<p>That’s it…but you need to see all 3.</p>
<p>All I know is that this is the first time in American history that five sitting justices are Catholic: Alito, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy.</p>
<p>This is quite an event for a country that once thought a Catholic president was not electable.</p>
<p>Overseas, I will. I’m enjoying Part 1 right now.</p>
<p>Just goes to show you that nothing stays the same…change is the only constant in this universe.</p>
<p>ID</p>
<p>You’re right. It really wasn’t much of a battle - more a fait accompli. While watching and listening to those who opposed Alito, it seemed to me that there was a lot of going through the motions to satisfy the base of the party and some of their friends in the media.</p>
<p>It really wasn’t until the NYT called for a filibuster that Kerry and friends swung into action. By then as we now know whatever battle there was was over.</p>
<p>All that being said, the battle (or lack, thereof) was incredibly important to the base (i.e. People for the American Way, Alliance for Justice, etc.). There clearly is shock and tremendous disappointment that President Bush was able to pull this off. Visit Democratic Underground or dailykos to see the anger and disappointment firsthand (warning: some of the language is a tad spicier than what you see here at CC).</p>
<p>In the eyes of the base the three youngest member of the Supreme Court are all extreme conservatives (Thomas 57, Roberts 51, and Alito 55). The oldest member - John Paul Stevens 85 - is a consistent liberal vote. It is hard to imagine a Supreme Court that isn’t right-leaning for the next generation. The base is of the party viewed the Alito nomination as a disaster that needed to be stopped, yet only slightly more than half of the Democratic senators voted for a filibuster. As a result of his nomination being approved, the base of the Democratic party is going to be very conflicted about what it should do next.</p>
<p>I think the number of Catholics on the Republican-appointed Court probably speaks to the primary litmus test for nomination. If you want to catch fish, you have to go where the fish are. If you want anti-abortion Justices, you have to fish in the right pool. </p>
<p>It’s easier politically to “sell” an Ivy League educated Catholic as a “moderate” than it would be to nominate Jerry Falwell’s hardshell Baptist attorney and package him as a centrist.</p>
<p>dstark, here’s to the power of the internet. My son made me watch the series as soon as he arrived this Christmas. I mean I wasn’t really interested in anything titled “nightmares” for the holidays…I was wrong, he was right. Oh those younguns keep you young!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What the base of the Democratic party needs to do next is stop nominating unappealing, unelectable Presidential candidates and surrounding them with failed Dukakis campaign strategists. If Gore had an ounce of charisma and had run even a competent campaign, Bush would not be in the White House today. Gore was doomed by the wooden Indian persona and his stupid strategy of distancing himself from Clinton until it was too late. Gore was ideally positioned to maintain Clinton’s position in the center of the political spectrum and he blew it.</p>
<p>Kerry took it even a step further. I think the case can be made that Kerry was the least appealing Presidential nominee of my lifetime. The other contender, Michael Dukakis, was unelectable, but at least he tried to run on a platform of “accomplishments”.</p>
<p>I never did understand why people who failed in one campaign were so sought out by other candidates later on down the road. It’s like hiring a new head football coach in the NFL - most of these guys were let go by someone else because they didn’t get the job done. Why should we want him to coach our team?</p>
<p>As for the charisma thing, though, there aren’t too many who would argue that our current President has it - and he received over 51% of the vote in the last election. It’s not just the packaging.</p>
<p>Many people and organizations expended a lot of time, money, and energy to get Gore and Kerry elected. They have worked hard to defeat President Bush and his nominees to the bench. Much of that work was for naught. When do those folks say we’ve got to try a different approach. </p>
<p>My point then on the base being conflicted was that I’m sure that those discussions are taking place right now and people will want to go in lots of different directions. If I’m Nan Aron or Ralph Neas, I’m not very happy. Different people will suggest different tacks. Some will want to bolt the party for the Nader gang. I’m sure that ultimately the Dems will be able to hold it all together, but it may take more work than they think that it will.</p>
<p>One final note, I think that the NYTNBCABCCBS gang to a certain extent hurt the Democratic Party by so often giving them a free pass on whatever the topic of the day is. For example, Ted Kennedy was interviewed this morning by Charlie Gibson. It was softball after softball. Maybe it would have been better for Teddy and the party if Gibson challenged him a bit. I think by not challenging the Dems it’s easy for the Dems to think that maybe everything isn’t that bad, but it’s also made them soft. So we were witness to a confirmation battle that included a lot of bluster while looking like it was nothing more than going through the motions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I think Kennedy’s attacks had a purpose. The purpose was to paint Alito as another in an endless string of white males appointed to the Supreme Court by Republican Presidents. Where Bush is really vulnerable with his nominations is the failure to nominate a qualified woman to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. That’s what the whole Princeton alumni thing was really about.</p>
<p>It will be a good campaign issue for Senator Clinton.</p>
<p>Then Ted obviously failed. Endless string of white male Supreme Court nominees from the Republicans? Come on, I thought you were a little more knowledgable than that.</p>
<p>I think Clarence Thomas (ding/ding…black man!) immediately preceded Roberts and Alito from the Republican side…and who was is that nominated Saint Sandra D. O’Connor immediately before Kennedy and Souter…oh, I get it…Clarence Thomas’ skin color is black but we all know that he doesn’t count because he acts and thinks like a white man.</p>
<p>You folks really are pathetic.</p>
<p>^Agreed. And when a GOP president tries to nominate a qualified minority/woman, the argument conveniently shifts to philosophy (see Thomas, Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen…)</p>
<p>Still think that Bush should have put Janice Rogers Brown up - would have been great to watch the Dems attack a black lady as being unqualified. (Then again, I’m the one who wants a Mitt/Condi '08 ticket, just to watch the Dems try to muster attacks against a religious minority and an Ivy-educated black woman.)</p>
<p>aa,</p>
<p>I like Condi Rice myself but she is not Ivy educated. She was educated at the University of Denver and Notre Dame. For a simple reference see:</p>
<p><a href=“Condoleezza Rice - Wikipedia”>Condoleezza Rice - Wikipedia;
<p>Sorry. </p>
<p>Was spacing out on that one - but didn’t she used to be the dean of Standford or something? I would love to see them attack her as anything less than brilliant.</p>
<p>She was a Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and served as Provost from 1993 to 1999.</p>
<p>Assuming that Condoleeza Rice actually played a role in US policy as the President’s National Security Advisor, I would say that her resume has taken a big hit with the Iraq deal. The results of the admininstration’s policy have been dismal at best.</p>
<p>AA,</p>
<p>As xiggi noted, she did teach at Stanford and was the Provost. However, Stanford is not part of the Ivy league, they are a member of the PAC10. ;-)</p>
<p>ID,</p>
<p>I was personally against the war in Iraq but I do not think the issue is as black and white as you seem to think it is. Specifically to your point, I think the jury is still out on whether the choice to go into Iraq is still out, much like Reagan’s nuclear build up at the time.</p>
<p>Eagle:</p>
<p>I would be interested in a single measure by which we could judge positive results (or even progress) in Iraq. The situtation is a total mess.</p>
<p>We could have overthrown Sadaam at much lower cost to the US taxpayer by simply authorizing CIA funding of the Sistani-led Shiia majority.</p>
<p>I was not opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but that was based on the mistaken assumption that Sadaam actually had viable WMD programs and that the Bush administration actually had a viable post-war plan. Both assumptions are obviously false. </p>
<p>The White House’s own 100 page plan for Iraq does NOT MENTION Sisatani or the Shia majority that is the elephant in the Iraqi living room. Either the report writers are liars or idiots.</p>
<p>“I was not opposed to the invasion of Iraq, but that was based on the mistaken assumption that Sadaam actually had viable WMD programs” </p>
<p>So, does that mean that your preferred plan would be to wait for the sanctions to be lifted, Saddam to develop his WMD and THEN send our troops in? Your logic would imply that.</p>