I'm tired of this. Unless Leahy, or any other Democratic senator, has good reason to vote for Roberts based on his convictions or judicial philosophy, then there is no reason to vote yea on Roberts. Problem is no one knows what his convictions or judicial philosophy really are, so there is, in effect, absolutely no reason to vote for him at all.
It boggles the mind why a senator in the minority - opposition - party would vote for a stealth nominee. Realistically there has never been any good chance of stopping Roberts. I understand that, even though I wish for the best I do not ignore reality. However, that is only a tiny bit of what the will to oppose is about. The will to oppose straightens your back, raises your chin and tells your opponent that although he may still win, he's going to have to go into overtime and wear himself out in doing so, as opposed to walking all over you. It's kinda like Rocky. We can debate Sly Stallone's merits as an actor all day - wait, that wouldn't take more than 10 minutes - but the point is that people respect someone who will put up a good fight and try to go the extra few yards. It shows charisma, leadership and integrity. By voting yea on Roberts, Democrats demonstrate that they have none of these.
I have heard the argument that they are saving themselves for Bush's second SC nomination and that they will pull out all the stops then. First off, I'm not really sure that's the case, entirely. It would be really good if they did, but that remains to be seen. Secondly, how is bending over to accomodate Bush now going to help Democrats later? You could say they're counting on shock factor when they come out with their guns blazing, but I don't see that working. If what the Democrats do doesn't fit with peoples' - Repubicans and the media - perceptions, they won't understand it for what it is. They'll discount it as shrill and radical, not as genuinely sound objections. Democrats need to make Republicans afraid of them before they can attempt to gain any leverage over them.
How does that happen? By standing together and speaking in a unified voice in simple language. What victories have the Democrats won since Bush has been in office? I can only think of SS. But what did they do there? They sounded the alarm bells and kept unity. People definitely care about SS - if you want to make the argument that they were only doing it for political opportunism - but like so many things with Bush, they could have let it slide under the radar and let it become a non-issue. People care about other things on which Democrats have effectively abandoned them. However, they did right. What makes them think that they cannot do the same with the SC? Since when has the strategy of passively accept defeat become the new success? "Well, it was in line with our expectations so we declare it a victory." I've said it before and I'll say it again. Politics aint the stock market.
If the Democrats want people who aren't the party faithful to seriously consider what they have to say, they need to offer a viable alternative, stand by it and be proud of it. Then people might consider it worthwhile. But as long as they do none of these, people who are not the party faithful will never give Democrats a chance. It's gotta start some time, why not now?
