The United States of America 1776-2006: A hypothesis I hope you can disprove

[Kelvin Mace]

It is my hypothesis that what happens in November is really just theatre. The Democratic leadership handed control to the Ultra-Right in 2006, and the chances of regaining control are quantumly small to nil.

I invite REASONED and RATIONAL opposing views to my premise. Claims that I am "helping the GOP win", am a Freeper, a conspiracy theorist etc, will not be persuasive. I have postulated a hypothesis, based on the evidence going back to 1985.

If someone can disprove this hypothesis, I will be a happy man. If you can't disapprove it, then at least show me a credible 1 in 10 chance. I am not averse to hard fights, and love a political punch up, as long as I can get at least 9-1 odds.

Do I spend the last half of my life fighting? Or do I just make the best of that time trying to survive with my loved ones, until they take me to Senior Care Facility #1345, where I spend my last days playing D&D with polyhedral dice made from my own teeth?

As Rachel Maddow would say: Talk me down here.

In 2005-2006 the Democratic leadership of the United States, displaying the craven spinelessness that has become their hallmark over the last few decades, handed control of the government to an ultra-rightwing elite who now are in a position to stop every liberal program, every liberal reform, and the movement for racial/sexual equality, and WILL.

With the confirmation of Samuel Alito to replace Sandra Day O'Connnor, the supremacy of the pro-corporate, anti-equality, pro-pollution, anti-government, pro-police state Supreme Court was solidified.

While not a lefty by any means, O'Connor would occasionally side with the "liberal" minority to make the occasional case for keeping the government on a path vaguely democratic.

The nomination of Alito, a man well to the right of O'Connor, was a naked and obvious shift of the court to the extreme right.

The Democrats had the votes to filibuster, but lead by Joe Lieberman, they chose not to, and allowed his confirmation.

Yes, Justice Kennedy is still supposed to be the "swing vote" but he helped sell the country to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and foreign governments in the Citizens United case, having helped subvert democratic election before that in Bush v. Gore

The war is over. We lost.

Even if we hold the House and Senate in a few weeks (a gloomier proposition by the day) no useful law we might actually pass will survive a trip to the "Alito 5 Abattoir".

Health care reform will be declared unconstitutional, and be dismantled. Any law imposing transparency on elections will suffer the same fate. DADT, which Obama claims to oppose, but is appealing its de facto repeal, will be upheld. Elizabeth Warren will in be tossed to the streets once the financial reform laws get to Clarence Thomas' inbox.

Any law we get passed will be struck down. Any law out of the Ayn Rand playbook will be upheld.

Given the ages of the current conservative judges on the bench, we have lost the court for at least 20 years, probably 30. Thomas and Scalia will serve until they die, probably in their 90's given the excellent health care they receive at tax-payer expense (care they will prevent tax-payers from getting).

The people likely to retire in the next 5 years are Kennedy and Ginsburg. Both will be replaced with people more conservative, substantially more conservative.

None of this really matters anyway, because only a few more years of the current court will finish the cremation of the Constitution.

And before anyone brings up the last two appointment, it really doesn't matter, both were to the right of the people they replaced. And in Kagen's case, it begins to look like she will side with the Alito gang as well.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/05/08/kagan

With this reality, the game ended for America as a democratic republic in 2006. Liberalism is certainly dead and all the "hope and change" excitement, merely the random twitching all corpses experience.

Arguably, the first signs of terminal illness began in the 80's with the removal of our "Fairness Doctrine". This, along with the rapid metastasis of media consolidation, resulted in malignant masses appearing at multiple sites within a decade. These sites continued to multiply and became so large they got their own names:

Rush Limbaugh
Dr. Laura
Sean Hannity
Glenn Beck
Michael Savage
Ann Coulter
etc.

And of course, the biggest malignancy of all: Rupert Murdoch (there are also the "semi-hidden" but just as deadly tumors: Koch, Scaife. Coors, et al).

At this point, there is, for all practical purposes, no hope. A slim chance has been mentioned, an untried radical procedure which would involve excising Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy from the SCOTUS by impeachment, The procedure was proposed after a biopsy of the <i>Bush v. Gore</i> tumor by prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, but not a single Democrat has ever show a stomach for the procedure.

http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=4018

This leaves the corpse of the USA to now be brought back to life as a corporate zombie, a figurative personification of a corporation, masquerading as a theocracy. Because the corporatists know that by pandering to the religiously insane, they neutralize a potential problem of opposition by religious zealots, who are, after all, dangerously insane, and might start walking up to CEOs with bombs strapped to their chest. Prayer will "return" to schools, creationism will be taught, women returned to subservient status as breeding stock, homosexuality re-criminalized, minorities and other dangerous "subversives" jailed and "traditional family values" enshrined into law.

Oh yeah, and abortion WILL be outlawed under all circumstances, as will a contraceptives. Yeah, BigPharma won't like that, but they have to avoid limiting the other corporation's customer base. After all, a trillion cigarettes won't smoke themselves. Besides, by removing the FDA and all those pesky rules about drug trials, ethical testing, and informed consent, they won't miss the profits.

(Of course, if a drug were discovered tomorrow that would let you eat anything you wanted without getting fat, or got rid of wrinkles, or grew back hair, BigPharma would move swiftly and baby skull-cracking factories would open up all over Africa, Asia, and Central/South America. Eventually they would open up in U.S. ghettos, but only after a media campaign had been launched to vilify "American jobs lost to cheap foreign imports").

Cynical you say?

Why, thank you, yes I am.

For two decades now the corporate/conservative strategy has been:

1) Block any legislation harmful to profits. If you can't stop it, riddle it with loopholes, then litigate the hell out of it (while simultaneously pushing for laws to eliminate "frivolous" lawsuits).

2) Repeal any legislation harmful to profits

3) When you control the legislative process, pass tax cuts, repeal laws on oversight, and hand out profitable war contracts with as little oversight as possible. Build more privately run prisons, pass more laws to put people in those prisons, wage more wars, build more weapons, etc.

Also, appoint judges sympathetic to, or completely owned by business.

4) When you don't control the legislature, OBSTRUCT, OBSTRUCT, OBSTRUCT any reform, oversight, or criminal prosecution of the players rigging the game. Prevent any judge who is not going to play the game, or who MIGHT not play the game.

5) Discredit any official, politician, or organization that impedes your agenda, or builds true support for helping people vote.

6) Suppress minority and poor voting at all costs.

In the face of these tactics, the Democratic leadership has tepidly supported, tepidly opposed, cowered from, and then even hidden from positions in opposition to these tactics. Worse, in some cases they ACTIVELY collaborated with those same tactics.

Win or lose next month, next term, or beyond, the game has already been decided. Token opposition will be tolerated for a while, to keep up the charade of "democracy", but as soon as prudently possible, this to will be crushed.

And who will oppose the new USA then? Who in the world will stand up to a corporate oligarchy with the largest atomic arsenal in the world backing its mission to "maximize shareholder value"?

I have seen the future, and it is an ICBM with a Wal-Mart logo.

So, please, I am serious, tell me, with reasoned argument, why I am wrong. I do not wish to be, but these conclusions seem compelling and inescapable.

[Taverner]

1. Good question. Too bad I can't answer it.

But I can't wait to hear from those who can...

[Swamp Rat]

2. To begin, you need to operationalize terms like "theatre," before the hypothesis can be tested,

and clean up the text to make your objectives more clear.

Or, exchange the word 'hypothesis' for something that does not require such rigorous and accurate testing used in the scientific method.

[Kelvin Mace]

7. We are discussing politics

At no point did I postulate a scientific hypothesis. And even if I did, the definition of the word is still appropriate to my post:

Hypothesis: noun - 1) an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument.

2. an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

3. a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

http://www.merriam-webster.com/...

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

http://chemistry.about.com/...

1. a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

2. a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.

http://dictionary.reference.com/...

[Swamp Rat]

12. Ok. Since I am a scientist, I tend to use the word 'hypothesis" differently.

No offense meant, and thanks for the dictionary references. :hi:

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Yes you do, social scientists

Are a tad more flexible

[Swamp Rat]

16. I am a social scientist too.

We tend to use the word 'hypothesis' in a similar fashion, but I also acknowledge its vernacular usage (like the word 'vernacular' in 'popular' usage and its shades of meaning across scientific disciplines).... shall we discuss the etymology and use of words now?

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. It could be fun

Actually. And you know very well there are shades In usage.

[Kelvin Mace]

17. I still believe I am adhering

to the dictionary definition.

Folks can disagree with my conclusions, but the facts are pretty much historical. I'm looking for holes in my conclusions.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. The only minor one is that the

Court trends conservative over US history.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. Addressed in the post below

I explain how "activist/liberal" courts get their name.

[Kelvin Mace]

15. None taken

Sorry of that sounded snippy.

Some on on another board asked for a more succinct phrasing of the key points I am trying to make, so in the immortal words of Inogo Montoya:

"So, let me 'splain. No, there's too much. Let me sum up."

1. As the media has consolidated newspapers, radio and television so that they control 90% of what people see, hear and read, and corporations have gained control of government and media, by controling the discourse, they have realized that it the judicial system, especially the Supreme Court of the United State, the final arbiter on all laws, is the tool with which to wield complete power.

2. With this understanding, the effort has been made to influence public opinion by using the media to spread fear, and bigotry, and galvanize support for politicians acceptable to these same corporations, the ultimate goal is to control the judiciary at all levels, but especially the SCOTUS.

3. By controlling the political discourse, they redefined the "middle ground" and made more extreme rightwing views socially palatable and "normal".

4. By advocating for the extremist elements of "Christians" in America, they have gained shock troops and "moral" cover, even assistance in re-interpreting religious text to support exploitative commerce, hatred, bigotry and the vilification of science, or any tool harmful to profits, but useful in discerning truth.

5. By privatizing profits, and socializing losses they have gained greater wealth, and with this proportionately greater power and influence.

6. The use of all of the above tactics allowed them to crush virtually all attempts at reform, and almost all checks on abuses. The opposition is either discredited, bought off, corrupted, mislead, or simply outshouted in a media market ruled by money.

7. The results of #6 meant that they have been able to control appointments to the judiciary to a great degree, and in 2006, with the appointment of Alito, they have gained control of the SCOTUS, and what will be, or what will not be the law of this country.

And law hostile to corporate interests will be overturned by the court. Laws friendly to profits will be upheld.

8. With that power, the Judiciary is now unchecked, the legislature is neutered until control is regained by corporate-backed candidates, as is the executive.

How's that?

[Swamp Rat]

22. Thanks

:D Some brief answers:

1. Purchase only small and/or democratic news subscriptions.

2. Stop the media from spreading fear, i.e. like what Stephen Colbert is doing.

3. Retake the reins of public discourse, i.e. by attacking the sources of propaganda and the propagandists (ex. see my pic below).

4. Reach out to Christians who really believe in Christ the Peacemaker, and work to convince them the GOP is against their core principles.

5. Arrest and prosecute... but will Eric Holder do his job?

6. This can be undone.

7-8. SCOTUS is a problem.... :shrug:

9. Go on offense - fight fire with fire (again, see below).

[RandomThoughts]

3. The reason we have not lost, is they can not win.

The measures you speak of, are a downward spiral, just like race to the bottom. Even if all the things you posted continue to happen, they can not win, because it leads to their destruction.

Just don't strap yourself to them, and keep up the good fight, they fade.

Often it is said to fight the good fight, and part of that is not fighting, but trying to reach as many of them as you can as they go off their downward cliff.

That is not by hating them, but by thinking and feeling if their choice of actions was just for many people. And then with justice and compassion, holding them to account.


Fight the good fight, even if it is not fighting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2zFfnFY0ho

The days grow shorter and the nights are getting long
Feels like we're running out of time
Every day it seems much harder tellin' right from wrong
You got to read between the lines

Don't get discouraged, don't be afraid, we can
Make it through another day
Make it worth the price we pay

The Good Book says it's better to give than to receive
I do my best to do my part
Nothin' in my pockets I got nothin' up my sleeve
I keep my magic in my heart

Keep up your spirit, keep up your faith, baby
I am counting on you
You know what you've got to do

CHORUS:
Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute every day
Fight the good fight every moment
It's your only way

All your life you've been waiting for your chance
Where you'll fit into the plan
But you're the master of your own destiny
So give and take the best that you can

You think a little more money can buy your soul some rest
You'd better think of something else instead
You're so afraid of being honest with yourself
You'd better take a look inside your head

Nothing is easy, nothing good is free
But I can tell you where to start
Take a look inside your heart
There's an answer in your heart

CHORUS

Fight the good fight every moment
Every minute every day
Fight the good fight every moment
Make it worth the price we pay

Every moment of your lifetime
Every minute every day
Fight the good fight everybody
Make it worth the price we pay
Yeah



News flash, The damn wall is cracked, The Damn wall is cracked.

Swing on my friend!!!!!!!

:loveya:

Lay it on the line
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyemGXWHkTo

It's the same old story all over again
You turn a lover into just another friend
I wanna love you
I wanna make you mine <---(shoveler reference)
Won't you lay it on the line


I'm tired of playin foolish games
I'm tired of all your lies makin me insane
I don't ask for much the truth will do just fine
Won't you lay it on the line

Chorus:
Lay it on the line
Lay it on the line
Lay it on the line
Don't waste my time


You got no right to make me wait
We better talk girl before it gets too late
I never ever thought you could be so unkind
Won't you lay it on the line

Chorus

You know I love you, you know it's true
It's up to you, girl,now what've I got to do
Don't hold me up, girl, don't waste my precious time
Won't you lay it on the line

[hunter]

24. I like your answer.

What they are building will not be sustained.

The structure is unstable. It will fall.

[rucky]

4. I guess the test would be: Are they impeachable?

What are the standards for that?

[Kelvin Mace]

8. They are

Bugliosi makes the case in his book "The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined the Constitution and Chose Our President (2001)"

It will never happen, for reason outlined above.

[alc]

5. ultimate power is in the citizens, not parties or current reps/judges

We can elect members who represent us. We can get them to pass amendments giving us rights rather than legislation that may be found unconstitutional. We can take back power. We can do a lot. The Democratic leadership can only do what we let them.

We can blame Democratic leadership. Or campaign money. Or stolen elections. But it ultimately comes down to citizens not voting or not voting smart. We can stop letting the leaders pick who we vote for in the primaries. We can stop voting based on TV ads. We can vote in big enough numbers that elections can't be stolen.

I'm probably no more optimistic than you about the likelihood of improvements. But I do think we have control and it's our fault not the Democratic leadership if things don't improve.

[Kelvin Mace]

9. But the point of my hypothesis

is that we are now beyond these remedies.

What I seek is a refutation of that. How do we undo what has been done when the people we elect either cower before the enemy, are co-opted by them, or are simply neutralized?

This board, and the internet it resides on are the last of the truly independent forums for dissent. This is why the "Net Neutrality" is getting nowhere. The powers that be know they must control this medium as they control 90% of the traditional media. They have the money, they are buying the politicians, and they have the SCOTUS.

Assume the law passes. The corporate powers will litigate. Eventually, it will get to the Supreme Court, where it will be struck down by justices either sympathetic, to or outright owned by those we seek to defeat.

[rfranklin]

6. Roberts will have a massive stroke and be replaced...

that's my prediction.

[Kelvin Mace]

10. Possibly

but his replacement will be more conservative than he is.

Look at the history of the court since Carter. Each justice was replaced by a person to their right politically.

Each of Obama's replacements were more conservative that the person they replaced. If Obama had genuinely tried for a liberal, the senate would have filibustered.

Use Thurgood Marshall as a benchmark, name one justice who even comes close to him. There is no way a Thurdgood Marshall will ever get back on the court, or in fact in any federal court.

[WinkyDink]

11. The coup d'etat was in 2000. Or perhaps, the coup de grace, and the coup d'etat was 11/22/63.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. I'll offer this to you

As an alternative.

The court has mostly been conservative In US history. The Burger court is an exception.

That said the coup happened in 2000, with good cover mind you... See all them Nader voters...

:sarcasm:

[Kelvin Mace]

20. Courts generally are conservative

after all, they are reading from a script. :)

Courts become "activist/liberal" when they

1) Update the law to deal with modern realities.

2) Rule in favor of an oppressed group.

3) Rule against the power establishment.

4) Uphold an underdog the majority hates.

My point is the court has been moving further to the right constantly, and folks haven't noticed because the "middle" has been re-defined.

By today's definition, many positions held by Nixon and Reagan would get them branded "socialists" by the Tea Party gang. Both would be unelectable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. Absolutely

My BIL and I have said the US no longer exists, starting in 2000.

No, I am not going to talk you down.

[Kelvin Mace]

30. True story

January 2001, I am on the way to my office. The entrance ramp to the interstate has a road block with state troopers and guys in suits. I roll down the windows and ask what gives?

Trooper: The president will driving through here within the hour.

Me: Al Gore is in town?

Guys in suits:

Trooper: Move along, sir!

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Talk you down? OK: Despite the best efforts of the allegedly all-powerful, so-called "values voter",

The American Population has continued to trend in a socially libertarian (read: Liberal) direction. Acceptance of GLBT rights is at an all-time high, and getting higher. We may not be at the place where most Americans favor marriage equality, but we will be soon. Witness the views of younger Americans on this issue. Same with things like ending the drug war and legalizing pot. We're getting there. They have tried, tried, tried, tried to throw all their 'family values' bullshit at these trends, and failed. What happens is, you get hypocrite after hypocrite who realizes that there's a tremendous amount of limelight and cash available by pretending to be the only American who never masturbated or fucked outside of marriage. (Witness Christine O'Donnell.) But first they are treated as a joke, and then exposed as a fraud. Rinse, repeat. Because no one is like that.

Same with Reproductive Rights- it's kabuki for the extremists.. Roe v. Wade will probably not be overturned, but the constant carrot dangling in front of the far right is just too effective a fund-raiser, despite the fact that most Americans are and remain, pro-choice. Yes the far right wants to outlaw contraception, and we should be reminding people of that daily- because something like 95% of America disagrees with them on that.

There are some idiots on the SCOTUS, certainly. But that can change. That will change. We have to keep electing better people, and lobby for quality judicial appointments. Obama has already seated 2 members of the court. The Alito 5 won't stay that way forever.

Corporate money in politics, and corporate dominance IS a problem. No question. But people are also getting better informed. People are demanding better food, and voting with their dollars to get it. People are getting informed about organic produce, locally produced food, humanely raised livestock, and the rest.

Like it is said in "Food,Inc." what people don't realize is how much POWER THEY ACTUALLY DO HAVE. We can change the course of this country, we have changed it, and unless we give up, we will continue to change it. Is everything going to be perfect? Probably not. But I don't think the glass is half empty.

[Kelvin Mace]

31. This what I am looking for

The American Population has continued to trend in a socially libertarian (read: Liberal) direction. Acceptance of GLBT rights is at an all-time high, and getting higher. We may not be at the place where most Americans favor marriage equality, but we will be soon. Witness the views of younger Americans on this issue. Same with things like ending the drug war and legalizing pot. We're getting there. They have tried, tried, tried, tried to throw all their 'family values' bullshit at these trends, and failed. What happens is, you get hypocrite after hypocrite who realizes that there's a tremendous amount of limelight and cash available by pretending to be the only American who never masturbated or fucked outside of marriage. (Witness Christine O'Donnell.) But first they are treated as a joke, and then exposed as a fraud. Rinse, repeat. Because no one is like that.

Very good points, also very true. Here's is my concern. Let's take DADT:

Obama in his infinite stupidity is going to appeal the judge's ruling, despite the fact that he claims he will end DADT "on my watch". How will this happen? He claims the senate will do it. No, seriously. How will you repeal it? The senate he insists. Not going to happen. If you couldn't pull it off with 58 senators, why is it going to happen with 52?

Reality: The appeal will reach the SCOTUS, where the law will be upheld as Constitutional. That's it for gays in the military, as only a Constitutional amendment will overturn that decision, which is just not going to happen, this bigotry will be enshrined in the Constitution. It took a civil war to undo "Dredd Scott" and "Plessy" took 60 years to undo and almost started a second civil war. Obama is also appealing anti-DOMA rulings, so DOMA will also wind up before the court and upheld.

Minorities are trending to the majority, which is why racism is being "normalized". This is to drive the brown people out of the country, or at least prevent them from voting.

Roe v. Wade will probably not be overturned, but the constant carrot dangling in front of the far right is just too effective a fund-raiser, despite the fact that most Americans are and remain, pro-choice. Yes the far right wants to outlaw contraception, and we should be reminding people of that daily- because something like 95% of America disagrees with them on that.

I'm not optimistic about this. If "Roe" gets before this court, it will be overturned. "Griswold" would go next. That the problem, any law the right doesn't like, will be litigated to the SCOTUS, where it will be overturned.

Obama has already seated 2 members of the court. The Alito 5 won't stay that way forever.

I addressed this in the OP. The two appointees were more conservative than the people they replaced, sustaining a 40 year trend. The Alito 5, barring sudden death, have got at least 20 years to thwart any reform. If replaced, the replacement will be further to the right than the justice replaced. You will never see another Thurdgood Marshall on the bench, probably ANY bench in our life time.

People CAN make a difference, but only if they act, and act in an informed manner. Hard to do when the bad guys control all but this medium, and they intend to control it as soon as they can get the right law passed, or challenged.

I feel a bit better, but the odds still look very long.

[Radical Activist]

25. 2006 is when the Democratic Party began to recover.

Obama is already moving the court left and may have the chance to replace a conservative if he gets a second term. After three decades of deregulation, the federal government is starting to regulate corporations again. The trends are changing to move in the opposite direction we've been going in. It will take time.

[Kelvin Mace]

34. Again, as I note in the OP

The people replaced were not "liberal", they were center-right, and they were more to the right than the people they replaced. When Obama appoints someone on par with Thurgood Marshall, then we can cheer, but:

1) He won't. Not even someone close.

2) If he did, the appointee could never clear the senate.

Yes, trends are changing, but the Right now controls the supreme arbiter of American law, and will keep control for the next 20-30 years.

All the oligarchs have to do is make us tread water. Litigate any law they don't like, keep the country divided by fear and bigotry, suppress the vote of the poor. They have all the money the need to do that.

[Radical Activist]

40. huh

If your definition of left is a socialist then you're going to be disappointed. Otherwise, I wouldn't call Obama's appointments center-right. What kind of justices he nominates next will probably be determined by how many Democratic Senators there are after next month's election. Based on his lower court nominees, Obama is willing to nominate liberals who can be approved. That's yet another reason we need to win close Senate races.

[Kelvin Mace]

41. Bush had no compunction

nominating justices who were HARD right, and he got them confirmed with fewer senators than we have now. He did it because the GOP is willing to fight for their side, politeness be damned.

You say "socialist" like it is a bad thing". Social Security is "socialist" (it's even in the name), Medicare/medicaid is socialist, as are police departments, fire departments (except in Tennessee), interstate highways, municipal water works, etc. Nixon signed into law food stamps, the EPA, and OSHA, so I guess that makes Nixon a socialist. So you are saying I will be disappointed for wanting a "leftist" justice? Huh? I'd be thrilled to get a justice who believed in food stamps, the EPA and OSHA.

Obama can't get a liberal through because our leaders won't fight. Obama has this "bi-partisan" fetish that completely distorts his view of reality to that were sparkly unicorns and magic ponies frolic in the senate chamber, working hard to play nicely.

Obama, and the Democratic leadership need to understand that right wing attitude toward ANYONE to THEIR left can be summed up by paraphrasing Kyle Reese from the movie, "The Terminator":

Listen, and understand. The GOP is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

That is the opposition we face, and we face it with leadership who get their political acumen from episodes of "The Teletubbies".

Obama's appointments are center-right, because he is center-right, as was Clinton. Only by warping the discourse so thoroughly (thanks to Rush, Sean, Fox News, et al) can Obama be described as another Teddy Kennedy. Obama is to the RIGHT of NIXON on a number of issues.

The media continues to redefine extremist rightwing views as "normal", while even the most mildly rational observations of fact are vilified as "Marxist", "leftist", socialist, etc.

Carl Paladino, Christine O'Donnel, Rand Paul, Sharon Angle, Rich Iott, and Ken Buck are the face of today's GOP. A racist pervert who wants to build work houses right out of Dickens, a Palinesque air-head who thinks "Pinky & The Brain" was a scientific documentary and has to deny she is a witch, another racist who wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act, a woman who is stuck in the 50's thinking that fluoridation is commie plot, and women must be compelled to bear the children of rapists, because it is "God's plan", a guy who thinks its politically wise to proudly prance around in Nazi uniforms and a man who doesn't believe in prosecuting rapists, because the woman was probably asking for it.

Let me re-iterate here. These people are the NATIONALLY endorsed members of the GOP. They hold positions that 20 years ago would have automatically made them UNELECTABLE. Today the media treats them and their viewpoints as "normal"

Sadly, one or more of these people will be elected because thanks to the SCOTUS, corporations can pour unlimited amounts of money into their campaign, and certain news organizations actively promote them while attacking their opponents.

Even IF we were to win ALL the close senate races, we would be back to square one. The GOP would block anything we did, the Democrats would let them and blame it on gays, women, unions, civil libertarians, anti-torture activists, environmentalists, and "dirty fucking hippies" like me.

[Radical Activist]

43. Yawn.

No, I didn't write about socialism like it's a bad thing. Please save your canned preaching for someone else.
Push for socialism if you want. But if you think a socialist is going to be appointed to the Supreme Court with the current US Senate then you're the one living in a world of unicorns and magic ponies.

If you think Obama is as conservative as Clinton then you aren't paying attention. We aren't in the 90's anymore.

[Kelvin Mace]

44. You seem to have misded the point of the

defining of the word "socialist"

Do you consider Thurgood Marshall a socialist? How about Harry Blackmun?

I'd love anyone in their general neighborhood, judicially speaking.

I would make the argument that Obama, on some issues, is MORE conservative than Clinton. What the decade has to do with it escapes me.

[SargeUNN]

27. Here is my thoughts

I said during the last Presidental Campaign that I feared it was too late regardless of who won. I have revised my opinion some because I do see a chance and while not as good as I wish, it is there. I think this election could close that door considering the GOP candidates are a bunch of extremist in large, and should enough get in our chances of doing much is going to be done. You put the GOP in control of the House and Senate then nothing will happen worthwhile, and considering the impatience of many on getting things better, these GOP candidates that win, will close the door. We will have a right wing extremist President and corporate control of the government, which is already almost in control, will be too easy to get. Therefore, I feel this election could make us a full blown fascist nation.

[Kelvin Mace]

48. My concern exactly

My hope is that the extremism of the GOP slate will make people have second thought. Unfortunately the Corporate Media us downplaying that extremism, and "normalizing" it.

We'll know soon enough.

[BeFree]

28. Yep

September 11 and the resultant ensuing responses prove your theory.

Now don't give up, totally, something may happen.

[Kelvin Mace]

39. I haven't given up

but I'd like to see some plans for how to win the next war. :)

[Dreamer Tatum]

29. What a silly post

2006 was when Dems won back control of Congress.

So you're saying the US died when the Dems were elected? Maybe you're on the wrong board.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

32. No, what he's saying is that when the Dems were elected and went along with

everything the Republicans did, that was when he started to see through the facade.

No, they couldn't override Bush's veto, but they could have made some strong statements in opposition and not given in so easily.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. What amazes me

is that Obama couldn't get his agenda through with 3-4 more senators than Bush had. When we were in the minority, we refused to filibuster. When the GOP is in the minority, that's all they do. Thus, their agendas almost always pass, while ours don't, and yet, it's NEVER the leadership's fault, just those damned meddling hippies.

[Individualist]

50. DLC's goal

was to turn the Democratic party into a submissive branch of the republican party. They've clearly succeeded in their objective.

[Kelvin Mace]

36. Did you read what I said?

In 2006 Alito was appointed to the SCOTUS, shifting control of the court completely to the Right. Who was elected from that point forward, what laws were passed is irrelevant.

With control of the court, the Right now decides what will be, or will not be, the law of the land. The first major use of that power was in January when the court put the congress up for sale to the highest bidder. Even if congress passed a law requiring full disclosure of the money going into campaigns, the Alito 5 will overturn the law, and any like it.

When DADT and DoMA get to the court, they will be upheld and enshrined in the same manner as "Dredd Scott" and "Plessy", which required a civil war, sixty years and nearly a second civil war to undo.

I am hardly on the wrong board to ask the questions I have asked..

[BzaDem]

33. Your basic premise is incorrect. Republicans would have removed the filibuster for judicial nominees

had the filibuster of Alito been successful.

And in any case, he would have just appointed a cipher candidate that had the same views as Alito but no record to challenge. If you think Democrats would have been able to filibuster every single nominee that Bush appointed, with the Republicans just sitting back and not invoking the nuclear option, you are dreaming.

The truth is, many people in the US disagree with you on probably every policy position you have, without exception. Sometimes, they reach a majority. That is what happened in 2004. Polls indicate that a majority believe the Supreme Court is too far left. The problem here isn't so much that we live in a dictatorship that pretends to be a democracy. Rather, it appears to be that liberals are losing battles we fight within that democracy, to conservatives. That does not necessarily indicate a problem with the democracy itself; it simply represents a problem with the outcome from our perspective.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. They threatned, then our guys cowered.

Assume they did "invoke the nuclear option", then that would have put the option on the table for us to use against them. And we could have used it to put real liberals on the court, and push through health care, Wall Street reform and appoint a hundred or so liberal judges to the federal bench. That's called bare-knuckled politics, something the Dems haven't done since LBJ.

Instead, we caved, then we wouldn't even make the same threat.

So my premise stands. The court is now owned by the right, with all the ramifications that implies.

[county worker]

35. I had the same thoughts this morning as you do.

I can see it as clear as day. Basically we are going to become a country with the rich and powerful at the top. Anyone who is not a working class slave is someone who performs a service to the rich and powerful that they are willing to pay you for. You'll do what ever they want to keep your position.

Everyone else will work for their daily bread and that's it. Like one huge company store. I can even see families whose kids work to kick in some income. First it was men and stay at home mom's then it was two incomes, soon it will be child labor again.

We are returning to the period before the great depression.

I tell you that we are incapable of doing anything about it.

[Kelvin Mace]

47. If people wish

to see what America will look under Teabagger rule, start reading Dickens.

For a quick peek at a world without child labor laws, OSHA, and the EPA (Ayn Rand's vision of paradise).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_matchgirls_strike_of_1888

[Hippo_Tron]

42. I don't understand your OP title including 1776-2006

Within that time period we've had plenty of incredibly right wing Supreme Courts, unregulated capitalism, and suppression of minority rights. In fact we had the trifecta during the Gilded Age. What followed was the Progressive era and ultimately the New Deal. I agree that there is way too much corporate control and it's very difficult to deal with right now. I don't agree that this is unprecedented in any way and that all hope is lost forever.

[Kelvin Mace]

45. The problem is, we are now exceeding

the Guilded Age in terms of corporate power and political corruption. With control of the Supreme Court firmly in corporate hands, no law we pass will be upheld if corporations don't like them.

Legislators for both houses are now going to be bought and sold. If the congress should manage to pass a disclosure laws that would require people spending unlimited funds to identify themselves, the SCOTUS will strike it down, allowing larger and larger sums to buy political influence.

We are seeing this TODAY. Despite the shocking revelations of the last month, things like Fox News donating $1.25 million to the GOP, their is little real fallout. The corporate media with very few exception is treating this as a non-story, and continues to predict massive Dem losses, since that is the storyline they been told to report.

[Hippo_Tron]

46. Everything you describe was both legal and commonplace during the Gilded Age

Anti-corruption laws as we know them today did not exist until the Progressive era. The Senate got its nickname "The Millionaires Club" because back then, millionaires would simply buy a Senate seat by bribing the legislatures to make them a Senator (subsequently we got the 17th amendment).

[Kelvin Mace]

49. No, there are an number of key differences

First off, the vast majority of newspaper were locally owned. Today, six companies own about 80-90% of the newspapers, radio stations, TV networks, and cable networks.

The concentration of income in the top 1% is exceeding the Guilded Age.

The power wielded by corporations beyond their own borders is now much greater. The amount of money corporations are willing to spend to buy elections dwarfs, in constant dollars, anything Rockerfeller, Morgan, Carnegie, et al, could have managed.

There was no 24 news cycle, so "ratfucking" and other dirty tricks tended to be more localized. Today a smear can go global in seconds.

Religious zealots were not the "shock troops" of corporations.

I could go on, but I would say that those are the major differences.