Skip to main content

View Diary: Picking their judge (317 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Like I said above- what are you angry about? (none)
    I am confused how you can be angry not knowing anything about this nominee- is it simply that she is a Bush nominee?
    •  I'm Angry (none)
      Regardless of the merits (or lack thereof) of the nominee, it would be nice to have the Democratic Party united - whether it be Reid and Leahy both expressing a tempered confidence in the nominee, or both expressing a tempered wariness of the nominee.  Of course, I'd prefer the former, but I'd settle for the latter, as long as it could be easily perceived by the average person that both of these men were from the same Party.  

      That angers me more and more each day.  

      •  i am asking you as devil's advocate question (none)
        what values are you arguing about. i would prefer if you who say you are mad would provide more than generalities. ie, thus far i've heard vague terms like she is a "corporatist" and "well, it's a bush nominee and that is reason alone to diss the nomination" i honestly don't have a dog in this race- not because i dont care but because i dont understand the nature of your fight right now or how you can sustain it. look, i don't believe the enemy of my enemy is my friend. the fact the christian right doesn't love here is irrelevant. but, i want sometime more in terms of things to oppose about her than what've heard. even the stuff about her qualifications is a pretty thin argument considering the justices we've had on the S Ct before. part of me like i said is playing devil's advocate to get y'all to provide more cogent and focused arguments that hit me in the gut like yeah- i can see it. but general labels aren't helping.
    •  wow. (none)
      i've been hiding from the media all day - really, i just have too much work to do to be able to afford being pissed off and unable to think straight - but...no shit, cbs ran with 'conflicting reactions from senate democrats today'?

      my problem, and i won't presume to speak for the parent, is that the senate democrats should be presenting a united goddamn front to the media. blackberry. cell phone. email. fart in morse code. whatever the fuck it is they do to communicate with each other- the should have done it! huddle. get every body together in the same room three days ago and say :

       'hey, fellow distinguished people - our country is in big trouble. we're spending far more money then we are taking in. these unchecked deficits will ruin our economy. we're losing the war in iraq and osama bin laden is still on the lose. our failed war on terror will ruin our security. here at home the president of the united states just lost a major american city and  43? 45? million americans don't have health insurance. most americans' standard of living is periously close to being ruined.

          putting someone on the bench matters . the opportunity to fight back against the administration ruining this country matters . so before anybody runs off half cocked to the  press - and we look like a bunch of goddamn headless chickens - when bush announces a nominee , you just wait . no conflicting quotes. no backstabbing. we get together, we discuss privately, we work out an actualy strategy. and we build in room for dissent. but i swear if you break ranks before we are ready, i will hand pick your primary challenger, i will go door to goddamn door handing out their bumper stickers, and i will devote the resources of this party to your defeat.'

      why? cus it would've allowed time to formulate and implement a strategy that allowed democrats to use this nomination process to our advantage. maybe something like if outlined in this excellent diary by georgia10... yea, that's the ticket, some part discpline, some focus on the real story - bush is incompetent, he takes cronyism to high art and the result is that everything he touches turns to shit.

      what's to be gained by delay? well the other big news story out of the cycle today was that the house majority leader was indicted on money laundering charges. and who here doesn't think we'll get another october surprise from a certain special prosecutor? hell, it's all i read about around these parts- lawyers saying he wouldn't impose such secrecy, wouldn't have locked up a reporter, etc etc unless he had plans to bring indictments. who do we think he's going to indict? the white house mail room clerk?

      this party is getting weaker by the minute - and frankly it is in spite of the democratic party, not because of it.

      •  typos. (none)
        *the republican party is getting weaker by the minute...

        you should be able to read around all of the other typos without much problem (sorry).

      •  what does putting this woman on the (none)
        s ct have to do with healthcare. look, i agree with the principles that a) the democrats need to take more risks b) that they need to fight more to prove they aren't weak c) that they need to show leadership (in the john wayne style of leadership that the republicans show) d) develop a brand that is beyond just reacting to the right e) unify and f) that we have missed opportunities. some of those past opportunities were simply in my mind right now from what i am seeing and hearing better chances- schiavo, katrina, social security, roberts nomination, etc. but, show me how this woman fits into all of that- is she to be opposed simply because bush nominated her or are you providing something upon which to lay a real battle so that the risk that you are asking people to take will result in a change of leadership so that for example you can obtain the healthcare shifts you are seeking?
      •  ps (none)
        two other points:

        i am kind of run on paragraphs and typos so no worries. and also, i completely agree the Rs are weak. I don't think it is enough for us to rely on that they are weak. But, I want to see some strategic thinking that plays this to our advantage- so that we are "moderate" where necessary and oppositional when necessary. The problem has been, and I think that's where this reaction I am seeing is coming from- is that the democrats never play the oppositional party so even in circumstances like this which may call for strategic moderation it comes across as just one among many failures. i even agree that this woman is not the best choice- but i also think at 60 and other justices being old she has a short shelf life- and that the best chances of changing things is a change int he senate and the presidency. i am as you see conflicted. i dont have a clear answer here.

        •  i don't know the woman (none)
          i didn't say that i oppose her nomination to scotus. or that i support her nomination to scotus. my plea was for party unity so that cbs evening news wouldn't run something like

          ...." and now for reaction from capitol hill. senate democrats were sending mixed signals today in response to president bush's nomination of ...."

          we - democrats - are getting rolled by right wing republicans. they are winning, in part, because of bullshit like we saw from senate democrats today. in the process our country is being destroyed. we are on the verge of ruin. i'm arguing that senate democrats, if they cared about acting strategically in the best interests of their constituents and this country, would have adopted a strategy like georgia10 suggested on the internet , so its not exactly a secret or (no offense) entirely inconceivable.

          i'm not asking deocrats to risk a fight on the nomination - i don't know anything about the woman - i am asking them to come up with a cohesive, politically adept, strategy that serves the best interests of the party and the country. having chaos be their contribution to the news cycle wasn't it.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site