Will SOMEONE Please Point Out A Single Instance Where Not Fighting

[DistressedAmerican]

has won a political battle for the Democrats. Just one. please?

I keep asking on various threads. No one seems to have an answer. They have no concrete examples of this "pick your battles" strategy has been a winning strategy. Not one. Yet they keep asserting that they will win the war. I have offered up example after example (including Ashcroft, Rice, Gonzalez, Patriot Act and the IWR) of that getting us screwed and these folks just ignore those and keep asserting. I have also offered Bolton up as proof that fighting these guys can be effective even if we do not seem to have the votes to "win".

Saying over and over that by fighting we loose is not debate. That is just endless assertion lacking facts to support it.

Sadly, that is all I have read in all of these threads. Assertions without a single shred of evidence. Where is your proof of the efficacy of your approach? Where?

I do not want to hear that anymore from anyone that can not bring an example to the table.

This is not an assertion thread. It is fact based. Please remeber that before replying.

[TahitiNut]

1. DU is overrun with the "take a dive" apologists.

[DistressedAmerican]

3. It Has Been Building Every Time I Hear This. Everytime A Fight Comes

up it is the same damn assertions. We can not defeat them in vote count so, we should not bother. They might call us obstructionists, etc.

I am SO very done with these endless assertions from that crowd.

They need to bring some facts or they need to admit they has no arguement.

[sendero]

127. Saying we canoot win...

.... is not the same as saying "dont' fight".

Personally, my belief is very simple. Dems do not have the power to stop this nomination, period.

But, they could force the nuclear option by filibustering it forever if they wanted to. And one could make the case that politically, we'd come out on top for doing so. You can also make the case that we wouldn't.

But in the final analysis, this pack of Senators isn't going to do anything. Oh, if I send them an email they will get that fighting spirit? Sorry, I don't think so.

[imenja]

2. what is the battle you'll win? What will you achieve?

Is this a fight for the sake of it or do you have a goal in mind? Is it to protect abortion rights? Not opposing Roberts may be a better way of achieving that. At the moment, we don't know his judicial philosophy on that issue. We have to see what he says in the confirmation hearings.

[cally]

5. We do know his opinion on this

He's married to a woman who helps run an anti-choice organization and he has written an opinion saying Roe v. Wade was wrong. What more do you need?

[imenja]

11. there is a difference between personal beliefs and writing legal opinions

His job will be to interpret the constitution and the law, not legislate from the bench. You can personally be morally opposed to abortion and still see the Roe precedent as binding. You can be a devout Christian or Muslim and still support the constitutional separation of Church and state. As a lawyer, you can defend murders without being one yourself.
I don't find these arguments convincing and I have to wonder who you thought Bush would appoint? Would you prefer Priscilla Owen or Janice Rodgers Brown? When we lost the election, we lost the ability to have a liberal jurist on the bench. We need a candidate in the judicial mainstream, and it appears Roberts is. We will be able to tell better during the confirmation hearings. I guess if you're determined to oppose anyone Bush appoints, you will do so. I myself am more concerned with the court that causing problems for Bush. I thought Bush would appoint someone far more extreme because he wanted a fight. Roberts doesn't strike me as so offensive based on rulings he has written. I plan on watching carefully the confirmation hearings to see what he says and will take action then if I'm alarmed, but I'm not going to oppose him for the hell of it.

[DistressedAmerican]

22. Like The Feeps Say, "Bush Won. Get Over It!"

[imenja]

23. so who do you think will appoint roberts replacement?

and do you even care about the court? I wonder.

[DistressedAmerican]

25. Do You Have Any Intention Of Ever Addressing My OP?

I keep hearing you assert.

Where are your examples of a single victory?

[imenja]

81. MY answer

I don't care about "victories" when it comes to this issue. I care about getting a decent justice on the court. We obviously have very different priorities here. The supreme court isn't a game.

[cally]

26. What has he done in the judicial mainstream?

Blocking the release of documents on the energy task force? Allowing a President to unilaterally declare someone an enemy combatant? Opposing affirmative action? Limiting environmental rights? What issue does concern you?

And we do know his position on abortion. See post 6.

I'm opposing him. I'm unwilling to be an appeaser of the RW.

[RaleighNCDUer]

31. He has stated that RvW should be overturned.

At the first opportunity, the anti-choice crowd will initiate a suit that will be geared toward bringing it before the supremes, at which time he can join the others in deciding that the previous majority ruling was flawed, thus overturning RvW.

That is the definition of an activist judge, in the style of Scalia and Thomas. Fuck precedent - it can be dispensed with by finding a flaw the precedent's argument - and he will be looking for that flaw.

And that is only one issue for this Federalist Society partisan.

[Sapphire Blue]

49. An email from ADA Watch regarding Roberts...

Subject: ADA Watch Opposes Roberts

Below is the news release announcing ADA Watch's opposition to the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court. If you would like to add your organization's name to a list of those opposed to this nominee, contact [e-mail]


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT:
June 19, 2005 Jim Ward, 202-415-4753

ADA Watch and the National Coalition for Disability Rights Opposes Supreme Court Nominee Judge John Roberts

"Out of the Mainstream" Nominee Poses Threat to Americans with Disabilities

Statement of Jim Ward, Founder and President of ADA Watch/NCDR:

(Washington, DC) ADA Watch/NCDR is opposed to the nomination of Judge John Roberts to a lifetime seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

At a time when our Nation could have greatly benefited from the selection of a mainstream consensus nominee, people with disabilities --indeed all Americans -- should be saddened and disturbed by President Bush's choice of Judge John Roberts to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.

While Justice O'Connor did not take the side of people with disabilities in all cases, she was the swing vote on important 5-4 rulings involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including historic cases such as Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) and Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).

With the selection of John Roberts, President Bush is making good on his stated intention to fill a Court vacancy with a nominee in the mold of Scalia or Thomas -- Justices who have consistently ruled against people with disabilities in these and other landmark cases. If confirmed, such 5-4 votes would surely go in the other direction and reverse the historic gains of people with disabilities.

ADA Watch/NCDR is a coalition of hundreds of disability, civil rights and social justice organizations united to defend and promote the human rights of children and adults with physical, mental, cognitive and developmental disabilities.

Why we are opposed to Judge John Roberts:

Narrow Interpretation of the ADA:
After the Sixth Circuit ruled that a woman with serious manual impairments was substantially limited in one or more of her life activities, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (Williams v. Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., 224 F.3d 840 <2000>), and Judge Roberts argued and briefed the case on behalf of Toyota. His briefs and oral argument distorted the facts of the case and minimized the extent of Ella Williams' disability.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court believed Judge Roberts's misrepresentations and decided in favor of Toyota. It also came down with a new and very strict test for disability. This test has made it much more difficult for ADA plaintiffs to prove that they are disabled with devastating impact on people with epilepsy, diabetes, mental illness and workplace injuries.

The impact of Robert's distortions is evident in subsequent decisions including Three Rivers Center for Independent Living v. Pittsburgh Public Housing Authority, which barred a Center for Independent Living (CIL) from filing suit to hold a Public Housing Authority accountable for violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Thus the consequences of Judge Roberts's distortions of the record have been wide-ranging: they helped to create yet another unfortunate Supreme Court precedent that has further impeded the goals of the ADA.

Judicial Activism:
Roberts' record demonstrates his inclination to strike down federal anti-discrimination statues and to further limit congressional power, narrowly construe the ADA, and restrict the ability of plaintiffs to get into federal court.

Extremist Ideology:
Roberts declared that the current Supreme Court is not conservative enough specifically in response to the October 1999 term during which the conservative majority judicial activism included the striking down of the Violence Against Women Act and throwing out an age discrimination suit on federalism grounds.

Mr. Roberts is a member of two right-wing legal groups that promote a pro-corporate, anti-regulatory agenda: the Federalist Society and the National Legal Center For The Public Interest, serving on the latter group's Legal Advisory Council.

The Federalist Society's overarching goal is to roll back domestic policy to before FDR's New Deal and its members (including Jeffrey Sutton, William Pryor, and others) have specifically targeted the ADA. The National Legal Center For The Public Interest has attacked ADA civil rights protections in numerous forums including its publication of a document entitled "Civil Rights and the Disabled: The Legislative Twilight Zone."

Narrowing of Civil Rights Protections:
After a Supreme Court decision effectively nullified certain sections of the Voting Rights Act (City of Mobile v. Bolden 446 U.S. 55 <1980>), Roberts was involved in the Reagan administration's effort to prevent Congress from overturning the Supreme Court's action. The Supreme Court had recently decided that certain sections of the Voting Rights Act could only be violated by intentional discrimination and not by laws that had a discriminatory effect, despite a lack of textual basis for this interpretation in the statute. Roberts was part of the effort to legitimize that decision and to stop Congress from overturning it.

In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta, 2001).

As expressed in one case where he would have invalidated a provision of the Endangered Species Act, his exceedingly restrictive view of federal law-making authority - more restrictive than the current Supreme Court's - could threaten a wide swath of workplace, civil rights, public safety and environmental protections.

In his years of service as a political appointee in the administrations of Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Judge Roberts also helped craft legal policies that sought to weaken school desegregation efforts, the reproductive rights of women, environmental protections, church-state separation and the voting rights of African Americans.

[imenja]

83. I want to hear a strategy that gets us a better court

Most of the examples above are actions he took as an advocate, not a judge. They don't tell us how we would rule as a judge. But say you're right and we should oppose him. What scenario gets us a better choice? Who that Bush is likely to appoint would you find acceptable? Or do you want a worse, more extreme judge who has made clear they intend to overturn precedent?

[endarkenment]

13. Roberts actual decision from his SCOTUS seat. eom.

[Jersey Devil]

15. Would you ever expect a pro choice nominee from Bush no matter

how many of his nominees we might manage to block?

[cally]

30. I expected someone that would not be so blatant about his

opposition. I always thought the Reps didn't really want to overturn Roe v. Wade.

[imenja]

85. it might be helpful to think about what a lawyer does

You evidently have decided that a lawyer who represents a client writes briefs that express his own views. Roberts is not blatant in opposition to Roe. A judge is very different from a lawyer. When Roberts spoke before the Senate during his federal appeals court nomination he said Rove was settled law. We can't be sure of what his position on Roe is. That is the point of confirmation hearings, to find out that sort of thing. Give some names of conservatives Bush would appoint that you think would be better?

[tubbacheez]

19. By that logic, we appoint married couples to the bench, not individuals.

And thus his wife should also be confirmed by the Senate.



Spouses can be influential, sure, but we should not prematurely assume without evidence that Mrs. Roberts is guaranteed to override Mr. Roberts' professional conduct.

I have zero data on what kind of relationship they have between the two of them. Anyone who does may enlighten me.

[tubbacheez]

29. self-delete

[DistressedAmerican]

6. Anyone That Has Written A Legal Brief That Stated "We Continue To

believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided." has made their views plenty clear to me. Do not bring me that RW talking point about him just doing his job either. That is nonsense. His views are not in dispute.

There are plenty of decisions that this guy has been involved with that make it clear that he is hostile to women's rights, hostile to affiriative action, and a believer in corporate rights over individual rights.

However, you have still ducked the question COMPLETELY. When has not fighting EVER gotten us ANYTHING?

[imenja]

14. how many lawyers have written legal briefs defending murders?

Does that mean they condone murder? Your argument is not convincing, and I'm not interested in making political hay for the Democrats out of this appointment. I'm concerned about getting someone reasonable on the bench. I suppose you could get Janice Rodgers Brown or Priscilla Owen if that's what you want.

[endarkenment]

18. uh bad analogy

perhaps: "how many judges have written legal briefs stating that all laws against murder are unconstitutional" would be better. The answer would be none, and if you found one who had it would be pretty clear where that judge stood on the constitutionality of murder laws.

[imenja]

21. he wasn't a judge

he was an advocate arguing the position of his client, which may or may not be his own position. That is what the confirmation hearings should determine.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. I Think We Should Win Elections

nt

[DistressedAmerican]

7. Has Not Fighting Them Won Us Any Elections? Answer me that.

Please bring me an example. Please? Anyone?

[RaleighNCDUer]

39. Hey, face it.

You're not going to get an answer, because there are no examples of winning by not fighting.

Politics is not jujitsu, where you just stand there and let the other guy defeat himself. And even in jujitsu you gotta give the other guy a little push.

[TahitiNut]

10. Well, then become a Republican. It's simple, right?

If 'winning' is what's important (and it's why 30% become 'fans'), then climb on the bandwagon!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. I Think There's A Non Sequitur There Somewhere....

Under our system of government the president gets to appoint people to the court and the senate gets the right to advise and consent...


The Democrats can withhold their consent but they would still be five or six votes short even if every Democratic senator opposed Bush's appointment(s)..


If we won more elections we would have the votes to block this appointment....

What part of that don't you understand....

Bookmark this post....

Roberts will be confirmed and he will be confirmed with over eighty Senate votes many of whom will be Democrats...

[DistressedAmerican]

35. I'll Ask You Again What Elections We Have Won Not Fighting?

Examples?

You keep asserting the original logic despite the fact that I have asked repeatedly for examples of your srategy working.

Do you have any? What elections have we won doing what you suggest?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

52. If We Elect Democrats

If we elected Democrats we wouldn't be confronted with the sad situation we are now in with the Republicans controlling every apparatus of government...


I would definitely not appoint John Roberts to the Supreme Court if I was president and probably not confirm him if I was a senator....


That being said I don't think a filibuster is realistic in this situation and I doubt one will be attempted....

[DistressedAmerican]

57. You Have Not Answered My Question. What Election Have We Won

using your strategy?

"If we elected Democrats" is not an example of your strategy in action.

[TahitiNut]

46. When I'm in a fight, I don't want anyone in my foxhole who's betting ...

... on the enemy.

This kind of pretentious prognostication is the role of a spectator (or cheerleader for the oppostion), not a participant!!

Democracy isn't a spectator sport!


I regard it as absolutely appalling that I, a steadfast liberal independent, have to say such things to people who purport to be "Democrats"! When people wear the "uniform" of a party, they damned well have an obligation to fight!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

59. Maybe You Need To Take Poli Sci 101

The president appoints people to the court and the senate provides its advice and conset....

Even if all forty four or forty five Democrats withhold their consent they are still six or seven votes short of stopping this or other nominations...


And unless we elect more Democrats all the internet tantrums will not prevent us from being confronted again and again with this unhappy fate...

[DistressedAmerican]

61. "Bush Won! Just Get Over It!" NO! He Stole The Election And Has Rode

rough shod over us since.

Do not try to tell me about the constitution. I am quite familiar. Thanks.

How about you send some of the repugs that have shredded it to your class? They are the ones who seem pitifully unfamiliar with the document's contents.

[Patty Diana]

65. But the Democrats are not elected by us Democratic voters to endorse

shrubs God Awful choices. JUST Because he's gonna win anyhow. What the the fuck kind of warped, distorted, twisted, irrational reasoning is that!!!!!!

[TahitiNut]

70. Good question.

It's "spectator thinking" not advocacy. It's the apologetics of capitulation and surrender, not a steadfast stance on principles and values. It's the rationale of many "Good Germans" - go along to get along.

[TahitiNut]

73. Please keep your condescending, insulting 'advice' regarding my education

... to yourself. It's NOT appreciated. Insults never are. You don't know shit about my college education and it's not a topic for discussion! Either address the issues or not. Discuss the message, not the messenger! Thank you.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

75. I Think You Made It Personal First But Whatever...

TahitiNut (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-20-05 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. Well, then become a Republican. It's simple, right?
If 'winning' is what's important (and it's why 30% become 'fans'), then climb on the bandwagon!



If a Democratic senator opposes Roberts he is obliged to vote against him....

He can even attempt a filibuster...

Under our constitutional framework that's all he can do....


Again...

There will be no filibuster...

Roberts will pass with over eighty votes....

I think we should expend our energy where it will be rewarded like electing Democrats...

[noamnety]

8. Here's what I've seen

Democrats turn on those who don't take a stand against what's wrong, even if it's a losing battle.

Some examples: the IWR vote, various budget votes, the Patriot Act, standing up in the Senate against election fraud ... there are a number of battles we knew we would not win. In each case, voters still hold a grudge against those democrats who rolled over so they could "pick their battles."

I can't think of a single case where a democrat solidified their support by not fighting for their/our beliefs.

[napi21]

9. When have we just rolled over?

As far as I can see, most of the Dems do fight, and loose anyway. The fights that are really worth fighting for are on issues the Pubs won't even bring to the floor for a fight.

If you're referring to all of Shrub's judges being approved, I don't KNOW if we won or lost yet. I haven't heard any of their rulings to make that decision.

I guess you consider ME one of the apologists. I'm not apologising for ANYTHING! I did say we should demand the Dem Senators ask Roberts very difficult question, and demand he answer. That we take the time to watch the hearings and listen to those answers, then make our own decision on wether he's an acceptable candidate or not. I simply think that it's a mistake to fight Roberts just bacause Shrub nominated him, so he's got to be bad!

If you consider that attitude to be apologetic or just rolling over and giving in, then that's your problem, and not mine.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. When Have They Fought? Example?

I Have listed my examples. Where are yours?

Where is this fighting taking place exactly?

EXAMPLES PLEASE!

I want to fight him for his oww expressed views. Not just because he is a Bush nominee. I openly said before Roberts was annouinced that if they put up a moderate I'd support quick confirmation to get it behind us. Instead they nominated someone I heard described on CNN yesterday as "100 percent conservative".

This is the guy theat wrote "We continue to believe that Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided." If that does not bother you enough to fight him, your committment to the issue must be pretty weak.

Now, your examples?

[seabeyond]

17. i am not a f*in apologist either. never have been. quit defining

me as such.

[DistressedAmerican]

20. Prefer Enabler? Co-Dependant?

Do you have any examples to offer me of your strategy working? One?

[seabeyond]

24. i see the fight in another way and your waste a time and energy for

a bloody nose. i see your fight in the reckless nonthinking repug bully call em a name kinda way. i see a much more effective smart and productive fight, my way. not your way

would you like to name call some more. label me some more.

sounding like the damn repugs. dont fight terrorism in our stupid wasteful way you are a liberal wuss

i say fight it in a calculated smart way, wont be so blooody, mroe effective and lasting, a better solution

[DistressedAmerican]

27. OP? Examples? Just One?

[seabeyond]

34. you want me to play your game like hannity

read my post above where i see the fight. argue that, dont, i dont care, but i am not going to play the stupid limbaugh oreilly hannity game.

[seabeyond]

36. ah ha you shout. i gottcha you shout

that is tired and old. does it sound like i am an enabler, rollover, wuss. does it even sound like it of a morning of posting. two years of posting. show me the roll over. prove to me, your statement you make about me.

[DistressedAmerican]

37. You Have Ignore The OP And Every Post Since.

Have a nice day.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

41. Exactly...

People here need to read the Art Of War9.

"If equally matched, we can offer battle;
if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy;
if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him."

Sun-Tzu


I say we are in situation two....

[TahitiNut]

53. Is the foo shitting?

It's feces sure seems to be in fashion today.

[geek tragedy]

12. David Souter. eom

[Patty Diana]

28. And another thing that really yanks my chain___the democrats

all line up and vote with the REPUKLICANS ie Gonzales annoinment, saying well he was going to win anyway. That's like all us democratic voters looking at the preelection rigged polls and saying to ourselves, I guess I'll have to vote for shrub because he's going to win anyway. I'm so disgusted I could puke

[DistressedAmerican]

32. Good Point. Sadly Lots Of Folks Did Just That Last Time Around And Here

we are paying the price.

I don't know how many possible Kerry voters told me, "Bush is going to win anyway." I dounbt those people had much drive to stand for principles.

[Patty Diana]

42. And there's the rub, our elected officials don't have a spine. Do they

realized how much they offend us every time they vote with the repukes. You'd think that the repukes put them in office. I wouldn't mind losing so much, if the Democrats voted with the party that elected them____ALWAYS__not just when they can win.

[Misunderestimator]

84. Exactly! Exactly.

[noiretextatique]

38. the 2000 (s)election

was the beginning of the end when they did not respond to the coup, or support the CBC's attempt to do so.

[Patty Diana]

50. All we needed was one Senator___just ONE Goddamn Senator

and we'd be playing a different ballgame now....

[noiretextatique]

77. barbara boxer

said al gore asked her not to support the CBC. of all the excuses i've heard about why not one single democratic senator supported the CBC...this is the only one that makes sense. there was also some mention of a deal for committees...

[DistressedAmerican]

40. All These Replies And Still No One Has Addressed My OP With An Example.

[Patty Diana]

43. Cause there aren't any!!!!!!!!!!!!! Zero, Zip, Nada, Bullshit

[mmonk]

44. Perhaps you can show

where we have been winning fighting their nominees? We can't break their discipline by just fighting them. The only way I see is making bush unpopular enough that they feel fighting for him will bring political consequences. Treasongate provides that ability we have been looking for and that's why we need to refocus the media on that rather than the court fight. That doesn't mean to not fight the nomination, it means to weaken them before or while we fight which requires playing smart and having discipline ourselves and not be led where they want to take us.

[DistressedAmerican]

45. Sure: BOLTON

Ask him about his nomimation fight!

[mmonk]

87. Are you making my point or yours?

What is Bolton related to, Iraq and the UN or the court?


By the way, I'm not advocating not fighting. We should not take any bait that allows for media refocus.

[Patty Diana]

47. I'd be great if we had the media on our side_but the democrats thought

that it was a good idea to vote with pukes on the media too___so we lost our voice also.

[Zorra]

48. "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take." - Wayne Gretzky n/t

[seabeyond]

51. you also dont run out of ammunition, like in our current iraq war n/t

[DistressedAmerican]

54. We Have Not Fired A Single Shot. Well One: Bolton. Hit The Mark Too.

We are in no danger or running out of ammo.

[rman]

58. we're swimming in bullets by now,

hardly ever used any.

[seabeyond]

63. that isnt true

in the last 6 months dems have stood up a lot. this is more blanket statement denying all the dems are doing and placing blame on dems. for a dem board, we attack dems more than we do repug. we attack dem more than repugs attack dems. we give dems the responsibility of repug action. i prefer to place it squarely on repug party, and unite and fight as a dem.

so, we hardly ever use them. watch senate or house. i have watched them fight time and time again. maybe if you are dependent on msm to give you the news you wont see the fight. that isnt my problem

but feed the concept dems stand for nothing. that is the productive way to address the party,. sarcasm

i have listened to kennedy, kerry, (even hillary, at times) i listen to biden, as all put him down, as he is standing up cause he isnt liked. i have listened to boxer and durbin (even with his stupid ass apology). i have listened to conyers, waxman, all the black caucus. i have seen a lot of fight. it is sad you have seen none.

[DistressedAmerican]

67. "unite and fight" Good Advice!

All of those you reference are repsected because they do fight. However far more do not.

[seabeyond]

74. bullshit. every time kerry does a fight, there are groups jumping on

his back trying to take him down. biden, they will take his words and twist him into being a pig. and there are many many i didnt name. by far the dems have been speaking up. there is a handful, just a handful that have been siding with repugs, lieberman being one. it is not indicative of the whole party

you know why i even got into the argument, of all this shit.....cause i will do it my way, and respectfully i mean respectfully, you do it yours, (i can respectfully allow you to do it your way without calling a bunch of names, even if i dont agree). i got in because the first thing people were yelling,.....by gosh if the dems dont stand up, if they dont throw it all into this, i am done with them. i am walking. then i hear things like dems dont stand for anything. dems dont do anything. dems dont use ANY bullets.

it is the hyperbole comments of the nonthinking that is endemic of what society has become on both sides

well i will support and fight for the dems. it wont always be my way, but i will always fight this administration

it is like the person always threatening divorce to their mate. if you dont do exactly what i want, when i want, how i want, i am outta here

bullshit

[DistressedAmerican]

78. When Did I Ever Say I Was Walking Out On The Party?

When did I ever threaten divorce?

I am merely debunking the notion that we will ever win not fighting . It is repeatedly said. I heard it On Rice and gonzalez. That was since the election.

Yes, you are completely right. Since the last election some have found a spine. Just not nearly enough. Some names have stood out and been openly embraced by the progressive dems. But, it is not just liebernams and Boxers out there. There is a whole squishy middleground of dems who worry about how they will look rather than taking a stand on principle.

Remember "Profiles In Courage"? It was all about politicians that took plitically unpopular stances on their conviction. We do not have enough like that in the party right now.

I have no plans to leave the party. But, I will never stop pushing for a more progressive agendas and some spine with which to stand behind it.

I am glad to see that you are ready to fight these pukes. Can I now count you in opposition to Roberts?

[Lorien]

55. Now that's a great quote to keep in mind!

On edit: another: "fortune favors the bold".

[iconoclastNYC]

56. Shaivo

I think taking the high road on this preserved it as an issue that damages republicans. Sometimes you have to just sit back and give them enuf rope to hang themselves.

[DistressedAmerican]

60. Not Ready To Hand Them Roe V. Wade To Hang Themselves.

Even hanged, the damage would already be done. I will defend women's control over their bodies.

Rove, DSM and all of the other bogus stuff they have gotten away of plenty of rope to hand them if you ask me.

Soon we won't even be holding onto the rope, having handed the whole thing over in hopes that they will hang themselves with it.

[MisterP]

108. approval ratings for the entire Congress plummeted after: too many Ds

supported the legislation even when 80+% of the U.S. said to not get Congress involved. Unpopular AND wrong--now there's a winnin' strategy.

[slackmaster]

120. BINGO

I'm proud of the San Diego area representatives (even the Republicans) who abstained from that silly vote.

[wiggs]

62. Good post. Didn't put up much of a fight with Ohio electors. nt

[Fleshdancer]

64. I agree, but I would go a step further with this....

What personally drives me crazy about our party is that not enough care seems to go into how we fight situations like those mentioned in your post. (Disclaimer: we have nothing to lose and therefore we really should be fighting every battle)

Now as this relates to the SCOTUS battle - I mentioned this on a thread last night, but Bush needs a battle over Roberts to take the heat off of his right hand man. What he isn't expecting is a fight within his own party. Because we are the minority party in every branch of govt right now, the most damage to this administration comes when the Republican party is splintered. The fringe right is already starting to complain...Coulter, etc.

We need to exploit this. We need to pound the point that Roberts is a flip-flopper on abortion, we need to constantly compare him to Souter, we need to somehow find a picture of him standing next to Clinton or Kennedy...anything to piss off the evangelicals. My guess is that the DLC'ers will openly embrace Roberts which will also piss off many Republicans that need/want an all out polarizing battle with the Democrats.

I don't think this is the only thing we should do...I still plan on calling/faxing/emailing the Democratic senators and voicing my rage at the possibility of Roe vs Wade being overturned and I'll do the protests and the marches, but I think we should come to the realization that old school tactics might not work and so we need to come up with new ideas. Focusing on splintering the right - regardless of the battle we're fighting, might be our best bet these days. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

on edit: spelling errors as usual

[DistressedAmerican]

66. Excenllent Thoughts! Division In Our Party Has Certainly Taken A Toll.

Let's play that game for a while. Thanks for the post!

[Greenbeard]

71. crazy idea i know but what if..........

If we didn't fight Roberts we would shock the extremist repubs. They wouldn't have us to fight so they would turn on themselves. They always need someone to fight.

We stay centered on Rove and continue to bring up the Downing Street Memos and any other form of corruption or dishonesty.

We need strategy.

[Fleshdancer]

80. Yes, however it's not a matter of "not fighting" per say, but to

actively engage in a campaign that splinters the Republican party. The rumblings already exist between true conservatives and the evangelicals and neocons. What we need to do is agitate it a bit more and keep that fire burning for the 2006 elections. Not only does a broken party lose, but they get little done (we should certainly know this by now).

In the meantime, we stay focused on Rove (we NEED him neutralized) we focus on our fundraising, and we focus on 2006 and a message of "unity". The more they are entangled with internal fighting, the less focused they are on, well, everything else.

[Greenbeard]

68. Fighting does work as long as you know which battle you are fighting

Fighting Bolton’s nomination and previous judicial nominees while keeping the right to filibuster seem to have led Bush to nominate someone a bit more moderate. I said a “bit.”

From what I have read it seems Roberts is not what would be considered an activist judge. He has taken cases and supported clients that are definitely in opposition to our progressive ideology but does not seem (so far) like an individual that will go outside the boundary of the law for political gain. However, he does seem like a guy who will search for loopholes. Personally I dislike anyone who searches for loopholes. It shows a lack of faith in our government by undermining the original goal of the law or legislation.

Hmmm, so in order to win the big battle (elections) should we fight this guy? It may show we have a spine. Perhaps.

More likely, we will come across as whiners and obstructionists unwilling and UNABLE to understand a large percentage of our fellow Americans.

Personally I have my eyes set on the big prize and to do so will require a better strategy.

How does this sound?

Allow Roberts to have a seat on the Supreme court. Let our views be heard but do not make a big scene about this guy. The media and the Repubs will be shocked. We will have taken away all their ammo. Keep the debate centered around Rove and every other corruption the search for truth will uncover.

I say we fight. We fight Corruption. There is nothing corrupt about this nomination. It just sucks. Like any other nominee that would be appointed.

Keep the Focus people. We were on a roll.


This may not be an example, but it is a plan.

[DistressedAmerican]

69. This Is Not An Either Or Situation. Nothing About Fighting Roberts

keeps me from fighting Rove too.

[Patty Diana]

72. That large percentage of our fellow Americans is a pure media myth

Rememeber BUsH LOST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Both elections. All you have to do is look at the polls now to see that 58% of Americans are opposed to shrub. And that's a conservative number.

[Lorien]

76. You know, your threads on this issue are making me reevaluate

my participation on DU. I simply don't understand to hostile and negative responses you've been getting (similar to the ones I received when posting like threads in the past-but they've increased in number). Right now I'm getting flamed for posting some basic psych 101 observations about Robert's children on another thread. The thread is merely an amusement-but it's gotten over 100 responses already! Flames are flying-and for what? It seems like more people come to DU to pick a fight and to attempt to appear morally, ethically, and intellectually superior to others than they do to engage in activism which might actually lead to saving our country and the world.

I signed three petitions this morning; one on global warming, one on Treasongate, and one in opposition to Roberts. Each took me less time than this post has. Please everyone-take a little time away from posting on DU to change the world for the better!

[DistressedAmerican]

79. Don't Be Shaken. This Is An Honest Disagreement Between Folks

that by and large have the same end goal.

The flaming is a result of people's very strong opinions on this particular issue.

Admittedly, some do not handle the dissent from their position well. Some have said that about me. I try to be polite (for the mosst part) unless I smell freeper troll. Those I attack without mercy.

This too will settle down SOON. These wars break out from time to time. But on the whole this is a very good group of like minded progressives.

You can always PM me. I'll be happy to helop you vent!

DA

On Edit: Think I'll take your advice and go right to my senators. Like you note, DU is great. But, you have to reach out. Otherwise it is nothing but echo chamber.

[Lorien]

86. Some useful sites to sign up with

I don't have the links for many of them (attached to another account which isn't working at the moment) but signing up with www.Moveon.org , www.ProgressiveMajority.org , Care2, the union of Concerned Scientists, the Sierra club, Defenders of Wildlife, John Conyer's blog, The Pen, www.stopglobalwarming.org , www.actforchange.com , and others can make activism quick and efficient.

[NoSheep]

95. I agree with you completely. We should be "activists" and "friends" not

"antagonists" and "foes". I can't even respond to that kind of crap. I just try to ignore it. I generally assume it is coming from someone who hasn't grown up yet. Perhaps never will.

how superior of me to say that

Lorien- I am curious to know what exactly you said about the kids that is getting you flamed. Could you link me to the thread? Thanks and thanks so much for your comment.

[Lorien]

105. It's here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The pics are actually pretty funny, but my response was pure psych 101 and nothing more than a casual theory about what is going on there based upon body language/ expression (I'm always baffled by such behavior by children in public areas these days, as I think many people of earlier generations are). I admit; anyone who basically tells me to sit down and shut up because they believe that my opinions are unqualified at best kinda pushes my buttons, and I would undoubtedly do better to ignore them. I've studied body language not only as a student of psychology and the daughter of psychologists ( Dad;" I know that's what you are saying, but your body language tells me...")but as an animator at Disney Feature animation and as an instructor of animation for both the company and a local university... I've got a slim leg to stand on, lol! I guess that there's a natural suspicion here at DU of anyone claiming knowledge or expertise on any subject, and that I can understand-but there's no need to assume automatically that people are lying about their backgrounds and experiences and attack them for it, either. Silly amusements ALWAYS seem to descend into flame wars around here, and there really isn't any need for it. I guess I should just steer away from entertainment threads entirely if I want to conserve my energies for more meaningful actions.

[NoSheep]

119. Holy shit!! Somebody else got their button pushed it looks like. Yes-

people will attack whenever they can! I started a thread once about telling off a selfish republican bitch in the grocery store and there were people taking up for her!!!!I thought I was on the wrong discussion
board. good grief. I thought your comment was not off base precisely because that is the way those kids DO look. little boys grow up with the world as their oyster and little girls are beaten into submission by societies' messages. Mentally if not also physically. I was. And so was almost every other woman I know.
There should be a separate forum for assholes.

[Lorien]

122. Hey, to top it off

there's a thread in the lounge asking what brought us to DU. I said LBN and political activism, though I'm feeling discouraged at late due to all the nastiness' baiting etc and am reevaluating my participation here. I was told not to let the door hit me in the ass. I tell you-they're coming out of the woodwork these days! So much for a "unified front". What's so reprehensible about desiring better from/ for DU?

Yes, and I agree; we women know a thing or two about being beat into submission. The look on both the mother and little girl's faces were all too familiar.

[SeekerofTruth]

82. HERE'S one, excellent example

Rod Blageovich becoming governor of Illinois. He didn't rip the previous, dirty, lying Republican governor. He stuck to his guns that there was a better way to run the state. He made the following policies as the cornerstones to his campaign:
1) He would NOT raise taxes to balance the budget
2) He would increase spending in the areas he deemed important, especially education.

He was honest, forthright, and non-confrontational. He won the independant vote and for the first time in 30 years, Illinois elected a democratic governor.

His ratings may be low now, but that is irrelevant. When the next election comes he will probably win easily because he stuck to his word, and his word was good.

[DistressedAmerican]

89. One Word Explains That: Ryan.

He lost his job. We did not take it from him.

[SeekerofTruth]

90. Irrelevant and untrue

Rod didn't run against George Ryan. (I don't remember who the Republican nominee was)

Rod ran with the campaign that he could do better. It was a positive message!

We can either have a positive message or we can act like republicans and keep attacking like dogs.

[DistressedAmerican]

92. So The Corrruption Charges Had Nothing To Do With It?

The allegations about taking his wife to sex clubs for gangbangs had nothing to do with it?

I guess it was the silence of the opposition that took him down!

Are you real? He killed his own political career. Incidentally, with the help of our new prosecuter ally Fitz.

[SeekerofTruth]

100. hehe, your confusing your Ryan's. There were 3 of them..

George Ryan was governor and had corruption charges.

Jim Ryan ran for governor against Rod, Jim Ryan was known as a straight shooter and honest.

Jack Ryan was the one taking 7 of 9 to sex clubs. He was running for senator.

Rod Blegeovich beat Jim Ryan in his run for governor. Both said they would clean up the government. Considering that Rod was a Chicago Democrat with Chicago connections (Chicago is known for it's corrupt government), he had a very tough sell. Also, his father-in-law is a powerful Democrat in Chicago.

So how did he win? One of the primary strategies he insisted upon was having a positive tone and always telling the truth. In essence, distancing himself from Chicago politics.

He won, and Illinois is a &*&^load better for it.

[DistressedAmerican]

101. Moved Out Of Chicago Years Ago. Pardon My Confusion. I Have

only followed it peripherally through family and friends still there.

How can one state have so many politicians with the same name?

Any national examples?

[Eloriel]

88. Oh, but that wasn't the objective

Not having to stand up to attacks by the Right was the objective!

[SeekerofTruth]

91. Define fighting, please?

You can fight with a positive message or you can fight like the Repukes and constantly attack.

I don't like attacking, I like positive messages.

Calling the other side names only makes us like them.

It's time to be civil and take the high road.

[DistressedAmerican]

94. Publicize His Views. Grill Him Hard And Fillibuster Him When The

time comes. His record speaks for itself.

Many are busy saying stuff like his record does not reflect his views. It is doesn't I would like to know waht does.

[genius]

93. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

I've one word for those who think we should not fight: freepers.

[crispini]

96. It's common sense.

Money, time, attention, and human energy are finite resources. People and organizations only have so much of each. It's like life, you need to decide what's MOST important to you and do that first, otherwise it'll fall by the wayside in the flood of thousands of things that you COULD do.

[DistressedAmerican]

97. Are You Saying We Need To Conserve Our Energy? I Have Plenty

For this, Rove, DSM and any other crack I see in the facade.

I will not make the choice between protecting reproductive right (and the environment, civil rights, protecting individuals from corporate power, and all of the other iossues Roberts is on the wrong side of.) saving my ammo.

We do not have to sell women to keep working all of the issues.

Doesn't sound (and I may be confused) that you prioritize reproductive rights very high. Sounds like we should just let them "go by the wayside" for fear of spreading the forces to thin.

If that is what you are preposing, it is not a choice I can make with a clear conscience.

[crispini]

115. I'm just making a general point.

There are a lot of people who are on this board who profess to have boundless energy. Well, for what? For making a few phone calls, for a few LTTE's, for sending around a few emails. So what. That's not work. We aren't the people who have to sit in Congress and figure out how to do this, nor are we the high-level political strategists who have a long view of the landscape and want to figure out where this will take us in a six months, a year, etc.

I'm not saying anything about my personal position on this nominee or this fight, btw, 'cause I haven't figured it out yet, I'm just answering your general question about why people say "pick your battles."

[Orsino]

98. Not possible.

So much of what goes on in Washington is hidden from us-the-people that the proof you are seeking may be impossible to get. I suspect that you're looking to establish the opposite, anyway, and are therefore in the untenable position of trying to prove a negative.

If you were privy to your representatives' most private dealings, I believe that you'd find proof otherwise--that by agreeing to give in on some issues, they gain other things they want. By their very nature, the details of such secret deals are not going to be available to you.

If your larger point, though, is that Democrats give in too much and too often, I agree.

[DistressedAmerican]

99. You Are Too Trusting. Most Politicians Are More Worried About

keeping their jobs than making real policy change. Those deals you refer to usually revolve around political expediency and protecting their own power.

Secret government deals will save us?

I have a bridge to sell ya...

[Orsino]

103. You misread.

I didn't advocate secret deals--I just acknowledged their existence, and explained why the proof you demanded is by definition unavailable.

[DistressedAmerican]

109. Sorry. Fair Enough.

[Orsino]

126. I sure don't *like* deals with the Devil.

As recently as a few decades ago, compromise was relatively harmless, as the every-man-for-himself atmosphere in the houses of Congress kept any particular bloc from grabbing enough power to remake the government. Big Money, however, is the unifying factor. It's drawn disparate right-wing elements together, and almost as quickly swung Democrats toward the same agenda.

As a result, our public discourse today consists mainly of hand-wringing and arguments over what color envelopes to use in mailing corporate welfare checks to industry heads.

[SaveElmer]

102. Our country is built on it

Our country is built on getting things by not fighting for them...it is called compromise!!!

Every major piece of progressive legislation is the result of giving up some of what you want...every civil rights bill passed in the 60's was moderated to get Republican votes...

You have to pick your fights...and keep your eyes on the larger goal.

Not fighting because you think you will lose is not a reason to fight, I agree...sometimes you gain by losing...as is possible here.

I don't think anyone here is saying that Roberts ought to be rubber stamped.

However, we cannot afford to let this fight overshadow the larger issues of the Bush administration's criminality.

I say rake Roberts over the coals, see if anything comes up in the hearings that could truly doom him, and that a filibuster could be sustained on. I doubt that will happen though, and he will get through, but at least he will be exposed for what he is. But until then though we ought to just lay low on Roberts, which is what the Democrats in the Senate appear to be doing.

[McCamy Taylor]

104. Point well taken. If we dont fight and he is bad, the Dem base blames us.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

106. I'm with you, DA

Yes, I know that the Dems are in the minority. How can I forget it?

And I know that they're in the minority partly because of a widespread perception that they're wimpy and "don't stand for anything."

They'll never be in the majority again until they can convince the American public that they stand for something.

It doesn't matter if they win on a particular occasion. What matters is that take a consistent stand, win or lose, and go back to their constituents and say, "I voted against the war that's killing and maiming your young people. I voted against the trade agreements that are making it easier to ship your jobs overseas. I voted against the bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for ordinary people to get a fresh start."

Voters respect strong stands, especially if they're part of the legislator's morall make-up.

They don't respect wimps or timid, centerless blobs who always check the wind before voting.

Here's my question for the appeasers: When WOULD you take a stand? What issue would be just too much for you to "go along with the majority"?

[seabeyond]

110. dsm, bolton, plame, election fraud are a few

we have the dems fighting three of the four. not bad. though i am really disappointed the fourth hasnt reared its ugly head.

how much of the wimp dem is promoted the blind blasting like, dems stand up for nothing........brought to us by our own dems on this board. how much do we feed into the perception that dems do nothing. how many of us buy into the republican talking point. like,.......no one liked kerry. they only voted for him because they hate bush.

i beleive they are also having a fight in the health care enviromental and education departments too.

[Patty Diana]

124. The only democrat fighting the DSM and election theft issue is Conyers

Oh he's also holding hearing on media unfairness

[Freddie Stubbs]

107. I can point to one where fighting a battle was a bad idea

Back in 2002 the Senate Democrats were blocking the bill that would create the Department of Homeland Security. They opposed the Republican version of the bill, because it took too many government employees out of the civil service system. The Republicans used this issue against the Democrats, saying that Democrats were willing to jeopardize our safety to protect government bureaucrats. Thier strategy worked, and they won back the Senate and increased their majority in the House.

[DistressedAmerican]

111. I Think You May Be Weighing That One Variable A Bit Heavily.

There was a lot of 9/11 fallout in that election.

However, that being said. That one probably did cost us a bit. It may have hurt us some. I'll agree to that.

Thanks for actually addressing the OP. That has been sorely lacking on this thread.

[Freddie Stubbs]

114. It certainly hurt max Cleland a lot

It cost him his Senate seat.

[JHBowden]

112. Obama versus Keyes

Obama didn't roll in the mud with that crazy motherfucker, and Keyes ended up getting 27% of the vote.

[DistressedAmerican]

117. Obama/Keys Was A Rediculous Matchup. I Could Have Beat Keyes There.

At least I've lived in the state 14 years of my life.

They asked everyone they could find to run against Obama and take the beating that was coming. The smart ones turned them down. They they go out of state looking because everyone in the state knew Obama was a sure fire win.

That race and its results were predetermined.

[Vinca]

113. In some respects, we won the battle by retaining the right to filibuster.

Democrats made enough of a stink so Bush now has nominated one of the less loony of his candidates for the Supreme Court. Is it a wonderful choice? Of course not, but what exactly do you think we can do about it? Okay, so we filibuster. In all honesty, I think they've got enough votes on this one so it wouldn't matter and in the meantime, back comes the "nuclear option," out goes the right to filibuster future nominees and then we REALLY have a problem. At this point there still are not enough votes to overturn Roe, but if we lose the filibuster then we'll have BIG, BIG problems when he puts someone up should Rehnquist go. Whatever the case, we're in this together and it seems harsh to come down hard on those who see the futility of the fight (in this instance) before it starts. The root cause of our problem is not being in the majority and not having the White House.

[DistressedAmerican]

118. Simple. We Can Speak Up For What We Believe In. That IS A Victory

The brave lady in your avatar is.

Not speaking up for what you believe is a defeat.

The final vote count does not change the fact that folks went on record for their core morals.

[Vinca]

121. If you think I'll be quiet, you're mistaken.

But I see no reason to become "verklempt" over a nominee who probably already has the votes because he's just acceptable enough to those on the other side who have the power to install him or not. Of course we have to make ourselves known. The trick is getting anyone to listen. I think what bugged me about your initial post was the tone. As I said before, we're in this together. If they get us fighting amongst ourselves, the battle is completely lost.

[Lannes]

116. I dont think its a question of whether or not we oppose him

I dont believe we have a choice but to.I believe its equally important to keep in mind that we have a slim chance of winning.Thats not defeatism,its being realistic.

My concern is if we draw a line in the sand here and we lose,the next time it will be harder to defeat the next one because the right can claim and the MSM will pander to the idea that we are being obstructionists.

If the way to fight this nominee is to gain popular support for our cause than we need to be careful how we go about it without playing into their hands.

I suppose the trick is being able to fight this nominee without waisting all of our ammo so to speak when an even more conservative nominee comes the next time around and he/she will you can count on it.

[Patty Diana]

125. Well someone here better tell Feinstein, cause she's now singing

roberts praises____no filibuster needed here

[MsTryska]

123. Schiavo.

that got a lot of normal republicans really wondering what the hell they'd voted for.



it's took delay, frist and jebbie down a notch and made them the butt of a lot of jokes.


ad the best part? the republicans did all by themselves.