Obligatory "Defend the Dems on Roberts" Thread

[WilliamPitt]

Roberts is way bad.

The next nominee, the O'Connor replacement, will be a million times worse if what I am hearing is correct.

The Dems kept their powder dry on Roberts, who was going to get confirmed even if they filibustered, so they can go to war over the maniac that gets nominated next.

*crawls back into cave to guard Precious*

[prolesunited]

1. Nice theory

We'll see, but I have my doubts from past performance.

[Melodybe]

2. Let me be the first to say fuck them!

Until they deal with ES&S and Diebold nothing they say matters.

[soleft]

3. Roberts=Renquist

__________= O'Connor

[SeattleGirl]

4. Can't do it

I'm so pissed at Patty Murray for voting for this puke, no way can I defend her.

[ewagner]

5. No flames...I hope you're right

Your opinion/theory depends, however, on the assumptions that:

1. The Dems actually HAVE A PLAN.
2. The Dems actually HAVE LEADERSHIP
3. The Dems will actually FOLLOW LEADERSHIP.

good luck.....

[truebrit71]

11. ..you forgot..and the Dems GROW A COLLECTIVE SPINE...

...good luck indeed.... :eyes:

[maxsolomon]

6. they had nothing to lose by voting no as a block

why enable? why reach out? what reason did Roberts ever give them to vote YES? none that i saw.

the GOP would never return the favor, they'd cut their throats in a second.

are you listening, Sen. Murray, you brainless spineless tool of Boeing?

[mountebank]

26. Except to appear "unreasonable" in the eyes of MSM and public

Who could then trumpet Dem obstructionism and irrationality while they filibuster the next candidate. No - I think they had something to lose.

[Armstead]

39. The GOP will do that anyway

Isn't it clear by now that the Democrats could give GW everything he wants on a silver platter, and the GOP will still label Democrats as obstructionist and irrational?

[maxsolomon]

51. yes. thank you.

they play hardball.

patty murray's seat is safe as long as she doesn't piss off too much of her base.

which she has done.

if slade gorton wanted to come back from the crypt & take her on, she'd be toast.

[Lautremont]

7. I can see only one possibility for shrubby's next nom.

This man:

Mark my words. If you think today is a sad day...

[T Wolf]

8. They will be outvoted on every nominee, so the powder is soaked beyond

saving. Are they delusional enough to believe that since they played nice on Roberts, Bush* will not put up another right-wing wacko? Don't they understand that any cooperation is seen by the pukes as a sign of weakness?

It is long-past time to draw a line in the sand and say, "we may not win this battle but we will not give you the illusion that we will roll over and play dead every damn time."

But, they have rolled over for a rub on the tummy with the hope that they will get a biscuit next time.

They are an out-of-power, opposition party. There will be no victories until Democrats take back Congress. I challenge anyone to show me ONE instance where the stance Congressional Dems have taken has lessened the damage that the pukeswere going to do anyway. At least, they could go down fighting.

[jonnyblitz]

9. is there some rule i am not aware of

that states if you are electing two supreme court justices you can only vote "no" once therefore you have used up your "no" vote option? they can't vote "no" for both? this is a serious question otherwise i dont understand this "saving their "no" vote for the next one who will be worse" excuse. I DO understand a no vote is purely symbolic since we dont have the votes on our side for a win.

[lastknowngood]

10. Bull they have no powder or balls if your waiting for the wimps to

fight you are going to be disappointed.

[MaineDem]

12. The Democrats are toast if one believes everything at DU

No one will vote for any Democrat who voted for Roberts.

They won't vote for anyone who voted for the war.

They won't vote for anyone who voted for Patriot Act.

We might as well close down the Democratic Party and all become GOP.


I'm a little annoyed right now so I apologize for the slight sarcasm. I think it's time for me to stick to LBN and let others fight it out in the GD fora.

[Armstead]

41. Add all those up and That's the problem

It's not just one issue. It's almost every issue.

The Democrats should stand as a block and vote against these terrible things the GOP is cramming through.

But what's more predictable is that their opposition will so diffuse or non-existant that they areseen as having no positions or principles.

[Rowdyboy]

13. I look forward to the explosion when Repubs invoke the "Nuclear Option"

Much of the media has begun to sour on Bush. Now, when the scandal-ridden Republican senate leadership makes this power grab, it will backfire on them mightily. We would have lost on Roberts anyway, and lost the PR battle too. Our Democratic senators have proved they are reasonable and willing to support a qualified Bush nominee. Now, when they take a principled, united stand against whatever nutcase he nominates, it will really mean something. We'll lose when they abolish the filibuster, but we'll win the war by thoroughly discrediting Bush and the Republican leadership.

[ClintonTyree]

14. Why Will, do you constantly defend..........

the Democrats in Congress? You defended them during the filibuster "fight", you defend them now when we've just had Roberts shoved down our throats without any of the requested information provided by the White House. In my opinion, you're an enabler, Will. When will you start holding the Democrats feet to the fire? What would it take to get you to break from the DLC talking points and actually hold our Democratic accountable to their constituents?

I'm sorry Will, I don't mean to be disrespectful but your constant defense of what I consider indefensible annoys the heck out of me. I guess you have a much greater tolerance for our elected leaders' inactivity than I do. When do we finally stand up and fight? How much more do we take? Is boot licking the Democrats eternal fate? I can't take it anymore Will. I've had it up to my ears with the DLC policies of non-intervention and non-combativeness. It's time to fight, damn it.

[WilliamPitt]

18. My Precious tells me to

Azh gazh gimba jook...defend the Dems...

;)

[ClintonTyree]

20. It's mine, give me the precious!

No hard feelings Will, ;) right back attcha!

[BigMcLargehuge]

15. blah blah blah... power dry... blah yadda yadda

fuck them all. They have so much dry powder they could refight the war of 1812 but none of them have any fucking balls.

[charlie]

16. Dems must the dry-powder-havingest party on the planet by now

:)

[DancingBear]

17. The powder is so damn dry now we can use it for kindling

Let's see, we've kept our powder dry on:

The Bankruptcy Bill
The Attorney General
The Filibuster Rules

and whatever else escapes me at the moment.

I must say, though, that I did get a laugh out of the phrase "go to war" re: the next appointment.

The only war Lieberman will defend is the one sponsored by his kissyface friend in The White House.

Do you get the feeling I'm just a wee bit skeptical??

[xchrom]

19. you forgot to add -- again.

the same with the war on iraq.

the same with the bankruptcy bill.

etc.

oh there will be an obligatory number who voted against -- the point being when push comes to shove a certain of dems vote yes on certain bills, appointments, etc to mute the labeling charges.

[proud patriot]

21. Disclaimer: The following post is based soley on my gut instincts

I a former green party member, pretty far left to
a lot of people, have this to say on the matter of Roberts.
I concede I could very likely be WRONG but it is how I
feel non-the-less.

Roberts isn't going to be as bad as worried about IMHO.
Once a person is sitting on the supreme court they no
longer have to worry about "politics" . My gut tells
me to save my energy for the next nominee . Roberts
ended up replacing a far right justice. The one that
replaces the (you never know how she'll vote) O'Conner
will be the one to worry about .

okay there I said it , I feel better having said it .

[jus_the_facts]

22. *Gollum*

[greekspeak]

23. Very funny. Here is what we will hear

"Just wait to see what we have in store."

"We are saving our resources for the next fight."

"Judge Adolph HitlerClone was just so smart."

"The liberals in our party are ruining it."

"Shrub may I fellate you somemore please?"

[deutsey]

24. Yes, isn't it pretty to think so?

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Suziq]

27. I Agree with You

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Leahy decide to vote yes on Roberts after meeting with Chimpy to discuss the next nominee?

Leahy now sees what is coming down the pike. Saving the big fight for when it will really count.



:hippie:

[realFedUp]

28. Playing ball

Let's use this analogy....

A weaker sports team playing a stronger team
decides they'll save their energy for the next game
and team...allegedly even stronger, thus losing
the game.

Just because Roberts is well-educated and doesn't
froth at the mouth is not a reason to put him in
a lifetime position on the highest court in the country.
Senate Democrats didn't even try on this candidate,
even with many civil rights groups doing the research
and handing it to them; thousands of calls and signatures
and testimony in opposition of his getting this job.

I'm tired and frankly fed up with supporting Democrats
who vote their conscience and not with their brains
and the evidence and frankly I won't with money, time
or in writing.

If they can't vote for the right thing en bloc, I won't support them en bloc.

[nonconformist]

29. I don't understand this mentality.

Really. Sincerely, I don't.

Why is there a belief that the Democrats can only strongly oppose ONE thing/person/issue? The belief that we'll be seen as "obstructionists", or that we'll "overplay our hand"? Those beliefs don't jive with reality.

The argument that Roberts was going to be confirmed anyway does not, in any way, excuse those who voted for him. They went against our party platform and what their base wanted when they did that.

[jonnyblitz]

33. that's what i was essentially asking in my post above..

are we only alloted one "NO" vote for every two nominees and if you use it up on the first one THAT IS IT? i never got an answer...

[nonconformist]

42. You won't get an answer.

I've asked that question of the apologists before too. It's never answered.

[tavalon]

60. But the question is rhetorical of course

and so needs no answer.

But, here's your answer nonetheless:

Of course not.

[HEyHEY]

34. Exactly, time to oust the bums

[maxsolomon]

52. JIBE with reality

i'm sorry, i really am

JIBE. not jiVe.

love, the grammar nazi.

[HEyHEY]

30. I become less sympathetic to the people of the US every day

This is another one of them. Obviously your opposition isn't doing its job. Why haven't they been replaced? Because it seems Dem Americans are just as blindly partisan as the republicans. You see it on DU all the time.
ANd if people aren't smart enough to snap out of it... then I'm done feeling bad for them.

ANd I'm sorry, I know this will offend some.. but that's how I feel

[jonnyblitz]

31. I appreciate hearing your point of view...

I often wonder how this looks to others outside the USA. I like the imput no matter what it is. I might even agree. :P

[HEyHEY]

32. Well, this will indirectly effect Canada too

That's the thing. It gives our right wingers cues

[jonnyblitz]

35. I met a non-US girl in NYC last year at the GOP convention

protest and she claimed the whole world should be allowed to vote for US president since he effects the whole world.

[HEyHEY]

37. I've heard tha too

It makes me laugh.

[jonnyblitz]

38. i thought she had a point HEYHEY

sorta.. :crazy:

[nonconformist]

44. I'd say they think that we are weak, spineless enablers. nt

[tavalon]

61. You wonder, really

I'm very aware of how we look. It makes me cringe just thinking about it. We are the greatly feared laughingstock of the world. But come to think of it, that isn't much different than it's been throughout our history, just maybe more applified right now.

[Armstead]

36. Oh no -- not you too!

Don't you think by now the Democrats don't have a warehouseful of dry powder that they've been storing away since at least 2000?

When are they waiting to bring it out? 2009?

[nonconformist]

40. No silly, not in 2009!

We'd be seen as obstructionists for 2010 if we did that. :sarcasm:

The perception is that we are weak. The reality is that we are weak.

[WilliamPitt]

43. 2006

I hope.

[Armstead]

50. They've got enough left over from 2002 for that

Here, let me pull that dang ring off your finger. :)

[tavalon]

62. As long as we dump most of that precious powder

on Diebold, we might just have a chance.

on edit: One thing I have wondered, though, is if Diebold isn't contained, controlled or preferably destroyed, how in the world are the neocons going to explain to the US electorate how they voted the rethug scoundrels back in after Katrina/Delay/Rove/Iraq/blinding deficits/nosediving economy/blatant racism on the part of same rethugs etc. ad nauseum.................

That one will be the spin that will make all of us dizzy as if we aren't already.

[Az]

45. And we continue to lose people because they recognise opportunism

People do not want politicians that are opportunists. They want people that stand up for the things they claim to represent. We will continue to lose to the right because they stand for the nonsense they represent and do not back down.

Good grief they are going to battle over evolution. Their side is nearly demonstrably deluded and yet they are taking a stand on it. And we play games and keep our supposed powder dry. And people see nothing to trust about the Dems and turn to the Repugs because at least they know where they stand.

[Walt Starr]

46. I have one thing to say about the Dems who voted to confirm Roberts

I am deeply disappointed in them.

[fujiyama]

56. Correct me if I'm wrong Walt

but didn't you earlier believe that Dems should vote to confirm him?

Or was it just against using the filibuster in this case?

Not a flame, I'm just curious to see if/when you changed your mind. I agree with you as well. I must admit I'm deeply disappointed in my own senator Levin (who has had a great record in opposing most of Bush's agenda).

[Walt Starr]

66. Just the filibuster

It would have been great if the vote would have come down on party lines, but I can understand why some voted to confirm. It doesn't alter my disappointment and several more voted to confirm than I expected..

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

47. Will...

You're cute when you're being contrarian.

I agree, BTW. Rehnquist was a dickhead and he's being replaced by a guy who may be just as big a dickhead. They guy who's got to be pissed is Scalia. Carries water for all these years, casts a vote that puts Bush in office, and he gets passed over in favor a guy who has less than two years experience as a judge.

[SaveAmerica]

49. It's all down to stolen votes and the subsequent downward spiral

of our country. It's infuriating to know none of this should be happening, these aren't his seats to fill.

[loudsue]

57. Yours is the FIRST post that makes the true point of it all....STOLEN VOTE

We didn't elect these Dems, either, methinks. It's all a corporation thing now...

corporate votes
corporate candidates
corporate results
corporate fraud

a corporate government; Of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.

Privatized elections, no less.

Boosh is NOT the president millions of people voted into office. The republicans in the house and senate were NOT the people who were voted into office. That can only be true for some of the Dems, as well.

:kick::kick::kick:

[meganmonkey]

67. For the sake of accuracy, I would like to point out

that Melodybe said the same thing way upthread. I am on the same wavelength. This is all so illegitimate it makes me ill. I wish the Dems would point THAT out, but I fear it will happen the day I see pigs flying past my window...:shrug:

[blindpig]

53. dead ass wrong

In Roberts they got what they wanted most:a corporate fixer. Now they can game us and their wackiod base with a series of monsters if necessary. I don't know why the Dems even bother showing up.

[fujiyama]

54. I'm disappointed with those thhat voted for him

but I can't just dismiss the rest of Leahy, Levin, and Feingold's careers (among others thhat voted for him), just because of thhis one vote.

They are giving the benefit of the doubt and likely have been charmed by Roberts. But I'm afraid they were being naive. For all our sakes, I hope I'm wrong.

[gulfcoastliberal]

55. Will we defend them on Janice Rodgers Brown, too?

Cuz she's an African-American Female and dems had to keep their powder dry for a possible 3rd SCOTUS appointment?

[tavalon]

58. Cute

You're right, of course, unless you're wrong. We'll see. First we need to see who gets put up. Then we get to see if our Dems put up or as they often do, shut up.

[incapsulated]

59. That powder must be dry enough to soak up the ocean by now.

They are allowed more than one "no" vote, but the way they act, you would think each one cost them a finger, for fucks sake.

[Kingofalldems]

63. You have to pick your battles

Dems did the right thing, even split their vote to counter any attempts by the thugs to play the obstructionist card.

[dionysus]

64. I will agree with you now Will...

but if they let the next one coast too, don't make excuses for that one too. Peace

[buzzsaw_23]

65. More strategic posturing and politics of comfort

from the Dems.

Read this and think about the parallels:
"To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it - please try to believe me - unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop.  Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, "regretted," that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these "little measures" that no "patriotic German" could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing.  One day it is over his head.

<snip>

"How is this to be avoided, among ordinary men, even highly educated ordinary men?  Frankly, I do not know.  I do not see, even now. Many, many times since it all happened I have pondered that pair of great maxims, Principiis obsta and Finem respice  - "Resist the beginnings" and "consider the end."  But one must foresee the end in order to resist, or even see, the beginnings.  One must foresee the end clearly and certainly and how is this to be done, by ordinary men or even by extraordinary men?  Things might have changed here before they went as far as they did; they didn't, but they might have.  And everyone counts on that might.

http://www.thirdreich.net/Thought_They_Were_Free_nn4.html

[rodWA]

68. If they think placating cons with some symbolic affirmation

in order to gain a mainstream nominee for the next position is a decent strategy, I'm not sure they truly know their opponents.