Jul 27, 2005

SCOTUS, Bears & Water Guns: What a Summer is All About!

It's been very hot around here in the northeast, though much of the country is suffering from the same high temperatures. I guess the rapture index has climbed a notch or two. I'm thinking of a tall, sweatin' glass of Long Island Ice Tea , sitting under an umbrella at a quiet, white beach, while the blue-green waters of the soft surf cooling my feet. Ah, that's life. On a related story, as life goes, I'm hitting the pavement these days lining trying to line up projects of gainful employment, so I can maintain my lifestyle, which includes having a few hours a week to dream about the finer points in life! I should be a political consultant getting the big bucks and well-deserved vacations in order to recharge my batteries and clear my head.

By now, you must have heard that Bush has found a new prince for SCOTUS. The introduction was short and sweet. How lucky we are to have someone on the Supreme Court of the United States who loves his family and his dog! Oh, and his name is John G. Roberts--a very nice waspy name if you asked me. Why would the Democrats want more information on this guy? He seems smart, polite, and well groomed! [I mean, com'on, he's not a Borg, or is it, Bork?] Anyway, the game being played is hide & seek. "OK, let's see what you're holding behind your back, Johnny," the Dems are saying. "We can't show you the paper trail while he worked for pappa Bush (1989-1993), because it'll spoil the surprise we're preparing for you," the White House shouts back. "Did we tell you that Roberts collects art, gives to charity, supports the troops, loves apple pie and his mother," they add. Well, folks, now you have it. What more could you ask for? [it's a rhetorical question, not a real one, so stop asking]

Since I'm feeling a bit generous today, I'm going to give some free advice to the Democrats. If they find it useful, they can support this site by making a nice contribution (I mean monetary, though comments are also welcome). First, I'd advise them not to come out against Roberts, not right away. They should coordinate their questioning efforts in the Senate Judiciary Committee to reveal as much as possible about him. Then, if he's coy, or if the senators don't get direct, clear answers, they should pick one, or, maximum two issues to oppose him. Yet, there is little doubt in my mind that, unless Roberts has a skeleton in his closet, he'll be confirmed.

Let's not forget that the American people don't like "obstructionists," so the Dems must be careful how to play this. Also, Bush will get another 1 or 2 SCOTUS appointments. I'm certain that Renquist will definitely leave the court before the Dems take over (hopefully) any Congressional chamber in January 2007. I understand the frustrations of many on our side, who want to come out swinging hard against Bush's nominee, but we have to be smart. In the "normative sense" things would be different; today, we must deal in pragmatics. Like General Washington, we have to pick our battles wisely when our numbers are smaller.

Elections have consequences. We knew this, just as we knew that Bush would pick a very conservative person for the high court.We know that "reasonable" or "mainstream" Repubs are an endangered species and definitely in no position of influence or with the guts to stand up to the highjacking of their party (and their traditional conservative ideology). The way to really change this bad situation is to change the power relation in D.C. starting with the mid-term elections next year. By being reasonable (read: smart) today they will be in better shape to fight tomorrow. And, gosh, do we have so many battles ahead.

If the Dems make significant gains next year, I think Bush will try to nominate an even more conservative judge when Renquist leaves. Such move, if successful will solidify the extreme right tilt of SCOTUS for many years. If unsuccessful, the Republicans will have an issue to keep their base on alert and motivated for the next elections. Likewise, the Dems can use the Roberts' nomination to mobilize their troops in 2006. Just a few percentages higher of voter turnout can have a huge impact in a traditionally low voter participation in a midterm election.

And, keep hanging Rovergate around the president's neck. Stop asking Bush to fire his trusted advisor. The damage to our national security is done already. They should now pay the price, long and hard. Let special counsel Fitzgerald do his job. He's said something about "crimes committed," and "the plot against Wilson." This gets juicier by the day. Anyway, the terrible failures of this administration are many, and it has started to show in the public's attitude. So, keep making the case for change. I like Rep. (D-IL) Jan Schakowsky's
recent article where she argues that the Dems shouldn't be timid, "Americans like tough, even when they don't entirely agree with the substance. Voters like tough; voters don't like tentative." But, being tough is one thing. Hunting bears with waterguns is another. In addition to your resolve, you have to show purpose. Eliminating the static and forming a clear, concise message (something of a novel approach for the Dems) would be very helpful too!


Cheers! Aaaah, that felt good!

11 comments:

JEBB said...

Some great advice. As it is now, Roberts seems very confirmable. Even several Demos will vote for him. I agree, it'd stupid for the Dems to appear obstructionists. Though, I still think some noise from other groups might be necessary. Don't forget that they have to keep their membership on fire... which is good because 2006 is not that far away.... Hopefully they'll turn out and vote

Russ Limbaugh said...

Glad to know that you're not advising the Democrats at the national level.

Geeshus said...

Yeah, Russ, come on down.... You think we are holding a water gun, but you're for a nasty surprise of ..buckshot!

Anonymous said...

What's up with this heat? If rapture is about to happen [thanks for the rapture index] what can I do to prepare? As of now, I only have my water gun to keep me cool. Is that so wrong?

Anonymous said...

We do know that elections have consequences, but unfortunately many Americans don't take the proper care in voting.....
Bush was a known quality last year. We got re-elected. Tsk.

Annie said...

I think Bush had lots of time to think and prepare for a SCOTUS appointment, so he must know that Roberts is what the conservatives ordered. Yet, if I were one of them, I'd be a bit skeptical, since he doesn't have all that much of a paper trail. I don't think he can turn out to be another Souter, but who knows.

me said...

What were the chances that Bush would have picked someone who didn't love his family nor his dog? Crazy stuff really!

Laughing liberally said...

I had to laugh at those talking heads like Bill Cristol who said Bush picking Roberts was a "bold move!" hahahhhahhah

Andros said...

Ah, the good people get rewarded! Like so many others who've been loyal to Caesar (above law & country)!

THIS JUST IN:

The top pay for senior White House aides, including Chief of Staff Card, Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove and Legislative Affairs Director Candida Wolff, was boosted to $161,000 at the beginning of July, according to a list sent to Congress and obtained by National Journal....

A job well done! They must get up early in the morning...

Calculus said...

This sounds fishy to me... Why $161,000?!!! It's the $1,000 that seems suspicious.... Maybe the spare change is for tips!

dub said...

i guess i don't understand how the dems are still behind. the republicans have just lobbed up one blatant mistake after another and the left can't get a hit. i'm not asking them to fabricate lies or blow anything out of proportion to show why this administration is horrible and corrupt, because that's not even necessary. just expose the truth to the public and let them decide.
it's so frustrating, especially thinking back to clinton's impeachment when the rabid wolves jumped all over any chance to destroy him. that whole thing was blown out of proportion, but i guess it worked because i know people who are still much more upset about clinton getting some than they are about bush taking us wrongfully to war. let me get this straight, clinton shouldn't be president because he lied about his personal life, but bush should be even though he lies about things that will truly affect the safety and future our entire country?
ugh.
i'm so confused.