21.9.05
Roberts in; next Supreme to be worse
Or, the sound of shit and failure (apologies to Born Against)
It is now clear that John Roberts will be the next Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Senator Pat Leahy, the Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, announced that he would be supporting Robert's nomination. Notice how he explained his support with phrases like "left with the understanding" that Roberts will do this or not do that, "trust that he's a person of honor", and that Leahy can "only take him at his word" that he will not be a right-wing nutjob bowing and scraping before Bush or whatever other right-wing nutjob ends up in the White House after Bush (and it will be another right-wing nutjob).
Senator Leahy, in other words, "knows" nothing about this guy he is supporting. He knows nothing - he's happy to take it all on faith. Now who exactly are the Democrats supposed to be representing?
But some of the rank-and-file never fucking learn:
See, to me the idea is to get MORE people to the Democratic Party, not less. Not by compromising our values, but by finding shared values with folks like Gene Taylor... He can't speak for me on social issues, privacy, choice, gay rights, etc. I do not want Gene Taylor to be the Dem spokesman on those issues. I'll disagree vigorously with his views on those issues. But I am glad he is a Democrat. I am for a Big Tent Democratic Party.
So, in other words, you can disagree with someone about virtually everything of substance - everything you find objectionable about Roberts, for example - and you still want them in your party, because they say one correct thing at one correct moment? That makes no fucking sense.
And yet the same people are eternally surprised and dumbfounded and shocked that the "big tent" Democrats will sell them out again and again and again. Well, these are your rewards for supporting and participating in a "big tent" organization of this nature. That strategy might work in an ad hoc coalition or a particular interest group, but it is absolute shit for a political party. This is what the "big tent" policy is going to bring you - unreliable politicians who will fail you at crucial times and leaders who cannot make a vote on something that supposedly matters a great deal a matter of party loyalty.
And Democrats need to get rid of the silly idea that Bush will nominate someone less "ideological" or more "liberal" to "balance" the court:
Leahy and Reid both said they would strenuously object to some of the names being discussed and urged the president to select someone who is open-minded and not an ideologue.
Let them object, "strenuously" or otherwise, all they want - everyone knows that Reid and Leahy and whoever else the Democrats put forward will be powerless to stop whoever Bush decides to pick. And, let me assure you, it will be someone (Janice Rogers Brown?) who will be measurably worse than Roberts - just to spite the powerless Democrats and those people who actually believe in progressive ideas. As Lugal said once, this is how the Bushies work - always in attack-dog mode.
The idea that Bush actually gives a shit what his political enemies think is simply preposterous. After 5 years of Bush and company, you'd think that the Democrats and their lackeys would have figured this out by now. But, then again, there's a reason why the Democrats keep losing.
Or, the sound of shit and failure (apologies to Born Against)
It is now clear that John Roberts will be the next Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Senator Pat Leahy, the Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, announced that he would be supporting Robert's nomination. Notice how he explained his support with phrases like "left with the understanding" that Roberts will do this or not do that, "trust that he's a person of honor", and that Leahy can "only take him at his word" that he will not be a right-wing nutjob bowing and scraping before Bush or whatever other right-wing nutjob ends up in the White House after Bush (and it will be another right-wing nutjob).
Senator Leahy, in other words, "knows" nothing about this guy he is supporting. He knows nothing - he's happy to take it all on faith. Now who exactly are the Democrats supposed to be representing?
But some of the rank-and-file never fucking learn:
See, to me the idea is to get MORE people to the Democratic Party, not less. Not by compromising our values, but by finding shared values with folks like Gene Taylor... He can't speak for me on social issues, privacy, choice, gay rights, etc. I do not want Gene Taylor to be the Dem spokesman on those issues. I'll disagree vigorously with his views on those issues. But I am glad he is a Democrat. I am for a Big Tent Democratic Party.
So, in other words, you can disagree with someone about virtually everything of substance - everything you find objectionable about Roberts, for example - and you still want them in your party, because they say one correct thing at one correct moment? That makes no fucking sense.
And yet the same people are eternally surprised and dumbfounded and shocked that the "big tent" Democrats will sell them out again and again and again. Well, these are your rewards for supporting and participating in a "big tent" organization of this nature. That strategy might work in an ad hoc coalition or a particular interest group, but it is absolute shit for a political party. This is what the "big tent" policy is going to bring you - unreliable politicians who will fail you at crucial times and leaders who cannot make a vote on something that supposedly matters a great deal a matter of party loyalty.
And Democrats need to get rid of the silly idea that Bush will nominate someone less "ideological" or more "liberal" to "balance" the court:
Leahy and Reid both said they would strenuously object to some of the names being discussed and urged the president to select someone who is open-minded and not an ideologue.
Let them object, "strenuously" or otherwise, all they want - everyone knows that Reid and Leahy and whoever else the Democrats put forward will be powerless to stop whoever Bush decides to pick. And, let me assure you, it will be someone (Janice Rogers Brown?) who will be measurably worse than Roberts - just to spite the powerless Democrats and those people who actually believe in progressive ideas. As Lugal said once, this is how the Bushies work - always in attack-dog mode.
The idea that Bush actually gives a shit what his political enemies think is simply preposterous. After 5 years of Bush and company, you'd think that the Democrats and their lackeys would have figured this out by now. But, then again, there's a reason why the Democrats keep losing.
