Post by Z on Jul 28, 2005 23:32:42 GMT -5
...is all i can say about the dem/lib response to the roberts' nomination. there were basically three possible responses to it:
1) let the confirmation go through essentially unchallenged, then raise holy hell against whoever is nominated for the next vacancy, saying "hey, look how agreeable and fair we were with mr. roberts, but mr./mrs. X is a whole different ballgame."
2) present a unified, ballistic opposition to roberts' nomination, painting him as an extremist hardliner, putting the admin on their heels a bit and making them a bit more cautious when the next vacancy arises. (NB: i don't think that roberts is this sort of nominee, but this is a purely political analysis , and frankly the general disinterested public isn't going to dig into the issue enough to figure out where the truth lies).
3) wait a week and do nothing, then stupidly mount a half-assed, disorganized resistance against roberts with no chance of success, eliminating their credibility when they attempt to make the next nominee seem like an extremist.
it looks like number three is the route being taken. i read an article earlier today (salon.com maybe?) that outlined this same thought in a far more eloquent fashion, but i can't find it.
1) let the confirmation go through essentially unchallenged, then raise holy hell against whoever is nominated for the next vacancy, saying "hey, look how agreeable and fair we were with mr. roberts, but mr./mrs. X is a whole different ballgame."
2) present a unified, ballistic opposition to roberts' nomination, painting him as an extremist hardliner, putting the admin on their heels a bit and making them a bit more cautious when the next vacancy arises. (NB: i don't think that roberts is this sort of nominee, but this is a purely political analysis , and frankly the general disinterested public isn't going to dig into the issue enough to figure out where the truth lies).
3) wait a week and do nothing, then stupidly mount a half-assed, disorganized resistance against roberts with no chance of success, eliminating their credibility when they attempt to make the next nominee seem like an extremist.
it looks like number three is the route being taken. i read an article earlier today (salon.com maybe?) that outlined this same thought in a far more eloquent fashion, but i can't find it.