Daily Kos

Howard Dean's Verdict on John Roberts

Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:09:52 AM PDT

Governor Dean came out full force against John Roberts today in an email to the grassroots, and sent everyone a preview of a nationwide op-ed that will run tomorrow.

Full text of both after the bump.

Email from Governor Dean to Democrats across the country:
Dear Fellow Democrat,

I've been watching Supreme Court nominee John Roberts artfully dodge question after question during his confirmation hearings. And I've read the limited documents the White House released about his work in the Reagan and George H. W. Bush administrations -- though we are still waiting for answers for the over 100,000 Americans who submitted Freedom of Information Act requests for key documents.

But we know enough to see a pattern -- and I've made up my mind about John Roberts. He's the wrong man at the wrong time for our country -- a trait that he shares with much of the Republican leadership, including the president who nominated him.

I've written an op-ed that will appear in newspapers across the country tomorrow (you can get a preview at the bottom of this message). But I am just one voice -- your community needs to hear from you. By filling local papers with letters to editors, Americans watching this process unfold will understand that we have a different vision for the court and a different vision for our country.

Join me on editorial pages across America by writing a letter to the editor -- with our new online tool and talking points, you can write and submit your letter in minutes:

http://www.democrats.org/robertsletters

John Roberts may have a sharp legal mind, but his record shows that he lacks a sense of justice.

The skills John Roberts displays are like those of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove or House Republican Leader Tom DeLay. Both of those men have sharp political minds -- they are among the smartest in Washington. But they use those skills to push a narrow ideology and win at any cost. Roberts has spent a career using the law to protect corporate interests and roll back the rights that protect us all.

Roberts, Rove, DeLay and the rest of the extremist Republican leadership all have the same problem. They abuse their power by pursuing ideological crusades -- and they ignore the real problems we face as a country and as a community.

Thousands of letters appearing in papers across the country will reach every American with our message -- that the time for narrow ideology and protecting the rights of only a few is over. Write a letter to the editor now:

http://www.democrats.org/robertsletters

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the disastrous response, we have seen the consequences of government by ideologues and political cronies.
We have also seen the stark reality of American life that people like Roberts, Rove and DeLay either don't understand or choose to ignore -- that inequalities still persist to this day.

Our rights -- and the rights of the most vulnerable in our society -- are in danger. They are in danger from those who actively seek to roll them back, and they are in danger from those in positions of leadership who don't understand how important it is to protect the rights of every American.

The ultimate battleground for justice, fairness and opportunity in America has always been the Supreme Court. Justices have the power to use the law to hold America back, and they have the power to use the law to hold America to the high moral standards we set for ourselves.

Let's make sure that Americans open their newspapers and understand the
stakes:

http://www.democrats.org/robertsletters

Thank you.

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

P.S. -- You can get a sneak preview of my op-ed before it appears in papers across the country: http://www.democrats.org/robertscolumn

Here's the full text of that column:

The Verdict on John Roberts
By Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

John Roberts is a decent family man and a bright, articulate, thoughtful judge. He has a quality absent in previous right wing candidates like Antonin Scalia and Robert Bork, namely a judicial temperament that makes litigants feel that they have been respectfully heard whether they are on the winning or losing side of a verdict.

But John Roberts is the wrong man for the job. Despite the fact that the White House has withheld key documents either out of incompetence or a fear that those documents might prove embarrassing, we have learned enough from the files on Roberts at the Reagan Library to make it clear that he should be rejected.

This conclusion has only been solidified by Roberts' testimony during this week's hearings. He has been a polished performer, but in failing to present clear answers to straightforward questions, Roberts missed a crucial opportunity to answer legitimate concerns about his record and show compassion for those who have been excluded from the American Dream. The consistent mark of Roberts' career is a lack of commitment to making the Constitution's promise of equal protection a reality for all Americans, particularly the most vulnerable in our society.

He has opposed laws protecting the rights of girls and young women to have the same opportunities in sports as boys and young men. He has argued that politicians, not individual women themselves, ought to control women's reproductive health care. He has opposed various remedies for the racial injustices which have occurred in America since slavery and which persist today. He has consistently joined the radical right in seeking to weaken voting rights protections, in essence attacking the rights of black and Hispanic voters to cast their ballot without paying poll taxes or being subjected to intimidation or gerrymandering. He fought against protecting all Americans from workplace discrimination. Most worrisome, he refused to answer questions on his limited view of the right to personal privacy that most Americans take for granted.

Over the last half century, we have made great progress in promoting equal opportunity for all Americans, but there is still much work to be done. Hurricane Katrina was more than the most catastrophic natural disaster in American history. Those who have in so many ways been denied the opportunity for full participation in our society once again suffered disproportionately in this tragedy--seniors, African-Americans and those burdened by poverty.

Now is not the time for a Chief Justice who is bent on turning back the progress we have made in moving America forward.

Judge Roberts is said to love the law, but loving the law without loving the American people enough to protect their individual rights and freedoms will make our American community weaker. And the exercise of the law without compassion--something that Judge Roberts and so many on the far right have consistently been guilty of--undermines the grace and wisdom of the founders whose sense of balance and fairness made this country great.

In the past few weeks we have seen what happens when politics and indifference supercede compassion and organization. The enduring lesson of Hurricane Katrina is that there still are too many Americans who are disproportionately vulnerable. Despite the fact that they worked hard and played by the rules, their luck ran out. Americans are a compassionate, fair-minded people. Our nation is great and strong because of that compassion, not just because we have a strong military. We also have strong moral values which include an innate sense of justice often absent in many other parts of the world.

Our Government today shrinks from compassion. In doing so they have first diminished America in the eyes of the rest of the world, and now they have diminished America in the eyes of our own people. This is a time for justice tempered with mercy and understanding. There is no evidence of either in Judge Roberts's career. The President should be denied this nomination.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 158 comments

  •  Thank you, Howard!! (4.00 / 11)

    I only hope that Democrats in the Senate will have the spine to stand up and oppose him.

    I fear that if they don't, Bush will be emboldened to make an even more appalling pick for the next vacancy.

    The country we carry in our hearts is waiting. -- Bruce Springsteen

    by saucy monkey on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:15:41 AM PDT

    •  Did you catch Howard on the View today? (4.00 / 8)

      He was talking with the girls, most of whom seemed receptive.  Only one - and I don't remember her name - was spouting the Republican talking points that continue to be disseminated, even though they've been discredited.

      He was talking about Hurricane Katrina, and about the government's response to the disaster, and John Roberts' appointment - but most importantly, he's working on a new platform for the Democrats.  His announcement that this country needs a universal system of health care was applauded.  He's right - we're the only industrialized country in the world without health care for all of its citizens.  It creates a condition of wage slavery, where a person can't work for a living without being part of a major corporation, because only major corporations can afford to provide health care to its employees.

      "I believe in compulsory cannibalism. If people were forced to eat what they kill, there would be no more wars." - Abbie Hoffman

      by Jensequitur on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:15:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You'll Be Applauding This Movie... (3.82 / 17)

        ...when it is finished too. Finally, we'll have a movie that speaks about the real leader who speaks for us and the people who have his back. I hope you all will check it out and offer ideas, comments and any support you can afford.

        Just yesterday a guy in California wrote us and offered sound and video because he sees why this film needs to be done the right way. He didn't have money to give, but he understands the "Stone Soup" method we are hoping our community connects with.

        Thanks to those who are continuing to send in their donation. You'll get your DVD first, and your name in the film's credits when we make the final cut.

        This is our way of saying thanks to Dean for making politics fun and meaningful again by reminding the world how empowered people are when they feel that their voice counts to. You have the power!

        Directing the people-powered film: "Dean and Me"

        by deantv on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 01:21:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I gave you a 4 because you got marked way down. (none / 0)

          I hate it when folks do that.  We donated to the movie, and we think it is an important part of the campaign's history.  Thanks.

          "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

          by floridagal on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 03:05:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Can you help me clear something up? (none / 1)

            First of all, I still don't quite understand this ratings business and generally don't worry about it because I'm not the kind of person who is out there trying to hurt anybody's feelings. Frankly, I'm trying to help with this movie by breaking down the stereotypes we Democrats can have amongst us. (but thanks for the good rating if I was assaulted somehow).

            More importantly, though, I have not been able to find if there is a rule about putting images in comments that are related but are asking for support.

            I really don't know the answer. Is this a no brainer? I'd like to comply with the community wishes.

            Directing the people-powered film: "Dean and Me"

            by deantv on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 03:31:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I rated you down because (1.50 / 2)

              you tried to hijack a thread about a Supreme Court nominee into a fund raising pitch for your commercial movie project.

              Hawkish on impeachment.

              by clyde on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 04:02:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't think it was meant that way. (none / 0)

                Many are interested in this movie,and I don't think it was meant to hijack.  

                "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

                by floridagal on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 07:51:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  many are interested in all kinds of things (none / 0)

                  but there is a time and place for each of them.  It would be entirely appropriate for deantv to post a diary now and then about progress with the movie.  Or better yet, take out a blog ad, since it's a commercial project.  It's completely off topic for this thread.

                  Hawkish on impeachment.

                  by clyde on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 03:21:02 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  And Thank You So Much (none / 0)

            For your support!

            Directing the people-powered film: "Dean and Me"

            by deantv on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 03:42:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  nothing's wrong with filming a campaign's history (none / 1)

            but a thread about Dean's response to John Roberts is not the right place to fundraise for a movie.  The Roberts nomination is not a marketing event.

            Hawkish on impeachment.

            by clyde on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 04:08:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm Sorry Clyde. (none / 1)

              No harm or hijacking was intended.

              I was just excited about hearing from Dean too on Roberts and thought this was a post where people might want to hear more from Dean and the people behind his movement. A lot of us can't get enough of him. In my excitement I may have become careless in following the official protocol of blogosphere manners. I'm still learning. My hats off to Joe Rospars for his tireless work on our behalf by the way. Please keep in mind that the documentary is not just about a campaign. It is about grassroots movements. The people. Believe me, I'm no commercial enterprise.

              Roberts sucks.

              Directing the people-powered film: "Dean and Me"

              by deantv on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 05:00:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  If you're not a commercial enterprise (none / 0)

                I'd appreciate it if you could put a clearer explanation on your web site about the exact nature of your operation.  Are the people producing the film getting paid?  If revenues from the finished movie exceed the production costs, where will the surplus go?  Will people be allowed to download and share the movie for free, as they were for "Going Upriver" (the movie about John Kerry in Vietnam)?

                All indications I can see so far on your site are that you're using the standard commercial model.  Nothing's wrong with that--it's worked great for Michael Moore, and if your films are as good as his, I'll be happy to see you make megabucks just like he does.  But soliciting donations (as opposed to investments) for that type of project is a bit tacky, as is claiming to be noncommercial without being precise and specific about what you're doing instead.

                Hawkish on impeachment.

                by clyde on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 03:38:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Gee Whiz Clyde (none / 0)

                  If you don't like Howard Dean don't take it out on me. I'm just a guy living in a broken down old farmhouse in Morrisville, VT who picked up a camera before Dean left office in Vermont and asked him if he would participate in the documentary. He thought the project was "really neat." Three years and two babies later I found that this was something important for the people since it is about the people but simply couldn't afford to do it alone anymore. No, I have not been paid a dime but have often been in tears for having to leave my new babies and wife for extensive periods of time because I felt that this film was developing into an important piece of history based on what the people were saying to me. Since it became a full time job for a while we really had to start begging for help. No one knew how long Dean's ride would last. In fact, he's still riding and a lot of people think that's important. That's why I'm asking the people to lend a helping hand. It's a community project. It's stone soup. Do you know how humiliating and hard it is to beg for money even though the cause is pure, honest, decent and debt ridden. Do you know what it is like to have $70,000 in credit card debt because you felt that there was something bigger than yourself, an idea that had to be pursued despite a worry about the money that it will take to disseminate that idea for the greater good?

                  What's really tacky is claiming you went to the site where real people do believe in this project and are investing in a community project; donating their own video, audio, ideas and offering free ads, and links, and not finding the answers to the questions you are so paranoid about.

                  Go back to the site, read all the information, and come back with some more ideas because you started out great. Those are some good ideas, Clyde, and if you had the same community spirit like the hundreds of people I talked to on camera who were part of the Dean movement you might be a little more productive with your time and try to be a part of the solution instead of the problem.

                  When you've watched the free movies again at thegrassrootsmovie.com and realize you are seeing something that's never been attempted before you might actually relax and enjoy the show. Some people actually get up from their computer screens and participate in their democracy. Those people are more important than any little squabble you have with me about injecting my little people-powered movie project into a Dean post about Roberts.

                  I have learned my lesson though Clyde that there are cops in the blogosphere and I guess I've been on the road too long to know what the protocol is. I certainly know what a rating system is now and I thank you for your education on that. It's kind of like a little sport isn't it? I hope you'll donate $50 bucks after you have really looked at the site for your answers. Your investment will get your name in the credits of the final cut and you can share your free DVD with all your friends. Don't hesitate though because the more we can show a potential distributor how really united we are behind this, the more we can show the world why ALL Democrats are united in taking back our country from the Republicans. Thanks again for your ideas!

                  Directing the people-powered film: "Dean and Me"

                  by deantv on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 07:02:24 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I like Dean just fine (none / 0)

                    and did a nontrivial amount of volunteer work on his campaign (though nowhere near as much as some other people did).  I originally got to DKos through Blog for America.  That doesn't mean that if I start peddling Dean T-shirts through a web site, it's noncommercial or a community project.  And yes, I do put tons of energy into community projects and sometimes ask for use of community resources (such as donations) to do them.  That's why it bugs me when I see people asking for those same resources to do commercial projects under the pretense that they're community projects, which I've seen happen many, many times and have grown sensitive to.  

                    I'm not saying you're definitely doing that, but am asking for clarification about exactly what you're doing, and your answers have been vague and possibly evasive.  Also, I did read your site in search of answers and didn't find them (I can't look at the videos because they require closed source plug-ins that I refuse to run).  So I'll repeat the questions in the hopes of getting clear, unambiguous, yes-or-no answers, not sob stories about your credit card bills:

                    1. Are the producers getting salaries?  --> OK, you're self funded from credit cards, I guess this is answered.  Of course that doesn't make you noncommercial; it's a classic entrepreneurial approach.  And even high salaries don't make you commercial: the CEO of the Red Cross gets over $400K a year.  But knowing this info helps fill in the picture.

                    2. If the movie brings more revenue than its production costs, where will the surplus go? --> You ignored this question but I think it's the litmus test for distinguishing a noncommercial project from a commercial one.

                    3. Will viewers be able to download the film for free and also share copies online?  --> All I see on the site is "copyright so-and-so, all rights reserved" in several places.  If it's a community project, why are the rights reserved to the producers instead of to the community?  What exactly do you mean by saying I can share the DVD with my friends?  If I can put it online like the Kerry movie was online, that starts being meaningful.  If you just mean I can invite friends over to watch it, that's already true even of Hollywood DVD's.

                    If you want to see a REAL noncommercial, community project, take a look at Wikipedia (though it's an encyclopedia rather than a movie), which I've been donating both volunteer effort and cash to.  There is no unclarity about any of those questions for Wikipedia:

                    1. It does have one paid staff person but his salary is very low.  

                    2. Revenue comes from fundraising drives (about $250K for the last one) and goes into project expenses, mostly computer hardware.  Exact accounting of the donations is published on the Wikimedia Foundation's web site.  The organization itself is set up as a 501(c)3 nonprofit and so donations are tax deductable.  That puts constraints on how the cash can be spent.  (Those constraints probably make 501c3 organization a bad idea for political activism but other types of NPO might work).

                    3. All Wikipedia content is free to redistribute under a community license (the GFDL, same as DKosopedia's, originally intended for computer documentation).  The comparable community license for a movie would be one of the Creative Commons licenses (www.creativecommons.org), specifically CC-BY-SA, although using any of the CC licenses would count as a definite yes anwer to whether the video can be shared.

                    The last part, to me, spells out what a real community project is.  Take a look at Our Media to see how some other projects along the lines of your film are being done.  

                    Anyway, if you're truly doing a community project according to that last definition, and are willing to update your web site to say so, I'll be happy to make a small cash donation and to offer some video I've shot at a few Dean and other events (though you surely have tons of better video already, so I can't promise my stuff will be of much interest).

                    Right now though, I'd have to say at the very minimum, that it doesn't look like you've thought these issues through very clearly.  

                    Hawkish on impeachment.

                    by clyde on Fri Sep 16, 2005 at 03:43:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Does that mean you do not want to hear about ... (none / 0)

                      ...selling my car for the movie? Just kidding. Clyde, beyond your initial attack and subsequent insults you make some great points and I'm happy to answer your questions. I have absolutely no intention of being evasive and in fact am trying to lay it all out on the table so let me address your questions. And thanks for allowing me to clear this up; it was so hectic just trying to get the website made that I just decided to deal with issues as they arose based on the feedback I get from the launch of the site.

                      On the contribute page at the site it says: "Grassroots filmmaking requires funds as well as heart. We ask you to contribute what you can to help us finish and distribute Grassroots: The Movie. For a gift of $30 you will receive a free advance copy of the DVD. For a gift of $50 or more your name will also appear in the film's end credits.

                      Your gift will make possible a final cut of the film that is distribution ready. Also, any profits from distribution will in turn make possible our next film on grassroots participation in American democratic self-government. This is a continuing story, we trust."

                      So yea, even though I'm told again and again that I can't expect to get more than $50,000 as a first time feature filmmaker, I do hope I can get that to make the next film on grassroots politics. Of course, I hope I am still married after all this too (that's a joke Clyde, stop rolling your eyes). So technically speaking I am not a big commercial entity but you are correct, I am commercial since I want to recoup my cost and produce, distribute and shop around a film that I think will be beneficial on a large scale for our community. So if it's all right with you I still consider it a community project since it is told by, and is about the community. It costs money to get those dvds and names in the credits so I consider that a return on an investment for the small donations.

                      1. Are the producers getting salaries?

                      No. In three years money has gone out and I have paid for my co-producers flights etc to keep her happy though she works as a professor of film at the New School in NYC and Purchase. In fact, our original budget is $175,000 that includes salaries for time actually making it estimated, but I cut that out and other things because I didn't think I could justify certain costs yet with the community. The $108,130 budget is what I thought was the bare minimum we needed to beg for to simply keep the film alive and get it into production. I had the budgets up initially at the site but took it down because it just was not necessary and took away from the concentration of the video I thought. I'm not against putting them back up.

                      2. If the movie brings more revenue than its production costs, where will the surplus go?

                      Again, as it says on the donation page:

                      "Also, any profits from distribution will in turn make possible our next film on grassroots participation in American democratic self-government."

                      3. Will viewers be able to download the film for free and also share copies online?

                      I'm so far away from that stage I do not know how to answer the question. Do you have resources you can share that would give me an idea how I could do that and still get a return to get out of debt?

                      One idea I have been kicking around is to offer shares for the level of commitment to the film. I'd really like to see this kept in the family because a big movie house would make demands on the direction of the film. That could disastrous for this type of content. Anyhow, if one sends in $100 for example they get .00000001 or something from a percentage pool of any profits (if there ever is a movie). If you know about these things please share. What do you think of the idea?

                      Clyde, since you have not seen the video. Let me briefly share what it is that is free on my site:

                      1. the first clip is about annatopia.com and me (citizen journalists video blogging for Dean Nation at the time) canvassing for Dean in Iowa and talking about that lost sense of community.

                      2. Citizen journalist going after Sean Hannity, Carville, Tucker, etc etc... in the hopes that in a finished film younger generations will see that cheap technology can even the playing field with the MSM if one has the courage to go after them to get unscripted moments. In the film, you will see me get on the CNN bus and confront Bob Novak for instance.

                      3. This road trip of a film includes regular characters like Darius Mitchell who became my friend on the trail of democracy during the campaign. He's a big black guy from Lowell, Mass. who is concerned about the way MSM depicts African Americans. He says the media is segregated. He wants to change that. I want to help get his message out within my message in the finished movie.

                      4. The MSM kept reporting these peaceful protests in NYC at the RNC as violent, unruly hippie people. You and I know that was not the case. The video shows an undercover cop revving up and gunning down a woman on purpose. My video actually shows the cop doing this (when blown up and in better light you can actually see the cop smiling before he did it). That night and the next morning MSM all over reports that a policeman was attacked by angry mobs. If I was into conspiracy theories, this is the video that would make me believe in them because I think this attack by the cop was coordinated somehow.

                      Anyhow, I'll probably end up in court over that one since there are so many lawsuits over that incident. That's free at my site too.

                      5. The last video just shows how nuts things get during these times following presidential candidates. Larouche supporters rioting at Dean speeches. Al Franken "wrestling" protestors into submission (he used the video on a talk show--for free. I just hope he'll speak with me again for the final cut of a film).

                      I hope you will see the video and consider what's at stake here.

                      So, if you have some ideas on all this please write. Perhaps I'll post part of our discussion to see if others want to chime in. I'm open to all ideas but think I've been up front about what's going on.

                      Again, I didn't mean to hijack anything either. Do you think it would be okay to post my ad in open threads? I really don't know the answer to these questions. I am really still learning about how these things works so thanks again for opening up the discussion..

                      And what does a 17 rating mean?

                      My shoulder is killing me I have to stop writing for now.

                      Directing the people-powered film: "Dean and Me"

                      by deantv on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 01:10:39 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  reply (none / 0)

                        1. A lot of your post is about how good the finished movie is going to be.  That's all very nice but it doesn't have anything to do with the business model so I won't address it.  If you want me to watch the videos you're going to have to post them in open formats.  I'm not willing to pollute my computer with closed-source plugins just to watch a few video clips.

                        2. I notice that "Outfoxed" was funded by CAP, MoveOn, and some other political types (link).  It sounds like you talked with similar sources and they were interested in funding you at $50K but not more.  Maybe there was a reason for that, and you're spending too much despite your opinion to the contrary.  (Everyone who spends too much on something usually doesn't realize they're doing so).

                        3. Take a look at http://www.creativecommons.org or http://www.craphound.com or other such sites for info on how people are doing ok releasing stuff for gratis download.  There was also the Kerry movie "Going Upriver" that I mentioned.   If you want to go this route, and I hope you do, be very careful about licensing 3rd party content, for example all the songs in Fahrenheit 911.  Michael Moore said he personally didn't object to people downloading the movie.  However (my reading, not something he said) is that the presence of all those licensed songs stopped him from granting official permission for downloading.  All he could do was look the other way when it happened, which meant there was less downloading than there could have been, and the film's impact was diminished.  So if you use external music or whatever, make sure to choose sources that won't obstruct free downloads.  Again, see Creative Commons, http://www.magnatune.com and so forth.  (Also here).

                        4. While your film is no doubt worthwhile, don't overestimate its impact ("what is at stake here").  F911 was one of the top 20 grossing films of 2004 (something like $240 million in revenue so far) but now that the brouhaha has settled down, it's just another movie.  Be very happy if you have 1/1000th as much influence as F911 had.

                        5. Your notion of offering .00000001 of the film per $100 of backing is ridiculous--it means that putting up the whole $100K would get only .000001.  That's just laughable, backers are going to want at least 50% and probably more like 90%.  Put another way you're saying you think the film is worth somewhere north of $5 billion.  Don't kid yourself.  Making it 1/2000 (.0005) per $100 starts to make sense, but of course then it's just another business venture.  I can't advise you about that though.  There's nothing wrong with it, it's just something I have zero knowledge about or interest in.

                        6. I believe it's highly inappropriate to run ads for anything in comment threads, whether open threads or anything else (an exception might be, say, a thread specifically about activist movie projects).  If you want to run an ad, recognize that an ad is an ad, and run it as an ad.  See that guy in the DKos front page ad section talking about Bob Dylan?  He ran an ad for his mp3 download, and you can do the same.  He's not even trying to sell anything or ask for donations.  You've mentioned getting some complimentary ads and that's fine too, but if those aren't available, then pay for your ads.  Blog sites have expenses just like you do.

                        7. That said, I think most DKos readers wouldn't mind if you once in a while (I mean no more than once every couple months) posted a diary about progress with the film.  Ideally any such diary should be timely (i.e. describe what you've actually been doing on the film recently) and even newsworthy ("yesterday we just filmed a really good interview with so-and-so").  It should be at least a couple screens long, can include some photos and links to new video, etc.  It should not be an ad!  There can be a brief fundraising appeal included towards the end but the main substance of each diary should be to inform people about what's going on (and therefore shouldn't be the same diary over and over).  That will go over a lot better than trying to turn DKos into a telethon.

                        Hope this helps.

                        Hawkish on impeachment.

                        by clyde on Sat Sep 17, 2005 at 06:16:16 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  The View's right-winger (none / 0)

        That would be Elisabeth Hasselbeck - I think they hired her because of her right-leaning opinions since the rest of the gals are relative lefties.  She's married to Tim Hasselbeck (quarterback for the Redskins?) and is one of those reality-made celebs - was on Survivor in Australia.  She's mostly annoying.  I'm sure she was spun up at the prospect of having to be nice to Howard Dean.

        It's a dangerous thing, being born. ~The Kite Runner

        by Nancy in LA on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 02:34:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In a world full of intelligent beings (4.00 / 7)

        Howard Dean would be President of the United States of America.

        And I wouldn't be flirting with an aneurysm.

        Own your rights. Know your life, and visa-versa

        by SecondComing on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 02:56:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  God Bless our leader, Howard Dean! n/t (none / 0)

      The IPCC predicts average global temperatures to rise enough by 2050 to put 20-30% of all species at risk for extinction.

      by Plan9 on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:22:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Time for the full court press, so to speak (4.00 / 6)

    Get writing, phoning, and blogging, folks. Let's turn up the heat on this nominee.
    •  Write those letters, it matters (none / 0)

      If you want to find some newspapers or contact info use the media endorsement link from the dKosopedia, we gathered up contact info and data on quite a few of the nations newspapers before the election for project Fool me Once/ Shame on You.

      Write to your local papers, you are more likely to be published.  Keep it short and sweet and write to a mainstream audience.  Even if the people don't read your letter the staff of the politicians will.

      Even if your letter doesn't get published it increases the chances that someone else's letter will be.  It also effects how the editorial board approaches their articles and editorials.

      My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
      Philly for Obama

      by Luam on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:41:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  PS Write your own (none / 1)

        Write your own letters they will have more impact, getting a bunch of letter that they know originated from the DNC isn't going to have nearly the same effect as writing your own.

        I just followed through on the link Dean gave us, and that gives more power to the party that they can get those letters out there, but they are less likely to be published and count for less if they all have the same text.

        My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
        Philly for Obama

        by Luam on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:46:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  For a given value of lose... (none / 0)

        Perhaps he will be confirmed.  I know that you probably would like that amoral snake on the bench, but we want to make it clear that Bush doesn't have much leeway when it comes to replacing Justice O'Connor.

        My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
        Philly for Obama

        by Luam on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 01:39:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh (none / 1)

        kay.

        is this worthy of a recipe?  mmm. no.  i'm too busy writing letters to the Houston Chronicle.

        thank you Dean!

        my letter:

        It's impossible to think of a more meaningful and important position in our democracy than that of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

        It may not have the glamour of the Presidency but, because of its longevity and judicial influence, I don't know of another position that needs to be scrutinized as closely as who we judge to be the Chief Judge (so to speak) of the United States.

        What do you know about the current nominee, John Roberts?  

        Where does he stand on Roe v. Wade?  Where does he stand on civil rights?  On Affirmative Action?  On Gay Marriage?  On dozens of key issues that will be decided upon by the next Supreme Court.

        Does Roberts bring preconceived ideas that will hinder his ability to judge impartially or will he be an activist judge?

        Furthermore, given he has been a judge for only two years, does he have the experience to lead this role & does he have the right to?

        After all, are we saying that we could not find a more experienced, impartial judge in the entire country?

        It is EXTREMELY important that Congress & the People know who we are electing.  

        Roberts spent this week artfully dodging questions put to by Republicans and Democrats in the Congress.  

        We hate this behavior in defendants.  It is even more dangerous if our judges can't be straightforward.  How can Roberts judge a man who evades his questions if he has done the same thing?

        It would be like having a thief judge a thief.

        John Roberts needs to stop evading the questions posed to him & give clear answers.  We need strong judges on the bench, NOT politicians.

        Especially if that person is going to be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

    •  reality dictates (none / 1)

      that homeboy is the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

      Deal with it.

      On the bright side - after confirmation, dude can be whoever he wants to be, beholden to no-one.

      Time will tell.

      Own your rights. Know your life, and visa-versa

      by SecondComing on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 02:59:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks not to smoke crack when posting. (4.00 / 2)

        There's actually three motives at work here.

        First, Dean is trying to get the dems unified on a common message re Roberts, and perhaps get a party-line vote.

        Second, Dean is trying to scare the bejezuz out of the GOP so that the next nominee -- the one that matters -- is a moderate.

        Third and most importantly, we're trying to keep the heat on the GOP. The longer we keep that up, the better our chances in 2006.

        •  Reiterated - it's a done deal (none / 1)

          Roberts is going to be the next Chief Justice and there's nothing that you or I or Jesus or Ted Bundy or Ted Kennedy can do to stop it.

          How hard is that to understand? This aint rocket science. One can only hope that the obviously competent, and perhaps genius level nominee with his right wing haircut so perfectly parted on the right isn't a closet Nazi.

          Time will tell.

          Fighting the Roberts' confirmation is akin to beating a dead horse. He will never get up. Put your whip away.

          Own your rights. Know your life, and visa-versa

          by SecondComing on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 05:20:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Did you read the previous post? (none / 1)

            Evidently not.  I'll repost it:

            First, Dean is trying to get the dems unified on a common message re Roberts, and perhaps get a party-line vote.

            Second, Dean is trying to scare the bejezuz out of the GOP so that the next nominee -- the one that matters -- is a moderate.

            Third and most importantly, we're trying to keep the heat on the GOP. The longer we keep that up, the better our chances in 2006.

            In other words, just because Roberts is almost certain to be confirmed -- I agree about this -- doesn't mean we should just give up, stand down, and roll over.

            There are reasons in the game of politics to keep fighting and making noise even if we aren't going to win the battle in front of us at the moment.  We need to win the war, and that means not making things easier for the Repubs.

            •  The 'dead horse" analogy stands (none / 0)

              Delay was indicted. Progressives are actually making progress, and "progressing." Call it what you will, but I don't picture Roberts as a venal wannabe Nazi

              Obstructionism is not good politics. Never has been. It's boxing.

              What i'd like to see is a feint with the left and give them the children having abortions sans parental consent issue. Jab,Jab and then a body blow to the solar plexis.

              The highest bidder twits have nothing to stand on besides unleashing human fears regarding sexual tension. "Gay Marriage as an issue." Hold on a minute while I puke.

              Own your rights. Know your life, and visa-versa

              by SecondComing on Wed Sep 28, 2005 at 12:08:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  deja vu (none / 1)

        >>after confirmation, dude can be whoever he wants to be, beholden to no-one.<<

        That's what you said about Clarence Thomas!

        Okay, I don't really know if SecondComing said anything about Uncle Thomas, but a lot of people were predicting once Thomas got on the court, he would stop kissing white Republican asses and do something for minorities. Didn't happen.

        Frankly, it doesn't happen that often. Sure occasionally there are surprises. A judge with little record gets into a new job on the Supreme Court and starts acting in ways we didn't see coming. But those cases are not that common. No one with integrity or a conscience would violate what he believes for several years just in hopes that one day he will get on the Supreme Court.

        The only hope I see here is that once Roberts gets on the court, he will develop a friendship with Stevens, and Stevens' attitudes will rub off on him.

        "I'm bad at being subtle, but I ain't that tough." -Joan Jett

        by foxfire burns on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 05:22:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Bravo! (4.00 / 22)

    THIS is why Howard Dean was elected to head the DNC.

    He came out full-force against Roberts, and stated very clearly the reasons why he is unacceptable.  Then he pens a great op-ed for a bunch of newspapers.  Then he sets up a website that makes it very easy for people to find their local newspapers, write a letter to the editor using writing tips and talking points given by the DNC, and then he sends out the marching orders.  This is exactly the way to use that however-many-million large email list the DNC has.  Put people to work on simple tasks like writing a letter and spreading the message.

    •  Equally Impressed with the Timing (4.00 / 17)

      I'd little doubt which way Dr. Dean would fall. I'm proud that he'd chosen to keep his powder dry until it mattered. By waiting until the hearings had made these questions about Judge Roberts clear, he's well positioned to claim rational basis (rather than strident partisanship) for his opposition.

      Whatever the ultimate result (with Roberts still likely to be confirmed), the Democrats will be able to find a victory in taking a principled stand.

      •  Exactly. (4.00 / 2)

        This is a good move for the Dems.  Let the media get all flatulent about Dean speaking out.  They always do.  But Dean is putting out a great pre-emptive "I'm telling you so" to compliment the (what I fear is inevitable) "I told you so".  Smart.
  •  That is called leadership. (4.00 / 13)

    Clear talk, to the point.  I think he knows the Democrats are wavering on this nomination.  

    "I'm willing to say things that are not popular but ordinary people know are right." Howard Dean

    by floridagal on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:26:02 AM PDT

  •  This where the rubber meets the road... (4.00 / 16)

    Dean has laid out an elequent roadmap for opposing Roberts.  Unfortunately, Dean does not have a vote.  

    But, Dean is the party chair.  And, he speaks for the majority of the grassroots.  If the Dems do not vote as a solid block against Roberts they are turning their backs on Dean and us.

    I hope this is a strategy.  I hope that this is a coordinated effort between Dean and the Senate Dems.  I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

    Any party that would lie to start a war would also steal an election.

    by landrew on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:27:39 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I hope Reid is with him on this (4.00 / 5)

      It's a good sign that it's not just an offhand comment but a coordinated strategy with OpEds and a Letter writing campaign.

      When a man tells you that he got rich through hard work, ask him: Whose?

      by tooblue on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:30:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'd be surprised if Dean was free-lancing (none / 1)

      He made it very clear at the beginning that he wasn't in his job to formulate policy or influence the legislators. He was all about grass-roots building and mobilization and message work.

      Nothing he's done since has strayed from that, so I'm thinking that this is done as part of a Reid/Dean coordinated thing.

      Biden, remember, was fairly strong against Roberts. And if Biden and Dean are saying the same things ... well that almost assures a party-wide unity.

      disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director

      by BriVT on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:46:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  can someone give a timeline? (4.00 / 3)

    Great letter from Dean.  My "dumb question" -- and perhaps I'm asking it on behalf of others alongside me, so here goes...

    What's the process and timeline here on Roberts' nomination?  When is the actual vote expected.. or are there a series of votes?  can someone give an overall summary of the procedural road ahead, and the timeline?

    THANKS in advance for your assistance -

    •  Next week, I think (4.00 / 4)

      I thought I heard on the morning news that Roberts would be up for a vote next week.  That makes sense because SCOTUS opens for business on October 3.

      Liberal: "I still think it's a respectable word. Its root is "liber," the Latin word for "free," and isn't that what we are all about?"--Mary McGrory

      by mini mum on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:36:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Committee Vote (4.00 / 3)

      Scheduled for next week, Thursday, September 22, with a full vote of the Senate expected on September 26.
  •  Love it (4.00 / 9)

    I love the way Howard frames it into not a question of love for the law, but of love for the people it represents.  It gives Roberts his due on legal credentials, but takes consideration beyond latin.

    Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you. Jean-Paul Sartre

    by Stevo on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:37:08 AM PDT

    •  Doesn't sound like Howard though (none / 0)

      Picture him giving that as a speech.  It just doesn't sound like his words.  The substance of the letter is fine and consistent with how I expect Dean as DNC chair to respond to Roberts' hearings, but it has a certain quality to it.  I don't know.  I wonder if we're getting Dean's approval of a staffer-written document.  
      •  Oh Yes (4.00 / 3)

        I watched Dean on CNN last week and he said "I know Robert's loves the law, I'm just not sure he loves the American people".  His words, and a great angle.  

        Freedom is what you do with what's been done to you. Jean-Paul Sartre

        by Stevo on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:10:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not Pro-abortion (4.00 / 3)

    There are other reasons why Dem oppose Right wing judges which does not have to do with abortion.

    Gov Dean said what Mr.Roberts and other Right wing administration leaders is Compassion.  They push their corporate agenda against the backs of ordinary people.  The Right wing will paint this as pro-abortion and culture of death.

    Dems must not fall into the trap.  They should make clear that this is not about abortion.

    Fact check Obama spins on Hillary http://facts.hillaryhub.com/

    by timber on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:41:07 AM PDT

    •  Please (none / 0)

      Pro-choice, not pro-abortion. There's a big difference!
    •  If we gave them (none / 0)

      Abortion and gay marriage - they'd have nothing. I don't recommend such a stance, but dammit anything is better than the direction these nutwads are taking us.

      We could always get it back.

      Flame away.

      Own your rights. Know your life, and visa-versa

      by SecondComing on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 03:04:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't 'give' it to them, but (none / 0)

        we definitely need to a) talk about it in logical terms and b) stop running away from the issues.

        The point that normal Americans can agree on is, we'd like to see the abortion rate reduced. One way to do that is by telling our children the truth about how they get pregnant in the first place.

        Second, quit calling it gay "marriage", and start talking about civil unions. Just my 2c.

        "Soon the time will come to choose between what is easy, and what is right." - A. Dumbledore

        by epluribus on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 07:17:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If only Dean were on Judiciary... (4.00 / 3)

    we might still have an outside shot at derailing the Roberts Express.  He isn't, so we don't even have that outside shot.

    I haven't seen that much of the hearings, but what I've seen has been highly disappointing.  Roberts played  a still undefined role in W's theft of the presidency in 2000, yet I am unaware of him being asked about it.  He couldn't have hidden behind his "won't comment on potentially pending cases" mantra if someone on Judiciary had had the stones to thoroughly grill him about it.

    I did see him totally run roughshod over Feinstein during her feeble inquiry about his views on the Commerce Clause.  There was no follow-up and, evidently, not much preparation by her or her staff on that critical issue.  For the next 25-30 years, we will probably have a CJ who will be ready, willing, and able to overturn legislation that is premised upon the Commerce Clause.

    I appreciate Dean's efforts, but all they will likely do is limit the margin of defeat.  The judiciary Dems didn't lay a glove on Roberts this week, and, absent a Thomas-type revelation, they don't have a prayer of stopping him now.

    Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

    by RFK Lives on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:43:13 AM PDT

    •  asdf (none / 0)

      ... might still have an outside shot at derailing the Roberts Express ...

      To manage that, they'd have to flip 6 GOoPers' votes. Cannot begin to imagine where they'd come from. The only chance to stop Roberts - a filibuster - has always been improbable. The only attainable Democrat victory can be measured in what we-the-people (both the plugged-in and the average stiffs) will think and talk about in moving forward.

      •  Filibustering a CJ nomination has precedent... (none / 0)

        the R's did it w/ Fortas in '68.  The Dems would have every reason to do it here given the current balance of the Court, given the fact that W has yet to name his other nominee, and given the fact that Roberts has not been forthcoming in producing documents and answering questions.

        Unfortunately, no attempt was really made by the Judiciary Dems to create a climate where a filibuster might even be feasible.  My fear is that Roberts will pick up some DINO votes and that his easy confirmation will embolden W to pick someone who's even worse to replace O'C.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:20:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  true enough (none / 0)

          Filibuster has precedent, but it's a sword that cuts both ways. The overwhelming problem of doing so has more to do with the public reaction to it. My best inside-baseball guess is that, unless public opinion can be moved severely, that it would result in a net loss for the Dems, with the coverage (and resulting buzz) working against our side.
          •  Dems didn't make the case (none / 1)

            Judiciary committee Dems didn't do a good enough job making a good case on the issues. The best thing they could have done though was to let Roberts make these completely laughable statements about not commenting on issues that might come before him while having just commented on issues that might come before him. Also, Roberts made a BIG mistake when he failed to recuse himself AFTER being interviewed by Gonzo.

            I think that Dems should cleverly use Dean's idea though that on paper he is great, but in reality he is a political hack that is purposely hiding his views with bullshit answers. Unfortunately not enough Dems have the spine to oppose him, partly because they know they failed to make the case. The one thing we got going for us is that this might be an early litmus test for those Presidential hopefuls who want to make their name. Sadly, too many timid Dems will not be willing to stand with the team here (many up for re-election in '06) unless Reid makes them- not sure I see that happening here as the Dems will be more tempted to put up a fight NEXT time. Dems need to tie Roberts to Bush and stand firm against anytthing this administration wants until we have a guarantee that Katrina and Plame/Niger will be fully and properly investigated.

            •  Lets Wait for the Roll Call (none / 0)

              We can talk about the stand Sens. Clinton and Biden will have taken after the fact. My guess is that the Dems already have a fairly firm commitment of 40+ NAY votes on Roberts.

              We shall see ...

    •  Roberts confirmation (4.00 / 4)

      Roberts was asked what he thought of Bush v Gore, and he said he didn't know why the Court granted cert...which was a non-answer answer. He didn't comment on whether the SC came to the right decision, but he seemed to imply that the issue shouldn't have been heard by the SC. Sounded a bit like evasive double-talk to me, since he didn't actually come close to answering the real question (although if the SC hadn't granted cert, the Florida SC ruling would have stood and we very well may have had a President Gore).

      However, Dean's message wasn't intended to derail Roberts's confirmation. I would guess that Roberts will be confirmed, and Dean's hope (and hopefully also is strategy) is for it to be a near party-line vote, with at least 30-35 dems voting against confirmation.

      That forces Bush's hand somewhat in choosing J. O
      'Conner's replacement, as it sends a signal that any nominee to the right of Roberts might face fillibuster.

      If the dems break and vote overwhelmingly for Roberts's confirmation, then it really does open the door for a more extreme nominee in a couple of weeks. (cf Kennedy/Scalia and Souter/Thomas nomination pairings--a reasonably non-controversial moderate vote followed by a hard-liner).

      That's really the biggest reason Bush hasn't made his second nomination yet. He's waiting for the dem vote to signal whether he should go moderate or extreme.

      Personally, I register Roberts as something between J. Kennedy and C.J. Rehnquist ideologically, so I don't think there is any threat to the balance of court opinion by confirming him in place of Rehnquist. In fact, it might nudge the court ever so slightly to the center.

      But if I were a political advisor for the dems right now, I'd strongly urge them to vote against confirmation en masse. It nicely sets up a challenge for O'Conner's replacement, which does have a real possibility of tilting the court on a number of issues.

      •  The issue is not his view on Bush v. Gore... (4.00 / 4)

        this issue is what role he played in the legal coup that occurred in 2000.  We know he was involved, but we don't know what he did for whom and what positions he took.  For all I know, there may be a quid pro quo here like the ones that they keep giving to John Bolton.

        In any "job interview," questions about the applicant's past work history that led to him being a candidate for the job should be front and center.

        Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?

        by RFK Lives on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:25:05 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Howard Dean (4.00 / 19)

    is the leader of our party.
    This needs to be on the front page.  Any statement he gives, especially of this gravity should be on the front page here.
    everyone should recommend this.
    this man is one of a handful in a position of power in this country who has the balls to actually do what government is designed to do-be the voice of the people.
    it is a shame there are not more like him and that his influence over this country's policy is so limited.
    •  Recommended is good enough (none / 0)

      If Dean wants to talk to Kos about getting front page privileges, that is great.  Until then he can post diaries like everyone else including several Senators and Representatives.

      Chances are he will get on the Recommended list, and that is for the best.  Recommended diaries are as important as front page posts.

      My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
      Philly for Obama

      by Luam on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:30:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree absolutely! We do a lot of grumbling (none / 1)

      about lack of leadership in the Democratic Party.  Well, there is not question Howard Dean is a wonderful leader and he should be headlined at every opportunity.  He may not be our nominee in 2008 even though he was my choice in 2004 but he damned well Speaks for Me!.  He is articulate and has so much common sense (read that as he says what I am already thinking but not articulate enough to say) and we need to use our assets to the best for our party.

      The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

      by macmcd on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 01:38:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Roberts is the Artful Dodger... (none / 0)

    but unlike in Oliver Twist, he's not a cuddly little ruffian with Oliver's (and our) best interests at heart.

    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly."

    by Viceroy on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:44:40 AM PDT

  •  Biden's ASS is on the line. (none / 0)

    If he's going to be a National leader, he needs to bring home the goods on this one.

    Otherwise, what's the point of having a "tenured insider" in Congress if they can't do shit for us?

    Better put this corporatist out on his ass if he can't stand up when it's necessary.

    Feinstein too. I really don't like that muppet... she's a traitor on most corporate votes.

    U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

    by Lode Runner on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 10:48:05 AM PDT

    •  I don't like what i saw on Drudge (none / 0)

      Saw a gossip item up there today, saying "sources" overheard Biden effusively complimenting Roberts on his performance during the questioning.

      Drudge and his "sources" at times go in for "making shit up" (e.g. the Kerry intern flap) -- but he's right half the time.  Let's hope this is a case of the former, not the latter.  

      •  That's unsurprisingly (none / 0)

        disappointing. Biden is such a waste of flesh.

        U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

        by Lode Runner on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:19:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Dear Sen. Biden, Do The Right Thing. (none / 0)

          Under no circumstances will I vote for you for President in 2008.  You are free to Do The Right Thing in the Roberts matter (and everything else).  No need for you to figure out how your every word will play politically.  Just Do The Right Thing.  You know what that is.
      •  by the way... (none / 0)

        King Torta is my favorite sandwich place in LA. They make their own bread... and boy howdy! It's good.

        U.S. blue collar vs. CEO income in 1992 was 1:80; in 1999 it was 1:475.

        by Lode Runner on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:20:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not meant (none / 0)

          to be a recipe is it? ;)
          •  I think ... (none / 0)

            ... it's just Lode Runner's modernized impression of a Monty Python bit (as Collin):

            NORMAN:   "I  think I should point out that in this constituency since  the last  election  a  lot of very silly people have moved into a  new  housing estate with the result that many of the sensible voters have moved  furthur down the road the other side of, number, uh, uh, twenty nine."

            GERALD:  "Well, I can't add anything to that.  Collin?"

            COLLIN:   "Can  I  just say that this is the first time I've been on  television?"

            GERALD:   "No I'm sorry there isn't time, we're just going straight over to Luten."

      •  But it sounds similar in tone to his sucking up (none / 1)

        to Abu Ghraib Gonzales. So it is plausible.

        The corporate media are destroying progressive Democrats. The Clintons are destroying the Democratic Party.

        by lecsmith on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:15:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm impressed by Biden (none / 0)

      Personally I have been impressed by Biden's questioning it is tough and fair and very too the point.  He is the one who accused Roberts of giving misleading answers when Specter asked him not to interrupt, and then the next day he came back and pointed out that Roberts was used to being interrupted as as a lawyer.

      From his comments and his questions, I don't think Biden will vote for Roberts, he may vote for Cloture.

      My job is not to represent Washington to you, but to represent you to Washington- Obama
      Philly for Obama

      by Luam on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:35:02 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you, Joe (none / 0)

    Where is your tip jar?  I'm recommending. I hope everyone will write LTEs today and tonight, and make phone calls and send emails to your Senators and the Judiciary committee.

    Let's take advantage of our numbers and put them to use today!

  •  Is it just me (4.00 / 20)

    ...or has Dean gone a long way toward answering the Repub question-meme du jour, "What do the Democrats stand for?"

    Compassion.
    The American Dream.
    Equal opportunity.
    Justice.

    And more importantly, these values should take precedence over a literal interpretation of the law.

    Great job, Howard.

    •  I agree withyou that Dean has defined what (none / 0)

      a democratic appointment to the Supreme Court should be. Unfortunately, this is a Republican nomination from the worst and most right wing president in our history. I think, at this time, Roberts is the best we could get. And I also think, not predict mind you, that he could move to the compassion side as he aged and became more experienced.

      " Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." Sen Rob't. Byrd 10/11/02.

      by LEP on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:03:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If he is confirmed (none / 0)

        then I hope your posit comes true:  

        "I also think, not predict mind you, that he could move to the compassion side as he aged and became more experienced."

        What other alternative hope would we have at that point?

        "A bad government is elected by good people who do not vote in elections." -- Unknown, pg 342, "The Shell Game" by Steve Alten

        by sockpuppet on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:15:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Ever since his nomination... (4.00 / 3)

        (for associate justice), I've almost daily, grown more certain that the opposite is the case, and that he is far worse than I originally thought, and will prove to be every bit the rigid ideologue. However, with all my heart, I hope that you are seeing things more clearly than I.

        Alito. Kennedy. Roberts. Scalia. Thomas.
        More important than ever: ERA NOW!

        by greeseyparrot on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:23:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who would have guessed that Earl Warren, (none / 0)

          appointed by President Eisenhower, would lead for many, many years, the most progressive Supreme Court in our history.

          " Let us stop, look and listen. Let us not give this president or any president unchecked power. Remember the Constitution." Sen Rob't. Byrd 10/11/02.

          by LEP on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:45:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I agree with you. I am sure he is another (none / 0)

          slick hypocrit who knows what to say to sound non-threatening; however, if he were truly non-threatening, then he would tell the truth instead of hide behind "I'm not going to talk about that because it could come up."  BS!  If he were honest, then the WH would not be hiding so much stuff on him.  If he were honest he would have recused himself instead of sitting on the bench on a case the WH had so much interest in.  He is a Bushco player and he is just pretending to be non-threatening.  

          The soul is not the ego in drag. Ken Wilber

          by macmcd on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 01:59:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  promise of america (none / 0)

      right on.
      I think my favorite was his line about the "constitution's promise of equality"
      that's a big one.

      however, he should have left out "...not just a strong military", yes it's a true statement that our compassion for each other makes us stronger than just military alone.. but it's bad to say because it just sets up the stage that we're weak in military issues.

      instead, he should've just said "compassion for each other makes us the strongest"

      EVERY STATEMENT NEEDS TO BE ABOUT WHAT WE ARE FOR, NOT WHAT WE ARE AGAINST - OTHERWISE, WE'LL CONTINUE TO LOSE THE INITIATIVE IN ALL THESE BATTLES.

      HAMMER THIS INTO YOUR HEAD EVERYONE :)

      Never separate the life you live from the words you speak.

      by jrdigre on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 01:52:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Recommend everyone (4.00 / 3)

    Repeating myself and others, but please recommend.  This is the kind of thing we gather here for.

    Joe, would you consider putting "ACTION" in the title?

  •  How many Democrats does it take (4.00 / 7)

    to tell the truth about a right wing asshole supreme court nominee?

    Answer: 100.  99 to play games, and Howard Dean.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:03:42 AM PDT

  •  So many (4.00 / 8)

    dems have said so many things about Roberts. There have been numerous diaries here on Roberts. But by God, this letter precisely captures my fears. My fears about Roberts are not of a legal or political nature, but rather about his human nature. The man has lived a privileged and cloistered life that has had a pathological effect on him. Like Bush, he thinks poor people are poor because they are lazy. He thinks a woman's primary duty is to bear children and that she should sacrifice her career for this. He completely lacks the sensitivity that would inhibit the instinctual, reflexive orientation towards covert racism and classism.

    He is not good for post-Katrina America.

  •  Thanks Howard. (4.00 / 3)

    What struck me yesterday was the whole hypocracy about the "I can't discuss pending cases" shtick.  Is there anybody here who thinks Roberts gave the same answer to Bush when he was asked how he feels about Roe v. Wade?  Of course not.  If Roberts wants the appointment then he has to answer the question when Bush asks.

    I think Congress should be entitled to the same straight answers that the White House gets.  Just like Roberts would not be nominated if he wouldn't answer the White House's questions he shouldn't be confirmed if he won't answer the Senate's questions.

    As we saw with Bolton, it doesn't look like obstruction if the other side can get a vote any time they want.  I'd love to see the Democratic senators tell Roberts very directly that they won't vote to cut off debate until Roberts decides to answer the questions the American people want answered.  Roberts can get an up or down vote any time he wants one - he just has to really answer a few questions first.

    Of course that kind of assumes no fillibuster if Roberts tells the truth and admits he wants to overturn Roe.  Not sure anybody wants to make that commitment.  So, instead we just get posturing. Roberts will be confirmed because there is no "smoking gun" and then he'll vote just like he told Bush he would.

    Editor of the Harvard Law Review vs. Mr. 894 out of 899. How has having a stupid President worked out the last eight years?

    by Tod on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:06:43 AM PDT

    •  Judge Roberts Claims (none / 0)

      In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that no one in the Bush White House asked him about his views on Roe v. Wade.
      •  Yah... (none / 0)

        like Clarence Thomas's claim to have never discussed Roe v Wade with anyone either.

        Chaos: Not just a theory, its a way of life.

        by Agent of Fortune on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:34:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I missed that. (none / 0)

        That testimony presents two possibilities.

        Either Roberts didn't tell the truth, or

        Nobody in the White House had to ask.  Roberts' views were either voluntered without a direct question or nobody had to talk about it because everybody knew where he stood.

        We can dismiss any possibility that Bush nominated a Supreme Court justice without knowing where he stands on the issue.

        Editor of the Harvard Law Review vs. Mr. 894 out of 899. How has having a stupid President worked out the last eight years?

        by Tod on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:37:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You know already that Roberts feels that same (none / 0)

        as Bush does about Row v. Wade.

        Neither one cares about how people
        get around in New Orleans. <snark>

        Democrats promote the Common good. Republicans promote Corporate greed.

        by murasaki on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 12:15:44 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  IMPEACHABLE? (none / 0)

        if it was proven that he lied about not talking to anyone in the white house about Roe v Wade... would that be impeachable, grounds for removal??

        Never separate the life you live from the words you speak.

        by jrdigre on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 01:54:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (none / 0)

        Feinstein asked him that and he said no.  Just before that, she noted that he seemed more forthcoming prior to the lunch break on Tuesday, and asked if anyone had cautioned him about that, and he said no to that too.  I found it funny that she asked that, because I noticed that too.

        I wonder if Sen. Coburn was watching Roberts' body language to see if he was lying when he answered those two questions!

  •  This almost makes you want to cry... (4.00 / 10)

    ...when you consider this could have been the man sitting in the oval office. :::sigh:::

    A President that get's it. I've forgotten what that's like.

    Excellent letter Howard.

    The sleep of reason produces monsters.

    by Alumbrados on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:09:11 AM PDT

    •  Forgotten (4.00 / 2)

      what it's like. Honey, I'm 50 and I have never seen the like of Howard Dean before. Clinton probably was more in touch than Bush, but he sold out to the Corporations to occupy the WH, and it cost us dearly in many areas.

      I am getting tired of seeing "gee it's too bad he can't run in '08", of course he will run, how could he not? WE LOVE HIM. In 2003, Clinton told us "It is fine to fall in love, but when the time comes you need to fall in line." Ok, we did what we were told last time, and look where that got us. I for one think Dean had a much better chance than Kerry did and so did Rove apparently, while else would he single out Dean to attack during the primary? When Kerry came out on top, Repugs all said he would be "tough". But Dean could have lost, so what? I would have been happy for alot longer, and the American people would have heard alot of truth from Howard that they need to hear.

       I am not about to be forced into another arranged marriage, and they can't scare me into it with Bush fear either. How are we going to give up Dean for another corporate-lite Dem like Clinton, Biden, or god forbid Kerry again?

      Of course it doesn't really matter what I and other long term Deaniacs think, if it did he would be president today. The far more important fact is that Howard makes new fans everyday. I know he didn't do is cynically, but becoming chair was a brillant way to build support. He gets to demonstrate his leadership skills and woo the grassroots all over the country. Most importantly, he gets to do so by and large out of the media spotlight/distortlight. And we all know what happens when people get to see the real Howard.

      He will run, because by then we will not accept anyone else. We call the shots here, because Dean did not create the movementment he just accepted the top leadership position. He wasn't all that keen on being the chair ether, but we talked him into it. So, we just tell him he has been promoted.  

  •  Dean is spot on (none / 0)

    which, of course, means that our Dem senators will support the nomination.

    I'm guessing 37 of the 44 will support.

    -6.63 -5.64

    I am I and you are you, and we are both each other too -- Clair Huffaker

    by xysrl on Thu Sep 15, 2005 at 11:09:24 AM PDT

    •  Yep, including (none / 0)

      all the hopefuls for '08.  

      If voters spent even a few minutes thinking before voting, then any democrat who supported a republican SC nominee would suffer a humiliating defeat.  Alas, these are desperate times...

      IMO, Biden, Kerry, Hi