Centerfield

I don't think it's so much a test of the demoratic party's independence from its activist base, as it is a test of that activist base's connection to reality. Do they really think that defeating Roberts will pursuade the President to nominate a David Souter mk.II? Or is this merely an opportunity to make some noise, maybe boost NARAL's ailing membership figures and coffers?

It seems to me that the situation is quite the contrary. Bush nominated the most moderate candidate he possibly could have nominated; the anti-Roberts strategy thusfar is only serving to reassure nervous conservatives that Roberts isn't so bad after all (see, e.g., Ann Coulter's uncharacteristically lucid objection), and even were it not, defeating Roberts would prove to Bush that no matter WHO he nominates will face to-the-death opposition, and may provoke him to nominte someone the liberals like even less.

Because I have to presme that Nan Aron really isn't so stupid as to not understand the possible outcomes here (which are, in order: Roberts confirmed, Roberts confirmed, or someone even more right wing confirmed), we're left to assume that it really is as cynical as it looks: it's just a publicity excercise to boost a declining movement.

Posted by: Simon at August 22, 2005 10:09 AM

Simon, I have to agree with you. I view this just like a D. James Kennedy mailer that begs viewers to "send funds to stop the radical homosexual agenda from taking over the country." It's not so much about the message as it is about those dollars. Abortion has been fading as an issue for years and these once cash-rich, powerful groups are desperate to regain their status. They view this as a chance. Basically, that's what it comes down to.

Posted by: AR at August 22, 2005 10:20 AM

IMO, there is ZERO chance that Roberts will fail to be confirmed.

I agree with the notion that hardcore SIGs will still use this to raise funds. But Tully's point remains, that we'll be able to get a read on major Democrats by whether and how they choose to toe the line. In a sense, this is really a stupidity test.

The question is, what do various ambitious democrats have to gain via various positions? For example, can we expect Hillary Clinton to lead the charge? I say NOPE, they'll ask Ted Kennedy to fill this thankless role. Hillary Clinton will ask pointed questions, but she'll be collegial, trying to look as presidential as possible. Then she'll vote against Roberts, and she'll do so in a way that sounds sensible to people who support legal abortion without government interference in the first trimester or 2.

Posted by: bk at August 22, 2005 11:24 AM

Many of the major liberal groups have told Democratic aides that they planned to begin running television advertisements against confirmation, arguing that a more conservative court would threaten federal social programs and protections against discrimination.

So it is nothing personal against Roberts; the objection is against a "more conservative court"? Presidential elections have consequences, and one of them is that the President nominates judges. This strategy not only isn't going to work, but isn't going to help the Democrats win the next election.

Posted by: Todd Pearson at August 22, 2005 12:29 PM

Remember these words in 4 yours when we've seen him make some decisions. He's not a moderate candidate - he's a stealth candidate who's very telegenic. We'll see who's eating crow, but I'm betting it won't be me.

Bush is at 36 to 38%, and for some reasons "centrist" Dems seem to think they should cooperate with him on anything?

The base isn't growing because a lot of Dems seem to think that abusing the base is the way to win.

Posted by: Ian Welsh at August 22, 2005 02:02 PM

Ian, I'm not clear on the exact naure of the wager you're offering, please tell us more.

BTW, I don't think anyone here classes Roberts as a moderate.

Posted by: bk at August 22, 2005 02:10 PM

Oops, I guess Simon is sort of trying to make that sale, but I read that as meaning "as moderate as possible while still fulfilling promises made to the social right base." Which really means "not moderate."

Posted by: bk at August 22, 2005 02:15 PM

Ian,

Bush is in the low 40's for one reason--Iraq. I don't think anyone doubts that if the situtation over there were to miraculously turn around, you'd see a significant rise in his numbers. To date, the Democratic Party has yet to present a viable alternative that they all can agree on, so it's not like they are in a position to capitalize.

Doing a Chicken Little and running around telling everyone that social programs are going to collapse just b/c of a Supreme Court nominee isn't going to work. That tactic has been used so often ("Republicans are going to stop your Social Security checks!") that it just bounces off the wall. In 1994, Gov. Lawton Chiles used that tactic and squeaked by Jeb Bush. (He had a telephone bank make several hundred thousand calls the day before and on Election Day to seniors telling them Jeb Bush would stop their Social Security checks.) The Dems tried it in 1998 and in 2002 down here and it just didn't work this time. (And if there's any state that it would work, it's Florida.)

It's a worn out old tactic...they'll have to do better than that.

Posted by: AR at August 22, 2005 02:18 PM

Well, Simon's right in that Iraq's a big part of W's nose dive, but that's not the whole story. The really big part of it is the economy. Even if Iraq turned around tomorrow, W would be stuck at 40% unless gas prices dropped too.

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 22, 2005 03:21 PM

Ian;

Bush is at 36 to 38%, and for some reasons "centrist" Dems seem to think they should cooperate with him on anything?

But Bush isn't going to be running for anything. those that are in the future can stake out a position to help that but that would likely be a position that appeals to the "base". Therefore if GW "loses" it would be because certain conservative Republicans were afraid to lose the hard -right base (This seems very unlikley). The follow up plan then for GW would likely be a MORE conservative nominee.

Given the Republican majority in the Senate the scenarios that block Bush SCOTUS nominees are 1) filibusters or 2) more filibusters. I'd bet GW figures a protracted obstruction will only hurt the Democratic Party. Whether you believe Roberts is too conservative or not, the nomination was brilliant because he has so much support from Judges and politicians on both sides. The PR for blocking him just won't IMHO play out well.

But frankly, I would not be surprised if we ended up in a prolonged battle a la Bolton with the only desired outcome to "score points in preparation for 2006"

Posted by: c3 at August 22, 2005 03:29 PM

The economy is a funny thing. People seem to think it's a lot worse than it is for some reason. Our unemployment in Florida is now at 2000 levels, which basically says that if you want a job, you've got one. (I realize not everyone is doing what they want to do, but sometimes you just have to take the job you can get.) Real Estate is booming here...everyone is upgrading to larger homes, so I just don't get the pessimism. No, I don't want to pay $2.69 for gasoline either, but that's just one facet of the economy. (I filled up my two vehicles on Saturday and set myself back a measly $90.) Bush isn't directly responsible for gas prices. Congress and their pork-filled energy bill on the other hand, which took 4 years to pass, bears more responsibility. (Of course, Bush shouldn't have signed it IMHO.)

I think that after the 2001 "slowdown" or "recession"--whatever you prefer to call it--people are just more pessimistic. They are scared to relax too much. That's where the low poll numbers come from IMHO.

Posted by: AR at August 22, 2005 03:45 PM

Seems to me that we can learn just as much about Republican Senators visa vis SIG's by watching how they vote on Roberts too. In particular the moderate NorthEastern Republicans.

The only specific issue brought up by Dems that I think might resonate is Robert's stance on or rather against equal pay for women. That cuts against the female vote across the ideological spectrum.

Posted by: Kevin at August 22, 2005 03:46 PM

I'm not sure if the confirmation process will really tell us anything about the Democratic Party and its base.

The Democratic Senators know they won't get 40 votes to filibuster -- he doesn't have a record so radical that the centrists will stake everything on a filibuster (barring some major problem not yet known). Therefore, every action by the Democratic Senators, both individually and as a group, will be purely symbolic.

So there's only two possibilities:

1. Some of the all Democratic Senators yell and scream and vote "no", which is either "playing to the base" or "sticking to their princples," depending on the Senator and one's point of view, and Roberts is confirmed.

2. Most of the Democratic Senators vote to confirm, just as the Republicans voted for Ginsburg, which is either "betraying the base" or "being bipartisan and responsible", depending on the Senator and one's point of view.

Posted by: Oberon at August 22, 2005 04:18 PM

The only specific issue brought up by Dems that I think might resonate is Robert's stance on or rather against equal pay for women. That cuts against the female vote across the ideological spectrum.

Maybe it will resonate, but the interest groups making the accusation are using a cheap shot. The actual issue went way beyond "equal pay for women" -- Roberts was against using government power to force employers to pay people similar wages despite doing different jobs (the theory being that male truck drivers get paid more than female secretaries, and the goverment needs to remedy that). Even a lot of liberals think that's way too much government interference, and the idea never caught on.

Posted by: Oberon at August 22, 2005 04:24 PM

Kevin, what, in you view, would moderate GOP senators have to gain by voting against Roberts?

IMO, its the very conservative GOP Senators who'd arguably have a conflict, not GOP moderates. They might want to vote NAY to pacify SIGs who think Roberts is not a safe enough bet. But I expect GOP moderates to pretty much come out smelling like roses by voting party-line FOR Roberts.

If anything, there's more pressure on this group from SIGs to oppose Roberts. Is that what you mean?

Posted by: bk at August 22, 2005 04:24 PM

The rational CENTRIST strategy for the Democrats is to actively oppose Roberts, critizise his positions on controversial issues, and vote against him, but not filibuster. This is a good strategy even though Roberts will be approved. The reason is that it is becoming clear that Roberts is far to the right and far away from the center of public opinion, and a sharp examination of his views can make this even clearer. That means that once he is a Supreme Court justice, he will make decisions that the people at the center will not like. The Democrats can then gain political advantage by reminding voters that they opposed him and that if the Democrats regain power such right wing ideologues will not be put on the courts.

Posted by: Roland Buck at August 22, 2005 08:42 PM

Therefore, every action by the Democratic Senators, both individually and as a group, will be purely symbolic.

Will it? I'd think that, if true, it would indicate a universal shallowness in the party, a "perfect storm" of symbolism over substance, as doctrine. Haven't we had enough of that from the majority?

At any rate, to throw more fuel on the fire, today Kos announced a fall offensive by the RadLeft against the Democratic centrists.

Ultimately, this is the modern DLC -- an aider and abettor of Right-wing smear attacks against Democrats. They make the same arguments, use the same language, and revel in their attacks on those elements of the Democratic Party that seem to cause them no small embarrassment.

Two more weeks, folks, before we take them on, head on.

No calls for a truce will be brooked. The DLC has used those pauses in the past to bide their time between offensives. Appeals to party unity will fall on deaf ears (it's summer of a non-election year, the perfect time to sort out internal disagreements).

We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.

Personally, I think it's going to be quite a show.

Posted by: Tully at August 22, 2005 08:44 PM

Roland;

The rational CENTRIST strategy for the Democrats is to actively oppose Roberts, critizise his positions on controversial issues, and vote against him, but not filibuster. This is a good strategy even though Roberts will be approved. The reason is that it is becoming clear that Roberts is far to the right and far away from the center of public opinion...he will make decisions that the people at the center will not like. The Democrats can then gain political advantage by reminding voters that they opposed him and that if the Democrats regain power such right wing ideologues will not be put on the courts.

Wait a minute... you're trying to trick me aren't you.

Posted by: c3 at August 22, 2005 09:15 PM

today Kos announced a fall offensive by the RadLeft against the Democratic centrists. We need to make the DLC radioactive. And we will. With everyone's help, we really can. Stay tuned.

Proceed on your way to oblivion.

I said after Dean got drop-kicked out of the race that there was a severe danger that the Democrats would descend into a bout of civil war; I stand by that prediction, but confess to confusion at how willingly Kos seems to be in helping Karl Rove's strategy to marginalize the Democratic party. You'd think that ten years plus since their last electoral victory worth spit would have made them hungry enough to start dealing with reality, but I guess not.

Posted by: Simon at August 22, 2005 11:09 PM

Calm down, Simon; one blogger's threat for the future does not a civil war make. I'd be more worried about Republican defections on Iraq...

By the way, Abel, I called you Simon. My bad: sorry about that. Too many textbooks, too little time...

Anyway, Abel, you're correct that the economy may be improving, but that doesn't mean much to the average voter who's paying 2.60$ to 2.85$ a gallon. If W could bring down the price of gas, as well as bring a peaceful democracy to Iraq, then he'd be golden.

Of course, if I could fly and read minds, I'd be an X-man...;-)

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 22, 2005 11:46 PM

This one says it all, as does this.

(More).

Posted by: Simon at August 23, 2005 12:03 AM

I don't know that I'd call it a "civil war." Infighting is hardly the same as an internal revolution, and the "Young Turks" are always chomping on the bit in any organization. But it certainly gives us some insight into the state of the party, the drift and direction, and helps clearly delineate the factions.

Yesterday, commenting on the same NYT article, WSJ's Best of the Web cites the closing paragraph with the following commentary:

On the substance, as the Times piece makes clear, the party is united:

Asked about debates within the caucus, Mr. Schumer emphasized the unity on Judge Roberts's nomination. "Not a single person has said they are for him or against him," he said. "Everyone is in sync."

If the Democrats' unity holds up, Roberts will be confirmed by a vote of 55-0.

I got a chuckle out of that.

Posted by: Tully at August 23, 2005 09:45 AM

me: Therefore, every action by the Democratic Senators, both individually and as a group, will be purely symbolic.

Tully: Will it? I'd think that, if true, it would indicate a universal shallowness in the party, a "perfect storm" of symbolism over substance, as doctrine. Haven't we had enough of that from the majority?

Yeesh. All I'm saying is that Democratic Senators don't have the votes to change the outcome on Roberts. To go from that simple fact about the Democratic Senators on this one particular issue to accusing the entire Democratic party of "universal shallowness" etc. is seriously overblown.

Nice turn of phrase, though.

Opinion Journal: If the Democrats' unity holds up, Roberts will be confirmed by a vote of 55-0.

Yeah, that's cute. But can anyone seriuosly fault the Democrats for taking the position of "we'll have the confirmation hearings before we decide?"?

Posted by: Oberon at August 23, 2005 03:04 PM

"Not a single person has said they are for him or against him," he said. "Everyone is in sync."

This at least suggests a plausible strategy. What if each of the democrats decided that they would collectively declare that they had NO position on Roberts prior the hearings, and that they'd make up their minds about him based on what happened during the hearings. IOW, that anominee of such staure deserves a far and open hearing based on his merits and his willingness to be forthcoming in what is for all intents and purposes sort of a job interview. This would give at least the appearance of open-mindedness, which would make subsequent objections at least seem plausible.

Now I'm not saying that such a tack would be an honest representation of the facts regading each senator's possible biases. But it would be a crafty way of putting a spotlight on the actual content of the hearings, wouldn't it? A subsequent attempt at a fillibuster could then much more plausibly be framed as a response to a lack of forthcomingness.

Posted by: bk at August 23, 2005 03:07 PM

Oberon, next time you meet a Senator you be sure to tell 'em that every time they were personally on the losing side of a vote, all of their actions were "purely symbolic." (Be prepared to duck--most Senators take both their work and themselves seriously.)

And I'd say that since it requires a certain number of Democratic Senators to prevent a filibuster, the actions of those Senators at least are a bit more substantive than symbolic, no? In any case, the "shallowness" thing is only true if the SenDems are united ahead of time in losing--and if they were actually united, a filibuster would still be possible. Catch-22.

But can anyone seriuosly fault the Democrats for taking the position of "we'll have the confirmation hearings before we decide?"

Not if I seriously thought all those Senators were actually undecided going into the hearings. Since I don't seriously think that, yes, I can at least get some amusement out of it. But I do think it's one of the smarter and more reserved moves from the Senate Democrats in a few years. The humor is in the sheer idiocy of Schumer proclaiming being the party united in nothingness and in sync with vacuity. Want some popcorn?

Posted by: Tully at August 23, 2005 05:36 PM

(Be prepared to duck--most Senators take both their work and themselves seriously.)

A comedian had a gag a few years ago that United States Senators take themselves and their work very, very seriously - so much so that they'd wear togas if they thought they could get away with it. Posted by: Simon at August 23, 2005 06:07 PM

LMAO. That they would. And fight over who got to wear the laurel wreaths.

Posted by: Tully at August 23, 2005 07:19 PM

Okay, Tully, then next time you see a Democrat, tell him or her that you think Democrats are universally shallow, and their party doctrine is to favor symbolism over substance.

Posted by: Oberon at August 23, 2005 07:44 PM

Okay, Tully, then next time you see a Democrat, tell him or her that you think Democrats are universally shallow, and their party doctrine is to favor symbolism over substance.

LOL. Why would I do that? I'm not the person who believes the actions of all Democratic Senators will be "purely symbolic" whenever they're on the losing side of a debate. That's your position.

Posted by: Tully at August 23, 2005 08:41 PM

Aaaaand...three far right cartoons prove exactly what, Simon?

That the cartoonists can't come up with anything more original than a Ted Kennedy joke that was dusty twenty years ago?

Posted by: Blue Jean at August 23, 2005 09:53 PM

The classics never die, Jean... Besides, if you look closely, the picture of Teddy in the background really looks more like Newt Gingrich, I think... There may be some Democrat-oriented humor hidden there!

Posted by: PatHMV at August 23, 2005 10:30 PM

LOL. Why would I do that? I'm not the person who believes the actions of all Democratic Senators will be "purely symbolic" whenever they're on the losing side of a debate. That's your position.

LOL. I typed up a long response to explain my simple little comment, and then I realized you're just messing with me by twisting my point completely out of recognition.

Posted by: Oberon at August 24, 2005 07:29 AM

Well, they don't prove anything. That's not the object of a cartoon. ;) But they do highlight an important reality: there simply isn't anybody who Bush could nominate who would please the Democratic Party's base. Despite the rhetoric, the reality is that Roberts seems far, far from the Scalia/Thomas type Bush promised. With this in mind, it would seem smart to me for the congressional dems to do what the CGOP did when Breyer was nominated: breathe a sigh of relief that it wasn't worse.

Posted by: Simon at August 24, 2005 09:35 AM