CNN poll 99% don't believe middle class is being represented.

[cheshire]

[cthrumatrix]

1. shocking.... that spells revolution to me

[cthrumatrix]

36. always remember this !

[freetobegay]

2. If thats true then why is the nation divided?

Just another poll that doesn't mean a thing.

[ComerPerro]

3. Amazing, isn't it

By that, I mean the power of projection that Republicans demonstrate.

They have somehow managed to convince themselves that the Democrats are at fault for this. They think the reason that the President, who is Republican, both branches of Congress, which are controlled by Republican, and the Supreme Court, which appointed Bush in the first place, are somehow not able to set policy because of Democrats?

What is wrong with these people.

When will they wake up and realize that Republicans don't do anything for the middle class BECAUSE THEY DON'T GIVE A SHIT!!!!!

[michaelzef]

5. supreme court

is still controlled by the Dems. But if * gets reapointed we will lose that too.

[Walt Starr]

7. WRONG, the SCOTUS is 5 Hard Line Republicans vs.

4 moderate Democrats.

ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT ARE ABSOLUTELY CONTROLLED BY REPUBLICANS!

[Jacobin]

8. Um, SCOTUS picked Smirk by 5-4 (in essence) vote

Five hard core conservatives on the bench.

[michaelzef]

10. supreme court

Then why do women still have the right to choose?

[cheshire]

12. Because the president is sitting on the fence. Limp dick

[michaelzef]

13. supreme court

If the scotus is already repuke then why do we care who wins this election?

[cheshire]

14. A number of them are retiring soon. 3 or 4

[michaelzef]

15. supreme court

And you don't think there would dramatic changes if Bush appointed all of them?

[cheshire]

17. Yes that is why it is so important. Have you lost your train of thought or

have I?

[michaelzef]

20. train of thought

My point is that we control the supremes and have a lot more to lose than the $%$##% do. If Kerry wins and appoints 3 or 4 what changes could I expect outside of keeping the status-quo (choice,non-segregration seperation of church & state - etc.).

[cheshire]

21. If we control the supremes then it is our fault * is in office. We control

nothing there that I see. I like some of the status-quo as a women and I don't want those asses letting another F**k get in the WH.

[spooky3]

37. If that is not an argument that conservatives are the true "activists",

I don't know what is. Thanks for pointing out that it is RWers like Scalia and Thomas and Rehnquist who would make radical changes to careful precedent, by misinterpreting the Constitution and the intent of Congress.

The SCOTUS currently has 4 judges who lean moderate-left (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer), 3 who are hard-right (names above), and 2 who lean moderate-right (Kennedy, O'Connor). Please note that ONLY TWO of them were appointed by Democrats (Ginsburg & Breyer), unless I am mistaken. When the first four vote together (which they do not always do) and are joined by either Kennedy or O'Connor (both appointed by Repubs.) then the court may take what YOU might call a "Dem" position. But by no means can you convincingly argue that Democrats control the court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/wp042898.htm

[svan81]

27. Actually, sometimes...

O'Connor is the swing vote. She is conservative, but sometimes O'Connor sides with the moderates.

Anyways, just because the simple mathematics show that the court is more conservative doesn't mean that the court will always hand out conservative decisions.

Many, including myself, believe that Justice Stevens(the senior liberal Justice) is the true leader of the court. He is instrumental in putting the rule of law ahead of his own political beliefs in getting majorities. With his influence on the bench, we liberals have a strong ally. He is a fundamental reason that women still have a right to choose. But he is getting old, as he said himself, and when he is no longer a Supreme Court Justice, you can rest assured that curious George will nominate someone like "Justice" Scalia.

And as you can see in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, both Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy are pro-choice even though both of them are conservative.

I've only taken one Constitutional Law class in law school, so some of you other DU lawyers might know more about this than me.

Pace..

Pace...

[guitar man]

23. Because they know

If they were to come right out and ban all abortions, they would never win another election. It is one of the biggest planks in their platform and they would be substantially weakened if they didn't have the issue to whine about.

[michaelzef]

30. CHOICE

That works both ways

[MissMarple]

33. Sandy Day is helping hold the line.

You need to read some more, sweetheart.

[aquart]

35. Because we still have the right to vote.

[oasis]

25. That's why SCOTUS appointed Chimpy. Makes sense to me.

:eyes:

[Green Lantern]

24. Might I suggest

a read of "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Tremendous book and shows how the RP uses its' "victimization and powerlessness" to sway voters.

Great read.

[ComerPerro]

28. LOL

Read it, have it. Great book.

I am laughing, because I have reccomended this book to three people earlier today. It seems to be getting quite a buzz around here all of a sudden.

[Green Lantern]

32. The author

really nailed it, I think-well worth the time and money!!!

[thinkingwoman]

4. the culprit

is gerrymandering.

It's not that big of a word and it's not hard to teach the masses what it means.

Oh, and it's bipartisan. ;-)

Somebody with some power and a platform should be taking it and running with it. It could make a difference.

[fishface]

6. But these same idiots will vote for Bush..

[cheshire]

9. Do you also rain on parades and tell happy children their dog died.

[fishface]

16. No..but I won't tell them it's raining as Bush is pissing

on their legs either.

[cheshire]

18. There is a difference between upbeat and dragging everyone down

[fishface]

19. You live in your fantasy world,I'll live in mine..nt

[cheshire]

22. Well seeing how I started this post get out of my fantasy please. LOL

[Feanorcurufinwe]

11. Fewer than half will...

[in_cog_ni_to]

26. Which Multi-Millionaires did they poll for THAT poll?

90%....that is just ridiculous.

[napi21]

29. Saw this on Lou Dobbs. He said this is the strongest poll results

he's ever had! The actual question was (paraphrase) "Do you believe your are being served well by your representatives in Wash?" I got the impression it meant the House and Senate.

I realize those results are only people who watch Lou's show, so I don't know how slanted it is. It it's indicative of the majority of Americans, maybe there will be a lot of people who vote against the incumbant, whoever it is.

[cthrumatrix]

34. I'm telling you...the people are not reflected in these pres. push polls

they don't like awol at all.

[LimpingLib]

31. Gee I wonder why? (sarcasim of the century)

Im honestly wondering why even 50% turnout.

I used to moan about how small turnout is compared to other similar nations.

Then I look at the Canadians robust debate of issues and the left fighting hard for canidates (with over 70% turnout) and then look at the mush in our nation and honestly start to feel fortunate that even 50% turnout.

If on a scale of 1-10 (with each number represent 10% turnout) , Canada gets a 7 for voter heart and representation of progressive issues , then we should get a (going to be very charitable here) 2 max.

So if the formula works , then we should have a max turnout of say 20% . And thats about who is represented , the top 20% of income earners (usually leaches like defence contrators and other government blood suckers or better said-elite parasites who suck the life out of average people through government with average folk being the suckers).