Here's How We Should Handle Roberts...AND WHY!

[MisterLiberal]

I have no idea WHY, but some people here think we should just bend over and let Shrub have his way with our party.

WE SHOULD STAND AGAINST ROBERTS!!! Here's WHY!

We should bring out Roberts' inconsistencies and why we oppose him. When it comes time, we FILIBUSTER. THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN A SUPREME COURT SEAT!!!!

Why? Because we only have to get five Repukes to doubt, that's all!

And get this! After Shrub loses the nomination, we should IMMEDIATELY put pressure on getting a more moderate candidate! I bet KKKarl is betting that if we defeat Roberts he can put Luttig in! But if we take the momentum from defeating Roberts, we can DEMAND for a moderate candidate!

Who can say that's us posturing? Asking for a moderate is more than reasonable!

[trotsky]

1. What are the odds of Chafee, Snowe, and Collins being persuaded?

They're all liberal pro-choice Repubs, right?

Two more after that...

[MisterLiberal]

12. See

All it takes is a few moderate and reasonable voices.

And if we win over a few Repukes, then the cowar..er, moderate Dem senators who might be tempted to vote for him will have cover!

[MisterLiberal]

47. Defeatists

I want the Democrats who say that we should just accept defeat to talk to me a year from now if he's confirmed and tell me they did the right thing by automatically declaring defeat.

[depakid]

2. Get ready for the apologists and "strategists"

Because they'll be on this thread in full force with all sorts of rationalizations about why Roberts can't or shouldn't be blocked.... just as they have FOR EVER SINGLE OTHER ISSUE that's come up AND THAT THE DEMS HAVE LOST time and time again.

A better bunch of enablers would be tough to find... and quite frankly, it's part of the reason why the Dems lose and will continue to lose. With constituents like this- why shouldn't Dems just punt and/or continue to take the money?

[SaveElmer]

5. Lay out a plausible strategy for sustaining a filibuster...

I am all for raking this guy over the coals when the time comes...but unless something more comes out in the hearings...explain exactly how we maintain the filibuster...

We don't lose because we strategize, we lose becasue we are in the minority. Once in a while, when things line up we win (Bolton for example).

I would rather lay low until the hearings, and keep the focus on Bush criminality!!!

[Walt Starr]

8. Well said

:thumbsup:

[depakid]

10. I'm not saying it's gonna happen....

as I mentioned on your thread- the Dems are basically too cowardly to act in concert against the Republicans. They're battered women- but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be assertive and stand up to their abusers-

I'll also add that, like battered women who keep going back to their abusers, they eventually lose their friends, who finally tire of trying to support them.

[depakid]

9. Ummm- do the math

Republicans have how many votes?

This is exactly the kind of talk that got Porter Goss into the CIA (and caused the resultant partisan purge)- to name but one of mny dozens of similar incidents over the past 4 1/2 years....

[MisterLiberal]

11. Maybe you don't understand

The name of our party isn't the DEFEATIST Party; it's the DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

Think about THIS; In eight years, Shrub might have up to THREE Court appointees! That will be almost 100 combined years of Judicial power!

DO WE WANT THIS CLOWN TO HAVE THAT MUCH POWER AFTER HE'S BEEN IMPEACHED?

[Goldmund]

22. How are you going to impeach him --

-- when you are proposing that the attention of the entire nation, as well as the legislative branch, be focused on a filibuster of Roberts?

[MisterLiberal]

26. That is separate

What I'm saying is that we should pull out ALL STOPS on this nomination!

This is far more important than anything else Shrub will do!

I'm saying that if we move and move STRONG, kick our Senators butt into doing what we ELECTED THEM TO DO, we have a chance.

And if we don't, we at least let Shrub know the free ride is over.

We also let the American people know that the Democratic Party is back.

We're not going to roll over anymore...

[SaveElmer]

13. Really?

And you are gonna tell me there aren't 5 Democrats that won't cross no matter what?

Nelson, Landrieu, Lieberman, Nelson (FL), Feinstein...at a minimum.

[MisterLiberal]

17. I have a new term

I am going to start calling all the "cough" so-called Democrats *cough* who want us to roll over "Cingular".

I'm tired of rolling over.

CLUE FOR THE CINGULARS OUT THERE:

GIVING UP IS NEITHER A PLAN OR A STRATEGY!

[SaveElmer]

20. Explain the winning strategy...

If you have some brilliant incite on how to do it I am all ears!!!

[depakid]

24. Pretty simple

Follow the money-

ANY DEM who breaks the filibuster loses all national party support. Period, End of story.

That's what Republicans do- and it works... they vote in blocks.

QED

[SaveElmer]

25. Ok I see...

So in order to stop Roberts...we concede...at a minimum...5 senate seats...or we piss off enough of them so they either become more recalcitrant, or worse yet, switch parties?!

[MisterLiberal]

27. It is better to die on our feet

than cowering too fearfully to act.

We must make a stand.

We must make a stand ON THIS NOMINATION.

[SaveElmer]

28. I have a new term...

Kamikaze Democrat

Fight on every issue, no matter how it may hurt or electoral prospects...

I prefer to keep the long term goal in mind...that is to so completely discredit Bush and his gang of criminals, that Democrats sweep decisevely into power...

A pointless filibuster will detract from that goal.

[MisterLiberal]

35. That would be a cool term

but we'd have to have Democrats who actually FIGHT.

There is no more singularly important issue than a Supreme Court seat.

And you are telling us to just give up??????

The LONG TERM? LOL! Bush will be out of office in a couple years one way or the other. This idiot will be there THREE DECADES.

What kind of long term are you thinking about???

And what is YOUR plan?

Sit there and grab the KY?

[SaveElmer]

36. No it is not the singularly most importan issue...

The most important issue is to get back the White House and our majorities in Congress...everything else flows from that...

But again, if you have a plausible way to keep this guy from winning confirmation that will not harm this larger goal...I am all ears!

[depakid]

40. If that's your goal

then the evidence over the past 10+ years CLEARLY suggests that your so called strategy is an abysmal failure...

[SaveElmer]

49. Hardly...

Might I remind you we held the White House for 8 years... and got 2 Supreme Court justices...

I would also say this situation has nothing to do with anything that came previously, or is indicative of future strategy...it is simply the most effective reaction to this situation.

[depakid]

31. You have to make a stand somewhere- and

put a stop to the backstabbing.

It's what's bled the party dry and led to this predicament in the first place. The only way to stop the bleeding and turn it around is with some old fashioned discipline.

As many a wise person has said- one can learn a lot from their enemies.

I ask- would the Republicans have tolerated what we've seen from the sell out Dems over the past 4 1/2 years?

[SaveElmer]

34. Absolutely not...

And I would like you to lay out a plausible way to keep these Democrats from doing what they do every time...

Explain how you are going to keep at least 5 Democrats from breaking a filibuster...

What does the minority leader have to offer them by way of inducement to keep them in line?

[depakid]

39. Well, what did Dole do with much less in 93-95?

Look how many things he defeated... maybe you should ask how he did it?

Hint: it's along the lines of what I've aleady discussed.

and- hey guess what? the Party wasn't punished for being obstructionist." Even when they shut down the government!

[SaveElmer]

51. Democrats have defeated plenty...

And of course the Republicans are generally more disciplined than Democrats...that is just the truth of the matter.

Unless you can think of an effective way to enforce discipline...things are not going to change in the next 6 weeks.

[MisterLiberal]

48. Easy

If they are a Democrat, we tell them this is the end-all be-all vote. That if they ever supported the party before, THIS Is the issue to support it on.

If some of them start dragging feet, explain it to them just how important this is and start withholding federal support, i.e., MONEY.

That's what they listen to...green.

Now, what's your plan?

[SaveElmer]

50. Federal support is minor...

These senators receive negligible funding from the national party. They are all heavy hitters who are perfectly capable of raising the funds they need.

ANything else to offer?

My strategy is to lie low until the hearings, scrupuosly investigate his backgound to see if there is something on which to hang a sustainable filibuster (much as was done in the Bolton case), and when the hearings arrive, rake him over the coals. In the meantime, get him off the front pages and return our focus to the criminal in the White House.

If nothing comes up that will allow us to sustain a filibuster, we encourage the Democrats on the committee to rake him over the coals on his positions, and vote against him. A filibuster attempt in that case is simply not viable. We would look weak and foolish to try in that case.

[MisterLiberal]

52. I got an idea!

Anyone good with Photoshop?

:)

[MisterLiberal]

15. I CANNOT understand that mindset

On every issue, they say that we shouldn't fight. That we should sit "just this one" out.

We "don't have a chance".

We "need to appear more moderate".

Well, I'm sick of that!

I am willing to put everything I have in this one basket. There is NO MORE IMPORTANT ISSUE to stand on than a Supreme Court seat!

NONE!

Because no matter what * screws up, he's gone in a couple of years. BUt these appointments allow his screw ups to continue FOR DECADES!

OUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE TO PUT UP WITH THESE WACKJOBS!!!

***PLEASE*** pull out ALL THE STOPS on this one! Don't let this happen!!!!

[SaveElmer]

18. Again...lay out a strategy for success in this issue....

That won't hurt us elsewhere...and more importantly remove focus from Bush and his gang of criminals.

Expose the guy...rake him over the coals at the hearings, and by all means vote against him when the time comes...but if we try and sustain a filibuster and lose (which we will unless something comes out at the hearings), we look weak, and it removes the focus from Bush and his cabal.

[MisterLiberal]

29. I STRONGLY disagree!

How can we look weak when we are making a stand?

Even if we lose, we have shown the people that we're not going to roll over anymore.

And we can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, though if it were up to me, and we had to only pay attention to one, I would easily pay attention to this nomination.

We dodged the bullet when his old man gave us Souter.

Are you really willing to take that chance again? I guarantee you that Shrubbie knows he's conservative and Manwich Coulter is out there spouting to make it look like he's not conservative.

DON"T FALL FOR IT!

The plan? Easy; hammer your Senator's office. MOre than at any time in the past, we need this pressure NOW.

Roe v Wade is just the start of the collapse that will come as a result of this nomination!

WHAT WILL YOU TELL YOUR KIDS when they ask what you did to stop Roberts from being confirmed?

[SaveElmer]

32. It's about the media...

If we engage in a pointless and losing effort to filibuster...the media focus will be on that and nothing else...jeezus it took putting a journalist in jail, and a terrorist attack in London to get them off another pretty missing white girl.

And yes..losing makes us look weak...

We can expose this guy for what he appears to be without slitting our own throats in the process.

[depakid]

23. They're battered women

Simple as that.

Every battered woman starts out with a support group, some of whom urge her to stay with her abuser and formulate "strategies" to get the man to change- or to slowly work into a situation where things will be better.

In the vast majority of cases, that doesn't work.

What does work is when women get assertive, prosecute the abusers, stop listening to the enablers and physically leave the situation.

To that end- I've come to the conclusion that ridding the party of DINOS (like the above mentioned) needs to be PRIORITY #1- even if in the short term that means handing the seat to a Republican....

[DELUSIONAL]

3. This is why the GOPigs STOLE the election -- the second time

They knew that they had to have this Supreme Court seat --

And what if bushie is impeached? (wishful thinking -- I know, I know)

This may be his last chance to get a lock on the US treasury FOREVER.

Roberts as a Supreme could perhaps throw out any impeachment -- and bushie could pardon all the crooks just like his daddy did.

[MisterLiberal]

19. Nice!

EXCELLENT POINT!

We need to bring up the fact that Roberts helped Shrub get selected and would be just as willing to cover up any crimes that come his way!

[mmonk]

4. You forgot something....

We are powerless. It's in the Senate' hands and I'm not a Senator. We have lockstep repubs who threaten to break the rules if they don't get their way and defecting dems.

[DoYouEverWonder]

6. Roberts helped Bush get selected

that's enough of a reason for me.

He's a partisian, political activist. There is no room on the SC for radicals like him.

[bloom]

7. If nothing else, any self-respecting Democrat should oppose Roberts

Just so they are not supporting the corporatocracy.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4148864&mesg_id=4148864

[navvet]

14. We Simply Do Not Have the Votes

55 GOP

44 DEM

1 IND

Nuff said.

No matter how much hell we raise if it continues to look as it does today Roberts gets on the court that is the reality of the situation.

Down and dirty.:puke: :dem: :hi:

[MisterLiberal]

30. Answer this navvet

WHAT WILL YOU TELL YOUR KIDS when they ask what you did to stop Roberts from being confirmed?

Look in their eyes. What will you tell them?

"Nothing"?

[navvet]

53. I will tell my daughter Shanda that I

contacted my senators (Kohl, Feingold) concerning this matter and urged them to hold complete and through hearings.

I will do what I can to assist in the coming debate.

I will also explain that this happenstance is the cause of several recent elections and that elections do have consequences and so voting is not to be taking lightly or in a flippant manner.

However I also want her to understand the way the constitution sets up the parameters of the debate, and as much as we dislike it, we simply do not have the votes to prevail if it splits along the party lines (which seem quite likely).

Getting mad or upset will not change the numbers, electing democrats will.

That is all the point I was trying to make.

I am middle age and have been sick and I understand with age that some battle can not be won but need to be fought.

I also perceive the wisdom of fighting in a way that does not put off people who may have a pre disposition to support us if we are not shrill.

The democrats IMHO are handling this about the right way as it sits today, let us see if a knock down drag out is required, as it appears now I am not so sure.
:toast:

[K-W]

55. Personaly, I plan to raise children who understand the constitution

thus there will be no question, beceause they will know that Conservative President + Conservative Congress = Conservative Supreme Court Appointee

[Strawman]

16. I agree, but there's more to worry about than 5 Repugs

I don't even think we can get 41 of 45 Dems (plus Jeffords).

[Goldmund]

21. Five Repukes,

and then Lieberman, Feinstein, Landrieu, etc.

Let's hear YOUR strategy, not just this bright-eyed idealism.

[MisterLiberal]

33. Easy

Pull out all the stops; contact our Senators. Write letters to the editor.

We cannot let this pass! If we do and Shrub gets another seat to fill, guess what? He's gonna say, "You let Roberts through!"

What is your plan?

Besides defaulting to defeat that is.

Let me ask you this Goldmund, if we don't fight on this, on what issue DO WE FIGHT?????????

[Goldmund]

37. I'm not making a stand, I'm still thinking

I do know that it's better to die fighting than cowering.

But best of all is to not die at all.

Rovegate/Plame/DSM is a scandal of potentially historic proportions. It's not some stupid break-in or a sex scandal. It goes to the heart of the Neocon warmongering machine. And it is their Achille's heal.

I will not support ANYTHING that diverts attention from probing that scandal.

IF Roberts' confirmation cannot be stopped -- IF -- then filibustering is lunacy. That's the question we need to answer. Not "is Roberts bad", and not some proclamations of pride and honor and fighting spirit. The question is what we would gain from that fight and what we would lose.

Note, I was one of the loudest screamers about IWR and PATRIOT Act and all the rest of that shit, and I still can't forgive the Dems on rolling over.

But that was then. This is now. An entirely different climate. We have them cornered, and we have the momentum, and they are wounded. We need to tread carefully.

[MisterLiberal]

38. We can do both

But let's put it in perspective please.

Let's say Shrub gets impeached and KKKarl gets prison time.

What then? We're STILL left with 30+ years of this nut!

What will you tell your children when they ask what you did to stop Roberts???

[Goldmund]

41. My guess is that my children won't care what I did

if it's clear that there was nothing I could have done. I also know there are things of much higher value than saving my own face and being able to say this or that in the future and be proud of it.

You wanna put it in perspective?

Let's say the Dems mount a filibuster. The filibuster is defeated (as it MOST LIKELY would be), Dems are tarred and feathered as obstructionists, Rove spins it to his benefit and the public sees any political steps against Rove as "sore loser"-ism. The Dems are totally emasculated. Rehnquist retires, and Bush appoints fucking Ann Coulter to the court. The Dems have NO CAPITAL with which to bargain, as the country is tired from supposed "obstructionism".

What will you tell YOUR children then?

[MisterLiberal]

42. That I didn't roll over

That I FOUGHT when it counted and I gave it everything I had.

I disagree with your outcome. IF we lose after a filibuster then we will have shown that we fight on principal for those ideals that matter to us!

What good is the threat of a filibuster if we never use it??????

Think about THIS: If we can't get ourselves motivated to fight, is there really a Democrat Party here??? I really had no idea I'd be seeing all of these defeating posts. Is that what we really think? THat we can't win? That there's NO CHANCE TO WIN?

I mean seriously, and this isn't being critical to anyone specifically, but why spend the time and energy telling us to sit down and accept defeat when that energy should be channeled into WINNING?

We CANNOT WIN WITHOUT FIGHTING, plain and simple.

There is a chance at winning if we fight.

THERE IS NO CHANCE OF WINNING IF WE DO NOT FIGHT.

NONE!

[Goldmund]

43. Dude, spare me the platitudes

:)

Seriously -- don't equivocate reluctance to detour into THIS PARTICULAR fight with some general defeatism. That's obviously not what I'm advocating.

Why do you think RoveCo made the announcement so early? Do you remember when Andy Card said "You don't introduce new products before Labor Day"? Why make this announcement before a 5-week congressional recess, which leaves us with 5 weeks of time to dig up any dirt on the nominee?

Because RoveCo WANTS this fight. They would rather have THIS fight than the Traitorgate fight.

It doesn't matter what each of us will tell our kids. All that matters is the outcome.

Show me that the outcome of filibustering (in context of Iraq, Tritorgate etc) will be more favorable than the alternative, and I'll support you.

But I'm not interested in battle-cries.

[MisterLiberal]

44. Fine

And I'm not trying to insult you or anything. It just gets frustrating on a Democrat site being told to accept defeat. And I don't think they want this fight; even if you're right about the timing, I think it's a desperation ploy that they HAD to announce.

Here's my case to convince you: Even if we get everything we want in Traitorgate, that just means President Hastert.

But if we get screwed on SCOTUS, then we get 30+ years of a conservative judge!!! Believe me, I'd love to see traitorgate go bigtime but this is more important.

Shrub's approval ratings are down the toilet, he won't have a personal Presidential legacy but if he gets conservative Justices on the court, he will have a POLITICAL LEGACY that goes on for DECADES after he is gone!!!!

Imagine a conservative court in the 60's and what kind of damage our country would be in right now! Now imagine the first three decades+ of the 21st century the same way!!!!

[Goldmund]

45. Don't worry, I'm not getting insulted

Au contraire -- I love a spirited debate. :)

Even if we get everything we want in Traitorgate, that just means President Hastert.

I think you're dead wrong about that. We also get the practically eternal characterization of the GOP as a corrupt, traitorous bunch of criminal thugs. Any time in the future that a political candidate even wears the same deodorant as Bush did, he/she will be in political trouble. Neocon ideas themselves will be discredited. "Pre-emptive war", "moral values", "with us or against us" -- all that will be exposed as crookery.

Furthermore, you do know that even with Roberts there, Roe is still alive: 5-4.

Roe will NOT be alive once a liberal judge retires (also likely before 2009) and Bush puts in an anti-choicer. THAT will be the crucial judicial battle. If we come out of this beaten up and bruised, and with Roberts on the Bench -- as I said before, Bush will be able to appoint Ann fuckin' Coulter. Think a few steps in advance.

If we have a president Hastert, he'll have the political power of a garden plant. You think they would dare to push through a wingnut if Rove is in jail and Bush is impeached??

[MisterLiberal]

46. Well

We didn't get that eternal criminalization after Nixon. There would be a period of time then it would go back to normal just like last time.

And President Hastert has the same power that President Ford had (and used): PARDON.

Roe is in trouble because when it came to abortion, OConnor was always the swing vote. We are now replacing a swing vote with a hard right vote!

If we roll over on this, when the Chief Justice resigns, we'll get ANOTHER hard right.

And there's talk of another vacancy in the next year! We can't give them the momentum to do this!

[SheepyMcSheepster]

56. this would be a "democratic" site

not a democrat site.

hence it is named "the democratic underground" not "the democrat underground"

just an fyi.

you wrote: "It just gets frustrating on a Democrat site being told to accept defeat."

right wingers often misuse the term. i wouldn't want anyone to mistake you for a righty.

..and welcom to DU!
:hi:

[MisterLiberal]

58. cringe

My parents are right wing nutjobs shudder

I say "democrat" as the party since democratic is considered the political process.

That's not correct?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

59. no it's not correct

dem·o·crat Audio pronunciation of "democrat" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-krt)
n.

1. An advocate of democracy.
2. Democrat A member of the Democratic Party.



dem·o·crat·ic Audio pronunciation of "democratic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (dm-krtk)
adj.

1. Of, characterized by, or advocating democracy: democratic government; a democratic union.
2. Of or for the people in general; popular: a democratic movement; democratic art forms.
3. Believing in or practicing social equality: “a proper democratic scorn for bloated dukes and lords” (George du Maurier).
4. Democratic Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party.



check here for how the party describes its self using "The Democratic Party": http://www.democrats.org/

[K-W]

54. You arent getting a moderate,

Bush will keep on nominating people like Roberts until one gets through.

Republicans will NOT stand with democrats if they filibuster. The only hope of creating real discussion about this candidate is letting it go to vote.

If the dems filibuster the story will be entirely about the dems obstructionism, and every republican and many democrats would condemn them for insisting Bush nominate a candidate supported by the minority party.

[Jose Diablo]

57. I say lets go for the throat

That would be Rove on espionage charges. The cooking of intelligence and lying to the people to start a 'preemptive war' on false information and corruption of the Republican party in regards to election fraud, campaign money irregularities (laundering stolen money from Iraq war). And last but not least, who are these blackbag boys and what have they been up to these last 30 years?

That PNAC crowd belong in jail. The Republican party belongs in the trash can. The entire BFEE should be Leavenworth watching the gallows being built just for them.