If our Dem leaders play it right, we can do both, Rove vs. SCJ Nomination

[Rebellious Republican]

My thoughts are simple, if the Dem's do not show boat, keep their faces out of the camera's and mouths away from reporters microphones on the subject of * SCJ pick.

All they simply have to do is say no comment when asked to comment on SCJ. Filibuster (or not) when the time comes, vote up or down when the time comes.

If they can exercise restraint and keep a low profile on it and do what is necessary when the time comes.

Avoid turning it into the circus the pubs are hoping for.

They can still keep the focus on Rove, in other words, take some pages out of the GOP playbook and turn it on the "architect".

Would this be plausible?

Any thoughts on this tactic?

:shrug:

[bunny planet]

1. Sounds like a good idea to me.

We have to keep the heat on the Treasongate story.
A little like a playing a game of chicken with the chickenhawks.
It could work.

[peace frog]

2. Read in the American Prospect today...

... this article by law professor Bruce Ackerman, on how the Dem senators should handle questioning Bush's SC nominees:


"The president has repeatedly promised us justices like Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia, and I propose to take him at his word. If we simply take the trouble to read their opinions, it becomes evident that a Court dominated by Thomases and Scalias would launch a constitutional revolution on a scale unknown since the New Deal.

The Senate should also take the president seriously. Bush has already told us the kind of justices he wants, and if he has had a last-minute change of heart, it should be up to individual nominees to convince us that they are not in the Thomas-Scalia mold.

Placing this burden on the nominee permits senators to define a more decorous and consequential role for themselves in giving 'advise and consent'. Rather than browbeating nominees, senators should take the president at his word, unless the candidate convinces them otherwise. They should repeatedly confront nominees with the opinions of Thomas and Scalia, and ask them to state, clearly and without equivocation, whether they agree or disagree. This approach would focus public attention on the main issue: the sweeping revolution promised by a Thomas-Scalia ascendancy."

[Rebellious Republican]

3. Thanks for that contribution peace frog, this is what I am talking about

How can we keep it simple, DUers?

We all know we are read by many Dem leaders or their advisors, how can we help them with good sound suggestions to keep a lid on this obvious Repub ploy?

Keep'em coming!

:toast:

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. That is very interesting. I am gonna nominate this thread so that

this idea gets out there.

[Rebellious Republican]

12. Thanks GPV, at least some folks here get it. N/T

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. I emailed your post to Sen Reid.

[Rebellious Republican]

4. I suppose I should have framed my question with more of a Flame

fest slant, I would have got more replies like Catwomens. (No Offense Cat, love to read your post's)

I guess tonights DU'ers just want to argue, as opposed to coming up with a solution to the problem.

Silly me!

:silly:

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. My husband said the Dems should have 2 TEAMS.

One team for dealing with the SC and the other to stay on KKKRove. The KKKRove team should get their mugs on camera as often as possible to keep the fight going. The SC team should do just the opposite.

I like your idea. No comment gives the press absolutely NOTHING to talk about. Don't play the RW game they are hoping for....talk about bursting some bubbles!

The fight will come in the Senate though. Bush is nominating a religious RW wacko anti-choice nut job. It WILL be a fight. and THAT is their plan. They WANT a fight to keep KKKRove out of the news. Come time for the vote...s*** will hit the fan.

[Rebellious Republican]

6. I had the same thoughts, I would even go one step further...

When a reporter asks about the SCJ pick, the Dem could say something like, "well I do not have any thoughts on that at this moment, however, I would like to comment on Karl Roves CIA operative outing....", or something to that effect.

[MisterP]

8. you're not allowed to say that! you have to post 20 threads on how we

must not get "distracted"!

[jane_pippin]

9. I hope you're right

And I hope the Dems figure that out sooner rather than later.
Somewhat off topic, Keith Olbermann just posed the question, "is this announcement a bit of a 'wag the dog' story" to keep the heat off Rove? To which Dana Milbank replied, of course.

[Rebellious Republican]

11. Yes I watched two broadcast channels say the exact same thing

tonight as we were cleaning up the dinner table, i flipped from to the other trying catch what the other was saying. I think this little ploy is being noted by the MSM, Amazingly!

[jane_pippin]

14. Really! Great I'm going to take that as good news. Thanks for the info n/t

[Rebellious Republican]

15. Oh and I forgot to say welcome to DU JP! N/T

[jane_pippin]

16. Why thank you RR, glad to be here n/t

[democracyindanger]

10. It's all about Chimpy's judgment.

The Rove scandal is clear evidence that Chimp can't be trusted. If the drum continues to be beaten that this White House puts party politics above the American people--vis a vis Rove--then the SCOTUS nominee can be rightly painted as just further proof of it.

[Rebellious Republican]

13. Very good point, excellent observation democracyindanger. N/T