Roberts Red Democrats

Two things strike me about the Roberts vote in the Senate. The first is how Republicans are always identified in the media as “partisans” but Democrats rarely are. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was approved 96-3 with the makeup of the Senate Democrat 57, Republican 43 … not a lot different from today’s 55/45 split, yet the Republicans overwhelming supported the right of a Democrat President to appoint a qualified but VERY liberal justice to the Supreme Court. Naturally, the media gave them no credit for it, and has no quarrel whatsoever with the Democrats only supporting a much more moderate justice with 22 of their number voting against. What does partisanship mean?

The more interesting point is the breakdown of just how far to the left a lot of the country is, and how important it is for a Democrat Senator with any Presidential hopes to appease the left of their party even if it is likely that such a vote will hurt them in the actual election. They know that the purists in their base will give no quarter on this issue, so we find Hillary, Kerry, Biden, and even Barak Obama (long future hopeful) voting against. Even more interesting, we find 13 of the Democrat Senators for Red States voting for, and only 3 voting against. Reid, Harken the left looney from IA, and interestingly Evan Bayh from Indiana who is considered to be another Presidential hopeful, but unlikely since he is Pro-Life, and life is something that the core of the Democrat is foursquare against.

If you have any thoughts of being a Democrat Presidential contender you have to make your allegiance with the Pro-Death core of your party. If you are a Democrat from a Red State, you realize that you vote against highly qualified and probably overly moderate court appointees by the President that your constituency voted for is sure to get you (correctly) labled the next time you run as “out of touch with your constituency” as it famously did Tom Dachle and others in the last two elections.