To Liberals who say they're not voting for Kerry I have two words...

[rpannier]

Supreme Court.

Nuff said.

[onebigbadwulf]

1. Yeah

the liberals who aren't voting for Kerry should probably leave the country now. S*** is gonna get a whole lot worse with another 4 yrs of Bush.

[calico1]

2. I agree. Unfortunately its one of those

issues that a lot of people don't even think about--until another Conservative gets appointed. Of course, there are no guarantees that an appointee will embrace the politics of the President that nominates them--Blackmun, for example was appointed by a Republican. And so was Souter. But do we really want to take that chance? The Supreme Court will have an effect on our lives for far longer than the candidate that gets elected to the WH.

[CJCRANE]

3. Thought you were gonna say

"Shove it!"

[DaveSZ]

4. Karl Rove picks the justices

I don't think he'll let another Souter slip by.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

5. That's exactly why I won't Ralph in '04!

The Supreme Court has proven it is anti-rights, anti-affirmative action, and with their decision in 2000 on the election anti-American.

[DaveSZ]

6. It upheld affirmative action by 5-4

It's upholding Roe v Wade, right to privacy, separation of chuch/state, and civil rights laws by 6-3.

[DaveSZ]

8. I'm one of those

who believes that the number of justices on the court should be expanded.

Then, confirmation hearings would be less of a problem, and we wouldn't have one person like O'Connor being the deciding vote on every case.

[olddem43]

14. Ain't going to happen -

As you may recall, FDR tried it in the '30s and congress stopped him, so there is precedent.

[ChipperbackDemocrat]

10. GOOD! LETS KEEP IT THAT WAY

We're one or two justices away from all that going the other way.

The time to fix the hole in the roof is when the sun is shining..and the clouds are forming in the far horizon.

[athena]

34. They should have decided the 2000 vote based on the popular vote.

That would have been a good precedent, and much more democratic.

Does anybody know what will happen if the electoral vote is 269-269 (which isn't all that unlikely)?

[never_get_over_it]

7. I have two very different words

but I'll be nice and keep them to myself!

[quaker bill]

9. I have three

Get over yourself. Listen to their arguments sometimes. Have you ever noticed that they are largely couched terms like in "my vote", "my political convictions", "my beliefs", "my choice", "my rights". Ever notice that their arguments are almost never couched in concepts like "I will do what is best for my community".

I have this to say to left wing third party fans. Where's the Beef? I have been an anti-war activist in the liberal community for over 25 years. I have been hearing tales of how the left is going to rise up, form a third party and change the Country for all of the last 25 years. They are no closer today than they were 25 years ago. Get over yourself, it is not going to happen.

I say it is well past time that we on the left stopped preaching to the choir and started interacting with the congregation.

[JNelson6563]

11. Well said Bill

:toast:

Julie

[Zynx]

12. Good stuff.

[gaijin99]

21. So my vote isn't about my beliefs?

So people aren't supposed to vote for what they believe in, they're just supposed to say "I'm a progressive, therefore the Democrats get my vote". Bugger that for a lark.

Look, if Gore had really wanted the votes of the Nader supporters he could have gotten them. Instead of scolding the Nader voters as if they were naughty children witholding something that was rightfully his, he could have offered them reasons to vote. Offered to make Nader Secretary of the Interior, whatever. Instead Gore said "your votes belong to me, cuz my political party starts with a 'D', and if you don't vote for me you are just bad people".

Maybe, instead of scolding the bad defectors from the perfection that is the Democratic Party, you should be looking at why people don't want to vote Democrat. I'm voting Kerry this election, but I don't like it; and that's a problem. He's not a voice for liberals/progressives/whatever. We don't need a second Republican party, and that's what I see the Democrats turning into. So, no, I'm not happy with the Democrats, and I'm seriously wondering if I should bother going to the polls this November. Especially since I live in Texas, and even if I did vote for Mr. Lesser of Two Evils, it wouldn't make shit worth of difference.

[MichiganVote]

22. welcome gaijin

It may be disconcerting for voters to have found themselves in the position of supposedly voting for the lesser of two evils. We can't really know that as John Kerry does not have a track record in the role of a president. If the assumptions are that John Kerry will continue to provide tax relief to the wealthy, suspend the civil rights of supposed insurgents, extend no-bid contracts to companies making millions of $ in Iraq and fail to fund initiatives such as NCLB, then surely, there is no need for change.

If voters believe that a second term of George Bush is preferable to a new term with John Kerry, by all means, stay at home. But before voters determine what John Kerry will or will not do, voters owe it to themselves to demand more acocuntability from the current administration for the past four years and what exactly is planned for the forthcoming 4 years.

Everyone's vote counts but only if its utilized.

Maybe instead of looking in the past, the Reform Party or the Green Party will work hard following this election to build more base support for the next election. As it is, here we are.

Personally, I believe that if Bush is elected, voters will have the same discussion in 4 years that we are having now.

[JI7]

25. the point is that they are NOT the only liberals

many who supported gore and now support kerry ARE LIBERALS . they are more liberal than most of the country is. but they don't go around thinking they are more important than others.

what is this "how about ME" "what do you have to offer ME" ? they seriously need to get over themselves. even with joe lieberman as vice president candidate i had no question on whether to support gore and i speak as someone who is liberal . gore is prochoice, supproted environment, he supported gay rights. for people who claim to be liberal but don't think these issues are enough to vote for the candidate over bush they really DO need to get over themselves.

[gaijin99]

31. of course its about you, geez

what is this "how about ME" "what do you have to offer ME" ? they seriously need to get over themselves.

We seem to be miscommunicating here, either that or we have vastly different views on reality. Asking "what about my political desires" is the only question a person should be asking when he votes. It *is* all about you, that's what a democracy is all about. If a politician isn't in favor of what I'm in favor of, why should I give him my vote?

That's my central argument against the idiot "two party" system we have. With only two parties, there really isn't representation for most people, you just go with the ones you dislike the least. Compare to any nation with a parlamentary system <1> where there will be several (more than 5 or 6) political parties, so people can truly vote *for* a politician instead of voting against the guy the dislike the most.

gore is prochoice, supproted environment, he supported gay rights. for people who claim to be liberal but don't think these issues are enough to vote for the candidate over bush they really DO need to get over themselves.

All of those are social liberal issues, and while they're important, they are not critical. Right now we are getting massively screwed because corporations are legally accorded the same rights as individuals, our system of legalized bribery (so cutely called "campaign contributions") is killing off all political choice, and a full time job does not actually earn a living wage. Those are the issues that are absolutely critical, and no one is talking about them. Social liberalism is important, but economic liberalism is critical.

<1> Not that parlamentary systems don't have their own problems, but I do think they have fewer problems, or if not fewer, at least a better class of problems.

[JI7]

36. no, it's NOT all about ME

[JI7]

27. talking among each other

yes, many times i notice what some liberals do is just talk among themselves on what should happen and they demand politicians do or say anything they want and if they don't they attack the politicians.

but rarely do they go out and get the PEOPLE involved to form a greater coalition of people to support a cause. this requires speaking to those who don't already agree with you and many times will disagree. it's hard work, but it's how to get real change. don't just expect politicians to do as you want. try to get people to support a cause or agenda so politicians know they can get support and elected by campaigning on that cause.

and when you speak to others you also don't speak to them in the same way. you have to understand where that person is coming from and speak in a way they can understand and connect with the issue you speak of.

[bywho4who]

13. One sided mind's

Make me laugh, instead of acting like a KNOWITALL maybe you should consider what they know that you don't like the oil-connection condi knows.




:smoke: :hippie:

[NWHarkness]

15. Chief Justice Clarence Thomas

Think about it.

[WI_DEM]

16. thankfully most liberals are voting for Kerry

according to Zogby 85% of liberals. By the way, more "conservative" democrats are not voting for Kerry than liberals, but ofcourse, all we hear about are the liberals who might not be voting for Kerry. They might be voting for Nader or Cobb while the conservative dems are more likely voting for Bush.

[Scorpious_Maximus]

17. Move Out?

[iamjoy]

18. Nader Could Have Tried For the Nomination

I mean, he could have run as a Democrat, trying to get the nomination. If he'd won, he would know that most Democrats and liberals really wanted to take the party in the direction he wanted to go. Alternatively, he could have been out campaigning for Kucinich (he said if Kucinich got the nomination he wouldn't run).
He could have then used the delegates to push for real liberal reforms in the Democratic party platform.

No, Ralph Nader is not interested in helping the Democratic party change and doesn't really care about the future of the country, or else he is just not thinking long term.

As for Judicial Nominees - we can't hope Bush will appoint a Souter. Look at his District Court, etc nominees - one man who called cross burning a prank and another who said women should be subordinate to their husbands.

[WyLoochka]

19. The Supreme Court is THE

number one issue - or at least it should be for all of us.

Rehnquist and Stevens are almost certain to have to retire due to age during the next four years. Ginsburg has colon cancer - who knows. Others could develope health problems that could force them to retire. If Bush is elected, he will be able to replace vacancies with Scalia-Thomas clones.

THAT will lock in right wing, corpo-theo, fascist policies for the next thirty to forty years.

It won't matter who we elect as Prez or who we elect for Congress. We could elect a 75% progressive Congress and Paul Krugman as Prez - won't matter.

A right wing, fascist Scalia Court would seize the opportunity to increase it's own power ove the other two branches and knock down any new legislation and re-set precedent on old legislation that doesn't coincide with it's pro-feudal, new dark ages wordview. There will be absolutely nothing we will be able to do about it short of shedding alot of blood to go in there and physically take the bastards out.

It's ALL on the line in this election. It is NOT an overstatement.

[gaijin99]

20. Kerry...

Look, I'm voting for Kerry this coming election, but don't try to make me feel good about it. He's a corporate tool, he has no intention of trying to make us independent of oil, he won't even talk about a living wage, etc. Essentially Kerry is going to be Clinton all over again: a bit of "I feel your pain", and no action.

I'm voting for Kerry because there isn't any viable alternative, but I'm really not sure I should. Four more years of Bush might be what we need to get someone from the Democratic branch of the Democratic party elected. The Democrats seem so worried about trying to sway wavering Republicans that they've utterly abandoned the principles they once stood for.

During Bush's selection, neither Kerry nor Edwards, or any other "Democratic" Senator would sign the various black House member's protests of Bush's selection, and without a Senatorial signature the protests were not allowed to be heard. When *that* is what we have in the Senate, it doesn't surprise me that Bush gets to ride roughsod over the Constitution, they're helping him do it. Why should I be enthuiastic for Kerry?

If John Kerry were to propose a declaration of energy independance, to start movement towards a fully funded SEC, encorcement of the Anti-Trust laws, a living wage, etc I'd be a rabid Kerry supporter. As it is I'm holding my nose and voting for him because I dispise him less than I dispise Bush. Hell, if Kerry went for even one of the things on that list I'd support him. But he won't because he's owned by the same people who own Bush.

So whoopiee, if Kerry gets elected we'll have some moderate conservatives instead of radical conservatives nominated for the Supreme Court. Why is it that I'm not enthused by this, and what do I have to do to get real liberals on the Court?

[drumwolf]

24. welcome to DU, gaijin99!

You want to know "what do I have to do to get real liberals on the Court" and to get a president who isn't "owned by the same people who own Bush."

The answer to that question will involve us doing a lot of work which will, for the most part, have little to do with electing Democrats to office.

In the '50s, '60s, '70s and '80s, right-wing conservatives did far more than just simply vote for Republicans (or Dixiecrats, as the case may have been) -- they built a whole grass-roots network of think tanks, organizations, and political activism at the very local levels. They built such a powerful ideological base that they were eventually able to move the entire country's political landscape rightward, forcing the Dems to become just as corporate and establishment as the Rethugs in order to stay viable.

We need to be doing the same thing, and we've already started doing so in the past couple of years. Organizations like MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and Democracy For America are a very good start, and you might consider donating your money and/or time to these organizations.

Also, in my hometown of San Francisco, the Greens have been getting involved in local elections like the school board, very much the same way that the Christian Coalition did in the Midwest when they first started out. You might consider doing that too -- even though it's completely unglamorous, it's very effective in the long run.

Voting is always important, but if there's one thing I've learned in the past couple of years, it's that voting is only a PART of the political process. At this point, we need to be involved in the long-term building of the Left for the future, and in the meantime voting primarily to keep the extreme wingnuts in check.

[JI7]

26. what a bunch of crap

Kerry has the best record on the environment of any politician out there. he HAS pushed for many ways to conserve energy and alternative sources of energy. it's one of his biggest issues. the fact that even after all that you claim he is a coroporate tool and wont do anything to change things says a lot about people who claim to be liberals or progressives yet feel the need to attack those who have tried to get things done and write them off as nothing more than corporate tools.

this is a democracy. one person can't do it all. it requires working with people who don't agree with you to get things done. those who TRULY ARE progressives do that work, they spend years trying to get things done. there is another group who claim to be liberals or progressives yet all they do is spout things but they don't actually want to do the work in getting things done which require working with thsoe who don't agree and making compromises.

[gaijin99]

28. disagree

Yup, Kerry has "pushed for many ways to conserve energy". His bold vision calls for eventually (by 2020) converting America to a whopping 20% renewable energy. I'm not impressed. That isn't "Energy Independence" (though he calls it that on his website), that's just plain pathetic.

Look, I'm voting for the guy, and there's no doubt in my mind that he'll be better than Bush, but "better than Bush" isn't really that hard. But don't try to tell me that he's a good candidate for liberals. He doesn't want to talk about a living wage, he wants to use *yet*more* corporate tax cuts to "encourage" good corporate behavior instead of bloody well mandating good corporate behavior, etc.

*Of*Course* he'll be better on the environment than Bush is, but again, what have you said? Is he going to push for Kyoto <1>, his website doesn't even mention Kyoto, so I think we can safely assume he's not going to bother with it.

My point here is not that Kerry is some sort of evil boogyman. My point is that he is yet another Clintonesque Wimpocrat, afraid to even mention the things that the fanatic right hates. He won't talk about campaign finance reform (much less publicly funded elections), he doesn't want to talk about corporate abuses (he hasn't dared to use the word "breakup", or even talk about limiting mergers), etc.

So we get Kerry, and we get a 4 year reprieve from things getting worse, but I don't see him doing anything to make things better. Not getting worse is nice, but we're seeing a ratchet effect here: if things get worse sometimes, and when they don't get worse they stay the same, we see a net worsening of everyone's quality of life. It is not enough that Kerry stop tightening the screws on us, he's got to loosen 'em; and I don't see him doing that.

He voted for the "USA PATRIOT" act, he voted for Bush's war, why the hell do we need Democrats voting for Bush's crap? We've already got Republicans to do that for us, why do we need two Republican parties? In his favor he did vote against Bush's massive tax giveaway to the elite, but now he's only talking about repealing some of it, instead of all of it.

Essentially, my point here is that I'm voting for the guy, but I don't like him, nor do I trust him to do what's necessary. Those of us who are genuinely liberal need to make it plain to him, and the Democratic party, that we aren't to be taken for granted, that making the Democratic party "moderate" via a rush to the right is not acceptable. If they want our votes they've got to deliver the goods. I'll vote for him this election, but if he won't pay back liberal voters with liberal policy, why should we vote for him in 2008? If we make that perfectly plain now, he may actually do something for us. Maybe.

<1> And let's not forget that Kyoto must be seen as the first baby step in the right direction, not a cure.

[JI7]

30. whatever

he has talked about many of the things you claim he hasn't talked about so i can't take this post too seriously. as for kyoto, hesupports a stronger treaty which would actually DO something about global warming. kyoto does not include china and india which need to be brought in if one wants to actually do something to stop global warming rather than just symbolic things. he knows that many large pollution causing businesses move their plants to places like china and india where there are no standards and where they are not accountable. it's because he understands this that he supports a stronger treaty which he has talked about many times.

[JohnKleeb]

32. how a man like Kerry becomes known as a wishy washy moderate is

beyond me, call me when I can get a guy like him in the senate. Kerry isnt far left but hes in a different wing of the party than Clinton was I think, many people I know who supported Kerry early on supported him because he was what they had wanted instead of Clinton, I am not ripping on Bill but I'll be honest, I like Kerry better.

[Poiuyt]

23. Third word...Draft

I've found that that wakes up the younger voters

[JohnKleeb]

29. I have two better words

but I wont say it.

[arwalden]

33. Single-Issue Voters With A One-Track Mind Cannot Think...

... that far into the future. It's only their selfishness and inflated sense of self-importance, and their desire to punish and seek revenge that motivates them.

They aren't as dumb as we would believe they are. Indeed, they feed off of the attention that we pay to them every time they defiantly announce their intentions to vote for Nader (or to not vote at all).

Screw them. I'm not gonna waste my time flattering them and begging them for their god damned vote. Fucking myopic egotistical selfish bastards.

My time would be better spent convincing other more rational folks why they should vote for Kerry and to convince traditional non-voters to get involved.

If you're going to vote for Nader to punish Kerry and Edwards, the go on and do it! Just shut the fuck up about it and quit trying to get the rest of us (who actually give a damn) to pay attention to you and stroke your ego.

-- Allen

[Happy Eddie]

35. One Wimpocrat with mayo

What's so horrible with having another Wimpocrat? If John Kerry is as good a president as Bill Clinton, I'll consider this election a pretty good job. I personally expect that he will be a better president.

And I love the first two words in this thread: Supreme Court. (rpannier, you rock!) The United States could survive a couple of Replonk misfires of the David Souter variety, but the chances of getting another Justice Souter out of a * nomination are zippo. He knows where to get Clarence Thomas simulacra, and any more of them and the whole country goes in the tank and stays there.