heres the best reason to vote for Obama

[rdking647]

other than Obama there is no viable democratic candidate..
lets say the left gets so pissed off that they either stay home or in some other way manage to wound Obama so much that he loses.
the repukes win..
they could even win back the senate if its a big win.

there are currently 4 supreme court justices over age 70
breyer,ginsburg,scalia and kennedy.
2 liberals,a conservative and a centrist.

theres s good chance that at least 2 of them and possible all 4 would retire before the next presidential term ends..
do you really want the repukes to choose ginsburg or breyers replacement? wouldnt you rather see Obama chose scalias or kennedys replacement rather than the repukes?

[Safetykitten]

1. Oh. here we go...

[Javaman]

94. Want some?

:popcorn:

[leftstreet]

2. Sigh. Is it "But, but, Supreme Court Justices!" season already?

[BzaDem]

4. Why not? Why shouldn't that be every season? n/t

[tekisui]

8. Just a little early. If that is what we are falling to already, we're in for

a long, tough row to hoe.

[BzaDem]

11. How could it be early though? Future political victories mean nothing if the court just strikes all

legislation down that the victories produce.

For something to be "early," it would seem it would have to be "less true" earlier than later. But in this case, it is just as true now as it is later. Wouldn't it be a problem if there were ANY season where this weren't considered?

[tekisui]

18. Just saying.

It is true, but it was the argument most recently trotted out to keep Clinton supporters on board just after the Primaries. If the SCOTUS picks are the argument being used to keep the party together now, I am worried.

[BzaDem]

25. I don't really think that argument is needed to "keep the party together." After all, given that the

vast majority of the party supports Obama (many of which are unaware of the power of the Supreme Court to strike down most legislation), I don't think there is a problem "keeping the party together."

Now, there will ALWAYS be a small segment of the party (actually both parties) who will

a) never be satisfied with any actual elected Democrat (or Republican respectively), and
b) for some reason think the judicial branch isn't that important.

This group tends to be overrepresented on political boards of all stripes. Any education that can be provided in that respect is always a good thing, regardless of the season.

[tekisui]

28. If the argument is being trotted out regularly on political boards now,

than is is troubling and a sure sign of where we are.

[Solomon]

86. Oh please. It's a damn good reason.

One of the most important.

[shraby]

5. Did you like what Bush got on the court? They were real

fair minded chaps weren't they? What do you think a republican president would put on there if one or two retired in the next presidential term?
That has to be part of the equation of my vote! As far as I'm concerned, they can just throw away the right side of the ballot that has republicans on. It's totally useless to me.

[BzaDem]

15. The sad part is that if the Nader strategy didn't cause Alito to be appointed, we would have one

additional buffer against the judicial end of progressive legislation.

Then again, this seems to have been exactly what Nader (and his remaining supporters) wanted, so perhaps their strategy is completely within their interests.

[Safetykitten]

7. BOO! A justice is calling from a phone...in YOUR house!

[ecstatic]

13. What issue of yours is more important than the Supreme

Court? I'm really interested in hearing this!

[leftstreet]

16. The Supreme Court determines wages?

This is news

[ecstatic]

36. What do you want to see wages increase to?

I'm curious. And do you know anyone who runs a small business? Wouldn't a better focus be ensuring that current and future students graduate with the ability to go to college or some sort of trade school so that they don't have to work minimum wage jobs?

[leftstreet]

39. What are you on about? You indicated that SC appts were #1 issue

Did you have some evidence, or even a theory, as to why voters would punch their ballots based on SC appts?

:shrug:

[BzaDem]

3. What people don't realize is that if Kennedy is replaced with another R, future political victories

won't really matter all that much. That 5 justice majority would simply strike down any major progressive legislative victory, for the next generation.

Of course, the perpetual bashers will eventually realize this, and realize the grave mistake of their strategy. They'll apologize profusely. But by then it would be too late. Unfortunately, they need to be protected from themselves before they cause damage.

[jpgray]

6. If Obama loses, isn't it his strategy that is to blame?

I wasn't aware that a tiny minority of voters has some sort of collusive power over the reaction of the entire electorate, such that it overwhelms Obama's responsibility as a candidate to get votes for himself.

[BzaDem]

9. No, it would not be his strategy (assuming Obama votes for himself). The PEOPLE are accountable for

the results of elections. If a small group of people swings a close election, it is BY DEFINITION their fault.

If Obama voted for his opposition, and the election in a state were lost by one vote, then of course it would be his fault. But I doubt Obama would do that.

[tekisui]

14. What fucking bullshit.

The people are accountable for the results. Blame the voter is a pathetic and feeble line of thought. It is the candidate's burden to earn the vote. If they fail at earning the support, the failure is on them. We would all like a more well-informed electorate, but that isn't the case. It is the responsibility of the candidate, in this case the President, to reach the voters and his supporters. If he loses it is because he failed.

[BzaDem]

19. Your first two sentences contradict themselves by definition. See high school civics.

If the people are accountable for the results (which they are), then the voter is EXACTLY where the blame goes. It certainly doesn't go anywhere else.

If you don't fully agree with this, I suggest (at a bare minimum) you look up what the word "accountable" means.

[tekisui]

26. Nah, You're just wrong. Weak excuse-based reasoning.

If the candidate can't reach the voter, they have failed in their objective. It isn't the fault of the voter that the candidate failed.

You are trying to adopt an authoritarian perspective, which is dangerous. Our elected representatives are accountable to us. Not vis versa. It is a beaten populace that acquiesces to their elected leader.

[BzaDem]

30. I still highly recommend you look up what the word "accountable" means.

You admitted the people are accountable for the results of elections. (Post 14: "The people are accountable for the results.")

Once you admitted that, your argument cannot be logically correct. It doesn't matter how many other sentences you write, or their content -- your argument is wrong by definition.

[jpgray]

35. Why do we have campaigns if the voters are responsible for all that pertains to elections?

There can be no good or bad campaigns, in that case--only good or bad voters. Your view on this is pretty preposterous--candidates spend millions upon millions to reach out to voters, and yes, that entails a pretty detailed and specific strategy. That strategy can be good or bad. If it loses the election, it is -bad-, presumably. A candidate too ineffably good for voters to elect isn't that good of a candidate.

[BzaDem]

45. "There can be no good or bad campaigns, then, only good or bad voters."

You are confusing two different things.

In a world where everyone is well educated and can make decisions without the aid of campaign propaganda, campaigns wouldn't even be needed. Voters would simply make decisions based on the party platform document (i.e. which party platform out of the viable ones is better).

Now of course, some people choose to be willfully ignorant (or at the very least do not do this research, or can't understand it enough to make a decision). And that is a major reason campaigns are needed.

But if a voter chooses not to decide on their own, and votes based off of a 5 minute soundbyte (or some other output of a campaign), they are ENTIRELY responsible for the outcome. The candidate might have run a bad campaign, but that just means they ran a bad campaign -- not that they are somehow responsible for the outcome.

[tekisui]

48. Candidates are absolutely responsible for the outcomes!

How the fuck could you suggest otherwise? Obama was praised for his amazing campaign. Why? Because he was successful and it was a brilliant campaign.

Kerry ran a luke warm campaign and he lost. Dukakis ran a bad campaign and lost. Clinton was a helluva campaign and won twice. The candidates win or lose.

[BzaDem]

51. Who decides whether the candidates win or lose?

The people.

You are basically trying to claim that the people have the power to decide, but they are not responsible for the outcome of their decision. Even though in post 14, you admitted they were responsible.

:crazy:

Obama did indeed successfully win over people too lazy to do their own research with his campaign. No one is denying that. But the voters are BY DEFINITION responsible for whether they do their own research or not (and if not, whether they need to rely on campaign infomercials to make their decision).

I didn't need a campaign to vote for Obama. One quick look at the platform made the decision clear. I doubt you needed a campaign either.

[tekisui]

56. The candidate who convinces the most people wins.

Post 14 was when I was quoting you asinine post.

The voters will never do their own research, that is the whole point of campaigns. And it is the absolute responsibility of the campaign to reach the most voters possible.

Thank god you aren't running any campaigns, you really don't understand how they work.

[BzaDem]

60. "The voters will never do their own research, that is the whole point of campaigns."

So you are saying that because the voters will never do their own research, their failure to do their own research is somehow not their responsibility?

It is a yes or no question.

[tekisui]

64. It is human nature.

It is American politics and political behavior. You can want them to research, that would be great. I really wish they would wake up, be have a much better country. But, it isn't reality.

It is the absolute job of the candidate to reach them. You should appreciate this. You cannot change the behavior of people. You can't change how they think. What you can do, as a candidate is influence what they think about. You can frame the issues and manage the message. That is the responsibility of the candidate.

If the candidate loses, the loss is on them. We will suffer the consequences collectively, but a win or loss of a campaign is the absolute responsibility of the candidate. The various candidates are going up against the same people, the question is who can win more over.

Blaming the voter is weak weak sauce.

[BzaDem]

72. Lots of things that are "human nature" aren't just blamed on the people -- they are CRIMINALIZED.

Simply being "human nature" never absolves blame.

"It is the absolute job of the candidate to reach them."

Of course it is. If subset X of the population is sufficiently ignorant or lazy such that they need campaign infomercials to figure out who to vote for, then it is indeed the absolute job of the candidate to reach them (from a marketing standpoint). But the REASON for that is because subset X chooses to be ignorant and/or lazy -- and their decisions are by definition ultimately their responsibility.

To claim otherwise would be to claim that X has the power to do Y but isn't responsible for how they use that power -- which is always false.

[jpgray]

49. So the worst campaign imaginable bears no accountabilty for a candidate's defeat

In your opinion? This is absurd. A campaign does more than fill people's heads with propaganda--it organizes supporters; it elicits volunteer services such as phone banking and precinct walking; it gets people to the polls; it gives supporters of a platform a larger message to rally around.

These things don't appear out of the ether based on the quality of a candidate or his platform. They are the result of a solid campaign.

[tekisui]

37. It is the duty of the candidate to earn support.

The outcome is his alone, win or lose. And, they are accountable to us.

ETA, The first sentence in that post was quoting you. I should have put it in quotes, I can understand your confusion.

[BzaDem]

38. No, it really isn't. You may WISH it is, but your wish does not equal reality.

If a candidate decides (let's say) to run an awful campaign (or not to campaign at all), and the voters elect the other guy, the voters are 100% responsible for electing the other guy.

That's what being "accountable for the results" (as you admitted the public was) MEANS.

If a candidate offers up his services to the country, and the country picks someone else, that is entirely the responsibility of the voters who picked someone else.

Again, dictionaries are good.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BzaDem]

47. Your approach is the one that is authoritarian. Either the people have the power, or a leader has

the power.

If the people have the power, then the people are accountable for how they use it.

You, on the other hand, pretend it is all about the leader. And this would indeed be true in a dictatorship. But in a democracy, the people have the ultimate power. With power comes responsibility and accountability. Leaders are powerless without the assent of the people.

You are basically disagreeing with tautology. If the people are accountable for the results (which you admit), then it immediately follows that... the people are accountable for the results. This couldn't possibly be false, because it is a tautology. You keep trying to go through contortions to justify your position, but it will inevitably fail, since a tautology can't be false.

[tekisui]

53. I never said the people are accountable.

I was quoting you.

Winning an election is most certainly about the leader. It is up to the candidate to win. It is only a successful candidate who gets the votes. This is really simple shit.

Your approach gives all over to the president, once elected. You think it ends there. We, the people, are just to be subjected to the whims of the leader. And, if we are getting fucked, well--it's our own goddamn fault for voting for the sonnuva bitch. That is a defeatist and authoritarian view.

[BzaDem]

57. "We, the people, are just to be subjected to the whims of the leader."

Where did I say that?

If the people don't like Obama, they are free to vote for Romney or whoever the Republican party nominates.

All I am saying (and it should really go without saying, at least for anyone who has taken civics) is that the people are responsible for the decisions that they make -- especially in the voting booth.

If X has the ultimate power, it IMMEDIATELY follows that X is responsible for how they use that power. To claim otherwise is to claim X has power but no responsibility. That is always false.

[jpgray]

46. Is it the voters' responsibility if a candidate fails to campaign?

If the failure to campaign is the proximate cause for no one ever hearing of a candidate, let alone desiring to vote for him or her, then doesn't the failure to campaign bear some responsibility for the outcome of the election?

[BzaDem]

50. If a candidate fails to campaign

then their "bad campaign" is responsible for failing to win over voters too lazy to do their own research.

But who is responsible for some subset of voters being too lazy to do their own research? The voters who are too lazy to do their own research. The ultimate responsibility lies with them, and no one else.

[jpgray]

55. In that case, the candidate is repsonsible for failing to recognize the world as it exists

Because I can tell you that if one relies only on the dispassionately unswayed researchers of the electorate, one will not have enough votes to win. A campaign can be changed, but the nature of the electorate cannot.

[tekisui]

58. Exactly. This isn't complicated stuff here.

Someone is just too wedded to an idea to acknowledge political reality.

[BzaDem]

61. Of course if a candidate runs a bad campaign, they are responsible for running a bad campaign.

But that is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT than being responsible for the outcome. The people who DECIDE the outcome are by definition RESPONSIBLE for the outcome.

[tekisui]

65. So a candidate is reponsible for runing a bad campagin?

Yet, you say:

"If a small group of people swings a close election, it is BY DEFINITION their fault."

It can't be both.

[BzaDem]

70. Yes, it can, because being responsible for running a bad campaign is actually totally different than

being responsible for the outcome.

If Bob runs a bad campaign, and people vote for Joe (who campaigns on X and enacts X), then

a) Bob is responsible for running a bad campaign
b) The people are responsible for Joe being elected (and the resulting policy of Joe).

This is totally obvious.

[ecstatic]

23. That may be the case, but the candidates (including Obama) will be fine, win or lose.

THE PEOPLE will be the only ones hurting when the supreme court is stacked with rightwingers for the next 50 years.

[tekisui]

32. I don't disagree with that.

But it is up to the candidate to convey that message and the rest to a willfully ignorant public.

[BzaDem]

33. There you go -- you let the public off the hook, by pretending it is OK to be "wilfully ignorant."

Your notion of responsibility is exactly the opposite of reality.

[tekisui]

41. It is reality. They are willfully ignorant.

You can't deny that. They don't pay attention. Whether you think that should is one thing. But they don't. Never have, probably never will. It is up to the candidate to get through the noise, ignorance and laziness.

[BzaDem]

52. So the voters are no longer accountable for being "willfully ignorant," because they are willfully

ignorant?

[jpgray]

21. His campaign strategy, I mean. That for which he needs a billion dollars.

The whole responsibility of a candidate is to convince the electorate that he or she is the best person for the job, and generate the enthusiasm necessary to turn those convinced people out to vote and volunteer. Voters can't force themselves to feel that enthusiasm any more than I could force you to feel unenthusiastic about Obama.

I believe there are a lot of convinced people, but I doubt there are as many enthusiastic people as we would want to have in '12. Assuming everyone here wants the GOP candidate defeated, that is. (I think that is a fair assumption!) That lack of enthusiasm can be blamed largely on the candidate, the media, and other functions of the campaign. Expecting voters to not be at all foolish, complacent or lazy, to expect them to wind themselves up logically, absent anything provided by the campaign to generate enthusiasm, is not a winning strategy.

[ecstatic]

10. I hope that flawed line of reasoning helps you sleep better at night

If Sarah Palin or some random GOP nutjob ends up replacing the two justices, you can sleep soundly knowing that it's "all Obama's fault!!!111"

[leftstreet]

12. Can we at least hear what the GOP frontrunner's economic policies will be?

[ecstatic]

17. Wow! The truth comes out... what a joke! nt

[leftstreet]

20. What truth? Look, what if Jeb Bush runs on Single Payer healthcare?

Yeah, yeah...I know. He won't do that.

But FFS! This loyalty oath crap on DU is getting embarrassing

[BzaDem]

27. It wouldn't matter, since Jeb Bush would appoint a justice who would strike down Single Payer.

If Jeb Bush promised to appoint a judicially progressive justice, you may have a point. But absent that, it doesn't really matter what legislative proposals the Republican brings to the table.

[leftstreet]

31. That makes no sense n/t

[BzaDem]

34. Oh really? Bush signed McCain Feingold into law. Alito and Roberts struck it down. Any questions?

[leftstreet]

43. By your reasoning, there's no point in voting at all n/t

[BzaDem]

54. Well, first of all, my reasoning is correct (regardless of the implications). But second of all,

that is not a valid implication of my reasoning at all.

If there is a viable candidate who will appoint justices like Kagan and Sotomayor, then there is a HUGE point in voting for them.

[leftstreet]

59. You just argued for the irrelevance of SC appts

Bush / Alito Roberts

Hellooooo?

[BzaDem]

62. Not at all. I argued for the supreme relevancy of SC appointments.

Bush didn't have to appoint Alito and Roberts. He could have appointed a judicial progressive, which would have upheld McCain Feingold.

But he chose to appoint people with the judicial philosophy of Scalia.

If a Democrat wins, they will presumably appoint people like Kagan and Sotomayor, who will not strike down most major pieces of progressive legislation just because they can.

On the other hand, if a Republican wins, they will presumably appoint people like Alito and Roberts, who if given a majority will happily use it to whatever extent they are empowered to. And that includes striking down progressive legislation passed by the president who appointed them (if any).

In the fantasy world where in the future we get a President more liberal than Obama, nothing they enact into law would really matter if it gets struck down by the most conservative Supreme Court in a century.

[leftstreet]

66. Nooooo...you said Alito and Roberts struck down Bush n/t

[BzaDem]

69. Yes, they did. A conservative Supreme Court justice will even strike down legislation passed by a

conservative president, if that legislation contains any progressive elements.

That is even MORE of a reason to ensure that conservative Supreme Court justices are not appointed -- not LESS of a reason.

[leftstreet]

71. Oh! I get you. Fear not! Obama isn't going to pass any progressive legislation

Worry not

[BzaDem]

73. Even if that is true, R-SC justices will strike down progressive legislation passed by any FUTURE

president.

So the whole "we need to make it worse now to make it better later" doesn't work, since "later," when in some fantasy world there is a president who you define as "progressive," even they won't be able to pass legislation that isn't struck down.

[leftstreet]

78. (omg) I think you'd better stick with Obama's List Of Accomplishments

This whole SC appt talking point thing just isn't working out

[BzaDem]

79. That is a problem with your understanding (not the point). It's really not that complicated. n/t

[ecstatic]

40. You've lost touch with reality

Come back to Earth.

[leftstreet]

Yes. Combine SC APPTS!!11 with Obama's List of Accomplishments for the win!

:eyes:

speaking of reality...

[HughBeaumont]

87. I imagine proctology is involved.

Just a hunch.

[Union Scribe]

81. The flawed reasoning that candidates should earn votes?

What the fuck is wrong with some of you? It'd be funny if it wasn't so twisted.

[sabrina 1]

42. It's 'blame the voters' strategy. The most failed strategy

ever as it gives a total pass to politicians to do whatever they want regardless of the people's wishes. Then when they realize they've so angered the voters, they blame THEM. And to force them to vote for them, they threaten 'Palin'!! The SC!!

And as long as this strategy works, we will get what we always get, politicians who feel no obligation to work for those who elected them.

The solution is to let them know the people are immune to their fear tactics. Once they get that message, things will begin to change.

The solution for them if they want to win, is to start doing their job which is, work for the best interests of the people.

When we are at the point where this early in the election season, this strategy is already being used, it is an admission that they knew what they were doing and probably plan to keep doing it until WE change OUR tactics.

So sick of it all. The same old threats, vote for the 'lesser evil' etc. etc.

[BzaDem]

67. The strategy will always work, because the voters are BY DEFINITION responsible for their decisions.

It may be convenient for your argument if that were not the case, but that doesn't make you any more right than people who say up is down or left is right.

"The solution is to let them know the people are immune to their fear tactics."

But that would be a falsehood. Fear is something we evolved, and it is often a good thing (so long as what we are fearing is a true potential outcome).

Similarly, a 5 year old could say "I am immune to fear of what would happen if I were to touch a hot stove." But that would be a false statement -- as soon as they feel the consequences of their own actions, they will suddenly become NOT immune to fear. In fact, they will be so fearful that they will never touch that stove again.

And this is a GOOD thing -- it would be bad if he DID touch the stove again. That's why being fearful was selected for in the course of evolution.

Similarly, people who voted for Nader and thought "I am immune from fear" quickly discovered that they were NOT immune from fear. That's why his support collapsed by a factor of 10 in 2004 and 2008.

[sabrina 1]

80. The politics of fear, is that what you are promoting?

How sad. No, fear is not a good thing, it is why we are where we are. An interesting thing about both the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions were the declarations by many people who had lived in fear for decades, fear of change, fear of their government, just fear of everything. So many of them when they were asked about their bravery, answered that they finally 'had broken the barrier of fear' and only then were they able to stand up and fight for their rights.

It's interesting that you believe that the people should be kept in a state of fear though.

That will of course keep things on the same disastrous course. For the wealthy of course, it is very desirable to keep things on that course.

However, the exact opposite is true. Nothing worthwhile is ever gained without some cost. It is the fear of paying the cost, that has brought this country down.

Re your silly comment about Nader, Gore won the 2000 election. The SC committed treason by interfering in a presidential election and handing the election to Bush. The problem was, not Nader, but Democrats who immediately after the greatest theft in our history, refused to even speak about it. They capitulated totally.

Your analogy of a child touching a hot stove is backwards. I would compare continuing the way we have been going for so long with no good results is what we should fear. That is the hot stove we need to avoid.

Every election cycle we hear the same old arguments. It doesn't seem to matter whether Democrats are in the majority or not, we get the same excuses as to why they cannot get a democratic agenda going. They should take lessons from the Republicans. Threaten to shut down the government if they don't get what the want, eg. Threaten to filibuster if they don't like a particular bill. They need to lose the fear of using such tactics, Repulibans apparently are not afraid.

I can't think of a worse motivator than fear, for anything. What should be motivating us right now is a strong leader who did the job he promised he would do, or if he could not who at least fought for what he said he believed in.

The voters are never to blame. They are the equivalent of customers who will respond to the best salesman. The salesman fails and doesn't get his commission if he cannot demonstrate that his products are great. He will win though if he demonstrates that they do work. In either case, it is his responsibility to do his job well enough that people will respond by buying what he is selling. There is no obligation on the customer to buy a product that doesn't seem to work.

Politicians ask us to give them a job. They make promises as to how they will do that job. We give them the job, and if they do not end up doing the best job they can for US, we can fire them.

'Blame the voter' is probably the worst tactic that could be used in a political campaign. People want leaders who take responsibility for their actions, not people who blame others for the losses they themselves bring about.

[upi402]

22. here we go again

absofuckinglutelynowhere

Just 'reasonable' my butt into the dirt already...

[mmonk]

24. I don't see how replacing 2 "liberals" with 2 "centrists" is going to

make all that much difference in our lives. Maybe I'm too lost now. I remember a time when even Ginsburg wasn't considered all that liberal but primarily center left in disposition.

[BzaDem]

76. Do you recognize a difference between Alito and Ginsburg?

Do you further realize that Alito (should he have 4 other like minded justices) would happily strike down any major progressive law that he could articulate an opinion for? Now and 20 years into the future?

And that Ginsburg would not?

[mmonk]

85. Yes I do. That is why I was against members of our party confirming him.

But if you continue to give rightwing ideology its victories by conceding the fight in the other branches of government, we'll never crawl out of this damn nightmare and it won't matter.

[slipslidingaway]

29. Democrats, the Truth Still Matters!

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

"Editor's Note: With the Democratic victories in the House and Senate, there is finally the opportunity to demand answers from the Bush administration about important questions, ranging from Dick Cheney's secret energy policies to George W. Bush's Iraq War deceptions. But the Democrats are sure to be tempted to put the goal of "bipartisanship" ahead of the imperative for truth.

Democrats, being Democrats, always want to put governance, such as enacting legislation and building coalitions, ahead of oversight, which often involves confrontation and hard feelings. Democrats have a difficult time understanding why facts about past events matter when there are problems in the present and challenges in the future.

Given that proclivity, we are re-posting a story from last May that examined why President Bill Clinton and the last Democratic congressional majority (in 1993-94) shied away from a fight over key historical scandals from the Reagan-Bush-I years -- and the high price the Democrats paid for that decision:

...

Yet, before Democrats endorse the DLC’s don’t-look-back advice, they might want to examine the consequences of Clinton’s decision in 1993-94 to help the Republicans sweep the Reagan-Bush scandals under the rug. Most of what Clinton hoped for – bipartisanship and support for his domestic policies – never materialized..."

That allowed the Bush junior to be elected and nominate two supreme court justices ... at some point the Dems have to fight as hard as the Republicans ... instead of enabling them.

:shrug:

[OmahaBlueDog]

63. Trust me, the fundies are very aware of this

I'd make book that if Bader-Ginsberg retires at the end of this term, the Senators in the GOP will attempt to fillibuster the vote on the replacement until after the 2012 election -- over a year and a half.

Kennedy has been a conservative leaning swing vote. Scalia has been the archetypical conservative, and has largely functioned as Clarence Thomas's mentor. If the GOP replaces these three justices, I doubt Roe stands beyond 2016.

[Liberal_in_LA]

68. Yep. Vote Obama or see more Scalia's on the bench

[grahamhgreen]

74. That's it? That's all he's offering? Centrist, not far right wacko justices? That's it?

[BzaDem]

77. Even if that were true, there is a pretty big difference -- right justices would strike down most

future progressive legislation, while "centrist" justices would not.

Kind of a big deal.

[UrbScotty]

75. Wow. Who's unrec'ing this? (nt)

[Union Scribe]

82. People hoping for a better slogan than "At Least He's Not Palin!"?

[JoePhilly]

92. Folks who want the GOP to win and "teach us a lesson".

The only way to get their version of pure liberalism to flurish, is for the GOP to hurry up and destroy the country.

Then, out of the ashes, an ubber-liberal will emerge, the country will embrace them, and Utopia will commence.

At least that's my theory.

[cherokeeprogressive]

83. He's the best we can do, so we better vote for him or else. I get it. n/t

[Scuba]

84. So you're saying there are no viable democratic candidates? What about this guy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tFabLp-Jcbg


I wonder who he'd name to the SCOTUS???

[JoePhilly]

91. If only the UFOs would land and tell that guy to run.

[EstimatedProphet]

88. Why does it have to be Obama or a repub?

[joentokyo]

89. The argument that Obama is better than the Republicans does not hold water.

He is a Republican. Wake up and see what is in front of your face.

[JoePhilly]

90. You are wasting your time. Those who hate Obama don't care

about your reason.

They are hoping that the GOP wins and goes on to destroy the country, so that suddenly, amidst the ruins, their mythical leader will rise up, and their version of liberalism will be embraced by all.

[TheKentuckian]

93. Almost any Democrat would nominate at least as liberal Justices, many would venture further from

"Centrists".

Obama should be replaced and has made the bench more conservative by replacing each appointment with someone more corporate friendly, willing to side with the government on civil liberties abuses, and generally less left leaning which may preserve 5-4 hot button issues will see further erosion in the votes that have been going 6-3 and 7-2.

This is the last ditch refuge of those who promote a candidate that is not going to pivot to the needs of the poor, working class, or justice so now we go straight to holding the coalition by threatening another Alito which the limp party will roll over for and allow instead of informing the opposition that nutters need not apply and will be filibustered forever and ever like they do us if we even think about nominating anyone left of "centrist".

Obama is such a facilitator with a pattern of picking more conservative replacements that he might go Bork to replace Alito anyway, gotta reach out to the other side, compromise, represent all the people, blah, blah, blah.

The fact that we are entertaining the threat of a new Thomas or whatever in the face of stalled nominations at lower levels and putting up moderates and centrists to replace liberals is more than enough evidence of a nearly total breakdown anyway. Why in God's name would we allow another Arch Conservative on the bench when we are "not allowed" to nominate qualified people even described as liberal (much less radical)?

Your pitch is an announcement that if radicals are nominated that our mealy mouthed marshmallows will continue to go right along?

This party needs an enema and an intervention.

This is the best reason, true enough. Trotting it out before a year before the primaries begin means that it is close to the only reason. I have never seen this one used so early. I thought that was the "unity" pitch?

Going down hill at the speed of light.

[Motown_Johnny]

95. the point being that we would have a Republican President and he would not

nominate liberal judges at any level

[TheKentuckian]

96. Nominate a Democrat then.