It's nice to win votes, but it's better to get our way. We Republicans should hope that as few Democrats vote for John Roberts' confirmation as possible. Harry Reid is already helping. Ted Kennedy already announced his opposition, but he's so predictable, who really cares? Pat Leahy will announce his position later, but Leahy already called Roberts a "radical" so it's hard to figure out how he backtracks. Bayh, Biden and Clinton will be interesting to watch, but let's hope their presidential ambitions and the extreme left wing groups they must please force them into opposition.
Why the desire for so many "nay" votes from Democrats? It's simple, really. Roberts is essentially assured confirmation, since there will be no filibuster and he has a majority. Therefore, the vote on Roberts is no longer about Roberts; it is about the next nominee. The more Democrats vote no, the more they are seen as reflexively obstructionist partisans who will never vote for a nominee from a Republican president, which frees President Bush to nominate a more conservative judge to replace O'Connor. The ability to depict Democrats as crying wolf or screaming that the sky is falling (choose your preferred cliche) is inversely proportional to the number that vote in favor of Roberts..
On the other hand, if Roberts gets many Democratic votes, they can portray themselves as reasonable and, having established those credentials, pounce on the next nominee as an extremist. So, let's hope Ralph Neas, Nan Aron, John Podesta and John Sweeney succeed in pressuring as many Democrats as possible to futilely vote against John Roberts, so that President Bush has more freedom to appoint a more conservative nominee for the remaining open Supreme Court seat. With Roberts' confirmation all but assured, it's surprising that the far left pressure groups are not easing up to position themselves to fight the next nominee.
UPDATE: Crap. Dow Jones reporting Leahy will vote in favor of Roberts (I can't find a web site yet to link to). OK, a story is now up.
UPDATE: John Podhoretz agrees.




