Au contraire - defeat is not an option. Apres Bork, came Kennedy. Race alone led Clarence Thomas to the Court (to replace Marshall), or else there would have been another Souter put up.

If Bush nominates Brown, he will need to fight harder than ever, even without appearing to. A loss on her means even Alberto Gonzales wouldn't get through (imagine Voinovich, the Maine sisters, Specter, and perhaps Hagel folding on any 'conservative' nominee). The same is true for Jones, Luttig, Wilkinson, Dinh, or Estrada.

I want to see the dems fillibuster - the public has never seen an actual fillibuster (in the context of modern "instant" media).

It will be entertaining and show them to be the obstructionist morons they are. Vid clips of Ted Kennedy reading the D.C. phone book into the congressional record will circle the globe in seconds and he'd become the poster boy for "Stuck on stupid".

Here is a positive, if not normative, rule for predicting how Democratic officeholders will act: If given a choice, Democratic officeholders will act as if their purpose is to keep blacks poor, ill-educated and alienated from the mainstream culture.

David:

Very good. In a slightly different context, what percentage of the "thousands" of protestors in D.C. yesterday was black? My guess is probably 2% (or less). The hard left today is less educated and more monochrome than it was 30 years ago. As Lou might say, progress!

I'd actually go the other way -- nominate Jones first, and let the Democrats and their allies spend their money and their rhetorical energies on her. Then if she's defeated, come back with Brown and put the onus on Kennedy, Schumer and the others to have to do it all over again, this time not only to a woman but to a woman of color, as Rev. Jackson might say.

Even if they did have the strength to defeat Brown, that would still leave Batchelder, and if Teddy has the strength at his age to sink three women in a span of only 3-4 months (and with his past record of sinking and/or plunging into other women), he's more formidable than I've ever given him credit for being.

The Democrats will surely try to filibuster, because they prefer duplicity to straightforwardness, and distrust the moderate Republicans. So whoever Bush nominates, he needs someone who will age well before the public. But at the same time, Bush needs to back up his nominees with some muscle, and shut down some New Deal/Great Society programs if he doesn't get his nominee approved.

"Democrats will attack and may be able to defeat her, making it nearly impossible for them to stop whoever he'd name next"

Didn't work for Nixon. He nominated Clement Haynesworth who was defeated. Then Harold Carswell (mediocre, being his only selling point) who was also defeated. He had to settle for Blackmun

Didn't work for Reagan. He nominated Bork who was rejected. The he nominated Douglas (pothead) Ginsburg who was rejected. He had to settle for Kennedy.

Ginsburg wasn't defeated and Nixon faced a Democratic Senate.

Once the Democrats "win", they get momentum and gain strength.

Then Schumer would get all feisty and punch the air as he elbows his way to the TV camera. Kennedy might momentarily wake up and speak in complete sentences. Biden will of course make even a bigger *ss of himself.

Having won one they can fold on the next and would.

OJ:

Defeat is not an option. When Bush sends up a name, he will fight for whoever it is in the last ditch if necessary. His fundamental belief is that you gain political capital by winning fights-- just like poker, you get all of your chips back if you win, plus you get all of your opponents' chips to add to your stack. There was an article a year or so ago on the blog The American Thinker recounting Bush's expertise (considerable) at poker while he was in the Yale MBA program based on a classmate's recollections that bears out the contention that Bush has consistently followed this strategy. (Written before the ill timed (so it now appears, but perhaps to early to tell) move to reform social security.

That said, I do not think Bush will back off, but I doubt he would go so far as to pick Brown-- maybe jsut let it be known she was on the final short list. If he sends up a woman, I think it will be Owen simply because she is a known quantity and has Bush's trust, but more likely it will be McConnell, who, like Roberts, is overqualified.

Why, pray tell, are you trusting that they would fold "later"? If Brown or Luttig or Jones got through with 52, 53, or even 55 votes, the next one (to replace Stevens or Ginsburg) would be a fait accompli, no? And if Specter cannot continue as chair, the situation will even be better. Imagine Sessions or Kyl yanking Schumer and Kennedy's leash.

Offering up a sacrificial candidate is a bad idea.

The boot needs to be kept firmly on the Democrat throat.

jim:

Folks like the WIs, the ARs, Chaffee, etc.--they'd be able to throw one bone to the Left, but can't risk being perceived as actually pro-Left as regards the judiciary.

Dan:

It's always an option and not a bad one for a Machiavelli. We just don't happen to think he's who his critics say he is.

OJ:

Isn't it far more likely that the sob sister Republicans (Voinovich, ME, Chafee, Hagel) would be emboldened over stopping a Bush nominee and then each morph into their own version of a mini-Jeffords?

No. They get the favorable editorials about being reasonable and then kowtow to the party.