Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Why do the Democrats do such stupid things sometimes? Did Leahy and Schumer really need to have an immediate response to the nomination? And such an unnecessary and disorganized one? It makes us look bad.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Democrats:
» Roberts rules from blogs for industry
And so it begins... Ethan Lieb Why do the Democrats do such stupid things sometimes? Did Leahy and Schumer really need to have an immediate response to the nomination? And such an unnecessary and disorganized one? It makes us look bad. And Du... [Read More]
Tracked on Jul 19, 2005 10:08:59 PM
Yes, that was terrible. Bush and Roberts looked poised and dignified, while Shumer and Leahy looked disheveled and sounded disorganized, confusing, and insincere. We should have just released a short statement saying something like, "Senate Democrats look forward to fulfilling our constitutional duty of advice and consent."
And why can't Dems speak with one voice on this issue? Why are Durbin, Leahy, and Shumer all saying different things? I mean, it's not like this is even the mods disagreeing with the libs -- these are all libs and they still can't get their act together.
Posted by: Jeff V. | Jul 19, 2005 11:10:15 PM
I think the reason is that they actually think Roberts would be very good and hope he will be confirmed, but they need to go through the motions to please their interest groups. Disorganized and confusing opposition is a way to achieve both goals.
Posted by: realsmartguy | Jul 19, 2005 11:37:08 PM
The reason, I suspect, is because the nominee isn't a conservative idealogue, the nominee isn't easy to mischaracterize (as, for example, Bork was), they can't set the tone for the debate in a formal setting on the Senate floor (as Kennedy did after the Bork nomination), and most of all, this is probably as good as they're going to get, so the more hell they raise about it, the more of their own toes they blow off. So they don't know how to respond, yet their base demands an immediate condemnation. NARAL, for example, already has a preposterous "stop Roberts" campaign on their website, and I read a press release (I think from People for the Soviet Way) stating their disappointment that the nominee was "not a compromise".
I say preposterous, by the way, because it makes one wonder what their definition of "compromise" is, anyway. The left wanted a Souter at best (which was never going to be an option, whether they admit it or not) or an O'Connor at worst; the right wanted a Scalia or a Thomas. From what little I know about Roberts, it seems that what we've got is none of the above - in temperament and approach, we've got a Rehnquist (or possibly - and this is what's worrying my side, and what everyone on your side is praying - a Kennedy). Sen. McCain noted earlier of Roberts that "[O]bviously he is conservative. Just as [Clinton nominees] Justice Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg were liberal". This is something that needs to be emphasized OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Justice Blackmun was a liberal; Justice Powell a conservative. Clinton chose two liberals to replace them. He had a mandate too, you know. So fast forward a decade; Justice O'Connor was a moderate, and so now the Democrats demand Bush pick...wait for it...A liberal. Because, it seems to me, that's what a compromise is to these folks: Ginsberg was a "compromise", Breyer was a "compromise", and so they want another "compromise", i.e. a liberal; someone who will interpret the constitution "fairly", i.e. their way.
Posted by: Simon | Jul 20, 2005 2:28:14 PM