Coming to the realization that the Republican Party, suffering from the indiscretion of it's leadership, doesn't really need any cheap shots taken by the likes of me right now, I decided to look at my own party for a moment. The Senate vote came down on the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts today and I was well, surprised. I watched several of the hearings and I watched several of my fellow Democrats rake him over the coals, yet I still can't for the life of me figure out the 22 "no" votes.
All 22 of the "no" votes came from the Democratic Party. This is what I've come to conclude. Too many have their sights set on the 2008 presidential race. This means one of two things, they all hope to run or they all hope to better the Democratic candidates choices by not being too bi-partisan. I pray they aren't all hoping to run, the Democrats can't survive another 9-way primary. They can't even survive another primary that includes John Kerry. So here's my breakdown on the 22 "no" voters and whether or not they have their sights set on the White House:
Akaka (D-Hawaii)-- lack of document disclosure on Roberts' part, no presidential aspirations
Bayh (D- Indiana)-- future presidential aspirations, maybe not 2008, but an odd press release and mixed signals before his vote
Biden (D- Delaware)-- duh. 2008.
Boxer (D-California)-- radical loyalty to the party, hopefully nothing about 2008
Cantwell (D-Washington)--disclosure, environmental policies, party loyalty
Clinton (D-New York)-- Mrs. Clinton has all but announced.
Corzine (D-New Jersey)-- someone probably paid him to vote this way
Dayton (D- Minnesota)-- his vote was really about Roberts and lack of disclosure, not a future presidential candidate as far as I can tell
Durbin (D-Illinois)-- why doesn't Dick run for president?
Feinstein (D-California)--same reason as Boxer, maybe some bitterness still over 2004, Schiavo, and who knows what else
Harkin (D- Iowa)--an honest vote regarding civil rights
Inouye (D-Hawaii)--lack of disclosure
Kennedy (D-Mass.)-- I'm convinced Teddy's goal in life is to defeat a Supreme Court nominee, he's not running for President, I think he learned his lesson in 1980.
Kerry (D-Mass.)-- bitterness?? ya think?
Lautenberg (D- New Jersey)-- something fishy is going on in NJ since the governor resigned
Mikulski (D-Maryland)--disclosure issue
Obama (D-Illinois)-- the rising star of the Democratic Party doesn't want a "yes" vote on his resume just yet, 2008? Probably more like 2012.
Reed (D-Rhode Island)--minority protection issue
Reid (D-Nevada)-- the biggest mistake the Democrats have made is choosing Reid to be Minority Leader and I'm not just saying that because I love Tom Daschle.
Sarbanes (D-Maryland)--lack of disclosure, civil rights, and party vote
Schumer (D-New York)--truly a partisan vote, maybe he thinks Mrs. Clinton will want him as her VP, he's certainly not running, but you've got to respect the zealot.
Stabenow (D-Michigan)--constitutional rights; questions unanswered
This will stir up some controversy, but if I were a senator or if any of those senators were taking my advice, I'd say follow the example of seniority (i.e. Byrd). AND...if Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont, and avid hater of the Republican Party) can vote for Roberts I think he might just be an okay guy. When it comes down to it there was going to have to be a conservative Chief Justice, so I would ask my fellow Democrats, would you rather it be Scalia or Thomas? Didn't think so.