How bloody will we get in the fight to block Roberts?

We've already taken a punch straight in the face. That punch has taken the spotlight off Rove, but just for a moment, unless we recover quickly.

Using filibuster means the Dems take another punch straight to the head. Dem leaders agreed not to filibuster except against extreme candidates. The repubs will WAIL loudly if we do. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it though. But it means we're going to take a nasty hit and could hurt the 2006 campaign unless we get it over with quickly.

The other thing this will do is completely block out media coverage of the Rove situation. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing at the moment. Let this thing cool down in the media, just a bit, because the public perception isn't the most important point on this right now... it's Fitzgerald's investigation. And the less heat on this in the media means the less heat on BushCo which means they will be less likely to fire Fitzgerald (a real possibility). It will be much more important to have this thing in full-swing media explosiveness DURING the heat of the 2006 campaign. Let them think they've won this round. The fight ain't over yet.

We've got a COUNTER PUNCH coming soon, and that's the release of the Abu Gharab pics/videos. This is gonna blow a hole in the Repubs and it's going to take the focus off any filibustering that may be going on. This new media will infuriate the masses about the war and send Bush's ratings tumbling to new, unrecoverable lows. It may even mean Rumsfeld's resignation and a bunch of top-brass going down in flames. It will also open the door to bring in new discussions about the Iraq war and the DSM again.

And let's not forget the U.N. Bolton wasn't recessed appointed was he? This means * is going to have to put someone up, and anyone BUT Bolton will show Bush lost to Dem filibustering. This should be our rallying cry to fight Roberts. "BOLTON WAS BAD, ROBERTS IS WORSE." or something of the sort.

In the end, Roberts may yet be appointed. After all, Dems voted for his appointment to the appellate court. And we have Dems that won't filibuster due to the agreement. But one thing is certain. It's going to be bloody and hot, and fighting for what you believe in is something I think will continue to be good for our party.

But just wait until Rehnquist retires!!!! I'm looking for a Janice Rogers Bron on that one, and I don't think bloody comes close to what that's going to look like!

be saying to rubber stamp that nominee. After all, the repugs have the majority. Shrub will get his way anyway. Oh, and we shouldn't filibuster. Because then we won't have the right to filibuster anymore. I mean, who'dda thought we actually would USE it.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.21326737

The Dems have become generally spineless.

If they really make an issue out of Roberts rulings and opinions, they can find something nearly any American wouldn't like.

They need to drum up some real outrage over the Republican agenda.

Otherwise they will keep appeasing the more aggressive party.

Ask Roveberts questions like this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1941401

We're already seeing quite a few "He's not that bad" posts by senior members.

party -- McCain wouldn't stand for it and he'd have a lot of company.
It would be impeachment city for Bush. Just as it was for Nixon.

Unanimous approval in the Senate for his current position? What are Dems gonna say, 'we approved him then, but not now?' How partisan and stupid will the Dems look then??

He was approved for a nomination to an appellate court. The Dems could EASILY argue that he's not ready for the S.C. (and he isn't). Roberts is to inexperienced for the power he will wield as a justice in the highest court.