tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post112190147457558382..comments2024-03-17T03:55:21.696-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: Dear Dems: You had your chance and you pooched it.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1122100214695934842005-07-23T02:30:00.000-04:002005-07-23T02:30:00.000-04:00Mr. Cynic,Of course it's being fought in the court...Mr. Cynic,<BR/><BR/>Of course it's being fought in the court of public opinion, but in any "balanced" venue (or in Republican advertising) the Republican talking head can and does use the dodge as I've described it. In fact, in Republican advertising, they can use Democratic attacks on his work product as a token of the unreasonableness of Democratic opposition. Only in Democratic-only discourse can those briefs be considered anything like a slam-dunk case, or even really good propoganda materials.<BR/><BR/>Yes, they should ask him about them at the hearings, but until they have an answer on them, they're no more useful than his Harvard transcripts....Ahistoricalityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04004964192885891003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1122016127339087502005-07-22T03:08:00.000-04:002005-07-22T03:08:00.000-04:00CC, I agree, though they should phrase it "right t...CC, I agree, though they should phrase it "right to privacy" -- which apparently is the way Roe v Wade was decided anyway, but also can be expanded to cover situations like the Schiavo case. The dems have to start promoting "frames" for their beliefs, rather than just single issues.Cathie from Canadahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11418899090537597360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1121910920149387092005-07-20T21:55:00.000-04:002005-07-20T21:55:00.000-04:00A few points here...First, as you point out, the D...A few points here...<BR/><BR/>First, as you point out, the Dems didn't have much chance to do anything at all with regard to Roberts or any other nominee. And by taking a hard line like that, they'd have left themselves with absolutely no line of defence against a nominee who's not completely anti-abortion but who's otherwise an even worse Bush hack (Gonzales, anybody?).<BR/><BR/>Second, trite though it seems, the nomination could have been worse. Nothing on Roberts' record that I've seen indicates that we can be sure that he'll go too far on any particular decisions (I wouldn't tend to blame him for the positions he's been asked to take in court, though the confirmation hearings will be the time to ask questions to find out more). It's not likely, but he could end up being a moderate con, and he'll quite probably be more reasonable than a Luttig or a Jones.<BR/><BR/>Third, the Dems' position on a Supreme Court appointment this far out isn't going to have any effect on the next election. In fact, the only way the Court is likely to have any real effect is if Roberts swings enough votes (particularly on Roe v. Wade if it's revisited) to simultaneously bring out the Dem base and swing moderate voters back to the Dems to avoid similar nominees in the future. <BR/><BR/>And finally, I can't blame the Dems for keeping their focus on Rove rather than turning their attention to a court nominee who's done much less to hurt the U.S. so far. With the White House spin machine focusing on the court, someone has to make sure that the sleaze coming out of Bushco is part of the news cycle - that's where the Dems need to be applying what spine they have.Greg Fingashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01506686081291502115noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1121910657606762332005-07-20T21:50:00.000-04:002005-07-20T21:50:00.000-04:00Unfortunately, his previous statements on Roe were...Unfortunately, his previous statements on <I>Roe</I> were written in the context of his work, and so it would be entirely possible for the Republicans to ooze their way around that objection, at least publicly, which is what they're doing now. <BR/><BR/>Let's face it: except for his private practice, in which he served mostly conservative clients, but basically took on anyone who needed a good Supreme Court showing, he's been a Republican house lawyer his entire career. That's enough to prove that Bush didn't look very long, very hard, and that, as smart and nice as this guy is, it's highly unlikely that he's the best person for the job.<BR/><BR/>But the Bush administration runs like Attilla the Hun: "Reward mediocre but loyal Huns; do not tolerate brilliant but disloyal Huns"....Ahistoricalityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04004964192885891003noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1121907213059173912005-07-20T20:53:00.000-04:002005-07-20T20:53:00.000-04:00Frankly I'm hoping Bush will get some wingnuts app...Frankly I'm hoping Bush will get some wingnuts appointed to the Supreme Court and that they do make abortion illegal. It will serve to help keep the cons out of power here.Robert McClellandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11441059623685149683noreply@blogger.com