The dems are fools. Rather than play their cards close to the chest, they have made their strategy so open.
Now, Bush simply should nominate Janice Rogers Brown.
If the idiot Dems block her, then he should nominate Roe hating Garza.
If the super idiot Dems block him, then Bush should nominate Luttig.
He should then declare to America that blacks and hispanics have no chance of winning confirmation with Dems and therefore he chose a white male.
I think Bush might nominate Alberto Gonzalez at some point.
Novak points out, further in his article, that Ed Gillespie might be his party's senatorial nominee for Virginia in three years.
Given that Barbour in Mississippi was an establishment insider, and once a lobbyist too (like Gillespie), is it much wonder that this party can't enact much of a conservative agenda, even when it has majority in both houses of congress *and* has the presidency? This kind of incestuous relationships between lobbyists (who advocate for all sorts of federal government activism) and elected officials in government will not help in the long term.
This strategy did not satisfy the far left groups. They are fit to be tied at Leahy.
chicagotribune.com
Democrats and John Roberts
September 25, 2005
John Roberts is virtually guaranteed to be confirmed chief justice of the U.S. by the full Senate this week. Republicans control the chamber, and those on the Judiciary Committee unanimously backed him last week. But five committee Democrats voted no, and several other prominent Democratic senators announced their opposition as well. Their objections are worth considering, if only because they raise the question: What would it take to please them?
When it comes to judicial appointments, Senate Democrats have long accused the president of favoring sharp-edged ideologues with unimpressive resumes, chosen without due regard for Democratic sensibilities. Given that, you would think they would have jumped at the chance to vote for this nominee, whose record suggests he is passionate about the law but not about ideology, and who is known as possibly the most talented Supreme Court advocate of our time.
When President Bush originally chose Roberts to fill the seat of outgoing Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, he was clearly meeting the Democrats halfway. He passed over several candidates who would have been much more popular with his conservative base. And after the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he might have tried to elevate either of the two most conservative members of the court, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Instead, he made a comparatively conciliatory choice, which some liberals praised as the best they could have hoped for.
Some Senate Democrats concurred last week, despite the protests of liberal lobby groups. Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) surprised many on the left and the right when he voted for Roberts, citing his "impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent." Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, showed similar courage in supporting the nomination.
No one expected such independence from Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin, a reflexive partisan. It was disheartening, though, to see Barack Obama (D-Ill.) fall in line with the Democratic leadership--and do a poor job of justifying that position. Admitting that the nominee has a host of sterling qualities, Obama essentially said he couldn't vote for him because Roberts doesn't seem to share Obama's views on racial issues--in short, he just isn't as enlightened as Obama. Who knew of that constitutional requirement?
If Obama and other Democrats want more liberal justices on the court, there is one way to get them: Convince voters to put a Democrat in the White House. This tortured opposition to Roberts isn't likely to improve their odds of doing that. They instead might have tried extending to John Roberts the fairness they profess to value.