Still planning on voting for that 3rd Party ticket? Still willing to let the pukes get the WH?

[rpannier]

Here's a story for you to tremember on election day...

Justice Kennedy the Key in Close Cases

WASHINGTON — Justice Anthony Kennedy has become the object of his colleagues' attention on a Supreme Court with four reliably conservative votes and four dependably liberal.

Six cases before the Supreme Court this term have come down to 5-4 votes. Kennedy, alone, was in the majority every time.

snip

In a victory for environmentalists in the first Supreme Court case on global warming, Kennedy showed he can frustrate conservatives who hoped the court would move firmly to the right with two appointees of President Bush on board.

snip

"When you have a 5-4 majority, it's a majority you can lose," said Pepperdine University law professor Douglas Kmiec.



on note: One retirement and we will get another Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas clone, two retirements and you can be sure many of the issues we believe strongly in, will go: Choice, Environmental Protection, Curbs on Executive Abuse, etc.

With Stevens and most likely Ginsburg retiring in the next 4 years, are you willing to chance that???
I certainly am not.

personal note: You can lecture all you want about principle and not willing to vote for a Democrat whose positions on issues you oppose. That you consider them a corporate shill, etc.

But in 4-8 years that person is gone, while their choice for Supreme Court will live on.

link:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070407/scotus-kennedy

[wyldwolf]

1. Ironic this came from HuffPo

[Skinner]

4. ?

I guess I don't know as much about HuffPo as I thought I did. Why is this ironic?

[wyldwolf]

25. Huffington is not a Democrat, and many who congregate there

... advocate third parties or are extreme critics of the Democratic leadership.

[riverdale]

2. Appointed by President Ronald Reagan

That negates your point.

[rpannier]

5. Actually it doesn't...

Of the 9 sitting Justices the four most conservative justices are republikkan appointees.
As the process for selecting nominees gets more refined, there is less chance for error.

In addition, my father knows AJ Kennedy, he knew him before he was confirmed.
The majority of the legal and political community knew the Kennedy was not a conservative in the Scalia vein, just as they knew that about O' Connor.

This is twenty years later. No nominee who is not a "scalia-roberts-thomas" clone is gonna get nominated.

[skipos]

3. Hillary supporters should be wise enough to look around and

see that she would cause more 3rd party defections than any other realistic Dem candidate. Yes, *I* will vote for her over any Repub, but it is pretty obvious that plenty Dems won't. And by "plenty," I mean a few %. It doesn't sound like much, but it could be enough to lose the election.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Excellent analysis.

Although I voted for Gore in 2000 and was frustrated by Nader's impact on the election, I recognize that the problem was us, the Democrats. WE allowed the Dem platform to play to the center, WE nominated a candidate who played to all moderates at the expense of his base, and, since then, WE have not done much to make sure we won't lose those voters again.

Hillary has decided to be as mercurial as possible in her approach -- refusing to commit to ideals she has embraced her entire public (previous) career. That won't cut it.

You want to win in 2008? Nominate a winner.

[Skinner]

12. Comments like this sound to me like playing chicken with the future of the country.

"Don't vote for Hillary, or else we're going to throw the country into the trash can."

[MadHound]

13. Perhaps, but given that the anti-war left, and the left in general

Have very few bargaining chits left, people will take what they can get to effect change.

The Socialist party did much the same thing during FDR's tenure, and to forestall that third party defection, FDR had the great common sense to nick a couple of planks from the Socialist platform, and made them his. Good thing, otherwise we wouldn't have Social Security or unemployment insurance.

And really, I don't think that this would be a game of chicken so much as it would be an expression of utter disgust with the party. The Dems were put into power last fall with one express directive, to stop the war. If they fail to do so, especially with a Hillary nomination on top of it all, then I'm willing to predict that most of the anti-war left will either vote third party, or stay at home in complete disgust.

We've seen this situation played out before, back in '68. One would hope that the party would learn from its mistakes. We'll see:shrug:

[Greyhound]

23. That's it exactly. FDR looked at what was, acknowledged it, and took the appropriate

actions. The Corporatist Democrats_® repeat over and over that it isn't about doing what is right, but rather what is practical. Yet, even Bill Clinton, as the only real victory and default poster boy for the DLC, recognized this strategy took Republik issues and made them his, and subsequently won.

It has been almost 80 years since the Democratic Party was able (or is it willing?) to lead this country, and when we did, we were in position to literally save the world. Isn't it time to recognize that when only one side is compromising it isn't compromise anymore?

To echo MadHound's point (and we hounds are usually right), "people will take what they can get to effect change". Did Gore's failed campaign teach us nothing? Do the Corporate Democrats_® really believe that they can win without the foundation of the party? Is winning even their goal?

[skipos]

20. *I* am 100% committed to voting for the Dem nominee, no matter who it is

But I can recognize the challenges that our Dem nominees face, even my favorites. I like Richardson, Clark, Gore Obama, Edwards and others, but they will all have different challenges getting the nomination and winning the election. IMO, one of Hillary's biggest obstacles is the dislike of her by people in her own party, and her general election weakness.

According to that recent Harris poll 21% of Democrats would not vote for her and 48% of Independents would not vote for her.

She dominates primary polls, but despite her money and name recognition continues to underperform other candidates. Here are the recent Ras polls.

McCain (48%) Clinton (41%) CLINTON LOSES BY 7%
McCain (38%) Edwards (47%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
McCain (44%) Obama (44%) TIED

Thompson (44%) Clinton (43%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Thompson (37%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

Brownback (41%) Clinton (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Brownback (34%) Obama (49%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Giuliani (49%) Clinton (41%) CLINTON LOSES BY 8%
Giuliani (48%) Edwards (41%) EDWARDS LOSES BY 7%
Giuliani (46%) Obama (40%) OBAMA LOSES BY 6%

Gingrich (43%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Gingrich (38%) Obama (48%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Hagel (40%) Clinton (48%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Hagel (34%) Obama (50%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Romney (41%) Clinton (50%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Romney (29%) Edwards (55%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Romney (36%) Obama (51%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Are polls the end all be all? No. But does Hillary look like she has a greater challenge in the general election than other Dem candidates? From my analysis, yes. And I think much of this has to do with the fact that she upsets many in her own party more than any other realistic Dem contender.

[GeorgeGist]

6. I am not re-assured that a candidate ...

I disagree with is going to make good on your contention.

[Q]

8. Ah.....the standard...

...vote for 'blah, blah' or the sky will fall thread.

I wonder if you really know what you're asking?

You're asking people to ignore their own conscience and common sense for the sake of a few powerful politicians that want more power within 'our' party.

The party has fallen apart since the 'conservative' Democrats took power when Clinton was in office.

God help us.

[Dawgs]

9. God help us if we get another Republican because people like you don't vote Democrat.

When are some people going to learn how politics work?

Anyone that voted against Gore in 2000 has a part in this war. It's too bad you still can't see this. Hey, at least people like you voted their conscience.

[gristy]

19. Democratic

Democrat is a noun.

Either

God help us if we get another Republican because people like you don't vote Democratic.

Or

God help us if we get another Republican because people like you don't vote for the Democrat.

[Dawgs]

28. Geez! Sorry!!

I forgot the 'ic' when responding to a post. I'm not writing a damn book.

I think anyone that read it understood what I meant.

[rpannier]

10. Blah Blah Blah

I think I remember that being what the people who voted Nader said in 2000 and we got scrub.

National elections are about winning and, like-it-or-not, they are about power.

Since 1968, we have had 12 years of Democratic rule in the White House and, by the time scrub leaves, we'll have had 28 republikkan years.

How have the positions of the left been rewarded???
Gutted environmental regulations
Weakening of Unions
Increasing power for corporations
The pushing of religion deeper into the public arena

Around 3/4 of the federal judges are Republikkan appointees. Most of those Democratic judges are Clinton appointees. By 2012, every judge appointed in the 70's will have retired and that will mean that every Ford and Carter appointee will be gone.

You may not give a damn about, or recognize, the incredible power the judiciary has, but I do. They can undermine union activity, rule in favor of corporations that pollute the environment, etc.
They survive long after the president that appointed them is out of office.

If your hope is that out of the blue will emerge the Kucinich-Feingold ticket, get over it.
Barring something drastic, it's going to be Clinton, Obama or Edwards against romney, guliani or mccain (although he's looking less likely).

You can choose to vote for another candidate and that is your right to do so.

But please don't come back two years into a romney, guliani or mc cain administration and tell the rest of us how badly this country sucks and what a crappy president that person is.

[TnDem]

14. For someone so learned...

You seem to be out of touch with the potential nominees the pugs want.

Fred Thompson will be the nominee. Take it to the bank. The others are flotsam.

Your lack of inclusion of him in the list of potentials shows how hard it will hit some of us when it happens.

And remember, Thompson had a direct impact on the last Supreme Court vetting process.

[marlakay]

18. Don't be so sure!

I went into wikipedia the other day to check out fred not knowing how he voted and if the left ever gets their act together they could have a field day with commercials about how he has voted.

When he was a senator he voted with Bush a lot and was for the disasterous medicare bill, Iraq war, etc.

So he is a actor....I finally think the country wants more than that. And not really a moderate if you look at what he voted for on the things that count.

[TnDem]

21. True on Iraq...

But Hillary and Obama won't be able to counter that effectively either since they both either voted for the war or for continued funding.

Any Republican will have voted with Bush on many of the core Republican issues. That is to be expected. The key to Thompson will be his ability to formulate a plan for Iraq that seems reasonable in light of our current administration. In other words, something acceptable to us as progressives for a withdrawal and something that will appeal to the wingnuts as to "winning", (or something that can be contrived as that by the MSM).

Also a biggie that many just DO NOT UNDERSTAND...McCain has a spotty record even leaning antigun on gun legislation. Rudy is TERRIBLE on guns and has supported every gun ban to come down the pike. Obama and Hillary are horrendous on guns. Obama calls for draconian ban on all semi-autos. He will never win a SINGLE southern or midwestern state with that plank. Trust me.

The "R" beside the name will hurt at the outset, but depending on how far left our candidates are will depend on how hard he has to try. If the election were held today, Thompson would win the entire south and midwest. That is based 50% on the fervor I see for him around me in the south and 50% on the weakness of our top candidates. That's really saying something considering that he is not even a candidate yet.

I'mm telling you, watch the guy.

[TwilightGardener]

22. Their best bet to win the General is someone who is a moderate--

the GOPer quest to find a more conservative candidate than their front-runners is ridiculous and self-defeating. That's not what people want. By '08, we'll have had 8 years of "compassionate conservatism"--I guaran-damn-tee that won't sell again, no matter how it's packaged. There's a reason why Obama whips Fugly Freddy's ass in polls by 15%--I'll bet Edwards does, too. Rudy, however, still beats or ties most of our candidates--he is perceived as a moderate. If GOPers were smart (and they're not), they'd rally behind him.

[Greyhound]

24. Does it not occur to you that it is incumbent on the party to attract the voters?

The voters will do what they will do, and the strategy of the ultimatum simply won't work.

You are absolutely correct that the coming SCOTUS appointments are the paramount issue for this next term, and therefore it is vital that we win the White House. With the stakes that high, is it really a good idea to adopt a "my way of the highway" philosophy?

That is what the Democratic Party has offered for the 12 years you speak of, and much more importantly the Democratically dominated legislature that existed for most of the last 40 years. Remember how ineffectually "our" party fought against the horrible Raygun agenda? Remember the petty infighting and turf wars "our" representatives engaged while the republiks destroyed the country? Do you think that the union membership supported raygun throughout most of his term because he was doing so much to help them?

The voters gave us a chance last year because they have had as much of arbusto_&trade as they could stomach, it does not necessarily follow that they will not vote for whatever POS the republiks put up, especially if they perceive him to be somewhat moderate. This election is ours to lose, and if we ignore this significant portion of our supporters, we just might.

[Bluedogvoter]

17. I agree.

Of course I'm a conservative democrat, but I still agree with your point.

People want you too vote their way and no other way but aren't afraid to alienate anyone with a differing opinion.

[sellitman]

11. Skinner won't let me post what I think of Nader voters.

Nuff said

[LWolf]

15. Those are some dangerous assumptions you've made

about plans, and about the effectiveness of fear/threat/blame as a campaign weapon.

For the record: I am not planning to vote for any party. I don't think a party will be on the ticket. Candidates that represent parties, yes. I don't know who they will be at this point, so I have no "plans" about candidates.

When I cast a vote, it will be for the candidate, not the party. For the candidate with the best record of working for the issues that drive me to vote in the first place.

In my Democratic Primary, I will vote for the best choice on the ticket based on the above mentioned record.

In the general election, I will do the same. Regardless of party. If there is no one on the ticket I can, in good conscience, vote for, I will write in a good candidate. That's my responsibility as a citizen. To vote for the people who will best lead the nation.

I am not motivated by fear or threat. It tends to piss me off, rather than cow me or make me run to do the threatener's bidding. As a matter of fact, trying to threaten me into voting for some corporate democrat who has no intention of bringing about the changes I wish to see in the world is likely to get the opposite reaction. I probably wouldn't consider a vote for that person if the only other choice on the ballot was a human-eating dragon.

I am also not motivated by the blame game. It's such a pathetic attempt to deflect responsibility. In case you don't actually "get" it:

It is the Democratic Party's job to EARN the vote. If they don't earn it, it's no one's fault but the party's. If the party knows that they are alienating leftists/progressives, and decides that there are enough votes out there that it can purge progressives or lefties and still win, it is free to make that choice. If the party chooses to leave the progressives behind, it is a whiny, pathetic temper tantrum that mourns the loss of those votes.

If a republican sits in the wh after the '08 election, it is no one's fault but the party that fielded poor candidates, ran poor campaigns, took weak positions on issues of import, and did not EARN the vote of enough people.

If my vote is important, then the party will nominate someone who will work, not talk, for systemic change in the areas of concern to me. If not, then move on. But don't play the blame game with me when all is said and done. If we're left with another disaster, place the blame where it belongs: on those Democrats who supported the wrong vision, the wrong candidates, and the wrong campaigns.

[Ninja Jordan]

16. For example, Kennedy alone is basically the reason why the EPA has to regulate CO2

Should he be replaced by a RWer, that decision would have gone the other way.

[CitizenLeft]

26. that Reagan appointee...

...had to get past a Democratic judiciary committee and a Democratic congress. If this delicate balance we have now in the Senate is tipped back the other way in '08 (which, thank God, I highly doubt), and a Republican is elected to the WH? Kiss any liberal way of life we know of goodbye. For generations to come. It IS that simple. Thank goodness Kennedy is a moderate, or we'd be up shit creek. Fortunately, I think we will hold the Senate, so that even if a Republican is elected, he'll be forced to nominate moderates - no extremist should be able to get past the Senate. But if Ginsburg retires, with a Republican president, then that's TWO moderates that will be appointed, tipping THAT delicate balance into unknown territory.

It IS important, and for that reason, I don't care what Hillary did, if she's the nominee, I'm voting for her - because she'll have to deal with a Democratic congress too, and she'll have her feet held to the fire by the party or she won't get support in 2012. I don't want an unstoppable right-wing Supreme Court on MY conscience.

[bread_and_roses]

27. The same vise as always

why do you think people like me have voted for the "D" they didn't much like in every Presidential campaign?

It's interesting though....the chain of thought....we must vote for the Dem, no matter how feeble, and we must not criticise the Dems presented to us in the primary. Boy, that leaves a lot of room for small "d" democratic discussion, doesn't it?

Until and unless we have public funding of elections and something like instant-run-off elections (though even public funding alone would go a long way) we'll be in the same old catch 22. And people wonder why some get tired of it and blow off steam about refusing to vote for thus and such? Natural human reaction.

More important than the natural frustration of people who are politically engaged and most likely, in the end, to pull the "D" lever no matter how far the candidate from anyone who represents them on critical issues is that the we can't put up a candidate who inspires any trust or hope in the - 50%? or whatever the number - who can't be bothered to vote at all, knowing that it's not going to make much difference to them in their bread and butter issues.