Should Dems use Brown against Roberts?

[wurzel]

It is clear that Brown was confirmed as head of FEMA with little investigation and information about his qualifications. Now we have a Chief Justice being rushed through confirmation by Republicans while information about him is being witheld by WH. Can Dems use "No More Browns" tactic to pry documents about Roberts loose?

[malaise]

1. Yes n/t

[cami715]

3. If they are smart they will.

Based upon the * appointees thus far, not a single one has been a winner! Rice, Bolton, Brown, Chertoff, Gonzales, etc.

[malaise]

7. and lack of experience

is the line they must use along with the political cronyism.

[Pharlo]

15. Highlight similarities

Brown: 2 years in FEMA 'qualified' him for the top spot.
Roberts: 2 years as a judge 'qualifies' him for the top spot?

Then ask:

How much does this administration - and, based upon a history of confirmations - this Congress HATE the American people?

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. Absolutely. This regime's use and abuse of patronage...

in *important* jobs outlandish. Clinton appointed his Lewinskys to internships and the like. Bush appoints his to FEMA and to the judiciary.

DEMs on in Congress better start taking their responsibilty to advise and consent seriously.

[creeksneakers2]

4. Good idea n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

5. You would hope it means no more rubber stamping

of any nominee, especially one that is going to get a lifetime appointment to be the Chief Justice.

[Kolesar]

6. Deliver a caribou to the hearing

Roberts is being placed at the behest of the developers and oil companies more so than for the religious right.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. A real live one?

------------------------------------------------------
Ditch Bu$h and save the Gulf: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=22507&mesg_id=22507

Then save the nation!
http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Kolesar]

14. Sure. We won't tell Flounder there are only blanks in the pistol

"You really hate Niedermeyer, don't you?"

[nonconformist]

9. Hell yes.

The real question isn't "should they" but "WILL they".

I sadly have no clue to the answer of that question.

[peekaloo]

10. Hell yes.

This is another area where the media needs to wake up and do some research/serious reporting.

[blm]

11. Absolutely...trusting Bush's judgement just AIN'T GONNA CUT IT.....not

even the corporate media is willing to keep spinning that tired line for Bush anymore.

[OneGrassRoot]

12. ABSOLUTELY......couldn't agree more n/t

[highplainsdem]

13. They'd be fools not to.

[wurzel]

16. I haven't heard a Dem mention it.

[napi21]

17. Howard Dean did! Wolfe ran it on his "Late Edition" show today.

I don't have a link, but I was watching CNN at the time.

[wurzel]

18. I should have had faith. Kick for Dean!

[journalist3072]

19. Not only SHOULD they do it

I believe that they MUST do it. They are obligated to do so.

If they do any less, they will not be fulfilling their duty of advise and consent.