NYT: Democrats Split on Tactics for Roberts Confirmation Hearings

[DeepModem Mom]

Democrats Split on Tactics for Confirmation Hearings
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: August 22, 2005


WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 - Two weeks before senators begin questioning the Supreme Court nominee, John G. Roberts Jr., the debate over his confirmation is becoming a test of Senate Democrats as well.

The party's liberal base, whose contributions during judicial confirmation fights earlier this year have helped the Senate Democratic campaign fund amass twice as much as its Republican rival, is pressing for another vigorous fight against Judge Roberts as documents from the Reagan administration clarify his conservative credentials.

But as Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and other liberal stalwarts on the Judiciary Committee step up their criticism of Judge Roberts's record, other Democrats are reluctant to join them....

***

Several Democratic senators said the hearings on Judge Roberts were shaping up as a risky balancing act. Failing to press him could look weak to their liberal base. But attacking too hard could draw Democrats into a losing battle on the treacherous turf of abortion, race and religion at a time when Republicans appear vulnerable on other fronts.

(Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin) said that he considered a Supreme Court nominee too important to evaluate in only political terms, but that in those terms, a protracted confirmation fight "could take away time from issues where Democrats have a much better position politically, on things like health care, the economy, and, yes, Iraq."...


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/politics/politicsspecial1/22dems.html?hp&ex=1124683200&en=ed37f41440755e3b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

[Melodybe]

1. The DLC sabotaging us again! Color me surprised.

[goforit]

4. Lieberman??....Let me guess.

[Pirate Smile]

2. I'm sensing a theme.

Democrats Split Over Position on Iraq War
Activists More Vocal As Leaders Decline To Challenge Bush

By Peter Baker and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, August 22, 2005; Page A01

Democrats say a long-standing rift in the party over the Iraq war has grown increasingly raw in recent days, as stay-the-course elected leaders who voted for the war three years ago confront rising impatience from activists and strategists who want to challenge President Bush aggressively to withdraw troops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/21/AR2005082100831.html

:grr:

[DeepModem Mom]

3. I noticed the same thing -- the two headlines on LBN pg1 at the same time.

Not good.

[Iowa]

5. There always seem to be just enough Dem hold-outs...

to keep the corporate agenda safely on track. We have two major parties: the corporate party, and the corporate party that pretends not to be the corporate party. I'm just waiting for the DLC to come to Bush's rescue on Social Security. It'll be interesting to see how they accomplish that without blowing their cover.

[depakid]

6. More excuses

and STUPID "strategizing" that has cost the Dems more than their majority- it's cost them their relevance.

Doesn't look like they're going to get it back ay time soon. Not that they deserve it, with their sorry performace over the past several years.

Fiengold, I might add- voted for Ashcroft on some similar twisted logic.

[Voltaire99]

7. "But attacking too hard could draw Democrats into a losing battle..."

Heh.

The same old charade.

Pretend to oppose Republicans; then fall in line with them; then run a GOP-lite candidate in the eleciton; then say it's not the election to stand on principles...

Great scam!