Leahy for Roberts - CALM DOWN! I think I know why.

[Hawkeye-X]

I think Leahy is still going to reject Roberts. Right now, he's in the Judiciary committee and as you know, it's dominated by Pukes, so maybe the strategy plan is this:

Leahy votes yes to get him out.

Leahy and the other Democratic Party member begins railing out Roberts, demanding more hearings and threaten to filibuster - tell the Republicans that it is over. No more nuclear option. The Republicans won't have the vote to break the filibuster and not even any votes to initiate the nuclear option. That shows the true colors of Frist - ranting and raving like a maniac, with all to see. Then out of public embarassment, Republicans quietly sustain the filibuster and save face and tell Chimp, "Nope, won't work. Find us another candidate without ultrarightwing leanings.".

Chimp tries to nominate more ultrarightwing loons, and still gets rejected. Thus, Supreme Court remains balanced at 7 judges instead of 9.

With the liberal judges winning. :P Stevens will live another 20 more years and eventually oversees the impeachment of Chimp.

Hawkeye-X

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. I think Leahy's support is more about the NEXT nominee.

The generally held view is that Roberts isn't that bad. If we all vote no on Roberts, that'll green light Bush to nominate someone akin to Atilla the Hun. After all, we'd essentially be saying we'd vote no on anyone Bush nominates, so what would it matter? He can't do that right now because he doesn't even have the support within his own party to win that kind of fight.

[rodeodance]

4. this generally held view is dead wrong!! I am listening to Ted Kennedy

on cspan right now!


The generally held view is that Roberts isn't that bad.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

5. Dead wrong or not, that's the held view and we aren't gonna change it.

[Dr Fate]

19. Generally held by WHO? The 38% or so that supports Bush?

???

The tiny percentage of Americans who are even paying attention to this?

[formernaderite]

10. oh hell here we go with the democratic malaise of relativity

again!!!

[truebrit71]

6. I think you may be right...

Roberts is one scary looking dude, but I believe there is a chance that he be less shitty once he's approved. I keep being reminded of Justice Souter i think it was, that was thought to be a conservative by the rethugs, but once he donned the robes he became more of a centre/leftist...

Roberts may turn out the same way...anyone that says that Roe v Wade is settled law, ON THE SURFACE, can't be all bad....

I think that Lt AWOL agreed to a more "moderate" 2nd candidate, in exchange for a yes vote on Roberts. Bear in mind Leahy made this annoucement AFTER meeting the Connecticut Cowboy....

It's either that, or Leahy is being strong-armed/hood-winked/threatened...

[springhill]

9. You have got to be kidding me, right?

You have to be delusion to believe that they would pick anyone who isn't in lockstep with their agenda. Remember, he was part of the team that help Bush get into office in 2000. He is part of THEIR team.

[category5]

104. Repugs picked Souter did'nt they, and he screwed them !!

[renaissanceguy]

8. You're crazy.

You're more worried about what REPUGS will think of Dems, rather than the decisions Roberts will make in the next 30 YEARS?!?!

Oh yes...let's go along with shrub...we need to look appealing to them, or else they'll call us *gasp* OBSTRUCTIONISTS. What the HELL do you think THEY'D be doing if it were President Kerry nominating someone?!

It's time for politicians to DO THEIR JOBS and not look for political expediency. Their lack of backbone is what turns off voters.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Repeat after me: WE CANNOT STOP ROBERTS!

Get that through your head. It ain't gonna happen.

[enough already]

13. It COULD happen if Democrats had the balls to stick together.

Alas, Leahy has now rolled over too. I can't believe this happening.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

14. No. No it couldn't happen.

Nuclear would've been used, and in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans, it'd have been justified.

[Dr Fate]

18. A vast majority of Americans supports a "Brownie" style nomination?

That is, a nomination where the candidate hid parts of his resume and refused to answer a single question with straight answers?

I think the "vast majority of Americans", in light of "Brownie" would not support that- but you have to FRAME it that way.

DEMS could have said:

"Americans know that if they refuse to provide records and a complete resume to their potential employer, or that if they refuse to give straight answers at a job interview, then they will not get that job.

Why should Robets be given special treatment? We cant let appointees in who hide parts of their resumes- we cant have another Brownie."

Vast majority of Americans would easily agree with that.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. And what media channel do you expect such a message to get across on?

[Dr Fate]

23. I saw Hillary&Bill, Obama, Dean, Edwards, on major TV shows last week.

I've seen major News papers print op-eds by DEMs plenty of times too.

Local newspapers and local news shows in their respective states "allow" DEM interviews too.

And I saw major newspaper articles yesterday with Reid's position and I saw major newspaper articles with Pat's pro-Jerry Fawell position today.

Dont you dare give me that tired old excuse. Kerry, Dean, Hillary,Reid, Bill Clinton, Obama and the rest have PR booking agents and are indeed "allowed" on major TV interview shows.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

25. Ahh, yes, the interviews.

We can make any statements we want in interviews, but what happens AFTER the interviews? What happens on the talk radio circuit? On the talking heads shows? Hell, on the nightly news? The argument gets ripped to shreds and us along with it.

You make it sound so damn simple, when it's anything but.

[Dr Fate]

27. By your logic, we should just fold up and let Bush have anything he wants.

Based on the notion that it is "too hard" to get out our talking points.

I reject that notion. Especially when the result is Democrats voting for a Jerry Fawell Judge who refuses to provide a complete resume.

If the RW media has such a lock on the minds of people- then why are Bush's numbers in the 30 percentile?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. No, my notion is not shooting yourself in the fucking foot.

I'm sorry, but you don't have to be the left's version of Jerry Falwell to get your point across AND win.

[Dr Fate]

30. A vote against "Brownie" Judges would be shooting Bush in the foot.

Pat could have sent the message "No more Brownies- we have to demand complete resumes and frank answers to the questions Americans care about."

The average, moderate American would agree with that notion- and DEMs could have framed it that way instead of voting for the "Brownie" Judge and constantly saying how great he is.

Kerry & Reid know that they are not shooting themsleves in the foot by supporting the base instead of Jerry Fawell & "Brownie" style appointees.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

38. Shooting Bush with what? A nerf gun?

[Dr Fate]

44. I dont know what that means.

Showing Bush that we wont accept more "Brownies" is more than a nerf gun in my opinion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

48. What it means is that we have no power to send that message.

NONE. ZERO POWER. What part of that do you not understand? Whether Roberts wins confirmation by a 96-4 margin or a 51-49 margin, he is still going to be confirmed and absolutely no message will be sent to Bush, nor will any message be sent to the American people. Your request is purely one of vanity.

[Dr Fate]

52. So he should have voted "no" then.

If it does not make a difference, and no one is paying attention, then he could just as easily voted no like the good Democrats will do.

I reject all your arguments and I stand with Democrats like Kerry who have my back.

[TheVirginian]

55. Bush's ratings =/= Robert's ratings

While Bush has approval ratings in the low 40's/high 30's, the majority of Americans feel that John Roberts should be confirmed. I think the latest poll was at 52/26 with the other 22% not knowing or caring. Only 26% believe Roberts should not be confirmed. Its a losing political battle. Senate Democrats will base their vote on posturing to make themselves look better for '06/'08, and to leave options in the drawer for O'Connor's replacement.

[Dr Fate]

58. Those poll numbers would go down if DEMs made the "Brownie" connection

Americans have seen what happens when you confirm a Bush appointee who hides parts of their resume- you get someone like "Brownie" who is not what they say they are.

And that poll in no way indicates that voting "no" would hurt DEMs or help Bush in any way- it just indicates that DEMs have done a poor job in framing Roberts as a guy who presents an incomplete resume & refuses to answer his job interview questions.

[TheVirginian]

60. Roberts wasn't tending to Arabian horses before his nomination

John Roberts has performed incredibly well at the Senate hearings-- even if he didn't answer any questions, he is likable and qualified, and the two of those together will prevent a PR tide against him.

And what the poll does indicate is that Roberts has more support than both the President and Senate Democrats. That's an extremely large and uncalculated risk to take, especially considering the fall-out from losing.

[Dr Fate]

61. Roberts, just like Brownie, refuses to give us his real resume.

If Roberts wants to have a lifetime appointment, then he should present ALL of his documents and answer the questions about reproductive rights.

The average, moderate swing-voter knows that he would be out of a job if he was found to have hidden parts of his resume and refused to answer questions in his job interview.

It should have been framed that way.

When was this poll taken- before "Brownie" or after? I think that would be an important point of fact.

[TheVirginian]

71. The poll I'm referencing was likely taken before Brown resigned

But I'm fairly sure the most recent polls of Roberts indicate an even higher support of him.

People just don't equate the director of FEMA with the Chief Justice of the United States. Additionally, Brown fucked up in the national spotlight, and Roberts, while evading answers, has been a media darling.

Also, if we run a campaign where we expect Democratic Senators to oppose the confirmation of a man "with little experience" who "hid his resume" and compare Roberts to Brown, it leaves Senate Democrats wide open to attacks asking why, when Brown was up for confirmation in front of Senate Democrats, they unanimously confirmed him without even debating the issue?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

79. I think that is uncalled for...

"You know what else? You and your butt-buddy Roberts can kiss my grits."

While I don't support Robert's confirmation, the end result of it is fairly clear, and I'd rather the Democrats do what they can to gear up for the next confirmation--a battle they have a chance to win--rather than waste political capital fighting an unwinnable battle against Roberts.

You can call me a defeatist, and I'll call myself a realist. But calling Roberts my "butt-buddy" is out of line.

[Dr Fate]

82. So dont call for it then.

Have a great day defending Rightwingers and those who cave to them on this board.

[TheVirginian]

84. So trying to forumulate a smart, realistic strategy for Sen. Dems

... means I'm having gay intercourse with John Roberts and love to defend right-wingers? I'm not understanding thie logic, Dr Fate.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

88. When we're in the minority party

What do you expect? We can jump up and down on Bush himself, scuttle his Social Security reform, cause troops to be pulled out quicker than planned, jeopardize the GOP's chances of maintaining a majority in '06, and all of that when Bush has a 38% approval rating.

BUT,

When a conservative President picks a nominee that the media has labeled "moderate"...
When the Republicans have a majority on the Jud. Cmte. and in the Senate...
When John Roberts himself is polling favorably...
When we don't have enough votes to either filibuster or stop the confirmation...
And when we have another confirmation coming up that we'll need all the political capital we can muster for...

I would say "giving Bush what he wants", as you put it, is the only way to ensure that we don't end up losing both this battle and the next one, too.

If you think I'm wrong, then that's fine. I think many of your personal comments directed towards me are out of line, but I have a thick skin. And the fact that the general concensus of the Democratic Party agrees with my line of thinking, and these people are far better experts at the game of politics than you or I, then I'm not particularly worried about what you think of me.

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

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

[Skittles]

62. LIKABLE??????????

HE IS A CERTIFIED CREEP AND IS CERTAINLY NOT QUALIFIED

[Dr Fate]

63. That's what the media sez- so we must abide by it!!!!

I'm sick of letting the media & republicans frame everything.

Roberts=BROWNIE

[TheVirginian]

65. Regardless

Regardless, the media is what swing voters listen to, more than either party.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

73. So we should do some framing of our own then.

Those same swing-voters also know what happened with "Brownie."

[Dr Fate]

99. That is the thinking that got us into Iraq- now most people oppose it.

So here we go again.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

72. I'm sorry...

In the future, I'll try my best to agree with everything you say.

[Skittles]

74. read the Forum Rules

please agree with what THEY SAY

[TheVirginian]

64. I'm saying, to the average American

To the ones who respond in polls and the ones who the Democrats need to win the '06 and '08 Elections, the more the spotlight is on Roberts, the better he looks. Its only when you dig around, outside of the mainstream, do you find the stuff that makes him so disagreeable to the left, but how many swing voters in this country do that?

[Skittles]

67. the man is certifed DISGUSTING

I live in Texas - I was never fooled for one minute by that piece of shit bush and let me tell you Roberts is as phony as they come - he is a DISASTER for America

[Dr Fate]

68. Which swing voters like people who present incomplete resumes?

And who cant give a straight, frank answer to a question?

The more you spotlight those fact and compare it to "Brownie"- the WORSE he looks- but you have to freaking DO IT for it to work.

I talk to people everyday- I've met no one that would lose sleep if Roberts was never heard from again.

Where is this poll from- when was it taken? Link?

[TheVirginian]

76. CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll...

As you may know, John Roberts is a federal judge who has been nominated to serve on the Supreme Court. Would you like to see the Senate vote in favor of Roberts serving on the Supreme Court, or not?
Yes, vote in favor 52%
No, would not 26
No opinion 22

Taken September 6th, is the specific one I was referencing. If you have a subscription to the National Journal, I can give you a link. If not, I'm sure you can find it if you Google it.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

80. Since you're obviously a polling expert, I'll stop here

But while 52% is weak, 26% opposed is even weaker. That's what I was referencing.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[TheVirginian]

83. 26% oppose, 22% don't care

And Dems like me and Leahy are the reason why the Democratic Party is still viable in this country.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

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

[Dr Fate]

97. The same strategy that got us into Iraq.

Going along with Bush and media perception has never got us anywhere.

[Dr Fate]

98. 48% of the people either oppose him or dont care.

So 52% is WEAK.

[TheVirginian]

100. 22% don't care... that's neither advantageous or disadvantageous to us.

Imagine a room of 100 people. Asked about Roberts, 52 would say "yes, I support him". 26 would say "No, I don't support him." 22 would simply shrug. In that case, the number of people that support Roberts is twice as much as the people who don't support Roberts. The 22 that don't care don't matter either way; they're not even part of the political equation. 52% is weak if 48% oppose; since only 26% oppose, 52% is actually very strong.

[Dr Fate]

102. What percentage of Amercians were for invading Iraq?

A lot higher than 52%. They changed their minds when the reality hit. I remember back when those who opposed Bush were called "Ten Percenters" by the media. DEMS should show some leadership this time...

Plus I still say a little framing could bring the #s down...As I see it, some DEMs have being agreeing with the media & GOP talking points instead of framing this in our favor...

Oh well- too late now I guess.

Also- sorry for being an ass earlier.

[nvliberal]

89. Most people don't know squat about Roberts.

He's a right-wing, corrupt extremist, for crying out loud. That's why he was picked, and the fact he is 50 means the fascistic influence is going to be with us for decades, if he lives a normal lifespan.

He will be everything and worse when he gets the job. Democrats are fools not to filibuster him.

[enough already]

34. You're good at surrendering

I prefer to fight.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

35. I prefer to win.

I prefer real victories over moral ones.

I prefer to fight the people that I should be fighting against and NOT my own party.

[Dr Fate]

36. Kerry disagrees with you and is fighting for what is right:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2105087

Voting for the Pat Robertson Judge is not a victory- that is some mighty twisted logic.

Show me where giving Bush & Jerry Fawell what they want has ever produced a "real victory" for Democrats.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

39. Good for John Kerry.

I'm glad he's doing it. I'm just not going to hang every Democrat that doesn't make that choice. It's utterly absurd to.

[Dr Fate]

42. and you would be saying "Good for Leahy" if he was voting right too.

But he says he will not- he will vote with the likes of Rick Santorum.

Leahy's vote is nothing to be proud of. He should vote "no" with Kerry and encourage others to dot he right thing.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

46. I say good for Leahy AND good for Kerry.

Every Senator should vote the way he or she feels is best. Since the outcome has long been decided, there is no reason to demand a lock step vote.

[Dr Fate]

51. Kerry is voting like a concerned Democrat, Pat is voting with Santorum

I dont say "good" to any Senator who thinks we need lifetime appointments for people who refuse to turn-over their records or answer questions.

It's not about being a "lock step" idealouge- it's about telling America that "Brownie" style appointments are not acceptable.

[adaada]

32. Leahy's no dummie, and not likely to roll over to Bush: must have a plan.

I am wary of Roberts...I don't trust him. But I do trust Leahy. So, who KNOWS what's really going on. Wouldn't Roberts still be in, even if every single democrat voted "no"?

[Dr Fate]

37. Give me an example of where giving Bush what he wants has worked.

n/t

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

40. Give me an example where being a complete ideologue has worked.

[Dr Fate]

41. How is John Kerry being a "complete ideologue"?????

Did you read his speech?

Basing a "no" vote on Robert's act of witholding documents and refusing to answer questions has nothing to do with Democrats being ideologues. Moderates & Swingvoters will understand that.

Now- can you answer my question?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

43. No, being ideologue is demanding this ridiculous ideological purity

YOU are being the ideologue. Kerry can do whatever he wishes - I don't care which way he votes. I don't care which way any Democrat votes - I hope they each do whatever they feel they must.

And I am growing weary of this conversation. Neither of us are getting anywhere and I'm tired of fighting against Democrats, which is my entire point to begin with. It gets us nowhere to play the circular firing squad game.

[Dr Fate]

47. You think Judges who withold info should be given a "yes" vote.

I do not. If that makes me and John Kerry idealouges by your logic and the logic in certain media commentary, then so be it.

I'm fine with leaving it at that as well.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

50. No, I think it doesn't matter what vote they get.

The Republicans are going to confirm him no matter what. Why do you think he can afford to not answer the questions to begin with?

[Dr Fate]

53. He did not answer the questions because America disagrees with him.

Which is why I disagree with the RW media inspired notion that the 65% of Americans who dissaprove of Bush would turn against DEMs for opposing Roberts.

[adaada]

45. The compromise better be a good one, if there was a compromise...

because if in order for Leahy not to oppose, all he got was an agreement from Bush for the next nominee to be a woman or minority, well, look at our one black judge, Thomas. I'm giving Leahy credit for a lot more intelligence than that. Isn't Leahy a pretty saavy strategian?

[Dr Fate]

49. Give me an example of where compromising with Bush has worked.

n/t

[adaada]

59. You're 100% right. I oppose Roberts too. I just hope Leahy has a plan. eom

[adaada]

85. I've been thinking about this thread...do you think there can be anything

gained by opposing Roberts? From what I've been hearing/reading, he's got it sewn up. I am not one of those in the "Roberts may not be so bad" group. I've got a lot of concerns about him.

As I see it, congressional Democrats need to fight harder than they've done in the past against Bush, but also must choose their battles wisely. I look at myself and realize that my own political instincts just aren't as acute as those of someone like Leahy. If this one truly cannot be won, why waste the momentum we've gained over the last few weeks on a lost cause?

On the other hand, if fighting really might make a difference, then let's go for it.

[enough already]

66. There is no compromise

There is no way in hell that Bush promised Leahy anything. I guarantee you that Bush sends up another conservative crackpot next time. The only difference will be that Leahy and the other capitulators will already be on record as saying a crackpot like Roberts is ok. Do you remember the "flip flop" chants that Kerry endured? This will make that look like beanbag. This is huge moral and tactical mistake.

[renaissanceguy]

75. Repeat after me: WE DON'T HAVE TO HELP IT ALONG!!

Even if it's a losing battle, Dems have NO reason to vote FOR him. What do they think voting YES will do--make shrub nominate another moderate? PLEASE!

[tritsofme]

57. Ginsberg and Breyer got 95+ votes

And the GOP took over Congress a year later.

Presidents usually get their guy on the Court unless it is an extreme circumstance like Bork.

[NMDemDist2]

96. STOP FLAMING or we'll have to lock. Remember to be civil and

debate the issues, stop the homophobic, personal attacks please

[Dr Fate]

15. The next nominee will be a minority, a woman, or both.

And they will cave on that one too- as they are all frightened that Wolf, Hannity and Trent Lott will call them racists.

[adaada]

33. Yep...no one should need reminding that Thomas is a minority. eom

[blindpig]

20. I disagree

Roberts is the nominee of the business wing of the Rethugs, that's what is more important to them. He will rule consistantly for business, against regulation and labor. If Pombo doesn't kill the ESA Roberts will.

All of the concentration on Roe V Wade is something of a misdirection, that's not Roberts target.With Roberts in place the second nominee will be Atilla the Hun, as a sop to the christofascist wing, in the end they'll always be the tail, not the dog. If by chance the Democrats don't cave on that one there'll be another one just like the last one with the yahoos whipped up into maximum frenzy.

There is no good side to this.

[Cha]

2. I hope Leahy has a Plan because

this is just too much from Leahy.."take roberts at his word"!

That's Bullshit!

[stillcool]

3. Indict Impeach Imprison...

and if they can't handle it...shut the mofo down. Everything being done at this late date is at least criminal in thought if not deed.

[belle]

7. That's a nice thought. Dunno if I believe it, but oh well.

The only other thing I can think of is that Leahy recognizes that Roberts looks so clean there's no way they could stop this from happening anyway, given their numbers...and that even if a filibuster did succeed, chances are excellent that Bush would only replace him with someone as bad or worse.

[Dr Fate]

17. Roberts does not "look so clean"- Bush has supressed documents...

...and he wont answer a single question with frank answers.

He looks like he is hiding things- and in light of "Brownie" who faked his resume, average moderate Americans would agree with understand that- but you have to SAY it.

If this is really Pat's reasoning, then he is falling for Republican/Media framing and ignoring the base.

He could at least vote "no" and say "I cant vote for a man who cant honestly answer questions and who hides parts of his resume like Brownie."

[libertypirate]

12. Leahy and the rest of the Democrats are acting retarded...

If you think giving a child an inch is going to win eternal love in their heart you naive. One thing to the next if you accept a raw deal don't expect to be presented anything but raw deals.

You need to be X inches to ride the roller coaster if you don't meet the requirements you don't get a turn. Same here, documents? questions? these are requierments from the democrats to do their constitutional duty to advise the president about his nominee. The republicans play the rules to their advantage why are the democrats not doing the same.

[Dr Fate]

16. I doubt it. When have we ever done anything that creative?

I'll believe it when I see it.

This is more crap from the strategists who lost the last 3 elections.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Well it's clear you have little positive to say.

[Dr Fate]

31. Give me an example of where compromising with Bush has worked.

n/t

[vermontguy]

22. Lying is in Bush nature

Once again, as on so many things, with Roberts nomination, we are being bushed.

http://www.stopbushingme.com

hiho

[Mass]

24. deleted

[Mass]

26. deleted

[Cha]

54. Welcome to DU, Vermontguy!

"Lying", murdering, and stealing are in bush's nature, too..

One thing is consistant..they will never change their stripes and anyone who falls for their latest mea culpa is the world's BIGGEST SUCKER!

[TrogL]

56. I like Roberts

I'm suspecting five years down the road we'll be hearing from the Freepers "why, oh why did we let Dubya put Roberts in - he's been nothing but trouble".

[realFedUp]

91. You don't know Roberts

and it won't take five years for him to further
change for the worse what we called America five years ago.

[wiley]

103. I suspect once he is confirmed

He is going to snub all those who would dare try to tell the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court anything. He won't have any clients to please and the gravity of his legacy will hit. I just sense that this one is a live wire. He will tell politicians to f*ck off.

Or he'll set the country back 100 years.

[FreedomAngel82]

90. While that would be nice

I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Clarkie1]

92. Not going to happen. n/t

[many a good man]

94. Leahy CAN'T "begin railing out Roberts" now

He voted to recommend him out of committee.

Voting FOR Roberts is not acceptable.

The only question is whether to filibuster him. The deal is already being worked out: Roberts gets a smooth sail in exchange for having to pick from a short list WE give them to fill O'Connor's chair. Unidentified sources say the list has already been sealed and delivered.

Democrats need to stand up in unison voting NO on Roberts and explaining why. Roberts represents the WORST of conservatism: corporatist and against civil rights. We oppose Roberts because his biases are directly opposed to our core principles. America must be explicitly shown what happens when they vote Republican.

Replacing Rehnquist with another arch-conservative does not tilt the Court. Democratic leaders will DEMAND a centrist to replace O'Connor. NO WAY will we accept another extremist-- we'll filibuster. Republicans won't have enough popular support to go nuclear.

Backfiring is always bad; more so when its "nuclear."

[Raiden]

95. I trust Leahy

I recognize that Roberts is probably a bad pick. But you're fooling yourself if you think that we can chase two rabbits and catch both. I'm certain that Bush's next nominee will make Roberts look like Abe Lincoln and we're going to have to muster all of our strength for the next battle. We will not be able to win both battles considering that it's the Republicans who currently hold the chips.

[renaissanceguy]

101. But there is a big difference

between not filibustering and voting YES to confirm Roberts. Leahy wins NOTHING by voting YES. If he is concerned about showing reason, then abstaining from a filibuster is enough.

[Dr Fate]

105. How much "strength" does he need to cast a simple "no" vote?

Bush has the lowest all-time numbers ever- Leahy should show some leadership.

[Vinca]

106. I'm very disappointed in Democrats voting for Roberts.

When his nomination was first announced, I didn't have much of a problem with it, figuring he was the best we'd get from Shrub. My mind changed with the refusal of the White House to supply requested documents and with Roberts continued stonewalling during the hearing. No one should vote for a candidate they don't have all the information about. I feel pretty certain we're being snookered. I hope Leahy has a plan as stated in the original post, but I'm not expecting one.