Before you decide not to support our nominee, check out John Dean's warning

[dragonlady]

I've been reading John Dean's latest book, Broken Government: How Republican Rule Destroyed the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches. People who say they will never support X if he or she becomes the Democratic nominee need to carefully consider what that would mean, beyond Iraq and Iran, beyond tax giveaways to the rich and the military contractors. Dean points out how the far right has been disabling our entire government. The judicial branch and the crowning jewel, the Supreme Court, are especially in peril: "Republicans are not satisfied with a conservative federal judiciary; they want a fundamentalist one, and they are frighteningly close to achieving that goal."

Dean lists numerous areas that could undergo radical change if the right gets another hard-core fundamentalist justice on the Court:

Abortion: Limit Roe v. Wade gradually by creating exceptions that ultimately make it meaningless.

Affirmative Action: Abolish programs to address past racial discrimination because the Constitution should be "colorblind."

Bill of Rights: Reverse many rights that were applied to the states by judicial interpretation of the federal Fourteenth Amendment. Examples: States could establish a religion and censor speech; state and local police could forget about Miranda warnings and search-and-seizure principles.

Civil Rights: Overturn laws against discrimination on the basis of race or sex. ("Fundamentalists do not believe that the equal protection language of the Fourteenth Amendment even applies to women, so the government can discriminate against women as it sees fit.")

Cruel and Unusual Punishment: Interpret the Eighth Amendment to allow capital punishment and torture.

Environmental Protection: Strike down environmental legislation as a governmental taking of private property, and throw out the EPA because it has no constitutional foundation.

Free Speech: Allow government to punish dangerous or unacceptable speech.

Gay Rights: Follow Scalia’s lead as expressed in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas: "Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct...."

Guns: Rule that most gun control laws are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

Habeas Corpus: Cut off all rights of state prisoners to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus in federal court.

Religion: Allow states to establish a religion, impose taxes to support it, and require prayers in schools and at public events. Fundamentalists find no constitutional basis for separation of church and state.

Sex: Crack down on "obscenity" as defined by fundamentalists. Allow states to enforce laws against sodomy and other sexual practices (oral sex, birth control), even if consensual.

Standing to Sue: Make it increasingly more difficult to bring lawsuits in federal courts, for example against federal agencies; narrow the ability to obtain information under the Freedom of Information Act.

Voting: Cut back on the one-person, one-vote concept and restrict the Voting Rights Act (which Clarence Thomas thinks fosters "political apartheid").

[flyarm]

1. THEN LETS VOTE IN A CANDIDATE we can all support with no hesitation

and one that can win..

without a doubt..not one that the media tells us they want ....

lets do our own thinking here..

lets get a nominee with not all the baggage that can sink them easily...or be swift boated easily.

fly

[skipos]

7. I'm not looking to fight, but who is such a candidate? It ain't Hillary, but it ain't Kucinich. nt

[flyarm]

18. I beleive in listening to them all before deciding..and waiting till the first primary..

they can make mistakes and either help themselves or not..i will never get myself into cement on any candidate..i may have my favorite..but i don't get all in a snit about who i want..i want most of all the best candidate that can win..and who i think is best for the country..

i am nation first..not candidate first...

of course that is only dem candidate..but i want to hear them all out in detail first.

fly

[Mme. Defarge]

37. Does it really matter

if we all support a Democratic candidate that the Democratic Party leadership will not support? Our last two candidates won their elections but never held office. Does anyone here seriously entertain the notion that the Democratic Party would actually support Kucinich or Edwards when the election of either of these candidates is inevitably challenged?

[alfredo]

2. That's pretty grim.

Do I have your permission to copy your post and use it in an e-mail? I will attribute it to a poster at Democratic Underground.

[dragonlady]

9. Sure thing.

This material comes from the section starting on page 166 in Dean's book if anybody is interested.

[alfredo]

12. Thanks. thanks for the page number.

[liberalla]

27. I heard him discuss this in interviews with either Randi or Keith

I loved his previous book. It went a long way to explain to me the backward, obstinate, robot like thinking of those 25% Repubs still supporting bush. Authoritarian personality.

It was like a light going on. :think:

I hope to get to this new book in the near future. Thanks for the post, and I agree. I'm an Independent voting straight Democrat.

[Greyhound]

3. Would this finally be enough to scare the sheeple into action?

Face it, the SCOTUS we have, thanks in large part to Democratic collusion, will fuck this country up for the rest of our lives if it is allowed to exist in its present form.

I haven't heard any candidate suggest that they would increase the number of justices and pack the new, larger, SCOTUS with liberal justices and all that you mentioned will likely happen regardless of who is appointed in the future if the number remains 9. I was concerned about SCOTUS nominees when it mattered and was roundly criticized for daring to call our fifth columnists what they are.

Now it is too late, so who cares?

BTW, which candidates sat on their hands and let this appalling situation happen while crying crocodile tears and "keeping their power dry"? Now we will all reap what we let them sow.

[aquart]

22. Not if you keep calling your fellow Americans "sheeple."

Because that snide superior tone puts people right off.

[Greyhound]

42. Who cares? It may have escaped your notice, but a significant percentage of

the sheeple are now literally too stupid to live.

They will blindly follow whatever "media icon" that comes within their view through the omnipotent, ever present, surrogate parental figure, television.

A machine that's operation is beyond their comprehension and, therefore, falls within the realm of the magical. We have spawned a population incapable of thought, and while they may well be put off by the moniker presented on an obscure message board, we could dub them such on a "network spectacular" and they would embrace it as an exaltation of their inherent superiority.

They are no longer my fellows, for they have willingly, nay anxiously, surrendered their birthright of liberty for the illusion of a living, and further, have doomed their children to a life of appalling ignorance and, inevitably, slavery, all for the "American Dream" (a dream, BTW, that they have forgotten the meaning of).

Given half a chance, I would escape this cesspool so fast that my shadow would have to catch up, as I hope to watch the disintegration of this perversion from a safe distance.

[DesertRat]

4. kick and rec. n/t

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. This is an excellent synopsis...

I recently heard him talk, and he covered much the same material...

He also said that we not only need to win in 2008, but several election cycles after that...

K&R

[skipos]

6. Too bad many DUers will claim there is "no difference" between our 08 candidate being elected

and the Repub candidate being elected. They said Bush=Gore in 2000. They will spread the same lies in 2008.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

8. Then we must do everything in our power

To make sure the facts are broadcast far and wide...

There are many differences, and this thread shows that extremely well...

[saracat]

10. Doesn't it depend who the nominee is? What if it is someone who can't be trusted to

protect any of those rights? Just asking.

[dragonlady]

14. That's true, but none of the Republican candidates

would be better than the least of ours.

The last page of Dean's book contains this advice from an anonymous life-long Republican of much experience in Washington: "People should not vote for any Republican, because they're dangerous, dishonest, and self-serving."

So I think the decision is pretty clear. (I discard the notion of not voting at all--that's a cop-out.)

[saracat]

28. Well, other than writing in a true Democrat, in certain situations , I am not sure our vote would

matter.But fortunately it seems that that situation would be rare and I am praying it does not happen this cycle.

[truedelphi]

11. Okay I understand John Dean's reasoning. But before I vote for a candidate they have

To at least somewhat appease those moral stances taken by Dennis Kucinich.

I want a candidate who is not pro-War. And I want Single Payer.

If the nominee ends up not being Dennis Kucinich, then I hope enough of the Progressive Democrats
join me in making it clear to the nominee that we need concessions made.

In the old days, politicians made concessions. Gore refused to make any in 2000 -not a single concession - and thus people splintered off to vote for Nader.

Maybe the 2008 candidate will learn from this?

Anyway I hope that is the case.

[HughMoran]

15. What if you don't get that?

Will you throw out the baby with the bathwater?

[truedelphi]

19. I'm the daughter of an accountant

We have blown our spending money for the next fifty years on a war that needs to be stopped immediately.

If we don't stop that war immediately, then there aren't going to be schools. You cannot hav asomething if there is no money to budget for it. There aren't going to be bridges or roads capable of having traffic travelling over them. I mean, our infrastructure is collapsing around us.

We need to restore the middle class so that we have fairness in the income tax - or better yet - let's put the income tax if we continue to have it, fairly on the shoulders of the elite - and not on someone who makes 30 K or less.

I am not going to vote for someone who gives me half a baby and pretends that that half a baby is a full baby.

I want a sustainable life. If there is no Democratic candidate p
Get an education on what the Federal Reserve game is really about. What the 1916 class warfare victory for the rich really was. (hint - a measure never ratified and unConstitutional but eliminating food and/or heat and/or medicine from the mouths of those who are working class.

Why does Hillary meet with Murdoch but not with the candidate information groups that Proud2BLib setup?? That was an eyeopening topic. It was especially disheartening to have other DU'ers say the same thing happened to them - that they set up candidate awareness nights, and got no Hillary, no representative of Hillary's, and not even any flyers from Hillary.

[HughMoran]

20. Mine was kind of a rhetorical question

I agree with your position on the war, but if you think that not voting for a Democrat is going to be good when a Republican gets in office, then you will be beside youself angry when your ideals are thrown even farther out the window. I can't guarantee that the next Dem will stop the war immediately (as we all want), but I can tell you that a Republican will surely annex Iraq for all eternity - no matter how much it cost or how many lives are wasted (life is more important than money!).

[aquart]

23. So you'll give the right a gift if left isn't left enough for you?

My, that's true Nader patriotism.

[truedelphi]

24. What many people do not realize is that it was David Cobb and

Ralph Nader who kept alive the re-count in Ohio and who kept the pressure on and that helped to see that the shenanigans against the election were investigated.

Kerry backed away. And Hillary chided Edwards for his "grandstanding" - far better to have him shut up and let Kerry Concede than to have a contest that might put Kerry into the WH and keep her locked out until 2013.

SO my statement to you is that I am insignificant in terms of handing a gift to the WH. But Hillary handed a major gift to the WH - between her boy Carville whispering into Kerry's ear and her scolding Edwards, and the resulting Kerry concession. That was some gift. For that reason alone, I cannot vote for her.

[aquart]

29. Rationalize all you please.

Now it's that you are "insignificant" so wasting your precious vote won't matter.

Sorry. If you refuse to support the party nominee, you are in complete disrespect of democratic process.

[truedelphi]

32. Pleaase re-read my comment and THINK about it.

Where was Hillary during the elction mess of November 2004?

Remember that in early January of 2005, it was Senator Barbara Boxer of California that opposed certifying the election. And Senator Clinton was nowhere to be found on the issue.

But what I am saying is true.

Hillary had her boy Carville convincing Kerry that he should concede, that there were not enough ballots remaining. (In fact, because of the continuing Ohio investigations, some of us voting activists now beleive that there were probably 400,000 ballots in question -certainly enough to give Kerry the votes he needed.)

And she and she alone got on the phone and scolded Edweards for his determination to see that Kerry not concede.

We have had Bush in the WH in part because of this woman.

And I would rather be someone rationalizing the situation than being an out and out apologist, as you are being.

And yes, in terms of an election, my actions are far less important than the actions of women like Hillary and Boxer. They are after all, Senators, and can get a national audience. They can release press statements and be interviewed. If you ever want to read some modern words of courage, read Barbara Boxer's address to the Senate concerning her non-certifying the stolen election.

[leftynyc]

33. Let me get this straight

You're just going to stomp your feet and pout? Do I have that right?

[truedelphi]

34. I am not voting for Hillary. Period.

And in certain terms my vote for an alternate doesn't matter, California goes Democratic every Presidential election and because of the electoral college situation, I can vote for whoever I want.

[leftynyc]

35. Even if you didn't live in California you

could vote for who you want - who said no? Meanwhile, you already sound like you're making excuses.

[truedelphi]

41. There is nothing wrong with excuses. Sometimew whether something is an excuse or an explanation is

In the eye of the beholder.

"Hatred never ceases by hatred;
But by love alone is healed.
This is an ancient and eternal law.”

Voting for what I consider to be WRONG will not bring about what I envision as RIGHT.

Endorsing one who I deem is not worthy of consideration will cheapen me and not strengthen anyone else.

[NewJeffCT]

36. I'm an accountant by trade

Our debt level to GDP is "only" 64.7% of our total GDP. GDP is Gross Domestic Product, which measures the entire nation's economic output. We still have a ways to go before our debt becomes unsustainable... that said, we're definitely headed in the wrong direction and need to restore the world's confidence in our economy by reducing debt.

Japan's ratio of debt to GDP is 177.6% of GDP. How can this be? Japan has very little poverty and manages to give their citizens excellent universal healthcare. The difference is not just military spending - it's just that their government is far more efficient in their use of money and their tax structure is fairer than ours.

Other major economies:
Italy: 106.7% ratio of Debt to GDP
Singapore: 98.3%
Greece: 82.4%
Germany: 67.8%
France: 64.2%
UK: 42.7%
China: 22.1%
Sweden: 47.8%
Canada: 67.7%

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2186rank.html

[robinlynne]

13. I met him. He is a hard-core Hillary supporter. He also doesn't believe the

past three elections were stolen.

Just saying. Take his teachings with a grain of salt.

[lyonn]

38. Hummm? If Dean is a Hillary supporter I may have to

soften my views of her! Dean and others in the field of law know how critical the next nominations to the SC will be. I have not noticed that Dean favored any Dem. Just that Any Dem will save the courts. But I'm willing to listen to others that could have more info on the candidates than me.

If nothing else, I am voting against a repub when I vote.

[John Q. Citizen]

16. If the Dems won't impeach bush/chaney, I doubt they will impeach a supreme court Justice,

Even one who helped steal an election.

But yeah, it's really important to elect a Dem who would vote to impeach, I agree.

Because if they won't support our constitutional system, then just who the hell would they appoint? Obviously not a someone who would support our constitutional system.

I think your assumption that all our candidates support judges who honor the constitution and oppose those that don't, is a little naive.

[dragonlady]

17. Which Republican candidate strikes you as a supporter of the Constitution? n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

31. Uh oh, you opened the door for a subthread about Ron Paul

[John Q. Citizen]

45. None. They all tolarate trashing the constitution, just as most of the Dems do.

The same people own the Repos who own (most of) the Dems. One would have to be extremely naive to believe otherwise.

And those people don't care about the constitution.

Ever read the Lewis Carrol poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter?"

[lyonn]

21. He has said this often on tv interviews

It told me that, no way should a person vote for another repub, and I suspect that if you voted for an independant that might be like voting repub. He talks like the only chance we have to save our rights, etc., is to vote democratic. For damn sure I am voting Dem, prefereably Biden....

[dragonlady]

25. Thanks for understanding this!

:patriot:

[Blackhatjack]

26. People who vote for candidates who cannot win to make a statement do this....

They treat the inherent value of their vote as nothing more than an opportunity to make an ideological statement about their allegiances and in many cases their unhappiness, while ignoring the practical results of utilizing their vote in this manner.

There are other ways to express moral outrage, public indignation, and ideological allegiance, than to 'waste' one's vote which may have real world consequences for all American citizens.

[orleans]

30. doesn't matter who i vote for in the primaries. i live in illinois--my guess

is obama

[Leopolds Ghost]

39. Huh? the current Supreme Court ALREADY overturned Brown v. Board of Education.

Never mind Affirmative action, the Court ruled that gov't
cannot act to desegregate schools, thus overturning Brown's
decision that schools be desegregated "with all deliberate speed".

Apparently people believe that if they hold their ears long enough,
it isn't true.

You want to imagine that something "much worse" is coming.

The end of the political world as you know it already happened.

Either that or people are jealously guarding their issues and
don't care about / advocate against (like many leftists)
school desegregation.

[Greyhound]

43. Damn, somebody has been paying attention.

Welcome to the "those people" club.:hi:
{:seenoevilsmiley: goes here}

[Johonny]

40. I think the complete breakdown

in the American economy is going to make it a lot harder for republicans to maintain power.

[AspenRose]

44. Kick

:kick: