The Politics Thread - Read the First Post

[sam7777]

That's the problem with fear and hate mongers like Bush. Give them an inch and they will take a yard. These are not people who care about the country and the majority of the people in it. They only care about power and pandering to their base. No democratic country can afford to alienate half their population and remain a democracy. A president should be the leader for all the United States not just those who agree with him. A great leader knows how to serve all the people and make the country better. Slime like Bush are simply making things worse with their divide and conquer tactics and weakening our democracy IMHO. At a time when we needed to be united as a nation and with the world to deal with the scourge of terrorist, Bush has alienated half the US and much of the world pissing away the good will we had after 9/11. It destroys the fabric of America as a nation of freedoms and as a model for the world when we are divided by hatred and bigotry. Negative tactics can bring a victory as it did in 2000 and 2004 but it denigrates the moral fabric of the nation. The US has been and always will be a nation of many religions, sex and race. It is criminal for this president and any other president to promote bigotry and division.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8375245
Berlusconi under pressure on Iraq

ROME, Italy -- Pressure is mounting on the Italian government from its own supporters to reconsider the country's military presence in Iraq after conflicting reports on the killing of an Italian agent by U.S. soldiers.

Calls by opposition leaders to withdraw the 3,000 Italian soldiers from Iraq grew Tuesday after an Italian assessment of the March 4 death of intelligence agent Nicola Calipari differed from the U.S. finding.

Berlusconi and Blair have become Bush's lap dogs sending their people to die in a cause that most of their countryman do not support. It is increasingly clear that Bush had no reason to attack Iraq in 2003: no WMDs or link to Al Quaeda's 9/11 attack. Waging agressive war was a crime in the Nuremberg trials and remains a crime:
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/123104Davies/123104davies.html
The crime of war: from Nuremberg to Fallujah
A review of current international law regarding wars of aggression, and its implications for U.S. policy in Iraq and elsewhere By Nicolas J S Davies:

December 31, 2004—In September, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan told the BBC that the U.S./British invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law [1]. The following week, he dedicated his entire annual address to the U.N. General Assembly to the subject of international law, saying, "We must start from the principle that no one is above the law, and no one should be denied its protection." So, how was the invasion of Iraq illegal? How does that affect the situation there today? And what are the practical implications of this for U.S. policy going forward, in Iraq and elsewhere?

The Secretary General presumed what the world generally accepts, that international law is legally binding upon all countries. In the United States however, international law is spoken of differently, as a tool that our government can use selectively to enforce its will on other nations, or else circumvent when it conflicts with sufficiently important U.S. interests.

Long but excellent article. The US can and has done wrong and it is not unpatriotic to say so. The adage "love it or leave it" disguises an evil intent. What if one neither loves it nor leaves it? What is the next step? A concentration camp for "non patriots"? Permanent internment at Guantanamo? Tarring and feathering? What kind of country will that create? The wrong kind IMHO.

[justin]

It's the day of the election. The current polls are

Labour: 36-39%
Conservative: 31-33%
Lib Dem: 21-23%
Other: 6-9%

If it weren't for the fact our electoral sysem is totally b0rked that would result in a hung parliament. As it is, if people vote like that then Labour should end up with a reasonable absolute majority.

[sam7777]

The only thing that we can resonably hope for is that Labour's lead in parliament is significantly reduced giving Blair a "bloody nose'" as Mr Sedgemore suggested when he defected from Labour:
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4460969
Give Blair A Bloody Nose, Says Labour Defector

Hopefully a mixture of Labour apathy and defections to the Liberal Dems can cut Labours majority to something like 30 from the current 100+

Blair is certainly an american product in many ways beyond being Bush's lap dog in Iraq:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ote05.html
Blair's bid has U.S. accent

Behind the scenes, U.S. political consultants are involved in virtually every aspect of the campaign of Prime Minister Tony Blair and the Labor Party, continuing a relationship that began with Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign for president.

On the eve of Britain's general election today, the Americans were attending to the last details of Labor's operation and nervously waiting for the polls to open. They have been attracted by Blair's quest for a record third term for the Labor Party and the chance to learn as well as advise.

The Americans took polls, conducted focus groups and helped to shape and refine the Labor message. They advised Labor officials on techniques for targeting and mobilizing voters, drawn from the intensive ground war in last year's presidential campaign.

It's a shame these advisers can't give Blair the "success" of the Kerry campaign.

And really can Berlusconi drag Italy down any further? Despite the fact that Italy has disagreed with the American report (though it was tepid from Berlusconi), he doesn't want to ask the US for an apology?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1599001,00.html

No call for US apology: Berlusconi

Silvio Berlusconi has not demanded that the United States apologises for the death of an Italian agent in Iraq or called for the soldiers involved in the killing to be punished.

I gather that Berlusconi doesn't want to offend his US masters but doesn't Italy deserve better from it's own government? It's sad that Berlusconi cares more about than his own countrymen and women.

On a separate note, what is it with the Iraq cabal of leaders all have last names atarting with 'B": Bush, Berlusconi, Blair
It's an evil nest of Bees

[Sheridan]

Sorry but it isn't a case of giving Blair 'a bloody nose', that's the kind of thinking that put Bush in the Whitehouse in 2000. Democrats who 'knew' Bush couldn't win went and voted for Ralph Nader to make a point to Gore. The truth is that there is a straight choice between Blair and Howard and anyone who thinks we wouldn't have gone to war under Howard is kidding themselves. Vote for whichever party you think will makes the country a better place to live, not waste it in some futile attempt to teach some politician a lesson.

[sam7777]

Vote for whichever party you think will makes the country a better place to live, not waste it in some futile attempt to teach some politician a lesson.

What if there is not such party or no way for them to win? Unhappily sometimes where there is little choice between evils and tactical voting is the only statement that you can make. A better analogy IMHO is the folks who traded votes to give the Green party votes in a state that the Dems would win anyway to strengthen a third party by using tactical voting. This UK vote does not relate to Bush/Gore IMHO as that was a close election with either having a possiblity to win. In the UK, I don't think a conservative government is a realistic possibility given the structure of the electoral system. There is little doubt that Labour will continue to have a lead in parliament. Reducing that lead by a significant margin by voting for Liberal Dems if you are against the war is a reasonable form of protest IMHO and I hope that those folks who don't favor the UK's involvement in the IRAQ war adopt it. One's person's "waste of time" is another's statement.

ETA: The exit polls are out on the UK election:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1477676,00.html

Exit polls forecast Labour majority of 66

Simon Jeffery
Thursday May 5, 2005

Labour are set to win an historic third term in office when the election results are declared tonight, according to the exit polls.

A Mori/NOP poll of voters who had cast their ballots gave Labour 37% of the vote with the Tories on 33%. This would translate into 356 Labour seats, an overall majority of 66.

The Liberal Democrats were in third place on 21%. It represents an improvement on their 18.3% share of the vote in 2001 but is worse than the party hoped for and may only see two more MPs returned to parliament than it returned four years ago.

A Guardian/ICM opinion poll this morning predicted that Labour would win the election with a majority of perhaps more than 100. It gave Labour 38%, the Tories 32%, and the Liberal Democrats 22% but forecast the 130 majority Labour could expect with these figures could be cut to as low as 90 by activity in the marginal constituencies.

Labour won the 2001 election with a 165 majority.

If this pans out then the Labour lead has been cut from 165 to 66 that's a significant loss for Labour and a bloody nose for Blair. Blair is increasingly a liability to his own party and they should dump him as PM.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... world_news
Blair May Win Third Term With Reduced Majority, Polls Show

``For the party to go into the election with a majority of 160 and come out with 60 will be regarded as a poor result,'' said Kellner. ``If it comes to be felt that 40 or 50 Labour members of Parliament have lost their jobs because Blair's reputation has been far lower than it was, that will lead to pressure building up for him to be replaced by Gordon Brown.'
...
Philip Cowley, a reader in politics at Nottingham University who has studied parliamentary rebellions says Blair may find even an 80-seat majority too low.

During Blair's second term, 72 of his lawmakers voted against the introduction of university tuition fees in 2004 and 139 voted against him over his decision to support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the largest rebellion against a governing party in British history.

``They struggled with a majority of 161 to get legislation through,'' he said. ``Anything below 80, and Blair can't govern as Blair. It would be perfectly possible if he were a bit more conciliatory, but Blair has shown no signs he can do that.'' '

Instead of Blair governing as Blair, perhaps Blair should try governing as Labour.

[justin]

Exit polls predict Labour winning but with their majority reduced from 160 to 66 seats.

Of course how accurate that is remains to be seen.

[sam7777]

justin: Too true on the exit polls given the farcical results of same in the US 2004 travesty.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=8403573
Exit poll shows Blair to win, majority slashed

Exit polling is not an exact science. In the 1992 election, for example, surveys of voters at the exit of polling stations predicted a Labour victory which never materialized.

Actual results should begin coming in around 2300 GMT, with the outcome clear by early Friday morning.

"If the exit poll holds true this is incredibly bad news for Blair," said Mark Wickham-Jones, senior lecturer in politics at Bristol university. "The result is much better than the Conservatives thought they were going to get.

"There is a sense in which this election has been a referendum on Blair and I think it is going to leave him considerably weakened," he told Reuters.

"My guess is it really hastens Blair's departure ... He may not be there at Christmas."

BIRTHDAY VICTORY

Blair, who celebrates his 52nd birthday on Friday, has been called a liar and a poodle of President Bush over Iraq, and has suffered countless rebellions in his own party.

Poodle!?! :LOL

[justin]

It's just gone 6 in the morning here and so far 613 of the 646 constituencies have declared their results.

As expected Labour have won. It now remains to be seen how strong a majority they'll have

exit p % votes seats
La 37 36.3 351
Co 33 33.1 191
LD 22 22.6 59
Ot 8 8 12

The first thing to note is that the exit polls were resonably accurate. Within 1% for each party

The second thing is that as expected the number of seats doesn't match the number of votes. with 36.3% of the votes Labour got 57.2% of the seats whilst with 22.6% of the votes the lib dems only got 9.6% of the seats. Of course if we had a reasonable electoral system then we would have a hung parliament.

Turnout was 60.16%, slightly higher than for the 2001 election.

Which means that 21.9% of the people in the country voted for Labour, hardly an awe inspiring mandate, regardless of how many seats they have.

[sam7777]

I certainly hope that Blair doesn't pull a bush and decide that this is a "mandate" justifying his decision on Iraq. From the articles I quoted above, Blair will need at least a 100 seat majority to rule as before 60-80 seats won't cut it. The best result is Blair out and Gordon Brown in as soon as pobbily given the "bloody nose" that Labour took today.

[aceivan]

I have mixed feelings about the election results. Two thirds of us voted against the Labour Party but we now have Blair as Prime Minister again, however a win for Blair keeps Howard and the Conservatives out of 10 Downing Street. At least we kept what I feel is still a very bigotted party out of power for the next four years.

Len

[justin]

The fact that the Tories didn't get into power is definitely the silver lining for the cloud that is the election results. Incidentally Michael Howard says he's going to stand down. Whoever replaces him will be the fourth conservative leader since John Major resigned following their loss to Labour eight years ago.

I kind of get the feeling that just swapping leaders isn't going to help much.

Blair has admitted that Iraq affected the results and was partly responsible for the fall in their majority. As has been said the smaller majority will cause him problems. Labour isn't a particularly unified party, there are still a lot of "Old Labour" people in parliament, people who were members of the party before it reinvented itself as being the new, low fat version of the conservatives in order to win. He's going to have to bring those people into line, either through hook or through crook, if he's going to get his policies through.

Not that Labour having this small a majority would have prevented them taking us to war. Even though more than a hundred labour MPs voted against it, it was certain to go through since the Conservative party voted in favour.


I often say that I'm wasting my vote by voting Liberal Democrat and here is why. Labour got about nine and a half million votes and ended up with three hundred and fifty five seats. The Liberal Democrats got just under six million votes but only fifty nine seats.

So for every million votes Labour got thirty seven seats whilst the liberal democrats got just ten seats. Meaning that a vote for Labour is the equivelent of about four votes for the Lib Dems.

I have to wonder what is the point of voting if my vote isn't going to count? So this'll be the last general election I vote in. Till the country gets a sane (IMHO) electoral system I'm not going to keep wasting my time.

[Carnival Kid]

I understand your frustration Justin. The Scottish Parliament has a Proportional Representation element in its' electoral rules which, for me, was fantastic. I tend to vote Scottish Socialist so there wouldn't be a snowball's chance in hell of me ever seeing my vote represented without that system. When this was adopted there had been talk that it was to test the model in preparation for its adoption in the Westminster elections but that seems to have died away. Hmm, big London based parties testing things out on Scotland. And Blair wonders why his party are dubbed Tories in disguise!

Incidentally I live in Birmingham at the moment and we had a fantastic Lib Dem result down here. The Lib Dem's took Sollihll off of the Conservatives who have held the seat since its creation in 1945. It was totally unexpected as the Tory majority in 2001 was 9,407 so it was one of the safest seats. What pleased me most was that the result wasn't down to apathy and lack of turnout. Turnout was 68% in Solihull, up 6% from 2001.

A quick well done to the SNP who are up to 6 seats in the Westminster parliament (from 4 last time). It'll be interesting to see if this was a pro SNP shift or anti Blair shift. Guess we'll find out at the Scottish parliament elections.

Good luck all Northern Irish kittens, your results are coming in just now.

[justin]

A long time ago, a younger, more naive version of me wrote

So people are just supposed to accept Evolution without any critical analysis? The sticker doesn't say "This book contains material about Evolution, which is a load of rubbish." It just says that Evolution is a theory. Hardly a damning claim given the fact that it's called The Theory of evolution.

The mistake I was making was just considering the sticker as an isolated event and not as part of a wider plan.

The new york times has a story about attempts in canvas to change the definition of science

It seems to me that both of these are part of an attempt to increase skepticism in current scientific knowledge and procedures whilst diluting the meaning of science in order to make it easier to convince people that inteligent design (whilst I know the name inteligent design was chosen to sound more scientific than creationism, I can't see it without thinking it's the latest software engineering fad) is just as scientific as evolution.

The new definition is

continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

which seems to be a much broader definition than

seeking natural explanations for what we observe around us

so it'd be easier to spin inteligent design as being science. So when they try to put inteligent design on the corriculum they can say, it's not religion it's science.

[Gatito Grande]

The new definition is

continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena.

Oh brother. "Logical argument": what's that? The Unmoved Mover? The Great Watchmaker in the Sky? Some Thomas Aquinas "this was kick-ass stuff in the 13th century!" cosmology?

And if the past was all about "Intelligent Design"(er), you know that the future will be all about their junk pseudo-science (like how "global warming is a myth...like evolution"---not to mention "we can CURE GAYS!" )

GG These losers are an insult to the Dark Ages! Out

[maudmac]

I don't have a problem with scientific theories being challenged...in theory. That's how science is supposed to work. That's how human knowledge expands. But these "intelligent design" people are just firing another salvo in the current culture wars. It's disappointing that it looks like they're gaining ground, because I believe their ultimate goal is really to make it unacceptable to not be Christian. It's already difficult enough in some places, and they just want to make it harder.

In general, regardless of particular religious beliefs, I think that a lot of humans are uncomfortable with anything that hints at our animal nature. We don't like being reminded that we are just another species of animal inhabiting this planet. We want to believe we're sooooo special that we cannot be linked in any way with "dumb animals" and we definitely do not like being thought of as hairless apes.

And I get that. I understand that. We condemn a lot of perfectly normal animal behavior in humans. Aggression, for instance. And we don't care for humans having sex all over the place in public, like animals do. I'd go to jail for peeing in public, but my dog pees in public probably fifty times a day.

I think these distinctions are necessary to have cohesive civilization, of course. I sure don't want to have bands of thugs roaming the perimeter of my neighborhood, killing anyone from the next neighborhood who gets too close to our territory. I don't even like knowing that chimpanzees do that; I sure don't want humans doing it. But we all know that humans have it in us to do exactly those sorts of things. And this is bothersome to us. So I think creationism is comforting to a lot of people for those reasons. It sets us not just apart, but above. A soothing idea.

So there's a part of me that mostly just feels sorry for the creationism people, because it seems to me that they can't deal with what they are - human animals.

[justin]

Tony Blair has announced his new cabinet. The most interesting appointment, to me, is the fact that David Blunket has been made the Minister of work and pensions just five months after he was forced to resign as home secretary because of the scandal about him using his position to help someone get a visa.

Back benchers in the Labour party are calling for Blair to quit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4526435.stm

[sam7777]

Blair certainly got a bloody nose in this election despite winning:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4528009.stm

The prime minister has been under growing attack since his majority was slashed from 161 to 67.

I hope that they force him out soon and that Gordon will pull them out of Iraq or at least not be such a lap dog to the shrub. I'd rather he piss on the shrub and actually move the Labour (instead of US) agenda forward.

ETA: Local elections dealt Premier Silvio Berlusconi's forces another embarrassing defeat. They need to dump Berlusconi and form a center left gov't:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-italy-elections,0,2467944.story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
Italy Elections Deal Blows to Berlusconi

May 10, 2005, 7:38 PM EDT

ROME -- Italy's center-left opposition celebrated Tuesday as returns from local elections in Sardinia and two northern regions dealt Premier Silvio Berlusconi's forces another embarrassing defeat.

Center-left leaders snapped up six of the eight provincial presidencies up for grabs on the island of Sardinia, with just one going to Berlusconi's center-right coalition and one requiring a runoff later this month, final returns showed from the voting on Sunday and Monday.

xtra rounds of balloting were required in the Trentino-Alto Adige region and returns were still trickling in from the mountainous Valle d'Aosta, but members of Berlusconi's coalition conceded a poor showing.

"It's another defeat that's added to the rosary of the difficulties" of the center-right, said Marco Follini, leader of the Union of Christian Democrats and former deputy premier in Berlusconi's cabinet.

The center-right, he said, was hoping for an improved showing in local elections in Sicilia later this month, "but it's clear that we cannot and for our part don't want to get season tickets to defeat."

The vote followed April 3-4 elections in 13 of Italy's 20 regions in which Berlusconi's coalition suffered a stinging defeat, gaining just two of the regions up for grabs. Following that showing, Berlusconi resigned, reshuffled his Cabinet in a bid to shore up his coalition and quickly formed a new government, vowing to lead it until general elections next spring.

But the center-left said Tuesday the showings this time around showed that Berlusconi's government reshuffle -- known here as Berlusconi B -- hadn't convinced voters. Berlusconi's ratings have been weakened by a sluggish economy and opposition to Italy's involvement in Iraq.

Personally I'm not suprised given how badly Berlusconi has kissed bush's @ss over the investgation into the killing of Calipari. Despite the fact the the Italian representatives refused to sign off on the US's whitewash absolving them or blame, Berlusconi' has steadfastly refused to ask for an apology from the US or taken any action to show he has a spine and cares about Italian vs US interests. I can't believe Berlusconi was allowed to reshuffle his government after the last hideous election defeat. Also, Berlusconi keeps lying about withdrawing the troops saying he will but continually pushing the date back and qualifying it with a need for permission from the the shrub and blair:
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/130/world/Italy_to_keep_troops_in_Iraq_u:.shtml
Italy to keep troops in Iraq until at least early 2006, well beyond September target

Berlusconi should just say the truth: the Italian troops will stay there until bush allows them to go. Obviously, his government has little say in the matter.

ETA2:Bush is a bad president and it's not hard to see why. He is only president for half this country and to hell with the rest of us:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-polassess13may13,0,1154725.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

The vote demonstrated again Bush's willingness to live on the political edge — to accept achingly narrow margins in Congress and at the ballot box to pursue ambitious changes that sharply divide the country.

"This is their style of governing," said Marshall Wittmann, a former aide to Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) who is a fellow at the Democratic Leadership Council, a centrist party group. "You build upon the base and pressure the middle and you ignore the other side. You push across the finish line and you move on. In their mind, a win is a win, regardless of how narrow or polarizing it is."

This approach has allowed Bush to move more of his agenda into law than appeared possible for a president twice elected with narrow majorities in the electoral college. But it has also bitterly divided the country over his presidency, and so alienated congressional Democrats that Bush often needs virtually lock-step Republican support to pass his priorities.

The next few weeks will severely test Bush's ability to maintain that partisan unity, as Congress approaches explosive battles over ending filibusters of judicial nominees and restructuring Social Security — as well as the Senate floor vote on Bolton.

It may take years but eventually this strategy will fail. I hope it doesn't take our democracy with it. The shrub IS NOT my president and never has been.

[sam7777]

with thunderous applause.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=8590793US Senate, with deal, moves to approve judge

The Repugs and Dems have reached a "compromise" that give Repugs the reactionary judges that they want, the ability to eliminate the filubuster later (not that they need to as the Dems won't use it) and more trouble to GLBT folks, women. minotiriues and the poor which all the former will become under the Repug regime.

Expect to see judges that are very anti-gay and pro-corporate assign to LIFETIME postiions on the fed benches to make sure that GLBTs do not gain equal rights and corporations have free reign to make profit regardless of the human or environmental cost.

http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?start=5/22/05&end=5/28/05#749
Democrats betray gays with filibuster deal

Democrats have shown once again that they may play a good tune when it comes to gay rights, but it's nothing more than a pop song that is quickly forgotten. Their hearts aren't really in it.

They struck a deal with the Republicans where they gave Republicans nearly everything they wanted, including putting homophobe William Pryor on the U.S. Court of Appeals with a lifetime appointment, to avoid the "nuclear option."

Pryor is only 43 years old, meaning he will probably be discriminating against gay Americans from the federal bench for 30 or more years.

Here's what Lambda Legal wrote about Pryor's amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Lawrence vs. Texas:

Pryor’s brief placed the right to sexual intimacy for gay people on a legal par with "prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography and even incest and pedophilia."

Pryor described the claims of gay people that it was unconstitutional to criminalize the private, consensual, noncommercial sexual intimacy between adults as follows: "For all intents and purposes, petitioners seek to enshrine as the defining tenet of modern constitutional jurisprudence the sophomoric libertarian mantra from the musical Hair: 'be free, be whatever you are, do whatever you want to do, just as long as you don’t hurt anybody.'"

Indeed, Pryor’s interest in the Lawrence case was so strong that he took the unusual step of petitioning for leave to participate in oral argument as a friend of the court. (The Supreme Court denied Pryor’s petition.)

President Bush decided even after the Senate held up Pryor's nomination to place him on the bench anyway with a recess appointment in February 2004. That allowed Pryor to cast the deciding vote in the Florida gay adoption case, where the court ruled that Florida's legislature had the power to deny its gay citizens the right to adopt.

This is the Democratic Party in action, stabbing gay Americans in the back.

And the Sit loards win yet again:
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05242005.html
The Dark Side of the Empire
Is Bush a Sith Lord?

The Sith, however, are everywhere. In our day the Sith masquerade as neoconservatives. Neocons deal in absolutes. They believe the end justifies the means. As the Jedi master Obi-Wan tells Anakin, who is turning to the dark side and emerging as Darth Vader, "only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes." Anakin to Obi-Wan: "If you're not with me, you're my enemy."

Go to the link to read the rest. It's a good one.

[dorksrcool]

It is a sad day for our democracy and it is sad day for anyone who doesn't fall in line with the evangelical, right-wing agenda. Those democrats that struck a "compromise" with the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves. I'm ready to pack my bags and leave this freakin' country.

[TemperedCynic]

sam7777 and dorksrool - Looks like this story isn't over yet.

John from AMERICAblog.com gave us a fine example of a sore winner: Mitch Berg sent this letter to Senator Frist after the deal was struck. Berg lives in MY neighborhood, and this is definitely not the suburbs. What's interesting is this report from ThinkProgress.com saying Frist will ignore the deal and ask for cloture on two extreme judicial candidates. Who were NOT part of the deal and that Frist is distancing himself from the deal.

This could mean the agreement is toast. Which means that Frist will still try the nuclear option within the week. Stay tuned, folks.

Speaking as a Democrat, I hope Frist DOES invoke the nuclear option. Maybe that will force people to think about 2006 elections in a new light.

[FineyMcFine]

I can't help thinking that this "deal" on the nuclear option is where the Republicans wanted to end up. I don't really see them wanting to eliminate the filibuster permanently -- they won't always be in the majority and they know it. I think this whole hoopla over the nuclear option was a massive distraction to get them to an agreement to have a vote on Owens, Pryor, and Brown.

This is typical of the strategies of the conservative right wing - so not necessarily all the Republicans, just the neoconservatives who are in bed with the Family Research Council and company. They announce these outrageous goals and propositions, and progressives scramble to counter and denounce them, and we end up where they really wanted to - our compromise is their end goal.

In addition, the "weapon of mass distraction," the Federal Marriage Amendment and all these state amendments that passed and will continue to be considered, have totally put the GLBT movement on the defensive and have definitely pulled us off of our proactive agenda. (Although in 2004-2005 more PRO-gay bills passed in state legislatures than ever before, so maybe I'm wrong, come to think of it.) But those state ballot measures are SUCH a time and money suck for us.

We liberals need to take back the offensive and start leading with our own agenda, I think. How about a proactive ballot measure to amend state constitutions to make redistricting in states occur by a nonpartisan commission instead of highly partisan state legislatures, which is how it's done in way too many swing states? There's one such that will hopefully be on the Florida ballot in 2008.

[sam7777]

SallyMcFine: Agreed. Frist and Bush got what they wanted more conservative judges on the bench while the Dems rolled over.

We liberals need to take back the offensive and start leading with our own agenda, I think.

I feel that the Dems have shown time and time again that they are willing to make deals with the Repugs rather than stand up for any principles. Their unwillingness to support gay marriage and the dominance anti-choice politicians like Reid and conservatives like Lieberman is a bad sign.

TemperedCynic: So what if the agreement is toast or Frist tries the nuclear option within a week? The Dems will still try to make a deal IMHO to "preserve the fillibuster for the Supreme Court" and still end up on the losing side as Dems vote with the Repugs. The vote on conservative bigot and corporate drone Owen was 59-41. Dems had enough to fillibuster even with two of them betraying the party.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0526-21.htm

Giving in to Blackmail
The compromise agreement made possible by seven Democrats
Editorial

Thanks to the compromise agreement made possible by seven Democrats who collaborated with Republicans to end the Senate impasse over judicial nominations, Priscilla Owen will now join the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Four years of successful efforts by civil rights, women's rights, religious and consumer groups to prevent confirmation of the right-wing extremist were undone Wednesday, as the Senate voted 56-43 to confirm a nominee whose judicial activism on the Texas Supreme Court was so reckless that another member of that court, Alberto Gonzales, who now serves as the nation's attorney general, referred to her actions as "unconscionable."

The final vote broke along partisan lines. Fifty-three Republicans and two Democrats, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and West Virginia's Robert Byrd, voted to confirm Owen. Forty-two Democrats and one Independent, Vermont's Jim Jeffords, voted against confirmation.

Those numbers are significant because they show that Democrats had the 40 votes that were needed to sustain a filibuster against Owen.

That means that, had Democrats held firm and forced moderate Republicans to reject the unpopular "nuclear option" that Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., was attempting to impose on the Senate, Owen might very well have been kept off the court. National polls showed an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed Frist's plan to bar judicial filibusters, thereby allowing confirmation of even the most objectionable of the Bush administration's nominees.

A number of moderate Republicans had indicated that they were uncomfortable with the majority leader's scheme to rewrite Senate rules, and there was at least a reasonable chance that a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans could have preserved the ability of the minority party to block extremist nominees. Unfortunately, in return for the agreement to put the "nuclear option" on hold, seven moderate Democrats agreed to allow confirmation votes for at least three blocked appeals court nominees.

Owen's confirmation on Wednesday represents the first of what are likely to be many confirmations of extreme, unqualified and ethically dubious nominees for the appeals court, traditionally the court of last hope of low-income Americans, people of color and women. Equal justice concerns are of particular significance in the cases of the 5th Circuit, which includes Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi and is home to the highest percentage of minority residents of any circuit in the country.

As disappointing as the collapse of conscience on the part of most Democrats has been, however, it is important to remember that 18 members of the opposition caucus held firm against the compromise of principles. Those senators - including Russ Feingold of Wisconsin - refused to vote for the cloture motion that shut down the filibuster option and cleared the way for Owen's confirmation.

Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee, was blunt in his dismissal of claims that the deal that has put Owen on the appeals court represented a legitimate "compromise."

"There was no effort to reach a real compromise that would take into account the concerns of all parties. A compromise at the point of a gun is not a compromise," he said. "I strongly opposed the threat of the nuclear option. I believe this was an illegitimate tactic, a partisan abuse of power that was a threat to the Senate as an institution and to the country. Attempting to blackmail the minority into giving up the rights that have been part of the Senate's traditions and practices for centuries was a new low for a majority that has repeatedly been willing to put party over principle. Unfortunately, the blackmail was partially successful," said Feingold, who explained that "the end result is that nominees who don't deserve lifetime appointments to the judiciary will now be confirmed."

As the minority party all Dems must hand together or they will hang separately. Where is the incentive to vote for the Dems in 2006 or 2008 if all we will get is the same conservative judges, @ssholes like Bolton in the UN, laws against gay marriage and eternal war in Iraq that we would get with the Repugs?

Speaking as a Liberal Independent, I think that Liberals need to move beyond the democratic party and work at the grassroots level to elect progressive candidates be they dem, geen or repug that actually represent their interests. I simply cannot support a party that does not represent my interests nor my values I want to see a muti-party system with parties outside of the corporate two. I supported the Dems in 2000 and 2004 only to see them fail to stem the Repugs and the conservative tide. I give up on them. I will vote only for progressive cadiates regardless of party. IMHO a good message to send to the Dems is an increase in a progressive third part like the Greens (sans repug pawn Nader). Our senate has one Independent (Jeffords of Vermont). I would like to see that increase to something like 10% green and other progressive parties and the same in the congress after the 2008 election. This will do more for progresive causes that support for the Dems will IMHO.

I'd like to see Unions abandon the Dems and instead spend their money on building up their membership as the SEIU is agitating for. Union issues are better served by haing more people in unions to fight for better wages and benefits. The Dems are not union friendly given their support for NAFTA and all the corporate money that they take. Look how many voted (73 Democrats in the house and 36 in the senate) for the Bankruptcy "reform" aka credit company give away bill. This may happen in any case as Repugs are working to dissallow union donations (which is mostly to Dems) while keeping corporate funding intact. The McCain-Feingold "campaign_reform" already limited the "soft" money that benefitted Dems and the next step is to linit 501 groups like Moveon.org (mostly progressive).

http://reforminstitute.org/cgi-data/article/files/336.shtml

Two prominent attorneys on either side of the debate over new legislation to limit Section 527 political organizations traded arguments March 7 in a preview of a Senate hearing on the new bill.

[TemperedCynic]

I'll see what I can do here.

So what if the agreement is toast or Frist tries the nuclear option within a week? The Dems will still try to make a deal IMHO to "preserve the fillibuster for the Supreme Court" and still end up on the losing side as Dems vote with the Repugs.

Everyone complains about the same-sex marriage debate was "too fast" for the American people. Americans don't like fast changes to their lives, they said. Good, we can use that to our advantage then - The Dems have made their 'good faith' effort to avoid the nuclear option and the 14 won't be in any rush to agree to anything more. Forcing the Repugs to change Senate rules for their nominees will get noticed by moderate, Independents and progressives that sided with Bush in 2004. Whether we agree with them or not, we'll need them in 2006 and 2008 - the goal is not to be right, the goal is to win elections. Cynical? Yup, hence the name. But we must stop BushCo from becoming a monopoly on all three branches of government.

The vote on conservative bigot and corporate drone Owen was 59-41. Dems had enough to fillibuster even with two of them betraying the party.

I would agree - Dems have a lousy track record for banding together, even in their party's best interest. Unfortunately, they are looking to be re-elected and will vote any way that plays to the most people. The Repugs have Dominionists driving them forward with fanaticism and fear - lower brain functions, but great motivators.

As the minority party all Dems must hand together or they will hang separately. Where is the incentive to vote for the Dems in 2006 or 2008 if all we will get is the same conservative judges, @ssholes like Bolton in the UN, laws against gay marriage and eternal war in Iraq that we would get with the Repugs?

Speaking as a Liberal Independent, I think that Liberals need to move beyond the democratic party and work at the grassroots level to elect progressive candidates be they dem, geen or repug that actually represent their interests. I simply cannot support a party that does not represent my interests nor my values I want to see a muti-party system with parties outside of the corporate two.

I'm confused here - the Dems must hang together or hang separately, but you're not a Dem and won't support them in any way. I suspect you're not alone - it would explain how the 2004 elections were well-attended but the Dems lost anyway. Number one: The problem is the message of the Democratic Party. Number two: The Dems are the only legit party that has a shot of defeating the Repugs, period. So we "hold our noses and press the levers", so to speak. Will it help in the long run - will Dems stand for anything remotely like what you believe? I highly doubt it - again, it's all about winning elections.

These are all observations that I hope are helpful - if they are not, discard them. I'm going to work for a change to the Democratic party, without losing sight of the need to appeal to many constituents. Fighting as an underdog has always been very American - triumphing against the odds. Let's both fight for a better tomorrow and maybe we'll achieve real change.

[sam7777]

TemperedCynic: I'm certainly not a Democrat but have supported them voting for the Dem in the 2000 and 2004 elections for president and congress. I voted green in 1996 when it was clear the Dem would win. I would support them in future if they would throw progressives a bone now and then and stood together for SOMETHING.

Number one: The problem is the message of the Democratic Party.

Agreed. They really need to show how they are clearly different than the Repugs and how electing them will make things like the Iraq war and the economic justice better.

Number two: The Dems are the only legit party that has a shot of defeating the Repugs, period.

Also agreed but that doesn't mean that we can't build up third parties or vote for people who actually support our values regardless of party. I certainly keep voting for Senator Barbara Boxer. She at least stands up to the repugs.

So we "hold our noses and press the levers", so to speak. Will it help in the long run - will Dems stand for anything remotely like what you believe? I highly doubt it - again, it's all about winning elections.

I doubt it as well. I also doubt that the Dems can win an election for President in this polarized environment unless they fire up their base (Progressives and Unions) as the Repugs did. Dems have abandoned their base and until the Dems start to support us on some substantive issues, I see little reason to support them as a party.

Here's a parable of the support that the dems have lost within their own party. My friend is a DEMOCRAT. She would never register under any other party, is pro-choice, against the war in Iraq and against social security privitization. She voted for the shrub in the last two elections. Why? Because, she hated the Clinton sex scandals and though Gore was Clinton part two. When I asked why she didn't vote for Kerry the second go around given she didn't like the Iraq war, she said that it wasn't like Kerry was going to do anything different. Also she thought he was disrespectful of Vietnam Vets with his anti-war stuff. Tried to convince her otherwise but in vain. Even if the Dems can't get "liberals" (and frankly don't give a rats @ss to try), they should be able to get folks like her don't you think?

Building up a 3rd party like the greens (sans repug pawn nader) is not really about winning elections but about gaining a progressive voice in the nation's debate. For example. A green party candidate who gets I think ~10% of the vote for president will enable his party to participate in the presidential debates and force serious talk on progressive issues rather than the corporate two talk without substance that we get now. 10% third party in the House and Senate will assure than more folks will vote against shite like the Patriot Act, bad judges, disgraces like Bolton and Gonzales. At the least they can force some real debate on the floor. All the Dems seem to do is look for a way to compromise and give in to the Repugs.

Unfortunately, they are looking to be re-elected and will vote any way that plays to the most people.

Unfortunately, esoteric parliamentary deals like the current judge deal may "save the filibuster'' temporarily but only makes the Dems look like they are ready to cave under pressure and weak to John Q Public. The Repugs got their judges so to regular folks it certainly looks like they won. Really no one cares about the filibuster. What they care about is that extremist judges are put in the courts.

Truth is that Progressives have lost representation. The Dems willl not give it to them forcing them to adopt a more long term strategy. For me it's no longer just about winning elections. It means little for me a a Dem wins and like Clinton passes stuff like NAFTA, the defense of Marriage ACT and Don't Ask Don't Tell. We need a meaningful voice in government and if we must build our own party to get it, so be it.

In any case, the seven Dems who brokered the disgraceful fillibuster deal are ready to do a similar deal for Social Security. The Dems must all stand firm on that issue to retain a shred of repectibility. Even if they lose, better to have fought and stand for something that just give in and let the Repugs have it all their way. For my part, I will refuse to participate in private accounts to the maximum possible. Here's what Dem leader and anti-choice conservative Dem Reid had to say about compromise:
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-senate-democrats,0,7101417.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid accused President Bush and congressional Republicans of bending to "the whispered wishes of a few right wing activists," yet said this week's compromise over filibuster rules could portend a new era of bipartisanship.

"Americans are sick and tired of getting caught in the crossfire of partisan sniping," Reid said Thursday in a speech at the National Press Club. "Americans want us to put the commonsense center ahead of nonsense."
...
In his speech, Reid said Democrats wanted to focus on issues such as national security, the economy, health care, reducing gasoline prices and improving retirement security while continuing to "stop George Bush from privatizing Social Security."

He said the outcome of the fight over filibusters showed "what is possible when people of good faith -- Republicans and Democrats -- join hands and put principles ahead of partisanship."

At the same time, issues he mentioned as ripe for cooperation are Democratic priorities. They include raising the minimum wage, permitting the importation of prescription drugs from Canada and expanding federally funded research on embryonic stem cells.

They cooperate and we all lose. I don't believe that Reid and the Dems will stand firm on Social Security any more than they did on Gonzales or the judges (some Dems voted for both Gonzales and Owen). Independent Jeffords is more reliable than other Dems.

[Willowlicious]

Well, doesn't this just take the cake?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&c ... _connor_10

This could be a complete disaster. This very moment is the reason I fought with everything I had to keep Bush from the White House in 2000 and 2004. Oh, god.

[Gatito Grande]

GG FILIBUSTER!!! Out

[maudmac]

It's very distressing and, while I can't begrudge her her desire to leave, it is still horrible timing. She couldn't even wait for the midterm elections? And if Rehnquist leaves, too...

Speaking of the Supremes, I have been traumatized by finding myself on the same side of the eminent domain issue with Scalia and Thomas.

Hell has frozen over when I agree with those two! But in this issue, they are right. I can't believe I heard Nancy Pelosi defending the Court's decision. I understand that, for the most part, the conservatives are against the ruling and the liberals are in favor of it. I am thoroughly perplexed by that, especially because I am a big ol' liberal. Dyed-in-the-wool liberal. Hardcore liberal.

But to give the government the right to take someone's property and home from them to give to another private citizen for development purposes? It's unconscionable! It means that there isn't a single one of us in the U.S. now whose home cannot be bulldozed for a strip mall...on the whims of a few people with power to make those decisions. So you are guaranteed the fair market value of your property and home? Tell that to someone whose grandparents built that house with their own hands. Tell that to someone who was born in that house. Tell that to someone for whom it was their first home or their dream home and a huge milestone in their lives. I don't even own a home and I'm outraged by this! Because I will own a home someday and they will put a mall on it over my dead body!

I can't think of any time before when I've felt at odds with liberals. It's just never happened! How can this be? Any liberal who supports this ruling, would they volunteer their home to be the site of a new Wal Mart?

[Gatito Grande]

I completely agree w/ you on the Eminent Domain decision, Holley. That liberals/Democrats would defend it is just nuts (makes you wonder just how much the Democratic Party has been "corporatized")

GG Maybe it just speaks to the desperation of local governments---trying any/every wacky corporate scheme, in order to create jobs---but it's still wrong. Why not just use Eminent Domain to TAKE THE FREAKIN' CORPORATIONS, which are shipping our jobs overseas??? Out

Nevertheless: this decision is *still* the exception which proves the rule. Can you IMAGINE a S.C. justice which will tip the balance to overturn Roe v. Wade? ("Welcome back, coathangers!") We have to STOP it!

ETA: here's a petition site, by MoveOn (they're already at over 60% of their goal, in just hours!) http://www.moveonpac.org/protectourrights/ Sign on, everybody!

[maudmac]

You know, Roe v. Wade came down the year I was born. So I've never lived in a time when abortion was not available legally. This has probably spoiled me. I've watched them etch away at reproductive freedom over the years, but I never got my panties in a bunch over it, because it was so slow and some of the issues were issues I felt a little ambivalent about anyway. Requiring parent's consent for minors, for example. An abortion is a medical procedure and minors can't have any other medical procedures without the consent of a parent or guardian. A 15-year-old girl can't even get her ears pierced by herself!

So I sat back as these things happened and I thought, "Okay, that seems reasonable." And I watched as they imposed those space limits on how close the protesters could get to the clinic and I thought that was reasonable. It seemed to be somewhat of a give-and-take situation. (Granted, it took quite a few murders of abortion providers to get that rule, didn't it?) So then this "partial birth abortion" thing came along and, again, I thought, "Well...I guess that'll be okay."

It flickered through my mind, for about one second, the idea that abortion might be outlawed again. Ha, ridiculous! We'll never go back to the back alley butchering and the coathangers. Not that far. Not now after all this time.The Supreme Court wouldn't allow it!

But...hmm...they've basically destroyed property rights now and there goes O'Connor and Rehnquist will either die or retire soon...and the best we could hope for is...what? The House and Senate are stacked against us. Even with the midterm elections, we aren't likely to gain enough seats to stem this tide of reactionary nominations. I still can't believe such a fuss was made over that filibustering a little while ago. The overwhelming majority of the shrub's appointments sailed right through. The Dems didn't like a few of them and so it turns into some national governmental crisis that threatens to tear us all apart?

I don't know what we can hope for. By the time we swing back toward the left in the next presidential election (assuming we do - it'll be time for it, just from a historical perspective), it'll be too late. Bush has filled the courts with his minions. It won't matter who gets elected if the Supreme Court ends up with two more Scalias or Thomases.

Sometimes I think we ought to just split the country up into more manageable parts. I wouldn't live in Jesusland if The Most Serene Republic of Liberal Goodness were right across the border.

Very depressing. I try to be optimistic about things, because it is more pleasant, but right now, today, I am depressed about this and fearful about our future as a nation. The left has got to do something! I don't know what more I can do, other than take to the streets.

I'll feel better tomorrow. Living is always difficult. Every time is a time that tries the souls of those who are living in it.

[sam7777]

Bush will nominate a reliable reactionary idealogue for the court and the Dems will not fillibuster IMHO. The Dems seem more afraid of being labelled "obstructionist" than actually upholding any democratic principles. The main stream media will kowtow and defend Bush's choice just as they defended the reationary ciruit judges (Myers, Rodgers et al). In fact the Editorial in the LA Times today is already saying the Dems should not fillibuster no matter what.