Skip to main content

Lately, we have been hearing a lot of this:

“Why vote!? It’s the Supreme Court, stupid!”

NO, it WAS the Supreme Court, stupid. I base that off of the simple fact that Democrats helped immensely to create the Roberts court in the first place. The damage is done. Citizen’s United is now a painful reality that will be with us for quite some time, unfortunately.

There are very limited options to undo the damage and one of them is by legislation; legislation that will not pass because nothing qualitatively important ever really passes the Senate without being watered down or killed because of the abuse of the filibuster. Fairly recently, despite the heroic activism of labor lawyer Tom Geoghegan and David Waldman at Open Congress, Democrats voted to keep the filibuster at the beginning of the 112th Congress. This is the only time this vote can be held with a simple majority vote; otherwise it takes 2/3rds according to the Senate rules to change them. They failed to do so.

Not only did Democrats vote to keep the filibuster, they rejected all rule changes from Senators Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall to change the "sleep at home while filibustering" filibuster into a real one like you saw in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. This was their way of telling you that the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by Republicans didn’t really bother them that much. They felt 60 votes was a convenient excuse to get your money, and it was and still is. Many people are not aware of this so the DSCC takes advantage of it. The excuses they give about keeping the filibuster are “what if we need the filibuster in the future?"

Yeah, what if a dangerously radical RW SCOTUS is confirmed? What if an unprecedented decision based on Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad stating corporations are people is added onto by a radical RW SCOTUS so elections can now almost literally be bought? As I mentioned above, enter Citizen’s United.

Smiley faceThat’s right; the defenders of vague language in the NDAA have quite a dilemma ahead of them as well. The Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad decision exemplifies that point. Why? Interpretations matter and the wrong interpretation can be the difference between a representative democracy and a corporatist state or a police state in the case of the NDAA.

As legal analyst and lawyer Jeffrey Toobin made clear, the Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad decision was literally based on vague language that was muttered and written down as the law of the land by the court reporter even though it wasn’t the actual decision.

Leaving things open to a disastrous interpretation can destroy representative democracy and leave US citizens with little or no rights. This is proof that no creative legalese excuse to defend this administration on the NDAA can excuse the NDAA. Obama's signing statement interpreting the NDAA is over when President Obama’s presidency is over. After that, the NDAA could be used to detain American citizens depending on who is interpreting it just as the 2001 AUMF language was which the NDAA codified.

Some say, "But there's a signing statement with the NDAA!" Hooray? I say nay! Vague legal language is also the problem with the SOPA. You might be asking why Democrats are to blame for the Citizen’s United SCOTUS decision. It’s simple. With precision, they failed spectacularly to use the filibuster they said they needed in the future, back then in the past to block Samuel Alito’s appointment. Why should we believe them anymore? Alito was one of the 5 versus the 4.

Now a more radical Republican Congress is going to kill the filibuster for real next time they take over. Democrats had the chance to bust the filibuster and pass real qualitative legislation that solves problems, but they didn't. Plenty of Democrats voted for cloture and the actual confirmation of Justice Alito, and so I say so much for using the filibuster for Democratic purposes. Democrats failed on that.

The Roberts court was created because of that failure. Bye bye democracy. It's done.

It wasn’t always this way as Democrats have used the filibuster before to block many damaging nominees looking to turn this country into a corporatist state on the SCOTUS as well as the lower courts at one time. That is, of course, until the sellout deal to create the Gang of 14 was made.

The Democrats had been using the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by President George W. Bush. In the Republican-controlled 108th Congress, ten Bush judicial nominees had been filibustered by the minority Democrats. The ten Bush appellate nominees who were filibustered were Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, Charles W. Pickering, Carolyn Kuhl, David W. McKeague, Henry Saad, Richard Allen Griffin, William H. Pryor, William Gerry Myers III and Janice Rogers Brown.

As a result of these ten filibusters, Senate Republicans began to threaten to change the existing Senate rules by using what Senator Trent Lott termed the "nuclear option" and which Republicans tended to call the "constitutional option." This change in rules would eliminate the use of the filibuster to prevent judicial confirmation votes.

(Funny how it’s always these unrepresentative Gangs of sellout Senators that pass radical RW justices and judges. These Gangs also create what turns out to be literally lobbyist written policy in this country like the Gang of Six and corporate Romneycare/Heritage Foundation care/1994 Dolecare.)

Big bad scary Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist scared the pants off of Democrats with his threat to go nuclear and eliminate the filibuster altogether. And Bill Frist never had the 60 votes used to whine to his constituents about within his fundraising letters. Imagine that! And yet still, Harry Reid was still so very scared he just didn’t know what to do. So another undemocratic unrepresentative deal was pushed through by sellout Democrats and Republicans via the Gang of 14 agreements.

The Gang of 14 signed an agreement, pertaining to the 109th Congress only, whereby the seven Senate Democrats would no longer vote along with their party on filibustering judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances," as defined by each individual senator), and in turn the seven Senate Republicans would break with Bill Frist and the Republican leadership on voting for the "nuclear option." As the Republicans held a five-vote Senate majority (55-45) in the 109th Congress, the agreement of these Senators in practical terms prevented the Republicans from winning a simple majority to uphold a change in the interpretation of Senate rules, and prevented the Democrats from mustering the 41 votes necessary to sustain a filibuster. While thwarting the goals of their respective party leaderships,[2] the group members were hailed as moderates who put aside severe partisanship to do what was best for the Senate. At the same time, some of the Republican members of the Gang of 14 faced political firestorms from the conservative base due to their participation in this agreement.

Three of the filibustered nominees (Estrada, Pickering and Kuhl) having withdrawn, in the 109th Congress, five of the seven filibustered nominees (Owen, McKeague, Griffin, Pryor and Brown) were allowed to be confirmed as a result of the deal brokered by the Gang.

The Gang became active again in July 2005, attempting to advise Bush on the choice of a nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. On November 3, 2005, the group met to discuss the nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court, but came to no conclusions, noting that the hearing process had only just begun in his case. On January 30, 2006, the members of the group unanimously supported a cloture vote in the Alito nomination, providing more than enough votes to prevent a filibuster.

Senator John Kerry and the Liberal Lion Ted Kennedy made an attempt to filibuster, but 72 sellout Democrats voted for cloture and the filibuster was then defeated. Those that voted for Alito and those sellout Democratic Senators in the Gang of 14 created the Roberts court in the first place.

The ACLU was also right on opposing the Alito nomination and it had only opposed a SCOTUS nominee two other times in its entire history.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) formally opposed Alito's nomination. The ACLU has only taken this step two other times in its entire history, the last time being with the nomination of Robert Bork who was rejected by a 58–42 vote in the Senate.[28] In releasing its report[29] on Alito, ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero justified the decision saying that "At a time when our president has claimed unprecedented authority to spy on Americans and jail terrorism suspects indefinitely, America needs a Supreme Court justice who will uphold our precious civil liberties. Judge Alito's record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms."[30]

And now President Obama’s record shows a willingness to support government actions that abridge individual freedoms. The ACLU was right about Samuel Alito and they are sadly right about President Obama now that the NDAA is signed.

There could have been some efforts to stop the nomination of Roberts as well. And though then Senator Obama voted against Roberts’s nomination, he attacked “Democratic Advocacy Groups” for criticizing Senator Leahy’s support of Roberts.

This was what then Senator Obama said about it referenced in one of his first diaries on Daily Kos.

I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee-jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure.

I believe every Senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible for the kind of poisonous atmosphere that exists in this Chamber regarding judicial nominations. It is tempting, then, for us on this side of the aisle to go tit for tat.

But what I would like to see is for all of us to recognize as we move forward to the next nominee that in fact the issues that are confronted by the Supreme Court are difficult issues. That is why they get up to the Supreme Court. The issues facing the Court are rarely black and white, and all advocacy groups who have a legitimate and profound interest in the decisions that are made by the Court should try to make certain that their advocacy reflects that complexity. These groups on the right and left should not resort to the sort of broad-brush dogmatic attacks that have hampered the process in the past and constrained each and every Senator in this Chamber from making sure that they are voting on the basis of their conscience.

Yeah habeas corpus, one of the principles this country was founded upon, is “complicated.” It’s not a black and white issue as to whether due process and the Geneva conventions apply?

John Roberts thought the Geneva Conventions shouldn't apply and that Hamden's Habeas petition should not be honored. Those meany liberal advocacy groups knew this about Roberts, but our President didn't.

After reviewing Hamdan's habeas petition, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan's favor, finding that the United States could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that the detainee was not a prisoner of war.[10][11][12]

On July 15, 2005, a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit three-judge panel of Arthur Raymond Randolph, John G. Roberts, Jr. and Stephen F. Williams, unanimously reversed the decision of the District Court.[13]

Luckily this was reversed in the SCOTUS decision Hamdan vs Rumsfeld but as you can see those so called crazy liberal advocacy groups knew this about John Roberts when he was on United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  They knew he was involved in reversing the correct decision on Hamden from the initial district court before he was overruled by the SCOTUS (which is why he recused himself once he was confirmed). So all of those liberal advocacy groups knew what they were talking about, and then Senator Obama sure as hell didn’t.

This is what President Obama also said in his Daily Kos diary:

A majority of folks, including a number of Democrats and Independents, don't think that John Roberts is an ideologue bent on overturning every vestige of civil rights and civil liberties protections in our possession.  Instead, they have good reason to believe he is a conservative judge who is (like it or not) within the mainstream of American jurisprudence, a judge appointed by a conservative president who could have done much worse (and probably, I fear, may do worse with the next nominee).  While they hope Roberts doesn't swing the court too sharply to the right, a majority of Americans think that the President should probably get the benefit of the doubt on a clearly qualified nominee.

Talk about tone deaf, Obama goes on to downplay any effort for a filibuster of Roberts’s confirmation which was basically one of the two only chances to have stopped Citizen’s United. We know this, because in 2008 he won the White House and the Congressional majority that was Obama's excuse for Democrats confirming two RW radical SCOTUS Justices in his diary. And yet we still got Citizen’s United. FAIL.

Hell former Republican Senator Arlen Specter put up more of a fight than many Democrats did on the Alito and Roberts nominations. How embarrassing.

There's plenty of precedent for this: In 2004, Arlen Specter warned President Bush that a Supreme Court nominee who didn't consider Roe to be settled law would probably face a filibuster. In response, conservatives threatened to rip his chairmanship away. And I don't mean "conservatives" as in Rush Limbaugh. I mean conservatives as in leaks from then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's office. Specter quieted down real fast after that, and he helped bring the anti-choice Roberts and Alito in for a smooth landing. (Later on, of course, Specter defected from the Republican Party rather than lose to a Republican primary challenger, but that's an argument against certain types of primary challenges, not threatening committee chairmanships to induce more party loyalty.)

There were no threats regarding committee chairmanships from Harry Reid whom was coached by President Obama to let the traitorous Lieberman keep his seat on the Homeland Security Committee(war with Iran any second now) and back into the Democratic caucus after the 2008 election. This also played a role in watering down every major piece of legislation enabling Ben Nelson and other Conservadems. This kills the 60 vote excuse.

I predicted then that it would become legislative moral hazard and I was right. It also has something to do with the 2010 mid-term losses despite the utter BS people spout around here about these mythical progressives who stayed home(like the mythical progressive Ron Paul supporters on this site who don’t exist).

Progressives wanted Obama to listen to Christina Romer on the bigger stimulus that was needed, a real bank rescue with pre privatization (temporary nationalization) for access to banks balance sheets to see if they were legit instead of fake stress tests, and real financial reform unlike fake financial reform that gets a D at best (BTW any poster who denies this has to explain why everyone is running around with their hair on fire wondering our exposure to the Euro meltdown). We also wanted some accountability for Wall Street executives who blew our economy up instead of excuses and lies from our government about how everything was legal (Sarbanes Oxley was violated).

The President and too much of our Democratic majority were tone deaf and didn’t use their power like Bill Frist and GWB did for Republicans (proven) in their time. And so now there probably won’t be any significant retirements any time in the next decade from the SCOTUS in order to make that 5-4 difference on our side.  I’ll let comedian Lewis Black explain why at 6:48 of this video.

"The good die young, but PRICKS LIVE FOREVER!"

The outright damage from this Roberts court could have been averted. That battle was lost in the 109th Congress and Democrats didn’t even want to fight that battle for the most part. We are all suffering because of this. Anyone who makes excuses for this in the comments or made them in the past are also responsible.

So I’m sure some will find some creative ways to tout the now disgraced politifact achievement list, but you can’t throw the SCOTUS in anyone’s face. After all, when something could have been done about the Roberts court, Democrats dropped the ball. Senator and now President Obama should have been vocally supportive in the filibuster he took part in, because by speaking against it he undermined this filibuster. That made the gang of 14 stronger.

So I wouldn’t try to win over any progressives who are aware of these facts. The general public probably doesn't know who the 9 SCOTUS Justices are because they are too busy in their lives trying to survive the Robert Rubin-ite Obama, Bernanke, Geithner, Summers, and Goolsbee economy. They won't respond well to being condescended to on that front(especially since this argument is flawed as I have shown) so I wouldn't advise taking this tactic with voters either.

Smiley faceVoters do know the economy sucks though and that no one has been prosecuted on Wall St. They got sold out. Banks got bailed out. That’s a clear message from OWS that will forever be relevant.

That’s going to be a big problem for this administration that was real condescending when Paul Krugman among others warned of these circumstances and pointed them out. So keep that in mind when lecturing voters on the SCOTUS this campaign season. That ship has now sailed for a long time. There's no reason to condescend or pretend otherwise.

That's not even going to be the issue in this campaign. The lack of jobs as well as income inequality is going to be the issue. Therefore the tax cut mountain that this president has placed his flag on top of in this flawed arena of debate is really not helpful for the 99%.

The author of the definitive economic paper on the housing bubble agrees.

Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and one of Obama’s most vocal progressive critics, told TPM that the President’s policies will have only a minimal impact on inequality, and argued that there’s more he could do to reverse the growing gap between the rich and poor.

“His policies are really trivial,” said Baker. “Yes, it would be good to maintain the estate tax and get the top tax rate to the Clinton era level, but the vast majority of the story was in before-tax income, not changes in tax rates. Here Obama has been as bad as [George W.] Bush.”

Baker proposed a financial speculation tax to limit high incomes resulting from “shuffling paper,” breaking up the largest banks and ending “too big to fail” subsidies, and reducing the value of the dollar to make U.S. exports more competitive.

snip

“Obama should at least be able to say this even if Congress may block the steps needed to get the economy back on its feet,” Baker said.

Given the debate that ensued in my last diary involving after-tax income, economist Dean Baker's point highlighted above is more relevant than ever. The White House's proposed trivial policies won't create jobs and does nothing about income inequality. That's where his policies are indeed as bad as GWB as Dean Baker said.

Anyone who excuses the White House's latest jobs panel proposals doesn't really understand demand side economics with regards to income inequality and unemployment. Arguing about the percentage dispersed out of a shrinking revenue pie due to high unemployment is a flawed exercise when it comes to full employment. Full employment is the goal and that only comes with priming the fiscal pump and ignoring deficit hysteria propaganda that is proven wrong by Japan's example among others.

Japan is the champion nation in terms of budget deficits and government debt relative to GDP. Many have long argued (wrongly) that this is because holders happen to have addresses in Japan. Nonsense. A sovereign government that issues its own currency makes interest payments on its debt in exactly the same manner whether the holder has an address at the South Pole or on Mars: a keystroke to a savings deposit at the central bank. What matters is whether the country issues its own currency.

So what to do instead?

For starters, how about actually acknowledging this economic reality? How about demanding that we have the right kind of economic debate on that front? Otherwise we are going to be stuck inside an idiotic tea party federal family budget metaphor this president agrees with.

This is of course compounded onto Obama's lack of understanding(like those defending his latest proposals) that with high unemployment there's not a significant enough tax base on the stimulative demand side of things to make enough difference with tax cuts; precisely going by the tax base that actually spends their money in the economy.

The President still likes to spout deficit hysteria rather than even say the words "more stimulus." As a whole, D.C doesn't get it and has mostly sold all of us out while bailing out Wall Street. They'll do it again when the next crash comes, too. Playing progressive dress up wearing these social security threatening inadequate tax cut solutions won't even begin to make enough of a dent in this jobs crisis.

So if you want to try something to GOTV, try getting President Obama and this Congress to at least start speaking in terms that acknowledge actual reality. That's always the first step.

12:07 PM PT: Mea culpa on one thing I got wrong. Then Senator Obama did vote against the confirmation of Alito and I never said he didn't vote against cloture.

However, this certainly wasn't a rallying cry and didn't help Ted Kennedy in this effort which he and John Kerry were leading against the Gang of 14

"Mr. Obama did seem to express some reserve about using the filibuster process, which in common parlance refers to a procedural Senate maneuver requiring 60 votes to end debate and proceed to a vote.

"I think that the Democrats have to do a much better job in making their case on these issues," then-Sen. Obama said. "These last-minute efforts using procedural maneuvers inside the Beltway, I think, has been the wrong way of going about it, and we need to recognize because Judge Alito will be confirmed that if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake and frankly I'm not sure that we've successfully done that."

He added that "there is an over-reliance on the part of Democrats for procedural maneuvers and mechanisms to block the president instead of proactively going out to the American people and talking about the values that we care about. And, you know, there's one way to guarantee that the judges who are appointed to the Supreme Court are judges that reflect our values and that's to win elections.""

So that didn't help, but I admit when I get things wrong as I did. Everything else is verified.


Originally posted to The Amateur Left on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:19 AM PST.

Also republished by The Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party and The Rebel Alliance.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  (You Can Make Video Start at Chosen Point. (14+ / 0-)

    After the end of the address string, just before the closing double quote, add the code #t=406s where the number is the number of seconds into the video. Viewers can still see the whole thing but it will first open where you specify. I used 406 because there's a second or two error at getting the clip moving.)

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:28:56 AM PST

  •  so, your alternative is? (5+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Cedwyn, Diogenes2008, Statusquomustgo, foufou, fcvaguy
    Hidden by:
    Knarfc

    Ron Paul?

  •  Well It Won't Work Because It's Not a Motivational (21+ / 0-)

    issue for masses of voters, purely as a practical matter.

    And much of the rest of what you paint is because the party and most of its leadership are in fact conservative not progressive. They just differ, often strongly, with Republicans on how far and how fast to take the country in the same general direction.

    That's why we had such a huge couch vote in 2010, and to my eye the Republicans are expecting a repeat of 2010 judging by their doubling down on madness last year and this.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:32:11 AM PST

    •  Oh, so you admit progressives (8+ / 0-)

      are partly to blame for the 2010 drubbing by staying at home?

      Doesn't that contradict progressives' loud, angry, and repeated denunciation of said claim as just "hippy punching?"

      So, which is it?

      Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

      by tomjones on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:43:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, he did not admit that. (14+ / 0-)

        He indicated that many voters stayed home.  No indication of who those voters were.

        You can keep trotting out this falsehood that progressives caused the 2010 bloodbath, or you can begin to address reality and find a way to make 2012 less of one.

        •  He trotted it out, not me. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou, gerrilea, Deep Texan, fcvaguy

          And yes, he did admit it.

          And much of the rest of what you paint is because the party and most of its leadership are in fact conservative not progressive.
          That's why we had such a huge couch vote in 2010

          Who else but progressives would stay home if the perception was that the party leadership is not progressive, but conservative?

          Also, please note I am not endorsing his view that the leadership is conservative. Just for the sake of argument...

          Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

          by tomjones on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:33:10 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The middle and indies stayed home. (11+ / 0-)

            See the diary that Ginger1 links below.

            And you need a lesson in logic.  Just putting the word "progressive" in a comment does not make everything in that comment dependent on the word.

            •  You need a lesson in history (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou

              The middle and indies did not stay home, they voted against Democrats. For pretty obvious reasons, too, that have nothing at all to do with the fairytale, post hoc fallacy progressives wove afterwards.

              And your logic stinks. Why would the middle and indies care whether Dem leadership was progressive or conservative?

              If Gooserock wants to revise his comment, he is free to do so. But as it stands, he inferred progressives stayed home because they weren't getting enough progressive policy.

              Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

              by tomjones on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:00:58 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Not according to the polls (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou

              Across the board, the voter turnout was the same as it was in 2006. So who stayed home?

              If you listen to Nate Silver, he says nobody stayed home. Turnout was the same as it was in 2006. "Middles and Indies" turned out at the same level also. So how did we get wiped out?

              •  The argument that progressives stayed home... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PhilJD, JesseCW, priceman

                ...is not only false, no matter how many times it's raised by several of this Administration's ardent supporters at this site, but is predicated on a comparison to 2008.  Dumb, I know, but I'm not the one who has been arguing that progressives stayed home.  If we want to compare to 2008, then many of all stripes stayed home and actually less so the progressives.  If we acknowledge midterm elections are always less well attended, then no one stayed home and the indies and conservatives, not the progressives, abandoned the Dems.  However one parses it, the lefty-bashing that accompanies this ongoing discussion has been proven to have no rational basis.

                Ginger1's comment in this thread includes the link to a diary that takes all this apart based on the actual numbers reported.

                •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  foufou
                  indies and conservatives, not the progressives, abandoned the Dems

                  Why did indies and conservatives abandon the Dems? Because they weren't progressive enough?

                  •  A multitude of reasons. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PhilJD, priceman

                    A historic election was past, and so was the incentive to be a part of it.  Governance in 2009-2010 was frustratingly ineffectual or at a minimum watered down compared to the exigencies of the time, and getting something done is usually the priority that Indies cite foremost, so I'd guess that was probably the biggest reason, but that's a guess based on what I heard at the time.  Since Obama governed more conservatively than he campaigned to in 2008, I don't think anyone who voted for him in 2008 could logically argue he and his party had become too progressive for their tastes -- but of course he wasn't running.  Since among those who were running the Blue Dogs were most damaged in the election, it would appear that the old line that a voter wanting conservative, Republican policies from a Democrat would be better directed to elect an actual Republican.  It would be considerably more complex than that, but I'm going for the big sweep of the arguments I heard in my community.

                    •  I was with you until the last half (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      foufou

                      An independent centrist or conservative who voted for Obama in 2008 did not vote Republican in 2010 because Obama actually governed more conservative than he campaigned on.

                      Blue Dogs indeed took heavy casualties. But so did some progressive incumbents. And many progressives/liberal Democrats who ran against conservative Republicans for open seats lost across the board (Sestak and Conway come to mind).

                      To buy this:

                      it would appear that the old line that a voter wanting conservative, Republican policies from a Democrat would be better directed to elect an actual Republican.

                      would require a conservative who voted for Obama in 2008, would, in two years, say "hell I wanted a liberal Obama and I got a conservative Obama. So, if thats what I'm going to get, then I'm going to vote for the real thing". Thats ridiculous logic.

                      In my view, we lost independents and conservatives because Obama promised a change in tone in Washington, one of bipartisan compromise, of getting things done. They knew a lot needed to be fixed and what they saw and what they got was even more fighting and less results than pre-Obama. Also, JOBS was the preeminent issue. What they got instead as a year long battle on health care.

                      Also, when an independent centrist or conservative sees the President's own base shredding him to pieces and not supporting his agenda, they run for the hills and look for some adults for leadership - which goes to a bigger issue for me. Its been so long since the left was in a position of power/leadership, that once they had it, they had no clue how to lead. Rather, they did what they do best, throw rocks, sorta like this diary.

                      •  Fallacy, and a misrepresentation of what I said. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        priceman

                        Obama wasn't running, so no one rationally would have said he'd vote R in Congressional races because Obama was more conservative than he'd appeared two years earlier.  My bringing up the President's shift to the right and not just Congresscritters' comfort in the nest of conservatism was addressing the argument that usually arises in this post-mortem discussion of 2010: that conservative and moderate voters abandoned Dems for being too lefty.  That argument lies behind much of the post-mortem by centrist Dems, and it's proven false by the numbers.

                        Now, for the admittedly limited value of anecdotal testimony....  I am not one who heard much in my district about a protest vote against Obama, though I heard plenty about the concern that nothing was fixed in his first two years.  Voters were trashing conservaDems on their own poor merits.  In my district, a historic swing district of mostly lower middle class populace, I only heard complaints about Obamacare from tried and true Republicans, who hated it, and from quite a few Dems and Indies who thought it was a sellout to corporations when we needed Medicare for all.  Dems and Indies were most pissed that jobs weren't forthcoming.  No one I spoke with ever mentioned a desire for bipartisanship.  Voters here understand fighters and were disappointed we had so few looking out for us.  No one ever showed any distress that the Administration was being criticized by Dems; these voters here were doing plenty of criticism all by themselves.

                        These are anecdotal bits, to be sure.  But they are a distillation of numerous encounters with many different people here.  They are representative of my district.  By the way, I'm in one of the places where one of the more progressive candidates was beaten.  It wasn't because he was more progressive; it was because he was targeted by mountains of cash behind the opposite candidate.  Nationally a small number of similarly targeted progressives lost; almost all the Blue Dogs did.  That speaks volumes.

                      •  You still haven't figured out that (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        priceman

                        Indy and "centrist" are not synonyms?

                        Or are you just taking the piss?

                        Fear is your only God.

                        by JesseCW on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:07:51 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  wtf? (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          foufou

                          "taking the piss"???????

                          What an assholish trollish thing to say. Really, is that the best you can do?

                          •  Get thee to a wikitionary. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            4kedtongue

                            You can read and write.

                            It follows that you ought to be able to figure out that when only about a third of unaffiliated voters turn out in any given midterm, "swings" in how they vote aren't about individual voters going from D to R, but rather about which unaffiliated voters show up on voting day.

                            That truth is so obvious that anyone seeming to be unaware of it must be assumed to be be taking the piss.

                            Fear is your only God.

                            by JesseCW on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:51:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'll tell you what Jesse (0+ / 0-)

                            You can go take some piss yourself, mmkk? What a freakish shitty thing to say. Were you drinking or something when you wrote that? Don't ever say shit like that to me again.

          •  the youth vote stayed home (11+ / 0-)

            the excitement of 2008 which inspired so many first time voters was a distant memory by the time 2010 rolled around. Also, Obama's appointment of
            Tim Kaine is also to blame - he couldn't even get the vote out in his own state and keep the job he was vacating for the Dems, let alone have any sort of strategy for the rest of the country. It will be interesting to see how many college campaign stops candidate Obama makes this year.

            "pyromania is fun" You just can't make this shit up.

            by Ginger1 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:46:39 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Contrary to your (10+ / 0-)

            perception and insistence that the people who voted the Democratic party a healthy majority in 2006- 08, were and are conservative/ centrist's they weren't. They voted out this right wing corporate nastiness. My son is a conservative and even he thought it was 'time to let you liberals deal with this mess'. He now thinks they are not liberal and just as bad but more corrupt and slimy about it.

            Who stayed home? Not progressives, the progressive candidates held their own, blue dogs lost seats. Exit polls say it was indies and young people. Wasn't ideological but a 'pragmatic' fail, they rightly perceived that the Democrat's including the WH were not going to fight for them not going to deliver any change they voted for. A case of bait and switch not working twice.    

            •  Wrong on all accounts. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              fcvaguy, foufou

              But color me surprised that your conservative son thinks Dems are bad. How shocking.

              Who stayed home? Not progressives, the progressive candidates held their own, blue dogs lost seats.

              Alan Grayson and Russ Feingold called, they want their jobs back.

              Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

              by tomjones on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:57:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  progressives held their own? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou

              Feingold? Periello? Grayson? to name a few.

              Then, there's all the races where there was a clear progressive/liberal alternative that could not win (e.g. Sestak, Conway)

              •  The blue dogs lost (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                priceman, dance you monster

                more seats then the progressives did. They also did not have the backing from the party machine that the blue dogs did. Grayson will be back. People are smarter then you think. The fictional center that the conservative Third Way end of the party panders is a handy myth to justify their right wing swing. Nobody likes a pol or party that won't fight for the people who vote for them.  

                As for my son he voted for Obama he is not a teabagger or a religious nut he used to be a Democrat and thought that Obama had audacity and would actually not be a slimy corrupt Dem. and instead stand up for bottom up change. It was a big thing for him to open his eyes to the horrors he had supported by voting for Bush.  When people have no choice as far as any real results or nothing real changes from voting, they tend to revert to looking at politics as a game, blue verses red.

                Lot's of Republicans literally came up to me on the street when I was canvasing for Obama and thanked me as they knew that the bushies had gone too far and were bad news. I'm saying these people are not about to vote for the same bs. even if the Dems, cloak it as centrist. Look at the polls ordinary people regardless of their 'ideology' are fully aware of the fact that either way their screwed.

                Don't worry most people take a look at what the Republicans on the stage are saying and it scares the pants off them, so they will vote for lesser of two evils. Please do not make progressives or liberals the enemy, they are the least of our problems. When people are stuck like this with no representation it does not hurt the Democrat's to push them towards representing the bottom up and the law. And quit f blaming the people who have no choice and yet still vote, but speak out for democracy and representation and our laws.  

                       

        •  They'll never admit it of course, but (7+ / 0-)

          I'm convinced a lot of the DKos "pragmatists" are secretly hoping the Thugs do somehow defeat the President in November.

          Despite all their protestations, they would welcome that disaster, because they believe it would provide them with a devastating weapon to use against progressives and the left.

          They see the left as their real enemy.

          When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

          by PhilJD on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:37:49 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Which voters stayed home? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou
        •  The "blame anybody else" meme (4+ / 0-)

          is far easier than to address the issues presented in the diary.

          "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, & a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." ~ H.S. Truman
          TheStarsHollowGazette.com

          by TheMomCat on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:45:07 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think this pretty much explains it. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PhilJD

            This was part of a comment at another site, and I'm sorry, I can't give credit to the commenter, as I forget who it was:

            how can we improve the party as long as we are rationalizing the failures of it's leaders?"

            We delivered. They failed us. We have moved on. (h/t to my good friend)

            by gooderservice on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:50:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  trying this false meme again? (12+ / 0-)

        here's a diary with stats from CNN

        http://www.dailykos.com/...

        scroll down through the comments - someone actually hr'd Meteor Blades when he tried to correct this false notion.

        "pyromania is fun" You just can't make this shit up.

        by Ginger1 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:25:41 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I think you have a point, Gooserock nt (4+ / 0-)

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:49:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  How can you in another diary just moments ago (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foufou, Deep Texan, doroma

      have that claim

      a huge couch vote in 2010

      rebutted with facts and then just jump over here and make the same claim and what, just hope it will go unchallenged? The turnout in the 2010 midterms was completely in line with turnout in 2006.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:21:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think you are correct that for the majority (9+ / 0-)

      of voters in either party that SCOTUS is not a major consideration in their vote and it is hard to use it as a reason to motivate them to vote D.

  •  look at who the parties nominated (13+ / 0-)

    the last time we got lucky was when Bush nominated Souter (maybe Reagan with O'Connor, who wasn't the best but wasn't completely awful, either).  The last time the GOP got lucky was when Kennedy nominated Byron White.  They may not filibuster otherwise qualified nominees (and, philosophically disturbing though they are, Roberts and Alito are qualified), but no Democrat would even conceive of nominating Samuel Alito.  The Dem nominees of recent vintage have been Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.  Next term, probably Diane Wood or Merrick Garland.  

    The question is why devote so much time and energy to thinking of reasons not to GOTV, let alone mentioning dem-appointed Justices, all of whom (plus Stevens) dissented in CU.

    "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

    by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:36:17 AM PST

    •  THIS (11+ / 0-)
      The question is why devote so much time and energy to thinking of reasons not to GOTV

      Exactly.

      What is the message here? That we shouldn't vote??

      If not, then what the hell is it? Because that's what I took from this as well.

      "We have only the moral ground we actually inhabit, not the moral ground we claim." - It Really Is That Important

      by Diogenes2008 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:40:12 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Emphasizing SCOTUS Not A Good GOTV Tactic (10+ / 0-)

        People who are concerned about SCOTUS are already going to vote. Best to emphasize economy and jobs for November, not SCOTUS.
        I'm just saying I think it is a waste of time and money if people think this issue will sway undecideds.

        Existence is no more than the precarious attainment of relevance in an intensely mobile flux of past, present, and future.~~~ Susan Sontag

        by frandor55 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:54:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Really? How arrogant of you. Ya know what got me (8+ / 0-)

          interested in politics ii the first place? The importance of who appoints SC justices.

          Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

          by JTinDC on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:59:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  How's that working out for you? For all of us? (7+ / 0-)

            Just yesterday the SC decided that works in the public domain can be removed and re-patented. Their gift to the Movie & Music Industry.  

            Supreme Court Rules Congress Can Remove Works From Public Domain

            Oh wait, Ginsburg said that it was more important to interpret our constitution by international "standards" and treaties we agreed to.

            What is frightening here, that our constitution is now to be "interpreted" by some arbitrary international consensus.  

            NOW our Constitution can be changed by a treaty??? Our government was given one vehicle to change it: ARTICLE V.

            Justice Black in Reid v. Covert

            It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights--let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition--to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V.

            Look at the ACLU's summary of the Kagan nomination:

            They point out her position on someone being labeled an "enemy combatant and indefinitely detained without trial.


            SENATOR GRAHAM:
            [I]f our intelligence agencies should capture someone in the Philippines that is suspected of financing al Qaeda worldwide, would you consider that person part of the battlefield, even though we’re in the Philippines, if they were involved in al Qaeda activity . . . [T]he Attorney General said, “Yes, I would.” Do you agree with that?

            MS. KAGAN: I do.

            -cut-

            From the colloquy, these statements appear to express Kagan’s personal sense of what the law should be, as opposed to a summary of current law as she understands it.

            The proposition that anyone who finances al Qaeda activity anywhere in the world (or, one assumes, provides other forms of material support) can be classified by the government as an enemy combatant and detained indefinitely in military custody without criminal charges or trial is, in our view, wrong as a matter of U.S. constitutional law and wrong as a matter of international law.

            Fast forward to the current law of the land, the NDAA.

            Where do you think any American on American soil stands in her opinion?

            I see very little difference in either party today.  The only exception is that Republicans do more harm much quickly than Democrats. In the end, the Democrats will harm us with a 1000 cuts as apposed to just one or two done by the Republicans.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:24:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  the use of int'l law and treaties (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              foufou, Deep Texan

              also formed the basis for Lawrence v. Texas and the decisions banning the death penalty for juveniles and the mentally ill.  The Court had already ruled in Eldred v. Ashcroft that there was not a Constitutional prohibition on retroactive extensions of copyright, and it's a close question -- the copyright clause does have a provision stating that the purpose is to "promote science and the useful arts," but it's always tricky to read an implied limitation into what is on its face an affirmative grant of power.  

              To answer your question, given all of Obama's accomplishments, it's working just fine.  But enjoy your pity party.

              "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

              by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:04:00 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  ROFL, "enjoy your pity party". Project much? (5+ / 0-)

                Failure to answer the question.  If the meme, "It's the Supreme Court Stupid" is to be taken at face value. How does the Kagan appointment (and her personal position revealed) better any of us in light of the NDAA?

                How about we list the accomplishments?

                Wait, here you go, the ACLU released a report this past September:
                Report - A Call to Courage: Reclaiming Our Liberties Ten Years After 9/11

                Torture and extraordinary rendition are no longer officially condoned. But most other policies—indefinite detention, targeted killing, trial by military commissions, warrantless surveillance, and racial profiling—remain core elements of our national security strategy today.

                The ACLU on Obama and core liberties

                During the Bush era, the actions and condemnations of the ACLU received ample positive attention from progressives. That, of course, is no longer true, and this damning report will likely be ignored in most of those circles, just as this truly remarkable comment from the ACLU’s Executive Director has been.  And, as usual, anyone urging that attention be paid to these facts will be met with demands that eyes be diverted instead to how scary Sarah Palin Christine O’Donnell Michele Bachmann Rick Perry is, and then this will all blissfully fade away in a cloud of partisan electioneering even with the election more than a year away.

                Either way, this creeping unchecked authoritarianism marches forward unabated, and is now — rather than the province of the right-wing GOP – fully bipartisan consensus.  I really don’t understand how progressives think they’ll be taken seriously the next time there is a GOP President and they try to resurrect their feigned concern for these matters; they’ll be every bit as credible as conservatives who pretend to be deficit-warriors and defenders of restrained government only when the other party is in power.  

                ACLU chief 'disgusted' with Obama

                Asked why he's so animated now, Romero said: "It’s 18 months and, if not now, when? ... Guantanamo is still not closed. Military commissions are still a mess. The administration still uses state secrets to shield themselves from litigation. There's no prosecution for criminal acts of the Bush administration. Surveillance powers put in place under the Patriot Act have been renewed. If there has been change in the civil liberties context, I frankly don't see it."

                It's not a pity party, it's a reality check.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:44:50 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  touched a nerve, there (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Deep Texan, foufou

                  The NDAA wouldn't change Kagan's answer, and I'm not sure it's incorrect.  (She doesn't say anything in the colloquy you link to about the ability to challenge the designation, just whether as a statutory matter the Exec branch would be authorized to make the initial designation -- and the answer it seems to me is clearly yes, before and after the NDAA, which I'm sure you are one of the people misinterpreting it.)  Either way, it's one issue before the court of several, and Kagan's shown herself squarely on the left in her first term.

                  Your command of the html tagging is impressive, but it remains that you are quoting opinion as fact.

                  "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                  by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:16:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  totally agreed (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    foufou

                    -You want to change the system, run for office.

                    by Deep Texan on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:21:25 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  You're right, "I'm quoting opinion" from those (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    priceman, TheMomCat, gooderservice

                    better educated than myself, THE ACLU.

                    There is no substantive change from the Bush Administration to Obama's.  

                    In fact, it's gotten worse in many areas.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:27:44 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  well, if that's the take away point, (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      foufou

                      then there's still a ways to go from being "more educated" to being right.

                      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                      by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:59:43 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  How do you define "right"? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        priceman

                        Patriot Act, still the law of the land.
                        Military Commissions, still law of the land.
                        Animal Enterprises Act, still law of the land.
                        NDAA, now law of the land.

                        Indefinite detentions codified & still being used.
                        Secret laws, secret evidence, secret prosecutions??? Who knows???

                        Warrantless wiretapping still going on.
                        Prosecution of whistle-blowers higher than under Bush.
                        Racial Profiling still going on.
                        Signing statements still being written.

                        The targeting & killing of American Citizens for exercising their 1st Amendment protected rights. The killing of American citizens without due process.

                        Hummm...I'm sure I've missed a couple...

                        Yep, so I'll wait for your list of what you define as "right"....

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:01:22 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Well, two senses (0+ / 0-)

                          what do thee acts really say?  And whether they are constitutional.  Whether they are moral is not a question for experts, but derives on the answer of the first two.  Sometimes the right thing to do isn't constitutional, and more often, the wrong thing is.  We shouldn't do either, bt in specifics, I have no objections to anything you mentioned, based on how I read them, which is not the same as yore or your favorite nonobjective advocates.  Except for the animal thing which imam one hundred percent cattail I don't care about.  A lot of what bush did I disagreed with bc he circumvented congress.  In case by case, I might disagree with the govt on specific cases.  That is, f the Govt tries to interpret these statutes as you do, ignoring language that doesn't fit Obama=bad narratives.

                          "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                          by Loge on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:41:33 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  So, the whole point of your discussion here is (0+ / 0-)

                            we shouldn't talk badly about our president?

                            That's it????

                            Or we should keep looking at the score card either, as Priceman did in this diary?????

                            FYI, the Animal Enterprises Act allowed for the arrest of the Shac 7 because they talked about, yes just talked:

                            these activists are alleged to have operated a website that reported on and expressed ideological support for protest activity against Huntingdon and its business affiliates. For this they are charged with "terrorism" and face an aggregate of 23 years in Federal Prison.

                            The Animal Enterprises Terrorism Act makes it a crime to hurt the profits of a business.

                            Here's an analysis worth reading.

                            http://www.greenisthenewred.com/...

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:12:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not the ppint, (0+ / 0-)

                            whom woukd obama nominate vwrzus romeny.  

                            Secondly, to the extent you are reading whateceer law (ndaa,atriot act, stupid animal crap) wrong, it a. Doesnt mattter and b makrs scotus nominations more important.  Iz qhomwcer romney nominnatesz gonn qgree with you abour what the statute says, as he shouldnt.  Maybe, but qnnpbama nominee is more likeley to agree with me thT hwse stTutes are less unreasonablr than you parr0t them.

                            If you think obama is the sqme as romney say so, or else, stop WASTING MY TIME

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:46:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Your horrible spelling or intentional misspellings (0+ / 0-)

                            aside, you're full of it.

                            "stop wasting my time"...you have no morally or constitutionally valid position so you have to say discussing this is a waste of time...

                            Who you kidding?

                            Romney administration appointments would be no different that Obama's, since we already know he agrees with the Republicans on these subjects.

                            Do you think I or any American will accept tyranny if it's wrapped in a big "D" more readily?

                            THINK AGAIN.

                            As for the "stupid animal crap", it seems clear with this response, it is YOU whom has wasted my time.  

                            Pseudo-intellectual babbling masquerading as discussion.

                            Good Day!

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:02:48 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  iphone autocorrect (0+ / 0-)

                            'Romney administration appointments would be no different that Obama's, since we already know he agrees with the Republicans on these subjects.'

                            that's just idiotic.  first of all, "these subjects."  second of all, if you think there's no difference w/ Obama and Bush, you're just ignoring the role of asking for congress for bills.

                            you mentioned a bill that has nothing to do with anything, and chose to waste your time.  "pseudo-intellectual?"  i'll go degree to degree with you, since you just rely on various interest groups for your opinion.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 07:03:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You never addressed my point. (0+ / 0-)

                            Since the current president believes he has the authority to target & kill us, without due process and can use the military to indefinitely detain us, IS HE NOT GOING TO  nominate to the SC someone whom agrees with him?

                            ABSOLUTELY!!!

                            Where's that leave us again? In the same Gilded Cage.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 01:52:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Who is "us"? (0+ / 0-)

                            i think the point is your characterization of obama's views is overbroad, and justices in any event have fewer political constraints.  Scalia ruled against republicans in Hamdan.  Also, what ahout the vast issues where Obama's actual nominees to the court have been progressive.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 03:35:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If tyranny is wrapped in a big "D", it's easier (0+ / 0-)

                            to swallow? Or worse if it's wrapped in a big "R"? Not from where I'm standing.
                            ASHCROFT v. AL-KIDD

                            Unanimous decision that redefines "suspicion" that now will surely be used in the government's secret surveillance of everyone and anyone, even if no crime(s) are believed to have been committed.

                            PERFECT Tyranny.  AND THE DIFFERENCE IS? NONE!

                            How do you define "progressive"?

                            "US" would be any American or naturalized person, resident alien, etc.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:25:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  That was a case about when you can sue (0+ / 0-)

                            tkaw enforcement.  Based on existing precedent, the court came down correctly.  If you're defining "us" that way,Obama doesnt claim such power.  It is misleadingly omissive.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 10:25:06 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  BTW, the splitting of hairs you've attempted here (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    priceman, TheMomCat, gooderservice

                    obfuscates the reality before the NDAA. The president claimed the power to label anyone an enemy combatant in a theatre of war, not on American soil with Americans citizens enforced by our military.

                    The NDAA destroys that distinction, the "theatre of war" is now the entire world, including the continental US. Or am I just mistaken?

                    Does not the NDAA now codify Presidential powers to use our military against us for any reason after he/she labels them terrorists or enemy combatants?

                    Does it not now divorce the conditions in the AUMF from the 911 attacks to anything they can now claim is an attack? Say, like the OWS protests? Or any protests? Or anyone speaking out against the government?

                    I believe it does.  

                    And if any president were to detain indefinitely your Mom, your sister, your brother and you brought suit before the SC, would not the appointment of Kagan and her stated personal opinion on this subject mean we would lose?

                    I believe so.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:40:53 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  He believes in magical vague language that's safe (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea

                      Of course it isn't, which is why Johnathan Turley wrote that great piece I linked to in the diary.

                      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:57:38 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If I agreed with Jonathan Turley, (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        foufou

                        I'd agree with Johnathan Turley.  (He's no better at reading statutes than I am, btw; you're just disposed to the most alarmist conclusions.)  But that makes the SCOTUS more, not less, important.  Let's say it's a tossup that a democratic Justice rules against the administration on the NDAA (or, rather, the 9/11 AUMF), but it's a near-certainty a Republican appointed Justice would.  Maybe not Scalia or Kennedy, but those two are too heterodox to ever be nominated again.  

                        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                        by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:06:34 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  So by all means let's defend vaguely worded... (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          TheMomCat, gooderservice, gerrilea

                          statutes. And I think Turley is better than you at reading statutes and has a record of criticizing both parties for legal principles.

                          You never know what's going to happen. The vaguely worded SOPA was mostly rejected by Republicans in the Senate.

                          I know the SCOTUS interprets statutes Constitutionality, but nothing is a given, especially when you sit yourself in knots to defend any vague dangerous statute Obama and this Congress come up with.

                          Turley is going to call it as he sees it in a non partisan way per his record. Point Turley.

                          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                          by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:18:06 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  strawman; (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou

                            assumes facts; irrelevant.  either way, it's not being "non-partisan" to assume no difference between parties when there is one, nor to suggestively and inflammatorily "interpret" a statute to get such "non-partisan" cred.  He has a point of view, no less than i do, but if i thought Obama should be criticized on the NDAA I might well have done so.  But if there was a vaguely worded statute, it's the 9/11 AUMF, or the MCA.  The critics of the NDAA want to have it be both specific, and when called on that, say, oh i guess it's vague.  (Vagueness is a term of art, by the way; not all statutes that might be susceptible to different opinions are "vague.")  But the most extreme reading of the NDAA doesn't add a power that couldn't also be read into said AUMF; and he narrow account I think is right, which pays attention to how the different parts of the statute interact, provide greater, not lesser notice.  

                            You also ignore the last point completely, where i even spotted you greater benefit of the doubt i think your position deserves.  Everything you say about the NDAA, even if you're right, makes the SCOTUS more important.  This is because there is a two step inquiry:  what does the statute say (where a liberal judge might well agree with me, btw, so let's question the wisdom of the ACLU taking a legal position that might in the future be cited against it); and whether that statute is Constitutional (which is where everyone wants the discussion to migrate, but often as not it doesn't come up).  Where Turley gets his "non-partisan" thing off the rails is that many of Bush's statements and assertions of power thought they could go around Congress, meaning step 1 never happens.  To his credit, Obama does not think that.  (well, we can debate Libya, but he has decent arguments that the WPA was not implicated nor is it Constitutional).

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:58:49 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You also make assumptions, if you are whisked (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman

                            away and indefinitely detained in some obscure location outside of the US, who is going to know? Besides you and the people kidnapping you, right?

                            There will be no due process, you'll disappear tomorrow and 8,9 or 10 yrs from now your heirs will have you declared dead and no one will be the wiser.

                            The crossing of the Rubicon has occurred.

                            Unless we recall everyone that voted for this act and then vote people into office immediately to rescind this abomination of "law", there is no going back.

                            Appointments to the SC are moot when you will not be afforded any due process when no one knows you've been taken.

                            Human Rights Watch:

                            “By signing this defense spending bill, President Obama will go down in history as the president who enshrined indefinite detention without trial in US law,” said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. “In the past, Obama has lauded the importance of being on the right side of history, but today he is definitely on the wrong side.”

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:40:23 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Circular (0+ / 0-)

                            and assumes facts.  Not to mention, any number of other reasons to care about scotus, but wouldn't they be the ones to interpret the statute and decide whether it satisfies due process?  (sometimes yes, no, maybe.  Your hypo is not unlike obseving a NYC cop could shoot me if he thinks my phone is a gun.  It's a thing that can happen, but not really an objection based on the law as is.)

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:30:11 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow, so you are admitting that what has been (0+ / 0-)

                            presented is true and possible under the NDAA?

                            but not really an objection based on the law as is.

                            You state that there are "other reasons to care about the scotus", correct? Well, whom is the current president going to appoint but someone that believes as he does? Let's try to keep focus here on the ball, he signed the NDAA and said "he wouldn't use it in certain ways".  We know those signing statements are worth less than the paper their written on, absolutely meaningless, legally & constitutionally.  If he objected to some part of a bill, he has but one choice, veto it.

                            Wait, but we already know that he's the one that wanted those parts that would have protected American citizens taken out:

                            So, will he nominate someone to the SC that agrees with him or not?  Someone whom believes that the president can use the military on American soil and indefinitely detain us without due process?

                            I believe so.

                            What other more pressing issue is there? What other reasons could even equate to this codified dictatorial power just handed the president and every future president?

                            Patent law? Civil Rights? Pshaw!

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 07:41:37 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ok, yes, assumimg ypur (0+ / 0-)

                            html ekille eual litigition. Your carl levin quote toftally equLs overtuning roe v wade. Also, ive seejmthat before nd you arr taking it out of context.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 09:39:58 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry, your posting is gibberish to me. (0+ / 0-)

                            If you were/are attempting some sly insult by your misspellings, I simply don't get it.

                            And all I can surmise out of this is that you are now trying to say the reality we all face is as remote as Roe v Wade being overturned.

                            If this is your argument, you fail.  Red herrings are not legitimate positions in honest discussion.

                            And the only other point that I believe you were attempting was that Levin is being taken out of context, if so, then you fail again.

                            Here's Jonathan Turley's take on this:

                            Indefinite Detention of Citizens: A Response To Senator Carl Levin

                            He has 7 valid points on the NDAA and the false claims made that it will not effect Americans.

                            READ IT, oh that's right you just don't agree with Mr. Turley...how convenient for you, makes it easier to defend your position if you ignore reality.

                            I won't.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 01:52:08 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  spelling was iphone, (0+ / 0-)

                            but Turley doesn't actually discuss the language of the bill.  He repeats his same objection 7 times and calls it seven points.  

                            What i'm saying is if you elect a GOP president, Roe will be overturned.  Wanna keep saying there's no difference?

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 07:07:17 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I clarify, there will be no difference. (0+ / 0-)

                            Roe was bad constitutional law.  Let it be overturned, it will make the bars on that Gilded Cage more apparent.

                            If we want true lasting freedom then we cannot have some pissant in a black robe to reaffirm or abrogate our unalienable rights. We CAN change the constitution, Article V.

                            Wasn't it those men in black robes that granted the executive branch authority to designate anyone an "enemy combatant in Ex Parte Quirin, in 1942?

                            Wasn't it under FDR's administration where 7 out of the 9 "justices" that presided over that decision  APPOINTED BY A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT? I do believe so.

                            Did those men in black robes ever actually read Article III? The part about what treason is and how a treasonous American is to be handled? Clearly they did not.

                            Wasn't it those men in black robes that told us the police have no constitutional obligation to protect any of us? Their duty is to the State, not the people whom pay them.

                            Those precious"differences" you claim are meaningless and doesn't change the facts; we are only free if the government allows us.  The Gilded Cage they've built doesn't stop being a cage whether a Democrat or Republican is in office.

                            I'd ask this, what has our Democratic President done to turn back the tides of tyranny? Nothing, he's expanded it by assuming more powers, claiming he has the right to target and kill any of us AND NOW granted himself (and every future POTUS) the authority to use our military to lock us away without judicial review or due process.

                            We need BETTER DEMOCRATS, not one's pretending to be something they are not.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 01:46:52 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Overwrought, (0+ / 0-)

                            and i dont think Quirin was an article 3 issue.  The definition of treason doesnt preclude the application of other laws, including war, but it is true, William O. Douglas was quite poorly read.  And i think you mischaracterize obamas views and the relevant statute.  The fact this is so specified is a limitation not expansion of executive branch power, as it gives pride of place to Congress, which Bush ignored, saying much much more was inherent article 2.

                            I dont care what you think a gilded cage is, or why it needs to be a proper noun, but id just as soon keep Roe.  Bad law, why?  And why should women have to suffer so your attacks on Obama look more credible?  He is a better democrat, in my view, and partly because this specific line is just inaccurate.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 03:45:56 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'd rather not argue Roe but it's very simple (0+ / 0-)

                            If Roe and the right to an abortion is to stand on privacy issues, as Blackmun claims, then why haven't all drugs laws been declared unconstitutional?

                            For me it's not about privacy but whom controls the human body? Your own body? The State or the individual?  That's why I also believe laws against suicide are an overzealous reach.   This society has evolved into a medical oligarchy which boarders on tyrannical.

                            A personal example. In 1996-97 I was having problems in my abdomen, went to 4 different "specialists" and test after test was done, the ultimate diagnosis, lymphatic cancer from Roswell Cancer Institute here in Buffalo.  My doctors would not, repeat, would not take the growths on my kidney's out but wanted to do a biopsy to confirm the blood screens.  I believed if they opened up the tumors they would spread whatever it was that was inside of them.  

                            They refused to remove them then telling me if I didn't go through their death treatments I'd die within a 6 months to a year AND still die anyways, but maybe in 4-5yrs and most likely from their solution itself!

                            On that eventful day of the biopsy, on my way to the hospital, half way there instead of turning down High St, I continued on to Route 33 and just drove. I drove for hours, ended up in another State.  I continued my trek, not knowing where I was going or why, in the 2 days of driving I finally faced my own mortality, I accepted it.  I decided that if death was to be the result, I wanted to face it head on, not drugged up and dead before I died.  I never went back. Lucky for me, I'm still here 15 yrs later and those growths, still there, they hurt every once in a while, my body is keeping them in check.

                            Had that occurred today, I'd be whisked away as a danger to myself. I'd be demonized in the press as a lunatic, etc, etc.  Having to prove that my body was mine to do with as I desired.  See how this tyranny has evolved? Parents today are threatened with arrest if they don't do what the State mandates to their own damn children, even if they object on their own Religious beliefs, the Gilded Cage revealed.

                            The State today claims you are free, only as long as you do what they say.  Where are all those freedoms we claim we have? Shredded along with that "damn piece of paper"!

                            So, when someone claims I have the right to an abortion because of some created "privacy" claims, their full of shit.  It's not about privacy but again, who controls the body. How far can the State go in it's assumed powers?

                            There is only one thing in this entire universe that is mine, that I alone completely control, that is my own body. No one else does, period.  And let's not devolve into if I commit some act or harm against another or the State's granted authority to prosecute, that's a separate issue.

                            Either we are free or we are not.

                            You can't or won't accept this simple truth, claiming I have my position as some convoluted and immature attack on Obama, it is not. Again, there is no difference between the two parties today.

                            I want real Democrats, not Republican-lite. Tyranny by a 1000 cuts or 1, it's still tyranny.  You don't like the term Gilded Cage because it epitomizes exactly what we are in. I understand AND know history.

                            Might I suggest you get reading it?

                            I'll do you a favor and share a link to a lecture that Naomi Wolf gave back in 2007 on her book, "The End of America."  Her eloquent words cannot be matched, even by myself.

                             

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:04:48 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I dont think the distinction holds (0+ / 0-)

                            and as well, when roewas decided, privacy was a recognized right in the law.  The answer wrt drugs is that the law of privacy balances interests between the atate's right to legislate and the importance of the interest being taken away.  The burden on the woman in having to bear a child is nothing like the burden of not being able to get stoned.  

                            I know what the gilded age is, but putting a c in front of it is only barely clever the first time.  I dont like sweeping claims, ismore the point.  Aristotle > Plato.

                             We are freer in some senses, less free in others, and each way has policy advantages and disadvantages, beneficiaries and victims.  Not all increases of freedom are positive (i.e., much deregulation), and vice versa.  On the specific issue, i think all the tsa stuff is ridiculous, but ifcongress and the president want the right to kill members of al-qaeda, im for it in general.  If the ndaa went farther, i might oppose, but it seems reasonable to my reading of it.  

                            You may think this issheepish and im a slave of the mind, but im ironically free to disagree.  There is a lot that needs
                            fixing but im ideologically comfortablewith the Obama-led
                            party.  It's not tyrannyor any kind of death by anything.  He gets most things basically right most of the time.

                            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                            by Loge on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 10:44:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Sorry for the late reply, worked a double... (0+ / 0-)

                            The distinction you point to as being recognized in the law has always been there, see 4th Amendment:

                            "The right of the people to be secure in their persons"

                            I describe myself as a Progressive Libertarian.  Make the words in the declaration of independence apply to all, when the rulebook, ie our constitution, is deficient, amend it through Article V, simple.

                            Your argument against how I present or describe the facts doesn't change them. We do have a common viewpoint:

                            We are freer in some senses, less free in others,

                            I see no balance in that scale, we are less free today than we were 200 yrs ago, yes blacks are equal and so are women, but our thoughts, actions and ideals are dictated to us by our created government.  The expansion of tyrannical controls they've put into place makes it impossible to actually live free without their permission or approval. Sorry, society is not superior to the individual. Example, "free speech zone", permits to protest, the IRS's convoluted assumptive authority to designate AND define what a religion is.

                            We disagree here:

                            He gets most things basically right most of the time.

                            His idealistic campaign rhetoric that I bought into and voted for was just that rhetoric.  Has anyone been put in jail for bringing this country to it's knees financially? Nope.  Did his "Justice Dept" not just reveal their intentions to give retroactive immunity to lenders for their theft of billions from millions of Americans? YEAP!

                            What did our party say when we granted them complete control of all branches of government? Pelosi said, "Impeachment is off the table".  What did our party advocate and pass? Laws that expanded and continued the tyrannical controls Bush used. For the first time in our history our government has claimed the authority to make you and I buy a product from a private company.

                            It's not just Obama, it's a systematic failure of our party to actually "do the right thing." The differences are getting harder and harder to delineate, in fact, from my perspective, impossible.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Mon Jan 23, 2012 at 09:13:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  Your 1st claim is false (0+ / 0-)

                      and if potus does make that determination (as may be appropriate), Ndaa does not, as I read it take away due process, nor could it.  Some process is due, including habeas, but theconstitution is rarely categorical with terms like dp that are deliberately vague.  

                      "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                      by Loge on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 04:49:09 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  maybe not to you (7+ / 0-)

          but to me it is

          since the south was able to stack the court and keep black people as second class citizens for almost a century after the civil war.

          -You want to change the system, run for office.

          by Deep Texan on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:14:21 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Especially since the majority of voters (0+ / 0-)

          don't even know how many people sit on the Court, let alone who they are and what they stand for.

          It's a good day if the majority of voters can even name their two senators and representative.

          We delivered. They failed us. We have moved on. (h/t to my good friend)

          by gooderservice on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:54:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Why indeed? (5+ / 0-)

      Could it be, s/he doesn't want Obama to win the GE in 2012?

      If that isn't the case, what other reason is there?

      Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

      by tomjones on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:45:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah Alito was like Bjork (8+ / 0-)

      And none of this really is a good excuse as to what I laid out especially regarding the ACLU's opposition to Alito, only twice as Bjork was the last nominee they did.

      O'Connor just makes my point for me.

      And that's obviously not the only thing you didn't read in the diary, because I offers pointers on what to talk about.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:54:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  bjork (10+ / 0-)

        is an Icelandic singer. She was yet to be nominated to the United States Supreme Court. Robert Bork, however, has been.

        I always enjoy your diaries and comments. They are so amusingly fact-challenged. And stand as the ghastly quintessence of why editors are still so desperately needed in this world.

        For instance, your garment-rending here:

        Senator John Kerry and the Liberal Lion Ted Kennedy made an attempt to filibuster, but 72 sellout Democrats voted for cloture and the filibuster was then defeated. Those that voted for Alito like the President(who advised against filibustering Alito) and those sellout Democratic Senators in the Gang of 14 created the Roberts court in the first place.

        ignores the inconvenient—for you—truth that Obama both voted against Alito, and participated in the filibuster against him.

        Barack Obama is smart, and he's not into wasting time. Whereas too many people on this site are not smart, and wasting time is what they do best. And thus he declined to participate here any longer, after the unsane reaction to his Roberts diary. He has since said of this place:

        "One good test as to whether folks are doing interesting work is, Can they surprise me? And increasingly, when I read Daily Kos, it doesn't surprise me. It's all just exactly what I would expect."

        He is absolutely right.

        Carry on.

      •  the fact that you don't mention Sotomayor (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foufou, Deep Texan

        at all isn't a point in your favor.  I tried to add what i thought was missing from your diary.  As far as O'Connor proving your point, she was (a) nominated by a Republican, and (b) wrote the decision the court overturned in Citizens United, F.E.C. v. McConnell (as well as important decisions protecting abortion rights and affirmative action programs).

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:05:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uh yeah, I know (0+ / 0-)

          We got lucky with O'Connor and someone like her was more possible if enough Democrats stood firm and they didn't.

          that was the point you didn't get and still don't.

          And Sotomayor doesn't tip the balance though a decent appointment.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

          by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:44:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  "doesn't tip the balance though a decent (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            foufou

            appointment" was my point.  While a number of Senate democrats did not filibuster otherwise qualified nominees on ideological grounds (which in turn allowed the confirmation of justices as liberal as Sotomayor and Kagan), the election will largely determine who those nominees might be.  Of course Sotomayor doesn't tip the balance, which is largely 5-4 conservative, as Kennedy is more conservative than O'Connor though not as conservative as the other 4.  In the next 4 years, the Justices most likely to retire are Ginsburg, Scalia, Kennedy, and Breyer, in descending order.  THAT could tip the  balance.  

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:58:55 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Björk on the supreme court? (0+ / 0-)

        That would be sheer awesomeness.

        How about all of Sigur Rós for the 9th Circuit?  Jónsi would be great for gay rights.  :)

    •  Because this diarist is one of the small cabal who (7+ / 0-)

      is actively working against Obama's re-election? If that's not the case then I've yet to see evidence to the contrary.

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:56:55 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  he's not thinking of reasons not to GOTV. he is (7+ / 0-)

      saying that given the circumstances, it is a pretty stupid and ineffective brickbat at this point for anyone to use to try to GOTV with.

      Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

      by poligirl on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:58:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  so, you're trying to build an argument (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foufou, Deep Texan

        out of a distinction between a reason not to do something and not a reason to do something. Not buying it. I maintain GOTV should be the default setting, not sulking, so an argument against getting out the vote generally, and an argument about a specific reason to do so, accomplish the same thing. I'm not sure "brickbat" is quite right -- if someone relies on SCOTUS to GOTV, by (trying to) take that reason away, it makes GOTV less likely.  Plus, it's a coequal branch of government and, filibusters aside, the parties majorly differ in whom they'd appoint.

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:11:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  no. what he's saying is that given the past... (3+ / 0-)

          30 years or so, and especially the last 10, the SCOTUS as tool for GOTV is a weak one.

          he's saying to those doing GOTV that you may want to try a better argument for going to the polls.

          Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

          by poligirl on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:56:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  it shouldn't be (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            foufou

            and if he's placing himself outside of the category of those doing GOTV, that's a pity.

            Control of the Supreme Court isn't "necessary" to make a case, but it should be "sufficient."  And I saw no constructive arguments, whatsoever.  

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:00:50 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Um. (17+ / 0-)

    What does any of this have to do with the future benefits to this country of having a 5-4 liberal majority on the SCOTUS?

    A liberal court majority could throw out Citizens United when given the chance. And reverse tons of other harmful decisions of the conservative court.

    So, a vote for Obama is a vote for a (potentially) liberal SCOTUS. Yes, that should GOTV for any thinking progressive, but whether you find that persuasive or not is on you.

    Please don't try to extrapolate your personal beliefs to the beliefs of the progressive community at large. kthnxbai.

    Progressivism, like conservatism, cannot fail. It can only be failed.

    by tomjones on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:42:03 AM PST

  •  pointing out stone-cold facts is a threat (17+ / 0-)

    ooooookay.

    i'm sorry you dismiss the importance of decades, generations, of legal precedent.  guess by what majority citizens united was decided?

    why neg out the vote; are you a nihilist?

    My goal is to make the world safe for anarchy. - 4Freedom

    by Cedwyn on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:42:33 AM PST

    •  Democrats are also responsible for the Roberts.. (8+ / 0-)

      court and that battle was already lost as I've explained.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:50:31 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Democratic Tent Folded Like Tissue Paper.... (12+ / 0-)

        ...when it came time to fight tooth and nail against Roberts nomination. It was mostly kabuki.

        Existence is no more than the precarious attainment of relevance in an intensely mobile flux of past, present, and future.~~~ Susan Sontag

        by frandor55 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:01:16 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Indeed. I remember this vividly. (8+ / 0-)

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

          by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:02:55 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Obama voted no. One of the few. nt (8+ / 0-)

          It's easy to love a flag. Try giving some love to a sick, homeless person. That takes some real [courage]. Kossack Scott Campbell, 9 January 2012

          by CoExistNow on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:15:31 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But...but...he (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            foufou, Deep Texan, fcvaguy

            did it so he could launch his campaign for President.

            Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

            by jiffypop on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:21:03 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not on Alito (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe shikspack, shaharazade, gerrilea

            Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

            by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:36:30 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

              •  I admit I was wrong on the confirmation vote (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                poligirl, gerrilea, allenjo, TheMomCat

                But Obama did advise against filibustering Alito while filibustering thus weakening it. I never said Obama didn't vote for cloture.

                But I know you have nothing else to correct so why stay? Go write some horrible revisionist diary on torture and then exempt the Obama administration from "looking back."

                Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:10:15 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  you (6+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Radical def, foufou, Deep Texan, vcmvo2, poco, Avila

                  are a deeply ignorant person. Which is why I will refrain from calling you a liar. For I will assume that it is only your bottomless ignorance, that compelled you to assert the despicable falsehood that I would inscribe "some horrible revisionist diary on torture and then exempt[s] the Obama administration from 'looking back.'" Please review everything that I have ever written, here or elsewhere, to find something that confirms your false and despicable charge, and then link to it. I assure you that you won't find it.

                  You can start here and here and here and here.  

                  •  Nah, I know what you are about (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    poligirl, gerrilea, TheMomCat

                    Plus you failed to critique anything else worthy so I'm done wasting time with you, but I remember your omission. I never denied Obama voted against cloture yet somehow my sin of  omission was "unforgivable." It goes both ways.

                    Nah, I'm really not impressed with you or your critique that "everything I  said was untrue" because of one mistake I admitted. So I'm not going to waste time with you.

                    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                    by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:44:51 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  i (6+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      foufou, Deep Texan, fcvaguy, vcmvo2, poco, Avila

                      never wrote that "everything [you] said was untrue." Once again, what you inscribe is simply false.

                      As false as your claim that I should "[g]o write some horrible revisionist diary on torture and then exempt the Obama administration from 'looking back.'" For I do not write such things. And it is because you know that I don't write such things, that you are now "done" with me. For you lack the grace and the honor to prove, or retract.

                      •  You implied it (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TheMomCat
                        I always enjoy your diaries and comments. They are so amusingly fact-challenged. And stand as the ghastly quintessence of why editors are still so desperately needed in this world.

                        I guess you could say fact challenged doesn't mean untrue, so just apply fact-challenged to your work and my critique of it as well. Your critique of this diary and all other diaries which I know you can't refute was not shown so, "You are either ignorant or a liar."

                        You never refuted the source material except for once, so I'm just playing your game. "All of my comments and diaries are fact challenged." A false assertion if I ever heard one. An unproven assertion.

                        You just bore me, that's all. Perhaps I bore you, too.

                        Let's just leave it at that.

                        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                        by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:08:43 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  as (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          foufou, Deep Texan, vcmvo2, poco, Avila

                          I said, first you amuse me. But then, yeah, you bore me.

                          You certainly never surprise me. It surprises me not at all that you are too craven to prove or retract your false and despicable remark that I should "go write some horrible revisionist diary on torture and then exempt the Obama administration from 'looking back.'" For that's who you are.

                          Who you are is again on display in this comment, where once again you attribute to me words—"all of my comments and diaries are fact challenged"—that I did not write.

                          In the end, you're just sad.

                          As it's sad that the popularity of persons like yourself, here on this site, means serious people do not take this site seriously.

                          •  This from the resident link miner? lol. OK! (0+ / 0-)

                            I wonder how serious so called "serious" people take this site when they see peopel like yourself with no life so you are searching comments all day. Are you going to deny that?.......I didn't think so.

                            And you didn't write this above?

                            Who you are is again on display in this comment, where once again you attribute to me words—"all of my comments and diaries are fact challenged"—that I did not write.

                            I meant my as in you were talking about me, but you're the fake expert. A literary visionary in the daily kos search box.

                            This is why I don't give a shit what you think of me, boohoooness.

                            Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                            by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:39:59 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Then he tossed in an ad hominum (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          priceman

                          by calling you "ignorant". Nothing new here. You aren't sufficiently programmed

                          "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, & a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." ~ H.S. Truman
                          TheStarsHollowGazette.com

                          by TheMomCat on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:58:27 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  You know (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, vcmvo2, Avila

                            If you're going to HR one person in this back and forth, you really should be HRing both. There are ad homs on both sides, which I'm sure you're aware of. Just thought I'd give you a heads up on your inconsistency in this thread.

                          •  On second thought (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, vcmvo2, Avila

                            after seeing you HR blueness and then actual rec this comment, I think Markos needs to take a look at this:

                             *

                            [new] Lots of hot gas, which is your particular talent (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman, LaEscapee, TheMomCat
                            A transparent, pathetic, immature smokescreen of classic projection common to the self centered, accusing me of being like Bush, McCarthy, of being an authoritarian (nice twist and reversal there), effusive use of adjectives and ad hominems to imply that because I want my country to abide by the Conventions Against Torture (which Obama is legally required to do) that somehow that makes me callous to the victims of torture. Okayyyy. Logic is not your friend.

                            But one essential element is glaringly missing once the noxious gaseous cloud evaporates, which in fact is the only element that matters: Your agreement with the two statements provided.

                            Fact:

                            You don't agree with the law to prosecute torturers.

                            You don't support enforcement of the Conventions Against Torture.

                            You're now on record by your omission. Clear as day.

                            And I hereby observe a natural law: The more Blueness resorts to ad hominem attacks, the more unnerved and rattled he betrays himself to be, and the more it indicates lack of any valid response.

                            by ZhenRen on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:39:00 PM EST

                          •  Context (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman

                            Look at what I was responding to up thread from that comment.

                            I'd say my response is restrained, considering context.

                            Or is it okay that he repeatedly calls me not merely an insect, but claims I am in the earliest stages of the development of an insect!

                            Please try to be more objective.

                          •  My issue (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Avila

                            is with TheMomCat's rec of your insults and the HR'ing of blueness's insult. Neither are acceptable. Are you down with that?

                          •  Your conflation lacks context (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TheMomCat

                            You really need to get over yourself. Now go whine to Markos. See if it does any good. everything ZhenRen said was based on blueness's behavior. he backed up his premise. He didn't straight up call him an insect.

                            Just like me calling what you just did child-like. not HRbale. Not against the rules. It's what you are acting like. Not the same thing as calling you an insect.

                            Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                            by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:30:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My conflation? (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness, foufou, Avila

                            Your obfuscation is so baldfaced, I can't even laugh. You deliberately turned your own diary into what Markos calls a "moshpit". Congratulations. But then again, my hunch is you don't come to DailyKOS for honest discussion judging from the "child-like" whining nature of every one of your diaries which never, ever offer constructive ideas or approaches for serious liberals and progressives. See how that works? You might be right about one thing - sometimes insulting language is more effective at succinctly making a point.

                          •  One more thing (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, Avila

                            I'm sure you're familiar with Kossack "metamars". He and you right diaries of a very similar nature and respond in comments in much the same way. In fact, he posted just today. Take a look at his current status. Just saying.

                          •  Your incapable of distinguishing anything (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TheMomCat

                            1. I didn't turn my diary into a mosh pit. Some people can't stand substance.

                            2. Correcting mistakes does not fit within that flawed criteria you laid out.

                            3. And I've never even been NR so it's nto going to happen.

                            Just because you are unable to interpret what's in my diaries doesn't mean I fit within the flawed criteria you have in your head. You're never able to. Ever.

                            So it's a WOT and this is my last comment to you for now. Just be sure to make bald faced declarations about my diary without realizing the substance of it totally proves that you didn't read it and you can't process it.

                            So why would I care whom you think my diaries are like?

                            LOL.

                            Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                            by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:15:22 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                      •  So you admit that one mistake (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        priceman, TheMomCat

                        does not invalidate the entirety of the diary?

                        Excellent! We're making progress toward dispensing with hyperbole.

                        i (0+ / 0-)

                        never wrote that "everything [you] said was untrue."

                    •  Its not about "omission" (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      foufou, blueness, Avila

                      You claimed Obama did not vote against Alito. That was false and untrue.

                      Now you claim that blueness claims you said "everything you said was untrue".

                      She never said that. That is false and untrue.

                      •  factually challenged then (0+ / 0-)

                        I admitted my mistake and even updated the diary.

                        Not a big leap from untrue to everything I've ever said is factually challenged.

                        And it is about omission when apologizing for Obama's record on not "looking back."

                        You're late. Try and keep up.

                        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                        by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:40:25 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  ya, you admitted your mistake (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          foufou, blueness, Avila

                          then doubled down on your self righteousness with a false attribution to blueness. What a crock.

                          I may be late, but I'm not wrong.

                          •  Not false at all. He proves it downtheread (0+ / 0-)

                            You're always wrong and you never argue anything in the diary. Your accusation of TheMomcat is also laugh out loud hilarious because the comment she recced was based on substance given what blueness has tried to lay out in his comments but failed spectacularly.

                            "I'm gonna tell Markos!"

                            You really need to work on your context clues after you get over yourself.

                            Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                            by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:10:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  Vicious ad hominem attack (7+ / 0-)

                    Stop this. An error was made, corrected, and life goes on. You're using one error as a cudgel to repeatedly bludgeon the diarist, which is your usual approach to debate, along with the use of extremely caustic insults.

                    My god, blueness...  he admitted that it was an error. Maybe find some dignity somewhere in the recesses of your character and accept the admission of error with a bit more grace?

                    •  so sorry, (6+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      foufou, Deep Texan, fcvaguy, vcmvo2, poco, Avila

                      the "vicious ad hominem attack" was that I should "[g]o write some horrible revisionist diary on torture and then exempt the Obama administration from 'looking back.'" I have been writing about torture for more than 30 years, have written about it ever since I got to this blog, have not ceased writing about it since Obama took office, and have never "writ[ten] some horrible revisionist diary and torture and then exempt[ed] the Obama administration from 'looking back.'" Priceman's charge is false and despicable.

                      •  So... (4+ / 0-)

                        you didn't exactly state in your reply to me that you hold Obama accountable for excusing torturers, or that you have any qualms over continued rendition, the treatment of Manning, and so forth.

                        Do you fault Obama for his turning a blind eye on enforcing the Convention Against Torture?

                        •  try (5+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          foufou, Deep Texan, vcmvo2, poco, Avila

                          reading the links I already provided. You will find that your questions were answered months and years before you posed them. Here are a couple more.

                          •  Make you case here (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman, TheMomCat

                            Can you just answer my question? Do you hold Obama accountable for ignoring the Conventions against Torture? It would be rather easy to just make this simple by making a statement here to clear this up.

                            Or give me a concise quote from something you've written recently that you can post here.

                            I'm on a time schedule and don't have time to rummage through your rambling posts looking for clarity on your stances. Just make the statement here, and clear this up.

                            And with that, I must hit the road to my office.

                          •  i (5+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, Deep Texan, fcvaguy, vcmvo2, Avila

                            am not your servant. I do not respond to your demands. You are not my boss, and you are not my interrogator. The information you seek exists, and existed before you sought it. It's been very nicely linked for you. If you can't be bothered to read it, that's your problem. I can't help you, with your problems.

                          •  Let's make this really easy for you: (11+ / 0-)

                            I've provided you with some concise statements about torture. Do you agree with these statements?

                            (1)

                            Convention Against Torture (CAT) requires state parties to investigate all allegations of any such conduct and refer any evidence for prosecution.[6] Its commitments are not at all ambiguous.

                            By merely failing to initiate a complete investigation of all officials involved, [the Obama] administration has declined to follow the CAT’s tenets, or the long-established legal precedents established by the Nuremberg Trials. This decision places our nation at risk for further isolation, and effectively invites future torture around the world by undermining principles our nation was once proud to pioneer.

                            (2)

                            While some, including President Obama, have said that the end of the Bush administration presents an opportunity to ”look forward, and not back” the United States as a nation should not – and the victims of its policies cannot – move forward without holding those responsible for torture, war crimes and other abuses accountable.

                            Now, understand that what Priceman was getting at is that you have "exempted" the Obama administration from "looking back."

                            I skimmed through your meandering posts, and found some writings about torture issues, but no real criticisms of Obama's lack of enforcement of the international treaties, to which he is obligated by law to uphold. In fact, you wrote this:

                            Relying on criminal investigations to address torture would immediately disappear the issue into the maw of the legal system, the very source and inexhaustible supplyhouse of squid ink. The accused will attempt to turn any proceeding into an endless, monotonous drone, sucking any and all life out of it, until evil, as the saying goes, has been rendered utterly banal.

                            Yes, evidently you don't support enforcement of the provisions in the Conventions Against Torture which require actual implementation of the act by holding torturers accountable.

                            Wow... that is some passion against torture you have there, in which you can't even ask for the required prosecutions to take place to deter future war criminals from doing it again. Instead, you only found fault with Obama's refusal to release photos. My, what a bold stance! So you excuse Obama from abiding by the international treaty which requires not just words, but action to prosecute violations.

                            Nice...  Just about everyone is against torture, but the problem is there aren't enough who want to meaningfully act to deter it from happening. Words are cheap.

                            Looks like Price was right. All hat and no cattle, cowboy. Release the pictures, but don't hold anyone legally accountable! Yeah, that makes you so very credible on the issue. I'm glad stopping torture isn't resting entirely on your shoulders, because you can't even call for the only act that would stop this from occurring in the future. Wow, that will teach 'em! Those torturers won't know what hit them!

                            Your simple answer to this should clear up your views. If I missed anything that explicitly demonstrates you care enough about torture to actually demand for prosecutions, post the excerpt here. Tell us you agree with the first two statements, and I'll let this go.

                            And my questions to you aren't any more interrogative than your own comments here. Nor is my asking for you to provide a direct quote asking too much. In fact, if anyone is presuming to be able to boss people around, it would be your demand that people wade through a series of your tedious writing in search of a quote, when you could just clear this up with one word. Just say you agree with the demand for prosecutions. You're being evasive, and that speaks volumes. You like to box people's ears, but can't even go on record to make your views clear when asked.

                          •  and (3+ / 1-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, vcmvo2, Avila
                            Hidden by:
                            TheMomCat

                            I will make it really easy for you. As I said, I am not your servant, and I do not respond to your demands.

                            Now, I realize that as one of the foremost authoritarians on this site, one who happily wallows in such exhumations of McCarthy as the "tendency to attack dissent from the left is anti-American" ("anti-American?" really?) that you quite naturally expect that everyone should bend the knee to your every command. But I am not such a person.

                            And, as demonstrated in your comment above, you, like Senator McCarthy, will cherry-pick, ignore, deflect, smear, demand that only your frame be accepted. As in your admission that you merely "skimmed" the linked material, you reveal that, like McCarthy, you are not really interested in the facts, in truth, in what is. You seek only what might be useful for you, to deny the facts, the truth, what is.

                            My positions are thoroughly set out in the links I provided. They were there before you asked for them. People who take the time to follow those links will find that I am not as you portray me.

                            We have talked before about your larval nature. It is here once again sadly evident. For your concern for torture is reduced to squinting through the very narrow straw of prosecutions. To you, of sole interest is that one must "care enough about torture to actually demand [] prosecutions," must "agree with the demand for prosecutions." In this, you are so thoroughly, terminally, sadly larval—and, at root, indistinguishable from the people of BushCo. Because, like them, what really gets your saliva flowing, is putting people in cages. BushCo wanted to put War on Terra prisoners in cages. You want to put in cages those who put War on Terra prisoners in cages. All that is different, between you and them, is the identify of the people in the cages. But both of you are wedded to the cages themselves. That is what you both believe—wrongly, larvally—is the solution. You're wrong. I work every day with people in cages. And I am not inclined to put any more people in them. For they solve nothing. They incur only suffering.

                            I've been working on torture issues for more than 30 years. I am very well acquainted with people like you. People who are less inclined to focus on those who suffer, than in calling for suffering for those inflicting the suffering. You are of those that I identified in the diary from which you quoted:

                            The focus of any criminal prosecution, like all criminal prosecutions, would be primarily on the perpetrators. This is where the danger of "revenge" and "retribution" rears its head. Hunter S. Thompson acutely observed that the popularity of the televised Watergate hearings was attributable to "millions of closet Hell's Angels whose sole interest in watching the hearings was the spectacle of seeing once-powerful men brought weeping to their knees." We all need to guard against this impulse; to deny that it exists, is foolish. Howard Kurtz has noted, correctly, that he has "rarely seen the kind of passion that now surrounds the torture debate, even more, it seems, than when it was going on." This seems a fair description of the state of this blog. Back in the day, it was not always easy to interest the community in torture; today, we need to make sure we're not motivated most by the base desire to see heads on pikes.

                            Back in that day, I was most drawn to Alexa's work, because she always remained focused on those victimized, harmed, made to suffer, in the War on Terra. Her touchstone was this statement from the War on Terra prisoner Rehab Abdel Mohamed Ali: "I was beaten and verbally abused in detention. After a few days, the guards asked me, 'Do you know that your name is all over the Internet?' After that, I was treated better by the guards before being released." She tried to find out as much as she could, and write as much as she could, about as many of these prisoners as she could, in the hopes that what she set down might, even in the smallest way, set some imprisoned someone, somewhere, more at ease.

                            Many of those people are still out there. They still suffer. They still need our help. Whether we pursue criminal prosecutions, or a truth and reconciliation commission, or both, we should not forget those who are the reason why: those who were tortured. On our dime. In our names.

                            There is no concern in your comment about those who are tortured. You are limited solely to repeated calls for prosecutions of the torturers. In your endless ululations for prosecutions, I am afraid that you identify with the "millions of closet Hell's Angels whose sole interest . . . [i]s the spectacle of seeing once-powerful men brought weeping to their knees." You are about making people suffer. The only difference between you and BushCo, is that you want different people to suffer. But suffering is what you are both about.

                            And that is why I am not your servant. And do not respond to your demands.

                          •  Lots of hot gas, which is your particular talent (6+ / 0-)

                            A transparent, pathetic, immature smokescreen of classic projection common to the self centered, accusing me of being like Bush, McCarthy, of being an authoritarian (nice twist and reversal there), effusive use of adjectives and ad hominems to imply that because I want my country to abide by the Conventions Against Torture (which Obama is legally required to do) that somehow that makes me callous to the victims of torture. Okayyyy. Logic is not your friend.

                            But one essential element is glaringly missing once the noxious gaseous cloud evaporates, which in fact is the only element that matters: Your agreement with the two statements provided.

                            Fact:

                            You don't agree with the law to prosecute torturers.

                            You don't support enforcement of the Conventions Against Torture.

                            You're now on record by your omission. Clear as day.

                            And I hereby observe a natural law: The more Blueness resorts to ad hominem attacks, the more unnerved and rattled he betrays himself to be, and the more it indicates lack of any valid response.

                          •  poor (3+ / 4-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, vcmvo2, Avila
                            Hidden by:
                            TheMomCat, Agathena, PhilJD, frandor55

                            larval ZhenRen. If you were actually familiar with my work, rather than the phantom that rattles round your brainpan, you would know that I do agree with the law to prosecute torturers, and do support the Convention Against Torture. I simply know that torture will never end, laws or no laws, prosecutions or no prosecutions. so long as there are people like BushCo, and you, who see solutions in cages.

                          •  I wonder (6+ / 0-)

                            Is it torture only when it is revealed? Or does it also include incarcerating people for no known reason?

                            ...it is possible in America to govern entirely on the appearance of principle--while changing absolutely nothing~Matt Taibbi

                            by LaEscapee on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:02:09 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  And what we're not even discussing here (4+ / 0-)

                            is that there are accounts that torture is continuing under Obama, with the use of rendition of detainees to other countries which torture while the CIA stands by and watches, not to mention Manning, targetting citizens for assasination (is killing people a form of torture?), and so forth.

                            Sheesh, no wonder Obama doesn't want to prosecute. Talk about a can of worms.

                          •  Again, having read your link (5+ / 0-)

                            there is no statement in that post which supports enforcement of the Conventions Against Torture against former officials of the Bush administration.

                            It's just more smoke and mirrors, as if a mountain of words somehow is an answer, despite the lack of relevancy.

                            Just say the words: Obama should abide by his duty to enforce the CAM. The fact that you can't make such a simple statement is already more than obvious.

                            In fact, you're already on record (see my post above) of being against prosecution of Bush administration officials. And since you're against prosecution, then you don't support the CAM, since one of the most important elements of the CAM is the requirement for enforcement. This requirement IS the CAM, without which it is an empty document.

                            You're okay with enforcement against third world tyrants, but not against some of the worst offenders in our own country. Nothing in the treaty indicated enforcement is left to the personal discretion of individual government officials. Obama isn't allowed to cherry pick this.

                          •  as i've (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, vcmvo2, poco, Avila

                            already said, I cannot help you with your problems. That your reading skills are so substandard that your perusal of that link leaves you believing that there is "no statement in that post which supports enforcement of the Conventions Against Torture against former members of the Bush administration" . . . well, there is truly nothing that I can do for you.

                            That your thoroughly embarrassing comment is recced by the inimitable gooderservice, that's like the perfect, delicious icing.

                            And you really do need to try to get a handle on your appalling authoritarian impulses:

                            Just say the words: Obama should abide by his duty to enforce the CAM.

                            "Just say the words"? I thought I was taking a break today, from reading police reports and interrogations. Alas, not to be.

                          •  Provide the text (3+ / 0-)

                            here in a post that explicitly indicates you expect Obama to enforce the CAM against Bush officials. Go read your own writing.

                            This is all I'm asking. Provide it, and this goes away.

                            Ad hominems don't constitute a rebuttal.

                            The words you've written explicitly state the opposite. See my posts above, wherein I quote your own words to that effect.

                          •  as (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, vcmvo2, poco, Avila

                            I've explained many times in this subthread, I am not your servant, and I do not respond to your demands. You are an authoritarian bully, and I absolutely refuse to feed your base needs. I am a free human being, and will respond as I choose. I owe you an "explicit" nothing. You continue to ignore my words. Because you want to. As I said: I cannot help you.

                          •  I've read your words (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman

                            And I found nothing in them that states you expect Obama to enforce the CAM against the Bush administration officials. But I did find words you wrote which state that you don't support such prosecutions. The post you keep referencing is about prosecuting a third world tyrant, not the Bush administration. In other words, you're cherry picking who would be prosecuted. Cherry picking isn't allowed under the Convention Against Torture.

                            At this point, we're going in circles. You keep restating the same thing, while offering nothing new. I expect you will continue to do this, which is your usual method of obfuscation.

                            It doesn't work.

                            And you still haven't clearly stated your position, except for the statement that you don't support prosecuting the Bush administration officials. Have you changed your mind about that statement?

                          •  CAT, not CAM -eom. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman
                          •  thick (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            vcmvo2, foufou, Avila

                            as a brick. Is it any wonder that I continue, correctly, to refer to you as a person stuck in what Leary termed a larval stage of development?

                            Try this. From the link you have many times been provided:

                            In dismissing Emmanuel’s challenge to the constitutionality of the Torture Act, the Belfast II court notes that “Congressional power to pass those laws that are necessary and proper to effectuate the enumerated powers of the Constitution is nowhere broader and more important than in the realm of foreign relations.”
                            “Indeed, there is a particularly strong case for deference to the political branches, ‘over and above the traditional and general requirement of restraint in the area of foreign relations, [when a court is] asked to review a statute which both Congress and [a] President [ ] have declared to be necessary to fulfill our obligations under both customary international law and a treaty which we have signed.’”

                            Significantly for any BushCo War on Terra-era persons who may ultimately come before the federal courts, the Belfast II court found that “the Torture Act does not require the government to prove the defendant’s motive,” other than an intent to engage in that conduct that is defined by statute as torturous, and that the Torture Act may be brought to bear on those who torture with the mere intent of inflicting severe pain and suffering, whether or not such pain and suffering is actually inflicted.

                            Such persons have also been put on notice by the Belfast II court that:

                            —”[t]he exclusion of public emergency as an excuse for torture is necessary if the Convention is to have significant effect, as public emergencies are commonly invoked as a source of extraordinary powers or as a justification for limiting fundamental rights and freedoms”;

                            —”Congress has the power to regulate the extraterritorial acts of U.S. citizens” and “[t]he language of the Torture Act itself evinces an unmistakable congressional intent to apply the statute extraterritorially”;

                            —”[t]he Supreme Court made clear long ago that an absent United States citizen is nonetheless ‘personally bound to take notice of the laws [of the United States] that are applicable to him and to obey them’”;

                            —and “CAT also does not prevent the United States from punishing acts that would constitute torture or attempts to commit torture—both of which undeniably would include kidnappings that occur in furtherance of torture.”

                            In sum, we can discern no merit to any of Emmanuel’s constitutional challenges to the way in which Congress defined torture in the Torture Act. If anything, the arguably more expansive definition of torture adopted by the United States is that much more faithful to the CAT’s purpose of enhancing global efforts to combat torture.

                            John Durham was charged in August of last year by Attorney General Eric Holder to determine whether criminal investigation and indictment of BushCo War on Terra-era CIA agents and contractors is warranted. It is believed that Durham is reviewing at least a dozen possible cases, including some where prisoners were waterboarded, beaten, choked, subjected to mock executions, sexually abused, threatened with harm to their children, and killed.

                            Whether any such investigations and indictments will actually occur is at present unknown. What is known is that with Belfast II there is now precedent upholding the constitutionality of the Torture Act, and binding the United States to enforcement of the Convention Against Torture against US nationals, regardless of where in the world they might commit their crimes. Precedent awaiting the day when the people and the government of the United States mature enough to recognize that this country’s own agents are capable of “extraordinary cruelty and evil.” And act accordingly.

                            And again, all you seem to care about, in re torture, is prosecutions. As I've said, to me this does not speak well of you. I'm curious: amid your ceaseless ululations that people should be slapped into cages, for engaging in torture, have you ever inscribed any diaries about any of the people who were actually tortured? I can't seem to find any. If you have, I would certainly like to see them.

                            If you show me yours, I'll show you mine.

                          •  Going in circles here (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman

                            We've gone through this several times now, but you keep repeating yourself with the same comment. Even the insults are the same. Sheesh. Could you please at least come up with new slurs, for crying out loud? This isn't entertaining anymore.

                            But there is one change: You've finally posted a text of your views. Yet no where in the text do you make a statement to the effect that Obama has the constitutional duty to uphold our laws, which in the case of the Conventions Against Torture means that he must prosecute or be personally in violation of the agreement.

                            You've rather carefully avoided making any such statement. I wonder if you just don't want to be quotable as having that position?

                            It seems apparent one could presumably write all that you have, and yet not agree that Obama should prosecute. Cognitive dissonance is fairly common in these ramparts. Bizarre.

                            And you did write this: (have you changed your mind?)

                            Relying on criminal investigations to address torture would immediately disappear the issue into the maw of the legal system, the very source and inexhaustible supplyhouse of squid ink. The accused will attempt to turn any proceeding into an endless, monotonous drone, sucking any and all life out of it, until evil, as the saying goes, has been rendered utterly banal.

                            Immediately disappear? Squid Ink? Utterly banal? This comment tends to define your point of view fairly clearly. So you're on record with these words.

                            As to what the quantity of diaries I have written about torture (irrelevant to this debate): Aside from comments, I've not written diaries about torture here on DKOs. I've not written many diaries at all on any topic. I don't have the time, nor have I made a career of sorts out of writing posts. But that has nothing at all to do with the validity or lack thereof, regarding either my comments, or yours. Your insult is just another logical fallacy. Argumentum ad quantificum. (Yes, I just made that Latin name up from out of the blueness.) It is the absurd fallacy that the more diaries you've written on a topic, the greater divine right you have to being correct! Oh my, Blueness. Funny guy.

                            This fallacy is related to appeal to authority or argumentum ad verecundiam (no, I did NOT make this up) which is the incorrect assumption that the alleged status of assumed authority (to which you've appointed yourself) makes a person right. Nonsense.

                          •  what else, mi companero (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            after so many years of the same, you were expecting something new and different?  this is more of the same.  it's not even about any individual ever tortured, as you know.  

                            the "prosecution for war crimes" (version unknown) is perpetuation of punishment, nothing more, nothing less. no consideration ever for:

                            -an appeal for full disclosure, or truth and reconciliation process.  without this, i reckon we should forget the doctors who tortured, the psychologists who told the guards where it hurt most, the translators who facilitated that process, the "support" staff who falsified records, the enlisted military personnel who witnessed and turned away, and the victims we don't know about.  we will never know the extent of the war-on-terra torture without allowing anyone and everyone a chance to come forth and speak freely.

                            -an appeal for victims, as individuals detained and/or tortured, and their histories as well as current circumstances.  

                            i still hope for an Alyssa Peterson Commission of truth and reconciliation.

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:58:43 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  repudiation + exact wording = fanatic (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            i knew that, but you've just proved it again, in your silly attempt to coerce blueness to use your exact wording Or Else  . . . (be known as This or That, whatever your intended consequence.)

                            just say the words: Obama should abide by his duty to enforce the CAM.

                            blueness doesn't need to prove a thing to you.  (and neither do I . . . we know you don't care what we think and aren't interested in discussion, only in making points.) he's on record here and has provided you with links to his previous statements on the matter.  anyone who knows blueness at all would find your "charges" laughable.  

                            what troubles me is that you and your cohorts are demanding a repudiation of Obama, and using torture as a platform.

                            (do you want to talk specific detainees? black sites? where are they now? no, no and hell, no. name the time, give me a day's notice for work, IF you ever want to get specific on detainees, the actual people who are/were illegally detained and/or tortured.)  

                            this is about punishment (of Obama, and before him, "war criminals," NOS).  it's about prosecutions and repeating the cycle of punishment. i reiterate: punishment of Obama, and in its weakest form, repudiation on a blog.  how disingenuous.

                            for you to try to coerce anyone into said repudiation and use of your exact words troubles me more.  

                            this Lifton/Singer Demand For Purity (which you've tried with me before) is familiar to anyone who's familiar with  enhanced interrogation techniques . . . we could go on through history before The Crusades. ZhenRen ain't the first to try ideological coercion.  

                            you've played right into blueness' hands here in making such an estupida demand. all you have done is established your place as an Interrogator, on a blog but an Interrogator nonetheless, and in doing so, this is what you have revealed:

                            getting someone to repudiate Obama is crucial to you.  it is of so much importance to you that you Demand Purity, with no ambiguity in the repudiation. you want it in your own words.  you're willing to spend inordinate amounts of time in this pursuit.  it is fanaticism, to state the obvious, and any issue will work but torture is incidental to this.

                            i know exactly where blueness stands on torture. if you were interested, you'd know the same.  (he has provided you with links.)  it appears you aren't interested unless you can have exact wording and coercion = fanaticism.

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:26:56 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  scheduling note (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            just an FYI.  i may not be able to check back in until this evening.  it may be tomorrow.  but i will check back.

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 11:34:12 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Several strawman fallacies are made in your reply (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TheMomCat, priceman

                            I don't expect him to use exact wording to indicate his position regarding the Convention Against Torture. The CAT requires enforcement. It is the concept, not the words, that is important.  This provision is part and parcel of the Convention, thus it IS the convention. If you and Blueness don't want to abide by the convention, that's your right, but you should be honest about it. What Blueness is doing is asserting he is against torture, as indicated by his diaries, but he doesn't support the CAT. If he did, he would support prosecutions against torturers and war criminals, as the convention requires. You can't have it both ways.

                            It seems apparent that what's really going on here is Obama, whom Blueness wants to support, has not abided with the CAT, since he has refused to investigate and prosecute offenders. Thus, this puts Obama supporters in a bind, because such criticisms of Obama's lack of compliance don't help him get elected. Rather than go on record against Obama's policies, they either modify their views to be in accord with his, or they simply refuse to voice an opinion, so as to avoid making the criticism.

                            Another strawman is that my criticisms stem not from a concern about torture, but from a desire to repudiate Obama. That is hogwash. I've always been an advocate of human and civil rights, having been raised by a father who founded an ACLU chapter in my hometown. I was raised with these issues and concepts, and they are as much a part of me as the blood running through my vessels.

                            I don't bow to the presumed authority you're placing on Blueness in all matters of torture.

                            It pains me that Obama has chosen to erode human rights with his policies, and I wish this were not occurring, but the unfortunate reality it this is happening, and for those of us who value human rights, there is no choice but to speak out.

                            We all have a responsibility to call this as we see it. Blueness makes his choices, and he has made clear that he does not support enforcement of CAT by the Obama administration.

                            I've made a different choice, and that is what this is about.

                            And as to implying that I am a torturer, and an interrogator, that serves only to demean and trivialize the entire issue of torture. It was Blueness who came into the diary interrogating the diarist in a very offensive and bullying manner, and when some of us push back a bit, suddenly it isn't he who is the bully, but everyone else. The reason you're upset with me is I refused to back down from one the most notorious bullies on this site. Blueness isn't accustomed to people standing up to his verbal assaults, and he threw a temper tantrum, and now you're assisting.

                            No doubt you believe him to be a great friend and you admire his writing, but his talents, to whatever degree they may be, don't give him license to act like a spoiled child.

                            As to your complaints about politeness and manners and good deportment, if you examine the entire thread, it should be obvious to any objective person that blueness has a very contentious and insulting demeanor and tone, beginning with his treatment of Priceman, and then extending to me. The larval stage comments are actually far more insulting than simply calling someone an insect, because what is being said is that I'm on some low level of consciousness. Blueness apparently believes himself to be so gifted and superior that he can forcefully thrust this definition onto another human being as if it is some profound pronouncement from on high. Of course it is intended to be an insult. You'd have to be, to use your very polite term, una estupida to think he wasn't using that as a personal attack.

                          •  that's dishonest at best (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            okay, ZhenRen, we'll do it your way.  one step at a time. your original statement was this:

                            The fact that you can't make such a simple statement is already more than

                            and now you say exact wording not so important? ha! very convenient . . . you saw he was not about to bite that shiny hook and you lowered your expectations accordingly, to wit:

                            I don't expect him to use exact wording to indicate his position regarding the Convention Against Torture.

                            one would hope you don't expect it.  one would hope you aren't waiting for that exact wording you initially demanded and now refer to as "simple statement."

                            If you and Blueness don't want to abide by the convention, that's your right,

                            tu perdon, why would we not want to?  what, you're clairvoyant now? clairvoyant and incorrect, more like.  

                            do you have any evidence whatsoever that either blueness or myself has voiced opposition to the convention?  no.  you do not.  if you think you do, please substantiate.  

                            await your reply. ;)

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 11:06:47 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh my... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman

                            More of the same.

                            Do try to understand the difference between a concept and the words which convey it. I don't care how he says it, it is the underlying concept that matters.

                            As to evidence he doesn't support the enforcement provisions of CAT, without which it is just a piece of useless paper, has already been discussed and presented by me in several posts which you obviously have not read, and yet here you are, making comments despite not having comprehended this thread.

                            First there is this rather blatant comment Blueness made:

                            Relying on criminal investigations to address torture would immediately disappear the issue into the maw of the legal system, the very source and inexhaustible supplyhouse of squid ink. The accused will attempt to turn any proceeding into an endless, monotonous drone, sucking any and all life out of it, until evil, as the saying goes, has been rendered utterly banal.

                            [Emphasis mine]

                            Here Blueness says that criminal investigations (required by CAT) would make the evil of torture "utterly banal." That pretty much says it all. He doesn't support enforcement of CAT, which requires such criminal investigations, since torture is a crime.

                            In addition, Blueness has not made any other statement which counters that remark, and has steadfastly avoided going on record to support the application of the CAT.

                            And he has made remarks that strongly suggest he thinks prosecution would merely put people in "cages," as if that would be useless as a deterrent. To suggest prosecution is not a deterrent indicates he has no idea how important the global  leadership of the U.S. is in the example it sets to prosecute war crimes and torture. When the U.S. gets away with war crimes and torture, it tells the rest of the world that torture is permissible. Lack of supporting the CAT will erode the entire case against torture worldwide. And by this refusal to be held accountable, the U.S. puts our own citizens in serious jeopardy the next time some regime indefinitely detains and illegally tortures one of our own citizens, since they can now laugh in our faces.

                            Here's an example of Blueness ridiculing me for wanting the CAT to be upheld:

                            I'm curious: amid your ceaseless ululations that people should be slapped into cages, for engaging in torture, have you ever inscribed any diaries about any of the people who were actually tortured?

                            Ceaseless ululations? My god...  So in Blueness' twisted synapses, he thinks support for CAT can be tossed off as ululations. Holy fucking shit. Talk about insulting. I can't remember a worse thing said on this site. He laughs at people who want to enforce the CAT against torturers? The fact that he ridicules my case for upholding of the CAT indicates he has such contempt for the CAT that he thinks supporting it is a reason to belittle people. There are other similar statements he makes in this thread. Go read them, since you obviously missed them. These are his owns words. He owns them.

                          •  i believe (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            you and i see the issue of torture from two different perspectives.  there could be more, and i'm not saying a third, fourth or hundredth perspective doesn't exist, or is without merit, but as you and i know, whether anyone admits it or not, a majority of Americans have no objection to torture, if they acknowledge it at all.  

                            would you not agree that we live in a torture-endangered society? Dr. Steven Miles defines this in part as:

                            Americans have kept the reality of torture far from consciousness. Although we are steeped in fictional torture, we are nearly insensate to the reality of torture.

                            Dr. Miles' work, his book Oath Betrayed and reports from Physicians For Human Rights such as Broken Laws, Broken Lives (PDF format) have emphasized since 2004, at the time we first learned of Abu Ghraib, that we (the public) have never known anything resembling a full story.  i'm sure you've read about doctors who tortured, interpreters and medical support staff who assisted, falsified death certificates, the IRC's discovery of falsified medical records, mistaken identities, reports that were complete fabrication.  so whereas you and i might have access to some names and detainee numbers, we do not know, and have never known the names and circumstances of other individuals, their disappeared children, some entire families.  we've read about the Bush administration's rendition sites, but are there others?  do we really know who all the ghost detainees were? where are they now?  what about the ghost planes, ghost ships and even the ghost island of Diego Garcia?

                            my belief, ZhenRen, is that we have barely scratched the surface of torture directed by the United States in its war-against-terra.  for every fact we know, are we missing another, ten others, a hundred others? in the Human Rights Library database at University of Minnesota, the index page makes it clear that their records aren't complete, and they don't know, either.

                            Exclusions

                            This list does not:

                            --address the status of the estimated 150 persons who the CIA has taken to other countries for imprisonment in a process called extraordinary rendition. It is credibly reported that many of these persons have been tortured. All of these persons should be presumed dead until the United States names these persons, produces evidence of their well being and allows human rights organizations to confirm the information.

                            --include deaths of persons at the point of capture prior to imprisonment or during transport from one prison to another.

                            in all the talk i've read over the years about prosecutions, petitions for war crimes etc, etc . . . . what we do not know isn't addressed.  in addition to the individuals tortured or renditioned, there are countless other broken lives, and people like Tony Lagouranis who want to explain their experiences.

                            it is my belief that anyone who witnessed torture or participated at any level meets the criteria set forth in PHR's Broken Laws, Broken Lives (PDF format).  if we do not allow these people to come forward and be heard, they will just stay broken . . . and we'll have some pieces of this big, ugly puzzle but not all.

                            by the time Senator Leahy called for a torture truth commission, at least a couple of bloggers had spent the two or three years previous counting the ways a truth commission made sense.  yes, blueness and i.  (incidentally, any suggestion that he is some "notorious bully" is laughable to me . . .  i've seen some bullies here, but they disappeared when i closed a browser tab.)

                            so perhaps you could tell me . . . . and i'm asking with genuine interest and a wish to understand, why it is that we (US citizens) are not working toward investigations and a truth and reconciliation commission, allowing everyone touched by a crime of horrific and unprecedented dimensions to tell his or her version of events?  why are we not doing everything we can to find out?  that's my question.  if a criminal prosecution would get the truth out into the light of day, i'd be all for it, but you must know anyone with relevant knowledge is going to shut up and lawyer up.  the lawyers will deny.  the court will be adjourned.  i do not see how this resolves anything for anyone.

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:54:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well, thank you for admitting (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman

                            where you stand. Wasn't it just a few posts ago you were daring me to provide evidence you and Blueness don't support the CAT? And now, with this comment, you've come right out and admitted it.

                            I like this honesty much better. And I have much more respect for it.

                            Good investigators can leverage lower level abusers who were following orders to testify against bigger fish. People can be charged, but can find leniency by giving cooperation. But doing nothing, as well as actively working against investigation attempted by other countries, such as Italy, and Spain as I recall, certainly doesn't send a good message to the world about the U.S. and its complicity, in quashing investigations of its own former officials.

                            I'm ashamed of this position my country has taken.

                          •  that is not what i said (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            and i'm speaking for myself, obviously . . . . nowhere in the above, and not in any other place, at any time, have i said  anything which would indicate nonsupport of the Convention On Torture.  

                            i believe i have made my position on torture abundantly clear.  it's a pretty simple position, and you can certainly disagree with it.  i disagree with this, but i'm not going to join you in word twists.

                            Good investigators can leverage lower level abusers who were following orders to testify against bigger fish. People can be charged, but can find leniency by giving cooperation.

                            i don't think it's as simple, or as clear as "following orders."  there's a lot of gray area here and Dr. Miles explains it much better than i can, but to use a quick example:

                            --abuser voluntarily engaged in abuse.  (can't claim "orders," or chain of command.  this is a Tony Lagouranis scenario:  "i was pissed as hell, and he [victim] was there when i lost control.  no one saw me."  

                            do you see any "leverage" in that?  he has nothing to bargain with, no one to incriminate.  we can't say it's worthless information, though, on the surface.    

                            or let's say as another example, someone tells you: "i saw something horrible, but i didn't report it.  i don't think reporting it would have stopped it.  it might have made my life hell, though."

                            in both scenarios, these are true accounts, the truth as these individuals know it . . . and there are many accounts just like these two.  

                            do we close our eyes and ears because we wanted more and bigger fish?  do we demand more detail and maybe threaten the guy or tell him he can have a smoke if he'll just tell us all he knows?  you know he's going to call his lawyer and the lawyer will tell him to stop volunteering information.

                            at what point do we realize we're perpetuating a cycle?

                            a truth commission (by that, i mean an opportunity for everyone to talk freely and without fear of consequences or recriminations) is the only way we will ever know what happened, in my opinion.

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 04:55:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well... you did say this: (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman
                            if a criminal prosecution would get the truth out into the light of day, i'd be all for it, but you must know anyone with relevant knowledge is going to shut up and lawyer up.  the lawyers will deny.  the court will be adjourned.  i do not see how this resolves anything for anyone.

                            It's basic logic that the CAT involves the crucial requirement for enforcement. Thus, people who don't support active enforcement are not supporting the CAT.

                            I'm not trying to twist your words. I'm merely applying basic reasoning.

                            And Blueness has certainly made statements indicating he doesn't support the requirements in the CAT to enforce the treaty.

                            But thank you for the better tone. I think we've all pummeled this topic to death at this point, we've all had our say. I think we all agree more than we give each other credit for, and I find all this discord tiring.

                            I'll read more of your links when I have time. I realize you spent some effort compiling them.

                          •  uprated, blueness actually (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, poco, Avila

                            has a long record of fighting against torture.

                            In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

                            by vcmvo2 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:02:27 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The HRs-- mine, anyway-- were for (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            vcmvo2, TheMomCat

                            the repeated use of "larval." Yes, I note the poster's explanation of the term as deriving from Leary, but most Kossacks won't read this extremely long and contentious back and forth discussion.

                            They will see larval simply as an insult, and a particularly nasty one at that. In a case like this, perception is reality.

                            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                            by PhilJD on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:14:30 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  not necessarily Phil (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PhilJD, Avila, blueness

                            I've been reading blueness for years and he often uses that terminology. I can see why it may have dismayed you but Zhen Rhen was way off base and bullying. imo there was more to be concerned with his behavior, or as least as much, as with blueness. I'll stand by blueness's work on torture and human rights against almost anyone. He was bringing light to bear on this subject when Bush began the detentions at Guantanamo. His work is all there to be read.

                            So hiderate blueness but then balance it out with Zhen Rhen. I uprated blueness. I didn't hr anyone. I let them have it out. But check blues writing, it is beyond excellent. Never mind the field work he does. I admire him.

                            In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God ~RFK

                            by vcmvo2 on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:34:32 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Show me a response I made (0+ / 0-)

                            which deserves to be hidden. I've responded to some very caustic and insulting remarks made by him, which he initiated.

                            And no, calling me a worm does not get a pass, and the rationalizations Blueness (and his friends) makes to defend his extremely inflammatory language are absurd. I've explained all this elsewhere in the thread.

                            You're not an unbiased observer here.

                          •  i do not agree (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness, vcmvo2

                            why do you assume "most Kossacks" don't know the meaning of words?  that's insulting.

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:49:45 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Phil (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PhilJD, priceman, TheMomCat, LaEscapee

                            It is an insult either way. One meaning is that I'm a worm, an insect. The other meaning is I'm on a low level of consciousness, having low worth as a human. The first is simply a vacuous insult. The second is making a statement about my status and value as a person. In my view, his intended meaning is even worse than was apparent.

                          •  Indeed he does, except (0+ / 0-)

                            he has ridiculed people who want the CAT upheld, and he has indicated he thinks application of the required prosecutions of the CAT would render the evils of torture "utterly banal."

                            That is what we're discussing here, and it seems by your remarks that you didn't read the entire thread, because if you had, you would know what the issues are which are being discussed.

                          •  is Meteor Blades the community moderator? (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            what on earth is HR-worthy in this comment?

                            usual suspects. TheMomCat in particular has a long history of ratings abuse and recidivism.

                            Hidden by: TheMomCat, Agathena, PhilJD, frandor55

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 12:47:24 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Recidivism? (0+ / 0-)

                            Is she in a gang?  

                            I will not send money to, work for, or vote for, any candidate whose behavior benefits the 1% over the 99%. Work for my vote, money and time, or lose it. Not the other way around.

                            by Nada Lemming on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 08:11:35 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  i could not even guess (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            what she's in or not in.  i only know her by her ratings.

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 11:09:28 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You make it sound (0+ / 0-)

                            Like she just got out of prison.  If you knew anything at all about her you should be ashamed of yourself.  Because you don't know anything about her, I'd say leave the ad Homs at home.  You look petty and ignorant.  

                            I will not send money to, work for, or vote for, any candidate whose behavior benefits the 1% over the 99%. Work for my vote, money and time, or lose it. Not the other way around.

                            by Nada Lemming on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 02:53:04 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  interesting (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            i mentioned ratings, and you somehow extrapolated "gang" and "prison" from that, but have the temerity to tell me i should be ashamed . . .  not knowing another user is . . .  "petty and ignorant."

                            how . . .  interesting.

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 03:15:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ratings recidivist (0+ / 0-)

                            Do you not think that sounds petty and ignorant?  What would you call it?  Should she be repentant with her ratings?  How does one do that?  

                            Should she start tipping statements she disagrees with?  Would that redeem her?  

                            I will not send money to, work for, or vote for, any candidate whose behavior benefits the 1% over the 99%. Work for my vote, money and time, or lose it. Not the other way around.

                            by Nada Lemming on Sat Jan 21, 2012 at 09:34:10 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  what i think (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness

                            Nada Lemming, is exactly what i have said already.  

                            Merriam Webster defines recidivism as:

                            a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior

                            if you want to read "gangs, prison, shame, redemption, ignorance and/or pettiness" into that definition, those are your interpretations.  you can stand by them.  you can make up some more.  i have attempted twice to clarify the definition of recidivism after your little scoldings, but no more.  if you have an issue with this, then it is your issue, not mine.  

                            Success loves a witness, but failure can't exist without one. - Junot Díaz

                            by Avila on Sun Jan 22, 2012 at 12:13:57 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ZhenRen

                            He says he has quit and Markos says the job is his and I take them at their word.

                            Weren't you the person who used to run an anti-torture blog called Not in Our Name or something like that and then claimed buhdydharma stole away all your best writers?

                            I could look it up if I cared.

                            For the record he didn't steal me.

                          •  LOL at the bodacious hypocrisy (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, blueness, Avila

                            Recommended by:
                            TheMomCat

                            Recommending this vomitorium of ad hom and personal attack while HR'ing blueness.

                            OMG have you no shame?

                          •  she's (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fcvaguy, foufou, Avila

                            already once had her ratings privileges revoked for HRing my posts. Apparently she so enjoyed the experience she'd like to repeat it.

                          •  wasn't aware of that (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, blueness, Avila

                            wasn't even aware that she was a she. LOL.

                            Love you to bits, but I'm not down with the "larva" thing. But, I'm really not down with TheMomCat's abject hypocrisy of HRing you for your insults while actually rec'cing ZhenRen. Now there's someone who's ratings need to get pulled pronto.

                          •  it's (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fcvaguy, foufou, Avila

                            not "larva," it's "larval." Ir refers to Leary's theory of species development, and there's nothing remotely HRable about it. They know that, because we've been through this before, myself and the same people: it's in the links. But they don't care. Ratings abuse is what they do. They live for it.

                            TheMomCat has had her ratings privileges revoked twice that I know of. She is someone who does not learn. Doesn't want to.

                          •  pardon my ignorance (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blueness, Avila

                            I got a D in biology.

                          •  Yes, you've done this before (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PhilJD, priceman, TheMomCat

                            and this isn't the first time you've used this insult, as well as the excuse that it refers to stages of development.

                            I actually find the notion that anyone can decipher the actual level of consciousness of another with any accuracy to be a profoundly malicious and ignorant point of view, and is used by the priest-craft of various religions/philosophies to peg people as unworthy or lower than others as a form of control and manipulation.

                            If Leary were around, I doubt he would support the use of his theories by you to insult and judge, and I doubt he would be enamored of your reasons for doing so. I doubt he would think himself, much less you, the authority on just what level any one person exemplifies, since only fools indulge in that form of grandiosity.

                            Frankly, I find this even more insidious than making a psychological diagnosis.

                            Leary's formulation

                            The eight-circuit model of consciousness proposed by psychologist Timothy Leary describes eight levels of function of human consciousness. The lower four, the larval circuits, deal with normal psychology, while the upper four, the stellar circuits, deal with “psychic", “mystical”, “enlightened” states of mind, and with psychedelics. Association of this model with drug use has earned it some notoriety.

                          •  I used to read good ol' Leary beginning at age 13 (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman

                            That was a looong time ago.

                            I like him, but I don't agree with every utterance he makes.

                          •  and (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fcvaguy, foufou, Avila

                            he would no doubt genuflect before your judgement that the "tendency to attack dissent from the left is anti-American." Right? Or maybe not. Since he recognized that those limited to world-views that contain such phantom concepts as "America," much less "anti-American," have yet to evolve beyond what he described as a larval stage of development.

                            Probably he wouldn't be pleased that you relied on wiki for an account of his theories, either. Wiki does, after all, have a 13% error rate. Not something much acceptable, to serious people. Though of course it is far superior to the error rate of so many of the indefatigably unserious people involved in this subthread.

                          •  LOL... You're still doing it (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman, TheMomCat

                            Using these little devices as a way of determining human worth. Can't you see how useless this is? How contradictory and even weird it is to invoke Leary to wage your assaults?

                            Wiki was handy. No more, no less.

                            Anti-American was just a phrase, which I explained. Just words. Oh my, have I sinned? What would Leary say about that? I doubt he would comment, but he might say that, maybe, you're stuck on symbolism and semantics (maya) in this instance? Well, this is gamesmanship, and not even close to being worthy of invoking Leary to win an argument.

                            And what does any of this have to do with not supporting CAT requirements for prosecution? We're way off topic here, but I guess that's your intent.

                            Frankly, I don't think Leary would have anything to do with any of this we discuss here, much less defend a personality in government.

                            He'd think both of us were in need of a good acid trip, and he might even have a point. He'd be laughing (in a good way) about the whole conversation, you included.

                            Take some acid, and think about torture... and get back with me.

                          •  and (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, Avila

                            still, after all these comments, you continue to cling to your delusion that I am your servant, obligated to respond to your demands.

                            Take some acid, and think about torture... and get back with me.

                            I've done both, thank you. And so I know you for what you are. That you would frame and inscribe such a sentence reveals the authoritarianism at your very core. So sad.

                          •  That's great (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            priceman, TheMomCat

                            I'll never regret taking the psychotropic "entheogens" as I was growing up, and later as well. And it is a big part of what shaped my view of the world.

                            I'm going to ignore the rest of this strange conversation.

                            Peace and love. Leary for governor! Fond memories...

                          •  Brilliantly said, ZhenRen. Everyone, (10+ / 0-)

                            even the Bushies, claims to be against torture in the abstract. That talk is very very cheap.

                            Anyone, from the President on down, who declines to demand-- loudly, and forever if need be-- criminal investigations of the torture that was done in our names, is acquiescing in its inevitable resumption in the future.

                            Period.

                            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                            by PhilJD on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:27:03 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  ridiculous request (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, blueness, poco, Avila

                            someone has to agree with your precise wording? OMFG

                            He provided links. If you're interested in his views on the matter, go read them.

                          •  I read them. (7+ / 0-)

                            I found no support in them for the demand that Obama (and the United States which he represents) abide by his sworn responsibility to uphold the rule of law by complying with the requirement to uphold the Conventions Against Torture, and Blueness has refused to state that he agrees that the CAM should be enforced.

                          •  You insisted (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, blueness, Avila

                            multiple times that he buy your words. I was polite in calling that request ridiculous. Now, I'll call it abject bullying.

                          •  Nonsense (4+ / 0-)

                            He either supports the concept underlying the words, or he doesn't. He already admitted he does not (see my posts up thread). He does not support enforcement against our own Bush administration officials, as revealed by his own words. Case closed.

                            And as to bullying, read his remarks to me (LOL). If that is not bullying, then nothing is. I mean, my god... read his comments. Dickish doesn't even come close to describing them. If I'd written something like that about him, there would be a few dozen hide rates by now.

                          •  I'm sorta hoping (6+ / 0-)

                            Markos takes a dive in this thread. The behavior is horrible.

                          •  Rec'd with pleasure. I certainly also hope (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            TheMomCat, Nada Lemming, ZhenRen, priceman

                            markos notes this thread.

                            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                            by PhilJD on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:17:34 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're one that should be hoping he doesn't (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, Avila

                            but it doesn't shock me that you find your own abominable behavior acceptable. Your attempt at intimidating someone out of a diary with the "hijacking" bullshit, simply because they ask the diarist for his alternative, was a perfect example of what I'm talking about.

                          •  Well, in the tally of sanctions received... (0+ / 0-)

                            the score is-- that I know of--

                            fcvaguy 1
                            PhilJD 0

                            so I'll stack my understanding of the acceptable range of DKos comments and the nuances of Community Moderation against yours any old time.

                            When you triangulate everything, you can't even roll downhill...

                            by PhilJD on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:31:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  and (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, Avila

                            now it's "case closed." Endlessly amusing, you are. Now you sound exactly like the DAs I deal with every day. And like them, thoroughly wrong. But a true believer. That cannot be denied. And to such folks, that's all that matters.

                          •  Yep (5+ / 0-)

                            ignore the links that you don't like and reality. Better try another approach because this one isn't credible.

                            ...it is possible in America to govern entirely on the appearance of principle--while changing absolutely nothing~Matt Taibbi

                            by LaEscapee on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:40:51 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If I'm interested in your views on an issue (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            foufou, blueness, Avila

                            I would ask you for your views, or ask you for a link where you've expressed your views.

                            I wouldn't post some long string of vomit and then insist that you either agree or disagree with what I just posted. Thats not how it works here and you should know that. But, in the heat of passion and desire to defend a compatriot who's gone off the rails, I can see how your objectivity in such things can get seriously diminished.

                            In other words, go sell that BS to someone who'll buy it. People are free to express themselves in their own words, not words YOU insist on. What a crock.

                            Frankly, I'm hoping Markos takes a dive into this cesspool of a thread.

                          •  Me too n/t (0+ / 0-)

                            ...it is possible in America to govern entirely on the appearance of principle--while changing absolutely nothing~Matt Taibbi

                            by LaEscapee on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 05:33:14 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  damn (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  foufou, blueness, Avila

                  talk about hijacking your own diary. What does torture have to do with Dems and the Roberts court; the subject of your diary? Or is this just some ad hom attack on someone who had the audacity to correct one of your "facts". And then you invite them to leave your diary? Thats not how it works. Correcting your errors and leaving facts behind is not "dickish" behavior, or "hijacking". Its criticism which you as a diarist have to accept. If you don't like it or disagree, lets invite Markos into the diary and ask him his opinion of this thread.

                  •  He critiqued everything I have ever written (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    ZhenRen

                    I gave my own critique. You also need to pay attention. You don't seem to be able to parse meaning anymore as that was a separate point about the Roberts court.

                    Blueness didn't say anything about the gang of 14 because he can't.

                    No one told him to leave. that's another one of your fantasies.

                    Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                    by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:43:45 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  crimony (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      foufou, blueness, Avila

                      aren't you embarrassed?

                      No one told him to leave. that's another one of your fantasies.
                      But I know you have nothing else to correct so why stay? Go write some horrible revisionist diary on torture

                      Thats not exactly an invitation to pull up a chair and chat.

                      Do you take any responsibility for what you say? Or, do you think its unfair for people to hold you accountable for what you say?

                      •  Not at all. That's not telling someone to leave (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ZhenRen

                        You seem to be very confused about whether something is a question or a statement. The egg is on your face, not mine.

                        It's pathetic, really.

                        Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                        by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:07:19 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  you're parsing and quibbling (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          foufou, blueness

                          Your specialty is criticism. Your weakness seems to be criticism of your criticism. You're not above it all. Like all diarists, you need to accept that. I'm not special. And you aren't either.

                          We agree on your final point. Its indeed pathetic.

                          •  There is no criticism of 99% of the diary (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ZhenRen

                            You're not capable. Spare me the weak psychoanalysis.

                            Besides if i couldn't take criticism i wouldn't have admitted my mistake and did an update thus showing just how little you are capable of paying attention or attention to what words mean. that's why it's pathetic, definitively. Not just throwing the word around hoping it sticks as you did.

                            Weak and you know it.

                            Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                            by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 04:20:25 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Sorry price man, but Obama will win a second term (9+ / 0-)

    becauseterm because he is a very good man and a very good president and as we approach election day people will begin to remember/realize that.  Your civil libertarian nitpickery is what won't work.

    `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

    by seanwright on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:45:43 AM PST

    •  Nothing is a given in this world and economy (7+ / 0-)

      Maybe but it won't be as big as 2008 though I concede that billion dollars he plans to raise from Wall Street will help.

      Yeah, my caring about the Constitution is so passe, I know.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:08:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'm sure you care about the Constitution.. (6+ / 0-)

        But do you understand it?

        Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

        by jiffypop on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:12:06 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Citation please... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Radical def, foufou, Deep Texan, priceman

        ...for Obama's plans to raise "that billion dollars...from Wall Street."  I've heard the billion figure thrown around as the possible high-end of his total fundraising for this cycle, but no one to my knowledge, except for you just now, is claiming that he'll raise "that billion" from Wall Street.

        Citation (in which case I'll apologize for being mistaken) or retraction, please.

        •  Here you go (0+ / 0-)

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

          by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:46:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I don't think this is an effective citation. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            priceman

            I can't listen to audio at work, but the Google transcription of the Blitzer/Borger/Gergen (dubious sources, no?) conversation speculates on the amount he'll be able to raise from labor to offset the CU effect, and the Gingrich clip goes into public financing.  Unless the transcription is wrong, I still see no refererence to Obama expecting to raise a billion from Wall Street.

            Not that he won't raise a good deal of money from WS this cycle, but I think I read recently that individual donors from the top 5 big banks are giving to Republicans at a rate of 3:1 over Dems so far this cycle.

            The billion estimate, so far as I know is combined from high ticket events like those he's doing today in NYC (including one at the home of Spike Lee) along with bundlers and a huge number of much smaller individual donors...pretty much the same model that worked so well in 2008 (and which led to his decision to foresake public financing...much to McCain's chagrin!).

            I think you ought to be more careful about making such claims.  You're a good writer and you make some very valid arguments, but you undermine yourself when you stray off into hyperbole-land (and I know, it's easier for me to say "avoid letting yourself be provoked" than it is to put it into practice, considering the barrage of provocative comments going back and forth here all the time!).

            •  Is NPR good enough? (0+ / 0-)

              http://www.npr.org/...

              It's his fundraising goal that was widely reported and sometimes denied by the WH, but they are courting big donors.

              thanks for the praise even if you disagree with some of what I write.

              Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

              by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:12:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, sorry... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                foufou

                A citation for the claim that Obama is going to raise a billion from Wall Street should probably include the words "Wall Street" somewhere in the citation!!

                I'm not disputing that there's speculation his total raised will be a billion or more. My dispute is that he'll be raising a billion from Wall Street.

                Not trying to "pick nits" but rather to point out a possible reason why some of your critics so readily dismiss you as a "hater" or anti-Obama or whatever.  (FWIW, I have my criticisms of some of them as well!).

                And with that, I must dismount my soapbox and get back to work.

                Cheers.

                •  Goldman Sachs was his largest contributor last run (0+ / 0-)

                  yes employees of Goldman but still Goldman so it's not unfounded.

                  Among the fundraising meccas that could prove most vexing is New York City, which ranked as the top metropolitan fundraising source for Obama’s presidential campaign three years ago, producing $42 million in donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan tracker of political money.

                  A good chunk of that cash came from hedge fund investors who were drawn to Obama’s pledges to usher in a new way of doing things in Washington. Although the White House sent senior aides, such as Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett and Austan Goolsbee, to try to assuage the angst, not everyone has been mollified.

                  snip

                  But a billion dollar presidential re-election bid is unlikely to be launched or sustained for long exclusively with small donors. Even in 2008, Obama’s eye-popping online giving was matched with larger donations generated by roughly 700 big and small bundlers.

                  Rebuilding that half of his financial operation is critical to his prospects and talk of it dates back to before the midterms when the president hosted a string of late summer DNC fundraisers.

                  Attached to each of those large events was a smaller gathering where Obama had private time with his biggest bundlers and talk inevitably turned to 2012.

                  “We recognized in the midterm elections in 2010 that those outside groups were a big factor and we will have to deal with” that new threat, said Kirk Rudy, a deputy DNC finance chairman and an Obama fundraiser in Austin, who attended a Texas meeting.

                  Read more: http://www.politico.com/...

                  The Obama hater stuff is just ignorant since i support everything i say. Notice how nothing involving economics whatsoever is being discussed and that was what i closed with.

                  So there it is. hedge fund managers, bundlers all have ties to Wall Street which you can find out by going to Open Secrets per the Politico citation.

                  Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

                  by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:06:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  OK you've lost me. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    foufou

                    I've really been trying my best to give you the benefit of the doubt and to walk back this claim:

                    Maybe but it won't be as big as 2008 though I concede that billion dollars he plans to raise from Wall Street will help.

                    In response to a request for citation, you blew smoke in my eyes with two links, neither of which mention Wall Street in any way, shape or form.

                    Your lastest rebuttal is redundant, considering that I've already ceded this:

                    Not that he won't raise a good deal of money from WS this cycle, but I think I read recently that individual donors from the top 5 big banks are giving to Republicans at a rate of 3:1 over Dems so far this cycle.

                    Your latest link says this:

                    New York City, which ranked as the top metropolitan fundraising source for Obama’s presidential campaign three years ago, producing $42 million in donations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics

                    while your previous NPR link stated that Obama's 2008 total was $745.7M.  So, the NYC amount represents 5.63% of his 2008 total.  Even if Wall Street accounted for 100% of that amount, it leaves 94.37% that came from non-NYC sources.

                    And this...

                    hedge fund managers, bundlers all have ties to Wall Street

                    is just utterly preposterous.  All bundlers have ties to Wall Street?  All of them?  Forget Open Secrets, here's the direct link to Obama's 2012 bundler's list. There are people from all over the country on that list, and it's quite a stretch to imagine that all of them have ties to Wall Street. Anna Wintour is on the $500,000+ list. And while she likely has social connections to a hedge funder or two, her primary reach is with the world of publishing, fashion, and advertising/PR.  And she's just one example.

                    So, it seems we'll have to agree to disagree that Obama has other sources of funding heading down the stretch to Nov 2012 than just Wall Street.

                    But yeah, the Obama-hater stuff is ignorant and much of the commentary that I stopped reading has been pretty useless.  But, I do appreciate that your interaction with me has remained civil.

    •  What a gift to be able to see a person's True Self (0+ / 0-)

      and to proclaim Obama a "very good man."  People used to say that about George W. Bush, but they were crazy.

      NOW SHOWING
      Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
      Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

      by The Dead Man on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:04:40 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The people who called Bush a good man weren't (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Deep Texan

        necessarily crazy, many of them were just foolish and others had very different values than me.  People who can't see that Obama is a very good man aren't necessarily crazy. Many of them are either foolish or just don't share my enlightened progressive values.

        `You needn't go on making remarks like that, ... they're not sensible, and they put me out.'

        by seanwright on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:41:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  yeah, those silly civil liberties! who needs 'em? (7+ / 0-)

      oh. wait.

      Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

      by poligirl on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:09:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  SCOTUS Is Not A GOTV Issue (12+ / 0-)

    The economy is, availability of jobs is a big GOTV issue. Taxes are somewhat.
    Those who pay attention to SCOTUS are going to vote anyway.

    Good diary, priceman.

    Existence is no more than the precarious attainment of relevance in an intensely mobile flux of past, present, and future.~~~ Susan Sontag

    by frandor55 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:46:29 AM PST

    •  Exactly, frandor55 (7+ / 0-)

      Thank you!

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:48:07 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, clearly you don't want it to be a GOTV issue (6+ / 0-)

        But I'm afraid for some peple, like myself back in 2000, it will be a GOTV issue and there's nothing you can do to change that, no matter how much you apparnatly want to.

        My god, man, you are now actively working against Obama's re-election. For god's sake why?

        Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

        by JTinDC on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:10:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's going to be about the economy (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          I provided advice NOT from the Chicago school so go away with all that.

          Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

          by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:55:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  For some it will be, certainly not for all. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Deep Texan, foufou

            Besides, it's not like anyone was mounting a high dollar ad campaign around this issue anyway. You act like you're giving sober advice to head the DNC or whomever off from making the mistake of spending tens of thousands on ads focused on SC justices. That's disingenuous. That was never going to happen anyway.

            You wrote this post to stifle the arguement here in the blogosphere because you don't like the argument. You seem not to like any aguement in favor of supporting Obama's re-election.

            If I am wrong, then I beg you to offer what you deem appropriate arguments to support Obama's re-election. If you can't or won't do that, then why should you be viewed as anything other than an opponent of his re-election?

            Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

            by JTinDC on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 11:38:19 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Thursday already? nt (11+ / 0-)

    I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

    by mdmslle on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:54:09 AM PST

  •  Right... (9+ / 0-)

    Like the diarist is even going try and and GOTV for President Obama.

    Obama 2012 http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

    by jiffypop on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:54:30 AM PST

  •  Well researched, analyzed and explained (8+ / 0-)

    While one could reach different opinions on various points overall a well done piece and discussion generator.

    Tks,

    FYI, based on this and previous posts, now following you.  Keep on keeping' on.

    Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    by EdMass on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 08:54:50 AM PST

    •  Thanks, EdMass. I make mistakes sometimes (0+ / 0-)

      per the update, but I try to correct the record and I'm mostly correct in this diary, I think.

      Thank you for following. I appreciate everything you said.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:51:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm probably wrong in some way, but I think (7+ / 0-)

    the impact of CU is overrated.  Seems to me things were pretty fucked up before 2010.  CU might have made it worse, but how much worse relative to the policies and actions that come out of D.C.  

    •  I don't think it is overrated (0+ / 0-)

      though it's always been broken. Unlimited funds directed towards electing candidates and Superpacs as Colbert and Stewart are demonstrating are ridiculously out of control.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:53:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I don't entirely buy the Democrats' fault argument (8+ / 0-)

    You're absolutely right that the lack of action on the part of the Democratic caucus during the Bush administration allowed several right wing extremists to get on the court.

    But remember, several of the more consistent progressives on the court in recent decades (and SCOTUS moves slowly, so you need to look at it in decades, not years) were appointed by Republicans.

    The fact of the matter is, looking at the situation based on the point of view of the previous decade, there wasn't so much reason to be alarmed about the possibility of right-wing extremist justices. The court was seen to have a moderating influence on new members.

    That isn't true today, but you can't expect people from the year 2000 to have the same perspective as people from the year 2012.

    I shared your frustration when the Gang of 14 castrated the Democratic caucus. But back then, I didn't see how badly it could actually turn out.

    Right now, the problem is, how do we sell the issue that it is vitally important that a Democrat appoint at least the next two justices.

    The most likely next appointment will be to fill Ruth Bader Ginsberg's seat. I hope and pray that she lives many more years in relative good health, but my practical side acknowledges that she is unlikely to be on the court for more than another year or two, if that.

    If her successor is named by a Republican, we're SOL. The court will be the wingnut chamber for the next decade at least.

    After Ginsberg, simply going by age, Antonin Scalia is next. Now that's a vacancy that could actually improve the makeup of the court. Failing his suddenly waking up one morning with a conscience and an understanding of "conflict of interest," the court won't move back from the extreme right until he dies or retires (which he'll never do during a Democratic administration).

    The core problem here is that the Supreme Court is a strange and mysterious thing to the average voter, Democrat or Republican. It's hard to convince someone that it is absolutely imperative that they back a Democrat for president, because a Republican could appoint someone who would put a stake through the Bill of Rights' heart.

    The idea put forth has to be succinct and easily grasped to get traction.

    In short: "Vote for Barack Obama, because a vote for (Romney/Gingrich) is a vote that will push the court to the right for the next 10 to 20 years."

    •  Scalia is going to live forever like Cheney... (6+ / 0-)

      because he is a prick and has a pact with the devil or something.

      I disagree with you, but your comment is substantive.

      If her successor is named by a Republican, we're SOL. The court will be the wingnut chamber for the next decade at least.

      More 5-4 decisions really are not something that will save us. I only feel Ginsburg will retire soon, sadly.

      Alito was very extreme and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry should have been supported in blocking Alito.

      The gang of 14 is one sellout I can't forget and i won't.

      But thank you for actually reading my diary. The first critic to do so even though Democrats dropped the ball and the Court is probably going RW for the next 30 years.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:42:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  you guys are too smart to not vote (0+ / 0-)

    for Obama

    just like you said last election our team turned out..  the base will vote.  winning elections in america is about swaying the middle.

    sucks but true.

    -You want to change the system, run for office.

    by Deep Texan on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:12:51 AM PST

    •  then why hang out and crucify us when we (5+ / 0-)

      are critical? cuz that's what happens...

      Hope has two beautiful daughters; their names are Anger and Courage. Anger at the way things are and Courage to see that they do not remain as they are. --St Augustine

      by poligirl on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:14:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The middle (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joe shikspack, poligirl, LaEscapee

      is not any happier with this administrations performance or lack of then progressives. Meanwhile indies are growing because this mythical conservative middle sees that neither party is willing to represent them. Maybe you ought to try and find a good reason to get people to vote that isn't fear based.

      Running around telling people that they are suppressing the vote for Dems. when they talk about the real reasons people are disgusted with the lot of these corporate tools isn't going to help get Obama reelected. All the Dems have at this point is were not as nuts and if they keep up their arrogant Third Way  trajectory, people will get to a point where anger replaces fear, or worse they just stop caring.

       So far my Democratic neighbors and friends are saying 'What choice do I have other the the Democrat's? but they certainly don't like this obvious bamboozle. The Democrat's sucked at being the loyal opposition and the sucked at being the majority. The kabuki is just not believable, and that includes the supreme selection process.    

  •  Even if I agree with all your arguments about (9+ / 0-)

    why we should be pissed about Democrats and Obama and that it's all just useless now and game over and we should just all give up and stop voting and let our cynicism prioritize our thinking and actions going forward....

    I can't support cynicism and apathy, no matter how much our politicians have fucked up and how many times they fail us, disappoint us and get bought off. Cynicism and apathy are greater threats to our democracy than all the other shit combined, IMHO - which I'm sure many will disagree with, but so be it.

    Don't vote (and yell at those who do or that participate and encourage GOTV), give up, move to another country...there are many options to those who have reached their limit. I have contemplated many of them on more than one occasion because it all gets so tiring, so sickening, so futile it seems when you try so hard and the ones in power are not listening or doing the right thing - nor do they seem to know what the fuck they are doing, frankly. Ignorance doesn't prevent legislators from getting into office - especially when they have money to buy their way in. I get it that it all sucks and the system is stacked against us and the damage done may or may not be able to be undone. I get it, and feel it too.

    We have every right to be pissed as hell about all the crap going on in our country that is screwing us all over. And complaining about it and screaming about it and protesting about it is an understandable and I think necessary response. Giving up out of sheer frustration and cynicism and an unwillingness to believe or trust in any politician or our branches of government ever again, though, is not something that will change or win anything -- fuck that, as far as this Democratic voter is concerned.

    I owe my kids and future grandkids more of a fight than that, and I am willing to fight harder to take over the Democratic party from within than to just give up. It's what those at the top are counting on, and I can't give them that too. They've already taken so much, and I will be damned if I will ever give up while I am still alive.

    FUCK.THAT.

    Rethug policies to address: 1) Overturn Citizens United via a Constitutional Amendment, 2) Reinstate Glass-Steagall and uh...let's see...the third rethug policy to eliminate is...umm...thought it was written on my hand...I can't..sorry...oops

    by Kim from Pgh PA on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:21:52 AM PST

    •  please keep fighting the good fight from within... (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, poligirl, Onomastic, gerrilea, priceman

      many folks have tried that and are flat burnt out on that approach.  lots of folks that i know will be putting their efforts into ows activities instead of focusing on knocking on doors for candidates or donating money and time to them.  they see working outside the system now as more likely to produce the change that we all want than working inside.  i think that most of us "little people" pretty much want the same things though, and it's good that people want to try a bunch of different approaches simultaneously.  

      i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

      by joe shikspack on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 09:53:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thanks - yes, I think both approaches are (5+ / 0-)

        important to the overall fight, and can certainly understand how you would get burned out with working hard and not seeing the progress you want. I am not sure I will be knocking on doors and donating money this time either -- Obama will get plenty from the large donors and I definitely have enough cynicism and frustration to not be all in all the time. But I will vote, and I will protest.

        I do think not voting is really a gift to the 1%, though, and that kind of apathy really gets to me.

        Rethug policies to address: 1) Overturn Citizens United via a Constitutional Amendment, 2) Reinstate Glass-Steagall and uh...let's see...the third rethug policy to eliminate is...umm...thought it was written on my hand...I can't..sorry...oops

        by Kim from Pgh PA on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:09:25 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  A thought (6+ / 0-)

      The things in this diary are things to consider when strategizing and messaging.  

      In 2010, the Dems fashioned a stupid keyring with some message about not giving the keys back to the Republicans.  The campaign strategy in general was a freaking disaster.  They never saw the trainwreck coming their way until it was way too late.  A lot of progressives saw it coming for a long, long time and had a lot of good ideas and advice.  

      We see people here talking about the SCOTUS as their red line, and they seem to make assumptions that other voters will have a similar red line.  This diary explains why that is a bad assumption to make.

      Ten months out, there is still some time to enact some good policy, things that make a difference in people's daily lives (and therefore earn more votes!), and to try to counter what we think is bad campaign strategy or messaging.  Diaries that are highly critical do not necessarily mean "don't vote" or "don't vote for Obama".  I think they symbolize more of a "represent our interests better" and don't throw this away and don't sell us out, and "if you change the things you do you'll get more votes" rather than spend more money on tv ads and do more spinning.

      •  Yes, represent our interests better, still time... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        priceman, joanneleon
        Ten months out, there is still some time to enact some good policy, things that make a difference in people's daily lives (and therefore earn more votes!), and to try to counter what we think is bad campaign strategy or messaging.  Diaries that are highly critical do not necessarily mean "don't vote" or "don't vote for Obama".  

        Rhetoric has to be matched with actions. "Only actions don't lie."

        by allenjo on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:23:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There are many things we have to watch for (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          priceman, joanneleon

          PROTECT IP Act

          If Reid allows this to come up for a vote next week and Dems vote for it..........

          “The Senate will debate this important bill, which has been pending on the Senate’s calendar since May, next week.  I hope all Senators, and all of our partners in the Internet ecosystem, will come together to help create American jobs, promote America’s economy and protect American consumers.”

          http://leahy.senate.gov/....

          What Dems withdrew their sponsorships of this bill yesterday?

          Rhetoric has to be matched with actions. "Only actions don't lie."

          by allenjo on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:53:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  SOPA Leahy wrapping it in an American flag....... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joanneleon
            Leahy..

             I hope all Senators, and all of our partners in the Internet ecosystem, will come together to help create American jobs, promote America’s economy and protect American consumers.”

            Damn, but it is so easy to distrust politicians. They make it easy.

            Rhetoric has to be matched with actions. "Only actions don't lie."

            by allenjo on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:46:19 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Some good points - thanks. n/t (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        joanneleon

        Rethug policies to address: 1) Overturn Citizens United via a Constitutional Amendment, 2) Reinstate Glass-Steagall and uh...let's see...the third rethug policy to eliminate is...umm...thought it was written on my hand...I can't..sorry...oops

        by Kim from Pgh PA on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 07:42:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I'm not telling you what to do (0+ / 0-)

      I personally have more faith in the OWS movement as you can see from my sig.

      It's going to be about the economy though which is why I am begging voters to demand this administration acknowledge reality there and run on that.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:26:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am also (6+ / 0-)

    not looking forward to a Cass Sunstein on the bench.  In fact I think it would be a disaster.

  •  so Republicans WILL nuke the filibuster (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, Deep Texan

    when they get in power?

    Since you can see the future now, can I have the lottery numbers?

    "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

    by Whimsical on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 10:45:56 AM PST

    •  The Tea Party (R) more moderate than Bill Frist? (0+ / 0-)

      Nah, I want what you are smoking.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:29:52 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  So then you'll apologize (0+ / 0-)

        when Republicans are back in power and the filibuster lives? I'm certainly willing to, if it turns out you were right, but I don't believe you wil be.

        People making pronoucements about future events as certainties is a HUGE pet peeve of mine.

        "The future of man is not one billion of us fighting over limited resources on a soon-to-be dead planet. . .I won't go back into the cave for anyone."

        by Whimsical on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 01:37:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  And what do you propose to do? To people reading (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Radical def, Deep Texan

    it I mean.

  •  I agree it's a useless (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman

    talking point and anybody who is concerned about the supreme court's conservative composition has seen the Democratic ' loyal opposition'  time and time again be complicit in placing these extremists on the court.

    I think a lot of people got a good case of contempt of court with selection of Bush. Thomas? Scalia? Roberts? Jeeze People who care about the Law have watched the Democrat's shred into confetti. It's the ultimate fear tactic instead of offer the voters a real choice.

    There is also the fact that people who do pay attention, liberals or real moderates,  have gotten to a point where they have no trust in either party as far as appointments go. Why would they believe that a Democratic administration which appoints the likes of Geithner, Summers, Betrayus or Immelt, will nominate a Supreme that's willing to take on this truly political extremist court.

    Getting hysterical about we have to vote or else... is wearing thin with an electorate that outside the rabid partisans see's little difference and rightly so. Yelling at Lefties or progressives is really barking up the wrong tree. If the national Democratic party loses it's on their head as the fierce urgency of now requires some audacity and instead we get 'victories for compromise' bankster's running the economy, frack baby frack and our civil and human rights destroyed because pirates, hackers and 'terrists are going to kill yer family'.    
           

  •  I think this whole argument is very bizarre (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaEscapee, priceman

    First, because I don't see folks here using future Supreme Court picks as a GOTV mechanism outside of the on-going sux/rox blogoshpere battles. Perhaps my view is too limited, but when I've seen the SC argument used, it's more of a call to duty suggested by the more passionate Obama supporters to those who're expressing their dismay about having to "hold their nose" while voting, and while claiming "but I won't lift a finger to help and I won't be giving him a dime."

    Those latter sentiments are certainly understandable and I'm not arguing that "lefty liberals" don't have multiple reasons to be disappointed.

    But looking at the argument made in this post just makes me scratch my head.  I think it's a very instructive post on Dem past failures to stop Republican nominees to the SC.  But the "it's about the SC" argument is not about that, as I see it.  The "it's about the SC" argument is about preventing those nominations from occuring in the first place.  Better to have an imperfect Sotomayor or Kagan sitting before the Sentate for approval and overcoming a filibuster threat than having a known right-winger from the Alito mold be nominated, given your own well-researched commentary on Dems complicity and failures in this arena.

    So, in summary I think you've written a good post but on a faulty premise.  From a civic duty standpoint, I do believe that the ability to nominate SC justices is something that voters should consider when choosing a candidate, and in deciding whether or not the chosen candidate is worth going out to the polls for.

    That said, I agree that for the broader voting public, a more vibrant GOTV message and plan regarding jobs and the economy would be much more effective that resorting to the "it's about the SC" tactic, which definitely shouldn't be perceived as inspirational, even if it does have merit.

    •  Fair criticism but the damage is done IMO (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CDH in Brooklyn

      I was talking to the blogoshpere and acknowledging that this won't be a GOTV issue as it is portrayed and it is all the time. I have seen it.

      But looking at the argument made in this post just makes me scratch my head.  I think it's a very instructive post on Dem past failures to stop Republican nominees to the SC.  But the "it's about the SC" argument is not about that, as I see it.  The "it's about the SC" argument is about preventing those nominations from occuring in the first place.  Better to have an imperfect Sotomayor or Kagan sitting before the Sentate for approval and overcoming a filibuster threat than having a known right-winger from the Alito mold be nominated, given your own well-researched commentary on Dems complicity and failures in this arena.

      Citizen's United will hurt us for a long time and kind of makes this argument much weaker. It's just another long string of minority power we gave up during the Bush administration like the war too many Democrats voted for which is still taking away our civil liberties too many of them also voted away.

      I appreciate your kind of criticism and what you praised.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 12:36:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent diary, priceman (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Lucy2009, priceman, TheMomCat
    Voters do know the economy sucks though and that no one has been prosecuted on Wall St. They got sold out. Banks got bailed out. That’s a clear message from OWS that will forever be relevant.

    As a whole, D.C doesn't get it and has mostly sold all of us out while bailing out Wall Street.

    I so agree.

    That’s going to be a big problem for this administration

    Tamping down some of voter anger would be seeing some
    CRIMINAL investigations coming from the DOJ of the Wall Street "savvy businessmen" that brought us to this economic disaster that over 3 years later we are still suffering with.

    I know for me that is a big problem with this administration.

    Rhetoric has to be matched with actions. "Only actions don't lie."

    by allenjo on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:11:44 PM PST

  •  Another FANTASTIC diary, priceman..... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    priceman, TheMomCat, Nada Lemming

    You have a very good knack for bringing things back to earth and showing them with all their warts, moles and flaws!

    What the Dems (top to bottom) are doing/have done is so beyond immoral, corrupt, and beholden. Words can hardly describe it any longer.

    I think they forget, while they drown in their sea of money, that these HORRIFIC decisions they make and laws they pass actually effect 99% of the country.... and far too often in a very adverse manner.

    So while they are better than the GOP, it's such a very low bar isn't it? I wish more voters were open to seeing what's really going on because I think OWS ranks would swell to HUGE proportions with people demanding real change. That's what it's going to take.

    These polticians, both sides of the aisle, are too busy raising money and basking in the glory and lust of power to do what is right far too often. In order to overcome the lure of money and the 1% we are going to have to SCREAM AT THE TOP OF OUR LUNGS EN MASSE FOR A LONG TIME in order to actually be heard.

    Your diaries piss people off, but atleast it gets the conversation in a reality zone.

    Well done.

    "the election of Barack Obama may stand as one of the single most devastating events in our history for civil liberties." Jonathan Turley

    by Lucy2009 on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 02:25:06 PM PST

  •  In 1956 WEB Dubois decided not to vote (10+ / 0-)

    In an eloquent essay he condemned both parties as evil, citing no political or policy differences between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson.

    In 1956, I shall not go to the polls. I have not registered. I believe that democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no "two evils" exist. There is but one evil party with two names, and it will be elected despite all I can do or say. There is no third party. [..]

    If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by "force and violence." Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called "Communist" and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person. They may be in the pay of the United States Government. A.D.A.'s and "Liberals" are not third parties; they seek to act as tails to kites. But since the kites are self-propelled and radar-controlled, tails are quite superfluous and rather silly.

    The present Administration is carrying on the greatest preparation for war in the history of mankind. Stevenson promises to maintain or increase this effort. The weight of our taxation is unbearable and rests mainly and deliberately on the poor. This Administration is dominated and directed by wealth and for the accumulation of wealth. It runs smoothly like a well-organized industry and should do so because industry runs it for the benefit of industry. Corporate wealth profits as never before in history. We turn over the national resources to private profit and have few funds left for education, health or housing. Our crime, especially juvenile crime, is increasing. Its increase is perfectly logical; for a generation we have been teaching our youth to kill, destroy, steal and rape in war; what can we expect in peace? We let men take wealth which is not theirs; if the seizure is "legal" we call it high profits and the profiteers help decide what is legal. If the theft is "illegal" the thief can fight it out in court, with excellent chances to win if he receives the accolade of the right newspapers. Gambling in home, church and on the stock market is increasing and all prices are rising. It costs three times his salary to elect a Senator and many millions to elect a President. This money comes from the very corporations which today are the government. This in a real democracy would be enough to turn the party responsible out of power. Yet this we cannot do.

    You can substitute "the Liberal Left" for "Communist", "Obama" and any other candidate for president for "Stevenson" or "Eisenhower" (it doesn't matter which name you substitute for whom)

    Not much has changed.

    I will no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. It's still evil.

    "If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, & a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time." ~ H.S. Truman
    TheStarsHollowGazette.com

    by TheMomCat on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:15:58 PM PST

    •  Excellent reference and speech, TheMomCat ! (6+ / 0-)

      Thank you.

      Pro Life??? Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers!- George Carlin - I Illustrate #OWS protest T-shirts you can buy at priceman political prints

      by priceman on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 03:45:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  This should also be highlighted (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nada Lemming, TheMomCat, ZhenRen, priceman
      If a voter organizes or advocates a real third-party movement, he may be accused of seeking to overthrow this government by "force and violence." Anything he advocates by way of significant reform will be called "Communist" and will of necessity be Communist in the sense that it must advocate such things as government ownership of the means of production; government in business; the limitation of private profit; social medicine, government housing and federal aid to education; the total abolition of race bias; and the welfare state. These things are on every Communist program; these things are the aim of socialism. Any American who advocates them today, no matter how sincerely, stands in danger of losing his job, surrendering his social status and perhaps landing in jail. The witnesses against him may be liars or insane or criminals. These witnesses need give no proof for their charges and may not even be known or appear in person.

      Isn't this the exact purpose of the NDAA?

      ...it is possible in America to govern entirely on the appearance of principle--while changing absolutely nothing~Matt Taibbi

      by LaEscapee on Thu Jan 19, 2012 at 06:06:48 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site