Frameshop | Breaking Frame

With the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, President Bush has trapped Democrats in the frame of "polite politics."

With the exception of Chris Bowers over at MyDD.com, Democrats all over the place are voicing the same argument:  let's be polite until we learn more.

Think about this:  Why do we believe it is impolite to aggressively question the nominee of George W. Bush?

We believe that it is impolite because the GOP has spent millions promoting the idea that Democrats will fight anything.  That is the frame for the Supreme Court nomination:  angry liberals.  It is amazing how quickly it has taken control of even the best minds out there.

A cursory glance at sites like the Judicial Confirmation Network--a partisan front set up to advance President Bush's Supreme Court agenda--exists solely to advance one idea:  Democrats block nominees.

Time and time again Democrats have faced this particular framing problem and been unable to understand what is happening.   And it is happening again.

The goal of the "Democrats obstruct" frame is to shut down all criticism of the President's policies by focusing attention on process.  That is the goal.  "Democrats are bad Americans because they block the process."

Right now, Democrats are afraid to break this frame because John Roberts has such a fragile demeanor.  It is one thing to attack Karl Rove, a well known political assassin.  But it is another to attack a judge with a relatively unknown record and such an angelic face.

Democrats must break frame to win this debate.  The idea that Democrats can be calm during this nomination and then really kick up the heat for the next one is totally flawed.  It's worse than that:  it helps the Bush White House by reinforcing the "polite politics" frame.

President Bush has never in his life nominated somebody to the court who did not have a history of obedience to the Bush family.  Not one time.  For President Bush, a nomination is a reward not an accomplishment.  

What is John Roberts being rewarded for?  In what way has John Roberts played "Mr. Obedience" to President Bush?

Two issues come to mind:

SECRET PRISONS:  John Roberts supported and gave legal legitimacy to Donald Rumsfeld's legal battle to hold prisoners in Cuba with a secret process.

ANTI-EQUALITY TERRORISTS:  John Roberts has a history of arguing in favor of the rights of terrorist groups that attacked doctors and women at medical clinics.

It will take some time to generate specifics and talking points about these two issues, but that does not mean that Democrats should sit back and re-enforce the GOP "polite politics" frame.

We can start by saying:

John Roberts has a history of obeying the President, both as an advocate and as a judge.

President Bush looks for nominees with a history of obedience.

Will John Roberts continue to obey the President if confirmed?

This is not about yelling or being angry.  George W. Bush has shown time and time again that he believes the purpose of government is to obey the will of the President.  And he has nominated and promoted those individuals who have proven their loyalty to the President by obeying even the most questionable requests.

America deserves a Supreme Court justice who obeys the Constitution, not a Justice who obeys the President.

We must break the "polite politics" frame and break it now.  

•  Break it, don't bend it.

  This politeness frame is being reinforced on a variety of levels, but anyone who thinks it is a last minute accident is mistaken.  This is not an accident.  President Bush's advocacy groups have been pushing this frame for months and months.

  by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:40:29 AM PDT

  •  Funny that you mention the use of APPROPRIATE

    I wrote this yesterday at my blog in relation to some women's use of "decorum" :

    culturekitchen | Flame, Blame & Shame : When Stepford Wives attack BlogSheroes
    http://www.culturekitchen.com/archives/003183.html

    Appropriate> is one of those words I have come to loathe since the day my first son was born. Decorum is the way to dress up, decorate, pretty up contempt for other people. Fuck appropriateness, fuck decorum.

    One of the things I always like to remember when dealing with women is the savagery known amongst chimpanzees and macaques. I read recently in a Natural History magazine of how an alpha-female will use her female relations to murder up-and-coming alpha-females (especially if they are either fertile or pregnant) and commit infanticides, sometimes cannibalistic, in an attempt to wipe-out the offending lineage.

    Now, given we humans are closer to chimpanzees than to gorillas, I'm going to say that it the reaction of the journalist/mother/employer does not come as a surprise. We're talking about a silver-back female competing not just socially but professionally for power. Instead of killing Tessa physically, Olen went ahead and tried to kill her character; using her newspaper column as a chimpanzee would use a club. And even if Tessa did not have kids, she is not only fertile for being a young woman but a fertile mind, and undiscovered talent that blogs and will go on to graduate school to further develop her future. Olen, in a chimpanzee sort of way, cannibalized Tessa's creations to establish her undisputed hegemony.

    And this is what women like her call "propriety" and "decorum". A swift and easy way to attack, kill and cannibalize verbally a female opponent.
    The timing on this is really weird given the panel I will be leading at Blogher. Why? Because I think women are more savage in their flaming than men.

    And I do mean it when I say I think women are more savage in their use of appropriateness. Why? Because we are taugh to decorate ourselves and become objects of admiration from the moment we come out of the womb.

    What we need to remember is that decorum and appropriateness are about dressing up or even better, dressing down BRUTE FORCE. You cover it, put make up on it, use florid words and a deferring tone and demeanor in order to refine that brute force and distill it into POWER. 'Decorum' is not about neutralizing power or savagery. 'Decorum' (and that other word we hear quite often, 'decency') is how we use of 'civility' in order to disguise 'savagery'.

    So what is the counterpoint to decorum? Wit and ridicule. Using the words of your opponent to undress their actions and expose their savagery. The goal is not to turn their words inside out and upside down. The goal is to unturn them --to "untrope" them, if I may use that word.

    Literary Critics : Start your engines. This is your game.

    Thanks Jeffrey!

    by liza on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:29:10 AM PDT

    •  must....be...anthropologist...

      Liza!

      Chimps are not more like humans than gorillas, but chips and humans are equal in their relationship to gorillas.  Aack!  That evolutionary tree.  Makes my head spin.

      You MUST read Donna Haraway's Primate Visions.  She talks all about this stuff.

      Wit and ridicule are great responses.  Absolutely.  Savage 'em.

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:42:13 AM PDT

      •  Are we going to fight this one out!

        C'mon, I read Natural History religiously. AMNH is like my second home. But, you know, I'll be polite and show decorum by deferring to your professorship.

        Heh.
        

        by liza on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:53:10 AM PDT

        •  It's Johansen's argument

          Australopithecus is the point just above gorillas, which then splits in two directions: chimps and humans.  

          The Leakeys believed in one continuous line, hence they searched for the "missing link" between humans.

          Read the Haraway essay on the way Leakey created the field of primate studies, choosing Jane Goodale to study chimps because he felt that women would better understand what he saw as evolutionary primitive versions of humans.  Men find the bones.  Women get to play with monkeys.  Leakey was a sociopath.

          Ah, this is great stuff.  But off topic...
          

          by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:04:55 AM PDT

    •  brilliant

      Thanks!

      Ridicule, si!!   Viva wit!!!

      by chumley on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:04:49 PM PDT

  •  Billmon Hits This One Out of the Park

    Check out Billmon's latest post, which is a direct response to acbonin's sense that since some Dems (including acbonin himself) are corporate lawyers, it wouldn't be polite to criticize Roberts for being a corporate lawyer.

    And also see Billmon's next-to-most-recent post (which kos responded to earlier today) that plausibly identifies fairness as "the liberal disease."

    Bottom line: we're either in this to try to defeat this nominee, or not.  Explaining how letting Roberts slide onto the court is actually a victory may show how clever we are, but it won't protect anyone's constitutional rights.  And the notion that losing the Roberts confirmation fight will pay dividends down the line is at best wishful thinking, and at worst a center-left version of the 1930s German Communist slogan "after Hitler, us" (and no, I am not comparing Roberts to Hitler nor the GOP to the Nazis; I am merely saying that  welcoming a major political defeat is delusional).

    Let's do everything we can to keep this nominee off the court. And if you must stop to ask yourself if we're being fair, think about whether it's more important to be fair to John Roberts, or to the millions of your fellow citizens who stand to lose if he makes it onto the court.

    by GreenSooner on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:06:47 PM PDT

    •  Sorry kos...

      ...that was Armando responding to Billmon that I linked to above.

      by GreenSooner on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:11:15 PM PDT

    •  I was just reading the Billmon posting

      and one thing occurred to me:

      While he is absolutely right that the GOP, a party with no short supply of "rich people" was able to "paint John Kerry as a cross between Mr. Magoo and Thurston Howell III", there seems to be another, much more germane lesson from the 2004 Election cycle for Roberts.

      He's a former corporate trial attorney.  Wasn't it John Edwards who was berated endlessly for that profession throught the fall last year?  Wasn't he basically accused of (at least) being the poster-boy for money-grubbing trial attorneys on the corporate dole; without scruples, convictions or a "moral compass"?

      What does that say of a man who argued that "Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly" and needed to be reheard.  A man who later, in his confirmation proceedings explained that away by saying he was simply arguing his client's point?  Is this a man who has a "moral compass" or has he simply been a moralistic whore for sale to the highest corporate bidder?

      Hell, the tar on the brush that the Repubs used on Edwards probably isn't even dry yet - why not trot it out to use on Roberts?!?

      by frisco on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:12:17 PM PDT

      •  There's a difference...

        between "corporate attorneys," of whom Roberts is one, and "plaintiffs' attorneys," the boogeymen of elections past.  Corporate attorneys represent corporations against plaintiffs; they are usually thought of as defense counsel.  Plaintiffs' attorneys represent individuals against corporations.  When Repugs decry the effects of plaintiffs' attorneys run amok, and paint Edwards with this brush, they are referring to the latter.  Since Roberts has represented corporate interests for the most part, he's "one of the good guys" according to the GOP.

        Just FYI.

        by erquirk on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:40:56 PM PDT

        •  You're right - I should not have muddled the 2

          But let's look at the other point of my posting - why not go after this "opinion for hire"?  Just because a particular client is paying you, is it thus OK to trash a SCOTUS decision?  Isn't their LEGAL view on something a little more sacrosanct than trying call, "Mulligan" or "Do-Over!" because your client doesn't like the result.

          If you're guided by legal and constitutional principle, I would argue that an attorney would pull up short and advise the client (at length) of the inappropriateness of the argument.  If the client persisted in the position, an attorney of principle could recuse her/himself and allow the client to use an attorney with a bit less firm moral grounding.

          That's not what Roberts purports to have done.  Of course, we all have our own suspicions about whether that position he took on Roe v. Wade belied what he said in his Senate confirmation hearings.

          I say, "That dadgummed brush is still wet.  Let's stoke up that fahr and get the tar a-bubblin'.  Oh, and pluck a few chicken feathers whilst you're at it."

          by frisco on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:51:04 PM PDT

      •  so true

        Roberts is a Breck boy.

        by 88kathy on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:01:31 PM PDT

      •  Edwards v Roberts

        Edwards fought AGAINST greedy, criminal corporations, Roberts defended them.

        by philgoblue on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:55:22 PM PDT

        •  So the application of tar here is more apropos

          You're right - I was wrong and muddle-headed to mix the two types of laywers together earlier, but I believe that makes my point about Roberts more pertinent.

          "If the tar & feathers fit, wear them."

          Where's that dang brush, again?

          by frisco on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:09:50 PM PDT

  •  Thank you for this

    I feel stronger just reading your words! The voters are losing faith in the Reps, but feel the Dems have nothing to offer. If the confirmation hearings are used constructively by us, we can put out a meaningful message and elucidate the "clear alternative" we are accused of lacking. The confirmation may go through, but a strong Dem message along with it.

    Thanks to the diarist - feeling more optimistic!

    by anotherCt Dem on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:37:04 PM PDT

  •  Jeffrey...

    I can assure you that the community of My Left Wing is not advocating politesse; the general consensus there seem to be ...

    TAKE THE MOTHERFUCKER DOWN.

    by Maryscott OConnor on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:03:02 AM PDT

    •  I've noticed!

      Sorry...had to build myself a little bit of a straw-woman to make my case.

      My Left Wing looks great!  Better than great:  a progressive art nouveau blog.  Awesome. I can already feel the seismic waves running through the media. I spent some time over there, yesterday. That "Star Trek Socialism" diary by Rosenberg was great. But there must have been a problem with my browser because I couldn't find the link to Frameshop ;)

      (Had any sleep since you launched?)

      by Jeffrey Feldman on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 04:18:19 AM PDT

      •  MY MISTAKE

        Adding you, POST HASTE!

        Come on over and post, baby. I dig your shit.

        by Maryscott OConnor on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 08:03:18 AM PDT

  •  So what might be a useful frame...

    for emphasizing that Roberts worked with Starr?  That paints him more as a partisan activist, not even an ideological activist.  
    And what about the decision just last week on the military tribunals?  Doesn't that look like a quid pro quo? Almost as if Bush had said to him, give me cover here and you've got a place in history.  Maybe even chief justice.  It looked like Roberts knew it was unconstitutional by the way he worded his decision.

    by expat germany on Thu Jul 21, 2005 at 12:42:29 AM PDT

•  Spines get more respect than

  undue deference.

  Excellent point, and recommended.

  I couldn't care less that Roberts has a brain and has made few actual decisions.  

  He wrote that Roe should be overturned, and in that he stands in opposition to the clear majority opinion in America. Period.

  Bush won't end abortion by criminalizing it, anymore than he will stop terrorism by killing terrorists.  He wouldn't know a root cause for a thing if it slapped him in the face.

  by Republic Not Empire on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:48:52 AM PDT

•  Middle ground.

  Let the impoliteness be about George Bush. In fact, let the whole thing be about George Bush. The suit they've put in the middle of all this is almost irrelevant.

  I wouldn't have any problem at all saying, "I'm so very sorry, Judge Roberts, sir. It's a terrible shame that this is happening to you after all your hard work. But you've had the poor fortune to be nominated by a president who's lost the trust of the American people through his lack of respect for the rule of law. And that's just not going to reflect creditably on you, as unfair as that may seem. For the moment, and without passing on your qualifications, it's not you. It's the man who nominated you."

  My own view is that it's not us who are being impolite to this nominee by ignoring his qualifications to focus instead on the morally bankrupt and increasingly illegitimate administration that nominated him. It's the president who's being impolite, by treating Judge Roberts' record and achievements not as actual qualifications for high office, but as cover for his administration's treason.

  by Kagro X on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:50:02 AM PDT

  •  That's a great point

    Let's not let Bush stand behind a man with such an angelic face.

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:03:06 AM PDT

    •  Excellent

      Someone who condones outing an undercover agent (and an Al Qaeda mole) for purely political purposes has no moral authority to make a Supreme Court appointment.

      by Upper West on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:36:25 AM PDT

      •  Response

        I am confused.  If Bush has no moral authority to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, what should he do now that Sandra Day O'Connor has resigned?  Keep a vacant Supreme Court seat until 2008?

        He may not have moral authority but he has constitutional authority.  He has to nominate someone.  I am not sure how we get anywhere with the argument that he is no moral authority.  I think that is a losing recipe for Democrats and it would be easy to paint them as obstructionists as they would be willing to oppose anyone Bush nominates just because Bush nominated him.  I think that is the definition of obstructionism.

        by Cardinal96 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:43:53 AM PDT

        •  Then maybe any lifetime nomination

          Should wait until the Plame matter (and perhaps the Khan) matters are resolved.

          Look -- I know that the "moral authority" argument is not likely to have resonance much beyond sites like this.

          But on the other hand -- imagine that Clinton had a S. Ct. nomination after Monica broke.  Do you think Clinton could have gotten any nomination through?

          Or imagine that Kerry or Gore was involved in outing a CIA agent. Would any nomination have gotten through?

          by Upper West on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:51:43 AM PDT

          •  Yes

            But the confirmation process would have been the shitstorm to end all shitstorms.  The gloves wouldn't come off -- they'd be loaded with lead shot, dipped in glue, and rolled in broken glass.

            What I believe Kagro X is saying (and coincidentally, I support 100%) is that this is an opportunity to make the entire process, from start to end, horribly painful and potentially quite damaging to the Bush administration.

            Bush and company have rushed a SCOTUS nominee into battle to distract from their own woes.

            This is a good thing if we play it right.

            We are now presented with an opportunity to highlight the worst excesses of the Republicans and further undermine the credibility of the Bush team.  We need to take every chance we get to highlight the fact that Bush shoved this guy into battle because his administration is in deep shit.

            -AG
            

            by AlphaGeek on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:19:17 PM PDT

        •  He could nominate an old person

          rather than a young guy who thinks it's ok to send a 12 year old to jail for eating a french fry.  

          There is no reason that Bush has to nominate anyone right now.  There is no magic in the number of supreme court justices, and seats have been open for extended periods of time before.  It's clear to anyone with a brain that this nomination has the simple political motivation of  distracting everyone from Rove's problems.  Predictably, it has most of the press pretty well confused.  

          by unterhausen on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:20:21 AM PDT

          •  Well said

            But I'm listening to NPR in New York, right now.  The press seems less confused, today, than a week ago.  There's lots of chatter about Roberts as problematic and the President's pre-announcement leak as deceptive.  It's NYC, I know.  So not exactly indicative of the whole country.  But it's a good sign.

            by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:24:17 AM PDT

        •  She's not leaving right this minute...

          her resignation takes effect once her replacement has been confirmed. So, even though it would be nice to let her go take care of her husband with alzheimers -- and there will certainly be LOTS of pressure to get it done RIGHT NOW -- there's really no rush.
          (from CNN : In a letter to President Bush, O'Connor said she needed to spend more time with her husband and would leave her post after the confirmation of her successor. )

          by TiaRachel on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:15:20 AM PDT

        •  There is no vacancy

          Don't fall for the line of thinking that suggests there is now a vacancy on the court, a crisis that requires swift action. Justice O'Connor made it clear that she would retire only when a replacement had been selected and confirmed.

          Just sayin', is all...

          by Blue Texan on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:42:33 AM PDT

        •  Exactly, Greate idea

          If Bush has no moral authority to nominate a Supreme Court Justice, what should he do now that Sandra Day O'Connor has resigned?  Keep a vacant Supreme Court seat until 2008?

          Nothing, and yes.  That is exactly what I would like to see happen and since Bush in uninterested in putting country before party that is what he should get.  Roberts's life story is one of unashamed Republican partisanship and we deserve better as Americans.

          He has been denied a judgeship before when Bush I nominated home back in '91 and thus has only served briefly on the Bench.  The first more than the second is important.  Bush cannot bring himself to nominate someone who is not contentious.

          If we fail to confirm a nominee until 2006, then we can really ask   the people if Roberts should be on the court, do we think they will say "No"?  We can really ask the people what they think of the Rove/ DeLay plan for permanent one party rule.  Do you think they will say "Yes"?  We can then point to any gains in the House or the Senate to convince the President to take our advice so that he might get our consent.

          by Luam on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 11:01:04 AM PDT

          •  Actually

            She resigned effective nomination and confirmation of her successor.  Check it out. It's in her letter of resignation.

            by fightorleave on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:59:41 PM PDT

        •  "Consensus" candidate

          He could nominate a genuine consensus candidate.  Of course, there's no such thing, since the religious right would howl at anyone acceptable to the vast majority of the nation.

          by mwk on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:26:12 PM PDT

    •  Polite questions

      The game that's being played is equating asking questions with being impolite.

      If the President had wanted to avoid questions, he would have chosen a different nominee. He had several suitable, and better-known, candidates from whom to choose, but he decided to put forward the mystery candidate.

      I trust that our Senators will ask their questions politely, as they seek to understand this candidate's suitability for a life-long appointment to the highest court of the land. But I also expect that they will ask those question - anything less would be a failure to live up to one of the most significant responsibilities of the office to which they have been elected.

      by mataliandy on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:30:18 PM PDT

  •  so totally agree

    that is exactly the way to handle it.  It's not you it's your boss.  It should and must be done.  

    by fightorleave on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:59:00 PM PDT

•  Nice Jeff.

  Obedience!

  And those that disobey are blackballed, even at the cost of our National Security.
  

  by missliberties on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:09:08 AM PDT

  •  Ignorance is Strength

    Freedom is Slavery.
    War is Peace.... you know the drill.

    We mst be strong and stand our ground without wavering. As I said in another dary, the Daschle days of Whine and Appeasement are over. Meet the new democratis party.

    by Timroff on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:52:17 AM PDT

•  Is this a battle we can win?

  Do we have the numbers, in the best-case scenario, to defeat the nomination of someone with such an anemic record?

  I don't think we're gonna win against Roberts unless we convince the right he's pro-choice by trumpeting his statements: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land," and "There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

  Unless we somehow spark a Christofascist resistance to Roberts's rabid pro-abortion position, is there any way we take this nomination down?

  by GussieFN on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:17:27 AM PDT

  •  The battle isn't just about Roberts

    The GOP is  using this battle to set key ideas in place.  If we don't fight this, we will be trapped for the next round.  We must fight this.  We must fight for the terms of this debate.

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:23:25 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely

      agree, but we must be very clear (as I think you are--for which thanks) that the battle here is for ideas, not a nominee, and for the terms of debate, not a justice.

      I think while 'prisons' and 'terrorists' might not be the most productive frames, 'blind obedience,' as you suggest, is fantastic. "Is blind obedience to President Bush a quality we want in a Supreme Court Justice?" is a great loaded question. "Look where blind obedience to the President got us in Iraq."

      Thanks for the diary. Thought-provoking, as always.

      by GussieFN on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:38:12 AM PDT

      •  absolutely

        Yeah, the prisons and terrorists stuff (lol) may be a bit (ehem), heavy.  But like you, I do think the word/idea "obey" has legs.

        by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:40:24 AM PDT

        •  me too.

          Sensational post, Professor.  Tremendously acute perception of what's going on & what's at stake..

          With astute pointed questioning, seems to me the D's in the Senate can elicit his positions & sow a little mayhem 'mongst the Rapture brigade, as has been suggested.

          Thanks, maestro.

          by Tulip on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 04:16:55 PM PDT

      •  Has anyone found the link to

        Roberts' Hamdi/enemy combatants decision?

        by fightorleave on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:01:25 PM PDT

    •  Setting key ideas in place

      I've mentioned this before in another thread, but it bears repeating here:  This is the democrats' chance to showcase their values.  I think we lose on Roe v. Wade because we won't change any minds on that front.  The frame has to be that George Bush is continuing his legacy of eroding constitutional rights, expanding presidential powers and fighting against working Americans with this nominee.  Of course we disagree with some of his social positions, but does the president really want to install someone who will fight against working Americans?

      by Webster on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:21:49 AM PDT

  •  Depends which battle you want to have.

    Roberts was nominated because of the subject. An "irresistible" nominee, complete with suit and hairdo, perfectly formulated: not too tart, not too sweet.

    We can't win on Roberts to the extent that we agree to have the fight be about Roberts. Let the fight be about how the depraved traitors in the administration are wasting this man's life's work by using it as a veil for their criminality.

    by Kagro X on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:31:48 AM PDT

    •  As I responded to Jeffrey,

      above, and JamesB3 on another thread, I think you're exactly right. (I guess everyone understood this but me--wouldn't be the first time.) Fight the long-term strategic battle using this nomination to define terms, and fight the current battles (about the depraved traitors) with this nomination.

      I'm the last one to the finish line, but I get there in the end ...

      by GussieFN on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:41:43 AM PDT

  •  Are we supposed to meekly surrender

    any time we aren't sure we can win a battle? This is yet another prime instance where Democrats need to stand up for the traditional values of the Democratic party and not just be Republican Lite all over again. I'm very much in agreement with Jeffrey on this.

    by roses on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:35:15 AM PDT

    •  If the dems don't grow a spine soon

      then we can kiss Roe v Wade goodbye. And environmental, worker's, and civil rights won't be far behind. Just wish I could see a way to light a fire under the asses of the fence sitters who suport dem ideals, but will bow to this polite nonsense.

      by grizmaster on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:58:22 AM PDT

      •  Agreed. If there's always going to be

        some rationalization at every point for choosing the Republican Lite route at the expense of traditional Democratic values, why bother to have a Democratic party at all? This nominee's record touches unfavorably on all major Democratic values. If questioning his record and voting against his confirmation because of his record are not considered important enough stands for Democrats to take, what is?

        by roses on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:27:17 AM PDT

•  What do we win, if we lose?

  I'm not trying to be facetious, as there could be some other victory even if the direct blocking of a bad nominee is not achieved. So what would we win in a losing battle to block this nomination?

  Is the attempt here to get the message out about Bush caring only about loyalty, power, and the consolidation thereof -- at the expense of the country -- or is it an attempt to actually influence this selection process to our favor?

  If its about Bush, then I wonder if using the confirmation process is the most efficient vehicle.

  If the effort is solely about blocking the nominee, then it might be well worth trying to analyze up front what our chances of success are or wait for the process to unearth more promising grounds.

  Approving of a nominee could, for instance, be a chance for us to reiterate why someone like Priscilla Owens, who was clearly unsuited and qualified for anything but a purely political position, was so worth resisting. But it could also seem like rolling over.

  But really, there might be something to be gained in a losing battle too, I just can't think of what it is.  Also, I suppose, there's the chance that something  more than money could be lost in a losing battle...like switching the media attention here, instead of more promising areas of  discussion for our big picture.

  by powers662 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:33:30 AM PDT

  •  Every battle we don't show up for, we lose

    What we win is the opportunity to push back the terms set by Bush.

    Bush has the opportunity with this nomination to erase everything that has happened in the past two weeks of the Plame Game (e.g., Leakgate, Iraqgate, Plamegate, etc.).  

    His big issue is honesty.  A majority of the country now sees him as dishonest.  The public sees him as not being truthful about Iraq, Social Security, crimes committed in the airplane seat next to him.

    We must use this debate as an opportunity to maintain control of the larger issues.  Roberts may well get confirmed.  But we do not want to let him become an opportunity for the President to show how honest and fair the Bush White House is.

    It's going to be tough, and I don't think my little "Mr Obedience" line is going to do the job alone.  But we must make a real effort, here.
    

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:38:56 AM PDT

  •  Principles and values

    Democrats need to be standing up for principles and values, not rubber-stamping a nominee who unqualified because of his inexperience and who is inappropriate because of his right-wing extremism. There is nothing to be gained by voting for this guy simply to appear "reasonable" or "willing to compromise." That might have been a worthwhile strategy back when their used to be bargaining in the House and Senate, but the Republicans have brought a complete end to that. Democrats need to take the opportunity here to show that they will in fact stand up for core Democratic and American ideals and for "the little guy"--that is, U.S. citizens, not further enhancement of corporate and elite wealth, and not torture, cover-ups, invasion of privacy, and so on.

    by roses on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:41:08 AM PDT

    •  please excuse typos

      I really need to proofread when I'm so upset!

      by roses on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:42:25 AM PDT

      •  I have zeor tolerence tipeos (n/t)

        by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:48:21 AM PDT

  •  It is LOYALTY stupid

    Is the attempt here to get the message out about Bush caring only about loyalty, power, and the consolidation thereof -- at the expense of the country -- or is it an attempt to actually influence this selection process to our favor?

    YES.  It is to get that one message out.  The message I can't for the life of me understand why Kerry didn't trumpet everyday of his campaign.

    Bush and the GOP care more about loyalty to the PARTY than to the COUNTRY.

    That should be the Dem point all the time, plain and  simple.  You can change your version depending on audience somewhere in the range of "traitors" to "cronies," but we should always be seizing on the stories that play into this narrative- "It is loyalty stupid."

    by jasonwhat on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:35:30 AM PDT

  •  Good Points and. . .

    What do we win if we win?

    Who is the next nominee coming down the pike in the event Roberts is not confirmed?  Someone less acceptable, more wingnutty?  And the next?  Is the Democrats' position going to be oppose anyone Dubya nominates because Dubya nominated him/her?

    Get real.  

    Distasteful as he may be to our liberal sensibilities, does that equate to his being unqualified?  Exactly what are Roberts' jurisprudential unqualifications?  In his case, he's written little.  A no-track-record nominee is hard to oppose using a "qualifications" test.

    I believe Democrats must be Rovian in this case -- have a plan that projects beyond the instance immediately in front of you; anticipate the alternatives and have a contra-position delineated and defined on their nominations -- if such are unqualified -- as well.

    Otherwise, an opposition strategy that is underprepared is going to war "with the army one has, rather than the army one wants."  In this case, like in Iraq, a fatal error.

    by Limelite on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:57:59 AM PDT

•  Roberts is a diversion

  Congress is shutting down for the summer recess and there is plenty of time to deal with Roberts in the fall.

  Right now is the time to exploit the Plame scandal 24/7. The way that front is evolving, we may have Cheney on the ropes and out relatively rapidly. Then we can go for Bush's throat.

  If this major battle pans out, the Roberts nomination is moot.

  by unclejohn on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 05:57:05 AM PDT

•  I agree

  But I still think we need to seize this debate by the throat before Bush uses it to cover his naked, lilly white, cover-up pushing ass.  Whether we like it or not, the media will be all  over the Roberts nomination for one media cycle.  

  But I totally agree:  eyes on the prize, too.  If news really spreads about that plane ride to Africa--an entire administration in on the same crime--the nomination will be moved down the schedule to make way for (ahem), a Senate proceeding of a much grander scale.

  by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:02:42 AM PDT

•  Angry liberals - WTF

  Damn straight we're angry.  We are angry at a President who was coronated in his first term and won his second term with the most egregious attack on a war veteran in history.  We are angry that he was asleep at the switch on terrorism on 9/11 and struts as the warrior against terrorism since 9/11 without having done one single thing to protect the American people.  We are angry that the Bush War on Terrorism resorts to torture, extrajudicial seizures, "extraordinary rendition", suspension of habeas corpus, and arbitrary detentions of US citizens without charges.  We are angry that a $200 billion surplus has been turned through "tax cuts" into indentured servitude to corporations and foreign governments of the next three generations of Americans.  We are angry that jobs are recovering too slowly from the worst recession since the Great Depression, and the President took the attitude of "What, me worry?"  We are angry that the nominee Roberts might vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, but we are even more angry that he might vote to reverse the basis on which a lot of the economic progress for average people has been made over the past eighty years.

  Damn straight, we are angry liberals.

  by TarheelDem on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:16:45 AM PDT

  •  and we are angry

    because bushco's second in command put our collective security at risk by outing a covert operative for the sole purpose of retaliating against that operative's husband who had (correctly) challenged the lies being spewed by the bushco team as an excuse for their imperialist war-profiteering march into teh iraq quagmire.

    by nycnat on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:48:00 AM PDT

•  And:

  Anytime a Republican or media shill accuses us of yelling, throw it back at them by saying they're playing the victim, like a spoiled brat. Because that's what that is.

  by Eternal Hope on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:19:02 AM PDT

•  Who did Rove betray today?

  How did the Iranians find out we could read their codes?
  Who did Rove betray today?
  Where is Osama?
  Who was the Anthrax bomber?
  Why are we ignoring domestic terrorists like Eric Rudolph?  
  When do we get a balanced budget?

  There are both Rights and Responsibilities to the office of President.  We can start talking about Bush's supreme court rights once he's met his constitutional responsibilities.

  by jm1963 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:20:33 AM PDT

•  What's the plan?

  Frankly I don't see Bush withdrawing a nominee ever, for any reason.  The only way to stop a Bush nomination from getting through would therefore be to filibuster the pick at least until 2006 (assuming we can pull off a massive Senate upset) and more likely until 2008.  

  Sorry to play "reluctant Dem" here, but the only way we win on this issue is if Senate hearings reveal Roberts to either be 1) in possession of some serious skeletons, or 2) way out of the political mainstream on important issues.  Now, he may very well be #2, but he can simply dodge blunt "how would you rule here" type questions and we will never know.  Maybe it's just me, but I think America is going to be pissed if we're into 2007 and we're still filibustering this guy.  

  I say we focus now on the Senate hearings and, yes, wait until we can find out something concrete about this guy.  When the decision to filibuster needs to be made, we have to sit down and make sure we aren't fighting windmills.

  by tipsymcstagger on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:27:30 AM PDT

  •  I don't agree

    The GOP started to unroll their strategy on this nomination months ago.  Months ago.  And it is this:

    Liberals want to take away your right to own property.

    Liberals want to impose foreign law on America.

    Liberals want to kill babies.

    Liberals  want to shut down government.

    All those ideas will be reinforced whether or not we are polite or angry or whatever.  Those are the ideas put in place by the White House.

    Now, it is always a long short to derail a nominee.  The question is what do we want to achieve in this debate.  

    Clarence Thomas was confirmed and in the process the concept of sexual harassment was articulated to the public.  That was a huge, important accomplishment achieved by the Left as they lost a nomination battle.

    So, what can be accomplished in this battle?

    We can re-enforce the frame of a corrupt President.  This time, with the idea of a President who rewards obedience and destroys disobedience.  

    And that--whether Roberts is confirmed or not--is a very important line to advance.

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:35:54 AM PDT

    •  If it turns out

      That Roberts possesses demonstrable (operative word) faults, then I'm on board with you.  A protracted battle would then drive home the point to America that the current GOP is, itself, well out of the mainstream, politically.  Particularly, if a Specter or one of his ilk shows serious misgivings over this nominee, we are in a strong position.  But we need to be smart about this.  If we get into a long filibuster over assumptions, it will hurt us politically.

      by tipsymcstagger on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:47:04 AM PDT

      •  BTW

        I understand Roberts has made a comment indicating that Roe should be overturned.  Hopefully, this will allow us to get some sort of real answers on the abortion question.  Because, if Roberts actually can be shown to actively oppose Roe, this would be just the sort of winning wedge issue you referred to.  But I just think we need to wait for something concrete like that before we take a "filibuster or bust" attitude.

        by tipsymcstagger on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:54:22 AM PDT

      •  Fair enough

        The details of troublesome Roberts positions will come out in the next few days.

        But for today, I think the big questions is:  Can we make political strides against the Bush administration if we don't take a pro-active stance in the Robert's proceedings?  I don't think we can.  So I see this nomination process as primarily about advancing a set of ideas that frame Bush.  In the past few weeks we have made enormous strides in advancing the idea that George Bush is a President who stands in opposition to the people. He sends our children to die in a war we don't want, he lies to us, he protects his cronies, and he spends us into oblivion.  We are pushing a broad set of ideas and the Roberts nomination should be seen as an opportunity to continue that, not as a moment to be cautious.  

        We will always advance on a balance of winning of losing.  Even in Rove scandal, there are elements that are hurting  the Democrats.  But overall: we are tipping the frame.

        So, I am 100% in agreement with your sentiment, but still see this as an opportunity to move our agenda forward.

        by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:59:14 AM PDT

  •  Expressed My Reservations Above

    While I'm not reluctant to do battle over any Bush nominee, I am reluctant to go into battle poorly prepared.

    There may be a skeleton in Roberts' closet, distasteful enough to rally strong opposition to him, especially if one (read right-winger) is fond of the yellow magnet ribbon touting "Support Our Troops."  That crowd should be aroused over this from law.com:

    In another decision last June, Roberts went even further than his colleagues in supporting the Bush administration in a case that pitted the government against veterans of the first Gulf War. American soldiers captured and tortured by the Iraqi government during the first Gulf War sued the Iraqi government in U.S. court and won nearly $1 billion in damages at the district court level.

    But once Saddam was toppled in 2003, the Bush administration wanted to protect the new Iraqi government from liability and intervened to block the award. Roberts, alone among the circuit judges who ruled with the government, said the federal courts did not even have jurisdiction to consider the victims' claim. An appeal is before the Supreme Court.

    by Limelite on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:07:58 AM PDT

    •  Frame and then justify

      While I'm not reluctant to do battle over any Bush nominee, I am reluctant to go into battle poorly prepared.

      While it's wonderful to go into battle well prepared (God, I wish Rummy understood this), when battle is thrust upon you, waiting until you're ready to respond to the onslaught is frequently a losing proposition.  

      Your citation -- along with all the evidence we in the blogosphere can gather about Roberts' opinions and possible judicial views is valuable -- but only so long as we stay alive long enough to use it.

      Right now, the battle is to keep this nomination from becoming viewed as a done deal.  That battle can't wait until September.  It can't even wait until tomorrow.  We have to start responding now.

      by katerina on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:58:19 PM PDT

•  They love to play to our sensitivities

  The right loves to appeal to our better natures. It's a trick, and we fall for it all the time.

  There is nothing impolite about calling out outrageous behavior. There is nothing indecorous about pointing out the obviously politically-timed nature of the Roberts announcement. There is nothing shameful about challenging the repeatedly unethical, immoral and often illegal behavior of the administration and the Republican party cronies.

  However, nearly every breath, move, statement, or action that comes from them is disgusting, outrageous, impolite, and devoid of sensitivity.

  Turn the tables. Put it back on them-JF is right: don't play into their frame. And never back down from a fight. As long as you run from the bully, he will continue to torment you.

  by hyperstation on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:33:28 AM PDT

•  "Rove vs Wade"

  It could be polite to let everyone think about Roberts over the summer (thus demonstrating Democrats are people of reason and patience, not hyperreactive anger).  I am concerned over the loss of a woman on the Supreme Court, being replaced with a man who may seem "nice" but doesn't have woman's best interests in mind. What a backwards step in such a squeaky clean looking choice.  
     But it's a diversion.  The outing of Plame isn't "old news".  Neither is the Iraq War and who got us there.  Republicans are so proud to say that the Bush administration is so focused, so hardworking.
     Well, so are Democrats. There needs to be complete attention on completing old business before heading on to new.  And the business is- the president and his staff should be investigated for ethical issues.  People who aren't ethical aren't in any position to be appointing judges because their own reasoning is corrupt.

  by offred on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:33:43 AM PDT

•  Doing my part

  to break the frame:  I've heard all I need to hear. Fuck Roberts!  Fuck him and his Roe v. Wade hating self!  Im writng a letter to my congresspeople who have already made up their minds but Im writing anyway.

  by Stink Tank on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:37:14 AM PDT

•  Hooray!

  Looser frame: "Very impressive smart guy. We need full and frank discussion of Griswold, Roe, and other cases which we can name because we are so durn smart - won't our high school debate coaches be impressed."

  Winner frame: Another extremist member of the secretive Federalist society. Why do all nominees have to belong to this group? Do you take a secret oath of any sort? Why did the Fed society defend a rapist against Federal Abuse laws? Do you think rapists should get medals? The right to jury trial and to confront your accuser is the most fundamental in the constitution - do you agree with the Bush administration that we should allow them to just arrest and hold anyone they want based on their word? Do you still agree even though we know that they lie all the time? You say you can't answer the question because it is before  your court - so wouldn't it be a violation of our duty to confirm someone who won't even support the plain language of the constitution about our most fundamental freedoms ?
  

  by citizen k on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:53:11 AM PDT

  •  The Fed Society isn't secretive

    Get over the Fed Society.  Just about EVERY slightly conservative law student in this country is a member of the Federalist Society.  

    The next Supreme Court justice will also be a member of the Federalist Society.  

    If the Fed Society is what hangs you up, then no judicial pick is going to satisfy you until Dems return to the White House.

    by Whiskey Sam on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:57:29 AM PDT

    •  of course it is secretive

      You might as well argue that the CIA is not secretive because it recruits on every college campus.

      And I very much doubt that anyone Bush appoints will satisfy me. This is a guy who sent the soliciter general to the Supremes to argue that the President does not have to follow habeus corpus if he doesn't feel like it and who promoted Gonzales for claiming that an ice-pick in the knee was not torture since it was not intended to cause a fatality. You people who keep pretending that we have a mere difference of opinion have your heads in the sand. The Federalist society is a part of a tacit and sometimes explicit conspiracy to overthrow the rule of law in the United States and impose a radical version of theocratic tinged executive power.
      

      by citizen k on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 10:11:57 AM PDT

•  Don't Frame -tell the truth

  I hate Framing. Just tell the damn truth. The truth resonates. It has a power of it's own. An example of how truth gets distorted is Plamegate. This is a nothing even compared to the Iraq War. The Geneisis of Plamegate is the Iraq war. People should be attacking Bush on this monstrous illegal war, instead they are using Plamegate as a way to attack the war. To frame things is just to get all tangled up in words and your own cowardice, especially if you are interested in the truth.

  The Power of the truth is something that does not have immediate impact. That's why no one likes it. But over time it;s overpowers everything. It's undeniable. Lies have immediate impact, truth is a seed that grows into something strong.

  by stu piddy on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 06:59:56 AM PDT

  •  All truth is framed

    There is no such thing as a metaphor-free zone. Has to do with the way the mind works. So you have to be aware of the grand metaphors at play in the background. They define the game, and what can even count for credible truth within it.

    This isn't to say there's not an objective reality that our attempts at truth don't strive to approximate. It's just to say that we only approach it through frames. There's plenty of research on this in "cognitive linguistics," which is what Lakoff comes out of (although within his profession he actually prefers alternate technical terms to "frames").

    In politics, in particular, the objective reality to a large extent is the frames which are being used. This doesn't mean being cute about the truth; it's not like a decorative picture frame where the real point should be the picture; it's as if the frame were the paint. In that sense, "frame" really is a bad term, frames it badly.

    by wytcld on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:15:46 AM PDT

    •  Don't talk to me about Reality

      You don't know how the mind works. Lakoff is not a scientist and linguistics is not a science and cognition is not understood as it to is not a science. We humans do not understand what we are, where we have been or where we are going. History proves that. We call ourselves intelligent beings but we are not intelligent we are perverse. We are historically destructive. We are destructive in plain sight of the obvious TRUTH that it is better to live (work something out) than to die i.e. got to war.

      That's all very nice ...the terms that people use like "frames" and "cognition" they are hypothetical constructs to help people talk about the mind. Something no one seems to understand. If humans undestood what the "mind" was, we certainly wouldn't be in such a horrific state of technological advancement which mixes  destruction and construction all together as if it were the same thing. We build atom bombs and refigerators. Something is wrong. What is wrong is we don't know where we are and how we got here.

      The Truth is not a mental experience made of constructs. It is a felt experience first and foremost. It is like a chord. If it is dissonant it is felt, if it is harmonius it is felt or better sensed.

      Human beiing are not mental they are sensual. That's one of the things we are confused about. The Truth is something that is sensed because it is in harmony. It is felt.

      Forget about your frames, they are high priced bullshit. It's a con. It's salemanship without integrity. It;s manipulation. It can only be a lie, because you are not saying what you are (feel and sense) you are saying something you have constructed and what you have constructed is an atom bomb of language that will only be used destructively to manipulate.

      by stu piddy on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:06:23 PM PDT

  •  Good points

    Can I agree with your point about truth and still keep at the framing?

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:34:34 AM PDT

  •  framing is speaking clearly

    One problem with the Democrats is that they don't speak clearly to any important audience. A policy-wonkish 20 minute speech about Griswold and pnumbras might contain some of the same information as "you creeps want to be able to tell married couples when to have children and to stick your noses under the bedcover and arrest people for taking birth control pills", but the first has the connotational information "I really do think I'm smart" and the second carries "I am standing up against creeps and for liberty".
    

    by citizen k on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 10:19:11 AM PDT

    •  Framing Up

      You are intellecuatlizing everything, which is what framing is all about.

      If the Democrats had a candidate who could speak, spontaniously, and improvise he would have easily beat George Bush. Even if he wasn't always truthful. A little dose of truth could have beat Bush. But Kerry was unable to relax, so he want' trusted. It wasn't what he said, it's how he said it. He should have responded the way he FELT when it came to the swift boat campaign. THat would have resonated. I understand he was very angy. But he was scared of letting anyone know how he felt i.e who he was. So he didn't resonate. A little emotion, a little anger a little humor, a little anything basic from a candidate will resonate.

      Framing is just what it is ...Frame up.

      by stu piddy on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:14:41 PM PDT

•  There is a common theme

  between Frameshop's and Kid Oakland's diaries: Both are urging administration opponents to approach the SC nomination by focusing on Bush's flaws, esp. his lack of credibility.

  Frameshop suggests Bush is not honest in his call for "politeness" because the nomination in reality is a reward for obedience. Kid Oakland's position is to question the judgement of a president embroiled in scandal.

  Some combination of the two seems in order. Kid Oakland's approach would keep Plovegate in the public eye, which is a must. Jeffery wants to focus on Roberts' rulings that support the obedience theory. (Along those lines, let's add that Roberts solidified the executive branch's power to deliberate in secret, another example of obedience.)

  It's a one-two punch. Jab jab. Jab jab.

  by bobinkc on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:02:27 AM PDT

  •  nice

    That's a good reading.

    by Jeffrey Feldman on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:15:06 AM PDT

    •  I meant to reference

      the D.C. ciruit court's ruling that allowed Cheney to keep secret his Energy Committee meeting records, implied in my original comment but not spelled out. Roberts of course was a judge in that unanimous decision.

      Now we need to get the ears of Senate Dems, the DNC, NARAL, PFAW, etc., and have them frame the debate as "Bush's choices are suspect because..." - focusing on the WH scandal and insistence on obedience to the president vs. loyalty to America - we may have a shot at achieving the most important goal of all (and the crux of Jeffrey's post): Winning the debate.

      by bobinkc on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:34:26 AM PDT

  •  Plove Gate is sooooo Sexy!

    Plovegate? Whatever happened to the Iraq War? Plame gate is nothing. Iraq gate is something. But democrats are too cowardly too busy thinking up fancy ways to frame things while innocent people are dying. Bush should have been beaten to death now by Iraq, but  so few  spoke truthfully before the war began and afterward so it isn't  sexy enough. Plamegate is sexy. There a blond in it.

    by stu piddy on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 01:46:30 PM PDT

  •  More obedience

    Comments in other diaries have shown that Roberts was also at least peripherally involved in Iran-Contra; more recently, he was Ken Starr's deputy witchhunter.  Jeffrey is absolutely right that Roberts is being rewarded for his obedience.

    by Leslie in CA on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:55:41 PM PDT

•  Gore v. Bush

  He is being rewarded for his role in Gore v. Bush.  This presents a clear and dangerous conflict of interest for when the indictments of Karl Rove and others come up to the Supreme Court.

  One of the key criteria of this appointment is making sure that the appointed judge will whitewash criminal behavior in the Bush administration.  The health of the Supreme Court and qualifications of the candidate are incidental and only of use to the administration insofar as they make it easier to get the nominee through confirmation.
  

  by kenjib on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:11:30 AM PDT

  •  Not reward

    I want to clarify.  The Bush does not use appointments as reward as the original post states.  Rather, appointments are use to insure that the government is filled with people whose loyalty to George Bush is above their loyalty to country.
    

    by kenjib on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:15:00 AM PDT

•  Use the french fry incident

  People love stories.  People instinctively react to stories of overzealous authority.  According to PFAW, "Roberts ruled against a 12-year old girl who was handcuffed, arrested and taken away by police for eating a single French fry on the D.C. Metro, even though an adult would only have gotten a paper citation in that situation."

  That seems to me like a perfect story.  And it fits the overall theme: abuse of power.  Roberts, like his partisan Republican friends, is unwilling to prevent the abuse of power.

  by BrooklynRaider on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:13:59 AM PDT

  •  Yes n/t

    by outside observer on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:25:08 PM PDT

•  Rewarding Loyalty

  
  If the new frame is that Bush rewards loyalty, a key fact to integrate is that Roberts worked for Bush in the Bush v. Gore case.  

  This nomination is his reward.

  by p j s on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:18:16 AM PDT

  •  Like the Mob

    Bush rewards loyalty like the Mob does. It's not like the rewards that decent people would agree loyalty deserves. Rather, it's the sort of code of loyalty where any illegal actions are seen as justified towards those percieved as disloyal -- even if that "disloyalty" is just telling the truth. And it's the sort of loyalty where those on the inside, who show the proper "respect," are richly rewarded with a share of the take.

    The loyalty of the Mob.
    

    by wytcld on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:25:04 AM PDT

  •  Can we tie him and Bolton together

    as the men who made Bush President?

    by Webster on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:54:26 AM PDT

•  Durbin

  I didnt' see Durbin on TV last night as trending towards Fealty to this President.

  I think that his frame was "agressively inquisitive but civil."

  Not "rubber stamp" but "advise and consent."

  We've got a tough row to hoe here, and, barring some dirt in his closet, we will not succeed (not negativity but realism).

  Thomas was a sexual harasser at EEOC and he got through 52-48 when he replaced Thurgood Marshall.  That was 100-fold worse than we are dealing with here.

  What Ds cannot afford to be is "unreasonble" and obstructionist for obstructionst's sake will be unreasonable.

  This is what we warned folks about, and Kerry warned folks about, during the election, and we lost.

  Had Kerry won, we'd be saying that the Rs in congress would have to confirm a well qualified liberal replacement for Rehnquist and SOC regardless of a shift to the left.  We ought not lose sight of that.

  We've got to inquire aggressively, but civilly, but also realize that we have been handed a shit sandwich and we are all likely going to have to take a bite.

  by MRL on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:28:25 AM PDT

•  Absolutely!

  We keep tying it all together, and we keep a clear throughline.

  "Rewarding Loyalty"
  "Rubber-Stamp approval of anything the prez sez"
  "obidient to the president, not the constitution"
  "Willing to smear those who oppose them"
  "willing to smear heroes for political gain"
  etc.

  most important, that the opposition voice does not sound like "noise" as this is what they thrive off. The more noise and the more confusion in the national dialog, the more they get away with.

  -paco

  by Paco3000 on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:34:55 AM PDT

•  Kagro X has a good frame here

  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/20/10256/4848

  That I have recommended.

  No quarter.

  by apotropaic on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:45:35 AM PDT

•  No offense here

  But aren't we, in our quest to re-shape the frame away from being "obstructionists", just looking for new ways to obstruct Roberts nomination?

  Wouldn't it be much smarter to confirm Roberts and save the true indignation for someone who is truly a Dobson clone?  It kinda takes away the "obstructionist" frame if Dems don't obstruct Roberts.  Roberts is going to get confirmed - no doubt about it - Dems are going to wind up looking bad if it gets drawn out too much.

  Save the ammo for a target worth shooting at.

  by Whiskey Sam on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:05:39 AM PDT

  •  It's The Use Of The Word "Obstruct"

    which you repeated...that is the problem...To obstruct is to stop something worthwhile from happening.  That's the problem, Roberts confirmation is not worthwhile so using "obstruct" is a mistake..

    How about "follow the Constitutional duty to fully and objectively examine nominees before voting to confirm or deny"

    by Oleary on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:07:25 AM PDT

    •  Ummm

      "follow the Constitutional duty to fully and objectively examine nominees before voting to confirm or deny"

      BORING

      Lets see - which of these will better play to America???

      "Obstruct"

      or

      "follow the Constitutional duty to fully and objectively examine nominees before voting to confirm or deny"

      Roberts is going to get confirmed whether we like it or not.  Methinks we should save true outrage for a truly outrageous nominee.

      by Whiskey Sam on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 09:25:57 AM PDT

      •  Which plays better

        "obstruct"

        or

        "Stop an immoral White House from creating an immoral Court?"

        I'm just askin'.

        Oooh... I kinda like that.  This guy isn't a silver bullet to kill Roe.  He's a POISON PILL THAT WILL POLLUTE THE COURT!

        Anyone!?

        by 5oclockshadow on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 03:33:45 PM PDT

  •  Sorry

    Every obstacle thrown in their way is worth throwing.

    Remember when it was pointless and hopeless to oppose Bolton?

    Ask:  How much influence did Karl Rove have in picking this nominee?  He shouldn't be working at the White House at all!  How much influence did he have?

    by outside observer on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:19:40 PM PDT

•  Democratic reaction so far

  Democratic National Committee

  In a statement released Tuesday night, the DNC suggested that President Bush announced the nomination of Judge John Roberts when he did to divert the press from Karl Rove.

  Faced with a growing scandal surrounding the involvement of Deputy White House chief of Staff Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby in the leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, President Bush announced his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court late this evening.

  Howard Dean

  ...when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.

  The Senate Judiciary Committee will now have the opportunity to see if Judge Roberts can put his partisanship aside, and live up to a Supreme Court Justice's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of every American and the promise of equal justice for all.

  Harry Reid

  The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," Reid said. "The Senate must review Judge Roberts' record to determine if he has a demonstrated commitment to the core American values of freedom, equality and fairness.

  Patrick Leahy

  We need to ensure that the Supreme Court remains a protector of all Americans' rights and liberties from government intrusion and that the Supreme Court understands the role of Congress in passing legislation to protect ordinary Americans from abuse by powerful special interests.

  Ted Kennedy

  Every American ought to be asking some tough questions right now about whether Mr. Roberts is fit to serve on the highest court in the land.

  • Will he protect average Americans when their rights are abused by powerful corporations?

  • Will he ensure that private companies aren't allowed to pollute our rivers and lakes and our air?

  • Will he protect and preserve the progress we've made on equal opportunity and fairness for all Americans?

  • Will he separate his personal ideology from the rule of law and protect the rights and freedoms of all Americans, not just the powerful or the wealthy?

  No nominee, especially a nominee who is well known to have argued ideological positions on issues important to the American people, should be confirmed without full and candid disclosure and discussion of those positions and their importance to him.

  Hillary Clinton

  I look forward to the Committee's findings so that I can make an informed decision about whether Judge Roberts is truly a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology.

  John Kerry

  There are serious questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on the appellate court," Kerry said. "The Senate must learn whether he has clear consistent principles upholding Constitutional standards like civil rights and the right to privacy in Roe v. Wade.

  "These issues are in serious question if you take even a cursory glance at his record.

  Barbara Boxer

  Without prejudging the nominee, I do believe Judge Roberts' record raises questions about his commitment to the right to privacy, protection of the environment and other important issues."

  "Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement could take one of two paths," Boxer warned: "Judge Roberts could go down the same independent, non-ideological road as Justice O'Connor, or he could join with the right-wing block on the Court which has consistently expressed the belief that a woman's right to choose isn't guaranteed, nor is the federal government's ability to protect workers, the environment, and a family-friendly workplace.

  Chuck Schumer

  You have my word that Democrats in the Senate will take our constitutional duty seriously.  I am prepared to ask Judge Roberts to speak freely and openly about his views on important national issues like the First Amendment, civil rights, and religious liberty.  The views of the nominee will affect Americans for a generation and cannot be glossed over.  America deserves a new Supreme Court justice who can unite the country and is committed to serving the broad national concern, not just powerful special interests.

  by bumblebums on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:07:45 AM PDT

  •  Not bad at all!

    Emphasis on fairness, average Americans, wanting to make an informed decision (i.e., he's going to be questioned hard!).

    by outside observer on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 07:27:18 PM PDT

•  3rd Frame BushCo Credibility/Partisanship

  Let us not give up the opportunity to contrast the expectation that a Supreme Court justice would have a stellar character no matter what spectrum he comes from in political THOUGHT.  

  Judges should be the purest of public servants and they should be thoughtful, independent individuals.

  Difference between a conservative thinker and a partisan follower is a key.  John Roberts is a partisan.

  BushCo lacks the basics of character and one must ask how we could trust their pick to be representative of the essense of this Democracy rather than driven by the GOP agenda.  In addition, since they are ready to throw National Security to the dogs for partisan purposes, they might well throw the Constitution and legal progress out the window as well.

  The meme: "Bush won the election so he gets his pick" is childish bullshit.  

  The SCOTUS appointment isn't a PRIZE for winning a game.  It is a DUTY bestowed upon him and the Senate.  Their collective DUTY is to act in the best interests of ALL Americans.

  by inclusiveheart on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:09:59 AM PDT

•  It wasn't very polite

  to drop all those bombs on all those people with next to no reason.

  Can we start with that?

  by mrblifil on Wed Jul 20, 2005 at 08:12:21 AM PDT

  •  Do you remember during the noon press conference