home

McCain on Judicial Appointments

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
Tags: John McCain (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I didn't hear John McCain's speech on judges yesterday, but Andrew Cohen at the Washington Post's Bench Conference and Ann Althouse provide their views.

Would McCain stack the court with right wing ideologues? Of course he would. There's no better reason, other than the war in Iraq, to make sure he doesn't win in November.

Update: 11:12 pm Comments now closed.

< Hillary's Options | Clyburn: Clinton Should Not Drop Out >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    McCain on Judicial Appointments | 201 comments (201 topical)
    Althouse is SHOCKED that (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:22 AM EST
    there is an ideological component to the selection and confirmation of judges!  

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:58:37 AM EST
    The co-chairs of McCain's legal advisory team are Ted Olson, who argued Bush v. Gore, and Sam Brownback, a Senator so wingnutty he makes Rick Santorum look moderate.  There is no doubt that he would give the conservative base exactly what they want on judges, just like Bush did.

    As a civil defense attorney, mind you, I find practicing before Bush appointees to be a little slice of heaven.  It's almost too easy.

    hah (none / 0) (#17)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM EST
    The law of unitended consequences. Their picks are so ideological that thye are ineffective conservatives.

    lol.

    Parent

    please explain? (none / 0) (#20)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:06:41 AM EST
    As a civil defense attorney, mind you, I find practicing before Bush appointees to be a little slice of heaven.  It's almost too easy.

    Having no background in the legal field I can't follow it.

    And McCain sure looks prepared for any Supreme Court cases on vote-counting "problems."  Tho with Stevens on he's probably covered anyhow.

    Parent

    What I am saying (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:58 AM EST
    is that I generally represent businesses, and these judges are just so ridiculously pro-corporate.

    The old Reagan judges were plenty conservative but they were never quite like this.  With Bush appointees, you know exactly what arguments will push their buttons because they all come pre-programmed with the Federalist Society talking points.  You just have to know the right buzzwords.

    Parent

    They are generally (none / 0) (#44)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:59 AM EST
    too incompetent to argue.

    because they are appointees based on ideological loyalty.

    Parent

    Now I get it (none / 0) (#53)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM EST
    thank you.


    Parent
    I think Steve defends (none / 0) (#50)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    deep pocket (read corporate) defendants. GOP judges find ways to rule in favor of Steve's clients. To be clear, I don't think Steve's clients are little girls who get their intestines sucked out from defective pool drains.

    No disrespect intended to  Steve. I represent banks and, gulp, developers (how do I look at myself in the mirror?!)

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:54 AM EST
    In fairness, my opponents aren't those little girls, either.  I do have to sleep at night.

    Parent
    Well, life is (none / 0) (#59)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST
    a series of compromises. Not exactly easy to find "right livelihood" these days. And I bet you're doing enough to balance out the carbon load, so to speak, with the rest of your life.

    Parent
    I do get to practice out of my home (none / 0) (#64)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:25:46 AM EST
    So my gasoline use is low.

    Parent
    I hate to say this (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST
    but given the option between BHO and McCain... In all good conscience I cannot and will not vote for BHO. For me, my vote is for country first, party second. And I have come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party I've seen in this primary season is NOT one I can support from BHO to Daschle, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, Brazile, Richardson, etc. They make me physically ill. And BHO is not nearly ready for prime time and cannot be forgiven for playing the race card to divide this country. I find the entire BHO Express repugnant. I will live with a McCain presidency. We survived Dubya for almost 8 yrs (though he will forever have the blood of millions on his hands)... I can learn to live with a known quantity rather than a loose, elusive canon.

    Congratulations (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM EST
    on joining the Republican Party.

    Please pick up your Pro-Life and Stay the Course buttons at the registration desk.

    Parent

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:09:48 AM EST
    You're either "with us or against us". My party seems to look alot like THEIR party these days. Might as well.

    Parent
    Don't (none / 0) (#29)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:10:33 AM EST
    forget the Private Property is ok buttons, and More Bigger Gov't is not the Answer buttons either.  

    Parent
    Big Government (none / 0) (#65)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:25:52 AM EST
    is OK if it's Homeland Security, though.

    Big Government Spending is OK if it's in Iraq, too.

    U-huh.

    Parent

    Your reply (none / 0) (#70)
    by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:31:17 AM EST
    is not only offensive, it's off base. I think I will be changing my party affiliation to Independent. And don't lump me in with pro life, stay the course... I loathe what the Bush II admin has done. But that does NOT mean  I can be blackmailed or insulted into a vote I cannot and will not make. Do not dare judge me.

    Parent
    You gotta admit... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM EST
    coming to a site called TalkLeft and stating how youre basically going to vote for McBush in the GE is just asking for some sort of retort.

    Parent
    Not at all... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST
    which is very funny, actually. Because I came here to be able to talk and read about my candidate of choice without the vilification and baiting and taunting of BHO supporters. So, you see, you don't have the faintest idea about me or my values or what my voting truly means to me.

    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#82)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST
    you want to come here and express your opinions without ever being challenged on them?  Good luck with that on a political website.  And I dont know how long youve been here, but aggressive Obama supporters usually get destroyed around here.

    Parent
    sorry, but... (none / 0) (#87)
    by A DC Wonk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:21 PM EST
    for many of us the difference between HRC and BHO is miniscule compared to the difference between either of them and McBush.  You're talking two good solid liberals and a flaming right winger.

    So, for many of us, we have a hard time comprehending those who would support one of the solid liberals, and then, claim they will take actions (or inactions) that will help the flaming right winger.

    Parent

    And for many of us (none / 0) (#95)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM EST
    the difference between Clinton and Obama is wide enough to drive a truck through.  It depends on which policies are most important to you.

    Parent
    But... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM EST
    what positions does McBush have that make him better?

    Parent
    Oh, no, we are not (none / 0) (#96)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:37:42 PM EST
    "talking two good solid liberals and a flaming right winger."  We are talking one good liberal vs. a right winger and a wanna-be, as near as many of us can tell.  This IS a place were one can safely say that Obama is no substitute for a GOOD liberal.  Some may vote repub and I will not vote.  And R vs W and SCOTUS won't scare us.  (I lament the gay rights issue, but O. has not by any means shown that he is not just another straight male that doesn't give a durn--plus he wouldn't be much on women's rights.)

    Parent
    The problem is... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:04:25 AM EST
    as you mentioned, many people didnt survive the bush admin.  Also, you think Obama played the race card to divide the country?  What exactly do you think the republicans are going to do after the primary?  Think theyre not going to bring up race?  Ha.

    Parent
    I can't really be concerned... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:09:29 AM EST
    I believe BHO will reap what he has sown. If the Republicans play the race card, let em. Brazile didn't seem to care last night that she dissed a whole block of core Dems... BHO didn't seem to care that he dissed a whole block of core Dems... He ONLY cared about alienating AAs from the Clinton camp. Who was it that was willing to do whatever to win? I say, let the Republicans have at him and by extension the rest of the sorry folks on his train. No one is more deserving... IMHO

    Parent
    so you had a problem (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by TruthMatters on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    with Obama doing it so you won't vote for him. but say hey if the GOP do it I don't care so you are voting for them?

    so I mean this really isn't anything more then you are mad at Obama and will vote against him no matter what the GOP will do if they get the white house again.

    Parent

    staying at home is an option (none / 0) (#41)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST
    howvere i'd sell obama on this and this alone:

    he can torture McCain over the IWR vote in a debate.

    just like he tortured Edwards and Clinton.

    That's worth my vote.

    Parent

    People are pissed right now... (none / 0) (#42)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:43 AM EST
    and venting.  Im not saying everyone will change their minds, but once emotion dies down clearer thoughts will prevail.

    Parent
    I won't vote for BHO (none / 0) (#74)
    by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:37:01 AM EST
    for many, many reasons... Playing the race card is just one of them. I am not "mad" at BHO. I will not vote for him because he is nothing more than any other pol; he is a liar, devisive, ill-equipped to lead; has very poor judgment; is arrogant; insulent; petulant; unqualified; and full of empty words. He is not a doer, he is a talker of doing... nothing more. And I don't believe he is as left as he pretends to be. So, I cannot and will not vote for a candidate who IMO is not right for the position of POTUS.

    Parent
    Fine... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM EST
    but that doesnt mean you have to vote for a republican, since most everything you said against Obama would easily apply to McBush.

    Parent
    That is (none / 0) (#32)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:06 AM EST
    correct, Obama played the race card to teach his gramdma a lesson, and to bring the country together by playing the race card.  

    Parent
    These primaries tell me... (none / 0) (#93)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:00 PM EST
    a couple things. One of them is that the Dem party is split in its choice.

    And frankly, I don't see evidence of your claim that he's bringing the country together...

    Parent

    So ............ (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:03:14 AM EST
    It's going to be "I'm not the other guy 2.0" as our strategy? Great. That worked out so well for us last time. I'm sure that folks like my husband will be swayed particularly when you got Brazile out there saying how little he matters. Personally, I'm going to make peace with the idea that the GOP is going to get theopportunity to ruin the government for 4 more years. I certainly don't expect men to really give a darn about my reproductive rights. They haven't so far.

    Obama IMO Has Been Extremely Wishy Washy On (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST
    choice. If I'm going to base my vote on the types of people he would appoint to SCOTUS, I want to hear from him directly on what type he will appoint. I want clear words and examples.

    He'll appoint "unifying" people (none / 0) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:10 AM EST
    people that will bring "change" to DC. Sigh.

    Parent
    It Is His Zest In Uniting With The Republicans (none / 0) (#43)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:45 AM EST
    that has me concerned. How much more is willing to sacrifice to keep his "unity pony" up and running?

    Parent
    Call me a cynic (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM EST
    I see no rason that he wouldn't throw women under the bus As I said above. I have yet to see the male dominated three branches of goverment do anything other than play politics with women's lives I need look no further than the partial birth abortion ban to see that.

    Parent
    He already has (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    since they don't seem to be bought off with a kiss and a "sweetie."  

    Parent
    Oh dear... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:46 PM EST
    That's how we wound up with Powell and Rice.

    Parent
    Wishy Washy On Choice (none / 0) (#45)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:17:11 AM EST
    at least its consistent with his other positions.

    Parent
    "Present" (none / 0) (#84)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:52:22 AM EST


    Parent
    McCain can only stack the court (5.00 / 7) (#16)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM EST
    if the spineless Democratic Senate allows him to do it.

    You just... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:49 AM EST
    answered your own statement.

    Parent
    Not if Hillary is Majority Leader (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST
    I am not saying it is over for her, but if it is, then I think she would be a GREAT Majority leader, and since the Pres has to work with the majority leaders, she could be very powerful in getting her best ideas heard or enacted.

    Parent
    Agreed... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    Im so done with Reid.

    Parent
    Practice the excuse (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:15:17 AM EST
    We need 67 Democrats in order to get anything accomplished.

    Parent
    Not for blocking judicial appointments (none / 0) (#129)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:47 PM EST
    The Republicans would not have the votes to stop a filibuster.

    Parent
    Yes... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    but long drawn out filibusters are not only a stop gap measure, but make the party doing it look lame.  And lame = loss of votes.

    Parent
    Not really (none / 0) (#131)
    by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:49:32 PM EST
    Plus you can always allow an up/down vote if you can get 50+ votes.  The problem has been that too many senators (like Obama) have been predisposed to defer to the excutive.  It is well past the time that Congress asserted itself as an equal branch.  Advise and consent has to mean something.

    Parent
    interesting this was scheduled (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM EST
    on the day of the hot primary so as to get as little media coverage as possible.

    I so don't care anymore (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:09 AM EST
    I just don't care who he puts on the bench.  Sorry.  Judicial appointments are the sword of Damocles the Dems have been holding over my neck for years.  Enough is enough.  And I'm a lawyer, I know how bad it's going to get.  I just can't work up the energy to care.

    a spanner in the works (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:09:46 AM EST
    They held gevernment in all branches for 6 years.

    They didn't make a serious move on banning abortion.

    I double dog dare them to do it with a Democratic Senate and House and a majority of Dem Governorships. The political windfall for the dems if they dared to overturn Roe v Wade would equal all the tea in China.

    And the GOP know it.

    there are now substantial roadblocks (none / 0) (#40)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:03 AM EST
    stopping non-rich women, younger women, rural women from getting safe, accessible contraception -- let alone when they need pregnancy termination.  

    I live in WA State w/a Dem governor. There was a decision recently that allows pharmacists to deny a patient a legal, medically necessary prescription based on merely the pharmacist's personal viewpoint. And the drugstore does not have to have another pharmacist to step in and dispense the medication when the 1st pharmacist wants to deny. I'm referring to Plan B, the medication which does no harm to existing pregnancy but can prevent a pregnancy from occurring.

    It's happening, folks.


    Parent

    They may never... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    overturn the big one, but they'll kill it piecemeal.

    Parent
    R v W is probably irrelevant. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:33 AM EST
    a thousand little things like zoning laws and what not ensure limited access.

    Parent
    Yeah and it doesn't need Roe v Wade overturned (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:19 AM EST
    to do it.

    It's an ineffective SCOTUS ruling already.

    Many red states simply have no clinics for family planning or abortion proceedures.

    getting there didn't require overturning a ruling. And the SCOTUS can't make sure poor women have real access.

    Parent

    Roe v Wade... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:53 AM EST
    is just one of the things the gop doesnt like.  You cant possibly be saying that they'll have ZERO impact on the american legal system.

    Parent
    I think they like having RvW (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EST
    to run against.  

    If they did ban abortion, they'd lose a key issue for general elections.

    Parent

    Fine... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:50:56 AM EST
    but, as I stated before, thats just one of the things Democrats care about.  So, are you saying more conservative judges would have ZERO impact on the american legal system?

    Parent
    They would destroy (none / 0) (#115)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    any political GOP majorities.

    Short answer--blackmail on this issue isn't convincing.

    Parent

    To you... (none / 0) (#120)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST
    but for some, even some that come to this blog, it is.  So one more vote gained by this is one more vote we may not have had before.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#67)
    by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:26:45 AM EST
    and Democrats have done little other than throw women under the bus to save their political hides.

    Parent
    PLan B. Doesn't that have some issues? (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:51 AM EST
    Seems to me, IIRC, when life begins could jeopardize it. This is a question that needs to be answered by Obama so we know where we stand with him

    Parent
    Obama Has Already Answered That Question (none / 0) (#107)
    by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    In an interview, he said he doesn't know when life begins.

    Sorry, I'm too lazy to use my primitive google skills to find a link.

    Parent

    McCain Can't Stack the Bench By Himself (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:10:01 PM EST
    He would need the Senate to confirm them.  Which they would, of course.  

    Which is why I have very big problems with the democratic party beyond Obama.  This primary election may have made my problems with the party clearer, but they've been there for awhile and are hardly limited to the party's nominee.  In many ways, he's the least of my problems with the democratic party.

    In fact, I'm offended by the argument that I have to vote for Obama because otherwise the democratic party won't protect my rights.  

    As I've said elsewhere, I have two rules in politics:

    1. Ask nothing for your vote and nothing is what you'll get; and
    2. I don't vote for politicians who don't ask for my vote.

    Obama has six months to earn my vote.  He has an advantage, I would never vote for McCain.  But he's going to have to earn it.  I won't lose the leverage I have to push the Democratic party in the direction I want.  I will not be taken for granted.

    McStain's Gonna Be #44 (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by tokin librul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST
    He may not actually get elected, but he's gonna be the next preznit. I feel it like a cold wind in my bones...

    I heard it (none / 0) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:51:32 AM EST
    And yes, it was scary.  Thing is, if Obama is the nominee I think McCain could end up getting the chance to stack the court.

    So then... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST
    lets kill that chance.

    Parent
    are you quite certain... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    That Sen. Obama won't be beholden to those anti-choice folks (Casey for one) who are currently supporting him?

    After all, he did make that comment about how mistaken we pro-choice advocates are.

    Parent

    As questionable... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST
    as Obama is on this, McBush is a lock.

    Parent
    So (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:59:48 PM EST
    we should vote for a terrible candidate in the hopey-changey that he MIGHT not be as anti-choice as McCain.

    Sorry, I think we can wait until 2012 for a real Democrat.

    Parent

    I'm sure... (none / 0) (#108)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM EST
    the additional 4000 dead American soldiers will appreciate that.

    Parent
    They are going... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:21 PM EST
    ...be just as dead with Obama as they would be with Clinton or McCain.

    noone is going to get out of Iraq.


    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM EST
    you have some sort of proof to support this claim?

    Parent
    Ask Samantha Powers n/t (none / 0) (#121)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM EST


    Parent
    The wars will continue (none / 0) (#137)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    It's not like  the security situation will disappear if we wish it.

    Parent
    Oh the truth (none / 0) (#141)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:32:54 PM EST
    It burns

    Parent
    "Oh the truth it burns" (none / 0) (#144)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:23:10 PM EST
    Speaking from personal experience yeah?  He has said no truth that isnt already obvious.  My point is that McBush will go to war with Iran.  Obama wont.

    Parent
    Frankly... (none / 0) (#113)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM EST
    I don't think so. I think he's gone way over the top to get these folks...and will find out that he needs to keep them content. That means that he's going to have to keep whatever promises he made to them.

    I think this is a serious problem that folks over at DKos haven't really thought about with all the "pie in the sky" dreaming about a "new kind of politics" that I see as little more than a newly polished version of snake oil.

    There is just politics...there is no new kind of politics.

    Effectively, he tossed pro-choicers under the bus with that comment. He tossed a friend of 20 years under the bus last week. Fairly shortly Bill Ayers will be under that bus to when that picture goes viral.

    There are a lot of folks under that bus. And they are the same ones that he's going to have to pull back out from under the bus.

    I'm an IndyDem (not a camp follower). Have never not been a Dem. But I'm one reallyreallyreally pissed Dem who does not like having my back covered in tread marks for his sophistry.

    Parent

    Im definitely not... (none / 0) (#119)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:46 PM EST
    going to defend anything DK does regarding this primary.  But what I will say is what you just said, there is no new kind of politics, meaning any pandering he did during the primary could be written off as pandering.  

    I will concede that its not impossible, but, like you said, he has to worry about getting re-elected.  And if he actually were to move against any sacred cow in the democratic values AS PRESIDENT, he knows he would not get re-elected.  Losing your base is death.  

    Ultimately neither of us have any actual proof either way.  But what sways me on this is McBush has bent over for the neocons, and we all know what would happen under their magic wand.

    Parent

    Where do I send the memorial bouquet? (none / 0) (#123)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:40 PM EST
    Obama has already lost a substantial part of the Democratic base, and Donna Brazile put her seal of approval on it last night.

    Parent
    Send it to... (none / 0) (#127)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM EST
    the funeral home housing all the most basic Democratic values to be threatened under a McBush administration.  Personally Ill be most interested to see how McBush will enforce free speech zones on the internet.  Should be innovative at least.

    Parent
    as for your comment on pandering (none / 0) (#134)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    The same could be said re: the McCain camp.

    Obama's taken thwaps at base Dem voters with his comments and event participants since the early days...not just elected ones...the voters.

    Why should I believe that he's not going to do the same when he gets into office?

    Parent

    That is... (none / 0) (#145)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:30:12 PM EST
    an apples to oranges comparison.  When McCain says hes going to destroy RvW, he strengthens his base and when he actually does it, same thing.  

    When Obama seems questionable on RvW, in theory he attracts moderates.  But should he actually destroy it, he destroys his base.

    Parent

    actually... (none / 0) (#147)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:41:26 PM EST
    he pushes a lot of moderates away with the pander.

    I am not a revolutionary progressive by any means.

    But his telling me that I've somehow made a mistake on choice by not embracing the "faith based" opinion of anti-choicers when trying to uphold my niece's right to choose...that's when my hackles go up.

    That's part of the reason I opposed Casey...

    I don't see apples and oranges. He isn't special.

    Parent

    Do you have... (none / 0) (#150)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:53:03 PM EST
    the exact quote?  It seems to me that he was saying we should attempt to understand what the opposition says, rather than outright dismiss them.  So that isnt an endorsement of anti choice thoughts, but more of an acknowledgement that theyre humans too.  And they have their beliefs for a reason that they believe is right.  I think understanding that is the first step in working towards changing someones mind.  But none of that might apply since I cant remember exactly what he was saying.

    Also I agree that pandering is always folly.  But my point was that hes doing it to garner votes, as ill-advised as that may be.  

    And I wouldnt say Obama is special either.  For me Id much rather have HRC as the nominee, but I dont get to make that final decision.  In the end Im advocating that he isnt McBush.  And while that isnt exactly an exciting point to be pushing, I feel the neocons have controlled and damaged enough in the past 8 years.  Lets not give them 16.

    Parent

    No... (none / 0) (#152)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM EST
    it's posted here somewhere.

    Even still...the assumption is that pro-choice advocates haven't paid attention.

    It's not that we haven't paid attention. It's that the opinion of a anti-choice advocate is that...opinion.

    That opinion legally stops where my body, my sister's body, my niece's body begins.

    Like any other candidat, he has to earn my vote. Thus far, he hasn't even come close.

    Parent

    I can see... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:41:00 PM EST
    that interpretation of his words, but I think hes more trying to remind us that they feel just as strongly about their beliefs as we do ours.  And I think this battle can only be won by turning as many of them as is possible.  Now thats not to say we dont get in the trenches and fight, but personally I like it when he appeals to discourse when winning these wars.

    Parent
    Perhaps if he'd stop (none / 0) (#156)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:11:32 PM EST
    trying to remind us that the other side "has feelings too."

    I've done a lot of discourse analysis, and what his discursive turn did was prioritize the anti-choice position to the detriment of "the base" in an effort to pander.

    This isn't the first time he's done that. I doubt it will be the last.

    Parent

    Plus... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:35:42 PM EST
    The idea that somehow the anti-choice opinion is so much more important/agonized over is bunk.

    I sit here wondering if the nurse had told my sister what was going on with the so-called "infection" in her milk duct before she entered the later stages of her pregnancy, would my sister be going through the fight against what is now a Stage 4 breast cancer.

    I don't know what the right answer is. But to have some candidate suggest that I'm somehow without a moral compass and haven't taken anti-choice positions as more than someone's personal faith/belief/opinion really...

    Votes are earned.

    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#155)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:45:34 PM EST
    I see what youre saying, but do you think youre own personal experiences are clouding your view here?  I of course realize we cant escape our personal experiences, nor should we.  But we also cant let them wholly dictate our interpretations.

    Parent
    I think... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:22:55 PM EST
    that I've been poked, elbowed, and almost punched escorting women through protest lines.

    I think that I've sat and hugged crying students who were faced with 30 ft high anti-choice billboard protests on campus and the yelling screeds of anti-choice advocates.

    I think that the opinion of an anti-choice advocate ends where I begin.

    I think that the pharmacists who refuse to give out the Morning After Pill because it's unacceptable to their religious beliefs should be fired on the spot for ignoring the prescription of a doctor to a patient.

    I think that legally, anti-choice advocates are welcome to their opinion. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, respect it, or pay attention to it. Because I really don't think that they just want to be heard. I think that they, like my aunt's crazy preacher (she turns her hearing aid off ::shrug::), want to change the laws to make abortion go away.

    To think that "all they want is to be understood" after so many many years of protests and screeds and posters and bumper stickers...is naive at best.

    Parent

    The problem is... (none / 0) (#158)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:53 PM EST
    fighting them on their own terms wont ever work.  Its like the middle east.  Do you think the best retort to terrorist bombing is to do more bombing?

    Parent
    You don't fight them on their terms... (none / 0) (#160)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:59 PM EST
    But you do stand your ground. They aren't interested in giving ground in a sit down exchange.

    By acknowledging their POV and the "morality" crap, you've given up ground in hopes that they'll be willing to give ground back.

    Problem is...they aren't going to do that. They will take what you've given and then run with it.

    Most of the anti-choice advocates who live around me do not see a middle ground. Honestly? The more moderate advocates I've talked to...they don't see a middle space.

    And no, comparing this to the ME over-simplifies the complex inter-relationships that have been going on in the ME for the past several centuries.

    Both are incredibly difficult topics in and of their own right. I don't think that they are comparable.


    Parent

    In the details... (none / 0) (#163)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:59:09 PM EST
    they may not be directly comparable, but the overall point is how hostile, uncompromising approaches are doomed to fail.  You can win battles with aggression, and sometimes its called for, but to win a war you have to convince the other side how theyre wrong.  And I think we'd both agree that thats what the ultimate goal is.

    As far as your examples, theyre antidotal evidence, which I can also give as counterpoints.  But that doesnt really lead anywhere.

    Parent

    It's anecdotal (none / 0) (#167)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:44 PM EST
    And ostensibly...the opinions of anti-choice advocates are opinion.

    I'm not interested in winning. The law's already on my side.

    Ostensibly, we won ages ago when the Supreme Court ruled on RvW and other cases.

    All discussion with regards to it have simply been attempts to overturn RvW.

    And when he pandered to the anti-choice crew, he bought the anti-choice frame.

    Parent

    RvW was a battle... (none / 0) (#169)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:15:48 PM EST
    not the war.  I think that point would be made should we ever get a real conservative coalition on the supreme court, one thats worse than what we have now.

    Parent
    and the only candidate (none / 0) (#170)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:06 PM EST
    I trust on this particular issue is HRC.

    She has made efforts to talk to folks...while not thwacking at pro-choice advocates in the process.

    Parent

    To be honest... (none / 0) (#173)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:30:48 PM EST
    I havent heard her views on RvW.  I suppose Ive gone off assumption, which is that she'd roll over dead before she ever let it get overturned.  Though Im unsure how she'd handle the more grey areas.  

    For me, were I to have the perfect candidate on this matter, Id want one who'd advocate that EVERY abortion was legal.  I dont care if theyre in the delivery room, crowning.  If the woman wants it aborted, thats whats done, no questions asked... but I may be on the extreme end of it and will NEVER get that kind of candidate.

    Parent

    and I'd say that (none / 0) (#176)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:48:27 PM EST
    your particular preference went the way of the dodo, in part, because some politician types were bullied into engaging in a discussion where they lost ground to anti-choice advocates :)

    Under her, there'd be no chance of an anti-choice judge.

    Ginsberg...

    Just saying.

    Parent

    Im definitely not saying... (none / 0) (#177)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:29:41 AM EST
    Obama is the best choice here.  What I am saying is that youll never change someones mind by shouting at them how theyre wrong.  Never.  The only way to keep RvW is to ensure that people eventually see the flaws in their reasoning, which can only be accomplished through dialogue.  Now this cant happen in every situation, which is the case for all of your examples of personal experience.  But thats why theres a difference between a battle and a war.  And playing the long game wont be easy.  Rather, it will be very hard, as is always the case when trying to change someones mind.  But this issue is important enough to try.

    Parent
    They aren't interested in logical (none / 0) (#180)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:50:56 AM EST
    arguments. They know that they aren't going to win the logical argument...so they spend the better part of their time avoiding the logical argument.

    Look, a pathos-laden argument like this is what has been wandering around the various campuses. Something 2x as big showed up at the university I did my doctoral work at...it showed up again at the Big 10 university I had my first teaching gig at.

    These folks have been at this for decades trying to get people to engage in the "dialogue" so long as it's on their emo/pathos/faith/belief/opinion level. When well meaning folks who are a bit on the naive side give in, events like this happen.

    Emotive arguments are their strong suit. They don't want to deal in logic. That's why they talk about how their opinions aren't getting "respected."

    And frankly...the assumption is that the pro-choice advocates are the one standing in the way of discourse and progress. Guess again...

    He stuck his foot right in it...

    Parent

    Id say this... (none / 0) (#181)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:03:10 AM EST
    youre addressing the far right, not moderates or just normal conservatives.  So yes generally they are incapable of being turned... though if a nazi skinhead can be reformed anyone can.  But yes, they are exceedingly unlikely to be swayed.  Then again, they are not the majority.  Most people are more reasonable then they are, and throwing fire at the more sensible ones keeps them on the dark side.  

    So you fight the battles with the far right, we both agree on that.  But from there you win the war with everyone else.  Thats what Im saying, having expounded on Obamas words.

    Parent

    I'm addressing my neighbors (none / 0) (#183)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:37:13 AM EST
    They aren't far right. They aren't extremists.

    They just aren't interested in dealing logically with what they "believe" are articles of faith.


    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#188)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM EST
    this is antidotal evidence.  I personally know conservatives who have gone from having no compassion for women impregnated by rape to now being ok with a very very early abortion, yet still advocating for life... but understanding how theres a choice involved.  So we have counter examples based off of personal experience.  Neither will sway the others opinions.

    Parent
    The spelling is anecdotal... (none / 0) (#190)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:25:28 PM EST
    um, can I play the 'im just an artist' card on this one?

    Parent
    and sorry... (none / 0) (#184)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:48:19 AM EST
    but I don't buy your interpretation of Obama's words.

    It seems like you reading his words and "hoping" for the best with other things informing your POV.

    I don't have that hope. And frankly, after a series of shots aimed at base voters, from him and his supporters, hope isn't on the same continent.

     

    Parent

    For me... (none / 0) (#189)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    your view of Obamas words are heavy skewed by your own personal bad experiences with the far right.  Much like one might feel about environmentalists if say a loved one was killed from a spike planted in a tree while cutting it down.  

    I respect you.  Youre intelligent and fun to debate with.  But on this one I dont think youre looking at this objectively.

    Parent

    my interpretation (none / 0) (#191)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM EST
    hangs on the candidate's use of implied argument, understanding of the context of the comments (pandering), the word "mistake," and finally, on the seeming prioritization (see Perelman on the use of value hierarchies as a way of group identification), by Obama, of a "moral struggle" on the part of anti-choice advocates.

    I learned a long time ago how to try and step out from behind my personal screens when it comes to analyzing persuasive discourse.

    Parent

    Firstly... (none / 0) (#196)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:10:02 PM EST
    I wanted to say, again, that he Is Not my first choice, but at this point, what other choice do we have?  HRC, my preferred candidate, most likely isn't going to win.  So Im working with what weve been given.

    Secondly, I've been going over his words again quite a bit and I see what your objections are.  But I sincerely think it was all in the pursuit of votes.  Now is that a great thing?  Absolutely not, but I really do believe that if he were a white candidate he'd have different rhetoric.  Throughout this process, as Ive watched his campaign, Id say hes desperately tried to avoid coming off as the angry black man, because that will kill his votes (see wright).  So in that same vein he wants to come off as `one of them', with `them' being your average white male moderate.  I don't think it goes any deeper than pandering.  So, like any politician, you have to take what they say with a grain of salt because they all play this game.

    Now if you want to have a conversation about political integrity, then yes, he should own is roots, step up and defend the values of his chosen party.  And I think a white male candidate could get away with the latter in this current political atmosphere (I mourn Wellstone daily).  But a black man, if he wants to have a chance for winning, has to prove hes the right kind of black.  Just like a woman has to prove shes strong.  It's an unfair barrier, but its definitely there.  For me, Id almost rather lose and see a candidate embrace whats real than have Obama constantly bending over just to get elected, but Ive yet to successfully take over the world so my wants don't matter.

    Parent

    I'm out... (none / 0) (#172)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:28:57 PM EST
    Student conferences tomorrow and more papers to read.

    Ultimately, there are ways to engage the opposition while not tossing your own base under the bus. Thus far, Obama hasn't been able to figure out how to do that.

    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#174)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:33:50 PM EST
    Id maintain this is an issue of perception of his comments.  Where you say he throws pro choice under the bus, Id say hes trying to get us all on it to hammer this out.  Neither can be absolutely proven.

    Parent
    I don't see your interpretation... (none / 0) (#175)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:22 PM EST


    Parent
    My interpretation is... (none / 0) (#178)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:35:28 AM EST
    that he wants a dialogue to be built, rather than an endless shouting match.  So where you see backstabing and under bus throwing, I see a desire for winning the war through discourse.  

    I did want to say that Im glad there are people like you to win the battles and to rally the troops.  We need staunch supporters when the chips are down.  But theres also room for open and fair discussion, when its capable of being had.  This is the angle hes coming from.

    Parent

    The point is... (none / 0) (#179)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:32:53 AM EST
    that there's no space for discussion when you're dealing with people who are not interested in anything other than taking what the opposition is willing to give up.

    These are some of the things that the acquiescent pols interested in dialogue have given up/rolled over for in that effort to "engage in better dialogue":
    Late term abortion ban (mis-framed by the anti-choice)
    Parental Permission Laws
    Waiting Periods for women to "think it over"
    Faith-based "Help" clinics that lie to young women
    Restrictions on foreign aid for women's clinics
    "Abstinence Only" programs that don't work

    We're losing the discursive war...and not because pro-choice activists don't "respect" anti-choice views.

    Parent

    As to why were losing... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:41:33 AM EST
    this issue does not exist in a vacuum.  As I know you know, the neocon movement had been working for years to create an agenda they could successfully push onto the American public.  And they had strong success with it under reagan, but eventually went to far (see 1992).  It was the Clinton administration that had them scratching their heads, with no idea how to beat his triangulation style.  So they decided to steal 2000, seeing as how they couldn't actually win it with their old, played out, bible-thumping ways.  

    Here W was in a rut, dying under whats now the second lowest approval rating he'd ever have, which meant neocons weren't making any real headway.  Then 9/11 happened, and that's when bush became an unstoppable force, sent by satan to revitalize and enforce this stale agenda.  They used and manipulated the hatred, fear and revenge of the American public... etc.  

    The point is, RvW is just one of the democratic symbols neocons are gunning for, while still using it change election cycles.  But of course they again went too far (see 2006-present) which helped cure the 9/11 sickness most Americans were suffering.  And now its up to our side to alleviate the symptoms that still linger.  

    ... and to do that in the aftermath, where neocon boundaries lie vulnerable, Id say the best way to do that is with reason, tempered by aggression where applicable, since using only one style isnt going to work.  (This ties into my most recent above post).

    Parent

    The neocons couldn't care less (none / 0) (#185)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:00:11 AM EST
    about RvW except to have the symbol as something to drum up support from the base (your religiously based voters, who aren't interested in getting into logical conversations with the 'baby killers' except to get them to agree that they have no moral code).

    They have a bigger picture in mind that deals with power and money and control of something more global.

    Base control is a means to an end with them.

    And you don't negotiate with a terrorist until he has forsworn the gun (or in the case of the Army of God...the "anthrax" envelope) in favor of the ballot box. For example, Martin McGuinness--former big wig in the IRA now major player in the power sharing executive.

    Parent

    For one... (none / 0) (#187)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:32:22 AM EST
    neocons are deeply religious.  Manifest destiny is their political bible.  So yes, they use RvW to get votes, but they also believe abortion is evil.  Im sure their ideal goal would be to kill RvW after theyve solidified their hold on everything and no longer need it.  

    Secondly, if youre so against open discussion on the topic, whats your solution?  We cant just cross our fingers hoping theres never a time when conservatives overwhelmingly control the supreme court.  So what would you say is the final solution?

    Parent

    I think you're mistaking neocons with (none / 0) (#192)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:44:30 PM EST
    paleocons.

    Krystol, Novak, and Perle could care less about religion beyond how they can use it to control the base.

    Dobson and Buchanan? Whole different form of conservative.

    My solution? Think harder. Learn to think critically and stop playing into the emo arguments. That requires a spine and less touchy-feely from a group of folks who are seemingly wired to be compassionate, which is something the anti-choicers want.

    And stop looking at the flash and thinking it's got substance.

    Way way way too many intelligent Dems are currently in a thrall of a flash in the pan candidate who doesn't have the gravitas to be able to actually get the job done. This is a guy who was going to vote for Roberts until a staffer advised him not to.

    Sheesh...

    Honestly, I think he needs at least one more term in the Senate.

    But that would mean that he'd have a real voting record under his belt...and that would be bad in this period where it seems better to not stand for anything in order to get ahead.

    Parent

    This is my solution too... (none / 0) (#193)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:23:22 PM EST
    Im always for using the most appropriate tactic for each situation, and I dont think anything in Obamas statement contradict that.  

    A reasonable, open and fair discussion doesnt mean it has to be a love in.  It means you treat the other side with respect, and if you have an attentive audience filled with moderates, if you keep your cool while the other side blows up, you can easily win.  So going by what your solution is, we seem to agree.

    Parent

    One thing you need to realize... (none / 0) (#195)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:54:11 PM EST
    and I learned this the hard way.

    A lot of conservatives see liberal willingness to "talk" as a sign of weakness and see it as an opportunity to dominate the conversation to the point of using a combination of aggressive and passive aggressive rhetorical strategies to get what they want.

    Obama's "I'm disappointed" statements remind me of the Passive Aggressive portion of that strategy. Rhetorically, they are manipulative.

    Parent

    Oh I agree... (none / 0) (#197)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:23:18 PM EST
    there are a lot that think talk equates weakness.  But in my own personal long term strategy in creating a liberal world, you convert the easiest first.  And most moderates dont see things that same way, so open, fair and respectful dialogues can and will work on them.  

    One of the biggest weaknesses conservatives have is they hate being in the minority, and when they feel theyre outnumbered ideologically, they start fleeing like rats on a sinking ship.  Moreover, they are easier to control because in their sick little minds, majority = right.

    So we agree that we should tighten up our rhetoric.  Then we can win debates and convert moderates by flustering conservatives into self destruction, outright defeating their arguments, or both.

    Parent

    Lately? (none / 0) (#198)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    The best person I've seen doing just that (tightening the rhetoric to be able to debate, engage, and not lose ground) is getting thwacked all to h3ll by her own party.

    There are a couple others...but none are running for POTUS (except maybe Biden). Clark's another one who has his game down...and doesn't give ground.

    Siege mentality...you see a lot of that with the Unionists in Northern Ireland.


    Parent

    Unfortunately... (none / 0) (#199)
    by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:51:12 PM EST
    HRCs best performace was the oreilly interview, which came too little too late.  Im not really sure what was stopping her before that, but if we'd seen that Hillary a year ago this primary would have turned out quite differently.

    Parent
    I've heard some good performances (none / 0) (#200)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:59:03 PM EST
    on C-span. For whatever reason, they weren't covered on cable TV.

    Her speech at Wellesley was top drawer (heard it on the way to pool...I think). You can find it on YouTube...but not on normal TV.

    Parent

    I'm not sure... (none / 0) (#201)
    by Thanin on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:02:44 AM EST
    if you read it but I posted something earlier, #196.

    And thanks for the info on her Wellesley speech. I'll check it out.

    Parent

    I see what you're saying... (none / 0) (#203)
    by kredwyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:23:47 AM EST
    and I was there back in Feb as a possibility in spite of the 2006 "accommodate the religious discourse" speech and the "McClurkin" escapade (and I was really really pissed with McClurkin).

    Then he told Florida (2/3 of my immediate family are new, and pissed, Fla voters) that they didn't count. Then he brought up the "bitter" comment. Then the "mistake" comment.

    His handling of the Wright situation was bush-league (no pun intended).

    It seems that every time I turn around there is another chunk of the base that his campaign, or its supporters, are willing to "do" without (note Brazille's most recent comments).

    I voted for Kerry cause I thought he was smart and figured he'd do a good job. With Kerry, you knew what you were getting--a Dem with experience who would do his best.

    I don't think we'll get that from this guy. And I want more than misty promises of hope, ponies, and  "new politics."

    Parent

    and frankly... (none / 0) (#162)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:58:24 PM EST
    The laws (RvW and others) are on the side of protecting a woman's right to choose.

    It's the anti-choice advocates who are interested in changing those laws. As such, the onus is on them to convince folks...and they've opted to engage in bully tactics, pathos laden rants, and amazingly horrific photos the height of small buildings.

    They've opted to traumatize folks in an effort to get their way. They've tried to blow up clinics.

    My questions to the candidate are:
    Where's the moral compass in that?
    Why should I "respect" these actions as the expression of valid opinions?


    Parent

    There are... (none / 0) (#165)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:04:23 PM EST
    those on the far right that hurt their cause, just like there are those on the far left that hurt ours.  But just as eco terrorists fire bombing houses dont represent your views, their whackos dont represent theirs - most people do not advocate killing doctors.

    Parent
    My neighbors would not advocate (none / 0) (#186)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:09:33 AM EST
    killing doctors. But they do think that I am a "baby killer." They do think that I lack a moral compass because I'm pro-choice.

    And they do have their bumper stickers that say things along the lines of "Save the Baby Human."

    And they won't talk to me about it because though I acknowledge that they have their opinions, I'm not willing to accept that their opinions are valid when applied to other women. I'm willing to accept that they have their opinion and they're welcome to that opinion...but they don't see why I'm not willing to change my position on choice to be more in line with their belief system.

    Parent

    Here is the part... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:38:01 PM EST
    that I reacted the most strongly to:

    "It may be that those who have opposed abortion get a sense that I'm listening to them and respect their position even though where we finally come down may be different," he told reporters at a news conference.

    "The mistake that pro-choice forces have sometimes made in the past, and this is a generalization so it has not always been the case, has been to not acknowledge the wrenching moral issues involved in it," he said.

    He's right...it is a generalization, one that implies that the fault is with the pro-choice advocates for not "getting" it.

    Parent

    But... (none / 0) (#161)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:51:16 PM EST
    to me, taking everything he said as a whole, its pretty positive.  He does state, in a congenial way, that he comes down differently on this position than they do.  And not barking that at them appeals to those on the fence, which means more votes.  So just taking this part of the speech, and this is the specific point were talking about right now, reads as being open minded and fair, while still holding a view hes willing to defend.  To me that trumps an all-in-your-face approach.  

    Moreover, the part you have a problem with is said as an olive branch, which is the best way to start a real dialogue.  And even within that he acknowledges it wouldnt apply universally.  Quite honestly its a well worded, thought out response that subtly points out the folly of more close minded tactics.

    Parent

    The other side of that olive branch (none / 0) (#164)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:02:09 PM EST
    is the "here's what y'all--pro-choice advocates--have done wrong in your attempts to protect the thing that I was elected to uphold--the Constitution."

    See above for the rest...

    Parent

    You can see it like that... (none / 0) (#166)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:07:43 PM EST
    but it becomes an argument of intent, which neither of us have any actual evidence of.  All we can do is speculate, but that seems unlikely to sway either to the others side.

    Parent
    For a guy who thinks that words have meaning (none / 0) (#168)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:15:12 PM EST
    he's awfully fuzzy with his use of language that allows supporters to forgive.

    I'm not in his camp. I'm not in her camp.

    I am someone who analyzes the use of language and language as symbolic action to persuade an audience.

    He's heavy on pathos...and implication.

    Parent

    Lately... (none / 0) (#171)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:27:00 PM EST
    Ive been more in her camp than his, meaning neither would be the ideal nomination for me.  But Im working with what weve been given.  So I grant that any view on his arguments can be suspect given their slippery nature, but until we have a pitch perfect nominee who never makes mistakes and who'll get 100% of everyone in the worlds vote, we'll have to make due, unfortunately.  

    Parent
    and from what I can tell... (none / 0) (#149)
    by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:44:01 PM EST
    He tossed me and mine under the bus with that comment.

    He tossed his 20 year long mentor under the bus for political expediency.

    It won't be long before Ayers is down there too.

    Why should I trust him now?

    Parent

    See above n/t (none / 0) (#151)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:54:06 PM EST


    Parent
    it's a shame that (none / 0) (#5)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:58:06 AM EST
    I am not a resident of Ohio, Missouri or Pennsylvannia...where my vote would make a difference in the eventual outcome.

    Thank you Alaska and Idaho for your hard work!


    Parent

    folks (none / 0) (#4)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:55:25 AM EST
    obama is the nominee and as much as many here don't want to do it, you need to see him get elected.  

    hillary can and should play a critical role in this process and can greatly increase her long term political value in the process.  

    like it or not, it is time to accept that it isn't going to happen for hillary and work toward beating mccain.  if hillary were to somehow get the nomination now, it would be brutal and would be much more like stealing an election from the AA community than it would have been had the math been a little more in her favor.

    That last paragraph... (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:59:29 AM EST
    will just make people around here mad.

    Parent
    maybe... (none / 0) (#49)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:45 AM EST
    but honestly...

    the idea of picking the candidate that is behind if every count out there to be the nominee is tough for me to stomach and i didn't vote for obama.

    but hey, i'm all for letting everybody vote.  it just won't be enough to turn the tables.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:43 AM EST
    then you have to consider why youre here.  If its to try and unify the party, then you have to change tactics.

    Parent
    I'm here to win (none / 0) (#72)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:33:00 AM EST
    not unify the party.

    Win meant John Edwards to me.  Then it meant Hillary Clinton.  Now it simply means beating McCain.

    And Hillary can vastly improve her own political clout if she handles things the right way.

    Parent

    Ok... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:40:12 AM EST
    so if your goal is to win, then isnt it in your best interests that HRC supporters vote for Obama in the GE?  Im simply saying this has to be done with some finesse.

    Parent
    Win without unity? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:46:50 AM EST
    How does one win without unifying the party?

    And I'm not HRC.  She has her concerns, and god bless her for following what path she believes serves the party and her best.  I admire her for that, and I think she'll take the correct path both for the party and her.

    But I have my own concerns, and voting for a party that would allow - no, encourage and practice the racism-baiting and misogyny of this primary season is one that I abslutely do not want to be affiliated with.  At this point, I'm a single candidate voter.

    You can call me every name in the book, you can try to blackmail me any way you want, you can try every reasonable and logical argument on me, you can tell me to wait until my "passion" cools down.  I'm just going to shrug my shoulders and move on.  I don't even care to try and argue about it.  You'll do what you do, I'll do what I do.  It's not about "passion" at this point.  It's about a bone-deep resignation that truly, truly, truly nothing will change and my vote will never make a difference because there will always be a way to make me not count.  I just never truly believed, until now, that it would be the Dems that did that to me.

    Parent

    At the very least... (none / 0) (#85)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:53:43 AM EST
    youre not like the others who're saying they'll vote for McSleepy instead, almost seeming to do so out of spite.

    Parent
    There's (none / 0) (#88)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:53 PM EST
    plenty of anger to 'round.  I can't blame anybody for theirs.  And I'd never presume to tell anybody how they "should" vote.

    Look, I don't think Obama would be a particularly good President and I don't think he gives a fig about the concerns of the Black community.  But I respect that Black voters would have reasons to vote for him that, perhaps, I don't share.  And it's not my place to complain about how Black voters are voting or lecture them on their voting or tell them the Democratic party doesn't need them any more or call them names.

    It seems that same regard can not be returned to women and/or HRC voters.  So, yeah, plenty of anger to go 'round and if it returns negatives in the fall -- well, you reap what you sow.  It's why HRC is always so careful to keep going to Black events and why she yanked Bill off the national stage when the racism accusations started swirling.  Long-term, they know they need to be able to reach out to the Black community and that will go easier if they don't stoke the rancor or act like they don't care about Black voters.  That's never been true of the Obama campaign and its relationship with women or older voters.  So, I can't blame anybody who chooses to return Obama's attitude in spades.

    Parent

    I think... (none / 0) (#101)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    there are legitimate concerns that McBush would start a war with Iran.  And as much as you dislike Obama, I dont think one could make a strong case that he'd also start that war.  Peoples lives are literally at stake this next election cycle.  Beyond soldiers, but women civilans caught in that crossfire.  That for me is a disgusting thought.

    Parent
    There's an equal chance (none / 0) (#111)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:09:46 PM EST
    that Obama could start up a war in Pakaistan or The Caucuses.  
    He bound to have a war or two.

    Parent
    Equal? (none / 0) (#116)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:15:04 PM EST
    What proof do you have to support an equal chance?  Has he been singing about bombing countries too?

    Parent
    He said in a debate that ... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:36:31 PM EST
    ...he intended to redeploy troops to Pakistan.

    That's a pretty distinct thing.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:53:11 PM EST
    What he said was:

    I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

    link
    Hillary lambasted him for that remark but then did her own tough talk about oblitererating Iran.

    Both are the same when it comes to war. Both advocate withdrawing most of the troops out of Iraq and taking the WOT to Afghanistan. Although it is a pipe dream, imo,  because there is little money or popular support not to mention the International support that they claim is at hand.


    Parent

    Soldiers (none / 0) (#122)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:39:42 PM EST
    It's not my job to bail other people out of their choices.  I'm not the great mommy who can kiss it all and make it go away.  You makes your choices and takes your chances.  If the military is opposed to a McCain candidacy and possible war in Iran, they can vote those interests in a bloc against McCain.  That's their choice not mine and if they choose to vote McCain, well, again <shrug>, it's not my responsibility to think I know their own interests better than they do.

    And, before you go there, I'm a veteran so I'm not just talking out of my ass.  I made my own choices and lived with them.

    Parent

    Arrgh (none / 0) (#124)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:46:03 PM EST
    sorry about the cuss word.  My bad.

    Parent
    Your position... (none / 0) (#125)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    seems quite thought out from your prospective, so Im not trying to convince you to vote for Obama.  What I am trying to do is offer a counterpoint to those bothering to read these.  And, as I said earlier, youre at least not voting for McSleepy.  So thats something.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#132)
    by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:53:41 PM EST
    I'm offering a counter-counter-point.  'S all good, right?

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#146)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:38:31 PM EST
    since youre so insistent on how you dont want to be told how to vote and everyone is free to make up there mind how they want, Id wonder why youre responding then if you know Im not really directing my responses directly at you.

    Parent
    Why should she play a roll (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:00:29 AM EST
    Obama thinks she's untrustworthy.


    Parent
    Personally.... (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by trillian on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:01:11 AM EST
    ....I have no expectation that Obama will make the right choice for SCOTUS either.

    He thought that Roberts was hunkey dorey until a staffer told him it would not be good for him politically.

    Also, his LUV for everything Republican and his desire to end the "bickering"...which can only mean capitulation....leads me to expect the worst.

    Sorry, no sale.

    Parent

    what is the alternative? (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:20:09 AM EST
    going against obama in the general is not unlike those that voted for nader against gore.

    look what it got us...

    Parent

    Not yet. (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    obama is the nominee

    Let's just keep letting the people vote, shall we?

    Parent

    This needed to be said. (none / 0) (#8)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:59:55 AM EST
    Thanks.

    I don't care (none / 0) (#11)
    by Prabhata on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:00:42 AM EST
    Jeralyn, I know this is a very important issue to you, but most Americans are happy with the Alito and Roberts.  The judges that I admired from the Earl Warren court are not what Americans want. That's why McCain is saying that he will nominate judges to the far right.  It's a democracy and maybe judges should represent more the overall ideology of the American people.

    So... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    just because 'most' people think something, that means its what should happen?  There was a time when most people thought women shouldnt vote and AAs should all be in chains.  But thats ok because a lot of people liked that idea?

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:14 AM EST
    So Americans want Roe V Wade to be overturned?  

    Go read up on Janice Rogers Brown and then tell us that you don't think that judges matter.

    Parent

    if it were overturned... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    ...We would have a super majority in the Senate and the GOP would be extinct.

    They didn't try any big tricks when they had the Senate, House and Whitehouse.

    Besides we can now block any appointment a GOP president makes.

    Parent

    Oh man... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM EST
    "Besides we can now block any appointment a GOP president makes."

    Pass over whatever it is youre smokin cause its gotta be good.


    Parent

    invisible snark tags. (none / 0) (#62)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:25:19 AM EST
    I'm just pointing out the limited appeal of the Obama/McCain SCOTUS argument.  it's not like it worked in 2000 or 2004 with Bush.

    I would like to see Obama nail McCain on the war.

    That's more than enough for me.  

    Parent

    Ok... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:31:53 AM EST
    it may not be the one killer argument, but its definitely part of the package.

    Parent
    i'd avoid it (none / 0) (#77)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:41:04 AM EST
    certainly in the terms that are being bandied around.

    We know Mccain isn't that hot for banning abortions.  he's a flip flopper on that issue.

    Just go get him on the IWR and the war in general.

    Parent

    Eh... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:58:57 AM EST
    that argument is really just to rally the troops, not turn the enemy.  Basically when it works it helps keep our side fired up and when it doesnt, there isnt really any negative impact.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#91)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
     
    ......from the National Right to Life Committee, McCain's voting record on the issue is just fine, says David O'Steen, the group's executive director.

    "He's been very consistent; he hasn't changed his position," O'Steen says. He says that his group has supported McCain in every one of his senate races. "We've always considered him pro-life," he says.

    Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says her group has always considered McCain pro-life as well. And it's not just abortion, she says.

    "He voted against family planning, he voted against the freedom of access to clinic entrances -- that was about violence against women in clinics," Keenan says, adding, "He voted against funding for teen pregnancy-prevention programs, and making sure that abstinence only was medically accurate. This is very, very extreme.

    NPR

    Parent

    Right. Just like BHO was gonna vote for Stevens (none / 0) (#47)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:29 AM EST
    before he was told that wouldn't look right when he (Obama) ran for Prez.

    Much good our Dem majority has done so far.

    Parent

    You mean roberts. n/t (none / 0) (#51)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:19:52 AM EST


    Parent
    Ooops. Yes, you are right (none / 0) (#69)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:30:22 AM EST
    thank you for the correction.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#60)
    by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:00 AM EST
    We had a very nice majority when Clarence Thomas was nominated.

    Parent
    that's my point. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:27:28 AM EST
    But They won't push for R v W. They are doing it Mao style and choking off access by other means.

    The SCOTUS cannot stop that strategy from happening.

    Parent

    Spineless Democrats (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:11:00 AM EST
    Yeah, we need to get rid of the McCaskills, Pelosi's, Leahy's, Reid's, and so forth!! In particular: Pelosi.

    Personally I would argue (none / 0) (#37)
    by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:14:00 AM EST
    that obama is a good candidate becaus ehe can tiorture mccain on the IWR and the rush to war.

    that's worth my vote.

    After 9/11 if you think that this country (none / 0) (#92)
    by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:21:49 PM EST
    is going to turn itself over to someone who has shown himself to go soft around past terrorists you have a huge thing coming.  It'll be a close race and Obama could lose.

    Parent
    It's not even going to be close. (none / 0) (#97)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:38:48 PM EST
    Think about the "Don't blame me. I'm from Massachusetts" bumper sticker days.  Oh, what ? Doesn't even carry Massachusetts?

    Parent
    Two things (none / 0) (#99)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:42:52 PM EST
    1.  If McCain is so dangerous, why did Kerry ask him multiple times to be his running mate?

    2.  If McCain is so dangerous, why did the Democrats nominate a candidate who can't possibly win?

    If the Supreme Court gets stacked with right wing crazies, it isn't the fault of the voter, it's the fault of the Democratic Party.

    If the court gets stacked... (none / 0) (#102)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:51:12 PM EST
    with republican nominees it will be the fault of those who voted for a republican.  

    Also, your first question assumes that Kerrys opinion has some sort of importance.

    Parent

    Kerry's endorsement (none / 0) (#104)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:57:31 PM EST
    was viewed as a real prize, wasn't it?

    Parent
    No. (none / 0) (#105)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:58:36 PM EST
    It will be the fault of the ones who nominated someone who can't possibly win.

    Sorry, I don't go wasting my vote on an empty rhetorical suit just because he "isn't McCain."  Maybe YOU do, but I have standards.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:10:34 PM EST
    If Obama gets the nomination, you will have a lot of extra time on your hands. TL and all the left blogosphere will be supporting the Democratic nominee. I imagine that the hard core anti Obama maniacs will be able to continue their rants at the right wing sites without missing a beat.

    Parent
    Just (none / 0) (#133)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:06:52 PM EST
    because we might be supporting him doesn't mean that he'll get into the WH. I'm pretty sure that it looks like he won't right now. I'm not saying don't try but we have to face reality.

    Parent
    I Think That (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:13:11 PM EST
    You are looking through the narrow lens of the primary. Once the GE fight starts pumping it will become clear that Americans are sick and tired of the GOP.

    We got a preview in '06. McSame/McBush is the one who is damaged goods, at best an outdated brand.

    Parent

    You (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    know what? I've heard this time and again and it never turns out to be true.

    First of all 1/2 the voters think that McCain represents change simply because of the maverick image he has. Secondly, depending on people being sick of the GOP doesn't work. Thirdly, the approval ratings of congress are miserable and the fact that people like them even less than Bush doesn't inspire confidence that a candidate picked by these same losers (pelosi, kennedy etc.) will do any better electorally.

    What happened in 2006 doesn't really have any bearing on what will happen in 2008. The Dems in congress have pretty much failed to deliver. People might just decide that divided government is the way to go.

    Parent

    It Has Not Happened Yet (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:45:27 PM EST
    So how can this be:
    never turns out to be true.

    Wait until we have a nominee, and then we can see what turns out to be true.

    Both dem candidates are in a great position to beat McCain, imo.

    Parent

    Again... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:06:56 PM EST
    I'm sure the additional 4000 dead American soldiers will appreciate your standards.

    Parent
    agreed (none / 0) (#114)
    by oldnorthstate on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:12:21 PM EST
    putting mccain in office out of spite is probably not in the best interests of most that have been supporting hillary.

     

    Parent

    Leaving (none / 0) (#126)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    an abusive situation is. We'll be fine without the Democratic Party, but bless your heart for worrying about us.

    Parent
    Whos us? (none / 0) (#128)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    This site will support whomever is the nominee, which means if Obama gets it, TL will support him.  So Im not sure what 'us' youre talking about.

    Parent
    you are correct (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by Jeralyn on Fri May 09, 2008 at 12:11:14 AM EST
    TalkLeft will support Obama if he's the nominee.

    All points of view will be welcome as always but there will be no shilling for McCain here and any McCain supporters can expect to be greatly outnumbered.

    Parent

    Those Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#142)
    by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:11:43 PM EST
    who will help put McCain in office.  Talkleft is free to support which ever candidate they want. If Obama is the nominee and only Obama supporters are welcome here, that's fine, too. Our support for McCain is not out of spite, BTW. It's damage control, and apparently there are more of us every day.

    Parent
    You Won't Be Missed (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:02:43 PM EST
    Around these parts, at least by me.  Redstate et al will welcome you with open arms, as long as you spout Obama hate exclusively.

    I never understood why anyone would vote for Bush or Reagan either, but it is a free country. Perhaps after a few more Alitos it won't be though.

    I also never understood how anyone can fall so in love with a candidate that they act like cultists.  Never got the sports thing either.

    Parent

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:42:32 PM EST
    the time has long passed that were ok to keep right leaning moderates in the party.  The only thing they do is keep our pols kowtowing to republican stupidity.

    Parent
    McCain on Judicial Appointments | 201 comments (201 topical)