« Who the hell do I think I am? | Main | Parting is Such Sweet Sorrow -- Or maybe not »

Dems "Faux Outrage" Over Roberts Nomination

Try as they might even leading liberal organizations and bloggers can't gear-up for much of a fight over the Supreme Court nomination of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. The best they can come up with is that he's was a *gasp* "corporate lawyer."

Earlier in the week I wondered how connected lefty bloggers (especially the muckrakers) would be to Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee. It appears that man who lead the Jeff Gannon gay-porn and prostitution witch hunt (and the rest of his liberal blogger brethren) will have a direct line to Sen. Ted Kennedy. I can hardly wait to see how that pairing turns out...

The not so good news for aspiring liberal bloggers is that now, in addition to not being able to get links from leading liberal blogs, you won't be able to deviate from the liberal blogger elite (BlogPAC) party line. When BlogPAC says "all in behind Wesley Clark" in 2008 you'd better get on board or there will be no BlogAds for you. The BlogPAC members think this is a really good idea for the left side of the blogosphere, honestly they do...

Anyway here's how the left is reacting to Roberts nomination...


Leading liberal bloggers, under the auspices of a political action committee called BlogPAC (FEC filings), have already funneling tens of thousands of dollars to produce slick media campaigns to a firm that did millions of dollars of work in the 2004 campaign for the DNC (Malchow Schlackman Hoppey & Cooper Inc). Now those same bloggers are attempting to produce a group-think echo chamber at the top side of the liberal portion of the blogosphere.

So how did the liberal star chamber handle the Roberts nomination? Howard Kurtz reports in the Washington Post:

The lightning-quick attacks came after 50 top liberal bloggers joined in a 45-minute conference call Tuesday night. "On the left, we've always talked about the need to have an echo chamber," says John Aravosis, a Washington lawyer and gay activist who writes at Americablog.com . "We believe the right has a whole media network, from talk radio to Fox News to Matt Drudge. The left doesn't have that because the left doesn't play well with others."

This is the first Supreme Court nomination of the Internet age, meaning that liberal and conservative opinion-mongers are already blanketing cyberspace with arguments, facts, taunts, polemics, gossip and electronic links to raw data, hoping to rally the faithful and influence the mainstream media coverage.

The conference call was arranged by BlogPAC , a political action committee that got some of its members on the phone with Sen. Ted Kennedy on the day that Sandra Day O'Connor announced she was leaving the court. The group has also held calls with Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Sen. Russell Feingold and the liberal organizations involved in the nomination battle, including MoveOn, Alliance for Justice, NARAL and People for the American Way.

Kennedy "reached out to them directly to convey the impact that this decision will have on hundreds of millions of Americans, whose last line of defense for their freedoms and liberties is the Supreme Court," says Laura Capps, the senator's spokeswoman.

Such coordination seems to defy the image of bloggers as iconoclastic lone rangers, pounding the keyboards in their bedrooms and basements without regard to interest-group politics. Bloggers, after all, come from all walks of life, building a following on the strength of their words and ability to draw attention from other Web diarists. They have also proven to be a formidable fundraising force, raising $80,000 on Tuesday for a Democratic candidate in a special House election in Ohio.

The purpose of Tuesday night's call was "to agree on where we want to work as a swarm and divide that from where we want to work individually," says Bob Brigham, a San Francisco political activist who runs BlogPAC, whose founders include Aravosis and Markos Moulitsas, who runs the popular site Daily Kos . A swarm, in online lingo, is when legions of bloggers jump on the same issue, as when conservative Web sites attacked Dan Rather's CBS on President Bush's National Guard record.

It's always with the Rathergate comparisons... The difference is that Rathergate was a true swarm of independent bloggers, while BlogPAC is probably scouting for cash to fund a blog media production and buy. BlogPAC is presumably well financed enough to mount an online marketing campaign on lefty blogs against Roberts, but collectively they're mostly trying to refocus debate on Rove. Markos is instead the man responsible for sensationalizing ex-journalist Jeff Gannon's pornographic past lead their disjointed response.

In case it's not blindingly obvious the leading bloggers of the left are not attempting to become journalists or writers, they're attempting to become a political party. Why anyone would want to read a blog that's a party mouthpiece (on the left or the right) is beyond me, but apparently Kosites do. Fortunately for Republicans, BlogPAC (even with the presence of the occasional rational liberals among their ranks) will most likely continue DailyKos's unblemished streak of backing electoral losers. Just the other day the were celebrating "Blogosphere Day" because the backed a nowhere candidate (Ginny Schraeder) the the DNC wasn't interested in, who promptly got trounced in November.

In the case of the Roberts nomination they're doing the occasional bit of huffing and puffing, but even the emerging left-wing echosphere can't get their talking point straight, as chief BlogPAC financier Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos, and Denver lawyer Jeralyn Merritt of Talk Left, had nothing negative to say about the nomination just after the announcement.

Come on guys feign some outrage for us, please.


Look at supposedly "grass roots" efforts of the MoveOn.org, the nice folks funded by billionaire George Soros who "bought and paid for" the Democratic Party, as they so willingly announce one of several press releases sent to bloggers:

On Thursday, July 21, citizens across the country will be in front of grocery stores, restaurants, community centers and on street corners gathering signatures to urge the Senate to oppose the nomination of John Roberts to the US Supreme Court.

"John Roberts is a right-wing corporate lawyer who sides with big business against individual rights time and time again," said Ben Brandzel, Advocacy Director of MoveOn.org Political Action.

The petition drive follows up over 1000 house parties held the weekend of July 8-10 where MoveOn members formed rapid response teams that would spring into action if the President nominated an extremist to the Supreme Court.

Does anyone really believe that those rapid response teams weren't going to spring into action? Even if Bush renominated Sandra Day O'Conner they'd have called her a dangerous extremist. Clearly MoveOn is just phoning it in on this one...

"Say No To Everything" Democrats

Lead by Sen. Chuck Schumer, this media-whoring wing of the Democratic Party was against any nominee, just like MoveOn.org was. No fair looking under their jacket and skirts to see the hand of Soros operating their mouths...

Leading Democrats

Democrats from states that don't vote strictly a Democratic party line aren't expressing "faux outrage," in fact they're doing just the opposite - they're cautiously praising the nominee. A selection of quotes (compiled by the RNC), below the fold.

Sen. Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV): "The President Has Chosen Someone With Suitable Legal Credentials ..." (Janet Hook and Mary Curtius, "Democrats Keep Rhetorical Powder Dry," Los Angeles Times, 7/20/05)

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-CT) "Said Federal Appellate [Judge] ... John G. Roberts [Was] 'In The Ballpark' ..." (David Lightman, "Senators Consulted On Court Vacancy," The Hartford Courant, 7/14/05)

Lieberman: "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." (Jesse J. Holland, "Slim Chance For Roberts Filibuster, But Democrats Say They Won't Rubber Stamp," The Associated Press, 7/21/05)
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): "[I] Think He's Qualified, Yes. I Don't Think He's An Extremist. I Think He's A Very Smart Man." (CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," 7/20/05)

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL): "Roberts Clearly Has The Legal Background And Intellect To Serve, Obama Said." ("Obama Says He's Undecided On Supreme Court Nominee," The Associated Press, 7/21/05)

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR): "My Sense Is, So Far, So Good." (Jesse J. Holland, "Lieberman: Roberts Probably Not Extremist," The Associated Press, 7/21/05)

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) "Said He Will Wait To Decide How He'll Vote Until After The Senate's Confirmation Hearing. ... He Sees Nothing Now That Would Derail Roberts." (Jake Thompson, "Nebraska's Two Senators Will Be Under Pressure For Roberts Confirmation," Omaha World-Herald, 7/21/05)

Nelson: "I'm Not Looking For Reasons To Oppose Him." (Jake Thompson, "Nebraska's Two Senators Will Be Under Pressure For Roberts Confirmation," Omaha World-Herald, 7/21/05)
Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ): "I Think The White House Did Its Homework. They Found An Individual That Is Brilliant, Clearly Capable As A Jurist." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 7/20/05)

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL): "[H]e's Legally Skilled, A Very Bright Man. He Has No Questions, Related To His Honesty Or Ethics That I'm Aware Of. And A Good Temperament." (CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight," 7/20/05)

It's going to be hard to move the goalposts backward for Democrats, so they'll just let Schummer and Kennedy throw red meat to the far left and let the rest of the country laugh at the tag-team of loony Senate liberals. There's not too much harm in that as national opinion of Schummer and Kennedy could hardly be lower.

I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives who want the filibuster fight that was averted by "the gang of 14" to be reopened, but it appears that the Roberts nomination isn't going to be it...

Update: Some have asked for an explanation of the BlogAds/Wes Clark line. It's simple really. Clark is a darling of the Kosites - just check their monthly 2008 Presidential polls. As for the BlogAds, if a collection of bloggers (BlogPAC) is producing and purchasing BlogAds to run on liberal blogs (including their own sites) don't you suspect that might be a bit incestuous? Given the large number of liberal blogs that they could run ads on it's not inconceivable that they might apply a bit of a BlogPAC purity test before running an ad on a site.


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Dems "Faux Outrage" Over Roberts Nomination:

» NIF linked with Bishop of Yesterday Morning

» Slant Point linked with Liberal Bloggers Unite!

» Truth, Lies & Common Sense linked with The ALCU and Justice Roberts

» ThoughtsOnline linked with I could be wrong, but there will be a filibuster

» Commonwealth Conservative linked with Faux outrage

» annatopia linked with crybaby conservatives

» The Galvin Opinion linked with SUPREME COURT'S HOLY CROSS CONNECTION

» annatopia linked with crybaby conservatives

Comments (26)

I think a few on the Left r... (Below threshold)

I think a few on the Left realize that they will only be wasting political capital by trying to tear this guy down. Better to wait for someone truly controversial.

However, some obviously don't care and continue to marginalize themselves by throwing perpetual temper tantrums.

Yeah, and Soros isn't the m... (Below threshold)

Yeah, and Soros isn't the majority stockholder in a big corporation and he doesn't have lawyers on his payroll. It defies reason that so many on the left ignore these facts and hop on the moveon bandwagon. They don't have a clue. They argue and pretend their little liberal feelings are hurt when it's pointed out that liberalism is dishonesty in the form of ideology but every time they open their mouths or sit down at a keyboard they do their very best to either prove it or prove they are truly incaoable of even understanding who and what they are supporting.

Kevin Aylward writes... (Below threshold)

Kevin Aylward writes: I'm sure there are plenty of conservatives who want the filibuster fight that was averted by "the gang of 14" to be reopened, but it appears that the Roberts nomination isn't going to be it...

I don't want a fight over the nuclear option unless the stakes are sufficiently high that going nuclear is worth the risks. Roberts is a conservative mafia agent, and a right-wing corporate running-dog imperialist, but it's clear to me there's nothing to be gained by a filibuster on his confirmation.

I say send the guy to a quick up-or-down vote, and avoid the nuclear battle. He's going to be confirmed, and he's going to be in his wife's "Feminists For Life" pocket on women's issues— there's just no avoiding it. Once he's confirmed, folks on my side of the aisle can hang every pinheaded decision he makes around the necks of Republicans for installing him on the bench.

There are lot more points to be scored banging on Roberts supporters after their guy is on the bench than before.

There's a conservative mafi... (Below threshold)

There's a conservative mafia? Where can I sign up? The last time I know of anyone in politics sent someone to sleep with the fishes her name was Mary Jo and it sure as hell wasn't a conservative at the wheel. It was, however, undeniably the son of a bootlegger.

Does anyone remember the ph... (Below threshold)

Does anyone remember the phrase “Mind numbed robots”? Isn’t that what the left call conservatives? I believe this proves those on the left are the real robots that cannot think for themselves.

And lets not forget newly m... (Below threshold)

And lets not forget newly minted Democrat Shill and noted ignorant Howard Stern, who read an e-mail from an "outraged listener" on the air today against Roberts......except it was the same e-mail that MoveOn.org sent out yesterday (the once containing the line "he evern worked for Ken Starr (yes, that Ken Starr)"

He doesn't even have the sack to admit when he's reading propaganda....

...and I'm not sure what is... (Below threshold)

...and I'm not sure what is supposed to be particularly 'faux' about the outrage you're seeing from some of the lefty factions.

It's pretty clear that progressives don't like Roberts, and it's totally irrational to expect that Bush would have even considered for a nanosecond the idea of nominating someone that progressives would like. Is it really that hard for you guys to swallow the fact that progressives are looking at Roberts as a case of "it could have been a lot worse?" Yeah, he's a toad. We knew we were going to get a toad. At least, he's not a monster raving lunatic.

I mean, from my perspective, the fact that Bush had to nominate someone with such a thin judicial record— so nobody would really have clear picture of where he would go once he's on the bench— is the clearest sign yet that the President doesn't have the political capital to spend on a nasty partisan fight over a contentious nominee.

And that's good news in my book.

No, s9 -- the fact Bush nom... (Below threshold)

No, s9 -- the fact Bush nominated someone with "such a thin judicial record" is because anyone with a solid paper trail would merely be Borked on any excuse that could be dug up.

And the fact this guy's "thin judicial record" is nevertheless being sifted for excuses to Bork him, proves the point.

"a conservative mafia agent... (Below threshold)
B Moe:

"a conservative mafia agent, and a right-wing corporate running-dog imperialist,"

Damn. Do you guys have like a random adjective generator that makes that shit up for you or something?

You wrote "When BlogPAC say... (Below threshold)
Venus De Mille:

You wrote "When BlogPAC says "all in behind Wesley Clark" in 2008 you'd better get on board or there will be no BlogAds for you."

Problem is, I don't see where that is stated anywhere on that BlogPAC website. Where is it? I couldn't even find where they mention the General's name anywhere on that blog. What are you seeing that I am not? Please clarify.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Another irony is that when ... (Below threshold)

Another irony is that when Kos says, "We don't have an echo chamber like the right," within seconds you have posts by...
...Atrios: "We don't have an echo chamber like the Right always has."
Hesiod: "You know, we've never had an echo chamber like the Right."
Jeralyn: "I was thinking. One of the best things about liberals is we don't have an echo chamber like conservatives."
Oliver Willis: "It's racist how conservatives have an echo chamber denied to us on the left."
Andrew Sullivan: "I've grown increasingly tired of the gob-smackingly vile echo chamber on the right. Geia knows I'm not the easiest person to offend, but I've been thinking of perhaps voting along with the refreshingly echo-chamber-free Left again. But I haven't made up my mind, I assure you."
Within 12 hours, thousands of emails pour into newspaper editor's computers all across the nation...all saying, "Something needs to be done about those evil conservatives. They depend on an echo chamber, whereas liberals never have, etc, etc"

I read your post expecting ... (Below threshold)

I read your post expecting you would get to the point. When I arrived at where it finally peters out, it dawned on me the point is distributed evenly throughout — a novel writing strategy nowadays. (Much in vogue in newspapers of the pre- and early Civil War era.)

So, the point is everyone not on the political right is all wrong, in every way, all the time about every thing, especially as to motives.

Faux outrage, you say? From what I'm seeing elsewhere, even from what you present in this post, it appears the real rub is that most on the left aren't getting lathered up and overreacting enough to qualify for as much condemnation as you'd hoped to dish out.

Set the straw man up. Knock the straw man down. There, that was easy, wasn't it?

Roberts is a 'right-wing co... (Below threshold)

Roberts is a 'right-wing corporate running-dog imperialist'?

Do you laugh yourself silly when you write this stuff?

I know I do when I read it.

Just wait till the lefties ... (Below threshold)

Just wait till the lefties that post in here find out that Feminists for Life is a pro-life group. Little "useful idiot" Stalinistic digs like 'right-wing corporate running-dog imperialist' will give way to true attacks on Robert's character. Still, you gotta love it when someone that refers to himself as a "progressive" outs himself by spouting communist vernacular. Unless you consider communism progressive. Looks like s9 does.....

McGehee writes: N... (Below threshold)

McGehee writes: No, s9 -- the fact Bush nominated someone with "such a thin judicial record" is because anyone with a solid paper trail would merely be Borked on any excuse that could be dug up.

Is to laugh. If Democrats were serious about "Borking" anybody, their actual record would be irrelevant. With sufficient party discipline, the Democrats could "Bork" Roberts. He could be savaged like nobody has been savaged before.

His career prior to his elevation to the appellate court is damning enough. To quote another lefty blogger, he's an arrogant, out of touch, Ivy-league, fat cat corporate lawyer who made millions catering to wealthy CEOs. He's also a Washington insider who has spent his entire adult life shuttling back and forth between K Street and Wall Street. If the Democrats had the stones for it, they could hammer this frame home by endlessly spinning out interpretations of his two big cases: the one where that 12-year-old girl was roughed up by the cops for eating french frys on the subway, and the one where he basically gave American Gulf War POW's the high hard one.

The guy has plenty of book learning, but absolutely no common sense. And he hates Americans who were POW's. That's what we'd say if wanted to Bork him. Are we saying any of that? No. Of course not. What are you complaining about?

bullwinkle bites the... (Below threshold)

bullwinkle bites the hook: Still, you gotta love it when someone that refers to himself as a "progressive" outs himself by spouting communist vernacular.

Actually, I use it to lure conservatarians into revealing their idiotic tendencies to wallow in red hysteria. Nothing is more amusing than wingnuts failing to resist their primal urge to engage in red-baiting.

And if American conservatives hadn't leapt with both feet into the vaccuum left by the collapse of Soviet communism and become the spiritual successors of Lenin and Marx, the joke wouldn't be half so funny.

bullwinkle helpfully... (Below threshold)

bullwinkle helpfully points out: Just wait till the lefties that post in here find out that Feminists for Life is a pro-life group.

Here's a fun thought experiment: go back a read what I wrote again as if I had mentioned before how I have known that FFL was a pro-life group since the old, old days when I used to keep up running battles with their crazy mutant flying monkeys on the old Usenet talk.abortion newsgroup. Think about it long and hard, bullwinkle. A lot of us know full well that Roe is toast. We've known it since Bush was re-selected, and we've just been waiting for you fools to pull the trigger. We know you're dying to have this fight, and we're not going to be able to avoid it much longer. So go ahead and do it. Your party will be in so much trouble after you overturn Roe (and disable Griswold in the process) that most of you may never get laid again.

"...Roberts is a conserv... (Below threshold)

"...Roberts is a conservative mafia agent, and a right-wing corporate running-dog imperialist..." written by s9.

Certainly are confused this day/night as to language and language concepts, now, are you not, s9?

Because, otherwise, that one statement there (quoted here) is more than enough to discount much if not all of what you've written here from time start to present.

What in the heck does that even mean? Can you specify and define the terms you've used there, that quote? Who and where is the "conservative mafia?" Is that next door to the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? And did they all get letters ("marching orders" it's alleged by the Left) from Karl Rove? And, what IS a "corporate running-dog"? Is it a cousin to a greyhound or closer in DNA to the Sock Puppet? Or, perhaps, child to Triump the Insult Dog? Snoopy? I did read that Snoopy generated millions so perhaps Snoopy's responsible?

Honestly, I think you wrote that after a tad too much chablis.

I just want to point out to... (Below threshold)

I just want to point out to everyone and a few dielimp liberals present that the whole "women's right to an abortion" is liberal ideology. Liberals insist that no conservative suggest that their personal ideology might interfere with interpreting liberal ideology and that liberal ideology be the lay of the land.

It's ideology...but to liberals, as long as it's liberal ideology, that's great. Just try and suggest that unborn human beings have a right to ont be murdered and all hell breaks loose.

From a point of "law," it is even today questionable as to Roe v. Wade, but it's in place and so has to be enforced. But the ideology behind it does not have any more imperative than the ideology of others, AND, more importantly, once a majority manages to change the laws, perhaps RvW will go the way that even 'Ms. Roe' herself has long since discounted and spoken out against.

Things change. Liberals? I wonder, do they? Can they? What's so endearing about having 'the right" to take the life of a defenseless unborn human being? What's so feminine about that? Murder is murder, I remind you.

s9...you know, it might sur... (Below threshold)

s9...you know, it might surprise you but you aren't entertaining, nor elucidating, anyone. And here I thought you guys didn't have an echo chamber...apparently, you missed that because your communist ding is going dingdangdong all over the place here. Lennin, Marx and Mao are dead. Castro soon will be. Get over it.

s9, you make me laugh. I do... (Below threshold)

s9, you make me laugh. I don't want Roe overturned, it's the best tool the left has to limit it's voter base and to keep themselves from turning out more people(?) like you. Who would know the value of some liberal's child better than a liberal? I'm guessing after one look in the mirror and a little soul searching they know they're doing the right thing. I've always felt that women who want an abortion have no business raising children and in many cases it's not used often enough. The 2004 election was the first time the numbers of aborted liberal's babies would have swung the vote and put a democrat in the Whitehouse but it's far from the last. A political party that supports the abortion of it's own future voter base seems destined to disappear, and that's fine by me. Maybe the remains can put together a viable party that's not driven to move so far to the left that Castro gets wood when he thinks about it. After all, it's their right to choose to destroy themselves, it's the best thing they can do to serve their country. We need a two party system and to have that we have to have a decent second party.

Wes Clark will kick your co... (Below threshold)

Wes Clark will kick your collective asses.

I hope he is the nominee - he'll turn at least two red states, blue, especially in light of the corruption in the current White House.

LT:That's what the... (Below threshold)


That's what they said back in early '04. How'd that work out for ya?

-S- writes: What ... (Below threshold)

-S- writes: What in the heck does that even mean?

It means exactly what you think it means, of course.

Unfortunately, I can't answer your question because I have no idea what you think it means. I know what I take the words to mean in that combination in this context. It's not at all clear to me that anyone here, who is currently going non-linear over that phrase, has the language comprehension skills to follow along with any explanation I might offer.

-S- continues: Can you specify and define the terms you've used there, that quote?

Why bother? You have a computer. It has Internet access. Look them up yourself. What am I? Your personal English teacher?

bullwinkle writes: [... (Below threshold)

bullwinkle writes: [a lot of nonsense] We need a two party system...

Do we really? Where does it say that? I'm looking at the relevant specifications, and I don't see anything in the protocol that says we need a "two party" system. Where the fsck did you get that silly idea?

bullwinkle writes: <... (Below threshold)

bullwinkle writes: s9, you make me laugh. I don't want Roe overturned...

{chuckle} Sure. I believe you. Whatever.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy