View Story | 1166 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
The black Democratic base cannot be taken for granted. It is essential to the success of the Democratic Party.
"It's the planet, stupid."
by FishOutofWater on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:33:24 PM PDT
out of me is the number of women who have said the exact same thing if Hillary isn't the nom.
It's up to all of us to pull these people back from the brink.
by Mike S on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:36:26 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
radar screen but, I am quite worried about this too.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot
by Bouwerie Boy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:38:36 PM PDT
about Roe. If McCain gets in, women become second-class citizens. Really stark, but true.
And there we are, the beautiful; eating from TV trays, tuned in to Happy Days.
by MBNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 02:46:33 PM PDT
I think that affects his numbers with women.
by jj32 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:02:00 PM PDT
He's been getting a free ride for months now!
"We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution
by elwior on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:41:08 PM PDT
think he is the maverick.Straight-talking-bs-express is what he is!
by vixenflem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:02:14 PM PDT
a cunt.
by crystalboy on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:40:58 PM PDT
that the white men already lost. What is happening to Obama is the media and Republican cross over vote for Hillary. Rev. Wright is the latest missing white chick, and there is no doubt in my mind, Republicans would rather run against Hillary.
Whoever is left standing, Hillary or Obama, the media is in McCain's pocket; and the Democrat better be prepared for a ton of media bias. Media bias is why Wright is in the news, and Robertson is not. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with winning by any means.
Black vote fed up? What took them so long. I'm white, and I've been fed up for 30 years. Taken for granted? Stand in line.
...once you're willing to say whatever it takes to win, you lose. ~~Dean
by dkmich on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:30:21 AM PDT
Motherfuckeeeeeeer!!!!
"Somewhere. Someone's god is laughing." - Three Days Grace
by Intercaust on Fri May 02, 2008 at 04:36:35 AM PDT
the Republic of Gilead is something to shoot for.
"A word after a word after a word is power." -Margaret Atwood
by John Shade on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:28:12 PM PDT
if this happens... but if the OP is right, it wouldn't surprise me and I couldn't blame them one bit. Particularly since I feel exactly the same way.
But we should make a critical distinction between the top of the ticket and those lower down, those grassroots Dem progressives who will still need our help up to November.
I personally would have a really hard time accepting Hillary as COmmander in Chief after her Rovian campaign against a good, decent, legitimate candidate. IF she steals it, my wallet snaps shut for her, and my #2 pencil will simply pass over her slot.
My wallet would remain open, however, for people like McNerney and Kleeb and so on. My congressperson's seat is safe, so my vote has no relevance here. In fact she's a Hillbot anyway (Woolsey), so I have no incentive to support her either, and she doesn't need me in any case.
Here's one more thought: win or lose this in 2008 the work to build a progressive, rational majority goes on. The Democratic Party is undergoing a big shift away from the old union/entitlement/identity politics of the old generation and towards a more inclusive, progressive Party that actually represents the interests of its majority of members. The Hillary/DLC crowd are fighting like this is their last stand and maybe it is. But if Hillary somhow steals it, we'll still have Barack as an inspiration for the future.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.
by The Lighthouse Keeper on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:33:58 PM PDT
by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:35:48 PM PDT
Let your voice be heard.It may be a protest vote or vote of conscience. I am struggling with that right now.
The last two presidential elections have felt like betrayals , why should this one be any different?
I was one of those crazy few who voted for Edwards after he had already dropped out.It was a vote of principle.Sometimes you just gotta do that.It really feels good.
by lindalrs on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:57:34 PM PDT
and planned for, and the means for doing so (is there always a write-in blank?) must be in place and clearly explained should the situation not change by June 1.
by Creosote on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:30:49 AM PDT
Independent candidacy, and write-in campaign.
I support him, but it will not happen this way in America, 2008.
I'm the plowman in the valley - with my face full of mud
by labradog on Fri May 02, 2008 at 06:07:05 AM PDT
but that doesn't mean we can't write him in anyway.
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." -Thomas Jefferson
by delillo2000 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:30:02 PM PDT
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Don't be too hard on her, she's been a strong progressive all along. Besides all the wingnuts I know 'round here HATE her. :-)
by Mad Season on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:50:44 PM PDT
The "we will lose the Supreme Court" is so 2004. We already lost it with the nomination and confirmation of Roberts and Alito. The only people who think otherwise are groups like NARAL, who can't admit defeat and need the threat of "losing Roe" to keep the donations flowing. The only way to "save" Roe is to elect a President who will expand the number of seats on the Court by executive order (perfectly legal) and fill them with liberal thinkers. Even then, Roe will have to be revisited one of these days, it was a poorly written and poorly reasoned decision at the time, and becomes more difficult to defend every year.
We will need a good solid majority in Congress to do that, no matter whether Obama or Clinton is prez. We also need that solid majority to oppose the McCain nominees if (God forbid) McCain should find his way into the WH.
by smeesq on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:03:04 PM PDT
I was on the NYC steering committee for SCOTUS activism during the Alito and Roberts fights. Unfortunately, not only are Democratic Senators spineless - chief among them Hillary Clinton, one might add, who showed zero leadership, none whatsoever - but some of them, like Feingold, put deference to the President before civil rights.
The Senate won't stop appointees short of Robert Bork. We know that. These days, I doubt they'd stop even Bork.
by MBNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:12:49 PM PDT
Roberts was very stealthy, but Alito had a very well defined extremist pattern of decisions on his record.
The Court will get much worse if McCain is elected.
This is our big talking point with women.
by FishOutofWater on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:22:19 PM PDT
Roe and Griswold v. Connecticut - the decision that established your right to buy contraceptives - are gone for thirty years. The McCain court will put us in a time warp and back into the thirties.
That's not even fear-mongering, that's just a simple projection based on what McCain has said and the kind of judges in the SCOTUS pipeline.
by MBNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:28:35 PM PDT
Hillary Clinton needs to be punished for stealing this nomination from Obama.
by UpstateDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:32:26 PM PDT
The voters must reject the dirty tricks, guilt-by-association attacks and race baiting. The Superdelegates must come out for Obama to save The Party.
A Hillary nomination would devastate The Party for years, just like 1968.
by FishOutofWater on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:37:13 PM PDT
a Clinton coup by superdelegate will destroy The Party. I've no idea what, if anything, will take it's place, but the result would be to hand power to the extremist Republicans for another generation. I doubt there will be much of a U.S. left by the time your 'white, blue-collar, working class voters' realize what's hit them.
"Going to church does not make us Christians any more than stepping into our garage makes us a car." --Rev R. Neville
by catleigh on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:25:27 PM PDT
During the last year, the DNC raised and spent about $50 million. Obama raised $250 million. Obama's volunteers are vastly superior to the DNC volunteers.
There are 408 delegates yet to be selected through the primary process. If Hillary gets 283 of those 408 then, frankly, she deserves the nomination and I will support her. I won't like it but I will support her.
If she doesn't get 283 but wins the nomination because of the Superdelegates and/or changing up the rules for Florida or Michigan, then I think the Democratic process (big D), is fatally flawed and its time to start a new party.
by fmrgop on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:20:38 PM PDT
Make a dartboard with her face on it. Here, I'll lend you mine.
But don't even think about depriving American women of their rights out of spite. That's not the change we can believe in.
by MBNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:44:07 PM PDT
The damage that a Hillary Clinton administration could do to the Democratic party is too much to risk.
by UpstateDem on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:48:25 PM PDT
Don't you get it??
by DiedInSuburbia on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:38:32 PM PDT
which I don't believe.
The difference between DLC neocon foreign ("Obliterate IRAN!!!") policy and neoliberal "trickle down" economic policy and GOP neocon foreign ("bomb, bomb Iran!!!") policy and neoliberal "trickle down" economic policy is too small to be spun into anything I'm willing to vote for.
As for Hillary's SCOTUS choices, should she get any, I would expect them to be just as corporate-friendly and Federal-government-power friendly (don't look for a repeal vote for the PATRIOT Act from a HRC appointee) as anything McCain can dredge out of America's worst nightmares.
Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.
by alizard on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:47:16 PM PDT
by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:38:36 PM PDT
alizard. Senator Clinton's election might make a slight difference in the short run, but in the long run, it would destroy what's left of the Democratic Party. It seems shortsighted to vote for her knowing who she is. Her election would insure the DLC's grip on the party for a long time to come. This being said, however, she has absolutely no chance of winning the general election if she weasels her way into the nomination. So why waste a vote on someone if you believe she is contemptible? Keep your integrity and do a write in.
by Fabienne on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:37:53 PM PDT
are too small to measure. Over the past 50 years there has been such movement to corporatism in our entire country, that there is no longer any effort by anyone in the government to address the real interests and needs of individuals. What we refer to as "social issues", things like abortion, gay marriage, gun laws,etc., are trotted out each election by both parties, so that the voters are given the illusion that their vote will have great effect on their lives. In fact, 99% of the time and attention of elected officials is given over to legislating and enforcing laws for the protection and enhancement of business entities, even tho those same laws are not in the best interests of the people. Laws allowed Enron to operate freely as crimnals and thieves, allow coal companies to destroy whole communities, allow banks to make dubious loans that force people into homelessness, allow oil companies to make unconscionable profits that force individuals to lower their standard of living just so they can buy the gas to go to work.
This government was established "by the people, of the people, for the people" but no longer functions as such. I'm old enuf to remember when government functioned more equitably, government regulated dangerous industries, labor unions protected workers and their families, and corporations weren't considered "individuals" with protected "free speech" rights that allowed them to buy politcal offices with their campaign donations.
by smeesq on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:34:12 PM PDT
Hilary Clinton is a Republican and that is why I will not vote for her if she steals the nomination. My guess is that when we finally see the Donors List to the Clinton Library we will find out that many of these donors are in fact friends of Bush 1 and Bush 2. Like all good Republicans NAFTA was a Clinton move to continue to dismantle the middle-class of this country and slowly but surely eliminate any and all social programs, such as privatizing social security (McCain's new plan). This latest bio-diesel corn scandal is more than likely a scam to just up the price of oil and food. Soon people won't even to be able to afford to go to work, and we will not be able to afford to eat. People are dying because they cannot afford insulin in this country. Now I'm beginning to see why some people were so drawn to Ron Paul.
Hilary Clinton is working in tandum with McCain. Mark Penn worked at the same company that acts as McCain's campaign handler's. The traditional media is acting as a 527 on their own to swift boat Barack Obama, and the corporations and lobbyist are running circles around Congress making certain that gridlock is the only thing that is working in our capitol, and the military industrial complex would be happy with McCain or Hilary, after all, what's the difference? Nothing. Hilary is a Republican, always was, always will be and that is why she won't get my vote, ever.
We shall not fail or falter, we shall not weaken or tire..give us the tools and we will finish the job. Winston Churchill
by Badabing on Thu May 01, 2008 at 11:35:24 PM PDT
Biodiesel is at least theoretically workable, and there are a lot of algae biodiesel startups out there. (the objections to regular biofuels do not apply here)
Corn ethanol is all about subsidies to ADM and have NOTHING to do with either fixing global warming or becoming energy-independent.
by alizard on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:14:16 AM PDT
There are plenty of other issues of difference.
by DiedInSuburbia on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:24:15 AM PDT
you might even come up with one.
Here's a freebie, McCain finally came up with a "national health plan" even worse than HillaryCare.
by alizard on Fri May 02, 2008 at 02:32:21 PM PDT
if she chose to obliterate it.
"You are very wise, Van Helsing, for one who has yet to live a single lifetime." - Count Dracula
by collardgreens on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:01:38 PM PDT
ABout anything.
by Pogyak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:50:49 AM PDT
And, Hillary voted for it.
John&Cindy McCain:A "Dallas" and "Dynasty" rerun.
by redtex on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:53:04 PM PDT
off oil money. I won't vote for her because of all the payback they owe lots of corporations and the other way the "paybacks" she will distribute. I don't trust her at all.
"hold on to dreams for when dreams die life is a broken winged bird that cannot fly" e. dickinson
by kansasgal on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:52:58 PM PDT
she, Bill, and Chellsa should be banned and exiled from our country.
by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:37:27 PM PDT
should be concerned about the Supreme Court appointments. AAs will sit this one out or vote for McCain if nomination is stolen with dirty tricks. Many in the AA community are not pro-choice at any rate.
by foufou on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:43:27 PM PDT
If Hillary stills this away, I shall also sit it out or vote for Nader. I can honestly empathize with the AA.
by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:23:59 PM PDT
steal..this away.
by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:24:56 PM PDT
I am an African American and I will not vote for Hillary Clinton under any circumstances. I will not vote for McCain either, BUT YOU CAN DEFINITELY BANK ON IT THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL NEVER GET MY VOTE. NEVER. EVER.
And if McCain wins, it will not be my fault. She tore this party apart to have her way when she KNEW that HALF of the country thinks she is a cancer. DESPICABLE lowest form of SCUM she is. And I am about as LIBERAL as you can think of.
Dan Abrams is Hillary Clinton's whiny little....
by Demvoter on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:37:15 PM PDT
If somehow Hillary Clinton wins the nomination, I refuse to take responsibility for a McCain victory. Let those responsible for pushing her nomination in the most despicable manner take responsibility. Beginning with Hillary and Bill and extending right down to many of her supporters. But not me. I've not been part of any of that and I'm not going to take responsibility for it.
by Heart of the Rockies on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:57:08 PM PDT
Hell, I'm probably fifth-cousins or closer with half the Republican Party. The thought disgusts me.
In any case, I'll vote for the Green to help give them ballot status, and stiff Hillary. I don't care if Cthulu is McCain's vp choice and is on stage with a tentacle up McCains back, making his lips move.
Hillary isn't a Democrat at this point, any more than Lyndon LaRouche was when he was in a primary for Dem nominee.
"I can't be part of a famous hippie commune. I have a career to think about" - Candy Crowley, 1973
by MadCityRag on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:01:29 PM PDT
Why choose the lesser of two evils?
by Raven in Philly on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:09:48 AM PDT
vote for this evil beast and so let the Dem Party go to hell and then we can ban Clinton and her skirt chasing husband to exile....
by tiredofcrap on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:33:17 PM PDT
Black people, white people, brown people, orange people, maroon people, et. al shouldn't vote for her. She is a neo-con dog of war completely bought and paid for by special interests.
Y'all hit'em where it hurts, and bite the hand that feeds - Tom Morello
by Corneliusmingus on Thu May 01, 2008 at 07:51:58 PM PDT
how we got Bush to begin with. So actually you've done more damage to the United States than Hillary could possibly dol
by Pogyak on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:53:20 AM PDT
Many in the AA community are not pro-choice at any rate.
So we don't care about choice and it's not an issue for us as well? Any data to support this?
by conlakappa on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:56:28 AM PDT
If McCain gets in, American democracy as we know it is gone permanently.
If Clinton gets in, wait four years, then see "If McCain gets in."
"The great lie of democracy, its essential paradox, is that democracy is first to be sacrificed when its security is at risk." --Ian McDonald
by Geenius at Wrok on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:57:21 PM PDT
This mama's for Obama!
by tarheelgirl on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:59:39 PM PDT
And I have railed at my nieces, and daughter in laws and other young woman about how terribly important it is that they retain the right to make their own reproductive choices and decisions.
They don't seem to get it, maybe it is the availability of good birth control, ot he morning after pill, but none of them seem to worry about ever needing to not be pregnant.
by smeesq on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:17:38 PM PDT
He was taking O'Cs seat, and O'C was the driving force overturning the PA spousal notification law in Thornburgh v. Casey. Alito wrote the opinion upholding that provision at the circuit court level. It was an easy concept to rally opposition and to light fires under the likes of DiFi.
He had a paper trail, he wasn't telegenic like Roberts, and he was replacing a swing vote. Biden and DiFi hoisted the white flag on a filibuster while the hearings were still ongoing. I still recall Maryscott O'Connor's reaction at the time--she was right.
Letting McVain nominate Stevens's successor would be the last nail in the coffin.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:55:02 PM PDT
SCOTUS could well deny the government the power to fight global warming by denying the applicability of the commerce clause to carbon sources.
The future of the planet is at stake.
by FishOutofWater on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:08:17 PM PDT
it started down the tubes with WJC and his henchman Babbitt.
by Heart of the Rockies on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:58:46 PM PDT
by FishOutofWater on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:46:42 PM PDT
but Clinton is getting by with "murder." My field is biological conservation, and his administration sided with big business over conservation time and again. And Babbitt was the architect of much of it, from what I can tell.
by Heart of the Rockies on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:51:57 PM PDT
I worked for the USNRC on nuclear waste safety research before Congress zeroed out our budget. I blamed the Republicans.
I didn't know that the Clintons were so anti-environment. I'm seeing them in a new light now.
by FishOutofWater on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:10:50 PM PDT
of the CWA, ESA, safe harbour and no surprises. Look into them. My field is not energy, nuclear waste, etc. but species and ecosystems. Think about Babbitt and what he did to Native Americans.
by Heart of the Rockies on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:12:54 PM PDT
I have been associated with two major, successful lawsuits against the Clinton administration's biological conservation policies. Unfortunately, by the time we won many of the resources had been wiped out and secondly, Dubya was in office and environmental policy and enforcement went deeper into hell.
by Heart of the Rockies on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:59:40 PM PDT
Kauai and the Hawaiian Islands are in the midst of an extinction crisis. The Clintons and the Bushes have done nothing to stop the ongoing extinctions of unique Hawaiian flora and fauna.
by FishOutofWater on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:34:47 PM PDT
I have colleagues who work in the islands so I'm familiar with your crisis. My mainland area is nearly the equivalent of the Hawaiian Islands in regard to the density of endemic species. And being ravaged as well. Most of the species I study are on the brink. Heartbreaking to watch what is happening.
Unfortunately, the emphasis on energy means biological conservation will take a back seat for a long time. And if it gets to the front seat again, for many species, even entire ecosystems, it will be too late.
by Heart of the Rockies on Thu May 01, 2008 at 10:38:37 PM PDT
Energy production is endangering species across the west. The Roan Plateau is very threatened.
by FishOutofWater on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:00:43 AM PDT
We're in the same groove. Glad to know I'm not alone here. Do you belong to, associate with SUWA, CBD or Forest Guardians (now Wild Earth Guardians)? I've worked closely with all of them. I've backed off from larger organizations and focus on the smaller, regional ones that I find more effective and accountable.
Writing letters on the Roan Plateau is on my to-do list. But I am very doubtful of our ability to prevail on many of these issues. Even committed conservationists are willing to give up everything for energy these days. Very discouraging.
by Heart of the Rockies on Fri May 02, 2008 at 05:20:29 AM PDT
I try to keep on top of environmental, energy, and health issues.
I volunteered for the National Tropical Botanical Garden on Kauai, working to preserve endangered species.
My son in law is a professional environmental lobbyist in DC. He worked hard on recent energy legislation.
by FishOutofWater on Fri May 02, 2008 at 07:08:23 AM PDT
do to stop Alito or Roberts?
Don't sell out John! Damn, too late, lost another to the dark side!
by ichibon on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:59:58 PM PDT
Congress can, by legislation. The president can't.
by Geenius at Wrok on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:55:41 PM PDT
I thought I'd heard it was an executive order, didn't reseearch it, but maybe its just a simple majority vote in Congress. Not hard if we have both houses.
by smeesq on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:20:56 PM PDT
that sets the terms and jurisdictions ofthe Federal Courts.
For a quick trip down memory lane...
http://en.wikipedia.org/...
Like communism and fascism before it, fundamentlism will not rest until it is thoroughly discredited or the entire world is under its yoke.
by Guinho on Thu May 01, 2008 at 05:07:16 PM PDT
how very interesting.
Think Tank. "A place where people are paid to think by the makers of tanks" Naomi Klein.
by ohcanada on Thu May 01, 2008 at 08:14:44 PM PDT
FDR and court packing My parents never got over it and never voted Democratic again.
by Heart of the Rockies on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:52:31 PM PDT
Since Dukakis ran in 1988 and it STILL doesn't resonate with voters.
I remember a civil rights activist saying he lived through Jim Crow, George Wallace and cross burnings. He could live through anything, even the Supreme Court. I don't agree with him, but I understand how he feels.
"The only phone call she'll get at 3am is Bill calling for bail money and asking Hilary to bring him a pair of pants" - Bill Maher
by Nedsdag on Thu May 01, 2008 at 06:24:17 PM PDT
would let Roe Vs. Wade be overturned. They haven't seemed sincere about delivering the coup de grace so far.
Whether they are or not is immaterial--I just don't think anyone's afraid of it.
Sometimes a .sig is just a .sig.
by rhubarb on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:04:13 PM PDT
how would Republicans win elections?
There are people who say, "If music's that easy to write, I could do it." Of course they could, but they don't. - John Cage
by RoscoeOfAlabama on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM PDT
by MBNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:29:05 PM PDT
either abortion or gay bashing.
by NY John on Thu May 01, 2008 at 09:29:33 PM PDT
The cyclic nature of these things is clear. If Roe were to be overturned, the anti-choice people would be much less motovated to vote, and it would not be long before the stories of women dying becuse abortion illegal will change the frame of the debate, and probably get the less-involved center of the country back on our side. They see this, so of course they won't overturn Roe.
On the other hand, they can make it really hard to get abortions, not to mention revoke all our other rights.
is it time to be an android, not a man?
by we are 138 on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:31:30 PM PDT
as if the Rs are a one-trick pony. They're not. Choice only became an issue in the seventies. In the eighties and nineties, it was gays. Now, it's scary brown people. The republicans will always find something to divide us.
They will overturn Roe. Count on it. They have plenty of other wedge issues in store, and their base wants some success every once in a while, too. They will demand nothing less.
by MBNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:49:16 PM PDT
So no they aren't going to do away with Roe v wade they had a stranglehold on all 3 branches for 4 years and did squat on the subject that should tell you all you need to know.
by Skex on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:05:10 PM PDT
appointing two new anti-choice Justices. They had two opportunities to damage Roe, and they took both of them.
by MBNYC on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:18:18 PM PDT
curtailing abortion rights? You know, the one that our last Democratic President vetoed, but Bushy signed (and without a single 'signing statement, too). And have you paid any attention to SCOTUS rulings lately? The Republicans have effectively destroyed the Court as any kind of resort for ordinary Americans seeking redress of abuse by government or large corporations. They're about to redefine the 2nd Amendment, too, and declare that government has no power to regulate the ownership of firearms--just wait. And yes, they will overturn Roe as soon as an opportunity presents itself. Don't believe for a minute that they're not serious about this or that they won't deliver.
by catleigh on Thu May 01, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM PDT
If it is, what will the republicans use to gettheir voters to the polls in the future?
by lyingeyes on Thu May 01, 2008 at 03:04:21 PM PDT
Let's take a gamble with that, why don't we?
McCain has been very clear on where he stands on choice. All it takes is one more liberal justice to retire,
