Tuesday, October 04, 2005
Dems need help, they should read Sirota blog
Democrats just don't like conflict. It's just so much easier to never be about anything and try to be likeable... and lose.
Dems' Non-Ideological Case Against Harriet Miers
During the confirmation process of then-Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, Democrats of all stripes had an easy - and credible - way to oppose him: make clear that he had almost no experience as a judge and that he refused to provide much information about his beliefs/record that might have clarified serious questions about him. Beyond any of Roberts' controversial positions on civil rights, privacy or women's rights, the simple shadowy nature of his record provided Democrats a very easy-to-communicate opposition that the American people likely would have backed (Just look at initial polls after Roberts' nomination in which the public overwhelmingly wanted more information).
Sadly, Democrats largely missed that opportunity. From almost the very first day he was nominated, Senate Democrats laid down and died. And they died in the worst way, in that they actually used Roberts' biggest weakness - the lack of clear information about his record - as their reason for supporting him. As Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) said in voting for Roberts, the public can just "take [Roberts] at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda."
The White House's thinking is pretty simple: Democrats have now publicly said that a nominee with a largely unknown record is acceptable, and Miers has that. Should be smooth sailing, right? Wouldn't Democrats look hypocritical to oppose Miers on the basis of her lack of real Supreme Court-qualifying experience or adequate legal credentials, in light of Democrats recent willingness to confirm a nominee with similar drawbacks?
[As I said before the dem YES votes on Robert's HURT the fight for against this nominee, it did NOT help it.]
READ THE FULL ARTICLE @ sirota blog
Dems' Non-Ideological Case Against Harriet Miers
During the confirmation process of then-Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, Democrats of all stripes had an easy - and credible - way to oppose him: make clear that he had almost no experience as a judge and that he refused to provide much information about his beliefs/record that might have clarified serious questions about him. Beyond any of Roberts' controversial positions on civil rights, privacy or women's rights, the simple shadowy nature of his record provided Democrats a very easy-to-communicate opposition that the American people likely would have backed (Just look at initial polls after Roberts' nomination in which the public overwhelmingly wanted more information).
Sadly, Democrats largely missed that opportunity. From almost the very first day he was nominated, Senate Democrats laid down and died. And they died in the worst way, in that they actually used Roberts' biggest weakness - the lack of clear information about his record - as their reason for supporting him. As Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) said in voting for Roberts, the public can just "take [Roberts] at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda."
The White House's thinking is pretty simple: Democrats have now publicly said that a nominee with a largely unknown record is acceptable, and Miers has that. Should be smooth sailing, right? Wouldn't Democrats look hypocritical to oppose Miers on the basis of her lack of real Supreme Court-qualifying experience or adequate legal credentials, in light of Democrats recent willingness to confirm a nominee with similar drawbacks?
[As I said before the dem YES votes on Robert's HURT the fight for against this nominee, it did NOT help it.]
READ THE FULL ARTICLE @ sirota blog
When, Senator Patrick Leahy voted yes on confirming John Roberts, he said he was taking a leap of faith. And indeed he was. And that was unreasonable of him.
Today, President Bush demonstrates the folly of Senator Leahy. He has presented a candidate for the Supreme Court who has virtually NO record whatsoever. As I explained here, the failure to vote No on Roberts because of the White House stonewall has undermined Democrats' ability to demand full disclosure and forthrightness on the next nominee. Bush saw the opening given and has taken it.
from daily kos
