We Lose On Roberts
by Chris Bowers, Wed Sep 21, 2005 at 07:55:38 AM EDT
He announced his personal opposition to Roberts, but it was empty posturing to keep the base in check.
He also announced that the nomination "do[es] not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block" it.
In other words, no filibuster and hello Chief Justice Roberts.
Furthermore, he removed any pressure on his caucus to vote No, predicting that Roberts will get "plenty of votes" from Dems and that the nomination is "something people have to vote their conscience on."
That's code for: "I'm not twisting any arms."(...)
But that doesn't excuse us from developing and executing a strategy for when there is a nominee with little paper trail, especially since that was and is a very live option.
The proper Day 1 message in that scenario is "No Blank Slates." Without a clear record of impartiality and respect for basic rights, you have not earned a free pass to a lifetime appointment.
However, such a message now will be even harder to execute, because the Senate will soon confirm a Chief Justice who was very much a blank slate when he was first nominated (and only slightly less so today).
And if the next blank slate is a person of color, attacking that person while passing on Roberts will be quickly and gleefully branded by the Right as racism from the Left.(...)
We can't be shocked that "plenty" of Senate Dems will vote for Roberts, because so little was done by liberal activists, pundits, bloggers, and politicians to create the conditions for a strong opposition.
If that doesn't change the next time around, we will badly lose again.
And Dubya, while at 40%, will have succeeded in further moving the Court to the Right, possibly for the next generation.Read the whole thing. It is amazing that even when he is at 40%, we still can't mount a credible opposition to Bush and modern conservatism, otherwise known as whatever Bush does today.