Skip to main content

View Diary: DLC makes comeback (280 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Who said Roberts *should* slide right through? (none)
    The claim is that he will slide right through.  There just isn't enough wrong with him to filibuster on.

    Complaining about the government but failing to run for office (or at least vote) is morally equivalent to cheerleading the war and failing to enlist.

    by RequestedUsername on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 09:55:32 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  abortion rights are enough (none)
      IMHO

      The Republican Party: Redefining Oppression for the 21st Century

      by daveriegel on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:01:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then I take it (none)
        you prefer Chafee (R-RI) to any anti-abortion Democrat....?

        Complaining about the government but failing to run for office (or at least vote) is morally equivalent to cheerleading the war and failing to enlist.

        by RequestedUsername on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:09:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Roe v. Wade (none)
          I don't think that follows.  Roberts is a nominee for the Supreme Court--you know, the ones who get to decide whether Roe v. Wade is the law of the land.  I adore Harry Reid and don't care whether he says he's pro or anti choice.  But I DON'T want five people on the Supreme Court who are willing to eliminate a woman's liberty with respect to her own body.
          •  Nobody does (none)
            But the Reps are in control.  Given that they want a pro-life judge, our choices are which pro-life judge.  In that context, Roberts seems pretty OK.

            Complaining about the government but failing to run for office (or at least vote) is morally equivalent to cheerleading the war and failing to enlist.

            by RequestedUsername on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:39:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  we disagree, then, (none)
              on that point.  If the guy is unacceptable on points which are central to Dem. values--and he is, on both Roe v. Wade AND the Endangered Species Act, then Dems should oppose him like they aim to oppose him (as Atticus "aimed to defend" the accused in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD)--i.e. with every fiber of their beings.  These are CORE VALUES.  Win or lose on the nomination isn't the point--what does it matter if ROE and the ESA are overturned by a not-so-bad guy who went to Harvard or by a loony mouth breather?  I'm not going to feel better about it if it's Roberts who is the deciding vote and he does it elegantly.  As for the hypothetical loony mouth breather (whom we COULD get if we don't get Roberts) being worse on other issues--geez, I feel like the frog who's being boiled to death one degree at a time.  Without the right to abortion and without protection for the environment, and without a party willing to go the wall for those values, I'd already be in a country I don't recognize and don't want to live in.    
              •  It's called compromise (none)
                We could have 2 central values attacked or we could have 10.  Remember, we don't get to pick the nominee, Bush does.  And he's not going to pick one that Democrats love.

                Complaining about the government but failing to run for office (or at least vote) is morally equivalent to cheerleading the war and failing to enlist.

                by RequestedUsername on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 11:29:57 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Here Here! (none)
              As it was put on the Daily Show wednesday:
              "Democrats really mean they wish they won the 2004 elections by protesting Roberts"

              so yeah, I don't like Roberts, especially his environmental views, but Bush gets to make his choice, not Harry Reid makes the choice.  Considering who Bush could have nominated this guy is ok in my book.  He's conservative, but not stupid.  He can back up his ideology with something and not fly of the handle b/c he wants to like Scalia or Thomas.

              I don't like having to defend him, but we could have had something far worse and in the end, it's Bush's choice, not ours.

              Besides we need to put the media's focus back on Rove.

        •  Anti-choice Democrats (none)
          are usually DINOS anyway (this includes Reid).
          •  Untrue (none)
            People like David Bonior, March Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich are, or were, anti-choice but in no way could be considered DINOs.

            Democrats must confront the cultural populism of the wedge issues with genuine economic populism. Thomas Frank.

            by Paleo on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:32:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  If you think that (none)
            You're crazy.  There are people who have religious objections (Reid is a Mormon, Bob Casey is a devout Catholic) and to say they are DINOs is completely inaccurate.
            •  Thanks for proving my point (none)
              You don't legislate your religion like Republicans. Either your pro-choice or anti-choice, regardless of whether you are pro-abortion or anti-abortion.

              Ergo, those people are DINOs since they are anti-choice.

              •  Bullshit (none)
                It is perfectly possible to believe that a fetus has rights that are worth protecting and still be a Democrat.  

                Complaining about the government but failing to run for office (or at least vote) is morally equivalent to cheerleading the war and failing to enlist.

                by RequestedUsername on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:41:41 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Of course... (none)
                  You can be lots of things (a la LaRouche) can still call yourself Democrat. But if you are anti-choice, you are a Democrat in Name Only.
                  •  Wrong (none)
                    The Democratic Party is not the party of abortion.  It is the party of the people.  The people have a lot of interests besides abortion.

                    Complaining about the government but failing to run for office (or at least vote) is morally equivalent to cheerleading the war and failing to enlist.

                    by RequestedUsername on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:47:37 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Party of the people? (none)
                      On NAFTA/GATT/FTAA/CAFTA?

                      On the bankruptcy bill?

                      Their silence on Bush's attack on Overtime Pay?

                      Their silence on the attacks on the Community Reinvestment Act?

                      Eight years of Clinton presidency and the NLRB continued to function that whole time unchanged from the manner established in the Reagan years.

                      A party of the people fights on these sort of issues.

          •  Oh please (none)
            Despite what the activists would tell you, the Democratic Party stands for more than abortion.  There are literally hundreds of issues out there and this is only one of them.

            Complaining about the government but failing to run for office (or at least vote) is morally equivalent to cheerleading the war and failing to enlist.

            by RequestedUsername on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 10:37:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (none)
            You're seriously calling Harry Reid a DINO?

            Is that based on anything other than his pro-life stance?

            I don't think democrats could ask for a better Senate Minority Leader. If he's a DINO then we could sure as hell use a lot more of them.

          •  Haryr Reid (none)
            Is one hell of a fighter and a good Democrat.  He stands on some solid Democratic principles.  I've listened to him and I'll take him over Biden or Lieberman any day.

            Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities-Voltaire

            by hairspray on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 01:05:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Question (none)
        If a single issue is grounds for a filibuster, and those on the other side of that issue are free to feel the same, how does anyone ever get confirmed ?
    •  They should filibuster ... (none)

      Until he answers definitively whether Roe v Wade (or Casey) was decided correctly or not. If not, then what about Grisworld v Connecticut.

      Also, was Miranda v Arizona decided correctly? And certain parts of the New Deal which were originally judged unconstitutional, how should they have been ruled?

      This is the key: make him (and any nominee, left or right) answer the questions of settled law, especially the recent 5-4 decesions. Don't ask hypotheticals, because that gives the "pre-judging" out. And don't accept, "I haven't thought about it" If someone wants to be on the SCOTUS without having thought about the key constitutional questions from history, they don't deserve to be on the bench.

      Make them answer. Then we vote.

      No answer, no vote.

      Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.

      by admiralh on Fri Jul 22, 2005 at 12:09:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site