What should the Democrats do on Miers?

[Rowdyboy]

Democratic strategy so far has been to sit back and watch the Republicans implode without laughing too hard-and that has been a real blast. Hopefully, the repercussions will carry through the 2006 election.

The Carpet Bagger puts it this way...

Given their numbers, Dems approach every confirmation fight at a serious disadvantage. This one is slightly different, however, because it's the first such controversy where the Bush White House is facing such widespread discontent among its own supporters. In the short term, Dems have been happy to sit back and watch the right attack each other. It's been relatively effective, but Dems still have to figure out what to do next.

It's hardly inconceivable that several far-right Republican senators could vote with Senate Dems and defeat Miers' nomination, either in committee or on the floor. The question then becomes whether this would be beneficial to Dems or not. There seems to be two schools of thought here:

* Help Miers get confirmed — Dems don't know with certainty just how conservative a justice Miers would be, so if she fails or her nomination is pulled, Miers' replacement could be considerably worse (say hello to Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown). There's ample reason for the left to be worried about Miers, but there's at least a sliver of hope she wouldn't be a disaster. If Bush and Rove get another shot at this, there won't be.

* Help derail Miers' nomination — If Miers' nomination fails, it's another embarrassing political debacle for the president (approval rating in the 20s, here we come) and it would further highlight the Republicans-can't-govern narrative in advance of the midterm elections. Moreover, the idea that Bush and Rove would nominate someone who could be even slightly moderate is terribly naive. Miers will be Clarence Thomas in a dress, so there's no downside to defeating her.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/5485.html


What do you think we should do?

[PDittie]

1. Your poll needs a third option

"Pop corn and watch the freak show".

[Rowdyboy]

2. LOL....Thats exactly what I'm doing!

Unfortunately, 44 Democratic senators have to make a decision eventually.

[KittyWampus]

22. Rowdy, I'd like to see another 22nay/22yes vote but flipped....

all the Democrats who voted no on Roberts vote yes and vice versa.

:)

[Rowdyboy]

23. That would be so funny....A perfect flip!

Though I imagine the potential presidential nominees will oppose her (except for Feingold-God only knows how he'll vote)

[Dogmudgeon]

3. Derail, but what's to worry?

The right-wing junta is collapsing; SCOTUS is likely to be only marginally regressive, and after 2008, it will be isolated as well. Everything they rule on will be turned against them -- "that's the Bush court for you!"

We DUers are notoriously impatient, but unless they can do some serious oppressing in the next year, their run will be effectively over. Next autumn is also a prime opportunity to replace some of the DLCers that are so offensive to many DUers, with progressives and/or other firebrands.

I'd vote to derail, but mainly to show some muscle flexing.

--p!

[Mr_Spock]

8. We're trying to get a majority and you're talking about replacing Dems?

LOL - a bit overconfident I'd say.

...or did I just miss the sarcasm??

[Dogmudgeon]

25. That's a long-term effort

We can start soon, but this will be a long-term project.

Overconfident? Naaah. But if I didn't make a point to say it, I'd get accused to being DLC myself.

--p!

[MsConduct]

4. What do you mean by 'we'? Our party leaders have deserted

us and 'our' country. They'll do whatever it takes not to rock the (big con) boat and continue selling us down the river. I'd use a few more cliches, but I don't have anything else to say. ;-)

[pattim]

5. I'd say praise and see where it goes.

You know, I'd worry it was a smokescreen, but this is so radically different from their usual way of doing things. Their standard strategy is to protect the base at all costs. And, if the FReeper response is any indication, they aren't doing that at all. By letting such Infallable Pundits / FReeper Gods as Limbaugh, Kristol, Will, Krauthammer, and Bork all declare her unfit for the job, they've implanted serious doubts in the minds of the base. It's possible--but highly unlikely--that the Republican intellectual elite have all decided to play reverse psychology. It's impossible that the FReeper rank-and-file would too. Roberts, too, had no paper trail. Note that they still fellated him every chance they had.

I would say the best strategy for her is to praise her into oblivion, then let her squeak past after a long, drawn out battle, preferably extending into the '06 campaign season. The last thing the Republicans want is a split base going into an election cycle. They broke us in '02 by splitting us over Iraq, we'll break them in '06 by splitting them over Miers.

[Rowdyboy]

7. Welcome to DU!

I can't wait to watch the confirmation hearings. Brownback and Coburn are gonna try to crucify this woman. I don't see how she'll get out of committee if she doesn't give them something.

[MrBenchley]

13. I'm hoping Coburn browbeats her till she cries on TV....

Did you hear that Specter and Leahy both agreed on This Week that they want to subpoena Rove and Spongebob Dobson to find out what confidential information was traded on the nomination?

[Rowdyboy]

19. Seeing that pompous creep Dobson subpoened would be cake and Rove

would be the icing!

[MrBenchley]

21. I can't wait....

It's gonna be fun...

[kentuck]

6. If they could actually get together on a strategy....

But I will not hold my breath. That is the job of a strong leadership. But, if they could, they could use the old Republican trick of propaganda to stick it to the Republicans. The leadership could say something like our Party in Congress is inclined to vote for Miers almost unanimously.(It doesn't have to be true - it's propaganda) Can you imagine the effect that would have on the Republicans that are wavering? It would really put the squeeze on the Republicans.

[goclark]

9. Fight It! It is a Brownie Moment that they can't let slip by

If they do, they are just as bad a Bush.

[pattim]

11. Why, so he can find another Roberts

to dazzle his way into the SCOTUS? No, this woman is damaging, and the longer we keep her around, the more damage she'll do. Extend the fight as long as possible. Accept her in the end--he'd likely replace Miers with Owens or the like, and I'd really prefer Miers, as she's stupid enough to vote *our* way every once in a while, whereas Owens would be a force. And we'll likely only have to deal with Miers for 10, maybe 15 years.

[bklyncowgirl]

10. Let the Republicans rip her to shreds and then take the high road.

Vote against her because she is not qualified. As one conservative put it if she was not a crony of the president she would be on nobody's list for Supreme court.

[sallyseven]

12. Best Idea. She thinks that

Bush is brilliant. It means she is stupid. He has worse in the wings. Maybe he thinks that if she is turned down the Right will have to accept Gonzales (sic)It is just a ploy.

[No DUplicitous DUpe]

24. I agree, Vote against her because she is not qualified....

and as an extension, Bush is not qualified to make a qualified pick.

[MODemocrat]

14. She is being handed a life-time job; this is serious business

Where on earth could one of us find a plush job like that? She needs to have qualifications greater than what she apparently has. No one should be appointed just because they happen to be a crony. Another reason for my negative opinion, is that she is not clear on whether she will follow the rule of law, or judge by her own personal beliefs. In fact, it seems she doesn't even know what she stands for :shrug: Such sad times in America when something so important is treated so casually. :cry:

[Telly Savalas]

15. With Miers, we're looking at a 60 year old unknown quantity.

Is there a preferable realistic scenario we can expect with regards to a Bush Supreme Court nominee, and what actions should the Democratic Senate caucus take to see this scenario come to be?

[highplainsdem]

16. I don't think there is a preferable scenario that's at all realistic.

If Bush is forced to choose someone else, he's almost guaranteed to go with a much more rightwing choice. The Dems would fight that choice, but I don't think they'd win.

[Telly Savalas]

17. That's my sense of the situation.

There are a lot of fronts on which we can fight the radical right, but this one looks like a dead end. I'll concede that I could be wrong, which is why I phrased the point as a question. Still waiting for an answer to the contrary, though.

[kentuck]

18. Don't get off the boat unless you're willing to take it all the way....

We're speaking filibuster...and you need 41 votes. Do you have them? Or you willing to take your chances with the next nominee?

[Tactical Progressive]

20. Dems should support Miers

barring of course that she turns out to be some right-wing nutcase like Janice Rogers Brown.

She'll be questioned far more extensively, and from both sides of the fence, than John Roberts was, so we'll know more than with Roberts. Assuming she comes out in testimony as a reasonable thinker then Dems should support her because 1) the next one will be a nutcase, and 2) Miers might be one of those that grows into progressive decency on the court if she hasn't already calcified into one of those permanent reprobates of right-wing ideology.

My sense is that she's overly religious, but then it might not be that kind of facade-Christianity that protects a deeply un-Christlike nature that so many conservatives are made of. She might actually be a good Christian inotherwords. The right would hate that. We'll have to see.

In any case, if she goes down, it should be by right-winger hands exclusively, as that will at least give the Dems some authority for taking down the replacement thug that is sure to follow.