PeterDavid.net

With all the talk of Rehnquist retiring, I was stunned to hear it was O'Connor, a moderate. This doesn't bode well.

Oh, and I think Bush and crew are going to their homework, and make certain this is a dyed-in the wool right-winger. More than any other administration before them, they owe everything to the radical (especially religious) right, and they do not want to see that money dry up.

Yes, this is potentially a very scary time. As you say, we have to hope that open-minded candidates somehow make it in, as happened with David Souter. Souter, appointed by Bush Sr., has a reputation for thinking through cases and ruling based on what he truthfully thinks is prescribed by law in each case, regardless of his personal politcal beliefs or how the Republican Party would like him to rule. The Party wasn't too pleased with Souter, which led to Clarence Thomas as the next H.W. Bush appointee, iirc.

I'm not optimistic. I'm betting the nominee will either be John "civil liberties are helping the terrorists" Ashcroft or Alberto "torture memo" Gonzales.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050701/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_short_list

this is a link to some of the possibles...and it don't look good.
here isone says about the Warren court:

"The Warren Court "extravagantly assumed the power to dictate new 'rights' not expressly stated in the Constitution and in so doing foisted its philosophical vision on the United States with consequences far beyond the Court's imagining," EDITH HOLLAN JONES

We have one other hope - a hardline conservative who vows to overturn Roe v. Wade would have a real chance of sending Kennedy, who is, with O'Connor gone, the most moderate of the conservative judges, considerably more to the left.

I don't believe that, in the wake of McConnell and Raich and Kelo that you still have the gall to be worried about "conservative judges". Remind me when your "liberal judges" have bothered to uphold the Constitution as written?

Out of all those listed as possible replacements in that article...the most moderate appears to be Alberto Gonzales. I know I'm basing this on the very little that was written in that article. He'll be attacked for the torture memo, and I'm shocked I'm saying this, but he might still be the best choice to find another swing justice. Out of those listed, there may be others not listed.

You all have nothing to worry about. Every Supreme Court justice ever put on the bench immediately starts moving to the left.

It'll just be fun to see the hysteria on Capital Hill for any judge with a hint of "right wingedness" to him get compared to Hitler for the next two months or more. Ted Kennedy has already said that any judge sent up to the Senate will be subject to a thorough investigation that will dig up dirt on him or her eventually.

Yeah, that sounds like the Democrats are looking to play fair...

"Every Supreme Court justice ever put on the bench immediately starts moving to the left."

Yeah, but from what I see, they have a long way to go before any of them are even middle of the road.

If Rehnquist, Scalia or Thomas have moved to the left, then they must have been to the right of Genghis Khan when they were nominated.

(OK, slight hyperbole there. But I didn't use the H-word)

How do you define fair? Supreme Court justices are basically chosen for life..or until they decide to retire. How the constitution is interpreted can have a huge influence on the direction of our country. The background of every nominee should be heavily investigated.

For example, if we had a Democrat for President right now...I'd suspect some complaints if Sen Robert Byrd were a nominee. And they would be valid, even though they have nothing to do with his ability to be a justice, and he has long since disassociated himself from his actions as a youth.

You have to wonder if Reinquist and O'Conner talked about this ahead of time. While we tend to classify each judge along the lines of how liberal or conservative they are, I'd bet they get along a lot better than we suspect. Maybe we're in for a string of retirements as the judges react to how the confirmation process goes and who wades through it to get the appointment.

Geesh, sounding a little conspiracy theory there... sorry.

John: You have to admit that the liberal hijinks of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas have just been way over the top.

I mentioned this before in the "Misdirection" thread but it bears repeating:

This is a godsend to the Bush camp. If Renquist had stepped down, there wouldn't have been as great a hullaballo since his (almost certainly hard-right) replacement would not have changed the balance of the SCOTUS. But with swing-vote moderate O'Connor being replaced, this becomes Karl Rove's wet dream. Not only will the inevitable partisan bickering and posturing energize the theocon base that Bush and the GOP rely on, but it will also put the Iraq Conflict on the back burner, conveniently allowing the stench of it to lessen and giving Bush time to try and save his fast-dwindling political capital.

Bear in mind, O'Connor isn't stepping down until her replacement is named. The retirement announcement was a gift to the president she helped put in office, cynically timed to take attention away from... fill in the blanks yourself...

I strongly suspect that Scalia turned out to be a major disappointment to the Republican Right. Turns out he's a staunch Constitutionalist in many of his decisions....and although I don't always agree with him I've found him to be a MUCH better Justice than I'd feared. I can always agree with, or at least put up with, a strict constitutionalist....

Bork, bork bork.

Seriously, I expect the Democrats to be every bit as respectful to a jurist who may be politically on the other side as the republicans were to Ruth Bader Ginsberg (confirmed by a 97-3 vote. So much for Republicans having a litmus test on abortion. I'm sure the Democrats will be equally...ok, ok, I'm still not being serious).

This should be a good fight. Bush is perceived as having slipped in the polls (so have the Democrats according to their own polling). Could be an opportunity for both sides. Ginzales would cause the Democrats trouble--can they afford to piss off the hispanic vote? Can they afford to roll over and piss off the base?

Have we all forgotten how terrible the left was when Thomas was nominated? They accused him of every thing short of murder. It is going to be a hard road for anyone that Bush nominates.

Don't count on Alberto Gonzalez being named - if he is named and confirmed, he will have to recuse himself on any number of issues that will come up in the next few years, simply because he will have worked on them for the Justice Department. Same for Ashcroft. Of course, appointments are for life, and sooner or later that effect will wear off. But it will greatly lessen their effectiveness for the first few years,at least.

With the way the Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans have stalled Bush's other judicial nominees, you can bet there will be resistance to anyone Bush nominates, regardless of substance.

Peter, Peter, Peter, the answer is obvious:

Rehnquist will retire, leaving TWO slots for Bush to satisfy both major political parties with:

A conservative and an ARCH-conservative.

See? Simple. What could be more fair and balanced?

-- Ken from Chicago

P.S. Peter, take solace in the words of two wise men (or maybe they are wise guys): "The only thing protecting us from their evil is their incompetence."--Penn and Teller (okay, they were not talking about politicians, merely the TSA's "efforts" in securing the nation against terrorists, or at least slowing them down, or make them pause on the way to catch their breath).

With the way the Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans have stalled Bush's other judicial nominees, you can bet there will be resistance to anyone Bush nominates, regardless of substance.

If Democrat and liberal/moderate Republicans have stalled some nominees (at a rate that's far lower than some previous presidents), then it raisies the question: why should they be confirmed if they're generating such broad opposition?

Yeah, that sounds like the Democrats are looking to play fair...

Does anybody play fair in politics?

I don't remember the Republicans telling the Swift Boat Veterans to cut their campaign to dig up dirt during the last election...

How the constitution is interpreted can have a huge influence on the direction of our country.

Yep. They say that about the most important thing a president can do while in office is to appoint federal judges.

And, iirc, something like 80% of all current federal judges are Republican-appointes... including all those damned 'activist' ones.

Which means, I can only hope that maybe, just maybe, a more traditional conservative gets appointed, and then the Republicans & neocons can be disappointed by the results later.

But Bush will go for a true neocon, and once that happens, the 'nuclear option' won't be far behind.

Ginzales would cause the Democrats trouble--can they afford to piss off the hispanic vote? Can they afford to roll over and piss off the base?

I remember that as soon as Condi Rice was nominated, and the comments about her started, the race card was issued... quietly, for the most part, but it was still there.

I remember that as soon as Condi Rice was nominated, and the comments about her started, the race card was issued... quietly, for the most part, but it was still there.

I don't think many republicans think that the Black vote is much up for grabs...black Republicans can be demonized by Democrats with little fear of political cost.

Hispanics are a whole other matter. Imagine a pro-life Hispanic going down in flames because of a position that most Hispanics have...could be costly to a party that can ill afford the loss of the fastest growing segment of America.

The thing is, there is absolutely no way to avoid a fight. groups on both sides have been raising money for a fight and a fight is what they will have. Now if Bush were clever he would do what was done with Scalia--nominate someone who is shot down over some minor thing--hired a nanny without a green card, smoked pot, whatever--and then, after his opponents are clapping each other on the back for their "victory", nominate someone waaaaaay to the right and watch him sail through a congress that is too exhausted from the last fight to do it again.

(Note--I'm not saying that the Scalia chain of events was deliberate...but if I were in charge I'd sure try to see if I could nudge events in a favorable direction. At the very least, nominate someone who is is really no great ideologue so that when the inevitable demonizing begins it will begin to look like partisan bullying and the next guy, who may well be more deserving of such abuse, will be facing an opposition that is well spent and has probably earned the contempt of the vast majority of voters who are sick to death of the whole thing.

Not that anyone has asked me to run any countries lately, but I'm just saying....

Dubya could just draw a pentagram on the floor of the Oval Office and conjure up a replacement
Scotus Demon....

Hispanics are a whole other matter.

Well, obviously - at one point, Bush was considering that general amnesty for all the illegals.

Yeah, that would win him a few million votes he wouldn't otherwise have. :(

Btw, I saw this link posted elsewhere earlier: a
Flash file about the Bush Administration lies on WMD in Iraq.

It's in their own words, btw.

"Not that anyone has asked me to run any countries lately, but I'm just saying...."

And with a Machiavellian mind like that, I hope they don't.
the problem with your idea though, is that the Senate might well be able to pull together to fight the second, insanely conservative choice.
what I would do is hit em with two CRAZY, wild-eyed nutjobs (Think Jerry Falwell, but a LOT more conservative.) and one very conservative guy, but not as crazy-go-nuts. Also, they would have some dirt in the past, while Curtai....I mean Canidate #3 would be squeaky clean. So here you got two nut-jobs, who routinely get stalked by squirrels, and who have some "issue." Then you have some, nice, soft spoken
gentleman who is Mr. Clean. Who do you choose?
It is all a matter of perspective.

"The retirement announcement was a gift to the president she helped put in office, cynically timed to take attention away from... fill in the blanks yourself..."

I must be dense. What does this draw attention away from? And why was it timed for the beginning of a holiday weekend news cycle if it had some nefarious, distracting intent? Oh, and if it's a "gift" as you say, wouldn't it have made more sense to give it during Bush's first term? And isn't it just maybe possibly possible that a 75-year-old judge is stepping down primarily because she's 75?

What does this draw attention away from?

Iraq?

Oh, and if it's a "gift" as you say, wouldn't it have made more sense to give it during Bush's first term?

No, because the Republicans weren't threatening the 'nuclear option' in the first term.

No, if she wanted to "give a gift" to Bush, she'd have retired right away, rather than delay her resignation until her successor is not only named, but confirmed. What she's actually done is to give his opponents some breathing room - no danger of SCOTUS shutting down during debate over the next Justice...

I guess I have to object to PAD's characterization of Bush as an extreme right-wing president. I am politically conservative and don't regard Bush or the Republican party in general as being nearly as conservative as I would like. Bush is certainly not fiscally conservative. Anyway, exciting times ahead.

Dennis

I am politically conservative and don't regard Bush or the Republican party in general as being nearly as conservative as I would like.

This is why bush is considered extreme - he goes beyond the traditional conservative.

Whether this actually still makes him a conservative is something that other conservatives & Republicans would have to answer, because Republican votes gave Bush a 2nd term.

But then, this is why Bush gets the term 'neocon' - a whackjob of a conservative who ignores the traditional values, yet manages to somehow keep the support of his party.

"I am politically conservative and don't regard Bush or the Republican party in general as being nearly as conservative as I would like. Bush is certainly not fiscally conservative."

I'd read that, actually. That there are many within the conservative party who are VERY unhappy with Bush because they believe his extremist views are a betrayal of conservatism. Then again, they should have been tipped off the moment he and his pals went running to the Supreme Court, asking them to interfere in the 2000 election when the Florida SC was handling it. True conservatives, so I understand, favor the states handling such matters, not the judiciary on the Federal level.

PAD

Frankly, after the liberal side of the judges just ruled in favor of local governments seizing private property for the use of private companies, I can't see a primarily conservative Court doing a much worse job.

True conservatives, so I understand, favor the states handling such matters, not the judiciary on the Federal level.

And true liberals - who don't mind federal intervention on that scale - would accept the ruling rather than bring it up again and again. :)

Seriously, my layman's view of the legal issues at the time was the the Florida Supreme Court made a bad decision that was based more on gut feeling than law (and the CJ said as much in his dissent), and the US Supreme Court made an equally bad decision that was too much of a stretch of the equal protection arguments. What I really expected from the SCOTUS was to send the case back to the Florida SC and instruct them how to rule. Instead two bad decisions gave the result that should have happened to begin with.

As far as this nomination goes, I expect that Bush will appoint someone a bit further to the right than O'Connor, but not the 100% strict constructionist type.

"And true liberals - who don't mind federal intervention on that scale - would accept the ruling rather than bring it up again and again."

Right, right...because conservatives have an unstinting record of accepting SC rulings they disagree with rather than bringing it up again and again *koff* Roe v. Wade *koff*.

"Seriously, my layman's view of the legal issues at the time was the the Florida Supreme Court made a bad decision that was based more on gut feeling than law"

There was a fascinating article written by an attorney at the time the ruling came out which dissected the court's ruling. The ruling was so self-contradictory that what it came down to was that the Florida SC was screwed no matter what. There was literally no decision the Florida SC could have made that would have been acceptable under the Fed SC ruling. It was constructed, not to make the most proper ruling under law or to determine the will of the people, but to put Bush in office, period.

PAD

Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America nicely debunked the SC ruling, and showed how the Florida ruling was the correct one.

One pretty funny comment in the July 8th issue of The Week regarding the recent rulings of religious symbols in courtrooms: "[The rulings are] proof that President Bush needs to fill future Supreme Court vacancies with true coservatives, said The Washington Times in an editorial. The current court, dominated by liberal secularists, has taken yet another step "toward the banishing of relgion from the public square."

The current court is dominated by LIBERAL SECULARISTS?????????? LOL.

I have a question right before I go on vacation for a week: Could Bush nominate a slate of say three judges and just see who made it through the appproval process? I don't remember my Constitutional details enough to know if he can essentially run a three-pronged front or not to shock and awe those who have try and research each nominee's background. It'd be like judicial three-card monty. I'll try and check back to see the answer, but since the cousins I'm staying with think I've been tainted by my social service coworkers and am a left-wing nutjob because I don't listen to Rush every single damn day, I imagine reading this site might cause a familial implosion.

I hope everyone has a great holiday. Following this site and the variety of views that are represented here makes me realize how lucky we all really are. See you in a week or so.

I personally don't care if the next Supreme Court Justice is Liberal or Conservative as long as they actually uphold the constitution. I mean O'Connor was a moderate Conservastive. Having an extremist on either side can be dangerous as long as the nominee realizes that in their position they have a duty to uphold the constitution and not enforce their "party's" views. Of course as a gay man I don't a Falwellesque nominee who will take away my rights either...

Scotus. I always used to laugh when I saw Scotus in my associated press editing assignments. Looks like the name of a particularly virulent disease, huh?

Aww, he's got Scotus.

Jason,

I don't believe your "Shock and Awe" scenario would be legal for President Bush to do. He can announce to Senate (or the world) that he's got a Short List with whatever number of people that he feels appropriate, but my memory tells me that the Constitution says that he appoints a Judge and the the Senate goes through "advice and consent." He can't send three canidates through, because only one can get the job and more than one might get the Senate's consent. I can imagine a scenario where the President would float various names by members of the Senate to see how they'd fly, but once a the President formally submits the name to the Senate, I'm not sure even the President can stop the process. Justices of the Supreme Court are not part of the Executive Branch, afterall. At some point the President loses his control over them. And thank God for that.

P.S. I thank God that ALL Presidents lose former power over the Supreme Court, not just George W. Bush.

"And true liberals - who don't mind federal intervention on that scale - would accept the ruling rather than bring it up again and again."

Right, right...because conservatives have an unstinting record of accepting SC rulings they disagree with rather than bringing it up again and again *koff* Roe v. Wade *koff*.

Thank God for those, on any side of the political divide, who are willing to keep fighting for what they believe is right, even if the Supreme Court has rulled otherwise. Dred Scott anyone? Plessy vs Ferguson? Godzilla vs Biollante?

As opposed to, say, Nancy Pelosi on the awful Kelo decision, making one of the dumbest statements any politician has said in the last few days:

It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.

Almost as if God...yow.

PAD,

Nice to know not much has changed here while I was out of the country.

I can remember the "hype" when Clinton was President. He did nominate a very liberal candidate, Ruth B. Gingsberg (sorry, didn't look up the spelling). Somehow she made it onto the court. As did other Clinton nominees for Supreme Court Justices. But guess it is not fair when a Republican is elected that he can exercise his constitutionally appointed duty to choose the candidate, especially when the evil Republicans have a majority in both houses.

The court should not have this much power. They should uphold and protect the consitutuion, not be writing laws out of nothing (which is what happened with Roe v. Wade. Yes, that is my opinion of what happened, just as you think otherwise. That is the whole point in electing a president -- to have the ability to appoint the judges who should know how to correctly interpret -- not write -- the law and the constitution.

to satisfy supporters who don't believe in the separation of church and state

I do believe in the separation of church and state, but that never meant the two could not coexist or have an impact on the other. The problem is, when you get to morality, it transcends both religion and philosophy. You can't write a law out of nothing. Morality has roots in religion, and that does not make a given law wrong (or right). The fact that the Bible (as one of many religious sources) says murder and false witness and homosexuality are all wrong does not mean we cannot also have a law that upholds these valuses, nor does it mean we are wrong if we do not. All 3 can be argued for other reasons and do not solely lie in the practice of a religion. Keeping the Sabbath, for example, falls much more under the label of an act of worship of a specific "god" (though clearly the lines are never as cut and dry as we would like).

Bottom line, the country will survive Bush being president. I guarantee that women will not be forced next year to return to back alley abortions, and no one will be forced to convert to any given religion. I am sure some of you won't believe me, but the end of the world has not arrived quite yet (at least not from Bush appointing at leas one Supreme Court Justice).

Iowa Jim

Since the election decision was brought up, there's a detail about that decision that I've always felt has been underexposed. Namely, there were two major components to that decision, and only one of them was 5-4.

The first question the Court addressed was whether Florida's multiple standards for recounting votes violated the Equal Protection Clause (as TheOtherBlogger mentioned above). This is what the news talked a lot about at the time, since a ballot that was acceptable in one county could be deemed unacceptable in another.

The Court declared that this did violate Equal Protection, and they did so on a 7-2 vote. Only Stevens and Ginsburg dissented on that.

The 5-4 vote dealt with the deadline for Florida to finish its recount. The majority cited a statute that put the deadline at December 12. The dissent said that since that was just hours after the Court released its decision, then the Court was effectively ending the recount, and said that Florida should be extended a few extra days before the electors met on December 18.

Here's more about the decision.

Luigi, you know you're quoting an editorial from a paper that was owned by the Moonies, right?

With the way the Democrats and liberal/moderate Republicans have stalled Bush's other judicial nominees, you can bet there will be resistance to anyone Bush nominates, regardless of substance.

Yeah, those bastards in Congress, what were they thinking, only letting 90% of Bush's nominees get confirmed? Don't they know that questioning Bush's choices hurts our troops?

Then again, the GOP didn't have to filibuster Clinton's nominees. They just refused to vote on them.

Actually, Ginsberg (and Breyer) were compromise candidates. Kevin Drum has reprinted a couple of paragraphs of Orrin Hatch's autobiography on his blog, in which Hatch says that Clinton was leaning toward Bruce Babbit, and Hatch suggested Ginsberg and Breyer to avaoid a house fight.

Drum closes his post by saying: "If George Bush calls up Patrick Leahy and agrees to nominate the candidate that Leahy recommends, Democrats will guarantee a quick and painless confirmation."

Seems fair to me.

// Morality has roots in religion, //

Morality does not have it "roots" in religion. (This is one of the greatest lies the religious right has spread over the years). It's possible to be moral without being religious, conversly it's possible to be religious without being moral. The two really have nothing to do with one another. From a historical perspective, there are parts of the world that did not have what we would now call religion way back when, yet somehow the people living in those parts of the world came up with some of the same basic rules that many would have you belive did not exist till Moses came off the mountain with his commandments. Rules such as Don't kill, don't steal, be nice to others, etc. Morality existed before mordern religion, (or at least before it came to certain parts of the globe).

"If George Bush calls up Patrick Leahy and agrees to nominate the candidate that Leahy recommends, Democrats will guarantee a quick and painless confirmation."

What is the likelihood that Leahy will, as Hatch did, recommend someone who shares the president's view on issues like abortion?

Bush might nominate that woman who just got confirmed to the court of appeals. She's black so if things get ugly it will look like the Democrats really have it out for black candidates to the Supreme Court--at the very least it would help to keep Kennedy and Grand Kleagle Byrd somewhat muted.

Iowa Jim wrote:

"Nice to know not much has changed here while I was out of the country."

Oh, is THAT what happened? Because I, for one, noticed your absence during the one big change, the advent of X-Ray. Funny how as soon as Iowa Jim disappeared, the epitome of rude, close-minded, and mostly useless conservative postings showed up; and the instant he disappears, his opposite number, one of this site's pillars of thoughtful, open-minded, and respectful conservative postings, returns ....

Admit it, Jim - have you been drinking the Jeckel and Hyde juice? ;)

And Bill - it's interesting that you assume the Democrats are less likely to act with integrity if approached about a suggestion of a nominee, as I would strongly assume that of the Republicans .... (For the record, while I am pro-choice, I'm more concerned that Bush appointees will try to enforce pro-censorship, pro-one-national-religion - and possibly even pro-Republican Party - legislation .... Here's hoping it won't come to that, even with the very lopsided "balance" of power we have right now ....)

"Thank God for those, on any side of the political divide, who are willing to keep fighting for what they believe is right, even if the Supreme Court has rulled otherwise. Dred Scott anyone? Plessy vs Ferguson? Godzilla vs Biollante?"

Yes, let's keep fighting for what we believe, as you say - what's your stand on a real controversy, then, Godzilla vs. Megalon? :)

Small point re Bush sending up three nominees for O'Connor's seat: technically, he could do it, because nothing in the Constitution says that the Supremes have to be nine (cf. FDR and efforts at 'court packing'). All three could be confirmed...

"Godzilla vs. Megalon?"

Don't forget the cloning case: "Godzilla Vs. Mechagodzilla".
or the paternity case: "Son Of Godzilla".
or the ecology case: "Godzilla vs Smog Monster".

or the REAL cold war story: "Godzilla and Mothra Battle for Earth".

Actually, he couldn't just send up three nominees. The Constitution says that Congress sets the number of justices, so first he'd have to convince them to add two additional seats, and then he'd nominate Gonzales, Ashcroft, and Rove.

Bush might nominate that woman who just got confirmed to the court of appeals. She's black so if things get ugly it will look like the Democrats really have it out for black candidates to the Supreme Court.

Isn't funny how the GOP is always on the warpath against people who complain about racism, but just as quick as anyone else to play the race card when it suits them? If you take the accusations of sexual harassment against Thomas seriously, you're a racist. Question the competence of Condi "We can't let the smoking gun be mushroom cloud" Rice? You're a racist. Think that regular, working class blacks face harder barriers in education and employment, than whites? You're playing class warfare.

Actually, the present size of the Supreme Court was established at 9 by the Judiciary Act of 1869 (16 Stat. 44). The size of the Court varied from 6 to 10 through the 19th Century, starting with 6, then being increased to 7 in 1807; in 1837, 2 more were added to bring the total to 9, where it remained until 1863 when a 10th seat was added. In 1866, the Judicial Circuits Act was passed and signed by Pres Johnson which called for the reduction of the Court by three members as justices retired. The Circuits Act was negated when the Judiciary Act of 1869 was passed.
Now, whether the post-Civil War's "Radical Republicans" intended the Judicial Circuits Act as a deliberate way to strip Johnson of being able to nominate any Justices during his term is a bit hard to prove, the timing of the Judiciary Act being passed after a new Republican president had been inaugurated does seem more than coincidental. Interestingly, FDR's plan to "pack the court" was only initiated out of political frustration over the Court's decisions against some of the New Deal programs, yet FDR's own party members (who occupied HUGE majorities of BOTH Houses of Congress--75 out of 96 Senators and 333 out of 435 Representatives) felt the attempt violated the separation of powers. What was so crucial was that while FDR backed down with his plan, the Court which had seemed to have an anti-FDR agenda also became more conciliatory towards FDR's programs.

There was a fascinating article written by an attorney at the time the ruling came out which dissected the court's ruling. The ruling was so self-contradictory that what it came down to was that the Florida SC was screwed no matter what. There was literally no decision the Florida SC could have made that would have been acceptable under the Fed SC ruling. It was constructed, not to make the most proper ruling under law or to determine the will of the people, but to put Bush in office, period.

I agree. However, the FSC's ruling was the same way. I'll admit that I was rooting for Bush over Gore, but every decision until the FSC made sense to me based on what was being portrayed as the problematic set of Florida laws covering recounts. The lower court rulings that went for Gore made sense, so did the ones for Bush. However, when the FSC ruled to start the counts again, there was no legal basis for it - they just wanted it to happen. By the same token, the SCOTUS didn't have a leg to stand on either - they just wanted it to happen. It was one of the few times where two wrongs made a right. The unfortunate thing about it is that there's now two bad case decisions on the books. Ideally, the SCOTUS could have sent the case back to the FSC and told them how to rule, but they have no authority over Florida law, so they found a creative way to get the result that probably should have happened.

"And Bill - it's interesting that you assume the Democrats are less likely to act with integrity if approached about a suggestion of a nominee, as I would strongly assume that of the Republicans ...."

I just don't think that the Democrats can afford to anger their base by not putting up a huge fight, fair or not. I think the Republicans would probably do the same thing in their position. If Ginsberg were nominated today by a Democrat president she would not get 90+ votes, in my opinion. The process has become much more politicized.

" what's your stand on a real controversy, then, Godzilla vs. Megalon?"

Please...do I even have to say it? Megalon is a giant cockroach from the sunken city of Seatopia while Godzilla is King of the Monsters. Shit, BAMBI put up a better fight!

Now the seminal case of Man and Superman vs the Mole People now THAT was really something...

"Isn't funny how the GOP is always on the warpath against people who complain about racism, but just as quick as anyone else to play the race card when it suits them? If you take the accusations of sexual harassment against Thomas seriously, you're a racist. Question the competence of Condi "We can't let the smoking gun be mushroom cloud" Rice? You're a racist. Think that regular, working class blacks face harder barriers in education and employment, than whites? You're playing class warfare."

Well, duh. They'd be crazy not to fight back with the same kind of rhetoric. One man's hypocrisy is another man's hoisting them up by their own petard. (What's a petard? And does being hoisted up by it hurt as much as I think it would?)

Since hearing this news, my nightmares have been haunted by three little words:

AHGAHD! Make it stop! Make it stop!

"Mister Justice Ashcroft"

Mr. Justice Rove.

or Mr Justice Cheney.

Brrrrrrr....

"Frankly, after the liberal side of the judges just ruled in favor of local governments seizing private property for the use of private companies,"

Someone did this to Justice Souter. They claimed the Justice's property, and they are going to put up the Lost Freedom Hotel. I believe that the ruling is that you can seize it, but you have to promise that you will provide more tax dollars.
Alas, I have no HTML skills, so here is the site....
http://www.freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
Further, on the actual next Justice, I don't care what their political affiliation is, I want a Strict Constitutionalist in there. Much damage has been done by loose constructionist, much less by a strict interpritation. As long as we stick with what Madison gave us, we are sitting pretty. I don't think Bush will appoint one though. I think that the only issue is going to be; will they overturn Roe V. Wade? I mean, he doesn't have to worry about being reelected, so now he is looking to leave a legacy. Thus far, It looks like the only "legacy" he is leaving is a shattered Iraq, a distinct and growing hatred for America all over the world, and what could almost be seen as a return to Manifest Destiny. So he wants to do something big, that will endear him to a lot of people. What better to please the Jerry Falwells of this world (not to mention their millions of Cult worshippers) then to strike down abortion? All the people he cares about, the right wing, conservative, Religious Right types, would be turning cartwheels.

Mr. Carter...How can you claim to support a "Strict Constitutionalist" and then worryingly comment on the prospect of overturning Roe v Wade? Substantive Due Process, on whice Roe v Wade was based, is a complete fabrication of the court. IMHO, it is crap. Although it wouldn't bother me if the Constitution had a clause that specifically addressed laws thate were arbitrary and capricious, it doesn't. If Roe v Wade were based on the Ninth, or on Equal Protection grounds (it can be plausibly argued that anti-abortion laws are directly discriminatory to women), then I would be much more supportive of the decision.

And I'll reiterate my original post, particularly in light of the comments on this thread after it. It is shocking how many people are willing to swallow the freedom suppressing decisions of McConnell and Raich and Kelo on the grounds that "well, at least we'll have liberal judges to protect Roe v Wade and a conservative supported theocracy". I suggest that everyone read Radley Balko's latest column. (FYI - Don't write off Radley just because he is published in Fox. If you do, then you don't know Radley.)

The thing is, a "strict constructionist" would not intervene in a case about state law that had no compelling federal interest just because the GOP can use the issue to pander to the extreme right wingnut faction. A real "strict constructionist" would not try to apply the Interstate Commerce clause to pot grown in California, sold in California, and used in California (point of fact: I'm against legalizing pot). A real "strict constructionist" would have ruled that the Constitution says that the House of Representatives is the final arbitrator in disputed presidential elections, not the courts.

If the neocons even met a true strict constructionist, they'd run away from him screaming.

Interestingly enough, conservatives are now attacking Alberto "torture memos" Gonzales for being too liberal.

God help us.

Oh, is THAT what happened? Because I, for one, noticed your absence during the one big change, the advent of X-Ray. Funny how as soon as Iowa Jim disappeared, the epitome of rude, close-minded, and mostly useless conservative postings showed up; and the instant he disappears, his opposite number, one of this site's pillars of thoughtful, open-minded, and respectful conservative postings, returns ....

Actually, go back and check the archives. I posted my problems with X-Ray. PAD even mentioned that if someone as right wing as myself had a problem with X-Ray, he was really out there.

So unless I got a dose of gamma radiation in Eastern Europe that I was not aware of, I don't think my "alter ego" was at work.

Iowa Jim

Morality does not have it "roots" in religion... It's possible to be moral without being religious, conversly it's possible to be religious without being moral. The two really have nothing to do with one another. ... Morality existed before mordern religion, (or at least before it came to certain parts of the globe).

As far back as we have a clear record of human civilization, we have a record of people worshipping, of them exercising religious faith. In fact, it is the one clear action that distintguishes humans from any other animal. So it is not a stretch to say morality has its roots in religion.

I did not mean to imply, however, that one must be religious to have morals. There are some very moral people who are strong atheists, and there are some very horrible people who belong to a religious faith. We agree on this point.

My point is simply that to try to say a law is wrong simply because it coincides with a given religious belief system is absurd. I do not want laws written simply because they agree with the Bible or the Koran or any other religious writing. But neither do I want to see someone denied the right to sit on a court simply because they believe in a given religion and agree with its basic tenets. Take abortion, for example. Yes, my religious beliefs play a role. But so does my common sense. There are people who believe abortion is wrong based on reasons other than the Bible or a given religion.

On the other hand, take matters such as eating pork. Some Jews and Muslims believe it is a sin. However, this is a personal religious belief, and I would not make it a national law that we all eat kosher meals.

Obviously, some of these matters are not as easy to define. But to deny a religious person a seat on a court, or to call someone an extremist simply because they hold a moral view on a matter such as being pro-life, is wrong.

Iowa Jim

Interestingly enough, conservatives are now attacking Alberto "torture memos" Gonzales for being too liberal.

Oh, they've been attacking him since he was nominated by Bush for Attorney General.

I found this in an article on CNN.com from last November:

"More conservative Republicans, however, have found some of Gonzales' relatively moderate votes on the Texas Supreme court troubling, including a majority vote not requiring some teenage girls to get parental permission for an abortion.

In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote, "While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."

This is funny. The Liberal section of the court just steamroled over property rights yet you're bashing Bush for going conservative.

Whatever....

Iowa Jim wrote:

"Actually, go back and check the archives. I posted my problems with X-Ray. PAD even mentioned that if someone as right wing as myself had a problem with X-Ray, he was really out there.

So unless I got a dose of gamma radiation in Eastern Europe that I was not aware of, I don't think my "alter ego" was at work."

OOPS. Sorry, sir. I did go back and check out the archives, and see that you are, of course, entirely correct. (Nice - and site-appropriate - joke, btw.) It turns out I had actually missed most of the second half of the "Lies, Damned Lies ..." thread, in fact. May've decided it was too long too read at the particular time, and just forgot to get caught up .... At any rate, at some point in the past week or two, when "X-Ry" was talking about being the only conservative in the sea of liberals here, I thought of the prominent (and much more civilized) conservative regulars here, and noticed your (at that point) absence, which led to my little note yesterday, upon your return (good trip?).

Still, I'm glad I made my little jest-post (and hope I didn't offend you by in any way associating your name with that kid, even in fun), since it led to me reading some interesting and amusing stuff which I'd previously missed.

Luigi Novi wrote, at the end of the "Lies" thread, that he thought "genius" level IQ began at 120; my understanding was that it began at 140 (although I wouldn't mind if he were right, in that all three of my IQ test scores would suddenly put me at "genius" level ... ;) ). [I was a quiet kid in school, so they tested me a lot ....]

And I got to read Jerome Maida agreeing with Bladestar "100%"(!), about X-Ray, and Patrick Calloway's reaction:

"Wow.

Ok, is there still time to buy apocalypse insurance?"

So, thanks for referring me back there :)

One concern which a lot of us have is that the Bush Administration "conservatives" tend to wish to increase governmental restrictions over the people and over the states - among other things, on freedom of expression, freedom to worship (or not to) .... Bush appointees may not end up being what traditional, less-government, conservatives may want, either (just as I haven't heard much of anyone happy with the result from the "liberal" wing regarding seizure of property). All conjecture at this early point.

As far as Alberto Gonzales - based SOLELY on the quote from him which Craig presents above, I would be all right with him being on the Court. If he truly would interpret each case based on Constitutionality and law, leaving aside any political biases/affiliations/loyalties, that would be the kind of candidate which I would hope any President, regardless of party, would nominate to the Court. Based on the sentiments of that quote ....

"If the neocons even met a true strict constructionist, they'd run away from him screaming."

Exactamundo. I was talking about an old-school, Jeffersonian type strict constructionist. As Den said, the Federal government shouldn't be messing with certain areas that are the domain of the state, which is the tenth amendment

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." IE If it is not specifically given to the government, they can't touch it.

The property rights debate falls under the Fifth amendment..."nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." IE you just can't yank someones land away. A Strict Constructionist would never have allowed either to come up....Roe wouldn't have been tried, and this last one would have been stricken down. DOes anybody know the exact name of this property rights case is? It would make it easier to reference it.

Kelo v. New London

Roe wouldn't have been tried

Oh, and I'd love to hear your reasoning behind that...

I keep hearing about how the Kelo decision is the result of the "liberal wing" of SCOTUS. I'd be interested to hear how one can break down the sociopolitical viewpoints of the justices. Especially, I'd like to know how one justifies referring to David Souter, in particular, as "liberal".

This is funny. The Liberal section of the court just steamroled over property rights yet you're bashing Bush for going conservative.

I don't agree with the Kelo decision, but how can you say it's the result of the "liberal" wing of SCOTUS when three out of the five justices in the majority ruling were Republican appointees?

In his opinion on the ruling, Gonzales wrote, "While the ramifications of such a law may be personally troubling to me as a parent, it is my obligation as a judge to impartially apply the laws of this state without imposing my moral view on the decisions of the legislature."

Well, that statement will sink his nomination. I still have some problems with his nomination, not just the torture memos but also his past as Bush's rubber stamp in the Texas death penalty machine.

Well, duh. They'd be crazy not to fight back with the same kind of rhetoric. One man's hypocrisy is another man's hoisting them up by their own petard.

See, for me, it's always hypocrisy no matter who practices it. Of course, lately, the GOP has raised it to a whole new level, like arguing that every one of a president's judicial nominees deserves an up or down vote, unless of course, that president was named Bill Clinton. Let's just be honest and up front. The GOP used what tools they had to sink those of Clinton's nominees they didn't like and the Democrats have been using the only tool (the filibuster) that they have available to them.

It's politics and politics have always been part of the judicial nominating process and always will be. To pretend otherwise is living in a fantasy land.

"Oh, and I'd love to hear your reasoning behind that..."

two words: States Rights. It was a state issue, that was never given to the Federal Government. This falls under the Jurisdiction of the states themselves according to the tenth anmendment. I dunno, I'm not a lawyer, but that is the way it reads to me. It is the responsibility of the several states to monitor and control all duties not directly given to the Federal government. These include voting, seatbelt laws, road repair, and logically, abortion. I am not stating an opinion, I am simply saying if the Judges (perhaps I indicated it was a single judge, sorry) or at least five of them had been strict Constructionists, then Roe couldn't have come to trial in SCOTUS. They would have sent it back where it belongs, in the State courts.

1.) For those of you who are panicking, please remember that 7 of the 9 current justices have been picked by Republican presidents, yet this Court has struck down laws against sodomy, upheld affirmative action in the Michigan case and has not come close to reversong Roe v. Wade. In fact, it was Bush the Father's pick of Souter, when social conservatives felt they had a real shot to overturn Roe, that helped doom him in 1992.

2.) For those like Craig who see this - and probably the way the grass grows - as part of a conspiracy to divert attention from Iraq, will you please get a clue already? I'll even send you some money so you can buy one. Honestly, not everything is about Iraq.

3.) Oh, and the same goes for those who seem to feel that Cheney or Rove would be serious choices. Do you have any idea how picking a Supreme Court justice is selected, or do you just enjoy spouting nonsense. No, there are about nine - perhaps fewer - on Bush's shortlist. Try reading a paper sometime. It's really not that difficult.

4.) Even if O'Connor AND Rehnquist both leave and are replaced by Scalia clones, Roe still won't be overturned. The Court is currently 6-3 in favor of upholding Roe. So another liberal/moderate would have to leave and be replaced by a conservative for that to happen.
Truthfully, after Kennedy, O'Connor and Souter, I will believe Roe will be overturned when it happens.
Not impossible given the age of the justices (especially Stevens), but not a slam dunk either.

5.) It would be political suicide for Bush to pick Gonzales. They're friends, but his hearings would bring up the subject of torture, which is the last thing Bush wants in the forefront I would think. Liberals would hate him, and conservatives would feel betrayed, since they feel he is not conservative enough on issues like abortion.

6.) Oh, and black conservatives are attacked in a way that, say, Charlie Rangel never is. Democrats, the NAACP and most of the media feel "real" blacks are still supposed to sing "We Shall Overcome" and blame racism for their problems. So those that HAVE overcome, like Thomas and Rice, shatter the image of blacks being either angry or docile victims. For this, they get attacked viciously.

7.) It's amusing that many of the same people who have disdain for religion and attack Evangelicals for focusing on social issues are obsessed about Roe. It's even more amusing that they don't see the irony.

2.) For those like Craig who see this - and probably the way the grass grows - as part of a conspiracy to divert attention from Iraq, will you please get a clue already? I'll even send you some money so you can buy one. Honestly, not everything is about Iraq.

Geez, you're fucking thick, Jerome. maybe you should save that money for yourself - you need more than a few clues.

I didn't call this a conspiracy. I called it damned fucking convenient for the Bush Administration.

Or do I need to spell it out in even plainer English for you?

Try reading a paper sometime.

Try pulling your head out of your ass and quit playing "The Republican is always right".

5.) It would be political suicide for Bush to pick Gonzales.

Oh, like Bush gives a damn about that at this point in time.

For one, Bush will just go back, like the Republicans before him, and live the private life. While, you know, those evil Democratic presidents continue to do things with their time to help the world.

Second, Gonzales is a logical choice because the Administration could easily trump up the fact that Gonzales was confirmed as AG, so how could the Democrats refuse to make him a SCJ?

So those that HAVE overcome, like Thomas and Rice, shatter the image of blacks being either angry or docile victims. For this, they get attacked viciously.

While others, such as Colin Powell, become nothing more than people for the Bush Administration to abuse along the way to a major fuckup (ie, Iraq).

"I didn't call this a conspiracy. I called it damned fucking convenient for the Bush Administration."

When, in your view of the world, would it NOT have been so? When would the resignation of a Supreme Court Justice NOT have crowded other news off of the front pages for a day or so? Should any septuagenarian considering retiring from the Court wait until a truly slow news day to make her announcement?

Morality has roots in religion,

That isn't necessarily the case. There are numerous moral systems which are not grounded in religion or metaphysics. Regardless, our LAW is not grounded on religion. Murder is not illegal because God Says So, but because our legal system recognizes life as an inalienable right, and that allowing people to violate such a right is incompatible with a free and stable society.

Should any septuagenarian considering retiring from the Court wait until a truly slow news day to make her announcement?

Sure, maybe a time when US soldiers aren't dying on a daily basis in a war we should never have gotten ourselves into.

Ie, Iraq.

Yeah, she should ignore her husband's failing health and his needs and wait until the war is over to step down. Yeah, that makes sense!

There is nothing 'convenient' or 'conspiratorial' about it!

>Yeah, she should ignore her husband's failing health and his needs and wait until the war is over to step down. Yeah, that makes sense!

It is wonderful that she is in a position to retire from her job in order to be with him.

There is nothing 'convenient' or 'conspiratorial' about it!

You may be misunderstanding the point. If an elderly woman is in the situation of being on a crowded bus and has to stand due to all seats being occupied, a passenger getting off of the bus, allowing her to sit is certainly opening up an opportunity for her even though this was not the passenger's intent. It is convenient for the woman that this passenger just left the bus. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that O'Conner is manipulating the situation or doing anything short of choosing to be with the man she loves, nor is anyone saying that this man's poor health is a good/horrific/manipulated scenerio.

The situation does allow Bush an opportunity to place at least 1 justice (Most likely 2) in the Court. This is a huge deal.

There was a fascinating article written by an attorney at the time the ruling came out which dissected the court's ruling. The ruling was so self-contradictory that what it came down to was that the Florida SC was screwed no matter what. There was literally no decision the Florida SC could have made that would have been acceptable under the Fed SC ruling. It was constructed, not to make the most proper ruling under law or to determine the will of the people, but to put Bush in office, period.

Actually, there was a really interesting article on Findlaw a few years back (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20020709.html) about that issue. The synopsis was that, however surprising it might have been to see the "liberal" justices voting for state's rights and the "conservative" justices voting for Federal intervention in Bush v Gore, it was downright stunning to see the same breakdown on the same principle a year and a half later.

Right, right...because conservatives have an unstinting record of accepting SC rulings they disagree with rather than bringing it up again and again *koff* Roe v. Wade *koff*.

Look, I'm pro-choice, but that doesn't change the fact that the Roe v Wade opinion was an utter piece of crap. (That's the technical legal term for "written product supported by neither the law nor logic." Seriously, it's turtles all the way down.) It's also worth noting that Roe hasn't been good law since 1992 anyway; it's important now only in rhetoric. However, considering that Casey adopted much of Roe's logic, it's not misplaced rhetoric.

This thread and another recent one that developed into a debate on gay marriage raise an issue that constantly worries me in our public discourse: Far, far too many of our most fundamental governmental debates are being carried out through litigation rather than through the political process. And if the counter-argument is that it's too important to leave to the people, because the majority opinion is too hidebound, I don't care. We don't have a nation such as ours because it's efficient, although as it happens a capitalist democracy turns out to be a very good society in which to live, but we have it because it's right. Even if the majority is going to do stupid things from time to time, like elect Bill Clinton or demand high governmental spending concurrently with low taxes, those are the people's mistakes to make. The Senate and the President are elected to make policy decisions themselves, not to select the Justices who will make these decisions. If the decisions they make are sometimes reactionary and wrong, that's the price of living in a democracy. It's not too high a price to pay.

"Sure, maybe a time when US soldiers aren't dying on a daily basis in a war we should never have gotten ourselves into"

And you call ME thick? What is every other event in the world supposed to be put on hold - including retirements and deaths of Supreme Court justices when we haven't had a change in over ten years, the longest such period since the 1920s - so you can continue to spout "Bush Lied, Kids Died!"
Please grow up. If soldiers are dying on a daily basis, as you say, and have been, then it is only a matter of time before Democrats and the liberal media start obsessing about and external insurgency that doesn't reflect the will of the Iraqi people, Guantanomo and Gitmo. Then you'll be happy, or as close to it as you can come.

Fred,
"You may be misunderstanding the point...I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that O'Conner is manipulating the situation"

Oh really? Maybe you should read some of the previous posts then, such as Elayne Riggs' who said:

"The retirement announcement was a gift to the president she helped put in office, cynically timed to take attention away from...fill in the blanks yourself"

What part of "cynically timed to take attention away from" is ambiguous? And you really should know how to spell O'Connor. She's only the subject of the thread.

This is beyond amusing, but most of the people who see a conspiracy in this are the same ones who felt the reason O'Connor "put Bush in office" was because she wanted to retire four years ago and therefore had a conflict of interest.
What selective amnesia develops when these nonsensical charges don't pan out.

I have to say, I also see nothing conspiratorial about it. I'm willing to acknowledge that sometimes things just happen when they happen. However, Conservatives really don't have any moral high ground to cry foul when people comment on the convenient timing to draw attention away from Iraq, considering they didn't hesitate to ascribe "distraction" motives to anything Clinton did during the entire impeachment fiasco. Any move he made, any actions he took here or overseas, conservative pundits howled, "He's just trying to make us forget Monica!"

So if conservatives don't like the sauce for the goose, maybe they should give some serious thought to changing the selections on the menu.

PAD

I'll go one better, PAD. Remember all those "how convenient" comments on talk radio when one of the key Whitewater witnesses died of a heart attack?

As for the timing of O'Conner's retirement, there were people who reported hearing her complain the night of the 2000 election that if Gore won, she wouldn't be able to retire for another 4-8 years. That raises questions of her impartiality in Bush v. Gore. Only she can say whether she decided to delay retirement until after the 2004 election to duck those accusations. Personally, I doubt it, but the perception is still there for people to exploit.

However, Conservatives really don't have any moral high ground to cry foul when people comment on the convenient timing to draw attention away from Iraq, considering they didn't hesitate to ascribe "distraction" motives to anything Clinton did during the entire impeachment fiasco. Any move he made, any actions he took here or overseas, conservative pundits howled, "He's just trying to make us forget Monica!"

So the other guy started it. Is that any reason to be unreasonable? Much of the left has become what the right was during the Clinton years and, like them, have lost much of their effectiveness. I'm not surprised that it happened but I am surprised that they don't seem to see it. (Someone once said that the party in power becomes corrupt and the party out of power becomes insane. It's getting hard to argue with that.)

Conservatives are not monolithic Not all of them acted as you describe. Do THEY have the moral high ground?

And one could also make the claim that some of what Clinton did could, arguably, be deliberate distraction, while such claims over Justice O'Connor's retirement don't make any sense. It's not as goofy as the moonbats who thought that the tsunami was somehow a created distraction but it's getting close.

Much of the left has become what the right was during the Clinton years and, like them, have lost much of their effectiveness.

The funny thing is, the right has now become everything that they said the left was in 1994: Corrupt, power-hungry, arrogant, caring only for special interests, etc.

It's called politics. I'm against anyone who abuses power. Right now, that's the conversatives.

Yeah but how smart would it be for the left to NOT act crazy and then, when the Republicans fall under the weight of their own corruption, be able to sweep into power? Instead, they will be restricted by the self made baggage of their own craziness. The best hope any Supreme Court pick Bush sends up is the liklihood that the MoveOn types will over react and do such an obvious smear job that fair minded people will be appalled and the backlash will get them in.

Now since I personally don't trust the left with the big issues this is okey dokey with me but if they were to change their tactics and show some smarts in all this it would go a long way toward convincing people like me to change our views. Don't see it happening though--if anthing, it seems as though liberals actually believe that their leaders haven't been sufficiantly extremist.

And you call ME thick?

Yes, and I'll repeat it: you're thick.

And speaking of somebody trying to claim the moral high ground...

Please grow up.

Please deal with the facts.

What part of "cynically timed to take attention away from" is ambiguous?

How about the part that mentions a conspiracy... oh, wait, it doesn't mention a conspiracy! How about that!

But, last I checked, being a cynic doesn't automatically mean that everything done is a conspiracy.

It's a simple fact: anything that can distract the ignorant in this country from the bs going on in Iraq is a good thing for Bush.

Unless you want more if his bumbling and stumbling every time somebody asks him how many more have to die for his war of revenge.

Bill, that's how politics works. Occasionally, you get some crooks in who are also competent enough to achieve some positive things. Right now, we have a bunch of crooks who are ineptly getting our soldiers killed.

As for which side wants their leaders to be more extreme, I'll let the margins debate that. I still consider myself a moderate even if right wingnut faction has driven me into the Democrats camp for the time being. Right now, I do think both parties are doing themselves more harm than good by pandering to their extreme factions. Polls are showing Bush's support dwindling, but the people don't trust the Democrats anymore. The time is right for another politician to emerge and champion a third way. There's a huge chunk of moderate voters (what Ann Coulter calls "idiot voters" - and you wonder why I can't support the right?) up for grabs in 2008 and the candidate who connects with them will win the election, not the one who tries to pander to the extreme left or right.

"Right now, I do think both parties are doing themselves more harm than good by pandering to their extreme factions. Polls are showing Bush's support dwindling, but the people don't trust the Democrats anymore."

See, this is where I see someone making a strong, third party thrust. When you end up with extremists on both sides, or when the people are sick of the parties they have,it is usually then that a third party can make a major push, like the Republicans in the 1850's, or the Populists in the 1890's. A third party that went after those moderates could make this a whole new ball game in a very little while, if only because both major parties would see the election slipping away, and suddenly focus on the middle.

A third party that went after those moderates could make this a whole new ball game in a very little while

The problem with a third party emerging has always been that, once the threat is introduced, the Big Two semi-work together to make the third party sound like an even bigger nut job than the Big Two.

Which, this time around, would have to be one helluva farking whackjob, because the Dems and Repubs both have really set themselves apart recently.

The one chance for a third party would be if you had two decent people from both sides who are perceived as people who have lost favor with the more extreme elements of their respective parties--say, a McCain/Lieberman ticket.

It might even work, though it would have little long term value--it seems like most third party tries are totally personality driven. The real value would be in how it might cause the Big Two to re-evaluate how they do things.

"So the other guy started it. Is that any reason to be unreasonable?"

Yes. Absolutely. Conservative pundits have hammered away nonstop at liberals for years, and framed the parameters of every major issue before the American public, usually in the most insulting and negative tones possible. Or, to quote Bruno in "West Wing":

(S)omebody came along and said liberal means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense. And we're going to tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun Leave it to Beaver trip back to the '50s'....We cowered in the corner and say, 'Please don't hurt me'."

No more. Fighting fire for fire, tit for tat, saurce for the goose, take your pick. But yeah, you bet your ass. Decades of trash talk, of distortion, of lies...and now Conservatives are crying out that LIBERALS are being unreasonable? Screw that. There's no point taking the high road when the people on the low road are firing bullshit at you with high powered cannons.

PAD

I loved that speech by Bruno. Sorkin at his best. I found it ironic when the actor - Ron Silver - spoke before the RNC last year and gave another good speech:

Even though I am a well-recognized liberal on many issues confronting our society today, I find it ironic that many human rights advocates and outspoken members of my own entertainment community are often on the front lines to protest repression, for which I applaud them but they are usually the first ones to oppose any use of force to take care of these horrors that they catalogue repeatedly.

It doesn't look like it has hurt his career too much, though, despite the stereotype of anti-conservative Hollywood.

And more to the point, after all those years of Clinton-bashing, conservatives now control all branches of government. So maybe there's something to their tactics.

"Conservative pundits have hammered away nonstop at liberals for years, and framed the parameters of every major issue before the American public, usually in the most insulting and negative tones possible."

You know who I wanna see run? Alan Sheppard, the President from Sorkin's movie "The American President" I would like to see the Sheppard he gave you at the END of the movie run. But seriously, they Democrats need to get a damn PPERSONALITY in the White House. FDR had personality. Johnson had personality. (and yes, I realize Johnson was a Democrat.) Hell, Clinton had personality. Kerry didn't. The Democrats should run a real fire-breather, someone who can give a speech like a mutha. (I am flashing back to some of Jed Bartlett's better speeches.) The only problem with getting a really good canidate is the whole convention process: no matter how good the canidates are going in, you end up with watered-down, BS spouting, won't-touch-an-issue-with-a-ten-foot-cattle-prod "canidates." On both sides. Which is why I wanna see Powell or McCain run. Or someone, ANYONE who can actually talk about real problems instead of spout party line BS, or run dirty, slander based campaigns.

Actually, I just realized the Campaign I wanted to see: Abe Lincoln V. Teddy Roosevelt. (Sounds like a good action movie too.)

There's no point taking the high road when the people on the low road are firing bullshit at you with high powered cannons.

Thus guaranteeing that things will never, ever get any better. Jed Bartlett would be ashamed. Hell, so would Bruno.

No more. Fighting fire for fire, tit for tat, saurce for the goose, take your pick. But yeah, you bet your ass. Decades of trash talk, of distortion, of lies...and now Conservatives are crying out that LIBERALS are being unreasonable? Screw that. There's no point taking the high road when the people on the low road are firing bullshit at you with high powered cannons.

I seriously think you underestimate the amount of bullshit flung by liberals in the past.

Personally, I don't think that deliberately taking the low road will work for liberals, expecially since the manner in which they seem to be going about it is by throwing out anyone who isn't sufficiantly angry and fanatical. Lieberman went in just 4 short years from being worthy of being a heartbeat away from the presidency to being considered by many in the party of being a Republican in Democrat's clothing. Meanwhile the Republicans have made moderates like Arnold and Rudi their poster boys. Yeah, they have the Santorums as well, but the GOP is still better positioned to call itself the party of ideological inclusion. And that will appeal to the independents, the ones that you need to win.

I don't see those folks responding well to the angry, take no prisoners, win by any means necessary Democrats. But we will see. There's always the very real possibility that the Republicans will make themselves so unappetizing that any alternative is viable but it says something about the left that their best hope seems to be either hoping for conditions to degrade or to simply do better at being corrupt and dishonest than their opponents are.

Me, I'll never say "Yes. Absolutely." to being unreasonable, even to score a few cheap political points. It's not worth the cost. And if I slip up and ignore reason out of passion or a desire for something to be true even though it obviously isn't, I'm sure someone will point it out to me and I'll take my deserved lumps.

Actually, rereading that last post it came across less tongue-in-cheek than I intended. Without being able to hear vocal intonations, "ashamed" has connotations that I didn't really mean and comes across as an attack rather than a gentle dig. To atone, I offer the following Television Without Pity images: http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=churchsign13qk.jpg
http://img72.imageshack.us/my.php?image=churchsign63xz.jpg

That said, I really don't think sinking to the bad guys' level is really good for either the opposition party or the nation in general. If you think it's wrong, it's wrong when you do it too.

That is an excellent quote, PAD. Every time I hear it, it seems so strong, and so accurate. The Democratc Party does need to find a way to stand up for itself, to take back the definitions. I would prefer if it didn't sink to the dirty, snarky, nasty, insubstantial level of many of the Republicans, however. Are the people stupid enough to be swayed by these tactics a large enough bloc for a side to control the country? Let's hope not.

Meanwhile the Republicans have made moderates like Arnold and Rudi their poster boys.

After reading "It's My Party, Too" I have to laugh at this statement. Sure, the GOP likes to trot the moderates out to make people think they're not ALL a bunch right wingnut looney tunes, but these same moderates are hated and despised by the very people they've pledged their loyalty too. Maybe it's because I live in Pennsylvania and have seen first hand how the far right have tried to destroy moderate republicans like Arlen Specter that I find it hard to believe in the big tent theory of republicanism anymore.

but the GOP is still better positioned to call itself the party of ideological inclusion.

Ha, yeah, the party whose base is rallying against Alberto Gonzales because he hasn't done enough to convince them that he's committed to overturning Roe v. Wade.

"Sure, the GOP likes to trot the moderates out to make people think they're not ALL a bunch right wingnut looney tunes, but these same moderates are hated and despised by the very people they've pledged their loyalty too."

Den, with all respect. Bull.

There is the old idea that there may be a very vocal minority, but the majority is usually quiet and moderate. Like Buckley supporters. Yes, Ann Coulter sells more books, but she doesn't sway as many people. Like Andrew Sheppard says at the end of "The American President:"

"You gather a group, of middle-age, middle-class, middle-income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values, and character,"

Well, that shows a low opinion of the American people. I have always stood with Lewis on this one.

"People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand."

The American people are smart, and for years, politicians have been treating them like they are stupid, like they are sheep who have to be carefully hearded down certain alleys, and that they will follow you blindly.

Well, they won't. They will turn around and bite you in the ass if you don't tell them the truth. Nixon found that out, so did Reagan and Clinton. Bush is too. What the American people are looking for is a LEADER; Republican or Democrat. You notice how low Bushes numbers are? He was elected with what? 51, 52%? Now he is in what? the low 30's? Obviously some people don't like it anymore. The people who support him now are those who listen to Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, and it looks like that number is getting lower. at least 20% of that 51% were the people who were hoping, BEGGING, that they would get a president who was a leader. They thought they had one, and now they find out they were wrong. And they are turning on him. His numbers are almost free-falling. It doesn't matter to him, but he is screwing over his party. All the people who kept quiet, who were hoping things would get better...all of them are slowly slipping away from Bush. They people you talk about who are laughing at the moderates? They aren't jeering 'cause they speak for a majority. They are jeering 'cause they are all thats left.

And those Moderates? They are hoping they can bring the Republican party back to what it was, back to a moderate, sensible group that actually got stuff done. And all the evidence that you need that I am right is Bushes falling numbers.

Nixon found that out, so did Reagan and Clinton

What, exactly, did Clinton find out, outside of the fact he shouldn't shag ugly interns in the Oval Office?

Is there really any doubt that, if he could run again, Clinton wouldn't win in a landslide?

That his approval rating wouldn't be far better than Bush's?

Maybe it's the fact that, looking at some articles online, all recent presidents (since Carter) have had hindsight on their side - their approval ratings increased after they left office.
Although, Clinton's average was on par with Reagan's. And as I've said in the past, Reagan was pretty much a teflon president anyways.

"What, exactly, did Clinton find out, outside of the fact he shouldn't shag ugly interns in the Oval Office?

Is there really any doubt that, if he could run again, Clinton wouldn't win in a landslide?

That his approval rating wouldn't be far better than Bush's?"

I agree about the numbers, but there was a great deal of public recrimination against his actions. I wasn't refering solely to numbers, but also to the public backlash. And, I think that he really helped the Rep. cast the Dem. as this kind of degenerate party who doesn't care about family values, and is all about destroying the "American way of life" ie, some kinda "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle that the rep. think we had. He may have been a good president, but he didn't do much for his or the party's reputation.

I agree about the numbers, but there was a great deal of public recrimination against his actions. I wasn't refering solely to numbers, but also to the public backlash.

I think the public backlash, in the wake of what Bush has done, was actually quite minimal.

I think most people... sane people... realize what a crock it was that millions were wasted on that investigation into Clinton.

People *should* realize that the whole thing was a con to try and get Clinton out of office. There's nothing like trying to get rid of the popular ones...

And, I think that he really helped the Rep. cast the Dem. as this kind of degenerate party who doesn't care about family values

Which is all bullshit spin on the part of Republicans, because there are any number of them that are no better (Newt Gingrich comes to mind).

People *should* realize that the whole thing was a con to try and get Clinton out of office.

Just because you like him? Sure they should, that really flies!

And it is not a matter of comparing one man's indiscretion against another, but Newt aside, most of the Right is filled with people who are trying to overcome their mistakes instead of lying about them or relishing them.

"...most of the Right is filled with people who are trying to overcome their mistakes instead of lying about them or relishing them."

You mean like Rep. Randy Cunningham (R-North San Diego County), who bought a small yacht for $200,000, then sold it for $600,000 to someone who knew it wasn't seaworthy, but who needed help looking into getting a Presidential pardon for bid-rigging? And who later used a mortgage company owned by that man's nephew to purchase a home in Del Mar for $1,000,000, only to have the second mortgage paid off by that man in lieu of the money for the boat? And who then sold the house for $1,400,000 to a defense contractor, who was later forced to sell it himself at a $700,000 loss? And who then moved onto a houseboat on the Potomac which is owned by that defense contractor (and named "The Duke-Stir", in Randy "Duke" Cunningham's honor)? All of which occurred while Cunningham was sitting on the House Intelligence Subcommittee and the House Defense Appropriations Committee? None of which behavior is even being regarded as particularly surprising by such Congressional cohorts as Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-El Cajon)?

Yep, sounds real clean to me...

"Right now, I do think both parties are doing themselves more harm than good by pandering to their extreme factions."

interesting. i really don't see the Democrats pandering to the extreme left. i don't think the extreme left really has a voice in this country.

we've gotten to a point where people like Howard Dean are being criticized for being extreme liberals. Howard Dean is just a loud moderate.

hell, i've heard people call Clinton an extreme liberal. in my opinion, he's the best Republican president since Eisenhower.

it's been argued that Nixon's 1960 platform was in many ways to the left of Gore's 2000 platform. i feel that political discourse in this country has moved very far to the right.

Yep, sounds real clean to me...

Of course, he's a Republican.

But then, Newt tried to hide his skeletons too. Tom DeLay, too, is now trying to bury his before somebody finds them.

most of the Right is filled with people who are trying to overcome their mistakes instead of lying about them or relishing them.

Oh please, the right is dominated by people who think that even admitting that you're not infallible is a sign of weakness.

There is the old idea that there may be a very vocal minority, but the majority is usually quiet and moderate.

I'm not talking about the rank and file. I'm talking about the people who are in control of the GOP right now and they are the extremists. No, they're not the majority, but they are in control. I don't know how long moderate republicans will put up with being dominated by the insane wingnut faction, but hopefully, they'll wake and take charge soon. Anyone who dreams of a Giulliani or McCain in '08 is doing just that, dreaming. It'll never happen. If you're not part of the neocon club, forget it.

Den,
"After reading 'It's My Party, Too' "

See, I love this. Christine Todd Whitman is an incompetent, bumbling phony. She's described as "moderate" by the press simply because she acts like a Democrat. The same "moderate" label is used for Specter, for the same reason. The main reason they are characterized by the press as "moderate", despite some conservative leanings, is because they are for abortion "rights". If they didn't, they would be carciatured by much of the press the way Republicans like Frist and Santorum are.
When somebody like Whitman appears, she is labeled by "The New York Times" and other major media as a "star". Funny how the media thinks they know better than average Republicans who their "stars" are. Whitman left office in disgrace, while there is a good chance Santorum will run for President in 2008 if he wins re-election over a tough opponent in 2006.
Gee, maybe he resonates with more people.

Santorum will be lucky to hold on to his Senate seat. He (like Bush) is sinking in the polls. Why? Because he's an asshole who tried to con a financially strapped school district into paying $100,000 to send his kids to a cyber-charter school.

The main reason they are characterized by the press as "moderate", despite some conservative leanings, is because they are for abortion "rights".

And here I thought they were moderate because, as stated earlier, any Republican left of Ann Coulter would be moderate these days. :)

I get the impression from Jerome's posts that he considers Coulter to be a moderate. :)

Seriously Jerome, thanks for proving my point about how much the far right of the GOP despises their "moderate" members.

Den,
No. Bill O'Reilly is a moderate. Ann Coulter is a strident conservative.
And I don't hate "moderates". I just find the double-standard amusing. Tim Lynch stated that the Democrats should throw out all "moderates" like Lieberman and that he couldn't stand the Clintons because of NAFTA, Defense of Marriage Act, etc. He also blasted Reid for being "anti-choice". So much for the Democrats' "big tent".
But the Deaniacs can say these things and it's "Oh, well they just want the Democratic Party to get back to it's roots."
It's only when Republicans want someone to stick to their party's principles that there is an uproar from the press and people who believe the way you do.
And you have yet to refute my point. Cite me one example of the press calling a pro-life Republican "moderate" and I will buy 5 copies of your favorite comic book to share with your friends:)
Conversely, as long as Clinton was staunch in his support of abortion rights, feminists looked the other way on repeated charges of sexual harassment and a credible charge of rape and Democrats kept their mouths shut as he signed NAFTA, GATT, Welfare Reform, weakened Kyoto, and enacted the Defense of Marriage Act.
Oh, and Dan Rather would actually categorize a charge of rape as his "personal sex life".
This of a man Michael Moore has called "The best Republican president we ever had."
Given this, I really am not concerned with labels or hoping the Republicans find more "mainstream" candidates. Bush I was far more "moderate" than Dubya or Reagan, and how did that help. It seems the people the elites - especially in the media deem as "electable" have a hell of a time winning elections.
And this spin that Bush needs to make his Supreme Court choice to "unite" the country is such pifflr it's almost like watching "Saturday Night Live" listening to all the democrats repeat the talking point. Unite the country? That's one of the criteria listed in the Constitution for picking a Supreme Court justice? Don't think so. The Democrats didn't seem terribly concerned about "uniting the country" when they made sure Robert Bork went down in flames and tried to torpedo the Clarence Thomas nomination? Yep, those hearings united the country:)
They cared about getting who they wanted so they would get the rulings they wanted, and that's exactly what Bush is going to do.

Bill "I need bodyguards becuase the Left is trying to kill me" O'Rielly is a moderate?

If you say so. Personally, I'd put him in the 'fruit loop' category, but to each his own...

I agree. O'Reilly is a conservative, although I will give him credit for saying that Coulter is over the line.

And Jerome, I could go back 20 years and list all of the character assassinations perpetrated by the right (starting with the Bushites spreading rumors that McCain is gay, that he had an illegitimate black daughter), but I doubt it would do anything to convince you. It's obvious that everything revolves around the issue of abortion for you. You see the Democrats as supporting anyone who is in favor of abortion rights and that's probably true to an extent. We'll see how much support Casey Jr (pro-life Democrat - yes, they exist) gets as he tries to unseat Santorum.

But I see the same thing going on in the GOP, where anyone who doesn't shamelessly pander to the extreme religious right is derided as a RINO and faces well-funded challengers in the primaries (again, see Arlen Specter). Hell, Bill "Gee, George, I don't know if tears can spread the AIDS virus" Frist has all but shredded the credibility he had as a physician by pandering to the anti-science crowd.

But hey, I know none of that will make any difference to you.

It's only when Republicans want someone to stick to their party's principles that there is an uproar from the press and people who believe the way you do.

Right, like Bush & Co. have stuck to the party principles...

The neocons threw away most of those principles 10 years ago... except their intolerance of abortion & gays. That's about the only things 'conservative' about the Bush Administration.

So what are the Republican principles of today?

From what I can tell, they can be summed up as:

Swagger around like you're a cowboy and own the entire world, especially if you were too chickenshit to serve in combat.

Hate gays and non-Christians, except Jews, so long as they stay in Israel.

The ends justifies the means. If the facts don't match your claims, change the facts. If they still don't match, change the justification and deny you ever made the original one.

Pander to the extreme end of the pro-life movement. If the facts later prove that the woman really was in a persistant vegetative state, deny you claimed she wasn't. And be an vindictive bastard and open a criminal investigation against the husband just because you're the governor and can.

"Whitman left office in disgrace, while there is a good chance Santorum will run for President in 2008 if he wins re-election over a tough opponent in 2006."

No way. I'll be amazed if he wins re-election and the Democrats would have to vote a real loser to make me ever want to support him.

"But I see the same thing going on in the GOP, where anyone who doesn't shamelessly pander to the extreme religious right is derided as a RINO and faces well-funded challengers in the primaries (again, see Arlen Specter)."

It's funny that Specter is trotted out as an example of how the republicans are purging the party of moderates when A- he was supported in his primary battle by Bush and even--yep--Santorum and B- He became the head of the Judiciary Committee. Some purge. Can I be purged like that? I could use the extra power.

"Anyone who dreams of a Giulliani or McCain in '08 is doing just that, dreaming. It'll never happen. If you're not part of the neocon club, forget it."

We'll see. If one of them does get the nomination watch how fast the left demonizes them as arch-conservatives. (And here's a tip--McCain at least really IS conservative).

" i don't think the extreme left really has a voice in this country."

Head on over to Moveon.org, DailyKos, and any one of a hundred leftist sites. There are good opinions to be found but a lot of real craziness as well. It's amazing how many Democrats want to throw Lieberman out of the party, for example.

"Is there really any doubt that, if he could run again, Clinton wouldn't win in a landslide?"

Which would be great for republicans--imagine another 52 seat gain in the House!

It's funny that Specter is trotted out as an example of how the republicans are purging the party of moderates when A- he was supported in his primary battle by Bush and even--yep--Santorum and B- He became the head of the Judiciary Committee. Some purge. Can I be purged like that? I could use the extra power.

How soon we forget that just seven months ago, the neocons were rallying to strip Specter of that committee chairmanship based on a single comment he made. Lucky for him that Senate seniority rules trump even the neocon agenda.

Yeah, Bush backed him last year, only because he saw the writing on the wall. The far right wackjob that ran against him in the primary would've gone down in flames in the general election.

Santorum though, is sinking fast. Unless Junior does something incredibly stupid, he will beat Santorum just with the Casey name.

Head on over to Moveon.org, DailyKos, and any one of a hundred leftist sites.

I can find a dozen websites dedicated to people who want to have sex with a goat while on fire, that doesn't mean those sites have any political clout.*

There are good opinions to be found but a lot of real craziness as well. It's amazing how many Democrats want to throw Lieberman out of the party, for example.

And on the conservative sites, you'll find many republicans who want to do the same to Specter, McCain, and all of the other RINOs.

*I'll give Jason Alexander credit for the sex with flaming goat joke.

Whitman left office in disgrace

I guess if you want to define "no longer wanting to rubber stamp Bush's hypocritical environmental policies" as disgrace.

"And on the conservative sites, you'll find many republicans who want to do the same to Specter, McCain, and all of the other RINOs."

You'll also find on these very same conservative sites that Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who they'd vote for, although they'd never vote for a Democrat.

"How soon we forget that just seven months ago, the neocons were rallying to strip Specter of that committee chairmanship based on a single comment he made. Lucky for him that Senate seniority rules trump even the neocon agenda."

Yet the point still stands--Specter was supported by the republican establishment and has gained power. Any spin you wish to put on it cannot change these facts.

"Head on over to Moveon.org, DailyKos, and any one of a hundred leftist sites."

I can find a dozen websites dedicated to people who want to have sex with a goat while on fire, that doesn't mean those sites have any political clout.*

You must be joking. Moveon spent some 21 million doallars--more than Emily's List and the AFL-CIO. I mean, come on. Reality based, remember? They are serious players. Though I will admit that some of the sex with enflamed goat sites are more entertaining.

"And on the conservative sites, you'll find many republicans who want to do the same to Specter, McCain, and all of the other RINOs."

Well, on SOME conservative sites, certainly...it just seems odder in the Lieberman case since, unlike the examples you give, he wast only 4 years ago considered worthy of the VP post.

"You'll also find on these very same conservative sites that Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who they'd vote for, although they'd never vote for a Democrat."

Nonsense. Two words. Zell Miller.

You'll also find on these very same conservative sites that Joe Lieberman is the only Democrat who they'd vote for, although they'd never vote for a Democrat.

you realize that statement is completely contradictory, right?

Yet the point still stands--Specter was supported by the republican establishment and has gained power. Any spin you wish to put on it cannot change these facts.

So, you're saying that the fact that he has survived several attempts to ruin him is proof those attempts never happened?

Riiiiiiight.

Moveon spent some 21 million doallars--more than Emily's List and the AFL-CIO. I mean, come on. Reality based, remember? They are serious players.

Reality: The GOP controls the White House, Congress, and the courts. If these sites have any clout at all, they must be hording it for the apocalypse.

So, you're saying that the fact that he has survived several attempts to ruin him is proof those attempts never happened?

Riiiiiiight.

No, but that would certainly be an easier argument to knock down.

I'm saying that it is not entirely logical to hold up Specter as some kind of martyr to the cause of republican moderation when, once again, the FACTS are that his conservative primary opponent was NOT supported by the President or even the other arch conservative Senator from Pennsylvania. And despite the fact that, yes, some conservatives did not want him in a position of power in teh Snate, he is now the chairman of the house judiciary committee and about to get major face time on TV. He's in a pretty enviable position. If he is an example of the power of the radical right I guess the moderates can sleep easily.

Reality: The GOP controls the White House, Congress, and the courts. If these sites have any clout at all, they must be hording it for the apocalypse.

Well, I didn't say they use their clout very effectively. But with the kind of money they are throwing around they certainly have access to power. They were a big part of Howard Dean getting the position he enjoys today.

Now if you want to say that clout is only enjoyed by those who are part of the party in power, well, ok. By that logic, the NRA had no clout during those magical two years of the Clinton presidency where Democrats controlled the House and Senate. The truth is that one can wield power even when one's side is in a waning period. The Democrats and those groups that support them are not helpless.

""And on the conservative sites, you'll find many republicans who want to do the same to Specter, McCain, and all of the other RINOs."

Well, on SOME conservative sites, certainly...it just seems odder in the Lieberman case since, unlike the examples you give, he wast only 4 years ago considered worthy of the VP post."

whereas McCain would never have had a shot at mounting a serious campaign, right?

and as for liberals having a voice, perhaps i should have said a voice in the party. i really see the Democratic leadership as being very firmly centrist, even right of center. i mean, having a moderate like Howard Dean as chair is considered radical.

you realize that statement is completely contradictory, right?

Thanks for pointing that out, Den. I never would have realized that.

Of course I realize that's completely contradictory.

Nonsense. Two words. Zell Miller.

Two problems:

A) Miller will never run again.

B) Miller's a Democrat (in name only, of course, but still the wrong name). They'd never vote for him.

You're also missing the point. Lieberman is one of the very few pro-Iraq war, pro-Israel hawks on the left side of the aisle.

Curse this 'submit' button, Bill. It is because of Lieberman's stances on the war and Israel that he enjoys this phantom support from the wingnuts. It isn't real support, mind you, but it allows them to say one good thing about a Democrat that is supposed to still be part of the party machinery.

[thick-headed idiot mode] The London bombings are just another convenient way to distract us from the Iraq war[/Craig J. Ries mode]

Two problems:

A) Miller will never run again.

B) Miller's a Democrat (in name only, of course, but still the wrong name). They'd never vote for him.

I didn't think that there was actually anychance of Miller running, I was only pointing out that the idea that Lieberman was the only Democrat that conservatives love was wrong. Miller is probably the one most loved. Miller could become a Republican tonight and be welcome; Lieberman much less so (Though he's be worth it just for the "neener neener neener" points).

"Lieberman is one of the very few pro-Iraq war, pro-Israel hawks on the left side of the aisle."

Well, there's also Hillary...

whereas McCain would never have had a shot at mounting a serious campaign, right?

I'm sorry indestructibleman (love the name by the way--one of my favorite low budget Lon Chaney Jr movies had the same name.) but I don't understand what you meant. Do you mean that McCain won't be able to mount a serious campaign for the 2008 election if he, as I suspect, attempts to do so? I've heard a number of people here say this and maybe I'm misreading the tea leaves but I think that McCain may have a far better chance than you're giving him.

It is because of Lieberman's stances on the war and Israel that he enjoys this phantom support from the wingnuts.

They're saying nice things about the guy because they agree with some of his opinions? The dastardly jackanapes! Is there no end to their evil?

Seriously, how old would Lieberman be in 2008? A McCaine/Lieberman Unity Party ticket...

Nice and productive, Ham-head. You win the prize for first disgusting use of a tragedy for petty purposes...

Be proud.

In light of douchebaggery and rectal haberdashery above and beyond the call of duty, Ham, I hereby dub thee X-ray II.

-Rex Hondo-

"The London bombings are just another convenient way to distract us from the Iraq war[/Craig J. Ries mo