Sen. Kerry calls for filibuster of Alito

[gldstwmn]

Clinton will support filibuster:

http://democrats.com/alito-48

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by dissention

Come to us Greens, Chris. You know you're too good for the Democrats.

Thanks.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by stargazer99

But he did win The Daily Show's "Coot-off" against Ted Stevens. Well deserved, I might add.

That was f*king hilarious!

This lifelong Dem is going to reregister as an independent if they don't stop Alito. I have some problems with the Greens, especially locally, so I'm not quite ready to join their party. Instead, I will cast each vote on a case-by-case basis. Barbara Boxer will always get my vote, but I may very well vote 3rd party if the 2008 Dem candidate is someone like Hillary who seems to have no firm principles. Or I might just vote for McCain out of respect for the fact that he actually has principles and sticks with them

Thing about the Dems is that they have been lame pretty much since I became politically aware. Their only big success in recent history is Clinton and that's only because he is such a master politician.

I remember dancing on Castro Street all night long after the '92 election. Dems were going to be in control and change was coming. Two months later, we got "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and a codification of the HIV immigration ban. A year later, national health care was dead for a zillion years, even though Dems controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Four years later, Clinton signs DOMA. Not to mention welfare reform and ending public benefits for immigrants.

Dems suck even when they are in control.

Obama is going to disappoint us because he wants to be president. These guys aren't basing their votes and action on how they really feel; they are all calculated on future political races.

This country is too diverse politically not to have a several party system. I'd be much happier being part of a small, but truly oppostional party, than having to go protest people from my own party to teach them what it means to be a Democrat.

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I am so close now. Someone please talk me out of it.

Remember what holocaust survivors have said. And Nelson Mandela. They went to a safe place inside of themselves and hoped to be liberated. If they can hold onto hope in such circumstances than we certainly can under these!

[stargazer99]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

That was f*king hilarious!

This lifelong Dem is going to reregister as an independent if they don't stop Alito. I have some problems with the Greens, especially locally, so I'm not quite ready to join their party. Instead, I will cast each vote on a case-by-case basis. Barbara Boxer will always get my vote, but I may very well vote 3rd party if the 2008 Dem candidate is someone like Hillary who seems to have no firm principles. Or I might just vote for McCain out of respect for the fact that he actually has principles and sticks with them

Thing about the Dems is that they have been lame pretty much since I became politically aware. Their only big success in recent history is Clinton and that's only because he is such a master politician.

I remember dancing on Castro Street all night long after the '92 election. Dems were going to be in control and change was coming. Two months later, we got "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and a codification of the HIV immigration ban. A year later, national health care was dead for a zillion years, even though Dems controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Four years later, Clinton signs DOMA. Not to mention welfare reform and ending public benefits for immigrants.

Dems suck even when they are in control.

Obama is going to disappoint us because he wants to be president. These guys aren't basing their votes and action on how they really feel; they are all calculated on future political races.

This country is too diverse politically not to have a several party system. I'd be much happier being part of a small, but truly oppostional party, than having to go protest people from my own party to teach them what it means to be a Democrat.

I LOVE The Daily Show! They never cease to have me falling on the floor in hysterics! Did you see last night, when they showed Bush getting distracted by a camera that was coming loose from the ceiling? He'd stop talking and just stare at it with his dumb George look. Then John Stewart follows up with: "If it had been a shiny object, we would have lost him for weeks!"

I need to find out more about the Greens... to be honest, I don't really know a lot about the party. But if this is the best fight the Dems can give, then I'm done with them.

[stargazer99]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

Clinton will support filibuster:

http://democrats.com/alito-48

Reid is now saying that even though they don't have enough votes to support a filibuster, he would support the effort in order to "send a message".

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Rickypt

That was f*king hilarious!

This lifelong Dem is going to reregister as an independent if they don't stop Alito. I have some problems with the Greens, especially locally, so I'm not quite ready to join their party. Instead, I will cast each vote on a case-by-case basis. Barbara Boxer will always get my vote, but I may very well vote 3rd party if the 2008 Dem candidate is someone like Hillary who seems to have no firm principles. Or I might just vote for McCain out of respect for the fact that he actually has principles and sticks with them

Thing about the Dems is that they have been lame pretty much since I became politically aware. Their only big success in recent history is Clinton and that's only because he is such a master politician.

I remember dancing on Castro Street all night long after the '92 election. Dems were going to be in control and change was coming. Two months later, we got "Don't Ask Don't Tell" and a codification of the HIV immigration ban. A year later, national health care was dead for a zillion years, even though Dems controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress. Four years later, Clinton signs DOMA. Not to mention welfare reform and ending public benefits for immigrants.

Dems suck even when they are in control.

Obama is going to disappoint us because he wants to be president. These guys aren't basing their votes and action on how they really feel; they are all calculated on future political races.

This country is too diverse politically not to have a several party system. I'd be much happier being part of a small, but truly oppostional party, than having to go protest people from my own party to teach them what it means to be a Democrat.

Having just read thru several of your's and Diss' posts........I have to say that in some ways (many ways) I agree with what you both are saying, there is much to be disappointed in with the Dem party. But, I have been voting since 1976, and I have seen a bit more from the Dems than you have and its harder for me to give up on them because I can remember a time when the Dem party really DID represent the little guy....I know times are changing and the Dem party has made a piss poor showing for itself in recent years. But you'll have to remember that my loyalty goes back many MANY years and its not quite as easy for me to abandon something I truly believe in as it is for you youngsters. So, on the one hand, I am incredibly unhappy with the Dems for not being firmer, especially now when I think the will of the people would be firmly behind them if they stood up NOW. ON the other hand, I feel reluctant to jump ship forever. I do have strong feelings about choice however and if the Dems allow Alito in AND he votes in the future to overturn Roe, thats IT for me. Im going to a different party. Im thinking Green, but maybe Independent too. Im not a Libertarian, I think those guys are closet Anarchists, but I am an environmentalist and that is another huge part of who I am so the Green Party does have its appeal. IF (and only if) Roe is overturned.

[stargazer99]

This is one of many reasons I'm so upset about Alito. Our egomaniac president is totaly out of control. He won't let his aides testify during a Katrina investigation?!

Alito is big on expanded presidential powers and less congressional power. Hell, let's just get rid of all those pesky checks and balances! Both Bush appointees will side with Bush on any issue that comes before them. If Bush refuses to cooperate in any investgations, and it ends up before the SC, who do you think will win? And Alito will be the deciding vote.

And Bush will give his State of the Union address next week, and convince 51% of this country that everything he's doing is proper, legal, and to fight those terrorists that are about to attack at any second. And because Dubya says it's so, 51% of this country will believe him.

Somebody, PLEASE give Dubya a blow job so we can impeach! I'll pay anyone willing to do it! Hell, maybe we can all take up a collection!

=================================================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...?nav=rss_world


Bush Reasserts Presidential Prerogatives
Eavesdropping, Katrina Probe Cited as Concerns

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 27, 2006; A06



President Bush set limits yesterday on White House cooperation in three political disputes, saying he is determined to assert presidential prerogatives on such matters as domestic eavesdropping and congressional inquiries into Hurricane Katrina.

In a mid-morning news conference, Bush told reporters he is skeptical of a proposed law imposing new oversights on his use of the National Security Agency to listen in on electronic communications. He also said that he will block White House aides from testifying about the slow federal response to Hurricane Katrina, and that he will not release official White House photos of himself with former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Facing repeated questions, Bush distanced himself from Abramoff, who is at the center of the biggest political corruption and bribery scandal in a generation. Bush said he does not recall having his picture taken with Abramoff or ever meeting him. Abramoff was a member of the exclusive club of Bush's $100,000 fundraisers known as Pioneers.

"Having my picture taken with someone doesn't mean that I'm a friend with him or know him very well," Bush told reporters.

According to three people who reviewed half a dozen photos of the men, Bush is pictured at official gatherings and fundraisers with Abramoff and his children. He also attended a White House meeting with some of Abramoff's clients, including tribal leaders and the then-speaker of the House for the Northern Mariana Islands, the sources said. Abramoff has pictures from the event, they said.

If prosecutors "believe something was done inappropriately in the White House, they'll come and look and they're welcome to do so," Bush said. The White House has also refused to detail meetings between Abramoff and top White House aides.

The president was similarly adamant about not allowing top aides to testify about Hurricane Katrina. Bush, who has moved on several fronts over the past five years to strengthen the power of the presidency, said it would be damaging to him and future presidents if aides feared providing candid advice.

Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), a staunch supporter of Bush on foreign policy, has accused the White House of undermining the probe by refusing to detail the role of White House officials. "If people give me advice and they're forced to disclose that advice, it means the next time an issue comes up I might not be able to get unvarnished advice from my advisers," Bush said. "And that's just the way it works."

On the issue of NSA eavesdropping on overseas communications to or from U.S. citizens, Bush said he is concerned about Congress writing a new spying law because it could force the government to provide details and clues about a top-secret program used to hunt down terrorists.

"There's no doubt in my mind it is legal," Bush said. Democrats have accused Bush of breaking the law by authorizing the spying program without approval from Congress or the courts. The debate is expected to dominate hearings, scheduled to begin Feb. 6, on the highly classified NSA program.

"But it's important for people to understand that this program is so sensitive and so important that if information gets out to how we run it or how we operate it, it'll help the enemy," he said. "Why tell the enemy what we're doing?" [and 51% of Americans will believe this crap!]

In his 10th news conference since winning reelection, Bush talked at length about presidential power but also previewed next week's State of the Union speech and weighed in on several foreign policy issues, including the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections.

The performance was quintessential Bush: He joked and sparred with reporters, and betrayed no sense of second-guessing his decisions. When pressed about the election victory of Hamas, which the United States and other countries have called a terrorist group, Bush initially portrayed the vote as a triumph of the democratic process and a wake-up call to the current Palestinian leadership. Later, he conceded the results could set back the Middle East peace process, a top Bush priority.

Bush was often blunt, at one point taking a reporter's challenge to declare with "Texas straight talk" that the United States will never torture prisoners. "No American will be allowed to torture another human being anywhere in the world," Bush shot back. He said that is why the White House supported the law sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that outlawed cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. A statement released by the White House when Bush signed the law, however, left vague whether the administration is asserting that a loophole exists.

Bush endorsed a plan to allow Russia to help produce nuclear energy for Iran as a way to keep the anti-American regime from building nuclear weapons. But he mischaracterized Iran's public position by saying, "The Iranians have said, 'We want a weapon.' " Publicly, the Iranian government has insisted the opposite is true, though Tehran is widely believed to be actively seeking nuclear weapons.

Although he has not vetoed a spending bill since taking office, Bush warned he is "fully prepared to use the veto" if lawmakers overspend. The government is more than 25 percent larger today in total spending than it was the day Bush took office, and conservatives are calling on the president and Congress to reduce the size of the federal budget.

Bush is expected to talk about new spending restraint during his State of the Union address Tuesday night. The speech will be the official start of a legislative year that will be confined by high budget deficits and a tight legislative schedule. As Bush was speaking, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 2006 deficit at $337 billion, up from 2005.

Bush will forgo expensive new programs in his speech, aides said, though he will call for new tax breaks to mitigate the cost of health insurance, which has skyrocketed in recent years. With the House and Senate up for grabs in November, politics, not policy, will likely drive much of the congressional agenda.

Bush said he is excited to be campaigning for GOP candidates in the midterm elections, which he predicted will be about "peace and prosperity."

At hearings on the NSA spying, Democrats plan to press administration officials to explain why Bush did not consult Congress more broadly about the program, why he does not believe Congress should write a new law governing eavesdropping programs such as the NSA operation, and why he believes the super-secret Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act courts should not be consulted before eavesdropping on communications to and from the United States. In his news conference, Bush emphasized that FISA was enacted in 1978 -- "a different world," he said.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Bush's explanation that the Constitution and the war resolution passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks provide the president with extraordinary wartime power is wrong. "Congress can't roll over in the face of these outrageous claims," Kennedy said. "No president is above the law."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

[The Tower]

Originally Posted by dissention

She expressed disappointment over Byrd's vote, which is completely asinine when you look at the man who is casting the vote.

Not really. Byrd has a reputation of believing in the sanctity of the constitution. Alito doesn't give a **** about the constitution. Regardless of other issues, there's the rub.

The fact that she expressed disappointment over this man's vote, the vote of a man who is up for re-election soon and isn't going to risk being vilified any more by the Republican party that is on the hunt for Dems in his very state, tells me that she's living in a different reality when it comes to the Democrats. End of story.

She understands the reality of the religiosity of West Virginia. She talked about that last night. She was urging Byrd to have some balls and stick to his committment to the integrity of the Senate and go out with a bang- i.e. forget about getting re-elected at his advanced age. It ain't gonna happen, but at lease she can desire for it to happen.

Originally Posted by cliffdweller

I hate to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive and not very pragmatic.

Bingo.

Originally Posted by dissention

Of course I'd rather see Kerry. That goes without saying. But I want people to look at the current Democratic party and tell me with a straight face that they're upholding liberal views, principles, and issues. They are not.

I think you're painting this picture with a very broad brush. For every Republican-in-Democrat's-clothes you can name, I can name a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. To make the assumption that the Democratic party is automatically far-left is naive.

It's disingenuous to even say anything along the lines of "condemning Democrats to oblivion because they are not as stringent on each and every issue as you would like for them to be seems counter-productive" because the simple fact is that it's not a few things here and there that they're aren't stringent on, it's 99 percent of things.

I don't think that's true.

Everything that Bush has done while in office has been done with approval and complicity from the Democrats. To say otherwise is idiotic.

Um, no- not really. Being in the minority in both houses, the Democrats have no power to control anything. There hasn't been "complicity". There have been some who are creeps (Ben Nelson, anyone?). However, I believe the majority of the Democrats in congress have been consistently dissenting against what the majority and the administration have been doing- it's just that their statements have no power whatsoever. Patrick Leahy ripped the **** out of Alito, but with a 10 to 8 republican majority on the judiciary committee he has no power to altar anything.

So, my question is why people still support that party so ferociously when they simply have no ground to stand on.

Just because Dubya stole the election is no reason for you to give up.

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

I am so close now. Someone please talk me out of it.

Imagine the 2006 elections which are only nine months away. Imagine Spygate and Plamegate and Delaygate and allllll the Abramoff **** coming to a head. Imagine the Democrats regaining control of the Senate or the House. Imagine payback being a bitch.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Not really. Byrd has a reputation of believing in the sanctity of the constitution. Alito doesn't give a **** about the constitution. Regardless of other issues, there's the rub.


She understands the reality of the religiosity of West Virginia. She talked about that last night. She was urging Byrd to have some balls and stick to his committment to the integrity of the Senate and go out with a bang- i.e. forget about getting re-elected at his advanced age. It ain't gonna happen, but at lease she can desire for it to happen.


Bingo.


I think you're painting this picture with a very broad brush. For every Republican-in-Democrat's-clothes you can name, I can name a dyed-in-the-wool liberal. To make the assumption that the Democratic party is automatically far-left is naive.


I don't think that's true.


Um, no- not really. Being in the minority in both houses, the Democrats have no power to control anything. There hasn't been "complicity". There have been some who are creeps (Ben Nelson, anyone?). However, I believe the majority of the Democrats in congress have been consistently dissenting against what the majority and the administration have been doing- it's just that their statements have no power whatsoever. Patrick Leahy ripped the **** out of Alito, but with a 10 to 8 republican majority on the judiciary committee he has no power to altar anything.


Just because Dubya stole the election is no reason for you to give up.


Imagine the 2006 elections which are only nine months away. Imagine Spygate and Plamegate and Delaygate and allllll the Abramoff **** coming to a head. Imagine the Democrats regaining control of the Senate or the House. Imagine payback being a bitch.

Sooooooooooooooo, to take your scenario a bit further, lets imagine a Dem controlled congress recalling the last two Supreme Court Judges

btw, the fact that Dumbya stole the election isnt enuff to make me (or others, Im sure) give up, I think its more the fact that our representatives (our REPRESENTATIVES--the mooks that are supposed to REPRESENT US) are so spineless. I personally think this time represents a prime opportunity to grab the bull by the horns and DO something (ANYTHING!) and our party does what??? sits on its hands?
Arent you a bit peeved Towie? just a little?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Imagine the 2006 elections which are only nine months away. Imagine Spygate and Plamegate and Delaygate and allllll the Abramoff **** coming to a head. Imagine the Democrats regaining control of the Senate or the House. Imagine payback being a bitch.

Ooh. Now there's something to keep me going.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by The Tower

Ben Nelson, anyone?

No, thanks!

Imagine the Democrats regaining control of the Senate or the House. Imagine payback being a bitch.

I'm imagining and hoping with all my soul, but when I look at actual contested races, it seems impossible, if not highly difficult. However, if the scandals are at a peak in November, then '06 could be just like '94 was for the GOP. Problem is that in '94, the Republicans had a slate of candidates around the country who ran with a common agenda and message. I don't see that happening with the Dems.

My favorite contested race is Nevada, where Jimmy Carter's son is going to take on Ensign.

[Rickypt]

Originally Posted by stargazer99

Reid is now saying that even though they don't have enough votes to support a filibuster, he would support the effort in order to "send a message".

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/

Wow, what a leader. He should be twisting testicles right now, not admitting defeat.

[DavidMn]

I personally thought Kerry was a bad choice to lead this fight because he might be the only person who could challenge Alan Greenspan for being the most boring person to listen to.

[SomeKindaMother]

Originally Posted by dissention

Explain to me where the logic is in that reasoning. Even though they are not representing you, you'd vote for a Democrat just so that your vote will count? My apologies, but people who think that shouldn't have the right to vote.

Let's say I like candidate "A" the best, and absolutely despise candidate "C". I know candidate A has no chance of winning and that candidate "B" is a hell of a lot better than "C". So I decide that the most important thing to me is to keep "C" out of office. Then I should not have the right to vote all if I decide to choose "B" rather than "A"???

Kelly