Watching the Democratic Party's clown act during the Roberts confirmation, I asked myself what if roles were reversed.
What if Republicans had 45 votes to the other side's 55, and were grilling a liberal candidate, how would they handle it?
Well they wouldn't break ranks. But beyond that important but obvious point is the precursor to unity: constructing a viable strategy.
Republicans would have managed the process in a way that would position the minority to appear to be on the right side of the issue, even if they were unable to prevail in committee or on the floor.
They would not have done as the Democrats did - show themselves as divided, weak, and lacking a focused message that their base could rally around and the general public could at least understand.
At root Republicans would have grasped that the challenge was to make themselves appear credible to their own party faithful, to independents, to the media, and to the public at large - and to craft a rubric they could apply not just to this nominee but to the next.
Simply stated, they would have developed a theme, advanced cogent arguments, set down clear markers, and articulated a position of principle that the public could relate to and possibly support.
Stuff like this is basic to the Republican playbook. When you find yourself in a tough spot - when you're on the losing side of an issue - make the fight about a different issue. The larger point here being that sometimes to win the debate, you need to change the debate.
With the Roberts confirmation, the opportunity was to make the argument about the White House and its disdain of a fair and open process. In other words, attack the puppeteers pulling the strings as well as the puppet sitting before the committee. Democrats did neither.
The failure was incredible. With its arrogance and high-hat approach to the confirmation process, the White House had handed Democrats a bully cudgel. Reinforced by the public's growing disenchantment with Republican misrule and inefficiency, Democrats had an opening to discredit an administration that, as a matter of hubris, routinely stonewalls not only Congress but, more importantly, the American people.
It was that simple: the debate needed to be about the larger issue of trust.
With the White House refusing to provide critical documents, with the nominee obviously coached to deflect probing questions, this was the line of attack and the rationale upon which the minority could build a principled consensus and united front in opposition to Roberts, while providing effective political cover to every Democrat.
The goal? All 45 Democrats standing in opposition, and if not in a position of sufficient strength to justify a filibuster of this nominee, then clearly poised to go to the mattresses on the next. That would have sent a message. That would have been something.
Instead, Democrats gave the country bupkis.
National Debunker