Via Red State, this NY Times piece giving Roberts filibuster clearance from the deal-makers:
The possibility of a filibuster against John G. Roberts, President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court, appeared to recede today, as several Democrats emerged from a meeting of swing senators to say they did not envision their party trying to block the nomination.
“This is a credible nominee, and not one that – as far as we know now – has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, after a breakfast session with the Gang of 14, a bipartisan group that helped broker a deal in May to avert a Senate showdown over judicial nominees.
While Mr. Lieberman and his Democratic colleagues were careful not to rule out a filibuster – “There’s a lot I don’t know about John Roberts,” the Connecticut senator said – their remarks after the meeting suggested that, barring any surprise developments, they expected Judge Roberts to be eventually confirmed.
With all the Godfather talk as of late among some in the Democratic base, I think it is safe to say that Lieberman will soon be declared ‘Dead to me’ by the left-wing of the Democratic party.
At any rate, barring any unforeseen surprises (Roberts has already endured five FBI investigations), I think the confirmation is now a lock, and it is just a matter of how much noise Democrats can make to keep the base happy and keep the fund-raising clicking.
Mike S
. “This is a credible nominee, and not one that – as far as we know now – has a record that in any sense could be described as extremist,” said Senator Joseph
“There’s a lot I don’t know about John Roberts,” the Connecticut senator said
The spin from the GOP will be that this is a promice not to filibuster, but every comment I have seen has major qualifiers in them.
Rick
The couple times I forayed onto Democratic Underground back in the Fall of ’03, I helpfully suggested Lieberman would be the strongest candidate the Democrats could run against Dubya.
From the auto de fe that was conjured up against me, it was clear Connecticut Joe was “dead” to the controlling kook wing of that party. I wouldn’t have welcomed it, but I believe Lieberman would’ve edged Dubya last November. But some wingers are happy to cut off their nose, no matter what. So much for Rove’s genius–the Democrats feel principled in self-immolation.
Their behavior in the confirmation process will show if they’ve learned anything. I do hope not.
Cordially…
Capriccio
“Lieberman will soon be declared ‘Dead to me’ by the left-wing of the Democratic party.”
Huh? Soon?
Joe became Freddo a long time ago when he first put his arms around Mo Green…I mean George W. Bush.
Mike S
I helpfully suggested Lieberman would be the strongest candidate the Democrats could run against Dubya.
Gee. I wonder why no one listened to your advice?
Kimmitt
Senator Lieberman does us a lot of damage, but this isn’t one of those cases. A wait-and-see attitude is appropriate.
BinkyBoy
Lieberman was NOT a strong candidate. He has no power to mobilize the true Democratic base. His pro-war attitude, coupled with his defeatist posturing helped Bush in 2000, as many Gore supporters were turned off by Lieberman.
Joe can go suck an egg, he’s never been a true Democrat, he’s a fence sitting wishy-washy worm that has never deserved the spotlights that he’s gotten.
Redleg
I can’t wait for the media to reveal Roberts’ role in the 2000 Florida Recount battle between Gore and Bush.
Matt
I’m always amused by the fact that the only people who push Lieberman as a viable national candidate are people who still would vote for most any Republican over him.
John S.
I’m always amused by the fact that the only people who push Lieberman as a viable national candidate are people who still would vote for most any Republican over him.
Suggesting Lieberman sounds great to someone who votes Republican, because they know how poorly he would fare with the people who might actually vote for him.
Divide and conquer.
Kimmitt
I don’t think it’s that insidious; I think it’s that Senator Lieberman’s combination of social center-rightness and consistent willingness to go after the Democratic Party’s constituent groups is appealing to a center-right voter who is unfond of Democratic constituent groups.
ppGaz
I’m of two minds on Lieberman. One the one hand, parties, as I always say, is about coalitions. You need the middle, and some out at the edge, to have a competitive party. Lieberman is a man of the middle.
On the other hand, he is a mealy-mouthed, two-faced sonofabitch who makes every statement and every action seem totally self-serving, just the kind of thing I hate in politicians. I’d rather have an honest, straighforward person I disagree with than a smooth-talking liar who seems to agree with me.
Also, Lieberman is tied to the good-old-boy Dem party structure, the one Dean wants to take apart with a hand grenade. I hate that structure, I want them gone. Good riddance.
M. Scott Eiland
Keep an eye on Chuckie Schumer and his playmate Barbara Boxer–they may pull the “you haven’t given us enough documents!” scam again to slow things down. Hopefully, Frist will steamroller the little twits if they do.
Jeff Maier
I generally agree with ppGaz. The problem with Lieberman isn’t that he’s a moderate — there are a lot of moderate Dems in the Senate. It isn’t even his support for the Iraq incursion — again, a lot of Democrats supported that initially. The problem is that he is a Fox News Democrat who always seems willing to publicly stake out opposing positions from what the leadership might be trying to promote.
He is entitled to his positions and to vote on his beliefs and conscience. At the same time, in a partisan world he shouldn’t go out of his way to support RNC and administration talking points. Unless, of course, he is happy to remain in the Minority.
Capriccio
Frist?
Steamroller?
I thought yesterday was political comedy day at Balloon Juice.
Please, until the indictments come down, do us the honor of trying to scare us with Karl Rove…and not the likes of Bill “My Career is in a Permanent Vegetaitive State” Frist.
Blue Neponset
Keep an eye on Chuckie Schumer and his playmate Barbara Boxer—they may pull the “you haven’t given us enough documents!” scam again to slow things down. Hopefully, Frist will steamroller the little twits if they do.
(Shaking Head) Angry….
I am fairly new to Balloon Juice, and I have been pleased by the fact that comments like this aren’t too common.
pmm
All of these criticisms of Sen. Lieberman echo the right-wing’s criticisms of McCain.
Elections aren’t decided in a vacuum, it’s usually a choice between two or more options. If Sen. Lieberman isn’t enough of a Democrat for you, would you vote for the GOP alternative?
Jimmy Jazz
Yeah, because nothing gets the Democratic base excited like a whiny little toad with a neocon foreign policy, a moralizing attitude that makes Tipper Gore look like a hippie, and the party loyalty of Zell Miller.
pmm
Jimmy Jazz, even if your assessment of Sen. Lieberman is correct, whom would you prefer in the White House now: Sen. Lieberman or Pres. Bush?
Jimmy Jazz
I’m not sure what the point of this question is, considering Lieberman was wiped out in the primaries, but I would have held my nose and voted for him over the Worst President Ever since I think his SCOTUS nominees would have been true moderates and I’m generally on the same side as Lieberman’s domestic policy record.
Tough call, though. I’m also dreading the thought of a Hillary run. I don’t like her personally and I’m getting pretty goddamn sick of this Bush/Clinton War of the Roses.
BinkyBoy
pmm, thats why we have primaries, to get people like Joe and his mentum from creating that type of horrible choice.
And its not an A OR B choice. The other choice is to just not vote or vote for the Nader type alternative.
Its just too horrible to even think about those two being the only choices in a national election.
mac Buckets
Joe was banging cocktail waitresses two at a time!
ppGaz
Maybe, depending on who the alternative was. Not Bush, under any circumstances. He’s not fit to be a clerk IMV. I tend to vote person and not party at the president level, though.
You are damning Lieberman with faint praise ;-)
Vlad
I can’t stand Lieberman, and I can think of at least a half-dozen Republicans rumored to be ’08 candidates that I’d take over him in a general election. At least an honest-to-god conservative (do they still make those?) might take a better position on privacy issues.
It’s OK to take outside-the-party positions from time to time (like Nelson or Landrieu). It’s not OK to hand the media gratuitous slams of other party members, just in order to get TV face time on Sunday.
Randolph Fritz
I think you are probably right and, barring a major collapse of the right wing, Roberts will probably make it. As a small-goverment conservative, I hope you are disgusted; we are talking about a man who thinks that searching, handcuffing, and arresting a twelve-year-old girl for eating french fries while riding the subway is a reasonable search and seizure; I cannot imagine what he would regard as unreasonable.
In terms of the broader picture, I think it’s clear that what our national legislature can now agree on is primarily to look the other way as all manner of abuses are committed. This is, I suppose, a small-government conservative position but, as you are already finding, a weak Federal government does not necessarily mean greater personal freedom; instead it often offers greater latitude to state and corporate abusers of power.
Jimmy Jazz
Bingo. Other “mavericks” take positions. Lieberman goes out of his way to slam people in his own party.
smijer
I had little love for Lieberman from long before now, but he really became “dead to me” when he smiled and nodded at the Abu Gonzales nomination to the Attorney General post.
Sorry, McCain and Lieberman are entirely different animals.
McCain is mainly a principled conservative moderate He (unfortunately) looks the other way a little too often while his party goes off the deep end (i.e. war in Iraq), who (unfortunately) is a loyal soldier who doesn’t go out of his way to adopt “the other side’s” views in order to curry favor with the press (you don’t see him turning up to shill for the Democrats’ agenda on Air America, you know).
He fortunately rejects the vitriolic rhetoric, and the worst of the partisan attack politics, and he is willing to reach out to build coalitions where there are legitimate areas where the conservative and liberal agendas can both benefit. That’s what a moderate does.
Lieberman is not a moderate. The only quality he shares with McCain is a tendency to avoid rhetorical excess. But when he “reaches out” to conservatives, it’s almost always on issues that the Republicans could just as easily win without him. He isn’t “center” – he’s “right-wing”. He’s unapologetically pro-war. He’s unapologetically willing to allow government to infringe on civil liberties in order to make it look like it is doing something about 9/11. He’s unapologetically willing to step on the first amendment to advance his prudish “values”.
Does he have any principles? If he does, I sure don’t know about them. The only guiding principle I can discern from his actions is “do anything to get on TV, including attacking fellow democrats, if that’s what it takes to get a spot on Hannity and Colmes.”
His remarks on Roberts are actually quite welcome to me; I feel like the Democratic party should be a coalition, too. But I think the only place Joe Lieberman should have in it is marking his ballot at election time. Someone asked who we would rather have in the white house between him and Bush… I’m not sure I would have a preference.
John S.
Actually, it really only boils down to two options. Unless you consider the Green or Libertarian parties valid options to the only two guys that get 99.9% of the media airtime, including a one-on-one slugfest with each other (which is the highlight of the whole rigamarole).
This country has become firmly devoted to the two-party, two-choice system. George Washington warned against it. Many of our other founders hated the concept of it. But that’s what we have. It isn’t a whole lot of choice, but it’s the best we’ve got (for now).
Katherine
Lieberman’s dead to me for being outraged by the outrage on the torture scandals. This, I don’t have a problem with.