I guess I'm a redneck liberal. I just cannot even pretend to remain calm, cool and collected

[Atticus]

about some of the ignorant and outrageous bullshit that is politely and dispassionately discussed by those who claim to be more politically astute and "sophisticated" than I will ever be.

When something pisses me off, I don't see what's to be gained by concealing that emotion. So, let's discuss what type of nominee President Obama should propose to replace Justice Stevens.

Why in hell is anyone not indisputably LIBERAL even being discussed? This crap about "maybe he should name a 'safe' more moderate judge" so the Republicans won't filibuster and Congress won't be bogged down with a contentious nomination dispute in this election year is just that: crap!

However you want to describe it, whatever terms you choose to use, this "politically safe" approach is just us being urged AGAIN to "keep our powder dry". And, boys and girls, I am tired of MY party altering their plans or intentionally accepting "half a loaf" in a misguided and cowardly attempt to avoid the disapproval of nitwits like Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and Glen Beck.

Read that last sentence again.

Does anyone with an IQ above room temperature give a rat's ass what these "Republican leaders" think?

A large portion of those who voted for this president did so at least in part to stop the descent of the Supreme Court from respected final arbiter of the Constitution to Heritage Foundation rubber stamp of neo-con wet dreams. If he caves on this issue,
many of us will not forget or forgive. And, we will not go quietly.

What does it take to stir liberals with righteous anger; to cause us to set our feet, look these bastards in the eye and say "bring it!"

No person nominated by this president is going to be acceptable to the political whores across the aisle, so why don't we just open with "Kiss My Ass!" and go from there?

[ShortnFiery]

1. Bravo!

:thumbsup:

[debunkthelies]

112. DITTO!!! +1000

:headbang: :yourock: :woohoo: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[DefenseLawyer]

2. Politics be damned- the court is packed with lunatics

If we nominate one more centrist "consensus builder" what that really means is someone who will vote with the nuts sometimes, because guess what? The nuts never compromise.

[EFerrari]

8. They already have a flaming right wing consensus. We need a disruptor.

Sonia is a strong person. How about Obama nominate someone who can have her back?

[DefenseLawyer]

13. She has a strong personality, she's just not a liberal

At least if her votes are any indication. To be fair she hasn't been on the high court long enough to have enough votes under her belt for a final determination, but she's certainly hasn't been a liberal throughout her career.

[dotymed]

126. No Shit.

The fucking rethugs have not allowed Obama to even appoint his cabinet. FUCK them. Shove a Progressive Liberal up their ASS.

[bobhuntsman]

135. sideways!

[HowHasItComeToThis]

68. THAT IS ON THE MONEY

[Gorobei]

110. Doesn't matter how conservative or centrist the nominee is, they'll screech.

If we haven't learned this yet, if Obama hasn't learned it I can't see why. We could nominate Ronald Reagan's reanimated corpse and the GOP would decry the move as nominating a socialist, a dangerous Marxist.

We are at a point where the substance is irrelevant. Emotion trumps all, and the pugs have the monopoly on manufactured outrage, all the while projecting that the Dems are "playing the card" to play on the sympathy of group to further rile up the fearful old white folk.

So why doesn't he just nominate someone good. Someone who is capable, and thoughtful with a record of standing up for the rights of people over corporations. That is all I really need to see.

[saltpoint]

3. The nominee hasn't been chosen yet so we don't even know who

we're opposing or supporting or frustrated by or elated with etc.

More than likely the the SCOTUS search team will sort through the laundry soon enough and submit a short list to the president. The president will have a look. A round of meetings will ensue. Phones will start ringing. Pundits will snap their spinal cords speculating who the nominee is. And finally one day the president will appear with his choice in a press conference.

[MindandSoul]

4. I agree with you, especially since this new Supreme court justice will

be there, making decisions for all of us not just for this year, not just for the next 7 years, not just for this generation, but maybe for a full 2 generations of Americans!

Who want another Anti-gay, pro-big business, pro-life, pro tax cuts for the wealthy kind of justice???

It is MORE important to get the right justice than it is to get the right President!

[HughMoran]

5. "No person nominated by this president is going to be acceptable..."

This might also be true. I hope he nominates a clear liberal, but I don't think I'm going to play the 'ultimatum' game.

[Arkana]

66. Pretty much this.

I think unless he chooses Pam Karlan that this place will explode with more outrage than there was when he chose Sotomayor.

[Mithreal]

86. The implosion to settle for what we are given will be deafening.

I don't know what all the bitching is about, not like the country is at stake and the era of low expectations is over, dontcha know.

[Arkana]

95. What do you honestly think? That the President is going to choose someone

in the mold of Scalia or Roberts?

And do you think that the left is NOT capable of overreacting over this?

[Mithreal]

97. Incapable? Why should our expectations have even sunk this low?

Why would a President who takes pot shots at the "left" pick a judge who represents "lefty" thinking, hmm?

Post a poll in GD, whether people expect Obama will pick a Right, rt-leaning, mythical "centrist", lt-leaning or Left judge. See what people here actually expect. Anyone here who thinks we don't need a Progressive activist judge is kidding themselves. There needs to be a counter to the rightwing activist judges. "Centrist" doesn't cut it. And do you think the "supporters at all costs" crowd is capable of doing anything other than supporting whoever is chosen? I don't mean that as a slight, it's an honest kindly intentioned questioned.

I would appreciate if the choice is also a woman and non-white at the very least for the difference in some basic level of perspective. I am a "white" male fwiw.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted sub-thread

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

[FredStembottom]

148. That cartoon and a song of mine. So relevant today:

Part of a song I wrote in 1994:

It couldn't happen here
We have a different system
Spelled out in detail (and on display)
Before The Disappeared could
ever spoil the Boat Show
We'd just get the little hammer down and break the glass.

[Mithreal]

149. What's the Boat Show? Is that a reference to wealth?

:hi:

[FredStembottom]

152. Kind of....

It's clearer with the entire song.
Meant to be an over-all reference to (too many) Americans' attitude that our job is merely to be thoroughly entertained each day.
(an unconscious attitude that is played upon by the powerful)
... and that the constitution is like the unread driver's manual in the glove-box.

[Mithreal]

153. Very interesting thoughts, thank you.

[RKP5637]

6. I agree! The democrats we have today say "Pretty Please." It really really irks me. Did

Bush and Cheney say "Pretty Please" to the democrats. This past year has been one load of BS to me!!! When are the democrats going to learn these republicans in congress are not moderate republicans. It sickens me each time I see the democrats begging... You can count me as a redneck liberal too! I'm tired of apologetic democrats!!!

[Egnever]

7. I guess you are

I dont want any judges with an ideological bent. From either side of the spectrum. We tread dangerous ground when our court system becomes a playground for politics.

[RainDog]

10. the SC is already a piss hole

I lost any respect for the court after the Bush selection.

the truth of the matter is that everyone has an "ideological bent." You just notice it when it doesn't match your own. just like the rest of us.

[whathehell]

30. ..You are correct, Sir......"Centrism" is as much an ideology as Conservatism or Liberalism

[Mithreal]

63. Listen to Lakoff. Centrism is a myth. The mythical centrist is a swing vote.

They will vote with the right or the left. That is not a position as much as inconsistent. Folks on the right vote consistently right, left pretty much left. Anyone else is inconsistent but there is probably a better word but it's not a position. And folks who can see both perspectives does not make one a centrist.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

70. I MISS LAKOFF, WHERE HAVE ALL THE PATRIOTS GONE

[Mithreal]

87. +1 Marginalized and shouted down.

[whathehell]

128. I ususally do listen to Lakoff.....I wish the Democratic Party would..

they might learn something about "messaging".

[defendandprotect]

143. Agree . . .

[Mithreal]

150. .

:hi: D&P

[Atticus]

14. "I dont want any judges with an ideological bent. From either side of the spectrum."

In what cave would you search for such nominees?

I'm sorry, but your response in akin to saying that the solution to war is for everyone to "be nice".

That's not going to happen.

We simply cannot afford this clucking hand-wringing type of response. The soul-less bastards who want four more Scalias will gut us while we're congratulating ourselves for our "idealism."

[Mithreal]

62. +1 gutless

[liberation]

114. Exactly! A lot of people do not seem to understand that differences of opinion are fundamental

for a working democracy. And that such differences of opinion does not mean one has to subsume their core core beliefs.

The right is entitled to their opinions and interests, and they are very good at defending them. And that is perfectly fine, that is why we live in a democracy after all. It is just that there are all these center-right people who started pretending they are liberals once the conservative brand lost its luster. The pretense starts to be rather comical when I see them truly dumbfounded as to why someone would be willing to stand for liberal policies and opinions... Well, duh... because I am an actual liberal, not a pretend one.

I don't know if its truly runaway doublethink in their case (wanting to have republican policies while getting to play Dem which used to be "the good guys."). Or just plain old intellectual dishonesty...

Whichever the case, I just find it very ironic that none of these ever so "compromising" posters spend any energy at all to make sure the GOP compromises too. It is always the libs, who by the way have been practically decimated after 4 decades of open hunting season on us, who have to "compromise" no matter what... in fact with Obama et al, the seem to think that compromise for compromise's sake is the only MO allowed for liberalism in this country.

Oh, well...

[Mithreal]

151. Unsure as well. They could have bought into the whole liberal is bad meme too.

Or could just be be politically ignorant, unsure if that is the most appropriate word choice. In some ways I am definitely ignorant, can't see why can't go for others as well.

Just a plug for the professor of Progressive radio for those who want to do a little catching up:

Anybody who wants to do some quick catching up, you could do a whole lot worse than listen to Thom Hartmann every weekday morning. He's the best Progressive radio host imo, rated #1 by Talkers Magazine.

And every Friday in the first hour, the longest running town hall with Senator Bernie Sanders. You can call in and ask Bernie too.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/

And he writes incredible books too.

:hi:

[sabrina 1]

20. Well, that's too bad because that's what we have. Scalia,

Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. And Kennedy is a Conservative also. They could not be more ideological if they tried. What we need is a balance and since at least four of them are off-the-wall as far as ideology goes, the only way to balance that is NOT with a swing voter who leans towards being Conservative but someone who actually respects the Bill of Rights. Unless you want to see all of our rights disappeared over the next decade or so.

[liberalmike27]

80. I can only conclude you are joking

With recent decisions repeatedly favoring corporations over real humans, there is clearly a Fascist trend on the court, and the SC is entirely politics. Why do you think they end up with 5-4 decisions? It's ALL about politics.

We need the court of reflect human decisions, not decisions of corporations.

And the whole thing about interpreting the constitution--that's BS, as it is a deliberately vague document, I suspect because the framers knew they had no idea what would develop.

Like State's rights--clearly a good idea 200 years ago, when it took days to get from state to state, and local control made more sense, and the world was a much larger place. These days though, rule by state governments becomes even more absurd. You know what you'd get with states being more in control? You'd have all these little squabbles, or mini-wars between one or another. Like it or not, the world has gotten very small, and we need to all be together on the same page, rather than spread out on 50 pages. Let the states control the most basic functions, but huge issues like Health Care, and many others need the Federal Government's involvement.

Yea, I'd choose someone very liberal, then queue up another making him/her his next obvious choice by leaking to the media, one that is ten times more liberal. You turn this one down, you'll just get a guy that is more liberal.

[Mithreal]

83. But if he chooses a liberal the next time we need a repeat of Bush v Gore 2000

it will just look like a split court again.

Wouldn't you rather see an end to 5 - 4 decisions. 6 - 3 is better for democracy even if it is against us.

[socialist_n_TN]

139. Test

[Smashcut]

124. Grow up.

And while you're at it, look up the realist school of jurisprudence.

Ideological bent DOES matter, and I DO want someone with a liberal point of view. Without a doubt.

[Libertyfirst]

9. He should appoint people in their 40's. Clinton appointed justices are already old and ill.

[RKP5637]

12. Good point!!! n/t

[grahamhgreen]

16. He should appoint Michael Moore and let them lose their minds!

[hfojvt]

23. that's so tame

Why not Mumia?

[d_b]

34. there you go

:thumbsup:

[walldude]

11. K&R..

Some of the stuff I see approval of here is bizarre... And while it used to be just trolls, now there are plenty of Democrats willing to speak on the merits of Death Squads, Nuclear Power, Off Shore Drilling, DADT, War.... :puke:

[grahamhgreen]

15. Maybe cuz we grew up in the south and know how these a-holes talk in private

That we learnt standing up to bullies is the way to get things done!

Great post!

[socialist_n_TN]

58. You said it Graham....................

I too grew up in the South (and STILL live here) and you're right. All they are are bullies. And bullies down south are usually racist bastards who only respond to forceful opposition. They can't be reasoned with.

Being white, I'm TOTALLY disgusted with people who think I agree with their cesspool politics and prejudices just because I share a skin color with them. I've got cousins (niece and nephew aged) who are half black and I SURE don't want them to go through what they would have had to endure in the 50s. I'll stand up to a bully any day of the week. And God help them if they want to get physical cause I won't.

[Johnny Noshoes]

102. "And God help them if they want to get physical cause I won't."

This lifetime New Yorker is with you. You know you want to try to be reasonable but the moment comes when you have to grab the bat and go all out full Sonny Corleone on their ass.

[Mithreal]

89. +1

[Rhythm]

17. Absolutely K & R

Fuck all this "Let's not upset the Repukes" bullshit...

Bring it...

[lonestarnot]

18. "Kiss my ass!"

Certainly works for me. And whoever they are, they better be hard fucking left!

[titoresque]

134. This is why I miss you so much!!

:pals:

[Lugnut]

19. KMA sounds good to me.

:thumbsup:

[Lost4words]

21. K & R nt

[speedcat]

22. ^^^^^^^^^^^^completely agree!

thanks for your angst, this feels goooood! down with the pansy democrats, up with the strong liberals! especially in the case of Supreme Court nominations. For fucks sakes!

Cheers

[democrank]

24. I`d like to scrap our current method of operation......

Wingnuts stay where they are and refuse to compromise and then Liberals and Progressives are required to sacrifice their values and move move three pegs to the right of center....even though the center mark automatically gets moved to the right with each passing day. I`ve had enough.

Imagine how frightened Democrats would act if we DIDN`T have a majority.

[XOKCowboy]

25. It took the Dems a little over a year to figure that out during the HIR "debates"

Or didn't they learn that very obvious lesson? I'm also tired of politically safe Dems. "Use it or lose it" was never more appropriate term than in this situation.

K&R from another redneck liberal.

[Nederland]

26. Why?

Why in hell is anyone not indisputably LIBERAL even being discussed?

Because they wouldn't have a pray of being confirmed? DEMOCRATS have a majority in Congress. LIBERALS do not.

[XOKCowboy]

28. Yet Justice Stevens was approve by a unanimous vote.

My how things have changed. Thanks to Lee Atwood, Newtie, Fox, Rush, etc liberal is now a negative and even evil term. No matter that Liberals are responsible for all the things that gave us the best standard of living in the world and Conservatives have in the last 12-16 years completely destroyed.

[Atticus]

144. One thing is for damned sure: If we don't nominate a liberal, one will not "have a prayer

of being confirmed."

If the GOP can sell two Heritage Foundation "wunderkinder" like Roberts and Alito, why shouldn't we close the damn Congress down, if necessary, to get a liberal replacememt for a liberal justice?

To hell with who likes it or doesn't. Let's just do it because it by God needs doing!

[Unvanguard]

27. Glenn Beck etc. are irrelevant. The Senate, however, is not.

Especially thanks to the filibuster.

In any case, Obama will almost certainly nominate someone that he can reasonably expect will side with the Court's liberal wing.

[lumberjack_jeff]

29. In your third paragraph, you asked a direct question.

The direct answer is; "Because that's not the way Obama rolls."

He's dancing with the one that brung him; centrism.

Don't expect him to change his stripes. I believe he'll select a highly regarded journey(wo)man judge with few controversial decisions. This nomination won't raise any eyebrows.

If you voted for this president to make transformative change, you weren't paying attention.

[Atticus]

145. 'Scuse me. I'd have sworn there was something said about "change" by

candidate Obama.

And,I surely was paying attention---just not with 20-20 hindsight.

[Duppers]

31. BRAVO!

Atticus, you speak truth.

[caraher]

32. Amen

Our metaphorical powder is drier than the Sahara... when are Democrats going to do the job they were elected to do? That's the #1 reason for electoral defeat - failure to ACT as a genuine alternative to the buffoonery of the Republicans. Let them filibuster a perfectly qualified candidate - voters can and do recognize knee-jerk obstructionism for what it is, and punish it at the polls.

[RKP5637]

37. +1, n/t

[Johnny Noshoes]

99. Let them filibuster ....

and not just threaten to do it so our side shakes in their collective shoes but ACTUALLY do it. Let them stand on the floor of the Senate Mr Smith Goes to Washington style and show themselves for what they are so the whole country can get a good look at them.

[chill_wind]

33. K & R.

[Enthusiast]

35. The American people did not

vote for Democrats in 2006 and 2008 believing they were electing conservatives. They just didn't. Why should President Obama appoint a justice designed to suit those thrown out of power by the people? Elections have consequences.

[droidamus2]

36. Obama needs to learn

President Obama needs to learn the trick in negotiating of starting off looking to get everything you want and more so that you can give up 'the more' and still get everything you want. He should start off by nominating a very strong liberal jurist, but have in place a backup nominee that is still liberal but more 'acceptable' than his initial nominee. That way if the Republicans are successful in scuttling the first nomination the Democrats can frame the second nominee as being to the right of the first and in the 'mainstream of American jurisprudence'. With that framework if you get the first nominee through 'fantastic', but if you have to go to the bullpen you still get a good solid liberal justice. Almost as important is the idea that Obama's team should anticipate the possibility of needing two nominees and have them both vetted and lined up ready to go (obviously keeping the second one a secret as much as possible). This would allow them, again if the Repugs are successful, to jump right in with the next nominee before the Republican echo machine has a chance to frame the new nominee and influence the public.

[RKP5637]

39. +1000, Good Strategy IMO. To me, the dems over the past year have started

in a compromised position and tried to get more from there. A casual observer sees the strategy the R's are using. They are not about compromise and getting the best solution for the country.

The dems need to be bold and quit being so damn appeasing, apologetic and compromising. As a strong dem, and not a DLC type, I'm fed up with it...

The R's already accuse the dems of being left wing, socialist and all the crap, so good, lets start from that position.

[liberation]

100. Obama does not need to learn a single thing. He has gotten exactly everything that he has wanted

it is liberals who need to learn, that he is not one of them.

[divvy]

38. I am VERY aggressive with fundraising Republi-craps.

I always include the pharse "REPUBLICAN BASTARDS" in whatever else comes to mind. My reason is that I want to demoralize every active fundraising republi-turd that I can. In other words, if I make phone banking an unpleasant experience for one of them, then maybe there will be one fewer doing it.

[joeybee12]

40. I'd like to hear someone say, like they did with HRC, just nominate someone and we'll "fix" it later

There's no fix down the road on this one.

[Echo In Light]

42. +1 Spin, lie, obfuscate, dodge, omit, twist, distort, appease, etc

[donco6]

82. Give 'em a bit - they're still working out the talking points.

By tomorrow morning, they'll be swarming the place with reasons why a "moderate" would be the best choice for everyone.

[liberation]

101. LOL, I noticed the obvious screen names haven't been at it for the past few days

are they having a working summit or something to prepare their new and improved spin/talking points? I wonder how much the DLC pays, do they go on a per-post basis, or is it salaried?

Or maybe they got a small vacation now that their healthcare reform spin is done, and need some RnR to prepare for the new barrage of bull they need to shovel down our throats?

So many questions... so little time.

[donco6]

109. I'm thinking vacation.

They've been working awfully hard.

[liberation]

113. Indeed...

And I assume they will need to be freshen up and be rested when it comes to sell what is coming down the pipeline: the "overhauling" of social security.

I truly hope I am wrong.

[Mithreal]

141. +1

[old mark]

41. If it is possible to be a "redneck Liberal" Yankee, I'm with you.

We all know the GOP will fillibuster and try to block ANYONE nominated by Obama, so why not nominate a REAL LEFTIST? W had no problems or moral qualms about nominating extreme RWers, and congress went happily along with most of them.

The right is "afraid" we will load up all the courts with progressives - let's not dissapoint them.

Fuck bipartisanship.
C'mon, Obama - be a liberal for once.
mark

[TxVietVet]

43. You're final sentence expresses my sentiments exactly

"No person nominated by this president is going to be acceptable to the political whores across the aisle, so why don't we just open with "Kiss My Ass!" and go from there? "

F*ck the conservanazis. I don't give a rat's ass if they have enough brains to think because it doesn't take much for them to say NO.

The idiot bastards are totally against ANY THING OBAMA IS FOR.

Newtie Gingrich is now broadcasting how the conservanazis will rule when they get their next majority in Congress. NO FUNDING FOR ANYTHIHG OBAMA IS FOR. Just shut down the government. I don't think that's going to fly. We shall see.

[malaise]

44. 100% correct

Rec

[Mira]

45. Your last sentence is pure poetry. K&R

[JustAnotherGen]

46. k/r

I think he should leak 5 names. Whichever one makes Beck's head literally explode on National T.V. ? That's the one to go with. :-)

[Hubert Flottz]

47. I think "Kiss My Ass" is a perfect starting point when you're dealing

with scum sucking scumbags!

It's hard to think of any of the GOP as "Honorable" when all they do is lie and bully the most defenseless people they can pester.

[harmonicon]

48. I couldn't agree more

However, even if the president took that approach, he's just not going to nominate very leftist people for the simple reason that he is himself politically quite moderate (I know people would love to think otherwise, but I see no evidence of it).

[smoogatz]

49. You make a good point.

The Republican strategy is simply to delay, disrupt and stymie Obama's agenda in any way they can. It's a weak hand, but it's all they've got (as opposed to actual ideas for, you know, fixing stuff), and they've idiotically gone all in, hoping that voters will blame Obama for the chaos that results. That being the case, there's no point in actually trying to appease them. There is something to be gained, perhaps, in creating the appearance that you're trying to "reach across the aisle," knowing they'll oppose you anyway--if only to appeal to whatever small group of voters there really is in this country who give a shit about who seems to be playing nice and who doesn't.

[theFrankFactor]

50. Corporate Money Runs Both Parties

Until we get that through our idealistic heads we are doomed to more half assed concessions designed to throw us off the corporate domination scent.

Barack Obama, Blue Ass Democrats and a majority of Congressional Democrats don't represent the Progressive constituents of this nation. They are bought and paid for.

Objectives

1. Make elected representatives answer to the electorate.
2. Remove corporate influence from all levels of public governance


Suggested Goals to Accomplish These Objectives

1. Publicly fund elections
2. Eliminate corporate person-hood
3. Initiate instant runoff voting
4. Eliminate electoral college
5. Ban exiting public officials from accepting lobbyist positions
6. Oversight of the Federal Reserve
7. Tax reformation
8. Budget reformation


Citizen Actions to Accomplish These Objectives

1. Strengthen and expand alternate media
2. Infiltrate existing party systems to affect changes
3. Exploit current means to pressure representatives
4. Prepare, support, and run Liberal/Progressive candidates


Read more: http://thefrankfactorspace.ning.com/notes/The_Plan#ixzz0khaQ5EyE
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

[Scruffy1]

116. At least some are starting to get it

[liberation]

117. "Blue Ass Democrats" I love that...

LOL thanks.

[ClutchCargo1957]

51. I agree. I want to see a pure Liberal on the court too.

to balance out the far right ones there. If Obama puts a moderate on the bench how do we know for sure he won't turn out to a right wing too?

[veganlush]

52. Michigan Govenor Jennifer Granholm..n/t

[fascisthunter]

53. glad to rec my brother

[Bluenorthwest]

54. Very well put.

Obama needs to get some guts and make a strong liberal appointment.

[Xenotime]

55. Fuck Them ALL!!

[arthritisR_US]

56. progress needs a liberal voice. I agree with you 100% and rec wholeheartedly! :-) n/t

[jlamkin]

57. Because Barack Obama is a liberal republican

The Rockefeller Republicans have taken over the Democratic Party, effectively marginalizing liberal voices.

Anyone who values truly liberal ideals (I am my brother's keeper, and the ends justify the means only in the most extreme circumstances, for a start) needs to open his/her eyes to see the truth.

Liberals need to reorganize outside the Democratic Party in order to regain our voice.

[Raksha]

77. I've known that for a while now. I don't expect much if anything from the Democratic Party.

Re "The Rockefeller Republicans have taken over the Democratic Party, effectively marginalizing liberal voices.

Anyone who values truly liberal ideals (I am my brother's keeper, and the ends justify the means only in the most extreme circumstances, for a start) needs to open his/her eyes to see the truth.

Liberals need to reorganize outside the Democratic Party in order to regain our voice."

[orbitalman]

59. Bravo II nt

[geckosfeet]

60. Agreed. The pubicons lost - not the dems.

[Paladin]

61. You're My Hero, Atticus. (n/t)

[ChiciB1]

64. HOORAY For Your Comments... However If I Were To Place Any Bets

I'm thinking what you're saying just isn't going to fly! I've seen too much "rolling over" to last me a very, very long time, and don't know WHY we have to put up with this bunch of "ass-sitters" ALL THE TIME!

We wanted some "spine" and it seems we got "noodles!" While I've called politics my addiction which has been driving me up a wall, I'm trying very hard to SHUT IT OUT, at least some of the time! It's just so depressing to see this happening over and over! Some here say "it's a process" and "it takes time" but for me, time's a'wastin, and the only "process" I'm seeing is what I put in my "rocket" for my morning fruit smoothie!

YEP, I'm one of the very FRUSTRATED, IRRITATED & Liberal Democrats! I'm NOT unwilling to work with like-minded people, but we seem to have far too many, including many in the WH that are leaning too far to the right for me to DIGEST!!

[Bette Noir]

65. Okay. I just emailed Mr. President, begging him to nominate a liberal.

I pointed out that appointing a liberal would be the best way to "keep the Court moderate," since it's creeping into dangerously right-wing territory.

[Mithreal]

67. Listen to the tone of a certain DU faction - anyone will be aceptable

They trust their President and don't want to "play politics" with the SCOTUS.

Yeah, they have we, the people's backs.

Wouldn't want to be so bold as to tell Obama what kind of judge he should pick, whatever. Weakness.

[Overseas]

69. I also hope we get a nominee who strongly counters the right wing judicial activists

appointed by the Republicans.

[placton]

71. Obama cares

he wants consensus - even when it is impossible - so we will get "Justice Meh" as Stevens' replacement

[dajoki]

72. K&R

[Aristus]

73. Well said, Atticus...

:applause:

[Zomby Woof]

74. "Heritage Foundation rubber stamp of neo-con wet dreams."

:thumbsup: Love that line!

[Raksha]

75. Wow...a man after my own heart!

I LIKE your attitude! What's the point of making nice and seeking consensus with a bunch of bullies who already know they're going to hate ANYONE Obama nominates?

I mean...if they call Obama a "radical" and a "socialist" when he's actually a Republican by Nixon-era standards, and if they call the health care bill "socialist" they are going to say the exact same thing about a moderate or centrist nominee. So Obama might as well nominate a real liberal, because they are going to scream bloody murder anyway.

Obstruction is the only strategy they've got, after all. Besides, that's one of the main things Obama was elected to do--to put a liberal on the Supreme Court. If he doesn't deliver he's a one-term president. Period. It wouldn't hurt to remind him of that.

[Stinky The Clown]

76. If that's the definition of a red neck liberal, then I must be one, too.

Yes, lots of people seem to defend any fucking crap this administration does.

Like you, I want a FUCKING LIBERAL on the court. Not in Stevens' mold. I want a fucking LEFTY. Hard Left.

No matter WHO gets the nomination, there will be a fight. So fuck it. Fight the bastards.

K&R

[ooglymoogly]

78. KR...Great rant...Where you are going I have been from

almost the beginning when O began showing his hand; And that was shortly after he was elected; When he started treating the constitution like toilet paper and crossing us at every turn; But mainly for NOT prosecuting war criminals, putting this countries reputation in the toilet; Appointing neocon Rahm for a front and the list goes on. O long ago surpassed Clinton as the most Republican, Democrat president we have ever had. It is now clear the shadow government chose O to carry out the pug agenda from their corporatist, world order, standpoint because a Pug (after the profound disaster of "*" et al) could not be elected; And that is just what he is doing. We were flim flamed. The few crumbs we have fed on, are the obvious things that had to be done, for the least modicum of common sense. Liberalism, as is called today, is not liberalism, as in moonbat, in the first or any meaning of the word; It is plain old common sense and we as a country have lost it; This has been proofed by the FDR era.

I hold these truths to be self evident and downright common sense and devoid of moonbat liberalism:
!: Absolute separation of church and state.
2: A government Working for the common good of all, rather than fawning welfare for the rich.
3: Absolute separation of church and state.
4: Unequivocal prosecution of war criminals and if proven; Death or Life in a cell.
5: Absolute separation of church and state.
6: Torture, especially in war, is a capitol crime.
7: Absolute separation of church and state
8: War only when our nation is obviously and clearly at risk.
9: Graduated income tax so that no person can gain power over government and the poorest and homeless are housed and fed.
10: An agency to guard the constitution and its intent, beyond a crooked supreme court, with the power to prosecute even supreme court justices; Elected by the most respected (by their peers) constitutional law scholars, excluding the obvious pretenders or those who do not, in fact, hold the constitution and its intent, to be THE authority governing this land.
11. Publicly funded elections with no exceptions.
12. Most obviously; Single payer insurance.
13. A free and top notch education system for as far as an individual can take him/herself.
14: A graduated social security system, with unlimited income limit pay in, graduated payout.
15: common sense is not liberal or conservative.
16: A news media funded by a government with no input or limitations.
17: Fill in the common sense blanks ad infinitum and realize we, as a nation, once had it, but now have lost it.
Did I mention ABSOLUTE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

[Zoigal]

79. Right there with you, Atticus...

We need more with your zeal on our team....z

[neverforget]

81. I agree 100% with that righteous rant! Bravo!

:fistbump:

[Uncle Joe]

84. Replacing a liberal justice with a moderate one is dangerous especially

after so many decades of rightward corporatist slide by the powers that be, this has disconnected them from the American People and the gulf is growing.

Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Atticus.:thumbsup:

[pitchforksandtorches]

85. Amen Atticus! n/t

[Swamp Rat]

88. k&r

[Dinger]

93. Same Here

I actually see ope in this thread.

[puebloknot]

90. K&R Let's hope Obama will reach way down into his "Audacity" bag ...

... and choose someone with the intelligence and personal integrity to do a course correction for our Ship of State!

Hope! Remember?

[liberation]

105. Audacity is a morally neutral concept...

... you can be an evil asshole and still have the "audacity" to push your evil agenda. Or you can also be a great hero.


I love how Obama's campaign used neutral great sounding concepts with no specifics attached to them... it was a marketing genius in the end. Alas, Marketing is another way of spelling Hubris... which is what I fear sometimes.

[puebloknot]

129. Well, read that "hutzpah," or "cojones" or any other phrase ...

... intended to suggest Obama had greater vision than the rest of us, and was going to be our Pied Piper, leading us out of darkness into light. And like that!

[D23MIURG23]

91. And furthermore the repubican reaction isn't going to be related to the person Obama nominates...

It is going to be related to the fact that Obama made the nomination. It won't matter who he puts up; you all know the refrain the right wing will use:

OMG!!! NAZI SOSHULIST SHOSULIST COMUNIST FASHIST!!!!!
OMG!!! AFURMITITVE ACTION NOMINEEE!!!!

They are going to blow their lids and claim that Obama nominated the bastard child of Hitler and Karl Marx no matter who the nominee actually is.

Obama should go ahead and nominate someone who is actually good.

[WeekendWarrior]

92. I would suggest that

the Republican party believes that they're accepting half a loaf as well -- or even less than half. It's all a matter of perspective.

I'm not arguing against a liberal Justice being appointed, but I do understand Obama's centrist approach to governing. And no, I don't believe the center has really moved as so many have claimed. I merely think that the fringe dwellers get more play in the media than they ever did before, because it sells ad space and the game is better TV when it's full of over-the-top drama.

We contribute to that drama when we lose our heads over this stuff. Compromise is not all bad. Compromise is what actually gets things done rather than stuck in the limbo of partisan bullshit.

That said, I'd like to see Obama appoint a liberal to the bench. But we have to remember that Stevens was appointed by a Republican and was considered a conservative by most standards. What he really was, however, was FAIR. He interpreted the laws in an unbiased fashion -- and THAT'S what we really need to see more of on the bench. That despite political ideology, the candidate chosen has demonstrated a decided lack of bias in his or her decisions over the years.

Going postal over this stuff won't accomplish anything.

[windbreeze]

94. I logged in just to give this post an AMEN..!!!! and a big

:kick: YES...why DON'T we stop keeping the powder dry...just ONCE even..??? wb

[varelse]

96. Thank you

I totally agree with you. Who really still believes that pandering to the GOP will lead to bipartisan cooperation?

[liberation]

98. You are not a redneck, you are a real liberal...

... a lot of the compromising talk you heard, comes from milquetoast moderate conservatives pretending to be liberals.

But let's not kid ourselves, Obama ain't a liberal. His positions are firmly center-right. It is time for us liberals to quit pretending otherwise.

He will never elect an unabashedly liberal judge to the supreme court, period. And you can take it to the bank. I assume there will be a great deal of kabuki play so that the moderate conservative he proposes is made to look as "liberal" but let's not kid ourselves. In the end it is all a part of preserving a moderate conservative approach to politics.

[Bitwit1234]

103. That is why Kagan is not acceptable she is too conservative

Oh yeah Luger thinks he would vote for her-- why the hell not. I agree so much with this post I am spitting fire. We need to get a LIBERAL AND A LIBERAL ONLY in this position. And when Ginsburg retires we need one there also. It is too damn bad Roberts epilepsy won't cause him to retire. I would love to have a liberal in the Chief Justice position.

Thurgood Marshall retired a couple of months too soon. If he had waited for about four or five months then President Clinton could have appointed one of ours and the court wouldn't be right wing radical. Who knows bush might not have even gotten to be president.

[Radical Activist]

106. This reminds me of the health care debate.

The pundits kept telling us Obama was backing down or compromising. They did it from day one and never stopped. It's not reporting or analysis. They're advocating what they want.

[Fire1]

107. I have to agree Atticus. Especially that last sentence. We all

know it and I can't believe he doesn't know it. Jennifer Granholm???? Is he fuckin SERIOUS!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

[colsohlibgal]

108. If Only Grayson Were President.

All I see on news sites is that "Obama risks firestorm with liberal choice" or something like that. Obama should tell them all to go to Hell and point the most youngest ultra liberal judge that is qualified to replace Stevens - but of course he is Obama the republican lite so don't hold your breath, we'll be lucky if this one is not to the right of his first appointment to the Supremes.

I agree about getting fired up. I heard a radio ad for paralyzed veterans today and the guy they featured was 29 and facing a lifetime of paralysis and for what? Oil profits? I get livid quickly thinking about this so I try not to but it's difficult.

[liberation]

118. ... then he would still have to deal with the fact that there are very few liberals in both houses

We need to cut it out with the whole cult of personality. I love rep. Grayson, but let's not kid ourselves that a single man is the solution. We need to effect far deeper (and permanent) systemic changes. Taking back the Dem party for example, should be our first order of business.

[Fire1]

131. Exactly. Wish more people could UNDERSTAND THAT!! n/t

[donco6]

140. We can't even admit we've lost it.

People are still pretending Dems are "liberal." LOL!

[Jakes Progress]

111. K&R What some here don't get is that any nominee

to the right of Stevens makes the court more conservative than it is even now. If we play placation we make the job for our decent justices that much harder.

Nominating a judge more conservative than the one leaving is really unforgivable. Remember that getting a chance to even up the court was one of the big campaign issues. We were told over and over at political rallies that you could forget everything else, everything except the fact that the president would be nominating justices that would help overcome roberts and scalia and thomas. Obama can use this opportunity to polish his record of "reaching out". Not this time. Not this time.

[WillyT]

115. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said...

:bounce::yourock::bounce:

:patriot:

:hi:

:kick:

[Zotz123]

119. Redneck Liberal

With you one hundred percent.

[Crunchy Frog]

120. I think Obama could nominate at least as reasonable of a justice

as Republican President Gerry Ford did 30 years ago. I don't think that sounds particularly radical.

Of course, as far as the wingnuts are concerned, Nixon and Ford were practically communists.

[craigmatic]

121. Amen. The repubs won't vote for anyone he puts up anyway. So we might as well have a liberal n/t

[yurbud]

122. Obama should ask Rahm what to do...

then do the opposite.

That prick is the bizarro Karl Rove. He thinks he's a political genius because he's a good corporate boot lick, but that's not the same as winning votes of average Americans and energizing the activist base to vote.

[NuttyFluffers]

123. i want someone flamingly liberal on SC. put in Angela Davis to make Clarence Thomas piss blood!

:evilgrin:

i want someone so liberal that it would finally be a counterbalance to the already fait accompli of a RW lunatic fringe Supreme Court as it stands now. anything less is a waste of time for a nation going to hell in a hand basket.

[valerief]

125. Ha! Open with a "Kiss My Ass!" and go from there. Great stuff.

:thumbsup:

[pleah]

127. K & R ! ! ! ! !

[earcandle]

130. Go Atticus. I dedicate "Something Different" to you today. Hope you get inspired and send it

around. Also Crashing Into the Future, might be a tonic.

Remember, rage goes into your biology and physics. You don't want to hurt yourself with internal anger.

Find a way to release:beat a pillow with a whiffle bat while imaging the perpetrators on the pillow, or listen to music or create some art.

Something Different


Crashing Into The Future

[Marnie]

132. What you said!

Amen brother/sister.

[Stellar]

133. Some people are always gonna rain on your parade.

Everybody doesn't care for Obama's style, but he's all I've got 'right now'. Bush set my soul on fire and Obama and the Dems at least quenched my thirst for awhile.

"In the past year and a half, they’ve stabilized the banks, the economy, and the major car companies, they passed health care reform that adds thirty million people and cuts the deficit long term while getting rid of the worst abuses of the insurance companies, extended the solvency of Medicare for a decade, we’re drawing down troops in Iraq, we are making progress with green energy, there has not been one successful terrorist attack on American soil, we’ve just signed a nuclear arms reduction treaty and re-examined our use of military weapons and we are making great progress on the global stage. Hell, the DOW is up over 3,000 since we got rid of the bums. Personally, we’re getting a road paved near me that was a disaster, and it is being paid for with stimulus money. We’re gonna put some people to work and have a nice paved road! And Obama and company did it all without getting blowjobs from interns."

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2010/04/09/down-is-up/

He's also got other sh!t in the works......

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/in-the-works/

So, he may not be the best, we need to work with him, or at least I'm going tow ork with him until he's done.

[liberation]

137. The hubris is too evident, and fear mongering does no longer do a good job at covering it..

... even if you pretend it has a bright smile and put a great pink ribbon on top.

If all I have "to work with" as a liberal, is a dude whose chief of staff thinks my fellow liberals are "retarded." Then I don't have much, do I?

I also would request that the reflex reply saying that "I will be letting the GOP win" stops being used. After all it was the majority of Dems, MR. Obama included, who enabled Bush et al. I no longer have the patience to be humored by the same enablers blaming liberals for the shit their milquetoast asses enabled.

[bobbolink]

136. "If he caves on this issue, many of us will not forget or forgive."

We keep hearing that about various issues, but not much seems to change.

:shrug:

[Papa Boule]

146. I heard that a lot from the right when Bush held office

In the end, though, tribalism always seemed to trump principle. A lot of people, left and right, have their self-worth so attached to the fortunes of their group, the thought of losing an election is worse than having their every principle trampled.

[MissDeeds]

138. Could not agree more

This placating the right is sickening. We have a watered down "Democratic" administration that hasn't the courage or conviction to carry forth a Democratic agenda. The voters in 2008 didn't vote to elect the status quo - they voted for change. It's about damn time Obama gets a clue and effect real change, and stop reaching across the aisle. They weren't the ones who got him where he is today.

[defendandprotect]

142. We have no leverage over Obama/Rahm/White House/Dems in general --

only corporations do --

We have to find a way to get it, tho!!

[countmyvote4real]

147. amen.