Will you support the (D) nominee, IF ONLY for the judges and US Attorneys?

[cboy4]

There's DU poll circulating that indicates 33% of the respondents may not, or even will not, support the Democratic nominee, depending on who the person is, because apparently can't stand them that much. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=2653821&mesg_id=2653821

Here's one (OF MANY other examples) why I will support the nominee, even if I have to hold my nose:


PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge placed on hold a state domestic partnership law that was set to take effect Jan. 1, pending a February hearing.

The law would give some spousal rights to same-sex couples.

Opponents asked U.S. District Judge Michael W. Mosman to intercede after the Oregon secretary of state's office ruled in October that they had failed to collect enough valid signatures on a referendum to block the law.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hfX8e3TIntUZM8Q0hPTYBs3gRvjQD8TQQ1LG3

Who is this federal judge?

No other than a weaselly Bush appointee with a bigoted record. :puke:---------->http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=3034

"The nominee, Michael Mosman, was a law clerk to the late Justice
Powell in the 1980s. Two recently published books report that he
argued forcefully behind the scenes in support of the Georgia sodomy
law, reportedly prompting Powell to cast the deciding vote in favor
of the law in the landmark 1986 decision known as Bowers vs.
Hardwick."


http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/list/queerlaw/msg05105.html

--------------------------

How many more civil liberties will be eroded under another Republican?

I'll be the first to admit, I'm not a big Obama supporter, for instance.

But if he's our nominee, I'll be voting for him (despite the McClurkin debacle) after a friend reinforced a good point.

If only for the JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS!!

And I'll be curious to hear why those of you who vote #2 don't think appointments are worth voting for a Hillary or an Obama or an Edwards -- folks you may not stand.

I'm not criticizing per se. Just curious for an explanation, because at one point, I was telling myself I may not support the nominee because I was so disenchanted.

[BOSSHOG]

1. Its really quite simple for me

If there is a (D) running against an (R), there is no contest. I have no qualms whatsoever voting against a member of a party which is hellbent on destroying civil liberties.

[cyclezealot]

2. 99% In the affirmative

unless Hillary backtracks and makes another speech similiar to the one she gave before the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee. That content, you'd thought Paul Wolfowitz was talking. Disgusting. She needs listen to the Edwards', Kucinich's , and O'Bama's and forget here connections to Lieberman and all will be well.

[LostinVA]

5. Obama isn't Irish -- good grief, at least know the candidates' names

[cyclezealot]

9. Not our first choice.

Could care less how his name is spelled , unless we need recognize his name on a November ballot. Said we'd vote for Hillary. Is that one L or two L L's. Jeez. Big deal. Is not Obama's mother Irish or Italian or something.Could be? Spelled it without the apostrophe. Happy now.

[LostinVA]

13. It is a big deal

[cyclezealot]

17. you are such a good proofreader

why did you not suggest her is not spelled 'here.'

[cboy4]

15. Actually the correct usage is:

"couldn't" care less how his name is spelled.

By saying "could" care less, that means, well, you could care less how it's spelled.

lol

[yodermon]

98. weak.

http://www.mtannoyances.com/?p=128

[Big Blue Marble]

48. Actually, Obama mother is of Irish decent.

Some proud Irish supporters use the O'bama spelling as a sign of affinity with his European heritage.
So you really do not need to be so snarky.

[cyclezealot]

103. thanks . thought no big deal

So often we post responses without a second thought . It seems I had some impression O'Bama had some Irish connection. I am sure that was a factor in using my apostrophe.

[fuzzy otter pop]

3. i will always support the lesser of two evils, no matter what

[cboy4]

4. Come on now people voting "No." Please explain,

or are you embarrassed or what?

It's a fair question and this is a discussion board after all.

[LostinVA]

6. It slays me -- if they mean it, they need to leave DU

[cboy4]

8. I think most will hide behind the anonymity of the poll,

which is unfortunate, if not weak.

And yea, I agree with you as I do most of the time my little troll. :pals:

[bpeale]

112. how many times do posters have to tell you NO before you get the message?

the vote is not for sale to the democratic leadership council. i may well sit out the election if my horse is not the nominee no matter what.

[martymar64]

139. Then it can be a nice little Hilary Echo Chamber

You guys can talk about such great Hillary projects like expanding outsourcing and starting a war with Iran.
What fun that will be! And nobody will be around to disagree with the queen and her crazy plans.
I know, you can start up the Hillary Clinton Presidential Prayer Team and starting hawking pictures of her with halos!

[mondo joe]

7. It's funny - if worse comes to worse the courts will be yet that much MORE important

to ensure civil rights for those who will not get a fair shake from another Republican president - or even a President who is a Democrat that may not fit someone's progressive ideal.

[Midlodemocrat]

53. Let's hope it is just the troll factor and not real.

Cause that would suck, unbelievably.

[RuleOfNah]

10. Which (D) voted for Bush judges?

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

[wellstone dem]

11. Whenever I waver, I think about the courts. nt

[Hosnon]

12. Yes. The next President may get to fill a few vacancies on the Supreme Court.

I will most likely vote for whomever is the Democratic nominee.

[TechBear_Seattle]

14. If you can convince me the Dem nominee will do any better, then yes

I vote based on the contents of the package, not based on the label or the commercials. If I think the Democratic nominee will consistently pick competent people who will do their jobs rather than implement a corporatist agenda or serve the interests of the White House, Then I will support the Democratic nominee. But not unless you can convince me.

[cboy4]

18. You don't think any of the Democrats would be better than

any of the Republicans in that regard?

I totally understand your point.

And maybe I'm an idiot assuming the Dems would be better by default.

[leftchick]

19. you are not an idiot

Just look at the facts, Hillary and Obama will work for the CORPORATIONS first! Always!



WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. Hillary Clinton is being taken to task by her two closest rivals for accepting $400,000 in campaign contributions from Washington lobbyists.

Over the weekend, Clinton was booed by an audience of liberal bloggers in Chicago when she defended taking money from Washington lobbyists, something both Sen. Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards have vowed not to do.

"I don't think, based on my 35 years fighting for what I believe in, anybody seriously believes I'm going to be influenced by a lobbyist or a particular interest group," Clinton said.

"A lot of these lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans. They actually do. They represent nurses, they represent social workers -- yes, they represent corporations that employ a lot of people."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/06/lobbyists.democrats/index.html

[mondo joe]

23. Do you seriously think any Hillary or Obama nominee wouldn't be significantly

better than that of any of the Republicans based on issues like privacy, choice, freedom of information, habeas corpus?

[leftchick]

27. no

seriously. Not even minimally better. And when it comes to foreign policy? As bad as the current crop of neocons.

[mondo joe]

28. Do you find Scalia and Ginsburg to be no different in any substantive way?

[leftchick]

37. what makes you think Hillary would pick a Ginsburg?

Faith? Her record indicates she would pick a Corporate friendly Nominee. She has to pay back all of those Big Donations (Health Care Industry/OIL/Big Pharma/Etc.) somehow. It is remarkable how so many actually think she cares about people first. What a joke.

[mondo joe]

40. Look at her legislative record and score on chice. You're opposed to her on faith - bad faith.

If you think Hillary's nominees would be no different than Huckabee's, further discussion would be like trying to explain the difference between green and red to a colorblind person.

[leftchick]

59. lol!

I have seen her record and I have seen her latest donations. Only a colorblind person would not recognize GREEN trumps principles every fucking time. Especially with a Clinton/bush.

[mondo joe]

61. Really? What's her record on reproductive choice? On Habeas Corpus?

On equal civil rights?

[leftchick]

106. that will all mean NOTHING

when it comes time to pay pack her biggest supporters. I believe you know who they are....




I don't see Big Pharma there but they are.

[mondo joe]

108. So you're operating on faith-based reasoning. Bad faith, but still faith. NT

[leftchick]

109. no

it is called reality. You should try it sometime.

[mondo joe]

110. But you ignore the reality of Clinton's legislative record for some imagined future.

You're stuck in bad faith, not reality.

[leftchick]

114. someone is

and it isn't me. :eyes:

[bemildred]

115. Word.

All this projection is very funny.

[mondo joe]

120. Bullshit. Ignoring actual legislative record in favor of unevidenced fears is fucking idiotic.

That is all.

[bemildred]

123. You want us to vote your fears instead of our hopes.

You have no right to demand that.

[mondo joe]

124. You're wrong on several counts. Here they are:

I don't want you to vote my fears - I want an evidence based reason to believe Obama and Clinton's judicial nominees wouldn't be any better than those made by any of the Republican nominees. That was the statement made and I'm asking for backup.

Secondly, you say I have "no right to demand that". I haven't demanded anything - I've asked. Though for what it's worth, anyone has the right to demand anything, and others have the right to refuse it if they choose.

[bemildred]

130. Well, I certainly wish you luck with that.

I don't believe I mentioned Clinton or Obama myself, so I'm not sure why you are talking to me about that.

[mondo joe]

131. Post #27, earlier in this subthread. That's what I was asking about - to the person

who wrote it.

[bemildred]

133. Well, again good luck with that.

It's pretty tricky to prove what's going to happen in the various imaginary futures, but she's pretty smart, so maybe she can come up with something.

[mondo joe]

134. Sorry but I need to clarify: I didn't ask to prove what's going to happen.

That's plainly impossible.

I'm looking for evidence to support the notion that Obama or Clinton would - contrary to their legislative records - nominate justices that are in no way preferable to those of the Republican nominees.

Not proof - just a reasoned argument, with some supporting evidence.

[bemildred]

135. But that seems rather unlikely.

I mean that any Dem pResident would nominate worse judges than any Repub, at least with the current crops of candidates. Although one could quibble about what "worse" means, as in "worse in regard to which issues?" It seems likely among the current candidates that there would be some wide variations on certain issues.

The question, as I saw it, was whether that issue alone (nominations) was sufficient to cause one to vote for any Dem candidate in the GE? And some of us want to wait and see what happens and make our minds when the time comes and we know more. Why do I have to commit myself NOW?

[mondo joe]

137. We agree more or less on the first point. Your second question is separate, and not what I

was asking about. I think that's a more personal matter.

[Warren DeMontague]

128. I don't know who the (D) nominee is going to be, but I will say if you don't vote for HIM or HER

in the general election, you won't be voting anyone's "hopes"- you'll be pulling some stupid, scorched-Earth Ralph Nader petulancy bullshit.

I'm not a Hillary supporter by any stretch- but if she's the nominee, I will gladly cast my vote for her in November.

[bemildred]

132. Tsk, you won't win any new friends that way.

As I told the other fellow, I don't believe I mentioned Ms Clinton, or anyone in particular. I was answering a general question.

[Warren DeMontague]

144. Eh, you're probably right about that.

Seems I may have ascribed your particular response to the previous poster in this sub-thread. Whoops.

So, to quote the esteemed late Doctor Gonzo, I either "owe you an apology, or nothing at all."

[TechBear_Seattle]

45. When you carefully pick issues, anyone will be better than anyone else

Well, except for Chimpy: I am confident that he will always be the worst possible choice. But that is beside the point.

While I harp on a few issues which are very important to me (such as equal marriage and civil rights), I do try to look at candidates holisticly. What I see in Clinton and Obama with regards to environmental protections, corporate responsibility, renewable energy, civil rights, the invasion and occupation of foreign countries, and other issues leaves me seriously underwhelmed. Frankly, I see nothing that would convince me that either candidate would do any better on these issues than the Current Regime.

[mondo joe]

46. Your point is correct. But I think prioritization is a part of virtually all decision making.

So while I'd like court nominees with whom I agree on 10 of 10 points, I'd prefer getting one I agree with on ANY points to one with whom I agree on none.

[TechBear_Seattle]

51. I agree about prioritization

You won't mind if I prioritize the issues according to what I see as important to me, my community and my country, will you? In that light.... :shrug:

[mondo joe]

58. Of course not - and I apologize for any implication that you should substitute my

priorities - or anyone else's - for your own. It wasn't my intent to say or even suggest that.

I was instead just trying to play out the ideas, purely for the sake of discussion, with you because I like and respect you.

[TechBear_Seattle]

64. Thanks

:pals:

I am raising these points not because I want to disaffiliate from the party or because I want to trash it. I just want to make it clear that I vote according to the candidate, not according to the party. To pull out another silly but accurate analogy: Voting for a wolf just because he looks like a sheep will not do the flock any good. And yes, I get pissed when people start bleating, "But he has wool! Vote for him or the wolves will eat you!"

[cboy4]

29. You mean I am an idiot?

:shrug:

[leftchick]

35. lol

hell no! I just asked that you look at the facts. :)

[cboy4]

39. lol.

:)

[TechBear_Seattle]

43. I think individual Democrats will do better, most certainly

I do not think that slapping a label on someone changes the contents. Does a can of peas become a can of corn just because the label says "Corn"?

[bpeale]

113. no, they are just as corporatist as the republicans are

[LynneSin]

21. So then you'll enable Republicans into the White House because????

:grr:

[TechBear_Seattle]

42. Why should I enable Republicans who call themselves Democrats?

Like I said, I vote based on the contents of the package, not on the label or commercials selling the product. If the box actually contains 100% Democrat, I will buy the box. Why should I do otherwise?

[mondo joe]

44. Hmmm. A sincere answer:

1. I believe Democrats decide who Democrats are. If Democrats select a nominee, that is who represents Democrats and that is what a Democrat is. IE, "Democrat" doesn't have a fixed meaning, but changes over time. So saying the nominee must be "100% Democrat" more accurately means "someone who agrees with ME". That's just an academic point.

2. I'd suggest that even a nominee who is not ideally aligned with your positions might be greatly preferable to one who is yet further removed from them. As a point of reference, Bill Clinton was not always the best fried to the LGBT community, but his appointment of Ginsburg to the Supreme Court has been a positive for us, while the appointment by ANY Republican will be a negative.

I know a lot of people don't like the idea of "lesser of two evils". But I think that's what most choice in life is about, in practical terms.

[TechBear_Seattle]

49. And my sincere answer

If Democrats decide that a candidate is a Democrat simply because the label says "100% Democrat," even though the contents has a large percentage of Republican, why should I not just avoid the packaged stuff altogether, hie myself down to the Farmers Market, buy something that has never been packaged and learn to cook for myself?

Ok, I'm stretching my analogy a bit there, but certainly you understand my point? Ultimately, voters are consumers. Eventually, the consumers get wise to the fact that we cannot trust the packaging and either switch to a different brand or decide to do without. I very strongly believe that this is why a large majority of Americans do not bother to vote at all in the Presidential races: we are tired of the deceptive advertising.

I am more than happy to vote for a Democrat. But do not try to convince me that Madison Avenue's version of the product has any semblance to reality. I will take a taste and judge for my self. If it ain't 100% Democrat according to MY standards, I'm returning it and demanding my money back.

[mondo joe]

50. I think your question is good and fair - and I agree with it.

I'm a Democrat because the Democratic party and our nominees are adequately aligned with me.

But I know that's not fixed and is subject to change.

If the day comes that the Democratic party is not adequately aligned, I'll leave it. I won't be a Democrat any longer - but those who remain will be.

[TechBear_Seattle]

60. And therein lies my extreme frustration

I look at where the Democratic Party was 25 years ago, when I first got involved campaigning for Walter Mondale in my mid teens. I look at where the Democratic Party is now and I see so much of the Republican Party of 25 years ago that I despair. I see an overwhelmingly hawkish stance on foreign policy. I see utter distain for organized labor. I see disregard for fundamental human rights and support for torture. To tug on my earlier analogy, I see a once loved brand that has been bought out by Big Corp; they no longer produce what once carried that brand name and simply repackage the same crap they've been selling for years under other labels. Why should I be loyal to the brand when I cannot stomach so much of what is being sold under that brand? Why should I not seek out other brands that are more to my taste?

[mondo joe]

62. Yeah, but if you look WAY back, even past 25 years ago, you'd see a very

different Democratic party - one you wouldn't want to be in. What it means to be a DEMOCRAT has always changed and always will.

I don't mean to be difficult - this is a friendly comment. If the brand no longer suits you, that's up to you. It's okay to say goodbye to it.

[TechBear_Seattle]

67. I am not saying goodbye

Brand loyalty does no one any good. When the product itself is good, I will buy the product. While the Democratic Party brand has, in my opinion, deteriorated greatly in the last two and a half decades, there are still a few good items carrying that label; I am perfectly happy to buy those products. Just don't try to tell me that there is truth in advertising in politics or that the label on the package has any relation to what's inside.

[LynneSin]

57. Well I'm not aware of any republican calling themselves democrats

See if they have a "D" next to them - that's called DEMOCRAT

What a beautiful thing about the Democrat party is that we're a big tent and unlike you and the people who run the Republican party (not the same entity mind you) is that we do not hold litmus tests for our members.

If ANYONE is a republican calling themselves a democrat it's folks like you who would rather see another 4-8 years of Republicans in the White House and who gives a fuck about what the supreme court does.

35 years ago RoeVWade came about and 35 years later we're about 1 supreme court justice in making it go away.

Glad you feel ok giving future generations of our women no rights to decide what to do with their bodies!

[TechBear_Seattle]

68. So writing "corn" on a can of peas makes it a can of corn? n/t

[LynneSin]

73. Well the problem is you're going around writing corn on those can of peas

I go to the store and buy a can of peas 99.9999999999999999999999% of the time it'll probably be peas in there.

So - am I going to believe what the store labels says not what some idiot strolling down the grocery store aisle with a sharpie is writing on the cans

[TechBear_Seattle]

96. The problem is that I buy "Democrat" and get a can of "Republican" as often as not

It has gotten to the point where I ask to see what is inside the container before I put down money. Certainly that is allowed, isn't it? I'm tired of getting the bag home and finding a cat instead of a pig.

(See "Pig in a poke" if you don't get the reference.)


Fixed link.

[martymar64]

140. Joe Lieberman is a Republican that calls himself a democrat.

He's supporting McCain. He supports George Bush and the war in Iraq and qants to bomb Iran with nuclear weapons. He is in favor of stealing the rest of the West Bank for Israel.
Those are all Rethug positions.

We need a revolution so bad in this country.

[NightWatcher]

16. even if only for that one reason, but I'm sure there are others too

[LynneSin]

20. A democrat on his/her absolutely WORST DAY EVERY is still better....

than any republican out there, even on their best day.

Judges are very important to me as to why we need a Democrat in the White House; however, not the only reason I'm voting 110% Democrat in 2008

[mondo joe]

30. Anyone dumb enough to see no difference between Scalia and Ginsburg is a hopeless case

so there is no hope of appealing to logic.

[LynneSin]

55. Ugh - I just choked a bit on my hot tea reading that comment

But a very very valid point!

Hell I'd rather have a Supreme court filled with Kennedys or worst case O'Conners than to have more Scalia, Thomas, Alitos and Roberts

[LWolf]

22. Other:

I will support the Democratic nominee if the Democratic Party nominates someone I would like to see become the president of the United States.

[leftchick]

24. ditto!

:)

[mondo joe]

25. So you'd be willing to take another Scalia rather than vote for someone that would give you another

Ginsburg on the court?

Got it.

[cboy4]

33. Okay....but can you explain why you think one or some of the

Republican candidates would be better than any of the Democratic candidates?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. Me too.

[bigwillq]

26. I am supporting the DEM nominee (nt)

[IndianaJones]

31. Beware....reference this quote from Barack Obama

"Because federal judges receive lifetime appointments and often serve through terms of multiple presidents, it behooves a president - and benefits our democracy - to find moderate nominees who can garner some measure of bipartisan support."

[mondo joe]

32. Yeah yeah. But a moderate like Ginsburg is 1000% preferable to an Alito.

[cboy4]

36. Ughh. Thanks for trying to shoot down my argument.

Even if an Obama were to select someone in the mold of moderate Sandra Day O'Connor, that's still better than faux moderates like Roberts and Alito.

[IndianaJones]

38. I agree. nt.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

34. There are other reasons in which to support the Dem nominee than just that n/t

[quickesst]

41. At least....

according to the poll, there is some comfort knowing the greater majority of DU members aren't seriously considering supporting the repugs by not excercising their right to vote. Still, it is somewhat disturbing. Thanks.
quickesst

[martymar64]

141. Not voting is not supporting repugs

It's choosing neither because they both are warmongering corporate bootlickers. If you have such a problem with people not voting then bitch at the 50% of the eligible voters in this country that currently don't vote. By offering up candidates that only represent the wealthy and the corporations, you're just expanding that number.
Give them a reason to vote! Quit offering the same old tired message time after time and maybe people will start coming around.
Fuck it, I might not vote myself, considering that the fix is already in and that my "party" wants to nominate yet another economic royalist spouting the same bullshit platitudes and empty promises that they have no intention of keeping.

If you don't like it, then tough titty!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. No. Appointment of judges is one of many criteriia determinging my vote.

Common human decency being most paramount. Something difficult to find in any politician.

[bunkerbuster1]

54. Not just yes, but f*ckty f*ck yes.

That is uppermost in my mind when working to get a Dem elected. We simply can't have another four years of Scalito-Roberts' brand of "strict constructionalism."

[bemildred]

56. Other: I am way past accepting fear or pie-in-the-sky as a reason to vote for anyone. nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

All I can say to that is...

:toast:

[Kucinich4America]

63. Wow... another loyalty oath poll

This shit works better than Ambien :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:

(and you don't get up in the middle of the night in a zombie state and drive your car off a cliff)

[cboy4]

66. Don't call it a loyalty oath poll. Did you read the part

about how I struggled with this issue?

I'm on record as saying Kucinich has been my first choice from the beginning (I'm gay...seems pretty logical I'd support him, although that certainly wasn't the only reason.)

But because I feel John Edwards (my second choice) needs my vote more than Dk, I'm supporting John when I vote in California on Tsunami Tuesday.

So don't be petty and name call my honest attempt to learn why some people won't support a Democrat, if only for the judges.

The poll has been an interesting dialog so far.

Why don't you explain why you'd rather have a Republican President picking judges instead of any of the Democratic candidates?

If I could wave a magic wand and see to it that Dennis is the nominee, I'd prolly do it. But he's not going to be the nominee because he's not getting enough votes.

[bemildred]

70. I'd rather have 8 more years of Republican rule than another DINO

that will just enable another Bush down the road. It they are going to trash the country, let them take credit for it.

[cboy4]

71. Yea, well civil liberties may not matter much to you....

but they matter to me.

I mean, your whole argument is just ridiculous.

John Edwards is a DINO? Come on now.

[bemildred]

74. What civil liberties?

The government is a bunch of corrupt weasels controlled by incompetent and decadent plutocrats. You only have the rights that you can afford.

Why do you think Edwards is a DINO, I like Edwards.

[cboy4]

76. You are so confused. First of all, I asked:

John Edwards is a DINO?

That's a question, not a statement.

Of course I don't think Edwards is a DINO.

And if you like Edwards, why did you rule him out in your previous post by stating "Republican rule" would be better "than another DINO?"

Your implication is that there aren't any non-DINO Democratic candidates to choose.

If you like Edwards, why wouldn't you vote for him instead of allowing a Republican in?

And what civil liberities?

The ones that a Democratically selected Supreme Court would rule in favor of, much more likely than people like Alito and Roberts would -- the justices a Republican chose.

geez

[bemildred]

78. I said nothing about Edwards, you brought him up.

All I said is that I like Edwards, and by implication I don't think he is a DINO and I would vote for him. I'm not half as confused as you seem to be, although I am glad you like Edwards too.

[HughBeaumont]

79. Speaking of which, this little tidbit oughta interest you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3728937

[bemildred]

80. Now that is awesome. nt

[martymar64]

143. Edwards and Kucinich are the only non-DINOS

Clinton and Obama are as DINO as they come. They're giving Lieberman competition for the title of most DINO.

[mondo joe]

86. What civil liberties? Hm. The right to be charged and have a jury trial and defend oneself

strike me as pretty significant.

Not big on Habeas Corpus?

[bemildred]

88. Have you heard of Guantanamo?

How about "rendition"? "Abu Ghraib"? And once again, what Habeas Corpus? It's not that I don't like them, I just don't think we have them, although I know that theoretically we still sort of do. It's ambiguous with some of the recent legislation like the "Patriot Act"(sic).

[mondo joe]

90. I have. Do you think Republican appointed justices are going to be on the right side

of that?

Look at the record of any of the dem candidates on that matter.

[bemildred]

91. The Dem candidates have appointed federal judges?

FWIW, I am quite sure that Republican appointed judges will not be on the right side of that. I don't know why you would think otherwise.

[mondo joe]

92. No, but they have legislative records. So on matters of civil liberties and the court

which candidate in the next election do you think will nominaet justices who will be better - the one with the D or the R after their name?

[bemildred]

93. Probably A 'D'.

Although the results could vary widely depending on which 'D' candidate it was that won.

[mondo joe]

95. We may simply need to disagree, but I maintain that ANY 'D' will nominate

justices that are significantly better than ANY 'R' would, in the current crop of possibilities.

[bemildred]

101. That is probably true, although it's not a slam dunk.

But the question was would you vote for any Dem on that basis alone? And my answer was "probably not", I would consider other things too.

[martymar64]

142. The democrats had eight years to fight the rethugs on this

They rolled over EVERY TIME! The refused to filibuster, pissing their pants over the "nuclear option".
Even with a democrat in the WH, they'll still roll over for the RW. They did it during Clinton I and they'll do it during the Clinton II junta.


They also let the Iran-Contra criminals get away scot-free and they'll do it again for the Bush II junta.
I've lost my faith in our "party" to do the right thing under any circumstances. They disappoint at every turn and when they do it the next time, I'll just sit back knowing that I was right in my assessment yet again.

[Kucinich4America]

77. There's nothing "petty" or personal about my response.

There have been at least three dozen loyalty threads posted here since New Hampshire. Your intentions might be more honest than some of them, but the result is the same.

As far as Edwards goes, he's my preference out of the three candidates that the media pays any attention to. I'll vote for him as the nominee, and hope that he lives up to his recent rhetoric. If Obama's the nominee, I will vote for him, despite my very real concerns that he's asking for the endorsements of DINO's like Tim Johnson and Ben Nelson.

I won't vote for a continuation of the Bush-Clinton dynasty. Under any circumstances. And if they manage to continue this madness anyway, EVERYBODY is going to lose their rights, as the shredding of the Constitution will continue.

[terrya]

81. It's just, you know, our legal rights and such.

Really, no big deal. It's just stuff like Roe vs Wade. Boring, trivial, tedious stuff.

Don't lose any sleep over it. Gosh, that's the last thing we want.

[mondo joe]

85. Oh, nice melodramatic response to a reasonable question.

[Zynx]

65. This is my primary concern.

This is perhaps the longest lasting effect.

[terrya]

69. 14 people have said this doesn't matter to them.

Fuck them all. Assholes.

[cboy4]

72. I know. And I find post #70 particulary disturbing.

Sounds like the person wants to keep gay people in the dark ages.

[mondo joe]

87. They are people who don't give a shit about civil rights, IMO, and put their pride

before real people.

[HughBeaumont]

75. Well, here's the choice then . . .

. . . you nominate a candidate that you know WON'T divide the left and center, WON'T mobilize Republican voters rather than make them indifferent, WON'T lose the GE, DIDN'T vote for the IWR and Kyl/Lieberman, DOESN'T support free trade and job offshoring, DIDN'T vote for the 2001 Bankruptcy Bill, DIDN'T vote NAY on the Cluster Bomb vote and DOESN'T fill you with uncertainty and ambivelace in regards to not only their electability but their ability to stand up FOR the people and THEIR needs . . .

. . . . or you get whatever YOU chose to send to another flaming goddamned loss YET again.

So in the primaries, we'd ALL better choose WISELY.

In 2008, I'm voting, and NOT for the Repubilcan. And that's ALL anyone needs to fucking know.

It is not up to the VOTER to conform their needs to the party, it's the PARTY that has to LISTEN to their constituents. This is NOT and never will be "My Party, RIGHT or WRONG". Otherwise, you have a party that blames its members for not being allowed to be taken for granted.

Let those dickheads nominate whatever neo-clown, continuation-of-Bewsh, fascist pro-free trader warhawk MIC capitulator asshole they want. That's them. I don't WANT to be THEM.

[Milo_Bloom]

82. Why I voted no.

"And I'll be curious to hear why those of you who vote #2 don't think appointments are worth voting for a Hillary or an Obama or an Edwards -- folks you may not stand.

I'm not criticizing per se. Just curious for an explanation, because at one point, I was telling myself I may not support the nominee because I was so disenchanted"

In the spirit of you asking for an explanation, here it is.

I wouldn't vote for Clinton or Edwards because I don't believe voting for them guarantees progressive judges. Both have proven themselves over and over again to cave to political pressure without ANY regards for principles when it is politically convenient to do so (Iraq war, Bankruptcy, etc..).

There is absolutely nothing in Edwards' ENTIRE political career to make me think he won't cave in and appoint a "compromise" judge if pressured by a filibuster and media pressure by the right wing.

There is nothing in Clinton's RECENT political career to make me think she won't cave in and appoint a "compromise" judge is pressured by a filibuster and media pressure by the right wing. (Clinton once seemed to have some political courage, but has since traded it for a seat at the table.)

So, yes, appointments are worth voting for... but only if I can trust the candidate to actual make appointments based on principles and not fear of reprisal from a right wing desperately trying to assert itself. I do not trust Edwards or Clinton to do the right thing under pressure. I am unsure of Obama, but at least I think he MAY, so in that spirit, I would probably vote for him.

[cboy4]

84. Okay, that's a fair answer. You don't trust that these

candidates will necessarily vote for progressive judges.

The only person frankly I outright trust is Kucinich.

But at the very least, I trust (albeit maybe stupidly so) they'll choose someone who is honestly moderate, and that he/she will sustain Roe V Wade and all of the other important issues that matter to us.

Let's put it this way. I don't think any of them will be choosing an Alito or Roberts at the least, or a Scalia or Thomas at the most.

[Milo_Bloom]

89. Remember Souter.

When the first bush, riding a wave of unpopularity, offered Souter as a compromise moderate, he never forsaw that this judge would turn out to be one of the more liberal members of the court.

Even though I don't think that Clinton or Edwards would send in an Alito or a Roberts or someone who is OBVIOUSLY a wing nut, I do fear that they will prize their political capital OVER the actual rights and there is a good chance that we will end up with something worse than Alito... which is a democratic appointed judge who rules against issues that matter to us.

Here's why.


If you have a democratic appointed judge ruling that same sex marriages are against the law, it makes those who believe in the rights of gays appear to be fringe... afterall, a judge appointed by a democrat ruled this way, so "those" democrats complaining must be members of that "looney left" out of touch with their own party.

Do you see my concern?

[cboy4]

94. I understand your rationale and your point about how

an advertised moderate, if you will, can go in the opposite direction (per your Souter example.)

I just don't feel the risk of what your arguing outweighs the minimum trust I have in how the top 3 Dem candidates would go about selecting judges...especially weighed against the alternative which is essentially guaranteed judges in the mold of Alito and Roberts which the Republican wou;d get to choose.

I think, frankly, Souter is an anomaly.

[Milo_Bloom]

99. I guess you have more faith in Edwards and Clinton.

But then, since I have 0 faith in them, it is not hard, because some outweighs nothing.

After they voted for the war and doomed hundreds of thousands Iraqis and thousands of our own soldiers, I knew human rights and human life don't mean much to them when weighed against a political decision.

[cboy4]

105. Let's put it this way....I have the most faith in Edwards. n/t

[verges]

83. I've gotta ask...

I've got to ask: Which pairing of potential nominees do they question? I mean, any of the Dem candidates are better than any of the Repub candidates! In which pairing does a repub come out on top? Clinton v. Paul? Obama v. Thompson? Huck v. Edwards? Mix and match any way, and the Dem should come out on top! If not, I would like to know which pairing does the Repub seem a better candidate?

[MilesColtrane]

121. If you take any stock in polls...

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

These are results of several national polls of likely voters averaged together.
They are updated as new polling data comes in.

Clinton vs. McCain ... McCain +4.0%
Clinton vs. Giuliani ... Clinton +2.4%
Clinton vs. Huckabee ... Clinton +5.5%
Clinton vs. Romney ... Clinton +6.3%
Clinton vs. Thompson ... Clinton +7.5%

Obama vs. McCain ... Obama +0.3%
Obama vs. Giuliani ... Obama +10.0%
Obama vs. Huckabee ... Obama +11.2%
Obama vs. Romney ... Obama +16.0%
Obama vs. Thompson ... Obama +12.0%

Edwards vs. McCain ... Edwards +3.7%
Edwards vs. Giuliani ... Edwards +2.7%
Edwards vs. Huckabee ... Edwards +14.3
Edwards vs. Romney ... Edwards +16.5%
Edwards vs. Thompson ... Edwards +13.3%

Clinton loses to McCain, she has a close battle with Giuliani, and probably handles the rest.
Obama has a close battle with McCain and whips the rest.
Edwards beats McCain has a close battle with Giuliani and whips the rest.

[verges]

138. That's not what I was asking.

Presumably, folks who are posting here are progressive/liberal. Many of these same folk are saying that if Hillary/Obama/Edwards/Martin the Martian get the nomination, they WILL NOT vote for them. So I want to know which potential Republican candidate is superior to the Democratic candidate that they are so vehemently against. Do some people here really believe that Huck would serve a liberal agenda better than Hillary? Perhaps Guliani is more progressive than Obama? I don't get the rationale. Come August, there will be one Democrat, and one Republican running for the office of POTUS. YOUR(no one specific) candidate just might not be one of them. Even if your not overly thrilled with the eventual candidate (and most people won't be ), doesn't it make more sense to back the Dem? The overall winner in November will be Republican or Democrat. Which Republican is better than any of the Democrats? Can we really endure another four years of Repubs?

[MadHound]

97. Gee, another day, another loyalty oath.

This is getting as bad as '04.

Frankly I find the cry of judicial appointments rather lame. If the Dems were so damn worried about judicial appointments why didn't they do something when they had the chance with Roberts and Alito? Nooo, back then it was all about keeping the powder dry:eyes:

[cboy4]

104. Sigh. Here's what I wrote upthread to the person who

unfairly implied the same thing regarding the intentions of my poll.

I'm not asking for a loyalty oath. I'm asking way because I'm genuinely curious

My post #66 reply to post comment #63:

Don't call it a loyalty oath poll. Did you read the part

about how I struggled with this issue?

I'm on record as saying Kucinich has been my first choice from the beginning (I'm gay...seems pretty logical I'd support him, although that certainly wasn't the only reason.)

But because I feel John Edwards (my second choice) needs my vote more than Dk, I'm supporting John when I vote in California on Tsunami Tuesday.

So don't be petty and name call my honest attempt to learn why some people won't support a Democrat, if only for the judges.

The poll has been an interesting dialog so far.

Why don't you explain why you'd rather have a Republican President picking judges instead of any of the Democratic candidates?

If I could wave a magic wand and see to it that Dennis is the nominee, I'd prolly do it. But he's not going to be the nominee because he's not getting enough votes.

[CorpGovActivist]

100. This Was the Argument I Used on Family in 2000 n/t

[Didereaux]

102. There is only ONE goal...No REPUGS in November - PERIOD!

[cboy4]

107. ****Anybody else wanna vote?****

[bpeale]

111. NO, i will take no pledges of support no matter what. my vote cannot be bought

[Starbucks Anarchist]

116. Absolutely.

Anything else helps Republicans.

[Hippo_Tron]

117. Of course, I'm not naive enough to believe that we don't have anything left to lose

We have plenty left to lose and that will happen if we get another Republican President.

[Hawaii Hiker]

118. Ab-so-fucking-lootely, I will vote for whomever the Democratic

nominee is in November...I've started similar threads also, Supreme Court appointments are way too important to stay home & not vote if my candiate of choice is not the nominee...

From an e-mail I received earlier this week from PFAW, take a look at what the Republcian candiates have said about the types of justices they prefer:

Here they are in their own words:

McCain:

"I'm proud that we have Justice Alito and Roberts on the United States Supreme Court." ... "Of course, Antonin Scalia."

Huckabee:

"My own personal hero on the court is Scalia."

Romney:

"I think the justices that President Bush has appointed are exactly spot-on. I think Justice Roberts and Justice Alito are exactly the kind of justices America needs."

Giuliani:

"I will nominate strict constructionist judges with respect for the rule of law and a proven fidelity to the Constitution -- judges in the mold of Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, and Chief Justice Roberts."

[Yukari Yakumo]

119. To the 33% of you who didn't choose Option #1

Step up and accept your tombstone!

I will support the nominee, regardless if it's Barack, John, Hillary, Papa Smurf, the Easter Bunny...
It doesn't matter.

What matters is keeping a "to hell with your rights" Repuke out of the WH. If you can't accept that, Get out!

[GreenPartyVoter]

122. I think I will support the (D), but. it's still a gamble that they won't appoint

right-leaning judges and attorneys. x(

[Blue-Jay]

125. Hell YES I'll vote for the Democrat.

I'll do it for the very reason that you've pointed out, regardless of political purity.

Anything less is just a sour grapes purity vote. "My candidate didn't win, so I'm packing up my doll dishes and going home and you can't slide down my cellar door anymore. wah wah wah."

[undeterred]

126. Who is this rich guy? And will he affect Hillary like he did Blair?

[Warren DeMontague]

127. I'll support the D Nominee, period. Beyond that, I'll do it enthusiastically. Any of the top 3 would

be a tremendous improvement over what we've got now. DU shit-flinging aside, I think they all have their good points. I think Edwards is the most committed to fighting for real, immediate changes for the American People. I think Obama has the potential to be the most inspiring, unifying Presidential candidate we've seen in a VERY long time. I think Hillary has a very sharp mind and an excellent grasp of the nuts and bolts of the issues, and I do believe she will hit the ground running in the White House.

I'm prepared to vote- enthusiastically- for ANY of 'em. Really, the psychotic level of infighting is getting old around here. And yeah, I think it's worse than 2004.

[NastyRiffraff]

129. I will support the Democratic nominee no matter what

And for many reasons, judicial appointments among them. The main reason is to wrest the White House away from the neocons. And let's face it, that's what we'll get with a Republican president.

[MasonJar]

136. I will support the democratic nominee because: I am a yellow dog

Democrat; As my grandfather always said, "I always vote for the best man (woman) and the best is always a Democrat. (Little did he know of his prescience when he said that 30 years ago.); I think that the candidates running for our nomination are ALL heads and shoulders above any GOPer alive; Finally George Bush and his "loonie tunes" are the most deeesssspiccccable (as Sylvester would say) inhabitants of the "inhuman" race.