Dems in sticky position

I rarely blog on issues at the national-level, but I can't resist commenting on the latest conundrum for Senate Democrats.

Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement from the Supreme Court helps to put Senate Democrats in yet another sticky position. It's the opportunity Bush Co. has been waiting for. Bush's prospective appointee is likely to be a fanatic right-winger. If the Dems filibuster they will be called obstructionists, while if they don't, they will once again disappoint their base.

Of course, they arrived in this position of their own feeble-minded accord. The "deal" they struck earlier in the year illustrated the Dems continual downward spiral of giving up their power. They've lost seats over the past 5 years and there's little doubt that the Bush Admin. will use this opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice as a wedge to win more seats in 2006.

So, what should the Democrats do? And why should a Green care?

I'd like to say that Democrats need to have a knock-down, drag-out battle over this seat. I'd like to say that, but I suspect they won't. They're too afraid to lead.

Greens, on the other hand, would have little problem compromising on this important appointmet. While there aren't any Green senators (yet), we know that Bush's appointment, whoever it might be, will fall politically far from our own values. Alberto Gonzalez, for example, was the author of the "Torture Memo," which pushed the envolope on what constitutes legal torture.

If the Dems fail to put up a good fight, yet again disappointing their progressive base, the Greens should welcome those who are disappointed. Hey, elect Greens, fight the power and change the system! It's that simple.