Polite politics

I'm back and catching up on all the John Roberts scuttle. Here's Jeffrey Feldman at Frameshop (emphasis mine):

With the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, President Bush has trapped Democrats in the frame of "polite politics."

With the exception of Chris Bowers over at MyDD.com, Democrats all over the place are voicing the same argument: let's be polite until we learn more.

Think about this: Why do we believe it is impolite to aggressively question the nominee of George W. Bush?

Bowers points out that Roberts has only been a justice for two years but has been a partisan GOP hack for 20 years - and that Bush is treating the highest court in the land like a backwater ambassadorship.

Feldman goes on to explain why the "polite" frame is so damaging for Democrats, why Roberts is worth opposing, and how we might break out of their frame. He notes in closing:

This is not about yelling or being angry. George W. Bush has shown time and time again that he believes the purpose of government is to obey the will of the President. And he has nominated and promoted those individuals who have proven their loyalty to the President by obeying even the most questionable requests.

America deserves a Supreme Court justice who obeys the Constitution, not a Justice who obeys the President.

This politeness issue (or "speak moderately" or "don't give offense") keeps coming up and it really gets my attention. More soon.