Librul Dems covers Party's butt

The only logical reasoning for Senators like Leahy and Fiengold in supporting this Roberts debacle is to give cover to the more conservative Dems when they eventually sell out in the Senate vote.

Under no circumstances does the Democratic Establishment want a repeat the Iraq voting blocques redrawn in the Democratic party. Whereby, those that voted against the Iraq vote where given more "Dem Cred" over those that didn't. Hilliary to this day can not shake the fact that she was a political opportunist and voted for an immoral war.

Kerry had his Iraq vote hanging around his neck like an albatross his entire campaign and for that many Democrats begrudgingly supported him.

Mixing up the so-called "Librul Dems" ie Feingold and Leahy with the usual suspect sell out Dems muddles the divide. Hilliary can now cast her vote for Roberts with confidence that she will not be labelled a conservative DLC sell out (which she most definitely is) and now she has the cover of her more "librul" colleagues as proof of her "librul" street cred.

One day I wish that the Democratic party would spend as much time as they do figuring out how to screw over their own base... as they would in actaully trying to figure out how to be an opposition party.

Reid's vote was just to set of the false meme that anti-choicers would protect choice...which is a lie... but tell that to some...

But alas, what more proof do we need that the Democrats never intended to be an opposition group and are quite comfortable being in the minority which automatically negates their responsiblity to DO ANYTHING and their losses can be easily excused, as some are now making excuses for Roberts from 2000... Bush is polling in the 30% and has just oversaw one the most spectacular debacles in the history of the US... but the Dems are still caving in...go figure

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

23 Comments

it's the base....
why is it always the base of the party that seems most intent on screwing it over in the name of helping it out?
by aliasjl79 2005-09-22 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: it's the base....
Because we are so ALL POWERFUL....our Democratic politicians quake in our presence.
by Parker 2005-09-22 10:02AM | 0 recs
Because they are in it
for the comforts of having a strong identity, rather than to win or to improve things. At least that's how I see it. It's a bit like religious fundamentalism, but on a political level. Compromise is for those wishy washy libruls ya know.

/Pragmatist to the bone.  

by Populism2008 2005-09-22 12:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Because they are in it
What compromise?  You seem to fail to see that there is very little compromise in Washington anymore.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-09-23 09:02AM | 0 recs
Or maybe...
Around this blog, many of us are unconflicted in our rejection of Roberts.  But there are some Democrats who are unconflicted in their support for him, and probably the large majority who are conflicted.

Maybe, just maybe, Feingold and Kohl and Leahy are voting their conscience.  Maybe they're doing what they think is right.  Maybe they're giving Roberts the benefit of the doubt.  Maybe they're misguided.  But maybe they're making up their own minds.

There's no such thing as a perfect Senator.  There's no one who is going to vote our way on each and every issue.  If we insist on punishing every Senator who makes a vote we disagree with, there's going to be a lot of punishing going on.

Personally, I don't believe that a confirmation vote on a Supreme Court nominee should be made for political reasons, to send a message to the president, or to demonstrate our mettle as a strong opposition party.  Each Senator should vote according to his or her personal principles.  Maybe at least a few of them are doing that.

by nocloset 2005-09-22 09:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Or maybe...
Ideally, you are correct.  Unfortunately, the other side doesn't play by the rules.  So we must adapt.  We needed a 10-8 decision on this.  We need 35-40 no votes on Roberts.  We need to have the party loyalty the GOP has or we will keep getting smoked.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-09-22 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Or maybe...
one party plays dirty so the dems should do so as well? that's childish. "he did it, so why can't i...?" it completely eliminates personal responsibility from the political process. i'd expect pols to do it because they have been for so long, and underestimate the intelligence of the voters, but for those voters to underestimate their own intelligence is quite another thing. that aside...the idea that is was politically proper for the dems to vote against roberts on a massive scale is contrary to common sense.
by aliasjl79 2005-09-22 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Or maybe...
Dinner time...Rove is calling you
by Parker 2005-09-22 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Or maybe...
In a perfect world you are right, but we don't live in a perfect world.  If we stick to the high minded approach that we have stuck too for 40 years, our country will be destroyed by the Theocon agenda.  It has gotten that bad.  There is a time for high mindedness.  And a time to fight.  Now is the time to fight before they destroy everything we have worked for for generations to come.  If you can't understand this, then maybe politics isn't the realm for you.  Perhaps not knowing what is happening would be better.  Sometimes I wish I could take an ignorance is bliss approach.  But with all that Bush is doing to destroy us, I can't.  Do you even realize just how fucked we are when he leaves office.  Many of his big spending bills really don't kick in until 2009.  The next president will be forced to either continue the destruction or cut his career short by raising taxes.  Please keep your head in the sand, but sometimes tough choices need to be made.
by yitbos96bb 2005-09-23 08:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Or maybe...
many of us are unconflicted in our rejection of Roberts

Well that is difficult to understand with and adminstration that nominates and appoints strictly based on pushing their ideology...hence Bolton, Brown, Rice, Rumsfeld... get the picture. Therefore, without handing over critical documentation and breaking into the Reagan Library so that alternative documentation can not be seen... I am highly suspect that Roberts is what he projected in these hearing otherwise there would have not been the need for the veil of secrecy.

Also knowing Hilliary she is chomping at the bit to become the next Margret Thatcher.

by Parker 2005-09-22 10:01AM | 0 recs
Hrm?
"Each Senator should vote according to his or her personal principles."

What sort of principles would have come into play in deciding to vote for Roberts?

The principle of capitulation?

Respect for Roberts' right to privacy?

An opposition to candor, perhaps?

by catastrophile 2005-09-22 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Hrm?
it is too assinine to even respond to
by Parker 2005-09-22 10:26AM | 0 recs
Personal Principles
How about the principle of weighing all the testimony and making a judgement?

Biden and Schumer voted no, and both of them said it was a very close decision.  So why couldn't someone else, someone reasonable like Feingold, come down slightly to the other side?

by nocloset 2005-09-22 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Personal Principles
The entire fucking Democratic party sold out...

The asshole didn't even submit his documentation..

by Parker 2005-09-22 10:31AM | 0 recs
Weighing testimony and making a judgement
is a process, not a principle. It's a process that the administration and Roberts himself have done their level best to obstruct -- by denying access to documents and dodging direct questions.

Assuming they're not willfully ignoring what we have been able to find out, every Dem in the Swamp understands that this guy is a career Reep operative -- not a conservative, a partisan Reep -- who can be trusted to use his influence on the court and the whole federal judiciary to promote a partisan agenda.

Do you remember Bush v. Gore? Are you at all familiar with the sort of findings the administration is demanding from the Supreme Court? Have you ever heard of Jose Padilla?

So no, I don't see how anybody who depends on Dem voters for his job could come down slightly to the other side.

by catastrophile 2005-09-22 10:55AM | 0 recs
I'm giving Parker a 1
because he/she gives "nocloset" a 1 for no reasons at all. A person is not a troll just because you happen to disagree with them.  
by Populism2008 2005-09-22 12:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm giving Parker a 1
Parker does tend to go overboard... No Closet's response was fine.
by yitbos96bb 2005-09-23 09:04AM | 0 recs
Sad Thing
The sad thing is that arguements that can be made against Roberts are ruined at times by Parker's "arguments".  While his general views are ok (even if I don't always agree) the constant FUCK THIS AND THAT ruins any credibility to the arguement.  Once in a while, I can understand.  Saying in anger.  But it is ALWAYS this way.  I always assumed that he was 15 or 16... at least I hope he is.  If he is in his late 20's to 40's, that saddens me a whole lot more.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-09-23 09:08AM | 0 recs
Options
We had three options in the Senate, not two.  Vote for Roberts.  Vote against him.  Follow a scorched earth policy including but not limited to fillibuster, personal and political villification, a smear advertising campaign, and presssure within the Democratic caucus to vote as a bloc.

So where did Roberts fall on this scale?  No scorched earth policy but no vote for him, either.  Just as the military officers who lied or obfuscated on Vietnam, Roberts was fogging as hard as he could throughout the hearings.  Does that make him a "smart lawyer"?  Maybe.  But it is a lousy precedent to set.  A little more candor would have earned my "vote", but this act burned it. Vote no but let the vote proceed.

by David Kowalski 2005-09-22 11:26AM | 0 recs
Re: Options
I agree with you.  The only justification I had for a filibuster was the administrations refusal ro release public documents.  That to me deserved the filibuster, but I am ok with it not happening.  
by yitbos96bb 2005-09-23 09:09AM | 0 recs
From your comments on this blog
I wouldn't count you as a part of the Democratic Party base. You are more of a Green Party person. I won't say anything about that, not here. But clearly our base - 30% of America - is not as far left as you are.
by Populism2008 2005-09-22 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: From your comments on this blog
Frankly, I wouldn't count you period.
by Parker 2005-09-22 12:58PM | 0 recs
What...
Did Redstate drop off a truck load of Roberts freaks... I know that they are now paying people to seed blogs... and this new batch of freaks don't even sound like Dems.
by Parker 2005-09-22 01:01PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads