To all the "anyone but" people and the "I will not vote if he/she gets the nomination" people..

[Minimus]

Please consider what could happen to the Supreme Court if a republican is elected in 2008.

This is all I ask.

[AndyA]

1. This is a no-brainer in my book.

Whoever the Dem candidate is, whether I like them or not, gets my vote come November 2008. Period. The consequences of another Republican in the White House are just too grim.

ANY DEMOCRAT, regardless of alive, dead, male, female, black, white, lunatic, or on life support, would be better than the best Republican.

[Jackpine Radical]

2. Nevertheless, I will not vote if either

Fred Thompson or Rudy Giuliani gets the Democratic nomination.

[Raven]

5. OK, me neither! n/t

[lutefisk]

11. What if Dick Cheney gets drafted as the Republican candidate?

How would Fred or Rudy look, then?

But seriously, I will have a very, very hard time voting for a candidate I neither support nor trust. I'm not sure I can do it.

[damntexdem]

33. Wait a minute -- Guliani IS a New Yorker ...

but Thompson only PLAYS one on TV!

[Hippo_Tron]

35. Hard to disagree with that sentiment sir

[Raven]

3. You nailed it! I think we are very fortunate to have such a good

group of Democratic candidates. I sent my out of Iraq now message with my vote in the NH primary and I will vote and work for the Democrat who gets the nomination. I might hold my nose while I do it, but I'll do it.

[ronnykmarshall]

4. Amen!

:yourock:

[AtomicKitten]

6. indeed

:thumbsup:

[Dawgs]

7. Even if it's Hillary?

Just kidding. I will hold my nose as well.

[welshTerrier2]

8. please consider the stagnation corporate-funded candidates will bring

that's all I ask ...

[Minimus]

9. I hear you and I understand but the SCOTUS situation scares the bejeebus out of me.

[welshTerrier2]

15. i hear you as well

don't think for a minute that some of us "wacky lefties" are stupid enough to not consider the "SCOTUS situation" ...

without writing my mile long post on the subject, my basic take is this:

we have pretty much reached the edge of the cliff. the US empire is facing imminent collapse. we might very well decline to being a third world nation. piled on top of this little catastrophe is the very real possibility that global warming will lead to the deaths of hundreds of millions of people all over the world. and if that's not enough to "scare the bejeebus out of you", and it damned well should, we have a government by the corporations, for the corporations and of the corporations.

we are being blackmailed over very, very REAL issues like the Supreme Court. the problem, though, is that we're being given a choice between corporate right-wing republicans and corporate left-wing Democrats. Neither will restore power to the people and get the fat cats out of the halls of our government. Neither will demand the radical changes we need to really address global warming. Neither will solve the health care crisis by taking the profit motive out of the system. Neither will dismantle the military-industrial complex that strangles many of the critically needed things we need to do for the American people like health care, education, and dignity in old age to name a few.

the corporate republicans are clearly much worse than the corporate Democrats. the problem is, the corporate Democrats "aren't good enough." this goes beyond politics now; we're talking about survival. it's time to stand up for what needs to be done. nothing needs to be "absolute." there should be plenty of room for compromise. to continue on with an entrenched corporate establishment, however, regardless of party, will not get us to where we need to go. at some point, even knowing what's at stake, we have to say no to the blackmailers.

[Totally Committed]

18. Amen.

I totally agree.

TC

[Minimus]

28. I agree with you but

I cannot go as far as not voting the D ticket (saying no to the blackmailers) knowing what is at stake.

Also, I did not mean to imply that some are too stupid to consider the SCOTUS situation. My post was meant to be a gentle reminder to those who may be caught up in the defense of the candidate they are supporting. As a Planned Parenthood activist and volunteer I felt I would be remiss if I did not.


P.S. I too am a "wacky leftie"

[welshTerrier2]

31. i respect your position completely

it was very similar to my position back in 2004. every year, every single year, we will be told how critical the current election is. we will be told why it's so important to "choose the lesser of the evils." the sad truth is, it's always true. it's true for the exact reasons you've cited.

the problem is, of course, when is the "right time" to push harder for change? if we're stuck with a system that protects the status quo, especially as we move closer and closer to the "cliffs", when do we stop going along? for the most part, we're stuck re-electing incumbents time after time after time. outsiders have very little chance. outsiders preaching radical change have no chance. does that mean we don't need radical change? does it mean we can survive without radical change?

Planned Parenthood is an interesting example. They do a great job fighting for women's health care and women's rights. The problem is, though, that the present profits-before-people system chews up women just as it chews up men. And what of the women who get no health care at all because our national wealth is way over-committed to the military-industrial complex? That won't change by electing certain Democrats. And what about the effect of war on women and children in other countries? Do only American women gain your focus? I don't criticize your sharp focus on the SC one iota. But what about the quarter of a million innocent children who died as a direct result of the sanctions bush I and Democrat Bill Clinton imposed on Iraq? Their policies killed hundreds of thousands of children!! When do we get to say NO MORE to that?

And now you have Hillary and Obama and too many other Democrats beating the war drums about Iran. Obama's legislation is calling for sanctions and Hillary, not to be outdone, is unwilling to "take any option off the table." Does Tehran have a branch of Planned Parenthood? I'll bet they wouldn't be too happy with US imposed sanctions if they did.

I sure don't have all the answers. And I sure as hell understand where you're coming from. In fact, I have a ton of respect for where you're coming from. It's sad, if you look at most of the other posts in this thread, that a meaningful dialog on DU becomes almost impossible. All we're left with, most of the time, is noise.

[windbreeze]

53. WOW....seems there are a lot more of us getting to this point...n/t

[durrrty libby]

10. Oh please. There will always be people to bite their nose to spite

their face.

You can not reason with them. Fuck'm.



Edit to add

" But I will not knowingly vote for a loser again. Hillary is a loser just like Bill."


I.Rest.My.Case

[Fresh_Start]

12. As voters we have to have standards, we cannot

accept any candidate.

Imagine if you will, Lieberman as the dem candidate.
Nonetheless, in spite of the large field of candidates, more than half of them are so highly unlikely that there's no harm/no foul involved in 'anyone but-ting' those candidates. They are like my Lieberman strawman so unlikely that an 'anyone but' comment is purely positioning and not actionable.

Now those voters that are anyone but'ting one of the dems likely candidates should ask themselves what exactly seperates them for the "Bush voters" in 2000 and 2004 who voted against the opposition because it was the opposition rather than voting for the best man/woman for the job.

[Totally Committed]

13. Then, maybe you'll all help lobby our Party to nominate a candidate all can vote for?

Seems simple enough.

A candidate that will represent ALL the people, not the Corporations would be nice. A candidate that would fight for the civil and himan rights of ALL Americans would be nice. A candidate who would get us single-payer universal healthcare would be nice. A candidate who would opt for peace over war, and conservation over wars for oil would be nice. A candidate who would do everything in his/her power to stop global warming, decimation of The Constitution, and the encroachment of Church upon State would be nice.

Want us all to support the Democratic Canidate? Help us nominate a real populist, humanist Democrat we can ALL vote for.

Otherwise, it's not going to matter about the Supreme Court or anything. This will be a fascist country no matter which side wins.

It's just my opinion, though, so take it for what it's worth.

TC

[Minimus]

25. Believe me - I would love to have a candidate as you described and

I do quite a bit of "lobbying" by writing, calling, LTTEs, etc. Unfortunately it doesn't appear anything will change before the next Presidential election and I just hate to think of republicans getting the opportunity to appoint more justices to the SCOTUS.

What is one to do while trying to effect changes in our political system? There are no easy answers.

[GeorgeGist]

14. Peace is the respect for rights of others.

You have the right to vote as you choose. But I will not knowingly vote for a loser again. Hillary is a loser just like Bill.

[CTyankee]

17. Well, even so we must keep on voting and not giving up. If we all do that, we

will get neither our "populist, humane" candidate nor will we get a Democrat. Sorry to say, that strategy hasn't gotten us very far, has it?

Sure, if I had known then what I know now, I would have fought for someone else rather than get Kerry (I tried; I was an early Wes Clark supporter only to have his campaign just fold up). But I didn't know that Kerry would fail to defend his Purple Heart and go after the Swift Boaters with blood in his eye.

I just don't see the advantage of not voting. It's your right of course, but I don't understand what you get out of it except more misery...

[Totally Committed]

22. Vote for whom?

If we positively and sincerely see no one to vote FOR once this Party's nominee is elected, why shouldn't we stay home?

If we keep voting for the nominee, whether we agree with the nominee or not, they'll continue running the same corporatist millionaires every time. And, the people who keep voting for them out of fear or party loyalty guarantee that.

Time to stop. Give me a nominee I can vote FOR, instead of trying to force me into voting AGAINST the other side, and I'll vote every time, but from now on... no one to vote FOR? -- I vote with my arse. I will sit at home and let the Party that doesn't respect me enough to care whether I do or not fend without me.

What is so hard to understand about that?

TC

[CTyankee]

26. Well, I have learned the hard way. The world does not exist to give me

everything I want on a silver platter.

If you don't feel so bad about what happens, even though you were miffed that not enough people saw it your way, then I guess you WILL just have to sit on your "arse" as you put it.

I wonder, did you vote for any presidential candidate, ever? I don't recall there EVER having been a candidate for president that would come near to meeting your expectations. But were they placed on this earth to do that?

[Totally Committed]

27. I don't expect everything on a silver platter...

I have been a loyal, active, supportive, involved, informed Democrat for 45+ years. I have gone door-to-door, phone banked, contributed $ and time. I registered people to vote in the deep south in the 60's while on breaks from college. I have never missed an election, even a municipal one.

Now, what could I have possibly said in my post that would make you personally attack me in this way? I have read your posts before and you are not usually overly punitive or judgemental. I sincerely ache for my Party and for the people in this country who so desperately NEED a Party to stand up and fight for them. The Democratic Party has stopped being that Party. I honestly do not know how to rectify the problem I see before me. I stay awake at night worrying about it. I just don't see how participation in a broken system will encourage those running the system to change it.

If you have a (respectful) suggestion, or anything at all encourageing to say to me, then please do. I would welcome it. But, if all you have to do is sit there and judge me, insult me (without knowing me) and disrespect me in this way, perhaps you should think about not saying anything, if you can't be nice about it.

I am honest and sincere, and I am inciting no one else to do what I plan to do. I hope, if the day comes, that you see a personal line in the sand, there will be someone a lot more supportive of your doing what you felt was right, even if they didn't agree with you.

TC

[CTyankee]

34. Thanks for filling me in. You sound like a very different individual

I gues from what I took away from the earlier post. I see that you have worked hard for the party. I didn't mean to insult you or attack you. I know how it feels to have your heart broken time after time when allyou were trying to do is to elect the best person. It took a while to get back after Ned lost (it wasn't Ned losing so much as Joe winning).

So my apologies. It isn't right to hurt anyone with words, you are right.

Maybe I'm getting a bit depressed about the general state of things in the U.S. Someone once said that living under this administration is like living in an abusive relationship. Every day you get beat up for believing that this country is heading for disaster. Every day, a new outrage.

I won't bother you any more, TC. I do plan to vote, steely eyed tho I may be from constant Republican abuse, but still in the game. But don't give up just yet...

[Totally Committed]

38. What a lovely post. Thank you very much, and we can agree to disagree, okay?

"Maybe I'm getting a bit depressed about the general state of things in the U.S. Someone once said that living under this administration is like living in an abusive relationship. Every day you get beat up for believing that this country is heading for disaster. Every day, a new outrage."

FWIW, my friend, I agree with you on THIS 1000%. So, if you can think of a positive reason for me to hope things are changing, I hope you will let me know.

I have been worn to a nub, so if you can vote "steeely-eyed" or any other way, more power to you. I wish I were still that strong. I admire you.

Thanks again for this gift of a post. You are a sweetie pie! :)

TC

[CTyankee]

46. Oh, TC I am crying now. You are such a love.

Thank you for this and your pm. I am just a mess right now. I have had some recent serious abdominal surgeries that has me in a lot of difficult situations.

Nothing has been easy for the past 3 months. I have hoped to be better, but I have to face some hard facts about my situation. It will be at least until October until I can see a reverse in my situation ( a temporary colostomy). It is not any easy thing to contemplate, but hell, it could be worse, right?

Many other people have it harder than I do so I am trying to be more philosophic about it now. Thanks for being forgiving.

[windbreeze]

52. Not a damned thing...Hear, Hear!! n/t

[Minimus]

20. You are correct - everyone has the right to vote as they choose

and I do respect that.

That is why you will never see me bashing any candidate or telling someone how wrong they are to support a particular candidate.

I merely asked that the Supreme Court be considered if, as a Democrat, one is thinking about not voting.

[hub22]

16. I agree.

If another republican is elected in 2008, the country deserves to be destroyed. And a collective Darwin award.

hub22

[AtomicKitten]

19. I agree and welcome to DU.

:)

[Milo_Bloom]

21. Nothing different...

The GOP will fillibuster the dem nominee and if the wrong dem is in office, they will cave and put in some "moderate" who is actually a shill for the GOP and the GOP will get its way.

Now, if the right Dem is in office, they will stand up to the GOP.. but a bunch of the candidates we currently have have proven themselves unable to do it... Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd.

[MadHound]

23. Let's see here. . .

On the one hand you have Hillary most likely picking a socially liberal, yet equally corporatist Supreme Court judge or two. Weigh against that the likelihood that she will continue the war, killing even more thousands. Hmmmm:think:

[durrrty libby]

29. Too bad you don't pay attention

She said she would end the war if it were still going on when she becomes president

Don't make false accusations. Why lie, it only makes you look :crazy: :dunce: :hangover:

[MadHound]

59. She has ranged the spectrum,

From being a gung ho war hawk to her very recent transformation into a dove. Frankly I don't trust her at all when it comes to the war, and feel that if she gets the nod we will continue to remain in Iraq for the sake of "stability" or some other such load of crap. You may be fooled by her recent conversion, but I'm not, for I've seen too many of these election converts go back to their war like ways once the election is over.

[Hippo_Tron]

37. Give me a good example of a socially liberal yet equally corporatist judge

Because I don't think it works that way with judges. There's pretty much two camps in the SCOTUS, IMO. The Breyer, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens camp who want to uphold the progress we've made in the last century and the Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy camp who want to roll the clock back to 1920.

Socially liberal and corporatist exists in politics, but not so much in law.

[Donna Zen]

56. The Scalia camp

are not only social regressives they are most definitely corporatist since they all belong to the Federalist Society.

Those 5 votes will be around for a long long time. The courts are lost. Six of the eight district courts are controlled by the Federalist too. Lost.

[MadHound]

60. Sandra Day O'Connor comes immediately to mind

Kennedy is another. It is a fairly common position on the court.

[Hippo_Tron]

69. Sandra Day O'Connor, maybe, Kennedy is in the Scalia/Thomas/Alito/Roberts camp

He just hears the voice of reason on occasion.

And there's no evidence to suggest that Hillary would appoint a Sandra Day O'Connor. More likely a Ruth Ginsburg or Steven Breyer like her husband, neither of which are corporatist

[MadHound]

70. Not much encouragement there

Here's the latest example of both Breyer and Ginsburg's consistently pro corporate business leanings
<http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1157.pdf>
Essentially what they've done is that investors cannot sue if the result of that lawsuit would bring about an SEC investigation. Hell, even Thomas couldn't choke that one down.

[Hippo_Tron]

71. I'll read the opinion and get back to you

But I have a hard time believing at first glance that there isn't more than meets the eye here. Clarence Thomas isn't a friend of working people

[LWolf]

24. If you are worried that the nominee cannot unify the vote,

I suggest that you find and support a nominee who can. It's not likely that splintered blocs of voters are going to be guilted or frightened into voting the way they are directed to.

:shrug:

[Minimus]

30. How great would that be if such a nominee existed?

[LWolf]

42. Who says that nominee can't be found?

If you don't think any of the 8 fit the bill, start lobbying someone who will. Hint...I think Gore could do it.

Frankly, out of the current 8, I think 4 of them could earn my vote, although 2 would have to divorce the DLC first. One of those 4 wouldn't earn more "mainstream" votes; the other 3 could. They just aren't HRC or Obama.

That might be one way to win votes from those that see the DLC as poison for the party. The DLC is not the Democratic Party; Democrats don't have to give them a place at the table. Why not contact the current crop and see who is willing to publicly distance him/herself from the DLC?

Obama has done so, but his platform frankly mirrors DLC goals. Kucinich and Gravel are not DLC, and Kucinich, if his own party would knock off the "unelectable" propaganda, is more mainstream than many think. Edwards and Richardson both have broad appeal, if they will publicly divorce the DLC.

[Minimus]

47. Oh I'm sure one could be found and

I agree Gore might just be one that many at DU could get behind.

From the posts on DU it seems none of the current candidates meet that goal. Personally I like a few things about each of them.

[damntexdem]

32. Yeah, it would be a real shame. Let's hope Hillary's NOT the candidate.

But one has to put one's foot down someplace.

[Colobo]

36. President Obama, Jan. 09.

[Sparkly]

39. It's even deeper into the courts at this point...

These are long appointments, and the neocon BushCo fundies are installed all over the place now. It's very important to do whatever's possible to preserve some sanity in our whole justice system.

[illinoisprogressive]

40. minimus, then the democrats shouldn't be stupid in nominating her.

[Minimus]

44. I did not specify a nominee so

I am not sure why you use the term "her".

I do not know who will get the Dem nomination.

If your read my post I refer to the "I will not vote if he/she gets the nomination" people.

[abq e streeter]

41. You're absolutely right

And this is coming from an "anyone but Hillary" person.... I don't like her, don't trust her and hope to god she's not the nominee, but will hold my nose and vote for her if it comes to that. The stakes are just too high (which is also why I pray she doesn't get the nomination) ...But even though I sympathize ( and believe me, I do) with the people who say they will just not vote for her, we got to, we just do, and then do our best to hold her (and the other sell out, corporate republican-lite Dems) feet to the fire at the first hint of the almost inevitable timidity, "triangulation" and general selling out of what should be our party's bedrock principles. Who knows, maybe there's even an outside chance she won't be as bad as we fear. And she sure as hell won't be remotely as bad as any of the Republiklans. So I encourage you all to think of the larger picture, hold your noses if you have to, whatever it takes , and force yourselves to live with your disgust at having once again voted for a lesser of two evils, because the greater evil really, truly is evil.

[windbreeze]

43. How about we all work harder to gain a great majority in the Congress???

a majority that actually allows us to accomplish something w/o having to kiss rep ass???
wb

[Minimus]

45. That would be great.

If a republican does end up as the next President I could live with a true majority (as well as members that actually do the job we elect them to do) in Congress.

[windbreeze]

50. Exactly what I was getting at...Control of Congress...REAL CONTROL....

I don't know what anyone expects them to accomplish with the way things are now...49/49 even split with 2 Independents...one of them Lieberman...now that's what I call a true majority...uh huh...we're gonna really whip the pants off them guys with a majority like that...NOT!! This is what we need to be working on, instead of the presidential race...(imo)
wb

[Totally Committed]

48. Or Lieberman's ass????

No more DLC-ers, though, please!

:hi:


TC

[windbreeze]

51. You know what I mean....

TC...we're on the same page here...
wb

[eweaver155]

49. She will cause a Repug to get in the Office. She is not what the country needs.

[Perry Logan]

54. Not a chance. You've been listening to right-wing propaganda too much.

The wingers are scared to death of Hillary. They know quite well that she will win, so they put out memes saying otherwise.

It's just a crude propaganda tactic, which you fell for.

In truth, Repubs are sending e-mails to one another every day, worrying about what they're gonna do when she takes over.

[Ethelk2044]

55. Don't listen to right wing. She has no chance in hell

[Minimus]

57. Did you read my post.? I did not specify a nominee.

[Donna Zen]

58. The country dislikes one party government

Thus taking the Oval Office will result in a loss of congress. Now the congress has its short comings, but there's the other choice.

The courts are lost. This plea was true in 2004.

If the choice was for a Democrat in the Oval Office, it might be worth the risk, but a third party DLC candidate doesn't interest me. Personally, I think it is high time that the DLC held its own primary and convention.

[Totally Committed]

61. Yes, indeed... it's own primary and convention is THE ticket!

Let them try and win an election with their own footsoldiers instead of hijacking our base time and time again. Their "who else are you gonna vote for" bullsh*t has to stop. No more "lesser of two evils" bullsh*t. I'm done!

Time for a REAL DEMOCRAT running for a REAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Let the DLC fend for itself. I;d rather be beaten outright -- fair and square -- than be hijacked and absorbed.

TC

[MalloyLiberal]

62. And I trust Hillary or Barack to appoint someone to Supreme Court that is sane?

ha.

[Totally Committed]

63. It's not even WHO they appoint... it's who they DARE appoint.

No real leftist, or even moderate (centrist) will get past committe now. The precident has been set: only RW extremist ideologues are nnominated so they can get past committee. Knowing that, I don't theink either of them has the intestinal fortitude to nominate a real, genuine balancing judge to that court, and do what needs to be done... SHOVE IT DOWN THE REPUBLICANS' THROATS.

We need someone willing to go to the mat to get some real relief on that Supreme Court, and I'm not sure we can trust EITHER Clinton or Obama to do that, at this point.

BI-PARTISANSHIP be damned! ETA: I can't see either of these "centrists" being courageous enough to nominate a REAL mover and shaker to the SCOTUS. I could be wrong, but there it is.



TC

[Minimus]

64. Once again - I did not specify a nominee in my post and

as for me; I would damn sure trust any of the Dem candidates over a republican on any given day.

[CTyankee]

65. Well, Bill Clinton DID appoint Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the SC.

Ginsburg is a wonderful liberal and has won landmark sex discrimination cases back in the 70s. I know that doesn't prove Hillary will appoint another Ginsburg, but I can see her doing that. I guess I don't dislike her enough for some and I realize they have their reasons.

As I have said, I will vote for the candidate that can WIN. I'm not sure at this point who is...

[Totally Committed]

66. She's okay.... but she's no Thurgood Marshall!

Gone are THOSE days! :hi:

TC

[CTyankee]

67. I feel as if she is holding down the fort for us.

She was great in the recent so-called Partial Birth Abortion case, but of course we lost that one. It would be nice to have another woman, hopefully a woman of color, on the court. Just not a female version of Clarence Thomas, please.:hi:

[Totally Committed]

68. "Just not a female version of Clarence Thomas, please."

Now there's a picture I won't be able to get out of my mind all day.....

Brain eraser, please!

TC