Job Interview
Sep 13th, 2005 at 5:20 am by Susie
“This is really John Roberts’ job interview with the American people.”
- Senator Ted Kennedy
I sat through a one-hour call last night with Teddy Kennedy, Ralph Neas (the People for the American Way president), Joe Trippi and some blogger activists on how to highlight the Roberts nomination hearing.
And I have to say, it sure seems like most Democratic activists still don’t get it. They don’t get that most people don’t have eternal patience for legal arguments; either they don’t get the legalese, or they don’t care because they’re bored. (One did; he asked how to boil it down to a question like: “Do you believe there is such a thing as a right to privacy?”)
Mostly, there’s that Democratic fixation with footnotes. Yes, I do understand the importance of the Commerce clause and what it means if Roberts becomes a member of the high court. But I also understand that to most people, it’s too complicated and they’d rather not think about it. What voters want, I suspect, is closer to the color commentary on Monday Night Football - someone to throw in a little analysis with the inside scoop.
Here’s how I would do it.
ANCHOR NO. 1: “That guy Roberts, he seems like a nice guy, right? But why won’t the White House release the records from when he worked for the solicitor general’s office? Sure seems like they’re hiding something.”
“And really, look at how those guys have either lied or played dumb over some pretty major snafus: the war, the WMDs, Katrina. Who’s to say Roberts isn’t another disaster? I hear big business has been pushing hard for him, too. Doesn’t seem like he’d be too good for people like us.
“Besides, this whole thing about him not ever having a controversial opinion on anything - who the hell are they kidding? What is this guy, Eddie Haskell? Nah, I’d rather have somebody who comes out and says what he means.”
Shorter version: They lied about everything else. Why should we believe them now?
Hey, maybe I’m wrong. But the Democratic consultant class, well, their batting average doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, does it?
Political color commentator–perfect! I think I do that every night while watching the news. Couldn’t we run c-span, dub some commentary over it and put it on the internet?
I skipped the conference call last night because I knew it would be like this. And I’m so fucking tired of clueless Dems. Can’t they hire a competent marketing director?
I was on that phone call. Too much emphasis on wonk and not enough on how a change in the court will affect individual people. People care about other people’s lives more than they care about judicial minutiae.
[...] Finally, Susie makes an important point about rhetorical strategy: Mostly, there’s that Democratic fixation with footnotes. Yes, I do understand the importance of the Commerce clause and what it means if Roberts becomes a member of the high court. But I also understand that to most people, it’s too complicated and they’d rather not think about it. What voters want, I suspect, is a closer to the color commentary on Monday Night Football – someone to throw in a little analysis with the inside scoop. [...]
What is so hard about opposing John Roberts? This is a guy who practically goes weepy over the rights of the executive, but when it comes to the rights of the people he can’t shut the courthouse door fast enough.
It really is possible to say this without getting lost in the intricacies of equal protection litigation.
I watched Robert’s short speech last night. He sounds good, but when I look at him the alarm goes off. His eyes too wide, his demeanor too earnest — experience tells me this is a liar.
If I were a Democratic senator I’d go on tv and ask what makes someone with only two years as a judge qualified to sit on the Supreme court, I’d also mention that we see how well appointing unqualified and inexperienced people to high office has worked for us in New Orleans.
That is what will get people’s attention. Point out that Bush nominates cronies and incompetents, and that it is important that we don’t just allow these people to have influence over our country without proof that they know what they are doing. Especially after Katrina, it’s the senates duty to make sure that hard questions are asked, AND ANSWERED.
That’s why we can’t afford to let them run our party. Too many in our party enjoy intellectual games, which is fine in the academic world, but doesn’t translate to the real world.
Donna in comment 7 explains well, a number of observations/questions that should be brought up. But to have an effect on the public at large, there needs to be a public media that does it job. Fix the media, and we might well have back our country. Look what they did with Katrina.