While liberals sift and weigh the evidence, debate alternative points of view, and reach for that ever elusive "fairness," the conservative machine sifts and weighs alternative propaganda points, debates the best way to manipulate public opinion, and reaches for power — first, last and always.
…
The real question, then, is purely pragmatic: Do the political benefits of going to the mat over Roberts outweigh the costs? My judgement (and I realize I could be wrong about this) is that they do not — both because he looks just about impossible to stop, and because even bigger Supreme Court battles almost certainly lie ahead: after Rehnquist and then when the first of the "liberal" justices retires.
Back to Main
July 20, 2005
WB: The Liberal Disease
Comments
So if we wish to fight unfairly, perhaps the new meme should be “Would you trust the Opus Dei Triumvirate with your laws?”
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2005 18:21 utc | 1
I say forget Roberts. It’s over and everyone knows it. The Rove affair is the important issue, because it resonates with the public. Question is…..Will the corporate media continue their coverage of Rovegate? I think if they switch coverage to debate over Roberts, the Rove affair dies.
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2005 18:49 utc | 2
Another excellent post by Billmon.
It certainly seems as if Dems and Liberals have our back against the wall on the “Bob” Roberts nomination. However, as Billmon points out, it would be fantastic (err, refreshing) if Liberals marshaled our asses to the battlefield ready for a bloody fight, rather than approach this as if it were a mock trial: where facts are reasonably presented and the outcome is inconsequential.
And, now, thanks to Billmon, I have another book I must read: David Horowitz’s “Art of Political Warfare,”
You cannot cripple an opponent by outwitting him in a political debate. You can do it only by following Lenin’s injunction: “In political conflicts, the goal is not to refute your opponent’s argument, but to wipe him from the face of the earth.”
Our enemy certainly seems to understand the stakes a heck of a lot better than we.
Posted by: voxmia | Jul 20 2005 18:57 utc | 3
I’d argue for a kind of political jujitsu as far as Roberts is concerned. We’ve already had the ever-reliable Ann Coulter come out and say that he’s not enough of a batshit wingnut. That’s your point of weakness.
If I were Harry Reid, I’d not rush things, but I’d do my best to cite examples of Roberts’ judicial fairness, with plenty of references to Sandra Day O’Connor, and especially to David Souter. Now, that might anger some on his own side, but it’s likely to give the wingnuts a severe case of the hives.
And it also makes a valuable distinction between the people who the Dems are prepared to go to the mat for: that is, Bolton and Rove.
Posted by: ahem | Jul 20 2005 19:05 utc | 4
there is no monolithic position or nice, neat container/label w/ which people align. those situations where everyone is on board for any one perspective are very rare. iow, there is no one approach that will provide the ultimate solution. for those who want to fight, hell yeah. there is nothing rational about sitting back & watching your children’s future slip away day by day under the delusion that somebody else will eventually take control of the steering wheel and avert disaster. we can keep fooling ourselves that compromising w/ idiots benefits everyone in the end. i’m not sure of that. one doesn’t require a crystal ball to see that so many progressive/liberal inclined groups/individuals will again put their hopes & efforts into an ’06 election, and then an ’08 one, which is in its essence a vote for the status quo. they’ve had over 5 years now to figure things out. some people just ain’t gonna wake up, and some keep trying to roll back over & hit the snooze button. those who do not like the direction that this country is moving in do not provide a unified front of opposition to the fascists, the right-wingers, the extreme conservatives, the religious extremists, & the affronts to the documents/stated principles our nation is based upon. i support those who immediately speak out against roberts & i support those who will fight for what they believe in. it’s not just about roberts & it’s long overdue.
Posted by: b real | Jul 20 2005 19:07 utc | 5
@ b real:
didn’t one of “them” say something to the effect of “let ’em protest all they want as long as they pay their taxes”?
gad, how do you call for a tax strike when so many sheeple think that their refund check is like a little mini-Xmas in May?
Posted by: Anonymous | Jul 20 2005 19:13 utc | 6
chris floyd-
John Roberts and Enemy Combatants
Introducing Judge Dread: The Affable Accomplice of a Coup d’etat
Posted by: b real | Jul 20 2005 19:14 utc | 8
Billmon said, Do the political benefits of going to the mat over Roberts outweigh the costs? My judgement (and I realize I could be wrong about this) is that they do not
I wholeheartedly agree, for the reason that Bush has to nominate someone to the court. By that I mean that if Roberts is rejected — and fat chance of that — Bush will have to nominate someone else. That person is unlikely to be too different in his/her ideology.
We do have to pick our battles; and unless it comes out that Roberts resembles Janice Rogers Brown more than he does Rhenquist, it hardly seems worth it to blow our political wad on Roberts.
That does not mean, though, that senators should avoid asking tough, aggressive questions of the nominee; Schumer, Kennedy and Durbin, at least, are sure to do just that. His decision to support sweeping presidential power to unilaterally void one aspect of the Geneva Convention (and thus, potentially, all of it) is chilling.
More classic Rovist (Rovanist?) push-polling.
“Would you object to liberals so much if they
didn’t always resort to rabid Left knee-jerk?”
Neo-Swill is already pouring from the Machine:
“If Kennedy objects, remember poor Mary Jo!”
“If Kerry objects, bring on the 101st again!”
Neo’s are the Mike Tyson’s of debate society.
“What! … What’s the big deal, just an ear!?”
BTW, we are at a ‘Lebensraum’ political stage.
Gosh, we’re really just good Average John’s.
(666 tatooed on our forehead, and our *brain*!)
“Power sanctifies the religious enthusiast.”
Posted by: lash marks | Jul 20 2005 19:31 utc | 10
how does one email billmon? does he read these comments? i wanted to tell him that this post was great — but can’t find his email address
Posted by: Matt | Jul 20 2005 20:09 utc | 11
It sounds like Dick Durbin is spoiling for a good, long tussle, though probably not a fillibuster. Cheney/ Bush has clearly got into this senator’s craw.
From Chicago Sun Times:
There will be a fight.
Durbin to play key role
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will play a pivotal role because he is a member of the Judiciary Committee and the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate.
Durbin voted against Roberts’ confirmation in the Judiciary Committee “because he would not answer questions,” the senator said.
“He can’t get by with that anymore,” Durbin said.
Bush wants Roberts confirmed by October, when the Supreme Court starts its next session. It took President Clinton 42 days to get Ruth Bader Ginsburg confirmed and the Senate voted on Clinton’s second pick, Stephen Breyer, 73 days after his nomination.
Durbin said that kind of timetable was unlikely.
Bush, in his announcement, said, “My staff and I consulted with more than 70 members of the United States Senate,” and Durbin was one of them.
But the consultation was just that. It did not yield a consensus choice. It is too soon, Durbin said, to say if Democrats will threaten a filibuster.
Posted by: small coke | Jul 20 2005 20:15 utc | 12
My liberal-pragmatic take:
I tend to agree that it LOOKS like Roberts is likely to slip through. I think that will be a really bad thing, too.
It’s not just a simple question of do we oppose him or not.
For starters, the positions that are clear cut are objectionable. I oppose him. I want my senators to oppose him, too. That’s not the real opposition, though. The question is, can we reveal enough of who Roberts really is, what he really stands for, what he’ll really do, to manage to rein in the right wing of the party, those most likely to accommodate, to give Bush whatever he wants… and to even turn a few Republicans into opposition?
That’s what will take work, and cost.
As a long time gamer, there’s also another level to consider. How much can we make the GOP pay for this, in terms of public perception and in terms of what they’ll give up in order to win? Can we make the price higher for them than it is for us? That’s the pragmatic consideration that I think is an absolute must. It’s not particularly idealistic, but it is real. Since we already know that Roberts IS objectionable, our minimum objective ought to be to make passage of his appointment maximally costly to the GOP, with minimal injury to the Democratic party.
Posted by: ogre | Jul 20 2005 20:27 utc | 13
Slightly OT, but I will get to my point:
A couple of hours ago, I posted something in response to an article on TPMCafe by Matt Yglesias where he and Kenny Baer are having a debate over what the Democratic party’s philosophy should be. I might have gone on for too long, but my basic point was that the biggest problem that the Dems or “liberals” have is to have these stupid debates (or long policy papers written) on where they should go and actually do something; needlessly to say, I got flamed.
Billmon, with your post, you hit the nail on the head (once again) – rather than have an endless debate and a wait and see approach, we should just stand by principles and do something consequences be damned.
A lot of the latte sipping policy-wonk people think that they show that they are manly by adopting the Republican strategy of “bomb something in a foreign country because that will make us manly” approach. I say that that doesn’t make you manly – to stand by a principle does and that will earn you respect.
Posted by: DJB | Jul 20 2005 20:28 utc | 14
“how does one email billmon? does he read these comments? i wanted to tell him that this post was great — but can’t find his email address”
He hears you. Thanks.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 20 2005 20:29 utc | 15
Well, if Lenin is the cure, I’ll take the sickness.
Although that David Horowitz is the picture of health, isn’t he…
Posted by: bcf | Jul 20 2005 20:38 utc | 16
absolutely right on. the idea of being “reasonable” in these political fights has long been jettisoned by one side; the important thing now is to have the will to fight. of course some fighting is counterproductive. but tying one hand behind one’s back and covering one eye is not fighting at all.
Posted by: della Rovere | Jul 20 2005 20:45 utc | 17
I think Billmon has suggested a tactical error every bit as damaging as the “fairness doctrine”. By conceding Roberts because we can’t win, in the hope we are “saving ourselves” for larger battles to come, we give ground and gain nothing in return. This was the flaw in the “nuclear compromise” in which we got lousy judges in return for “preserving the filibuster” when it’s obvious (and was at the time) that the Repubs will just invoke the nuclear option anyway (if they can) as soon as we attempt to use the filibuster. The only benefit to retreat is if we can use that retreat to help ensure we get those extra seats we want in 2006.
I believe we must exact a price for every vicious lying move they make and the best way to do that is to take off the rhetorical gloves. When they lie, CALL THEM LIARS. When they steal, CALL THEM THIEVES. Our problem isn’t that we’re naively fair, it’s that we’re naively polite. How much better it would have been if Kerry had even once called Bush a liar during one of the debates. Reagan’s most memorable line was “there you go again!” If it works to paint the honorable as dishonorable, it will be even better to paint the corrupt that way. Tell the public what these people are, every hour of every day, and in clear unmistakable language, and, FOR GOD’S SAKE, DON’T APOLOGIZE FOR IT AFTERWARDS!!!!! We get NO airplay when we tell a journalist “actually that should be 203 billion, not 101 billion as the President stated.” I bet we get a nice sound bite if we say, “when the President said it was 101 billion, that was a lie. It’s really 203 billion.” “Are you calling the President a liar?”, we’ll be asked. “No,” is the reply. “PERHAPS he was given bad information. I would hope for better data from the people who brief him. Maybe THEY lied to HIM. You should ask HIM.”
How does this work for the Roberts nomination? Relentlessly discuss his questionable aspects and mention how sad it is that the administration and Republican party haven’t the guts to deny the radical Right in their decision making and how unfortunate it is that the vast majority of Americans are not represented by this choice. If we can’t stop something, we can at least yell about it from the rooftops so every American understands what is being done to them.
Posted by: wai | Jul 20 2005 21:04 utc | 18
Excellent post Billmon, but like Armando over at dkos, I disagree. There are enough major problems with Roberts (anti-Roe, anti-birth control)to immediately start contesting this thing, beginning with even more vigorous opposition research. Then start labeling him for what he is: a right-wing wolf with a Tom Hanks visage. After all, he has no criminal law experience, is a Bush family insider for the past two decades, and would like to revoke Roe (and has said so publicly). Why not throw everything and the kitchen sink at him, while still focusing on Rove, Iraq, etc.? Multi-tasking is fun…and these things can eventually be connected & reinforce each other.
What about initiating a long-term battle, starting with skirmishes: if the hearings start in August and enough opposition research emerges to delay the vote, the confirmation process might be made to drag into 2006. (His being vocally anti-Roe alone should do it–but what about his other positions on individual rights?) That’s the optimum goal. The Democrats should proclaim their obstinacy the way that HS Truman did in 1948:
“The Republican leadership [of Congress]
started out to follow the same policies that nearly wrecked the country under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Some people have accused me of failing to cooperate with the Republican
leadership in carrying out those policies. Now, I must confess to you that I am going to plead guilty to that charge. Of course, I did not cooperate in carrying out policies that I knew would bring disaster on the American people.”
Just change the wording a little….
If the Rove story continues to make news, Roberts can be linked to Rove too–the nomination is what Scotty said Karl has been working on for the last week while ignoring the Fitzgerald story, right? As in “what exactly did Karl Rove have to do with choosing John Roberts” If and when Rove is indicted (and even before) everything and the kitchen sink in the White House should be connected to him, and not in a good way.
Its all about momentum in politics, and if the present doubts about Bush’s credibility can be stoked, they will affect his Supreme Court nominations also, no matter how clean cut the right-wing candidate may appear at first. As Karl Rove might say, its not what the media herd says at the beginning of the nomination process, it’s where they can be led by well-timed political attacks by the revolutionary vanguard…oops, there’s David Horowitz, aka Lenin’s spawn piping up again..
Posted by: lono | Jul 20 2005 21:05 utc | 19
“The meek shall inherit the earth….in six foot plots.” -RAH
@wai: yes, speak truth to power. It’s better than becoming like “them” in order to defeat “them.”
Posted by: catlady | Jul 20 2005 21:14 utc | 20
Christ on a broomstick that was great!
Every elected Democrat from the Senate Minority Leader down to the Charleston West Virginia Dog Catcher should read this over and over again. (And the post above it too)
Get the word out!
Posted by: Scott McArthur | Jul 20 2005 21:22 utc | 21
Roberts doesn’t scare me. Not many people do. He could be dead tomorrow. And we were expecting exactly this. How predictable and boring. Politicians have always bored me, but this bunch in the WH now has irritated me more than most. It’s time for them to go. And it’s too early to assess the damage, Supreme Court or no.
I think the Dems should play a good game and use this time to fill before Rovegate is ready for tangible action. I don’t think they should waste potency. Just string it along for a while. Don’t get over excited. Use it for talking points. Maybe make it monotonous so that by the time Rovegate is ready the people will be so uninterested in the current story that they will leap with unbouded enthusiasm at more crime. Their favorite pastime.
Posted by: jm | Jul 20 2005 21:31 utc | 22
Never, never, never in a trillion years should you imitate the enemy’s tactics. They are masters of them. You must use something unique that they are not familiar with.
My tactic has been to make it impossible for the enemy to retaliate. By answering a blow with a blow you simply are inviting another blow.
Most important, is not to react from the adrenalin laced immediate visceral response unless absolutely necessary.
In the Roberts case, it isn’t necessary.
Posted by: jm | Jul 20 2005 21:39 utc | 23
Most important, is not to react from the adrenalin laced immediate visceral response unless absolutely necessary.
In politics, one should NEVER react from immediate “adrenalin laced” emotion. That’s how Bush gets himself into trouble. (“bring ’em on!”) Do you think Rove does the things that he does as a “visceral response”? I mean, the man has fucking ice water in his veins. This ain’t personal, it’s strictly business.
Posted by: Billmon | Jul 20 2005 22:49 utc | 24
If the dems oppose this Roberts character and they can’t prove he’s a crook, then what grounds should they oppose him on? As I understand it the constitution gives the executive the right to nominate Justices and congress the power to vet them. Now opposing this flea on ideaological grounds would be a tad undemocratic since a/ This lowlife is exactly the sort of chararcter that those who voted for Bush/Cheney would expect them to nominate and b/The dems don’t have a majority in either house so that they would be perceived as trying to impose their will on the majority-not a good look and c/ they will lose and if they have been fighting hard and still lost this will be presented by the MSM as a major defeat and ‘proof’ of the supremacy of repugs. A true lose/lose situation. By all means embarass the fool and pick him up on any inconsistencies and since he’s a lawyer and a politician his life will be a tangle of inconsistency. In fact by not opposing this creep the dems will sow the seed of doubt into repug supporters that maybe a sheep in wolf’s clothing has slipped thru. In other words by not resisting, the sheeple may end up perceiving this as a dem win.
Posted by: Debs is dead | Jul 20 2005 23:05 utc | 26
You might be right Debs. And who knows, maybe he is a sheep. At any rate, he’s young and green and if he does make it to the court he will probably be scared shitless and not powerful for a long time, if ever. I get the feeling that he’s a bad choice for the Thugs.
Good point about the people thinking that the Dems approve. This has possibilities.
Posted by: jm | Jul 20 2005 23:15 utc | 27
Debs remarked:
If the dems oppose this Roberts character and they can’t prove he’s a crook, then what grounds should they oppose him on?
Well, as a start, pin him down on some fundamentals of law and policy. If he won’t answer, he ought to be rejected. If he responds in an good way… well, I don’t really expect that. But if he does, he’s going to be cut down with crossfire from the theocrats.
For example… Judge Roberts, do you support stare decisis? And under what what conditions would you consider violating that precept?
This is a completely legitimate question. It can’t be legitimately dodged. But the wingnuts will read support for it as a refusal to overturn Roe v Wade. On the other hand, straying far from a “Yes, of course I support it…” moves him out onto thin ice for confirmation, as various senators start to grill him about the conditions under which he’d reject it.
As I understand it the constitution gives the executive the right to nominate Justices and congress the power to vet them.
Yep. The Executive proposes, and the Senate disposes. The Senate is within its rights to reject any nominee… for whatever reasons it sees fit to reject for. And to reject nominee… after nominee, if it pleases. The Executive has no right to anything other than the privilege of choosing the nominee (though that’s clearly intended to be done in consultation, since the Senate has the task of advising and consenting).
Now opposing this flea on ideaological grounds would be…
Entirely legitimate. This is politics.
they will lose and if they have been fighting hard and still lost this will be presented by the MSM as a major defeat and ‘proof’ of the supremacy of repugs.
Lose? Only if they knuckle under. If they can’t persuade the moderate wing of the GOP that this nominee is unacceptable, they’re within their rights to filibuster. Grounds? Roberts credentials are that he’s a judge (two years experience is enough for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court?). Ok, what else does he have? Oh, years of being a Bush supporter. And you thought renting the Lincoln bedroom was scandalous?
In fact by not opposing this creep the dems will sow the seed of doubt into repug supporters that maybe a sheep in wolf’s clothing has slipped thru. In other words by not resisting, the sheeple may end up perceiving this as a dem win.
No. I think that Roberts, if confirmed, ought to go in under a cloud of “You know he’ll undercut choice and then gut Roe v Wade. You know he’ll do this, you know he’ll do that…”. So when he does, it will confirm what was said. And if it doesn’t… well, we smile and take what we got.
Posted by: ogre | Jul 20 2005 23:46 utc | 28
Don’t know if you read this B, but thought I’d add just the smallest line re: the Iraqi POW case. You see, Saddam Hussein was a named defendant in that case. The POWs — brave men all — and their families had gotten a judgment against Iraq and against Saddam Hussein personally.
Roberts ruled FOR Hussein, and against the American servicemen. That’s right, FOR SADDAM HUSSEIN.
I agree with you, but if one wanted to shout from rooftops about this one, it’s worth noting the fact that ROBERTS RULED IN FAVOR OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN A LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY US SERVICEMEN, WHO WERE TORTURED ON DIRECT ORDERS OF SADDAM HUSSEIN.
Posted by: anon | Jul 21 2005 4:11 utc | 29
Excellent, remark, Billmon.
A Dem Party like Michael would be unbeatable. Playing smart, and not afraid to fight according to the other guy’s rules when necessary.
Count me convinced.
Posted by: chuck | Jul 21 2005 4:24 utc | 30
I hate to say it, because it sounds as if I’ve totally drunk of some far left Kool-Aid, but by this point it is evident that anything Bush does is not in the public interest, and what he says cannot be trusted.
I can’t help but recall these lines from the Excorcist:
“He is a liar. The demon is a liar. He will lie to confuse us. But he will also mix lies with the truth to attack us. The attack is psychological… and powerful. So don’t listen to him. Remember that – do not listen.”
The idea os smear conservatives in the same way that they do to liberals sounds really nice. but I have reasonable doubts that it works. In the end, is a question of (corporate) power and (corporate) media. Put the liberals in pitbull-attack mood, and you can bet your house that CNN, NBC etc. will start with the complains about invasion of privacy, character assessination, media lynching, and how disgusting and unethical these tactics are, and so on. Some time in tha past, I heard that Reagan (in a moment of Democrat control of the congress, I guess)talked so much about the “Tiranny of Majority”, and how unaceptable were accept politic measures only for being respalded by a majority. Several years later, W justified all his politics with his reelection. If the majority approved Dubya politics, then they are automatically all right, aren’t they? It’s called “accountability” W-Remix. The Orwellian jump for the using of a tactic to the acussation of the same tactic in the enemy’s hands don’t seems very difficult in this times when brainwashing seems to have adquired a new meaning.
Posted by: Carlos Varx | Jul 21 2005 6:14 utc | 32
I share Billmon’s view that the fairness-to-a-fault displayed by classical liberals like our founders as well as self-sacrificing bleeding-hearts is not a winning trait. It’s not enough to discuss and weigh objectively. It’s not enough to get everyone’s opinion and meet halfway. Even if reason can work, not enough people have faith in it to try and talk things out.
So we adopt Machiavellian tactics? Sounds smart, but won’t that change what we’re fighting for? Platforms, however you spin them, still matter. For the sake of tactics do we abandon strategy, abandon goals? Winning is necessary. I know sacrifices must be made, but where is the limit? When have we gone too far?
Are we willing to face the possibility that America is shifting to authoritarianism, to mysticism, away from rational democracy? What then? Should we become a rightwing Democratic party? I know that Billmon has a very good point, and I agree with his logic. I don’t want the American left to continue down the path of those famous suicides–Republican Spain, the German social democrats, Kerensky’s failed government. But all the same, how far are we willing to go?
Posted by: Lennonist | Jul 22 2005 15:11 utc | 33