We’ve engaged in an open and frank debate both here, and across the spectrum of leftist sites, about the proper strategy for dealing with Roberts nomination. On one side we have pragmatists like Armando and me.
On the other side we have idealists like Madman. I think both sides have done an excellent job of defending their positions. And I just want to lay out a little of my thinking, and then talk about what it all means.
I fall into the pragmatic camp. What do I mean? I mean this:
The Bush administration seems to have vetted Roberts with the gang of 14 and he seems to have received their blessing for this nominee. That means that no amount of howling is going to get the Democratic Party to attempt a filibuster. Even Harry Reid probably could not get the ducks in line. Unless something happens during the hearings, Roberts will be confirmed. Now, how should we react to that?
more on the flip:
On a personal level, we should react with some acceptance. We have been fighting hard for 6 years now to keep BushCo. out of the White House. For many of us, the makeup of the Supreme Court was one of our prime motivating factors. We knew that gains that we had made in equal protection, environmental law, and women’s rights were all at risk if Bush won election, and re-election. And, of course, we were right. Now, that sad outcome is coming to pass. We are sad, we are angry, we are frustrated, we are scared.
But the profound sadness, anger, and frustration that we felt during the last two election nights was largely anticipatory of what we are experiencing now. We need to accept reality and come to grips with it.
On a political level, we need to fight back. We need to figure out a way to communicate the seriousness of the changes that are coming as a result of changes on the court. Most Americans don’t support these changes, and they won’t appreciate them when they start having a direct effect on their lives, or their uterus.
The first strategy we need, is a strategy for the hearings. We need to make clear that overturning Roe is now in the hands of a single man. Such a serious change in American law and culture is about to be decided from the bench. We may not be able to get Roberts to answer our questions about Roe, but we can make damn sure the American people realize that he holds the key over the issue. We can make damn clear that the GOP doesn’t want to discuss it.
The next thing we need to do, is discuss all the 5-4 votes that will switch to 4-5 votes, and what the results of those changes will be for affirmative action, for environmental law, for privacy, for human rights. It’s not this judge that is so radical, it’s the changes his votes will initiate that are so radical.
Then we need to fashion a strategy going forward on how to convince the American public that the GOP is out of touch with their values. The model is the Gingrich revolution.
Maybe we should start putting abortion rights referendums on ballots across the country.
We also need to find more progressive candidates to run in the primaries against some of our more centrist Democrats. They need to feel the pressure to listen to the left wing of the party. We need to increase our fundraising abilities, so we can compete with corporate bundlers.
There is a lot of work to be done. And there is a lot of sadness, frustration, and fear for us to work out as these radical changes begin to reshape our country. But we should use the Phoenix as our model. Out of these ashes a new Democratic Party will grow.
Kick down Mr. Roberts’ closet door and start digging…at least he can’t claim a “high-tech” lynching…anyone who looks that clean cut must have done some damn nasty things in his life…
If the Democrats refuse to stand up for Roe and fight…it is over… the party that is.
This party can not keep fucking over its base and expect loyalty… it ain’t gonna happen.
The Labor Unions left the Democrats because the Democrats left them. By not fighting and allowing 7 people in the Democratic party to decide the fate of women is too cowardly to even contemplate.
I am only speaking for my self… but to roll over on Roberts when this adminstration is at it WEAKEST point in it whole adminstration it an act of cowards and fools. Then expect women to go in the trenches and fight in every hamlet and county in the country to restore what they refuse to stand up for while… AT THE SAME TIME running as many anti-choice Dems as they can find is ludicris.
At that point there will be NO DIFFERENCE between the parties and no need to waste time or money to support someone who already acknowledges that they will shit on you once they get to Washington… ie Salazar (both), Herseth, Lieberman, Nelson, Fienstien, Clinton, Clark, Edwards, Kerry etc, etc, etc.
If they roll ever expect a great big FUCK YOU BUDDY when they come begging for money and support for assholes like Casey and Roemer.
let’s say this guy was on the record as saying that he wants to overturn Roe, and let’s say that he told them in the hearings that if confirmed he would vote to overturn it.
In that scenario, a filibuster would be forthcoming and a battle royale would ensue.
But Roberts is not on the record as saying he will overturn Roe. So, all we can do is ask him, and when he refuses to answer, we can filibuster based on his silence.
I think we should make a very big deal over his silence and make sure the American public understands that the Senate is voting over Roe, without even knowing which way they are voting. That’s crazy.
But in the end, Bush will get his nominee one way or another. If it’s not Roberts it will be another judge. We cannot filibuster every judge until we get one on the record promising not to overturn Roe.
This is the price of losing these elections. Your rage at this is understandable. But what we do about it is most important. There will be no filibuster (barring unforeseen circumstances), and no filibuster will prevent the GOP from confirming their judges.
Did you really think that they were going to nominate a guy with a woman chained to his ankles…
I thought this was suppose to be the “Big One” you mean no one thought that they would send in a wolf in sheep clothing….
Have we not learned anything from the Swiftboat liars that turned a war hero unpatriotic and an AWOL a hero.
Sorry, I am not buying it that ….
“They sent us the wrong guy” bullshit.
You go to war with the army you have…
the tea leaves on Roberts, I never thought the Bankers would allow a truly anti-Roe judge. They need the issue, not to alienate and piss off half the voting public.
So, your argument can swung back at you with equal force.
Did I ever think they would nominate an openly anti-Roe candidate? No. Because they don’t want to overturn it.
Now, Roberts looks like he might be willing to overturn it. I don’t know. But you are assuming that the money in the GOP is pro-life. They’re not. They never have been. Why would a dirt farmer in Alabama vote for the Party of Lincoln and Park Place?
They bankers figured it out. But it doesn’t mean they believed in it.
anti Roe. He IS anti Roe, and I’m predicting they’ll let Roe stand while they allow it to be more and more fenced off, a quaint little historical aberation. They’ll uphold notification of parents/husbands/ministers (only half kidding about the last one … in many states they’ve tried to require “counseling” before a procedure is allowed). They allow limitations of women crossing state lines to get procedures. They’ll make it just a piece of paper in two thirds of the country.
They called Kerry a liberal over and over again, though he’s nowhere near liberal. We, however, can truthfully point out that he’s a winger Catholic who’s family is active in antiabortion groups.
This isn’t rocket science.
and that is the best case scenario for Roe.
But Parker is assuming that the guy is going to overturn Roe, while you and I agree that the power brokers would prefer to keep Roe on the table indefinitely, while showing the wingers marginal progress in creating a ‘culture of life’.
I don’t know what Roberts will do. But I know what Mellon-Scaife wants him to do.
Parker may be right. Either way, it’s bad.
I want his ass beat up bad. I want him walking out of those hearing looking stunned. I want to see the POSSIBLITY of that facade cracking.
Did I ever think they would nominate an openly anti-Roe candidate? No. Because they don’t want to overturn it.
No offense but I’ve read this argument many times while watching the erosion of my basic human rights and it’s just not true. They really do want to overturn Roe and they will. And eventually they will not allow the matter to the states. Eliminating Roe will not erase opportunities for fundraising, they’ve millions of people more concerned about 3 week old fetuses that actual living women and children and that’s not going to stop.
Perhaps if welfare deformation and savaging the poor (as long as the savaging is pretty much limited to poor women) had not been so successful in the 90’s it would carry some weight but the fact of the matter is that the people who control the ideology of the GOP are dead serious about overturning Roe, fully intend to do so and do not intend to stop with Roe and abortion. What do they have to lose? It won’t cost them anything.
Women are, by far, the primary cheap labor force in this country and that exploitation greatly benefits the monied interests controlling both political parties. And nothing motivates a woman to work hard and put up will all manner of indignities so much as a couple of kids at home depending on her for their survival. Mass exploitation of a large and tractable demographic always benefits the monied interests, particularly in a culture where good help is hard to find.
but the name of that poodle is CAPITULATION, not pragmatism. What i’d like to see is Brass Hard Politics dressed in realism, not idealism. If our Dem leaders don’t have the chuztpah then they should step aside and let others run a party that has no steam save Dean, just a cup of luke-warm milk.
The gang of 14 was a bad idea! So now we harken back to that bad idea to move towards the NEXT bad idea, no filibuster! And what is the next bad idea after that (oh my aching ears, it’s Roe v. Wade!). I don’t find the word Pragmatic indicative here, this line of thought sounds more like a woman who has been abused repeatedly and thinks if she just gets the house cleaned up before he comes home that maybe he won’t swing too hard tonight. It’s too timid for the big leagues and why we are garnering no respect nationwide in the polls.
Has it not occurred to people that NO Right-wing Evangelical group (Hello Mr. Dobson!) has said a ‘discouraging word’ on Roberts’ nomination? Not one. That should send every alarm bell off in your heads! In fact they’re grinning like a Cheshire cat. While the Dems act ‘pragmatic’, Rove laughs and slides his Trojan Horse right by us, even when we all damned well know what’s inside.
…and let me add that this is not just a reflection of a “single issue”… but yesterday the Patriot Act just passed the House 257-171, our illustrious Dems have passed the Bankruptcy Bill, confirmed a known proponent of torture to the AG… so when the fuck are they ever going to stand up. As we speak the same 7 assholes are coniving to pass CAFTA.
The list Democratic failures caused by themselves goes on and on and on…
Roe is the line in the sand …for me… others may have a higher tolerence for pain… but I have reached my limit… because there is nothing left. Clearly, if they roll over on women then we must assume that they will roll over on the renewal of the Voting Rights Act in 2007. I guess Black will the the vilinous special interest group du jour in 2007 for not seeing “The Big Picture”.
I don’t really know what is left to lose… there is no way to clawour way back from this stunning display of cowardice and opportunism.
You are absolutely right. Will people finally wake up and realize what this corportocracy combined with whiffs of theocracy has become? That there really is – at the end of the day – a dime’s worth of difference between the terrible two?
Parker, I agree. I think the Democratic party is losing its base. I wish there were an alternative. I’m angry. The Democrats just won’t fight.
Disgusting.
Besides telling us how to live, think, marry, pray, vote, invest, educate our children and, die, the GOP has done a fine job of getting gov’t out of our lives.
THAT, my friend, is brilliant.
And it deserves to be said over and over and over again.
There really doesn’t seem to be anything there. You’ve got a conservative white guy with a very establishment resume and a short paper trail. I don’t see any kind of toehold with which to create leverage stop the nomination.
So I think we’re better off flipping the situation back to Rove and TraitorGate. Don’t waste energy on Roberts, but put it into an area where we can have a bigger impact.
But what more impact can there be than a wingnut on the Supreme court for thirty+ years?
How does one go from “conservative” to “wingnut”?
by drinking the Kool Aide…lol! Thought we could use a little humour.
40 only puts him at 90. For that to be a limitation presumes that the planet shuts down all medical and genetic research for the next half century.
Could be 60, 80, or retirement out of screaming boredom maybe a century from now.
No offense meant, but some of us value our rights as women. The Supreme Court makeup ultimately determines which of those we are allowed to keep. Not to mention whether we have clean water to drink, air to breathe, protection of endangeered species, and so forth…
it is a very big deal.
I don’t think the argument was over the value or the meaning of the issue; I read it as being about its amenability to political action at this point.
It’s more important to keep the ship afloat than to have lots of lifeboats, but once the deck is slipping under, there’s nothing we can do about that more important issue.
I’m equally concerned about corporatism, because the Court is going to be attacking the Constitutionality of any pro-people policymaking. But I no more know how to resist the nomination on this issue than on reproductive rights or any other issue.
They seem to have us beaten both above board with the compromise of the gang of 14, and under the table (via the nuclear option).
The Hail Mary pass to my thinking is the Rove blowup and its trace odds of rendering the Administration itself unable to lead. It’s got almost no chance of working, and there’s not much we can do to influence it, but what else can we do that won’t result in the same loss with another nominee that we’ll have without a fight on this particular one?
I didn’t really mean my comment as an argument. I think we have so much shit flung at us by the Repugs that it seems impossible to know which attack to try to ffend off at any given time. Even when it seems like we might be making progress (ie, Rove’s criminal nature coming to light), where can it go? We’re a long way off from getting the rest of the criminals out of there, and who are we going to replace them with? I know they’re in the minority and can’t fight off alot of this stuff very effectively, but it doesn’t help that the Dems have gone corporatist to a great extent (I’m thinking about the bankruptcy bill, among other things).
Sometimes it feels like we’re rearranging those deck chairs on the Titanic, doesn’t it?
</rant and defeatist attitude>
women are going to die because of this…
Young women, uneducated women, poor women, women in red states…
I feel as if it’s time to stop voting for any Democrat who won’t stand up and fight. I certainly won’t give money to the party.
^
|
|
what she said
and let me add that I believe we can do both…keep Roberts off the bench and lynch Rove,Bush, Libby, Cheney et all.
I could see if Bush was polling still polling in the 90’s like after 9/11…
We have been dealt a damn good hand:
And all we can say is that we can’t fight Roberts because he is too good looking… shame on us.
Yeah, you know it’s kind of like having a rapist by the balls and deciding to let go. We need to fight both of these fights or they will continue to destroy our country. Gotta check those bags now at the f’ing subway? Can you say police state? Am i paranoid? NO! Just a realist. Are you prepared for what will come next if we cave now?
“STOP the PANTY POLITICS…”??? Whatever your intention, it smacks of misogyny, a backhanded slap at feminism.
Sorry, but every time I see that I want to scream.
I want the GOP out of my panties…
I get that, once I read it. But the boldface says to me “Get women out of politics!” It sounds like panty politics = women’s issues.
Now that you’ve explained it, I understand, I guess. I suppose you’re saying something more like Stop the molester politics.
Anyway, that’s all an aside.
Well, I wasn’t going to say anything, but since you mentioned it….. every time I see it, I want to scream, too, but not for the same reason. It’s “drawers,” not “draws,” unless, of course, you’re telling the GOP to get out of your poker hand 😉
down he-ah, it’s draws. [Pronounced draaaaaws.]
Silly me and my OED 😉
Admitting defeat is the first step toward it. And it’s a pretty short journey from there.
“No, try not, do or do not, there is no try.”
– Yoda
This part of your post really resonated with me:
And I would add: Then it’s time to use this to get more Democrats elected.
And I would say to everyone: Take your anger, rage, frustration, sadness, sick-and-tired-ness, negativity and depression, and put it all to work for you.
Get out of the house and go join the local effort to work your local precinct and get out the vote.
Hit the Republicans where it truly hurts them–at the ballot box. The entire House is up for grabs next year, and a third of the Senate.
The Republicans won their current position–and the last election in particular–with grass-roots organization and person-to-person effort. If a million Democrats made sure that just one other person votes Democratic next year, we would capture both the Senate and the House.
If 100,000 Dems got out and walked their precincts (or phoned their precincts) and got 10 each, that would also do it.
The chances are very good that the local party needs your help in the streets RIGHT NOW, and the chances are excellent that you will feel much better for getting out there. You can probably make a 100-vote difference with just two hours a week–and you’ll have some fun doing it.
When all is said and done, we really won both of the last two presidential elections–it was just cheating that kept us out of office. Let’s not chew each other apart because of that.
yes, we can do all that and more to GOTV BUT if they have control over the voting machines that are rigged what the f is the use? I did all that last campaign.
What does it matter if the Dems are only going to run ant-choice candidates so that they can “win”… What it that they are winning is still a mystery… because they will not have stood for anything…
which is why Democrats should make verified voting their #1 priority (up to and including filibustering everything until it is passed and signed). Not fighting Roberts.
-Alan
well, I reject that label. I know you mean it as a compliment, but it also implies a certain naivete’ on my part.
I’m not advocating a trotskyite conformity. What I’m saying is that all of this quiet reasonable talk only gives the right’s imprecations legitimacy.
Harry Reid telling us to “let the Senate do it’s work” while muliple Vichy Dems run to yell “he’s soooo DREAMY” into any mic they can catch up with is BAD POLITICS.
You don’t do that with quiet hearings and polite words spoken at joint news conferences. You do that by tossing bits of red meat to your attack wing and setting them loose. THAT is how politics is fought. The Republicans have been doing that to us for nearly my entire lifetime. I had it firmly understood by high school that the Democratic Party stood for NOTHING, but only stood on the shoulder’s of giants since dead or retired to become Presidents of Liberal Arts Colleges (or lobbyists).
Politics is, by definition, PARTISAN. That’s how it works. There is AMPLE evidence out there of the kind of man Roberts is, or at the very least the kind of men he ENABLES (and I do mean MEN … only).
He’s going to do what he’s going to do. The Republicans will probably install their Replicant on the bench for the next 30 years. That’s not the point. You point out that a vote Republican is to vote for MORE Robertses. You point out through political hardball and tough hearings that he looks and thinks like that bank officer who denied your loan. Like the boss who downsized away your job while he two-times his wife w/ his secretary. You point out that he HELPED Jeb Bush disenfrancise many tens of thousands of Black Americans in FL. You point out that he sniffed Monica’s dress with Ken Starr. You point out that he’s a rightwing Catholic who will follow the dictates of a Rome which is only too happy to cover up pedophilia while it tries to control women and gays.
Does that make you uncomfortable? Well, tough, because that’s POLITICS. Politics is sublimated warfare, up until the peace conferences when compromise is reached.
This isn’t “idealism”. This is REALITY. This is the “Art of War” and “The Prince”. This is what it takes. You win in this low-level war by taking ground, executing strategy and damaging your opponents. It’s ugly and unpleasant, but it beats the hell out of blood in the streets, which is what we’ll have soon if the Corporate Curs in DC continue us down this path. Soon-to-be Supreme Court Justice Roberts has shown that he’s just fine with the police and the Executive trampling all over the Constitutional Rights of everyday citizens in the name of Theocratic Corporate Feudalist Government.
I want him bloodied up and bent when he puts on those robes. I want the American people to see that there really are TWO parties, not just one and a half parties. I want them to know that the way to stop getting more Roberts is to pull the D in ’06 and ’08, and I want the party to start to show that it’s on the side of women, the poor, the working man and all of the different races, creeds, colors and sexual orientations that the Theocon world wants to marginalize.
I wholeheartedly agree with this:
We get progressive candidates when we show they won’t be treated like shit by the DLC. That Biden, Lieberman and Co won’t yell “he/she doesn’t speak for me!” at Tweety and Pumpkinhead every Sunday.
I don’t want an ideal world. I want a world where the political war isn’t so one sided. I call them Vichy for a reason … surrender rather than fight, then adopt their values in order to coexist. That is the DC whipped curs in a nutshell.
Madman I wish I could give you more tan one 4 for that rant. Thanks for expressing what I am feeling right now. And by the way, Bush just blocked the Abu Graib torture photos from being published.See Susanhu’s new diary. They have got the power. What are you willing to do to reclaim YOUR country?
In that context, we need talking points on all the 5-4 decisions where O’Connor sided with us, and what the implications are of those cases being decided in Scalia’s favor. Then we’ll have our message.
Think Progress posted some of the 5-4 decisions in one of their many fantastic articles.
I’d like to point out that there are larger issues than Roe V Wade, even the National Right to Life movement realizes that this would not make abortion illegal. While the article is written from their point of view, it clearly states some of the facts, primary one is overturning Roe V Wade will NOT make abortion illegal.
NRLC Press Release
Given some of the issues that surrounded other names mentioned I think John Roberts is a better candidate than many of the other names mentioned on the Bush list.
Same shit, different day. Make it about Roe v. Wade to hide the fact that this guy is a Washington, corporate insider who will give the corporations and the president the keys to what remain of our civil liberties and equal rights. Keep Dobson and his gang leading the call for social “reform” while big business gets every last ounce of blood money through legal “reform”.
When you’ve lost even the premise of due process and privacy, the rest collapses in a quiet dusty heap.
The title of the post is “On Roe and the Court,” but the meat of it is about pragmatic party politics, not about Roe but about Roberts, not about the Court, but about Democrats. So I confess I’m a bit confused.
One thing I feel needs to be said is that it’s misleading and revealing at the same time to call people who believe strongly in moral values as “idealists,” as if we had no perception of reality. It’s a dismissive term thrown around quite liberally, and but one syllable from an outright epithet: ideologues.
Where I’m coming from is that we’re talking about basic human rights here. Equal protection. Due process. Privacy. These are not “ideals,” they are the guiding principles that (I thought, anyway) guide the progressive/liberal cause.
As such, I feel that every conversation about pragmatics has to come from the position of values or it means nothing. I don’t give a flying frack about party politics or who beats whom. I want to know that my rights — all of our rights — are protected and honored, because if we don’t have those, we don’t have nuttin!
In terms of tactics, sure, there’s a lot of room for debate, though I don’t see much gain for the activist blogosphere to simply STFU (as our esteemed senate minority leader said using more politic words yesterday). For what gain? The Senate is going to do what it does no matter what. Why should we be quiet and make it easy for them to quietly pass Roberts onto the bench? To me, it seems that the more noise we make now, the more we help others see the red flags here.
I’m not saying that’s what you’re arguing, BooMan. But it’s a common refrain — all too common these days.
In terms of tactics, I see two very important priorities: Rallying the base, and reframing the debate so that those starting to question what’s going on in this country can hear something besides “Bush sucks.”
I do feel, however, that the increasingly scolding posts many people (not you, BooMan) are putting up, telling other bloggers and online activists to get in line, are also incredibly counterproductive. Here’s some free advice to the would-be kings of counterculture:
If you want people to get behind you, say something that reaches the people. Waggling fingers and shaking fists are just going to turn people off.
Sorry, BooMan, I got off-topic a bit, but I think it’s important not to oversimplify the very serious questions that divide desired coalitions of action. I don’t see it as “pragmatists” vs. “idealists” — that smacks of the tired crack, “Do you want to be right or do you want to win?”
Winning means nothing if we lose our values. What does it matter which party cedes our rights?
So I would posit a different question: Instead of “How do we react to the almost-inevitable Roberts confirmation?” I would ask, “How do we restore the liberties, rights, equal protection and due process that made this country great?”
In the narrow context, it’s the same thing. But in the broader picture, I feel the latter is more proactive and less reactive.
I’ve noticed is that a lot of women feel that there are men in the Party that are willing to trade Roe for the benefits of a female backlash.
I guess it is true that there are some men willing to make that trade. But it can be hard to understand where some men stand on this if we are not clear.
Right now, we no longer have any control over what happens with Roe. I wish we had 9 pro-choice judges. But we don’t. We can stomp our feet and blame moderates Democrats, or the DLC, or whomever we want for our present predicament, but the real enemy is the GOP. Our anger should be directed at them.
Now, if they do overturn Roe, which is by no means certain, there will be a backlash. It won’t energize our base, because our base can’t get much more energized against this administration. But it will energize all kinds of other people. Men who are horrified that their wife’s miscarraige is being investigated. Women that can’t believe the forms they have to fill out at the OB-GYN. Fathers who have to buy a plane ticket for their daughter to get an abortion. On and on.
If Roe goes down it will be the biggest political change since the Civil Rights Act. The whole red-blue landscape of America will shift, possibly in our favor. As I’ve written elsewhere, I won’t welcome this change, even if it does benefit the party. The last thing I want to see is every local race become a referendum on state laws on women’s reproductive rights. It’s a poisonous hurtful debate. Moreover, women’s health will badly damaged in large areas of the country.
But we still need to prepare for the future. We have to fight back. And if the GOP overreaches, we have to take it to them. That’s how “we restore the liberties, rights, equal protection and due process that made this country great.”
But I suggest it’s not the GOP that’s the enemy, but everyone who’s willing to go along with this dominionist agenda, actively or passively. The Nuremburg defense does not hold with me, and neither does the Vichy excuse. This is not a party issue, this is a rights issue.
If/when Roe is overturned, I don’t think this will set us back to pre-Civil Rights. It will set us back to pre-Civil War. It will be uglier and bloodier than anything we’ve seen in 130 years.
What I don’t like is how many people seem to be arguing that we can’t affect the Senate, so let’s write it off and go back to Rove. But our hollering does set a context for all political debate. That is what so many people seem to miss.
With nutjobs like Dobson ranting away from the far-right fringes, people like Roberts almost seem moderate. Ever since the “left” ran away from the “liberal” label in the ’80s, nobody has been speaking out clearly from the other side. Thus the left is represented by the middle, and you have to be Dobson-nutty before you’re considered on the right.
So when do we start talking? What do we say? To me, the writing is on the wall: If we don’t change our tactics and strategy now, we’re going to see yet more Democrat losses in the mid-term elections. As bad as the Republicans are faring in the polls, the Dems aren’t doing any better. I think that’s because they aren’t saying anything. “No” is not a platform, but that doesn’t mean “yes” is a good one, either.
sorry Boo and I do respect you… but this is a load of crap.
The whole red-blue landscape of America will shift, possibly in our favor.
This is on par with the myth that “If a guy pulls out before he comes, he won’t get the girl pregnant”… no you just end up knocking her up… your “Theory” sounds like this the kind of uninformed myths that are spread in high school boys locker rooms.
PLEASE lets stick with the facts and not the factesques… I am telling you now, I will leave the party if they do not fight tooth and nail to preserve Roe… there are no if’s and’s or but about that… there are just some things that are non negotiable and this is one.
I also am disturbed that you think that women would risk their rights to their own bodies based on a “hunch”… that at some later date they could be restored.
What is missing from your argument is good will. There is a lack of Good will here and a ton of condescension. If you really believed what you were saying, you would also show good will, that Democrats from the moment Roberts took his seat would never again support another anti-choice candidate until full rights to women were restored… but you don’t say that or anything close…
The onus to restoring women’s rights after the party refuses to fight for them is left to the women… and that is why women will no longer be loyal to the Democratic party… simply because the party is no longer being loyal to them… I guess it would have more imortant shit to do like … confirming pro-torture AG’s, passing Bankruptcy Bills and the Partriot Act…etc., etc., etc.
Sorry, but I don’t know where the hell this urban legend is coming from, but I see alot of this bullshit on a blog that shall remain nameless.
about this. And I believe you when you say you will leave the party.
However, I have a few problems with your argument here.
why?
Because abortion rights will no longer be decided by the President and Senate alone, but by every bit legislator in every state. And the blue areas of the country are not going to even consider pro-life candidates anymore.
Meanwhile, in the south, where abortion will become illegal in several states, all kinds of civil libertarians, non-political types, and people directly effected by anti-abortion legislation (who are not even considering an abortion) will soon revolt against the intrusion into their pregnancies by the state government.
The south will have buyer’s remorse once their get their ban on abortion.
Why am I so sure of this?
Sit down with a pro-life person and ask them to draw up enforcement policies for determining if someone has received an abortion. They can’t do it. Because banning abortion might be appealing to some in the abstract, but they aren’t willing to support the laws that could put teeth into the ban.
Ultimately, the ban will effect everything from the cost of medical insurance in pro-life states to the amount of time you have spend writing waivers at the OB-GYN.
Just as I have known several pro-life women who got abortions when they got pregnant, I am sure many pro-life people will change their view when the laws are enacted.
And I believe the money people and top strategists of the GOP agree with my point of view. They think overturning Roe will spell their doom too.
I know you are going to disagree with my analysis, but it is my opinion that overturning Roe would be the single worst thing that could happen to corporate America.
And again, I still do not want Roe overturned at all, in the least.
and at the same time the Democratic party will be supporting more and more anti-choice candidates…
sorry but this dog don’t bite.
If ever there were a time to fight it is now… Like I said earlier this is the weakest moment ever for this administration and the Democrats are capitulation because the guy is “too cute” fuck that…
You think you got a windfall from a pie fight… well this will be the mother of all pie fights and they aren’t staying with this party.
…and you want to know why?
Because it will finally prove without a shadow of a doubt that this party stands for shit. They will not fight because they do not want to. This party has been abusive long enough to it base and enough is enough.
I would rather work on the local level with the Green party at least they know what they stand for. What is it all for… what the hell do you think you are going to win? This will be nothing but a second Republican party.
What you refuse to answer is the notion of Good Will!!! Where is it???
This is not the same as opening the party to pro-choice and keeping our rights… you want us to give up our right and fucking pay for candidates who have no intention of restoring them… don’t think so.
I can not tell you how dissappointed I am in the SCLB (so-called liberal blogosphere) you really are letting Democrats and liberals down… very sad.
I’m sorry you feel that way. Part of the key here is that I don’t know if this guy is going to overturn Roe. If I become convinced he is, I will go all out against him. But I have no way of knowing right now.
I want to make a huge fight in the hearings about this idea that the debate over Roe should take place over a candidate whose position is a secret. But that is different from what you propose.
In any case, your analysis is different from mine and I accept your analysis. I knew you wouldn’t agree with me.
Still, it is unfair to say I want you to give up your rights. In fact, in makes no sense. Everything I have done in my adult life has been directed at protecting your rights. It’s not clear to me that the best way to protect them now is to oppose this judge. If it becomes clear it is the best way, I’ll be there hollering.
Regardless, I’ll be fighting for those rights until I drop, using my best judgment to do so.
Just answer one thing… do you think it will be the right thing to do that Democrats STOP supporting anti-choice Democrats with Roberts on the bench???
Philosophically, I am almost at the point where I oppose the Dems running any anti-choice candidates. But not quite. And I’ll tell you why.
While I think Democrats should hold choice as non-negotiable in principle, in practice there are some districts where you simply cannot win on a choice platform. It’d be the equivalent of running as an atheist in Alabama. And up to now, it has been of little consequence what a state legislator thinks about the issue. So, while it makes me sick, I hold my nose on some pro-life candidates.
But for Senator it matters and Casey should go fuck himself, and so should the people that paved the way for him.
However, if they ban Roe, then it really will be totally non-negotiable. No Dems anywhere can be anti-choice then. Because it will matter, and because they will suddenly have a chance of winning in those districts where it is impossible now.
And before you accuse me of lacking principles, I adhere to a principle that representatives should represent their people. If 75% of your district is pro-life, I don’t think it is wrong to represent their views, so long as you don’t actually vote to put an anti-Roe judge on the bench.
These are very tough issues.
Here is an example:
If I were honest about my religious beliefs I couldn’t get elected in 99% of the districts in the country. Does that mean it is okay for me to profess Christian beliefs so that I am allowed to serve my district? Yes or no?
And if I cynically profess Christian beliefs in order to get elected, is it okay for me to represent the religious beliefs of my constituents over my own, up to a point (where the constitution is respected)?
This gets back to idealism and pragmatism. An idealist will say that a pro-choice person should never pretend to be pro-life to get elected and vice-versa. I say, as long as you don’t screw with people’s basic rights, it’s okay to do a little fudging over these issues.
A quarter of the Senate probably doesn’t believe in God, and probably only 20-30 Senators have the stomach to really ban abortion. It’s disgusting, but it’s true.
Bottom line? For years Roe has been treated cynically as a political football. Now things are getting serious. Now things are changing. If they actually overturn it, then it won’t be a fake phony thing anymore where people pick sides depending on their districts. Then it will suddenly be treated as an issue of conscience.
If they overturn it, it will be a non-negotiable issue. Should it have been non-negotiable all along? Yes. It’s an issue of human rights and women’s health. In principle, everyone should stand for human rights and women’s health, without exception. Yet, if we wanted to field a candidate in Alabama, we had to make concessions.
One last thing: we are trying to change the Democratic Party in a number of ways. One way is through grassroots fundraising. The party bigwigs do shit I disagree with all the time. But I don’t leave the party over it. If I don’t like the bankruptcy bill then I know I need to find a way to pay for the Delaware Senate seat. Until I can pay for it, I can’t expect a much different result.
If I want a party of 100% pro-Roe candidates, I need to figure out a way to get a President elected without winning any southern states. Or a majority in the Senate.
It’s easy to be a hard-line principled person on issues of conscience. It’s harder to protect your rights when the electoral map keeps disagreeing with those principles.
In summary: there is a very good argument that the Dems have grown too gray, that we haven’t stood firm enough on bedrock progressive issues. There is also a good argument that the best way to change that is not to ignore the electoral map and political reality, but to enable the Democrats to finance themselves directly from the people.
I’m sure one aspect or another of this post will enrage almost everyone. I’m struggling to answer your question honestly. These are very tough issues to grapple with.
An idealist will say that a pro-choice person should never pretend to be pro-life to get elected and vice-versa. I say, as long as you don’t screw with people’s basic rights, it’s okay to do a little fudging over these issues.
A quarter of the Senate probably doesn’t believe in God, and probably only 20-30 Senators have the stomach to really ban abortion. It’s disgusting, but it’s true.
no it is not true… jusy another factesques you made up…
Dear Friend,
DFLA is proud to present its scorecard of votes cast by the Democratic Members of the House of Representatives for the 108th Congress.
It contains a number of key Pro-Life votes taken over the past 20 months including votes on cloning, banning partial birth abortion, and prohibiting U.S. funds for overseas abortions.
We are very pleased to present this unique scorecard that focuses on the voting history of Democrats only.(Warning PDF) Many people have the misconception that the Republican Party has a stronghold on pro-life issues. Yet, by our count, there are pro-abortion Republicans who counter the Pro-Life Democrats in the House. Therefore, only through bipartisan cooperation can we advance life issues. Not one piece of Pro-Life legislation could pass the House of Representatives without backing from Pro-Life Democrats.
On any given pro-life vote, we have a number of Democrats who resist pressure from party leaders and lobbyists and vote their conscience in supporting pro-life legislation. These Democrats understand that the battle for Life transcends partisan politics. These Members should be commended and supported for their votes and views.
It is critically important to support Pro-Life Democrats already in office, as well as those running for elective office, to ensure that the Congress continues to pass important and lifesaving legislation.
The information is now in your hands. Share it with your family, friends, people in your workplace, and those with whom you worship as one way of showing your continued support for our Pro-Life leaders in Congress.
Sincerely,
Kristen Day
Executive Director
DFLA
.
at all.
My point is, at least partially, that politicians do not vote on abortion issues according the their beliefs, but according to their consitituencies.
Al Gore and Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich were pro-life until they decided to run for President.
Were they ever pro-life? Kucinich probably was, and but Gep and Gore probably were not.
Arlen Specter is pro-choice, but if he represented Kentucky he probably would be pro-life.
The list can go on and on. I never believe a politician when he says he or she is pro-life or pro-choice. I just look at their district and nod knowingly.
This is part of what your sig line is getting at. Enough with the panty-politics.
Hardly anyone has treated this issue with honesty as a matter of conscience, even though some people are quite convincing. I believe that the number of politicans that are actually in favor of outlawing abortion is vanishingly small. But it has worked magic for the GOP in the south and border states.
This is another reason why I am not sure that this SC nominee is really going to overturn Roe. But if he does, then all this play-acting about what you believe with come to a quick end.
My point is, at least partially, that politicians do not vote on abortion issues according the their beliefs, but according to their consitituencies.
Built into that is the old liberal (by which I mean a Enlightenment faith in the idea that reason and debate lead to progress) idea that they will will act ethically, that they WILL reflect their constituents.
Do you see ANY sign of that in the modern Republican Party. They can’t WAIT for Spector to die. They try to cook the vote, through fraud and suppression, to give an advantage to their constituencies. They LIE (remember how Bush portrayed himself as a “moderate”?). Scalia is one of the most activist judges in the history of this country, yet he constantly rails against legislating from the bench. The use the old “liberal” language to LIE. “Clear Skies”. “Healthy Forests.”
Face what we are up against. You have faith in a system that is DEAD. The Huns are inside the gates.
I know you mean well, but you need to face what we are up against. They are as bad or worse than any of us think. That calls for open political battle.
is that we are both approaching this debate from a standpoint of extreme cynicism.
And we are largely cynical about the same things. We are cynical about the sincerity and good faith of both parties, and politicians in general.
And yet, we have this difference in the conclusion we draw.
I conclude that I will tolerate some pro-life rhetoric and even some annoying votes on marginal issues related to reproductive freedoms as a unfortunate byproduct of exercising a larger amount of power. However, I draw the line on sincere attacks that cause lasting damage.
My remedy for this situation is not strictly related to abortion, but to empowering the people to effect the Democratic party, and counterweigh corporate money.
You, on the other hand, conclude that we ought to stop playing games and take a strong principled position. A show of spine and principles will overcome any regional vulnerabilities…and if it doesn’t, it wasn’t worth exercising power anyway.
Both arguments are deeply unsatisfying, which isn’t surprising since they stem from our shared pessimism about the human, or at least, policital condition.
I think we can agree on that …
I draw the line on sincere attacks that cause lasting damage.
Boo, you don’t know what you are talking about.
It is apparent that you haven’t a clue…
The wingnuts changed their tactic 10 years ago when they realized killing doctors and bombing clinics (althought they still do) was not getting them the respone that they wanted.
So, now the tactic is to outlaw abortion by 10000 legislative paper cuts. And to make the Democrats look like the loonies and extremist not them. Which is why they came up with the partial birth abortion ban… a straw man that doesn’t even exist. But, their intention was to make Democrats try to protect it because we saw it’s legal implication so further destroying the right of women. As one wingnut put it we will out law the third trimester… then the second trimester … then the first and by then it would be so eroded that no one could save it.
This is why I say that it is bullshit that Democrats are voting for these measures because it erodes womens rights one grain at a time until it is all gone. They are hoping for people like you to say that it is too insignificant to challenge.
Read the DFLA site that is linked above… they are high fiving each other that the DEMOCRATS were able to stop military families from PAYING THEMSELVES to have abortions in overseas military hospitals. So if a female soldier or female member of a military family wants to have an abortion and are stationed in the middle of the bush in some god forsaken country to protect the US they are not allowed to even pay themselves they would have to use the local facilities…
I am glad YOU can put up with this inconvenience….
don’t tell me I don’t have a clue. It’s an annoying debating technique and it’s wrong.
You haven’t informed me of a single fact I was unaware of in this whole debate. You have made some good arguments, and you have forcefully advocated your position, but stop attacking me personally.
Would you like to make it a requirement that all Democrats running for office must profess to be pro-choice, and they must vote the way that NARAL thinks they should vote?
If so, just say so, and then defend your position. Don’t tell me that I don’t have a clue.
Then don’t put words in my mouth.
Do you know the access rate of abortion for women in Rhode Island?
Did you even know what those “marginal issues related to reproductive freedoms.
Kos has hijacked this issue and made NARAL the scapegoat for the Democratic Party capitulating on a promise and the Democratic platform.
NARAL is not a party of the Democratic Party.
It is clueless to keep spouting rumors and innuedos. You guys like pollis and numbers so much, but in all of your professed wisdom this is not one fact… like the fact is the majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal… or the fact that Bush’s polls are are lowest ever, fact women make up 50% of the Democratic PArty… fact Bush’s numbers for women went up 11% in the last election…
So don’t try to convince me that somehow failing to protest Roe is somewhere in time going to be good for the Democratic party… show me the facts not the dKos Talking points… and stop trying to divert the issue with NARAL… the only single isse hijackers in the Democratic Party are the anti-choicers who insist on running anti-choice candidates in pro-choice areas and now they are forcing the party to capitulate on saving Roe… so get your facts straight.
Do you know the access rate of abortion for women in Rhode Island?
Clue
To say that these “some annoying votes on marginal issues related to reproductive freedoms” are acceptable… I sorry but it really does mean you haven’t a clue about the anti-choice strategy.
They intentionally make “annoying votes on marginal issues related to reproductive freedoms” but they make THOUSANDS of them… and they are eroding Roe right from underneath us… because most people don’t see “The Big Picture”
didn’t answer my question.
Until you do, I don’t see the point in continuing to respond to you.
Would you like to make it a requirement that all Democrats running for office must profess to be pro-choice, and they must vote the way that NARAL thinks they should vote?
Is this really a question???
Do I think that the Democratic Party should be run by NARAL???
hmmmm, lemme see… Do I think that the Democratic party should handover it’s autonomy and leadership to an unelected non partisan body… gee Boo, you stumped me.
I think that the Democratic party should be faithful to it’s base and abide by it’s platform.
You still wont answer the question, which is the key to this whole conversation.
We both want the Democratic Party to “be faithful to it’s base and abide by it’s platform.”
Do we want to insist that all our candidates for office are pro-choice and vote pro-choice on all issues touching in any way on reproductive freedom?
Yes or no?
… and here is how.
We MUST redefine “Pro-life” to what the Democrats do naturally. We proactively seek to lower abortion by supporting healthy families. That means we support healthcare, maternity leave, good public education and keeping jobs in this country.
Reid has already introduced the Putting Prevention First Act
“One of the most heated debates of recent years has been on the issue of abortion,” Senator Reid said. “People on both sides of the issue feel strongly. They have argued, demonstrated and protested with much emotion and passion. The issue isn’t going to go away soon, and I doubt that one side will be able to suddenly convince the other to drop its deeply held beliefs.”
“But there is a need – and an opportunity – for us to find common ground. We can find not only common ground, but also common sense, in the “Putting Prevention First” legislation that I am introducing today,” Reid added.
The “Putting Prevention First Act” is a comprehensive family planning initiative that seeks to expand access to preventive health care services and education programs that help reduce unintended pregnancy, infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), and the need for abortion. The act, which has both Democratic and Republican cosponsors, consists of seven titles parts including Reid’s legislation to require insurance plans to cover prescription contraceptives.
The legislation has bipartisan support. Cosponsors include Senators Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Patty Murray (D-WA), John Corzine (D-NJ), and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ).
Summary
“Putting Prevention First Act”
Title I: Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage
Requires private health plans to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services to the same extent that they cover prescription drugs and other outpatient medical services. The provision seeks to establish parity for prescription contraception within the context of coverage already provided by health plans.
Title II: Family Planning State Empowerment
Allows states to expand Medicaid family planning services to women with incomes up to 200 percent of the federal poverty level, without having to apply to the federal government for a waiver. The provision would give states the option to expand services; states would not be required to do so. Currently 18 states have been granted Medicaid family planning waivers.
Title III: Title X of the Public Health Service Act
Increases the authorization for the national family planning program (Title X of the Public Health Service Act) to $643,000,000 for FY 2005 and such sums as necessary in subsequent years. Title X was funded at $278 million for FY 2004. Title X clinic services prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the number of abortions, lower rates of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs), including HIV, and detect breast and cervical cancer at its earliest stages. The Title X statute prohibits the use of program funds to pay for abortions.
Title IV: Emergency Contraception Education and Information
Provides $10 million to implement important public education initiatives about emergency contraception (EC) and its benefits and uses to both women and medical providers.
Title V: Compassionate Assistance for Rape Emergencies
Requires that hospitals receiving federal funds promptly provide EC upon patient request, in addition to medically, factually accurate and unbiased written and oral information about EC to women who survive sexual assault.
Title VI: Family Life Education
Provides $100 million in annual funding to states to support comprehensive sex education that includes information about both abstinence and contraception.
Title VII: Teenage Pregnancy Prevention
Provides $20 million in annual funding for competitive grants to public and private entities to establish or expand teen pregnancy prevention programs.
This is a start and it shows good faith that the Democrats are serious in lowering the abortion rate. Any anti-choice Democrat who can not agree to this is just a misogynist because everyone knows that by making abortion illegal it will only put more women AND CHILDREN in danger. Jail will not defer women from having abortions if she can not pay for a child.
I posted this 5 min documentary yesterday. The interviewer asks anti-abortion protestors… protesting on the street with billboards of dead babies who women should be punished for having an illegal abortion… their answers will shock you… NONE OF THEM HAD EVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING ABORTION ILLEGAL. They just want the law to reflect their so-called morality… that is where it ends.
Husband Notice
A court held that Rhode Island’s husband notification requirement for abortion is unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood of R.I. v. Bd. of Med. Review, 598 F. Supp. 625 (D.R.I. 1984).
This law provides that a married woman may not obtain an abortion unless her husband has been notified, except if: she is living apart from her husband; she provides a written statement that “the fetus was not fathered by her husband”; either spouse has filed for divorce; or “there is an emergency requiring immediate action.” R.I. Gen. Laws Ann. §§ 23-4.8-1 to -4.8-5 (Enacted 1982).
The U.S. Supreme Court held that requiring a woman to notify her husband prior to an abortion is unconstitutional. Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992).
____
I thank God every day for this “single issue” groups who are viligilant in protecting my rights… sorry I can not say the same for the Democratic Party… who is ready to sell my womb to the highest bidder.
Some of us, hell, a lot of us, who are trying to get the Democratic oarty to vocally stand up in support of Roe, even if we can’t stop the confirmation, live in states where the abortion fight is over the second Roe falls.
Over.
We’ll be back to back-alley or unwanted motherhood the day after it falls. No negotiation, no chance to fight. State legislatures have been passing “just in case” abortion bans for years. Aided and abetted by the “but Roe will never really fall” bullshit.
And now our party, one that a lot of us have devoted time, money, and interpersonal strife to defend, doesn’t even seem to have the spine to stand up and say, LOUDLY, that we believe that abortion is a woman’s decison and we will not support anyone who does not support a woman’s right to make decisions about her body.
Oh yeah, that’s right. There are more important things. We can’t stop him, so we should be churchmice and save our limited (?!?!) fighting ability for something we can win. I’m just getting worked over something that might happen (damn straight!).
F*ck the Democrats. I’ve fought for them for so long, and all they have given me is the backbone of an amoeba. Libertarians, here I come.
because this will be our sisters, cousins, mothers and daughters, either directly or metaphorically, who will be DYING thanks to these policies. Pregnancy is DANGEROUS. Pregnancy when it’s unwanted or when there is a problem is doubly dangerous. Woman will be bleeding out on dirty sheets after botched abortions. Woman will be taken to emergency rooms after taking god knows what concoctions. Newborns will be abandoned or killed. PEOPLE WILL DIE! For what? To satisfy a vocal minority of zealots?
DAMN the Democrats for giving an inch on this! DAMN them for courting the likes of Casey and Langevin! DAMN them for their mealy mouthed gamesmenship!
SAFE, LEGAL and READILY AVAILABLE. That is the ONLY standard that should be acceptable in a civilized society in the 21st Century. If they don’t fight, this WILL break the party.
Madman, I agree with you on everything except the last point.
I believe it will break the GOP.
The first thing that will happen is that you will see the areas where pro-choice Republicans win primaries expand greatly. Pro-life Dems will disappear from almost the entire country.
The harder the GOP tries to keep pro-life purity within the party, the more Republicans will defect.
As for the Dems, they will stopping toying with Caseys because they won’t feel the need to.
The GOP will go to minority status immediately. Pro-life candidates will find it hard to win a state-wide race anywhere outside the confederacy and Utah.
Rockefeller Republicanism will make a major comeback, and it will send the right it spasms of infighting.
But even so, it will be a setback for women’s health that we will take eons to recover from. And everything should be done to prevent Roe from being overturned.
My question: why are you so sure this guy will overturn it?
The real problem is you just can’t trust Democrats to keep their word anymore.
All the shut up and get in line so we can save Roe.
Now we have the best opportunity imaginable and the only excuse Dems can come up with is “Roberts is too cute”..
once trust is broken… it is hard to move forward. Like I say I am only speaking for my self but I’d personally rather count my losses and move on.
It will like a battered wife leaving an abusive husband.
it will harden their fundi base, and the Dems will have demonstrated once again that it’s not an issue they’ll go to bat on. It’ll break the Dems more than the Republicans. I think what’ll happen is some third party (or the Greens) will begin making a long slow climb to relevance (which could take a while) while more people get fed up and just drop out of the political system all together.
Which will make the corporations chortle in glee.
I should not even be getting into this. All you great logical non-idealistic thinkers will point out all the errors of my muddled rhetoric.
But it seems to me you are saying: We shouldn’t put up a fight against this Roberts because he will get appointed any way and we don’t really know how he might vote.
My question is, then why put up a fight about anything? The republicans can out vote us even if we did vote as a solid democratic block. So we should, or rather the current elected do-nothings should do even less? And not put up a fight about anything?
On the other hand YOU and I and Everyone of US should be out there beating our brains out day in and day out to try to elect good local candidates. . .whom, by the way we won’t really know how they will vote either. We should take our radical idealism and work, work, work, just like we did the last two election cycles. But work harder, because it is somehow OUR FAULT that these spineless, whining jerks are in the Senate and the Congress and it doesn’t matter what their position is on any important issue as long as democrats win.
So to sum it up: Dems don’t fight on any issue we can’t win in the house or the senate
Working Janes & Joes: Work harder. . .so that. . .what? Dems who are Anti-abrotion can be elected. Dems who are Anti-Gay equality can be elected. Dems who are owned by the corporatists can be elected. So BIG business can continue to run the country just as they have for the past 50 years, only now all the laws have been changed in their favor.
You seem to be saying, there is never a place for Dems to take a stand unless they can get the repubs to go along with them. . .in other words, NEVER.
I guess this is a good time for this idealist, non-logical, special interests (equality, privacy, equal treatment under the law)person to find a new country because this one is going down very fast and it will take 30 years to undo what they have already ripped to shreds of our constitution and human rights.
If the pragmatic way is don’t rock the boat, then you all should be very happy with the results you currently have and the huge mudslide that is up a head.
that we should be rejecting him because of his corporatism, but we’ve been working jointly with the Republicans on corporatism since Reagan (and JFK in some ways), we have nobody with any intention much less knowledge about how to go “Democratic” with the economy.
Roe reinforced the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship (medical privacy):
Staying focused means throwing the whole crate of red herrings overboard. The issue is privacy. The government has no business inside a doctor’s office – no matter the procedure being discussed.
= = = = = =
We also need to find more progressive candidates to run in the primaries – period.
I’ve argued for a long time that the party must be open to candidates not necessarily registered as “D”emocrats. Also important that party officials stay out of races until after the primaries. If any want to endorse a candidate as an individual, fine: join the campaign.
And I vehemently disagree that Gingrich’s “revolution” is a model. For what? Civil war?
To have a model you need a political party with a basic set of principles, designed to actually improve the lives of the American people – all of them. That means stay the hell off the partisan rhetoric and negative bullshit, and focus on what needs to be done. Solutions, not mud-slinging.
Models come in boxes – you get them from the f*cking toy store.
Madman and I agree on one thing here. This is a civil war and it must be fought tooth and nail. The Gingrich revolution was predicated on several main themes:
Congress was entrenched, ossified, and corrupt. (Term-limits, Rostenkowski, balanced budget amendment).
For us, its: DeLay, Cunningham, Rove, fiscal responsibility, accountability in government, anti-corruption legislation, clean election legislation, transparent elections legislation, harsher ethics rules, etc.
We need to paint the GOP as spendthrifts, crooks, and liars. A totally negative campaign of vilification.
But we need a bunch of proposed bills for cleaning up their corruption and graft.
We also need idealistic bills that reflect our long-term goals, but costly proposals will step on our fiscal responsibility message. So, it has to be weighted negative over positive.
I’ll stick with Eisenhower:
My point is that democrats are already “foundering in confusion”. What the party needs is to “be guided by long-range principle“, not enmeshed in open partisan warfare.
It seems to me that if the Democratic party supported my viewpoints, then the thing to do would be to work to elect more Democrats. Starting in 2006.
But it doesn’t. So my opinion is that the thing to do is to work to elect more liberals. That means people like Kucinich and Nader, Greens and Socialists.
But somehow I suspect that the “liberal” community will again get sucked into the Democratic camp, and we’ll all vote for Hillary.
I’ll leave. Not another half-assed Kerry campaign for a DINO. Never again.
me either.
ditto
Allow me to quote our honoured precursors:
Fuck, no, we won’t go!
Me neither. I’ll take a good leader over a bad one any day, regardless of their party.
I’m happy to see this discussion going on, rather than the capitulation running rampant on most other sites.
Have my passport and packing my bags now.
I don’t see–so far–Dean’s grass-roots-building methods and efforts as precluding solid liberals. We probably won’t have a solid liberal for Presidential candidate but to my eye we seem to have plenty of opportunities at every level below that.
Dean: “I don’t know anybody in America who is pro-abortion.” Does he know anybody who is “pro-appendecotmy?”
Dean and Hillary are losing it…
how you intend to actually elect Greens and Socialists, as opposed to dividing the left and electing more Republicans. If I actually thought you had a viable plan, I’d join you.
-Alan
I’ve voted Green for three straight general elections, but I agree that now is an opportune time to create something beyond what is already out there. To give people something that is an actual choice that the disaffected soccer moms and the anarchists can both get behind.
Step one is to get people to vote for politicians whose policies they support. The whole “I’ll vote for X because, even though I mostly disagree with him, he’s electable.” A whole bunch of liberals held their noses and voted for conservative Democrats. If they had voted for liberals (maybe Democrats, maybe not), then some of them would have gotten elected.
That’s how I’m feeling, too. Someone wearing the label “Democrat” is enough to get my vote. But, if they don’t walk, talk and live progressive principles they aren’t getting my money or my active support.
As soon as we face an outrage that requires a unified response, we are all like “get out the vote” and “they won the election” “be realistic” “elect more democrats” I’m with the madman here – I think we did get out the vote after the last election theft. Now it’s happened again, what the hell have we done about it? Like the Southern Baptists tell their womenfolk – “Submit graciously!”
You better believe I am holding back plenty of profanity here out of respect for y’all.
I’m with ya Alice. If I hear “elections have consequences” one more time, or its darker twin “liberals should have thought about that and come out to vote”, I’m going put a hurtin’ on somebody!
Take the stupid “elections have consequences” line. Oh yeah, and Dubya talked about social security reform too and I don’t see the public eatin’ that shit with a big ol’ spoon. Enough of the “you made your bed now lie in it” crap. Sounds like people aren’t even bothering to mask the dysfunction that entails anymore.
in the foot by characterizing opinions with labels? “Pragmatic” is embarassingly self-congratulatory and “Idealistic” is, in this context, irritatingly condescending at best. Maybe if the labels made some sense it wouldn’t be so bad, but they don’t. (To use the Bertand Russel [I think] model, “I’m a pragmatist, you’re an idealist, she’s an ideolog”.) Kindly explain what’s so “pragmatic” about your call to resist the nomination, and what it is that the “idealists” want that’s so different.
That said, I agree with your strategy, so don’t understand what all the “pragmatic” claims are all about. Are you trying to foreclose any filibuster move before it starts? If so, you don’t really give any reasons for that.
I think your underlying point is valid: this is probably a lost cause. That should have absolutely no influence, though, on how it’s resisted. But it’s too early to be talking about the filibuster before the hearings have even established anything solid. That goes for pro- OR anti-filibuster opinions. Unfortunately DINOs like Lieberman have already done their best to jump to conclusions before the case has even been tried. I would add one more to your list of priorities: Lieberman has to go, even if that means having a GOP senator from CT.
people seem to see the word idealistic as an insult and pragmatist as a compliment.
You are investing the words with those meanings, I meant them to distinguish between my position and Madman’s.
If you’ve read our writings and our exchanges you’ll see that we don’t differ much. Where we do is in what we want to do right now. He wants a all hands on deck brawl, and severe punishment for any Dem that votes for this guy.
I want a calculated and calibrated brawl. I concede that Roberts will be nominated. I’m not going to get crazy at Reid for not being able to manage a filibuster here. Instead, I want a campaign that makes the public have buyer’s remorse, that makes them want to burn and tar Republicans.
I know this is painful for all of us, especially women, but for all progressives. We don’t need to fight each other, we don’t need to misdirect our anger at our own impotency.
You can say we’re reading into it, but the word has meaning beyond your intentions. It was noticed by many people besides me. I also think it’s a mistake to try to cast those two descriptives as being mutually exclusive. Yes, you have to know how to handle the sails, but without a rudder and a compass all you’re doing is sailing nowhere.
Is there a better way to express the disparity in views you see? I suspect there must be, but I cannot speak for you so I don’t know what that might be.
Booman: I want a calculated and calibrated brawl.
I can’t understand how this will wake up enough people to do us much good at the polls in 06, Boo. To most folks out there, it’d be a another “yawner”, just more politics as usual that darned near everyone I know in the world I live in has totally tuned out.
They do, however, tune in to hear about things like shark attacks or any kind of juicy scandel that means some bigshot has been caught with their pants down, or their hand in the common cookie jar..things they CAN relate to.
You note that this is painful for all of us, especially women. It’s a bit more than painful, Boo, to know that our lives, our reproductive freedoms, and those of our daughters and grandaughters are literally on the line here. It is terrifying, especially to those of us who actually have lived in a world without those precious freedoms and know first hand what it means.
I only know that whatever the Democrats done so far has not protected women’s freedoms. I just don’t see how even more calibration and caculation can either.
I say get out the red meat and let’s ROLL.
Shouldn’t it?!? I can’t even begin to understand your attitude, which is by definition quixotic. Why should the futility, or lack thereof, of an effort not have any impact on how much energy is devoted to it?
<shaking head in complete incomprehension>
-Alan
You seem to think energy is some kind of commodity like corn or electricity that gets used up and then is gone. It isn’t. Political energy grows the more it’s well-used. The Kerry campaign, the Gore campaign, the recent congressional campaigns lost precisely because they used no energy on much beyond “not as bad as Bush”.
By your standard, there’s no point in having baseball leagues, because the Yankees will probably win anyway, so why play?
A well-made resistance to this nomination could focus on exactly why Bush and the GOP are poison for America. In a critical time we need a person of excellence to help restore national confidence. Instead we get a nonentity who has devoted his life to helping corporations assault workers, consumers, and the air and water that keeps up alive. He is Mr. GOP, and what you’re buying every single time you vote Republican.
I think it is, to a degree. People only have so much time, and yes–so much energy. Not to mention that there is also money involved. I keep hearing that liberal groups will spend millions fighting this nomination. Is that really the best use of that money?
No argument from me! I much prefer the salary-capped NFL and NBA.
Or we could try to focus the (again, limited) media/public attention back on Rove/Plame, and other demonstrable crimes and misdemeanours of this administration, rather than help Hannity and others who want to define us as mindless obstructionists.
And who defended a prisoner who had been beaten by guards (and volunteered off the top of his head, to a sceptical Rehnquist, that “mental torture” would also be prohibited by the Eighth Amendment), as well as defending before the Supreme Court an indigent defendant against “double jeopardy” persecution by the government.
But you’re right, he’s been a corporate stooge for the most part, and a nonentity. That is the best (or rather, least worst) we could get as a nominee: someone who has a chance to be something better (less bad) once he no longer has to kiss anyone’s ass.
-Alan
This says so well what I have been saying so not as well!
Political energy begets political energy — and if the party wants to get back the (small but decisive group of) women who went for Bush in 2004 after going for Gore in 2000 AND KEEP THOSE OF US WHO STAYED WITH THE DEMS, SO FAR . . . the majority of voters for Kerry . . . than the party had better figure out a way to pragmatically FIGHT for me, as I did for the Dems.
Kerry had one, count it, one speech billed as about women’s issues — it was in my town, two blocks from my house, so I was there . . . although per the usual Kerry handling, he was late so missed the prime tv time he could have had before the massed cameras from every network, cable and otherwise. Could it be that the small group of women who defected did so NOT because he was not strong enough on security, yada yada, but because he was seen (note, seen) as not strong enough on reproductive rights?
This, THIS is the issue that could so energize the women who gave the party the majority of voters in 2000. This definitely got out the vote among young women in 2004. If they are not to be discouraged from ever voting again (believe me, they were discouraged), fight for them now.
Or say goodbye to 2008 . . . and maybe 2006, too.
And I say that as a pragmatic strategist about how to support my Democratic ideals, damn it.
THis nomination is not just about Roe “guys”. It is about basic human rights like the right to free speech, right to privacy and many many more. PLEASE for a minute understand that any niminee that the right wing has said well ok is not a centrist conservative. We will have to wait and see how he answers the questions. I understand both sides having their points here but please realise to many of us this is not the only issue but it is a very important issue not to be discounted.
I agree that instead of dividing rights up into separate camps we should view them all as human rights. The mentality of rights being different self-interested rights is contrary to the idea that rights need to exist for everyone if they mean anything..
Exactly instead of abrtering chips…
There are some who have calculated that giving up Roe would gain a few million Catholic votes… perhaps but what they forgot to calculate that it would also probably lose 20 to 30 million votes from pissed off women… funny how that happens when you fuck over your base…
were something I respect and admire instead of something I disgustedly settle for, this is how the nomination would be handled:
“Our country is in a crisis of confidence as deep as any we’ve seen at least since the Watergate scandals four decades ago. An ongoing federal investigation may result in serious criminal charges, possibly even including treason, against ranking members of the current administration. No one now knows how far up in the White House the investigation might lead, nor whether they will force us to take steps leading to impeachment.
We do know that the current administration has sacrificed the lives and futures of thousands of young Americans and more than one hundred thousand Iraqi lives on an altar built of deliberate lies and the most heartless kind of political manipulation. As a consequence of a pattern of deceit and coverup, this administration no longer has the confidence of most Americans even though we are engaged in a bloody foreign war.
On this administration’s watch, for the first time in the history of our nation, most Americans now say they no longer trust the Supreme Court of the United States. The corrosion of every branch of government by the duplicity of this administration and its Congressional allies is now complete.
Amid the poisonous atmosphere it has created, the administration now submits a Supreme Court nominee who is, essentially, a blank slate: a corporate lawyer with barely any judicial experience and no expertise in constitutional law. Some have called him a stealth candidate, one who will deflect examination of his relevant record because he has no relevant record. He is, at the very least, not a nominee with the slightest probabilty of restoring trust in the Court or the government.
We are asked to accept this candidate on trust. Like the American people, we have no trust in those who submitted this nomination. Therefore we will oppose the nomination using every tool at our disposal. We will continue to oppose subsequent Supreme Court nominees until the administration proposes someone whose excellence and love of justice is beyond question.
This adminstration’s actions have provoked a crisis that will almost certainly involve the Supreme Court either in matters of criminal or administrative malfeasance or impeachment investigations. Now is not the time to blindly place a hand-picked blank slate in a position to to determine the outcome of those events. We intend, therefore, to insist with every ounce of strength and will we have that the next member of the Supreme Court represent the best of America, and not the most invisible. America has many worthy candidates who meet that minimal requirement. We eagerly await the day that the White House nominates one of them.”
that’s excellent. I’d sign up for that. Depending on how the hearings go, you could still see that outcome. It’s unlikely, but not impossible.
Partly it depends on the weakness of Bush in September.
Just FYI. But you saw it here first.
Time will tell (since there’s almost no chance Roberts won’t be confirmed). But my prediction, for the record, is that Roberts is not going to vote much differently than O’Connor (who is not one of us, remember: she provided the key vote to install Bush in office so she could retire under a Republican). I actually think he might be a little better (or less bad) than she has been–I’ve outlined my reasoning at the “Behind Blue Eyes” diary.
-Alan
The problem is that he’s anti-Roe. Right away, that makes him worse that O’Connor, because he’s against the fundamental equality of men and women.
He has previously said that he respects Roe as established legal precedent. Could be bullshit, sure. But neither of us really know until it comes time to vote. And again, let’s be realistic: there is no chance that Bush will ever nominate anyone to the SCOTUS that we can be sure going in will vote to uphold Roe. Right?
-Alan
that answer was in response to a direct question about how he would handle it as a Court of Appeals Judge. Appeals Judges can’t change precedent … they rule on the legal process of the trial before them. All that answer says is that he would operate like an ethical Appeals Judge is SUPPOSED to answer. It doesn’t MEAN anything.
It’s not the same as saying he would uphold Roe as a Supreme. It says nothing about that at all.
To be fair to Slacker, saying nothing at all in this situation could mean either – he could be avoiding saying he’s anti-Roe so Democrats can safely vote for him, or avoiding saying he’s not anti-Roe so Republicans can safely vote for him.
Given the rest of his record, I’d want to see a heck of a lot of evidence before I accepted the second interpretation.
I just want the right questions asked during the confirmation hearings. This should not be just a rubber stamp session. If Roberts refuses to answer the questions, then enough people might be willing to raise a ruckus and get some opposition in Congress. If he answers such questions, then fine he’ll get confirmed or he’ll expose himself as a wacked-out uberconservative and not get confirmed. I highly doubt that last option.
But if the Dems don’t even ask those tough, well-chosen questions… then they’ve lost me forever (not that they actually haven’t already). And I’d be willing to bet I’m not the only one.
“WASHINGTON — Democrats need to reach out to voters who oppose abortion rights and promote candidates who share that view, the head of the party said Friday. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, told a group of college Democrats that their party has to change its approach in the debate over abortion. “I think we need to talk about this issue differently,” said Dean. “The Republicans have painted us as a pro-abortion party. I don’t know anybody in America who is pro-abortion.” Dean’s approach echoed similar arguments advanced in recent months by former President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. “We do have to have a big tent. I do think we need to welcome pro-life Democrats into this party,” said Dean. Dean did not mention the looming confirmation hearings. He discussed the abortion debate after a student questioned why the party was supporting Bob Casey Jr., a Pennsylvania Democrat challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. The chairman tried to draw a distinction between Casey and Santorum, even though both men oppose abortion rights. “You have to respect people’s positions of conscience,” said Dean. “I think Bob Casey’s position is a position of conscience.” Dean, a former Planned Parenthood board member, said the difference between his party and Republicans is that “we believe a woman has a right to make up their own mind and they believe (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay should make it up and Rick Santorum should make it up for them.”-from the AP story this afternoon.
from http://www.seattlefordean.com and http://www.howieinseattlefordean.com
Capitulating on the SCOTUS changes the entire game…
let me add to that…
Holding on to my rights I would welcome “conscientious” pro-choicers with open arms. I would work proactively to lower the rates of abortions by lobbying for better support of families…across the gamut ie healcare for mother and child, anti-Cafta that would take away even more jobs, improvement of public education etc.
But what is happening now is that rights rights are being raffled off for a few million catholic votes… to which I say that this party can go to hell…
(honestly I don’t)…but given the paucity of views I find here that line up with mine on Roberts, I couldn’t help but feel jubilant, that my cup runneth over, when I took a look at what’s being said over yonder. Seriously, take a look at those posts–there are a lot of people making this argument more compellingly than I’m sure I have.
-Alan
What is your point???
Everyone knows that you can not express yourself “yonder” without being pummelled by the gaurds … Andrea was treated with kid gloves in Sudan when she asked a question compared to that place…
I didn’t observe any of that going on over there (though I just read the main posts and not the minimised responses). What I saw was mainly a lot of people calmly making the kinds of points I had been (and I must point out, I did so earlier than that thread started), though as I say they added many data points I wasn’t aware of.
Over here I certainly saw what could be called “pummelling” (outrage, certainly) when BooMan or I or a very few others tried to make any other point than “man the barricades, let’s throw everything at Roberts”.
Interesting how we seem to have different observations…
what ever…
I know what I see and have seen.
the dailyKlark is saying that everything will be just fine … shush “single issue voters”.
I don’t even have to read thru all of it. It’s predictable.
What exactly is there to lose by strongly opposing Robbers nomination?
(Amanda Marcotte)
What won’t you be gaining if you don’t?
The fight against appointing John Roberts should be treated like a campaign commercial for the Democrats.
hmm there you go. The Dems were outclassed, out PR’d, out run, out smarted thru out the GE. Strangely Kerry ran better commercials in Iowa in the primaries then he ran in the GE. Oh well.
Republicans USE losing propostions — such as congressional votes on the massively misnamed PBA, in reality D&X, as PR and as wedge tactics.
Dems flounder. It was old years ago. One wonders how long the Dems can run on the electoral marquee:
Coming Attractions. But not now, check back.
Cuz the climax never comes. All soft preamble. If I thought the Dems meant it, I’d hang in. They don’t, they mean to slide ever rightward. I think they LIKE it there.
Here is something…
who was abandoned by Democrats — not one stood with him, not one stood to defend him til he apologised 5 days later– on the floor of the senate as McCain, Warner and McConnel pounded him?
(Over torture, the ethical issue of our era, as some ethicists have called it. ‘course that pales beside blither about xtian values out on the stump.)
Just a few weeks ago: Durbin.
Who sits on the Judiciary: Durbin.
Who is a Blue Stater, a populist (more rather than less) whip: Durbin.
And who was one of three votes on the Senate Judiciary Cmte agaisnt Roberts over 2 years ago: Durbin.
No Democrat fought for Durbin, they accepted the R party line… Daley weighed in, Durbin, sadly, caved.
Durbin, in a film clip today on Lehrer, said he voted against Roberts as he felt he was less than candid with the committee. OVer Brown v BofEd.
Queries wrt ‘strict constructionism”, the Constitution and Brown were not satisafactory to Durbin…. I wonder how long Durbin lasts as whip, under Reid.
Hard to trust the Dems… they try to cattle herd (sometimes with a cattle prod) the rank and file, on line… old games. But they don’t stand together in congress. Too many stand with the Republicans…
also:
Strangely Kerry ran better commercials in Iowa in the primaries then he ran in the GE. Oh well.
Makes perfect sense. The whipped curs in DC cared more about stopping Dean than they cared about stopping Bush.
Hey Marisacat, good to see you around these parts. 🙂
You’ve actually delivered the most convincing note of caution from my point of view. I have the utmost respect for Dick Durbin.
-Alan
Before I add my two cents to this lively discussion here I’d to say first of all…….why in the hell is everyone assuming the guy will be confirmed. There are at least 3 months to go over this guys record and personal life with a fine tooth comb. And the democrats better dam well being doing it…and hopefully all the great investigative bloggers we have out there also. It’s only been several days and already the guy seems like a rather sleazy partisan hack-an insider that happens to be right where all the action is…Florida, working for Reagan, bush daddy, against the POW case of the vets from Gulf war …keep digging.
My personal feeling is or rather as bush would say..my gut tells me this guy has to have something freakish in his background or else bush wouldn’t have picked him. By that I mean the more religious or sanctimonious and riddled with hypocrisy someone is the more bush seems to believe they are nice guy. Ergo the guy must be hiding some kind of freakish secret-that will be found out..at least that’s my dam fucken hope.
Of course the guy will vote against Roe or Dobson and Falwell wouldn’t be having shit eating grins right now and endorsing him. If anyone thinks they weren’t consulted personally then I’ve got some fabulous swamp land I’d be happy to sell you.
If the democrats can’t do more than one thing at a time as in asking tough questions when the nomination process starts and continue with all our other issues than they and we are no better than the media we bitch about for doing one story 24/7. People we can walk and chew gum at the same time, sometimes it just takes a little more effort.
Rolling over on Roe is not a fucken option, period. Let’s say the issue was taking away the black vote…would everyone be saying well we can’t win on that so lets make the best of it?
Once and for all-Roe is not a women’s issue it is, as some have already mentioned, a human and civil rights issue.