Democrats split on tactics over Roberts' nomination

[question everything]

ANALYSIS

Democrats split on tactics over Roberts' nomination

By George E. Condon Jr.
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

August 29, 2005

WASHINGTON – Judge John Roberts' nomination to the Supreme Court has exposed a potentially important fissure between Democratic officeholders who want to steer a cautious centrist path and increasingly vocal activists who demand a more confrontational course, both on Roberts and the war in Iraq.

The split is complicated because most of the critics use the Internet as a megaphone for their grievances and have demonstrated the kind of fundraising capability that gets the attention of members of Congress and potential presidential candidates.

The clash between the liberal activists and more moderate officeholders is most pronounced over the war, particularly with Democratic leaders fighting to keep the party from being cast as weak on defense while activists are demanding a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops. But the battle over the Roberts nomination tops the agenda, with Senate hearings set to begin Sept. 6.

(snip)

Sirota, who has been a press secretary and a committee staffer in the House, recently helped start the Progressive Legislative Action Network to push liberal policies at the state level. In his writings, he has described Democrats in Washington as "weak-kneed" and lacking "guts" on the Roberts nomination. He acknowledged that it is probably unrealistic to think Democrats could defeat Roberts. "But if you just roll over and die completely, that is what is unacceptable," he said.

(snip)

Boston-based Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh warned that a Democrat who caters too much to this base will lose any chance of winning the votes of centrists who can boost a national candidate to a majority.,, Expending too much energy to try to defeat Roberts in the face of his almost-certain confirmation would likely hurt most Democratic senators at the next election, she said, though they would win plaudits on Web sites. "If the blogs and the Internet were everything in an election, then Howard Dean would be president," she added.

(snip)

Chris Bowers, a Philadelphia blogger and union organizer, just completed a study of the political influence of bloggers... "We are reform Democrats but we also tend to be progressive Democrats," he wrote. "We are also much, much more powerful than we were in mid-2003 when Dean began his meteoric rise. Imagine where we will be in 2007." Elected Democrats need not fear this power, Sirota said. "We're just looking for more conviction. The Democrats don't seem to yet understand that conviction is the best tactic."


Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050829/news_1n29roberts.html

[BillZBubb]

1. The Vichy wing of the party wants to surrender. What's new?

Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh: "If the blogs and the Internet were everything in an election, then Howard Dean would be president".

And if idiots like Mary Anne were correct Gore and Kerry would have won in landslides. If we don't fight, we lose. Every time.

When has opposing the Democrats on every issue ever hurt the Repugs in elections????? Or even impeaching a president over bullshit???? But, if Democrats fight back, we'll lose the centrists???? Right.

Fight or perish.

[H5N1]

2. Shall they use the gilded rubber stamp... or the traditional?

Lieberman calls the traditional model Old Glory!

[bklyncowgirl]

3. Democrats split, I'm shocked, shocked!

Good lord these people couldn't agree on lunch. Bush is collapsing and Democrats are more interested in fighting each other.

Congressional Democrats are afraid of their own shadows.

So what else is new.