Bill Clinton shows us how it's done regarding John Roberts

[geek tragedy]

Bill Clinton has taken a lot of flack here because of this article where he says generally nice things about John Roberts:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a4USaynAtgJU

However, most people are looking at the niceties but ignoring the glaring issue that Clinton placed front and center: Roberts' hostility towards civil rights.

Clinton not only spoke about Roberts' civil rights stand, he pointed at a very specific memo, in which Roberts effectively suggested that Congress could overturn Brown vs Board of Education and allow states to racially segregate schools.

<snip>
Clinton said the Senate should explore the memo Roberts wrote as a lawyer in the Reagan administration that argued that Congress should be allowed to bar courts from ordering busing to desegregate schools. Clinton said he was ``surprised'' by the memo, calling it ``to the right'' of conservative legal scholar Ted Olson, who was then an assistant U.S. attorney general.
<snip>

This kind of jurisdiction-stripping is held by the worst of the worst of the right--those who hate the constitution and believe that Congress can do away with ANY right by simply denying courts the jurisdiction to enforce that right.

That issue should be front and center on every list of talking points.

Can we take a hint?

[leesa]

1. Yes. Appeasing criminals works so well, doesn't it?

[geek tragedy]

9. He's not appeasing him. He's shanking him while he's pretending

to hug him.

[thinkingwoman]

27. some people refuse to see

anything subtle, creative.

They want only to charge ahead with horns down. No finesse. No trappings.

[mattclearing]

2. Seconded.

Bill, diplomatic as always, has handed us a good talking point here.

[Mass]

3. Uh, a lot of dems have said that before Clinton...

Starting by Schumer and Leahy.

Clinton is just following suit...

[mattclearing]

4. Hey, at least he's on message...well, sort of. n/t

[geek tragedy]

12. But notice that he's getting the issue more prominent play.

A sharp criticism in the middle of meaningless pleasantries stands out a lot more than a sharp criticism in the middle of heated rhetoric.

[Mass]

31. If you like that.

Personnally, I think it is time to call them what they are and stop the niceties.

[bvar22]

46. He also "handed" the Conservative Media...

a list of talking points.
This is easily spun as Bill Clinton supports Roberts.
They have done it before, they will do it here.

[papau]

5. LATimes notes same problem: "Roberts' iffy support for voting rights"

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-hasen3aug03,0,6442078.story?track=tottext

Roberts' iffy support for voting rights
By Richard L. Hasen
Richard L. Hasen teaches election law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles. The documents he referred to are posted on his website, electionlawblog.org.

August 3, 2005

At the beginning of the 1980s, African American voters made up about one-third of the electorate of Mobile, Ala. Studies showed clearly that these black voters preferred different candidates than white voters, but the nature of the electoral system in the city — in which candidates for city commissioner were elected by majority vote throughout the entire city — meant that the candidates backed by blacks were never elected. The two-thirds of the electorate that was white always outvoted the one-third that was black.

African American civil rights organizations sued, claiming that the at-large voting system unconstitutionally "diluted" their votes. But the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, holding that Mobile's election system did not violate the 14th or 15th Amendments because there was no evidence it had been designed with the intent of discriminating against minority voters.

In response, the civil rights community pushed to have Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 amended to allow such a "vote dilution" claim to go forward without proof of discriminatory intent. It would be enough to show that election laws such as Mobile's had a discriminatory effect.

In the Reagan administration at that time was a 27-year-old lawyer named John Roberts. As a special assistant to Atty. Gen. William French Smith, Roberts was a major force behind the administration's efforts to oppose the new Section 2, according to newly released papers. He drafted Op-Ed articles, questions and answers for senators and documents aimed at defeating the new Section 2.

In these documents, Roberts wrote that the new Section 2 would "establish a quota system" and "provide a basis for the most intrusive interference imaginable by federal courts into state and local processes." He added that it "would be difficult to conceive of a more drastic alteration of local government affairs." <snip>

[blm]

6. Clinton is saying what Schumer, Kerry, Leahy and others have already said.

But corporate media is selective as to who gets heard.

[geek tragedy]

7. Bill knows that. But you'll notice he made a point of mentioning it.

Poison in honey is deadlier than poison in vinegar.

[lancdem]

8. Yes

And I think this is a great angle to pursue concerning Roberts. We should push this ad nauseam.

[Gold Metal Flake]

10. So, John Roberts is a Segregationist?

Is that what you are saying, that he is a Segregationist?

Maybe you are suggesting that we refer to him (John Roberts) as a Segregationist?

Maybe you are suggesting that the word Segregationist be used often when speaking of John Roberts?

Perhaps Segregationist Nominee for the Supreme Court is the correct term to preceed the proper name John Roberts?

Might the descriptor Segregationist be appropriate when spoken in the context of John Roberts?

Or should we just argue about Clinton?

[geek tragedy]

11. I don't think John Roberts is a per se Segregationist. However, he

does advance many of the same arguments made by Segregationists.

And his opinions certainly indicate that, had he been on the bench in the 1950's, the Segregationists might have carried the day.

John Roberts believes that Congress can authorize Segregationism.

But, who wants to call attention to the fact that Roberts is objectively pro-Segregationism when we can bash Clinton.

[CWebster]

13. Now is not the time for "leaders" to make like statesmen

There is no being diplomatic with these bastards and Clinton only serves to constantly deflect, weaken and muddle the necessary confrontation. He is the wrong man at the wrong time and that is why I wish the Clintons would bow out and LEAVE so the party could reemerge with purpose, energy and honorable intent.

Someone has to make that stand and say: Have you no shame? Have you no sense of decency?

And Clinton and the Mrs ain't gonna be the ones.

[geek tragedy]

14. This isn't about being nice or statesman like. It's about highlighting

Roberts AWFUL record in the most effective manner possible.

If I feed my enemy poison in honey instead of in vinegar, does it mean that I'm being nice to my enemy?

[CWebster]

15. Sort of like not criticizing the president?

Man, sometime you have to face up to who you are dealing with. It isn't a mystery to the rest of the world.

[geek tragedy]

16. But Clinton DID criticize him and highlighted his appalling views

on civil rights.

Do you think he just happened to mention a very specific DoJ memo from the Reagan administration by accident?

[CWebster]

17. It's lost in the civilities.

He is always providing them cover.

But I do notice a new flood of Clinton apologists and cheerleaders aboard. Trying to tapdance for the grassroots, eh? Please.

[geek tragedy]

18. No, it doesn't get lost in the niceties. That's the entire point.

Read the article. They spend two full paragraphs talking about one specific memo from the Reagan administration.

That's gold.

[CWebster]

19. It ALWAYS gets lost in the civilities.

[geek tragedy]

22. It didn't in that story.

People read it thinking "Oh another recommendation for Roberts from the Dems."

Then they get into the story, and whoa.

Bill just gave us a talking point and highlighted it in the media. We can take advantage of it, or we can just bash Clinton.

Me, I'm going to agree with Bill Clinton that John Roberts seems like a nice, bright fellow who expressed extremely troubling ideas about civil rights in the Reagan administration, and needs to answer for those outrageous opinions.

[CWebster]

26. the headlines are all that matters

You should know better.

[geek tragedy]

30. Today's headlines don't mean squat. Tomorrow's talking points

and themes do.

Nice guy, dangerous views.

[Pepperbelly]

49. And I should trust your judgement over BC's why?

Seriously. He has a winning track record. His political judgement and communication skills are impeccable. What makes your judgement superior?

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Yeah, subtlety really worked for Kerry, didn't it?

We're in a bar fight here, there aren't any niceties like bowing before the brawl.

Things to never do with a conservative: graciously compliment to set up the zinger or ask rhetorical questions. With the former, they can cut you off or misquote you and ride joyously on the praise. With the latter, you give them a chance to answer and take the floor. With the former, you hit them front and center with the grave misgivings; if you need to, you can grant a few bits of praise to end your statement. With the latter, you put words in their mouth and make pronouncements about what their responses will be.

Sheesh.

Clinton drives me nuts.

[geek tragedy]

23. Kerry doesn't have 1/10th of Clinton's skill.

No knock on Kerry, but Clinton is the master at this.

[CWebster]

25. Yeah?Well, what exactly has he mastered?

His criticisms are negated because he couched them and, thereby, buried them.

It hasn't worked ONCE throughout Bush's free ride.

[geek tragedy]

28. Clinton beat the Goopers twice. Is there ANY doubt that, even post-Monica

that he'd wipe the floor with W in a general election?

[PurityOfEssence]

43. Yes. There's doubt about that.

If they can get the 22nd amendment overturned, we may even see a test of this contention.

He's been vilified as shifty and veracity challenged, and even though he's got more charisma than Junior, Junior has a firm control of his base who will goose-step together no matter what. Clinton has alienated and annoyed many of the true left, and his negatives are higher than they should be. Still, they're there.

You're preaching to the choir, and even here you'll get lots of dispute of this assumption from the left, the centrists and the wishy-washy.

I hope this never happens, but we're going to see many strange things in the next few years.

[Pepperbelly]

50. I would put a hundred bucks on Bill right here and now ...

He would kick the shit out of Bush.

And about anyone else you might care to scare up.

[Joe Chi Minh]

47. What do you mean "even post-Monica"?

What did she have to do with anything that was anyone else's business? Some of the greatest statesmen, genuine political giants, had the same Achilles' heel. In the UK, notably, Lloyd George. You had John Kennedy, of course.

[PurityOfEssence]

44. He's got about half of Clinton's skill, but just a tenth of the charisma

Don't confuse the two. Sex appeal and personal magnetism outweigh substance and tactical prowess to such a degree that measurements mean nothing.

Clinton's tactical skills are formidable, but they only matter when he's in power. When he's without the mandate of office, he's endlessly worried about acceptance, and following the railroading he got in '98, he needs acceptance more than anything.

People love to withhold love and acceptance from others; it gives them a shitty form of power. Clinton's on the receiving end of this now, and he doesn't seem able to recover.

Clinton is a fool. He's a very smart, tactically adept idiot. More than anything else, he still wants to be loved by everybody, and there's less chance of that than there is of Cheney giving up sport killing of farm-raised little birdies. Still, he sucks up to and plays nice with the Republicans, hoping for a reprieve.

Winning elections--especially the presidency--is more about style and sex appeal than anything else.

If we REALLY want to win the presidency, we should enlist casting agents in the cause; they know what works.

[Q]

21. Ah, the old triangulation strangulation...

...where Clinton tried to play the middle against both sides and comes out looking like someone without principles.

This isn't a 'hint'...it's a sellout. The HEADLINES will be that he PRAISES Roberts. The rest of what he said will be in subtext...exactly where Clinton wanted it so as to not offend the Bush fascists.

[geek tragedy]

24. Why did he mention that specific memo?

Take the ball and run with it.

It's not personal with John Roberts, but his views on civil rights and the constitution are deeply troubling.

That is an effective mantra.

[Q]

29. Most people read the HEADLINES...

...and many won't ever read the 'paragraphs' that you seem to love to much.

Why should it have to be 'personal' to tell the truth? Why praise him AT ALL?

One doesn't get a straight forward message out by confusing the issues.

All of this ends of reading like this: Clinton must not think the guy is all THAT bad if he has such nice things to say about him.

There is no 'effective mantra' here. Just third way appeasement and shallow politics.

[geek tragedy]

32. It's ju-jitsu instead of a bar room brawl. Republicans win bar room

brawls, we win like this.

[Q]

33. They win because we have no leadership...

...and it's not much more complicated than that. The 'leadership' we DO have seems more interested in not offending the fascists than defending the victims of Bush's insane policies.

Clinton and others seem to forget one very important thing as they go about kissing the RWing's ass: This isn't just a 'bad' or 'incompetent' administration. They have committed crimes against the state and humanity. They shouldn't be treated with ANY kind of respect.

Is it any wonder that many think the 'moderates' are complicit in helping the Bush agenda succeed?

[geek tragedy]

34. It's not about appeasing the rightwingers or being weak. It's about

framing an effective media narrative.

Today's headline: Dems say nice personal things about Roberts (but raise specific concerns about his record)

Tomorrow's headline: Dems continue to raise questions about Roberts' record

Next month's headline: A growing sense of concern over Roberts' civil rights record is leading many to rethink Roberts' fitness for the court.

It's a chess match, not a street brawl.

[Q]

35. Sure...and as you sit there at your chess board...

...the Bushie RWingers are drving a knife in your back. This begs the question: Why bring a chess board to a gun fight?

The Democratic party has been marginalized, neutralized and neutered. And you and Clinton are still trying to get the RWingers to play chess? It's not going to happen.

It's a street brawl. And the fact that the Democratic party has NEVER been in this bad of shape or this powerless shows that the centrists/moderates don't have a friggin clue about which direction to take the party.

Time to turn the party over to the progressives.

[geek tragedy]

41. When have progressives ever won a street brawl with the Rethugs?

Street brawling is their game, not ours.

And your suggestion that a person can't be a progressive unless they play street brawl politics is stupid.

[Al-CIAda]

36. Your own metaphors are your demise.

"It's a chess match, not a street brawl."
Yet you also say "Repubs win 'street brawls'".

So...we must have the WH and congress then! -but we don't.

No, the fascists just smash the 'chessboard' with their fists and throw the pieces in our faces. Fuck the games, tell it like it is.

[mopinko]

37. no, like bolton, it's coup2k

that we should be screaming about.

[autorank]

38. Don't give BushCo killer quotes and then get credit for doing it right.

Nope, sorry. I'd like to agree with you. But Clinton's statements on Roberts are a disaster. They'll be all over, just the favorable ones. It think that he's been co-opted. This is vintage Clinton. Do the job, prop up Roberts for his new pals but keep your credibility by telling the truth in one part of the statement. Sorry, Bill, we know how this works. You betrayed the party just like you did when you went after the intern and gave us all a black eye for having to defend a twisted morality. He souldn't have been impeached and that fight was a requirement BUT he should have resigned in disgrace (and it was).

Clinton...you're with us or your against us. Giving BushCo massive publicity for favorable Roberts spin is a transparent move on your part. We don't believe it. What's at stake? A place for you on the Carlyle Board?

[Q]

42. Let's not get carried away here...

Messing around with an intern may have been a sign of poor judgment...but it's not an impeachable offense and certainly not a reason to resign.

Clinton may have been a poor Democrat...but he broke no laws in relationship to his duties as president.

[autorank]

45. deep breath...I'm not carried away.

I said "He souldn't have been impeached and that fight was a requirement BUT he should have resigned in disgrace (and it was)." This indicates that I don't think it was impeachable but, as per your point, I do think he should have resigned.

I never said he broke any laws, that's why I said he should NOT have been impeached.

We do agree...he is a lousy Democrat!

[msanthrope]

39. You must coat the knife with arsenic-laden sugar before

slipping it in......

And Bill knows how to do that....I love that man.

[autorank]

40. Our times call for outrage. He can do that and do it well.

He needs to buy a vowel and realize that the whole damn country is on the line. If he came out with a shit-kicker speech, like Kennedy's when Bork was nominated, then we'd be in GREAT shape. That's the power he has and he's not using it. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy on some level, but I'm tired of the cavorting with the rich and famous. He needs to remember his roots and struggle, remember how vile the Republicans treated him (the Lewinsky thing should never have been mentioned...many of them on both sides do this!). He needs to get in touch with the people again and "feel our rage" then do something about it.

[usregimechange]

48. Your right, lets get the issue out there.

[brindis_desala]

51. You are absolutely correct. People presume that the reporters

emphasis was Clinton's. Interviews rarely perfectly reflect the thrust of the interviewee, yet Clinton managed to nail Roberts on a VERY SETTLED point of law. As for his not being combative he is not an ex- congressman or anonymous blogger he is an ex-president. Not only is a certain decorum required he is careful to allude to the fact that Bush is owed his prerogatives just a FUTURE DEMOCRATIC president should be when he names a liberal. More than Roe v Wade defending Plessy vs Ferguson should be sufficient to do Roberts in. End of discussion.