regarding SCOTUS and Roberts today, this is what Frank Rich said on Imus.
I never, or at least i try to never watch Imus, but was scanning the channels and saw Frank Rich was going to be on, so i suffered through some classic Imus incoherent dickishness and listened in. Frank Rich was well spoken on all the usual topics, Katrina, nepotism in gov't, etc.
And the spot ended on SCOTUS and Roberts, and then Frank Rich says "When do dems ever have a plan?" well if it's just an open question, i might point out dems had a plan for FEMA and appointed James Lee Witt, not a college roomie. i might point out dems had a plan in bosnia that seemed to work out OK if not perfectly.
but all that would be beside the point. when have dems ever really had a plan on SCOTUS and Roberts. Apparently they don't. For the purposes of this diary I will concede that point.
But for the purposes of this diary I will ask: If, wether we like it or not, ... really... at this point wether we like it or not, if the pass on Roberts is to be seen as a legitimizer of past or future filibuster ("look!! we helped confirm Roberts!"), then i would ask how Frank Rich helps that cause by portraying dems as politicians without a plan??
hey. legitimate point as always. it's not Frank Rich's job to carry water for dems no matter how ineffectual or poverty stricken the plan may appear to him. that is not his job at all.
but i'd say if the media does have a hand in this, and Frank Rich is supposed to be on our side then would it hurt for him to mention that there may be a reason behind voting for Roberts even if he wants to qualify it by saying he doesn't agree with it.
the spot ends on Imus. the liberal pundit saying "when do dems ever have a plan" -- presumably for anything at all -- and the cowardly radio show host snickering behind his microphone.
my opinion: this doesn't help.
his columns. they do help.