Stephen Maturin

Ain't it the truth! Hell, Dick Nixon is cornholing us from beyond the grave in the person of Bill "Check out this really expensive robe I got for the impeachment trial" Rehnquist.

hezekiah jones

LOL.

Anyway I hate this argument. But I think Ralph Nader was supremely (pun intended) irresponsible for painting Bush and Gore as two peas in a pod while completely ignoring the president's power over the judiciary. There's a lot of suckers out there that Saint Ralph snowed on that one. I'll never forget the young Greenie exhorting one of my Poli-Sci classes about how Al Gore had supported Clarence Thomas' nomination (bullshit). And if it was either vote Ralph or stay home, that's even worse.

Krieger

Once again we get more typical Democrat scare tactics (along with random name-calling), which is basically the only thing the Democrat party has to offer its followers. What makes you think that the Democrat appointed judges were going to be progressive? I don't see why they would have been. If the judicial appointments had come from people like Al Gore or Joseph Lieberman, the judges' views would have reflected Al and Joseph's views (economically right-wing, socially conservative (as in maintaining the status quo, not supporting social advances), pro-ruling-class, etc). So even the judicial argument is really just the same old "stop the Republicans" argument, which doesn't support making any progress. That is a fundamental flaw with the Democratic party, the only thing they are willing to offer to the voters is to "stop the Republicans". The Democrats don't advocate making any social or economic progress, and the elected Democrats in Washington haven't supported any of that either.

Furthermore, if the Democrats had maintained their control over the Senate they could have blocked the few loonie judges that Shrub would try to send through in order to please the religious-right, but the Democrats managed to lose the Senate last November! Just face it, the Democratic ruling-class party is dying. Unless the Democrats start to become progressive again before 2004 (which I am confident that they will not), they will not win. They'll just return to their newfound role in politics: bashing the Green Party. Well have fun guys and bring it on, because the Greens are not going away and the Democratic Party is not going to become progressive. If you want to support progress, then you should support the Green Party (or other progressive minor parties that have not sold out to big business).

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Krieger
Once again we get more typical Democrat scare tactics (along with random name-calling), which is basically the only thing the Democrat party has to offer its followers.

I'm not a Democrat. And if I was, I probably wouldn't be a typical Democrat, although I'm not sure what that is. And there is no question Ralph was being disingenuous by deliberately ignoring what is, in my opinion, one of the president's greatest enumerated Constitutional powers, if not the greatest. It's no scare tactic. It's an historical and a Constitutional fact.

Originally posted by Krieger
What makes you think that the Democrat appointed judges were going to be progressive?

I wouldn't expect them to be "progressive" necessarily, at least not in the Green Party sense. Relative to the Republicans however? Most definitely. I would expect Democrat-appointed judges to be moderate at least, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Al Gore would most certainly not have nominated the likes of Charles Pickering and Patricia Owen, and god knows who else is coming down the pike. Douglas Kmiec anyone? Do you believe more life-tenured Rehnquists, Scalias, and Thomases are an acceptable price to pay until the progressive revolution sweeps the country? I sure as hell don't.

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are another reason: Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, and Edwards. Those are some of the most liberal Democrats in Congress, and their job is to provide advise [sic] and consent to the president and his nominees. Now look at some of the clowns at the other end of the table: Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Mike DeWine, Jeff Sessions, Lindsay Graham, Saxby Chambliss ... I'm sure you're cringing along with me.

Originally posted by Krieger
I don't see why they would have been.

I find that hard to believe coming from an individual with your obvious political acumen.

Originally posted by Krieger
If the judicial appointments had come from people like Al Gore or Joseph Lieberman, the judges' views would have reflected Al and Joseph's views (economically right-wing, socially conservative [as in maintaining the status quo, not supporting social advances], pro-ruling-class, etc).

Nonsense. Your predictions hardly reflect the historical record concerning judges nominated by Democratic presidents, with the notable exception of Byron White, who was appointed by Kennedy. I suggest you take a look at the record of some of the more prominent liberal Supreme Court justices over the last 70 years or so and then try repeating your statement with a straight face. A couple of them were even appointed by Republicans. At least two, Earl Warren and David Souter, were deeply regretted by their GOP sponsors; I believe Eisenhower called Warren the worst mistake of his life.

Originally posted by Krieger
So even the judicial argument is really just the same old "stop the Republicans" argument, which doesn't support making any progress.

That may be, but I don't see pragmatism as necessarily an evil in this two-party system. And there is little question in my mind that much of the progress made in this country in the 20th century was accomplished through the decision making of liberal judges. And lately, since we have a Supreme Court with seven out of nine members appointed by Republican presidents, much of that progress has been, and will be, rolled back. So whatever it takes to prevent that from happening at a more rapid rate, even if it means "stop the Republicans," is fine with me.

As for the rest of your comments, I tend to agree for the most part. But you face yet another problem, and that is the pool of attorneys from which to select judges. The sub-culture of attorneys is not exactly a breeding ground for "progressivism," again, certainly not in the Green Party sense. But that is another issue entirely.

Krieger

Historically, both the Republican and Democratic parties were far less conservative (especially regarding economics) in the 70s.

We both know what the two parties are like currently, and like I said earlier, the social democrats like FDR are dead (both literally and the fact that they have basically no political power in the party). Now, would I like Howard Dean or Al Sharpton to win the Democratic primary? Hell yes. However, I know that neither of those two will win it. The corporate press will never give them enough positive media.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Krieger
We both know what the two parties are like currently, and like I said earlier, the social democrats like FDR are dead (both literally and the fact that they have basically no political power in the party).

They just elected Nancy Pelosi, a liberal Democrat, to the House leadership. She defeated a couple of more conservative challengers. So I'm not sure you're entirely correct. I would like to see the Democrats move to the left. I don't think they have a hell of a lot to lose at the moment. Lieberman, on the other hand, would make a dreadful presidential candidate, and if it comes to that, I'm sure there will be a lot of clothespins sold to liberal voters next November.

Originally posted by Krieger
Now, would I like Howard Dean or Al Sharpton to win the Democratic primary? Hell yes. However, I know that neither of those two will win it.

Al Sharpton? I have a pretty good sense of humor, but that's asking a lot. And I don't know anything about Howard Dean, but I expect to be doing some homework.

Originally posted by Krieger
The corporate press will never give them enough positive media.

That sounds vaguely paranoiac. Have you been commiserating with August Spies again?

Anyway my "issue" is the federal judiciary. I do not understand economics well, and they don't concern me that much. I will never be rich enough to take advantage of the tax breaks, nor poor enough to require government handouts. And I hope to do a lot of pro bono work in my community, which is pretty hard up.

As for the corporatization of everything, I say, boycott the sons of bitches, and support the unions. My other favorite Green Party anecdote concerns the appearance of Ralph and Michael Moore at my university, attended by several hundred Nike/Levi/Hilfiger-clad supporters clutching Coca-Colas and Big Macs. Something was definitely wrong with that picture. (By the way I think Michael Moore is great.)

Krieger

It remains to be seen whether or not Nancy Pelosi will actually do anything (besides trying to make liberal voters feel better about the party).

At first it might seem a little hard to swallow, but when you realize that the powerful monopolies, which control the media, are from the same group that controls the current political system - then it makes perfect sense.

Discovering American politics is a lot like one of H. P. Lovecraft's short stories (where the hapless main character discovers the horrible truth).

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Krieger
Discovering American politics is a lot like one of H. P. Lovecraft's short stories (where the hapless main character discovers the horrible truth).

Haha. I'll have to mention that to my Con Law Professor; he was basically saying the same thing about the Supreme Court today.

FoE

Hate to butt in here, but perhaps you guys could learn something from studying other democracies with multiple parties. In Canada we have the two main traditional parties (Liberal and Progressive Conservative) plus three other newer parties (New Democratic Party, Canadian Alliance Party, and the Bloc Quebecoise). None of the newer parties have ever formed a government, but they have had influence on the government. This country's Medicare system was created by the NDP. The Alliance party now forms the Official Opposition after the near annihilation of the Tories a decade ago.

I don't know all the ins and outs of your system, but it seems to me if left voters that are sympathetic to the Green party continue to vote for the Democratic party just to stop the Republican party, the situation will never change. Left leaning people will always be forced to vote for the more centrist Democrats just to oppose the right. If the Green party had a few people Congress wouldn't they vote they vote with the Democrats against the Republicans on key issues anyway? Like i said though i don't know your system all that well and i could be way off base.

hezekiah jones

Hi FoE. I'm from Canada. It's -18 here for a couple of days and 17 people died in Chicago. Can you believe it? Nobody dies in Kapuskasing when it's -45 for weeks on end.

Originally posted by FoE
The Alliance party now forms the Official Opposition after the near annihilation of the Tories a decade ago.

I remember it well. They went from like 260 seats to three? Thanks to Brian Mulroney, the most hated man in Canadian history, with the possible exception of Corey Hart. What happened to Stockwell Day? Did he figure out The Flinstones isn't a documentary yet?

Originally posted by FoE
I don't know all the ins and outs of your system, but it seems to me if left voters that are sympathetic to the Green party continue to vote for the Democratic party just to stop the Republican party, the situation will never change.

It's not completely a matter of "stopping the Republicans." However the Republicans have been very successful of late, since they have managed to make their issues very simple, very one-dimensional, to suit the mentality of their grass roots supporters. Integrity. Compassion. Grown-ups. God Bless America. George Bush is a "good man." It's a testimony to the genius of Karl Rove that the GOP has convinced more and more low income voters to transfer more and more capital to the wealthy. You actually have people down here insisting that the obscenely rich deserve more, out of principle. It's insane.

The Democratic Party actually does have its own policies and platform, but it's been in disarray since Clinton went away, basically. Gore's handlers, chiefly Donna Brazile, were a disaster. Terry McAuliffe, the party chairman, was a disaster.

Its political leadership in particular is in disarray too, I think. A whole boatload of them are maneuvering for the presidential nomination now, and Tom Daschle, the Democratic Senate leader, walks a thin line, since he represents a pretty conservative electorate at home. So he takes a lot of crap from both sides. And they did a terrible job during the 2002 elections getting across whatever message they should have been getting across, although it was difficult to be heard over the beating war drums, especially when it seems to be all CNN gives a shit about. Ain't no Michael Enright, Barbara Budd, Peter Mansbridge, or Rex Murphy down here, FoE. (Or Don Cherry, which is the worst.)

Originally posted by FoE
Left leaning people will always be forced to vote for the more centrist Democrats just to oppose the right. If the Green party had a few people in Congress wouldn't they vote with the Democrats against the Republicans on key issues anyway?

Yes, they would. What the Greens should do is concentrate on running candidates in the conservative "ridings" and stay the hell out of the close races for the time being, which is exactly the opposite of Nader's strategy in 2000. Ralph campaigned like a son of a bitch in swing states like Wisconsin and Florida, of all places, and still didn't get enough votes to qualify for federal election funding. A lot of liberals will never forgive him for that, even though they agree in principle with many of Ralph's positions.

The problem is, with the winner-take-all two-party system, the Greens don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning a seat in Congress in the foreseeable future. There is a huge rift among liberals in this country (the "left" is virtually non-existent in the U.S.) and something needs to be done to bring it together soon. Because the aggregate liberal vote in this country is more than enough to whip these conservatives hands down.

Vive le Quebec libre! (j/k)