My take on Rove-gate versus Roberts - a little different from most

[MsTryska]

here, it seems:

The way I look at it, We need the media to refocus back on Rove.

I think the best way to make this happen, is for Dems to stay real quiet on the Roberts thing, until such time as the hearings start. By then Rove should be good and smeared and just about ripe for indictment. If they don't keep quiet, and come out guns a-blazing now, then we get to go right back into the republican spin-cycle of so and so said this and so and so said that.

Keeping quiet serves us in a couple of different ways…..

1. We get the tide of public opinion turned against this wacko admin - this helps our folks gain more support - let's a few republicans catch the hint that they'll be going down with the ship - no one wants to be seen siding with a lame duck scandal ridden presidency - gives us more time for dubyas ratings to get even further down the shitter, and therefore makes the whole congress a little bit more malleable.

2. It gives us time to get our ducks in a row, do research research research until the Roberts Confirmation hearings start - and we can raise hell then. Get as much info as we can from him and on him, confront him with it, and have us a story once the tide of public opinion and media attention has turned against all things Bush in general.


There's no point in raising hell now, and pitching loud semi-hysterical tantrums about women's rights or arroyo toads or french fries, just yet. That hurts our cause more than it helps it. We need to just keep on Rove outwardly, tie him back to DSM, tie him back to false reasons for going to war, question his security clearance, question this president's flip flopping - keep pulling on this string……while inwardly we dig up everything we can on Roberts and form a water-tight, coherent, and rational argument against him.


If this Rove scandal keeps brewing we may have republicans scrambling to look a little more moderate - not quite as cuckoobananas as dear leader - this helps us come confirmation time...because if a non-hysterical, coherent and rational argument can be made against this guy, coupled with a general vote of no confidence in the scandal ridden, treasonous administration and everyone tied to it - we just might be able to pull off a two-fer.

[hippiegranny]

1. I agree with you

especially in light of the 5 week break coming up. There is no need to sound the alarm yet. Let's keep hammering the rove story, day and night. Meanwhile what discussions there enivitably will be about Roberts in the media can be addressed but without hysteria. The Bushie's want nothing more than to change the subject right this very moment.

In case people think we can't all multi-task - It looks like John Kerry isn't too hip on Roberts:

This much is clear already. Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O'Connor.

Last night we learned that President Bush wants to replace a woman who voted to uphold Roe v. Wade with a man who argued against Roe v. Wade, and that sends a clear signal that this White House remains bent on opening old wounds and dividing America.

There are big questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts' judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on the appellate court. The Senate must learn whether he has a clear, consistent commitment to upholding Constitutional standards like civil rights, the right to privacy, and Roe v. Wade. These issues are in serious question if you take even a cursory glance at his record.

We need to ask the tough questions to determine whether John Roberts is the nominee who will give America a Court that is fair, independent, ethical and committed to Constitutional freedoms rather than an ideological agenda, and I promise you I will do everything in my power to assure that no question is sidestepped.

Throughout every step of the confirmation process, I will keep you informed about the questions that need to be asked, the answers we need to demand, and the principles we need to defend. It's impossible to overstate the importance of this moment.

As the U.S. Senate discharges one of its most important responsibilities, I will be active and vigilant. I hope you will do the same, beginning right now. Start by sharing a few words about your personal feelings on the importance of this Supreme Court nomination.

You can submit your comments or questions here:

http://www.johnkerry.com/action/share /

Thank you,

John Kerry

P.S. In the days ahead, we'll be featuring on our johnkerry.com website a cross-section of the comments submitted and contacting you with important information and action requests as events demand. Sign up here if you want to get the latest information. Recruit your friends and neighbors, too.

[MsTryska]

11. you know.....

that's something i have been noticing - it seems our Senators are trying to take the low-key approach, judging from Boxer's and kerry's statements.

Even Teddie kennedy seemed low-key this morning.



The wingnuts were still trying to spin it into something it just isn't but i feel if we play this like we did the Schiavo fiasco, it can take the wind out of their sails....

[Triana]

2. VERY well said.

"There's no point in raising hell now, and pitching loud semi-hysterical tantrums about women's rights or arroyo toads or french fries, just yet. That hurts our cause more than it helps it. We need to just keep on Rove outwardly, tie him back to DSM, tie him back to false reasons for going to war, question his security clearance, question this president's flip flopping - keep pulling on this string……while inwardly we dig up everything we can on Roberts and form a water-tight, coherent, and rational argument against him."


I've tried to articulate this same idea here myself but didn't do nearly as good a job at it as you did! My sentiments exactly.

[MsTryska]

12. haha thanks!

I'm glad to see i'm not alone - to be honest i was expecting a bit of a flame-fest. glad to see it didn't work out that way.

there's gotta be a better way for us to operate than the same old dynamic. to be honest it's starting to feel like a very predictably dysfunctional family.

[Just Me]

3. While we continue to pound and repeat "Traitorgate",...

,...we can make preparations for a surprise attack on Roberts.

That's how I see it. People have already pointed out that Roberts is a political activist. If we do something different from Rove's calculated hope to create the usual battle between anti and pro choicers,...we may further destabilize the BushCo/neoCON regime.

Meanwhile, repeat "Traitorgate", rinse, repeat,...over and over. Repetition is proven to produce results.

Moreover, we must keep our ears and eyes peeled 'cause the BushCO/neoCON cabal are gonna' try to pull whatever possible to end the GJ proceeding. If they have Gonzales try to fire Fitzgerald, all hell should break loose (especially since Gonzales and Rove have had a long personal history - Gonzales should recuse himself).

[MsTryska]

13. to quote you:

"If we do something different from Rove's calculated hope to create the usual battle between anti and pro choicers,...we may further destabilize the BushCo/neoCON regime."



exactly.

we're on to the game.

the media's on to the game.

let's not give anyone the fight they're seeking, and keep going with the fight we're actually winning.


then we have the street cred.

[tocqueville]

4. IMHO, if you guys can't handle at least a COUPLE of issues

at the same time...

you are in big f*cking trouble in your struggle to take back America from the neocons...

a humble European opinion...

[Just Me]

6. We'll get past the reactive mode and re-gain focus.

Sometimes, we just HAVE to have a day or two to vent passions and frustrations.

[proud patriot]

5. Randi Rhodes sounds like she's in agreement with you

she says there is a lot to say about Roberts but
we'll talk about that at a later date .

She's staying very focussed on Rove .

[Just Me]

7. She's being her usual rational, focused self.

One of the many reasons I am a dedicated Randi listener.

[MsTryska]

14. wow.

i can't wait to get off work and start listening to her then.


that definitely makes me feel good.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. Not a bad tactic,

provided, of course, that we remember to come back and fight later.

"Today, Justice Roberts..."

Ooops! I knew there was something I meant to do!

[Just Me]

10. *LOL* I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever we will not forget.

It's pretty clear that the SCOTUS packs passion on this board.

I just hope we aren't actually considering completely dropping the ball on the Fitzgerald investigation just when %75 of the American public has cast a vote of no confidence in the BushCo regime.

[MsTryska]

15. that would be insane wouldn't it?

all the stuff we've been praying for for the last few years wrapped up in a neat little package, and we're ready to drop it go up in arms about justice french fry.

surely we're more focused than that.

[Lecky]

9. You are right

[MsTryska]

16. thanks! nt

nt

[Greenbeard]

17. Nice Strategy

Keep the media focused on Rove for now while everyone does their research. Bring out the facts at the time of the hearing.

After five weeks of demanding honest answers and exposing corruption at the highest levels of the administration we may have a much better chance of confronting this nomination.

[MsTryska]

18. Thanks.....

it's kinda like breaking sheet metal -


you have to keep bending it back and forth a little further each time until it eventually gives way and breaks right where you want it.

[Just Me]

19. That is a great analogy!!!

We need to keep our focus and keep on bending until we break 'em.

[MsTryska]

20. Absolutely.....

i'd hate to see us waste the opportunity we have now, to really get some momentum going in the mainstream for the same stuff we have been raising the hue and cry for here all this time.

[Bunny]

21. I could have bought into this, until I saw:

"There's no point in raising hell now, and pitching loud semi-hysterical tantrums about women's rights.."

Your choice of "semi-hysterical" in conjunction with "women's rights" is an interesting one, but fighting for my rights is neither pointless nor hysterical. And I may choose to do that fighting now, or wait, but I don't appreciate the characterization of it as "semi-hysterical".

[MsTryska]

22. that was an intentional juxtaposition.......

we as women gain NOTHING by screaming at the top of our lungs about the sanctitiy of our uteruses (uteri?)

it just makes us look less in control of ourselves. if we can't even make our argument without screaming it, why would anyone think we have enough self-control to control our own bodies?


do you realize most of the uninformed, moderate, middle-of the road types, are scared off when they hear a shrill woman screaming about her womb?

it doesn't help the cause.



I've got nothing against those who fight the fight every day, and o it with strength, courage, and calm fortitude - i have major issues with the angry screamers, who i feel undermine ME in what i'm trying to get accomplished.

[Just Me]

23. nudging

for a bit of rational perception and effective advocacy

[Bunny]

24. Well, as this is the internet, I don't see or hear anyone

"screaming". What I see here are strong, determined women who WILL fight for their rights. It's sad that you see it as "screaming about the sanctity of our uteruses". That's an interesting characterization as well. Because surely you realize that the pro-choice issue goes way beyond simple "uteruses". It revolves around the right to control what happens to one's entire body, not just their uterus. In fact, I'm staunchly pro-choice, and I don't even have a uterus.

[MsTryska]

25. i'm not sure why you are intent on lecturing me

on reproductive rights to be honest.


i've already clearly stated my position.

[Bunny]

26. And I'll thank you to quit lecturing me.

Because that's exactly what you're doing. You began this thread by intentionally,by your own admission, using inflammatory language. You can hardly be surprised when you are "lectured" about it. Bummer when you get the same treatment back, isn't it? My position is clearly stated as well.

[MsTryska]

27. ok whatever.

peace.

[Bunny]

28. Sure, whatever.

peace

[Just Me]

32. I'm curious.

In what way did the OP suggest US strong, determined women NOT fight?



The OP had entirely to do with strategy: how to most efficiently and effectively spend our passion.

Does being staunchly pro-choice mean completely dropping the ball on "traitorgate"/DSM/"torturegate"? I don't think so.

Maybe, you are prepared to drop that ball but it doesn't necessarily mean your decision is the best strategy for fighting more than one SERIOUS issue.

[Bunny]

34. Well, as many here have said lately, I am capable of multi-tasking.

I can't for the life of me understand why you think I should be made to focus on only one thing at a time. I'm able to think and discuss both, and I hardly think I'm superhuman in my abilities. Exactly where did I say we should drop ANY ball? I'd be curious to have that pointed out. Wait, I'll save you the effort - I NEVER said we need to drop any ball. Imagine that.

And, if you'll re-read my initial response, I simply stated that I didn't like the characterization of fighting for women's rights as "semi-hysterical". In fact, I stated that I could have agreed with her until I read that particular part. The use of the word "hysterical" in conjunction with women's rights did not sit well with me at all. And the OP subsequently admitted that she used the word on purpose, to deliberately mis-characterize it as "screaming about the sanctity of our uteruses".

[Just Me]

35. Thing is,...sometimes, that is how we are perceived,...

,...and, of course, shit like that stands out even when it's a mere handful who say stuff like that. Fucking fascist wing of the republican party and the stupid media who pay attention to them!!

I can understand your reaction to those seven words. I can only plead that you likewise understand the context.

We can most certainly fight both battles. We're smart, we're passionate and we're powerful. Right now, "traitorgate" is HOT with 75% of the American people indicating they don't trust the bushco regime. We don't want to sacrifice that opportunity knowing that repetition is the most effective tool of influence.

[Bunny]

36. Well, not to be overly contrary, but I don't recall asking anyone to

"sacrifice" anything. But your point is taken, in that we need to control the national dialog on Rove, and we mustn't let up on that.

Also, I am perfectly aware of the context of the OP, in fact I thought it was a good strategy until the language issue popped up. As you corretly surmised, THAT is that part that pissed me off!

[Just Me]

37. Yep. No need to fight eachother when we're on the same team.

We just have to get past our own sensitivities, which we ALL have,...every single one of us. We can't help ourselves *LOL* because we personally vest so much of ourselves in fighting for REAL freedom and democracy and a fair shake for everyone.

We'll be alright.

[Bunny]

38. Yes we will, and thank you for understanding.

[Just Me]

39. Hey,...

We are in this together and for the long haul. We care.

We're good to go!!!

[Heddi]

57. Gee, I'm sorry that losing a fundamental right gets me 'hysterical'

I mean, it's only about medical privacy, medical choice, reproductive privacy, and reproductive choice, right? No big fucking deal.

I don't see anyone getting hysterical about this but YOU. You use intentionally inflammatory words -- hysterical -- shrill -- screaming -- -- to describe people who aren't willing to bow down and roll over and show our soft, supple bellies to the Republican party.

Oh gee...I guess us women should just flush our pills down the toilet and RESIGN ourselves to the fact that our boies, are in fact, NOT ours at all, but rather property of the government.

I'm sorry--if that doesn't make YOU hysterical, then you're not fucking paying attention.

Also, I find it interesting that "hysterical" was used just because of the historical context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysteria

The term originates with the Greek medical term, hysterikos. This referred to a supposed medical condition, peculiar to women, caused by disturbances of the uterus, hystera in Greek. The term hysteria was coined by Hippocrates, who thought that the cause of hysteria was irregular movement of blood from the uterus to the brain.

So do tell us shrill, screaming women--please tell us what it is we are allowed by YOUR standards to get 'hysterical' about, and when it is appropriate to become hysterical. Should we wait until forced birth is law of the land? Must get husband's permission to visit the OB-GYN? Must report all pregnancies and miscarriages to the government for proper assessment and evaluation?

Oh please tell us, wise sage of women's issues, what CAN we get outraged about? Since you seem to have been anointed High Priestess of All Things.

[MsTryska]

58. are you part of the cavalry or something?

you do realize what the cure for Hysteria was, don't you?



it's digital manipulation in order to coax the blood back into it's proper place.


in our culture we call it masturbation.



so if you can't find the old-time disorder of hysterial absolutely hilarious - i don't know what to tell you.


as for reproductive rights - there is a time and a place for this battle. Now is not the time. Now is the time for getting as much research, as much evidence as we can, while keeping the heat on Karl Rove, and tainitng the entire admin with some well deserved scandal.

And most of all - keeping our heads. and frankly while you are accusing me of screaming at you (which i don't know where that came from, exactly) you're not sounding particularly level-headed yourself - so i suggest you take a breather and calm down.

[Heddi]

59. No, actually the early cure for hysteria

was a hysterectomy

Hyster- uterus
-ectomy - removal of

Masturbation was one treatment used. If that was not successful, then hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy was the next course of treatment.

And if that didn't work, then they'd start by removing the bowel/colon to see if that helped.

And thanks for your suggestion that I calm down. Wow. That makes the idea of losing my right to obtain birth control, obtain abortion, and have medical privacy seem SO much less important now. Wow. What a breath of fucking fresh air you are for the women's rights movements.

You seem to be completely ignorant of the fact that people CAN do two things at once (even MORE than two things at once in many cases). See, I can focus on Rove AND focus on Roberts just as I can walk and chew gum at the same time, or talk on the phone and check the mail.

It's really not that difficult to do--in fact, most humans have the capacity and capability to do it.

You should try it sometime. It's not the cerebral olympic event that you seem to think it is.

[MsTryska]

60. dude - you are not

losing your right to control your body RIGHT NOW.

What we are losing is air time on Rove-gate.



If we jump the gun and start screaming about abortion before the guy's even made it to committee that takes the attention off of Rovegate and puts it right where the Right likes it - The BabyKillers vs the JesusFreaks.

I'm not spending my summer playing this game.


I would prefer saying - John Roberts? - oh he looks nice - for a human sheild - let's talk about Karl Rove.


it's jsut that simple.


and i would hate to see you or anyone else fall into the trap of getting played for the hysterical feminazi babykiller to be played ad nauseum on CNN/FAUX/MSRNC's loop. When we could have Rove instead.

[Heddi]

61. MY DISCUSSION ON A MESSAGE BOARD HAS NO INFLUENCE

on how much time the MSM spends on Rove or Roberts or anything.

I think you're under the mistaken impression that DU'ers all sit on the programming boards of CBS, NBC, ABC, etc.

we don't.

The fact that I voice my opinion on subject X on a message board does not in ANY way change whether or not MSM will focus on subject X on the nightly news.

Hey--some people are talking about 10,000 things on DU--should we all shut up about EVERYTHING and focus 10000000% on ROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVE
ROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVE
ROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVE
ROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVEROVE for the next however long?

My postings, your postings, the entirety of DU's postings have ABSOLUTELLY NO FUCKING EFFECT on what the media chooses to show and chooses not to show.

I mean, it's great that you think of yourself so highly, but honsetly, the MSM gives not one shit about your or your opinion. If they're going to be distracted by Roberts, they will do so with or without our comments on the situation.

I take it you've never worked in Media, otherwise, you would know this.

[MsTryska]

62. Then you've missed the point.......

If we give them the good story of conflict on Roberts - they'll play us being in conflict on Roberts.

that applies from the top down and right back up again.


and if you don't think the media is paying attention to what's going on DU then you're the one that's mistaken.

it's not a huge leap to have one wingnut blogger (say Michelle Malkin) snag some posts from here, take them out of context, then have a story show up on Drudge, and then have all of the MSM repeating it, then getting the repub congressman in the loop, and next thing you know we managed to divert everyone from the real story - Karl Rove.

i'm surprised if you work in the media that you don't know this.....

[Heddi]

63. This is where I think we disagree

I take your view as saying that the Rove issue is very important right now (I agree). And that focusing all of our attention on Roberts should wait until after Rove (I don't agree).

I cannot guarantee that one this Rove thing either hits the fan or blows over, and it's time for Roberts to go for confirmation, that there won't be some NEW Conveient distraction for us to get all up in arms about. Maybe more with Rove. Maybe another terrorist attack. Some new scandal, some new "thing" that takes (once again) precidence over basic human and environmental rights.

There's ALWAYS going to be a new crisis. You don't think that right before hearings regarding the SCOTUS nominee there won't be SOMETHING to distract us? Of course there will be. There always is.

And another thing that gets my goat is that for the last FIVE YEARS, women and gays and minorities and the poor have been told that "your rights aren't important right now. We need to win elections. Wait wait wait" and how much longer do we have to wait?

Election 2000 - women, gays, minority, poor, welfare and environment issues were 'divisive'. we needed to be more 'moderate' and woo in Republicans. Sit down, not now, we'll get to your rights later

Midterm Elections: women, gays, minority, poor, welfare, and environment issues were 'divisive'. We need to get more moderates in the party. We need to focus on these elections. These issues DIVIDE. They're Special Interests. Sit down, we'll get to y ou later

Election 2004: this is AN IMPORTANT ELECTION. We cannot focus on women, gay, minority, poor, welfare, and environment issues. These are divisive and we need to win

Post Election 2004: THe abortion issue lost it for us. Gay Marriage lost it for us. Affirmative Action lost it for us. We shouldn't have focused on those. Women, just losen up a bit on the abortion. Gays, marriage isn't that important. We have elections to win

Now it's more of the same.

How many MORE crises do we need to go through, getting blamed for 'polarizing' and 'dividing people' and 'not being more moderate' and 'not being more conservative' because we stand up for civil rights of ALL Americans? How many more "surprises" do we need to just sit down through, and not focus on that now, and just wait your time will come, and this isn't important, there are more important things?

Doesn't it get tiring for you? That only ONE thing can be focused on at a time, and then once that's done, we can be distracted from the REAL issues.

What if ROVE is the distraction from ROBERTS? What if THIS is what we SHOULD be focusing on? Not to say that the Rove/Plame issue isn't important, but maybe in some very dreadful way, Roberts is MORE important and they're hoping that we fight amongst each other JUST FOR THIS REASON--we MUST focus on Rove, so let's not fight Roberts, we've got a Cheif Justice Position coming open, let's save our fight til then----

Why is it automatically assumed that ROBERTS is the diversion and ROVE is the big issue? Perhaps just step outside and try to see it from that perspective.

[MsTryska]

64. Well i think your missing what i'm saying......

I don't like Roberts any more than you do....but at this point we are the minority party. We have very little power.

My take on the whole Rove thing is that it softens things up.


American's don't listen unless there's a scandal. Keeping the drum beating on the Rove scandal gets more and more people thinking of this Administration as untrustworthy.

as it is we have polling shows pretty much all the indicators as unfavorable.

the more we repeat the negatives right now - in the media every chance we get, forcing the media to stick to our talking points, or get a shit interview, the more we drum the distaste for this admin into the general subconscious.

we may get more people writing to their republican congressman complaining about the lack of ethics - we get people generally feeling negative about the republicans in congress.


Now here's where this ties back to Roberts - If there are republicans feeling vulnerable about their chances at re-election, wanting to appear more moderate - wanting to separate themselves from this treasonous administration - it makes them more pliable when it comes time to vote on Roberts.

We spend the time now softening things up, and when it comes time for the Roberts hearings - we go out in full force and essentially Bork him.


All we need are a handful of Republican defectors - (well maybe more, when you take into account our DINOs) - but we're not going to get those defectors if we fall into the same old dynamic of BabyKillers v JesusFreaks. or TreeHuggers vs FreeMarketeers or Homos Vs Families or any other of the usual matchups. all those serve to do is keep the line in the sand deep and obvious, and makes people on either side of the line dig in their heels and entrench themselves further in their positions.


If you change the Dynamic to Traitor vs America - you wind up unifying a whole lot more - and increasing the chances of some Bi-partisanship when it comes time for Senate Confirmations.

[cally]

45. I completely agree with you

Thanks for bringing this up. It just pisses me off that even progressives use the RW language to describe strong women and then pretend that it's OK to describe outspoken, passionate women as semi-hysterical.

To the OP, you lost me with your language. If you want to make a point, try using language that doesn't imply that when I stand up for my rights and want others to join me that I'm semi-hysterical.

[MsTryska]

46. and people here wonder

why liberals are portrayed as whiny, and overly politically correct.

[cally]

48. and people why Dems cannot unify with a coherent message

why liberals don't have common values and question liberals motive. See language works both ways. I wonder why you try to make a point while attacking others. Is that how you argue and win arguments? By using what I assume you know is sexist language. If you don't know, calling someone whiny when they disagree with you is insulting. I assume you meant that but I don't understand why you choose to escalate the argument in such a way. Why exactly are you so defensive?

[MsTryska]

50. look....basically...

i'm trying to suggest a way to get out of our current conundrum.


Yet you choose to select one word - and decide that you want no part of it, because that word is in there.

This is not my issue - it's yours. I'm a grown up and words don't send me into a tizzy.

Intent - that sends me into a tizzy, complaining? That irritates me too...but most of all inaction - that really chaps my ass.


You and bunny seems to just need something to bitch about. Whilst everyone else is either supportive or thoughtfully critiquing, you're giving me grief about language of all things.

To me that is hysterical.

[cally]

51. And you still refuse to see the point

You can't influence others when you are insulting. I am a grown up and I choose to respect others and their beliefs. I choose to promote political action and to work with a variety of groups. I'm not so stupid to go to a red county and talk to Democrats in insulting ways even though I think differently than many of them. I know to show respect and try to understand what they see as hot button issues. I assume your post was aimed at all of us who think we need to fight the Roberts judicial pick now. Many of those are involved in women's issues and active in advocacy groups. Your language and your tone makes many of us dismiss you and your arguments. Choose to not change your words and attack me as whiny and hysterical. It shows a lot about you and your ability to understand viewpoints different than yours. It also shows much about your ability to persuade others.

[MsTryska]

52. well my comment wasn't meant to insult....

but if you're thin-skinned enough to fixate on it - that's on you, not me.



incidentally - i find the idea of getting upset over a word like hysteria quite funny.


i think you give it way too much power, and exert way too much energy over it. might as well get twisted over girdles and hoopskirts too.


nevermind the here and now issues.

[Bunny]

53. You are so utterly dismissive of anyone who doesn't give you

a backslap for your suggestion. You cannot accept criticism of your words and the language you purposely chose, which are the very building blocks of your proposal. Deliberately post flame bait and then get pissed when you're challenged on it? And cally and I are the ones with the problem? That's just precious. Really.

Instead of acknowledging that both cally and I can agree with your basic principle, you ridicule us because of our concerns. So go ahead and get in a tizzy over my criticism of you - my my my - you are certainly being very thin-skinned, aren't you? Resorting to personal insults because you cannot back up your words?

Hoopskirts and girdles, indeed. Whatever the fuck that was supposed to mean.

[MsTryska]

54. no i can't accept criticism

that has nothing to do with the point at hand.



if you were to criticize that Roberts is too damaging and we need to focus on him now, or any other part of the meat of my topic - it would have been all good.


instead you chose to criticize because you didn't like a word i used.


A WORD.


And you choose to attack me, for using a WORD.


do you see why fundamentally those of us on the left can't seem to get it together?


because entirely too many peoiple would rather circle and shoot at their own, then figure out a way to set the petty stuff aside, and come together.


that's why i have such a problem with what the two fo you are saying.


but you don't get it.

and again - there's nothing i can do about that.

[Bunny]

55. Yes, a word. Words mean things., as you so well know because

you admitted to intentionally using it as a weapon. In fact, you stated in one of the earlier posts in this thread that you were grateful to be offered support and agreement, because you were expecting a flame war. Here, I'll show you:

MsTryska (1000+ posts)
12. haha thanks!
I'm glad to see i'm not alone - to be honest i was expecting a bit of a flame-fest. glad to see it didn't work out that way.


You then went on to be even more egregious in your criticism of me and cally, actually you were pretty "in your face" about it. But WE"RE the ones with the problem??? Sure. Whatever you say.

If you had any class, you would at least acknowledge that cally and I basically agreed with your plan, until you threw out that language bomb. But I will not be holding my breath to see that, because you see, YOU are part of the same problem. You need POOP (Please Offer Only Praise), or you won't/can't defend your words. Instead you attack.

YOU are the one that doesn't get it, and there is nothing I can do about that either, and I've given up on trying. It's obviously pointless. I've seen just about all that I need to see. Now, I'm done with this.

[MsTryska]

56. I admitted to intentionally using it.

i said nothing about a weapon.


but you are taking this thread way off topic, and this is an unproductive conversation, so i'm calling it quits as well.

[Bunny]

49. Politically correct? You're just a whiz at characterization, aren't you?

Again, you started this with inflammatory language, then you piss and moan when you get called on it? Sorry, that's tough shit.

But, as you say "okay, whatever. peace."

[KharmaTrain]

29. Consider This The Rehnquist Pick

Not for Chief Justice...just for the seat that Rehnquist holds as we know his days on the court aren't any longer. From what I've seen, so far, I can't see Roberts is any better/worse than Rehnquist. Plus I'd rather see the Repugnicans fight among themselves as it's already coming to the surface not all is happy on their side of the parallel universe.

I wholeheartly agree...we need to get back to Rove and not let this become the distraction this regime sure wishes it to be. Or to play into the gotcha game the corporate media is dying for...they can't find a left wing "librul" to trash Roberts on the air fast enough...even if there are few. Staying silent until we get to the hearings not only is prudent, but will drive them crazy. They need someone to fight with and it pisses them off when we don't.

We're weeks away from possible indictments coming down and the current state of affairs in Iraq, the economy and other important issues continues to erode. Making this pick into a death match defeats the long term benefits of a further weakened regime.

Cheers...

[MsTryska]

30. You think so?

I didn't even think of him as the rehnquist pick.


i was thinking he'd be looking for a hardcore in your face nutter for that slot.


but what you say makes sense - that would leave the real o'connor slot open for gonzales or luttig.

[KharmaTrain]

31. Or That's Where We Take Our Stand...

There's still the option to filabuster...and that's where I see it could come into play.

Democrats have little power in this fight...so whatever weapons we have, we need to use wisely and for maximum effect.

We have no idea how bigger of a mess this regime will be in in the months ahead...but I sense it will be worse and will make fighting them then a lot easier than it is now.

[Just Me]

33. I never considered that.

Kinda' makes the removal of this administration even more relevant.

[Just Me]

40. Kicked and nominating because we can do this together.

We can.

[MsTryska]

43. I just wanted to say.....

thank you so much for your support - and your evenhandedness.

I really appreciate it.

[_testify_]

41. 100% correct on all counts

The degradation of Bush's political credibility serves ALL of our issues, present and future.

Besides, I heard a rumor about Roberts...

[MsTryska]

42. oh yeah?

what did you hear?

[_testify_]

47. I'm not saying this is true, but...

rumor is, he's got a thing for penguins...

[oasis]

44. I agree, let's get our ducks in a row.