Roberts Battle Adds to Democrats' Divide

[ShockediSay]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081701937.html?nav=hcmodule


The public tug of war among Democrats this week over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. underscores the conflicting pressures facing Democratic leaders as they try to satisfy a growing cadre of activists anxious to battle President Bush while avoiding the appearance of being captives of their most vocal constituencies.

The debate over what to do about Roberts is the latest in a series of disagreements over the past three years pitting the party's Washington-based leaders against traditional liberal advocacy groups or the newer world of grass-roots activists stitched together through e-mail and Web logs......

(a word of advice, never start a battle you're not sure you can win)

[The Sushi Bandit]

1. Screw the Centrists - This is the new PROgressive democratic party

this is war!

[SujiwanKenobee]

2. Message and the money

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081701937.html

Yesterday, conservative interest groups and some Republican leaders condemned Kennedy and Leahy, saying they were letting the groups lead the party. "Someone needs to remind Senators Kennedy and Leahy that their constituents are the American people, not far-left third-party groups in Washington," Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman said in remarks...


Nosiree, Republicans don't let THEIR activists lead the party. And let's not forget to throw into question who is more closely representing the nebulous term "the American People".

When campaigns cost as much as they do to run today and political wannabees become reliant on big corporate/org bucks to stay competitive, this is what you get--fear of roiling the waters lest the big money dry up.

[bribri16]

3. It won't even take that much money to defeat the Rethugs in 2006.

I bet it won't be that difficult in all places except in the very heart of ignorant Freeperland.

[tom_paine]

5. Only if we had a trustowrthy voting system as well as a Free Press

We have neither.

It will be as difficult as unseating a Saudi King...or Adolf Hitler.

[nativewolf]

4. Roberts meeting "illegal"

This, I believe, is LBN; but I could not post it there, as I do not have prior postings.

It comes from today's Newsday.com and is also quoted in the Washington Post today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081701778.html?nav=hcmodule

Tom Brune writes in Newsday: "The White House broke the law when it interviewed D.C. Circuit Judge John G. Roberts last spring for the Supreme Court as he heard a challenge to the president's military tribunals, three legal ethicists said yesterday.

"Roberts, nominated by President George W. Bush on July 19, should have recused himself from Hamdan v. Rumsfeld to avoid an 'appearance of partiality,' the professors said in the online magazine Slate."

http://www.newsday.com/news/printedition/nation/ny-uscort184388315aug18,0,3057355.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-print