Your comment is to a position I don't hold (I'm not a Republican - I'm a liberal Democrat) and an argument I didn't make (there's nothing that I find "cool" or "beloved" about the GOP).
So I guess there's nothing else to talk with you about.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
If you can't get President Obama to stand for civil liberties (a Harvard Law Professor, who promised to end Getmo), you're going to find the same result with a Green Party Candidate!
============================
There you go, presuming Obama to be liberal or progressive, to stand for civil liberties. He went to Harvard Law, but wasn't a professor there.
That does bring up a question, however: Do you believe all Harvard Law professors and/or students are liberal/progressive/civil libertarians? Would you say that Antonin Scalia or John Roberts or William Bennett or Caspar Weinberger or David Frum or Charles Fried or Mary Ann Glendon are liberal/progressive/civil libertarians? They're all either alumni of or professors at Harvard Law School.
What Obama promises and what Obama delivers aren't the same thing. He didn't close Gitmo, nor has he transferred detainees' trials to civilian federal courts, as he campaigned on in 2008.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No, that was to ema123.
I find that most Democratic voters (and most Americans, generally) are more liberal than they believe themselves to be. When informed on issues, when their positions are explained and not shaped by pollsters, they agree with liberal policies.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
And when all else fails, "The Supreme Court will be lost!"
The Supreme Court is lost already. Please remember that Scalia and Thomas made it through a Democratically-controlled Judiciary Committee and Senate. And Democrats voted to confirm Alito (58-42) and Roberts (78-22),
Obama's appointments are really nothing to defend. Elena Kagan is the Goldman-Sacks seat, not to mention that she was the 5th vote in rolling back Miranda a few weeks ago, and she joined the conservatives two weeks ago on the Medicaid portion (states may opt out) of ACA.
And Sotomayor was with the Scalia-Thomas-Alito faction that boycotted the SOTU - Sotomayor was in Guam, addressing a group of students and swearing in new members of the Guam Bar Association, a first for a US Supreme Court Justice (are you kidding, Sonia, missing the most public showing of US democracy and the 3 branches of government by leaving the US for a 5 day trip to Guam?).
If who gets to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg was such a worry, don't you think she would step down now while it's assured a Democratic president would be choosing?
You should read David Remnick's biography of Obama sometime, to get a sense of Obama's judicial philosophy - It's really not what we on the left were led to believe about him.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Republicans haven't been filibustering anything; they've only been threatening to filibuster.
Harry Reid could've actually forced Republicans and turncoat Democratic senators to filibuster. He didn't and doesn't.
Harry Reid has had no problem forcing the GOP to actually filibuster when it's something that the DLC wants and perceives it needs. For example, when Democrats needed unemployment benefits to continue because the masses were becoming 'critical', Reid had no problem calling Republican Jim Bunning's bluff to filibuster. Reid said, "Bring in the cots, do it" and Bunning and the GOP caved. Benefits for unemployed workers continued.
Democrats could even have changed the supermajority rule (it does NOT have to be done at the beginning of a new Congress, as some argued). It can be done at any time (see page 6 - http://fpc .state.gov/documents/organization/45448. pdf ].
But Democrats put off their critics for not forcing the Republicans to actually filibuster and changing Senate Rule 22 during the session by assuring fed-up Democratic voters, "We'll change the rule come the beginning of the next Congress".
They didn't.
There's not just one way (or even two) for Democrats to get bills passed without Republican votes.
http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid='0E%2C*P%2C%3B%3F %22%20%20%20%0A
http://yglesias.thinkprogress. org/2009/08/hertzberg-on-the-constitutionality-of- the-filibuster/
But Obama and the DLC-controlled DemocraticParty didn't and aren't doing that. Because it might actually work to get Democratic voters' legislative agenda made into the law of the land and do good for the People. And that's not what Obama and Company are there for. They're there to do the work of the transnational corporations. Along with the Republicans, as was clearly evidenced the time that Harry Reid kept the Senate open (pro forma) so that Obama couldn't make recess appointments, collaborating with Republicans to keep progressives and liberals out of government. It was another tag-teaming by Democrats with their partners across the aisle to scr3w over the American people on behalf of the corporations.
Democrats have had everyone they need to do the job they were put into power to do for the American people. They don't want to do it.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
#1 - A president just signs what the Congress writes and passes (tax legislation).
#2 - I assume the worst suspicions about Romney's tax returns are true. And then some.
But when those who are actually writing the legislation can do this while keeping their tax returns secret, I'm not only not happy, I've call it hypocrisy, but business as usual (and all politicians are alike) and a diversion where nothing is going to change when they make the charge of the other guy (Romney).
Aren't you tired of this cr@p? Don't you want change? It's not going to happen when you keep circling the wagons around "ours", who are just as corrupt. They're not looking out for you as you're looking out for them.
Now is the time, the only time, before elections, when you can get them to deliver to you, on their promises, and Obama's "most ardent fans" are letting him and Democrats do nothing. If after the 2008 election he reneged on just about every campaign pledge and promise, and after the 2010 midterms he said that the mandate of that election was to cave even more to Republicans, what do you think he's going to say that the 2012 election gave him a mandate to do, if he wins reelection?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Do you know how the DLC is "wiping out the Republican Party"?
By absorbing it. By turning the Democratic Party into the Republican Party. The Republican Party of the 1950s. The Republican Party that gave us corporate-think, GE, Ronald Reagan.
That's not speculation, that's not opinion - The DLC's (No Labels/Third Way) been completely open about it. Their intent has been to marginalize the base of the Democratic Party (liberals), marginalize the extreme rightwing of the Republican Party and bring moderate and conservative Republicans into the Democratic Party, where the Democratic Party can "govern for 100 years".
Obama's not and never has been a liberal or a progressive. "Privately, Obama describes himself as a Blue Dog Democrat."
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
© Blogger templates Newspaper by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008
Back to TOP
