Posted on 07/31/2005 12:59:09 PM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
Here's what's not a secret: Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts is a well-respected litigator, arguing cases before the high court 39 times. He is also a lifelong Republican, having worked for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. In those jobs, he routinely favored less government intervention rather than more--on issues ranging from school busing to school prayer to affirmative action. He cosigned a government brief opposing Roe v. Wade . He is conservative. Period.
Browse through an archive of columns by Gloria Borger.
As is President Bush, which is one reason he picked Roberts. It is safe to say that no Democratic president would have picked Roberts. It is also safe to say that the White House has threaded the needle brilliantly: nominating a man of large intellect with a meager paper trail.
So now Democrats suffer in exquisite--and public--agony. How do they behave? Do they make a huge fuss over documents the White House won't hand over? Do they try to pin the nominee down on how he would rule on abortion? Do they demonize Roberts as a "sharp partisan," as Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has called him? They're clearly having a tough time figuring it out. Consider this part of a press release headline previewing a speech by New York Sen. Chuck Schumer: " . . . How John Roberts Can Convince Democrats to Vote for Him. " Huh? Talk about conflicted.
It doesn't have to be that tough. Democrats know this nominee isn't likely to be filibustered; he's too well qualified. They assume he will be approved, barring any unforeseen developments. So here's the challenge: Find a smart way to lose.
Sure, the Democrats should do their reasonable best to get the full Roberts record. But they know the conservative story line here; they risk looking obstructionist if they go to the mat. Let's face it: Roberts is not John Bolton. When Democrats waged a battle over the release of information regarding Bush's nominee as envoy to the United Nations, they were on terra firma. Bolton's ex-colleagues had already provided reasons to question his character and conduct. If Bolton was Dr. Evil, Roberts is Ward Cleaver.
This is not to say that Democrats should just raise the white flag. Why not pick a few issues to press, thereby defining the differences between Democrats and Republicans? A good choice would be the right to privacy. Not just abortion; argue about the role of government in our lives. It's broader--and allows Democrats to revisit the Terri Schiavo case, in which the GOP angered a majority of voters by intervening. That way, says one Democratic strategist, "we can also talk to conservative men in the Midwest" who haven't been cheering Democrats on lately. The pitch: Roberts isn't a bad person; he's just the single best example of the different party views of the world.
Brain drain. Yet this is the sad news about the Democrats: For liberals, that won't be enough. In fact, Democrats who are polite to Roberts--and may even vote for him--will no doubt be considered a bunch of appeasing Neville Chamberlains. "We have lost our brains," one Democratic pollster confides. "The left wing controls all of the dialogue." Just last week, when Sen. Hillary Clinton called for an ideological truce within the Democratic Party, she was shellacked by liberal bloggers. Her crime: agreeing to come up with a more positive--and inclusive--party agenda. Imagine that.
Also imagine the unease of potential Democratic presidential contenders, especially the ones who have to vote on Roberts in the Senate--Clinton, Joe Biden, and John Kerry. The liberal party base and special interests want a "No" vote. But what about moderates who believe that the president should be given his pick if the candidate is qualified? On this one, it's impossible for a senator to have it both ways. Remember when Kerry supported the war in Iraq and then voted against the $87 billion to fund it? That was primary politics. It backfired in the general election.
Here's the question: What's the difference between the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg by President Bill Clinton and the nomination of Judge Roberts by President Bush? Answer: nothing. Ginsburg appeared as liberal as Roberts does conservative, yet she was approved 96 to 3. The GOP decided it would not be a party of useless litmus tests or panderers to special interests. And in the next election, Republicans made it clear she would not have been their choice. That is, after all, what elections are about.
"...allows Democrats to revisit the Terri Schiavo case"
This WAS revised today, over and over again, on the various Sunday talk shows...in regard to the Frist stemcell change of heart issue. Poor Terri Schiavo's gonna be mentioned again and again in the next few years, I suspect.
That last paragraph is rather logical. Ms. Borger is in big trouble now -- she'll have to be reeducated by the moonbats.
Borger ought to have DNC stamped on her forehead.
That's a very risky strategy for the Democrats -- Mr. Schiavo's behavior doesn't stand up nicely under scrutiny. And he reinforced that perception with the stupidity over her funeral and parents. Right to die versus right to life is a touchy area and using the Schiavo case to score political points would probably backfire with middle part of the voting spectrum.
Good find. Gloria is basically throwing in the towel for the Rats, but she at least analyzed it correctly.
It's really not that hard to imagine. If you want to imagine something, wonder why the Democrats are surprised that the angry Left has taken over after years of fomenting that hate as a minority weapon.
-PJ
Wow, an honest liberal? Or is this a dream?
I think the best that can be done now is to bookmark this page http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts
and check it before starting to post.
That's a really big help for me, thanks
I think I'll book mark that page and bump this article to the top. It was better written than most of the leftist garbage coming out these days. I wonder if this is the beginning of the demorats starting to pull it together. In particular I liked the ending paragraph, which is a sentiment we see over & over again at FR:
Here's the question: What's the difference between the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg by President Bill Clinton and the nomination of Judge Roberts by President Bush? Answer: nothing. Ginsburg appeared as liberal as Roberts does conservative, yet she was approved 96 to 3. The GOP decided it would not be a party of useless litmus tests or panderers to special interests. And in the next election, Republicans made it clear she would not have been their choice. That is, after all, what elections are about.
And I think Gloria is right. Roberts will be approved and there will be no filibuster.
"Wow, an honest liberal? Or is this a dream?"
More like a tactic. This is a period of reduction of media frenzy and rebuilding media creditbility---after the Presidential campaign. The Democrats may indeed be giving up on Roberts. So this is an opportunity for this writer and other Liberals to build credibility with the voters in the center---so they can better influence them the next time they go ballistic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.