I am NOT undecided about '08.

[11 Bravo]

I will vote for ANY Dem candidate. Why? Two words ... Supreme Court. I cannot take the chance that another repug President will have a chance to further skew the court to the right. The "more ideologically pure than thou" folks who couldn't bring themselves to vote for Al Gore bear at least partial responsibility for John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Alito is 57 and Roberts is 52. Clarence Thomas is 59. These fuckers will be around for a while. Contrast that with the liberal wing of the court. Souter and Breyer are 67 and 68, respectively. Ruth Ginsburg is 74, and John Paul Stevens is 87. The next president is going to have the opportunity to fill at least one, and probably more, SCOTUS slots. My kids will live with decisions handed down by future courts. I'll hold my nose and vote for a less-than-perfect Democrat before I will hand the keys to a McCain or a Romney. And those are the more REASONABLE repug candidates. Let's not even get started on Huckabee, Gilmore, Tancredo, Brownback, and the rest of the lunatic fringe. Sorry, folks. "Pragmatic" used to be a dirty word to me, as well. But I learned my lesson in 2000.

[AX10]

1. K & R!

[bryant69]

2. Good point

In my opinion. Obviously the ideal would be to get a candidate who would both defeat the Republicanoids and that we can be proud of.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[quiet.american]

3. Yes, but the question is, who are you voting for in the primaries.

Most of us here probably will grumble but still vote for the Dem nominee -- certainly not for the Party of Cockroaches' nominee. The indecision comes in as to who gets a vote in the primaries.

[The Count]

5. As long as the list is the present one, I'll just sleep through that part

While hoping PNAC's man will not make it.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

4. Is this regards to the post by Joe Fields?

In his defense he clearly stated he was referring to the primary, not the GE.

[11 Bravo]

8. No, I haven't seen the post you reference, but I'll search for it.

[racaulk]

6. Absolutely!

I will be voting (D) in 2008 anyway, but this just further stresses the importance of that decision for me. The SCOTUS replacements will last a lot longer than whoever is the next President, and we don't need any more right-wing ideologues in that body. * and his cabal have done enough damage to the Judiciary branch of our government, we don't need another Republic President making it worse.

K&R

[jgraz]

7. Which gets you ... the pro-choice wing of the Republican party

Single issue voting is usually a bad idea, no matter what the issue.

[11 Bravo]

9. Exactly which "single issue" did I reference?

I went back and read the OP and can't find it.

[jgraz]

13. "Supreme Court" is always code for Roe v Wade

Even if you don't intend it that way. You say "Supreme Court", we all think abortion. It's just conditioning at this point.

Yes, I agree that there are many issues in which the supreme court can have a negative impact. IMHO, we're already fucked in those areas for the next 20 years. The main thing left is Roe v Wade and the DLC Dems know it. That's how they stay in office. Rethugs have Terra Terra Terra, Corporatist Dems have coat hangers.

[jpgray]

14. A lot of nonsense. What about the women's pay gap case? What about the Cheney energy meetings?

[jgraz]

15. Like I said, we've already lost on those in the courts for a long time

We need a strong legislative branch to make up for it. Instead, we get pro-choice corporatists.

[jpgray]

16. You can pass great laws all you want--if they are misinterpreted they are worthless

I'll trust the judgment of FDR and others on this issue--he took it so seriously and so far as to attempt a court-packing scheme, after all.

[jgraz]

19. Hey, I'd love a court-packing scheme

Also a "scheme" to impeache criminals like Scalia, who've used their position to benefit themselves and family members. And when Roberts and Scalito start striking down all interstate commerce legislation, we're gonna need one.

The point I'm trying to make is that a pro-corporate Dem leadership is just about worthless right now. We need people who will pass tough labor laws, get us out of these insane trade deals and stand up for normal, working people. A progressive populist congress and a true liberal president would be able to undo a lot of damage.

[jpgray]

20. First minimum wage increase in 20 years. The first stirrings of accountability for the executive

It's true that there is a huge investor and corporate bias in the economic legislation of this country. That doesn't change the fact that a Democratic Congress / SCOTUS will do so much more good for so many more people that opposing it utterly because it fails on a few issues is rather selfish and unrealistic. It might make sense to write what we have off if there were a perfect alternative available, completely capable of being elected/appointed, but there just isn't. Also, the way even a less-than-perfect Democratic Congress/SCOTUS deals with these corporate issues is still vastly superior to the Republican alternative. Clear Skies? Healthy Forests? Sometimes the lesser evil is the way to go.

[jgraz]

23. All of this is a start, which we got in the first 100 hours

Do any of us have a real idea of where this Congress is going and what their core agenda is? Did anyone have to ask that question of the last Congress?

I'm all in favor of a lesser-of-two-evils approach. I'm just tired of having to pick the equal-of-two-evils and pretend it's what I want.

Show me some real, tangible results and I'll change my tune in an instant. So far, we have exactly what we'd have with a Republican congress, plus a minimum wage increase. It's simply not enough. Not by a long shot.

[cascadiance]

32. I think impeaching SCOTUS judges should be studied too...

Though we can't just "kick 'm out" because we want to. There has to be a crime involved or some form of criminal conspiracy that these folks have helped facilitate.

I think the best way might be to challenge them to help us unravel the criminal conspiracies that are in place now. This is another reason to pursue impeachments of Bush/Cheney and the rest of the cabal.

If the Supreme Court rules in their favor on things like executive privilege (which the former SCOTUS didn't support Nixon with), and it is found later to be facilitating their criminal activities to be covered up and protected, in my book that might be grounds to impeach those on the court that ruled to protect the government and the conspiracy.

I'm already wondering if we can look behind the decision for them to not hear Sibel Edmonds' case happened on November 28th a year and a half ago (yes my sig tries to remind us of that day when part of the Supreme Court also fell then too in a symbolic fashion). If that was found to be the case that there was intent to coverup what this case was about and not really protect national security or the like, then perhaps that case also might be used to help impeach them as well.

The problem we'll have in those instances though is getting evidence that there was a conspiracy of coverup in those instances, unless we can have one of the four testify what really happened in deciding not to hear that case. I was wondering why the four didn't demand to hear it (I believe all one needs is four justices or the Chief justice to decide whether to hear a case or not). It would be interesting to find out which of the four didn't choose to want to hear this case.

I also think we should challenge some of the less corporate controlled senators (Feingold?) on the Justice Committee to ask questions to a future nominee like:

"You say you like to respect the constitution when ruling on past decisions. I think many of us think of Roe v. Wade when we're thinking of what some call 'judicial activist' decisions to rule on cases where laws aren't spelled out by the constitution. But would you consistently rule for the constitution in other such cases which might also be termed as "judicial activism" in the manner they were decided, like the decision in the 1800's that gave us 'corporate personhood' via an suspect erroneous headnote for that case? What would govern your decision process on when to be strict about constitutional law and where would you allow for past history to decide cases?"

Our senators, both Democrat and Republican have avoided asking any questions that touch on corporate matters like this one, and I'd like to help us get out in the open what the future bums we put on this court's allegiances will be in terms of the corporatocracy.

[lonestarnot]

45. Habeas Corpus restoration, rebuilt protections for whistleblowers, signing statement challenges?

No, not important. Move along, nothing to see here.

[Hippo_Tron]

10. There is no such thing as the pro-choice wing of the Republic Party

The pro-choice Republicans have either left the party or been tossed out of office by their constituents for supporting a party that is controlled by religious nutjobs.

And the Supreme Court is about far more than abortion.

[jgraz]

12. It's a metaphor

The abortion issue is a club the Dems use to allow them to act like rethugs in every other way. Secret trade deals? No problem, we're still pro-choice. Funding the war? Sure, we'll still vote down any abortion restrictions. (Well, except for that recent Supreme Court decision...that would require action -- sorry.)

[jpgray]

17. In every other way? I suppose a Republican congress would also subpoena Rice, etc.?

Being rather ridiculous, aren't you?

[jgraz]

21. Right, and the Dems will subpoena her...just not enforce it.

That's much better. :sarcasm:

Is Gonzo gone? (No, impeachment is off the table) Has anyone been removed from office or indicted as a result of these investigations? Yeah, some have resigned, but they're still walking around free.

Like the war funding, I'll believe it when I see it. Right now, I fear we're seeing more "political theater" and the Dems have no intention of doing anything. Hell, they're not even asking the really tough questions yet (caging anyone?)

If they aren't going to impeach, if they're aren't even going to get rid of Gonzales, then it's all a show to get more votes for 2008. Just like the war funding was.

[jpgray]

22. In that case, you'd hate any Congress since the country's inception

Reagan, Harding, Grant, Nixon--hell, most of the worst wrongdoers from the former and latter are still in government today. Its important to be realistic about things--writing off Washington politicians for being ambitious self-protecting assholes is like hating a rabbit for having big ears. It's true they're all corrupt and worthless if you go big picture enough. Satisfied? Now that -that- is settled, it's time to make other important distinctions. After all, if you go big picture enough, we may as well just all starve ourselves, no?

[jgraz]

24. This is not just "any" executive, so precedent is only partially applicable

The Rethugs are no longer the business-as-usual right wing. They haven't been since 1994, and since 2000 they've basically turned into a crime syndicate. The Dems need to drop their traditional approach if there's going to be any progress against these murderers.

It's the old "bringing a knife to a gunfight" thing that the Dems have always done. They need to start bringing a fucking nuclear bomb and showing that they're willing to use it to protect this country and the constitution.

We need fighters, not posers who stage "signing ceremonies" and threaten to send "even tougher" bills and then cave in when their bluff is called. Any bets on whether the same thing will happen when these hearings start closing in on Bush/Cheney?

[jpgray]

27. I'll never understand this "no substantial difference" bullshit.

Yeah, if you're a middle-class white guy with a hardon for Taft-Hartley or something any Democratic Congress is going to be disappointing. If you are poor, female, an immigrant, a soldier, or anyone with concerns other than high-minded political idealism and fairy-tale dreams about what government can be, more Democrats (even crappy Democrats) will make a significant difference to you. Imagine what Bush would be doing right now had he maintained a stranglehold on all three branches of government. If you don't care about that, and you don't have any practicable alternative, why wage a one-man campaign of words against what is currently our best shot to make a difference? It's fine to not like it--no intelligent person would, but how is writing them off effective in any way?

[jgraz]

28. I'm betting you'll understand it more in 2008

When the disgusted base stays off the phones, out of the streets and away from the polls. OR votes green. OR just fucking gives up a moves to Canada.

The bottom line is this: what the Dems are doing right now is not smart politics. People on the left have been itching for a fight for 6 years. If the Dems "bring it on", they'll get more support than they could have dreamed of. If they keep caving, people are going to turn away in droves.

[jpgray]

29. But turning away actively hurts millions of people--how is that at all conscionable?

And the threat to just abandon something you don't like is a self-fulfilling prophecy. The less you work for the system you want to change, the less impact you have on it and the less you'll like it. Just abandoning something and bitching about it is hardly an effective way to change it, no?

[jgraz]

30. It's not a threat, it's reality

This is what I'm hearing in all my conversations around Berkeley. People are worn out. Reasoning with them isn't going to work. Think Cindy Sheehan and multiply it by about 20 million.

The Dems need to start playing politics for real. And the reality is that the vast majority of people want to see someone give W a good kick in his political nuts. Anyone who actually does that can write their own ticket.

[depakid]

11. Well, the Dems sure proved their mettle with Roberts and Alito

and Thomas and Scalia before them....

So pardon me for being a little cynical when people bring up the Supreme Court.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. Oh Absolutely. I'd Hope That Anyone Here Would Be Responsible Enough To Do The Same.

Anyone who is here should easily be educated enough to the risks we face if we don't win; so they should be readily aware that it would be the most misguided, narrow-minded, self-destructive thing they could do to do otherwise.

[jgraz]

26. The smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud, eh?

The fact is that we all agree on what would happen if the Dems lose in 2008. No argument there, not even a raised eyebrow.

What I fear is that the normal business-as-usual wimp-ass Dem approach is going to cost us the Congress and perhaps the White House. People are getting sick of this shit, and no amount of spin will get them out to vote if the Dems keep caving in.

[MadHound]

25. Two more words: Joe Lieberman

Would you actually vote him into the WH, just to say that there's a Dem in the Oval Office? If so, you're willing to settle for anything and anybody. Sorry, but I'm a bit more principled than that.

[UrbScotty]

31. Have you noticed he's not running?

All of the current Dem candidates are better than Lieberman anyway. Hell, even Biden.

[11 Bravo]

33. OK, just for shits and giggles, let's call it Lieberman v Brownback.

You brought up Holy Joe (even though he's not running) and I put him in a hypothetical race against an actual repug candidate. Who do you vote for?

[jgraz]

34. How about Chuck Hagel vs Hitler?

If the Dems ever put up a candidate like Lieberman, it would be a good clue that the party has nothing left that I believe in.

As another exercise, imagine where we'd be if, in 1994, the grassroots Dems said "fuck it" to all their pro-corporate members and started a true progressive movement. We'd have been out of power exactly as much as we've been, but we'd have a real party that truly represents us now.

Though, I really think if we had pulled together a true progressive, pro-labor, anti-NAFTA coalition, we'd have taken the white house in 2004 (or even 2000) and we'd have a true working majority in both houses of Congress by now.

And Rahm Emanuel and Joe Lieberman would be working for AIPAC rather than polluting the halls of Congress.

[11 Bravo]

36. How about Pol Pot vs Beelzebub? Of course, then there's reality.

(And by your analogy, Hitler would be the Democrat.) Sorry, Hoss, I lack both the time and the inclination to engage in this type of rhetorical bullshit.

[jgraz]

38. Ah yes, the reality of Lieberman v Brownback

Sorry, back to your down-to-earth example.

:rofl:

[NoPasaran]

35. Out of that lineup, I'd have to go with Joementum

At least he believes the earth is round.

[11 Bravo]

37. My point exactly.

[jgraz]

41. And what was that point again?

Aside from Party Über Alles, that is.

[BlooInBloo]

46. Yah! Would you vote for Hitler if he was a Dem? What about Charles Manson? lol!

Sheesh - the things DUers think are relevant.

[shallowthroat]

39. Lame.

This is why they capitulate. This party has no moxie. Actually they are no different. It's just good theater. Oh Sweet, sweet corporate cashola. Maybe Pelosi can go shopping with Condoleeza for shoes.

[11 Bravo]

40. Welcome to DU. We're always looking for constructive criticism.

:boring:

[jgraz]

42. Yes, welcome to DU

Where party hacks crap on you when you tell the truth.

Hang in there. Most of us are on your side :hi:

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DIKB]

43. Even if I have to hold my nose

I'm voting straight Dem. Make sure to select each by hand, not by "straight democratic" ticket, b/c some people are listed wrong and won't get your vote.

We need EVERY little bit, to undo the damage done by the reich-wing and the chimpenfuhrer.

[mmonk]

47. Some dems let some of those skate onto the court.

Or have you forgotten the republicans did not have the votes on some until the "gang of 14" idea. I will certainly never forget.

[dweller]

48. So

you're voting Kucinich, right?

just checking.
dp