The real reason some Democrats are supporting Roberts

[genius]

Poll question: The real reason some Democrats are supporting Roberts

I can only think of two reasons. They know that every major organization and the vast majority of Americans oppose Roberts, and they know they are going against the best interests of their constituents and of the American people in voting for him. The question is what is so important that they would screw their supporters and the American people to back this guy?

[rinsd]

1. A vast majority of Americans oppose Roberts?

Were are you getting that?

[Dr Fate]

5. Bush's approval ratings are the lowest in history.

And Americans will oppose Roberts by an even wider margin when the reality hits- just like Iraq.

[rinsd]

7. Bush's approval ratings have little to do with Roberts....

A few polls on Roberts that were compiled on Roberts by the pollingreport from Newsweek, Cbs etc.

http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm

I don't see where Roberts is opposed by a majority unless you count all undecideds in with the opposition.

[Dr Fate]

9. What were the poll numbers for invading Iraq?

And what are they now?

Can you give me an example of how giving Bush what he wants has ever been a good strategy for us?

We need LEADERSHIP, not polls.

[rinsd]

17. Bear with me....

The OP stated the vast majority of Americans opposed Roberts. Right now that isn't true. I was asking for clarification. Perhaps the OP meant his views are out of the mainstream.

"
Can you give me an example of how giving Bush what he wants has ever been a good strategy for us?"

I didn't make a comment on strategy. And its not a matter of giving Bush what he wants. He can have anything he wants with the current makeup. And if you think Democrats in red or reddish states wouldn't take a few black eyes for voting against Roberts, you are kidding yourself. He's a GOPer wet dream, all shiny and packaged with no hard core evidence of his views and how hard they are held. Now a DUer may see through that but the vast majority of the American public? You have to be kidding me.

"We need LEADERSHIP, not polls."

Kerry setting up his 2008 run is not leadership. Reid deciding now that he would be politically vulnerable if he voted for Roberts is not leadership. Its a bunch of bullshit posturing. If they feel that strongly about him they should fillibuster. But they won't because that would be posturing with political risk.

[Dr Fate]

25. Losts of Red Staters USED to support the war in Iraq too.

And I dont see a vote against Roberts as posturing- I see is as vote that sides with the Democratic base and the correct position as opposed to siding with the likes of Pat Robertson & George Bush.

Those who vote for what Bush wants continue to divide this party rather than strengthen it.

[rinsd]

36. True....

...but you're comparing a war with people dying to a Supreme Court justice who in 5 years half the population won't even be able to name.

[Dr Fate]

42. If they wont be able to name him, then DEMs should vote "no".

Because us Democrats WILL remember.

[rinsd]

43. Good point (nt)

[Freddie Stubbs]

47. Bush's numbers are low, but Roberts' aren't

The poll did contain one bright spot for Bush, as 60 percent of those surveyed supported the confirmation of John Roberts, his pick for chief justice of the United States. Just 26 percent opposed Roberts' confirmation, while 14 percent had no opinion.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/bush.poll/

[Dr Fate]

53. The Iraq War USED to have poll numbers even higher than that.

I remember those post 9/11 days when the media used to call those who opposed Bush "10 Percenters."

So tell, me where did all that "let's pretend we agree with Bush since he polls well" nonsense get us? Which elections did that help us win?

We need LEADERS on this instead of poll watchers.

[Freddie Stubbs]

76. It helped us win several elections

Mark Pryor was elected to the Senate from Arkansas, a red state. He even defeated a Republican incumbent. Both Tim Johnson and Mary Landreau was reelected by narrow margins from a red states. And in Montana, a very red state, the Republican couldn't even garner more than 1/3 of the vote against Senator Baucus. All that was was in 2002, immediately after Congress voted on the war in Iraq.

[Padme Amidala]

70. The vast majority of Americans do oppose Roberts. Only the Thugs don't

know that the polls show members of both parties are opposed to Roberts. Or maybe the Thugs just don't want to admit it.

[QC]

73. He pulled it out of his ass,

same as with all the other "information" the tragically misnamed "genius" posts here.

[MaineDem]

2. You don't think there are other options?

:eyes:

[rinsd]

8. Of course not, "wit us or agin us" "traitor" "betrayer" (nt)

[LittleClarkie]

40. You're either with us or with the terrorists

same mentality, I'm afraid, only on the other side.

[renie408]

44. Either you are with the GOP or you are against GOD...

I just wanted to play, too.

[LittleClarkie]

46. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I feel like we're playing Jepardy

Where every answer is in the form of a question.

Frivolous polls for 1000, Alex...

[Jack Rabbit]

3. At least have a slot for "Other"

Like there's little point in spending a lot of political capital opposing the nomination.

Were I a Senator, I'd vote No. I'm pleased that Senator Feinstein from my state voting No in committee today. However, Roberts will be approved without our support.

Right now, it is more prudent for Democrats to oppose Bush on battles that are important and where they can win. This may fit the first criteria, but not the second.

[genius]

6. If not for the defectors, we could filibuster.

These people have betrayed the American people.

[Dr Fate]

12. Or at least it would unify the the party instead of dividing it.

n/t

[Jack Rabbit]

13. . . . and risk the nuclear option

That also must be considered in the Democrats' calculus.

Senator Frist has ants in his pants looking forward to pressing that button. Meanwhile, Bush has another Supreme Court vacancy to fill. If the nuclear option were invoked prior to that appointment being made, Bush could nominate Attila the Hun and the Democrats would not be able to block it.

[genius]

14. Worst case scenario of nuclear option: No more justices, no more bad laws

You see, we can shut down the Senate if they try the nuclear option.

[Jack Rabbit]

15. . . . and no more funds appropriated for school and disaster relief

Shutting down the Senate is a very drastic step and a hazardous public relations ploy.

[genius]

20. You mean for military recuiters and Halliburton, don't you?

[Jack Rabbit]

27. No, I mean the money to fix leaky roofs in public schools

Unfortunately, that goes along with some of the other crap. It always has.

You are not talking about just shutting down the Senate. You are talking about shutting down the country. Have you considered the implications of that? I think many Senate Democrats have and that is why they would like to avoid taking such a step.

Newt Gingrich thought he could get away with that kind of thing in the mid-nineties and it backfired in his face. Just because Bush has a 36-40% approval rating in most polls right now doesn't mean the Democrats can't go wrong and blow it. Shutting down the government was a bad idea politically then and I don't think it would go over any better now.

[ISUGRADIA]

69. How do Dems shut down the Senate? Quorum is 51 members.

The Repubs have 55

[sendero]

60. Exactly..

.... and also, save the knock-down drag-out fight for the next nominee. The Dems should not allow Bush** to replace the moderate O'Connor with some wingnut.

They should force the nuclear option.

[Fenris]

4. What's the atmosphere like on your planet?

[genius]

10. In California, we believe in electing peole who represent us.

We've got Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Lynn Woolsey, Barbara Lee and Bob Filner. We even get Feinstein to occasionally support us, like here where the lives of your children are at at stake. How dare anyone vote for a man who always puts corporate interests above the continuation of life on Earth.

[genius]

11. Oh and California has the most electoral votes.

Don't mess with us.

[MindPilot]

16. Yeah, but we also have Arnie, Duke-Stir, Rice Pilaf, and B1-Bob

In the past we have the shame of having graced the entire country with Red-Ink Ronnie and Dick Nixon.

[genius]

19. Loretta kicked out B-1 Bob. Arnie's almost dead.

Every day I see a dozen ads against him and none for him. Our state has it's act together. Arnold's approval rating is lower than Bush's. He got in through the voting computers and we get a paper trail in 2006.

[rinsd]

37. You overestimate the state....

Ahnuld got in a pure celebrity and well done media campaign.

Diebold had nothing to with it.

That doesn't mean paper trails are unnecessary but facts are facts.

He was favored to win in pre-elect polls and the exit polls confirmed it. Unless exit polls are bullshit now?

[rinsd]

21. LOL....Ahnuld, Wilson, Cunningham etc etc etc (nt)

[Silverhair]

59. So do SD, ND, MT, NE, and some other red states with

Democratic Senators. Whatever makes you think that a Senator for another state MUST vote the way a person from CA desires?

[QC]

74. Like Arnold? n/t

[Generator]

18. Other

They are a bunch of scared ass wimps. Sorry..it's what I really think. Apparently JOB numero uno for them is keeping their own job and not defending the suckers that voted for them. Not to mention the constititution and things like A MAJOR conflict of interest that Roberts was ruling for Bush & Co. WHILE being interviewed by him. The only place this has been covered is Democracy Now. Someone was trying to get that last ruling overturned. What do you wanna bet Ms. housewife here knows about that than the so called leaders in congress do?

They apparently think appeasment is the way to keep their job. Look "moderate". Afterall, Bush won the election you know! It's all about values! :rofl: Got to go along to get along! That's the Dem motto.

[MindPilot]

22. There should be a third choice

Spineless pink-tutu democrats don't give a flying rat's ass about anything except making sure that the Bush administration administration remains in power and they are not criticized by Corpmedia.

At least John Kerry and DiFi have seen the light, but honestly all I could think of when I heard that is "you could've voted no on the Bush appointment..."

[sandnsea]

23. Evidence please

Please back up your statement that the vast majority of Americans oppose Roberts.

Otherwise, you're just pulling shit out of the air like those on the right do.

[genius]

29. You haven't been looking at the polls? You didn't see the petitions?

Bush doesn't either. Check with Moveon, the PFAW and the hundreds of other organizations that have been out tirelessly organizing real Americans and looking at what Roberts stands for and where the American public stands on Roberts. They all have wesites. My guess is that you are not interested in going to their sites and looking at the evidence.

[sandnsea]

33. lol

Excuse me, that's NOT the vast majority of Americans. If you think it is, you might want to try expanding your horizons a bit. 60% support Roberts, latest polls.

Another DUer who doesn't look for an opinion outside their own teeny sphere of "enlightened progressives".

[rinsd]

35. I did check those sites....

There is anything about polling. There are statements dealing with concerns on privacy etc etc. but no polls or comparisons dealing with the American public.

Now if you are making the case that Roberts views are out of the mainstream based on public opinion polls taken on policy issues, that is something we can discuss. But the orgs mantioned by you do not do so.

And this grouping of polls suggest a few things including that Roberts is supported by a majority of the American people at this time (with about 25% undecided).

http://www.pollingreport.com/Court.htm

[Cocoa]

24. because they want to blow up nurseries

:-)

[genius]

28. You are being kind of extreme here, aren't you?

[newswolf56]

26. This poll unfortunately perpetuates a lie. That is because...

Democratic support for Roberts reveals three truths, the same three truths revealed by Democratic support for CAFTA, NAFTA and the unspeakable savagery of Reagan/Clinton welfare "reform" that was the beginning of the official policy of genocide by neglect and was thus the precursor to the atrocity of New Orleans. But none of these truths is articulated by the above poll.

These bitter truths are: (1)-The deadly similarity of today's Democratic and Republican parties (each a wholly-owned subsidiary of the oligarchy, representing only the oligarchy's interests: maximum concentration of wealth, maximum disempowerment of everyone else); (2)-The total extent to which ALL the problems we face (downsizing, outsourcing, forcible reduction of wages, pension-looting, destruction of the social safety net, tyranny whether in Iraq or New Orleans) are the result of class warfare rather than partisan politics; (3)-The fact that (with the very notable exception of a very few individual Democrats) both parties have turned against us -- that is, are serving the interests of the oligarchy against the people and have therefore left us totally without representation.

Yes it really is this bad, and people are being killed as a result, whether in Iraq or in New Orleans. The corollary fact is that to remedy this worsening situation we have but two choices: (1)-we can take back the Democratic Party (under the leadership of some new FDR) and force the Party to again represent the people and to restore the New Deal or at least its core principle of government as the defender of the people against the malevolence of the oligarchy; or (2)-we can form a third party to accomplish this same objective.

Unfortunately the third alternative -- that of total surrender to the oligarchy and the final collapse of the United States into yet another New World/Third World despotism (a tiny obscenely wealthy oligarchy murderously oppressing a huge, wretchedly powerless, abjectly impoverished people) -- is both too awful to contemplate and by far the most likely outcome. The fact this is true is demonstrated simply by the number of Democrats whose voting records prove beyond any doubt they are as much a part of the problem as the Republicans.

[Generator]

32. I agree completely

It's only taken me about ten years to get here. Excellently stated! I've said it too-you said it better. ((a tiny obscenely wealthy oligarchy murderously oppressing a huge, wretchedly powerless, abjectly impoverished people) -- is both too awful to contemplate and by far the most likely outcome.)

Even my oh so moderate husband sees that handwriting on the wall. What I've come to believe is that some DU'ers (even I unfortunately) may sound a wee over the top at times, but we hear the horsemen of the appocalypse. They aren't here yet but we are feeding them quite well just out of sight. I think some are still in denial. And frankly, denial is so much easier. It might take another forty years to say I told you so. I hope it doesn't happen! But it's what I hear.

[newswolf56]

49. Thank you. Took me a long time to realize this too. Bitterly betrayed...

by the Democratic Party's abandonment of its New Deal principles, I even wandered for a time in the libertarian/conservative camp, wondering if perhaps my lifelong commitment to the Democratic Party had been a mistake -- asking myself if in my faithfulness to the New Deal I had somehow been seduced by ideological falsehoods, my entire mindset one of Doubt. But then, through the work I do, I began to see the cleverly hidden but ultimately unavoidable truths of the 30-year DemoPublican war against the social safety net: the horrors of a kind of poverty and attendant hopelessness I hadn't encountered even in the wretchedly poor Appalachia of my youth. About the same time -- seemingly the result of a bookshelf-rearranging accident -- I re-read Marx, and it dawned on me precisely what it was I was witnessing.

I wonder now how I could ever have been so blind and stupid not to have understood it much earlier. Though never a Marxist, I always -- at least on some level -- recognized the historical truth of class-struggle. Too, I always knew there is no such thing as altruism in capitalism -- that capitalism is ultimately nothing more than savagery in a suit and necktie: greed at its most malevolent. Thus I had no illusion it was anything other than the Russian Revolution (and afterward the threat of the Red Army and the peerless Soviet intelligence apparatus) that terrified capitalism into allowing the humanitarian reforms of the New Deal and the emergence of the European welfare states: all reforms based on acknowledgment of class-struggle and the role of government as protector of the people against the oligarchy. Indeed, so huge and powerful is the human yearning for economic democracy, the Soviet Union remained a beacon of light (and thus of both popular hopes and oligarchic fears) despite all the damning Stalinist hypocrisies of its bloody-handed rulers. But when the U.S.S.R. collapsed, there was suddenly no longer this ideological AK-47 pointed at the oligarchy to restrain its innate viciousness: hence the near-instant re-emergence of the kind of implacably savage capitalism we see today -- whether exemplified by welfare "reform," New Orleans, Iraq or Roberts -- all of it endorsed by Republicans and Democrats alike, each in equal faithfulness to their corporate masters.

My return to the Democratic fold (where I spent all my childhood and the first 30 years of my adult life) is a reflection of my heartfelt hope we CAN take the party back (just as was done in 1932) -- and that, precisely because of his unique focus on the reality of class warfare, John Edwards is the man to lead us.

[StudentOfDarrow]

30. Neither.

Just a lack of willingness to fight the establishment.

[damntexdem]

31. Well I went for the bribes. But that's not the real reason, which is:

lack of spines.

[Goldeneye]

34. Yeah Feingold's taken bribes....

that's my bet.

[1932]

39. If he's trading his vote for a Republican promise not to bring estate tax

to a vote, or something like that, would you blame him?

I have complete faith that Feingold is motivated solely by his desire to make America a better place for the vast majority of Americans.

[Goldeneye]

41. Sorry I forgot one of these

:sarcasm: in my original post.

[LittleClarkie]

52. Ya had me scared for a minute there

Yup. Feingold generally votes to let nominees go to a vote. He did it with ... damn, was it Condi or Gonzalez?

[Raiden]

56. Yeah! What a DINO...

:sarcasm:

[Padme Amidala]

71. He backed Negroponte, Ashcroft, the Real ID Act, Chertoff.

Also he backed Michael Brown. Real liberal.

[1932]

38. The real reason is because they're making deals.

Some think they're not going to stop Roberts, so they're trading their votes for something else they think is more important.

[renie408]

45. Where is the 'they are chicken shit p***ies' option? n/t

[mikelewis]

48. They cut a deal...

They cut a deal. They allowed Bush to score a few points so they can force a decent candidate in the next SCOTUS appointment. Why do you think Spectre asked O'Connor to stay until June? That didn't have to be publicized. That was the deal, pass through Roberts and get a Moderate or at least the gloves taken off on the next candidate. It's a good deal. It shows Spectre has some balls after all and isn't happy with Roberts. What self-respecting Republican could be pleased with the farce of a confirmation hearing like this one? It was a joke, a Rovian ploy to pass off a Corporate Crony onto the bench. You know somewhere beneath that layer of self-aggrandizing twisted view of perfection that they have, lies a human heart that must feel shame at their cowardice. Maybe Spectre's face to face with the Reaper scared him more than Bush. Maybe fighting Cancer has energized him to rid his party of these malignant Tumors in our government. {That may be a stretch.} Who knows. All I know is Spectre publicly asked O'Connor to wait to retire until June. Now why would he do that? And why would the President immediately issue a statement saying that he would not wait? There's something going on behind the doors in the Senate. But rest assured, they cut a deal. I just hope they know what they're doing.

[1932]

50. That makes sense.

[Dr Fate]

55. What are some "deals" we made with Bush that have worked for us?

Can you show us an example where giving Bush what he wants has worked out for us?

[mikelewis]

61. That's the point.... They cut it with Spectre and not Bush

To cobble Bush, we need some Republicans on "our" side. Spectre just declared allegience to the flag instead of the Republican banner. This is a huge win for our side. Roberts is in a new world now, becoming a Supreme Court Justice is an honor. Becoming Cheif Justice is a miracle. He may walk through the door a corporate crony but once there, he will buckle under the weight of the honor bestowed upon him. I'm not really worried about Roberts. He'll be fine especially if we can block a real lunatic the next time. With an even more fanatical federalist on the bench, America will irrevocably change. We had no shot at blocking Roberts and everyone knew it. So they cut a deal with Spectre. Spectre may also be a little worried about the fallout from Katrina. Now that everyone is scrutinizing Bush's choices for positions, the Democrats have a huge opening to undermine any candidate. That may have prompted Spectre to cut the July deal. Who knows? All I know is Sen. Spectre talked a Supreme Court Justice into staying on until July and he did it publicly. The fact that Bush hastily shot down the idea shows that they were not in the loop. Spectre has gone rogue.

[Dr Fate]

64. Well, I agree that Arlen has been interesting lately.

We shall see.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

51. Neither. It's called pragmatism.

The fact is, Roberts is going to be confirmed, and he's no worse than Rehnquist. The worst we get is another conservative. Of course, its entirely possible that they see no real reason to oppose his nomination.

[Dr Fate]

54. "NO" votes would have been even more pragmatic.

It would have unified the party like no other.

Oh well.

[Raiden]

57. I have to agree there

I wish that the Democrats would've at least united together in voting 'no' on Roberts. But I'm not going to attack them for it... I'd rather focus all my hostility to fight the Republicans in 2006 and 2008

[tritsofme]

63. Ginsberg and Breyer got 95+ votes

And the Republicans were pretty unified come 1994 when they took over the House and Senate...

Voting to confirm a SCOTUS nominee is not a sign of weakness.

[Dr Fate]

66. That was before the days when DEMs voted for Iraq & the Patriot Act.

I see a huge difference between then & now- so do the brave DEMS who have learned that you cant go along with Bush- and are voting "NO."

[Silverhair]

58. You missed a third.

They represent states that are strongly Red and want to get reelected. Of course, such a simple reason doesn't fit into any conspiracy thinking. It is too obvious so it can't be true.

[Dr Fate]

65. I thought Leahy was from Vermont- a Blue State.

n/t

[Silverhair]

67. I never mentioned Leahy. But there ARE some deep red states

that have Democratic Senators. I suppose you want to do the wishes of a state other than the one they were elected from. Even if it means a Republican would be able to replace them in the next election?

[Dr Fate]

68. Fair enough- but Genius was talking about Leahy too.

n/t

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[struggle4progress]

75. Roberts is a rightwing nutcase. Why would anyone support him?