When John McCain criticized Barack Obama this morning for voting against the confirmation of Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., he glossed over an important subplot that took place at the time. Obama came to the defense of Democrats who had voted for Roberts, and even scolded liberal bloggers who had criticized those Democrats for fighting the nomination.
But he proved a basic point about Obama’s record: If the Republicans want to paint him as the second coming of George McGovern, they’ll have plenty of material to work with. That’s because a senator’s voting record is what matters at the end of the day, no matter how many conciliatory things they said.
In September 2005, just after the Senate voted on Roberts’ nomination, Obama posted a blog on the liberal Daily Kos site urging readers to stop demonizing Democrats who had voted for Roberts, including Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. (Whether it’s a coincidence or not, both are supporting Obama now.)
Reading the post today, it’s easy to be left with the impression that Obama voted for Roberts, not against him. He spends most of his time explaining that the Democrats never had a chance of blocking him, talking about the “non-ideological lens” through which most of the country saw Roberts, and arguing that Democrats should never be in the position of punishing dissenters. (Democrats split evenly on the nomination: 22 voted for Roberts, 22 opposed him.)
“In such circumstances, attacks on Pat Leahy, Russ Feingold and the other Democrats who, after careful consideration, voted for Roberts make no sense. Russ Feingold, the only Democrat to vote not only against war in Iraq but also against the Patriot Act, doesn’t become complicit in the erosion of civil liberties simply because he chooses to abide by a deeply held and legitimate view that a President, having won a popular election, is entitled to some benefit of the doubt when it comes to judicial appointments. Like it or not, that view has pretty strong support in the Constitution’s design ... “
“How can we ask Republican senators to resist pressure from their right wing and vote against flawed appointees like John Bolton, if we engage in similar rhetoric against Democrats who dissent from our own party line? How can we expect Republican moderates who are concerned about the nation’s fiscal meltdown to ignore Grover Norquist’s threats if we make similar threats to those who buck our party orthodoxy? “
Obama’s blog post drew some critical comments, but also lots of fawning ones. It helped set the tone for the brand of inclusive, come-together politics he has been trying to promote on the campaign trail.
In the end, though, Obama wasn’t one of the dissenters. He wrote that he voted against Roberts because he shared advocacy groups’ concerns that “too much is at stake here and now, in terms of privacy issues, civil rights, and civil liberties, to give John Roberts the benefit of the doubt.”
Clinton voted against Roberts too, saying his views were too vague and predicting he would strengthen a conservative majority on the court. But McCain barely mentioned her. He spent most of his time on Obama – who, at least at this hour, is still the front-runner, but who is also more of a blank slate with the public, thanks to his shorter career on the national stage.
That’s why other Republicans have become convinced they can paint him as a liberal in the mold of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
If Obama wins the nomination, it may be hard to remember all of his conciliatory, above-the-fray speeches. In the Republican campaign against him, it is his actual voting record, short as it is, that will matter the most.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Post A Comment