What is OUR Miers strategy? I'm confused!

[butchcjg]

I'm confused! What is OUR (blogosphere, DU, etc) strategy around Miers.

Americablog, Kos, etc all seem to be having a lot of fun pointing out all the ways in which Miers doesn't live up to the conservative standards. They're taunting the conservatives and enjoying the fact that many are pissed at Bush.

But, why? Do we really want Miers to withdraw or for conservatives to reject her? If so, that means Bush will only find someone more evil! He's never goign to find someone more liberal, because it's not the liberals who have any power here.

So, what's our strategy?

[Fridays Child]

1. The Left has a unified strategy on something? Now, I'M confused!

:silly:

[Teaser]

2. Allow her to be confirmed but

make sure that the Repugs tear themselves apart in the process.

[MADem]

3. Let the GOP tear themselves to pieces

This is a lead, follow or get the hell out of the way situation, right now. We do best by getting the hell out of the way.

The way to play it is to give the 'due deference' to the monkey re: his pick, stay quiet, let the GOP do all the whining and griping, and then go for the throat at the hearings. That way no one will be able to say we are being obstreperous or obstructionist...

[butchcjg]

7. but why are we so afraid of being called names?

Who cares if they call us partisan or obstructionists, etc

Shouldn't our response be "Of course we're being partisan, because Mr. President, you're dead wrong."

Or "Of course we're obstructing, because Mr. President, you're dead wrong and the American public wants someone to stop this nomination."

[MADem]

13. Because WE are the party that asks questions first

and we are the party that respects the OFFICE of the President, even if we have no respect for the monkey shitting all over the carpet presently in that office.

The President has the right to propose his SC candidate. The Senate has an OBLIGATION to the American people, and to the monkey, to advise and consent--or not consent.

This woman is nothing but anecdotes. We have no real clue where she is...how much of her church-going was political, how she feels about issues. We know that monkeyboy ran to the right, because he knew those people needed a few sops and they would come out for him in force. He gamed them to get what he wanted. Is she in that club, or is she a hyper-fundie? We will not know until she is asked.

It's all very well and good to research this woman with no real record, but she remains a cipher until she sits at the table and starts getting grilled like a fatty steak. We'll have to see how she does--if she sits down and says Roe is settled law, affirmative action has a place in America and is appropriate redress, workplace safety should be a priority, minimum wages should be livable and reflect the founders' philosophies of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness...well, GOP heads would explode, but a few toadies on the right would probably still vote her in because she is Dunceboy's pick.

Why do the work of the GOP? Brownback and Lott are having friken ANEURISMS over this woman--let THEM do the shrieking, let the GOP DIVIDE...it is all good, from our perspective. Divide, and conquer!

We'll get our chance to throw darts soon enough.

[IntravenousDemilo]

15. The duty of an opposition party is to oppose

Why be mealy-mouthed about it? Just oppose everything. Filibuster everything. Drag everything out as much as is humanly possible. Do not allow one item of this government's agenda to pass without a long, protracted fight. Not one appointment, not one bill, not a single resolution must be allowed to take less than three months. The Democratic party has the numbers to do this in both houses.

[MADem]

17. Now, I differ....

I say pick the fights. When you can win, fight like your back is to the wall and give no quarter.

If they are screwing themselves, why get in the way? Use your media availabilities wisely, do not get too overexposed, because the backlash can be nasty. The right is real good at flipping, they'll edit history to claim the Dems were the stumbling block--don't give them the video clips.

It's the prime rule of any teen pop idol who stays too long in the public eye, and we should be well aware that it applies to overexposed politicians as well.

If someone ASKS, sure, pipe up, express concern, but also be willing to hear the nominee out before condemning her. That is what REASONABLE people do. If we take that approach, we appear intelligent, mature, thoughtful, as opposed to the reactionary dickheads on the right.

Let them rip her up...then they look like intolerant, sexist assholes. Appearance is a good percentage of reality in this day and age.

[leeroysphitz]

22. I see what you are saying MADem but...

What fights to pick? We can't really WIN any of them (although in the short term I do admit the debate on S.S. reform was encouraging). I believe the time for subtlety is LONG past. The right has 6 to 8 years at least and are doing their best to cram as much of the agenda in as they can. The more we obstruct and delay and cause the whole process to (in the words of Rummsfeld) "slog" the less of their hurtful agenda gets thru. The less damage they do to the country in the end.

Let me know what I'm missing but to me that seems like the entire point of opposition.

As the minority we can't set the agenda but I can't think of any reasons other than political expediency or the undue influence of lobbyists to not OPPOSE the agenda.

[MADem]

23. I speak specifically about MIERS

The GOP are ripping her to shreds. Why should we chime in? Pile on?

Far better for us to claim we will give her a fair hearing, because we, unlike the GOP, are FAIR...when odds are the right will do the heavy lifting for us, and it will be a miracle if she gets out of committee.

We can always listen patiently, and quietly vote no. The result will be the same without us adding fuel that could be better spent elsewhere to that fire.

Why add to the screaming, when it is better that we scream about issues that actually need some volume to reach a tipping point???

[leeroysphitz]

25. fair enough nt

[leeroysphitz]

21. obstreperous

It shames me to admit that it's a new word to me but I like it. Thanks!
It describes one of my favorite qualities.

obstreperous \uhb-STREP-uhr-uhs; ob-\, adjective:
1. Noisily and stubbornly defiant.

[crispini]

4. I think the strategy seems to be,

watch them tear her up and hope that the shit hits the fan WRT indictments before anything can get done, which will REALLY stop Washington dead in the water. Maybe.

Realistically, you're right, there's not a lot we can do here.

[BurtWorm]

5. I think Miers should be rejected for being a crony.

And if they insist on naming someone more to Dobson/Robertson/Graham's liking, Dems should bring the question to the American people: Do you want the court to overturn Roe v. Wade? Do you want your state to outlaw your daughters' right to have full control of her reproduction?

[Fridays Child]

6. ...

[whatever4]

8. imho, she's bad bad bad

She's rabid anti-gay, anti-abortion, and I really think all this is just a smokescreen to get her in, the liberals all the while thinking they've won something.

She's being put in place so that Bush will never be convicted of anything in Supreme court. That's just all there is to it, and I don't understand why anyone is bothering with anything else. Can't they see her nomination could be a potential conflict of interest? Can't they see she CANNOT rule on issue over which she, herself, has keep in confidence anything she knows about this "president"...who she said she believe is "the most brilliant man she's ever meet".

At this point, Democratic "strategy" seems to be to lose. They seem to be all falling for the faked outrage of the right, and seem to be playing along with that false pretext of her being "liberal". Have they redefined liberals now?

I guess their "strategy" is to do the same shit as the republicans. It's a shame. It's going to disappoint a lot of people. But it will, of course, be too late for them to do anything about it.

[BillZBubb]

9. No coherent strategy--you know, the usual.

Miers could be rejected if the Democrats really got together. We suffer from a surplus of indecisiveness based on:

1. If we attack her, the voters will call us obstructionists. It might cost us votes!
2. We don't need to attack her, the Repubs are fighting amongst themselves. So, we can just watch.
3. If we succeed in stopping her, Bush will just put in someone worse.
4. We can't attack her because we don't know what she stands for. We have to have something concrete.

As usual, this type of thinking only reinforces the view that the Democrats can't lead and are wishy-washy.

All Democrats should say "she is a political crony without the background necessary for the job. She is not qualified and we will vote NO. It's just another example of Republican cronyism that would hurt our country."

[butchcjg]

10. yep, no strategy

Yes, there's no strategy at all. Of course, because of our years of no strategy, we're in a very bad situation where we really dont have that much power at all.

I agree that they should reject her because she's a crony and there are some major conflict of interests there.

Bush will then nominate someone even scarier, and we'll just have to vote no on that person too - though we have very little "power" to actually get anyone that we remotely like.

We MUST win elections.

[BillZBubb]

16. Bush MAY nominate someone even scarier. So what?

We know nothing really about Miers. If she truly is a fundie, no one could be scarier.

Agreed, we need to win elections. The way to do that is to take stands as a unified party and get the reputation for 1)Having core principles. 2) Fighting for those principles no matter what.

At present, Democrats as a party pass neither of those basic requirements.

[mmonk]

11. Miers is a wolf in sheeps clothing

and an intelligent strategy should be to be opposed.

[emlev]

12. One way Dems can use this situation

In the Roberts confirmation hearings Roberts kept saying he couldn't answer this question or that one because the issues might come before the court. Given Miers's knowledge of the current administration, if she gives the same sor t of responses, perhaps she could be asked some questions that would reveal which particular actions the administration is planning to use to increase its fascist hold on the country.

Wouldn't it be interesting to hear if any of these issues are likely to come before the court?

Senators, please ask Miers:
Where do you stand on:

military being used to quarantine areas infected by flu pandemic?
military being used to quarantine areas affected by AIDS epidemic?
military being used to quarantine areas affected by pro-impeachment epidemic?

ending term limits for president?
suspension of the constitution?

awarding voting rights to corporations, since they are legally considered to be persons?

complete dismantling of the public school system?

allowing criminals to serve out their terms in the white house rather than federal prisons?

Meanwhile, let's not be fooled by the announced opposition of some conservatives. I think it's designed to weaken any opposition to Miers. We must mobilize against both Miers AND the likelihood that the next nominee will be worse. Rejecting two in a row is the only hope (and it's a slim one) of getting someone whose right turn signal isn't stuck in the "on" position.

[MADem]

14. If she doesn't cut it, it probably will be Gonzalez

for whatever that is worth...

Who knows, maybe he'll slide her into the AG job if they go to Alberto, the fallback candidate.

[pisle]

24. I like your reasoning, emlev ...

Bush has succeeded in getting Roberts confirmed (Amazing!, considering the lack of substance to any question sorta answered). He just appointed a chief justice, right? (WOW!). So, a lowly potential swing voter gets nominated (Miers). I think (and I could be wrong) that shen (Miers) should be allowed through ... I think the appropriate questions should be asked during her hearings, but I also believe that she has had actual real-life experiences in the gay rights and pro-choice areas ... somehow (????).

Keeping in mind that her "church" has pretty solid views on abortion and gay-rights, they also were sensative enough to pull their "real views" from their website in the wake of a Meirs nomination .... what does that mean? Does it mean that they don't want their "petty" views abstructing her nomination? Or does it mean that they want to hide their views (while knowing that anyone could find a site archive connecting them with those views). ?????????.

My thought at this point in the game (and, again, I could be VERY wrong), is to let her appointment come to pass ... she seems like a person who's powerful enough to affect the public opinion of her own church ... and at the same time, she exinbits a willingness to subtly try to combine the opinion of the mjority/majority with the opinion of her her narrow-minded church. She could be the one to dissent on matters --- she could be a true swing-voter (?????). Bush may have handed us a real person --- someone who actually thinks about particulars. Someone who may have a certain sort of compassion. (Again, I could be DEAD wrong).

I just have a feeling that she is someone who may have a bit more compassion for the human condition than a nominee who's views are set in stone and will rule in favor of their SOLID conservative ideals .......... but, then again, I may be falling for a deep wing-nut Bushy trap. That's always a possibility. can't really know unless you're a scholar devoted to the life and works of one Karl Rove.

Dammit, I hate ending a post with Karl Rove. Why would he pick her? maybe that's a more pertanent question?

(spelling errors dismissed) Hello.

[AnnieBW]

18. How Much Rope?

We just keep handing them the rope to hang themselves on.

[ToeBot]

19. I'm not positive, but I think it involves lots of flowery posts...

singing the praises of Harry Reid's strategic brilliance, then watching in utter disbelief as half the Democratic Senate body votes in support of the nominee.

[Telly Savalas]

20. Be really grateful Bush didn't pick someone 20 years younger.

That's the strategy.