And I know it's going to be a long process. Conservatives have spent the last 30 years moving the country to the right.

Kind of funny that you think Repubs would do anything for their country. That's something I haven't seen for a long time. I've heard it a lot - it tends to be Republicans saying it - but haven't seen them put much of anything above politics.

News flash for ya, bucko...

All of those things are alive, flourishing and ENCOURAGED by the Obama Administration as well...

So, tell me.

How is that Hopey Changey thing workin' out for us, eh???

p.s. The piece about Democrats not being able to lead is misleading.

Not true. It's dead on balls accurate..

But if they were to lead in the populist direction they typically run on they would turn off their big money donors.

Democrats can't even decide WHAT the "populist direction" is...

That's my point..

The Democratic Party is a bunch of little fiefdoms, each with their own issues and own agendas. And the very foundation of the DP is BASED on the fact that each fiefdom is equal in priority to every other fiefdom.

And THAT is why the Democratic Party is incapable of showing true leadership.

The GOP, on the other had, also have those individual fiefdoms with their issues and agendas. But they have the DISCIPLINE to forget their own petty issues and come together for the good of the country(good) or the good of the Party (bad).

Any time Democrats want to pass something that will benefit no one but big business, they have no trouble leading.

They sure had a helluva time passing CrapCare which is a HUGE boon to big business. Billions of dollars going to corporations and yet, the Democrats had a helluva time to pass it.

Why??

Because it was POPULIST to be against CrapCare..

Democrats simply are incapable of leadership...

Michale.....

Sorry, but I've seen Republican leadership.

1) Endless war
2) The financial crisis
3) Corporate welfare
4) Erosion of liberties and civil rights
5) Dick Cheney

All brought to you by Republican leadership.

They even managed to do the impossible and make me long for the days when our President's infidelity was all we had to worry about. No thanks.

And the Dems are learning. And getting more liberal! Watch out, Michale! The liberals are coming!

Sorry to hear you're going to continue to inhabit Right/Left land. This land really doesn't interest me that much. I'd rather talk to people than marketing segments.

-David

Trinity: What's he doing?
Morpheus: He's beginning to believe.

p.s. The piece about Democrats not being able to lead is misleading. The problem Democrats have is that they run on a populist platform but still covet the support and money from large businesses. It's not that they can't lead. But if they were to lead in the populist direction they typically run on they would turn off their big money donors.

Republicans face no such challenge as they run on a corporate platform. This makes it much easier for them to "lead". In a really horrible sense, this also makes them more honest because they don't have to pretend to care about the average person. The economy sucks and you can't find a job? Not our problem.

Any time Democrats want to pass something that will benefit no one but big business, they have no trouble leading. Want to send more money to military contractors? No problem. The resistance comes when the populist agenda collides w/ the corporate agenda.

You want the Dems to show LEADERSHIP...

Sorry to have to break it to you, but the Democratic Party is simply NOT capable of doing that..

The very nature of the Party precludes this..

If you want a Party that actually knows HOW to lead and does it day in and day out, you'll have to go Republican..

Sorry, but that is just the way it is..

Michale.....

If you switch "Republican" with "Democrat", "liberal" with "conservative" and "right" with "left", it's still dead on ballz accurate.. :D

Michale....

Of course. They will absolutely try to shift the court further right. I just would like to see Obama and the Dems fight just as hard if not harder to nominate who they want rather than worrying about what Republicans care about.

But basically you're saying that Republicans won't accept anyone who is not even more conservative than Stephens. This is not bipartisanship.

This is the usual uncompromising Republican tactics. Don't accept anything unless it's further to the right. So if they're not willing to compromise, there is no incentive for Dems to work with them.

As with the case with healthcare, an appointee who is similar to Stevens would be the compromise. Not someone further to the right. This is not compromise!

Someone further to the left is who they should appoint if Repubs are going to be partisan.

All of this is Negotiation 101 - which sometimes I think the Dems could use. If the Dems need help, look back to how Bush pushed through who he wanted w/o compromising :)

-David

I can agree with this...

In the make-up of the SCOTUS in the here and now, Stevens is one of the liberals..

And I still maintain that the GOP will not let Obama put on a new Justice that is as "liberal" as Stevens is..

Michale.....

But as far as Stevens goes, he still seems more like a 1960s conservative who only appears liberal because of the conservative shift of the court.

Cheers
David

All of the afore aside...

Ya really got to love the irony that the Dems chances in the upcoming mid-terms depend on Harry Reid delivering......

Tell me that doesn't make those on the Left simply groan with dismay, eh?? :D

Michale.....

I would agree with that, with the correction that, *SOME* of Steven's views are quite moderate.

As far as Obama, there hasn't been any recent evidence of Obama's "moderate" views..

His recent gutting of our Nuclear Response would seem to indicate that his "moderate" views have been buried very VERY deep...

For example, no one is taking a middle-of-the-road Republican like Olympia Snowe and saying that she's an extreme nutjob conservative.

That's because it's not true... With Steven's, we CAN point to some very liberal interpretations and decisions...

I think your bigger point is that this is the right's best hope for winning. Why? Because when people actually know the details, they tend to agree w/ a lot of them. So I understand the strategy.

Your mistaking agreeing with one or two points with agreeing with a "lot of them." There are one, maybe two aspects of CrapCare that John Q Public agrees with...

But that is a drop of piss in the sea of crap that is CrapCare...

So you can keep trying to make it about Right vs. Left. That's the strategy of the right-wing pundits. The original Karl Rove strategy.

Don't look at me.. I am not "making" it a Right vs Left issue.. The Hystericals on the Left and the Right do that. I simply point out the obvious without any rose colored glasses BS that normally obfuscate the view from the Left...

But once you look past the surface, the landscape really looks more like - a few people on the left, a large majority of moderates, and a few people on the right with a very large media network.

I would agree with you, in theory. But I would point out that the "few" from the Left and the Right are a LOT more than you want to believe..

Michale.....

But they are characterized as liberals, socialists, communists, whatever, for political differentiation.

You don't hear people on the left doing this. For example, no one is taking a middle-of-the-road Republican like Olympia Snowe and saying that she's an extreme nutjob conservative.

I think your bigger point is that this is the right's best hope for winning. Why? Because when people actually know the details, they tend to agree w/ a lot of them. So I understand the strategy.

It's easier to hate something like a dirty hippie liberal than a moderate, middle-of-the-road Republican like Justice Stevens.

So you can keep trying to make it about Right vs. Left. That's the strategy of the right-wing pundits. The original Karl Rove strategy.

But once you look past the surface, the landscape really looks more like - a few people on the left, a large majority of moderates, and a few people on the right with a very large media network.

-David

http://www.nowhampshire.com/2010/04/14/source-state-dems-scrambling-to-deploy-tea-party-%E2%80%98crashers%E2%80%99/

A perfect case in point....

The Left simply CANNOT fathom how mainstream Americans can accept the Tea Party as legitimate...

So, the Left is desperate to paint the TP in a negative light...

It's all about Right vs Left...

Michale.....

Of which BOTH sides of the political spectrum are guilty of..

The study Wikipedia refers to is a study of voting patterns. All it shows is that Stevens tends to not vote w/ the self-described "conservatives" on the court.

It says nothing about his beliefs. When you look at his decisions and beliefs, he seems pretty darn moderate. But that wouldn't make for good politics, would it?

That's like trying to decide what the definition of 'is' is...

If a judge's decisions are mostly decided with the liberal side of the issue, then it's a pretty safe bet to say that said judge has liberal beliefs..

As I said, if you take Steven's individual stances on this or that, there ARE some conservative stances. But, by and large, Stevens leans liberal..

I like how Obama phrased it when he said we want someone with “an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”

And I completely agree with that.

However, Obama has proven time and time again that, while he knows all the right things to say, when it comes time for actions, he follows the liberal agenda, by and large...

Hopefully, he will walk the walk THIS time..

I don't hold out much hope, though...

As for being bought and paid for by corporate interests, what about your Supreme Court justices who just made it legal for corporations to donate as much as they want to certain candidates?

That's a gross mis-characterization of the Court's decision. A very LIBERAL characterization, if you will.. :D

The Court's decision was very narrowly limited to organizations, not corporations....

None of the "liberal justices" voted for this - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

Of course they didn't.. Because it screws up the liberal agenda...

Regardless of how you wish things to be, this IS a Left vs Right battle.. It sure would be nice if it wasn't, but it is..

The problem the LEFT has is that their side of the issues weaken this country and make it vulnerable to attack from within and without...

That's the point that the Left never quite seems to grasp..

Michale.....

"Liberal" is defined as opposed to the most conservative beliefs of the day and is largely determined by who the talking head conservatives say liberals are.

The discussion moves away from any talk about beliefs and turns into branding and name calling.

Don't get me wrong. The GOP has used branding to great effect. They call things "government takeover" and "socialist" and have the wealth and media networks to get these brands out there.

This is why when people tend to agree with individual components of the healthcare bill, but may oppose healthcare reform in general. After all, no one wants a "government takeover". Problem is that this name calling tells you very little about the bill.

This is also what they are trying to do w/ financial reform - brand it as continuing to support big bank bailouts.

But it has very little to do with what's actually in the reform. Just as it has very little to do with Justice Stevens actual beliefs and decisions.

The study Wikipedia refers to is a study of voting patterns. All it shows is that Stevens tends to not vote w/ the self-described "conservatives" on the court.

It says nothing about his beliefs. When you look at his decisions and beliefs, he seems pretty darn moderate. But that wouldn't make for good politics, would it?

He fought for "no one should be above the law" in decisions surrounding Guantanamo. But he also ruled against Clinton in the Paula Jones case when it came to "no one should be above the law".

He seems like a judge who put principle above politics and this is what we need.

This is what Democrats need to emphasize when they select a new judge. Get away from this conservative/liberal garbage. That's the challenge Obama faces.

I like how Obama phrased it when he said we want someone with “an independent mind, a record of excellence and integrity, a fierce dedication to the rule of law and a keen understanding of how the law affects the daily lives of the American people.”

Fingers crossed.
-David

p.s. Michale, as I've said, the sparks are going to fly no matter who he nominates so let 'em.

As for being bought and paid for by corporate interests, what about your Supreme Court justices who just made it legal for corporations to donate as much as they want to certain candidates?

Most conservatives think it's a great thing. John Boehner called it "a big win for the 1st amendment". Why? Because they think it will benefit them most.

And this decision actually reversed part of a law - McCain-Feingold. Doesn't that seem like "activist" judging to you?

None of the "liberal justices" voted for this - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122805666

Stevens is widely considered to be on the liberal side of the court.

But on the more conservative Rehnquist Court, Stevens joined the more liberal Justices on issues such as abortion rights, gay rights and federalism.

a 2003 statistical analysis of Supreme Court voting patterns found Stevens the most liberal member of the Court.

Stevens has a generally liberal voting record on the Fourth Amendment, which deals with search and seizure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Paul_Stevens

Which isn't to say that Justice Stevens doesn't have anything in common with some of the more conservative members. He is an advocate of the Death Penalty, for example.

Justice Stevens isn't a liberal in the "Code Pink" or "Cindy Sheehan" mold, this is true.

But he is quite a bit to the Left of Center and I do not believe that the GOP will allow a like-minded individual to be confirmed..

Ergo, any pick that is confirmed will more likely be closer to the Center than Stevens was and, therefore will increase the conservative make-up of the SCOTUS. For better AND for worse...

This is exactly what they did with healthcare and they're gearing up to do it again with whoever you nominate.

Really??

You seem to imply that the GOP told Obama "DO THIS, THIS and THAT and we'll vote for CrapCare."

You further imply that Obama DID do this, this and that and that the GOP reneged..

I see no evidence of Obama putting in ANYTHING meaningful of the GOP's suggestions.

Interstate Insurance Plans?? Nope.. Not there..

Medical Malpractice Reform?? Nope.. Don't see it anywhere...

You claim that the GOP wouldn't have supported CrapCare no matter what. I say that Obama SHOULD have put those things in and then we all would have SEEN what the GOP would have done. If THAT had occurred, then Dems might have had a snowball's chance in hell of hanging on to their majorities in the mid-terms.

But, of course, Obama couldn't do those things, because he is bought and paid for by corporate interests...

As to the the upcoming SCOTUS pick.. Let's see Obama cater to his fringe/base and watch the sparks fly!! :D

Michale.....

Did you know Michale that Stevens was a Republican most of his life?

Did you know that when he was originally picked, he was picked because of his lack of strong political connections to either party?

Can you name something "liberal" that he did?

The other night on the news I listened to a lengthy overview of his career and he sure didn't sound "liberal". I think this "liberal" stuff is a bunch of BS.

It's a simple way to avoid any type of real discussion.

I guess by liberal, you mean that he often disagreed w/ Scalia and Rehnquist and the far right court. Heck, by today's far right standards, Reagan would have been a liberal.

It's really sad that conservatism has come to mean: "you agree with the far right or you're a liberal".

-David

Note to President Obama:

Here's the GOPs game. Say upfront that you'll filibuster anyone who is a liberal. Try to get the administration to pick as conservative a nominee as possible. Even hint that you would confirm such-and-such conservative nominee.

When this person is nominated, turn around and call him/her a liberal. Do whatever you can to block the nomination.

This is exactly what they did with healthcare and they're gearing up to do it again with whoever you nominate.

So I would suggest nominating as liberal a person as possible. You have nothing to lose!

And why do ya'all think that is?

Why hasn't CrapCare and Porkulus resonated with the public??

The answer is simple.

Because neither has done ANYTHING that the Obama administration had promised they would do.

As far as Porkulus goes, it didn't keep down the unemployment rate and it didn't curb exorbitant CEO bonuses...

CrapCare?? Oh where to start.. So many loopholes that allow the Insurance Companies to do whatever the hell they want. No regulation to prevent Insurance Companies from raising rates whenever they want to whatever they want. Nothing in CrapCare prevents Insurance Companies from refusing coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. And more than 3/4ths of the States preparing lawsuits and/or legislation to opt out of the mandate to purchase due to the mandate being unconstitutional.

It's easy to see why none of the Democrats want to tout their "successes"...

If they did, it would guarantee that they would be defeated in their re-election bid..

Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place...

And Democrats have only themselves to blame.. What did they expect would happen when they passed crap legislation that over 75% of the American Public was against??

This is what happens with politicians place Party before Country..

"Unit... Corp... God... Country..."
-Cpl Dawson, A FEW GOOD MEN

Don't see anything in there about "PARTY"... :D

Michale......

http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20100412/capt.52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b6a-52d493edeb0243ef84cbfc87f58f4b6a-0.jpg?x=400&y=236&q=85&sig=7ExLDMeF0GRpZtR03CoBUA--

Michale.....

Ya'all can't see it, but I have this huge shit-eatin' grin on my face right now.. :D

As to Obama's SCOTUS pick....

Stevens was a complete and staunch liberal on the high court.

The GOP won't let a like-minded person be confirmed.

Logically, Obama's pick will increase the conservative leanings of the Supreme Court.

Michale.....

You are entirely correct, although usually we get a bit loopy in August, on Hallowe'en, and around the end of the year. But random loopiness pops up every so often at other times too, mostly when Congress is out of town. Or when I have to use a phrase in the political context which I'm not sure either my older or younger readers will even understand (hence all the Fonziness of late...). Here, for instance, is the most frivolous thing I think I've ever posted here. But, hey, thanks for the kind words, they do indeed keep me going!

Osborne -

From what I hear, both sides are going to have a big field day of "pleasing the base" on the SCOTUS pick, but then it'll likely go through (after lots of smoke and noise) without an actual filibuster. This could change, but that's what the smart money seems to be on, you're right.

-CW

1) If the GOP wants to spend a few weeks working for Wall Street on C-SPAN, let them. Financial reform is far more suited to letting the GOP filibuster than HCR was because it can pass via reconciliation (unlike the Senate HCR bill).

So is cap & trade, BTW.

2) How long the Supreme battle takes is part of Obama's calculus at the moment. His first leaked short-list name was an instant hit with Senate Republican leadership. And really, this court pick won't even be able to alter the balance of the court -- that will come when Obama gets to replace one of the conservatives. So you might actually see a "quick pick" sail through the Senate.