Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Poor Sandra Day. She’s been trying to retire since June. First Rehnquist dies and now this. She should just stop showing up for work.

I can’t help wondering if all the hand-ringing and soul searching we’re about to hear from the right would be heard if this were a liberal candidate. I doubt it very, very, much. As far as the “process” being so horrible, the right needs to look in the mirror and recognize their policy of Demonize, Anathemize, Demonize is beginning to reap what was sown.

As for Harriet… Good Bye, Good Riddence, have a nice life. Go suck up somewhere else.

If I were Bush at this point, I would get somebody who’s a moderate Republican and a great legal mind. They may not be able to control that person as well as they would like, but the fact of the matter is, there are reasons why those with immoderate views and skimpy resumes have tough confirmations in this day and age.

The candidate should be as the president promised and be in the mold of Thomas or Scilia.
Other presidents will offer their liberal/left candidates and get them confirmed. This president needs to stick to his guns and put a name forward that will carry the day.

Good

I have no doubt that she was “qualified”, but “qualified” is a weasle term. I am qualified to play major league baseball (I can swing a bat, run around the bases and catch). We should go for the best qualified (or at least the best in the ballpark)

President Bush should learn from the mistake and give us a brillant conservative. As Reagan did with Bork, but this time we have to votes to win. As you Dems point out, that may not be the case forever, so let’s make hay while the Republican sun is still shining.

Do you think that Bush will get ticked off at the withdrawl and select Alberto Gonzales to get back at the conservatives.

I hope not. We need someone with an originalist, judicial philosophy. I don’t care how they vote on Roe v. Wade; just no (MORE) judicial activists!!

If it weren’t for “judicial activism”, we’d still have slavery.

Elliotbay wrote:
If it weren’t for “judicial activismâ€, we’d still have slavery.
__________________

No. The “Dred Scott” case was judicial activism; Roe v Wade was judicial activism; that “Eminent Domain” case was judicial activism. Justice Kennedy and Breyer constantly reciting “International” law in their decisions.

I, for one, am disappointed. I was looking forward to the confirmation hearing. Now I hope President Bush takes tom’s advice and nominates Judge Roy Moore.

Seriously, though, this is a really interesting thing. With Rove busy fighting off conviction as a traitor, will President Bush make another pick without asking his handlers for advice? Or will he put it off and wait until Rove can get back to the job of running this country?

I have always wondered this. Why do people think Bush owes the far right anything? They may be his biggest supporters, but it is not like they were going to vote for the other guy in any case.

Erika wrote:
I have always wondered this. Why do people think Bush owes the far right anything? They may be his biggest supporters, but it is not like they were going to vote for the other guy in any case.
———-

They wouldn’t of voted for the other guy, yet they wouldn’t have come out to vote if they didn’t like their candidate. So, the victory would go to the other guy in that case.

Left is worried about too much right. Right spends all their time arguing with left. How about the simple solution “the most qualified”

I wonder if she withdrew because of the Guantanamo Questions? Kinda hard to answer truthfully whether she supports torture and stuff.

The Dred Scott case was judicial activism; Roe v Wade was judicial activism; that Eminent Domain case was judicial activism.

What about Brown v. Bd. of Ed? Was that judicial activism too? There’s nothing written anywhere in the constitution that prohibits separate facilities.

I get tired of conservatives calling decisions “judicial activism.” It’s code-language for decisions you disgree with. For the record, this Liberal opposed the eminent domain decision.

Steve K wrote:
What about Brown v. Bd. of Ed? Was that judicial activism too? There’s nothing written anywhere in the constitution that prohibits separate facilities.

I get tired of conservatives calling decisions “judicial activism.â€
————-

No, Brown v Board of Eduacation wasn’t judicial activism. And wasn’t it a Republican President that ordered the military to defend the black students in Arkansas against the state police; whom were ordered by Dem Governor? I think so.

Judicial activism, to me, is when you make law rather than interpret law. How do you define it?

Steve k, in my last post I said “It wasn’t a Republican Prez”… ooopps! Let me correct that, “it was a Republican President that ordered the military to protect the black students in Arkansas”. Was!!

From wikipedia.com:

Black’s Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu. with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent.”

rahdigly refered to
Dred Scott

SCOTUS held:
Blacks, whether slaves or free, could not become United States citizens and the plaintiff therefore lacked the capacity to file a lawsuit. The plaintiff did not become free after traveling through territory in which slavery was prohibited, because this would deprive his owner of his right to property. Judgment of Circuit Court for the District of Missouri reversed and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

SCOTUS held: Texas laws criminalizing abortion violated women’s Fourteenth Amendment right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. Judgment of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.

SCOTUS held: Racial segregation in public education violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; separate facilities are “inherently unequal.â€

Do you really think that these cases represent judicial activism? None of these cases represented a dramitic change to contemporary standards. Just, perhaps, a shift in the power midpoint. (the CT case isn’t worth mentioning)

No, Brown v Board of Eduacation wasn’t judicial activism. …Judicial activism, to me, is when you make law rather than interpret law.

And, as I said, there’s NOTHING written ANYWHERE in the constitution that outlaws separate facilities, or prohibiting keeping people apart on the basis of skin color. So please, PLEASE tell me how this is INTERPRETING law rather than making it?

As I said: you’re just using code-langauge here — calling something “activism” when what you really mean is you’re against it.

(Note to all: the above statements do NOT mean I am opposed to the Brown (or other civil rights) decision, or support any form of segregation. Nor is it meant to imply that anyone else in this forum does. I am using Brown as a tool to get my understanding of the real definition of “judicial activism”)

rahdigly

Eisenhower would vomit over what the Republican party has become.

Did you know that Nixon ran on a platform for peace in SE Asia and women’s rights?

There is an expression in the sports world relative to the need for training, developing stamina, etc. It is :

“When fatigue sets in, skill steps out”

There are many ways that this could be modified so it would aply to the Harriet Miers issue but, I like :

“When partisanship sets in, credibility steps out”

The cronyism, partisanship or whatever name we give it that seems to be running rampant in this administration has created more division between and within party lines than any other in recent memory.

I am not suggesting that Miers is not qualified although I believe her to have less related experience than the position calls for but, President Bush needs to take his time on the replacement nomination, use qualified input and nominate someone who is capable, eager and, would be unanimously approved.

piecing all this together:

Defintion of “judicial activism:” Black’s Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu. with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent.â€

Equal protection clause: nor shall any state… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Brown decision: Racial segregation in public education violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; separate facilities are inherently unequal.

Sure sounds like “activism” to me to hold the belief that something is inherently “unequal” just because it is “separate.” And it certainly fits the Black’s Law definition of activism because it overturned the Plessy decision.

it was a Republican President that ordered the military to protect the black students in Arkansas

I liked Ike too.

Bravo to Bush

He took care of business at home and by home I mean his to his base.

Now his approval rating will jump.

I predict the next candidate will be a Roberts clone….conservative with conservative credentials that will placate the right…piss off the left,but placate the right….

“Eisenhower would vomit over what the Republican party has become”

How do you think FDR would react to what the Democratic party has become… I’m sure he’s rolling in his grave right now over those such as Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Monica Lewinsky, Al Sharpton, Al Franken… Need I continue? Don’t tell me these people represent only a faction of the party - John Kerry had several of these people providing entertainment during his rallies.

V Walsh,

Those people DO represent only a faction in the Democratic party — unfortunately, it’s the controlling faction. Kerry is a member of that faction, too.

Eisenhauer and Roosevelt would have more in common with each other than with either party today. I believe that, if our founding fathers were alive today, most of them would vote third party.

Dave wrote:
Eisenhower would vomit over what the Republican party has become.

Did you know that Nixon ran on a platform for peace in SE Asia and women’s rights?

________________

No he wouldn’t. As I’ve said in other messages, it’s the dems that have abandoned their party. Are you trying to say that JFK, Truman and FDR would be welcomed in the Dem party? Heck NO!!!!!

The anti-Bush people say they’re for peace; however, they are against war, aggression, and WMD’s. Well, FDR and Truman were the leaders in WWII and the internment of Japanese Americans, how the war was fought (no dissension), and the dropping of WMD’s in Japan are all Democratic leaders doing.

So, the Dems of old would be proud of the Repubs today. Todays Dems would ostracize the dems of old; just like they do with Joe Leiberman and Zell Miller!

Erika wrote:
I have always wondered this. Why do people think Bush owes the far right anything? They may be his biggest supporters, but it is not like they were going to vote for the other guy in any case.

Not only would conservatives stayed home. But conservatives would have saved their time and energy rallying their friends, famlies, neighbors, church mates, co-workers to get out and vote for W and conservative congress people.

How do you think FDR would react to what the Democratic party has become… I’m sure he’s rolling in his grave right now over those such as Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Monica Lewinsky, Al Sharpton, Al Franken

1. Curious that only one of these people is actually a politician — Al Sharpton — and he couldn’t even garner any votes.

2. In what respect do you think Roosevelt would be rolling over in his grave? On what issues of public policy would he disagree with them?

OTOH, when we look some of the Republican politicians out there, I think Eisenhower would be rolling over in his grave: Pat Roberts, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham. Every last one of them elected as a Republican!

Sicilian Eagle:
Bravo to Bush

He took care of business at home and by home I mean his to his base.

Now his approval rating will jump.

I predict the next candidate will be a Roberts clone….conservative with conservative credentials that will placate the right…piss off the left,but placate the right….

____________________

I hope so. I still get this feeling that Bush will nominate AG Gonzales just to get back at everybody. Then, he’ll appt Miers to AG.

I hope I’m wrong with that though. I would really like to see Miguel Estrada or Janice Rodgers Brown nominated. Who do you like?

Not only would conservatives stayed home. But conservatives would have saved their time and energy rallying their friends, famlies, neighbors, church mates, co-workers to get out and vote for W and conservative congress people.

But how many moderate voters could he have won in the process? And those wouldn’t just be non-voters becoming voters… those would have been votes stolen directly from Kerry’s hands, so they’d count double!

Of course, Bush didn’t need those votes to win. A better question would be, why did Kerry cater to the far left? If he had taken a more moderate approach (or, if the Dems had run a more moderate candidate), he could have stolen votes that otherwise went for Bush. He would have lost some far-left votes, but mostly in already-Blue states.

Did you know that Nixon ran on a platform for peace in SE Asia and women’s rights?

________________

No he wouldn’t.

rahdigly … Yes, he did.

Steve k,
There is no challenge to precedent, only a clarification of a definition.

V Walsh,
In your list there is only a single candidate, Sharpton. My list of the FREC right is much longer and includes much more influence.

sicilian,
Dream on, Bush43 is done. The FRECs are done. His appointment will be middling at best.

“Judicial activism” is another one of those wrong-wing code words. It’s used for intimidating the judiciary into issuing opinions that kow-tow to the wrong wing. The wrong wing LIKES judicial activism. They WANT judicial activism. They just want it to be THEIR KIND of judicial activism.

V Walsh,

I’ll see your Moore, Baldwin, etc. and raise you Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Tom DeLay, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Scooter Libby, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Newt Gingrich, Mary Matalin, Bill Frist, John Ashcroft, and Robert Novak, among countless others. The folks you mentioned can’t hold a candle to the to the hatemongers I’ve listed in terms of the amount of hatred and vitriol being spewed forth.

Steve K wrote:
1. Curious that only one of these people is actually a politician — Al Sharpton — and he couldn’t even garner any votes.

2. In what respect do you think Roosevelt would be rolling over in his grave? On what issues of public policy would he disagree with them?

OTOH, when we look some of the Republican politicians out there, I think Eisenhower would be rolling over in his grave: Pat Roberts, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Dick Cheney, Lindsey Graham. Every last one of them elected as a Republican!
_______________________________

Here’s some politicians in the Dem party that FDR would be rolling over in his grave about:

1. Harry Reid - he’s a nitwit with no agenda
2. Dick Durbin- his response to Detainees at Gitmo (Gulags, Nazis and Pol Pot!!!); FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans would have been worse.
3. Chuck Schumer- too much of a smuck for FDR
4. Hillary - Not even Hillary likes Hillary.
5. Joe Biden - it’s about JUDGEMENT!! He complains about the tactics of the war too much.
6. Barbara Boxer - maybe Hillary likes her. However, everyone else can’t stand her.

And, as far Eisenhower and the Repubs, he would’ve definitely liked Newt, Cheney and Delay. They are leaders who have vision and get the job done. Contract with America, Ike would’ve loved that…

Elliotbay wrote:
I’ll see your Moore, Baldwin, etc. and raise you Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Tom DeLay, Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Ann Coulter, Thomas Sowell, Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Scooter Libby, G Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Newt Gingrich, Mary Matalin, Bill Frist, John Ashcroft, and Robert Novak, among countless others. The folks you mentioned can’t hold a candle to the to the hatemongers I’ve listed in terms of the amount of hatred and vitriol being spewed forth.
______________________________________

Well, I’ll re-raise you with Ted Kennedy, Upchuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Dean (rrryyahhhhh!), John Kerry, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Susan Sarandon, Sean (I’ve been to Iraq) Penn, George Soros, Barbra Boxer, Barbra Streisand, Bett Midler, Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Cindy Sheehan, etc.

Oooh man, this bet is a lock…

Rahdigly

Not knowing much about the candidates,I like the black California judge…Janice Brown.

Trouble is,she has a very narrow pro-life view view and her nomination will make for a bloodbath.

I like her because she is female,black and no matter what her politics are she would be a great role model for minorities.

On the other hand Gonsalves would be the first Latino on the bench…but I think he is too caught up in the Abu Grahb prision thing and the Patriot Act and that too would be a war.

If I were the president,I think I would first have a meeting with the conservative right.

I would grab the biggest one there by hos necktie and tell that that their screaming already embarrassed him enough and if they continue to piss him off he will nominate either Ted Kennedy,Howard Dean or Mike Moore to the bench.

Seriously,the far right owes him one here.

He got shit on way too much by his own people.

The right has to wake up…a hyper conservative is exactly what middle America does not want.

Middle America wants a conservative,but not a tootie-fruite.

Elliot Bay

Feel free to put my name right up next to Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannanity.

Don’t bloviate,either

Rahdigly,

I bow to your superios name-calling and sliming skills. Obviously you’ve had a lot of practice.

Can you name ONE person in your list of evil people who advocated assassinating the president? No? Ann Coulter did exaclty that.

Yo Dave. You wrote:
Did you know that Nixon ran on a platform for peace in SE Asia and women’s rights?

No he wouldn’t.

rahdigly … Yes, he did.

_______________________

You misquoted me. Here’s the original qoute:
Eisenhower would vomit over what the Republican party has become.

Did you know that Nixon ran on a platform for peace in SE Asia and women’s rights?
__________________

I said “no he wouldn’t”, I was referring to Eisenhower, not the fact about Nixon.

And, if you’re lauding Nixon about peace in SE Asia, then are you saying the Dems (JFK and LBJ) weren’t? It was, after all, their war.

Elliotbay:
I bow to your superios name-calling and sliming skills. Obviously you’ve had a lot of practice.

Can you name ONE person in your list of evil people who advocated assassinating the president? No? Ann Coulter did exaclty that.

__________________________________

You’re the one that threw the names out first. And, Al Franken was making comments about assassinating Chenney and Libby if they were indicted two nights ago. Now he was joking, then again so was Ann Coulter.

Also, you can go to any anti-war rally and hear that hateful remark and others like it, anytime. And they are serious; bigtime!

From Dave:

There is no challenge to precedent, only a clarification of a definition.

I’ve no idea what you are talking about here.

Fact: Plessy upheld state segregation laws.

Fact: Brown overturned Plessy.

Fact: Brown declared state law unconstitutional.

How is this not “activism”?????

And, as far Eisenhower and the Repubs, he would’ve definitely liked Newt, Cheney and Delay. They are leaders who have vision and get the job done. Contract with America, Ike would’ve loved that…

Heck, I liked the Contract with America. Ike would have liked it, too. Too bad the Bush administration threw fiscal responsibility out the window a long time ago.

As for such things as homeland security, the War on Terror, PATRIOT act, no-bid Haliburton contracts, preemptive warfare, and skyrocketting defense budgets, I think Ike has done a pretty good job of speaking for himself…

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.

If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking… is freedom.

Controlled, universal disarmament is the imperative of our time. The demand for it by the hundreds of millions whose chief concern is the long future of themselves and their children will, I hope, become so universal and so insistent that no man, no government anywhere, can withstand it.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

If men can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war include almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man’s intelligence and his comprehension… would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution.

If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war.

Do you really think Ike would have supported this administration today?

rahdigly,

No I didn’t “throw” names first. Scroll up and look at the post from V Walsh at October 27, 2005 01:37 PM. I was responding to that post (and I had addressed my response to V Walsh) when you jumped in.

If you’re going to accuse someone of something, you should at least get your facts right.

Here’s some politicians in the Dem party that FDR would be rolling over in his grave about …

In typical current Republican fashion, which Ike would disapprove of, rahdigly proceeds to engage in calling Democrats names like “nitwit” and “schmuck.” So unlike Ike.

Then he proceeds to tell us that Ike would have approved of the “Contract with America.” Perhaps, but he sure wouldn’t have abandoned it the way Gingrich et al did once they were in power.

Case in point: balanced Federal budget. Hey — Ike actually balanced it! Where are the Republicans now with a balanced budget????

Another case in point: term limits for Congressmen. Curious how the Republican party forgot about that one once they took over!! Do you think Ike would have?

[Ike] would’ve definitely liked Newt, Cheney and Delay. They are leaders who have vision

I’d dearly like to know what the policy issues are where you beleive Ike would like the “vision thing.”

And as for FDR not agreeing with the current Democrats, you still haven’t come up with a major issue where they would differ. Social Security? Nope. Health Care? Nope. Minimum Wage? Nope.

I’m waiting …

Now [Al Franken] was joking, then again so was Ann Coulter.

Are you saying Ann Coulter, like Al Franken is a professional comedian?

Steve:

Al Franken is a professional comedian?? I did not know that, and never would have guessed.

Steve K,

Are you saying every case whereby a shift in societal norms is recognized by a decision that overturns an older decision (in this case by 60+/- years) is “judicial activism”?
In Plessy v Ferguson the majority agreed when Justice Brown declared, “We consider the underlying fallacy of the plaintiff’s argument to consist in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority. If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but solely because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it.” By the 1950’s is was obviously clear the Southern socitey did in fact discrimate with segregation and therefore the laws did in fact violate the 14th ammendment and equal protection.

How does it meet the criteria:
Black’s Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as “a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu. with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent.â€

Steve K wrote:
Case in point: balanced Federal budget. Hey — Ike actually balanced it! Where are the Republicans now with a balanced budget????
—————

Yo steve, Gingrich and the House Repubs balanced the budget, as well. You don’t actually think Clinton did that do you? He takes credit (and should) b/c it was on his watch.

Ike didn’t have a 9/11, a recession, the dotcom bubble, and the corporate scandals happen all at once. Not to mention, 2 wars and maybe 3(Iran) during his administration.

You still didn’t answer my post from before when I said that the Dems are the ones that would run away from the Dems of old(FDR,JFK,HST). As a matter of fact, the old dems would be considered Repubs today. The way they handled their wars would have been heavily critized by the far left…

Al Franken is a professional comedian?? I did not know that, and never would have guessed.

No one will hold it against you if you don’t think he’s funny.

Dawn:

Rumor has it that many qualified nominees asked to have their names removed from the list.
It seems that many DO NOT want to go through the ‘process’.

Do you have any documentation about the ‘qualified nominees’? i’m curious who they are and where did you get access to this list.

Are you saying every case whereby a shift in societal norms is recognized by a decision that overturns an older decision is judicial activism?

Yes. Because that’s the only consistent logic and constant argument I can see in conservatives objection to so-called “judicial activism.â€

If a shift in societal norms is your point, then Roe v. Wade and the overturning the laws discriminating against homosexuals follow the same pattern as Brown. But many conservatives rally against them as “judicial activism.”

Gingrich and the House Repubs balanced the budget

I’ll grant you that. But Congress and White House TODAY have abandoned that.

You still didn’t answer my post from before when I said that the Dems are the ones that would run away from the Dems of old

I thought I did: Health Care (FDR & Truman both supported universal health care), Raising the minimum wage, Social Security …

Please tell me which ISSUES today’s Democrats have “run away from.”

Ike didn’t have a 9/11, a recession, the dotcom bubble, and the corporate scandals happen all at once

Ike has the Suez crisis, Soviet Union ahead in the space race, a bad recession in 1957, China and the Soviet Union as allies (for a while anyway), the Formosa crisis, etc. etc.

I don’t know how old you are, but the 50’s were not like you see depicted on reruns of Leave it to Beaver.

P.S. Last post for the day. Gotta run. Sorry

John,

In the sentence you quoted I said rumor.

I can only say, at this point, that this has been said in remarks by many across the networks.
‘The list’ is part of the discussions by the ‘experts’ and ‘analysts’.
If I had ‘the list’ I would not have had to use the word rumor.
Maybe Novak or Miller have a copy.
Unfortunately, I am not privy to leaks or insider information. I have to weed through the bull like my fellow Americans.

Steve K,

Sorry, but I put in a cheap shot. Things change, including norms, but nowhere in the decision did “societal norms” explicitly play a role. Instead, the implementation of a law was shown, over time, to violate the constitution (Art. XIV) and was therefor overturned. That is the role of the Supreme Court.
But, your point is valid. As society changes, what is considered acceptable changes. In 1954 slavery had been abolished for 90 years, instead of 30, and not too many former slaves and civil war veterans were left. Also, I would agree that it is impossible to seperate an individuals sensibilities completely from their rulings; which is the argument against people like Roberts and Miers whose personal beliefs are so dogmatic and pervasive in their life that they are suspect.

sicilianeagle

Not knowing much about the candidates,I like the black California judge…Janice Brown.

Trouble is,she has a very narrow pro-life view view and her nomination will make for a bloodbath.

I like her because she is female,black and no matter what her politics are she would be a great role model for minorities.

Suggesting someone for a position based primarily on race and gender are the very definitions of racism and sexism.

JANICE ROGERS BROWN is the ultimate candidate for this position. She is articulate, a brilliant legal mind, has a clear, unpolluted concept of Constitutional Law, can write persuasively (a must for this position). She is the type of Justice every right-leaning conservative has dreamed of for the past 40 years and that we’ve worked so hard to simply have the opportunity to support.

A few observations:

1. What happened to the “Every candidate deserves a prompt hearing and an up or down vote on the Senate floor” mantra? Was really sad to see the pushy, nasty mean-spirited DC crowd not give H. Miers a chance and fair shake.

2. Why was H. Miers not deemed “qualified”? Her experiences and knowledge paralleled if not exceeded that of Clarence Thomas and, if I’m not mistaken, Powell. Rhetorical answer is that she was deemed not “qualified” because it was uncertain whether she would rule the way her detractors want her to rule. A strange way to measure a “qualification.” Another way to put it is that she wouldn’t “legislate from the bench” how her detractors wanted her to “legislate from the bench.”

3. Anyone who wants Judges in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, should really go read a bunch of their opinions. Trying to be objective, especially as a litigation attorney that must wrestle with the decisions and apply them to real world legal disputes, they are not written with much principle or wisdom for the ages. The thing I liked about H. Miers is that she, more than the East Coast elite Federalist Society DC legal crowd, comes from the real world the rest of the country must live in. And having practiced law and having to deal with messy Supreme Court decisions, she might have added practical real-world experience to the Supreme Court edicts, which, no matter how you slice it, always have some “legislating from the Bench” in them.

missjoy3,

The reasons you gave are perfectly valid and reasons for nominating Janice Rogers Brown; the reasons sicilianeagle gave on the other hand, should not matter under any circumstances.

Stephen Daugherty
If I were Bush at this point, I would get somebody who’s a moderate Republican and a great legal mind. They may not be able to control that person as well as they would like, but the fact of the matter is, there are reasons why those with immoderate views and skimpy resumes have tough confirmations in this day and age.

Yeah, it’s called politics.

dave
Eisenhower would vomit over what the Republican party has become.

Your right! And John Kennedy would vomit over what the Democrat party has become.
NEITHER party reprensents WE THE PEOPLE! They BOTH reprensent WE THE BIG MONEY DONERS!

This is going to be interesting. The right didn’t like Miers from the start. The left supported her until Bush said she’s an Evangelical Christian. Then they turned on her like a pack of wolves.
I’m willing to bet that noe Bush will nominate the person he really wants and both sides are going to be forced to vote for him/her.

rahdigly,

“And, Al Franken was making comments about assassinating Chenney and Libby if they were indicted two nights ago. Now he was joking, then again so was Ann Coulter.”

Look, whether you like the guy or not, if you are going to disparage Franken, at least have the decency to get the quote right.

Franken said that Libby and Rove were going to be executed for treason if they were found guilty.

Here is the whole Letterman interview. The clip is quite long, and it requires Quicktime to play. The quote is about 50% of the way through the interview.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002508.html

Janice Brown

During the evening spin on cable tonite Janis Brown’s name came up a lot.

Again I like what I see and hear about her.

An earlier post said I was sexist and racist because I said she would be a great role model for female minorities.

If that is racism or sexism,I stand convicted because she would be the perfect role model for all minority kids,especially black female kids(who along with Latina kids)who haven’t been dealt a particuliarily good hand in life.

She is coureagous,profoundly principled,and conservative in her views.

Pretty much what I am looking for anyway.

The whole notion of “judical activism” is a chimera. As has been noted, the term is just used as a perjorative by people wh0 disagree with particular rulings.

“there’s NOTHING written ANYWHERE in the constitution that outlaws separate facilities, or prohibiting keeping people apart on the basis of skin color. So please, PLEASE tell me how this is INTERPRETING law rather than making it?”

You know what else ISN’T written in the Constitution?

Read Article 3.

It states that the judicial power extends to “to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” but at no point does it say that justices must base their decisions based upon a literal reading of the Constitution.

In other words, the argument that justices should not use infernces about the framer’s original intent when there is no specific mention in the Constitution stems from an infernce about the framer’s original intent for which there is no specific mention in the Constitution.

I’m a little disappointed that Miers’ nomination got killed. I believe that the president’s judicial nominee has every right to an up or down vote and shouldn’t be hampered by obstructionism by the senate republicans.

The president asked Conservatives to trust him. Why didn’t they trust the president on Harriet Miers? Why do they hate America? :)

Seriously though, I admire republicans’ discipline on message control. I was reminded of that when I saw this from Ron Brown:

“The right didn’t like Miers from the start. The left supported her until Bush said she’s an Evangelical Christian. Then they turned on her like a pack of wolves.”

Uh huh. Yep, that’s right. Democrats were Mier’s most vicious opposers.

Sheer genius.

The left never supported Miers. They just stood back and let the right destroy themselves. Its a fascinating sight to see the sharks circle back and cannibalize the weakest member.

As for Ron and the sickening of JFK… He’d probably be a bit dissappointed but not sickened. The Dems are a bit fragmented, but at least they’re not evil.

Ron Brown-
What ultimately lost it wasn’t her religion. Robert’s religion didn’t do him much harm. What burned her as a candidate was the Michael Brown factor. It was bad enough for Bush to put a political sycophant in charge of FEMA or other agency, but the thought of putting a crony like Miers on the supreme court for the rest of her life struck most Americans, whether Republican or Democrat, as something even worse.

When does your support of this president stop? What could offend you so that you would shop for a new candidate?

Dave
As for Ron and the sickening of JFK… He’d probably be a bit dissappointed but not sickened. The Dems are a bit fragmented, but at least they’re not evil. Not omly would JFK be sick but LBJ would too. And he would make some these guys look like Sunday School boys.

That’s where your wrong Dave. Them and the Republicans are marinated in evil.

Stephen Daugherty
When does your support of this president stop? What could offend you so that you would shop for a new candidate?

I’ve been shopping for a new canidate sense 1970.
Unfortunantly all I’ve seen from either party is the same old canidate with a differant name attached.

Rocky wrote:
Look, whether you like the guy or not, if you are going to disparage Franken, at least have the decency to get the quote right.

Franken said that Libby and Rove were going to be executed for treason if they were found guilty.
_______________________________________

Ok, I see where I took it out of context (sort of). You’re right. Franken made the joke that “he never, never, ever condones assassinating a president”; which was his sarcasism that the audience laughed at. Now, you did not follow up with the point that he and Coulter were both being facetious when they talked about assassinating presidents.

My main point was that the anti-war/Bush/American protest groups talk like that for real and they freakin mean it. I’m not kidding even a little bit here. That Cindy Sheehan rally last month, there were commi groups supporting North Korea, Castro and calling for the head of GWB. Also, at the protest in Altanta a few months back, Harry Belafonte made ugly, vicious comments about the Prez and Colin Powell. I believe his comment were “Bush is a Tyrant and Colin Powell sleeps in the house of the masters”. All that b/c Powell is conservative.

Two days ago there’s a black (reggae looking) dude calling for the assassination of white people. I bet he’s not conservative. These are liberal groups that spew out hate on a routine basis; all you have to do is put on a protest or march and they’ll come out in droves.

It’s sad how they don’t ever use that hatred they have for Bush for the real tyrants like Bin Laden, Saddam, Kim Jong il, the Mullahs, etc. I mean, I understand not liking Bush and his policies; however, forgetting who the real terrorists and despots are and going after your leadership (in a hateful way) is just despicable.

I mean, I didn’t like Clinton even a little bit, and yet I would never route against our economy or against our troops just to make Clinton look bad and run him out of office. And that’s a fact! Don’t even think about bringing up the impeachment thing b/c I’m not even talking about that. I disliked Clinton, I didn’t hate him.

Dissisdence is what this country was founded on, hate is something entirely different and must go. Bush haters must go; Bush dissenters can stay. Now terrorists haters must stay as well. We have to win this war and stop whining about why we got into Iraq. We already had an election to where Bush was going to pay for taking us into Iraq and it didn’t work; now that democracy played out, let’s win this war and show the terrorists that their hate is no match for our decency….

That’s what image-based politics does. Unfortunately, the typical methods for shopping for a candidate (positions, issues) are problematic in that regard because of their oversimplified nature.

You see, when all you want out of a candidate is the right answer on issues and positions, it’s tremendously easy for them to give you that, once they’ve figured it out.

We need to get in the way of that strategy, force tough answers to tough questions. Only when these people have to think and reveal their instincts can we truly get any revealing information from them about their sensibilities, and the degree to which they deserve office.

Steve k wrote:
Please tell me which ISSUES today’s Democrats have “run away from.â€
____________________________

War, war, war. In that I mean, how to fight it and what it takes to win it. FDR, in particular, had to defend himself against the far left (Joe Kennedy, Charles Lindburg, Henry Ford) with WWII. A good number of Americans didn’t want to get involved in that war, they felt it had nothing to do with us, and FDR stayed true and saw the threat and stuck with. Then, after the Pearl Harbor attack, we went into WWII (officially) against Germany, who didn’t have anything to do with the people that attacked us. Doesn’t that sound like Bush, 9/11 and Iraq. Don’t even think about saying no to that. It’s true.

Today’s Dems do not see that even a little bit. As I’ve been saying, only two Dems today see that (Lieberman and Zell Miller) and they are both considered Repubs and are ostracized by their own party.

FDR also wouldn’t tolerate war protestors and dissent during war. Remember, all of the dissenters that he faced was in the late 1930’s. Once we declared war though, everyone was on his side. And, even though roughly 90% of the Japanese Americans were good people and on our side, he still kept up with the internments until everyone was on board. Now, that kind of thing I do not agree with at all; however, the liberals and anti-war groups would be trying to impeach him today.

Also, Truman dropped the bombs on Japan; using WMD’s against our enemy is not a liberal thing at all. The war protestors would be livid.

Besides war, FDR, Truman and JFK were big religious people and they would not be happy with the distance their part has made with the religious groups in this country. I mean Chuck Schumer is always asking these conservative judges about their deeply held beliefs. Come on Chuck, that’s code for religious values. You know he and his lobbyists hate that in a candidate, heck they rally against nominees like that.

To sum it up, Dems today are known as the anti-war, anti-military, anti-religion, anti-family, and anti-choice (with the exception of abortion). The old dems were never looked upon like that.

Steve K said:

“And as for FDR not agreeing with the current Democrats, you still haven’t come up with a major issue where they would differ.”

Is this the prayer of a man who would support the irradication of Christianity from the public square?

“And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade.” —FDR

He certainly didn’t have a problem with praying on a live broadcast to the Lord to have faith in the Lord.

Does this seem like the kind of man who would support the homosexual agenda?

“FDR had commanded a vice-squad to stop a rumored sex scandal going in a Newport naval base, but the vice squad had become involved with sodomy and homosexuality themselves.”

He used a vice-squad!!! That doesn’t sound like a contemporary liberal to me! And you guys call him one of your own, shame on you.

Look at some of these quotes:

“Be sincere; be brief; be seated.” —FDR

And how do think he’d feel about those filibusters?

“As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God.” —FDR

And what was that about removing something from the Pledge of Allegiance?

“First of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself - nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.” —FDR

Some how this doesn’t lead me to believe he’d consider terrorists “freedom-fighters?”

“Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” —FDR

Okay, that eliminates all contemporary politicians. Including the revered President Clinton. (As well as GWB, but we’re talking Democrats here.)

“In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved.” —FDR

Not only would he not support the Iraq war now, but he probably would have been decided enough not to vote for in the first place. Kerry would have been a disappointment.

If FDR was President today, while we wouldn’t have gone into Iraq, we would have bombed the hell out of Afghanistan and/or Iran, which wouldn’t make the Democrat party happy either.

Like FDR, it’s not the major issues that keep people away from the Democratic party, it’s the ultra-liberal fringe issues that alienate people. While those social issues may not seem very important to some of you, and to some of you they may be why you vote Democrat in the first place, but they are what alienates the Democrat Party from mainstream America and from your predecessors.

That’s not to say I think contemporary Republicans would hold up with their predecessors either. Far from it.

How any of y’all can think the “oldies but goodies” would be satisfied with todays government is beyond me.

Rah,
Dems are pro-military. Repugs are pro-militarism.

Dems favor taking care of the people in our military, past and present- you, me, family, neighbors- the people who serve.

Repugs favor the corporations that profit from war. The US spends as much as the rest of the world combined on its military, but it’s not going towards personnel; a disproportionate share goes to large corporations. Eisenhower called this the ‘military-industrial complex.’

Surely you noticed Exxon just recorded the most profitable quarter in history.

Surely you noticed Halliburton has received over $12 billion in no-bid contracts in Iraq, far more than any company.

Who deserves your loyalty? The military? Or the militarists?

rahdigly:

Germany declared war on the US AFTER the US declared war on Germany’s ALLY, Japan!!!

Sheesh… I know the Repugs are pushing for Creationism but I had no idea they wanted to damage basic History too.

To answer your question: HELL NO!!!!

and Bush is no FDR no matter how often RNC-paid shills say it.

Rahdigly,

Henry Ford was a Nazi-loving, anti-union industrialist. To call him “far left” is nuts.

rahdigly,

“A good number of Americans didn’t want to get involved in that war, they felt it had nothing to do with us, and FDR stayed true and saw the threat and stuck with. Then, after the Pearl Harbor attack, we went into WWII (officially) against Germany, who didn’t have anything to do with the people that attacked us. Doesn’t that sound like Bush, 9/11 and Iraq. Don’t even think about saying no to that. It’s true.”

You’re comparing apples and oranges.

Iraq never attacked us!
Iraq invaded one country and was removed.
Iraq was contained.
Iraq was never about the war on terror, Iraq was about Iraq.

For a guy that plays fast and loose with the facts, you’re pretty demanding about your fallacies.

Then, after the Pearl Harbor attack, we went into WWII (officially) against Germany, who didn’t have anything to do with the people that attacked us.

First, Germany sunk the U.S. destroyer Reuben James, on convey duty in the North Atlantic, in October of 1941. Trouble was brewing with Ggermany in 1941, just as it had in 1917. Pearl Harbor just happened first.

Second, Germany declared war on the U.S. a few days after Pearl Harbor. That meant Germany was going to start sinking more ships if we didn’t stop them. There was every reason to stop Germany, it’s just that the most visible military crisis was in the Pacific.

To sum it up, Dems today are known as the anti-war, anti-military, anti-religion, anti-family, and anti-choice (with the exception of abortion). The old dems were never looked upon like that.

Playing catch up here …

This has got to be one of the most insulting comments I’ve seen on this blog. Just a few thoughts that come to mind.

1. anti-war? I thought everyone Democrats and Republicans both were anti-war. It’s a question of deciding when are where to go to war, when it is by choice (Vietnam, Iraq) or necessity (WWII).

2. anti-religion? How insulting. Democrats are religious people just as much as Republicans. They just don’t have a wing of their party that tries to legislate religious beliefs on other people, then accuse you of being anti-religious when you try to point out that not everyone agrees with their religion.

3. anti-family? Gee, it always seems to be it’s Democrats who try to put more money into struggling families wallets, or provide health care to children. Look how the Repubs are trying to cut Medicaid right now.

What’s really scary to me is I had posted about analogies to 1984, not too seriously but the analogy didn’t collapse immediately. Now look what’s going on here. History is being rewritten to satisfy the needs of the party, the Ministry of Truth is coming to life.

This is the real problem of the FREC driven GOP. It is faith based. It is based on a priority that the “legitimate authority” of Bush (via God) must be correct since they are in charge. Therefore, reality of what is seen and felt is less important than what needs to be the truth in order to validate the authorities. Lies are truth since that it was is needed to solidify the rationality of the Bush supporters.

I used to think Orwell was a real pessimist. Now what seemed like a cautionary tale is more like a Nostradamus prediction.

steve k wrote:
1. anti-war? I thought everyone Democrats and Republicans both were anti-war. It’s a question of deciding when are where to go to war, when it is by choice (Vietnam, Iraq) or necessity (WWII).

2. anti-religion? How insulting. Democrats are religious people just as much as Republicans. They just don’t have a wing of their party that tries to legislate religious beliefs on other people, then accuse you of being anti-religious when you try to point out that not everyone agrees with their religion.

3. anti-family? Gee, it always seems to be it’s Democrats who try to put more money into struggling families wallets, or provide health care to children. Look how the Repubs are trying to cut Medicaid right now.

_________________________

“Insulting”?! Ok, let me just back this up then.

1. Anti-war. Ahh, JFK (Democrat), was his war (Vietnam) a necessity? How about Clinton’s Bosnia, was that necessary? Was that a threat to the National Security of this country?? Don’t give us this crap that all parties are anti-war. The parties are representative of the people and the people decide when we go in or not. Remember, people were against WWII in the late 30’s early 40’s, even when Germany was sinking our merchant ships in the Atlantic. FDR had Germany in his sights for a long time, even when the people didn’t. Sounds like Bush and Iraq to me. Also, Iraq and terrorists (especially Al Qaeda) were in cohoots; I know Iraq wasn’t responsible for 9/11, they were responsible for other forms of terrorism for a long time. Get over it people.

2. Anti-religion. It’s a fact that the dems just don’t connect to the religious groups like they did back in the day. Look at the dems personal own terrorist group the ACLU, they’ve been ripping this country apart with their anti religious crap for years; Taking god out of the schools, no Christmas, taking crosses off of graves, no religious symbols in public. That’s just ridiculous!! And you try and tell us that it’s b/c Repubs and religious groups try to legislate religious beliefs on other. On the contrary, it’s the left that tries to oppose of everything religious in this country and the people are already aware of this. In 2004, Bush received almost as many Catholic votes as JFK did. Kerry, who’s Roman Catholic, received far less than Bush, and Bush isn’t even Roman Catholic. That’s the difference with old school and present day dems; the old school dems never had a problem connecting with religious groups.

3. Anti-family- today’s dems are for abortion on demand, no parental consent for abortion, pornography, condoms rather than abstinence, sex education for 8 year olds, soft on crime for sex offenders and every other offender. This is just too easy.

Steveo, I appreciate the debate; however, you are on the losing end of this one. There’s no doubt that the Dems of old would have no place whatsoever with today’s dems. Today’s dems are the european socialist party; they are pathetic and I have no idea why they want to side with the Euros. Remember, most of Europe’s idea of dealing with the nazis was “don’t make waves”, “they won’t bother us if we leave them alone”. The old dems would have nothing to do with that as today’s repubs don’t with the Islamofacsists that we’re dealing with.

bobo wrote:
First, Germany sunk the U.S. destroyer Reuben James, on convey duty in the North Atlantic, in October of 1941. Trouble was brewing with Ggermany in 1941, just as it had in 1917. Pearl Harbor just happened first.

Second, Germany declared war on the U.S. a few days after Pearl Harbor. That meant Germany was going to start sinking more ships if we didn’t stop them. There was every reason to stop Germany, it’s just that the most visible military crisis was in the Pacific.
_______________________________________

We were sending money to help Europe fight the Nazis for a long time. In fact, many Americans couldn’t understand why. Don’t forget, we were getting our butts kicked by the Japanese well into 1942; they were tearing up the Pacific. A big reason is b/c we were sending money and resources over to Europe to fight their war (as many felt at the time). And, Germany was sinking many of our merchant ships way before 1941.

And, my whole point about WWII was the fact that FDR say the threat years before we declared war on Germany, very similar to Bush seeing the threat of Iraq in the midst of a war with Al Qaeda.

Let’s win this war brother. Just like FDR,Truman and JFK would’ve have wanted to. We are going to win (with or without some of you) and we’re going to win with Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice at the helm. That’s just a fact.

we’re going to win with Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice at the helm. That’s just a fact fantasy (sadly)

rahdigly,

you said:

we’re going to win with Bush, Rumsfeld and Rice at the helm. That’s just a fact.

Meriam Websters dictionary defines “fact” as

1: a thing done : FEAT, ACTION
2 archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY
4 a: something that has actual existence b: an actual occurrence

I hate to spoil your WWII analogy but I need to point out the FACT that many, and perhaps most Republicans were isolationists and opposed to going to war.

As for Bosnia, you know of course the FACT that President Clinton was fullfilling our treaty obligations to our NATO partners. You remember treaties, don’t you? Those are the promises that the Bush administration doesn’t believe in keeping.

rahdigly, if you can’t see the difference between practicing religion as a person wants, with their family, friends, and congregation, v. forcing it in front of other people who may not practice your brand of worship, with stuff like school prayer, then you’re pathetic.

ACLU actually defends people’s rights to practice religion, but you’re too narrow-minded to tolerate other people’s views, so you see every question about respecting other people’s religious concerns as an affront to your beliefs. Until you learn to tolerate other religious opinions, I’m wasting my time talking to you

The ACLU only protects its agenda, which has never changed. That is to alter the constitution in such a way as to make it a non usable document. The ACLU was started to change American society to the point of melding with the Soviet Union. They have not changed. They use the courts to get change that should be done in the legislative process. That is where that old bugaboo “judicial activism” raised is head. If they were so sure that their course was correct for the people of this country, then why are they afraid to seek legislative resolve for their programs, ideas, ideals, agenda, etc.? Since when does a child molester/predator have any right to practice their perversion? They don’t!!!!! The ACLU sees it different. Logic be damned. Just destroy values and principles. And, oh yes, the taxpayer has to pay the ACLU for their the destruction of the taxpayers life. Go figure. There are logical explanations that would turn into a short essay and a long disertation.

Dawn,
My biggest fear about Miers resigning is that the Senate may not thoroughly investigate the next nominee partially in part because they don’t want to show Bush’s incompetence - again.
(see Brown, DeLay, etc.)

Rah,

It might help if your read both world and U.S. history, as well the true stances and histories of both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party.

For instance, JFK did not want us in Vietnam, prior to his death he was working on plans to get us out of Vietnam. These papers were de-classified in 2000. JFK did not start the so - called Police Action, (sarcasm) Eisenhower did, in 1952, when he send in supervisors. Johnson was the one who decided we should continue the, in my humble opinion illegal, Police Action (sarcasm,again) during 1965 with the large addition of soldiers sent to Vietnam. Both Democrats and Republicans caused and continued the disaster that was Vietnam.

Democrats tend to respect all religions, they just don’t want to have ONE religion pushed down anyone’s throat. Sounds a bit like our Founding Fathers; Thomas Jefferson did not believe in God and therefore not His Son either, Ben Franklin who felt there were more important things to worry about than whether God existed at all, to George Washington, a devote follower of the Anglican Church, (what we now call Episcopalians, who are Christians, but not not fundamentalists, or Evangelists.)

As for abortion and parental consent, let it suffice that when you have worked more that 25 years for a state with way too many pregnant teens,as I have, then maybe you’ll TRY to put yourself in the shoes of women and teenagers trying to live in the U.S. I will however tell you my own personally thoughts on both.

I do not approve of abortion as a birth control. I do highly approve of education regarding not only abstinence, but condoms, the pill, and other birth control measures, except the rhythm method. Parental involvement is NOT always the best idea. Perhaps someone who is more subjective should work with the teen,encourage inclusion of parents, but help to offer the best solution for the child herself, not for the parents. (Wow, sounds a bit like Planned Parenthood, oopps)

As for being soft on sex offenders, Rah, I doubt you have the stomach to hear what I’d like to do to them, AFTER they have been physically castrated.

As for the Europeans and the Nazis, not only were they not physically prepared for Hitler, they were not MENTALLY prepared. No one dreamed of the type of hate Hitler and his kind had.

These vulnerable people should be commended for the lives they were able to save, for the underground movements that helped to frustrate the Nazis,and the horrors they faced in their own homes.

Just as their governments failed, the people were the true heroes, very much like our own on today.

Elliotbay wrote:
I hate to spoil your WWII analogy but I need to point out the FACT that many, and perhaps most Republicans were isolationists and opposed to going to war.

As for Bosnia, you know of course the FACT that President Clinton was fullfilling our treaty obligations to our NATO partners. You remember treaties, don’t you? Those are the promises that the Bush administration doesn’t believe in keeping.

______________________

Yo Bay, just name me the isolationist that were republicans. Just do that.

As far as you second point, “fullfilling promises” to Nato?! Is that the verbiage you’re using for that?!! Oh. Is that what Clinton was doing?! Ok, I got it now. Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!

Ok, I’m back now, wait— Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Alright I’m back. The only reason Clinton backed Nato is b/c he couldn’t get support from the UN and, Clinton didn’t get Congressional approval. Why weren’t the Anti-war cowards making a stink about that then; like they did with Bush when he did the same thing with Iraq. Except, of course, Bush didn’t go around Congress; he couldn’t of done that.

So, don’t even try this “fullfilling promises” with my baymeister. Cause, I’m not having it….

Linda wrote:
As for being soft on sex offenders, Rah, I doubt you have the stomach to hear what I’d like to do to them, AFTER they have been physically castrated.
_______________________________

Linda, Linda, Linda. I definitely have the stomach for what to do with these sick bastards. Yeah I said bastards.

And for the Nazis, Linda could you imagine if the Nazis had a religion to hide behind like these islamofacsists!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeahh. However, we’re are going to win this war. Damn it!! Are you with me Linda?!!! Let’s win it, not point fingers. Let’s change minds. Let’s go! Come on Linda, are you wit me?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Here’s one source. Note that the three most prominent isolationists named in the article were all Republicans.

Y’know, for someone who claims they want to have an intelligent discussion of the issues, responding “Ha Ha Ha” is remarkably UNintelligent.

Kosovo: The fact is that Congress was full of Clinton-haters who would have voted against Christmas if Clinton was in favor of it. Despite that, the Congress FAILED in its attempt to formally oppose sending troops to Kosovo (here’s the source). As far as Kosovo was concerned, the “anti-war cowards” as you call them were REPUBLICANS. Furthermore, if you had bothered to check your facts, you’d have found that President Bush himself opposed letting Congress vote on Kosovo. On May 17, 2000, the New York Times quoted Scott McClellan, Bush’s spokesperson as saying, “Governor Bush views it [a Republican effort to cut off funds for troops in Kosovo] as a legislative overreach on powers of the presidency.” Here’s the source.

rahdigly,

So, Mr. history.

Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich, April 12, 1922

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

“Then indeed when Rome collapsed there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the North; but, if Germany collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free!

“And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited.â€

Rocky, did you do your duty and look up Germany in the 1920’s and earlier 30’s? If you didn’t, don’t reply then. Look it up, Rock…

Linda H
My biggest fear about Miers resigning is that the Senate may not thoroughly investigate the next nominee partially in part because they don’t want to show Bush’s incompetence - again.

If they want to show incompentance or not doesn’t matter. They’re going to be forced to confirm who ever Bush nominates to keep from looking like a bunch of idiots themselves. After all 1/3 of them are up for reelection next year.
I still say Bush pulled a fast one with this. Now he can nominate the person he REALLY wanted to start with and get them confirmed. Looks like the boy aint as stupid as some people want to make out like.

Elliott,
Thanks for the on Republican isolationists, beat me to it. It was a very important movement, from the defeat Woodrow Wilson’s internationalist agenda, to opposition to US entry in to WWII, ending with the islationist’s loss to Eisenhower in 1952.

Rah,
Don’t guess. When in doubt, google it, and back up your position with links. Above all, don’t rely on resources like Rush Limbaugh. Talk radio hosts are usually entertainers & propagandists, not sources for ‘facts.’

Elliotbay wrote:
Kosovo: The fact is that Congress was full of Clinton-haters who would have voted against Christmas if Clinton was in favor of it.
___________________________

Ok, now that’s a classic example of posing a question about one thing and then answering with something else. You were talking about WWII and the Republican isolationist. Then you quoted Bosnia. No. No. No. You list the Republican Isolationist in WWII. Do it right now!! Then come talk to me….

Phx8 wrote:
Rah,
Don’t guess. When in doubt, google it, and back up your position with links. Above all, don’t rely on resources like Rush Limbaugh. Talk radio hosts are usually entertainers & propagandists, not sources for ‘facts.’
______________________________

What are you talking about, Rush fricking Limbaugh?!!!! I’m a connoisseur of history. If I don’t know it, I’ll look it up. What (pray tell) were you regarding? What in history did you want me to google?

CLARIFY YOURSELF, PHX8!!!!!!!!!!

rahdigny,
I ALREADY POSTED IT “October 28, 2005 06:32 PM”.
SCROLL UP AND LOOK.

Phx8,
When I was a kid, I found a book of my dad’s called “The Illustrious Dunderheads”. (link) It was published during the early 40’s and was a collection of quotes from the isolationists of the 20’s and 30’s. So I’ve been aware of them since I was a young teenager.

Almost all the isolationists changed their tune following Pearl Harbor, but they were an important reason why we weren’t involved in WWII until then.

rahdigly,

“Rocky, did you do your duty and look up Germany in the 1920’s and earlier 30’s? If you didn’t, don’t reply then. Look it up, Rock…”

“I’m a connoisseur of history”

Compared to what?
You haven’t gotten anything remotely correct so far. All you have done is parrot Republican talking points.
Did you sleep through history?
Do you bother to do any research?
Are you capable of original thought?

Elliotbay wrote:
I ALREADY POSTED IT “October 28, 2005 06:32 PMâ€.
SCROLL UP AND LOOK.
___________________________

No, you posted the Bosnia thing. I said WWII, where were the Republican Islolation there?!!!!!!!!

Don’t even attempt to respond unless you respond to that…

Boy, you’re pretty demanding for a new guy.

Rocky wrote:
Compared to what?
You haven’t gotten anything remotely correct so far. All you have done is parrot Republican talking points.
Did you sleep through history?
Do you bother to do any research?
Are you capable of original thought?
____________________________________

Stop labeling and name calling me and specify (AND CLARIFY) to me what in history you need explained.

As a matter of fact, don’t. You’re too much of a clown wasting my time with something you know nothing about. And, I’m not going to teach you anything anymore you clown. Go google yourself. Bye! Bye!

dugly,
As I said before, I already posted it. Go to the first line of the 6:32PM post and follow the link. It’s on the first line. That’s the topmost one. It starts with “Here’s one source.”

And while you’re reading the link, you might want to consider learning some manners.

The Republicans, at least according to the history I learned, WERE isolationist from somewhere around the turn of the century up until Pearl Harbor was bombed. If there were any around when Ike was elected I cann’t say for sure. But if there were I don’t think there were very many.

Ron,
Elliott posted the wikipedia link earlier in the thread on Republican isolationists. It appears Rah missed the link entirely, or is unaware that links are highlighted words that connect the reader to an article by simply clicking on that highlighted word. Perhaps Rah does not have a computer which shows word links as highlighted? That would explain it.

“Stop labeling and name calling me and specify (AND CLARIFY) to me what in history you need explained.

As a matter of fact, don’t. You’re too much of a clown wasting my time with something you know nothing about. And, I’m not going to teach you anything anymore you clown. Go google yourself. Bye! Bye!”

What name calling?
Gee, let me think.
Mr. history?
Is that what has your panties in a bunch?
You need to back off on the caffine, pal.

So far you’ve been incorrect on the VietNam War, WW2, FDR, isolationists…. I could go on and on.

Not to mention that you’re pretty damn pushy for some that just got here.

I guess Mr. History has to drag it out of everyone. Whatever.

I see what you are doing. You can’t beat me (hell) you can’t even challenge me on facts, so you resort to name calling and changing the subject.

Yes, I name call; however, I back it up with facts first. If I see you wasting my time (which all of you have) then I kick in the name calling mode.

Alright, toolbags…. He! He!

rahdigly,

You’re going to get along here a whole lot better if you cite your sources and lose your attitude. It’s called a discussion group, not an argument group.

Rah,
Seriously- did you see Elliott’s link earlier on Republican isolationism?

phx8
I don’t know what Rah’s problem is there.
Just thought that if a conservitive told him that he might see his wrong on this.
Maybe he will, Maybe he won’t.
This is something I learned in school in history class. Maybe all this revisionist history lost it somewhere.

Ron,

There were a few new people posting over this last week. All seemed to have attitudes, rah was just one of them.

Maybe it’s tome to ignore these boys with attitudes. Maybe they’ll get bored and go away.

Rah,

I can’t even fathom being on the same side as you. You don’t or won’t read the posts. Your knowledge of history is at best sporadic, and you are interested in only one opinion - yours. As for the rest of what ever you have to say, I agree with the other posts. This is a DISCUSSION group, and it makes far more sense to discuss FACTS, rather than opinions. Or to at least be able to back-up ones’ thoughts. You might be shocked to learn how well the ‘give and take’ of a true discussion works. It can be a true learning experience.

As for winning this war…the only way I see of actually winning it would be if we’d never gotten there AT ALL. However…

Now I can only hope that if we to start pulling out, and let the Iraqi try to solve their problems WITH our HELP, NOT our FORCE, we might be able to actually help them, and as the Chinese say, “save face” . Besides, I’m still not convinced THEY want a Democracy

Try paying attention to what Stephen Daugherty writes, Ron Brown, ElliottBay, both of the Jacks, and Rays here, or phx8, and Adverbal or any of the other Democrats and Republicans who write on this blog. They attempt to use basic common courtesy, facts to back-up their thoughts and ideas, and are not into the name calling or cliche repeaters that push a good discussion into the lake and drown it.

Ron Brown,
You put into words exactly what I was attempting to get at aboutwith the Senate and the new nominee. Thank you

“If they want to show incompetence or not doesn’t matter. They’re going to be forced to confirm who ever Bush nominates to keep from looking like a bunch of idiots themselves. After all 1/3 of them are up for reelection next year.
I still say Bush pulled a fast one with this. Now he can nominate the person he REALLY wanted to start with and get them confirmed. Looks like the boy ain’t as stupid as some people want to make out like.”

rahdigly,

Let me give you a hint: When the Democrats, Rebulicans and independents on this blog all agree that you’re wrong and you’re being rude, it’s time for you to LISTEN AND LEARN!!! The chances of some of these people agreeing on anything at all is fairly slim, and yet they all agree you’re wrong. Really, that should tell you something. Try opening a book or something, man.

Sorry, Linda. I should have read your post first. You worded yours much better than I worded mine. I bow to your tact.

Who here remembers the statement made by one of the commanding generals a couple/three weeks ago? Paraphrasing: “Insurgencies (like the one in Iraq) typically last for 10 years or more.”

Who has the desire for ten more years of this? Who still believes Rummy is the guy to ‘lead us to victory’ with the 100k troops he said would be more than enough?

Who thinks it should take us ten years to finish this if we actually did it right and listened to the guys who actually have experience INSTEAD of Rummy?

stephanie wrote:
Let me give you a hint: When the Democrats, Rebulicans and independents on this blog all agree that you’re wrong and you’re being rude, it’s time for you to LISTEN AND LEARN!!!
_________________________

Yo steph, all of you are looking for a scapegoat and the rahdigster is the one you’re are after. Try taking a look at my blogs, I have very poignant comments and a knowledge for history. These idiots want to jump on me b/c I asked for facts on the republican isolationists in WWII and (toolbag) elliotbay quoted the isolationist from the Bosnia war. Sup with that?!

I still can’t get over how some of these blogs tried to convince us that republicans= Nazis. If they pick up a history book, they’ll see the Nazis were from the left (the socialist party), not the right. I feel I’m wasting my time with you guys. (You) learn your history and pick up a book.

So Steph, until you read some of my posts, don’t even try jumping in on this pile up.

I’m too big and too smart to get pinned down…

Linda wrote:
Rah,

I can’t even fathom being on the same side as you. You don’t or won’t read the posts. Your knowledge of history is at best sporadic, and you are interested in only one opinion - yours.
________________________________________________

Linda, now I broke you down so many times on the “The Good Guys Are Winning In Iraq” post; remember, “WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FATWA”!! You’re the one that said you would kill terrorists if they were in your back yard; however, you believe in peace.

Don’t step until you have facts. My side is actually for the US; which means I dissent w/ Bush, not hate him and put him ahead of the terrorists. Did any of you history professors hear what the President of Iran has been saying about Israel “they should be killed and swept off this planet”. Do any of you have a smug comment for those terrorists?! No, I’m sure you don’t, but I bet you have criticism and hatred for Bush!!!

Linda you said:
As for winning this war…the only way I see of actually winning it would be if we’d never gotten there AT ALL.
___________________________

Jeez. I’m so glad you’re not in charge or even a history teacher. The only way I see winning this war is actually winning it. We’ve already had elections that were to determine whether Bush stays or go and he stays. In fact, the troops (to which you anti-war softies support— yeah right) have voted to reelect your favorite terrorists (Bush) 4 to 1. That’s a big margin for someone that “took us to war for oil”… “went to war to avenge his daddy’s assassination attempt”… “to please the Jews”… “to finish his daddy’s war”…etc.

Whatever! The troops didn’t believe that; in fact, the only ones that believe that were the Bush haters and the terrorists. Ha! Doesn’t that make you feel good that our own troops can’t even tell the difference between your hate speech and the terrorists?!!

Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“Figure out what side your on and get on it”.

We are going to win this war, with or without you Linda (and others…)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rahdigly,

You simply don’t pay attention. I found the source ElliotBay sited without any difficulty.

“The time between the World Wars saw a resurgence in isolationism in the United States. After the war broke out in Europe, such Americans as Charles Lindbergh, Gerald P. Nye and Rush D. Holt prominently advocated U.S. neutrality. U.S. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s efforts to aid countries against Nazi Germany’s and Imperial Japan’s aggression through economic aid and embargoes made American political isolationism solely military in nature.

Japan’s 1941 Attack on Pearl Harbor effectively dashed any hopes of the U.S. further maintaining military isolationism, as suddenly it put the U.S. into World War II. The sanguine effects of geopolitical alliance did not evaporate with Allied victory: in contrast, the developing Cold War would make them more desirable than ever. Today, the United States is far removed from its history of isolation. Through the United Nations, defensive agreements are in place with forty-four sovereign states.”

This very succintly demonstrates Republicans as isolationists. Hit the link please, then hit the link for these guys’ names. You’ll see what we mean. Or is it that wikipedia is ignorant of your alternate version of history as well?

Okay, I missed the part where anyone here was trying to convince you that the Republicans were Nazis. I’ve seen it before, but not in this thread. (Now, you saying they’re fascists, I got that part, though you’re wrong there too. Go figure.) These fine people are trying to convince you that you’re confused about (or ignoring) your history, which you are, so you’re “aw, everyone’s pickin’ on poor li’l me for no reason” routine is falling on deaf ears here. I’ve been blogging with these fine people for several months now, and whether I agree with them or not, they usually know their stuff.

As for your blogs…I’ve read them. In fact, I read the whole thread before I responded, well, except Linda’s. I was impatient at your audacity by then. You seem neither big nor smart right now, rahdigly; you merely seem arrogant, stubborn and small-minded. You give conservatives a bad name and I take personal offense at that.

Stephanie wrote (quoted):
After the war broke out in Europe, such Americans as Charles Lindbergh, Gerald P. Nye and Rush D. Holt prominently advocated U.S. neutrality. U.S. Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s efforts to aid countries against Nazi Germany’s and Imperial Japan’s aggression through economic aid and embargoes made American political isolationism solely military in nature.
___________________________________

Now, Lindberg was a democrat. I see that you only quote a piece of history. In addition to Lindberg, you can also say that Henry Ford and Joe Kennedy were part of the Isolationist (or “American Firstist”). Guess what they were liberals, not Republicans.

In fact, Kennedy, who helped get FDR reelected (with the hollywood community) in 1936, that FDR appointed Kennedy to the Ambassador of Britain. While there, he had a bunch of policies that were anti-semetic and he’s the one that said “side with the Nazis now so we won’t have to fight them later”. Yikes!!

rahdigly,

You said: “Now, Lindberg was a democrat.”

Check your facts. I told you to click on their names on the site. Had you done that and read it you would have found this:

“As Nazi Germany began World War II, the Republican Lindbergh became a prominent speaker in favor of isolationism and pro-German policies, going so far as to recommend that the United States negotiate a neutrality pact with Germany during his January 23, 1941 testimony before Congress.”

“I see that you only quote a piece of history.”

Yes, the piece you claimed ElliotBay didn’t provide, which he did in fact provide, which also happens to be the same piece you are ignoring because it doesn’t fit with your own alternate version of history.

It’s over now, rahdigly. Your posts are rude and crass and inaccurate. You owe ElliotBay an apology, and I’m not goi