Hey Democrats, get a clue!!

[Meldread]

Seriously, get a freakin' clue and a backbone! It is highly likely that Roberts will be nominated BECAUSE of Democratic enablers. Did any of those Democrats ask themselves what would happen if the situation was reversed? It isn't that hard to imagine, and it would be the correct strategy.

If the Democrats had simply said, "Hey, we can't vote for Roberts because we don't know anything about him. Since we don't know anything about him, we have to look at the Bush Administrations political appointment record. We see that the Bush Administration has had a long string of bad appointments, most recently Michael Brown and therefore we do not believe he should be allowed to appoint *anyone* to the Supreme Court!"

Just say that over and over and over. Focus on Michael Brown. Arabian Horse guy. Focus on other bad political appointments. Say Roberts is hiding something in his past which is why you can't vote for him. Spin, spin, spin, point the finger, delay, delay, spin, spin, stall, delay, stall... Keep saying you can't trust the Bush Administration to appoint anyone who is qualified to the Supreme Court. Point out past failures. Ask Americans if they want another Michael Brown?

That's what a Republican would have done if the tables were turned. Yet, Democrats roll over. Pathetic. Sad, pathetic and useless are the three words that come to my mind when thinking about the Democrats who keep enabling the Bush Administration.

Hell! A Democrat should even point out the fact that the BTK guy was able to hide who he really was from his family, friends and church! Draw that comparison! It's EXACTLY what a Republican would do!

[designforce]

1. Agree 100%

So right, we do not want repuke lite.

Dems in power need to show some guts.....

[Dr Fate]

2. I've been saying that for 3 weeks.

I agree 100%- too many Democrats were on TV saying "Well, he is well qualified, and he does have an impressive resume..."

NO- he does not. He has an INCOMPLETE resume, just like freaking Brownie.

[Benhurst]

3. . . .

:thumbsup:

[Tace]

4. You're So Right

The only reason Bushco is in such a hurry is purely political. They can see the window closing on their power.

[noiretextatique]

5. nader comes to mind

with his "no difference" rhetoric...that awful, lying, egomaniacal bastard :sarcasm:
there is a big difference, as you mention: republicans would fight a nomination to the death, even if they couldn't stop it.

[TwentyFive]

8. Don't forget their well funded right wing groups.

If any republican 'went off the range' they would be forced out in the next election by The Club for Growth, Christian Coalition, KKK, NRA or some other republican backed group.

[TwentyFive]

6. This is why the Democrats are in the minority.

Who can get excited about a team that, when the going gets tough...they fold. Roberts is a huge mistake for the SC. In fact, anybody that Bush appoints has to be, by definition, a mistake.

[noiretextatique]

7. excellent point

all bush's folks are foxes in the henhouse, just like "brownie."

[Meldread]

9. Exactly my point.

...and it should be the talking point of any Democrat with a brain and a spine.

[IntravenousDemilo]

11. Hey, why can't I link to Betty Bowers? n/m

[TwentyFive]

17. I love the Ray cartoon....so funny

Thanks for posting this!

[tritsofme]

10. Ginsberg and Breyer got 95+ votes

Did the Republicans roll over in those cases?

Was it a sign of weak or ineffective leadership when they took over Congress a year later?

SCOTUS nominations are the consequences of presidential elections.

Either way, Democrats showing openess to Roberts allows us to present a united front against an extremist like Janice Rogers Brown.

[Mairead]

12. Small difference: neither Ginsberg nor Breyer is a leftist ideologue.

Roberts is a rightwing ideologue.

Why is it hard for you to see that?

[Dr Fate]

15. Did they hide major documents from congress?

If they did, then the parallel may be a tiny bit more valid.

[Dr Fate]

13. But that was before DEMs got burned on their War & the Patriot Act votes.

After those two votes, it's more reasonable now for to oppose Bush based on the fact that he burns you when you go along with him.

We cant vote "yes" to a liar anymore.

We cant give Bush the benefit of the doubt anymore and base it on parlimentary tradition.

[Czolgosz]

18. What makes you think Roberts is more moderate than Brown? He just more

circumspect whereas she's more candid. I've read quite a few of both judges' opinions, and I see no basis for your suggestion that Roberts is more moderate. Brown is a more forthright speaker, and her views are disgusting but they do not reflect very different views than those espoused by Roberts in his papers released from the Reagan library.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. I'm in the UK, and I'm not very well-up on American political procedure.

If the Republicans decide that they're going to push Roberts through regardless of all opposition, how much could/can the Democrats do to stop them? Does it need a simply majority to get him in, or more than that?

[Mairead]

16. It's a simple-majority decision.

But the Dems could prevent it being brought to a vote by filibustering, which would require 60 or 66 votes, I can't recall which, to terminate. But then the GOP could change the rules to eliminate the right to filibuster, so the dance goes on.

It's a giant, useless game of 'pantomime chicken'.

[Meldread]

19. Kick

:kick: