  The Dems can spin that as winning for their side as well: a weakened GOP was afraid any right-winger they put up would face united Democratic opposition.

  I'm not a fan of all politics, all of the time. The Democratic Party has to be seen as taken its responsibility to govern seriously, as well.

  by Bill Rehm on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 11:25:57 AM PDT

  •  fight dirty - it's time to play as they do

    if I were in a back room somewhere giving advice to Reid, that's the advice I'd give him - and I think it's what he should do

    by Tom Kertes on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 11:34:11 AM PDT

    •  Fighting dirty...

      Well, we can only hope you're not in a position to give advice.  Reid appears to be doing a pretty good job without you.

      If we "play as they do", then what do we become?
      Them. We become Delay, Rove, Frist, all of them. Except that because we have a conscience, we will never be as effective as they have been.

      We end up like BushCo, saying that Abu Gharib was worse when Saddam ran it. That's setting the bar nice and low. Never mind the carnage, we achieved regime change.

      IMO the point we need to reinforce about the Libby indictment is that Americans know that it's wrong to win at any cost.  The current junta in Washington doesn't care about collateral damage.  They care about winning. Period.

      I think in the next year or so we'll find out how many lives were lost due to this leak.  Rumour has it that there is already a new star on the wall at the CIA.  The CIA's damage assessment will eventually trickle out.

      If we do as you advise, we will be reinforcing the stereotype that the Republicans have tagged us with: knee-jerk partisans, obstructionists.  

      Let's make sure we have reason to go with our fury; if we do then we become righteous, not just shrill.

      Let's walk the walk of doing what's right for the country, rather than the party.

      by Court Jester on Fri Oct 28, 2005 at 07:00:39 PM PDT

      •  Better that than useless & weak

        You say: "If we do as you advise, we will be reinforcing the stereotype that the Republicans have tagged us with: knee-jerk partisans, obstructionists."  

        My response: If they are going to tag us, let's at least be that.  And this tag is better than the one that sticks - which is the Dems are weak and useless.  Now, who'd want to elect an opposition like that into power?

        by Tom Kertes on Sat Oct 29, 2005 at 03:18:26 PM PDT