PDA

View Full Version : Scalito


Judy G. Russell
October 31st, 2005, 08:53 AM
Antonin Scalia Jr. -- er... Samuel Alito Jr. was named by President Bush to the Supreme Court this morning. He is certainly going to please the right wing of the Republican Party.

RayB (France)
October 31st, 2005, 09:30 AM
Antonin Scalia Jr. -- er... Samuel Alito Jr. was named by President Bush to the Supreme Court this morning. He is certainly going to please the right wing of the Republican Party.

The Barnum & Bailey Band are assembling for this one. LADIIIIEES AND GENTLEMEN . . . . !!

Judy G. Russell
October 31st, 2005, 09:51 AM
I'm afraid this one is going to be ugly. Sam (and yes I can call him that -- I worked with him briefly at the end of my tenure in the US Attorney's Office) can't be faulted on his academic or legal credentials. He is unquestionably a legal heavyweight. So it will be (or should be -- it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a guy who is as much of a straight arrow as Sam could have anything hidden in his background) purely a matter of political philosophy -- the left versus the right.

Mike Landi
October 31st, 2005, 05:29 PM
it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a guy who is as much of a straight arrow as Sam could have anything hidden in his background) purely a matter of political philosophy -- the left versus the right.

So, basically this is going to be a lot of political gesturing? Great. The blow hards are going to blow, and in the end it will come to roughly a 60-40 vote. Each side will make asses of themselves speaking to their bases, and the judge will have to sit there, wishing he was getting a colonoscopy instead of a hearing. (Wait, maybe they are synonymous.)

At least an honest judge goes up.

Judy G. Russell
October 31st, 2005, 06:19 PM
My guess is it'll end up 55-45 -- straight party lines. No filibuster, and no nuclear option. But a lot of gesturing and chest-pounding.

And yes, whatever else Sam Alito may be, he is totally thoroughly decent and honest.

Peter Creasey
October 31st, 2005, 07:53 PM
Scalito

Judy, I guess I'm surprised at the ethnic tone here.

I see where certain ethnic groups are taking serious offense at the usage of what appears to be intended as a slur.

If it were intended to be humorous, then it would probably be fine. But that doesn't seem to be the intended connotation by the opponents and the media.

Judy G. Russell
October 31st, 2005, 09:28 PM
It isn't ethnic at all; it's simply a play on their names and the fact that one is a younger ideological clone of the other. Except that I think Sam is more intellectually honest than Scalia is.

Lindsey
October 31st, 2005, 10:44 PM
And yes, whatever else Sam Alito may be, he is totally thoroughly decent and honest.
Well, there is some comfort in that. But I don't see the problem with making this an ideological fight; the right wing opened the door on that with the way they talked about the Miers nomination: they made it quite clear that their disappointment in her was primarily ideological.

It is becoming plain that there is a de facto religious test for office when it comes to federal judicial appointments these days: you must be either a Protestant evangelical or a Roman Catholic. No others need apply. And however decent the current nominee may be, this is a very bad thing.

--Lindsey

Mike Landi
November 1st, 2005, 07:37 AM
My guess is it'll end up 55-45 -- straight party lines. No filibuster, and no nuclear option. But a lot of gesturing and chest-pounding.

And yes, whatever else Sam Alito may be, he is totally thoroughly decent and honest.

In the end I guess that is a good thing. Too bad we'll have to suffer with left-wing indignation and right-wing self-righteousness.

Peter Creasey
November 1st, 2005, 08:53 AM
It isn't ethnic at all

Judy, A lot of people are disagreeing with you big time. I'm in no position to judge personally.

Judy G. Russell
November 1st, 2005, 09:33 AM
There isn't any problem with making it an ideological fight; I just think it's going to be ugly.

Judy G. Russell
November 1st, 2005, 09:34 AM
I'm hoping we end up without the filibuster and nuclear option. I think going nuclear here would be very bad for the Senate and, ultimately, for the country.

Judy G. Russell
November 1st, 2005, 09:37 AM
Judy, A lot of people are disagreeing with you big time. I'm in no position to judge personally.A lot of people need to get their heads out of places where the sun don't shine. This business of assuming that everything is racial-ethnic-minority-of-the-day is getting silly. Political correctness run amok. And it certainly doesn't behoove the Right, which usually says it's unduly politically correct to use the N word, to write off a play on words as politically correct. Talk about pot and kettle!!!

Peter Creasey
November 1st, 2005, 10:29 AM
doesn't behoove the Right

Judy, I don't understand your seeming to politicize everything. The primary uproar I've seen has been from people oriented toward Italian interests...not the left or the right!

RayB (France)
November 1st, 2005, 10:52 AM
** And it certainly doesn't behoove the Right, which usually says it's unduly politically correct to use the N word, to write off a play on words as politically correct.**

Where did this come from? I must have missed something.

ndebord
November 1st, 2005, 11:45 AM
Antonin Scalia Jr. -- er... Samuel Alito Jr. was named by President Bush to the Supreme Court this morning. He is certainly going to please the right wing of the Republican Party.

Cute designation. Don't much care for his views. This from Mercury:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/13049750.htm

Judy G. Russell
November 1st, 2005, 12:32 PM
I haven't seen a single complaint from folks of Italian heritage to the nickname. Only from people on the Right Wing who are afraid that comparing Alito and Scalia could cause problems for Alito in being confirmed.

Judy G. Russell
November 1st, 2005, 12:32 PM
Very seriously, there are people on the right who say that objections to the use of the word "nigger" are political correctness run amok.

Judy G. Russell
November 1st, 2005, 12:33 PM
That website requires registration.

Peter Creasey
November 1st, 2005, 12:37 PM
I haven't seen a single complaint from folks of Italian heritage to the nickname.

Judy, You've missed them then. Here's one example...


National Italian American Foundation Demands "Scalito" Apology
Mon Oct 31 2005 15:56:42 ET

National Italian American Foundation (NIAF) Statement:

The NIAF is distressed by the attempts of some senators and the media (CNN, CBS) to marginalize Judge Samuel Alito's outstanding record, by frequent reference to his Italian heritage and by the use of the nickname, "Scalito."

Appropriately, no one mentioned that Justice Breyer was Jewish or suggested that he was lock-step ideologically with the other Jewish Supreme Court Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it would have been outrageous to do so. We still do not know Justice Robert's ethnicity.

We are justly proud of Justice Alito's Italian heritage and his sterling academic and judicial records as well as his impeccable integrity. However, he should be considered as an individual. In honor of the memory of the just departed Rosa Parks the Senate champions of civil rights should insist that Judge Alito be considered only on his extraordinary merits.

Sincerely,

A. Kenneth Ciongoli
Chairman of the National Italian American Foundation

Mike Landi
November 1st, 2005, 04:00 PM
I'm hoping we end up without the filibuster and nuclear option. I think going nuclear here would be very bad for the Senate and, ultimately, for the country.

I think the filibuster is bad for the country and the rule change would be a double edged sword that the GOP will regret using.

In the end, a filibuster will weaken the Supreme Court and the rule change will weaken the Senate. Neither is a good idea.

Judy G. Russell
November 1st, 2005, 04:01 PM
With all due respect, I find that silly. The nickname was the "brainchild" of a reporter for the National Law Journal who saw Alito as the ideological clone of Scalia. It wasn't intended as an ethnic comment at all. That some people choose to see ethnic elements to comments that don't have such intentions is their problem.

Lindsey
November 1st, 2005, 04:57 PM
I'm hoping we end up without the filibuster and nuclear option. I think going nuclear here would be very bad for the Senate and, ultimately, for the country.
Bad for the Senate and the country in one sense, yes, but I think the de facto elimination of the filibuster and, especially, the reduction of an opposition party with substantial presence to an irrelevance, are bad for the Senate and the country, too.

The Senate is supposed to work by consensus. That's the case less and less these days; it's being transformed to the same sort of majoritarian body that the House has always been and is supposed to be. And I don't think, in the long run, that is a good thing at all. What's the point of a bicameral legislature if one house is just an echo of the other? I'd rather go to straight majority rule--at least that way Alaska will no longer have the clout to get such huge proportions of pork, and maybe while we're at it we can scrap the electorial college, too.

I don't especially relish the prospect of a nasty fight, but if the Democrats don't draw the line here, with the prospect of putting a second Scalia on the Court, then where should they draw it? If they're going to go down, I for one would prefer to see them go down fighting.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 1st, 2005, 04:59 PM
A lot of people need to get their heads out of places where the sun don't shine.
And, in fact, according to E.J. Dionne on "The Diane Rehm Show" yesterday, it's a nickname that is used with affection by some of his friends.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 1st, 2005, 05:04 PM
That website requires registration.
Psssst: bugmenot.com (http://www.bugmenot.com)

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
November 1st, 2005, 07:25 PM
I agree that reducing the minority to a nonentity is bad business, especially in the Senate. I just wish we could have a principled debate without the chest-thumping.

ndebord
November 1st, 2005, 11:41 PM
Judy, You've missed them then. Here's one example...

Pete,

Oh, that National Italian American Foundation... the same one that says there is no such thing as the Mafia.

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 12:46 AM
I agree that reducing the minority to a nonentity is bad business, especially in the Senate. I just wish we could have a principled debate without the chest-thumping.
Yeah, well--one of the things we learned in the 2004 election, if we didn't already know it, is that nuance doesn't translate over the air waves too well. If you don't thump your chest, the public perceives you as a wimp.

But boy, didn't Harry Reid get feisty today! I hope he's not just whacking a hornet's nest with a stick, but it's about time the Republican leadership in the Senate was put on notice that the Democrats don't intend to just lie down in the road to be steamrollered.

--Lindsey

MollyM/CA
November 2nd, 2005, 07:34 AM
Psssst: bugmenot.com (http://www.bugmenot.com)

--Lindsey

Hey, great.

Where did you come across that, pray tell? You're really hot on information these days (well, nothing new. Maybe it shines better in the new forum.).

Mike Landi
November 2nd, 2005, 08:23 AM
the same one that says there is no such thing as the Mafia.

<snort>

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 09:10 AM
But boy, didn't Harry Reid get feisty today! I hope he's not just whacking a hornet's nest with a stick, but it's about time the Republican leadership in the Senate was put on notice that the Democrats don't intend to just lie down in the road to be steamrollered.That particular issue is one where I hope the Democrats don't lie down and get steamrollered. The facts appear more and more to suggest that we were lied to and facts were misstated and contrived to lead us into a war. We need to know the truth.

earler
November 2nd, 2005, 10:39 AM
If you lie down in the road while a steamroller is around it is no surprise you might be steamrolled.

-er

Wayne Scott
November 2nd, 2005, 10:43 AM
I wish someone would try to please the left wing or centerish wing of the Republican party (made up of me and 1/2 dozen other folks, a couple of lady senators from New England and a senator form Pennsylvania) and stop pandering to Dr. Dobson on the one hand and frothing Sen. Schumer on the opposite side.
Ostracized in Oklahoma

Wayne Scott
November 2nd, 2005, 10:52 AM
Well, there is some comfort in that. But I don't see the problem with making this an ideological fight; the right wing opened the door on that with the way they talked about the Miers nomination: they made it quite clear that their disappointment in her was primarily ideological.

It is becoming plain that there is a de facto religious test for office when it comes to federal judicial appointments these days: you must be either a Protestant evangelical or a Roman Catholic. No others need apply. And however decent the current nominee may be, this is a very bad thing.

--Lindsey
You know how much it pains me to agree with you on anything political that you have to say, but I have to second this tendency to go for a relatively narrow group of religious zealots as being an evil thing for a nation that supposedly doesn't mix government and religion.
When this scholarly gentleman is sworn in, as he almost certainly will be, there will be 5 Roman Catholics on SCOTUS.
As a life-long Republican who deeply believes in abortion (there I've said it, not using the euphemism of "pro-choice.") and a physician who has done far too many autopsies on women who had back-alley abortions this worries me deeply.
Disturbed in Delaware

Wayne Scott
November 2nd, 2005, 10:53 AM
I think the filibuster is bad for the country and the rule change would be a double edged sword that the GOP will regret using.

In the end, a filibuster will weaken the Supreme Court and the rule change will weaken the Senate. Neither is a good idea.
You betcha!

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 01:28 PM
You know how much it pains me to agree with you on anything political that you have to say, but I have to second this tendency to go for a relatively narrow group of religious zealots as being an evil thing for a nation that supposedly doesn't mix government and religion.There is a very real possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by a future Supreme Court, which will toss this very hot issue back into the hands of the states. What I can see developing is an even worse, even more polarized Red vs. Blue State division, with poor women being forced to leave Red States to get abortions in Blue States. This cannot be a good thing...

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 01:30 PM
Which is why I'm glad the Democrats finally are not just doing any "lie down in the road" routine on such an important issue.

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 01:35 PM
I wish someone would try to please the left wing or centerish wing of the Republican party (made up of me and 1/2 dozen other folks, a couple of lady senators from New England and a senator form Pennsylvania) and stop pandering to Dr. Dobson on the one hand and frothing Sen. Schumer on the opposite side.
Ostracized in OklahomaTruth be told, I suspect there are a whole lot more moderates in both parties -- and nobody represents them in either party. The far left has really hijacked the Democratic Party and the far right has really hijacked the Republican Party... and moderates from both camps are STUCK.

Mike
November 2nd, 2005, 02:43 PM
What I can see developing is an even worse, even more polarized Red vs. Blue State division, with poor women being forced to leave Red States to get abortions in Blue States. This cannot be a good thing...
One of the issues that Ahnold put on CA's special election, if passed, will require parental notification before ladies under 18 can get an abortion.

The group for the measure has started making phone calls such that the recipient believes its a woman calling for help because her daughter has been taken by the parents of the boy who impregnated her, and they are forcing her to have an abortion, but if parental notification were required, then the daughter would be safe.

RayB (France)
November 2nd, 2005, 03:22 PM
Truth be told, I suspect there are a whole lot more moderates in both parties -- and nobody represents them in either party. The far left has really hijacked the Democratic Party and the far right has really hijacked the Republican Party... and moderates from both camps are STUCK.

Yep! The only place where that isn't true is at the ballot box. The REAL problem. with the media playing the 'extremes' game, is that it turns many existing and potential voters off and they just don't vote.

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 03:46 PM
One of the issues that Ahnold put on CA's special election, if passed, will require parental notification before ladies under 18 can get an abortion.I find all of these rules requiring notice to someone else to be offensive and dangerous. If the parents were not sufficiently involved in the girl's life to have helped her avoid pregnancy in the first place, I fail to see why they should have a right to know about their daughter's other choices. Not to mention the terrible burden placed on, say, a 15-year-old incest victim to have to go to court to avoid having to notify the man who made her pregnant in the first place...

The group for the measure has started making phone calls such that the recipient believes its a woman calling for help because her daughter has been taken by the parents of the boy who impregnated her, and they are forcing her to have an abortion, but if parental notification were required, then the daughter would be safe.That's outrageous. Potentially effective, of course, but simply outrageous.

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 05:38 PM
Where did you come across that, pray tell?
You're very kind, but I can't take the credit for finding that site. It's been mentioned here before, but I had first heard about it from somebody else in this crowd (though not on this message board), I just don't remember precisely who.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 05:50 PM
We need to know the truth.
Absolutely we do, and the Republicans can squeal about Reid's tactics all they want, but they brought it on themselves. If they're going to use procedural maneuvers to try to keep the Democrats from having any say in how the Senate's business is conducted, they have no right to complain when Democrats use procedural maneuvers to fight back.

Phase II has been in limbo for more than a year now. The report was supposed to have come out last October, but Rockefeller consented to sign off on a delay until after the election. And then after the election, Robertson pulled a bait-and-switch and more or less announced that he was putting it on indefinite hold because it was a moot point, and the Senate had more important business to attend to. (Like Terri Schaivo, for instance.)

So I say: Give 'em hell, Harry!

(I like that Truman's comment on that slogan was that he had never given anyone hell, he just told the truth and they thought it was hell.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 05:56 PM
I wish someone would try to please the left wing or centerish wing of the Republican party (made up of me and 1/2 dozen other folks, a couple of lady senators from New England and a senator form Pennsylvania) and stop pandering to Dr. Dobson on the one hand and frothing Sen. Schumer on the opposite side.
Ostracized in Oklahoma
Senator Schumer seems quite reasonable to me, I don't see him as "frothing" at all (maybe that was Frist on the news yesterday evening that you're thinking about), but yes, I, too, had far rather see Bush try to play to the center.

I had been hoping, for example, that Bush would go for someone more in the libertarian mold--I think Rehnquist himself was somewhat libertarian, and I would be much more comfortable with that sort of conservative than one of Dr. Dobson's choices.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 06:15 PM
after the election, Robertson pulled a bait-and-switch and more or less announced that he was putting it on indefinite hold because it was a moot point, and the Senate had more important business to attend to. (Like Terri Schaivo, for instance.) So I say: Give 'em hell, Harry!I have to agree. The junk they have focused on (like expensive bridges in Alaska), compared to the things they need to focus on!!!

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 06:17 PM
I had been hoping, for example, that Bush would go for someone more in the libertarian mold--I think Rehnquist himself was somewhat libertarian, and I would be much more comfortable with that sort of conservative than one of Dr. Dobson's choices.I kind of have a kneejerk reaction to Dobson: if he says the nominee is good, then the nominee scares me...

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 06:18 PM
You know how much it pains me to agree with you on anything political that you have to say,
I'm sure you'll get over it. :p

When this scholarly gentleman is sworn in, as he almost certainly will be, there will be 5 Roman Catholics on SCOTUS.
After I posted my message, I was afraid that it would be taken the wrong way, so I'll expand on what you are saying to try to clarify, because I think you and I are on the same page. It's not so much the fact that they are Catholic that bothers me as it is that one of the reasons they were chosen--and this is especially true of the more recent appointees--was quite clearly because they were Catholic.

But one of the other things that is bothering me no little bit about the prospect of a majority-Catholic Supreme Court, something I would not have thought to be concerned about even 5 years ago, is the pressure that the hierarchy in the Catholic Church is putting on public officials to conform with church doctrine in their official acts as well as their private ones, regardless of whether or not that is in conflict with their sworn public duty. And in that case, I think it is certainly fitting to ask the nominee, "How will you reconcile such a conflict? How would it affect your judgement if the Church issued an official proclamation saying that any judge who did not take a certain position on a law that was under your consideration should be excommunicated?" JFK's position on that question can no longer be assumed.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 06:31 PM
There is a very real possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by a future Supreme Court
Or what would be just as bad, and perhaps even worse, for the basic ruling to be upheld, but encroachments on it allowed to the point that Roe v Wade was, in practical terms, meaningless. And that's why this particular vote is pivotal. There will still be 5 votes on the Court in favor of Roe even if Alito is confirmed, but what we lose when we lose O'Conner is the 5th vote to disallow greater restrictions on access to abortions, because that's where Kennedy switches sides.

Of course, new members on the Court shuffle the dynamics, so maybe Kennedy will be less willing to go along with eviscerating Roe if the Court makes a dramatic rightward shift. But that's probably a long shot.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 06:39 PM
The far left has really hijacked the Democratic Party
I keep hearing this, but I can see no evidence of it. Who is this far left that has hijacked the party, and what form has this hijacking taken? What far left candidates have been put up for office by these people? What far left proposals are being added to the legislative docket? What far left judges are ending up on the bench? Perhaps I should ask: What, exactly, constitutes "far left"?

These are not just rhetorical questions, I really want to know what is meant by this argument. I asked these questions once before, and the proponent of that position appears to have retired to a corner to sulk rather than offer an answer.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 06:42 PM
I kind of have a kneejerk reaction to Dobson: if he says the nominee is good, then the nominee scares me...
LOL!! Yeah, me too.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 09:59 PM
Of course, new members on the Court shuffle the dynamicsAnd that, quite frankly, is our only hope, that folks like Roberts and even Alito grow into wisdom as Justices.

Judy G. Russell
November 2nd, 2005, 10:05 PM
To my way of thinking, the Far Left is the group that would nominate a John Kerry (a Massachusetts Democrat, in this political environment????) and make Howard Dean head of the Democratic National Committee. They tend to think that Government is almost always the right agency in society to address a problem (as opposed to the Far Right, which thinks Government is almost never the right agency in society to address a problem). They are the ones who tend to think that individual liberties always trump the need for order (as opposed to the Far Right, which tends to think that the need for order always trumps individual liberties). In other words, take all the things you dislike most about the Right Wing of the GOP and reverse it. That's what I mean when I talk about the Far Left.

I would like to take the Far Left and the Far Right and dump them both into a deep dark cave, leaving what I sincerely hope would be a majority of moderates to run the country.

Lindsey
November 2nd, 2005, 11:51 PM
To my way of thinking, the Far Left is the group that would nominate a John Kerry (a Massachusetts Democrat, in this political environment????) and make Howard Dean head of the Democratic National Committee.
I can't go along with that analysis. For one thing, the true candidates on the left in the Democratic primaries were Dennis Kucinich and Dick Gephardt. They got almost nowhere in the primaries or in the fundraising. Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun fared even worse. I never saw their candidacies as anything more than token.

In spite of the press hype, Howard Dean is not an extreme leftist; if you look at his record in Vermont, he's very much a centrist. That said, I will agree that he was the darling of the activist groups on the party's left. And he came up short in Iowa, and was never a contender for the nomination from then on.

Kerry was never the preferred candidate of the left; they never liked him at all. They saw him, and still do see him, as very much an establishment Democrat. Let me ask this: who do you see as the centrist who should have been the party's nominee? Joe Lieberman is so far on the party's right that he might as well be a Republican. John Edwards seems pretty centrist, but he was very light on experience, and I think would have come across as an extreme lightweight as a presidential candidate. I liked Wesley Clark, but he has absolutely no elective experience at all, and his inexperience as a candidate handicapped his campaign, and I think would likely have continued to handicap it. Who does that leave...Bob Graham? Unfortunately, his fund-raising operation ran into trouble early on. Kerry might have been wiser to choose Graham as his VP candidate rather than Edwards, Florida being a more valuable electoral prize than North Carolina, but I'm not sure I see that choice as being evidence of the far left having taken over the party.

Let's face it: political primaries are basically beauty contests. Name recognition and fund raising ability go a long way toward winning them, and that's a major reason that both John Kerry in 2004 and George W. Bush in 2000 rode the primary system to a successful nomination.

As I said, Howard Dean is not the radical that the popular press makes him out to be. My impression is that the reason he was chosen as the DNC chairman is because he proved himself to be very successful at raising funds from small donors, and at exciting younger voters. I think those were both things the party thought it needed to be stronger in.

They tend to think that Government is almost always the right agency in society to address a problem ... They are the ones who tend to think that individual liberties always trump the need for order ... In other words, take all the things you dislike most about the Right Wing of the GOP and reverse it. That's what I mean when I talk about the Far Left.
And this is the way you see John Kerry and Howard Dean? I am stunned.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
November 3rd, 2005, 09:24 AM
And this [Far Left description] is the way you see John Kerry and Howard Dean? I am stunned.No, it's the way I see people who would pick those candidates. I'm not saying there was a lot to choose from, but John Edwards would have been a much better candidate in terms of electability. The Far Left doesn't seem to care much about electability -- it would rather lose than move to the center.

Lindsey
November 3rd, 2005, 10:44 AM
Psssst: bugmenot.com (http://www.bugmenot.com)
Oh, no! I navigated to bugmenot.com just now, and what I got was a GoDaddy index page with the message "Notice: This domain name expired on 10/29/05 and is pending renewal or deletion".

:( :( :( :( :( :( :( :( :(

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 3rd, 2005, 11:11 AM
No, it's the way I see people who would pick those candidates. I'm not saying there was a lot to choose from, but John Edwards would have been a much better candidate in terms of electability. The Far Left doesn't seem to care much about electability -- it would rather lose than move to the center.
But what about people who voted for Kerry because they honestly thought he was more electable than Edwards? I don't think it's a given that Edwards would have fared better than Kerry in 2004. It would have been very easy for the media to scorn him as a lightweight. And as dazzling as he apparently was on the stump, I heard more than one commentator say that you'd listen to him and be all caught up in the moment, but then you'd get home and ask yourself, "What did he say?" and realize that wasn't much substance behind the rhetoric.

Yes, there is a fairly small faction in the party that would rather lose an election that vote for a candidate they see as less than ideologically pure--largely the ones who supported Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000. But I would challenge the notion that they have taken over the party. Those guys were not Kerry supporters--and Kerry himself is DLC.

It seems to me that Harry Reid's selection as minority leader in the Senate is evidence that moderate-to-conservative Democrats still have a good deal of influence in deciding the direction the party is going to take.

The rising star at the 2004 party convention was Barak Obama, and he's certainly no left-wing radical.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
November 3rd, 2005, 12:37 PM
But what about people who voted for Kerry because they honestly thought he was more electable than Edwards?I respectfully submit that they were mistaken.

I don't think it's a given that Edwards would have fared better than Kerry in 2004. It would have been very easy for the media to scorn him as a lightweight. And as dazzling as he apparently was on the stump, I heard more than one commentator say that you'd listen to him and be all caught up in the moment, but then you'd get home and ask yourself, "What did he say?" and realize that wasn't much substance behind the rhetoric.And Kerry was better? I have said before that as much as I disagree with George Bush about his proposal for Social Security (and the older I get, the more I disagree with it -- hands off my retirement, W!), on election day 2004 I knew what Bush proposed. I didn't (and don't) have any idea what Kerry would do except "not what Bush wants".

Yes, there is a fairly small faction in the party that would rather lose an election that vote for a candidate they see as less than ideologically pure--largely the ones who supported Ralph Nader's candidacy in 2000. But I would challenge the notion that they have taken over the party. Those guys were not Kerry supporters--and Kerry himself is DLC. I agree that the Nader people are the worst of the bunch, but they're not the ones who control the party machinery.

It seems to me that Harry Reid's selection as minority leader in the Senate is evidence that moderate-to-conservative Democrats still have a good deal of influence in deciding the direction the party is going to take. The rising star at the 2004 party convention was Barak Obama, and he's certainly no left-wing radical.I certainly hope you're right about Reid and Obama being the direction of the future.

rlohmann
November 3rd, 2005, 05:47 PM
I keep hearing this, but I can see no evidence of it. Who is this far left that has hijacked the party, and what form has this hijacking taken?It was late January or early February of 2004. I was driving somewhere near the French border, listening to an NPR feed on AFN, the American Forces Network.

I had turned on the radio in the middle of an interview with some guy whose name I didn't know because I had missed the beginning of the program.

It wasn't so much an interview as it was a tirade. The substance of it was that Americans are really not smart enough to make their own health-care decisions. If left to their own devices, he said, they'd just squander their money. Accordingly, the only way to insure adequate health care would be for the government to take over the entire process and fund it by taxation.

"Thank you, Dr. Howard Dean," said the interviewer.

The defense rests. :cool:

rlohmann
November 3rd, 2005, 06:01 PM
I guess I'm one of them.

The word is vulgar ignorant, and insulting, and I would use the same adjectives to characterize anyone who used it in that vein.

But that's as far as I'd go.

Political correctness does indeed run amok when the word is treated as a mystical imprecation with such diabolical powers that "the 'N' word" is the only allowable formulation.

rlohmann
November 3rd, 2005, 06:08 PM
It's hard to quarrel with that assessment. :(

Lindsey
November 3rd, 2005, 06:20 PM
I respectfully submit that they were mistaken.
Perhaps; but that doesn't make them "far left."

And Kerry was better?
That wasn't my argument; I'm saying he wasn't clearly worse.

I would agree with you that Kerry wasn't terribly effective at making it clear exactly where he stood on important questions. But whenever some Democrat comes along and does try to draw a clear difference between the Democratic position and the Republican one, the DLC-types say, "Shut up and sit down--you're rocking the boat, you loud-mouthed left-winger!"

I agree that the Nader people are the worst of the bunch, but they're not the ones who control the party machinery.
So who are you claiming does? That's what I'm trying to understand. Who are the far left power players that you think are taking the party over the cliff?

(BTW, I am reminded that Dean won the DNC chairmanship because the party's establishment was unable to come up with a candidate of its own--in the end, Dean ran for the position unopposed. If the establishment Democrats want to retain the party's leadership, then they have to lead, dammit. They can't sit back and wait for someone to annoint them.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 3rd, 2005, 06:34 PM
Forgive me if I'm not willing to take your characterization of the tone of Dean's remarks at face value. I don't suppose you remember which NPR program that was? I couldn't turn up anything in the NPR program archives from that time frame that matched that description, but your description isn't terribly specific.

In the meanwhile, though, I did turn up this program segment (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4497011) which you might care to hear.

In any event, I'm not sure how the fact of an interview with Howard Dean equates to the "far left" taking control of the Democratic Party.

--Lindsey

Mike
November 4th, 2005, 12:15 AM
I find all of these rules requiring notice to someone else to be offensive and dangerous.
It gets worse. I got a chance to look at my absentee ballot tonight. If the measure wins (it has less than 50% support at the moment, according to a TV poll), the STATE CONSTITUTION gets AMENDED. The new language in the Constitution also defines abortion as causing "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born."

RayB (France)
November 4th, 2005, 07:07 AM
I'm afraid this one is going to be ugly. Sam (and yes I can call him that -- I worked with him briefly at the end of my tenure in the US Attorney's Office) can't be faulted on his academic or legal credentials. He is unquestionably a legal heavyweight. So it will be (or should be -- it is absolutely inconceivable to me that a guy who is as much of a straight arrow as Sam could have anything hidden in his background) purely a matter of political philosophy -- the left versus the right.


Continuing with my media rage - check this out -

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash7.htm

Rabid Raymond

Judy G. Russell
November 4th, 2005, 09:13 AM
Can you amend your Constitution with only a majority vote? Yikes...

Judy G. Russell
November 4th, 2005, 09:15 AM
Well, come on now... mothers are always fair game: they're the ones most likely to say things that make "good copy" ("Oh course Sam is against abortion," for example).

Lindsey
November 4th, 2005, 10:27 PM
The new language in the Constitution also defines abortion as causing "death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born."
Oh, my word! So if a pregnant woman does something that is seen as unwise, and suffers a miscarriage, she might be liable for prosecution?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 4th, 2005, 10:32 PM
Well, come on now... mothers are always fair game: they're the ones most likely to say things that make "good copy" ("Oh course Sam is against abortion," for example).
Or "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
November 5th, 2005, 02:27 AM
Well, come on now... mothers are always fair game: they're the ones most likely to say things that make "good copy" ("Oh course Sam is against abortion," for example).

Ah! Well, see there I just didn't understand that . . . . . I guess that makes it 'Okay' then . . . . to some people.

RayB (France)
November 5th, 2005, 02:30 AM
Or "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

--Lindsey

What on earth does that mean?

ndebord
November 5th, 2005, 12:00 PM
What on earth does that mean?

Ray,

Barbara Bush: "And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."

C'mon...you know it means what it always has.

Elites have a hard time identifying with the underclass. (You're in France, right? Think Marie Antoinette.) Republican elites have an even harder time because they don't live close to inner cities, preferring rural or Xburb localities and mix only with their own whenever possible.

Something the French are discovering with thie current riots in those Stalin-esque projects they've created to ring most of their major cities.

RayB (France)
November 5th, 2005, 03:10 PM
**Elites have a hard time identifying with the underclass.**

You know, you are absolutely right . . . . . but we do try to be as considerate of you folk as we possibly can. Can't fault us there.

As far as Paris is concerned, riots sure wouldn't happen in Detroit, LA or any other large city in the world would they?

From your remarks, I have to assume that you feel that it is alright for the press to hover around some 90 yr. old lady's home just because her son suddenly became a prominent person. I think that it is disgusting.

Sometimes . . . . . .

ndebord
November 5th, 2005, 08:42 PM
**Elites have a hard time identifying with the underclass.**

You know, you are absolutely right . . . . . but we do try to be as considerate of you folk as we possibly can. Can't fault us there.

As far as Paris is concerned, riots sure wouldn't happen in Detroit, LA or any other large city in the world would they?

From your remarks, I have to assume that you feel that it is alright for the press to hover around some 90 yr. old lady's home just because her son suddenly became a prominent person. I think that it is disgusting.

Sometimes . . . . . .

Ray,

Riots on American soil...of American origin. Nah. We've always copied the French in such things. As for the 90 year old thing, pardon my French, but that is certainly out of leftfield...a designation I doubt you care to see yourself characterized as. But then rude is, as rude does, as Gump says.

Lindsey
November 5th, 2005, 10:21 PM
Oh, no! I navigated to bugmenot.com just now, and what I got was a GoDaddy index page with the message "Notice: This domain name expired on 10/29/05 and is pending renewal or deletion".
BugMeNot.com seems to be back in business now. Whew!!! :) :) :) :) :)

--Lindsey

RayB (France)
November 6th, 2005, 02:50 AM
Ray,


Riots on American soil...of American origin. Nah. We've always copied the French in such things. As for the 90 year old thing, pardon my French, but that is certainly out of leftfield...a designation I doubt you care to see yourself characterized as. But then rude is, as rude does, as Gump says.

Explain yourself, you young whippersnapper!! BTW - The Bastille wasn't stormed until 1789. So who learned from whom?

ndebord
November 6th, 2005, 01:08 PM
Explain yourself, you young whippersnapper!! BTW - The Bastille wasn't stormed until 1789. So who learned from whom?

Ray,

Figured you'd call me on that. (That galldarned Tom Paine...always causing trouble everywhere. [g])

Still, Scalito is a scary guy, in terms of his record. If he reverses those 5-4 decisions away from established precedent and in particular, Roe, then the Republican Party will rue the day they supported his elevation to the Court. Pollsters say that reversing Roe will result in "at least" a 5% swing in the women's vote to Democrats and away from Republicans. A deserved swing, if you ask me.

earler
November 6th, 2005, 04:24 PM
Bear in mind the bastille had, at the moment it was stormed, 2 or 3 very old prisoners and about a dozen soldiers, plus the governor of the prison. Not exactly a very courageous expedition. Worse, the poor governor was beheaded and his head carried around on a pike for a couple of hours. Even worse, this lead to the deaths of many innocents, misery for nearly everyone, and to the advent of bonaparte, arguably the worse french sovereign there ever was.

Finally, the american revolution wasn't really a revolution. It was a civil war.

-er

earler
November 6th, 2005, 04:26 PM
I might also add that thomas payne, whatever his merits during the american 'revolution', got it all wrong as to the french revolution, and nearly lost his life in the bargain, too. He thought all those nasty terrorists were great.........until he almost went to the guillotine himself.

-er

ndebord
November 6th, 2005, 09:29 PM
Bear in mind the bastille had, at the moment it was stormed, 2 or 3 very old prisoners and about a dozen soldiers, plus the governor of the prison. Not exactly a very courageous expedition. Worse, the poor governor was beheaded and his head carried around on a pike for a couple of hours. Even worse, this lead to the deaths of many innocents, misery for nearly everyone, and to the advent of bonaparte, arguably the worse french sovereign there ever was.

Finally, the american revolution wasn't really a revolution. It was a civil war.

-er


Earl,

The Ameriican Revolution wasn't that....but a civil war. Hmmm. Did the British manage to raise an American royalist colonial army to fight the continental army, as it became known? Or did they bring the British fleet, foreign mercenaries and their very best royal soldiers to defeat these "rebellious" colonials.

Lindsey
November 6th, 2005, 10:03 PM
The Ameriican Revolution wasn't that....but a civil war.
Earle has a point; colonists were fighting each other -- loyalists versus those favoring independence -- as much as they were fighting each other. Quite a few loyalists left the rebelling colonies and went either to Canada or back to England. So there was an element of civil war in the struggle, but in that the Americans overthrew the established order and set up a new one, it was also unquestionably revolutionary.

I'm not sure why, more than 225 years after the fact, anyone would feel uncomfortable acknowledging the revolutionary aspect of those days. Certainly the colonists fighting for independence saw their struggle as a revolutionary one.

--Lindsey

Mike
November 6th, 2005, 11:30 PM
I'm not sure if a simple majority will change it, or if it requires 2/3 to pass.

Mike
November 6th, 2005, 11:33 PM
I wouldn't be surprised that some pro-lifer tried to use that rationale. OTOH, so far, none of the opposing commercials have mentioned that possibility.

Lindsey
November 6th, 2005, 11:53 PM
I wouldn't be surprised that some pro-lifer tried to use that rationale. OTOH, so far, none of the opposing commercials have mentioned that possibility.
Interesting. I'll be keenly interested to see how that turns out. You guys make me glad that Virginia makes direct referendum a difficult process to initiate. ;)

--Lindsey

ndebord
November 7th, 2005, 01:15 AM
Earle has a point; colonists were fighting each other -- loyalists versus those favoring independence -- as much as they were fighting each other. Quite a few loyalists left the rebelling colonies and went either to Canada or back to England. So there was an element of civil war in the struggle, but in that the Americans overthrew the established order and set up a new one, it was also unquestionably revolutionary.

I'm not sure why, more than 225 years after the fact, anyone would feel uncomfortable acknowledging the revolutionary aspect of those days. Certainly the colonists fighting for independence saw their struggle as a revolutionary one.

--Lindsey

Earle had a point, but not the absolutist point he insisted upon.

Lindsey
November 7th, 2005, 05:43 PM
Earle had a point, but not the absolutist point he insisted upon.
Hence the "but" in the last sentence of my first paragraph. ;)

--Lindsey

earler
November 7th, 2005, 06:18 PM
In fact there were a number of loyalists who fought for or at least supported the british. These included benjamin franklin's own son, who was governor of new jersey. The british brought in hessian troops, as was the custom in those days. Mercenaries were widely used by all countries in europe.

It was a war of independence between colonists who wished to set up their own government and loyalists, not a revolution. The word revolution in the sense of overthrowing a government or monarch to replace him with another government or monarch didn't have an usage in english until john evelyn's use of in describing the overthrow of james the second.

Bear in mind the leaders of the war were rich merchants in new england and rich farmers in the south. This wasn't an uprising of the great unwashed masses. The british enlisted a number of blacks in the south, by the way, with the promise of emancipation in case of victory.

-er

earler
November 7th, 2005, 06:19 PM
Absolutist? How so?

-er

ndebord
November 7th, 2005, 07:29 PM
Absolutist? How so?

-er

Earl,

Please... You can do better than a knee-jerk comment! <g>

Absolustist as in IT IS A CIVIL WAR (and only a civil war...not a revolution).

Read Lindsey's post!

<VBG>

Wayne Scott
November 7th, 2005, 08:52 PM
I kind of have a kneejerk reaction to Dobson: if he says the nominee is good, then the nominee scares me...
I ain't one of you parlor pinks, but Dobson sends cold chills up my spine.

Wayne Scott
November 7th, 2005, 08:56 PM
There is a very real possibility that Roe v. Wade will be overturned by a future Supreme Court, which will toss this very hot issue back into the hands of the states. What I can see developing is an even worse, even more polarized Red vs. Blue State division, with poor women being forced to leave Red States to get abortions in Blue States. This cannot be a good thing...
As a member of the wild-eyed left wing faction of the Republican Party, I very much hope that Chief Justice Roberts will believe in the Latin legal wording that means, "leave established decisions stand."

Lindsey
November 8th, 2005, 12:06 AM
It was a war of independence between colonists who wished to set up their own government and loyalists, not a revolution.
And who is it they were seeking independence from? Certainly not other colonists! It was from the British crown. They sought to replace the colonial government of British king and parliament and appointed governor, an arrangement they had begun to feel was not responsive to their local needs, with a home-grown one. It most certainly was a revolution! And the people who lived through it referred to it precisely that way. Earlier this year, I was working with a film of an early baptismal register from 1st Presbyterian Church of New York City. Among the entries for April, 1795, is the following (my bolded emphasis):

N.B. William, son of William Randal & Mary Wiley his wife, was born July 8th 1779 & baptized in the course of the following month at Fishkill during the Exile of his Parents in the War of the Revolution.

That there were colonists on both sides signifies nothing. Any revolution inevitably includes some element of civil war because you will have some within the country who support the established order who are fighting those who seek to replace it.

The word revolution in the sense of overthrowing a government or monarch to replace him with another government or monarch didn't have an usage in english until john evelyn's use of in describing the overthrow of james the second.
Even if that's true (and I have no idea whether it is or not), James II (1685-88) predates George III (1760-1820) by nearly a century. So I don't quite understand the relevance of your statement.

Bear in mind the leaders of the war were rich merchants in new england and rich farmers in the south.
It's true that the American Revolution was unusual in that it was a conservative one in that sense. It didn't seek to overturn the social order, only to overthrow and replace the colonial governments of the British monarch.

The british enlisted a number of blacks in the south, by the way, with the promise of emancipation in case of victory.
As did the colonial army. In Virginia, and I think this was generally true in the rest of the South, blacks who had gained their freedom by virtue of fighting for the colonial armies in the Revolution were the only emancipated blacks allowed to remain in Virginia without a special dispensation from the state legislature. I'm not sure what your point is here, either.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 8th, 2005, 12:13 AM
I ain't one of you parlor pinks, but Dobson sends cold chills up my spine.
You'd be interested in this post (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_10_23_dish_archive.html#113051043490745139) on Andrew Sullivan's blog late last month regarding the Miers nomination. (Also, read the column by Michael Kinsley that he links to below that, commenting on the Plame affair. Priceless. I've fallen behind in the last couple of news-filled weeks and am just now getting caught up.)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 9th, 2005, 10:29 PM
I got to thinking about this question of the distinction between a revolution and a civil war, and it occurred to me that you might say that "civil war" is the label that history attaches to an unsuccessful revolution.

That said: I don't think it could be said that the American Revolution was unsuccessful!

--Lindsey

earler
November 10th, 2005, 07:38 AM
I mentioned the overthrow of james the second because it was one of the earliest uses of the word 'revolution' in english.

Since there were far more blacks in the south for obvious reasons, it is not surprising there were more enlisted by the british.

Revolutions seem to be mostly the work of a small number of people who take over the government, as in russia and in france, as well as in cambodia more recently.

As for civil wars being unsuccessful revolutions, well look at cromwell for an example of one that was successful. And, do look at the history of the roman republic for examples of civil wars that were successful, too. Not to forget franco's success either.

-er

Wayne Scott
November 10th, 2005, 10:24 AM
I respectfully submit that they were mistaken.

And Kerry was better? I have said before that as much as I disagree with George Bush about his proposal for Social Security (and the older I get, the more I disagree with it -- hands off my retirement, W!), on election day 2004 I knew what Bush proposed. I didn't (and don't) have any idea what Kerry would do except "not what Bush wants".

I agree that the Nader people are the worst of the bunch, but they're not the ones who control the party machinery.

I certainly hope you're right about Reid and Obama being the direction of the future.
I'm still hopeful about Obama, but I think Reid has lost every bit of respect I once had for him.
It is not hopeful that the leaders of each party in the Senate seem to have violent tempers and more often react in rage than trying to figure out how to get along even a little bit.

Wayne Scott
November 10th, 2005, 10:31 AM
Senator Schumer seems quite reasonable to me, I don't see him as "frothing" at all (maybe that was Frist on the news yesterday evening that you're thinking about), but yes, I, too, had far rather see Bush try to play to the center.

I had been hoping, for example, that Bush would go for someone more in the libertarian mold--I think Rehnquist himself was somewhat libertarian, and I would be much more comfortable with that sort of conservative than one of Dr. Dobson's choices.

--Lindsey
My best guess is that you would consider Schumer as being a bit too conservative for your taste. I'm trying to picture a politician that you would consider as being too liberal. The mind boggles.

Judy G. Russell
November 14th, 2005, 05:29 PM
Fortunately, it isn't an issue as I see that the propositions all failed in CA!!

Judy G. Russell
November 14th, 2005, 05:30 PM
I have some hopes for Chief Justice Roberts... but few for Alito. I think his politics are pretty clear.

Judy G. Russell
November 14th, 2005, 05:34 PM
It is not hopeful that the leaders of each party in the Senate seem to have violent tempers and more often react in rage than trying to figure out how to get along even a little bit.It is not hopeful that all politicians seem to be a tad more "in your face" than I remember. I couldn't believe it when one of our candidates in NJ for governor actually ran a campaign ad featuring nasty comments by the ex-wife of the other. Geez...

Judy G. Russell
November 14th, 2005, 05:34 PM
I'll have you know my parlor is NOT pink.

Mike
November 15th, 2005, 12:47 AM
Indeed, they did! There was dancing in the str^H^H^Hbars and clubs, as always.

But yes, a simple majority would have carried it. :-(

Judy G. Russell
November 15th, 2005, 09:49 AM
Indeed, they did! There was dancing in the str^H^H^Hbars and clubs, as always.I was so glad to read about the results.

But yes, a simple majority would have carried it. :-(I just looked at the NJ Constitution, and it also provides for majority vote for amendments... but amendments must have 3/5ths of the Legislature in order to be presented to the electorate. So that's some check and balance at least.

Mike
November 17th, 2005, 11:16 PM
...the NJ Constitution, and it also provides for majority vote for amendments... but amendments must have 3/5ths of the Legislature in order to be presented to the electorate.
In CA, it depends on who initiates the amendment process (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_18).

Judy G. Russell
November 18th, 2005, 10:00 AM
We don't have the initiative process in NJ, and I'm very glad. It seems to me that too many people think of a Constitution as something that should be easily changed -- at the whim of an electorate, rather than as a baseline document that should only be changed when there is overwhelming reason to do so.

MollyM/CA
November 18th, 2005, 08:00 PM
I couldn't believe it when one of our candidates in NJ for governor actually ran a campaign ad featuring nasty comments by the ex-wife of the other. Geez...


The good news is he got a lot of nasty news coverage for it too. Lost, too, didn't he? Maybe there's hope for the race. Not the political race, the human one.

Judy G. Russell
November 18th, 2005, 08:36 PM
Yep, he lost big time. And then blamed it all on Bush being unpopular. Of course it couldn't have been anything he did...

Mike
November 20th, 2005, 10:14 PM
I like living in CA, but there are times when it's a bit wearing...

Lindsey
November 20th, 2005, 11:26 PM
Since there were far more blacks in the south for obvious reasons, it is not surprising there were more enlisted by the british.
Even assuming this is true, and I have no idea whether it is or not, how on earth is it relevant to the subject under discussion?

Revolutions seem to be mostly the work of a small number of people who take over the government, as in russia and in france, as well as in cambodia more recently.
Well, the definition in the AHD is simply "The overthrow of one government and its replacement with another." No mention of the size of the group involved in the overthrow. But my impression is that the overthrow of a government by a small group is usually referred to as a "coup de etat" or a "putsch," not a revolution. (And I'm also not under the impression that the French and Russian revolutions were accomplished by a "small number of people.")

I would question whether Oliver Cromwell's Commonwealth actually represented a successful revolution, as it all collapsed within 2 years of his death, at which point England quite happily reverted to monarchy, where it has remained ever since. Franco's regime in Spain was far longer-lived than Cromwell's Commonwealth, but it, too, did not last beyond his own lifetime.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 20th, 2005, 11:35 PM
I'm still hopeful about Obama, but I think Reid has lost every bit of respect I once had for him.
I guess it's not too surprising that I have come to have a great regard for Reid's ability to play the political game--he is a master strategist. I sometimes think that the best favor the Republicans have done for the Democratic Party was to send Tom Daschle home to South Dakota. (And don't get me wrong, I like Tom Daschle, but he was too deferential to be an effective leader of the Senate minority.)

It is not hopeful that the leaders of each party in the Senate seem to have violent tempers and more often react in rage than trying to figure out how to get along even a little bit.
Violent tempers? Would you care to explain how this violence has manifested itself? I haven't heard stories of anyone being beaten senseless on the floor of the Senate since before the Civil War. And even then, it wasn't another Senator who perpetrated the violence, but a member of the House.

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 20th, 2005, 11:43 PM
My best guess is that you would consider Schumer as being a bit too conservative for your taste.
I never thought about it, actually; I don't think the labels "liberal" or "conservative" are very meaningful. Of more interest is where a politician stands on particular issues, and the extent to which he or she is willing to take risks to fight for those stands.

But could you give an example of an instance in which you thought Schumer was "frothing at the mouth"?

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 20th, 2005, 11:52 PM
Yep, he lost big time. And then blamed it all on Bush being unpopular. Of course it couldn't have been anything he did...
Similar situation in Virginia. Both sides had negative ads, but judging by what ads I saw (and I don't know whether what aired here in Richmond is typical), Kaine the Democrat didn't go negative until after Kilgore the Republican did. And some of Kilgore's ads were so blatantly unfair (put together by the same crew that brought us the Swift Boat ads) that even the very conservative and pro-Republican Times-Dispatch was heavily critical of him for it.

Everybody I happened to talk to about the campaign had the same reaction--that it had been a pretty sorry spectacle all around. I have some hope that people are beginning to develop some immunity to the smear ads.

--Lindsey

Judy G. Russell
November 21st, 2005, 11:59 AM
I like living in CA, but there are times when it's a bit wearing...I can certainly understand that, but we all have our crosses to bear (she says, as the weather report this morning is suggesting snow on Thanksgiving Day...)

RayB (France)
November 21st, 2005, 03:44 PM
I guess it's not too surprising that I have come to have a great regard for Reid's ability to play the political game--he is a master strategist. I sometimes think that the best favor the Republicans have done for the Democratic Party was to send Tom Daschle home to South Dakota. (And don't get me wrong, I like Tom Daschle, but he was too deferential to be an effective leader of the Senate minority.)


Violent tempers? Would you care to explain how this violence has manifested itself? I haven't heard stories of anyone being beaten senseless on the floor of the Senate since before the Civil War. And even then, it wasn't another Senator who perpetrated the violence, but a member of the House.

--Lindsey

Any idea where the senselessness comes from, then? Sure enough of it there on both sides of the aisle.

Mike
November 21st, 2005, 11:56 PM
...as the weather report this morning is suggesting snow on Thanksgiving Day...
While we've had a week of record-breaking temperatures (HIGHs, not lows).

Speaking of the initiative process, two different organizations are starting initiatives to put anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot. Both would not only prevent gay marriage, but would also eliminate domestic partnerships and any other civic recognition of couples.

Judy G. Russell
November 22nd, 2005, 07:04 AM
While we've had a week of record-breaking temperatures (HIGHs, not lows).Sigh... it's in the 40s here this morning.

Speaking of the initiative process, two different organizations are starting initiatives to put anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot. Both would not only prevent gay marriage, but would also eliminate domestic partnerships and any other civic recognition of couples.Geez Louise and then some... what is the MATTER with these people? I will never, as long as I live, understand why some people are so threatened by people whose only "fault" is that they love each other... and are "different".

Mike
November 24th, 2005, 01:39 AM
Sigh... it's in the 40s here this morning.
Never fear--our weather is turning cooler (note, not colder) and we may have some winter storms over the weekend. In other words, we may get some rain.

what is the MATTER with these people?
Because they didn't choose to be heterosexual, they cannot comprehend that any deviation from that isn't a choice. And that must be bad.

ndebord
November 25th, 2005, 01:39 AM
JGR>> ... what is the MATTER with these people? I will never, as long as I live, understand why some people are so threatened by people whose only "fault" is that they love each other... and are "different"

Judy,

I think of Rove's grand design for a 40 year majority for the Republican Party and think to where I've heard that plea for hegemony before. "First they came for the Gays, then the Communists..."

ktinkel
November 26th, 2005, 08:11 PM
I keep hearing this, but I can see no evidence of it. Who is this far left that has hijacked the party, and what form has this hijacking taken? What far left candidates have been put up for office by these people? What far left proposals are being added to the legislative docket? What far left judges are ending up on the bench? Perhaps I should ask: What, exactly, constitutes "far left"?

These are not just rhetorical questions, I really want to know what is meant by this argument.Me, too. (Trying to catch up with this long thread.)

The positions I hold were fairly common in the 1950s when I was growing up. It is puzzling to discover I am now seen to be a radical lefty of some sort!

It has been a long, long time since I have seen any radical left impulse anywhere in the U.S. — in Congress, in the Senate (and certainly in the White House). Dean is not left on most issues; nor is Ted Kennedy. Where are these “left” politicians and where are the “left” proposals.

The entire world considers us a right-wing nation, and I find it hard to argue against that position.

ktinkel
November 26th, 2005, 08:13 PM
And that, quite frankly, is our only hope, that folks like Roberts and even Alito grow into wisdom as Justices.I used to think that Supreme Court justices (and members of juries, in fact) would tend to rise to the occasion, and make more balanced decisions than their going-in positions would suggest.

Lately, though, I am losing faith. Alas.

ktinkel
November 26th, 2005, 08:18 PM
Speaking of the initiative process, two different organizations are starting initiatives to put anti-gay marriage amendments on the ballot. Both would not only prevent gay marriage, but would also eliminate domestic partnerships and any other civic recognition of couples.I do wonder why people care so much.

Some would suggest that men who are terrified they are not adequately “masculine” are the people who support these measures, but that does not explain why so many women do.

I guess if we understood these mysteries we would be wiser than we seem actually to be …

Lindsey
November 26th, 2005, 09:32 PM
The positions I hold were fairly common in the 1950s when I was growing up. It is puzzling to discover I am now seen to be a radical lefty of some sort!
It is a measure of how far the political center has moved to the right in the last 20 or 25 years. What was mainstream and centrist in 1975 is now seen as "far left."

I just returned from another Nation cruise in the last week, and I posed this question to a woman I was having a nightcap with in the Crow's Nest after dinner one night, someone who is active in the Democratic party in California. Her response was that anyone with a close knowledge of the inner workings of the party could never think that it was in the hands of the left wing; the old party establishment--which leans center right--still has its hands on the levers of power. Who, after all, was in charge of the Kerry campaign but the same centrist consultants (like Bob Schrum) who have been losing elections for decades? And has it been so quickly forgotten that 18 months ago there was a serious flirtation with the idea of putting John McCain in the Vice-Presidential slot on the Democratic ticket?

Just two weeks ago tonight, (the first night of the cruise) I was at the dinner table with Robert Scheer, which was not only a great thrill (because I am a big fan of his column), but extremely timely, as the LA Times had only just announced that they were dropping his column. This was, of course, a major topic of conversation at dinner that night. What made it all the more dicey was that Amy Wilentz was one of the other Nation guest speakers--and she is married, as you may know, to Nick Goldberg, who is the editorial page editor of the LA Times, and who was also along on the cruise, though not one of the featured speakers. I don't think Goldberg was directly responsible for the decision to drop Scheer's column--my understanding was that it was a directive from publisher--but I got the impression that Scheer felt that Goldberg's public remarks were disappointingly tepid. There were some sparks flying between Scheer and Wilentz during some of the panel discussions, and though some of it was probably just mischievous needling, I'm not convinced that it was all entirely friendly.

Not surprisingly, the LA Times was apparently flooded with letters and e-mails protesting their action. Robert Scheer has a lot of fans among its readers, but apparently the publisher thought nobody would notice.

It has been a long, long time since I have seen any radical left impulse anywhere in the U.S. — in Congress, in the Senate (and certainly in the White House). Dean is not left on most issues; nor is Ted Kennedy.
Well, that's certainly the way I see it, too, though the media narrative would have it otherwise. It seems to have been forgotton that Ted Kennedy was one of the prime supporters behind "No Child Left Behind," one of Bush's first big legislative initiatives. Bush's mistake was in reneging on the promises he made to Kennedy regarding funding. He might have had Kennedy as an ally on education, at the least, but betrayal is not a smart way to retain allies from the other side of the aisle. And the last two national elections have made it abundantly clear that the Democrats can expect no consideration in return for thier support on any of the Bush Administration's initiatives.

Dean's major issue in the primaries was the Iraq War, and far from being outside the mainstream on that issue, I think it should now be evident that his position is much more in line with the thinking of the majority of Americans than is that of the Administration.

--Lindsey

Mike
November 27th, 2005, 12:47 AM
Some would suggest that men who are terrified they are not adequately “masculine” are the people who support these measures, but that does not explain why so many women do.
Heh, some of the men that I've seen protesting so vigorously appear to be those who doth protest too much! ;)

Judy G. Russell
November 27th, 2005, 07:58 AM
Never fear--our weather is turning cooler (note, not colder) and we may have some winter storms over the weekend. In other words, we may get some rain.I'd be bothered by that description if we weren't headed back into the high 50s or low 60s this week...


Because they didn't choose to be heterosexual, they cannot comprehend that any deviation from that isn't a choice. And that must be bad.Oh yeah... right... "oh please please... I really want to be a member of a discriminated-against minority whose members are denied basic protections of the law and basic rights... let me choose that please!" Right.

Judy G. Russell
November 27th, 2005, 08:00 AM
"First they came for the Gays, then the Communists..."Sigh... I've thought of just that before...

Judy G. Russell
November 27th, 2005, 08:01 AM
I do wonder why people care so much.Ditto. This whole business of "defending" marriage leaves me completely baffled. I simply do not understand how it defends a heterosexual union to deny the benefits of union to others who are willing to commit to each other in a loving partnership.

Judy G. Russell
November 27th, 2005, 08:04 AM
I used to think that Supreme Court justices (and members of juries, in fact) would tend to rise to the occasion, and make more balanced decisions than their going-in positions would suggest.

Lately, though, I am losing faith. Alas.I think most Justices (and most jurors) do rise to the occasion, but where Justices are put through certain litmus-test-type hoops, well... I dunno...

ktinkel
November 27th, 2005, 10:39 AM
I just returned from another Nation cruise …I was thinking about you when I noticed that Molly Ivins evidently was not going this year. Glad you had a good time.

Those Nation cruises always seem to have some sturm und drung (at least when you go on them ). images/icons/icon12.gif

Just two weeks ago tonight, (the first night of the cruise) I was at the dinner table with Robert Scheer, which was not only a great thrill (because I am a big fan of his column), but extremely timely, as the LA Times had only just announced that they were dropping his column. This was, of course, a major topic of conversation at dinner that night.I’ll bet! I was not shocked, exactly, but sorry. On the bright side (a rare thing in the newspaper world right now), Molly Ivins’s column is now a regular item in the Sunday edition of our dreadful local rag, the Connecticut Post.

(I did not intend to put a smilie in the title line, but there is evidently no way to delete it, either. Oh, well.)

ktinkel
November 27th, 2005, 01:17 PM
This whole business of "defending" marriage leaves me completely baffled. It evidently suits some entities to keep people riled up on one side or the other of issues. Instead of rational debate, people just choose sides.

Hard to make any progress that way. images/icons/icon9.gif

Mike
November 27th, 2005, 08:50 PM
I'd be bothered by that description if we weren't headed back into the high 50s or low 60s this week...
We had rain on Friday, but Saturday and Sunday were pretty sunny, although not as warm--only into the mid 60s (not enough to warm the inside of the condo).

"... I really want to be a member of a discriminated-against minority whose members are denied basic protections of the law and basic rights...!"
Logic has no effect against irrational behavior.

Judy G. Russell
November 27th, 2005, 08:56 PM
Logic has no effect against irrational behavior.I know... sigh... I know. But it still drives me bananas when people are SO STUPID!!!!!

Lindsey
November 27th, 2005, 09:31 PM
Ditto. This whole business of "defending" marriage leaves me completely baffled. I simply do not understand how it defends a heterosexual union to deny the benefits of union to others who are willing to commit to each other in a loving partnership.
Megadittos. ;)

--Lindsey

Lindsey
November 27th, 2005, 10:22 PM
I was thinking about you when I noticed that Molly Ivins evidently was not going this year.
No, this year's headline speakers were Arianna Huffington and Jim Hightower. Unfortunately, Jim Hightower was sick and couldn't come at all, and Arianna had to leave at the first port and return home because her daughter was sick. Patricia Williams, who was supposed to come last year, but couldn't because of some family crisis was on the roster again this year, and the first day they said she'd be joining the cruise later, but then she never showed up. I never was able to find out exactly what happened. Someone said she didn't manage to get to the designated port before the ship sailed, but whether it was simply a matter of transportation delays or something else, I don't know. But I'm sure the organizers were really having to scramble to re-arrange the seating assignments at dinner to be sure everyone had a chance to dine with one of the (increasingly diminishing supply of) speakers. (They filled in spaces in the panel with cruise participants -- fortunately, they had some people with pretty impressive resumes to call on.)

Those Nation cruises always seem to have some sturm und drung (at least when you go on them ).
That apparently goes back to the very first Nation cruise. But I think it probably goes with the territory when you're dealing with a bunch of Democrats. ;)

I have to correct what I had said about the last one, too, when there was a minor upset during the panel about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Robert Scheer's son Christopher was one of the members of that panel; the woman from the balcony who generated a stir (and greatly upset Amy Wilentz) by denouncing the panel because none of its members were Arabs was Robert Scheer's ex-wife -- and Christopher Scheer's mother. (I had heard she was the mother of one of the panelists, but I had been under the impression that it was someone other than Christopher Scheer--Eric Alterman, I think I had been told.) We had a similar incident this time, too, this time involving a panel discussion regarding the new Supreme Court. One of the audience members objected to the panel being constituted of all white males. (Patricia Williams was supposed to have been one of its members, but as I said earlier, she apparently missed the boat. I think Robert Scheer was one of the people pulled in at the last minute to fill in on that panel; controversy follows that man like flies to honey.)

I really did enjoy the week, all the more so because there were so many people I remembered from the previous year. But it's such a pleasure to be in the midst of so many people who are passionately concerned with politics--it makes for many very interesting lunchtime and dinnertime discussions.

Also funny is the reaction you get from other people on the ship. We were a large group -- about 400 people -- and we wore our identification badges most of the time. It wasn't unusual to get questions from others on the elevator or on the shore excursions: "What is The Nation, anyway?" And when you'd say it was a 140-year-old weekly political magazine, the next question was always "Is it conservative or liberal?" And when the answer came back "liberal," you could almost see them mentally reaching for the garlic and the silver crucifix to ward us off.

--Lindsey

Mike
November 28th, 2005, 12:58 AM
... drives me bananas when people are SO STUPID!!!!!
Which is just about all the time.

RayB (France)
November 28th, 2005, 02:44 AM
**And when the answer came back "liberal," you could almost see them mentally reaching for the garlic and the silver crucifix to ward us off.**

I'm a 'Wooden Stake' man, myself.

Judy G. Russell
November 28th, 2005, 09:08 AM
Which is just about all the time.Sigh... ain't that the truth...

ndebord
November 28th, 2005, 08:56 PM
It's sad to live in a post-enlightenment age. Remember, 50% of Americans believe the Sun revolves around the earth.

ktinkel
November 28th, 2005, 09:01 PM
It's sad to live in a post-enlightenment age.Is that what it is! And here I thought we were embarking on the new Dark Ages!

:rolleyes:

Judy G. Russell
November 28th, 2005, 10:59 PM
It's sad to live in a post-enlightenment age. Remember, 50% of Americans believe the Sun revolves around the earth.Sigh... reminds me of a young neighbor who was firmly convinced that: (a) the United States bombed Pearl Harbor; (b) the Civil War was where we won our independence from Great Britain; (c) a forecast of 8" of snow meant it would all fall at once (11 p.m., no snow; 11:01 p.m. WHOOOMPH!; 11:02 p.m. 8" of snow on the ground)... and so forth.

ktinkel
November 29th, 2005, 02:12 PM
And when the answer came back "liberal," you could almost see them mentally reaching for the garlic and the silver crucifix to ward us off.Tee-hee. I bet. I was always amused at the notion of a Nation cruise, anyway. But I see it is a success.

Lindsey
November 29th, 2005, 09:35 PM
Tee-hee. I bet. I was always amused at the notion of a Nation cruise, anyway.
Yeah, Molly Ivins addressed that contradiction in last year's opening session in her own inimitable way. This year, they worked out a program with a tree-planting organization in New England. Someone calculated that a contribution of $45 per Nation participant would enable the organization to plant a sufficient number of trees to offset the greenhouse gasses generated by the cruise itself. The Nation pledged to make up whatever amount the participants themselves don't contribute.

But successful as a fund raiser: absolutely. Victor Navasky said this year's cruise would raise in the neighborhood of $250,000 for the magazine.

BTW, I was catching up on some of the "Democracy Now!" segments. Robert Scheer was interviewed from Cabo San Lucas on the subject of his "firing." No holds barred (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/14/1447244) -- that's what I love about Robert Scheer. (There's a transcript, but for the full Scheer effect, you need to hear the audio.)

--Lindsey

earler
November 30th, 2005, 04:46 PM
It is quite relavent that the number of blacks in the south was much higher than in the north since the base for recruitment to fight in the civil war between two opposing factions of the british was therefore also much larger. Given the use of slaves for agriculture, the basis for the southern economy it was logical there were more in the south.

As for the french and russian revolutions, they were the work of a distinct minority. In the latter case there was a relatively minor civil war, as you know. In france, other than the repression of the vendéens there was no civil war. In both countries, the peasants were the passive observers, and at least in france, they seized the occasion to kill and pillage when possible.

The cromwell period was marked by civil war rather than a revolution, one that lasted several years. It was certainly successful. However, cromwell didn't ensure his succession. His son wasn't up to it at all and this failure led to the return of charles the second.

-er