Most Disappointing Vote for John Roberts

Of all the votes by Democratic senators in favor of the nomination of John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, none is likely to be more disappointing to progressives than that of Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.

Feingold, a maverick Democrat whose increasingly outspoken criticism of the war in Iraq has earned him frequent mentions as a potential candidate for his party's 2008 presidential nomination, was one of three Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to support the Roberts nomination on Thursday.

Along with Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the committee, and fellow Wisconsinite Herb Kohl, Feingold joined all of the committee's Republicans in backing the Bush administration nominee. The three Democratic votes on the committee are likely to ease the way for as many as two dozen Senate Democrats to vote to confirm Roberts when the nomination goes to the full Senate.

Feingold's stance is especially significant, as his lonely opposition to the Patriot Act in 2001 and other bold challenges to the administration have marked him as one of the chamber's more courageous defenders of civil rights and civil liberties. As such, his support of Roberts provides other Democrats and moderate Republicans who choose to back the nominee with a measure of cover.

But why would Feingold want to provide that cover?

The senator, who has a record of showing great deference to presidents when it comes to confirming nominees (including that of former Attorney General John Ashcroft), had his excuses. He told the committee, "Judge Roberts's impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed."

But, then, in the same statement to the committee, Feingold admitted, "I do not want to minimize the concerns that have been expressed by those who oppose the nomination. I share some of them. Many of my misgivings about this nomination stem from Judge Roberts's refusal to answer many of our reasonable questions. Not only that, he refused to acknowledge that many of the positions he took as a member of the Reagan Administration team were misguided or in some cases even flat-out wrong."

The fact is that Feingold asked some of the best questions of Roberts on those very issues, and he got some of the worst answers.

Unfortunately, Feingold does not appear to have taken those exchanges seriously enough to decide that Roberts failed the test.

One senator who did listen to Feingold's exchanges with the nominee was Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy.

In explaining his decision to vote against Roberts, Kennedy specifically mentioned Feingold's pointed questioning of Roberts.

Recalling the discussion of the Roberts's efforts to block the strengthening of the Voting Rights Act when the nominee served in Ronald Reagan's administration, the Massachusetts senator noted that, "Both Senator Feingold and I tried to find out whether he came to agree with the strengthened Voting Rights Act after President Reagan signed it into law. Even when Senator Feingold asked whether Judge Roberts would acknowledge today that he had been wrong to oppose (limits on the ability of minorities to seek protection under the Voting Rights Act), he refused to give a yes-or-no answer."

Kennedy went on to point out that: "Senator Feingold asked: 'What I'm trying to figure out is, given the fact that you've followed this issue for such a long time, I would think you would have a view at this point about… whether the department was right in seeking to keep the (narrow) intent test (that Roberts lobbied for) or whether time has shown that the (broader) effects test (that was supported by civil rights groups and much of Congress) is really the more appropriate test.'

"Judge Roberts responded, 'I'm certainly not an expert in the area and haven't followed and have no way of evaluating the relative effectiveness of the law as amended or the law as it was prior to 1982.

"So we still don't know whether he supports the basic law against voting practices that result in denying voting rights because of race, national origin, or language minority status."

Feingold's questioning helped Kennedy form his conclusion that, "Based on the record available, there is clear and convincing evidence that Judge Roberts' view of the rule of law would narrow the protection of basic voting rights. The values and perspectives displayed over and over again in his record cast large doubts on his view of the validity of laws that remove barriers to equal opportunity for women, minorities, and the disabled. His record raises serious questions about the power of Congress to pass laws to protect citizens in matters they care about."

Kennedy concluded, appropriately, that it would be irresponsible on any senator -- particularly any progressive senator -- to vote for the Roberts nomination.

Feingold did not choose to embrace the responsibility that Kennedy recognized. Though he asked the right questions, Feingold cast the wrong vote.

Comments (87)

1. Could we be in the last throes of the Democratic Party and the early years of a radical Republican-controlled, totalitarian nation?

   Answer: Just possibly.

   Posted by oraibi1952 at 09/22/2005 @ 5:53pm

2. If history is any judge, we're heading towards some type of totalitarian "empire", and since the conservatives have the will and the means, why not? The other great Republic in history is Rome, and the issues facing America seem eerily familiar - massive government debt, overextension of military, bread and circuses (Jerry Springer, reality TV...), invasion by barbarians (al Qaeda), crumbling infrastructure... Nah, couldn't happen in such a well-educated information-age society. Yeah, right!

   Posted by Turk33 at 09/22/2005 @ 6:45pm

3. Well Little Johnny I thought you might feel this way. Will this vote prevent you from supporting Feingold for President? Lord, what will you do if Hillary, using Feingold and Leahy as cover, also votes for Roberts? May be time for you to give up all hope for the democrats and move further left---I know-- your buddy Bernie could run for the Senate, or even better President---Of course if all else fails, there's always Cuba, I bet Fidel would have never voted for Roberts.---Good Luck---Len Mosse

   Posted by Len Mosse at 09/22/2005 @ 6:55pm

4. Republican controlled totalitarian nation----You can't be serious. So I guess when the Democrats controlled the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch in the 40's 50' and 60's we were on the verge of Democrat controlled totalitarian nation. I am sure you are a better student of history than to think that one political party will always dominate the Executive and Legislative Branches of government. As much as I might not like it I am sure that a democrat will again get elected President and I am sure that as much as it might drive me nuts, the democrats will once again control the Congress---I just hope that when that happens I won't run around saying crazy things like "we are on the verge of a democrat controlled totalitarian nation" --If I do --you have my permission to put me away.---Len Mosse

   Posted by Len Mosse at 09/22/2005 @ 7:05pm

5. TURK

   Why do you guys make such comparasions, between the USA and Rome, sorry there are subtle differences in our two "empires"

   By the way, Roberts is the right choice, Thank God, hopefully we get another one just like him be it a man or women

   Posted by CPT at 09/22/2005 @ 7:08pm

6. Len, you seem to be forgetting that shrub lost both elections but due to his corruption and that of Diebold he and his rotten cohorts rule the roost. Dems are not as devious and low down as the repugs and lack the spine necessary to win elections. As for Feingold, MY SENATOR,I am furious. After I heard the news today I sent a fax and told him he has lost my support. To cave in when he had doubts and to let the shrub have his way makes him a traitor in my eyes. As of today I renounce the democratic party and have cancelled my monthly contributions to Democracy Bonds. They can all go rot in hell the spineless wimps. You all make me sick!

   Posted by BOSOMBUBBY at 09/22/2005 @ 7:48pm

7. Hillary Rotten Clinton has spoken....what a disgrace she and B.J are these days

   STATEMENT OF SENATOR HILLARY ROTTEN CLINTON ON THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE JOHN G. ROBERTS TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES Thu Sep 22 2005 18:54:45 ET

   The nomination of Judge John Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States is a matter of tremendous consequence for future generations of Americans. It requires thoughtful inquiry and debate, and I commend my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee for their dedication to making sure that all questions were presented and that those outside of the Senate had the opportunity to make their voices heard. After serious and careful consideration of the Committee proceedings and Judge Roberts's writings, I believe I must vote against his confirmation. I do not believe that the Judge has presented his views with enough clarity and specificity for me to in good conscience cast a vote on his behalf.

   The Constitution commands that the Senate provide meaningful advice and consent to the President on judicial nominations, and I have an obligation to my constituents to make sure that I cast my vote for Chief Justice of the United States for someone I am convinced will be steadfast in protecting fundamental women's rights, civil rights, privacy rights, and who will respect the appropriate separation of powers among the three branches. After the Judiciary Hearings, I believe the record on these matters has been left unclear. That uncertainly means as a matter of conscience, I cannot vote to confirm despite Judge Roberts's long history of public service.

   In one memo, for example, Judge Roberts argued that Congress has the power to deny the Supreme Court the right to hear appeals from lower courts of constitutional claims involving flag burning, abortion, and other matters. He wrote that the United States would be far better off with fifty different interpretations on the right to choose than with what he called the "judicial excesses embodied in Roe v. Wade." The idea that the Supreme Court could be denied the right to rule on constitutional claims had been so long decided that even the most conservative of Judge Roberts's Justice Department colleagues strongly disagreed with him.

   When questioned about his legal memoranda, Judge Roberts claimed they did not necessarily reflect his views and that he was merely making the best possible case for his clients or responding to a superior's request that he make a particular argument. But he did not clearly disavow the strong and clear views he expressed, but only shrouded them in further mystery. Was he just being an advocate for a client or was he using his position to advocate for positions he believed in? The record is unclear.

   It is hard to believe he has no opinion on so many critical issues after years as a Justice Department and White House lawyer, appellate advocate and judge. His supporters remind us that Chief Justice Rehnquist supported the constitutionality of legal segregation before his elevation to the high court, but never sought to bring it back while serving the court system as its Chief Justice. But I would also remind them of Justice Thomas's assertion in his confirmation hearing that he had never even discussed Roe v. Wade, much less formed an opinion on it. Shortly after he ascended to the Court, Justice Thomas made it clear that he wanted to repeal Roe.

   Adding to testimony that clouded more than clarified is that we in the Senate have been denied the full record of Judge Roberts's writings despite our repeated requests. Combined, these two events have left a question mark on what Judge Roberts's views are and how he might rule on critical questions of the day. It is telling that President Bush has said the Justices he most admires are the two most conservative justices, Justices Thomas and Scalia. It is not unreasonable to believe that the President has picked someone in Judge Roberts whom he believes holds a similarly conservative philosophy, and that voting as a bloc they could further limit the power of the Congress, expand the purview of the Executive, and overturn key rulings like Roe v. Wade.

   Since I expect Judge Roberts to be confirmed, I hope that my concerns are unfounded and that he will be the kind of judge he said he would be during his confirmation hearing. If so, I will be the first to acknowledge it. However, because I think he is far more likely to vote the views he expressed in his legal writings, I cannot give my consent to his confirmation and will, therefore, vote against his confirmation. My desire to maintain the already fragile Supreme Court majority for civil rights, voting rights and women's rights outweigh the respect I have for Judge Roberts's intellect, character, and legal skills.

   Posted by libsarenutty at 09/22/2005 @ 8:00pm

8. BOSOMBUBBY

   Come on, dont beat around the bush, what are you trying to say?

   Angry much?

   Posted by CPT at 09/22/2005 @ 8:04pm

9. CPT - Yes, there are subtle differences. In fact, there are major differences. But to deny any similarity or to deny that there are lessons to be learned is ridiculous. I've read some of your posts and you seem to have a brain. Don't nitpick and ignore the main point - there are enough similarities to cause some concern. As for the main point of this string, I'm conflicted about the Roberts' nomination. He seems like an acceptable nomination - but for the fact that Bush nominated him. That alone scares the hell out of me. Now before anybody starts the "sore loser, should have gotten a Dem elected, to the victor goes the spoils" diatribe, I get the consequences of the past two national elections all too well. I see a Republican party hellbent in turning back the clock on so many social, political, constitutional and rational levels and it scares the crap out of me.

   Posted by Turk33 at 09/22/2005 @ 8:06pm

10. Go Further Left Bosombubby Go Left.-I can see you now--sending that Fax with "On Wisconsin" blaring on the stero. As to your contention that Bush lost both elections--- Talk about drinking the Kool Aid. If you continue to cling to consipiracy theories as reasons for losing, you are doomed to continue to lose election after election.---Len Mosse

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/22/2005 @ 8:08pm

11. Feingold, schmeingold. The democrats are the other half of the ruling class faction that governs the country. Wake up, liberals. Late capital is going to take its pound of flesh out of the public, and the democrats are not going to be an opposition party. When are some of you all going to figure this out? I've been listening to some of you since back when I was a supporter of the democratic party in the early 1970s, and you rarely change tune. "Oh, wait til the off year elections." "Oh, it's the court, you see, vote democratic". I actually swallowed that crap enough to vote for Dukakis and Clinton in 1988 and 1992. Never again. And the democrats rarely run any kind of effective opposition to any appointee or nominee. Harrison Carswell, Robert Bork are turned aside. Big flipping deal. In the meantime, the lower federal courts are jam packed with Clinton appointees who positively make Nixon's choices look liberal. The democrats rubber stamp every jerk Reagan or Clinton or the Bush shitheels want to appoint to ofice. Then they whine, because they are not an opposition party. They. are. not. an. opposition. party.

    Just for the record, once more: the democrats move in a tolerable direction only when there is an active opposition grassroots movement, such as there was in the 1930s and the 1960s. Without that kind of energy, the democrats do nothing. That's history. For christ's sake, learn from it for five minutes.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/22/2005 @ 8:10pm

12. Yo, bosombubby. Don't let them ride you. Stick to your guns. The democratic party is bankrupt, and Feingold's capitulation is only the most recent in a series of retreats that have become more and more disgusting since the disenfranchisement of Black voters became acceptable to the democrats back in the year 2000. They lost that election because they didn't want to offend white reactionaries with a rigorous defense of the Black voters of Florida. They deserve the contempt of so many for that retreat just by itself.

    When Conyers and the Congressional Black Caucus finally started shaking out the cobwebs and attempted to bring the Downing Street Memo to public attention, they were effectively isolated because the CBC never fought a sustained fight against the DLC and other reactionaries in the so-called Democratic party. They folded back in the year 2000 for the sake of "party unity". But there can be no unity in any party with an "ally" who forfeits your rights in the name of avoiding "a constituional crisis". The constitutional crisis came and passed when the democratic party refused to defend the rights of Black voters in the state of Florida during the 2000 election. For me, that was the final straw. They are not our friends. They are not our allies. And they'll only do right, when a determined independent faction, rooted in the working class majority and all of its most powerful organizations, starts to raise some real hell. Well, the storm is gathering. Make sure you're part of it.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/22/2005 @ 8:35pm

13. Lets see now JAYARJUNYAH would that working class majority, that you refer to, take to the streets with slogans like "workers of the world unite you have nothing to lose but your chains" ? In the interest of helping you feel more comfortable let me also recommend to you CPUSA.ORG ---Len Mosse

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/22/2005 @ 8:48pm

14. " We need one strong candidate with a machine behind HER"

    Yes please oh please nominate Hitlery. She is a perfect representative of you crackpot liberals

    Posted by libsarenutty at 09/22/2005 @ 8:54pm

15. I've always wondered why the "you're just a Communist, you foolish liberal" line sounded so stupid. Thanks to LibsRMosse, I am begining to see the light. Does anyone know of a working economic system in which workers are not in the majority? This idea that we can be an "ownership society" where everyone is an investor with a college education and a position in management skills - that's what's foolish.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/22/2005 @ 8:58pm

16. Gee, Len Mosse, here I was raising a point about an act of disenfranchisement down in Florida that the so-called republican party was given a free ride on by the so-called democrats, and here you come with a patronizing smirk and refer me to the communist party of the United States. I think we should steer around a discussion of the variables of marxist politics because I really don't have time to get into yet another pissing match with another red-baiting know nothing. But it's not because I'm allowing you to dismiss me, I assure you.

    So what about the disenfranchisement of Black voters down in Florida in the year 2000, Len Mosse? Since you're so concerned about anti-communism, I'm sure it's because you feel averse to the butchery and the political shenannigans of an entrenched ruling bureaucracy. Cool. Do something about the one you live under, because, whether you realize it or not, the kind of penury which the Bush dynasty is seeking to institute in Black communities and all working class communities is going to create legions of Stalins if you fools don't wake the fuck up. Just a thought.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/22/2005 @ 9:07pm

17. Wouldnt a debate between Hillery Rotten & Algore be a site to behold...

    IF THAT DON'T BEAT AL

    By DEBORAH ORIN September 22, 2005 -- AS SEN. Hillary Rotten Clinton ratchets up her attacks on President Bush, some Democrats think they smell an explanation: the threat of a 2008 Al Gore presidential bid that could come at her from the left on Iraq.

    The former vice president is suddenly re-emerging as a vocal and visible Bush-basher -- he's slated to star at a Democratic National Committee fund-raiser for big donors in Washington next Tuesday.

    "He's keeping a very strong public profile. He was the first major Democrat to oppose the Iraq war. He's keeping in touch around the country and doing a lot of speeches.

    Posted by libsarenutty at 09/22/2005 @ 9:08pm

18. If you have been keeping up, I have not used that tongue in cheek comment on those who could be described as traditional democrats. It was used, jokingly, towards a person who seems to think that the democrat party is just not liberal enough for them. I was just helping a fellow poster find his/her way---however if it looks like a duck yada yada yada---Len Mosse

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/22/2005 @ 9:11pm

19. Speaking of keeping up, I hope you can respond to Zero's little thought experiment from the previous Nichols thread. I'm still trying to come up with a realistic outcome where Bush doesn't successfully choose his successor. I'll say one thing about your stage right chorus line - you can't dance but you sure can stand in a line and kick.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/22/2005 @ 9:23pm

20. As to your assertion that I am a "red baiting know nothing" an understanding of Stalinism precludes the possibility of a "legion of Stalins".---You are entitled to leave the democrat party, and you are entitled to join any party you would like, but no third party has ever won a Presidential election. Good Luck, I am cheering for you, but because of your use of language you are incorrect about my ability to dismiss you-----Len Mosse

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/22/2005 @ 9:27pm

21. I have responded to Zero's thought experiment---Len Mosse

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/22/2005 @ 9:29pm

22. Oh I'm sorry you asked me for my response to Zero's thought experiment---zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Good night everyone and Lord protect those in peril from Hurricane Rita---Len Mosse

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/22/2005 @ 9:51pm

23. it is all about calculus.

    is the rate at which moderate voters will vote for the democrat candidate if he moves center greater than the rate at which progressive voters will vote democrat if he moves left?

    Most candidates have opted to move center.

    Probably because the folks in the center are more easily satisfied. The folks on the left are too demanding. Too prideful. Too unreasonable.

    Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 10:01pm

24. To ORAIBI1952:

    Haven't you been paying attention the past 40 years? We've already been living in the years of a radical Republican-controlled, totalitarian nation.

    Posted by edavila1 at 09/22/2005 @ 10:04pm

25. President George Bush took the opposite tactic.

    He veered right, believing correctly that there was a large number of right wing voters who would vote if there was a candidate who represented their views.

    And he was right.

    He won because people (like me) who hadn't bothered with local politics for years actually went to the polls.

    Do you think there are a lot of athiest, commie, god hating, america bashing, death loving, flag burner wannabees out there who would come out to vote for a far left mcgovern type?

    (please appreciate the ironic tone and don't flame...)

    Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 10:05pm

26. Zero, I think the problem with your scenario is that the left is simply not a very big voting block.

    I suspect that the poll weenies have done their demographics, and concluded that a 100% turnout of all disaffected left-wing voters who are out of the process because there isn't a candidate who represents their view, would probably not be enough to notice in a national election.

    Maybe 500000 votes. Maybe less.

    This would explain why you are ignored. Not enough of you to count, just enough to give people a bad taste about the Democratic party.

    Which is why, when main stream democrats are far right of moderate republicans (the parties are indistinguishable) the democrats can't seem to win.

    The progressives are probably to blame for the democrats failures at the polls.

    Not because they are wrong (a separate topic) but because they are few.

    That's democracy, baby.

    Comments?

    Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 10:36pm

27. I meant fewer. Not less.

    Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 11:03pm

28. Len Mosse, the most interesting thing about your idea- that a formal definition or understanding of the shape a political trend took in an earlier incarnation is enough to preclude its re-occurrence- is that it is much akin to a stalinoid argument. So I'm sure that's why you've not addressed the issue of Black disenfranchisement in Florida, because you no doubt believe that since the old formal, apartheid type racism no longer exists in Florida, or the United States, that institutionalized racism in more subtle forms no longer exists. I mean, after all, if formal understanding of what stalinism is precludes the rise of another wave of stalinism,formal understanding of what racism is precludes the continued existence of racism. So Florida never happened the way disenfranchised Blacks saw it, right? The car didn't run you over, so there was never an accident.

    Your formalism continues in your dismissal of third party effort, which, incidentally, is about a lot more then just winning elections. Again, you sound like the old formal left, which used to argue that since the opposition to stalinism in the Soviet Union never won any victories in the Soviets, that opposition was itself irrelevant.

    I'm not sorry I said you are a know-nothing red-baiter. I'm sorry that you don't know because you don't have to know. But, since you don't, I'll merely reiterate my original argument, which is that the democrats are a bunch of turncoats who deserve contempt for their abandonment of Black voters in the year 2000. That's why they lost their fucking election that year, and they deserved to loose. Deal with it.

    Frankgrits, I never said or implied that Bush won in a landslide. I'm just not sure that he actually lost this time. I don't rule out the possibility that President Punk actually lost again, Palast and other people have brought some interesting stuff forward, and given the shitheadedness of the factions that run the "republican" party, anything is possible. But what happened to the pledge of Edwards to fight for every vote? Gone in much less time than it took the damn Gore campaign to fold four years ago. And by the way, where was John Kerry when the CBC was looking for help in the year 2000? Nowhere to be seen.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/22/2005 @ 11:03pm

29. really.

    Blacks were disenfranchised by the democrat political machines, whic didn't care that they didn't have enough polling places, and that people had access. Simple incompetence.

    I live in a area where republicans control local politics. And even with a 50% increase in turnout in '04 vs '00, there was no waiting at the polls.

    It is the competence thing.

    George Bush won in 2004.

    Though it appears to me he would have lost in 2000, if the recounts had been done in a particular way. But they weren't.

    And if my aunt were plumbed differently, she would be my uncle. True but irrelevant.

    Posted by jonb at 09/22/2005 @ 11:10pm

30. Please stop engaging the Red State reactionaries. They are not here to try to understand our (or any other) political stances or to engage in intelligent exchanges of points of view. They only want an opportunity to repeat the talking points they heard on Fox News or from Rush. Yes, they're bitter, sad, mean-spirited. and poorly educated, but that doesn't mean we have to humor them. By all means, analyze their dopey, simple-minded posts but don't lower yourselves to engage them directly. It's boring, demeaning, and a waste of good intellectual energy. Yes, it's true that any one of us would instantly be banned from any conservative forum; I'm not advocating that we do that to them. Let them rave all they want; just don't dignify their silly inanities with responses.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 09/22/2005 @ 11:12pm

31. Leahy and Feingold both voted the way they did for the reasons they stated - Roberts may not be a known quantity idealogically, but they defer to the office; it is the Senates job to advise, not to choose.

    Would I have personally liked them to vote against Roberts? Would I prefer a more moderate voice as Chief Justice? Absolutely.

    Does anyone's opinion 'wanting that' provide enough reason for them to decide against? Perhaps not, even if their own voices told them that Roberts idealogically was not in line with their own desires, they have made a decision to not let that influence their decision.

    Even if all the Dems were to vote against, short of filibustering there is no way to block this nomination. A filibuster would not work, there simply are not enough votes as Democrats are not a lock step click heel type of operation like the GOP.

    Like they say - sometimes, you get the bear - sometimes, the bear gets you.

    As bad as we think Roberts could be {what a hoot if he turns out to be another David Souter!}, imagine Scalia, Thomas or {shudder} John Ashcroft as Chief Justice. This may be the best one can expect; Roberts seems to listen, perhaps Breyer, Souter, Stevens and Ginsburg can imbue a level of respect for moderate viewpoints.

    What Leahy and Feingold have proven they do have certain values; and they have wisely saved their ammo for the next target, which is likely to be much worse than Roberts.

    Posted by shpilk at 09/22/2005 @ 11:15pm

32. LibsR

    re: candidates.... maybe we should look for a coke-snorting, beer swilling, draft dodging stooge who couldn't cut working for a regional baseball organization. Ooops, sorry, that's your guy isn't it?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/22/2005 @ 11:24pm

33. "coke-snorting, beer swilling, draft dodging stooge who couldn't cut working for a regional baseball organization. Ooops, sorry, that's your guy isn't it?"

    LOL!

    Posted by shpilk at 09/22/2005 @ 11:43pm

34. Do you think there are a lot of athiest, commie, god hating, america bashing, death loving, flag burner wannabees out there who would come out to vote for a far left mcgovern type?

    (please appreciate the ironic tone and don't flame...)

    Posted by JONB 09/22/2005 @ 10:05pm

    Don't worry, I don't waste time flaming totalitarian self-righteous bigots :-) (And I do mean that in jest!)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 02:01am

35. re: candidates.... maybe we should look for a coke-snorting, beer swilling, draft dodging stooge who couldn't cut working for a regional baseball organization. Ooops, sorry, that's your guy isn't it?

    Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 09/22/2005 @ 11:24pm

    Pick me! Pick me! I've never snorted coke, but I'm willing to learn.

    I could give lessons on beer swilling.

    They didn't have a draft when I was a young man, and anyway, I served in the navy. Sorry...

    Stooge? Well, I like the Three Stooges. Does that count?

    I like football better than baseball, which I don't know much about. So I am sure I couldn't cut working for a baseball club...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 02:11am

36. I would love to see Bush nominate a democrat... No easy task though... He'd have to find a qualified democrat, who has never had an abortion, been through drug rehab, been charged with rape, molested any children, attempted to redefine marriage to suit his/her gay relationship, attacked any individual on the basis of race, creed or color, shown support for illegal immigration, left any girlfriends at the bottom of an icy river or been a regular guest on the Jerry Springer Show. In other words, a democrat of real principle, committed to upholding the Constitution as it is written...

    Posted by RIO BRAVO 09/23/2005 @ 01:29am

    Ah, another message has drifted in from Never Never Land...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 02:14am

37. Don't these idiots realize that once Roberts is confirmed we're not going to get a "do-over"? Why are these people rolling over for the Bushies? They have less credibility than any administration in history. Over sixty percent of the American people think this administration sucks. They don't trust anybody even vaguely connected with Bush. What in blazes are these clowns thinking?

    Posted by dgvb55 at 09/23/2005 @ 04:00am

38. I am trying to be reasonable. All I heard from Roberts during his hearing seems OK to me. I know Bush appointed him, but Bush is Bush, and Roberts is Roberts, I am convinced that once Roberts is installed as Chief Justice (forever) he will have the possibility to do his job correctly. It is rather dificult to change the Norms only because of partisan facts, anyone having a minimum knowledge in law knows that. So lets not permit that our dissapointment with a rather light Dem party blinds us from specific underlying facts. Note I do not agree with most of this administration's policies, as I am against some past positions of Roberts. But the guy is fit to the post, no doubt. We will have the chance to name other Justices to keep the balance with Roberts, and that is the whole idea of a fair institution.

    Posted by areyouok at 09/23/2005 @ 05:34am

39. The US is a scarier place than ever. Corruption everywhere. A one-party police state and Roberts' nomination (and any other nomination that so-called president will make) can only make it worse. All notions of solidarity, justice and ethics have gone by the wayside. Congress is a cesspool. I am so glad I got out of the US.

    Posted by outofus at 09/23/2005 @ 07:00am

40. "Could we be in the last throes of the Democratic Party and the early years of a radical Republican-controlled, totalitarian nation? "

    Hopefully..

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 09/23/2005 @ 09:05am

41. To outofus----Bye-------- To Zero---I could not give your "experiment" the attention it deserved last night, I had some things I needed to do that could not wait one of which was sleep. I do think that a strong third party could emerge from the current political situation (though I disagee with the parameters that you set up). However, I do not believe that this third party will do more than win a few seats in the house, maybe a few state seats, a couple of mayors and city council folks. It could however have a devastating effect on the democrat party. A split in the democrat party would not only allow more republicans to get elected (which in most cases I am all for) but it could also cause the democrat party to move further to the left (which I understand is the goal of many on this board). The lesson of how to get elected President in the United States has been taught many times---Win the votes of the people in the center of the political spectrem. If a party moves to far to the left or right it will lose national elections. I do not think that the current circumstances will change this rule. The country will lean left from time to time and then lean right from time to time, but only lean, never fall head over heals to the left or right. ---Len Mosse

    Posted by Len Mosse at 09/23/2005 @ 09:09am

42. The Feingold vote was very disappointing although not totally unexpected if you remember his affirmative vote for Ashcroft. Feingold is like McCain -- don't let the maverick in him obscure a conservative streak (McCain isn't a "streak" -- he is conservative to the core). Liberalism is dead. It died with McGovern. The Demo Party is weak, undefined, leaderless. Progressives need to focus on local and state elections.

    Posted by Kate Stone at 09/23/2005 @ 09:17am

43. I agree---"The Demo Party is weak, undefined, leaderless. Progressives need to focus on local and state elections."

    We have Democratic Lite Party, tastes "great", but they are doing less of a job "filling" the Congress with majorities who have Democratic values.

    Demo Party has no spine, and crawls way too much for Bush's crumbs.

    Time for progressive, liberal minded people to start 3rd and 4th Parties and ABANDON the Party that has ABANDONED THEM.

    Where was Hillary, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy and others in January of 2000, when they had the legal and moral right to question the validity of the Florida electors? They were busy ABANDONING the disenfranchised voters of Florida and other states.

    Demo Party is now the Whig Party. Time for a new Party to be created.

    Posted by tumbleweed at 09/23/2005 @ 09:46am

44. What a bunch of naval-gazing commentators! If I hadn't read Nichols' article closely, and if I weren't from Wisconsin and MAD AS HELL I might have forgotten the topic which, I believe, was Russ Feingold's "disappointing" vote. For some reason, Nichols chose to address the vote of only one flat-headed Senator from Wisconsin, although both, Democrats, voted in favor of Bush's nominee. What John has chosen to ignore for years is that Feingold plays his own "cat-and-mouse game with Wisconsin voters. He's an enthusiastic Presidential wannabe, always has been, and he's as likely to speak the truth as John Roberts himself. Russ ducks and weaves, hoping that voters will guess that he's an honest man! It's interesting that numbers of Wisconsin voters are onto him. Excluding Nichols, of course. Marjie Colson from Madison

    Posted by Marjie at 09/23/2005 @ 10:14am

45. Marjie has it right....

    Plus, all Feingold has to do in this "Long Term Memory Loss" Era of politics....is "vigorously" oppose the NEXT nominee, get up on the floor of the Senate and make some "Jimmy Stewart-Mr Smith" type speech (maybe filibuster) of Priscilla Owen or Janice Brown or whoever.....and all will be forgiven by John Nichols, "The Nation" and most of the Left.

    Feingold is playing these Judicial nominees to his own advantage. He can support Roberts, and insulate himself from the "Daschle-destroying" charge of "obstructionist"....and then "rescue his progressive bona fides" by attacking the "O'Connor replacement".

    Same for Leahy. And they can count on the next two or three "Bush scandals" that come along, to eat up the blogosphere and wipe the memory banks on the liberal side of what they have done.

    Posted by Mask at 09/23/2005 @ 10:42am

46. Roberts is clearly qualified. If we want to nominate SC justices, we need to win an election. Feingold's vote is OK with me. Better to keep some powder dry for the next one.

    Posted by Moe_Szyslak at 09/23/2005 @ 10:48am

47. Zero, in the context of the Permanent Republican Majority, and judging from their behavior, I'd say plenty of Democrats are already terrified. "Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." This change may come sooner than you think. "Free your mind, and your ass will follow." We will need to get our butts out and vote first, though.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/23/2005 @ 12:00pm

48. The democrats didn't ensure the correct number of polling stations in Black communities? You know something, you bastards? If we still had the open Jim Crow south, you'd be rationalizing that. Some of you fucking white people still don't understand that you're not running the world anymore. Not all whites. But you peckerwoods who continue to defend the removal of people from the polls on non-existent felony charges, you'd have been happy as clams under Stalin or Hitler. Now, you want to go there? Let's go there. You mothers are looking to create an apartheid state in this country, and we're going to stop you. Get used to that. The gig is up. You're going down.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/23/2005 @ 12:23pm

49. My progressive politics notwithstanding, I see nothing wrong with Feingold's or other Democratic votes for Roberts. He was going to be approved anyway. I'm persuaded by the argument that the next nominee is the crucial one and may have to be filibustered to block. Roberts was simply not a good candidate to block and Democratic votes for him give those Senators more license to go all out to block an obvious right wing idealogue on the next go around. All Supreme Court nominees to some extent present a crap shoot for their future behavior. Also, about Feingold, because he has spine and has been a lonely opponent of some of the worst of the Bush moves creates a different standard for judging him. Hence, he has to be Progressively pure on everything or he's toast. Not a reasonable way to judge. From Bush, I expect that Roberts will be as good as it gets.

    Posted by sammidog at 09/23/2005 @ 12:39pm

50. JAYAR:

    "some of you fucking white people"

    "peckerwoods"

    "create an apartheid state in this country"

    C'mon man, you gotta be kidding with this crap.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 1:27pm

51. I am new to this site, and enjoy reading the various opinions, and observations. Being a student of history I can't help bur observe the selective historical memory of some of the responders. first of all, the Romans managed to have 300 years of peace through out the empire, which is more than I can say for the U.S. Secondly, all you have to do is look at the Italians, and the "master race" and see who thier benefactors were. The Military Industrialist, and the nationalistic ignorance of the population. We are no different, and we are not immuned to history. There are patterns developeing in our country that seem to be pointing to taking more of the electorate out of the process, by misinformation, ignorance, and a news media that complies with the wishes of the corporatist oligarchs. Fixating on party politics is a mistake which is almost always going to put people in a postion to make arbitrary, reactionary, and misinformed decisions. I do have faith, that the people in this country of ours will one day realize who is really on their side! Soon I hope.

    Posted by Giuliano at 09/23/2005 @ 2:03pm

52. Posted by Giuliano at 09/23/2005 @ 2:04pm

53. USAPRIDE:

    JAYAR's comments are no worse than the snide ones you and your friends like to throw our way. Would you like a couple of examples:

    "Stalin would be proud"

    "Sounds like you're a commie"

    "Lenin is looking don in approval"

    Maybe if you showed a little restraint in your desires to offend and attack, perhaps others would offer the same courtesy... I mean, you are the one who keeps saying you would like to participate in a real discourse, not name calling. Hold your people accountable as much as you try to hold us accountable, and I bet we might get somewhere.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 3:13pm

54. JORCHEIM: You don't think Jaya went over the line?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 3:26pm

55. Todd! Welcome back! Carefull what you wish for, you might get it...

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 3:28pm

56. JORCHEIM: You don't think Jaya went over the line?

    Posted by USAPRIDE 09/23/2005 @ 3:26pm

    No, he didn't. I was mad as hell about how Bush's brother Jeb, the governor of Florida, gamed the system to rig the 2000 election. I may not remember the details, but it went something like this: Fla. Board of Elections had many african americans purged from the voting rolls on bogus grounds of them being convicted fellons. This happened to literally thousands of people. I think they used a TX consulting firm that was run by a buddy or cousin of Dubya's. Sorry I can't remember all the details - it was five years ago.

    Given that the certified election results had Bush winning only by about 500, this cost Gore the election. Also, the SCOTUS stopping the recount also cost Gore the election. Obviously Jeb had a backup plan to steal the election for his bro'.

    Everyone: Don't tell me to "get over it." I AM OVER IT. I am just answering USAPRIDE's question.

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 3:41pm

57. ILP: For the sanity of all, I won't comment on your take of Florida 2000.

    And as far as the post in question. It seems to me that you must have read the wrong one to comment the way you did.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 3:53pm

58. USAPRIDE:

    Unfortunately, his take on election 2000 is right on the money. It is NOT to say that Dems haven't stolen elections in the past... hell, just look at Chicago... when Nixon and kennedy ran against one another, there was RAMPANT rigging of the polls...

    But honestly, why should you use that as an excuse to allow it to continue? I honestly think that is the difference between Progressives and BOTH the Dems and Repugs... I mean, Repubs. We are not apologists for illegality or unfairness, period. The same cannot be said for either major party.

    You say you want a better country? You say you want to move forward? Fine... hold yourselves and your party accountable for lies and illegal acts. Then, and ONLY then, will I listen to a word you dogmatists say.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 4:24pm

59. ILOVEPHYSICS:

    I got your back, bro... hehehe :D

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 4:30pm

60. JORCHEIM: Novel ideas, good luck getting them accomplished in the real world.

    I do want change for the better. But how do we get there from here? And let me state that here does not mean Bush, because he created poverty, or he's destroyed all that the demo's accomplished. There has, and always will be poverty even in the richist of nations. Things aren't bad only when a repub is in office.

    More repubs voted for the civil rights act then did democrats.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 5:02pm

61. Grammer is sucking - tired, long day.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 5:07pm

62. USAPRIDE:

    You just reverted back to PRECISELY what I was talking about STOP being an apologist for wrong. I don't care who did it, Repiublicans or Democrats. Wrong is wrong, no matter which party they come from. Perhaps if you and your ilk would stop being such partisan aparatchiks and started actually contributing to real change, the things we all want in this country would get done. Instead, you are content to point how how much better one group is than another, when the fact of the matter is, both sides are to blame. So get off of your high horse, get your head out of your ass (the body part, not the farm animal) and do something, instead of being a condescending douche.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 5:11pm

63. NO, USA pride, I ain't kidding you with that "crap", not anymore than when you right wing creeps keep repeating that the role of K. Harris in Florida five years ago was wholly incidental to the disenfranchisement of Black voters. I've watched your camp take more, and more, and more for thirty years now, to the extent that a neighborhood of the working poor that is predominantly African American is literally allowed to go under during a killer storm. You want to talk to me about crap, man? Let's talk about the dozens of black and latino kids who get gunned down in the inner cities across this country every year all across this country for offenses white kids in the suburb get slaps on the wrist for. There's some crap for you. Let's talk about the numerous people of color and poor folks on death row who are there because your camp has been cutting the guts out of funding for public defense for decades now. The bloody state of Texas executed a woman denied a fair trial a week ago, and you want to talk to me about words like "peckerwood", or the fact that a lot of white people actually do act like stupid motherfuckers as regards these issues. Not all of you, mind you. Just a hell of a lot of you. So if the shoe fits, man, wear it. Just know that after thirty years of watching you right wing geeks backpedal and rationalize the slow destruction of the public interest-- and I know you all well, I started out in the Libertarian party, as big a bunch of phonys who ever walked aside from your inverse reflection, the Maoists and their brand of political purity- some of us have gone to war. And we don't give a shit what you make of our vocabulary choices. It has always been clear that you don't take the interests of Black U.S. citizens seriously, our choice of language makes no difference at all. Go jump in the lake.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/23/2005 @ 5:18pm

64. JORCHEIM: "condescending douche"

    That deserves a big fuck you!

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 5:19pm

65. USAPRIDE:

    No thanks, buddy... I'm not gay. BUt I bet if you hang around the White House Press Corps room, you might get lucky. From what I hear, there are gay porn stars roaming around there.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 5:25pm

66. Now, that's funny.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/23/2005 @ 5:39pm

67. JAYA: Bleeding heart bullshit man. Give me a break. Yea, the system "is" so fucked up. I bet O.J. probably still feels that way. I bet Micheal Jackson can't understand why the honkey prosecutor won't just go away and leave him alone. What about Koby. Why isn't his punk ass in jail? Because he got game? Bullshit man. Yea, the system is fucked up alright. Hey, don't they have a public school system in NOLA? I believe they do, and it's free. So, what's the problem. No opportunity - bullshit. Why don't so many of the poverty stricken and down trodden fathers from the inner city stick around after they get their nut, and take care of what they help create? What does that problem have to do with opportunity? Why don't the bitches stay on their feet and not on their backs. Is it because if they pump another dependant, they get that much more from the gubment? Then they go around thinking it was owed to them. I think Bill Cosby has it right. Stop making excuses and be responsible for your place in life. The democratic government of LA, for 60+ years now has created a welfare state. You guys have been running it. Looks to me like you fucked that up too. Why don't you stop putting your hand into my pocket and do for yourself!

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 5:40pm

68. I think the people in this country need to know what plurality really means. More then two parties! We have to look at the 48% of the electorate who didn't vote. They decided the election! Maybe they felt like they have no choice? I think we need to vote for our best collective interest, and not treat politics like a spectator sport! The fear and loathing factor, elected W.

    Posted by Giuliano at 09/23/2005 @ 5:43pm

69. Yeah, see, there we go, USA Pride. Now we all know who we are. And now, maybe it will be clear to some people who thought I was being a little touchy what's really being said here. Everything that USA Pride says has been the standard line in the Thunderbolt and White Power for as long as I can remember. All the old slanders. And I remember, because the bastards used to hock it on the corner in smaller towns in the old days. Never does the issue of class privilege, or opportunist, hustler elements within Black community leadership come up- a privilege which reflects the corruption of white privilege, and if you don't believe that, look at the deficits and the cronyism the Reaganauts and the Bushites bring with them.

    And look at who else USA Pride hauls out. O.J. Kobe Bryant. Michael Jackson. A bunch of god damn millionaires, who only turn to the Black community when they need their asses hauled out. Same ruling class working class whites have, just a lower strata. Oh, but I forgot. There is no class dictatorship in the United States, right?

    Don't even get me started on the conditions of the public schools in the inner city. Where they're not underfunded, they're being sold off piece by piece, so that what once worked is barely allowed to work at all. I've been teaching for seventeen years, I don't even want to get started on that one. Harlem, Washington Heights, Southwest Chicago, the Central District in Seattle, it's all the same pattern.

    Finally, as a light skinned black man, I know how a lot of white folks talk about black people when they don't realize any of us are around.

    Bleeding heart, huh? When a trigger happy cop shoots one of your family members in the heart, we'll see how you feel about that, U.S. A. pride. Go soak your head, phony.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/23/2005 @ 5:51pm

70. USA Pride Is it okay with you that the corperate elite and the pentagon, suck the bone marrow out of the economy. I'm willing to bet youy are a middle class blue collar worker who don't know which side your bread is buttered on! You are one of those who votes against his own interest. The Federal Reserve alone is responsible for 30% of the national debt, because it charges the Government interest on its' own money. Andrew Jackson, and John Kennedy saw this and tried to change it. Jackson got censured, aand Kennedy got shot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by Giuliano at 09/23/2005 @ 5:54pm

71. JAYA: I've got to run. Got a gig tonight. Lots of gear to move.

    I just wanted to let you know, I won't be able to repond to your next line of bullshit excuses until Monday. Rest assured, I will look forward to this.

    Later

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 5:54pm

72. Yeah, come on back the next time you want an ass whipping. Or, "bring it on", as Il Duce likes to say. Maybe one of these days you'll learn not to mess with people who are crazier than you are.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/23/2005 @ 6:03pm

73. Well, got time for one more. So Jaya, you're a teacher, good for you. Why didn't you end up on the streets? Could it be because you got an education? Hmmm...

    I noticed you didn't respond to the part about Fathers not stepping up and taking responsibility. Nor did you respond to the part about pumping babies out to get more $$$.

    The bottom line is. All the ills of society start with an individual and link to the family unit. If you have broken homes, generations upon generations, you cannot succeed as a social class. Fix that and you'll be on your way. But remember, it isn't the gubment that will fix this, it's the people you speak of.

    I guess Jesse and Al aren't doing such a good job. I wonder what Dr. King would think?

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 6:05pm

74. As a matter of fact, I did end up on the streets when I was a kid. And I did get an education, but it was despite the people who run this country, who are even now gutting the programs that made it possible for me to get an education, hmmmm? I won't dignify your comments about fathers abandoning their children because I live down the street from a very poor white community, and the same shit happens there. Yeah, black crime is a problem. So's white crime. The poor preying on the poor is a problem. Baraka calls it the "fanon slash", that is to say, the poor cut each other because they aren't conscious. Sort of like you, repeating race myths because you've never taken the time to get to know black people.

    As for prostitution or pimping, nobody knows more about that than a culture that actually celebrates the idea of getting married to someone based upon their credit rating. Prostitution is only the inverse reflection of marriages of convenience. Maybe if you right wingers didn't work so hard at making fucking a crime, people's sexuality wouldn't be so repressed they go out and buy prostitutes.

    You people are a mess. You free up the dollar, and regulate the genitals. It only stands to reason you'd vote for Bush, who refers to his wife as "the lump next to him in bed". Just another object.

    Which, incidentally, is what you on the right would like to reduce us all to, objects. That is what you want. But that is not what you shall get. Okay?

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/23/2005 @ 6:16pm

75. GIULIANO:

    "middle class blue collar worker"

    See, you're showing your pompous ass again. You slugs are so predictable.

    Actually, I'm a 42 year old white male whose been married for 23 years with two great kids. We built a house on 5 acres 3 years ago in a small Florida town. We have horses, and believe it or not, 20 dogs. But 11 of these are baby daushands (sp?) who will be sold soon. I went into the Air Force out of school. Did 4 years. Was stationed in Texas and Saudi Arabia, right on the Persain Gulf. So, I do have some insight to that culture. It's that old, been there, done that thing. After the service, I got into sales, where I remain today and am the Sales Manager for the southeast. I make a 6 figure salary, plus a % of annual company gross. Hard to say exactly because it varies depending on how good a year we have. I hope to own part of this business someday. My wife makes $72k (I think). And life is good. I didn't have to go to college to be successful. I left home at 18 and didn't look back. The only time I borrowed money was from my Dad when we closed on our first house. I was $1,000 short. I paid him back in full 1 month later.

    Isn't that touching.

    Please forgive and spelling errors - I'm really running late.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/23/2005 @ 6:33pm

76. Actually, USA Pride has got a point. I didn't think he was a blue collar worker, they're rarely so dogmatic.

    Posted by Jayarjunyah at 09/23/2005 @ 6:47pm

77. ILOVEPHYSICS:

    I got your back, bro... hehehe :D

    Posted by JORCHEIM 09/23/2005 @ 4:30pm

    Likewise, when I have the time ;-)

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 6:50pm

78. I noticed you didn't respond to the part about Fathers not stepping up and taking responsibility. Nor did you respond to the part about pumping babies out to get more $$$.

    Posted by USAPRIDE 09/23/2005 @ 6:05pm

    Why should anyone respond to that kind of racist baloney?

    Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 09/23/2005 @ 6:56pm

79. " Could we be in the last throes of the Democratic Party and the early years of a radical Republican-controlled, totalitarian nation?

    Answer: Just possibly."

    We are in the last throes of a Democratic Party that HASN'T THE GUTS to fight this Republican NOT totalitarian BUT Fascist** nation. (Maybe more to the point a Totalitarian Fascist Nation). And Rove considers us an Empire and himself a Napoleon, (without the Charisma!) Like other Fascist leaders of the past, let us hope "the people" can bring him down and his puppet president, before all hope is lost.

    It must be the people -- for we really can not depend on the Democratic Party, I don't know what they know that we don't that makes them such cowards, And we won't be the first nation to fall from apathy and corruption.

    The Republican mantra is:
    My Party before my country

    I have never been so embarrassed to be an American.

    **Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. - Benito Mussolini

    Posted by bamnation at 09/23/2005 @ 7:03pm

80. USA

    Glad you are doing well. Not all of us are, and most folks in your position really have no idea what life is like at the other end of the fiscal stick. Sure you mighta been there once, but been there and being there are much different.

    Your "welfare moms popping babies out" is so beneath contempt that I deign not to comment.

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/23/2005 @ 7:53pm

81. USAPRIDE:

    The bottom line is, you're white. And with or without an education, that affords you certain advantages over our darker-skinned brethren. It's a fact of life, dude.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 9:32pm

82. Wow, it seems from ABM (angry black man) Jayar, to the whiners and crying in the beer class of libs today on this site, the attitudes is pretty sorry. I would hand each of you a gun with a single bullet to commit suicide; however as disturbed as you all are right now, you'd just miss and hurt someone else.

    No wonder whether it's progressives, old fashioned liberals, or Black Panther types like Jayar, you folks come off so dysfunctional.

    Your biggest problem is that other than a grandiose dream of taxing those who produce in this country until they are also poor, you have no real vision to maintain what we have accomplished in this country, much less carry it forward and truly meet your "ideals".

    You only know how to complain. It's like one big union meeting.

    Those who can, do. Those who can't, organize and demonstrate.

    Posted by love liberty at 09/23/2005 @ 9:39pm

83. LOVE LIBERTY:

    I've stood all I can stand of your blathering. I'm going to destroy your arguments one by one, because they are stupid.

    You said:

    Wow, it seems from ABM (angry black man) Jayar, to the whiners and crying in the beer class of libs today on this site, the attitudes is pretty sorry. I would hand each of you a gun with a single bullet to commit suicide; however as disturbed as you all are right now, you'd just miss and hurt someone else.

    My rebuttal:

    First off, JAYARJUNYA has a right to be pissed off. The only thing his people have ever gotten is a bad rap from the USA. From being counted as 3/5's of a person, to segregation, to institutional racism, this country has NEVER come to grips with its history of hate. As such, African Americans SHOULD be pissed. Hell, I'm Irish-American and I'm pissed... ok, maybe that's understandable, since the Irish were essentially Euronegroes... (just ask the Nazis and the British)

    Oh, and if you want to offer guns with a single bullet, my recommendation is for you to stick it up your cornhole, and pull the trigger til it goes click.

    You said:

    No wonder whether it's progressives, old fashioned liberals, or Black Panther types like Jayar, you folks come off so dysfunctional.

    My rebuttal:

    We come off as pissed off at smug pricks like you. Revolutions begin in such ways.

    You said:

    Your biggest problem is that other than a grandiose dream of taxing those who produce in this country until they are also poor, you have no real vision to maintain what we have accomplished in this country, much less carry it forward and truly meet your "ideals".

    My rebuttal:

    NO. The people who produce wealth in this country are the workers, the line workers, etc. It really isn't that hard to make money when the government grants you no-bid contracts with guaranteed 25% cost overruns built in.

    As far as our vision... I think Dr. King had a pretty great vision, actually. Too bad he got assassinated because he was doing something about the class discrepancies in this country. You want to know why we have so few good leader? Asshats like yourself shot them all.

    You said:

    You only know how to complain. It's like one big union meeting.

    Those who can, do. Those who can't, organize and demonstrate.

    My rebuttal:

    Have you ever even BEEN to a union meeting? You are talking out of your ass, and have NO idea what you are talking about. Those who can, go to work and do everything they can to support their families. The corporate slum-lords do everything they can to put the squeeze on him or her, just so he can add a penny to this quarter's stock price. Why not organize? Hell, if it weren't for organizing, the Boston Tea Party would never have happened.

    You are truly a moron. I hope your children don't inherit your stupidity.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/23/2005 @ 9:55pm

84. LOVE LIBERTY, I noticed a punctuation error in your post. Assuming you wanted to reflect reality, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, organize and demonstrate." should have been "Those who can, do those who can't organize and demonstrate." I hope you appreciate the clarification.

    Posted by MyParadigm at 09/23/2005 @ 11:08pm

85. Hello USA Pride I apologize for the "blue Collar" line. Since I only read your language, it is the only impression I have of you. I lived in Florida for 26 years, and it is the biggest whore house with the lowest standard of living ranking right up there with Mississippi in education and child welfare. Talk about dysfuntional! Jeb took $350.000.000 out of the state pension fund and invested it in Enron. I know you're not a state employee, but this should infuriate you never the less! By the way You were disqualified with the rest of the democratic voters, when the Supreme Soviet picked W. The difference is that is is okay to steal an election, as long as you guy is the one being picked. Anything else you care to debate?

    Posted by Giuliano at 09/24/2005 @ 1:18pm

86. JAYA: Some of the best friends I've ever had are black. There is a difference though. They are just as pissed about their people not taking responsiblity as I am. Probably more. They didn't have much opportunity, but were determined to make something of themselves, and they did.

    They are very pissed at the so called black leaders of today. They can't stand people like Jesse and Al and feel they are a big part of the problem. I couldn't agree more. I am allowed to comment when I disagree with a black man aren't I? This PC shit is getting pretty damn old. It does nobody any good. Especially the ones we are trying not to offend. What ever happened to,the truth shall set you free. Was that just lip service?

    I'll tell ya another thing. I didn't refer to the women I was talking about in my earlier posts as whores. This was your term, not mine. And, for the record, I never said I was talking about blacks exclusively. I'm talking about welfare dependant people of all color.

    Posted by USAPRIDE at 09/25/2005 @ 4:14pm

87. Russ Feingold spoke at the well-attended progressive rally FightingBobFest in Baraboo, WI on September 10. Just as Feingold was hitting his stride, someone from the audience yelled out a question asking Feingold what about his vote confirming Michael Brown. Without hesitation, Feingold responded that his vote on Michael Brown had been a mistake. I respect Feingold for doing so; to do otherwise would only have reflected poorly on him. But the Roberts vote comes as a big disappointment. Will it also prove to be a mistake? I'm glad to have Durbin as my Senator.

    Posted by drxyzzy at 09/25/2005 @ 9:07pm