Sure. I read it as implying that the Dems won’t put up much of a confirmation fight because there’s not that much factual basis for serious criticism of the candidate.
In other words, NPR has not reported significant negative stuff about his record, which implies that there’s not much negative stuff there, which implies that the Dems have no solid basis for trying to block him.
You seem to be reading it instead as implying that NPR is simply expressing Democratic opinion about the candidate. Like treis, I don’t see where you get that from.
You are really reaching. What the quote suggests is that the Democrats that have been interviewed on NPR concerning the issue have given him that impression. It says nothing of NPR’s analysis or philosophical stance.
Also, there’s the underlying reality that reversal of Roe v Wade is a case where having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting – under the status quo, the Republicans can throw red meat to the sexual conservatives without having to actually do anything to offend the more libertarian faction of the party.
I agree with Sam Stone in that Bush gave away a good chance for democrats to appear collaborative. Why he did so I don’t understand. This was Bush’s chance to make the democrats look bad and filibuster whiners and to divert attention from Rove.
In a way it shows that the democratic tactics of blocking the UN envoy and menacing any overly conservative SC nominee have worked. Bush chose what seems to me a "light" conservative.
The quote itself suggests one of either neutrality or a liberal bias. It does not specifically suggest a liberal bias. At least that is how I read it. It excludes a right wing bias because the lack of negative commentary on a right wing NPR would not indicate anything, in fact it would be expected.
It does not exclude neutrality because if there were negative comments to be made about a nominee I would expect them to made on a neutral NPR, along with the positive comments. So, if one was talking about a neutral NPR one could still claim the lack of negative comments is an indication that there really isn’t much negative to dig up. Obviously, for similar reasons it doesn’t exclude a liberal bias.
OK - perhaps that’s simply my rose-colored glasses coming into play. If everyone else who reads that quote is seeing NPR neutrality, and no indication of bias, I withdraw my observation.
I think friend Bricker merely wishes to remind us that NPR is a wholly-owned subsidiary of MoveOn.org and Soros Media, Inc., whose iron grip on the airwaves dwarf fair and unbiased outlets such as Clear Channel and Fox News. We are invited to note that the power currently enjoyed by the Republican Party can thus only be a reflection of their support by the overwhelming majority of real Americans, and possibly the direct intervention of Providence.
Yet, overwhelmed and outnumbered, they bravely soldier on…
I am so paranoid about our current administration that I had actually considered this idea myself. Of course it is batshit loony, but that just says where I am in my estimation of the administration.
I, too, agree with Sam Stone as to the Democrats’ best approach to the nomination.
By all accounts, Roberts is very smart, congenial (more important than you might think in terms of the Supreme Court’s internal dynamics), with a great resume and four years of decisions on the DC Circuit over which to pore. He’s apparently not a doctrinaire conservative with an overarching concept of jurisprudence who’ll try to fit square pegs into round holes, ideologically speaking. His appointment to the DC Circuit four years ago was supported in writing by 146 members of the DC Bar Assn., including many prominent Democrats. Robert Bennett, Bill Clinton’s lawyer, says he’s a “superb” nominee to the Supreme Court.
As others have noted, Roberts is about the best we Dems can expect out of this White House. So yes, look over Judge Roberts very closely, ask all the tough questions (most of which he’ll politely dodge, as is his prerogative), but in the end he’ll be confirmed.
And, barring any scandal or skeletons in his closet, that’s as it should be.
The Rev. Swift has nothing to fear from Mr. Bell. Nonetheless, one must admire the delicate word choice he employs. “He didn’t quite do anything illegal”, indeed. Presumably he imagines happy minions carrying Darth Pillsbury Doughboy on their shoulders to glad cries of “Not Indictable!” as a grateful nation breathes a sigh of relief.
And if Rove’s got “a drop of blood in the water”, the same phrase might be attached to the scene in Jaws, wherein Quint (Robert Shaw) and the Shark resolve their differences.
Don’t know if this counts as a “skeleton,” but in 2000 Roberts advised the GOP and Gov. Jeb Bush on how to to make sure the post-election fracas would make Dubya president: http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/12183379.htm
As someone who detests G.W. Bush and his secretive, mendacious administration, I am somewhat relieved he made such a reasonable choice for the SCOTUS. Roberts is not someone I’d agree with much, I suspect, but he clearly is someone I can respect.
I join the other voices saying that Roberts should be grilled, yes, but dully confirmed. Whinging about him and trying to block his nomination would be very bad politically; he is too obviously well-qualified.
My mistake. Roberts was nominated to the DC Circuit four years ago (and in 1992 by Bush the Wiser), but was confirmed and took the bench in 2003. So he’s been a Federal appellate judge for just over two years, not four.
I think Rove makes for a nicer hunt trophy than Judge Roberts… even if SC judges are worth their weight in gold. Its not like Bush would nominate a centrist or liberal anyway.
