Dingy Harry Reid will kowtow to lib groups, NO! on Roberts

from JoeUser Forums
New York Times is reporting that Dingy Harry Reid will kowtow to liberal groups and has decided to vote NO! on John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the U.S., though Reid himself comes from a "red" state (conservative leaning Nevada).

Reid's action is seen as making it more difficult for Democrats to support Roberts, though Democrats do not have enough votes to derail the vote without filibustering it, and if they choose that option, they will likely incur the nuclear option from the Republicans that control the Senate.

More information here: Top Democrat Says He'll Vote No on Roberts

It remains to be seen if Reid's actions here, plus his previous stone-walling actions in defiance of the will of the majority of the citizens of the U.S.A. and his own home state will cost him his job as it did his predecessor, but it is fairly obvious that Reid will be targetted heavily when he comes up for reelection. Even though polls have been showing lower levels of confidence in President Bush, polls also show Congress having the same problems and being even less "liked."
politics
3,486 views 9 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Harry Reid
You go, mon!
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
You can thumbs up on it all day long (or all year long) Dabe, but it's not gonna change the outcome. Again, it may serve more to harm your cause than help it.

If the majority realizes that a choice like Roberts isn't good enough for the Dems, than they very well may finally decide enough is enough and start tossing them from office as the obstructionists that they really are.

And it could also fuel demands for an even more conservative choice for the second opening on the court that Bush will fill. If such is the case, the left may find that what could have been their best hope ("Torture Boy" Gonzales) will instead be one of the much more hard core choices (for example, either of the Ediths from the New Orleans area).

But by all means celebrate your non-victory. It suits you well.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nah, I don't see it this way. Dems get money from Liberal groups, mind you, but their real issue is getting people elected. I believe devoutly that they decide based upon their hold on a state who is going to take a "stand".

Look at Kerry's election-year votes on the war. Those weren't Kerry's concience, those were the votes of someone whose seat isn't going to a Republican any time soon, and someone who needed to boost their standing as a liberal in the face of Dean. On all these "touchy" issues, Democrats pick a token few legislators to make the unpopular vote, and they aren't going to pick someone who is going to suffer for it. Hell, Kerry voted against the GULF war. EVEN THEN someone had to be the token muckraker.

I think if you want to blame anyone for pandering to Liberal interest groups, blame the party as a whole. They know Roberts is going to go in, they just need to make a statement for fundraisers, and want it to do the least amount of damage possible. They also want it to be someone who needs a bit of the gloss put back on their Left status.

Reid got twice as many votes as his opponent in 2000. He's wishy-washy as hell on liberal issues (NARAL gave him a 20 something percent rating). This brings him up in the eyes of wary Libs, and gives the impression some Dems "fought the good fight" against Roberts. He gets to continue being conservative on Abortion, but appear to be fighting for women's rights.

I agree that it is pandering, but I think you have to see it as an overall strategy by the party itself.
Reply #4 from PolMach Forums Top
Dems get money from Liberal groups, mind you, but their real issue is getting people elected.


Good point baker.

I agree that it is pandering, but I think you have to see it as an overall strategy by the party itself.


Bush's recent pledge to New Orleans is a perfect example that both parties pander and their most important job is to get themselves or other members of their party either elected or re-elected.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'll continue to disagree a bit with Baker here...

Daschle had continued to win handily before he was dumped in the last election. Eventually the electorate wakes up a bit more, and eventually something other than a token candidate is run against the individuals that get targetted.

When Reid was just another Senator, and wasn't the Senate Minority Leader, what he did and how he voted really didn't matter. He could be a somewhat independent (from his party) Senator and lean conservatively (as his home state does), but now that he's head of the party in the Senate, he has to set the example for his party, and that example can prove costly as people see what it really means.

I wish I had the crystal ball and could tell for sure he'd be gone, but I really do believe he's going to be targetted much more than ever before, and it could cost him in the long run.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
I still haven't heard one good reason why Roberts shouldn't be confirmed. Aside from the fact that Bush appointed him which seems to be enough reason for some people.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Typical democrats. All they do is whine and complain, but end up supporting him.

WASHINGTON - Chief Justice-nominee John Roberts, his confirmation secure, picked up support from fractured Senate Democrats Wednesday as President Bush met lawmakers to discuss a second, probably more contentious, vacancy on the Supreme Court. The Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, announced his support for Roberts shortly after leaving the White House, guaranteeing bipartisan backing for the nominee in Thursday's vote by the panel. But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, longtime liberal stalwart Edward Kennedy and former presidential candidate John Kerry all are opposing Roberts, underscoring a split in the Senate's 44 Democrats on whether they can or should mount even symbolic opposition to the successor of the late William H. Rehnquist.


Link
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
They aren't really complaining, though. They are people who constantly need to vote more conservatively, but at the lame time pose as ultr-liberals. In order to please all those corporate lobbyists, and still get votes from the left-wing, nutjob voters, they have to take occasional stands like this.

Reid is doing it because he is so soft on pro-life causes. NARAL gave him a 20 something percent rating. He's always voting against partial birth abortion and such. SO, when he has a chance to take a meaningless stand that won't hurt any party effort and yet look all lefty, he does.

And it isn't like it means anything. It it was super close one of them, the one least in need of a liberal boost, would vote for him. This never comes close to touching their concience, even if they might possibly have one.