Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), the Senate Judiciary Committee's ranking Democrat, Maybe Reid pissed off Leahy and this is retaliation?
A day before his surprise declaration, Leahy expressed his irritation at being blindsided over Reid's position, finding out about it from the news media rather than from the minority leader, said lawmakers who attended the meeting. "I think he clearly wished he had known," a lawmaker said. Reid had made it clear to Democratic senators before Roberts's confirmation hearings that no member should get out in front of the caucus by announcing his support or opposition until the hearings had finished. Leahy may have been upset that Reid appeared to be violating his own rule without telling him or the caucus.
Yep - looks like retaliation to me.
Liberal activist leaders who led opposition to Roberts admit they were stunned and perplexed by Leahy's decision, especially after Leahy made what they viewed as compelling arguments against Roberts.
Come on, guys, you can't win 'em all..
Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, told reporters that she was shocked, and Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, said Leahy's vote was "inexplicable and deeply disappointing," according to the Boston Globe.
Yeah, my local liberal rag representin'!
Two days before last week's caucus lunch, Leahy said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he did not know how he would vote and had actually written two speeches, "one for and one against" Roberts.
Now there's a man of conviction!
"I think his statement is actually quite critical of Roberts," said Aron, but she said she didn't know if a breach of the Senate's arcane protocols may have tipped the balance. "I have no idea." Tracy Schmaler, spokeswoman for the Senate Judiciary Committee, scoffed at the suggestion that Leahy may have voted as he did because he was piqued by Reid's snub. "The conflicting theories that keep popping up would make Machiavelli proud," she said. "They can't all be right, and in fact none of them are. The simplest explanation also happens also to be the real one. Two weekends ago he used the technique he used as a prosecutor before a big case, sketching out the arguments for and against on a legal pad, and then he confirmed his decision by consulting his conscience."
That actually makes sense! Well, except for the 'consulting his conscience' part...
Schmaler said she did not have a chance to discuss the caucus meeting with her boss.
"I know nothing!"
She also said Leahy had said the previous weekend that he would announce his decision Wednesday. She said that there was no rift
Ah, a silver lining!
The New York Times reported that Leahy's decision had "cleared the way for a possible free-for-all among Democrats still wrestling with their decisions."
How long does it really take these guys to make up their minds? I'm not buying this schtick.
| They're drawing straws to decide which of them will cast the 'no' votes. My esteemed senator, the Honorable Babs Mikulski, has serenely announced her vote against the nomination... |
Meaning the whole Senate confirmation testimony was a huge dog and pony show.
| Remember, kids, there is no "I" in "Senate". |
Power to the People!
Conrad said Roberts was one of the most impressive candidates he has met in 19 years of interviewing various nominees. His support for Roberts was not influenced by the facts that he his facing reelection in 2006 in a state that Bush has carried with overwhelming margins, he said.
Ha ha ha! Good one, Senator!
Ben Nelson, also facing reelection in 2006 in a state that Bush won in a landslide, said he too was swayed by his personal contact with Roberts. "When I met with him in my office before the hearings began, I spent a great deal of time trying to determine whether
As soon as the polling data came in.