Nice mantra you have there, but just because putting up a fight may be pointless doesn’t remove us of our moral obligation to put up a fight anyway.
Tell me, what percentage of the American Public approved of what the Republicans did with the Terri Schiavo fiasco? What percentage agree with the Republican decision to NOT have an independent investigation into the Hurricane Katrina aftermath? What percentage think that it’s acceptable that our troops have to buy their own body armor?
Honestly? Yes I do. Give me a couple hours in a bar to discuss politics with your typical Bush voter, and I could change a substantial number of minds. At least the minds of the critical swing voters that can make or break a Presidential bid.
What sort of credential is being president of the Texas Bar for service on the USSC?
The state bar is just a service organization for lawyers (ie sponsoring continuing education classes etc.), isn’t it?
I’m sure you’re a wonderful conversationalist, and great company. But I don’t want to argue politics for hours in a bar. And I’m someone more inclined than most to discuss the subject.
I don’t have any idea what her views are on abortion, but she one suspects that she’s somewhat less than a down-the-line evangelical. It’s fairly common knowledge in Texas legal circles that she’s, uh, dated Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court for a couple of decades. Of course, you’re free to speculate whether or not that’s a celibate relationship, but common sense would dictate that it is not.
I actually wasn’t going to spill the beans on that detail until I found online confirmation of the relationship.
Just caught Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, making a statement on C-Span:
“I’m very happy with the fact that we have someone who has been nominated by the President who is like approximately thirty-nine other people who have served on the court. People who’ve had no judicial experience. I think that’s a plus, not a minus. And speaking recently with Supreme Court justices, at a table with three of them, they said what this court needs is individuals who have not been through the court process, that is, who have judge next to their name when they are nominated. But Harriet Miers has served with distinction, and is a trial lawyer. That’s what I am. I’m a trial lawyer. So anyone with that background makes me feel good. Someone who’s been in a courtroom, tried cases, answered interrogatories, done all those things that lawyers need to do. But in addition to being a — from everything I’ve been able to learn — a fine lawyer, partner in a big law firm, first female president of the Dallas county bar, first female president of the Texas state bar, a woman who has devoted a lot of her time to people who need the umbrella of a lawyer, through things like the Legal Aid Society, and doing a lot of pro bono work — she’s done that. It goes without saying that I’m very happy that the president chose a woman to fill the seat of Sandra Day O’Conner. So I look forward to the process. I’ve spoken to Senator Leahy a couple of times today. He’s in Vermont. He and Senator Spectre will determine how the hearings are gonna go forward. The hearings conducted with Justice Roberts were dignified. I expect these committee hearings to be the same.”
Barring something extraordinary, it looks like the Democrats will not seriously oppose her.
To pick up where Blalron left off, no kidding, we don’t have the votes. So since the Dems are gonna lose votes in the Senate 55-45 as it is, we should roll over and let them win unanimously on stuff that we think is important?
Yeah, that’s a good way to convince people to vote for Dems, so that someday we might actually have the votes.
Just to illustrate his point, Democrats might remember that Newt Gingrich managed his 1994 upset by making sure the Republcans stood firm against Clinton’s 1993 economic stimulus (which included some tax increases) bill. They lost, but the following year, every Republican was able to consistently campaign against Clinton’s record and not look like an idiot. No “voting for the war before he voted against it.” (which I understand was taken out of context, but certainly didn’t make Kerry look good)
But that assumes that “doesn’t like Bush” = “liberal”. Surely you realize that isn’t the case.
They should do everything they can not to be in that situation in the first place. Putting up a firm front and losing doesn’t strike me as a strategy that will win them many votes. When it’s possible, they should make it look like they’re doing something instead of having the Republicans do whatever they want in spite of them.
I’m intrigued by the reaction to Miers so far.
Beyond that, they’ve tried to claim credit for the economic boom of the 90’s whose stimulus they had unanimously opposed - and have largely gotten away with that, too.
So what does Harry Reid know that we don’t? Or is he just yanking the chains of the “If the Dems like her sumpin’s bad wrong” contingent?
Bingo.
I hardly think the Dems have to be unanimous on everything. But they’ve got to decide what’s important and stand firm and united on those core issues. Otherwise, what the public will see is one party that knows what it stands for, and another that doesn’t.
Not sure what he knows, but my understanding is that Miers had been enthusiastically recommended by leaders of both parties. In her capacity as White House counsel, she has had considerable contact with leaders on the Hill, and from what I understand, she is deeply respected and well liked by all of them.
Or maybe he’s thinking is, “I want the Pubs to think, ‘hmmm, the Dems are pretending to like her which must mean that they are hoping this will make us oppose her, which must mean that they really don’t like her…so we should support her.’”
I’m kinda scratching my head at this one. Can you be more clear? For the most part, our system doesn’t give a minority party many other options, if the majority party is united.
A Democratic Congressperson can hold hearings, as Rep. Waxman has done, IIRC. But s/he has no subpoena power to compel the attendance of witnesses, or to obtain documents that aren’t already public. So this is a tool that can be used when the pertinent facts are already known, but that’s going to be a sometime thing. And a Democratic Congressperson can introduce legislation, which will be sent to committee and ignored.
But if you’ve got some better ideas, I’d like to hear them.
Or maybe he’s trying to get them to think, “Never go up against a Nevadan when a SCOTUS seat is on the line.” 
Agreed.
Given the amount of bipartisanship we’ve had in recent years, I think it’s interesting that both of Bush’s SC nominees have (so far) been as well-received as they have been.
To give you an idea how little some people know about Miers, MoveOn is actually soliciting information on her in its mass e-mail. Generally, they’re boilerplate negative.
And one of their questions is “What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission?” Isn’t she credited with cleaning up that commission? That sounds like a rather lame attempt at guilt by association.
It’s pretty much the same thing other people were saying. It’s better to lose on principle only when it’s really crucial, and work to get as much of your goals accomplished as you can through compromise. They’re in a bad position right now and I think some compromises are necessary to get out of it.
I don’t think the Vizzini Gambit makes good politics. There’s definitely iocane powder in both cups now.
Compromise with whom?? In the words of King Arthur at the French castle in MP&HG, “Is there anyone else up there we can talk to?” There isn’t. I’d be all for compromising, if the GOP was interested. The Dems still usually play that game, thinking it’s still the old days when each party had at least some power, and horsetrading happened. In their guts, they’re still in the '80s and '90s.
And it’s like Charlie Brown, Lucy, and the goddamned football every time: some Dems vote for a GOP bill, and either (a) all their amendments get voted down, or (b) they get passed by one house of Congress and are shredded in conference committee.
The conference bill, full of GOP changes that weren’t in either house’s bill as passed, is rushed through to a vote without time for anyone to read it, and the Dems who voted for the bill in either house of Congress because they’d gotten a ‘compromise’, vote for the post-conference bill even though there ain’t no compromise in it anymore.
That’s how it works, these days. Next week, I’ll tell you about moderate Republicans and “catch and release.”