Skip to comments.Among Democrats Activists, Little Indecision on Roberts: Who controls the Democratics?
Posted on 09/22/2005 7:11:22 AM PDT by rface
WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 - While many Democratic senators are still wrestling with their vote on Judge John G. Roberts Jr.'s nomination as chief justice of the United States, Democratic activists - in advocacy groups, policy organizations, the party apparatus - do not seem nearly as torn. [[ they are united in opposition!]]
The opposition to the Roberts nomination in Democratic circles is vocal, widespread and not confined to the party's left; [[contrary to what Limbaugh claims!!]] Bruce Reed, the president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, urged a no vote this week, even as Howard Dean, declared Roberts "the wrong man for the job."
Ellen Malcolm, from Emily's List [[a radical group]], said ....."people want to see a show of strength and leadership from Democratic senators."
Simon Rosenberg, president of the centrist [[sure...]] New Democratic Network said, "Democrats believe this president is weakening our country,"
.....activists scoff at the idea that Democratic senators, by supporting Judge Roberts, can strengthen themselves or moderate the president's instincts when he picks the next nominee. Mr. Bush, they assert, has never responded to compromise as anything other than a sign of weakness.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Who makes more sense.....Limbaugh or the NYTimes?????
Let them all vote NO. Let Republicans know just how stupid they are. Then the Republicans will be free to nominate truely conservative judges with no regard to what the Dems might think.
Well, first off the Democratic Leadership Council is only centrist if you consider Bill Clinton a centrist.
Harry reid was portrayed as a moderate pro-lifer, and he has gone after Roberts (among other things) on Roe. Reid's pick is to the left of Patrick Leahy's.
The Washington Post AND the L.A. Times are for Roberts. Looks like these "centrist" groups are pretty far left to me.
I will say, though, that that one guy was right, this President will take any compromise as a sign of weakness. Their problem is that knee-jerk opposition to a judge as obviously superior as John Roberts makes them look even worse, not only to the Karl Roves of the world, buyt to the American people. Either way they go on this nomination, they lose. Great strategery once again by President Bush!
A rag-tag assortment of radical leftwing single-issue special interest groups.
I rarely listen to Rush, (simply because I am usually working when he is on), but I did get to hear a bit of him yesterday. He was saying that the democrats need to unify around people and groups like Move on, DU, Cindy Sheehan, People for the American way (Ralph Neas) etc. The far left wing is vocal about their position and stand firmly behind it, while the party is being wishy-washy and trying to be in the center.
Rush is right on regarding this subject. Absolutely the Democrats need to stand up and declare:
1) We oppose Roberts, simply because Bush likes him
2) We want out of Iraq............NOW!!
3) We want Gay Marriage, higher taxes, higher gas prices, an activist court, discrimination against affluent white people, etc. etc. etc.
Nothing could be better for us, then if they did all of that.
It really does not matter if you or I consider Clinton ( viewing the two as one) to be centrist, we are not about to vote for Clinton(s) anyway. Is what matters is if they can convince 16% of the Ameican voters that they are.
(16% represents 51% of the potential 'undecideds')
As is the SF Comical.
And that's no joke: whenever I see the word my brain unconsciously substitutes words like "Jerk", "Dumbass", "Useless Whining Dink" or other not-so-nice phrases for it.
I have the Left to thank for that.
The Democrat party successfully continues its march to destruction as a political party!!!
My prediction when I first heard that Roberts would be nominated was that he'd get at least 70 votes. He should get 100 votes.
So is my local dimocrat propaganda paper, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
It seems fairly evident to me that control of the Supreme Court is an issue of primary importance to liberals and leftists, and by extension to the Democratic Party. The Democrats will object to any Republican nominee, unless that nominee is able to pass a litmus test of acceptability.
I kinda like "Useless Whining Dink". I hope you don't mind if I borrow it.
The post 2004 election analysis by the Democrats had to show one thing. That is President Bush Won Ohio and re-election by 120 thousand votes because he got about 280 thousand Ohio Democrats to vote for him. Karl Rove had the Ohio organization and perhaps several other state organizations actively going after the religious right. What most people don't understand is that half of the religious right are Registered Democrats. When Bush volunteers contacted church members we did not even ask party affiliation. Rove's research showed that 70 percent of church members would vote for Bush, but only about 50 percent of them were Republicans.
Two thousand five hundred Registered Democrats showed up for a week day Bush rally in Ross County Ohio. That compares to 14,000 Republicans and independents who also attended. It was held 3 weeks before the election. I know how many because we checked voter registration on every person that got tickets to the rally. Every Democrat that got tickets to that rally, was asked why they wanted to attend a Bush Rally. I was one of two people interviewing the Democrats who applied for tickets. Think about it.. In Ross County, the Bellwether county of Ohio in 2004, one out of every eight attendees to a Bush rally was a registered Democrat.
I was the media liaison person for the Bush campaign in Ross County. I asked each reporting crew why they were here in Ross County. The reply was always the same. Both campaigns had told them Ross county was the bellwether county for Ohio. They said both campaigns told them Ohio was the election and Ross County was Ohio.
The Democrats who applied for ticket to the Bush rally gave 3 reasons for supporting President Bush. About a third supported President Bush because of the war in IRAQ. But 2/3 of those 2,500 Democrats were supporting President Bush because of gay rights and/or abortion. They voted for Bush to change the direction of the Supreme Court. They were well aware that the only thing a president could do on those two issues was appoint people to the supreme court.
National Democrats are not stupid.. If they filibuster the Bush Supreme court nominees, they could very well convert somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 to 14 million registered Democrats in the heartland of the USA into registered Republicans.
Democrats can't afford to do that. They now know that defeating Bush Supreme Court nominees can cost them the presidency again in 2008, and remove any chance of winning the Senate or the House. It is one thing to lose independent support.. but losing significant numbers of traditional Democrats is disasterville for the party.
People who think that Democrats are saving up to bork the next nominee are mistaken. If the political cost were not so steep they would have borked Roberts. They dare not do so. The problem is far too many registered Democrats do not believe in abortion and do not believe in gay rights. Even the most rabid Democratic Senators do not want to remove all chances for the Democrats to regain political power.
Democrats like Reid, Kennedy, and Kerry are playing to the Democratic base. But they are not playing real loud. Several Democrat Senators are located in states where all the Democrat votes are needed in order to win re-election; Some Democratic Senators will vote for Roberts.And those that vote against him will just be playing to the base.
If pro-abortion and gay rights were plus issues for Democrats, every Bush nominee would be borked.. The pro abortion and pro gay rights positions cost them votes and they know it. They have become issues similar to gun control. They are for them.. but they are not going to do much to further their beliefs. The cost is too high.
I would point out one other observation. That to most of the voters referred to as the religious right, the moral issues are not overcome by the economy or any other issue. These voters believe that God destroyed Saddam and Gomorrah. They firmly believe they will be sent to Hell if if the vote for politicians that support what they see as terrible sins. They will not choose a trip to hell in exchange for a great economy or any other reason.
Democrats know they must take Supreme Court appointments off the political landscape before 2008. If the moral issues are are resolved to the religious rights satisfaction, then about half of them will return voting their leftest economic and socialist beliefs.
What seems to me to be true, is that if Bush were to appoint a pro choice, pro gay rights nominee, the Democrats will feel free to bork him... and likely would. The best chance at confirmation is to appoint another pro life, pro christian nominee.
As usual the Main Stream media is the last to know what is really going on.
Ya gotta love the NYT: laying people off, scandals about lying reporters, credibility in the toilet, and they just keep flogging the same old looney leftist agenda. When are they gonna learn that most of those who are paying attention are doing so just for the laughs?
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.