Daily Kos: A Response To Senator Obama

Daily Kos: A Response To Senator ObamaA Response To Senator Obama
by Armando
Sun Oct 2nd, 2005 at 13:22:23 PDT

Against the wishes of approximately 97% of this community, I am posting yet another response to Senator Obama. As I have stated earlier, I greatly appreciate Senator Obama's engaging in a civil substantive dialogue with us. However, I believe the Senator is in error in many of his points.

On his general points on how to wage our political battle with the Republicans, I agree with Peter Daou:

In a paragraph which purports to summarize the attitude and concerns of the netroots and advocacy groups vis-à-vis the Party, Obama betrays a flawed reading of the netroots/party dichotomy:

According to the storyline that drives many advocacy groups and Democratic activists - a storyline often reflected in comments on this blog - we are up against a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party. They have beaten us twice by energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda. In order to beat them, it is necessary for Democrats to get some backbone, give as good as they get, brook no compromise, drive out Democrats who are interested in "appeasing" the right wing, and enforce a more clearly progressive agenda. The country, finally knowing what we stand for and seeing a sharp contrast, will rally to our side and thereby usher in a new progressive era.

Obama continues[:]

I think this perspective misreads the American people. From traveling throughout Illinois and more recently around the country, I can tell you that Americans are suspicious of labels and suspicious of jargon. They don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced, but have become aware that his administration is irresponsible and often incompetent.

I don't dispute that netroots activists believe they're up against "a sharply partisan, radically conservative, take-no-prisoners Republican party," or that they think Democrats should "get some backbone and give as good as they get." But the `storyline' described by Obama misses the mark on two counts.

First, the root deficiency of Democrats with respect to message is not that Democrats don't match Republicans blow for blow (as Obama puts it, "energizing their base with red meat rhetoric and single-minded devotion.") It's that they fail to project core convictions. . . . Press release speak is endemic in the Democratic leadership . . . What netroots activists sorely miss is the unfettered expression of a deep-seated faith in the inherent humanity and goodness of progressive ideals, the willingness to express that faith in loud, earnest, and most of all, authentic terms.

Senator Obama speaks of Republicans' "single-minded devotion and discipline to their agenda." While there's much to be said for message discipline (and the lack of it on the left), there is a greater point being missed, that human beings respond to those who act on pure principle. . . . Assailed from all sides for seeming meek and unsure, many Democratic leaders and strategists think the solution is a watered down version of Republican jingoism. But the scarlet W for `weakness' branding Democrats is erased not by emulating the structure of the right or by talking tough or by borrowing Republicans' worst traits or by copying their crude exploitation of patriotism and faith, but by ditching the press release speak and the focus group think and rediscovering the sincerity and fortitude at the very core of liberal/progressive ideology.

The second misconception revealed in Obama's diary - and one that I observed firsthand among senior Democratic strategists - is that because a certain segment of Americans holds a particular set of beliefs, Democrats should react to those beliefs and tailor their approach accordingly. That ignores the fact that Democratic leaders . . . can change those beliefs. Obama says the people he meets "don't think George Bush is mean-spirited or prejudiced ... don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue..." Then isn't it fair to surmise that conventional wisdom of that sort, as created by the media, blogs, and party establishment, can be altered? When Democratic leader after leader says Bush is a "nice person with bad policies" and when the media elite repeat the mantra that Bush is a "plain-spoken, ordinary guy," it makes sense to assume that Bush's "niceness" will seep into the public consciousness and become accepted as fact.

I would quibble with only one thing in Daou's excellent piece. In fact, the American People do not disagree with the core principles of the Democratic Party. Rather Democrats have failed to advocate for our core principles. Knowing that Senator Obama is an admirer of Abraham Lincoln, I wish to remind him of these words from Lincoln:

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. . . .

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

. . . They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying. . . . Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

I will address the specific issue of the Roberts vote on the flip.

* ::
*

The most important fact in Obama's discussion is one he devotes little time to -- the fact that he voted NO on Roberts. Since this is exactly what many of us were urging, it leaves a certain puzzlement when he writes this:

A plausible argument can be made that too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt. That certainly was the operating assumption of the advocacy groups involved in the nomination battle.

I shared enough of these concerns that I voted against Roberts on the floor this morning. But short of mounting an all-out filibuster -- a quixotic fight I would not have supported; a fight I believe Democrats would have lost both in the Senate and in the court of public opinion; a fight that would have been difficult for Democratic senators defending seats in states like North Dakota and Nebraska that are essential for Democrats to hold if we hope to recapture the majority; and a fight that would have effectively signaled an unwillingness on the part of Democrats to confirm any Bush nominee, an unwillingness which I believe would have set a dangerous precedent for future administrations -- blocking Roberts was not a realistic option.

In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn't become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution's design.

Let us consider the portion I bolded. Obama assumes that anything short of a filibuster would have been roundly condemned by us and that such a filibuster would have signalled that Dems would have not have accepted any Bush nominee. He is wrong on both counts. Let us consider a Democratic Senator who received great praise for his position on Roberts:

My concerns about these Reagan-era memos were heightened by the fact that the White House rejected a reasonable request by Committee Democrats for documents written by Judge Roberts when he served in the first Bush Administration. After all, if memos written twenty years ago are to be dismissed as not reflecting the nominee's mature thinking, it would be highly relevant to see memos he had written as an older man in an even more important policymaking job.

The White House claim of attorney-client privilege to shield these documents is utterly unpersuasive. Senator Leahy asked Attorney General Gonzales for the courtesy of a meeting to discuss the matter and was turned down. This was simply a matter of stonewalling.

The failure of the White House to produce relevant documents is reason enough for any Senator to oppose this nomination. The Administration cannot treat the Senate with such disrespect without some consequences.

In the absence of these documents, it was especially important for the nominee to fully and forthrightly answer questions from Committee members at his hearing. He failed to do so adequately. I acknowledge the right - indeed, the duty - of a judicial nominee to decline to answer questions regarding specific cases that will come before the court to which the witness has been nominated. But Judge Roberts declined to answer many questions more remote than that, including questions seeking his views of long-settled precedents.

. . . In the fullness of time, he may well prove to be a fine Supreme Court Justice. But I have reluctantly concluded that this nominee has not satisfied the high burden that would justify my voting for his confirmation based on the current record.

Based on all of these factors, the balance shifts against Judge Roberts. The question is close, and the arguments against him do not warrant extraordinary procedural tactics to block the nomination. Nonetheless, I intend to cast my vote against this nominee when the Senate debates the matter next week.

Senator Harry Reid laid out principled bases for voting no on Roberts while expressly ruling out a filibuster. Indeed, Reid invoked the VERY reason John Bolton was filibustered by Democrats - the White House stonewall. Surely no one can argue that the UN Ambassadorship is more significant than the Chief Justice of the United States. Frankly, there is no principled basis for not filibustering Roberts after filibustering Bolton. But the political reality was clear - there was no stomach for it - there were not 41 votes.

Is there something about Senator Leahy's position that explains his divergence from Senator Reid's position? I think not:

The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States presents a close question and one that each Senator must carefully weigh and decide. This is a question that holds serious consequences for all Americans, today and for generations to come. I have approached this nomination with an open mind, as I do with all judicial nominations. There is no entitlement to confirmation for lifetime appointments on any court for any nomination by a president, Democratic or Republican.

. . . With this vote, I do not intend to lend my support to an effort by this President to move the Supreme Court and the law radically to the right. Above all, balance and moderation on the Court are crucial. I want all Americans to know that the Supreme Court will protect their rights and will respect the authority of Congress to act in their interest.

Regrettably, this President has said that he approached this matter as if fulfilling a campaign pledge to appoint someone in the mold of Justice Thomas and Justice Scalia. I voted against confirmation of Justice Thomas. I voted for Justice Scalia and now question that vote. If I thought that Judge Roberts would easily reject precedent in the manner of Justice Thomas or would use his position on the Supreme Court as a bulwark for activism in the manner of Justice Scalia, I would not hesitate to vote no.

If I were convinced that he would undercut fundamental rights of privacy or equal protection, this would not even be a close question. I want to vote for a Chief Justice of the United States who I am confident has a judicial philosophy that appreciates the vital role of the judiciary in protecting the rights and liberties of all Americans.

. . . I was extremely disappointed by the lack of cooperation from the Administration. Although we started off well with some early efforts at consultation after Justice O'Connor's retirement announcement in early July, that consultation never resulted in any meaningful discussions. It was truncated after a bipartisan meeting with Senate leaders at the White House. The President never shared his thinking with us or his plans, as is the nature of true consultation. His naming of Judge Roberts as his choice to replace Justice O'Connor came as a surprise, not as a result of meaningful consultation.

. . . The Bush Administration committed another disservice to this nomination -- and, especially, this nominee -- by withholding information that has traditionally been shared with the Senate. The Bush Administration treated Senators' requests for information with little respect. Instead, for the first time in my memory, they grafted exceptions from the Freedom of Information Act to limit their response to Senators' requests for information. They stonewalled entirely the narrowly tailored request for work papers from 16 significant cases John Roberts handled when he was the principal deputy to Kenneth Starr at the Solicitor General's office during the President's father's administration. The precedent from Chief Justice Rehnquist's hearing and others of course goes the other way.

Previous Presidents had paid the appropriate respect to the Senate and especially to the constitutional process by working with the Committee to provide such materials. Accordingly, I would certainly understand if a Senator were to vote against the President's nomination on this basis alone.

. . . Finally, Judge Roberts disserved himself by following the script that he had developed while serving in the Reagan Administration. He and this Administration rejected the spirit of Attorney General Jackson's opinion that, with respect to Senate consideration of nominations, no person should be submitted "whose entire history will not stand light." The nominee took a narrow judicial ethics rule correctly limiting what a judge or judicial nominee should say about a particular case and turned it into a broad excuse from comments on any issue that might ever arise in a case.

. . . I made no secret of my concerns about this nomination. In advance of the hearing I met twice with Judge Roberts and for nearly three hours in all, raised my concerns. I provided him additional opportunities to respond during the hearing. . . . I heard days of testimony and hours of meetings with Judge Roberts. Would I have liked more information? Of course -- I always want more. Is a no vote the easier and more popular one?

Of course again, especially with my constituency. But in my judgment, in my experience, but especially in my conscience I find it is better to vote yes than no. Ultimately my Vermont roots have always told me to go with my conscience and they do so today.

Judge Roberts is a man of integrity. I can only take him at his word that he does not have an ideological agenda. For me, a vote to confirm requires faith that the words he spoke to us have meaning. I can only take him at his word that he will steer the court to serve as an appropriate check on potential abuses of presidential power.

I respect those who have come to different conclusions, and I readily acknowledge the unknowable at this moment, that perhaps they are right and I am wrong. Only time will tell.

To be frank, Senator Leahy's statement simply makes no sense. He admits the Senate was disrespected, not only by the White House but by Roberts himself. But he defends his vote expressly as a leap of faith. In my opinion, Senator Leahy's position was NOT reasonable.

The bottom line is the reasonable, defensible and politically palatable position for Democrats was to let the Leader's position be the default position for Democrats -- a No vote on stonewall grounds with no filibuster. Would some Red State Senators have voted yes? Certainly. But a unified Dem position adopting Reid's position would have established an important precedent for the next nomination Bush will be making in a matter of days. Senator Leahy, of all people, should have adopted that position.

It is my hope that Democrats have not irreversibly crippled their position for this next nomination. But, frankly, I believe they have. Given the importance of the issue, I hope Senator Obama can understand the vociferousness of our reaction.