Skip to main content

View Diary: Surrender Dems (442 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What does "acceptable" mean? (none)
    Look, I despise Bush and his henchmen as much as the rest of you guys, and I, too, get disgusted when the Dems can't seem to mount a coherent opposition. But I think Armando's posts on the Roberts nomination (and many of the comments that follow in the threads) have really begun to defy basic logic.

    You say: "Bush could have nominated an acceptable candidate this time, but didn't."

    Hello? What would be an "acceptable" candidate? Face it, George W. Bush is not going to nominate a moderate, pro-choice, pro-civil rights, pro-environment, anti-business judge to the Supreme Court. While that would be "acceptable" to those of us on this board, this is the Karl Rove/Dick Cheney bunch we're talking about here -- I don't understand why there is ANY expectation on the Left that they will put up a so-called "consensus" candidate. Not gonna happen.

    The sad fact of the matter is, the Idiot-in-Chief won re-election (probably with the help of Dibold and Ken Blackwell, but there's nothing we can do about that now). The ignorant sheep inexplicably gave him another term, and one of the powers that gave him was to nominate SCOTUS justices that obviously share his philosophy. We are setting our expectations way too high here if we expect this president to do otherwise.

    I don't like Roberts. I'd rather he not be confirmed. But this is what happens when a right-wing president is given the key to the Oval Office, and unless the nominee is the devil incarnate -- which I don't see in this case -- then let's focus our attention on something we can really control, like TAKING BACK THE HOUSE AND SENATE IN THE 2006 MIDTERM ELECTIONS AND REGAINING CONTROL OF THIS GOVERNMENT AND THIS COUNTRY.

    Democrats trashing our own at every turn ain't gonna get us there folks. It just ain't.
     

    •  we cannot start fighting the elections in 2008 (none)
      What we learned in 2004 is that if your entire leadership has been supine and comatose, you cannot suddenly get up and say that Lieberman's Homeland Security Department was gutted by political appointees, that the awarding of contracts has been corrupt, that no mayor or governor or president concerned about security would leave 30% of NYC subways without a PA system,  the EPA is run by someone who fights environmental causes (and why's my best source for that THE ONION???).

      You cannot suddenly complain that nationwide, our airport security people are paid about half of what they get in other nations.

      You cannot suddenly complain about the 25 progressive issues that the MSM ignores, which make up the list for Project Censored 2006.

      You have to start talking about this stuff now.

      On Roberts, if you let the goverment "find" documents at the last minute and then vote for him anyway, Mr Leahy, don't complain when it happens again.

      On Roberts, if you let him get through even though the administration (disadministration?) only released the titles of many documents then it is your fault when they do it again.

      We count on the Democrats to fight corruption, to fight for open government, to fight for a free press, to fight for free and fair elections for every American citizen, to fight handouts to the corporations.

      We expect the Republicans to lie, and to practice crony capitalism instead of the real thing.

    •  acceptable nominee (none)
      "Acceptable nominee" means one like Justice Kennedy, Justice Souter, Justice Stevens, or Justice O'Connor.

      Or at least one who believes that it's unconstitutional for the President to kidnap people and lock them up for three years without charging them with any crime -- or even presenting any evidence to a judge.  (Roberts signed the Hamdan decision, which claims that that is constitutional.  So, um, hello fascism.)

      No, I didn't expect Bush to nominate an acceptable nominee.  But that doesn't mean that it's reasonable to vote for a totalitarian to be put on the Supreme Court just because he looks good on TV.

      •  Yes, an acceptable candidate is one that answers (none)
        the questions clearly.

        The reason to vote against is to signal to Bush that  if they will not release pertainant documents, and that if his nominee is not clear on their positions, then the Democrats will dig in their heals and filibuster Mother Teresa if he nominated her without a paper trail and if she only gave evasive answers.

        BTW, Bush will nominate a Roberts Clone now. I'm almost certain of it. Some wingnut with no history who understands how to say nothing. These guys go with plans that work.

        They're good to go now.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (145)
  • Community (63)
  • Environment (42)
  • 2016 (42)
  • Republicans (37)
  • Elections (34)
  • Culture (34)
  • Bernie Sanders (33)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Media (26)
  • Climate Change (25)
  • Labor (25)
  • Education (24)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (23)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Spam (23)
  • Civil Rights (23)
  • GOP (22)
  • Science (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site