Skip to main content

The battle is engaged.
Congressional Democrats on Tuesday said Republican criticism of the federal courts following Terri Schiavo's death showed an "arrogancy of power" that is leading to a Senate confrontation over filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees.

"If they don't get what they want, they attack whoever's around," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "Now they're after the courts, and I think it goes back to this arrogancy of power."

Meanwhile, AMERICABlog catches chickenshit DeLay backing off the keynote address of an anti-judges conference.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:13 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  But, of course, (4.00)
    they love to rail about "freedom" and "liberty" and how polls never drive their political decisions. Yeah, right.
  •  Give 'Em Hell Harry! (none)
    Man, am I proud of our Senate leader!

    Raise your hammers high And let the anvils ring! -the Animaniacs

    by Goldfish on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:15:01 PM PDT

    •  Bashing Bush on SocSec (4.00)
      Reid and Nancy Pelosi released a letter earlier today confronting Bush over his irresponsible remarks about the Social Security Trust Fund (Bush: "There is no trust fund -- just IOUs that I saw firsthand.  Imagine, the retirement security for future generations is sitting in a filing cabinet."):
      "It is simply wrong to suggest that the Social Security Trust Fund does not exist, or that the securities held by the Trust Fund are merely pieces of paper. For a President to even suggest that the federal government might, for the first time, default on a security backed by the full faith and credit of the United States unnecessarily misleads American workers about the health of the Social Security program. Just as significantly, these statements could raise needless doubts among American and foreign investors about the United States' willingness to meet its fiscal obligations."
      They're taking exactly the right tack on this, since there are no avenues of counterattack for the president's defenders.  And there's nothing in this statement that can be construed as a direct insult to Bush.  Reid and Pelosi definitely brought their "A" game.
    •  Reid or Daschle? (none)
      It makes you wonder, doesn't it, what Tom Daschle would have done if he were still Minority Leader.

      Sometimes losing a seat is a gain -- something I hope Joe "Torture is OK with me and so is the President's Social Security Plan" Lieberman will remember.

      As for me, I don't need any more agreeable Democrats.

      Accountability moment, my ass!

      by orthogonal on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:08:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We have our opening (4.00)
    and I'm glad to see us taking it. We need to label the GOP "extremist" at every opportunity.
    •  yup (4.00)
      that really is the most effective attack to go with. Apparently it worked in MN last year. Supposedly all the DFL literature on House candidates called them extremists or their agendas extremist/extreme. The result: 12 House GOP losses. We need to go back to using that line of attack b/c they give you all the evidence to prove it.

      Check out an IMPORTANT 2005 Race: Tim Kaine for VA Governor

      by jj32 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:18:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Exactly (4.00)
        We need to go back to using that line of attack b/c they give you all the evidence to prove it.

        Up until now the GOP has hidden their fealty to the religious right. But the Schiavo case has brought it out in the open. No longer can they fool the moderates into believing they have a place at the table. They are now the "red headed step child" of the extreme right.

        That is what we need to pound into the electorate for the next year and a half.

    •  Fab! But... (none)
      the problem here is to bring all this dirty icky Repug stuff to the general public without:

      1. Making ourselves look like even dirtier mudslingers.

      2. Looking like we're attacking the moderate part of their base and inadvertently mobilizing them.  (Oops!)

      Of course, I've no really great solutions here.  I'm a problems person, not an answers one.  Heh.

      "You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." - GW, June 4, 2003

      by weirdmusic657 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:32:49 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We don't attack the moderates (4.00)
        we show them who is in control of their party. If I don't see pictures of the GOP leadership with Randall Terry at least once a day during the midterms, we are not doing our job.

        I want this quote to be on the tip of every dem candidates tongue.

        "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you... I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

        That will scare the shit out of every moderate and liberatarian Republican that sees it.

        •  The Repug Moderates... (none)
          ...already know who is in charge of their party, and it isn't them.  Just ask Christie Todd Whitman.  She wrote a decent book about it.  The moderates just can't seem to do anyting about it.  The current party leaders have sold themselves completely to the far right, and they have a stranglehold on the party, which they aren't going to release voluntarily.

          Mike S is right.  We have to be aggressive with these guys, because thet don't give up.  That's why they've been so effective over the last decade.  Ironically, that is also their weakness.  They keep pushing their agenda, which becomes more and more conservative, until they finally go to far, and can't turn back.  Witness the Schiavo debacle. This will eventually alienate any liberals and moderates, in addition to independants and Dems who might agree with them on some items.  Our job is to make sure that "eventually" comes sooner, rather than later.

          "I don't want to bring politics into this, I'm just here for the drugs." Nancy Reagan, at a "Just Say No" event, 1986

          by Jack109 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:23:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Repug Moderates... (none)
            as a group, need to break off as independents.  Their power as a single voting group would increase exponentially if they broke as a group, removing the Republican's majority hold on the Senate.  If the Fiscal Conservatives ever want to have ANY say in the governing of this nation, that's just what will be required.  The only way that they are going to have any effect on the Social conservatives is to be able to trade their groups votes on social issues for their desires on fiscal issues.
          •  "more & more conservative" (none)
            But it's been the plan all a long, this "going too far." They haven't become more "conservative" by accidental overreach--on the contrary they plan and fully intend every move they make. What's different now is that the insidious incrementation phase is over. The attempt to end the filibuster signals the beginning of the endgame.

            The far right (neocon and theocrat) knows they're approaching the only truly difficult phase of their long-plotted takeover, the last hurdle in which the true nature of their ambitions begin to show, can't help show. I'm sure they've taken moderate revolt into account and have a plan for that, too. The question is, will their plan work? You're right when you say we have to be aggressive with these people. Aggressive and loud and relentless. You're right when you say they won't give up, and that's why Dems must be utterly fearless, must not concern ourselves with equanimity or appearing harsh. It's do or die; the opposition is just waiting to see whether we'll give them any kind of fight. But no matter what we do, they have no intention of backing off; they'll fight to the death (particuarly the theocon contingent). They don't recognize a "too far" because their ideology itself is too far. It's the very definition of extremism and they know it and they're going for it. Been planning it for thirty years.

            Is nothing secular?

            by aitchdee on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:54:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  I prefer radical (none)
      extremist has sort of lost its power - and these people are radicals, not conservatives
    •  Extremist is the word (none)
      Bush's whining about "Massachussets liberal" at the debates should have been answered by a few examples from the Texas GOP platform, including, e.g.,:

      -- abolition of the minimum wage

      -- abolition of social security

      -- abolition of the income tax

      -- outlawing of all abortions at any time

      Do you believe in your state party's platform, Mr. President?

      The greatest failure of the Democrats has been to fail to inform people how extreme Bush et al. are, even after four years of obvious extremism.  It too the Schiavo case to reveal it, rather than the Dems themselves

    •  Bingo (none)
      As they say -- "extremist", "radical", "irresponsible" and "reckless" are words of choice to use to consistently describe these people.  And as an added bonus, they're all true.
    •  Let's Rock and Roll... (none)
      it's about time the public figures of the Democratic party got a spine.  I hope the keep this up.  They've been beating the crap out of us for too long...1968 to be exact.

      "Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can't help them, at least don't hurt them."--Dalai Lama

      by Just Keep Swimming on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:55:35 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Of course! (none)
    Of course they're using the Schiavo case to further their aims to pack the court with right-wingers... that's been the plan all along.  I think, though, given how the Schiavo matters appears to have backfired on their "pro-life" agenda, the GOP may have hurt their chances for the "nuclear" option to block filibusters of judicial nominations, since many more people now know just exactly what that would mean (i.e. more federal oversight and fewer states' rights on issues of "pro-life" concern).

    As for DeLay, his statement is out there, and he knows full well that no backing off from it can change that.

    Work like you don't need the money; Love like you've never been hurt; Dance like nobody's watching

    by sfluke on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:16:26 PM PDT

  •  Woo Hoo! (4.00)
    The time has come to take a stand and this is the issue.  

    I am usually all about manners, and civility, and politeness, but we are dealing with barbarians.

    (I won't say, "B.I.O.'")

    The paranoids are after me.

    by hoosierspud on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:17:07 PM PDT

    •  It's Spring (none)
      It ain't getting into the castrato media unless our leaders make it an issue.  We all can help.

      The Congressional Democrats' gonads are little buds that are just beginning to open.  We need to nurture them.  

      Today I called Reid's office (I live in California) and told them Reid had to punish Cornyn for giving "aid and comfort" to domestic terrorists.  They were happy to hear that, and given what Reid said today, I can understand why.  I also called DiFi's office and urged her (she's on the Judiciary Committee) to take Cornyn on for disgracing the Senate.  

      Get out there and contact our folks.  Pressure them; give them support; praise them when they do right.  Help keep the ball rolling.  They ain't gonna do it on their own.  Not yet anyway.

      I also called Cornyn's office and advised them that if Cornyn had any honor he'd resign, but we Democrats didn't expect that he had any honor.  Hector the pricks; laugh in their faces; rub it in.

      This aggression will not stand, man

      by kaleidescope on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:59:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hmm, Frist and Delay have blinked (none)
    I don't think it will last. They must have figured out that their public posturing wasn't working too well. Now they are figuring out what else will work.

    Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain

    by Rolfyboy6 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:17:28 PM PDT

    •  We shouldn't let them. (4.00)
      We should, at every opportunity, push all of their shit right back at them. When they say we are obstructing them, we say we're keeping their "extremist" judges off the bench. When they say we are against religion, we say we are against their religious extremists like Randall Terry and his agenda.

      "I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you... I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."

      When they deny that they work with Terry, we show them this.

    •  Add Cornyn to your list. (4.00)
      He delivered a That's Not What I Meant, I Was Taken Out Of Context speech on the Senate floor today.

      BTW, Here is what the Conference says about Delay's attendance:

      1:15pm  - Congressman Lamar Smith will speak in place of Tom DeLay, who was called to Rome as part of the US delegation attending the Pope's funeral. Rep. DeLay expressed his "heartfelt regret at not being with the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration for this historic conference," and pledged to work with the Council to restore One Nation Under God.

      While I'm at it, I thought it was interesting that the registration fee is $149.00 unless you don't want meals - Then its only $75.00. Which means they are charging $74.00 for meals. They must be eatin good.

      The Media Is Dead. Long Live NewsCorpse.com

      by KingOneEye on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:28:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh great! (4.00)
        My new, gerrymandered representative gets to replace Tom Delay at the judge-bashing conference.  A dream come true. <snark>

        Dammit, I want Lloyd Doggett back!  He was the best congressperson I've ever had as my representative.  I'm not a violent man, but I'd like to get Delay in a room and really let him know what I think of him and his power grab in Texas.  I'm embarrassed and enraged to have Lamar Smith representing me.

        Anger can be power. You know that you can use it.

        by sciguy on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:28:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  "arrogancy" (none)
    kind of a rare word, no? (oxford has, but american heritage doesn't). surely "arrogance" would suffice in this instance?

    why a duck? I don't know, why a duck?

    by gracchus on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:17:29 PM PDT

    •  I checked my (none)
      OED, too, and it was there but without much documentation.  Merely a variant.  I suspect he was compensating--or has been hanging around with middle-schoolers who love to play "make a new noun form."  

      Wake up and smell the jackboots, sheeple!

      by lightiris on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:35:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  arrogancy? is that a word? (none)
    arrogance, yes. but arrogancy, is that a typo done twice?
  •  Heh. Hammer my ass. (4.00)
    He's either scared or Karl advised him to get outta the spotlight while Karl slaps a tourniquette(sp?) on the bleeding.

    The time for House and Senate Dems (and sane judges) to react is now.

     No quarter, muthfuckas.

     No mercy.

  •  Bush on Worthless IOU's- (none)
    U.S. Constitution, article 14, section 4:

    The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

    Now there are some grounds for impeachment !

    Out of my cold dead hands

    by bluelaser2 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:22:02 PM PDT

  •  Thank Goodness (none)
    the kids in DC finally got into all this.  They need to keep after them, though - especially Frist's and Conryn's wishy-washy excuses, as noted in the article Kos linked:

    A DeLay spokesman said he was merely referring to potential future action in Congress. And Cornyn said his remarks had nothing to do with the Schiavo case or with what DeLay said.

    Sure, they might have really meant those things.  But this is a matter of tone - these people have made themselves Important and, like GW's crusade comment, they need to pay attention to what they say and how they say it.  I'd expect no less from a Dem congressperson.

    "You know I don't spend a lot of time thinking about myself, about why I do things." - GW, June 4, 2003

    by weirdmusic657 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:22:03 PM PDT

  •  This provides a great anti-anti-filibuster wedge (none)
    Good work that Reid's doing. Tagging the Repulicans as mad with power, now, and that becomes the frame that filibustering and anti-judiciary inflammatory statements are discussed within.

    I'm hopeful for a strong and continuing assault on all these weaknesses of the GOP. And I'm especially hopeful the Dems can take back the Senate and/or the House at least.

    "Think. It ain't illegal yet." - George Clinton

    by jbeach on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:22:51 PM PDT

  •  Searchlight (none)
    Hey, did y'all know Harry Reid is from a little Nevada town called Searchlight? (He briefly mentioned it in his response to BushCo's SOTU.) And he's throwing the Searchlight on all sorts of GOP malfeasance. It's almost as good as the Man from Hope. Goooooo, Harry!
    •  or (none)
      stealing a line from Air America and modifying it, "He is throwing a searchlight on the radical right."  AA's slogan I believe is "shining a light on the right."

      Check out an IMPORTANT 2005 Race: Tim Kaine for VA Governor

      by jj32 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:26:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Let's stop calling them "the right" (none)
        Sorry, but we have to stop calling Republicans "the right." It's a synonym for correct, and as long as we persist in using the term, we'll be "left" out.

        I know it's a hard habit to break, but everybody please try. Call'em (as suggested above) radicals, extremists, or - Robert Reich's great term - radcons.

  •  There is nothing quite like (none)
    the wnaton display of spectacular political cowardice by a slug like DeLay.

    Defeat the sound-bite.

    by sbj on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:23:47 PM PDT

  •  'bout time (4.00)
    We got the Bugman's head exploding, and Cornyn's out there basically saying "nice judges you got there, 'twould be a shame if somethin' were to happen 'em", and it takes a couple days for Democrats to say "Oh, hey, yeah, you guys better cut it out." I mean, "rapid-response" should mean minutes, or hours at the worst.

    For some reason it reminds me of this comic.

    Anyhow, fighting back is always good, and better late than never.

  •  Brownback Backed Out as well... (none)
    Senator Sam Brownback, still listed in the Americablog copy, is not speaking or attending either.  I have the story on my blog http://theantisam.blogspot.com .  Basically he says he never was signed up, and the conference claims he kept them in limbo.

    The Anti-Sam Brownback Blog

    Keep Senator Brownback out of the Whitehouse.

    by KansasNate on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:27:10 PM PDT

  •  woof! (4.00)
    All bark and still no backbone.  This is typical of the Dems going after the cult of personality, but still not going after the infrastructure that these right wingers rely on.  Delay will be replaced with another thug from the House and it will be business as usual.  Seriously folks, the republicans are shooting for the moon this year, next year they will pull back a bit and we will get a softer right wing nut agenda, and the public will think, "well at least it isn't like it was last year".  This is how you do it, you shoot for the outrageous and end up with business friendly judges and business friendly policy, and the republicans end up looking moderate because the judges we end up with aren't radical social conservatives.

     The liberals need to start convincing people our ideas are better, because we can't rely on the voters turning their backs on the republicans, especially with all this happening in a non election year.  Besides, even if the Dems win some seats what makes you think the Dems will be able to sell a more liberal agenda to the public?  

    We need to build our own structure to counter the right wingers, taking down the republican leaders does not stop the right wing agneda from going forward.

    absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limit's the freedom of another.

    by jbou on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:27:44 PM PDT

    •  Zero sum (4.00)
      Our political system is binary. Their loss is our gain.

      Drive them down, then present the compelling alternative.

      Besides, we are in the minority. They set the agenda. That's the way it is.

      To state the obvious, 2006 is next year.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:31:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Why can you not see this? (none)
        We do not have an agenda nor do we have the ability to sell one.  The republicans have a structure that they can rely on, we do not, and we need to start building this so we can take advantage of the republican mistakes.  

        We really should have won the election in 04, we had a president running up debts, fucking up in the foreign policy department and a slow growth economy.  Person after person wrote books and told us how Bush and the republicans were fucking up, but we still saw Bush reelected, why?  Because Shrub sits atop a big right wing machine that is able to cloud the criticisms, and keep the people believing that the Dems are not a good alternative, and that liberal ideas are bad for the country.  

        Every time we see a republican fuck up we on the left get all excited because we think this is the end, and we finally got them, but the right wing machine explains away the the fuck up and the people move on.  

        We need a structure reselling any good liberal policies from the past ie social security, medicare, minimum wage, labor unions, and we need progressive voices selling new progressive ideas, the Dems can adopt the ideas once they are sold.  That is how the right wingers did it, and the republicans adopted the ideas once the public was sold on them.  Don't get me wrong, the right wing machine was not an overnight success, and they still over reach, SS reform is an example of this, but they have been very effective driving the country to the right.  You know we have problems when pro business republicans are now considered moderate.  

        The battle is not about getting anyone with a D in front of their name elected, the battle is getting liberal ideas sold to the public so the people with a D in front of their name can vote for liberal policies and not be afraid to do so.  

        absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limit's the freedom of another.

        by jbou on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:03:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That infrastructure of which you speak (none)
          IS being built. In the last 4 years progressives have made media inroads that previously didnt exist...you are looking at a new media right now, in fact. It is difficult and time consuming to organize, but it IS happening...I see, read, and listen progressive ideas all day, it seems. We are lacking TV, which is huge...but this is for another diary.

          I reject the idea that we as progressives dont have a message. We do. We value responsibilty: Social , fiscal, personal. We value humanites, science, and advancements. We value HUMANITY and CIVIL LIBERTIES. Et cetera...also for another diary.

          That being said...does it hurt to want to elect more democrats while we strengthen our message and party? Is it wrong to find glee in the downfall of windbags? No and no.

          In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

          by ablington on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:14:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you live in a bubble (none)
            step out and talk to people who don't log on to blogs all day and you'll hear clueless folks spouting rush limbaugh and Bill oreilly, not Josh marshall and Kevin Drum.  

            I want to elect Dems that are liberal, not folks like Casey in PA, who we have to run, because we lack a liberal structure. If we had a liberal structure in place a perfectly good candidates like Pennicho(sp) could run without being considered so out of the mainstream he is written off before his campaign begins.

            absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limit's the freedom of another.

            by jbou on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:22:50 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks (4.00)
              Now I am enlightened to the workings of the off-line world, finally.

              Damn this bubble in which I live!! Damn you, bubble!!

              You say "If we had a liberal structure in place...blah blah blah..." My point in the post above is THAT WE ARE WORKING ON IT.

              I have noticed offline that there is an increase in, for example, progressive books and liberal radio programs, progressive think tanks, progressive groups and real-life human interaction meetings at a local level than there were 4 years ago. It took the GOP 30 years to create their structure, the worm WILL turn.

              In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

              by ablington on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:31:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  confusion and contradiction in the meantime? (none)
                Bewilderingly, what I find offline among the "politically aware" average citizens who walk into my Sacramento bookstore, is massive political incoherence: For instance, it's little surprise to me these days when a statement like, "Bush is a devil out to destroy the country" issues from the same mouth as the perplexing follow-up, "Now if you want the real scoop you should watch The O'Reilly Factor." What in the world can it mean? I could give you ten unique (and hilarious) examples from just the last month.

                It's good to know an increasing number of very average folks, even some 2004 GOP voters, have come to the conclusion that Bush kinda sucks. But what it really indicates in terms of '06 is unclear when they also claim to love Rush, be devoted to Hannity, or want to see all those damn activist judges run out of town. And it's really confounding when the same people respond favorably to Randi Rhodes (whom I have on the radio everyday all afternoon) no matter what she's talking about! Maybe it's just a retired old man thing--a good percentage of my customers are kindly elderly gents. But to a slightly lesser degree I've noticed a similar category confusion/pattern nonrecognition among my friends, forty and under, Dem and Republican. And of course author Thomas Frank, in What's the Matter with Kansas, built his thesis on a similar species of political derangement.

                Anyway, yes, the worm will turn, but the rotisserie's slow and the wait can be mighty frustrating. Forgive the impatience :)

                Is nothing secular?

                by aitchdee on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:37:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  What do I not see? (4.00)
          I do not who in the hell has ever said "this is the end" but it sure as hell was not me.

          Indeed, my point is that this is a looooong game and you are acting as if we are at the 2 minute warning.

          Frankly, if I may, your emotions are blinding you to understanding one simple fact - the next election is 19 months away. There are still bills to fight, judges to filibuster, feet to hold to the fire.

          I repeat to you - we are the MINORITY PARTY. We Will pass NO legislation. We must fight all the pernicious legislation of the GOP and score political points on it.

          As to what we will do when we get in power - the time to sell that is during a campaign. You think laying out a Dem Agenda now will cause even a fucking ripple? Are you nuts?

          Frankly, I must leave you with this - get tough and grow up. We have a long hard fight ahead of us.

          It requires both passion and brains.

          I admire your passion. Time to put your good brains to use as well.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:24:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  seperate yourself from the party (none)
            This is not about the Democratic party, it's about building a liberal structure to counter the right wing pro business strucutre that exists and is kicking our ass currently.  

            This structure needs to be built outside the party, and like I said, let the dems adopt the ideas once they are sold.  

            Electing people like Casey to the Senate will win us very little, what we don't need is another pro business Dem.  If we had the strucutre selling liberal ideas, and this structure is working outside the Dem party selling ideas like universal healthcare, and free college education at state schools, and if this structure was successful, then we could run dem candidates like Pennicho(sp) in PA and not be worried that he is out of the mainstream.

            You seem too worried about just electing Dems and are not focused on the battle of ideas that takes place outside of DC on the airwaves and in the editorial sections of newspapers everyday.  Like Senator Bradley said in his op ed last week in the ny times, the Dems have to sell an agenda every four years when they run for pres, the repubs just run on the right wing agenda that is sold every day.

            absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limit's the freedom of another.

            by jbou on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:39:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ahhhhh (none)
              Well, see I am a Democratic partisan so my lens is different than yours.

              I am a Big Tent guy so your critque may make sense for your goals. They do not for mine.

              As for Bradley, I thought his column was horseshit myself. A bunch of nothing. What he means is building the PArty. I say well duh.

              "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

              by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:47:27 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  your goals? (none)
                What are your goals?  And what does a big tent Democratic party stand for?  They sure as hell didn't stand up against the war in Iraq, and they sure as hell have stood up against the torture you so despise, Alberto is still the attorney general.  

                What do the Democrats stand for?  I guess it depends on the Democrat, if you're Joe Lieberman you stand for war and torture, if you're Russ Feingold you stand against the war and the patriot act, if youre Diane Feinstein you stand for wall street and the war.  

                Armando, are you a liberal?  If you are then you should be behind building a liberal structure to counter the right wing machine.  

                Building a democratic party that doesn't have a vision, and a structure of ideas that they stand for and a way to sell these ideas isn't worth building, and probably won't be all that sturdy.  

                absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limit's the freedom of another.

                by jbou on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:23:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm pissing (none)
                  Inside the Tent.

                  you want a more liberal Democratic Party? I  am probably with you but I have to know what you mean by that.

                  Iraq. My top issue. No argument there.

                  As for the rest, let's discuss.

                  Choice? Not negotiable.

                  Affirmative action? Same.

                  Make the tax burden fairer? Absolutely.

                  Separation of Church and State? Not negotiable.

                  A Democratic Party looking to help other less fortunate in our society for the good of ALL society? Abso-fucking-lutely.

                  So, how do we do this? By Dems WINNING. That means Big Tent.

                  Now, do we have to suffer coservative Dems from Connecticut? Of course not. We run our candidates in the PRIMARIES. You have heard of those I am sure.

                  What more do you need to know about my Liberal credentials? Oh, BTW, I would call myself moderate actually.

                  "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                  by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:47:56 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm with you (none)
                    I mean hell, I'm not an ultra-liberal.  I can put up w/the death penalty, and I can be flexible on guns when needed.

                    Plus, there's a world of difference between being personally pro-life and wanting to force that pro-life agenda on your neighbors.  It's the difference between Harry Reid and George Allen (my asshat senator).  They're both pro-life, but one of them also wants to force you to be pro-life.  Guess which one?

                    Frankly, the only elected Dem I have issues woth is Leiberman.  And that's only cause he publicly pisses on his own party.

                    Your rather vocal critic is apparently still living in Perfect (of Walgreens commercial fame) where all the liberals agree and where parties aren't necessary.

                    All your vote are belong to us

                    by Harkov311 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:20:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  to be "personally pro-life," (none)
                      the way you describe it, is to be literally pro-choice, isn't it?

                      Plus, there's a world of difference between being personally pro-life and wanting to force that pro-life agenda on your neighbors.

                      If Reid is "personally pro-life" as you describe--if he's against forcing his pro-life agenda on everyone, then I'm more confused by his stand on abortion than ever. There's only one reason to take the pro-life position and that is to oppose the right to choose. To declare yourself pro-life in public and yet to favor choice in private is to be anti-choice for everyone but the people in your private life. It's wildly hypocritical. What has Reid said about this "personal pro-life" position, anyway?

                      Is nothing secular?

                      by aitchdee on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 12:34:46 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  perhaps it is (none)
                        Well, maybe the way I put it, that IS being pro-choice.

                        But since a lot of people who are "personally pro-life" don't actually call themselves pro-choice (in my experience) I decided I needed a new category for it.

                        But I would argue that your belief that the only reason to be pro-life is to oppose pro-choice is an erroneous assumption, though I definitely see where you're coming from.  I don't think that a personal moral stance against abortion necessarily equates with a desire to make your moral principles into national law.

                        By way of comparison, while I personally believe that it's a bad idea to get mixed up in smoking pot, I'm also in favor of making the penalties for using it less severe.  Just because I'm personally opposed to the stuff doesn't mean I want it classified as a category 1 drug.

                        My point is, there's a difference between believing something is wrong and forcing everybody else to abide by your personal morality.  Since it's not universally believed that abortion is morally wrong, it is therefore wrong to outlaw it.  This, I think, is how one can be pro-life and still favor keeping abortion legal.

                        All your vote are belong to us

                        by Harkov311 on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 09:50:36 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  thanks for your congenial reply; (none)
                          I appreciate it. I'm still not persuaded though, because when you say,

                          I don't think that a personal moral stance against abortion necessarily equates with a desire to make your moral principles into national law

                          . . . that is the very essence of choice, isn't it? Abortion would not be my choice--but I'll pass no law that presumes to choose for you - you seem to be saying. There's no real way around it that I can see; it is a pro-choice statement.

                          Many, many pro-choicers, myself included, find abortion personally troubling, but I call myself pro-choice (a literal description of my feelings about the matter) and I vote pro-choice (my politics on the matter) because I, like Harry Reid, don't want to impose my views on others.

                          So it looks like Harry Reid differs with me and other pro-choicers who wouldn't choose abortion for ourselves but who feel morally bound to to make public our disinclination to choose for others only in that Reid is not willing to take his private pro-choice leanings public, which in effect makes him the worst kind of pro-lifer, the kind that's pro-choice behind the scenes, for family and friends only, and to heck with his convictions and his constituency. What's good for the goose ought to be good for the gander, as it were.

                          The thing is, apparently Reid and I don't differ philosophically--but by being publicly pro-life, he renders his pro-choice leanings at best useless, and at worst, hypocritical. Other than that, I really like the man.

                          Cheers,

                          HD

                          PS
                          It seems to me your pot analogy would work only if in your private life you believed pot ought to be reclassified and the penalties for its possession less severe, but to all the world you identified as a hard-liner on the issue and voted accordingly (which would be similar to Rush Limbaugh's double standard on the proper penalties for drug abuse--not to say you're anything like Limbaugh).

                          Is nothing secular?

                          by aitchdee on Wed Apr 06, 2005 at 11:51:23 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Closet pro-choicers (none)
                            ". . . that is the very essence of choice, isn't it? Abortion would not be my choice--but I'll pass no law that presumes to choose for you - you seem to be saying. There's no real way around it that I can see; it is a pro-choice statement."

                            I agree, it is.  Although to somebody with a moral bone to pick with abortion, maybe the cognitive dissonance of calling themselves "pro-choice" is what drives them to the nuanced "personal pro-life" position.

                            That sentence was confusing, so I'll try to give a better example.  Reid has never called for the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which already says (to me) that he is at least ambivalent on the issue.  It at least suggests that his supposed pro-life stance is pretty frail.  This is compunded by the fact that he has never really pushed any substantive pro-life legislation (in fact he once sponsored a bill to hugely expand birth control).

                            So why call himself pro-life when he does nothing to prove his credentials except to declare himself as such?

                            Cognitive dissonance.  To actually call himself pro-choice in his mind's eye would mean a very clear repudiation of the Mormon religious teachings he grew up with.  So since he's morally troubled by abortion, its psychologically easier to claim to be pro-life, even though for all practical purposes he isn't, since he refuses to legislate against it.

                            I think the same is probably true of Bob Casey in PA.  He seems legally indifferent to abortion, and takes no active steps to outlaw it, and yet he continues to call himself pro-life.  By thus allowing abortion to continue (though he will not defend it) he is for practical purposes pro-choice, though he doubtless wouldn't call himself that.

                            It is actually a rather fascinating trick.  By refusing to call themselves pro-choice, they avoid association with the right's cartoonish charicature of the choice movement, thus getting the left-wing pro-life vote (a small factiuon, but they do exist), but by refusing to actively push for outlawing abortion, they also get the pro-choice vote (since it's reasonable to expect that the GOP guy will be a raving pro-lifer).

                            Is it somewhat intellectually dishonest?  You bet.

                            Does it reek of denial and self-deception?  Sure.

                            But if it makes Harry Reid and Bob Casey feel better to call themselves pro-life, I guess they can go ahead and do it.  As long as they don't join the Repeal Roe crowd I can put up with a refusal to talk to NARAL in public.

                            PS
                            My drug analogy was probably a crappy one, but I was trying to find an area where I might not actually like doing something, but would be opposed to outlawing it on the grounds that my life choice isn't necessarily the right one for everybody.

                            All your vote are belong to us

                            by Harkov311 on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 12:43:56 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I see (none)
                            what you're sayin' now. Thanks =)

                            Is nothing secular?

                            by aitchdee on Thu Apr 07, 2005 at 12:02:28 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  becoming liberal (none)
                    The Dems are politicians, they'll become more liberal if they think it's safe to do so, and some of the hard headed ones will just keep being moderate sellouts, but if we are going to run liberal Dems in the primaries then we need the voters to understand, and embrace liberal policies.  that's where the liberal infrastructure comes into play.  The liberals need to sell ideas that the politicians can't, and won't because they have to appeal to as many people as possible, if we have more people thinking liberal ideas are better then polticians can actually be liberal.  You see where I'm going with this?  Selling ideas during a campaign is hard, selling ideas year round is easier, doing polling on ideas, and tweaking the language is all done for the politician they just need to run on the already sold liberal platform.  That's how the republicans do it, they run on the already sold right wing ideas.  

                    Liberal ideas I like, I pretty much agree with you. and I seek out new inventive ideas that have a broad appeal and can be sold to the public. Right now the Dems have no fresh ideas, if there was a structure in place selling new ideas they'd have something to run on.  

                    Dean is out looking for candidates to run in the red states, and is looking to build the party, but he has agreed to leave the party platform to the Dem senators and House members, which leaves us with the same old Dems with no new ideas.  We really need a structure in place to help the Dem candidates that Dean is recruiting.  

                    absolute freedom for one individual undoubtedly limit's the freedom of another.

                    by jbou on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:20:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  Depends (And Not What Reagan Wore for Underwear) (none)
        On what you mean by "them" and "us".  I confess, I still think of "them" as the class enemy and "us" as the working class.  Quaint, I know.  But that's just me.

        This aggression will not stand, man

        by kaleidescope on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:13:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. . . (none)
      And, until ALL the Democratic senators and congresspersons make the same noises as Mr. Minority, little will be heard by the public.

      Reid, outspoken though he may be, is no more than the sound of one hand clapping when the rest of the membership remains silent.

  •  DemfromCt sez it (none)
    all the time - patience.

    Play the hand properly.

    Reid just check raised the Wingnuts.

    "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

    by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:29:35 PM PDT

  •  tell Jerry Falwell (none)
    we are the MORE Moral Majority
  •  Harry Reid (none)
    Its good to have someone with some courage with the male gender, lately the distaff side has shown most of the bravery, thanks for taking up the good fight for all out here that need hope and optimism.
    We want our nation back and hope you feel the same!
    PEACE!
  •  When will deLay (none)
    go away.

    *We live in a Nation of LAWS* 11th Circuit

    by Chamonix on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:33:27 PM PDT

  •  Nail DeLay!!!!!!!!!! (4.00)
    He's on the run. But let's really nail him. Then start lobbying your Rep. Start by demanding DeLay resigns. The easy way to do this is:

    http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=18721

    But even better than this, contact your Reps office directly by looking him or her up on:

    http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

    Then focus on the ethics committee. Let them know you are sick of DeLay's scandals and you want him out:

    Here are the 10 ethics committee members you need to call:

    •       Chairman Doc Hastings (R-WA): 202-225-5816
    •       Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL): 202-225-3515
    •       Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX): 202-225-4236
    •       Rep. Melissa Hart (R-PA): 202-225-2565
    •       Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK): 202-225-6165
    •       Rep. Alan B. Mollohan (D-WV): 202-225-4172 (Ranking Minority Member)
    •       Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH): 202-225-7032
    •       Rep. Gene Green (D-TX): 202-225-1688
    •       Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA): 202-225-1766
    •       Rep. Michael F. Doyle (D-PA): 202-225-2135

    Or go here for more info on the ethics committee:
    http://www.commonblog.com/story/2005/3/8/112531/5955

    MOST IMPORTANTLY, hit the issue in your local media. Get writing letters and calling talk shows demanding that DeLay resign:

    http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dbq/media/

    And let's give the advertising strategy some help. There are three groups putting out ads in targeted markets calling for DeLay's resignation:

    Progressive Majority: For the first $20,000 contributed, the Campaign for America's Future will match every dollar 4-to-1 to expose DeLay's corruption for even more people. With this match, every $10 you contribute will put this ad in front of 160 households for a full week! Please contribute today.

    https:/secure.ctsg.com/ourfuture/donate_delay_tv.asp

    Public Campaign Action Fund: A more targeted ad campaign targeting Republican districts where the Rep has shown signs of turning on DeLay-- Reps. Rob Simmons (CT), Tom Reynolds (NY), and Doc Hastings (WA)-- join our call for DeLay to resign. They also need money to expand their efforts:

    https:/secure.ga3.org/03/without_delay

    Finally, don't forget in your letters to the editor to mention that other Republican leaders are corrupt as well. Some examples:

    First made money investing in an abortion clinic: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30124

    Ohio Congressman Mike Oxley, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, offered to drop a much-needed probe of the mutual insurance industry if its Washington-based trade group, the Investment Company Institute, agreed to hire a Republican to oversee its lobbying efforts: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031208/SROXLEY/112070097&SearchID=732034 83665556
    http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031208/SROXLEY/31207007&SearchID=7320348 3665556
    http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031207/SROXLEY/31208011&SearchID=7320348 3665556
    http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20031207/SROXLEY/31209005&SearchID=7320348 3665556

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/9/19274/36787
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A28822-2004Mar3&notFound =true

    And Roy Blount, the House Majority Whip, was romantically involved with a lobbyist for a Fortune 500 company (this itself is a conflict, and a violation of House ethics rules) and then attempted to please her and her employers by grafting legislation favorable to the company onto the Homeland Security Bill.

    We can play a real role in nailing these corrupt bastards by writing lots and lots of letters. It is working for DeLay! One of my readers from Texas sent me this:

    This letter to the editor this morning was too good to let pass.
    "As an American, a Republican, a Texan and a constitutional conservative, I am embarassed, saddened and frightened by Tom DeLay.  His behavior and pronouncements are creating negative perceptions of the citizens of this state and nation and our system of government.  He is doing more damage to the Republican Party than any Democrat could do."
    This from a Texas Republican.

    Delenda est Sinclair! http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

    by mole333 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:34:03 PM PDT

    •  Resign? (none)
      I'd much rather kick his ass next November.

      Let us develop a kind of dangerous unselfishness.

      by JimTXDem on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:57:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The key (none)
        is to keep talk going about Republican scandals. DeLay is a big fat target right now. His name is dragging down his party. But we can't let his name be the only one. That is why we need to line up a whole series of corrupt republicans to fuss about. Mike Oxley and Roy Blount are very typical examples of corruption that would look normal in a third world nation. If we can get some buzz around their scandals, then we start to associate "Republican" with "scandal," negating their myth of the Republicans as a moral party.

        Calling for investigations is just as good as calling for his resignation. Just so we get his name out there associated with the scandals he is part of.

        Delenda est Sinclair! http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

        by mole333 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:02:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Let the facts be known (none)
          Make sure the gen pop hears the reasons that DeLay is unethical. This is, I think, happening now.

          But still, I hear a lot about what should be done with him, or how to get rid of him.  I want to hear more facts about his illegal activities, and see stories focusing on why his divisiveness and  extremist methods and culture of personality are so destructive for this country.

          I wonder, though: if he were truly considered an albatross for Bush would he be going to Rome?

    •  About DeLay: (none)
      The dude is older than me and he has no gray hair.  WTF?  I want to know who is his hairdresser.

      This aggression will not stand, man

      by kaleidescope on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:16:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Back down, back out, back up (none)
    this is a nice little development.Of course I'd be even happier if they kept on backing up till they backed themselves right off the cliff (think Wile E. Coyote).

    As long as I count the votes, what are you going to do about it? - William Marcy Tweed

    by sidnora on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:34:58 PM PDT

  •  Timing (none)
    I wish all this right winger overreach was taking place in fall 2006.  These nuts will have to act moderate at some point between now and Nov. 2006, right?  

    "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt." -Abraham Lincoln

    by Dr Van Nostrand on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:35:25 PM PDT

  •  And there was (1.10)
    no arrogancy of power when the left was in charge?

    I find that remarkably hard to believe...

    What am I doing on DailyKos? I'm Running for the Right...

    by RFTR on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:37:44 PM PDT

    •  Hey RFTR . . . (3.40)
      Eat sheet and dye.

      Double Cherry Refrigerator Sheet Cake

      1 (3 ounce) box cherry gelatin
      1 (18.25 ounce) box cherry-flavored cake mix

      Dissolve Jell-O in 3/4 cup boiling water. Add 1/2 cup cold water; set aside at room temperature. Mix and bake cake as directed in a 13 x 9 x 2-inch pan. Cool cake 20 to 25 minutes.

      Poke deep holes through top of warm cake while it is still in pan with meat fork or wooden pick; space holes about one half inch apart. With a cup, slowly pour Jell-O mixture into holes. Refrigerate cake while preparing topping.

      Topping
      1 envelope whipped topping mix, 2 to 2 1/2 cups yield
      1 (4-serving size) box vanilla instant pudding mix
      1 1/2 cups cold milk
      1 teaspoon vanilla extract

      In a chilled, deep bowl, blend whipped topping mix, instant pudding, cold milk and vanilla until stiff, 3 to 8 minutes. Immediately frost cake. Cake must be stored in refrigerator and served chilled. Frosted cake may be frozen.

      Serves 16 to 20.

    •  Of course there was (none)
      Who said there wasn't? That's why we need a BALANCE of power and periodic changes in who is in charge. The republicans' time is OVER.
    •  The Left In Charge? (none)
      When was "the left" in charge in the United States?  

      Many people who place themselves on "the right" have defined "the left" to include everyone who is not a radical right-winger.  Perhaps you are such a person and would therefore believe that "the left" held power in the United States at some time in the past.  

      Let me assure you that "the left" has never been in charge, and certainly not since the McCarthy era.  What you may believe to the "the left" in the 1960s was instead the remnant of the New Deal consensus, which had by then been embraced by both political parties.  (That is why the Republicans nominated Richard Nixon in 1968 rather than Barry Goldwater or some one similar in philosophy.)

      There was one time when I believe what might be called "the left" had considerable power in the United States and it did lead to abuse.

      Right after FDR's landslide victory in 1936, which included huge Democratic victories in congress and in statehouses, the supporters of the New Deal, many of whom could accurately be described as "the left," held considerable, though not exclusive {"in charge") power.  As one would expect, this lead almost immediately to the abuse of power.  More specifically, FDR's court packing plan.

      But what does that have to do with Republican abuse of power today?

    •  Sure (none)
      He was called Gingrich and he toppled off his self-constructed pedistal pretty fast.

      Delenda est Sinclair! http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

      by mole333 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:03:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The left was in charge 30 years ago... (none)
      Get over it.  

      When you couldn't get a real journalism job, there's Fox News.

      by The Truffle on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:19:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Cabbage and Troll Soup (none)
      1 pound lean ground Troll ( beef can be substituted if troll is hard to catch)
      1/2 teaspoon garlic salt
      1/4 teaspoon pepper
      2 cloves garlic, minced
      2 stalks celery, chopped
      1 (16 ounce) can kidney beans, undrained
      1 medium onion, chopped
      1/2 medium head cabbage, chopped
      1 (28 ounce) can diced tomatoes
      1 tomato can water or beef broth
      3 or 4 bouillon cubes
      Chopped fresh parsley

      In a Dutch oven, brown troll. Add all remaining ingredients except parsley. Bring to a boil. Reduce heat. Simmer, covered, for 1 hour.

      To serve, garnish with parsley. Yields 3 quarts. This can also be frozen.

    •  There might have been (none)
      But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight it now.  When Democrats when a series of elections I'll be here to cry out if they try to push down the opposition, but right now I'm that opposition which means I'll cry out even more.

      "I think war is a dangerous place." - George Bush

      by Nameless Soldier on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:29:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yeah but (none)
    WHERE ARE THE DEMOCRATS????

    wait...wrong diary. I meant 'woo-hoo! Great timing! Give 'em Hell, Harry!"

    Snark aside, I was pleased to read the sniveling Frist statements this afternoon, which basically sounded like he was distancing himself from Tom "Hammer Pants" DeLay. This is another great statement by Reid that only underscores Frist's lameness.

    In the midst of life we are in debt, etc.

    by ablington on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:37:54 PM PDT

  •  Lamar Smith (R--Tex,22) is replacing DeLay (none)
    The conference's website indicates that my congressman, Lamar Smith, is replacing DeLay, who is going to Rome for Pope John Paul II's funeral.  DeLay is reported to regret not being able to attend and "pledged to work with the Council to restore One Nation Under God".  He is not at all backing down.

    http://www.stopactivistjudges.org/schedule.asp

    God and ego are not equivalent expressions of reality.

    by Othniel on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:41:20 PM PDT

  •  It's amazing these guys are attacking judges and (none)
    Arnold is attacking nurses and teachers.

    who will they go after next?

    is this what germany was like in the
    1930's?

    •  More like the blacklisting/McCarthy period (none)
      in our history?  Now, do we have to wait until they go after the Army?
      •  Army (none)
        Didn't Rudy Guliani already do that?

        Besides, I don't think HUAC or McCarthy went after the judiciary.

        The similarities with Tailgunner Joe are becoming more apparent with each passing week. When can we expect DeLay to take to the House floor waving a sheet of paper which contains the names of 57 Activist Judges?

        -dms

      •  What did Jeb Bush do last week? (none)
        Didn't he have an armed escort prepared to go to the hospice? I mean, that's the impression I got from the news I read from AP. I didn't hear anyone mention brownshirts at the time, but someone indeed may have.
        •  My question is, what troops were these? n/t (none)
        •  State Troopers (none)
          were told to go get her in order to make her a ward of the state.  Local law enforcement -- city police and county sheriffs -- let it be known, "Over our dead bodies.  We're here to enforce the laws [Florida gives spouses the say-so in these kinds of life ending decisions over their partners and dependent children, not the parents of adult children who are married.] and the Constitution."

          Consequently, the troopers decided to stand down.

          What I never learned is if Jeb withdrew his orders, or if the troopers quietly refused Jeb's orders, realizing they might be committing a kidnaping, or realizing they might provoke a supremely embarassing (to say the least) incident.

          Nothing like potential headlines: Gunfight at OK Hospice.

    •  Bloomberg in NYC (none)
      Has gone after teachers, nurses and firemen

      Delenda est Sinclair! http://www.dkosopedia.com/index.php/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group

      by mole333 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:06:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Next it's those damned kids... (none)
      Always grubbing for juice boxes and nuturing.  To hell with 'em!

      (Would that this was only satire...)

    •  Coming Soon: GOP vs. Veterinarians! (none)
      I mean, it's like they love animals more than people!  Buncha pet-healing, America-hating traitors in lab coats.
  •  Chickenshit? I don't know. (none)
    Seems strategic to me.  Let's face it, the only people who are going to know that he was ever slated to be at this bomb-throwing fest are those who planned it, those who will attend it, and us.  The masses will never know that this event ever took place, much less that DeLay was scehduled as a speaker, much less that he cancelled, much less that he cancelled because he decided that the heat was getting turned up too high (which, in and of itself rises to only the level of a high degree of suspicion on our part).

    My point is, before we start talking in terms of DeLay being a coward, much less on the ropes as many here and in the media have speculated, let's take a look at how the risk/reward balance looks.  In this case, it's a no-brainer.  If he cancels, it can be chalked up to whatever excuse DeLay and the organizers which to manufacture--assuming that they have to.  If he attends and soft-soaps his message, then we can justifiably slam him as cowering in the face of adversity, but if he goes and gives the lions the red meat they crave, what good does he do that these others, including a couple of senators (Brownback and Coburn) can't do on their own, and without the media spotlight?

    Also, the last thing these folks want is a lot of media showing up and broadcasting their little conclave.  Take away DeLay, and you take away most every camera, and a few good reporters.  

    No, if I were the strategist here, I tell DeLay take a powder on this one--no problem.

    On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

    by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:42:59 PM PDT

    •  Just read upthread: (none)
      DeLay going to Rome.  Perfect.

      On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

      by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:44:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Delay doing the thing (none)
      or not isn't really the point of the diary. It's the war on Judges and the founding fathers vision of this country that's the winner for us.
      •  Oh, I'm sorry (none)
        am I off topic?

        On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

        by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:49:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think you see (none)
          more emphasis in Markos's last line of this post than it deserves.
          •  Holy shit. (none)
            Thank you, blog cop.  I'm sorry, but I think that I missed the post that spoke to what emphasis any given entry may be given by the great unwashed.  Did it say that we must address the first point before proceeding to the second (and thereby) minor point?  

            Okay, I'll try again below.

             

            On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

            by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:05:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hey, that Reid (none)
            kicks motherfucking ass!

            Better?

            On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

            by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:06:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What's your boy (none)
              been doing in all of this? Calling Delay a "great American"?
              •  Oh? (none)
                And who, precisely, is my "boy"?

                On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:10:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You wanted to start a fight (none)
                  with me so I pointed out that your boy, Joseph Lieberman, has been absent from all of this. Unless he was on Sean Hannity's show calling him a great American. Or maybe he was still disagreeing with Chris Shat's and saying the GOP has not become a Theocracy.
                  •  No sir, (none)
                    All I did was post my opinion regarding whether DeLay was a chickenshit.  You took umbrage that I apparently addressed a point that was undeserving of a response.

                    Meanwhile, you now accuse me of supporting Lieberman.  I beg of you, please find where I have ever so much as cut him the slightest degree of slack.  Just one post, comment, allusion, nod--anything.  

                    You're not very careful, my friend.  

                    On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                    by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:20:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Took umbrage? (none)
                      I hope you're single because that was pretty light to be considered "umbrage." You flew off the handle at that point calling me "diary cop" because I responded to your comment. I'll avoid that in the future unless I'm sure you've had your daily dose of Paxil.

                      If I'm wrong about your support for Lieberman, I appoligise that I got you confused with someone else. You still sewem to be a dick today though.

                    •  When Dems Attacks is right. (4.00)
                      Good.
                      Day.
                      Sir!

                      "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                      by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:28:47 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Sorry (none)

                        On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                        by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:31:50 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  you gotta be kidding me. (none)
                          Sorry?
                          I'm still laughing.
                          damn. why? i dunno.
                           i think I had a hard day.
                          Sorry??
                          Your undying support for Joementum and the Pope have you all messed up.

                          Christine :-)

                          "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                          by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:37:45 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  My undying support of WHOM?! (none)
                            Okay, you wanna be next?!

                            Now, that was the best laugh I've had in days!!!  Thanks, Christine.

                            On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                            by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:54:39 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  oh. (4.00)
                            I think I have you confused with GoPOPE.
                            And your're GoVOTE.
                            my bad.

                             

                            "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                            by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:58:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  GoPOPE. Ohmygawd!!! (none)
                            <crawling up from floor back into chair>

                            Holy (if you'll excuse the allusion) shit, that was hilarious.  You owe me for a new monitor.

                            </crawling>

                            On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                            by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:04:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  you crawl (none)
                            right into a confessional while you're at it.
                            and then do what you know, you do.
                            when you're in one of those.
                            and then, well, whatever.
                            you so owe me.  

                            "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                            by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:17:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Make him pay. (none)
                            Large bills.
                            Unmarked.

                            Wake up and smell the jackboots, sheeple!

                            by lightiris on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:22:40 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  <sniff> (none)
                            They made up.
                            It's very heartwarming and very beautiful.
                            They are now Liberals In Love Once More.
                            Who will make me laugh now?
                            Who'll stop the rain?

                            Christine

                            "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                            by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:25:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What can I say? (none)
                            Liberals are like that.  

                            (Oh, and don't listen to 'iris--know'd her for years--she'll turn on you like Zell Miller at the RNC.)

                            On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                            by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:31:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  wow. (none)
                            holy crap.  
                            Right now you just said that poor Iris looked exactly like Zell Miller, and remember?  Zell Miller asked Chris Mathews for a duel at the RNC, and you and Mike S. almost got into a duel, and that is like too weird.
                            Coincidence?
                            I think not.

                             

                            "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                            by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:39:09 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  This is how it went down: (none)
                            jpschmid:  Well, let me ask you, when Democrats come out, as they often do, liberal Democrats, and attack each other, and say they want to shit in their cornflakes, they want to call libruls Lieberman supporters, they want to kill the old people [huh?]...

                            GOTV  I am not saying that.  Wait a minute.  

                            jpschmid:  That kind of rhetoric is not educational, is it?  

                            GOTV Wait a minute.  

                            Now, this is your program.  And I am a guest on your program.

                            jpschmid:  Yes, ma'am.

                            GOTV  And so I want to try to be as nice as I possibly can to you.  I wish I was over there, where I could get a little closer up into your face.

                            GOTV  But I don`t have to stand here and listen to that kind of stuff.  I didn`t say anything about killing Armando.  What are you doing?  

                            jpschmid: No, I`m saying that when you said tonight--I just want you to...

                            GOTV  Well, you are saying a bunch of baloney that didn't have anything to do with what I said up there on the diary.

                            (CROSSTALK)  

                            GOTV  No, no.

                            jpschmid:  OK.  Do you believe now--do you believe, GOTV, truthfully, that Mike S. wants to plaster lightiris with spitballs?  Do you believe that?  

                            GOTV  That was a metaphor, wasn`t it?  Do you know what a metaphor is?  

                            On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                            by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:52:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oops. (none)
                            Ma'am should have been sir.

                            On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                            by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:56:16 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ohmygod. (none)
                            i making pee in pants.
                            ...and say that want to shit in their conrflakes....
                            seriously i am laughing my ass off now.
                            the S.O. walked by giving me the patented evil eye.
                            yeah. i look like reading about politics.
                            i have come to a conclusion: i give you money too.
                            anyone that makes me laugh is a savior to the people in my eyes.
                            you like superpope!
                            heehee. still laughing.
                            "GOTV  Well, you are saying a bunch of baloney that didn't have anything to do with what I said up there on the diary.
                            (CROSSTALK) "

                            "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                            by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:11:34 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Okay, funny girl, (none)
                            That's a wrap.  I think that we've beat the Joementum outta this thread.  

                            Thanks to all for the laughs.  

                            And Mike S.: No kidding, man.  No hard feelings.  See you down the bend.    

                            On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                            by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:26:35 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sssshh! Don't. Say. That. Word. Geez! (none)

                            Wake up and smell the jackboots, sheeple!

                            by lightiris on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:56:08 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Go read my Diary. (none)
                            The Appalling Hypocricy : My Mother-In-Law, Her Indecency, and her bleached out dead hair.

                             Never mind. I never wrote a diary.
                            But if I did, that would be my first.

                            Christine

                             

                            "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                            by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:02:48 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  LMAO! (none)
                            You are so good-natured.  A breath of fresh air.  I'd love to read that diary, too.  TAH series, a patented product.  

                            Wake up and smell the jackboots, sheeple!

                            by lightiris on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:20:05 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  hmmm. (none)
                            Since your the first human being ever who lived who said I was good natured, I will give you lots of money.
                            I will send it soon.
                            Maybe.
                            I dunno.
                            We'll see.

                            "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

                            by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:31:30 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Yeah GOVOTE (none)
                      What is fucking Lieberman doin'?

                      Heh.

                      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                      by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:36:18 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Beats the shit outta me (none)
                        Ask Mike S.

                        (And that brings up another thing, there's too fucking many Mikes on this blog.)

                        Signed,

                        Mike D.
                        (Who, Armando, never posted as Mike from MI on the Clark blog, but did post as Mike in Mich on the Dean blog.

                        On the road to broken promised land. ~M. Sexton

                        by GOTV on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:57:47 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  cracking (none)
              up.
              ok...
              You two gave me my first laugh on dk in two days.
              thank you.
              I'm being serious. I almost choked on my coke when you came to the realization that Reid is kicking ass like a motherfucker. or something like that.)

              Christine

              "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and consciencious stupidity." Martin Luther King, Jr.

              by jpschmid on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:16:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  The blog did have a good point (none)
    Where are all the liberal groups in this fight?
  •  Engaged? Not so fast. . . (none)
    Not quite yet.
    Democrats always do this. One of them finally summons up the nerve to speak up, they do so, we get all excited, but the speaker runs back into his or her hole and we hear nothing from them on the subject for weeks, if not months.  

    A few months ago we were all fired up and all atingle about Pelosi because she said something negative about Bush.  God knows to where she has disappeared to since then.

    Repitition is the mother of learning. If the battle is really to be engaged, Reid has to repeat the same thing tomorrow and the next day, and the day after that, and to ORDER his surrogates to speak up and to sing the same tune from the same playbook.  He should instruct John Kerry to stop sending me stupid emails which I do not read, and to take the fight to Bush which I am still waiting for him to do. Biden likes the camera, let him stick his neck out and criticize the Repugs.

    So let us not get too excited. Let us wait and see what happens. Reid said something. It was a good thing. But if precedent is to be consulted we are not going to hear from him for a while.
    He is STILL playing defense.

    Like pygmies on the battlefield of history, we cower like whipped dogs in the face of political pressure. . . Robert Byrd 12/04.

    by Lords on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 05:50:45 PM PDT

    •  You should read this (none)
      article by Matt Yglesias.

      ...It means, in short, that Democrats are well positioned to win. If, that is, they can get their approval rating among Democrats anywhere near where the GOP is among its supporters.

      snip

      The House Democrats, facing an even tougher situation in a body in which minority rights have essentially vanished, have likewise managed some achievements. They've raised Tom DeLay's public profile and built awareness of his dirty dealings.

      Of course, they haven't done everything right, and they may make mistakes in the future. Most of all, the test will be in November '06. But for now, giving credit where due is the best thing liberals can do to advance our goals in Congress and beyond.

      •  Read it. So he says. . . (none)
        I disagree with him. Democrats were well positioned to win the  Presidency in 2004, we lost and to add insult to injury, we also lost additional senate seats. I think Yglesias is dreaming if he thinks that because the Repugs are polling badly now, it suggests losses in 2006.

        As things stand now, the Repugs are destroying themselves, and the Dems are still reluctant to define themselves -- to indelibly delineate what the party stands for and does not stand for.   We are all over the place.  So we dream of just sitting back, watching the Republicans destroy themselves, and hope that power, like a ripened apple,  will just drop into our laps.

        I don't think you win elections that way. We have to fight for it, and sadly the Dems seem to have forgotten how to fight.

        Like pygmies on the battlefield of history, we cower like whipped dogs in the face of political pressure. . . Robert Byrd 12/04.

        by Lords on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:57:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Playing defense (none)
      Yep, because that is what minority parties do, play defense and counterattack when the opportunities arise.

      As intelligent as you are I know you know this.

      Let me ask you a question, what is your proposed strategy?

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:32:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read the poster's comments (none)
        ... as being suspicious that the Democrats now, having issued a grand total of (1) sound bite, will consider the job done and will now wash their hands of the whole affair, as opposed to following up with, say, a second sound bite tomorrow.

        Gotta confess, I don't find that a terribly out-there suspicion.

        •  On the filibuster? (none)
          Well you are both wrong.

          Everything that has happened so far is a buildup to that fight. In some ways, even the Social Security fight.

          If the GOP chooses that battle, it will be to the bitter end. You'll have soundbites up the wazoo.

          What's Reid doing? Keeping his powder dry for that war.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:50:24 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, on Cornyn/DeLay (none)
            I don't doubt they'll fight for the filibuster.
          •  Dry Powder. (none)
            I am stunned that that adage is still being bandied about here.
            All throughout the 2004 campaign we heard that some Democrat or the other, especially Kerry was keeping his powder dry until some fortuitous time.  As the SBVT attacked and attacked, we heard he was keeping his powder dry. When Bush and Cheney began to personally ridicule him we heard he was keeping his powder dry.

            Now here we are again. Another spineless Democrat who would rather dance than fight, and we talk about keeping his powder dry. Like Kerry, he will be ready to fight when it's over.

            Let's face it, today's congressional Democrats have not yet developed a taste for the jugular.

            Like pygmies on the battlefield of history, we cower like whipped dogs in the face of political pressure. . . Robert Byrd 12/04.

            by Lords on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 10:17:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  My proposed strategy. (none)
        First, I think that only weak minority parties play defense.
        Second, a strong and determined minority will not wait for opportunities to arise, indeed, they will be forever searching, poking, probing to create those opportunities to weaken or destroy their opponents.

        Any clever schoolboy knows that the best defense is a good offense, so let us begin there. Being in the minority I will quickly come to terms with the fact that I do not have the platform to air my views that I enjoyed when in the majority. Therefore, I know iI will have to be louder, more controversial, more contentitious, more argumentative, if I am to be heard.  I have to become a rabble-rouser, a provocateur, if you will.   I will definitely NOT be helping the administration to achieve any of their primary objectives, stupidly believing that I will benefit in some way. I will see it as my moral duty to stand for my core beliefs thereby distinguishing myself from my opponents, while implicitly defining myself.

        Remember when Newt Ginrich and Bob Dole were in the minority.  Not for one second did they play defense. They were always on the offensive. One forced a Speaker to resign, the other forced a president to hire an Independent Counsel.   They harassed the Dems to no end, and what did they get for it?  They were rewarded with majorities.

        To sum up then, my strategy: Fight.

        Like pygmies on the battlefield of history, we cower like whipped dogs in the face of political pressure. . . Robert Byrd 12/04.

        by Lords on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:35:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You mean 1992-94? (none)
          Well, the budget et al in 93. Gays in the military.

          Tax hikes and gays. GOP bread and butter. What else?

          How do those compare to Social Security and Judical nominations? Pretty even.

          Granted they have always been more strident. And I agree that Fighting Dems can fight more. But not on this one.

          This was the equivalent to shutting down the government in 1995 IMO.

          Now in 1994 -

          There was one issue - one. Health care.

          Harry and Louise.

          THEN, in the 1994 Campaign, The Contract with America.

          Note when the GOP Agenda was rolled. In the 1994 Campaign.

          I hope folks remember that when calling for the Dem Agenda NOW.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:24:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Speaking of bread & butter. (none)
            I'd say that Bankruptcy and Class-Action are Dem bread & Butter wouldn't you?  And wouldn't it be great if the party were saying NO to torture right now?  Instead some praised it's architect.

            Truth is Armando, I wish I could sleep comfortably at nights knowing that Harry Reid & the Dems had our backs on Social and Judicial.  It ain't over until it's over, and sadly, I believe that no matter what they say, they could cave at any moment. Do you recall the Texas redistricting stalemate when the Democrats journeyed to Oklahoma? They stayed away for weeks until one Democrat caved, and in the end the Republicans got exactly what they wanted.  

            Believe me, I wish them luck, but I cannot count on them. They'd abandon me in a heartbeat.  Just like Ferrer.  :-)

            Like pygmies on the battlefield of history, we cower like whipped dogs in the face of political pressure. . . Robert Byrd 12/04.

            by Lords on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:56:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Echo! (none)
    "The rule of law -- in the Constitution -- is for independent judges."
  •  Duck Hunting with Nominees (none)
    Or trout fishing for "justice".Makes me wonder who/how/why certain unethical conservatives bait their contingency.
  •  finally some offense. still cowardly, they speak (none)
    out only when they have polling on their side.
  •  I never knew (none)
    Frist owned a track bike. I mean, you've got to train pretty hard to backpedal like that, don't you?

    "If it once became general, wealth would confer no distinction." George Orwell

    by justme on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:18:07 PM PDT

  •  Which is why the Dem strategy (none)
    re: Schiavo was the right one.

    The ONLY Democrats who got media coverage on the Schiavo case were the ones who opposed Congressional intrusion into a private family matter. No media soundbites from Dems who supported the Congressional intrusion.  There was maybe one Democrat who spoke in favor of it, but because the media needs two sides to every story, they ignored that Democrat and went with the Democrats who opposed it.  Anyone who went near it in the way the right did have been getting burned in the polls.  

    The Democrats are able to use this (and a number of other issues like DeLay) to push an arrogant/extremist theme.  

    Today's Republican Party isn't run by nice, family values lovin' people.  It's run by radical right-wing nutcases, who can "understand" why people want to kill judges.  

    "Minimize our defensive posture, maximize our offensive posture."--Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D-IL)

    by Newsie8200 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:18:53 PM PDT

    •  Right n/t (none)

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:34:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Barny Frank... (none)
      ...did have a good sound byte "We not doctors, we only play them on C-SPAN" which I thought it was a good sound byte.  It called everyone in the debate out on their bullshit as if they know what her medical condition is.
    •  Dem strategy? (none)
      They were given a gift and blew it. The public is on the side of less government intrusion in private affairs and our Dem spokespeople were absent.

      If this is the kind of 'strategy' we are to expect, we are doomed.

      •  How do you figure that? (none)
        Did the GOP not take a serious hit?

        Oh, you wanted the Dems to pile on. Well, that would have been stupid in my opinion.

        All of a sudden Dems become "Terri's Killers." There is no positive in the whole damn story. What part of the negative did you want Dems to take?

        Reid gave them the rope. There was no other logical play in my opinion. I am curious how you imagine a loud Dem dissent on this would have played and why?

        "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

        by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:38:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh come on (none)
          The Schiavo legislation could have, and should have been blocked. As we know, the majority of the population would have been on the side of the Democrats. Unfortunately, Reid fucked up and allowed it to pass by unanimous consent, giving it the 'bipartisan' tag and handcuffing Dems from speaking out. And now the rightwing is using it to frame their debate.

          Sorry, but I am Wary of HarryTM

          •  Here, here! (none)
            We need to get some fucking balls on these issues instead of always worrying what the 'spin' will be.  Because you know what, Armando?  The re-thugs spin us anyway even if we play defense the whole time.  And we're always wrong about how 'reasonable' the public is on these issues.  They don't care whether you're "right or wrong", just whether you show some passion.

            It's about time we stood up for principles and let the wind blow where it may.

            Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip; got Daytons on the mothership.

            by iowasteele on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:30:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  IMO (none)
            The advice you give would have been disastrous politically.

            DEMS KILLED TERRI!!!!!

            Yep, that's a winner. I really see no merit at all to your point of view.

            "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

            by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:46:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Whatever (none)
              I think you have misread the public opinion. It never was about Terri; the Republicans were on the wrong side by advocating federal intervention. By allowing the circus to set up, the Dems are, once again, playing defense.

              Now, tell me how the "DEMS KILLED TERRI!!!!!" plays poorly when most people agree with the Dems.

              •  You misread how the story unfolded (none)
                It never was allowed to be Dems Kill Terri precisely because Reid played it right.

                See, you are imposing a conclusion on a reality that did not occur.

                IF the Dems blocked the legislation, then there is no GOP overreach, just Dem obstruction. And a dead Terri Schiavo - with the Schindlers telling their tragic story - without the backdrop of every court saying no and without the the show.

                I simply think you are not viewing that scenario clearly.

                I'll grant you that neither of us really know.

                "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

                by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yeah, but... (none)
                  we do know how this thing is polling and how Dems were not basically not caught up in this (excepting those who voted for it).  At minimum, this was not a win for Rethugs, and I think Reid deserves at least some credit for using judgment to stay on the sidelines.  

                  And, full disclosure, I expected this to be a real problem for Dems.  So I think he has navigated the shark pool fairly well thus far.  

                  My complaint is that there has yet to be an effective counter campaign.  (It may be starting now though.)  We should take these polling numbers and jam them down the Rethugs throat.  And, now Cornyn is giving us a tremendous opportunity.  

                  P.S. I think the EXTREMIST angle is an excellent way to go, and that it should be the overarching theme in a long war for votes that needs to be built over a number of battles...

                •  Heh (none)
                  Nice try counselor; spin your conclusion into mine.

                  Jeez you're good.

                  We disagree and now I am signing off to read the wisdom of fernando on another blog.

                  Good night.

  •  The heart of it... (none)
    Somebody up there said:

    "...still not going after the infrastructure that these right wingers rely on..."

    To slay the dragon you have to pierce its heart.  

    We can easily demonstrate all manner of hypocrisy and malfeasance.  The problem is bringing it to the fore.  We have been letting the fascist right win the information game.  You can frame the issue however you want, but until it makes the front page of USA Today as often as Scott Peterson did, it won't matter.

    Strategy:  Force the issue.  Money talks.  We need to lean hard and en masse on the publishers and advertisers that play along with this wicked game.

    I don't know how many visitors this site gets, but based on the reader participation I'm guessing it's in the millions per month.  In not using this forum to coordinate our efforts, we're squandering a powerful advantage.  

    If USA Today got 50,000 letters a day pointing out the crimes and misdemeanors and asking why the paper doesn't bother to investigate them, you can bet that there would be some action.

    We need to pick real world targets and hammer them relentlessly in an organized way.  

    But then, what do I know? I'm just a lowly beggar.

    by ChuckLin on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:21:23 PM PDT

  •  ArroganCE (none)
    Good lord, they cant even get it right when they're quoting themselves.

    It's Arrogance of power, not arrogancy of power.

    lol.

    If th' meek ever do inherit th' earth some one'll git it away from 'em before they have it an hour

    by NorthStarDemocrat on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 06:35:25 PM PDT

  •  Wow ... we're getting aroused by THIS???? (4.00)
    WTF?  What's so f'ing "tough" about Harry Reid's demeanor on this one?  Had he NOT said something about the Re-thugs support for FUCKING OFFING JUDGES, now that would be news.

    We are so f'ing starved for good news that we'll take anything at this point.  

    Remember Eddie Murphy in Raw?  Where he mentioned the person who was starving for 14 days and then was given a Saltine cracker and thought it was the best cracker in the world just because it was the only food he'd eaten in that time?  That's us right now.  We should be knocking the Re-thugs dicks off on this one.  Instead we're jumping for joy when Harry Reid calls out the Rethug 'arrogancy' of power.

    sheesh

    Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip; got Daytons on the mothership.

    by iowasteele on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:21:50 PM PDT

    •  Yes (none)
      I have a full erection.

      Sheesh. It is a blog post. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:41:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Calling all sycophants! (none)
        Sorry I am not sharing in this circle jerk.  I want opposition leaders (and that's what we are, folks) who are going to go for the throat on issues like this.  I mean, the thugs are ostensibly advocating the offing of f'ing judges!!!!  What 'line' are we going to cross by calling this for what it is?  (Fascism?)  

        Sorry, borrowed that last line from JFK, but you get the drift.  

        Put a glide in your stride and a dip in your hip; got Daytons on the mothership.

        by iowasteele on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:19:40 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Fine (none)
          So what's your beef with the post again?

          Who's AROUSED? Sounds like you want to be aroused and we ain't doing it for you.

          I don't think you are going to find what you are looking for in American politics myself.

          "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

          by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:44:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Arrogance or parting shot? (none)
    For the front players, a month or two ago, the growing boldness of the abuses might be excused as arrogance.

    Today, and perhaps all along for the backroom boys calling the plays, the accelerating abuses of power may attributable to desperation. A knowledge that their coalition depends on getting the rural and working poor to vote against their own economic futures. That this trick depended on the increasingly unstable illusion of being the party of values. And that owning the media can only buy so much time.

    Maybe, just maybe, this is a race to inflict as much damage as possible before the mid-term elections.

  •  we can do better than this! (none)
    Yesterday, Tom DeLay was the keynote speaker at a judge-bashing religious right conference in Washington, DC. We reported on it, and today, suddenly, DeLay's name has been scrubbed from the conference's home page - DeLay's no longer the keynote. Hmmm...

    Maybe they ought to change DeLay's nickname from the Hammer to the Chicken.

    oooo.

    we called him a chicken.

    •  Yeah (none)
      We should have threatened him with violence.

      See that's what you do when you want ot be the "mainstream" and label the other side "extreme."

      You scream bloody murder.

      Riiiight.

      "Just say no to torture." -Semi-Anonymous Blogger.

      by Armando on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 07:40:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  well (none)
        pretty much.

        i don't have to advocate and over the top demonization/villification of the opposition to understand it's effectiveness.

        one would be naive to underestimate the effectiveness.

        sometimes i just think we're pussies cause we say "ooo we called them chicken."  and then we run around self-congratulatory.

        it's just a thought.

        obviously we'd also need the media on our side to have a more legit attack.

        but, c'mon, it's great for rallying the troops, but calling delay chicken isn't gonna do poop one way or another.  and delay knows that.

    •  Well, I called him (none)
      King of the Chicken Shit Conservatives.

      By his full name, too, in case he's too dense to know that's him.

      Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.-Thomas Jefferson
      We are the resistance.

      by boadicea on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 11:49:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Harry Reid Gets a Blackbelt Judicial Jujitsu (none)
    Note the shrewdness of Leader Reid's offensive shot accoss the bow on judges. The Repugs declared war on the judiciary to satiate the interest of the moralizing zealots of their base. They have been pushed into the nuclear option by Ralph Reed and the 700 Club crowd and believed it to be a righteous battle for the righteous right. Yet, they are quickly finding out that one of the consequencences of exercizing this option is that the business community's legislative agenda shall be sacrificed on the altar of judicial extremism.

    They thought they could avoid this by painting Reid an "obstructionist" for "shutting down" the Senate. But alas, Reid the black belt has outmaneuvered Frist. He need not "shut the Senate down" thus opening himself up to similar Gingrich like charges over the budget showdown of '95. This Master of the Senate need only "slow" things down (e.g. insist on recorded votes for everything) -- and note, that the Senate cleared by unanimous consent a hundred plus nominees recently. imagine how long it would have taken if they had recorded votes on everyone!

     Frist and the Repugs are just now discovering this and are trying to walk themselve back from the cliff.  And they are beginning to hear from the deep pocketed business donors who are more comfortable spending their weekends at the Country Club playing hands of gin rummy w/ their wives named "Muffy". The dirty little secret amongst the Repubs as that these Economic Elitists tend to look down thier noses at the bible thumping true blievers who'd rather be on their knees (praying, of course!) or spreading the gospel of anti-Christian Christianity.

     Frist and the Repugs are now being subjected to the same kind of wedge issues they've often thrown at us. Do they tell their business base which funds their elections "game over" to satisfy the religious right that turns out their flocks? We shall see, but you can damn well be certain that Harry Reid has earned a black belt in the art of Judicial Jujitsu

  •  It's about time (none)
    The Dems should be all over the GOP like white on rice.  The Schiavo travesty.  Tom DeLay, setting corruption records.  Frickin' Rick Santorum, ripping off a public school district when he can well afford to pay for any school he wants.  It's outrageous.  Enough about the Pope's funeral, Michael Jackson's trial, whether Britney's pregnant, and Charles and Camilla's wedding.  The media needs to cover the real news, and the only way they are going to do that is if they're forced to.

    Protons have mass? I didn't even know they were Catholic.

    by randym77 on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:27:36 PM PDT

  •  "Arrogancy"? (none)
    Isn't it arrogance?
  •  This is funny (none)
    Here arethe press credentialling requirements for
    the anti-judges conference:

     For "media credentials, please fax on your organization's letterhead a requests for credentials to 936-634-8749.  Please include names of individuals covering the event and job title.  Credentials will be issued only to recognized working media at the discretion of JCCCR. Also, credentialed media will need to provide documentation (ex: Capitol Police issued media badge, Press Club ID, etc.) and a business card at the media check in table at the Marriot."

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Tue Apr 05, 2005 at 08:50:14 PM PDT

  •  NYT (none)
    The Times weighs in:  NYTimes
  •  The "9/11 changed everything" myth (none)
    Daily Kos :: The "9/11 changed everything" myth: UK refuses to be intimidated into a Patriot Act

    Tony Blair has been trying to use the same pap Bush managed to sell here. Unfortunatelly to Blair, the brits ain't buying it:

    The nature of the 9/11 threat DOES NOT justify throwing away the country's law

    .. Lord Hoffmann.. questioned not just the basis of [war] imprisonments but also the nature of the threat to which they were the answer. To him, a minister citing "secret information about a threat to Britain" cannot justify infringing civil liberty unless that threat is palpably overwhelming, as in war.. The most that modern terrorists might pull off is a Madrid-style killing, a threat needing the most assiduous policing but not a threat to the stability or continuity of the State.

    .. Mr Blair's claim.. that [inmates] could not be brought to trial because to do so "could endanger Britain" is absurd. A threat to Britons is not a threat to Britain. Nor should such scaremongering become the standard justification for continuing indefinitely with the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act.. .. the menace to Britain's collective liberty comes "not from terrorism but from laws such as these".

  •  Defend the Constitution: 1st plank of 08 Platform (none)
    We have seen in the last few years numerous assaults on the most important values in our Constitution.  The Patriot Act undermined the Bill of Rights, Congressional interference in the Terri Shiavo case eats at the independence of the judiciary while Tom Delay threatens judges, and the religious Right proclaims that God's law trumps the separation of church and state.

    This has got to stop and we must stand up for the values that every elected official swears to "defend and protect".  There are millions of Americans who may disagree on many issues but will agree on this one.  Defending the Constitution is both the right and necessary thing to do and politically a winner...it's time that Democrats did it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site