There's a lot of worthwhile outrage being directed at Senator Baucus for his loud declaration of support for the John Roberts nomination. (BooMan's rundown on this one pseudo-Democrat is a good one.)

But why so many all of the sudden? And why hardly a word about Leahy or Nelson, who also have declared their assenting intentions? Apparently there was another strategizing "conference call" with the NDN powers -- a call to which I was not invited this time, not surprisingly -- to blogswarm on Baucus. (And be sure to put his name in the title.)

Chris Bowers gets it right this time:

So, Leahy will vote for Roberts, after in his statement making a strong case against him. That's just fucking great. I'm not going to be eloquent on this one: get bent Senator Leahy.

I just hope in his own post-mortem analysis (which he apparently will not do publicly), he realizes that some of the very bloggers who've been villified for holding to "pet interests" (as Kos calls them) were on the Roberts case from Day One.

I'm not so sure he will. He cites Liberal Oasis' own judgment:

We can't be shocked that "plenty" of Senate Dems will vote for Roberts, because so little was done by liberal activists, pundits, bloggers, and politicians to create the conditions for a strong opposition.

If that doesn't change the next time around, we will badly lose again.

Perhaps it would be impolite of me to note that many of the bloggers crying their disappointment in bloggers and activists for not doing enough were the same ones who were berating feminist bloggers for coming out so strongly against Roberts in the first place.

I applaud the efforts to get the message out. I just wonder at the seemingly arbitrary target selection. And I can't help but chalk this up to more instructions-on-high dynamics being gamed upon the netroots. If these players of insider baseball did a little more listening, and a little less talking, they might learn something. Might.

Chris' closing note, though, gets to the heart of the issue:

It is amazing that even when he is at 40%, we still can't mount a credible opposition to Bush and modern conservatism, otherwise known as whatever Bush does today.

The reason is because the Democrats still, even now, don't seem to stand for anything in particular, and seem to sit for everything in general. Look at the Democrats' own poll ratings for a little context. People are fed up WITH EVERYONE. And Democrat voters are especially fed up with soft-on-principle behavior of their elected leaders, such as this all-too-typical behavior of Senator Baucus -- typical behavior for many Democratic politicians -- typical behavior that many of today's blogswarmers have been excusing as "differences of opinion" oh so very recently.

There was an UPROAR over the filibuster debacle yet certain persons in control of librul bullhorns called it a "victory" that LIEberman tied the hands of the Democratic Party... that is when Roberts fate was decided not today or yesteday.

Then there was an all out frontal attack "NOT" on Roberts or the GOP but * on NARAL* that engulfed the entire blogsphere by harboring on petty discrepancies of one NARAL endorsement witout regards to the decades of work they have done.

Combine that with a withering attacks in the blogosphere of anyone daring to make pro-choice "a litmus test"... or any single issue that Roberts is going to destroy...ie civil rights etc.

Then in the end a half hearted attempt to "lead" the rebellion on Roberts... on the matter of privacy.

Worth reading the whole thing. With boldface type and everything!

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.