I think those hoping that the hearings will trip up Roberts will be disappointed. As far as I can tell, anyone that has ever seen him in action thinks he will only help himself in the hearings. Unless the public changes its opinion fast, Roberts is headed towards 75-80 votes.

Given the Bush administration's propensity to deceive, inveigle, and obfuscate, it is quite possible that holding the line on full release may be helped by a knee-jerk reaction to never come clean and a Roberts confirmation vote may be delayed by a year or possibly even until the mid-term elections and a sea-change in Senate composition (in the rosiest of rosy scenarios).  Perhaps Scalia's head will explode and a rump 7-member court will have a moderate bent.

The Republicans impeached one of the most popular Presidents in American history. All the base and the blogosphere is asking for is a little bit of opposition. Stand up for something and start making Bush earn every single inch of political gain, instead of clearing the field for Hail Mary passes like CAFTA or even helping with the Energy Bill and Bankruptcy.

Harry Reid needs to start enforcing some discipline by calling  leadership votes. It's way past time to start opposing every single Bush initiative. There is no reason not to with Bush at 38%. None.

Go get 'em Chris. But let your overall all strategy guide your tactics and save some ammunition for the truly horrible candidates lined up behind Roberts.

I happen to think Roberts may in fact be a stealth appointment - a washington insider. That said, I do have to say that I'm darking down for a while for a big deadline I'm working on. I wish you the best on this, but politics, for me, doesn't pay the bills.  I'm not inclined to block someone I don't disagree with simply for political purposes.

I would caution you: never put the cart before the horse. Everyone knows that the party should be able to receive those that flock toward it knowing the corruption going on.. but if you put lipstick on a pig and ask some to kiss it, you'll get lipstick all over the pig and no-one will follow you.

Party reform, as led by people like John Kerry, has to take place. Dean has to referee things now, the party has to take on a life and a platform - a meaningful platform. Standing up against Roberts would mean only that the party itself would take reward for having such a platform but in fact this game is so far from the Robert Bork type of action that its almost impossible to turn into a political coup -
I don't really oppose this action but I also don't endorse it. Its hard to place this.

I guess you might first want to take care of your polling - people normally don't care too much about stuff like this.

Then I would be careful about being shrill. The democrats are in a delicate position.

Finally I would pull back. You and I disagree on many things Chris. But on this one, I agree with you in principle but not in your activism. I think you are likely too close to people given over to blind action and will not hear my words.

But in the end, perhaps you are right and I cannot verify or think carefully enough right now to gauge it. Roberts seems to be a moderate right, and the court will transform all that come to him. Only those who have serious issues in their past have to be stopped.

Would the Weimar Republic have changed things given partisanship. Good question. Likely however you need a stealth attack in full with a unified, independent group of people that can bring along a new ideology and a focussed way of doing things. Never ask people to die for just a slogan.

In the end, we know it will be business as usual tomorrow.  Fortune favors the brave , Chris.
Good luck.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/09/11/zarqawi.message/index.html

I can't be counted among these people but I do think it would be nice to fathom if a storm could ever hit the +process+ up there in DC and destroy any low lying structures.. wake up call purposes only.... sad to say, but foggy bottom seems to be impervious to real change..

Ron Brownstein has the bad news:

Say it ain't so Joe!

If both Roberts and Lieberman were confirmed the religious balance on the court would be four Catholics, one Episcopalian, one Protestant and three jews. The religious denomination of 25% of Americans would hold seven out of nine seats on the Supreme Court.

It's a pretty strange commentary that Rhenquist was the last Protestant nominated to the court. What's up with that?

i think we should be thankful we haven't gotten the worst of the worst, a la chief justice thomas, or chief justice luttig.

the guy is qualified.  he is brilliant.  unfortunately, he's also conservative.  bad news folks:  we lost the election, and we don't control the senate.  

the entire system of nomination and confirmation makes no sense if the senate just vetoes people based on their politics.  that is not a sustainable or reasonable approach.

"It is time for our first major fight since Bush's numbers began falling off a cliff in late July. It is time to stand up."

To that I say, Amen, brother!

Second, Chris is right to point out that a confirmation like this is a campaign. It COULD develop over time and snowball into opposition.

First, Polls right now show that Americans don't really know about this except for the pro-life zealots.

Second, while Americans get turned off by wonky stuff, this COULD be connected to issues of freedom and equality that would get Americans excited. Now, the current Dems don't show any of the signs of being able to do that, but it COULD be done. And we should expect our Dem leaders to do it.

Third, Bush's political strength--and that of the GOP--is at a low water mark not seen in decades. Thge aftermath of Katrina is a POLITICAL OPENING! If we are so stupid as to see it as an inhibition on our political goals, we will deserve what we get. Bill Scherr is good on this today at Liberal Oasis.

What would it take?

Well, ideally, the Dem leadership would be united to fight. Of course, it isn't.

OK, plan B.

Here's the scenario I see:

> 2-3 Senators fight in the hearings and start raising stuff. That appears likely, though to what extent it's hard to say.

> Bowers et al raise holy hell in the blogosphere.

> Netroots folks push the press and Dems to support it.

> The opposition begins to gain roots more widely.

> Other Dems begin to see that opposition to Roberts works!

> Genuine opposition grows ala the Bolton nomination, which really should be a model.

Except for 1 thing: Bolton was scuttled mainly by GOPers. That won't happen here.

The biggest problem with any of the above is not only the press, but the general funk of the Dem party. We know that many Dem Senators are ready to throw in the towel.

But look at the folks out here. Look at the negativity in this thread?

If you look at my scenario, there is a key link that is in our control: how do WE respond? How hard to WE netroots people want to fight? Kennedy and Schumer are going to need heavy support right away or the whole thing will fall quickly.

That's why Chris is going to DC to coordinate the fight.

If we are filled with negativity and defeatism and don't support the effort, it WILL FAIL.

If we do fight, we have a fighting chance. Look at the fight Clemons orchestrated. It looked dead all along the way, but in the end, Bush was denied approval for Bolton.

If we do not fight--I mean US, the blogosphere--the fight will never materialize.

No matter what happens in the hearings, how is anyone going to generate enough public interest and attention to stop this nomination?

We in the blogosphere think this is so important, crucial to the future of our nation.  But most people don't care.  And those people are not going to be convinced to call their Senators and tell them to oppose this appointment.

I'm sorry to have to face this, but I'm convinced it's a done deal.

What we need to accomplish in these hearings is not to try to defeat the Roberts nomination, but to convince the president that he's going to have to select someone more moderate to replace O'Connor.

But saying right now we're going to try to oppose no matter what...let's just say I predict a post by Chris in a few weeks to the effect of, "Depsite the fact that Roberts was confirmed, we did a great job in making this closer than it would have been, and we weakened Bush."  And that's just another "victorious" defeat.

Unless Roberts blows something in the hearings, I would rather be seen as having conducted a tough but fair hearing and gain credibility that will help us oppose a Bush nominee that's an easier target.  If we oppose everyone Bush nominates, then we look like we would oppose anyone whether they are qualified or not.

Bolton was a good target; Roberts so far looks less promising.