Hate Roe v. Wade? Disgusted by Social Security? Don't want Medicare? Cool

[nichomachus]

all you have to do is:

1. Hold your breath until you turn blue on election day
2. Don't support the Democratic nominee
3. Don't work to see that we get a Democrat -- any Democrat -- into the White House
4. Hang on to all your money and don't donate
5. Trash the nominee as much as you can
6. Take the "Well, let's just see how "electable" he/she is without me" attitude
7. Don't convince everyone you know that the fascists coup is almost complete.

If a Republican takes the White House in November, you can say goodbye to:

o Roe v. Wade
o Voting rights
o Social Security
o Medicare
o Medicaid
o Welfare
o Gay rights
o Unemployment insurance
o Environmental protections
o Worker safety
o Worker rights
o Minimum wage
o Unions
o Quality public education
o Community colleges
o What's left of the Constitution
o National parks
o Water (they are working hard to privatize all water supplies and delivery, so you will have to pay through the nose)
o Religious freedom -- more importantly, the right not to be religious
o Veterans benefits
o Privacy
o The right to seek redress through the courts
o and others too numerous to mention

There has been a fascist coup brewing in the US since Prescott Bush tried to install himself as a dictator in 1934. His grandson has brought that coup almost to completion. If we don't do something to stop it now, our window of opportunity will be shut, and we will never overturn the fascist bastards without some serious bloodshed.

[wryter2000]

1. First to K&R n/t

n/t

[coriolis]

2. The significant Democratic majority in Congress we are prognosticating will be unable to

stop all these? EEEEK

[Auggie]

6. Many of the Democrats are beholden to corporations too

Granted, they're still better than the GOP.

[nichomachus]

7. They haven't been too potent lately

or haven't you been paying attention?

And if all these "Democrats" make good on their promise to trash the nominee, there may be no "significant" majority to work with.

Even so, the GOP has always managed to perform very well from a minority position -- they are not afraid to use whatever power they have to bog down the works.

[LynneSin]

9. This isn't about Congress - this is about the US Supreme Court

John Paul Stevens is NOT getting any younger!

[Thothmes]

40. Justice Ginsberg is no spring chicken either

[coriolis]

20. Indeed, but in that case it probably doesn't much matter who the President is.

:shrug:

[nichomachus]

21. Except for the fact

that whoever is in office for the next four years will get to name at least two justices.

If the GOP has the White House for the next 12 years, very likely if McCain is elected, then the court will be a 100 percent far-right fascist/corporate court until after many of here are dead.

[blondeatlast]

22. Wish I could recommend a reply. Yours should be required reading for every voter,

not just those of us on this message board.

:scared:

[coriolis]

27. Actually, it IS likely McCain will end up being elected, but what I meant was

all the fanatically optimistic predictions I keep seeing here vis a vis the Congress would certainly indicate, if realized, a fairly easy way to block inappropriate SC nominees. Hell, we managed to derail Harriet Miers even with Chimp squatting in our WH.

[nichomachus]

31. And who did we get in place of Miers

this is their tactic. They name someone truly odious, let the Dems fume and foam, and then name someone just as odious. By then, the Dems have shot their wad and the second choice sails through. You can't block all their nominees. Well, Dems can't. The GOP would block a thousand in a row.

[coriolis]

32. Well then I have to repeat my original objection. If the Dems can't or won't block them

but the Repugs -can-and-will-, what's the advantage of having a Dem in the White House?

[blondeatlast]

24. Except that the next president will almost certainly make two appointments

(if not more) in their FIRST term in office.

[coriolis]

33. But nichomachus says a good nominee will still be blocked by the Repugs

and a bad one will be supported by the wimp Dems. I see no way to win that kind of game.
:shrug:

edit: "good" and "bad" meant for us and presumably for America

[SmokingJacket]

41. the Repubs won't be able to block every single Dem nominee

They'll try, of course, but eventually whoever a Dem president picks will be on the liberal side of things.

[OmahaBlueDog]

37. Unless, God forbid, chimp replaces Stevens

[madinmaryland]

3. K&R

:thumbsup:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

4. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops...

Nobody has said it more plainly, or more clearly...

There is so damn much riding on our getting a Democrat into the White House, not just this time, but many times...

K&R

[niyad]

5. even the NYT gets it--see the editorial this morning

Editorial
It’s About the White House


Like many Americans, we have been intrigued and often exasperated by the long-running Democratic primary and the ever smaller-bore spats between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. So we are thankful to Senator John McCain for reminding us Tuesday what this year’s presidential race really is about.



On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his judicial philosophy. He is determined to move a far too conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary even further and more actively to the right.

Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. That is just what the country does not need.

Since President Bush chose Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court has ordered Seattle and Louisville to scrap voluntary school integration, protected employers who illegally mistreat their workers, and constrained women’s right to choose and voters’ right to vote.

Mr. McCain did not mention, of course, how the Roberts-led Court blithely overruled Congress by nullifying a key part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. He did wax nostalgic about what “the basic right of property” has meant “since the founding of America.” (He did not mention that in 1789 many women could not own property and African-Americans were property, but he did criticize the idea that values evolve over time.)

. . . . .

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/opinion/07wed1.html?ref=opinion

[LynneSin]

8. I swear some folks just don't get this

And they'll give me the "Oh but the democrats were such a pushover to Bush so why bother"

Well here's why:

These are all Supreme Court issues, NOT congressional issues. And if anything, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have been one of the better parts of these last 8 years. Have they been perfect? No, but they have kept dozens of activist judges from ever getting out of committee and onto the floor where surely enough democrats will crossover to support the nominee.

Sure, I'd like to see Feinstein out of there. But the rest of them get my 2 thumbs up (Yes, even Feingold, who pissed me off with supporting Ashcroft)

Patrick J. Leahy
Edward M. Kennedy
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Herb Kohl
Dianne Feinstein
Russell D. Feingold
Charles E. Schumer
Richard J. Durbin
Benjamin L. Cardin
Sheldon Whitehouse

[nichomachus]

11. Here's how you get around that

A. Assume you're the GOP president (who got in because petty Democrats were busy holding their breath to teach other Democrats a lesson).

B. There is an opening on the Supreme Court, and you know that the Dem-controlled judiciary committee is going to give you problems.

C. You simply name Alberto Gonzales to the Supreme Court. The Dems go apeshit. The blogs go apeshit. The MSM covers the piss fight 24/7.

D. You let the fight play itself out and you let the Dems vote Gonzo down.

E. Then, you name some uncontroversial corporate lobbyist to the court. Everyone is happy that you've "moved to the center." The Dems can't really oppose him without being painted as "petty" by the corporate media. (You can only go to that well so often.)

F. You get your corporate court and the Dems go home feeling all warm and fuzzy that they kept Gonzo off the court.

G. Of course, you never wanted Gonzo on the court anyone. You know he's an idiot and you just wanted to make him the sacrificial lamb.

[BlueCaliDem]

13. Ferinstein is a disgrace to the Democratic Party. The ONLY thing that makes her different than...

... a repuke is the fact she's pro-choice. She's more repuke than Lincoln Chaffey ever was!

And that's IT!

Then again, her darling hubby got a 7 billion dollar war contract and promptly buys his "lady love" a lovely, and quaint house - for a mere pittance of $13 million dollars.

Why has no one challenged her seat and kicked her f***ing ass out of that posh, profitable Senate's seat? Cindy Sheehan had started but then she backed off.

I wonder what was the deciding factor making her do that?

[indepat]

10. None of what we can say goodbye to if a Repig is elected in November matters a whit to any who will

vote for the Repig, that is unless they are certifiably crazy or a lunatic. :D

[nichomachus]

12. Not worried about those who will vote GOP

All the GOP needs is for Dems to either not work for their candidate, not support their candidate, and not vote for their candidate.

[KamaAina]

14. They'll never get rid of national parks

they're too valuable as outlets for fundie creationist propaganda.

http://www.geotimes.org/mar04/NN_grandcanyoncreation.html

But a book sold at the park's bookstores since last fall says the canyon is merely 6,000 years old and was formed by Noah's flood, as described in the Bible. Compiled by a Colorado River rafting guide, Grand Canyon: A Different View was placed on shelves alongside science books and other interpretive histories of the canyon. The book has provoked a new round in the national debate about biblical creationism and the separation of church and state....

What the topic boils down to, Elders says, is whether or not religious views should be sold alongside science in a government bookstore. "I believe in freedom of expression and I am against censorship even for books such as this," he says. But as "the aim of this book is to proselytize for a particular narrow religious viewpoint, it should not be for sale in a government-sanctioned bookstore."...

Despite varying reports suggesting that the book was originally shelved under the "science" section, Barna says that the book was always in the inspirational section of the bookstore.

:wtf: Why is there an inspirational section in the bookstore at a flippin' national park?!

[zorahopkins]

15. If NONE Of These Things Happened When The Republithuglikans....

OMG!!

The Sky is Falling!

THE SKY IS FALLING!!

Not one of these things happened during the time the Republikans held the White House and BOTH houses of Congress.

It is little more than fear-mongering to suggest that all these things will go away in the next 4 years.

[nichomachus]

18. Excuse me -- but a lot of these are already seriously damaged

They have chipped away at SS and Medicare, privacy is on the ropes, most of the Constitution is in shreds, they have been sucking money out of federal, state and local governments so fast that most cities, towns, and states are decimating public services. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the sky is falling. If you don't see that, you're just not paying attention.


And, it's possible that the GOP, it if gets in, will be in for 12 years. McCain won't finish his first term -- probably not even the first two years. That means his VP will be president for two-plus years and will be able to run for two more terms.

[gatorboy]

28. Did you even read the list?

Seriously, did you think before you posted?

Republicans have never had such a chance to fill the Supreme Court with their own judges.

That alone could change many things.

[zorahopkins]

34. Honestly!

You can NOT be serious.

"The Republicans have never had such a chance to fill the Supreme Coury with their own judges."

Excuse me, but the have been times in recent memory when their was a Republican in the White House and the Senate was also in Republican hands.

Now, and for the forseeable future, the Senate will be in Democratic hands.

Which means that it will be up to Democrats to confirm ANY nomination from the White House.

If the Republicans get any of their judges onto the Supreme Court, it will ONLY be because the majority of the Democrats in the Sneate allowed it to happen!!

[gatorboy]

35. You're not comprehending what I'm saying.

The balance of the court is hanging by a thread. What moderate/liberal judges that are left on the court, probably don't have much time left. McCain would have a very good chance to tip the scale of the court to a majority of radical right judges. All he needs is one but he could very well have a chance for more. He could very well push an ultra conservative court on us that we would be stuck with for years to come. And we barely have a majority in the Senate now. Who knows what could happen in two to four years. Unless you have a crystal ball, the foreseeable future is still up in the air, regardless of what you predict.

Now go back and read that list again and tell us Republicans haven't had a hand in any of those examples.

[sinkingfeeling]

16. And don't forget that the Supreme Court will be 'deciding' things for the next generation.

[OmahaBlueDog]

36. Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner!

Even if McSame gets one term, it will potentially do enough damage to the court to keep the Bush legacy alive for 25 years or more.

[uberblonde]

17. See, I have a different perspective.

I see a DINO, DLC-lovin' kind of guy who talks out of both sides of his mouth by claiming he's for health care "reform" but making one of the main opponents his chief adviser on the issue.

I see a guy who was going to vote for John Roberts - until one of his more-experienced staffers talked him out of it. (Said it "wouldn't look good" when he ran for president.)

I see a guy who keeps telegraphing it wouldn't be such a terrible thing if we privatized Social Security. (And yeah, and a guy who sucks up to homophobic preachers!)

I see someone who thinks 30% interest on credit cards is, you know, reasonable!

I see a guy who thinks the only problem with Washington is that we don't cooperate enough with Republicans.

Oh yeah, and a guy who cooperated with the Republicans to move class-action cases from state courts to the federal courts, which are more conservative and friendly to big business. In fact, I think he's more friendly to big business than Bill Clinton was, but without the experience - so he'll be easily maneuvered by the big Wall St. donors who funded him.

Come to think of, I don't really see all that much difference between him and McCain.

[nichomachus]

19. Then you just don't see clearly

All your well-rehearsed DLC/GOP talking points don't erase the fact that McCain is a fascist tool and will allow them to complete their coup.

[NashVegas]

30. One Doesn't Have to Be DLC

Ya know, I'm 44 and seeing how little women under the age of 35 care about preserving the freedoms I and those before me have fought so hard for, I would trade away Roe v Wade in a heartbeat if it could get us back the Fairness Doctrine and overturn NAFTA, GATT, 1996 Telecommunications Act, DMCA, and patented life forms.

There's nothing on your list of jeopardized things that even approaches the damage all the above have done or will continue to do to human rights and our Democracy.

[klook]

23. So you don't care if we embark on more pointless wars? (n/t)

[niyad]

25. but this part is okay with you?

(just once, I wish some of peter barack obama's supporters would address what jeremy had to say)

February 28, 2008
Blackwaterweb4
Jeremy Scahill: Despite Antiwar Rhetoric, Clinton-Obama Plans Would Keep US Mercenaries, Troops in Iraq for Years to Come

Jeremy Scahill reports Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will not “rule out” using private military companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. Obama also has no plans to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009. Despite their antiwar rhetoric, both Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton have adopted the congressional Democratic position that would leave open the option of keeping tens of thousands of US troops in Iraq for many years.



Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill joins us now in our firehouse studio. Author of the bestselling book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His latest article is “Obama’s Mercenary Position.” It appears in the upcoming issue of The Nation magazine.



* Jeremy Scahill's article, "Obama's Mercenary Position"

JUAN GONZALEZ: “A senior foreign policy adviser to leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has told The Nation that if elected Obama will not ‘rule out’ using private security companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq.” That’s the lead sentence from a new article by independent journalist Jeremy Scahill. The adviser to Obama also said that the Illinois Senator does not plan to sign on to legislation that seeks to ban the use of these forces in US war zones by January 2009, when a new president will be sworn in.

AMY GOODMAN: Democracy Now! correspondent Jeremy Scahill joins us now in the firehouse studio, is author of the bestselling book Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army. His latest article in The Nation is called “Obama’s Mercenary Position.” It appears in this issue of The Nation.

Welcome to Democracy Now! So, what did you find out, Jeremy?

JEREMY SCAHILL: Well, I started looking at Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s Iraq plans, and one of the things that I discovered is that both of them intend to keep the Green Zone intact. Both of them intend to keep the current US embassy project, which is slated to be the largest embassy in the history of the world. I mean, I think it’s 500 CIA operatives alone, a thousand personnel. And they’re also going to keep open the Baghdad airport indefinitely. And what that means is that even though the rhetoric of withdrawal is everywhere in the Democratic campaign, we’re talking about a pretty substantial level of US forces and personnel remaining in Iraq indefinitely.

In the case of Barack Obama, I wanted to focus in on what his position is on private military contractors, particularly armed ones like those that work for Blackwater. And the reason I focus on Obama instead of Hillary on this is because Barack Obama has actually been at the forefront of addressing the mercenary issue in the Congress. In February of 2007—this was way before the Nisour Square massacre, where Blackwater forces killed seventeen Iraqis and wounded twenty others—in February of 2007, Barack Obama sponsored legislation in the Senate that sought to expand US law so that—

. . . . .

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/28/jeremy_scahill_despite_anti_war_rhetoric

[StevieM]

38. And he isn't even a nice person (eom)

[Initech]

26. Hate to break it to ya but the coup already happened.

See: Bush V. Gore, Supreme Court decision 12/10/00.

[nichomachus]

29. I think it's still in progress. It began

in 1934, went underground during the war, and then resurfaced with the Mid-'60s Massacre of JFK, RFK, MLK. It's been a slow motion coup since then. The SCOTUS decision was another step, and, as you point out, a major one.

On a bad day, I could agree with you, but I'm hoping that we've still got enough room to reverse things before we go over the falls entirely.

I'm hopeful because it's difficult for me to leave the country, which I would have already done had my situation been different.

I have one friend who has already escaped and another who moves out three weeks from tomorrow. I can't leave for a lot of reasons, but may reconsider that if McCain were to get in.

[Perry Logan]

39. Today's Republicans cannot run an elevator, much less a country.