I really don't care about his views on various issues. Roberts has next to no experience as a judge. He has spent most of his career as an advocate for others. This makes him a prime candidate to be an activist judge. Is he already bought and paid for?

Has the stupidest President in our history now recommended the protentially most corrupt Supreme Court Justice in our history? At least Bush is consistent. He has courted disaster with every move he's made since in office.

Finally, there is hope
for the Democratic Party.

My sister got this letter from Howard Dean today, and that is why I am here on this site posting this. Here is the letter we sent in reply to the email she received. ------------------------

I am offended by this letter.

I disagree that the conclusions you draw in this email can be substantiated by the evidence.

I am a yellow dog Democrat, but I do not believe that the evidence exists that supports your allegations to compare Roberts to Rove, et al. I call Rove the anti-christ because I believe he is so evil - I do not believe that we have the facts that would convince anyone without a partisan agenda that Roberts is made from the same cloth.

I am offended. I am also disappointed that you would use the pulpit to be so over the top. I have seen incredible amounts of evidence that the vast right wing conspiracy has behaved in this way. I am upset that you would stoop to their level.

Dear Governor -

Given you medical background, I'm sure you have taken note of the fact that you are the first example of a spine being rejected by a body.

I supported you two years ago, and I continue to support you now. You were right then on so many issues, and you are right again in this instace. Unfortunately, you are surrounded now, as you were then, by fellow party members who float with the political currents as mindlessly as do jellyfish in the harobor.

There are no battles to be won on Supreme Court nominations. We don't have the votes to win flat out, of course. However the "centrist"
capitulators in this party made sure a few months ago that we can no longer even lose on principle, so that some day we might be able to turn to the electorate and say "Do you see? Do you see why we opposed this person"?

The DLC'ers in this party think politics is all about winning elections. They're wrong, of course, but if we at least won elections following their stupid "middle of the road to nowwhere" strategy, at least there would be something to say about it. Politics should be about what you want to do IF you win elections, and being willing to lose defending those principles. DLC'ers wouldn't know a principle if it walked up to them and peed on their pants.

So again, folks...show of hands who think the Seven Centrist Dwarfs won anything by agreeing to get screwed in order to preserve their right to stay virgins (and yes, that is EXACTLY what they did).

Run, Howard, Run. The country will be ready for you this time.

I am compelled to reiterate a fundamental core belief of the American people. The Supreme Court does NOT guarantee our rights. Only we, the people, can guarantee our rights through our elected representatives. The courts simply apply the enacted law, in light of the Constitution.

"The ultimate battleground for justice, fairness and opportunity in America has always been the Supreme Court. Justices have the power to use the law to hold America back, and they have the power to use the law to hold America to the high moral standards we set for ourselves."
- Howard Dean (9/2005)

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
- Declaration of Independence (July, 1776)

Citizens form their own governance by electing representatives. The Legislative Branch enacts laws reflecting citizens’ desires. The Executive Branch enforces the laws. The Judicial Branch applies the laws. At the very top of the judicial branch sits The Supreme Court, whose sole power is to determine the Constitutionality of laws based on legal cases appealed from lower courts’ application of enacted laws.

In an imperfect world, this endless circle is the only true balance of power – i.e. checks and balances on government. That is it. The one and only true guardian of your rights is you - the citizen - who elects your representatives. All other beliefs invite those with questionable motives and inevitably lead to a real loss of your liberty in favor of an ambiguous, fungible definition of equality.

This fundamental core American belief is something to consider when taking positions on anything.

Monkey,

You said, "I am a yellow dog Democrat". There is no such thing in Democrats as the term "yellow dog" means an anti-union scab worker which any Democrat is proud to be against. Now by your letter you posted, if it said "yellow dog republican", I would think more fits the bill.

Roberts is probably as bad as, if not worse than Rhenquist ever thought about being. The rulings from the republican right have done nothing but make it hard on every minority, people of color, disabled, poor, or handicapped person there is in the United Sates. Their rulings have also affected other countries like Africa causing human lives in the process. Roberts is as far right wing as any republican has ever been. Ones who say he isn't are either a republican or have lived under a rock where news and history hasn't reached them for 200+ years.

I urge everyone to send the letters out to the news papers. I am very proud I did as not only my local papers got them, but also the large national ones. Please, all Democrats need to do this.

I hope James Carvill will get back into play on a regular basis and totally slash up every republican boast they make. It would be nice if James could question Roberts now, I'd love to see it. Maybe Roberts would bust a gut and run off stage like Novak did a while back. Go get um James, and Dr. Dean too!

Will Matney, Ohio

Are you sure about your leading insult? As Led Zeppelin once said so eloquently, "words can have two meanings."

Check your facts and your temper, before you open your mouth. People will be more likely to seriously consider your comments that follow.

As a lawyer, I am extremely disappointed that my party has resorted to distorting Judge Robert's record. The simple fact is that lawyers represent their client's views--not their own!!

Judge Roberts worked for the Reagan administration and was required to represent that administration to the best of his ability, whether he agreed with the administration's position or not. To hold a lawyer responsible for the views of his client is intellectually dishonest.

It seems to me that everybody has forgotten that every Supreme Court Nominee, including Democratic nominees, have refused to answer specific questions about cases that might appear before the Court. In hindsight, Justice Ginsburg was less forthright in her hearings than Judge Roberts was. Love him or hate him, Judge Roberts responded the only way he could have.

And before anybody accuses me of being a closet Republican, I spent five years working in DC for a liberal US Senator and have watched in dismay as the Democratic Party self destructed.

The simple fact is that Judge Roberts will be an excellent Chief Justice. Yes, he is conservative but that does not mean he will be an arch-conservative judge. He is fair and honest and according to the ABA, one of this country's greatest legal minds. Democrats everywhere need to stop whining and complaining -- Bush won the election and as such, gets to appoint two Supreme Court Justices who will undoubtedly share his political views. That is how our system of government works.

There is no doubt in my mind, based on my own personal experiences working in the Senate, that if the roles were reversed and a Democratic Administration were nominating a possible Justice, Democrats everywhere would be advising that nominee to answer the exact same way Judge Roberts did at his hearing.

"Yellow Dog Democrats are voters in the southern region of the United States who consistently vote for Democratic candidates in the late 19th and early 21st centuries because of lingering resentment against the Republicans dating back to the Civil War and Reconstruction period. The term arose from an apocryphal remark that a Southerner would vote for a yellow dog before he'd vote for a Republican.

The term gained national prominence during the 1928 presidential campaign when many Southern voters disliked many of the items on Democratic candidate Al Smith's platform but voted for him regardless."

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

I was using hyperbole, because I have been known to vote for an occasional non-Democrat. However, I am strongly Democratic. And despite that strong liberal leaning from both my sister and I, I do not believe that this stance by Howard Dean is supported by the evidence that we have received. If you read the Op-Ed that Dean created, he makes assumptions that are not supported by the facts.

I agree that we do not have the evidence on the right to privacy or the other parts of his record to take this stand. I am very disappointed in this decision.

I will always be a democrat and believe in the 50 state strategy. I pay my democracy bonds and will continue to do so. I do not believe that the evidence currently shows that this is right on principle and I do not believe that we are likely to win. The leads tomorrow will, likely describe you as speaking for Democrats. I hope you have conferred with our leaders in the Senate. I also believe this distracts from the generally strong argument we should make on Katrina. I hope and request that you consider the party as a whole. It is not as simple as fight or not.

This sounds like another one of those yes men Bush appointees.

Anyone have a list of Republican judges more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than Roberts?

Sounds like it would be a very long list to me.

While I agree that Judge Roberts is certainly not our choice for the Supreme Court, it is difficult to predict exactly what type of justice he will become. That he is a conservative is, of course, a given. I am reminded of a comment by comic Bill Mahr which seems to sum up the situation: "He is probably the best we are likely to get." If the Senate Democrats could find a way to turn back the nomination of John Roberts, it would, in all likelyhood, cause this President to nominate someone who we would find even more distasteful. So we face a standard "catch 22" situation: to let the nomination go through or risk even worse. We must keep in mind that following this appointment will come the replacement for Sandra Day O'Conner. Would you like to see Janice Rice Brown? Judge Roberts may fool everyone yet. There is a glimmer of hope that he may turn out to be more centrist than we now believe. So perhaps we take a pass on this one and get ready to fight like hell on the next one and hope that Justice Stevens can stay healthy through 2009 as well.

Like Monkey, I was greatly offended when I got Mr. Dean's letter... that's why I came here. Just another "knee jerk" reaction without any foundation in fact. I am a Democrat and have several lawyers in my family who are all Democrats (and agree with me). On the basis of what I've read in Newsweek, the local newspaper and the bits and pieces from the hearings I've heard on NPR, Mr. Roberts seems to be an excellent choice for the Supreme Court. Frostie94 said it all better than I could. I'll just give him a hearty "amen".

For once, Dubya chose well. Save the fire and brimstone for the next candidate. I'm betting we won't be so lucky next time.

Many thanks to Governor Dean for coming out strong against John Roberts.

However, if the Dems on the Judiciary panel fail to reject Roberts as well, I know I will feel duped by the Dems. I don't want that!

After reading posts here and other liberal blogs, I am disturbed that many of the men in the Liberal camp are still out-of-touch with what BIGOTRY is, and, particularly, what bigotry against women is! Do we need some good old fashioned conscious-raising here?!

Roberts revealed he is a bigot...

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts revealed during questioning that he is a bigot.
When asked why he made what he called "jokes" about women being less fit to work as lawyers in his office, he said it was just the office environment and that he was just speaking "with candor"!!! CANDOR?! Why didn't those at the hearing gasp??!! He had just said he was SINCERELY expressing his attitude toward women!!!

He indicated that he saw nothing wrong with rejecting a lawyer for his team based on sex. He's a sexist in the workplace. (It's insane that people brush this away with comments that he married a lawyer! Yes, he married her; he didn't HIRE her!) And the way Roberts dismissed this as a result of "the environment" of the office in which he worked truly troubles me. Does he have a psychological deficit of some sort that makes him become a CHAMELEON, mimicking the values of the weakest around him? Surely anyone who sits as the Chief Justice on the Supeme Court should have stronger personal values and stronger psychological boundaries than illustrated by John Roberts in his own admission! We need strong leaders in our Government, not weak chameleons!

The man revealed he is bigotted against women. Doesn't ANYBODY care?! Not even his questioner, Diane Feinstein????!!!! This lack of indignation is chilling.

And more chilling still is John Roberts' attitude toward the concept of justice in a world community of human beings.

Roberts' decision from the bench that there are human beings on this Earth who do not deserve access to justice and the full protection of the law-- to me his ruling is a CRIME at least equal to the crimes of those German judges tried and found guilty at Nuremburg. And I want to go further, because the meeting Roberts had with Bush&Co BEFORE Roberts made the ruling, leads me to speculate Roberts did not make his choice of ruling independently.

I have heard Roberts described as "brilliant". The word I choose for describing Roberts is "cunnning".

Anyone who refuses to allow his past, his positions, his attitudes to be examined in document form in a review for a lifetime appointment of this importance, should have been rejected without a hearing.

And anyone who wants to turn a serious, adult procedure like this Governmental hearing into a CHILDISH GAME of dodgeball, should be rejected for lack of maturity. Listening to the exchange at this hearing where the nominee rattled on revealing little, was like listening to verbal chaos.

John Roberts and the Bush Administration have attempted to turn this important process into a mockery. If the Dems allow this travesty by okaying Roberts' confirmation to proceed, what will the next hearing be like? Will the nominee send a proxy?! Draw the line here and now. Restore dignity and good sense to Government.

Because Government is a good thing. It preserves the order in our community on all levels -- local, national, and international. Government is our community's hope and salvation. And -- as the near crumbling of civility in New Orleans illustrated -- it is fragile.

Please send the message that no more deliberate chaos is to be tolerated, whether because of another natural disaster, or because of the arrogant nature of one nomination to the Supreme Court!

Let's face it. Trying to vilify John Roberts by turning him into some wacked-out religious extremist bent on bringing back Jesus, is a bit, oh, I don't know ... insane?
America wants this guy and they are going to get him. He has a trustworthy face that every grandmother loves.
Don't burn through your credibility bankroll on this one. Save it for the real extremist-wackos still to come.
Remember, Roberts was picked by Bush back in the days when the White House was being attacked from all sides due to Traitorgate. Back at that time, it was impossible for the republican extremist-zealots to try and shove a religious nut-case down America's throat.

Yeah, that's what the democratic party (and the country as a whole)really needs....more james carville and howard dean. More off-the-wall lunatic rants filled with nothing but twisted half-truths and fear mongering rhetoric that beat down our entire political system making the electorate even more cynical about politics... if that is even possible anymore. All designed to make the minorities feel like the cotton fields are coming back, make the poor feel like they have no hope but for the glory of the all-mighty handout, and make the old folks get used to the idea of eating Alpo for dinner under conservative administrations.

If it weren't so looney, it would almost be funny to hear this guy speak (as well as some on this blog). Nevermind the time tested, failed liberal policies he preaches... almost none of what he even says to support his positions are based in any hard facts. Who the hell does he direct this drivel to? Maybe to the third of the democratic party that is so bitter over Bush winning elections that they will oppose everthing and anyone, such as Roberts, regardless of the true merits of the issue at hand?

Yeah, more Carville and Dean = More democrats circling the drain.

And get used to Roberts, b/c we're going to be seeing him for, oh.....the next 25 years or so.

Hey Nora, unless you were like, 1 of the 2 feminists in this country who weren't out polishing their nails during the entire Oval Office/Cigar/Blue Dress saga, then you really have no credibility while acting oh so distressed and disgusted by that big bad 'Bigot' John Roberts.

Come on, just pretend this is the mid '90's when such silly things as workplace sexual harrassment didn't mean a thing to the so called feminists of this country. You'll feel a lot better.

I am new to this blog process and originally posted this under the wrong spot so here it is again:
I do not understand all the excitement about Gov. Dean and his misplaced comments. I, today, received his message on Judge Roberts. All my life I have been a Democrat, born and raised in Minnesota with the tradition of Democratic Farm Labor Party (Hubert Humphrey, Gene McCarthy, Walter Mondale) and I quite frankly find the stand on Judge Roberts of Gov., Dean and many of the "progressive" organizations offensive. I have talked today to Democrats that have unsubscribed from the site because of the lack of common sense expressed by this stand. If one listened to the hearings today the Democrats should be embracing Judge Roberts putting GW on the defensive with his religious conservative base. Let’s get with the idea that we are a country seriously in need of common sense in government. We can not afford to have the Judge Roberts nomination take away from important issues like jobs, Social Security, the UN, International Relations in totality, global warming, stem cell research etc. etc. Some of you will say, Denis you idiot that is why we oppose Judge Roberts!" Yet none of his testimony or his court rulings indicate he will not support those issues if the law is properly worded when leaving congress. In fact his testimony, as I stated earlier, should make conservative religious / religious right much more nervous than progressives.

Thank you Perspective and Frostie94. I agree with you both - especially on the notion that the Democratic party is on its way to self-destruction.

I would be willing to bet that those watching have only been catching news highlights of Judge Roberts' hearing and not the hearings in their entirety. If anything, we Democrats should actually be ashamed that Joe Biden and Chuck Schumer, two of the biggest media whores in Washington, DC, are also Democrats. Their grand-standing has made me ill. As a New Yorker, I am embarassed to have one of them as my Senator.

While I do not agree with all of Judge Roberts' holdings in the cases he has decided, I respect his view of the law and that of his role of a Judge. Please remember that it was a Nixon appointee who authored Roe v. Wade.

I think Judge Roberts deserves our respect. His knowledge of the law is greater than any of the Senators questioning him - most of whom have law degrees but only (Schumer, Biden, Kennedy, etc...) used them for about a minute. This man has spent his entire life working advocating and later interpreting the law and is probably the most qualified and least controversial nominee the president could have put forth.

If Democrats want to resort to name calling based on assumptions they might have read on someone's blog, then they are doomed as a party. You lose people like me who do not wish to tolerate negative naysayers who have nothing positive to offer. And if Governor Dean pulls another Op-Ed piece like this one - one that tries to play on peoples' stupidity and link Judge Roberts to Tom Delay and Karl Rove (libel in my opinion), my annual contributions to the national party shall cease.

What an insult to the Justices on the Supreme Court that this man is being nominated to be Chief Justice over them. This is just one more example of the total incompetence and arrogance of this President- not mention his low regard for the Constitution he's swore to uphold. This President has made a mockery of our government over and over again and something needs to be done to put a stop to it.

"This was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that you have cited, and I have religiously tried to refrain from commenting on a number of Court decisions that have been raised in these last couple of days."

Can you believe the audacity of a Supreme Court Nominee in refusing to answer questions from the Senate who is charged with giving Advice and Consent on Presidential nominees to the Courts?

"If I may, Senator, I would not like to comment on my personal reactions to that case."

If you look at it like this is a job interview, how could you possibly refuse to answer questions?

"I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said ... about no hints, no forecasts, no previews."

This nominee to the Supreme Court must certainly be rejected!!

"I can't express my personal view on that subject."

In fact she was sworn in August 10, 1993. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former General Counsel for the ACLU had a softball confirmation hearing and was sworn in a dozen years ago after refusing to answer more than 60 questions posed by the Senate.

The illustrious Senator Joseph Biden even gave her the go-ahead by stating "the public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her..." Thank you Senator Biden.
Did we hear you say the same about Judge John Roberts?

I think I know why so many conservatives feel the need to post here. I often wondered why, whenever Howard Dean or any of our Democrats starting making a difference...that the posts here quickly get negative.

Well, we figured it out. Most of the conservative blogs don't allow comments at all. So all those who keep excusing the Bush failures one right after the other have nowhere else to post...so they come here.

Kind of obvious today.

Sunny... be careful about who you are calling a conservative. Comments like those made by Gov. Dean today drive progressives, moderates, and those interested in real dialog and action solving today’s problems from the party. Did you listen to the three days of hearings? Judge Roberts far exceeds my, and many other progressive Democrats, expectations. This may be the one thing history will look to and say GW did not totally screw up; however, most likely Gov. Dean will not get the same rating.

Say what you will about conservatives posting to this blog, they can post anywhere. The ignorance that eminates from the Democratic Party is mezmorizing. I have never in the fifteen years I've been following politics heard one solution, one mutual word of kudos, or one positive thing come out of any liberals mouth about any Republican. You see this is why you turn people away, you have become the party of nothing! Your Party is like one big episode of Seinfeld, and you'll continue to lose voters one election at a time.

Holy Sheep Dip Batman!

Good Lord the repuglican trolls and fake democrats are out IN FORCE TODAY!!

Would you not agree?

ANYONE who claims to be a democrat on these boards and then says Roberts is an incredibly great choice is a liar! Pure and simple.

Dumbya would NOT nominate ANYONE who had not been thoroughly vetted and guaranteed to become the next Scalia, Thomas etc. I can guarandamntee you that Roberts will be the next uber rightwing voice on the SCOTUS. He's WAY to slick. I was watching him every second he was on TV.

HE's a snake, pure and simple. He is the great PICTURE of normalcy and all American ideal. Great looking guy. Great looking wife who is one the great ANTI ABORTION foes in America. His kids have just RECENTLY been brought into his life. Adopted no less. AND just in time for Dumbya's being brought into office. The guy is just TOO perfect visually and public tempermant.

Sorry but for the red state kool aid drinkers and our spineless democrats who will someday have to answer for why they allowed such a rightwing ideolog into a lifetime appointment, things are about to get worse.

His advocating for his clients THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY is pure and simple BULLSHIT. IF he in anyway disagreed with their views he would have been out of a job.

Our spineless democrats will once again sell their souls and our future down the drain just to appease their corporate and repug leashholders and keep their cushy jobs.

I have no use for Feinstein either. She voted AGAINST American workers today. I watched her walk in and take a glance at the Hogan Amendment and then vote against it for no other reason than it would upset her corporate leashholders. She is a repug in disguise.

She ALWAYS votes the corporate line and then comes to us for money claiming she is battling Dumbya's policies.

She and Lieberman are repug lapdogs.

Sunny, conservatives don't fear dean or guys like carville. Like terry mccaulif, they are devoid of ideas. Crazy, hate filled, rhetoric and truly irresponsible accusations (racists,bigots, etc) do not win elections or sway blocks of voters. The American people are not moved by hearing that Bush wants to eat our dog for dinner and wash it down with a pint of Arab oil while standing on our grandma's neck. That type of useless rhetoric does not move your party much less the country as a whole forward in any respect. the most shrill of voices in your party are dominating it right now and are leading it to its slow death. Reference any speech by Gore, Pelosi, Kennedy, Dean, etc over the last 2-3 years. It's pathetic to witness.

Gov. Dean-

As a supporter, I respectfully object to the fight against Judge John Roberts. We lost the Presidential race last year, which we all knew would result in the nomination of two new Supreme Court Justices. For the position of Cheif Justice, I am honestly revieved to have Roberts, a clone of Reinquist, be the nominee...instead of having to fight (and potentially lose) a long, drawn out battle over another Bork or Thomas. Futhermore, Roberts has demonstrated that he is not ready, nor advocating, the overturning of R v. W.

Gov. Dean, could we not consolidate our resources and prepare our legions to fight the next two important political battles: the open (and most likely more controversial) Supreme Court seat (O'conner) and the 06' mid terms? In 1994, the GOP rallied their base and reached out to moderates by launching a mass information and publicity campaign over one year before the elections. Why have we not started this?

Respectfully,
Thomas Derrick

RE: Judge Roberts

This is my post on MoveOn.org -

1. We're picking the wrong battle on Judge Roberts

Given Bush's penchant for appointing grossly unqualified political hacks for top positions, I was pleasantly surprised at the caliber of his nominee to the high court, Judge Roberts. We had every reason to expect much, much worse. And quite frankly, if we were to scour the country, I don't know if we could have come up with a finer jurist. He's intelligent, fair-minded, thoughtful and well-respected.

Now, I know this puts me at odds with the majority of my fellow progressives, but a knee-jerk reaction against this nomination may make it harder to mount a credible fight against the next one - who probably will be the awful dreaded political hack.

Let's pick our battles more judiciously. Roberts is the real deal. The next one may not be, and probably won't be.

I was very surprised to see an email from Gov. Howard Dean. If I made a list of people I would least like to receive an email from I can assure you that Gov. Howard Dean would be almost at the bottom. The only person that would possibly be below him would likely be Senator Edward Kennedy.

To that effect, I don't really give a fat rats a** what that man thinks about anything, and especially about who he would like to be Chief Justice of SCOTUS. The Democrats never cease to amaze me in their thinking. When President Clinton named Justices Ginsberg and Breyer to be on The Court, I wasn't surprised. I believe that a President should be able to name someone that is qualified, and holds the same beliefs that he holds regardless of what the other party thinks. I don’t think much of their beliefs, but they are qualified. Both received a “Well Qualified” from the ABA, which in the past was the “gold standard” of the Democratic Party. Then since 1994 when the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress they haven’t had a good day since.

Astroturfing, look it up. It is called fake grassroots, a pseudo movement pretending to be what they are not.

I believe there has been enough research done here at the blog that caution on Roberts is more than justified.

So I am to be careful who I call a conservative? Why? Is that not a good thing to be now? Perhaps it is good to disassociate oneself from the term since the administration has nearly or completely bankrupted this country.

This place is so obvious today. If the DNC allows this, fine with me.

But hey guys, you wanted to be the conservatives who were going to save this country from the nasty liberals....be proud of your president and be proud of who you are....if you still can.

If only Dean's op-ed could be half as reasonable as Robert Reich's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday. Instead it comes off as shrill liberal rhetoric that does nothing to help our party or advance the causes we believe in. I am extremely disappointed.

Roberts LIED about not being a member of the Federalist Society

The Federalist Society is committed to undoing the New Deal: minimum wage laws, environmental laws, labor protection laws, etc.

On top of that, they are hiding his papers and he is evasive.

Before the New Deal, in today's wages the majority of the country took home less than $9,000/year. Unless you enjoy seeing the majority of this country being exploited, you should be against Roberts.

We are missing the boat here, my fellow Democrats. We should not be making a stand on Roberts, but keeping our powder dry for the next nominee (O'Connor's replacement). That nominee is likely to be far to the right of Roberts on most issues, and undoubtedly an ideologue like Scalia. The fact that Roberts, and not Scalia, will be be Chief should be celebrated by the entire country. Roberts is a conservative, yes, but he reveres the legal process, and it is that process that provides justice. This is likely to make Roberts a Chief in the mold of Warren Burger and the next Justice the true fulcrum of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Let's act on that basis.

If you want to make an argument that he's a one for one exchange with Rehnquist, while I disagree with that thinking, at least it has some logic too it.

There's enough on the non-corporate media (www.alternet.org, www.commondreams.org, www.buzzflash.com) to realize he's just Scalia with a smiley face. This is information the corporate media (that includes NPR at this point) won't tell you, because they will win big if he gets in.

You know, when you look at the comments after articles posted on Alternet.org (http://www.alternet.org/rights/25259/), you see a ton of firm lefties who want the opposition party to act like a left wing opposition party. Yet on the DNC blog, I'm one of a few who believes the opposition party should oppose.

Either there's astroturf here, or people who rely on corporate news don't have the same views as those who don't rely on corporate news.

Read the above posts by Republican trolls, transparently posing as Demcrats, transparently posing as "Dean supporters", transparently posing as "liberals. Roberts's testimony, the testimony of yet another Republican, means nothing. Republicans are liars. The trolls above lie. Their hero Bush lies. And Roberts lies. Repulicnas lie through smiling teeth. They lie about anything and everything. I think they eat lies for breakfast lunch and dinner. I'll bet they even fart lies.

When Roberts gets to the bench, we'll all see that there aren't any "Souter" mistakes to be maed by Republicans any longer. After all - Bush "looked into the man's heart." If anyone out there hasn;t figured out what "good heart" is code for, they're stupid.

SoHello, Roberts, and bye bye civil rights. Bye bye reproductive rights. Bye bye rights of individuals vs. corporations. Bye bye rights of the poor vs wealthy.

Now...watch how many timid, stupid DLC Democrats vote for him.

The Democrats are proving again why Americans won't elect 'em.

Biden & Kennedy once said Supreme Court nominees don't have to answer questions on the issues....NOW, since the nominee is a Republican, Biden & Kennedy DEMAND answers to questions.

Seriously...You can't make this stuff up. The Democratic Party is perhaps at its lowest point in history.

You need to get the good Democrats out front...Ford, Breaux, Bayh, etc.

BaronScarpia,

Please cite 1 lie Roberts has told.

This oughta be fun.

nora,

You said "Anyone who refuses to allow his past, his positions, his attitudes to be examined in document form in a review for a lifetime appointment of this importance, should have been rejected without a hearing."

Joseph Biden and Ted Kennedy said that Supreme Court nominees are not required to answer questions about issues.

Can you explain?

It is most disappointing to read through these comments and find out that Ronald Reagan is still winning victories in the political arena. He made it very clear that you do not have to discuss with facts or logic, you just have to identify the opposing point of view with a label. I believe he was fond of labeling anything he liked as conservative and anything he didn't like as liberal - regardless of the facts. Now many claiming to be liberal are following the same route - name calling with out facts (conservatives; repuglican trolls; fake democrats; Republican trolls, transparently posing as Democrats; Astroturfing; etc.) Fellow Democrats we can do better.

If one feels that Judge Roberts meets the requirements of the position he is nominated for that does not make that person a nasty slimball. Democrats have always in the past stood for diversity in all areas including diversity of opinion. It is a tradition we should be proud of. When discussing issues we should present facts, concepts, discussion that is void of name calling or we have lowered ourselves to Ronald Reagan Republicanism.

As stated before, we need to be spending our resources on real issues like jobs (as an example, Josh Marshall's post indicating GW signed a directive lowering pay for those working on reconstruction of New Orleans) International relations, legislation protecting individual freedoms not the patriot act, properly funded government with concern for the broad spectrum of society (not ignoring the bottom and middle).

GW wins again when he causes Democrats to in-fight over an issue they can not win while they ignore issues like yet another tax reduction for the rich.

The pink T-shirt - I HAD AN ABORTION - crowd really has their hooks in Party leadership. Again the Democratic Party pulled its own pants down on camera.

Look at the moronic Progressive Democrats:
- Chicago City Council Progressives demand a ban on Fois Gras as it totures ducks.
-Chicago City Council Progressive - Demand end to war in Iraq ??? That will get the kids home!

- Chicago City Council Progressives - Demand payment to families over alleged police conspiracy, while trial is being conducted.

Should not the concern of a City Councilperson be: Jobs, Street Conditions, Zoning, Traffic, CRIME, fighting the Utilities & etc?

Progressive Democrats have had the podium way too long. Progressives loose elections for Democrats. The stupid meter's needle has been in the red-zone for too long. GET BACK TO WORK!

The pink T-shirt - I HAD AN ABORTION - crowd really has their hooks in Party leadership. Again the Democratic Party pulled its own pants down on camera.

Look at the moronic Progressive Democrats:
- Chicago City Council Progressives demand a ban on Fois Gras as it totures ducks.
-Chicago City Council Progressive - Demand end to war in Iraq ??? That will get the kids home!

- Chicago City Council Progressives - Demand payment to families over alleged police conspiracy, while trial is being conducted.

Should not the concern of a City Councilperson be: Jobs, Street Conditions, Zoning, Traffic, CRIME, fighting the Utilities & etc?

Progressive Democrats have had the podium way too long. Progressives lose elections for Democrats. The stupid meter's needle has been in the red-zone for too long. GET BACK TO WORK!

It's an odd thing when one like-minded person turns on another like-minded person. It's called Civil War. The Democratic party is very deep into it's own.

Perhaps a thread should be started about a potential split: DNC-Dean vs. DLC-Clinton?

Governor Dean,

Your call to FILIBUSTER John Roberts is dead on the mark. It's quite clear that Bush has not been forthcoming with any of the real case materials that would enable the Senate to confirm him in good conscience.

It's time for Dianne Feinstein to stand up and be counted as a Democrat by FILIBUSTERING Roberts. If not, we should denounce her as a closet GOPiggy.

barry,

2 of the Democrats on that committee once said that Supreme Court nominees don't have to answer questions on the issues.

For the life of my I can't understand you folks are so blatantly hypocritical.

Oh well...

I think most of us here recognize that the posts here against Dean and pro-Roberts are part of a well-organized campaign the last two days.

Since the DNC gives most groups a free voice, I am probably more likely to have a post deleted before someone who is posing as a Democrat. This is called astroturfing, and it is alive and well right now. Whether it be organized at Free Republic or Conservative Underground or Little Green Footballs, we will never know.

I do hope most recognize it for what it is. I think they do.

Monkey,

You missed the point all together. I know where the term comes from, you should not say it the way you said it. Come out and say I would vote for a yellow dog before I would a republican, dont never say that the way you did. My father who was a union Democrat all his life and died at 83 told me this. I learned the hard way too, as I once mentioned that and was about run out of town as I know a bunch of old timers who never liked the term. The old time republicans used to get a BIG laugh out of Democrats over saying that. It's better to say it all, than allow one republican to poke fun at you. One thing though I can assure you is I never once, and never will knowingly cast a republican vote. That's how strongly I feel about our Democrat party.

Now my stance on it. The Democrat party has got to the point it doesn't have any teeth, and that's one of the big problems we have now. Folks like Dr. Dean, and James Carvill have the balls to say what needs to be said. How in the hell do one single one who's posting a negative think Bill Clinton got elected? What do they want to do, set back and be passive about it? A passive person sets back and watches everything go on around them and never lifts a hand to do one thing when it comes to a confrontation. The ones who have a voice, and a pretty loud one at that, gets things done. You think the United Mine Workers of America would have ever gotten off the ground like it did without Mother Jones, and a leader like John L Lewis? Little old frail Mother Jones had the mouth of a sailor stood up to West Virginias governors at the time to organize that state. The state government listened and the men followed. Those men were where the true term "redneck" came from. John L Lewis stood up before a congressional hearing and told them in not too nice of words where they stood and what they meant. Those very two people were responsible for the wages you and I earn, our safety, child labor, worker laws, and benefits we have today! They had teeth when they needed them and we need those too! Folks better be damn well glad they have folks like James Carvill and Dr. Dean that knows when to say something. You better be glad they have the balls to make a republican shiver in their boots. You better be glad to have someone like Carvill tear into a far right republican like Novak and make hin run! If it were left to the pasafists to run this party, it would have been dead long years ago. On some things you just cant be nice about it, and you have to hit them between the eyes with a 2 X 4 to get their attention. You sure cant set and discuss it to death! The rest of this party needs to get some spine and balls to them in order to win and get things done that LONG needs to be.

To all these republicans sneaking in and trying to stir the pot, it wont work and makes my hate for you more and more profound. Keep it up, I like and actually enjoy every damn bit of it. You've really shown your ass these past five years and hope everyone around the world has seen your true colors. Thaey really have because many a foreign countries citizens have came on this blog and posted as much. So like I said earler, Dr. Dean, and James Carvill go get um, I damn proud of you and proud to be a Democrat!

PS: Republicans, what's the matter, they have you so sensored on your blog you have to post here? Sounds like communism if you ask me, what say you all true Democrats?

In responce to;

"Yellow Dog Democrats are voters in the southern region of the United States who consistently vote for Democratic candidates in the late 19th and early 21st centuries because of lingering resentment against the Republicans dating back to the Civil War and Reconstruction period. The term arose from an apocryphal remark that a Southerner would vote for a yellow dog before he'd vote for a Republican.

The term gained national prominence during the 1928 presidential campaign when many Southern voters disliked many of the items on Democratic candidate Al Smith's platform but voted for him regardless."

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

I was using hyperbole, because I have been known to vote for an occasional non-Democrat. However, I am strongly Democratic. And despite that strong liberal leaning from both my sister and I, I do not believe that this stance by Howard Dean is supported by the evidence that we have received. If you read the Op-Ed that Dean created, he makes assumptions that are not supported by the facts.

Posted by monkey on September 15, 2005 at 04:27 PM

I say, if we're to truly win back Congress and the White House, we must continue pushing the "Equality" agenda (which, I may say, is somewhat bi-partisan).

You pointed out the Declaration of Independence, Perspective. Another quote from that historic document is: "All men are created equal."

So, we must keep the Republicans on the defensive, and keep promoting Equality, because that is what we are: The party of EQUALITY.

John,

No, it's really not bi-partisan to think that. republicans only say they believe it, the Democrats really do. That's the difference between the part that lies, lies, and denys, and the Democrats who do what they say and mean.

Best,

Dash,

1) Provide a link to what Kennedy said. That we can investigate it for ourselves.
2) Hypocrisy is holding a party to one standard, and another party to a different standard. Between the Downing Street Memos, the 9/11 Commission Report, Valerie Plame, all of these things constituting treason, it's ridiculous to harp on another party merely being dishonest.
3) We're supposed to believe that you're giving us advice on which Democrats to support because you want to see Democrats win, and take power?
4) I'll give you credit for this, however: at least you're not being astroturf. The rest of these people expressing their outrage at Dean, and supporting Roberts, are either astroturf or badly informed. There aren't that many badly misinformed people in one blog like this, however, without some coordination and planning. Odds of astroturf is at least 98% here.

Dash,

1) Provide a link to what Kennedy said. Then we can investigate it for ourselves.
2) Hypocrisy is holding a party to one standard, and another party to a different standard. Between the Downing Street Memos, the 9/11 Commission Report, Valerie Plame, all of these things constituting 'smoking gun' cases for treason by the Republicans, it's ridiculous to harp on another party merely being dishonest.
3) We're supposed to believe that you're giving us advice on which Democrats to support because you want to see Democrats win, and take power?
4) I'll give you credit for this, however: at least you're not being astroturf. The rest of these people expressing their outrage at Dean, and supporting Roberts, are either astroturf or badly informed. There aren't that many badly misinformed people in one blog like this, however, without some coordination and planning. Odds of astroturf is at least 98% here.

I am embarrassed. I didn't receive any contributions from the Right. I don't vote Republican -- and have voted Democrat for as long as I can remember. I thought Governor Dean was going to do more to improve our party. He is failing.

John Roberts has a brilliant mind. He was educated at top institutions and is clearly bright enough to see past partisanship. While I am hoping that he will mirror Souter, I think he will be closer to Justice Kennedy. That is not great, but it isn't Scalia or Thomas.

The time has come to recognize that for once -- one time -- Bush threw us a bone. The problem with so much of the criticism of Roberts is two-fold: 1.) much of it is dated and relates to his work as an attorney advocating on behalf of a client; and 2.) much of it is selective.

Let's take #1: John Roberts worked in the Reagan and Bush Administrations -- from his middle twenties till his middle thirties. He was young and aggressive and advocated on behalf of his client. He was not Rove, as Dean suggests, he was a lawyer doing his job. Now, Dean does not cite a Roberts article or brief or anything in his comparison of Roberts to Rove, but I have read some of Roberts' materials.

For example, Roberts, stated at one point that the privacy right is a "so-called right". He also questioned the validity of the women's movement in his paperwork. There are other examples of views that are inconsistent with a moderate or liberal. Most of these views were submitted in briefs involving court cases and the like and they reflected the views of the Reagan Administration. At his confirmation hearing, Roberts made it clear that he respects precedent -- something that true "movement" conservatives like Scalia and Thomas oppose if it's inconvenient. He also explained that he believes in a right of privacy. Additionally, a lawyer's job is to advocate on behalf of his client -- it's not to set policy. As a lawyer for Reagan and Bush, that was Roberts' job. Certainly, he picked the job, but I strongly doubt his ideal world is one where men have all the jobs and women stay home and thread needles. He is a pretty modern guy. I don't see a Rove anywhere.

With respect to #2:

Roberts has a pretty powerful and influential spouse who is a partner at a large law firm. She brings home some serious money and also does quite a bit of pro bono work. Roberts himself does some pro bono work as well, including advocating on behalf of the gay-rights group that opposed the Colorado constitutional amendment struck down by the Supreme Court. Do you think Tom DeLay would ever get involved in such an activity?

Finally, I have this to say to Gov. Dean: stop using the victims of Katrina. Their plight has little to do with the Roberts nomination. It's one thing to say FEMA is starved and ignored, as evidenced by the response. It's another to say that because there are poor people here, we need a different chief justice nominee. It's BS.

Roberts is about at good of a Chief we liberals can hope for. The real fight begins with O'Connor's replacement. I could be wrong about this, but I do think that Roberts has the credentials and the skills to do a good job.

As much as I like to support Goveror Dean, I simply don't agree with his stand on John Roberts' confirmation. I watched the entire confirmation hearing on the PBS and C-Span. I cannot point out any negative points on Roberts in addition to that he didn't answer all the questions Democratic Senators asked for. I understand where Democratic Senators' anxiety come from. Roberts is a conservative, only 50 years old. He will be there for a long long time. We have to admit it is a gamble, but we may get lucky this time because he appears to be a brilliant and conscientious (even though everybody has different definition for this adjective) person/jurist. I know for party politics, as an opposing party, Democratic senators do need to have a stand. But we should not always oppose something for the sake of opposing something. If Roberts is very convincing, we still oppose him. It will only make us look bad. Personally, I have an independent tendency. I don't always follow the party line. I think remaining open-minded is important. I don't want to be an ideologue. If Roberts is qualified and good, who cares if he is also a Republican or conservative.

Howard Dean has decided to step into the ring and keep punching, and I applaud him for that because, let's face it, what the Democratic Party needed more than anything else was to regain its spine. Our Party has not been a true opposition party for years, but that seems to be changing. Having said that, after watching the Roberts testimony, I cannot say that a filibuster is the hill I want to die on, so to speak, as a Party. While I share many Democrats' concerns that Mr. Roberts lives more in his head than in his heart, is a filibuster and fierce opposition really the best battle to wage at this time as a minority party? How does this make us look, opposing the will of the majority (setting aside the controversy over election fraud) that elected Bush? I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate, because no doubt Howard Dean and others have looked into the facts far more than I realistically can as a working stiff. But my main concern about Roberts was whether he respects stare decisis and appreciates the need for rule of law (rather than right wing activism). He has answered these questions to my satisfaction. If he's insincere, our best course of action would be to focus our energies on getting a Democrat back into the White House so we can put more of our own on the Supreme Court and thus outvote him, when needed.

one more thing before i return to work: we are Democrats -- even those of us that agree that Roberts should be confirmed. I am even a Progressive Democrat.

He is not ideal. But if Bush has taught us anything, it's this: he is a nasty partisan. Roberts isn't. He may be a Republican, but so are seven of the nine on the Court. So was Harry Blackmun, author of Roe. Stop wasting precious party resources on a loser issue. Roberts is qualified. He should be confirmed.

Roberts LIED about not being a member of the Federalist Society

There are so many links to this all you have to do is google it.

This is a repost for Dash, Concerned_Citizen, may2002, matt, etc.

The Federalist Society is committed to undoing the New Deal: minimum wage laws, environmental laws, labor protection laws, etc.

On top of that, they are hiding his papers and he is evasive.

Before the New Deal, in today's wages the majority of the country took home less than $9,000/year. Unless you enjoy seeing the majority of this country being exploited, you should be against Roberts.

If you are a member of the Federalist Society, you are a nasty partisan. It's like being a member of the KKK; the two phrases are interchangeable.

TruthToPower, thanks for comments on the Federalist Society, a truly vicious bunch of people. But in my humble opinion (and granted it's optimistic from a Democrat's point of view), the Federalist Society and far right wing (i.e., corporate fascism) that controls much of American politics today is not nearly as bright and powerful as is commonly perceived. In fact, I'd say they are downright sophomoric, naive and just plain stupid. A new New Deal is on the way, or else their empire will come crashing down on their heads by a middle and lower class that has had enough. The housing bubble is popping at this very minute, and when that goes, so goes their game. A game shockingly similar to that of the ancient Romans and the fat cats of the 1920s. The Federalist Society needs to crack the books, because apparently they slept through history class and don't appreciate the meaning of the word "consequences."

I've enjoyed reading the diversity of opinion but think the brazen partisanship and name-calling is too much on par with Anne Coulter. It's internally divisive and makes us no better than the radical right.

For me, the critical issue coming out of the Roberts nomination and the aftermath of hurricane Katrina is whether our country and the civil rights we have fought so hard to achieve are better served by a strong federal government or a weak one that shrugs on important issues by delegating those powers to the states.

My belief - and I believe it is a belief shared by most democrats - is that we need a strong federal government to promote equality among our peoples and create a standard legal and regulatory framework that is business-friendly. While the EU is trying to become more like the US, the conservatives want us to be more like the EU with all the attendant inefficiencies of a more loosely-coupled confederacy.

The conservative Republicans have used this against us by saying that big government - or in some cases, almost any government - is the enemy. Yet, government has grown tremendously under their administrations. They can't win this argument based on their record.

I feel like the Democratic party has a better chance of winning the hearts and minds of voters if we can unapologetically advocate a position that favors a strong, federal government and talk about why it makes both financial and social sense. It's a position upon which you can build a big vision!

Concerned_Citizen,

Please don't call Bush's expensive plan new New Deal; it is an insult to FDR. FDR took over the Great Depression and fixed it and he responded to the World War II. All these are not problem caused by his leadership or under his watch.

Bush's expensive plan is to fix the problem directly and indirectly caused by his failed leadership. He didn't respond to this disaster in a timely and effective fashion; his poll rating went so low that he had no choice but to repair his image and his presidency by imposing on us this expensive plan. In addition, if he didn't produce this man-made distraction--Iraq War in the first place, he should have the resource and focus to resolve many domestic issues--including strengthening the levee. As a result, we don't need to pay such a heavy price to fix the damages caused by the hurrican. The problem is that at the end of day; it is us the people who have to bear the price a failed presidency produced.

FDR's New Deal is a sincere and comptent President's plan to lead the country going through a hard time. FDR didn't produce this hard time for us; but to lead us to recover from the hard time.

Please don't confuse FDR's New Deal to Bush's New Disaster.

may2002, I'm surprised you jumped on me as you did. Where did I say Bush's plan is the new New Deal? I'm referring to the highly probable election of a Democrat and a new New Deal that includes national health insurance. Why did you assume I was talking about Bush?

Concerned_Citizen,

I apologized. I surely mistook your words.

May

Having said what I said above, I feel it is legitimate concern for Democrats to have mixed feeling for Roberts' confirmation.

I don't blame Dean's strong stand, but I worry since Roberts' is very convincing. Dean's stand may only hurt him. Because people are not stupid, if they would watch Roberts' hearing, they would be easily swayed by Roberts. As a result, Dean's stand may make him lose some credibility. We don't need to oppose for the sake of opposing. Our opposition must make sense to people.

What if the Christians that believe by scripture in the Old and NEW Testaments that 1. The difference in animal,vegatable, fruit,grain(life) is the soul? Anything that multiplies is alive?
2. You become a LIVING SOUL when you BREATH THE BREATH OF LIFE?.Gen 2-7,Icor.15-45 As Adam was born out of the womb of the earth and breathed the breath of life. He became a Living Soul. The second First born(Jesus)out of the womb of woman, became an alive Spirit?
3.In order to save our Soul from(death) Seperation from God. We have to be born again? Go learn what that means?
4. Why were the Children of Israel born a Child of God through the blood of God's chosen people?
And why do Gentiles have to be born again, through the blood of Jesus Christ,through faith, to become a Child of God?
5.Do the children of Israel have to be born again to become a Child of God? We should all study to learn these questions?

What really worries me is that he is a Conserative Catholic? Ever since the Conserative Catholic Bishops decided to THREATEN
John Kerry of EXCOMMUNICATION for his votes and stand of some of the Freedoms of Civil Rights, freedoms of woman, ETC.. I know the History of The Catholic Church and it appears they are just waiting to INTENIDATE the Government Officials into passing Laws to fit their beliefs? We can't have Laws to fit any Paticular Religious Doctrine, can we? There is no way the Catholic Church can Justify what their Bishops said to John Kerry on National TV? And convince the American People that they believe in Seperation of Church and State? Maybe they never got over the Church of England being adopted by a State? And maybe the Catholic Church is just waiting to worm their way into the USA as an official religion of the State Of The Union?

Let me begin by saying that just because I support Judge Roberts does not mean that I am a Republican spy and that I am only trying divide the Democratic Party – we are already divided.

As I posted yesterday, I spent five years working for Senator Rockefeller, one of our parties more liberal Senators, and have been a registered democrat since 1989.

Judge Roberts is not an idealogue. He is not a racist. He is not going to roll back the progress we have made on civil rights. And he is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Anybody who believes that he will do any of the above needs to stop being a political hack and focus on the issues at hand. Judge Roberts is one of this country's greatest legal minds and just because he is a Republican does not mean that we should condemn him.

Nobody in this forum knows how Judge Roberts will decide certain issues. We can make educated guesses but that is all we can do.

Besides, party affiliation does not mean anything. Who ever would have guessed that Justice Ginsburg would have turned her back on the private property rights of ordinary citizens. Lets not forget that Justices Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist and O'Connor were out voted by Justice Ginsburg and her fellow liberal/moderate colleagues.

I am also annoyed at the animosity shown towards Republicans in general. Just because someone belongs to the Republican party does not mean that they are anti-choice racists. To stereotype someone simply because they are a Republican is naive and foolish.

The simple fact is that Republicans and Democrats share the same goals. The difference lies on how we achieve those goals. Just because you oppose affirmative action does not mean that you want to roll back the civil rights movement. And just because you do not support "abortion on demand" does not mean that you want to overturn Roe.

There is no doubt in my mind that most Republicans (95%)are not bigoted racists. In fact, I suspect that there are an equal number of racists in our party. Most Republicans, like most Democrats, are hard working Americans who love their families and country.

The Democratic Party is never going to rise from the ashes as long as we continue to engage in name calling and smear tactics. Opposition for the sake of opposition is intellectually dishonest and only makes our party look foolish. It is also foolish to condemn fellow Democrats who occasionally support the President and his judicial nominees.

Here's my letter, feel free to riff off of it if helpful...

For humankind to solve the puzzle of emerging greatness that is not a response to tragedy will mark a quantum increase in our collective functioning. The mismanaged preparation and aftermath of Hurricane Katrina has shocked the consumer driven mentality of our nation through the realization that our billions of tax dollars dedicated to Homeland Security are dedicated to administrative overhead (un-credentialed and ineffective), pork barrel spending in key Republican states (check the apportionments to Alaska), duct tape advisories, and subsidies for the contractors who bought this government.
The populous is not only rethinking their commitment to blithely ignoring guarding against an uncertain future, the wisdom in supporting an expensive, bogged down invasion of sovereign Iraq based on the misinformation of this administration, but also the ability of this president and his staff to safely administer the needs of this nation.
President Bush’s staged events, including his recent pledge to rebuild New Orleans and his historic first admission of responsibility for any adverse government (in)action (the cool weather in the valley must be a breeze from hell, frozen over) are in direct response to his plunging confidence numbers, not to any heartfelt reaction to the citizens under his watch. A thirty-nine percent approval rating makes for a tear in the eye. However stage managed and contrived the president’s inane after-the-fact comfort has been to the thousands of deaths attributable to a delayed and uncertain emergency response, there have been individuals and moments that will be etched forever in the history of this nation.
New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin’s impassioned plea on live radio for federal assistance on September first is both eloquent and heartrending (http://www.airamericaradio.com/katrina/voicemailinfo.html). Kanye West emotional and unscripted point by point blast during the MSNBC benefit concert (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/09/02.html) is another example of people breaking through their politically correct façade to risk connection as a human being out of compassion, horror, and inspiration. This isn’t to be confused with a ghostwritten thirty minute campaign infomercial in a desperate and selfish attempt to grasp a hopelessly eroded legacy, as presented by the president.
In the context of national tragedy we consider John Roberts for Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Watching C-Span and reading my way through four days of transcripts, I encounter a brilliant legal scholar, lawyer, and interviewee. Mr. Roberts’ ability to weave through the questioning process without exposing any salient issues for consternation is impeccable. Listening to his glib, lawyerly, carefully spun avoidance in the wake of 9/11, in the wake of the invasion of Iraq, and in the wake of FEMA being re-acronymed as: Failure to Effectively Manage Anything or Forget Every Minority American, makes me ill.
I want a chief justice with heart. I want a chief justice with the courage to level with the American people, not play the Artful Dodger cum laude. I want a chief justice who cares about the equality of all Americans, as well as the (his) interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. For our Senate to confirm John Roberts on the hope that there is a conscious and caring judicator underneath the obfuscating semantically adroit lawyer is poor risk management for the integrity of the supreme court and the next thirty or so years of judicial review. I urge my senators and our community to speak clearly and assertively against the confirmation of this man in these times. Our nation deserves an open, transparent, and humble Chief Justice.

I am amazed at the level some people will go to criticize the President and John Roberts. The simple fact is that the Mayor of New Orleans and the Governor of Louisiana dropped the ball. In my opinion, they didn't even show up to the game. Admittedly, FEMA and the Federal government could have done more. But lets be honest here, the Mayor of New Orleans did nothing. The governor of Louisiana did nothing.

Just because they are Democrats does not mean that we should give them "a free pass." In my opinion, we should hold them to a higher standard because they should have known better.

I would also like to point out that FEMA was not designed to be a "first responder", State emergency services are. FEMA was designed to support and back up state emergency services. Does that need to be changed? Yes. But that does not mean that we should primarily blame the federal government.

Finally and I hope for the last time, Judge Roberts answered the committees questions the only way he could have. Judicial nominees are not allowed to give their opinions on cases when the possibility exists that the issue might appear before the Court.

If the people who oppose Judge Roberts can't accept that, or refuse to accept that, then our party is doomed.

Hey Frostie

Wake up. What was the mayor of New Orleans giong to do? Take those buses and drive north for 24 or 36 hours? Where was he going to go? Don't be such an idiot. FEMA exists for my very complication. Local governments cannot handle catastrophic events for so many reasons: they are much poorer, in general (to be sure, there are wealthy localities. Those in Metairie got out); they need coordination between other states; they need resources. Sure there were the buses -- 500 max -- that were available. But there were over 100,000 people left behind, okay, Frostie? 100,000. You think 500 buses were going to evacuate 100,000? Of course not.

Bush and FEMA made policy decisions and they were wrong policy decisions. Now, I know you are going to tell me I am a partisan hack: I am not. But, let's place the blame where it belongs. The U.S. Government did nothing to prepare for this event and it did worse than nothing to respond to it.

Dear Matt,

I have agreed with most of your previous posts but you are dead wrong on this one. The State of Louisiana dropped the ball on this one. New Orleans has known for decades that if a Category 3 or greater hurricane hits New Orleans, the entire city would be flooded. For decades, the city did nothing.

They had almost 1000 buses at their disposal and they refused to bus people out of the city. Do you know what their defense was -- where would we take them? How about anywhere besides New Orleans.

Lets also not forget that Amtrack offered to take people and the city declined. Or the fact that the red cross had food, clothes, water and other supplies at the Super Dome and the city wouldn't let them in because the city didn't want people to flock to that site and get aid.

Like you, I am not a political hack or a repubican spy, I am a solid blue dog democrat who spent five years working for Senator Rockefeller, but lets me fair here, FEMA is not entirely to blame here.

Granted, not everybody could have gotten out in time but officials at the local level did nothing to help the situation.

I have several friends who lost everything in New Orleans and they all agree that FEMA could have done more but city officials did nothing.

FEMA is almost entirely to blame and I am not just talking about New Orleans. The stretch of gulf coast land between New Orleans and Mobile is 140 miles. That is what Katrina hit, right? It struck a large land mass -- three states. Southern Mississippi looks like it did in 1840. The was the largest natural disaster the country has seen.

And, there was Michael Brown, on National Public Radio Tuesday morning, denying that there were people in the convention center, denying that the city was filling up. What were his words, "Don't scare people by leading them to believe New Orleans is filling up like a fish bowl." Come on. The director of FEMA wanted nothing to do with this disaster.

The mayor of New Orleans probably saved the city by doing the radio interview Thursday morning. No one is saying Bush "caused" the hurricane. But, let's admit that it's one of the largest national disasters ever to hit the U.S. You want the mayor of a city which had, as of 9/1/05, over 100,000 people earning less than the povery level, in charge of the evacuation? No way.

In the 1990s, when Hurricane Floyd hit, the federal government actively participated in evacuation plans. Do you still remember the 1990s? We had FEMA in the 1990s and it understood its role.

More than anything, we needed an active federal government because if/when another category 4 or 5 hit our shores, we need to know we can handle the organizational requirements of evacuations. Likewise, if a severe earthquake hits San Francisco, we need to know we can get people out safely. Hurricane Katrina showed what happens when you starve a needed federal agency. It becomes ineffective and wasted.

Frostie94,

When the Katrina was demonstrating her colossal power,

- Bush was still in vacation

- Cheney was house-shopping in the neighborhood of Rumsfeld

- Condoleezza was having a good time in New York.

Whatever you want to distribute the responsibility to the local government, the federal government cannot deny its failure of handling the disaster and its aftermath.

Now Bush wants to spend huge amount of cash to repair his image in the middle of a costly war and without regards of the ever increasing national debts.

Bush presidency deserves the Most Incompetent and Nasty Government Award; he is not only recognized nationally but internationally in this regard.

"The Democratic Party is never going to rise from the ashes as long as we continue to engage in name calling and smear tactics. Opposition for the sake of opposition is intellectually dishonest and only makes our party look foolish. It is also foolish to condemn fellow Democrats who occasionally support the President and his judicial nominees."

Frostie94,

Your above words are wrong. In our democratic system, it is the opposing party's responsibility to hold the party-in-power accountable. The Democratic Party is just doing exactly what they should do--holding Bush administration accountable for its colossal failure in handling a natural disaster.

By criticizing what the Democratic Party should do legitimately, you have become an enabler and defender of an indefendable government--Bush regime.

This is actually the problem in today's political climate. People don't want to use their reasoning to clarify what's the facts, what's wrong and what's right. They are willing to support a government blindly even though its mistake and failure is so evident.

Doesn't mean you are a Republican you should support a Republican government blindly.

Doesn't mean you are not a Republican you should support Bush blindly.

If we don't hold our government, whether Democratic or Republican, accountable, we only do ourselves a dis-service.

Don't forget, Bush is just issuing a gigantic blank check, which will be paid by our children and grandchildren.

Federalist Society = Nasty Ideologue, loss of civil rights, destruction of our environment, and poverty for most of us

That's point # 1.

Will people be offended if we oppose Roberts?

How badly did it cost the Republicans when they impeached Bill "70% approval rating" Clinton? That's right, they gained the presidency the next election.

The number one problem liberals have is that people aren't sure they can keep you safe. Nevermind that it was FDR and others who actual won major wars; if you can't take on this fight, which is central to everything you stand for, in spite of the polls, that you confirm that you are wishy washy liberal weaklings.

Concerned_Citizen

Undoing the New Deal will make some people very rich, as others get very, very poor. It will take huge turmoil and the threat of revolution in this country, which is what was happening in the Great Depression, in order for a politician to have the power to put something better back in.

Will,

Thanks for mentioning that (Democrats truly do what they say that they'll do).

I found a website that'll really get us back on track (and I signed up for that): http://www.democratsforvalues.com

Dear Democratic concerned citizens:
Judge Robets' strategy is very easy to see through. Like the rest of the George Bush cabinet and 'Click' he has so much to hide from the public that he can not even speak openly to the people about what he will do as a Supreme Court Justice. He continually hides behind this falsity that he is gagged by the whole legality of the system, obviously thinking that even the layman observer is too stupid to realize that he is only trying to evade the questions that he is being asked.
As a Supreme Court Justice he would not have to worry about the legal "E's" of anything that he said during a confirmation hearing. Isn't that after all what a confirmation hearing is for, if not to discern all of his views upon all of the subject's, berfore he is confirmed and allowed to wreck havoc upon the civil rights of the population at large, which is what I am sure that he and Bush, along with the Hard Right wing are planning to do if they can get him in. Let's not forget about the monetary advantages they have over the poor man, along with their ability by filing lawsuit after lawsuit, to put an eternal yoke around the working man's neck, backed with unlimited resources to take their sham cases to the Supreme Court time and time again.
Let' say that in the future one of Bush' business buddies files a lawsuit saying that people do not have the right to recieve overtime pay no matter what the amount of hours that they have worked? How do we know that Judge Robert's wouldn't vote for such an atrocity if he doesn't give us his views now. This is of course an extreme example, however such is what I am sure that Bush and his "family" are planning for the future.

down on Roberts!

So many incorrect assumptions and not enough time.

First off, there is a difference between accountability and opposition just for the sake of opposition. If everyone will reread my first email, I clearly place some of the blame on the federal government. However, just because the federal government is partly to blame does not mean we can overlook the lack of leadership in Louisiana.

I have even heard some of our party leaders saying that the only reason the feds didn't get involved was because most of New Orleans is black. That my friends is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have heard all year.

Second, Presidents may go on vacation but not like we do. If you believe for one second that Bush is taking it easy on his vacation I have a bridge I will sell you. It was wrong when Republicans attacked Clinton for taking vacations and it is wrong for us to attack Bush.

As for FEMA, Matt, you and I will just have to disagree on that one. FEMA was designed to be a second responder. Yeah, they screwed up but so did everybody. We need to fairly place the blame where it belongs, that is, on everybody's shoulders.

And finally, May, dear May, I was almost inspired by your post -- almost. Opposition for the sake of opposition is wrong. For over five years now, our party has opposed everything the republicans have done, while offering nothing in return. Look what that got us -- four more years of Bush and at least two Supreme Court Justices.

Even Republicans make correct policy choices sometimes and we as open minded democrats need to recognize that. To oppose Judge Roberts just for the sake of opposing him will get us nowhere. He was a good choice by the President and believe me, the President could have chosen somebody ten times worse (which he will do in the near future).

Finally, there is nothing wrong with keeping the Republicans in line (I have been there and done that) but that doesn't mean we have to oppose everything, all the time. It also doesnt' give us the right to turn a blind eye to our politicians mistakes.

I would write more but after four vodka tonics, I am having a hard time typing.

Frostie

Frostie94,

Criticizing how Bush administration handling this hurrican disaster is not opposition for the sake of opposition, it is holding this government accountable for the gigantic negligence it has demonstrated throughout this disaster.

If you only place some of the blame on the Federal Government, then it only shows that you have not been able to comprehend the gigantic failure this government has made, considering so many innocent people's life and family and livilihood have been injured and destroyed...a gigantic blank check must be paid by our children and grandchildren...

Considering the federal government's response is so slow and disorganized and most of the victims we see on TV are blacks, so you cannot blame people having this type of perception that racism may play a direct or indirect role in this disaster. If Bush administration wanted to avoid this type perception, what they only needed to do was to respond to this disaster in a timely and effective fashion. So they should not blame others to hold such a perception, but themselves.

Comparing to other Presidents in the modern time, Bush is the one taking much more vacation than others.

FEMA didn't respond in a timely and effective fashion, so it deserved to be condemned. It is just silly for you to call FEMA, a second responder, and tried to define FEMA when its failure is so evident that the entire country has condemned its performance.

If as what you said "opposition for the sake of opposition is wrong," then defending for the sake of defending is even worse, especially when what you tried to defend is indefendable.

Let me repeat one more time, in a democratic system, it is opposing party's legitimate duty to hold the party-in-power accountable. As a result, the Democratic Party has done what it is supposed to do, including the opposition of Judge Roberts' nomination.

The right way for Democrats to do is to remain vigilant and keep the Republican party at the edge. That's the duty of any opposing party.

This is last time I respond to such a fool.

Posted by Frostie94 on September 16, 2005 at 11:49 PM
while offering nothing in return

Talk about believing the opposition's spin! Get yourself to some real news, because there have been plenty of alternatives that have been presented. It doesn't get presented on the corporate media, for instance Kerry and Gore mentioned the environment every day on their presidential campaigns, although you wouldn't know from the coverage, but that just goes to show you that you can't rely on them for your news.

Truth to Power,

Ok...I'll give you not 1 but 2 links. Both Ted Kennedy and Joseph Biden said that Supreme Court nominees shouldn't have to answer questions.

After I provide you both links and quotes, I challenge you to respond to them. Don't spend 2 hours worth of bs changing the subject, but respond to the blatant hypocrisy from both Biden & Kennedy.

Here's the Ted Kennedy quote:

"We have to respect that any nominee to the Supreme Court would have to defer any comments on any matters, which are either before the court or very likely to be before the court. This has been a procedure which has been followed in the past and is one which I think is based upon sound legal precedent."

And the link http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45497 (paragraph 3 has the video of Ted Kennedy making the above referenced quote so you can see it yourself)

Here's Joe Biden's comment with link provided:

"Then-chairman Sen. Joseph Biden told Ginsburg, "You not only have a right to choose what you will answer and not answer, but in my view you should not answer a question of what your view will be on an issue that clearly is going to come before the court in 50 forms probably, over your tenure on the court."

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050913/dctu081.html?.v=1

Now, please explain the conflicting statements.

If there's anything I've learned out of this tragedy (and all those before it), in this political world, it's this:

It's not a good idea to be decisive and WRONG (Like FEMA, Bush, and the rest of the right wing is), and this article proves it right here (as a lesson from The Apprentice, and I like to apply Apprentice lessons to politics):

http://www.architectureink.com/tirade/donaldtrump.htm

Remember, my fellow Dems, it's not just right to be just decisive. It must show in the results that follow (for example, Bush may have been decisive in choosing Roberts to be a Supreme Court judge. But the results may come out negative for the country if he's confirmed; and like what we've been saying, anyone who's bent on rolling back our hard-earned rights is the wrong choice).

John,

What "right" is John Roberts trying to roll back?

Be specific.

Another example: Bush may have been decisive to invade Iraq on the fact that Saddam had WMD's (as the article suggests). But it was a wrong choice, as we obviously know (judging from the violence).

Dash,

By rights, I mean liberties (from workers' rights to womens' rights, to GLBT rights to the rights of the disabled, etc.).

I don't want to get too specific, because we already know what's at stake.

John,

John Kerry and John Edwards sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and both voted to authorize force against Iraq. I wonder why?

Heck..John Kerry said he would have authorized force against Iraq regardless if WMDs were found. Can you explain?

John,

You don't want to get specific because you can't. Typical.

I ask again: Can you cite what right Judge Roberts is trying to roll back? Your argument will carry much more validity if you could actually back it up with an example.

Please answer.

Dear May,

I wasn't going to respond but...here goes.

The reason our party is in so much trouble is because political novices like you, who think that just because they had one or two political science classes in college, that they are qualified to analyze the current state of politics in this country.

You have the right to say and do whatever you want. I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with you calling me a fool.

I have forgotten more about politics and campaign strategy than you will ever know. Opposition for the sake of opposition has gotten us nowhere since 1994. Yes, we need to hold this administration accountable, but when the administration is right, we need to recognize that and move on. President Bush nominated a highly qualified, moderate, judge. As such, we should commend him for his selection and count our lucky stars he didn't appoint another Scalia.

But, but, but, his views...the people he represented...he is a Republican. All of that and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee. If you look at Judge Roberts opinions from the last two years, it is clear that he is not the conservative idealogue that Howard Dean makes him out to be. He is a respected jurist who loves the law and what it stands for. Nothing more, nothing less.

You can respond if you want too but I suggest that we try this instead. Write down my email address (cbfrost@verizon.net) and keep it safe. We will both watch our party leaders for one year. Right now they have adopted your position (opposition for the sake of opposition). If our party can somehow manage to beat the Republicans and regain control of this country, I will apologize to you and every other oppositionist in this forum. If they cant, I expect an apology from you.

Frostie

Dash,

One of the rights he wants roll back is the right to an abortion. Remember, he said that Roe v. Wade (which legalized abortion) was "wrongly decided."

And another of the rights he wants to roll back is the right to privacy (because he thinks there isn't such thing as that in the Constitution).

Good enough?

WORTH READING ALL THE WAY THROUGH – DON’T PEAK AT THE END

Wow! This blog has really expanded. I therefore would like to address several comments:

MAY2002
You are a saint. Watching non-stop coverage of the confirmation proceedings surely qualifies for martyrdom. . .or perhaps another label. :^)

FROSTIE94
I like you. I suspect we’d argue endlessly, but we’d have a beer while doing it. I’ll send you my email.

CONCERNED_CITIZEN
Re your and May2002’s misunderstanding about the new New Deal, let’s seriously consider the incorrect understanding for a moment. Have you considered that the GOP is trying to effectively do just that? The GOP has most of the country’s governmental architecture (by a slight majority), with the Supreme Court and Senate supermajority potentially nearby (which would truly open the floodgate for application of conservative ideology). What the GOP lacks is an institutionalized reason for long-term supermajority in the eyes of the voters, akin to the Dem’s New Deal.

The following may seem heartless. It’s not. It’s just one part of the discussion focusing solely on the cold political calculus. The last few years have been all about taking real world events and responding to them in a way that results in the institutionalization of the GOP. A new Contract with America won’t do it. The GOP is now “in charge.” The Gulf War, Homeland Security, and tax cuts accomplished a significant budgetary “crowding out” effect. You just haven’t felt it. . .yet. Estimated at possibly up 30% of annual Gross Domestic Product, the Gulf Reconstruction will likely finish the process.

Most everyone probably agrees with the following statement: New Orleans must be rebuilt, but we must NOT increase the debt. Fine. How to do it, then? The GOP will not raise taxes. Even in an ultimate (unlikely) compromise, at amounts this large, spending cuts will significantly hit social democrat programs (most of the federal budget, following 50 years of Democratic rule). Therefore, a short-term reconstruction effort thus wipes out long-term programs that benefited the other party. By association, the GOP becomes more established. That institutionalism.

Moreover, the reconstruction is even a bigger “win” for the GOP, as funds will be incentivised/apportioned and policies created according to conservative principles – in a bastion of the Democratic party. If done correctly, the GOP has a unique opportunity to move another state over into its column and “prove” to the country that “conservatism works” in an area where liberal democrats have ruled for 60 years (akin to the New Deal’s timeframe). That’s also institutionalism.

Events of the day are not about the moment. It’s not about John Roberts or Senate election 2006. Your favorite Karl Rove has been and is planning out the next 50 years. The GOP looks to reshape America back to its constitutional basis. Today, the GOP has new ideas (even if you don;t agree with them), government apparatus, funding control, and multiple potential institutionalized rationales.

In an optimistic country, ideas ultimately rule. The establishment Dems can now only defend the past. The MSM/liberal blogosphere’s statements disturb the moderates. The GOP is now in control and learning how to wield it. If this trend continues, the Dems will likely split in two after the 2008 election and begin to truly wonder in the woods. That will actually be a good thing for the liberal side, longer-term, as it will breed real ideas just as the GOP’s lock on power weakens. Only your grandchildren will be the beneficiaries of that, though.

JOHN
You are correct that the preamble to the Declaration of Independence also includes, “all men are created equal.” The important word in the highlighted phrase, though, is CREATED.

It is false that all human beings are literally created equal. Differences in family structure, income, gender, genetic heritage, in utero development, etc produces a diversity of conditions by birth. If not literal equality, then, in what sense are all men CREATED equal? The very next phrase of the preamble answers that definitively with “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” In the eyes of “their Creator,” then, the founders believed that “all men were created equal.” Try legislating, executing, or adjudicating equality of the soul.

Over the 20th century, The Declaration’s phrase appears to have been translated by many as equality of results. This type of equality is NOT expressly written, nor implied. Human beings have never, are, and will never BE equal in results for the reasons discussed above. Historically, though, inequality of results has also been in part a result of dictatorial degrees of government, thus the enduring American dislike of government as a necessary evil.

The genius of The American Experiment is “self-governance” as a means to secure inalienable Rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” PURSUIT of happiness is only possible when liberty exists. No one else can pursue your happiness for you.

We are each dealt a hand in life and must make the best it as we know how. Fortunately in the US, the economic and political system is the most flexible in history so that the average person has the chance to make something of him/herself and hopefully make life even better for the next generation of family. That’s The American Dream – not The American Reality. It never will be reality. You only have the right to PURUSE happiness, not to necessarily have it. Equality is the non-guaranteed end product of a system that first permits liberty.

To those who feel I haven’t a heart for the little downtrodden guy, I do and I help where I can. I just do not trust anyone else to define my “equality” in a universally accepted way that permits my liberty. It’s zero sum game. In a completely equal world, no one has liberty. In a completely libertine world, all are unequal. To what end would you impose your will on others? To what end would you allow someone else be the “Definer of Your Equality/Liberty?”

It’s an imperfect world. Vigilant debate keeps the dynamic tension between the two alive and hopefully makes us a better country along the way. Liberty is the primary answer. Equality, like happiness, will always remain an INDIRECT by-product.

OUTING OF “PERSPECTIVE”
Numerous suspected astroturfs have been noted; probably more than actually exist - i.e. you're insulting your own. Cool term, but a bit off topic.

The point of any blog is to share views. A blog isn’t some sort of private club for only one type. I agree with the Dems who have posted here “I may not like what someone says, but he certainly has right to say it, even here.” It’s never easy reading something with which you do not agree, but it is good to see it, I think. It’s one of the few decent things I’ve seen from the DNC in memory.

To wit, I am a conservative republican. BUT, I’m just me. There’s no coordination with anyone. I could easily blog elsewhere. I choose to do here, as well. I do not write to help you; I am no longer an independent. I don’t want your views to prevail. I write because I still believe in strength of dialogue. I learn as well as educate. I suppose my ultimate goal is the discovery of truth. Truth is very hard to find when one party is screaming outside normal standards of political discourse.

I write here to understand. I write here to educate. I write here in the hope that a dash of perspective might bring us closer together for our common good (which exists independent of either our political views).

Thank you for reading all the way through. For those of you who peaked, though, now that you know the butler did it, please consider going back and reading this in its entirety.

Respectfully yours,
Perspective

John,

Please provide the exact quote and a source for Judge Roberts statement where he said Roe v Wade was "wrongly decided".

Also, please provide Judge Roberts quote and a source for when he said there is no right to privacy in the US Constitution.

Thanks.

Frostie94,

Sorry, I don't mean you are a fool; I only mean some of your remarks are a fool's remark.

Dr. Dean

You are an idiot, and I realized I don't like you at all. I feel stupid associating myself with you as a democrat. Go Join the Green Party you freaking hippie.

You just need to never say anything in public ever again.

I fully support John Roberts. I think he is the perfect man for the job. I guess if you could you would call him a nazi or something idiotic.

Maybe we do need to more socially conservative in this country. Society is getting rediculous!

AV-06,

You have every right to disagree with Dean, but Dean is not an idiot. Considering the stake is so high (since Roberts is only 50 years old) and he remains an enigma throughout the hearing (even though he is impressive), it is understandable any conscious leader of Democratic Party should feel anxious about Roberts' confirmation. Dean voices that concerns. New York Times' editorial also echoes that concern, which can be read in following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/18/opinion/18sun1.html?pagewanted=print

May2002,

I don't think Dean is an idiot...But, Dean is ignorant. Dean is filled with hatred. Its hard for anyone on the other side of the fence to take anything Dean says seriously.

Howard Dean said he hated the Republicans and everything they stand for. I don't think that can BE any more anti-American.

Howard Dean said the GOP was "evil".

I mean it sincerely when I say I am very glad to have Howard Dean running the DNC. Dean will keep the really good Democrats like Bayh, Ford, Obama, out of the leadership.

Thanks.

Dash,

Your criticism is on the border of personal attack. You quoted Dean out of context. You need to acknowledge those remarks in the context. I have observed Dean since the primary election for 2004 presidential election. I strongly disagree with you. I can sense Dean is a conscientous, intelligent and strong leader. He would and will continue to do everything he can to help Democrats regain power in the Congress and in the White House.

Dearest little Dash/Dijhilli -

Regarding Roberts's lies...He's a Republican. Therefore he lies. You might just as well ask me to prove that a caterpillar becomes a moth. Give me a few weeks and I'll show you a caterpillar. Give me a few years and a few decisions on matters on which this justice rules, and I'll show you the lies in his so-called "testimony."

As for hatred...If you can't find reasons to hate Bush and Republicans for the "work" they've done in the past five years, then you are either greedy, bigoted, vengeful, stupid or unconscious...maybe all five...and if I had some time to knock down a few beers with you in a bar I'd probably work up a pretty good hatred for you, too.

I have no apologies whatsoever for saying I hate Bush and everything he represents. If I made 300 grand a year, maybe I'd be have one reason to be a supporter. But I don't. That means I'm one of the other 99% of this country that that maggot is screwing. So, I hate him.

But hey - I'm sure you understand this. After all, your boy is president only because the Republicans spent eight years whipping up a nice, roiling hatred of Clinton.

Whassamatta, Chuckie - don't like it when the other side plays by your rules?

Besides, your "hate" meme is already two years old and three Republican memes behind. Try to keep up with the dittohead playbook, will ya?

Troll on, Bush baby.

Dear Govner Dean,
I am a lifelong Democrat that has been voting straight tickets for decades. In case you haven't counted, there are more Republicans in the senate than Democrats. That means Roberts will be approved. You see that is the way it works and when you and the Washington bunch gets tired of that, you will start fighting the way Democrats used to when we won and you will start running people that can win. Nationally, Liberals cannot win and that is a fact. It dosen't matter what the claim to believe in, they cannot win.Bush's numbers are sinking but Democrts numbers are not going up. That should tell even the most hard headed Liberal where the party stands with the voters.There is only one man that can win the next presidential election against McCain,the most likely Republican candidate. That person is Wes Clark and the reason is because he is not the Washington insider and he actually has a vision and plans to get us out of this dictitorial government. He is also not afraid of the Bush bunch, which seems to be the case with the rest of them.Todays party has been given every oportunity to slam these Republicans every day, but they clam up on just about everything. They have no plans,no reason for the swing voters to vote for us. We have to tell people what we stand for and what we will do if elected, not just be against what Bush is doing. Don't you understand that? As soon as you do that, Bush will go on the defensive, a place he hasen't been yet.This party has to get back in the dirt business just like Repbulicans and we have to be better at it then they are.Your way does not work, just look at the numbers nationally and you will see that.In politics, winning is everything, how you play the game means nothing because that is what you get,nothing.

My take on this:

Regardless of how any of us may feel about Roberts, all indications are that his confirmation will go through and like it or not, we will be stuck with him. All the polls are revealing this, and the number of Democrats that are already stating they will vote in favor of him combined with the GOP majority render any efforts to oppose him an exercise in futility.

I don't want to see another conservative on the bench any more than Gov. Dean does, but that does not mean that I am anxious to pick a fight on the losing side of an issue when there are so many out there that I can be in the winning side of.

Katrina was a wake up call to this country and it exposed the flaws of Bush's right wing ideology in no uncertain terms for the entire world to see. It laid naked the fact that the growing population of poverty stricken people are not only vulnerable to economic repression, but their very lives are in jeopardy as a result of their lack of resources. It made a very fair and obvious comparison between Clintonian progressivness and Bushian neglect. THIS is a fight we CAN win.

Today on the front page of the New York Times was an article about how corruption and lack of coordination has inhibited the rebuilding of Iraq and has wasted billions of US dollars. We would not feel so bad if our money actually was helping the Iraqi people help themselves instead of lining the pockets of corrupt contractors who receive blank checks from their Republican friends in Washington.

We have also seen the downfall of cronyism with the exposure of how Brown got to be the head of FEMA, having had no qualifications other than a sworn loyalty to Bush.

To all of you who posted their objections to opposition posts here, stop and think for a moment. Remember the last elections? Remember all the folks who were physically escorted trom the Bush rallies for having expressed opposition views? Didn't it remind you of Nazi Germany when the brownshirts removed opposition from their rallies? Didn't it remind you of Goebels' repression of opposition views so that the country would only see and hear pro Hitler propaganda?

I am much more proud to be a member that doesn't quash opposing ideas, but debates them. If we excluded the hecklers here, we would become what we oppose. The opposing ideas are already under fire through their own volition. It doesn't take a genius at this moment in time to see that the Bush regime has led this country down the wrong road. We have an opportunity to fix that. We have the means now to capitalize on the right's mistakes and move forward with dignity.

We need to shed the stigma of being the working persons' party and assume the role of the party of progress. It IS fiscally responsible to take care of our people. It IS fiscally responsible to fix our levies, bridges, and improve public safety. It IS fiscally responsible to assure that every American has access to quality health care, and a guaranteed retirement income. We've seen that privatization of these programs do NOT work. SOME things require government oversight in order to be accountable to the people.

And let us not forget the environment. Deregulation of environmental issues opens doors to more global warming, thus more hurricanes and more severe ones at that. Deregulation means losing more of our wilderness, wetlands, and protections against the elements.

We have some valid issues to fight against that we CAN win and make us the party of choice. Let's not spend our political capital on issues that won't help us.

As always, I'm a staunch Democrat in support of our cause. My only purpose in posting this is to remind us what our cause really is.

may2002,

Then by all means explain the context of Dean's statement when he said "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for". I'd love to hear that.

Also, explain to me the context of Dean saying it was "good vs evil and the Democrats are the good". I will be waiting that one too.

BaronScarpia,

I personally want to thank you for your hatred. Its the reason why we keep gaining seats in the House and Senate.

Now, please cite for me any lie Roberts has told. The entire blog is watching you spout your hatred, but not provide anything of substance. Here's your chance, Sparky. Get to citin' those lies from Roberts. We are all waiting...

Dash,

I'll tell you one Lie that Roberts said in his hearing. He was asked did he believe in term limits for surpreme court justices which he said, now NO! In his writing before hand, he said he was for term limits. Now I either call this waffeling or lying. If you get caught in one lie, that makes one wonder just how many more you've told. Everyone on here with any mind knows what Roberts is truly about by his previous writing when he served under Regan. When someone makes the comments he did in his letters about womens rights, labor, discrimination, etc. etc, we all can see and know he is as far right wing as you can get. It doesn't matter how much smoke you try to blow, and how confrontational you are trying to get with a few on here, we still know that Roberts will take his personal feelings into account in his rulings. Not one single surpreme court justice that's ever served has never not used his own thoughts to help make their decisions. Your party can jump up and down until its blue in the face saying he wont, but face the fact, we aren't that naive or dumb to believe it. I can guaran-Goddamn-tee you he will for his part rule against anything that rolls down the path concerning anything that he might consider the least bit good for the poor folks. If it's anything that he thinks a Democrat would be for, he'll be against. It behooves me to think you come on the Democrat blog with your bullshit thinking you can make the least of us believe in one word your spilling out about Roberts. By your attitude, I'll about bet when you were a child, you were kicked out of every sand box in your community. Most I knew that way were always at the country club playing with ones who were the same. I hear there they teach kids how to stab each other in the back in order to get ahead, and not care for the ones they term being under them, or on the other side of the tracks. Is that how it is there, we'd all like to know? Since your asking questions, let me ask you one. Tell me one republican president who has done one thing for the poor without it being politically motivated? Now you asked one above for proof, I want to see this from you too. Also, tell me one republican surpreme court justice that sided with anyone who was either poor, union, or a minority? I want facts like you asked for from another on here. We all want to know so let's hear it.

Anyhow, that's all beside the point. Every true Democrat on this blog knows your a republican sent here by the GOP for revenge about the letter from Dr. Dean. It's awful fuuny that when we go to your GOP blog, ever post one of us makes is deleted. On here, we let every republican post without bothering it. By the way, that's known as freedom of speech. Now what your party does on their blog to me is the same thing that has been done in every fascist or communist country that has ever exsisted. No wonder why 90% of the Ku Klux Klan are card carrying republicans. How can the GOP profess to be for freedom and liberty when they do this? That's my fianl question to you. Give us facts on this too, we all want to know!

Will Matney, Ohio

Dash:

The statement "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for" was made when Dean was speaking directly and only to his loyal supporters in New York City, which was understood and echoed by all the participants because Dean was specifically referring to Bush administration and his policies, such as:

reducing tax for the richest while piling up the highest national debts in the history
waging this unnecessary war that has caused innocent deaths and cost huge taxpayers' money
intending to destroying Social Security
lacking transparency and honesty (such as misleading the entire country to go to war, and misleading the senators to pass the medical welfare reform for the seniors)
giving the Iraqi reconstruction contract specifically to his cronies, such as Halliburton

Only if you think Bush has done a good job, otherwise in this context, Dean's statement only demonstrates that he is not only accurate but passionate. Dean is a straight arrow. He honestly not only disagreed but hated Bush's policies as a result, he said it. So in this context, I don't see anything wrong with his passionate statement, especially majority of the Democrats agree with him.

Since, I am not familiar with his another statement, which you quoted, so I am not able to respond.

As far as I am concerned, I don't expect any Democratic leader to be perfect. I focus on the big picture, even though they may make over heated statements sometimes. Dean has been a strong and dedicated leader focusing on the cause of Democratic Party, which is good enough for me.

Many who vote conservative have hoped for a person like Roberts to push social and moral reform. I have never seen the Republican party make any meaningful progress in this arena; however, they have no problems pushing their economic and foreign policies through congress. I feel sorry for those who think the Republican party will return this country back to what they think are traditional values....I think they've been cheated.

Hhmmm. I'm bored. These blogs are old. The GOP's blogs are also too long. Everyone's writing; few are reading.

Is there anything we can do about thread management: specific thread topics maintained specific throughout and one all purpose "blab" thread. Limit the blog to 100 entries, as well?

Perhaps also varying your topics more than 1/month?

Will,

First, I want to say this is the 5th name I've had on the DNC blog. They have deleted my posts and canceled my account 4 times. The names were Ace, Ace1, Tomcat, Joe, and now Dash. Is the DNC fascist or communist?

Second, I find it comical that you said you could name 1 lie, then you said it was either waffling or a lie. I bet you didn't accuse Kerry of lying for all of his waffles, did you?

My question still stands: Can you cite 1 lie Judge Roberts has told?

Now to the "poor". When you pass legislation just for the poor, its discriminatory. That's not America. Can you cite a case that has been in front of the US Supreme Court that was solely designed to help the poor? If you answer "yes", what was the case and what was the vote? I can't wait for that answer.

Also, can you explain why Senators Biden and Kennedy said that Supreme Court nominees didn't have to answer questions about the issues, but now, since its a Republican, Biden and Kennedy are DEMANDING answers? Is that why you're so bitter? Your party's hypocrisy is glaring again? I challenge you to explain why Biden & Kennedy BOTH said that Supreme Court nominees didn't have to answer questions but now they do.

As far as the personal attacks as to when I was a kid, I won't dignify those with a response. The facts are my friends, not personal attacks.

I expect you to answer those questions because I have certainly answered yours.

may2002,

Thanks for the polite response. However, I must strenuously disagree. Here are the facts:

16 Democrat Senators voted on those tax cuts. The recession ended after those tax cuts passed and there has been over 45 consecutive months of economic expansion. Are those 16 Dem Senators "evil"?

We can argue all day about the Iraq war. I happen to oppose it, but I laugh when Democrats say there were no WMDs in Iraq. John Kerry said Iraq had WMDs. John Edwards said Iraq was "the most serious and imminent threat to the United States". Both Kerry and Edwards sat on the Senate Intelligence Committee and saw the same intel Bush did.

According to the Democratic Party, Social Security has dramatically improved under Bush. In 1999, Bill Clinton said SS would be "in trouble by 2013, broke by 2032". Now, Harry Reid D-Nv says that SS will be paying 100% through 2055 then 80% thereafter.

I agree with you on Medicare. That bill sucked. Hardly "evil" because of it.

Bill Clinton gave Halliburton over 2,700 contracts with many "no-bid" contracts in Kosovo. I wish you guys wouldn't slam American companies like Halliburton WHO EMPLOY AMERICANS! But, Halliburton is a new DNC Buzz Word and is demonized daily. We're used to it.

Howard Dean is a rabid Bush Hater. That's the truth. You can't deny it. We're counting on Howard Dean to continue to be the leader of the DNC.

Again, thanks for your polite response.

Neal.

may2002 and WillMatney,

My email is sinclair.j@sbcglobal.net if you wish to confer via email. My account will soon be canceled.

Thanks.

Folks,

Did I miss something or am I going blind? Did Dash, or I'll label him Dash Riprock, answer one question I posed to him AFTER he's asked several on here all the ones he did? I swear, I didn't see one he did. It looked more to me he tried to answer a question with a question didn't it? The ones I've always seen do this are the desperate ones grasping at straws because they have no answer. Just like a republican trying to cloud the facts. Anybody, any Democrat on here, did he answer one of my questions at all?

Further more, the ONLY ones who ever get banned from this blog are the ones who dont contribute any true thought. Only the worst shit stirrers who try to come on here and start fights. That is exactly why you most likely have been banned on this blog. You cant say we do every republican as I can go to about every thread and find at least 2-3 republican posts (some more). Those posts though are legitamte posts voicing their true beliefs without trying to needle all the members and stur up a fight. That is NOT communism, but mearly cleaning up the crap that shouldn't be on this or the republican blog. The only difference is, the republican blog deletes EVERY Democrat post just like a Comminist controlling the media, TV, and news papers to show ONLY what they want folks to see, never the truth. They tried this recently with PBS here in the US and got caught at it! Dash Riprock, you admitted this yourself by telling about all the names you have tried to use on here before. Why would we want to e-mail you to start with? I dont know you, and to be truly honest, after you've showed your ass, wouldn't want to. I can honestly say this, your a shining example of your party! I know they're proud as hell to have you. My best advice is to go play somehwere else as I highly doubt anyone wants to be your friend here. You've already alienated yourself with everyone on here, most likely even with your GOP breathern who have enough sense to act decent when they do post here.

Rich and snooty Dash Riprock tried to pull the wool over Jed Clampets eyes and found in the end the old hillbilly was two steps ahead, and a little smarter the he was. There was another example of a rich boy trying to take advantage of someone on the other side of the tracks but lost in the end as every republican will eventually do. I'm tired...Yawn... and think I can find better threads to post under that truly means something more than answering your posts in this one.

Nuff Said,

Will Matney

Regarding Roberts, why couldn't they actually find a judge with some judicial experience. If all lawyers were so good at writing and interpreting laws, why do we have so many goofy laws? Being a good attorney is one thing, being a good judge is another. I'd rather have some one on the Supreme court that has spent considerable time being a judge. As one poster commented, attorneys represent their client's views. Well, judges review and interpret laws and rulings, and the fact is Roberts doesn't have that much experience in that area.

Regarding May 2002's comments on economic expansion: what figures are you looking at? Poverty rate is on the rise, the number of underemployed is on the rise, and the number of people not covered or undercovered by healthcare is on the rise. It doesn't help the country if certain manufacturer's productivity values are up, if the people that live here are having a harder time getting by.
Also on the Iraq WMD issue, we found none, because there were few or none to be found. The top 1/3 and botton 1/3 regions of the country were overflown by daily sorties since the first war there. Satellites covered the entire country. We had UN people there until they were kicked out. And despite what some would say, we did have folks on the ground there. In addition, if we could tap phone lines and cell phones at the beginning of this most recent conflict, don't you think we had been doing it all along. We knew what was going on there, and whether or not there were WMDs.

Dash,

I begin to feel that you are here to spread your agenda. I don't mind people to have their agenda, but I do hope people can have a gentlemanly attitude. For example, I would and will not go to an official Republican website to criticize their leaders or spread my own agenda. It is just so lack of taste. First of all, I don't want to waste my time. Secondly, I like to respect the territory of people whom I don't agree, especially I despise.

As a result, I will not read anything you post here and reject to have any further dialogue with you.

(Some people just don't understand that no matter how partisan they want to be, they should know there is still a boundary they should acknowledge, including not intruding their opponent's official space and creating negative or nasty remarks towards their leaders. They can take liberty to go to any third-party website to debate or spread their agenda, but not the official website of the opposing party.)

Neal,

When Clinton was elected, the republicans took over the Senate just shortly thereafter. If your party had not messed it all up, we would all have had medical insurance right now, just not us few who are retired or disabled. After your party took over the senate, they trashed every GOOD bill that was out in front of them for the poor and handicapped. That is why nothing was hardly done under Clinton, because your party stopped it. Now what was your presidents idea this time around, privatazation of Social Security. Do you honestly think that would fly, especially after the polls showed the majority of Americans was totally against it? Do you know your party made it so hard to get a power wheelchair for the disabled that you had to be bed ridden in order to qualify for one? Do you know which parties lobbiests finally got your parties Social Security director to finally somewhat lesson these requirements? Do you know that the yearly SS raise has been the least under your president to where it comes nowhere close to keeping up with inflation? Do you know your party is wanting to cut $13 billion from Medicade even after all those extra folks from Katrina will be included in it? Do you know there are a huge number of people who will be kicked off Medicade and they deserve to have it? Do you know the ones left on it are being forced to take cuts in their needed services? Do you know the ones on Medicade are being forced from a 100% paid prescription plan to take the Medicare prescription plan which has a deductible? Do you know most of these people are well under the poverty level and can not afford the deductible? Do you care that these folks have to worry about either affording their medicine or paying their utility bills? Do you care if they have to go without food to afford their needed medicine? Do you care if they are kicked out of their home just because they now have to pay for their medicine in place of their rent or mortgage? Do you care that they cant afford auto insurance because of paying for their medicine? Do you care that this effects not only adults but little children? Do you care that little children will die because the partents will not be able to afford cancer treatments or surgery? Dude, I am right there in the mix of it as I am handicapped, I know!

Will Matney, Ohio

may2002,

I guess those facts were too difficult to respond to.

Thanks.

Will,

Let's talk about social security.

In 1999, Bill Clinton said Social Security would be in trouble by 2013, broke by 2032. NOW, you Democrats are saying Social Security will be able to pay 100% until 2055. CAN YOU EXPLAIN why Social Security improved after 5 years of Bush and the surplus gone? I bet you can't.

Sources:

Bill Clinton, 1999 State of the Union Address: http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/01/19/sotu.transcript/

"Today, Social Security is strong. But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted, and Social Security will be unable to pay out the full benefits older Americans have been promised. "

Harry Reid on Meet the Press, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6646457/

"SEN. REID: Tim, all experts say that Social Security beneficiaries will receive every penny of their benefits that they're entitled to--100 percent of them--until the year 2055. After that, if we still do nothing, they'll draw 80 percent of their benefits. For heaven's sakes, they're crying wolf a little too regularly here. There is not an emergency on Social Security."

I predict you won't answer that question.

Will,

If the GOP "trashed" all of those good bills, can you explain the record economy?

This I gotta see.

Will,

If you don't answer those 2 questions above, I'm done with you.

Dash,

I would ask AGAIN for you to answer the questions I asked which you only tried to counter with a question and NOT an answer. However, I truly do have way better things to do with my life than listen to your agenda on here. And record economy, your one dumbass bastard. I watched Timken Bearings in Canton Ohio lay off several thousand folks and send their jobs overseas, those folks by the way are without jobs and any decent living now. The only ones seeing a rise in the economy are the rich here in the US. Your just like all republicans who consider a job at McDonals good work. Plus you all dont count the ones who are dropped off the unemplyment rolls after the time expires so dont push that bullshit here, we all damn well know better! Record economy my ass, the damn biggest debt we could be in that Clinton had paid down, with mind you a balanced budget, and with folks working REAL jobs. What a friggin joke you are as I'd say the better part of you ran down somebodies leg years ago. Shit after your comments, I wouldn't wipe my ass with you, let alone try to debate your stupid questions. Go on little red republican, go find another sandbox to play in. If you dont watch, the cats will cover you up in this one as they do any turd. Go tell your GOP cronies you were here and they'll probably send you a new pair of jack boots for you to practice your goosestep in. That is if they'll even allow you to post on their blog, LOLOL! By the way, I'm glad you left that e-mail above ;-)

Will,

Ok..I'll leave you alone. It appears all you have are insults.

Remember, I predicted that you could not answer about social security improving under President Bush. That's the reason the insults were flying.

And by the way, Sparky...The record economy I was referring to was under Clinton when you said the GOP Senate "trashed" all of those good bills during his term. At least TRY to keep up.

I won't be posting you again. Those folks reading this blog saw you get hammered on my social security question.

Later.

Will,

A little advice, when you call someone a dumbass bastard, use proper grammar. It is "you're one dumbass bastard", not "your one dumbass bastard".

Thanks.

aBigSam,

Nazi's? hmmm...I'm sure those folks were just "expressing opposition" when they were escorted out...

I have a few questions:

1) If Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in January 2001, does the levee break?

2) True or False: Social Security has improved dramatically under President Bush.

3) If Global Warming is causing these hurricanes, can you explain why there were more major hurricanes between 1940 and 1949 than there have been since 1991 thru present?

Thanks.

Democrats, is Howard Dean really the man that speaks for you? He has many accusations about future Chief Justice John Roberts, but he offers no examples of how he is evil (nor does he give any correlation to the evil deeds of Rove and Bush-if in fact there are any). Be an American and speak out for yourself and do not let this lunatic Howard Dean speak for you. If you Democrats are concerned for your own political future, than you should find another chairman for your party, one that is more along the ideological lines of mainstream America, not the far left, because America is not there. You are intelligent, conscious, and an informed people that can formulate your own opinions by reading and studying the facts for yourself. Howard Dean is a cancer to the Democratic Party and what he claims as your word hurts your cause. I am a registered Independant and describe myself as pragmatic, not ideological or politically motivated. George Bush is your President, like it or not, support him in his efforts to bring relief to the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts and support for our troops overseas, and vote for a better candidate in 2008. By the way, John Roberts is a good man, do not politicize his nomination because you are a card carrying sheep of the Democratic Party. If the Democratic message was strong enough in 2004, John Kerry would be nominating his own selection for Supreme Court Chief Justice and Associate Justice. The ball is in your court now, what are you going to do?

uslugg,

Thank you for your seemingly conscious advice. But the truth is that you must think you know better. Dean is a strong leader. He is not perfect. Nobody can expect a perfect leader. As long as he is dedicated to Democratic Party's cause, we should appreciate his effort. Yes, sometimes he may give over heated remarks, but I am content with such a loyal leader and hope he will continue to do well.

Thank you for your advice, even though I seriously think you should have better things to do than minding somebody else's business.

The thing that caught me first was Mr Deans comment "He's the wrong man at the wrong time for our country -- a trait that he shares with much of the Republican leadership, including the president who nominated him. Is this to say the voting American people are wrong? I do not see Mr Dean as a strong leader that the DNC needs. Mr Dean seems to push those of us who vote for the left and the right more to the right. with his hate and constant name calling he dose moore for the Right wing causes by making the DNC look out of touch with the American. This country needs strong leaders that is a sure thing, but Mr Deans "hate mail is only tearing us apart and has not fixed anything that this administartion has done. I must say that with the leadership I see to day(Both Republican and Democrate) I am scared for the future of are great nation.

do republicans get paid to write the crap they put up on this board?

RepblknDetctr,

Please feel free to refute any of the "crap" I posted. That's what a blog is for, right?

it defies logic that the dumbest president ever can pick the smartest judge for chief justice of the court. wake up people. demand your representative to fight this appointment.....roberts is a wolf in sheeps clothing

It's Republican wishful thinking (or just plain naive) to think Howard Dean's editorial against Roberts will hurt the Democrats in any meaningful way during the next election cycles. Roberts is going to win and many Democrats are going to vote for him. Howard Dean probably is well aware of this fact and is merely rallying the troops against the GOP and responding to the many voices calling for a tougher opposition party.

I'll take it on, Dash --

1.) If Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans in January 2001, does the levee break?
I don't have an answer to this one. However, I do think that regardless of whether the levee breaks, Bill Clinton understood poverty and compassion and the need for a meaningful evacuation plan more than anyone in the current Administration. As he said yesterday on This Week, poor people that don't have cars aren't going to get out without the help of government. A city of poor people isn't going to have a large budget to aid poor people. It has to come from the state and federal governments.

2.) True or False: Social Security has improved dramatically under President Bush.
Obviously, this is false. Nothing has dramatically improved under President Bush. He has no clue about how to deal with the ordinary Americans -- those that did not have their nest egg created for them in 1890.

3) If Global Warming is causing these hurricanes, can you explain why there were more major hurricanes between 1940 and 1949 than there have been since 1991 thru present?

I have not seen statistics that show this. I do think that the policies of the Administration favor an increase in pollutants in the air as compared to the Clinton years. This is a president that claims to care about the economy -- but if people are calling-in sick more often because of pollutants, the economy isn't benefiting from the pro-polluter policies. This is a president that relies on voluntary emission control. It's never worked. It's like voluntary poverty-fighting. It's never worked.

While we may have had larger hurricanes in the past, because we continue to pollute, we will have global climate changes until policies change.

matt,

Thanks for responding.

1. Us Conservatives love the way you try to pin the evacuation on Bush. When in fact, the State of Louisiana is in charge of evacuation. Its outlined in their official Evaucation Policy. Why weren't those school buses used? The levee would have broken in 2001. You must be honest with yourself.

2. According to your Democratic Party, social security has dramitically improved. In 1999, Bill Clinton said Social Security would be in trouble by 2013, broke by 2032. NOW, you Democrats are saying Social Security will be able to pay 100% until 2055. (I have the sources for those statement posted above.)

3. I guess you didnt' understand question #3. There are many prominent Democrats accusing Bush for causing Katrina. The NOAA Hurricane Center shows more major hurricanes in the '40's. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml?

A final note. I not a huge Bush fan..I don't like his spending, I don't like his immigration policy, I didnt' like him banning drilling of the Florida coast strictly for political reasons, and I certainly don't like the way he is guarding the borders. HOWEVER, you Bush Haters are blaming Bush for every single problem that has arisen since 2000. You blamed him for Enron, NYC Power outage, 911, AbuGaraib, Shuttle disaster, WMDs, secret oil deals with Saudi Princes, racism, AWOL, 60 Minutes Memo, etc. We ain't takin' it. I will challenge any and all of you with the facts.

Thanks,
Neal

Neal,

With all due respect, your attitude is your own worst enemy. Democrats are not the demons you have in your mind.

In your post of 02:09 PM, you admit that under the current Administration, the Republic is falling apart, yet you steadfastly refuse, in this face of this utter failure of GOP-led government, to do anything except bash Democrats (in the same negative way you characterize our actions). The national debt is soaring, the borders are inoperable, we are losing a war by almost any rational standard, and by the President's own admission, the Federal government's response to Katrina was "unacceptable." Yes, there were failures at all levels of government, but decisive action in the face of these failures was not seen at the very top. In the face of this reality, you are "not a huge Bush fan." That's all?

Democrats are not simply complainers, but we also do not have the majority we would need to do things our way. For example, Democrats in the Senate in fact presented a pro-active and positive plan for Katrina victims, as posted on the site. Yet you are certain Democrats only complain.

Furthermore, You also are politically naive if you think the GOP is not cracking apart at the seams, with conservatives outraged by this President's record. You should free your mind and turn your attention on your own party leadership, which frankly is reckless and out of control. Then you should take a hard look at voting for good Democrats in 2006 and 2008. Many Republicans are doing just that, I assure you.

Matt,

After one exchange with Dash, I know any further encounter would be a waste of time. Because this fellow was trying to defend the undefendable Bush administration by denying, distorting and manuipulating the facts. Since I can detect such intention, I decide not to pay attention and respond to such a fellow any more. In addition, here is not just any blog, but Democratic Party's official website.

Personally, I would and will not go to Republican party's official website to spread my agenda or intervene their flow of communications because I know I need to respect other's space, even those who I don't agree or despise.

Matt,

After one exchange with Dash, I know any further dialogue would be a waste of time. Because this fellow was trying to defend the undefendable Bush administration by denying, distorting and manuipulating the facts. Since I can detect such intention, I decide not to pay attention and respond to such a fellow any more.

In addition, here is not just any blog, but Democratic Party's official website. Personally, I would and will not go to the Republican party's official website to spread my agenda or intervene their communications because I know I need to respect other's space, even those who I don't agree or despise.

In addition, based on Dash's remark, it sounds like that he is so eager to weaken our unity and destroy our faith in our leaders. I just don't allow anybody with that type of intention to succeed.

Even being partisan, it doesn't mean that you should use any means to achieve your goals; communication can only work is based on honest debate; not distorted information.

Sorry I haven't responded in a while. My wife says that I drink too much when I respond to this sites comments...hic-cup!!!

To Perspective,
If you are ever in West-by-God Virginia, let me know and we will have that drink.

To May,
After re-reading my last post to you I would like to apologize for my "mean spirited" remarks. I still stand by my thoughts but I shouldn't have ribbed you that hard. If you are nice, I will buy you a drink too.

To Nash,
I haven't had enough to drink today to respond to you. Although you do raise some good points. The levee still would have broken; the federal governments response would have been the same; both parties have switched their stances on SS (we now say it is fine and the Republicans say it isn't/when ten years ago we held the opposite view and so did the GOP); there were more hurricanes in the forties, but to defend May and Matt, big whoop.

The simple fact is that the US coastline is more heavily developed and populated now than it was in the forties. As such, the potential for damage is greater. Yeah there were more storms back then but today's storms cost society much more.

Frostie

Concerned_Citizen,

Republic falling apart? That's hilarious.

I cited some issues I disagree with the President and you equate that with the Republic falling apart.

Let't talk about attitude, shall we?
Howard Dean said "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for". Is that the attitude to win elections?

You say you are "pro-active"? Here's a challenge:
Cite for me the Democrat's plan to lower energy costs.

No matter what condition the GOP is in, according to you, the Democrats can't capitalize on it. Howard Dean won't let the Democrats who can actually disagree with you and not accuse you of wanting to poison children run for office. We're "evil", remember? Another quote from Dean.

I would have voted for Evan Bayh or Harold Ford...probably Obama....Maybe Corzine....But John Kerry? Are you kidding me? FlipFlopping on National Security loses my vote every time. John Edwards talked about "2 Americas - the rich and poor" yet Edwards uses a tax loophole to avoid paying over $600,000 in taxes to Medicare.

Bring back John Breaux..I'd vote for him tomorrow. OU President Boren is another Democrat I'd vote for. But right now, the "Hate Wing" of the Democratic Party is running the show and you want to talk about my attitude.

I'll never forget the DNC ad where those children were asking for more arsenic in their water accusing Bush of wanting to poison children. PLEASE promise me you will continue that.

As far as the GOP, Biden & Kennedy's blatant hypocrisy was exposed last week when tapes of them saying Supreme Court nominees didn't have to answer questions...But now, when a Republican is being questioned, those 2 now say they HAVE to answer questions.

There GOP will gain seats again in 2006 and it will be McCain Prez in '08. Dean will get booted and your party will start putting up the level-headed Democrats, such as Bayh, Ford, & Obama for elections.

Thanks and have a good day.

Frostie,

I'll buy you a drink too.....

Thanks for the response.

Frostie,

I'll buy you a drink too.....

Thanks for the response.

Neal

First, not all Democrats speak for all Democrats. I am sure that you do not allign yourself with Tom DeLay (or, for that matter, Christine Todd Whitman). Having said that, I am not sure where or how you learned that Bill Clinton said, in 1999, that Social Security would be broke in 2013. I believe that what he said was that Social Security would begin to take in less than it disbursed. This, of course, is not saying that Social Security would be broke. The trust fund started by Congressional Democrats (to the opposition of Reagan) in the 1980s was designed to minimize the baby boomer retirement effects. I believe that the most current data state that the trust fund can make it till between 2040 and 2070.

I am not an expert in the area, but I do know that privatizing will do NOTHING to address the fiscal status of social security. As long as there is a benefit guarantee, social security will have to be funded.

I find amusing your comments about President Bush's "spending." You claim you don't like his policy. I suspect, based on your other views, you think Bush spends too much. I agree that he spends too much in certain areas. For example, I would cut about three-quarters of what he's spending in Iraq and I would fund No Child Left Behind. One way we prevent terror, Neal, is we educate our citizens. Asking teachers to work for $20 grand is not going to result in an increase in qualified teachers.

I agree with you that Bush spends too much on other things, too. How about anything else pertaining to Homeland Security? Do those cops in Wyoming really need to have bullet prove vests and masks designed to assist in the event of chemical warfare? I doubt it. In fact, almost all of Homeland Security expenditures are a joke -- except for the one certainty: FEMA. That is why I am so discouraged about the direction of our country. We know natural disasters will happen and we appoint Michael Brown as the agency's head. Nuts. Meanwhile, people who do actually know things -- guys like Joseph Wilson, a career diplomat -- are trashed if they don't agree with Bush.

As you said above, we ain't takin' it anymore.

Dash, you're nuts if you think the Radical Right of the Republican Party will tolerate a McCain candidacy. It's going to be Jeb. He's got the money. He's got the connections. And' he ain't going to let his dumb older brother be the only Bush kid that's president.

keep fighting for whats right howard Your editorial about the Roberts nomination is right on the mark. This is why I supported you to be the chairman of the democratic party. Thank you for doing an excelent job for the democratic party.

matt,

Ok...You seem honest so I'm assuming you were in error.

I said that Bill Clinton said that social security would be in trouble by 2013, broke by 2032. I never said that Clinton said SS would be broke byt 2013. Let's clear it up: Here are Clinton's exact words from his 1999 State of the Union Speech:
"Today, Social Security is strong. But by 2013, payroll taxes will no longer be sufficient to cover monthly payments. And by 2032, the trust fund will be exhausted, and Social Security will be unable to pay out the full benefits older Americans have been promised. "

I define "exhausted" as broke. But now, Harry Reid, on Meet the Press, said the following:
"SEN. REID: Tim, all experts say that Social Security beneficiaries will receive every penny of their benefits that they're entitled to--100 percent of them--until the year 2055. After that, if we still do nothing, they'll draw 80 percent of their benefits. For heaven's sakes, they're crying wolf a little too regularly here. There is not an emergency on Social Security."

You would cut funding to Iraq by 3/4's? Where to begin on that one. Our men and women are there. We can debate why on and on, but they're there. Don't cut off money. I can just see Democrats ripping Bush for not funding more body armor for the troops.

It probably wouldnt' be smart for you and I to discuss education. I send my kids to private school. I think the NEA is a waste of money.

Question (seriously): Were you pissed at Clinton for not paying those teachers more than $20,000?

In my opinion, educating our citizens will have no deterrent on terrorism. There are radical muslims that want us dead. Regardless of how many A students we have.

Joe Wilson contradicted himself. The bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee report pretty much shown the light on Mr. Wilson. And yes, I think Karl Rove lied his ass off. Treason? Nope. Lied? Yes.

I'll wager you a cyber beer that McCain is the man. McCain stumped for Bush in '04. That oughta tell you everything.

Thanks.
Neal

Frostie94,

Say your from WV? Where from, as I live right across the bridge from Huntington which as you know has probably taken some of the worst hits from the Bush administration? I know of several factories here that are know floundering and on the verge of bankruptcy. As you probably know, in Huntington, you cant buy a good paying job in an industrial plant anymore. Same as over here in Ironton, OH, or down in Ashland, Ky. The only employment is either working in a fast food joint or in nursing since a good number of the states hospitals are here. However, nursing does pay better than McDonalds, it's nothing like it should be. LPN's only make around $9.00 an hour, and nurses aides around $7.00. Several machine shops here only pay about $7.50 even after working for 2-3 years. I myself worked at ACF Industries as a plant electrician before they sent all their work to Arkansas where they pay a certified welder there a whopping $8.00 an hour. When I was there, I made $12.98 an hour in 1989, and the production line workers made more than that after bonus (around $16.00 if I remember). INCO Alloys sold out their plant to another company and under Bush they took bankruptcy and had them send the case before a republican federal court judge in Ky, which ruled for them against the unions contract. You know the retirees lost their medical benefits because of this? I wonder why they didn't hear the case in Huntington as the federal court sets across from city hall. That same judge in Ky. is where AT Massey Coal has went to bust up the UMWA everytime they got a chance. ACF just recently tried the same ploy but was collared about it and forced to try it in Huntington. ACF swears they cant get a "fair" trial here, wonder why? Right now, the old Inco plant, now Special Metals changed hands yet again, and rumors of massive layoffs are in the wind. Well really all over the local news. I was just wondering if you had heard about all of this?

Will Matney, Ohio

Frostie,

You're a breath of fresh air here. There are many of us Democrats who agree with you. Keep up the good work!

Sorry for being off topic but whoever considered my senator, Evan Bayh presidential caliber (Dash?), all I gotta say is I love you! I would love to see him as our next president. Probably won't happen, but I can hope.

Joanne

joanne,

Yes, it was me who said Evan Bayh would make a great President. I'd vote for him tomorrow. A Bayh/Edwards ticket would have been tough to defeat. But unfortunately for Edwards, he was required to get nasty during the campaign and he's damaged good. Harold Ford would make a great VP candidate with Bayh. Bring out John Breaux from Louisiana....Sold candidates. (Imagine all of this coming from a staunch Republican)

Boy, Dash, reading your posts is a beautiful thing. This is like a transcript of every political argument I have had with my looneyleft mother-in-law over the past 10 years (without the name calling which she has managed to control a little better now over the last few years...Being the compassionate conservative that I am I have forgiven her for her past political intolerances;). I just simply beat her into submission with questions based in hard facts and only accept an answer based in hard facts when she gets on a nutty roll about Bush,et al. It drives her batty and into a rage much like you have done to some folks here b/c they simply can't answer the damn questions.

Just take the looneylefts favorite target of Halliburton you mentioned...and Clinton giving hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of no-bid contracts to Halliburton over his 8 years during the multiple conflicts. Along with every other stinking modern day president! Exactly why was that ok then under everyone else but not now??? It just flat out shoots down the garbage rhetoric spewed by the likes of Dean and the former DNC Chief Terry. Smart guys who use their smarts to divide while knowing simple facts are there that contradict exactly what they are screaming about. I think that is called being....disingenuous. Defines the Dem leadership these days. Thus loss after loss piles up fortunately.

That's why I am so darn entertained here reading your prose. It is those irrefutable facts you throw out here that blow holes in their meat and potato mantras. And it sends fellas like matt into a frenzy of name calling and hate you and your momma rages.

Keep up the outstanding work Dash. I do have to say that I too know of several reasonable and intelligent dems that I could live with leading this country. Unfortunately, they are just a bunch of "Uncle Tom's" if they don't tow the company line. Just like this blog illustrates.

looneyleft,

Uh, what makes you think I was mad? That is the way I normally talk to anyone whether they like it or not. You've never seen me mad and most likely would not want to. Matter of fact, the whole time I was replying to your little red brethern cronie, I was lauging at the true ignorance he, and your party are guilty of. Ignorance is the correct word here as you IGNORE the true facts. Dash there, never did answer one question I asked him after he asked all those to other people the same. What's good for the goose is good for the gander! All he did was answer a question with a question. Matter of fact, I did answer his call to tell one lie Roberts told during his hearing. I think your party prefers the word waffeling here though. Actually, he reminded me of Roberts being drilled at his hearing where he flat refused to answer anything incriminating! He knows, you know, and your party knows not one thing ever happened to help the poor, womens rights, minorities, or workers rights under a republican president without it being politacally motivated. I'll ask you the same question, name any republican president that anything ever happened under their administration to help either of the above without it being politically motivated? I can only think of two things right off the bat and sure wont answer your question for you or Dash Riprock. Both times, the president had political motivations and or was forced by the majority of the working people to do something. Which parties presidents had more bills made into law for the poor, workers rights, womens rights, discrimination laws, and health and welfare? I'd like to know the facts on these questions with the dates they happened. Now I'll guarantee neither of you, or any other republican will answer that. The reason why, your ashamed to.

It was on NBC news today again, Bush would not raise taxes to help pay for Katrinas wrath, he now is going to make more cuts to programs like the new prescription plan and Medicade! He flat will not make any of you fat rich cats pay any of the bill, but put it on the shoulders of poor handicapped folks like myself and our children to come. I know what the bible says about that and I can tell you, at the end of time your in for a BIG surprise. Your party supposed to be the party that the Christian Coalition is backing so why not act like Christians instead of Deamons? What the GOP wants is a one party ruled country who controls free speech, and the liberty of every human being on this continent. By the way you run your blog, plus the way your director of the PBS acted a while back, you want to only shove your view down everyones throat without ones like us countering you. If it ever could happen, the republican party would like to control all media, TV, and newspapers ONLY showing their bull shit. I remember this being done well in other countries, they are Russia, Germany, China, and Italy. I think there's a word for this, ummmm let me think, oh yea COMMUNISM!

Get them jack boots polished up guys and practice that goose step. Bush will want all of you to march down Pensylvania Ave before he's out of office.

Nuff Said

Gov. Dean,

Thank you for courageously speaking truth to power. Unfortunately, the Senate Democrats will probably waffle and wimp out. It is a disgrace that Roberts was not hammered hard and rebuked for both his career as an extremist and his utter contempt for the advise and consent function of the confirmation hearings. Please, Gov. Dean, continue to hit hard on Roberts. The Democrats who vote for him will be voting for end to reproductive rights for women, and so much more...Please continue to fight, Gov. Dean, especially because the Senate Democrats refuse to stand up to the Bush Abomination...Katrina? Iraq? 9/11? Enron? Kyoto? Florida? Ohion? When will they wake up to their responsiblity to protect the people and refuse to collaborate with this illegitimate, incompentent and corrupt regime?

Gov. Dean,

Thank you for courageously speaking truth to power. Unfortunately, the Senate Democrats will probably waffle and wimp out. It is a disgrace that Roberts was not hammered hard and rebuked for both his career as an extremist and his utter contempt for the advise and consent function of the confirmation hearings. Please, Gov. Dean, continue to hit hard on Roberts. The Democrats who vote for him will be voting for end to reproductive rights for women, and so much more...Please continue to fight, Gov. Dean, especially because the Senate Democrats refuse to stand up to the Bush Abomination...Katrina? Iraq? 9/11? Enron? Kyoto? Florida? Ohion? When will they wake up to their responsiblity to protect the people and refuse to collaborate with this illegitimate, incompentent and corrupt regime?

rpower,

You seem to forget that Senators Biden & Kennedy once said that Supreme Court Nominees didn't have to answer questions about the issues. Now, when its a Republican being questioned, those same 2 DEMAND answers. You can't be more hypocritical.

Roberts will be voting to "end reproductive rights of women"? Huh?

loonyleft,

Thanks a bunch.

Folks like Will_Matney crack me up. He keeps claiming I didn't answer any of his questions when in fact I did. He asked 2 questions in his first post. Here they are: "Tell me one republican president who has done one thing for the poor without it being politically motivated?" Is that a loaded question or not? Everything every President does is politically motivated.

Then, he asked:
"Also, tell me one republican surpreme court justice that sided with anyone who was either poor, union, or a minority?"
I was very clear on my answer: If a Supreme Court Justice rules on just the poor or minority, that's discrimination. I then asked for him to cite a case that has been in front of the US Supreme Court that was solely designed to help the poor. Well..you can guess he wasn't forthcoming with an answer, only insults.

Just read Will_Matney's "lie" he supposedly has on Roberts. Talk about comic relief.

I pounded Will_Matney with the facts on Social Security and he clammed up pretty quick. He went on a rage loaded with personal attacks. I just laugh at that person and move on.

may2002 said I distorted the facts. She's lying. I have not distorted a single fact.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

Neal

Folks -

Dash is the lunatic "Dijhili" who posted to this space a few months back. His style of cooking megadittohead script into a smug recipe of pseudo-facts "liberally" spiced with the favorite Republican mantra - you know the one..."Bbbbut Clinton..." is unmistakeable. He's a Bush baby, and as a consequence he is either bigoted, filled with venemous rage for all "towel heads", or possibly so greedy that he is willing to ignore all the failures of this administration becuase he got some chump change in the form of tax cuts, or in some form of narcolepsy brought on by years of Clinton hatred, or just plain stupid, or all of the above.

He is to be ignored. He's the irksome, misbehaved wailing brat who lives next door. You have to listen to him, unfortunately, but there's nothing you can do about the noise.

Oh - and Dijhili - please spare me the imperious "you haven't answered one question I've asked" act, OK? I've done it before, and when I did, you just turned and ran like the sissy that you are. But chew on these, Bush baby:

1,000's Americans dead and maimed in Iraq looking for fictitious WMD's
10'000's Iraqis dead because they got in the way.
Millions in tax breaks for the upper 1% of Americans.
Billions in profits made by consumer gouging oil buddies
A trillion in new national debt.
New Orleans drowned.
Bush played a round.

You like this guy? Fine. You're still allowed to be stupid in this country. But I hate the motherfucker, and I have no apologies for that.

Now, run along and spend your tax cut. After all, that's what your bold, decisive leader told Americans to do after the 911 attacks. I'm sure it will work now, too.

Only one reason needed to reject Roberts. He was nominated by Bush! Has Bush done anything at all to inspire confidence?

After reading Dean's letter and the comments on this official democrat site I can see why you people are the minority party. Get ready to go back out to the woodshed in '06.

Thanks, ReagansGhost. Your overconfidence is inspiring. Check back after the 2008 presidential election and see which party is the minority party.

Concerned_Citizen,

We've been hearing that since 1994. As long as your party's only message is "We Hate Bush", you ain't winnnin' nothin.

Right now, it looks like Hillary. Or, perhaps Kerry. Do you honestly think any of those can win a Red State?

We just hope you run on the "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for" (quote from Mr. Dean).

Could Hillary Clinton win a Red State? Well, Arkansas is a Red State, so she must know something about Red State politics. Her husband sure does, because he won Red States. Twice. I have no idea how the Democratic Party will run, but I'm looking forward to finding out.

I think Gov. Dean is doing the Democratic Party a disservice with this type of letter. There is no evidence to suggest that John Roberts in an extemist. The fact that he worked for Reagan means nothing, he was a Republican and its natural for him to work for their leader. Roberts worked pro bono in preparation of Romer v. Evans, a case involving gay rights that no right wing extremist would have taken.

If we're ever going to have a government that truly works for us, we need to be able to have a national dialogue, an honest dialogue. When the Republicans have a good idea we should be able to say so and vice versa. It is wrong to oppose a nominee just b/c a Republican nominated him, look at Justice Souter and Justice Stevens, both Republican nominees but you'd never know it.

We should save our outrage for a time when its necessary, or else we're going to be percieved as crying wolf when a real outrage comes up.

Dash --

I was pissed at Clinton for not insisting that we pay teachers real money. BUT, Clinton had a Republican Congress for six years. They don't care about public schools -- or most "public" things besides national defense contracts to Halliburton and to other large construction firms that get to work in Iraq -- that safe haven.

On to other topics. With respect to Social Security, Clinton was taking his statistics from the 1999 Trust Fund Report. You sound mildly bright. Clinton took the language directly from the Trust Fund Report. I have quoted the language below, but you can consult the actual report at this website. http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/TR99/trih.html#pgfId=1516

Although the combined trust funds are well financed over the next 10 years, the OASDI program is not in close actuarial balance over the full 75-year projection period and therefore does not meet the long-term solvency test. The estimated actuarial balance is a deficit of 2.07 percent of taxable payroll over the next 75 years, based on the intermediate assumptions. The combined OASI and DI Trust Funds would become exhausted in 2034 without corrective legislation. At that time, annual tax revenues of the combined trust funds would be less than expenditures by 5.02 percent of taxable earnings and would be sufficient to cover only 71 percent of annual expenditures.

Now, this year's report is different. I have quoted it below, but make this comment: you Republicans are exactly as Al Franken said: Lying Liars.

Under current law the cost of Social Security will soon begin to increase faster than the program's income, because of the aging of the baby-boom generation, expected continuing low fertility, and increasing life expectancy. Based on the Trustees' best estimate, program cost will exceed tax revenues starting in 2017 and throughout the remainder of the 75-year projection period. Social Security's combined trust funds are projected to allow full payment of benefits until they become exhausted in 2041. At that time annual tax income to the trust funds is projected to equal about 74 percent of program costs. Separately, the OASI and DI funds are projected to have sufficient funds to pay full benefits on time until 2043 and 2027, respectively. By 2079, however, annual tax income is projected to be only about two-thirds as large as the annual cost of the OASDI program.

With respect to Iraq, I compare it to Vietnam and think that is right on point. When we were embedded in Vietnam, no one could imagine getting out of it. "On No," they cried, "We'll lose Saigon and the North will spread communism everywhere!" Now, it's, "Oh no, we'll lose Baghdad and the terrorists will capture it and attack us." It's nuts.

We have adequate defenses to prevent a terrorist attack from Baghdad. Moreover, the Iraqis need to take control of their country: our men and women dealing with car bombs on a daily basis is not a good solution. Once upon a time, we had a CIA and we had sound intelligence that directed our leaders. We dealt with the Soviet empire for seven decades. Now we have "leaders" directing the intelligence. It's dangerous -- largely because the intelligence should direct the resources.

concerned citizen,

I guess our overconfidence has been inspiring you since '94, which is how long I've been listening to you dumb-ocrats say "we're going to win next time" and then snivel when you lose. Bubba won 2 three way races without ever winning a majority of votes, other than that you haven't won a thing in going on 12 years. Please, please, please nominate Hillary in '08.

concerned citizen,

I guess our overconfidence has been inspiring you since '94, which is how long I've been listening to you dumb-ocrats say "we're going to win next time" and then snivel when you lose. Bubba won 2 three way races without ever winning a majority of votes, other than that you haven't won a thing in going on 12 years. Please, please, please nominate Hillary in '08.

Big Stan,

Thanks for your comments. You should be able to see from mine above that I fully agree with you. If ever there was a time to thank Bush, this is it.

John Roberts, while certainly conservative, probably will not be any different than Anthony Kennedy. Roberts is a good jurist and a bright man and someone that has the intellect and leadership skills to run a productive Supreme Court. Sure, he may turn into Nino Scalia or Clarence Thomas. Any nominee can do this. Take a look at Earl Warren, who was appointed by Eisenhower. Look at William Brennan, another Republican appointee. Meanwhile, there was Justice Byron White, appointed by President Kennedy. He turned out to favor overturning Roe.

I think the name of the game is wualifications. Is the nominee well qualified? If so, the Congress should confirm him/her. Now, there are exceptions. Judge Bork was an extremist who opposed Brown (and announced this fact). He opposed most civil rights laws, too, arguing that the public itself -- and not the courts -- should step in. The problem with this logic, of course, is that we have a Constitution. The public cannot enact laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution.

While the Court is not a public policy branch, it is the place to evaluate Constitutional arguments. And, each justices job is to evaluate every case based on the record before him/her. John Roberts has this ability and he should be confirmed.

matt,

You still don't get it. What a shocker.

I am directly challenging you to cite 1 lie I have told about Social Security. I gave 2 comments from Clinton and Reid. I gave their exact quote and a source.

You have now been challenged to cite any lie I have posted about Social Security.

The entire blog will watch you dodge thaq question.

Dumocrats. LOL. ReagansGhost, you truly are a nasty person and a bully. That does not speak well for your Party. And have you ever heard the expression, "Careful what you wish for, because you just might get it?" Are you smart enough to know why you should care about this expression? One thing GOP bullies like you should realize is that the Democratic Party is on the move and we're not afraid of your name-calling, schoolyard bully attitudes.

Will, you and Baron are a couple of seriously angry and paranoid dudes. The bitterness just blows me away. Anyway, to your question Will about 1 positive thing any repub president has done for the poor, women,minorities, etc....

Wow. See we have such different philosophical views that what I view as positive will actually be negative in your view. Thus our main problem here. But you asked so I will tell you a few under Bush alone.

1.Bush tax cuts. Fact is top 1% of the evil taxpayers pay 34% of ALL income taxes in this country. When Bush cut taxes (and for that matter Reagan also), MILLIONS of the lowest income Americans were dropped off the tax rolls all together. Get this FACT. The top 50% of wage earners in this country pay 96.03% of all income taxes. The bottom 50% of earners pay 3.97%. Get it. He put more money directly into the poor's pockets for them to have an opportunity to live a better life. Many of which are women and minorities. You will never get the value of that.

2. Under Bush policies, homeownership is at an ALL TIME HIGH. This goes for blacks, women, and low income earners. Many programs exist now under Bush that make it easier for those in low income households to own a home, thus the record numbers.This is FACT and a very beneficial one at that for low incomers.

3. Prescription Drug Plan. Not perfect, and damned expensive, but something that your dems only talked about forever and ever. The old folks are the beneficiaries in this one.

4. Welfare Reform (under Clinton, but if you recall it was literally JAMMED down his throat by the Republican congress). Too many positive outcomes for the minorities as a result to mention here.

5. Bush increasing the federal education budget by 38% in his first term. 38%!!!!! You guys should be loving that, but for your bitterness. Get it? a lot of that went to poor schools, after school programs, etc. Get it yet? That is a strangely positive policy from a republican who hates black and poor people isn't it??

My few minutes are up now. Gotta run. But there's a quick few answers off the top of my head. Your wonderful liberal policies are on full display right now in the city of New Orleans. The place is a microcosm of what liberal policy breeds for the poor and minorities of this country. As much as your party claims to care so deeply about the poor in this country, your policies do nothing but keep them where they are, cycle after cycle.

Proof of this lies in this final FACT. As minorities are able to pull themselves out of that vicious liberal cycle and become self sufficient (no matter how many times the liberal leaders tell they are helpless and worthless and can never do it without their leadership)they statistically become more and more republican. And that scares the hell out you libs. You NEED the poor and minorities in this country to stay poor b/c when they succeed they leave your cycle of government dependency and you LOSE like you are now.

Thus, we have to hear your pathetic, idea starved leaders puke out how we Repubs are all racist jack booted thugs every election cycle. There is your answer Will.

Dash

You lie like Fox et. al. lie. You say that Bill Clinton said this in 1999 and now the Democrats are saying something different in 2005. Yet you omit important facts, like the fact that the 1999 Trust Fund Report supported Clinton's words and the 2005 Trust Fund Report supported the Democrats comments. If you omit these key facts, the reader is left with the conclusion that Democrats are misleading the public on social security.

The real liar in this, of course, lives and works at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Here is what he said in

Let me put it in terms of dollars for you. In 2017, the system goes into the red. In other words, more benefits going out than payroll taxes coming in. In about 2027, it's about $200 billion short. In other words, every year from 2017, the red -- the red -- the deficit gets larger and larger and larger. In 2027, it's $200 billion. In the 2030's, it's about $300 billion. In 2041, the system is bust.

As indicated above, however, the system isn't "bust" in 2041. The system simply will have to pay fewer-than-promised benefits to beneficiaries if we don't correct it. Of course, we could just subject the dollars over $97,000 to social security tax and that would correct the short-term problem for sure. . . . The horror of tax increases.

Here is another Republican lie, put out by Bush in his speech in Atlanta in July:

Here's the problem: First of all, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system. In other words, there's not a trust. Some people think, well, Social Security is the kind of deal where the government takes your money and holds it for you and then gives it back to you when you retire. No, the government takes your money and spends it. (Laughter.) It's called pay-as-you-go. You pay, and we go ahead and spend. (Laughter.) And what's left is a file cabinet full of IOUs to future generations. I know firsthand about the file cabinets. I went to West Virginia and looked at them. (Laughter.) You'll be happy they're there. (Laughter.) But there's not real assets in them -- it's paper.

Bush fails to tell the audience, of course, that this is how our government operates -- on IOUs. We spend money long before we collect the revenue. Moreover, we spend much more than we take in. And, do you know how we pay for that deficit? With IOUs. Yes, with government bonds, backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Sure, they are "paper", but do you know how many times the government has defaulted on this paper? Never. Not once, folks.

Dash, you lie the way Republicans, generally, lie. You state a few convenient facts and then lead us to what seems to be the only conclusion. Of course, life is a bit more complicated than that. . . .

matt,

Now we're gettin' somewhere.

You just got busted. If you would have paid attention, you would have noticed that I provided the source for both comments. I never said that the Democrats were misleading the country on Social Security. That's your lie #1. Quite the contrary. I was proclaiming Clinton's and Reid's statements AS TRUE! Come on, Sparky. I was saying social security improved under Bush. The only way for my statement to be accurate is to ACKNOWLEDGE BOTH CLINTON AND REID WERE TELLING THE TRUTH!. So your bogus claim that I accused Clinton & Reid of misleading about SS has been soundly refuted. I stated the direct opposite.

Only when you guys TRY to be honest will you have a chance at winning elections.

The fact remains: Clinton gave a date of 2032 for social security's woes and Reid gave a date of 2055 - that is a marked improvement. Of course, when I ask you to explain why the Democrats said Social Security improved, you immediately started with the personal attacks. Typical.

I am shocked at some of the responses on this site. It varies from intellectual to infantile. Don't you know all that "we the people have" been turning a blind eye to almost all of what happens in Washington? Turning a blind eye to the constitution and our rights being mutilated? Most people have no clue that Washington is bought and sold by the largest corporations and the elitist 1%. It is a complete shame. This is not about Republicans or Democrats- They both function the same way and if you think for a moment one is more honest then the other you are a fool. Howard Dean has been outspoken about what the republican party is doing, and yes it's criminal! However, would he be so outspoken about the democratic party if they were doing the same things? I would not place bets on it. Honesty is never truly welcome since it is a double edged sword that cuts both ways to reveal the truth, and that is something no politician likes.

Youch! Dash, yet another nice job. Waiting for a response to that one regarding SS.

Nothing but the sound of crickets from you Will regarding your last rant about evil repub administrations. Well it has become the MO of your party. Throw out your nasty racial bombs, 'richest 1%' class warfare tax bombs, your starve the old folks bombs, etc.. regardless of all realities and with no accountability for your accusations.

Divide, divide, divide, attack, attack, attack. Lose, lose, lose. Keep it up.

How is it that we, as the world's only super power, haven't been able to come up with a half-way decent presidential candidate in years (certainly the last 2 elections)? There is this ugly divide based on misinformation and distortion and it's not going to go away soon. I certainly see it in some of the posts here. Some people honestly hate all Republicans and some, all Democrats. And you see it in Congress as well. Stupid. How is this great country served by this?

My hopes for the next election is that at least one party can put up a good strong candidate. My dream election would be my senator Evan Bayh against John McCain. I could be really happy with either as president. If only John McCain had been the Republican nominee in 2000... where would we be now? I think, at the very least, Repubs and Dems would more likely be working together. I know many Democrats would have voted for him, myself included. And I wouldn't be here right now...

Just my 2-cents worth. Toodles.

Joanne

Joanne- I agree. It would be nice to have better choices. I am not a Democrat or a Republican so I vote on who I feel is the most competent. Bush has failed his way through life and in to the presidency and took every low life crooked politician with him. At the rate he is going we are all in trouble. Hopefully if we get a better person in office in 2008 then it will be time to clean up, and and no one will see better times for a while even when we are making progress. Every great empire does fall and hopefully Bush is not our stumbling block.

SeniorMumps,
With this administration's incompetence and our Congress' love of pork, this country is headed straight off a cliff. We need to make some hard choices spending-wise and yes, raise taxes. We are at war in 2 countries plus paying out billions to rebuild after Katrina and who knows how much more for Rita, which is not looking good.

The ever excellent Fareed Zakaria wrote a "dead on" column in last week's Newsweek. If you haven't read it, see: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9379241/

Joanne- Thanks for the article. It was excellent.

(Tonight's the Season Premiere of The Apprentice. I'll put a little Trump input into this conversation while I'm at it, even though Martha's Apprentice premiered last night. Here goes...)

That was indeed a good article. But these are better (and they show that Trump's business lessons DO apply to politics):

http://www.msnbc.com/id/5436341/

http://www.architectureink.com/tirade/donaldtrump.htm

Joanne, you said that this Congress' incompetence is forcing this country to fall on its back. And it's all because that the Right Wing that currently controls the country isn't leading with either dignity or authority. And being decisive and wrong doesn't mix. Here goes.

Trump's Business Lesson #1: He says that a good leader needs to lead with dignity and authority. And since we've been paying attention to what's been going on, you can guarantee the big money politicians such as the Right Wing certainly have lacked authority and dignity, and that's going to change next year. But that change must start NOW.

Trump's Business Lesson #2: It's not just good to be decisive. The results must come out good for that decisiveness to win you support. This is like the war in Iraq: It may have been decisive to go with the assumptions of WMD's and Iraq's nnections to 9-11. The results, however, have been deadly; because of course, there were no WMD's, and number 2, Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11.

John,
Just to clarify, I said this administration's incompetence not Congress. I am no lover of this president.

I sent a letter to Editor today, but used my husband's name because it is not over the 6 weeks they make you wait for a 2nd letter:

"The upcoming vote on John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, should be a troublesome thing for all Americans!

Why would the White House only release 10% of all his past records? Why has the Dept. of Justice refused the Freedom of Information request by the DNC to obtain information on Judge Robert's past? Does anyone really think when John Roberts met in May with Bush and Cheney, that he refused to answer questions like he did to the Senate committee? You think Bush and Cheney do not know they are placing a Right Wing Ideologue into our highest court!

Supporters of Judge Roberts keep citing his high intellect! As though an IQ and past law experience, would make him a good choice for a position where this man will have the opportunity to determine rulings on US laws which will affect our lives for the next 35 years! As though because he is intelligent he would never allow himself to view a case based on his own feelings on an issue.

If you care about your rights, your children's future rights, even your grandchildren's future rights, then you should contact your Senators immediately and tell them to Vote No on John Roberts and to encourage their fellow Senators to do the same.

There is no evidence to suggest that John Roberts in an extemist

Then WHY did the White House only give 10% of his past records! Why has the Dept of Justice refused the DNC freedom of Information requests?
What are they hiding? Why, if Judge Roberts is such an intelligent wonderful person, would he not answer questions? He should demand to the White House that his ethics will not allow him to be subversive and he wants to be honest. What kind of honor does this man have?

Looking over the responses to Dean's Letter, once again, I'm thinking.. "the blind do not want to see"...The same old language, "offended," "no evidence", "looneyleft," "paranoid."
These were the same responses that were given each time that Dean told it like it is...and now the Democrats who had criticized Dean for speaking up are repeating his statements like a script.

Joanne,

Well, the Administration's incompetence is also forcing the country to fall on its back.

I know you're no lover of this President. Neither am I, and I don't think the Donald is either (regardless of how he voted).

I posted those Trump articles, to show that his business lessons also apply to politicians (and yes, being a politician IS a job).

That 2nd article that I posted says that it's not just good enough to be decisive. Being decisive and wrong just don't mix, and could lead to a nose-dive in support for the President, just like it is now.

For example, he may have been decisive in choosing Roberts for any Supreme Court decision (Chief Justice or not), but he was WRONG in doing so. And as the article suggests, it just doesn't add up to be decisive and wrong.

I am a Christian and will vote for the true Christian everytime. A true Christian doesn't lie, steal, kill, deceive, or sin without repentance to all you have harmed and repentance toward God through Jesus Christ. Jesus said the most sinful amoung us are those that would deceive you into thinking they are true Christians and inside they are raving wolves. The first sin they commit before your eyes and they don't repent but are secret about all their real intentions, don't you know were you have erred? What does God say about the deceiver and the deceived? Is it as sinful to support a sinful person as it is to sin yourself? Now if he hasn't said he is a good Christian, you haven't supported a lie, but if you wear the flag of a Christian and do evil, even if good comes from it, have you sinned? It is best that all Christians learn the answer to these questions?

Now let me make this perfectly clear. I'm not a Democrat. I a Statehood Green who voted for John Kerry in the last election and, up to this point, has usually voted for Democrats. I say this because I want everyone reading this to know that I don't feel obliged to the party. This brings me to the Senate Judiciary Commitee. According to excellent sources, I hear certain among the Democratic ranks of said commitee are considering saving thier strength for the battle over Sandra Day O' Conner's spot rather than fully opposing Roberts. I will not support this at all. This is an all or nothing fight and I fully expect every member on that commitee, especially the Democrats, to fight the Roberts nomination tooth and nail. I expect any Democrat who intends on seeing the White House in their lifetimes to do the same. I realize I sound harsh, but Democratic policy keeps creeping toward centrist politics and as a result, we're losing members. So from now on we stick to the truth, bold and unapologetic. Trust me, it's the only way past this neo-conservative thing.

John,
I agree that being decisive is not a good thing in and of itself. I personally don't judge anyone based on their "decisiveness". Whether Bush was decisive in his selection of Roberts is irrelevant. Whether I agree with him politically is irrelevant. It's the end result. Does he fulfill the Court's requirements? In my opinion, he does. He is no ideologue, his credentials are impressive, and he seems supremely capable of being impartial. I have not seen one iota of evidence that there would be any "dire" consequences for the rights of women, minorities or what-have-you once Roberts is on the court. It is truly surreal that I am actually supporting Bush on anything, but based on everything I've read and heard I see no reason that he should not be on the Supreme Court. It looks like Senate comfirmation will be a breeze. It's time to get over it and move on.

Archangel- "So from now on we stick to the truth, bold and unapologetic." That is the way!

As a democrat and an American who seeks to improve the social and economic lives of all Americans through faithfully supporting democratic leaders who swore to uphold the constitution of the United States and to serve the interests of the American people.

I am truly appaled by this vote today because this vote was in support of a person, who is in my opinion anti constitutional, anti-American, and anti-people who don't have a lot of money.

This is how his views stack up:

John Roberts

Senate Panel Endorses Roberts

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/22/...ain878392.shtml
================================
One Thousand Reasons Not to Vote For Roberts

Here's how Roberts Views stack up.

http://www.thousandreasons.org/article_sea...=John%20Roberts

21 Democrats Vote Confirmation John Roberts

Max Baucus, Montana

Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico

Robert Byrd, West Virginia

Kent Conrad, North Dakota

Tom Carper, Delaware

Christopher Dodd, Connecticut

Byron Dorgan, North Dakota

Russ Feingold, Wisconsin

Tim Johnson, South Dakota

Herb Kohl, Wisconsin

Mary Landrieu, Louisiana

Patrick Leahy, Vermont

Carl Levin, Michigan

Joe Lieberman, Connecticut

Blanche Lincoln, Arkansas

Patty Murray of Washington

Ben Nelson, Nebraska

Bill Nelson, Florida

Mark Pryor, Arkansas

Ken Salazar, Colorado

Roy Wyden,Oregon

========================
And because of this vote of democrats who seem to be selfdestructing the demcoratic party from within, I am going to withdraw my monthly funding to the DNC until democrats like these democrats are held accountable for turning against all the good people of America for their own personal and individual political self interest in my opinion.

I am just truly disgusted with the democratic officials that I have listed, and I will truly make sure that myself, my friends, or my family members never political support or donate any financial funding to any of the democratic representatives that I have just listed.

My family and I are pissed to the max.

I make that call to the DNC tomorrow to terminate funding.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Parent