True, but I feel the Democrats were vulnerable with the first choice, not wanting to be seen as obstructionist right from the onset.
When Roberts is approved in a breeze, subsequently they will have a license to fillibuster with impunity for having already "compromised" and "cooperated."
"O'Connor was tougher because you were replacing a moderate, which meant that heels were going to be dug in a lot more because the left wouldn't want to disrupt the "balance" of the court. And while you may say that we should welcome a fight, I don't. Not if we're going to lose."
Why so quick to surrender?
You have the collective mentality of the GOP -- losing a fight before it's even begun -- even though the Republicans have FINALLY attain a majority in both Houses. Let's flex that d@mn muscle!
This isn't about a slight upgrade to mirror O'Connor's role as a Pubbie SC moderate (a false premise and expectation to begin with.) This is about ramming through conservative ideologogues and strict constitutionists BECAUSE WE CAN AND NEED TO.
"Roberts is significantly more conservative than O'Connor. Getting him in is a win because a swing vote has become a conservative vote. If he's not Thomas (and he may be), he's miles from O'Connor."
We hope Roberts is a significant upgrade.
Look, we gotta face reality. Bush tried to flex muscle with Bolton. And he was confirmed....when, exactly?
He tried to flex his muscle with his judicial nominations - and some very good conservatives in there -- and he got the Gang of 14. Remember that?
The reality, as much as we may hate to admit it, is that our Senate majority includes enough RINO's that we lack the power to get exactly what we want. That's neither Bush's fault, nor Frist's. Senators are much harder to whip into line than Represenatives. As I pointed out above, we flexed muscles on Bolton and those judges, and found that we weren't strong enough. That's a fact, unpleasant as it may be. And consider that Bush probably gauged how strong his support would be for various nominees in the weeks leading up to the pick.
If he had nominated Luttig and lost that fight, we would be completely screwed. The Dems would have been massively emboldened, and either its recess appointments, or only moderates get in. We couldn't let them win on the first guy.
So instead, Bush picks a guy who probably is as good as Luttig, but without the political vulnerability. And the Dems are stuck, unable to fight him without killing themselves. It was a guaranteed "win" for Bush, even if not the perfect guy some wanted. Though I still think those folks are going to be pleasantly surprised. And Roberts really is an extremely well-qualified guy.
The next pick will probably be for Rehnquist's replacement, and I think that's the one that you go with Luttig or your most hard-line alternative. You've got one in the bag, so you might as well go for broke at that point because the downside of losing is so much less than losing on the first one. Plus, because you're replacing a solid conservative, the claim that you're changing the balance on the court won't get much traction.
Anyway, F16Fighter, I think the assumption that Bush has given up without a fight overlooks the lost fights on Bolton and the judges. When push comes to shove, there are RINO's who will bolt and undermine him. You can't bet the house when you're only holding a pair of 6's.