As Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearings wrap up in the Senate, what sticks in my mind is that if they exemplify the supposedly refocused and reinvigorated Democrats, the party has a long way to go. Conventional wisdom inside the Beltway has been that troubles in Iraq, Republican ethics scandals, the revelations about electronic surveillance and high energy prices have given Democrats… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (73)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe author omitted the “exciting” part — Teddy K. making a fool of himself accusing the chairman of “ruling against” his call for a closed session to vote for a subpoena of info already published and found to be lacking in any mention of Alito.
Posted by whattheheck on Jan 14, 2006 at 8:40 PM Unbelievable. A Democrat who finally understands some basic issues! Great article Flavia - but I’m sorry, not sure what the Dems are possibly going to be able to do with it. Remember the line about “herding cats”?
By the way, Biden putting on a Princeton hat - priceless. And he’s a Dem front runner for ‘08?! Troubled waters ahead if the party can’t even figure out to competently question a judge with 3 months warning.
Posted by InThoseTimes on Jan 14, 2006 at 10:59 PM I agree that the “questions” were little more than rambles. The questions for the panels were even odder as those seemed to stretch from Senators trying to force specifically framed phrases into panelists (“rubber stamp”) to Senators getting free legal advice from scholars.
I don’t think that there will ever be any real difference in the nomination process based on the questioning of the candidate. What it does serve, however, is it is one last time the candidate can get a talking-to before he has a lifetime appointment with no oversight. I think the Senators try to put some thoughts in the candidate’s head before he becomes omnipotent.
Along those lines, many people, including the author, complain of the poor questioning without giving a description or list of what those strong questions that should have been asked were. Are they questions like, “Do you think a woman has a Constitutional right to have an abortion?” (Answer, “I would have to start with the controlling precedent of Casey…”)? Questions like this were asked and answered in a round about way. No candidate is going to give a pledge like “I will never decrease the protection of access to abortion.”
What were the questions that should have been asked and would the answers have been any different???
Posted by oliver cromwell on Jan 15, 2006 at 7:09 AM Biden is a front-runner for the Dem. nomination? God, I hope not.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 15, 2006 at 2:50 PM I found this on another website, and I agree with it. After reading this, you will see the double standard that the Democrats have. AMAZING !!!
——————————— ;—————————-
Supreme Court nominee Alito has been grilled this week by senators questioning his past associations, writings, and decisions. Is Alito being treated fairly? It is time to revisit how they approached another Supreme court nominee.
Let us image for a moment that a Supreme Court nominee had advocated, this week, for the following through writings and speaking engagements: (A) A constitutional right to prostitution and polygamy. (B) Attacked the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. (C) Proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day. (D) Called for an end to singe-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women. (E) Wrote, “use the Supreme Court to enact `social change….without taking giant strides…the court, through constitutional adjudication, can reinforce or signal a green light for social change.” (F) Also wrote, “boldly dynamic interpretation departing radically from the original understanding of the Constitution is sometimes necessary.” (G) Advocate universal court-ordered work place affirmative action quotas, even if no discrimination is found.
Surely no Senator would support Alito if he had such views. And surely no president, no matter how outrageous, would nominate such a candidate.
Unfortunately, the hypothetical nominee I have just described is, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993. A mere six weeks later, on August 3, 1993, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a 96-3 vote.
In conclusion, it is hard to imagine any senator attacking Alito’s respectable record with a straight face, while confirming an extremist like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
** this comment is from a poster on Stop The ACLU **
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2006/01/12/imagine-making-mountains-out-of-mo ole-hills/
Posted by tina1 on Jan 15, 2006 at 5:20 PM Your opinion and welcome to it tina1. However, ideologically biased assertions and quotes out of context do not a rational argument make. Just saying Alito is respectable and Ginsberg is extremist does not make it so.
If it is your desire to do any thing but provide irritating and annoying taunts and insults it would behoove you to learn something about logic and reason and evidence.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 15, 2006 at 6:25 PM It’s very simple, middle America woke up. Middle America was asleep at the wheel, and getting bamboozeled by the “biased mainstream liberal media”.
You see ... the liberal media had a monopoly. The only voice that told the truth and exposed liberals was Rush Limbaugh. One man against ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, LA Time, NY Times and all of the rest of liberal print media.
Then Fox News Channel was born ... then O’Reilly and Hannity, Savage and Laura Ingram hit the airwaves. Now we had many voice exposing liberals and how they controlled the media and how liberals were hi-jacking our courts to promote their agenda.
Fox News Channel soon had higher ratings than CNN and MSNBC ... then Fox News ratings were higher than CNN and MSNBC combined. Before liberals knew what hit them, Fox News Channel had 10 of the top 11 cables new programs. O’Reilly, Hannity, Greta, Hume, Shep, Gibson ... they all had higher ratings that anyone on cable news.
And then we controlled the radio ... Rush, Hannity, O’Reilly and Savage had ratings that no liberal could touch.
Middle America started to listen and realized the dangers of liberals and organizations like the ACLU. And Middle America said .... NO MORE .... Middle America was realizing that “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” and it must be stopped.
Now Middle America doesn’t sit back ... no .. they fight ... and they are putting a stop to the madness of liberalism.
Now liberals realized that they have been exposed ... they realize that their fraud and been exposed and they can’t handle it. Liberals are breaking down, snapping ... they are eating Prozac like they were sweet tarts.
THE GIG IS UP .. IT’S OVER ... LIBERALISM IS BEING SHUT DOWN ...
Posted by tina1 on Jan 15, 2006 at 7:18 PM Very interesting, tina1.
So how does ‘Middle America’ intend to impose this shut down of the innate human capacity for liberal thought? Not in the media. In the free, open and evolving consciousness of thinking and feeling human beings.
Expect Resistance. The future is not yet written.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 15, 2006 at 7:45 PM I think an important thing to realize, what tina1’s triumphalist screed so graphically illustrates, that total victory is but a momentary and vaccuous sentiment of the true believer, evaporating into the thin air of mere belief from which it springs. Alito’s comfirmation to the SC will ultimately be only a setback in the struggle for basic universal human dignity, but the political price paid for that pyrric victory will more likely lead to the diminishment of the Republican Party. The Republican Party has had the opportunity to control the government practically without opposition for several years now. I daresay, there are less and less erstwhile Republican voters happy with the way things are going. As the more reasonable Republican voters are stripped away, only the shrill and hateful voices of mindless ‘true believers’ like tina1 will be left. Expect to see the remnants go down in a back-biting snarling spasm of mutual self-destruction. The unlamented astro-turf mass movement of modern Conservatism will have consumed itself.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 15, 2006 at 8:23 PM Ya, you can say that I hate a few things.
I hate the fact that the Boy Scouts had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars defending themselves by the relentless lawsuits by the ACLU.
The purpose of the Boy Scouts of America, incorporated on February 8, 1910, and chartered by Congress in 1916, is to provide an educational program for boys and young adults to build character, to train in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and to develop personal fitness.
The Boy Scouts DON’T want Gay Troop Leaders. But LIBERALS tried to force the Boy Scouts to accept Gay Troop Leaders.
++++++++
FROM CNN BACK IN 2000 ....
<< Supreme Court says Boy Scouts can bar gay troop leaders >>
June 28, 2000
Web posted at: 2:18 p.m. EDT (1818 GMT)WASHINGTON (CNN)—The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Boy Scouts of America can bar homosexuals from being troop leaders.
The justices by a 5-4 vote overturned a New Jersey Supreme Court ruling that the dismissal of a gay Scout leader had been illegal under the state’s anti-discrimination law.
The Boy Scouts, which also exclude atheists and agnostics as leaders, said it has the right to decide who can join its ranks.
Forcing it to accept gays would violate its constitutional right of freedom of association and free speech under the First Amendment, it said
Rehnquist’s opinion was joined by Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Dissenting were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.
THIS IS WHAT MIDDLE AMERICA HATES .... LIBERALS TRYING TO FORCE THE HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA ON OUR KIDS ...
IF YOUR GAY ... LEAVE OUR SCOUTS ALONE ... GO START YOUR OWN GAY BOY SCOUT GROUP.
Notice that the Supreme Court vote was 5-4 ... If just one justice voted the other way ... then the Boy Scouts would of had to accept Gay Troop Leaders.
A message to all the liberals fags .. leave our boys alone ... you perverts.
Now with Roberts and Alito on board, we won’t worry about the Homosexual Mafia trying to brainwash our boys ... trying to get them to think that the HOMO LIFE is normal ... it’s not normal ... it’s sick ... and so our liberals.
Another example of why “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”
Posted by tina1 on Jan 15, 2006 at 9:09 PM And you sincerely believe there are no gay or agnostic Boy or Girl Scout leaders? All you have done is force them into the closet.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 15, 2006 at 9:43 PM Flavia Colgan pointed out exactly what is wrong with the Democrats strategy in the Alito Hearings.
The Dems need more Flavia and less Saturday Night Live parody. They’re becoming the party of Debbie Downer.
Posted by cletusblacker on Jan 15, 2006 at 11:12 PM Missing the Point
The Dims were required to say the things they said at the Confirmation Hearings.
As long as George Soros and his ilk keep funding MoveOn.org and its ilk at the rate of hundreds of milions of dollars, you can bet your ass that Kennedy, Biden, Durbin, Schumer, and their ilk will do their best to say and do what they are told. I suppose it is not the poor Senator’s faults that none of what they said made any sense, much less had any positive effect.
But when the Dims say and do the same stupid things over and over, no matter who the nominee is or what the question is, the Republicans are able to devise effective counter points.
This is the necessary result of constituency politics, where Dims have to bow down before their partisan groups; labor, NEA, big moneybags, and their ilk.
Biden questioned at the end of the hearings if we should continue to have hearings; before 1925, SC nominees went straight ot the floor of the Senate for debate and a vote.
We might as well do that again, the Dims are useless in defending their radical, idiotic, left-wing positions.
Posted by scorp on Jan 16, 2006 at 11:13 AM I think scorp just set a record for the use of “ilk” in a post. Beyond that, her description of the Democratic position as “radical, idiotic, left wing” is only a third right, and maybe not even that.
I would love to see what specific policies, especially coming out of the confirmation hearings, are either radical or idiotic. Please consider current expressions of popular will such as teh failed Republican ballot initiatives in California when determining whether a poilcy is “radical.”
Posted by oliver cromwell on Jan 16, 2006 at 11:08 PM One reply to tina1,
In your post you pointed out how Rush broke the stanglehold that the left supposedly had on media (a whole other issue). I think it is incredibly ironic that he is relying on his “right to privacy” to prevent the state from accessing his medical records in its ongoing criminal investigation of him (doctor shopping for prescriptions for pain medication). This is the same “right to privacy” that has no textual basis in the Constitution (which any good conservative judge will tell you means that there is no Constitutional right to privacy) and is at the heart of the cases that led to the decision in Roe v. Wade.
Posted by oliver cromwell on Jan 16, 2006 at 11:13 PM Get a grip folks. You are letting a troll take over this site. You are attempting to engage in a battle of wits with someone who is pathetically unarmed and knows nothing except what some millionaire junkie on the radio tells him.
Ignore freeper posts and they eventually go away and jerk off someplace else.
Posted by opeluboy on Jan 16, 2006 at 11:58 PM How long is “eventually” opelboy. In human years?
Republicans were idiotic as well. Where does “I’m sure you’re a decent man, blah, blah, blah.” fit into a hearing? How is he “sure”? Has the Republican senator dated Alito, or what? The ass kissing and attempt at ass whipping are appalling on both sides. Is it hard to believe that most Congressmen are lawyers, or what? Tough call.
Grandstanding all around. This has got to be the worst administration and Congress ever.
Since people living until they are eighty or ninety years old is not uncommon anymore, is this lifetime appointment really necessary? Wouldn’t ten years be fair? Twenty max.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 17, 2006 at 6:06 AM To oliver cromwell,
Roe v. Wade and Rush’s medical records are two different issues.
Concerning Roe v. Wade, it will never get overturned. Not all republicans are pro-life ... I’m not .. I’m pro-choice. Being a woman, I think we should have the choice. The only republicans that have real passion to overturn Roe v.Wade are the far-right religious wacks, and they don’t have the power to pull that off, NOT EVEN CLOSE. Roe v. Wade won’t even come up to the SC ... it’s way too controversial.
My parents are both dead now, but they were republicans, they never went to church, and they were both pro-choice. I have two older brothers, both republicans, they don’t go to church and they never did ... and both of them are pro-choice. In fact, I personally don’t know one republican that wants Roe v. Wade overturned ... not one.
All of the republicans that I know want someone like Roberts and Alito in the SC because we don’t want the courts to force the Boy Scouts to accept gay scout leaders, we don’t want our children taught about homosexuality, especially if they taught that its OK. Issues like that should be taught by parents ... NOT BY THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.
The other issues that concerns the republicans that I know are eminent domain and the pledge of allegiance. Even though I don’t go to church, I don’t want the word GOD taken out of the pledge ... and I don’t want GOD taken off of our money. Having said that, I also don’t want the Bible taught at school, that should be at church. Well, I wouldn’t mind if a public school offered a bible study, but no way should a student be forced to take a bible study.
Going back to the Boy Scout issue ... I have two sons, one is a Boy Scout. I asked him and his friends what they thought about having a gay scout leader ... and all of them said they would quit if they had a gay scout leader. And all of them said the same thing, they all said the reason they would quit is that they would be teased and heckled at school. Boys will be boys ... and some things will never change.
Here is one example of what they said they would hear at school. A kid that is in another troop would say “hey Austin, we built a bird house at scouts yesterday ... what did ya’ll do? play hide the hot dog”
That is what they said someone would hear if they had a gay scout master. One thing that gays don’t understand or I don’t hear their concern ... is the kids. What about the kids?
But, I don’t think we will have to worry about gay scout masters with Roberts and Alito… Thank God !
Posted by tina1 on Jan 17, 2006 at 6:26 AM Finally.
Thank you, Ms. Colgan, for telling (demanding) that the Dems get their act together! (And for giving them some pointers as to HOW). You’re a true Democrat—one who won’t let her party waste away merely because its “leaders” suffer from intellectual consumption and a chronic case of deteriorating backbone.
Posted by cosmos4 on Jan 17, 2006 at 6:32 AM The Democratic strategy is to deny the Republicans the opportunity to apply the wedge issues which they’ve refined to a fine art of divisive non-debate. Otherwise neocons like Tweety will start babbling about things like gay scout leaders and pasting god on the buck, or the pledge of allegience.
Or “playing hide the hot dog”.
Posted by Major Major on Jan 17, 2006 at 6:55 PM “Eventually” is when they realize no one is going to bandy useless words with them. However, we must remember who we’re dealing with here and their lack of mental faculties and make that allowance.
No argument from me about the hearings, Wiley.
Posted by opeluboy on Jan 17, 2006 at 10:06 PM The Democrats problem is its leaders are a bunch of people who learned how to play politics as the majority party, and one that was the majority for decades.
Biden, Kerry, Lieberman, Shumar Etc. they do not understand and apparently are unable to learn the role of a minority party.
Kennedy seems most adept at it, but is often left fighting solo and easily ridiculed for his past.
Boxer of California has been crucified by her own party when she showed the men that she had the balls and said some pretty harsh stuff.
Minority parties shake things up. They through firebombs. They fight like they have nothing left to lose, because often they don’t.
That does describe the Dems when they are shut out of the executive, house and senat, and by party affiliation the SC as well.
It looks like Dems. willl only start to learn and adapt to minority role and how to fight like the underdog, when these tired dinosaurs retire.
Biden is a nightmare as a candidate, but strangely thinks he can rally the troops.
Sorry “the troops” learned from the John Kerry mistake. There is NO POINT in playing it safe, when you have nothing to lose.
The next candidate has to be someone with some fire in the belly or the Dems. will remain in the minority.
I simply do not understand why the Dems. act as if there is something on the line. They’ve lost everything outside of their strongholds. Everything in-between is Repugnican.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jan 18, 2006 at 2:05 AM OPELUBOY - I almost agree, however “ignore” is the same tactic that Democrats have been using since 1994.
You ARE RIGHT, there is no reason to debate the idiots. Just ridicule them, make fun of them. Treat them as the joke they are, and constantly dismiss them.
That kind of “active” ignoring is very successful at making trolls go away.
Making it impossible for them to get under our skin WILL make them go away.
We should all remember, the time we pointlessly spend trying to sway these backwards, butt-sucking morons the LESS time we have to speak to those who do want to understand.
MOST IMPORTANTLY - DO IT WITH HUMOR ;) Then no one can accuse you of anything LOL
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jan 18, 2006 at 2:09 AM We don’t have to do anything ... we just sit back .... and you liberals SNAP.
Did you see your boy Gore yesterday? HE SNAPPED
Did you see Hillary yesterday? SHE SNAPPED
Did you see mayor Nagin yesterday? HE SNAPPEDWhy are you liberals always screaming and yelling?
Here the classic video of Gore on his “he betrayed America”
http://www.toomuchsexy.org/files/KCOWE_medium.mov
One thing that we know is this: “IT’S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME .. UNTIL A LIBERAL WILL SNAP”
lol ... you libs are way too easy ... hope you don’t play poker, because if you did, you would get cleaned out.
Posted by tina1 on Jan 18, 2006 at 2:33 AM Someone’s hitting the Wellbutrin real hard. Everything is wonderful in la-la land.
Call ya and raise.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 18, 2006 at 3:13 AM Well, we’ll see, Tweety.
I don’t think Gore “snapped”. He’s calling for a special prosecutor to investigate illegal wiretaps. Whether he gets one is beside the point. The Democrats will continue to focus on the issue. Americans don’t like being monitored by the chickenhawks. Even the Barret report won’t help you there.
Murtha’s calling for withdrawal from Iraq, making it harder for the Chickenhawk-in-Chief to declare victory and get out. Maybe they’ll declare another “national emergency” and attack Iran. I hear the Israelis are champing at the bit on that. Lots of them are quietly emigrating back to the US.
I did a tour of the Free Republic yesterday. There’s all sorts of hand-wringing over the rumor that Dumbo the Flying Elephant has been advised of his party’s defeat in the next several elections. Lots of people “snapping” over that one.
Later, Toots.
Hope you find the hot dog.
Posted by Major Major on Jan 18, 2006 at 3:36 AM GORE spoke the Truth. Go Gore, Go Gore, Go Gore.
There is NO POINT OR REASON to dispute your stupid FRight wing thoughts, since you treat politics like a sport and whatever your side does is always right.
So that’s what I do for my side. I don’t care what the FRight wing things or reasons. Listening to them, and fearing them is what made the Democrats such wimps.
Their imput and views are worthless and should be treated accordingly.
Go Gore. Thanks for saying what a lot of people are too afraid to say.
Posted by johnnyincentx on Jan 18, 2006 at 3:49 AM Instead of columnists only scratching the surface on the Alito hearings, it is refreshing to see someone getting what is truly happening, or not happening in the case of the Dems. Thanks, Flavia for not being afraid to stand up and let our Democratic Party hear the truth. Finally.
Posted by robertg on Jan 18, 2006 at 3:17 PM Flavia - Just caught you on Tucker’s MSNBC show on Weds night. Looks like you have the guts to actually go out on the air and say what you write.
You support Warner (gov, Democrat, could turn a red state blue, etc) over - horror! - Hillary Clinton (another liberal northeast Senator - yeah, great idea, again Dems). Are you the only one in the Democratic party that understands polls? I’m very impressed. Might make a race of it - if they would ever listen to you. But I don’t think they will. Screaming about Dubya and ranting is what they like to do. Not plan for the future of the party.
Still - takes some rocks to give a shout down to the Dems (and especially money bags Hillary) since you work for them. Can’t name a single other journalist or politician that has done that.
Posted by InThoseTimes on Jan 19, 2006 at 6:13 AM ITT
Screaming about Dubya and ranting is what they (the Dims) like to do. Not plan for the future of the party.
You said it, not me, but you got that right!
When was the last time a Dim actually had an idea or made a plan? Hillary came up with Hillarycare in 1993, which (among other things) was so bad that the electorate turned the House over to the Republicans in 1994 after 40 years of Dim electoral majorities.
Before that, President Johnson had the brilliant idea for the Great Society. Oh, boy! The Great Society had vast plans for socialist measures and half vast plans for paying for all the goodies; consequently the economy stagnated until the Carter Catastrophe, when President Reagan restored the nation to economic sanity and spectacular growth.
President Clinton, to his great credit, increased Free Trade (NAFTA) and finally did away with the Great Society’s welfare program, after $6 trillion was wasted, and black family life was substantially destroyed. Actually, Free Trade and ending welfare were Republican ideas, but Clinton is welcome to them as long as needed changes are made.
Did Clinton have any original ideas on governance? Well, yes, he created one of the biggest tax increases in history and happily celebrated the rise of the Bubba Bubble, bailing out the year after NASDAQ fell over 60%. The crash of the Bubba Bubble (like all other bubbles) gave us a recession.
Luckily, President Bush had his own ideas on governance and the economy. The Bush tax cuts and the Greenspan interest rate cuts restored investment and growth to the economy, so we had a mild recession and employment and growth quickly recovered.
It is not just national Dims that are devoid of ideas. Read the leftist posts above. They are uniformly angry, hateful, spiteful celebrations of ignorance, with nary a coherent thought, much less an original idea, on the way Dims might get out of the predicament they have gotten themselves into.
If MM, WW, Loony Booty, and Indolent Lagomorph follow form, they may come up with mindless criticisms of this post. But you can bet your ass none of them will entertain the slightest thought about improving the Dim Party or the nation (ancient old socialist schemes do nothing for the Dims or for the country). Consequently, the Dim Party is electorally doomed until they learn how to think and plan.
Posted by scorp on Jan 19, 2006 at 8:44 PM The economy “stagnated” because the costs of the Vietnam war kicked off an inflationary spiral which was reinforced by the recessionary world energy crisis, which followed from the Yom Kippur war and the subsequent Arab oil embargo.
Get your facts straight before you start spouting your free market mantras.
Posted by Major Major on Jan 20, 2006 at 2:03 AM middle america woke? drug addict limboom, sex offender orielly, conficted felon ollie north?
tom delay no longer the hammer, lost his job, bill frisk under investigation. sen. ney stepped down.
The Bush White House and Republican Party seem to have more scandals breaking into the news than Imelda Marco’s has shoes, as their policy of lies, deciets and secrets catches up with them. With Abernoff looking at cutting a deal, the CIA Leak simmering on a back burner, coupled with what is sure to be a fight on the Patriot Act, investigations and possible impeachment charges brought against Bush, we have all but lost track of Alito the Mosquito’s Senate Hearing. In short, January is shaping up to be a world class slug feast sure to rival the excitement surrounding the Thrilla in Manilla. Yes middle america is waking up.
Posted by brian28 on Jan 20, 2006 at 7:41 PM criticisms and facts the neo-cons don’t want to deal with.
Posted by brian28 on Jan 21, 2006 at 2:36 AM Hey Brian28,
I guess you forgot about Congressman Jefferson (Dem). He has been under investigation by the FBI and his ex-aid JUST PLEADED GUILTY on Jan. 11. Of course most Americans didn’t hear about this, BECAUSE THE LIBERAL MEDIA somehow doesn’t like to report on DEMS.
(August 13, 2005) FBI Sting Targeted Democrat Congressman Jefferson
Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.), a veteran member of the Ways and Means Committee whose homes in Washington and New Orleans were raided by the FBI last week, had been the target of an undercover FBI sting involving public corruption for nearly a year, according to law enforcement sources.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/12/AR20050812016 678.html
++++++++++
(January 11, 2006) Ex-aide of Democrat Congressman Jefferson pleads guilty to bribery-related charges
ALEXANDRIA, Va.—A former aide to Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., on Wednesday afternoon pleaded guilty to bribery-related charges.
http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/wwl011106khjefferson.688ef87e.html
Posted by tina1 on Jan 21, 2006 at 2:56 AM Oh ya ... Brian forgot about this also.
Five local Democratic activists are accused of slashing the tires on Republican-rented vehicles, crippling the party’s poll watching and get out the vote efforts in a state that was vital in a close presidential race.
This trial is going on NOW ... funny that we don’t hear much from the LIBERAL MEDIA about this. Can you image if these were Republicans on trial for slashing the tires of Dems .... ABC News, CBS New, MSNBC, CNN would have satallite trucks outside the court house with 24/7 coverage. Jesse Jackson, Dean, Sharpton, Kerry ... all of the shithead dimwhit mouth pieces would have a microphone and tv camera in front of them.
Now why don’t we see any Republicans on TRIAL for some kind of voter fraud ??
... I hear all kinds of accusations by the dimwhits ... but no republicans on trial ... hhhmmm ... kind of strange.
+++++++++++++
Election Day sabotage trial pits Democrat against Democrat
Published January 18, 2006
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-060118dirtytricks,1,746685 59.story?coll=chi-news-hed
++++++++++++
5 charged in GOP tire slashings
2 sons of prominent Democrats among those charged in tire slashings
Jan. 24, 2005
Five Kerry-Edwards campaign staffers, including the sons of two prominent Milwaukee Democrats, were charged Monday with the election day tire slashings of 25 get-out-the-vote vehicles rented by Republicans.
Milwaukee County District Attorney E. Michael McCann announced the felony charges each of which could result in a 3 1/2-year prison sentence and a $10,000 fine
http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/jan05/295825.asp
PUT THAT IN YOUR CRACK PIPE AND SMOKE IT ...
SPEAKING OF CRACK .. didn’t former “Democrat” DC Mayor Berry get busted again?
Posted by tina1 on Jan 21, 2006 at 3:10 AM spin it anyway you want it will be a bad year for neo-cons.
Posted by brian28 on Jan 21, 2006 at 4:55 AM that’s you come back? there are less democrates in trouble than republican’s?
Posted by brian28 on Jan 21, 2006 at 5:00 AM http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/011905D.shtml
34 bush scandals.
Posted by brian28 on Jan 21, 2006 at 5:40 AM http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_lynne_gl_060111_absolution_for_absol. .htm
Posted by brian28 on Jan 21, 2006 at 5:55 AM K street project
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=K_Street_Project
Posted by brian28 on Jan 21, 2006 at 5:58 AM It is not just national Dims that are devoid of ideas. Read the leftist posts above. They are uniformly angry, hateful, spiteful celebrations of ignorance, with nary a coherent thought, much less an original idea, on the way Dims might get out of the predicament they have gotten themselves into.
Thank you, MM. Thank you, Loony Booty.
Also, MM, the real cost of the Vietnam War was less than $150 billion, and it ended in the 1970s. The eventual cost of welfare was over $6 trillion. Please help me with the math. How much of Carter’s inflation can be attributed to the war, when the cost of welfare was orders of magnitude greater? And I do hope you understand that inflation drives higher prices, and not the other way around. Don’t you? Good God, please say yes.
Posted by scorp on Jan 22, 2006 at 6:17 AM Nice try brian28 ...
I looked at your so-called 34 Bush Scandals. First of all, it doesn’t say “Bush Scandals” ... it says “34 scandals from the first four years of George W. Bush’s presidency”
Second, NONE of those 34 are scandals ... and almost all of them aren’t even true. They are the same talking points by liberals and dimwhits.
I’ve said this many times, but you liberals don’t get it .... and thank God you don’t get it.
To win an election you need to come up with IDEAS ...
Liberals and Dimwhits have no ideas ... they just keep trying to play the “gotcha” game.
Actually I hope you libs keep it up. I hope you libs try to push for an impeachment of Bush and I hope you libs keep up the “Bush spied on America” campaign. WHY ??? Because if you do, it guarantees a GOP win in 2008 !!!!
BOOYA ....
WHO’S YOUR DADDY ???
GW is ...
PS - It’s funny enough watching you angry bitter liberals “blow a gasket” now ... I can’t wait to see how angry you liberals will be after the GOP wins the White House again .. in 2008.
I suspect we will see liberals jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge. (now that would be something to see)
Posted by tina1 on Jan 23, 2006 at 1:58 AM GUILTY ... GUILTY ... GUILTY ...
Democratic campaign workers convicted in tire slashing case
Chicago Tribune CHICAGO - Four Democratic activists from Milwaukee were convicted of a misdemeanor Friday for their alleged role in slashing the tires of Republican-rented vehicles on Election Day 2004.
The vandalism took place a few hours before the polls opened in Wisconsin, a hard-fought state in the 2004 presidential election. Twenty-five cars and vans rented by the Republicans were crippled, delaying the party’s plan to ferry observers and voters to the polls.
A security guard at the GOP’s office wrote down the license plate of a suspicious car, which led investigators to five young men working for the Kerry-Edwards campaign.
Two of them were the children of prominent Milwaukee Democrats, including former Mayor Marvin Pratt and the city’s current congresswoman, Rep. Gwen Moore.
Felony criminal damage to property, put him in prison for 3 1/2 years.
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/nation/13675410.htm
Posted by tina1 on Jan 23, 2006 at 2:28 AM Thweatening us with impwisonment you funny wittle baby. Go get your gucky.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 23, 2006 at 3:58 AM Military expenditures destroy wealth. In fact, the costs of Vietnam include fifty thousand American fatalities, including hundreds of thousands of American casualties, not to mention the two million Vietnamese fatalities (men, woman and children). Idiots such as yourself never do. How do you measure the value of lives unlived, or the foreclosure of countless claims to the future value of those who survived the conflict?
The oil embargo, which forced the Israelis to conclude their war against the Arabs, created a world-wide global recession which lasted until the 80’s and elected your senile patron saint to the White House. That and his campaign committee’s promise to provide the Iranian fundamentalists with a better deal for the release of the hostages (but not before the election). And of course the Republicans’ end run around congressional restrictions to the funding of the contras…
Tweety continues to babble mindlessly about how “liberalism is a mental disease” but s/he/it fails to recognize the obvious conclusion that neo-conservatism is a social disease, and fools like yourself are its vectors.
Posted by Major Major on Jan 23, 2006 at 8:50 AM I was thinking about that yesterday Major Major. The improved economy only lasts as long as the war. Economic depression is sure to follow. Blowing up things in another nation does not produce wealth in our nation.
BTW, I’ve adopted Tina1, and am asking that others not respond to her. It’s tough love. I’ve gone through the threads, and have seen how this kooky troll ruins the ambience. I have, on one occasion, “lost it”.
For the benefit of reason, I ask you to ignore her. Have you noticed how she always seems to be on the wrong thread? This is a thread about Alito, and she’s spouting off about election fraud. Not that we all must be rigidly within lines, but she is almost always on a different topic.
If everyone agrees, then she can be thoroughly ignored. Is that being a vector? Are you referring to me, MM? Reason and facts don’t work with her either, you know.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 23, 2006 at 10:47 PM Evidently tina1 forgets about the New Hampshire GOP operative that plead guilty to jamming Democratic get-out-the-vote phone banks that prevented mobilization of voters in 2002. Consequently, Sununu won re-election to the Senate by a slim margin. How ‘bout them apples?
Even more disgusting is your continuous ranting about liberals having little emotional control when you are the one ranting about “fags” and the “homosexual agneda.” Also, give the CAPS LOCK a break, that is the most telling evidence of your conservative dymentia.
Posted by Liberal on Jan 23, 2006 at 11:49 PM Hi Liberal. Did you read my posts? It is hopeless. You cannot get through to her. She needs reparenting. The topic is “Alito”. Please don’t feed the kooky troll. She’ll spit it back in your face, and then scream that you’re not feeding her anything.
Tough love. Please don’t talk to her. There are some really interesting people here. And then there is Tina1.
Your cooperation would be greatly appreciated. So would information. If you find a great article about Alito I’d love to have a look at it.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 24, 2006 at 12:17 AM I wasn’t referring to you, dubya, and I apologize for the confusion. My remarks were directed to Daffy Duck and his sidekick, Sylvester. And, of course, the clandestine Tweety, who loves to bait the liberals with decontextualized political diatribes.
When the rich were feeding high off the hog, the plutocrats could afford to throw a few crumbs to the people whose work made their affluence possible. Now that their marginal rates of return are beginning to recede, they encourage their political dependents to throw the “unproductive” overboard, ignoring the obvious conclusion that they happen to be the most unproductive of them all. It starts with the indigent, which they equate to the criminal, and ends with the infirm and the elderly, which they dismiss as the unfortunate victims of their own lack of foresight.
The Democrats had the foresight to understand that the allegience of the people no longer adhered to the rich, and so they (the Democrats) shifted their allegience to a government which required their sacrificial service in a holocaust which consumed half the world. The Republicans seem to believe that the promise of a crappy job is sufficient to induce the allegience of an increasingly underemployed population.
Posted by Major Major on Jan 24, 2006 at 1:34 AM Ain’t that the truth, Major Major.
If you patented decontextualized political diatribes, you could sue the bastard trolls. I haven’t got the patience for it.
Oh yeah, Alito. Isn’t there an adult who won’t bring his/her weepy spouse to a hearing?
Must everything be a soap opera?
Must they all be bad actors?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 24, 2006 at 2:16 AM A minor correction for MM:
“...the promise of a crappy job…” should read, “...The fear of losing a crappy job…”
The promise of a crappy job was the Clinton Compromise.
Posted by luminous beauty on Jan 24, 2006 at 2:17 AM Oops - Should have said “Kaine” DEMOCRAT - not “Warner” - (the old Repubub - just got used to saying his name I suspect). my bad.
You’re still right though. I can’t imagine how Hillary would be supported by the hard left or anybody in the middle. Need some tough leadership is what them Dems need. And fast.
Posted by InThoseTimes on Jan 24, 2006 at 4:47 AM I followed much of the Alito hearings on NPR and C-Span. Alito is chilling! He is a quiet demogogue and extremist who abuses legal logic to mislead. He evaded Sen. Schumer’s questions about his views that Abortion rights are neither settled law nor protected under the US Constitution. In his written legal opinions he seems to use technicalities to justify twisting the actual intention of the law. He has little respect for stare decisis or the idea of eminating rights established by consensus and repeated rulings by other jurists whose reconfirming opinions amount to “settled law.” The idea of legal stability and the establishment of stare decisis is anathema to Alito who sees these traditional concepts as an obsticle to his desire for a counter-revolutionary overthrow of established rights through settled law. Abortion rights ARE an integral part of privacy rights. Reproductive freedom is a well established human right in the collective decisions of many jurists in the civilized world. Saving women the ingnomineous indignity of unwarrented intrusion into their lives and preserving their privacy has been established as settled law in much of the western world and is widely regarded as a basic human right. Alito’s opposition reflects his PERSONAL preferences; his upbringing and undoubtedly his religious inculcation as a youth. This is not a basis for legal reasoning.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jan 25, 2006 at 9:08 AM So, cabdriverinchicago, are you driving a cab because you have a p.h.d. in liberal arts? : ) (smiley face)
It’s going to hurt.
Am I going to call my D-senator and ask him to filibuster?
Scream. They’re all assholes.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 25, 2006 at 10:05 AM You’ll have to wait until your senator is defeated at the polls and replaced by a Republican. That and a $1000 campaign donation might stimulate his (or her) attention. But to get him to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee requires the election of a Democratic president in 2008.
Posted by Major Major on Jan 25, 2006 at 11:05 PM Wileywitch, I only have a MA in Political Science from the UW-Madison. I drove a cab up there to. Union Cab Cooperative is for whom I drove. About six and one half years. That is the history of my youth. There are many good books out there on the drive of the far right to take over the court system in the US. I believe this is more integral to the vast right wing conspiricy and the failure to stop 9/11 than even the preservation of global US hegemony or the securing of vast untapped oil and gas reserves in the Persian Gulf and Central Asia. It is the fear and hysteria generated by 9/11 that allowed the passage of the Patriot Act and now the unwarrented wiretaps. The right needs to pack the courts both Federal and Supreme so the laws are not struck down as unconstitutional. Remember the opinion of the moderate Sandra Day O’Conner that Gitmo was under US jurisdiction by default and that those being held by the US military fell under the jurisdiction of US courts and could not be denied a petition filed on their behalf for a writ of habeas corpus. A compromise with the Administration was made whereby those being held by the US military outside the US were entitled to periodic review by a military review board regarding their status. Several detainees were released on this basis though the ridiculous and legally fictitous category “enemy combatant” still holds. The right wants to erode the constitution further and vest ever greater power in the executive until we in effect have a dictatorship whereby arbitrary categories like “enemy combatant” replace legally valid ones like criminal suspect or prisoner of war. Alito can find more technical rationalizations to trash the bill of rights. Once this is successful new entrenched precidents will be set. The old one’s upholding democratic opinions could be overthrown. Bush’s treatment of constitutional law is shameful. His choice of Justice nominees reflect the future intent of his repressive agenda and contempt for democracy.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jan 26, 2006 at 12:30 AM Political Science! That would have been my guess.
I’m wondering, is it really necessary for them to go through all these incremental steps? What’s preventing them from proclaiming all powers now?
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 26, 2006 at 12:34 AM Believe it or not, dubya, but it’s the Democrats, and not the progressives, who will prevent it. The progressives are running so far ahead of the pack that they no longer realize that no one is following them. The Democrats still have the power and the resources to counter the campaign. That’s the short (and ugly) version of the reality we continue to refuse to accept.
Posted by Major Major on Jan 26, 2006 at 1:30 AM We are in trouble if Alito gets in. Look at what Ohio just did. They just passed legislation that requires voters to show a picture ID to vote. Does anyone know about this?
Ohio also tripled the cost for a candidate to do a recount. This guarantees every election will be rigged in Ohio now.
Now with Alito in, who knows what will happen on the Federal level.
Posted by vicari on Jan 27, 2006 at 5:07 AM Hey vicari,
It’s obvious you have no idea what your talking about ... like most liberals.
Do you know why nobody takes you liberals serious? (because liberals never tell the truth and then when presented with the facts ... they still lie )
LETS LOOK AT THE FACTS ABOUT OHIO:
Ohio increased the cost of recounting because of what Michael Badnarik and David Cobb did during the 2004 election.
Both Michael Badnarik and Green Party candidate David Cobb requested a recount in Ohio after the 2004 Presidential election despite that Badnarik received only 14,695 votes, or 0.26 percent and Cobb received 186 votes ... Bush received 2,859,764 votes in Ohio.
Bush had almost 3 million votes in Ohio, Badnarik had 15,000 votes, and Cobb had only 186 votes ... and these two LIBERALS DORKS request a recount !!!!
Yet another example that “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”
So, now that we have the FACTS, you can see why Ohio increased the cost. Also, under the new Ohio law, THIRD party candidates running for President CANNOT request a recount ... The only candidates that can request a recount are the 2 main canidates.
This just proves what IDIOTS liberals are ... requesting a recount when your not even close.
Ohio estimates that it cost the state around $1.5 Million for a recount.
Also, Ohio passed a law that require a valid photo ID or a utility bill, a bank statement, a paycheck or a government document with a current address. This was due to the woman working on behalf of the NAACP’s voter registration drive who gave crack cocaine to Chad Staton for filling bogus voter registration forms. He plead guilty ...
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050219/NEWS02/5021903 352&SearchID=73199766722272
Alito will make sure that LIBERALS can’t do their STUPID juvenile tricks like Badnarik and Cobb did.
LIBERALS are MORONS and finally Americans are starting to see that. And you thank Fox News, O’Reilly, Hannity, Savage, Rush, Beck for spreading the truth about “liberalism”.
Posted by tina1 on Jan 27, 2006 at 5:57 AM Here is another example of why LIBERALS are IDIOTS.
This liberal moron sued because he didn’t want to show his ID when boarding an airplane. Well, the appeals court shut him down.
Another example of why “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”
APPEALS COURT UPHOLDS AIRPORT ID POLICY
SAN FRANCISCO - An appeals court Thursday dismissed a Libertarian Party activist’s legal challenge to federal airport regulations requiring passengers to show identification before they can board planes.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/north hern_california/13719932.htm
Posted by tina1 on Jan 27, 2006 at 6:15 AM I don’t believe the objection was political. Some people are just very toughy.
Posted by cabdriverinchicago on Jan 27, 2006 at 7:53 AM yea tina don’t look at all the republican scewups. Keep hammering the dems. that is why the poll numbers are so high for bush and the congress right now.
Posted by brian28 on Jan 28, 2006 at 4:10 PM Talk to me after the 06’ mid-terms ... lets see how those polls numbers are working for you then.
Oh ya ... those poll numbers back in 2000 & 2004 seemed to work out well for you.
lol .... lmao ....
PS - Poll numbers don’t win elections ... just ask Gore and Kerry.
lol ... booya .... lmao
That’s right, Homie don’t play that !!
Posted by tina1 on Jan 30, 2006 at 1:16 AM Flavia brings to all of us a fresh perspective of how inept the democrats are….but, who’s listening? It’s a sad state of affairs when the republicans continue to make bad decisions and choices for our country, and there’s no-one in the party to articulate a clear and reasonable position against them. At least no-one with any charisma or credibility.
Posted by resaltz on Jan 30, 2006 at 3:29 AM That’s been fresh for about five years now. No offense to Flavia.
Is charisma and credibility something other than a media phenomenon? Should Democrats set themselves on fire in public to get coverage?
I’m not saying that they are great shakes, but the ineffectiveness of the Democratic party and those Republicans who are not in lockstep with the administration is more about the media than the man.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 30, 2006 at 6:32 AM Sorry, resaltz. I should have said “hello” before disagreeing with you.
Hello.
Posted by wileywitch on Jan 30, 2006 at 11:24 AM After the torrent of words from the Senate there are two images that stick: the ball-cap and the crying spouse. When will dems learn to package themselves and their causes into tidy made-for-TV soundbites and images? The quicker they can accept this reality of warfare, the quicker progress can be made for their causes. Let us see if they can capitalize on domestic spying, the Port Sale Scandal, and the Iraq Civil War by cutting out the excess chatter, get a backbone, and focus on the easy targets the republicans have laid out before them.
Posted by Joseph Duran on Feb 26, 2006 at 10:45 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Flavia Colgan
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
