Kerry to lead filibuster against Alito

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/27/alito/index.html

This is just moronic on the part of Kerry and the Dems who support him. I think that this will do more to hurt the party and America, because there is no way to prevent Alito's confirmation.

This may have more to do with Kerry's 08 presidential hopes. After Gore came out against Bush on MLK Day, I think that this scared the likes of Kerry and Hillary, and now they'll do all they can to be obstructionists to Bush and attempt to look like "leaders" in the Democratic Party, which will do nothing for moderates and normal democrats outside their base. Actions like this could ruin their chances of taking back control of the Congress in November.

 

This has alot to do witht he fact that a CNN/Gallup poll showed that 51% of people polled said "They definatly would NOT vote for Hillary" as opposed to 16% who would. This may give Kerry alittle hope.


Things are looking stronger for the Republicains, McCain and Guilliani had 20+ point lead over Hillary, and there is no one else in the field yet..At least with any money. Speaking of money, as of right now the Republicains have 6x the funds as the democrates. Its going to be rough fall for the leftest....

I though about sending Kerry a samurai sword to fall on....That seems to be what they want...

 

Isphan,

Is that sarcastic? I'm just wanting to be sure. Any way, why are Democrats necessarily "leftists?" I always get this image of communists and Lenin when I hear this term. I think that the moderate Democrats wouldn't consider themselve to be of the same fold.

 

Well in alot of senses yes.When I say leftest i mean folks on the left side of the ball, Democrates, Greens, Socialist, and Communist. I mean lets be honest, most of their social programs are socialist programs, not that the new medicare program isnt either but we have fallen onto the slippery slope by starting it in the first place..

I wasnt being sarcast though, I really think that without any message except that they hate Bush and the Repubilicains they dont stand a chance. They need real ideas, not this nonsense that has been going on since that Half Pint Daschell ran the show...

 

Well it seems as if Hillary doesnt want anyone scoring any points with the far left without her...



http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/386437p-327892c.html

 

Hillary

All I can say is........................

ARGHGHGHGHGHGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

She might carry California with all the wierdo's we have out here but I can't imagine that she has a chance anywhere else.

My Mother in law and Sister in law supported, not voted for since they do not vote, for Slick Willy cause he was " cute ".

Imagine that. I know people who despised him yet met him and they said that he was the most charming man they had ever met.

Luckily for us Hillary has none of that charm. She's smart but so are allot of other people out there.

Say what you will about Dub Ya and the Republicans that voted for him but using my in laws logic I guess they would vote for George Clooney or Peirce Brosnan to run the country.

I would guess that Hillary might just be the Walter Mondale or Michael Dukakis of the new millenium. ( Of course no one on the republican side is stirring any Reaganite type feelings in me either but that's another story altogether)

I personally think that the Republicans have to fear Obama Barak more than anyone else but then I kinda like him too........... and I'm a Republican

 

Actually I think obama may be the death of the dem party as we know it. This is just a theory i have tossed around, and gotten mixed results so no mega flaming, but feel free to cal it stupid.

As soon as the Democrates run legitimate black candidate, not a Sharpton or Jackson, there is going to be issues. Race is an issue no matter what, and I dont think we are as far along as people pretend. Just a personal observation. Anyway, if this legitimate candidate doesnt get the nod all hell is going to break loose. The Dems have made if habit to jump when the african american community says jump. Know i know the current conservative line is that they dont do anything for black, which is true, but they believe the dem take care of them, so thats all that matter. When this goes down there will be a split. This split will bring to more direct light the lack of participation of blacks at high level of the Democratic party and groups like the congressional black caucus will form an independent party to use there swing leverage to help there communities. Now, what happens to the Dems if they loose the black vote?? Since there are 34 million blacks in this country and the traditional american turnout is about 50% (that alittle nice) then they face loosing about 15 million votes nationwide. Also take in to account how the electoral college works, You need 50% of the electors. Totally devestating to the Democrates. Now being a Libertarian I would like to see this because It would help other thrid parties and start a more open process to alternative ideas.

Now this may seem to be a bit much, but I have gotten fairly supportive comments from friends who are democrates and alot of "I could see that happening..."


I would love feedback.

 

Maybe

Maybe in my old age I've gotten more tolerant. As a youngster I used to be a little to the right of Attila the Hun. Now I see that there is room for everybody to get in the boat and row for a common goal.

I think that one of the faults of the Dem's is that they look for saviors and they latch on when one comes along. I think that he/she WOULD get the nod but they would have to be more middle of the road and not too Liberal. this country still has a Conservative bent no matter what anyone says and only the two coasts vote Liberal on a consistent basis.

Also, the Dem's want to be all things to all people. The Republicans know who they are and make no bones about it.

It just SEEMS to me that as you pointed out the Dem's jump every time an African American says to. I don't think that the republicans would do so.

The same seems to be true for the Dem's when it comes to Hispanics.

Here in Los Angeles you would have thought that Jesus Christ himself was running for Mayor. City politics may be less partisan but Antonio is DEFINITELY a Democrat and the Dem's latched on to his being Hispanic in a big way. OK, OK, lots of Hispanics here in LA but then how come I was not swayed just because of that? I'm Hispanic!!!!

Don't get me wrong, James Hahn was no great shakes and he definitely lost the election on his own but I bet that if Antonio Villaraigosa had been another white guy the support would not have been as overwhelming, or passionate.

The real question is what would happen if the Republicans came up with a good, quality Black or Hispanic candidate.

Would the old guard be mature enough to vote for a minority if he/she was qualified? I would hope so.

 

Hi Bink:

Your question directed at Isphan is a good one. A simple answer would be the "say it enough times and the term sticks" Republican theory. The Republicans theory is to constantly batch all Democrats as extreme liberal leftists. They do this knowing full well there are plenty of moderate Democrats. The funny thing is, if you call a Republican a Neo Con Righty, they flip out, although I am sure the Ralph Reeds of the party love the title. Of course, Ralph would probably have the nerve to call himself a compassionate conservative.

Just my two centavos!


Abner

 

I agree. I'm an independent/moderate, who doesn't like Bush. As a result, a lot of times, people seem to think I'm a borderline communist, despite my conservative bliefs on the size and scope of government, and national defense issues. It's preposterous. And your right, I have no idea why its ok to label Dems as socialists, but if you call a republican a nazi or a religous zealot, then your being ignorant or cruel. Both analogies are foolish to make.

 

Exactly! Say it again brother!


Abner

 

Hi Bink

Dems are Socialists by definition. And, there is nothing inherently wrong with that. It just means they support government control of economic resources and redistribution of sociatal wealth. Conservatives, in comparison, support private control of resources and non-government social programs. They are defined by their realization that government often causes more problems than it solves. Comparing the socialist name tag with the Nazi name tag is inconsistent. The Nazis tried to murder/extengish several minority groups. Unless you think Conservatives want to do the same and are evil incarnate, the comparison is completely inaccurate.

 

Abner

"Neo con" has been made a pejorative similiar to "knee jerk ligeral". Both are labels used to diminish and attack the two groups. It seems reasonable that such labels are rebuffed.

 

That may be becaues in MOST forums of debate that position taken SEEM far left. I for the Record am not a Republicain. I am a card carrying Libertarian. Both partys are weight down in enough BS to sink a luxury liner. I cant be a Repubulicain because of the aformentioned Religious Nuts. If you go far enough right, you start to be alittle left. If you want firm party ground to stand on you have to join a third party.

As for Nazis and Commies...They really the extreme progression from both sides. I have yet to be called a neo-con, and whe I have heard friends called that they dont seem to have the same reation as Liberal when called a Socialist. But Remember, alot of things VOCAL dems are for. Social Welfar, Affermative Actions, Socialized Meds, Progressive Tax Structure..all those things are socialist ideals...

Where are the moderate Dems anyway. Why is it I only see Kerry, Clinton, and Pelosi on TV screaming an hollering. Its funny how the Dems best friend the press has really become there worst enemy. The best weay for a republicain to win is to give a democrate as much TV time as possible, hence why Kerry stopped chatting with reporters during the election. I fell out of my chair when the Grand Wizard Byrd came out for Alito this week. If you want a moderate image, get your moderates out there. Where is Joe Liberman, probabaly the most moderate and commons sense POLITICIAN in the Senate, and I know..he is a Dem...

As for the "say it enough and it will stick" dont even try to make that a R issue. What is the famous Democratic line " Its the seriousness of the charge" Same BS different group. The republicain love the work Liberal because is screams Immature and nieve (sp?). Is that fair, no. But in our modern world people want a hard a$$ to deal with the bad guys and its pretty clear that people dont feel that the Dems can do that.

I hate name calling myself. I pretty much assume victory as soon as someone calls me a name like racist or sexist. If people are calling you a communist or a socialist, then you should ask them the basis of there statement. NOW, its ok to ask if you are a commie or socialist based on your statements, but to make assumes..well we all know the saying about what happens when you assume.


I have said here once before, I believe everyone involved in debate and politics really does care, and you should never question that. We all have a different vision of what america really is and what the consequences and merits of that are.

 

Hey Lou

Why do you think Socialist is such a bad term? By all accounts that is exactly what Democrats believe in ie. taking care of the old, poor, sick, elderly, etc.

 

History seems to show us that when you count on the govt they let you down. Just finished studying for teh Rie and Fall of the Soviet Union and it re-enforced most of these beliefs. When you have socialism you take away the personal achievement. I my mind this is great if you are a low achiever or basicly a loser. I personally want ot be on my own as much as humanly possible. The history of the world has shown us over and over again that people who are dependent on other usually end up on the short end of the stick. Katrina anyone?

NOW, would I like a eutopia that takes care of everyone. Sure. I dont think any reasonable person want people to be cold, hungry or sick but a Eutopia is the same as saying I want to live in "Oz". A socialist system will never achieve that, only through personal growth and achievement can we provide for fellow man. I give to charity because I can. I give more because I have more now than say 3 years ago. The financial motivation to make new technology is really what effect people. Are there more people out of poverty now that we have Welfare? Are people on MediCare healthier? No. Everywere the govt has a hand they more offten than not drop the ball.You notice it only the parts of the govt that have intense personal accountablity are successful, like the military. Almost every democratic but socialist country in the world exist by OUR hand. They have to devote so much of there national budgets to entitlments that they dont have a military. wHy? Because they know the good ole' USofA will take care of them. France has a military budget that is 2% of the national budget.

Also, ask any one in canada how great the medical system is. My coworker is moving his mom here from canada because she has to wait so long for cancer treatment she would be dead. Socialist Medicine at work.

The democrates dont beileve in taking care of "depenents". They would rather give them fish than teach them to fish. Make them dependent so when they go to the ballot box they vote their pocket book, because that what people do. I guess if you want to be a govt dependent that socialism really is for you. I personally try to grow, educate myself, and work hard to achieve goals that socialist, and most of the time the Democrats, prefet to punish me for.

just my 3 and 1/2 cents worth

 

Hi

I wasn't arguing for Socialism merely saying that is what the Democratic view is. I can see the appeal it has but as you point out it is very impractical on many levels. Of course we now have republicans who also support social welfare so things become more confused. Got to love the 21st century!

 

Hi Lou:

You are entitled to your "Lift yourself up by the bootstraps" mentality. I even agree with you partially. However, for you to think you will never need some kind of outside assistance from the government is a little unrealistic. Counting on individuals to donate is not always feasible. I say this although I donate as much as I can. Through hard work I have made a pretty good life for myself.

In my line of work, I have seen very wealthy people lose their riches almost overnight due to a severe illness or unforseen tragedy. A split second accident can result in paralysis. At some point or another, they need assistance. Personal wealth is often not enough.

I do believe assistance should only be given to those who truly cannot make a living, or are of advanced age and cannot care for themselves.

This is just my opinion of course. I hope you never need any help beyond what you provide for yourself.

Best wishes to you,


Abner

 

I agree, but if our resources were spent more efficiently then we would be able to make a real difference for the people who really need it. Our current system has this tendency to try to take care of everyone who says they have an issue or made some sort of bad decision.

I dont know what you do for a living, but I cant imagine having your hopes and dreams smashed by some random and unforseen/uncontrollable event. Thats when the state should step in and help, and they can do better than SS/Disability that we currently have. Im sure it affect your heart regularly


I know people dont donate the way they should, or could. I think people would reassess their charity if they knew that the govt wasnt picking up the tab already. Many feel that it wil be taken care of by the state, and they will be paying for it indirectly anyway....

Now outside assistance in the form of good infrastructure, police, fire, and other groundwork services are very useful, so yes i use govt services also. I am also a HUGH support of govt financial aid for schools. Education truelly empowers..


Just a though...