Democrats On Offense

And Bill Clinton (whose wife, we've heard, may be interested in his old job) jumped into the fray over the weekend with George Stephanopoulos (they had not parted on good terms after George's tell-all book and his harsh criticism on Monica, but must have buried the hatchet). Clinton said that he, as a wealthy guy, should not have gotten so many tax reductions:

"Whether it's race-based or not, if you give your tax cuts to the rich and hope everything works out all right, and poverty goes up, and it disproportionately affects black and brown people, that's a consequence of the action made. That's what they did in the '80s; that's what they've done in this decade. In the middle, we had a different policy."

What's emerging is a Democratic critique of the Bush years that uses the hurricane as a metaphor for other administration shortcomings. Ordinarily, I'd say, the danger is that the Dems will propose so many expensive programs that they'll be Velcro'd with the old tax-and-spend label. But with the president making clear he'll spend whatever it takes in the Gulf region--make that both Gulf regions--the borrow-and-spend Republicans are giving them plenty of competition.

You can check out this Dan Balz piece in the WashPost, or Ron Brownstein in the LAT, calling it an "early start to the maneuvering for the 2008 White House race."

Meanwhile, even though everyone believes Roberts is a lock for confirmation, this New York Times story makes clear the new opposition strategy:

"Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said today that he will vote against the confirmation of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be the 17th chief justice of the United States, in part because he does not know enough about him.

"'No one doubts that John Roberts is an excellent lawyer and an affable person,' Mr. Reid said on the Senate floor. 'But at the end of this process, I have too many unanswered questions about the nominee to justify a vote confirming him to this enormously important lifetime position.'

"The move comes as a surprise; many Senate observers expected Mr. Reid, who comes from a Republican-leaning state, to support Judge Roberts. But with a second vacancy on the court, Mr. Reid could be using his vote to send a message to the White House, which must replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical swing vote on the court."

The post-Kinsley LAT editorial page, joining the WashPost, now says: "It will be a damning indictment of petty partisanship in Washington if an overwhelming majority of the Senate does not vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. to be the next chief justice of the United States." So I guess that's an indictment of Roberts. It's a 2-1 split for the MSM, with the NYT editorializing against JR.

Some Democrats are in a tight spot, the Wall Street Journal notes:

New York Sen. Charles Schumer has told colleagues that Judge Roberts overall acquitted himself well before the committee. But a yes vote could undermine Mr. Schumer's ability to raise money from anti-Roberts donors for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which he now heads. When asked Tuesday if he had made up his mind, Mr. Schumer answered, "Nope."

Similar battles are bedeviling Democrats not on the committee. Some moderates, such as Florida's Sen. Bill Nelson and Nebraska's Ben Nelson, face re-election next year in Republican-leaning states and are eager to pocket some centrist credentials by voting for Judge Roberts. Mr. Nelson of Nebraska said Tuesday he has "not seen anything that would cause me to vote against" the nominee. Another red-state Democrat, Max Baucus of Montana, said, "I'm inclined to vote for him."