We are, as ever, the stupid party.

I've been saying, and it sounds nuts, but McCain must have been flipped in the POW camps. That, or he was always an egomaniacal, self-centered fuckwad. Yeah, I'm going with the latter.

On the other hand, it looks like you have plenty of material for tomorrow's show.

Oh, I think McCain knows he's too long in the tooth to seriously run for president again. Plus, he's having too much damn fun fucking things up for everybody else.

In your previous post you said "I just want a drink and a reason to vote for any Republicans in 2006"

Why vote for "any" Republican, if all you get is a Democrat in disguise? Frankly, I'd rather have a Dem than some of them, at least I know they're on the other side.

At least the Democrats promise they'll give me free cookies if I vote for them!

Umm...somehow I doubt the Viet Cong were all that concerned with campaign finance reform or judicial nominations when they had McCain. But that's me.

I'm not comfortable with Lipstick Dynamite's "flipped" remark. Yeah, it's a joke maybe, but real torture happened there. I will say I am not a fan of McCain's record at this point. Not. A. Fan.

I'll be writing letters to my two jerk-off, complete waste-of-meat senators tonight and calling the GOP tomorrow to tell them that the donor card they just sent me is going in the trash. I'm going to mention the absurdity of voting Republicans into the majority if they are going perform like the minority.

The president must consult with asshats? No fucking way! Doesn't the president have to agree to it before they commit him to such b.s.? Please, God, noooooooo!!!

I agree with LD. There is something wrong with the man. He was either born that way or some life experience caused him to act like the shit he is today. He pulls this shit all the time.

The thing with McCain and Graham and Voinovich et al that you are identifying as "wrong" or wussy or otherwise deserving of punishment is the ability to think for ones self and the willingness to do so.

That the ruling partisans finds this so odious is disturbing.

Geez, were any of you still on the McCain love train after his (continuing) attempt to repeal the First Amendment?

VK, it cannot be construed as "thinking for onesself" when they flip all the time. Hell, you can set your fucking watch by their turncoating.

vonKreedon, what is most disturbing is they were elected under false pretenses. I would venture a guess your opinion of them as 'independent thinkers' is very recent.

Re: the "Still Worse" -- are you saying Bush signed off on this abortion?

If so, this looks like his '90 tax increase. Political death.

Holy shit! I can't believe that page two.

Now the Exec has to issue an Executive Order on the subject.

Did McCain flip? I'm not aware that he ever signed on for lighting the nuke. Just because there is a party line and he, or anyone else, fails to play does not mean that they have lied or flipped or whatever.

Brew, nope my estimation of McCain is years old. My estimation of Graham goes back a couple of years.

OK, now I'd urge calmness on the last bit. Congress, let alone just a handful of Senators, has no power to commit the Executive Branch to anything. All that means, practically, is that these senators *want* the President to consult with asshats before making any future nominations. I see little chance that Bush (or any president, based solely on defending his constitutional power) would ever actually commit to such a thing.

Yeah, May, I've got at least an average allotment of "chick intuition", and McCain has always made the hair on my neck stand up. And, swear to God, the first time I saw Clinton back when he was a governor, he gave me the serious creeps.

Alex, I know real torture took place there. Maybe that is the point?

And Christopher Cross, I'm a wrestler, not a fighter, but what you said does not make sense. McCain was useful to the Viet Cong as he made radio broadcasts and gave them info he shouldn't have. At least that.

See:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm

David, they've already done that with the implementation of the supermajority cloture requirement on filibustered nominations. They have already encroached on the office of the Executive. This is an extreme separation of powers violation.

Am I the only one to have noticed that some of the biggest leftist asshats always feel compelled to share that if McCain ran they would vote for him? They're lying of course. But, they think it gives them some sort of credibility though it only further demonstrates how nuts they really are. Anyway, it certainly is no complement that so many moonbats think so highly of McCain. I guess they share the same passive-aggressive traits.

My dashed-off letter to DeWine ends with:

"As it stands, the GOP donor card I have just recieved is going to go into the trash, as will any others sent to me until my senators stop pandering to people who didn't vote for them."

Which is the real problem, VonKreedon. DeWine is supposed to represent me and the rest of the people who voted for him. Yes, he is the Senator from Ohio, but he is the Republican Senator from Ohio. If Ohio wanted a Democrat in office, it'd elect a Democrat. He keeps "thinking for himself" (which, I might add, seems an awful lot like thinking like McCain or a Democrat in Washington, a Republican Back Home) and he is going to find himself out on his ass. My next letter is going to be to theGOP itself and ask why the hell can't we dump this drone next election.

Regarding the page 2 bit I posted on - clearly the Senate can't compel the President to anything. It is a power grab of language and intent, not in law. They stipulate that "Advice" means consultation prior to a particular or specific nomination. Were this a law, it would likely be unconstitutional. It's only an opinion. But, it becomes important because Dems can hang future obstructionist tactics on that stated opinion. ie The President didn't ask if he should appoint so and so, he ignored us and we find his conduct extraoridinary, hence we oppose the nomination. They can at least claim to be obstructing on process, and not on the fact tyhat, a black women, for instance, disagrees with them on abortion.

A brief treatise on Compromise

A hunter went into the woods to shoot a bear. He finally found the bear and was about to pull the trigger when the bear spoke. The bear said, "Why are you going to shoot me? We should be able to work something out where we both get what we want. Now, tell me hunter, what do you really want?" The hunter lowered his rifle and said, "I guess what I really want is a bearskin to keep me warm." "Great," said the bear. "And all I want is a full stomach." A short while later, they both had what they wanted. The bear had a full stomach, and the hunter was warm inside a bearskin.

Why do we need a majority if we're just going to allow ourselves to get rolled?

What we are right now is an effective minority that doesn't even have the luxury tossing rocks all day.

What a fucking joke.

As I said on another post,,,

I have never liked McCain. I am so extreme I dont consider him a hero. Just an unlucky pilot with a famous daddy. He is a pompous asshole, sorry if I repeat myself.

P.S. Do I regret that he spent 5 yrs in prison camp, YES, hero status? NO.

Ok folks, calm the fuck down.

It's not that bad. Owen, Brown and Pryor get a vote and probably are confirmed. Then the others get put forward and if they are filibustered, Frist can still try a rules change.

The battle is not lost, merely postponed. So many of ou are ready to panic at the drop of a hat. You all sound like Bill Paxton in Aliens.

"We're doomed, man! It's all over!"

I am so extreme I dont consider him a hero. Just an unlucky pilot with a famous daddy.

Hey, DaveS - I guess say, a WWII soldier who got shot in the head before their feet hit the sand at Normandy would just be an unlucky soldier. After all, they didn't really accomplish anything. Not a hero.

Fuck you.

Kind of off-topic, but please have your readers look at this post--it's important:

whowilldietoday.blogspot.com

Lets make it simple for eveyone! The GOP are cowards.

Kos's take:
There'll be more outrage from their side, since quite frankly, they lost. Obviously we didn't get everything we wanted, but they lost .......

I'd just as soon not hear how McCain is the Manchurian Candidate, etc. Let's leave that kind of crap to the inmates of the DU, huh? We don't need to disparage POWs.

Log Cabin, the correct quote is, "Game over, man! Game over!" I don't want Ace to ban you for misquoting his personal hero, Private Hudson.

Fuck you back, Hubris. I don't give a shit what McCain did 40 years ago. He's been a prick ever since.

And Log Cabin, you calm the fuck down. If you want to keep rolling over and taking it in the ass, that's your business. But, don't tell others they have to.

i unfortunately voted for both of those asshats from ohio. at the time i didn't know much about politics, so i was under the impression that the little "R" next to their name meant that they supported the republican party, or some such pie-in-the-sky idea like that. but i guess that's about like expecting all the members of the US Senate to support the US. silly me. i feel kinda dirty now

People who are playing it easy on this:

When you consent to a little bit of what you want, after 2 years of arguing, when you have a large majority, you are NOT a ruling party.

And you need not hope that we can hold the Democrats to their word on this. Once the Democrats fillibuster again, we will start this process all over again. And get the same result.

Fuck you back, Hubris. I don't give a shit what McCain did 40 years ago.

If you didn't care what he did forty years ago, you wouldn't feel compelled to now bring up that you don't think he's a hero, moron.

What are you trying to say? How about "I don't think his war record has any bearing on whether or not he's a good or shitty senator" (which is perfectly accurate)? Instead, "[j]ust an unlucky pilot with a famous daddy." Really, that's a pretty fucking disgusting way to talk about anyone who fought for us, I don't give a shit whether they're a senator you or I don't like or not.

Hubris, the guy at Normandy didnt sell me out! You can crawl back up McCains ass now that you have had your say.

Was his service honorable, yes. Dont make him a hero.

Based on Harry Reid's FBI smear of Judge Saad alone, Republicans had a moral obligation to defend Saad and punish Reid for his actions.

And there is a pragmatic case to be made for fighting this one to the death. Poker fans will understand this better than anyone:

Reid got out of line. He pushed a lot of chips into the pot on a very marginal hand. And when someone does that in poker, you punish him by pushing all your chips into the pot and forcing him to either fold or play it out on very long odds.

The price of not doing this is allowing your opponent to push you around even when he doesn't hold the cards.

Which is exactly what the Democrats will continue to do. They're going to keep bluffing at those pots and the Republicans are going to keep folding because they don't have the heart to play back at their opponents. The Republicans will lose their stack of chips by attrition until they find themselves without enough ammunition to make a difference when they finally do find themselves with a nice hand.

Look, you don't often flop a full house. You win the game on the margins by pressing small advantages. The Republicans had the better of this one and they choked.

DaveS,

Because I don't like listening to people talk about verterans that way, I'm "up McCain's ass"? You don't know shit about what I think of McCain as a politician (I'm usually not that impressed by him).

And every one of those guys is a hero.

Somebody's farm subsidies must have gotten threatened....

If you didn't care what he did forty years ago, you wouldn't feel compelled to now bring up that you don't think he's a hero, moron.

I brought it up because you brought it up, asshole.

Instead, "[j]ust an unlucky pilot with a famous daddy." Really, that's a pretty fucking disgusting way to talk about anyone who fought for us, I don't give a shit whether they're a senator you or I don't like or not.

POW status does not make one a hero. It is not to be glorified. The objective is NOT to get captured. If you don't like it, take it up with the military. It's their rules. And neither I, or the military give a shit whether you agree or not.

Well, I just wrote to my Republican senator and basically told him 2 things: we are watching, and tell our Pub leaders to grow an effing spine. I said it eloquently, of course, but the gist was there.

Whether you think this is the Worst Thing That's Ever Happened In The History of the World or just Business As Usual, you need to let your politicians know you're paying attention, or they might save their energy for some other fight. And this one is too dang important to slough off.

Later,
bbeck

I brought it up because you brought it up, asshole.

Oh, I thought you were DanS. If you're not and won't even use a tag, you're not worth talking to.

One of the worst things about this agreement is it gives cover to Bob "KKKleagle" Byrd in his 2006 re-election campaign.

I mean, it's one thing to cave but it's another completely to give the old race baiter a campaign issue.

NC got rid of Helms (against whom I worked in 1996 even though I am and was a conservative) and SC got rid of Strom. When will WV catch up to the times and get rid of their a-hole? And when will Republicans look beyond the moment toward broad strategy? I mean, couldn't they have just had 13 on the stage and left the KKKleagle behind the curtain?

I am shocked and chagrined and the GOP won't get any donations or volunteering from me.

Thus proving again that holding the majority doesn't matter much if you can't hold the center. In practice, the agreement means that the Dems will be able to filibuster any candidate that the moderate Republicans disapprove of.

Huge win for the Dems (given their extremely weak hand) and a shit pie from the moderate to the conservative wing of the Republican party.

Grow up.

I can't believe we're flaming each other over today's political news, however unwelcome it may be to some.

And the news? Washington politicians reached a compromise to resolve a contentious political issue. Horrors! Oh, I forgot, that's their job.

And the compromise? Basically a bunch of meaningless blather that allows everyone to retreat from the field without too much indignity, and meanwhile resolves the stalemate regarding most of the pending nominees. Oh nooooooooo! Save us, Jeff Gannon!

C'mon, guys, let's save the hysteria for a real issue.

Anyone remember that there's a war on?

Linsay Graham is a fatuous simp. This deal is on par with the reach-around North Korea's Kim gave Jimmy "Peace-in-our-lifetime" Carter: an unenforceable handshake deal that will be violated before such "moderates" can shoulder past one another for Pinch Sulzberger's table scraps.

It's no trick to get an "agreement" if you're just going to give everything away.

The conservative coalition has just been broken.

Oh, I thought you were DanS. If you're not and won't even use a tag, you're not worth talking to.

If that were true, you would have stfu already, loser.

I'll tell you who's "spineless." I'll tell you who's a "fatuous simp." I'll tell you who's an "asshat from Ohio."

JeffG, that's who.

That pathetic POS recently posted his list of the 20 best movies from the '70s and didn't include Rollerball. Didn't even give Rollerball a h/t as one of the honorable mentions. Never mind that I had previously advised him to the contrary.

JeffG is not a war hero. He is just a geek with no taste in movies. No more donations from me to his PayPal account (well, I wasn't giving him anything anyway, but if I was, I would stop). I have no respect for him whatsoever. The entire conservative movement should disown him immediately.

C'mon, guys, let's save the hysteria for a real issue.

Anyone remember that there's a war on?

EXACTLY. Everyone is freaking out over what they think could happen, without regard to what is actually realistic and feasible in this political climate. Obviously, there aren't a lot of political strategists hanging around the blogosphere.

Why vote for "any" Republican, if all you get is a Democrat in disguise?

Why? Because you can be damn sure we won't see anything BUT judicial activists being appointed if you elect Donks. And higher taxes. And increased regulation. And partial-birth abortion. And (etc. etc. etc.).

NOT TO MENTION (as Michael said), there's a war going on.

I'm getting sick of them saying on the news that "the far right won't like it." I AM the "far right," or at least I thought I was. I guess the MSM thinks "the far right" ONLY includes people who cut off their noses to spite their faces.

BTW, the moonbats are pissing themselves because the theeeeocrats!!! are going to be confirmed. In case you're thinking they're happy about all this.

Slublog, you're a genius. Can't believe Ace didn't link this.

Ack, Slublog link take two.

Oh, I understand what you and Michael are saying, Beth. Unfortunately, if you don't shake their monkey-trees, the "maverick" Republicans will continue to preen for the cameras rather than listen to their constituents and the party. The united front is all well and good, but if you keep silent and keep a stiff upper lift while your undisciplined party makes shitty deals, you are going to keep getting even shittier deals in the future.

That name-calling earlier was just white noise, though the POW denigration was shameful.

Someone...thanks. Much appreciated. It's amazing what you can do with photoshop when you're pissed off and mildly loopy on good wine.

someone:

Link doesn't work for me.

Never mind. If you're trying to convince anyone that Slublog is a genius, you're going to fail. Comparing him favorably to Ace is especially ineffective.

*Michael ponders who else to insult*

BrewFan's mother wears Army boots.

Thanks, Michael. Always there to keep me humble. :-)

Another elsewhere-in-the-blogosphere classic.

Slub:

Actually liked the photoshop once I got to the link that worked.

But you're no frigging war hero. I mean, maybe they slapped you around in the Hanoi Hilton and all, but you probably cried like a baby.

I'm fucking disgusted. I can't, however, say I'm in the least surprised.

Obviously, there aren't a lot of political strategists hanging around the blogosphere.

Beth, it doesn't take a lot of acumen to realize that a majority should not be deferring to a minority after a bitter 2 year fight over something that should have been a given anyway.

Lindsey Graham is my Senator. Tomorrow, we're going to form a searching party for his crotch.

Yes, there's a war on, but it doesn't have the potential to define the fabric of American life the way a judicial appointment does, Beth. Good or bad, we will be living with the consequences of these judicial appointments for decades. Seeing them as important doesn't tarnish one's appreciation for our military efforts.

That name-calling earlier was just white noise, though the POW denigration was shameful.

No, it's the POW adoration that's shameful. You and others have some romantic view of what being a POW means, but it is not shared by the military.

Good or bad, we will be living with the consequences of these judicial appointments for decades.

Yes, we will. So here is the reality about our Third Branch of government.

No money. No guns.

Congress controls the money. The President controls the guns.

The judicial system has one, and only one, currency.

Credibility.

That means, judicial nominees have to be broadly acceptable to the American public. If they are perceived as rigid ideologues, the institution will suffer. So, is it really a bad idea that Bush does a gut-check with Democrats before proposing a Supreme Court nominee? I don't think so.

Maybe we end up with a Supreme Court that is not as conservative as I would prefer. But the overriding concern is this -- the Supreme Court is the most anti-democratic institution in our government (an unelectected body that has granted to itself the last word on constitutional issues). It serves the critical function of protecting the rule of law against majoritarian impulses, and thus is elitist by nature.

In my mind, it is waaaaaaay more important that the composition of the Supreme Court is broadly acceptable to the public than that it is a court that will rule in a manner pleasing to me.

Michael, get a clue. Did you sleep through the last decades of MSM distortion and flat-out lies? They can spike negative poll numbers 15-20%, easy. Not for the 6+ months of a Presidential campaign, but for the short life of a judicial nominee? Without a sweat.

In fact, the overriding concern has to be that the judges take as little power as possible. That they follow law, and not their own MSM-stroked personal preferences. What restraint of judges screws up, the other -- accountable -- branches can fix. What judicial activism screws up, we're stuck with.

This is the most important domestic battle in generations. Period.

Michael, I agree with you completely. JeffG is a complete asshole. I can't believe that dork would overlook Rollerball like he did.

It appears to be even worse:

Democratic officials said an unwritten aspect of the pact is that two nominees not named in the deal - Brett Kavanaugh and William J. Haynes - would not be confirmed and would be turned aside either at the committee level or on the floor.

The Rise of the Christian Fascists
The Specter of a U.S. Theocracy and Why the People Must Stop It

Revolutionary Worker #1263, December 26, 2004, posted at rwor.org

After the elections a friend of mine, with long experience following U.S. politics, said he felt like he was living in 1930s Germany—right after Hitler became chancellor but before the Nazis burned down the Reichstag and used the incident to consolidate power, crush opponents, and institute fascism. Then he said that if we don’t have courage and resist now, in a year or two—maybe sooner—it might be too late.

I agreed.

Bush’s re-election represents a major leap in the power of the extreme right-wing centered around Bush—the dominant core of which are Christian fascists—and in their determination to aggressively escalate their reactionary agenda globally and domestically.

The agenda of Bush and the Christian right is not limited to criminalizing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, forcing children to recite prayers in school, and mandating the teaching of Biblical creationist ignorance. Their ultimate goal is Christian fascist theocracy. Now, following the election, they feel emboldened—and compelled—to take their theocratic project to a whole new level.

"They want to see a religious rule in this country," RCP Chairman Bob Avakian argues, "a rule that...entirely throws out the separation of church and state—insists that this is a Christian nation, and forces a fundamentalist view of Christianity...as the official basis for law in this country and for rule in this country... If that’s not fascism, it’ll do." ("Christianity and Society—The Old Testament and the New Testament, Resistance and Revolution," Summer 2004).

There is an overall consensus among the various factions of the U.S. ruling class over their savage campaign to reorder the whole world through intervention and war—and lock in and extend U.S. global hegemony. The rulers as a whole also see a need and opportunity to accelerate the political, economic, legal, cultural and ideological restructuring of U.S. society in order to serve the lean, mean, killing-machine needs of their global capitalist empire.

At the same time, there has been much struggle within the ruling class over just how to accomplish these sweeping goals. But within the current governing mix (which includes neocons, more "traditional" Republicans, and others), the Christian fascists have gained enormous momentum. They are setting the political and ideological terms within the bourgeois order. Their people are increasingly situated at key points in government, media, and other aspects of society. They have organized a social base of unthinking followers. They have a coherent, all-encompassing agenda. And they have the Christian fascist-in-chief, George Bush, sitting in the White House.

The theocratic agenda of the Christian fascists aims to transform life in this country in unprecedented ways—ripping up the existing social compact and overturning the previously accepted legitimizing norms of bourgeois democratic society, some of which have been in place since the U.S. was established: the rule of law, the separation of church and state, the right to privacy and certain political rights, and the notion that decisions are based on reason and science, not superstition. (The U.S. Constitution never mentions god.)

After the election, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (who supported Bush’s invasion of Iraq) wrote that Bush supporters "don’t just favor different policies than I do—they favor a whole different kind of America... It felt as if we were rewriting the Constitution, not electing a president. I felt as if I registered to vote, but when I showed up the Constitutional Convention broke out." (11/4/04).

New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg wrote (11/11/04) that Bush’s plans for tax and social security restructuring "constitute a fundamental revocation of an American social contract that was hammered out 70 years ago during the New Deal."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made a very heavy comment comparing the divisions today to the situation leading up the Civil War: "It’s like the 1840s and 1850s. This is going to go on and on. This is genuine disagreement over the future of the country. This isn’t a divided government—it’s a divided country." (Cited in Matthew Continetti, "An Uncivil War," Weekly Standard, November 11, 2004)

The U.S. is not yet a theocracy, but many elements are already in place. And if the Christian fascists are able to fully implement their agenda, the U.S. would be plunged into a high-tech Dark Ages—a nightmarish combination of modern weapons and police-state technology coupled with medieval ideology which has the potential to wreak far more death and destruction than anything history has yet seen. (Note: Hitler didn’t have nuclear weapons.)

This must NOT be allowed to happen.
Christian Fascist Theology

The Revolutionary Communist Party’s new statement "The Battle for the Future Will Be Fought from Here Forward!" begins, "You think you know...but you have no idea...just what Bush has in store for...you...us...the world...our future!" (see rwor.org/future)

That’s true. Even many with a deep gut-hatred of Bush don’t fully understand—or are in denial about—the full extremity of the right-wing fundamentalist agenda and just how far advanced that agenda is.

The RCP statement points out, "Bush and his people aren’t just ordinary Republicans. And they’re not ordinary Christians either." They’re biblical literalists—for them, every word of the Bible is god’s truth and the highest authority, trumping law, treaty, reason, logic, and history.

What are these "biblical norms" that these forces believe in? Bob Avakian has been calling attention to the dangers of the Christian right ideology and agenda for years (in works like Liberation Without Gods and Preaching From a Pulpit of Bones ). In a new talk, "Christianity and Society — The Old Testament and the New Testament, Resistance and Revolution," Avakian breaks down how the Bible was written by humans, not any imaginary god, thousands of years ago, long before the rise of science and modern technology. This was a time when cities and agriculture had just begun to emerge and most people were part of tribes of clans frequently at war with one another and subject to the horrors of war, starvation, famine, and disease. Life for most was brutal, ignorant and short.

The Bible reflects and supports all that goes along with these class and social relations: wars of conquest and pillage; traditional relations of patriarchy and male domination; the division of society into rich and poor, exploited and exploiter; and the absolute power of rulers over ruled. Avakian points out that as one example of all this, the Bible calls for the death penalty for many things that most people today would not even consider crimes—let alone a crime worthy of the death penalty—defiance of parents by their children, worshipping of "pagan" gods, working on the Sabbath, and homosexuality.
Dominionism—Imposing the Biblical Nightmare on the World

The Christian fascists don’t believe religion should be an individual choice. They believe all of society, and indeed the whole world, must be ruled according to biblical law—in short, they believe in a theocracy with no separation between church and state.

Very powerful figures in the U.S. ruling class are proponents of this program. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of Bush’s favorites and possible replacement for Chief Justice Rehnquist, has written that "government...derives its moral authority from God. It is the ‘minister of God’ with powers to ‘revenge,’ to ‘execute wrath,’ including even wrath by the sword."

In a speech at Christian fundamentalist Bob Jones University, former Attorney General John Ashcroft declared, "Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal....we have no King but Jesus." He called the separation of church and state "a wall of religious oppression."

A leading organizer of this movement writes that "Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ — to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.... World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish." (George Grant, The Changing of the Guard, Biblical Principles for Political Action , pp. 50- 51, cited on theocracywatch.org)
Accumulating Power Under the Radar

The Christian right has been around for years, but most people don’t realize how much power they have accumulated, how much backing they have from powerful factions of the imperialist establishment, and the degree to which they have marginalized their opponents.The Christian fascists are deeply dug in at every level of government—from local school boards, to state legislatures, to the courts, the military and the Congress.

Bush’s government appointments look like a who’s who of religious obscurantists. David Hager—a doctor who refuses to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women and who has written that Christian prayers can be used to treat PMS, headaches, and cancer—was named to the Federal Drug Administration’s Reproductive Drug Advisory Committee. James Leon Holmes —who has stated "Christianity transcends the political order and cannot be subordinate to the political order"—was appointed to an Arkansas federal court. William Pryor—who declares "God has chosen, through his son, Jesus Christ, this time and this place for all Christians to save our country and to save our courts"—was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11thDistrict.

Such outrageous appointments will no doubt skyrocket in the coming months.

The religious right now dominates the Republican Party, which has savaged and emasculated the Democrats—via everything from public scandals to legislative gerrymandering—and is now attempting to institutionalize its dominance.

Esther Kaplan’s book, With God on Their Side, details how the Bush administration has systematically used its control of the state apparatus to organize and strengthen the Christian fascist movement. This in- cludes Bush’s "faith-based initiative," which has been used to fund and organize right-wing religious groups as well as place religious fundamentalists in key positions throughout government. To take one example, Kaplan describes (p. 64) how the Bush regime has targeted its opponents by removing mainstream scientific, professional and policy organizations from influential advisory boards and replacing them with right-wing ideologues. The American Medical Association no longer advises U.S. delegations to UN summits on children’s issues—a right-wing family values group does. And the American Bar Association no longer vets judicial nominees—the right-wing Federalist Society does.

The effort to organize and promote the religious right extends well beyond government. For instance, the New York Times reports that over the last decade Christian publishers "forged closer relationships with stores like Wal-Mart and Costco; Wal-Mart carries 1,200 ‘inspirational titles’ (i.e., religious tracts) at any given time."

The Christian fascists have infiltrated the armed forces and now have enormous influence in the military. In his 1998 article on the Clinton impeachment, "The Truth About the Right-Wing Conspiracy...And Why Clinton and the Democrats Are No Answer," Bob Avakian cites from the book Making the Corps by Thomas Ricks. Ricks writes that "the military increasingly appears to lean toward partisan conservatism" and points to high-ranking officers who denounce "cultural radicals" and "people who hate our Judeo-Christian culture" and feel that "the next real war we fight is likely to be on American soil."

Since then, things have gone further. Army General William Boykin, openly and in uniform, calls the Iraqi people the "face of Satan," declares that the Christian god is the only true and "real" god, and says that "god himself" put Bush in the White House.

Those who don’t believe the Christian fascists will "get away with" their extreme agenda because the majority doesn’t share it should think long and hard about the strength of the Christian right in the military (and in the right-wing militia movement) and understand that they are preparing to forcibly ram their agenda down our throats if need be.
"Now Comes the Revolution"

Bush’s re-election signals a leap in the power of the Christian fascist forces within government and society. They’re emboldened and on a roll. And they feel they have a window of opportunity, with their man in the White House, to make big advances in consolidating their hold on power and society. Christian right guru Richard Viguerie declared while watching the election returns, "Now comes the revolution. If you don’t implement a conservative agenda now, when do you?"

This arrogance is mixed with a concern and a perceived need to move quickly and forcefully, bullying and bludgeoning their way, including in relation to other sections of the bourgeoisie. The leadership of the religious right is very much aware that hatred of Bush and their agenda is massive and deep. The U.S. is in the midst of an unbounded global war of empire—and Iraq, while not yet a total disaster for the U.S., has the potential for becoming one.

Bush’s supporters—who have never politely accepted their opponents’ electoral victories—now basically tell anyone who questions any of Bush’s policies: "Shut up, the election is over, we have a mandate to do whatever we want." One of their first targets after the elections was Republican Senator Arlen Specter, who had to make humiliating pledges of total support for Bush before he was allowed to take his position as chair of the important Judiciary Committee. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd characterized the prevailing political mood as having the "feel of a vengeful mob— revved up by rectitude—running around with torches and hatchets after heathens and pagans and infidels."

Here are some telling snapshots of a few things that have taken place just since the election:

Without hearings or debate, the Republicans grafted an "Abortion Non-Discrimination Act" onto the budget bill, which, according to the Los Angeles Times (11/28/04), "legalizes discrimination, allowing any physician, hospital or health insurer [or employer] to refuse to perform or pay for abortions and even to tell pregnant women that the option exists."

In early December, the Bush administration filed a brief in a case concerning two Kentucky counties, urging the Supreme Court to permit Ten Commandments displays in courthouses, stating that religion "has played a defining role’’ in U.S. history.

The New York Times (12/13/04) reports that "conservative Christian advocates across the country are pushing ahead state and local initiatives on thorny issues, including same-sex marriage, public education and abortion."

On the local level, one right-winger in Ohio talks of "building an army" of Christian cadres and running school boards, town councils and county prosecutors’ offices within several years. ( NYT, 11/26/04)

In his December 12 column, the New York Times’ Frank Rich cites numerous instances of the Christian right openly intimidating any opposition or criticism in the media—and the media going right along, including a New York public TV station killing an ad for the movie Kinsey , a North Carolina public radio station telling an international women’s rights organization they couldn’t use the phrase "reproductive rights" on air, and the major TV networks refusing to broadcast a paid ad "in which the United Church of Christ heralded the openness of its 6,000 congregations to gay couples."
Lunacy with an Imperialist Logic

Some people simply can’t believe the idea that the powers-that-be in an advanced capitalist country in the 21st century would actually impose a biblical-literalist, Christian fascist theocracy. It seems like lunacy, not politics. It is lunacy, but it’s lunacy with an underlying capitalist-imperialist logic.

Deep forces, emerging from the compulsions of global capitalism and empire, are driving this Christian fascist agenda—in particular the profound changes in U.S. society and the world, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Bob Avakian analyzes this in depth in "The Truth About Right-Wing Conspiracy..." He shows how the logic of world domination and global capitalism demands ongoing war abroad and wrenching changes in this country. In these unprecedented circumstances, powerful forces in the U.S. ruling class feel that only an extreme version of Christianity can be the ideological and political glue that holds the fractious and diverse USA together. As Avakian writes:

"[I]n the present period and the present ‘global environment,’ the requirements of the capitalist economic and social system not only demand that the lords of capital be able to carry out their supreme commandment, ‘let us prey,’ in a more unrestrained and more ‘mobile’ way, on a world scale. They also demand, within American society itself, a slashing of major social programs and a heightening of the repressive powers of government, along with the fostering of a repressive social atmosphere. They demand what the organization Refuse and Resist! has called the politics of cruelty, or the politics of poverty, punishment, and patriarchy."

Avakian argues that these developments, together with the sweeping social, cultural, and demographic changes that have taken place in the U.S. over the past decades, have caused a great deal of turmoil and upheaval while eroding the basis for the traditional patriarchal family and "traditional family values."

There has been much struggle within the imperial establishment over how to respond to these transformations and contradictions (struggle which continues). Over time a force has emerged that insists that the old legitimizing norms and ideological glue—including different variants of pluralism (such as "multi-culturalism")—was too loose, too inclusive, too expansive, and too hopeful. Instead, Avakian explains, those who have gained dominance among the U.S. rulers are those "political leaders and forces who insist that ‘traditional morality,’ as embodied in the patriarchal family as well as ‘right or wrong’ patriotism—and rationalized in terms of fundamentalist Christianity—must be the basis for maintaining the cohesion and solidity of American capitalist society and the dominant position of imperial America in the world arena. In the vision these people profess, contemporary America —not just the government but the society as a whole—is in cultural and moral decline. More, it is in danger of disintegration and destruction."

What better ideology for a time of unbounded war, demanding enormous carnage and demanding unthinking, cold-blood killers and heavy sacrifices, than Christian fundamentalism, which celebrates vengeance, cruelty, punishment, and mass murder, and demands unquestioning, unthinking obedience? As New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has pointed out (11/24/04), the Christian fundamentalist "Left Behind" book series "enthusiastically depicts Jesus returning to slaughter everyone who is not a born-again Christian." And in this period of lean, mean global capitalism and financial turmoil that demands slashing wages, benefits, job stability and social services, what better justification than Christian fundamentalism, which locates the source of suffering not in capitalist exploitation and oppression, but in sin and abandoning traditional values?
The Urgency of Resistance—and of a Whole Different Future

America’s theocratic fascists must be not simply denounced or protested—they must not be allowed to have their "Reichstag fire." They must be stopped from consolidating their power and implementing their whole agenda. It is not hyperbole to say that the consequences of failure to stop them are too horrific to contemplate, and that it could well take generations to reverse their course.

But at the same time, the very extremity of the changes demanded by the Christian fascists and their rupture with the current legitimizing norms of U.S. society greatly heighten the potential for major crises to erupt, including sudden intensification of contention and conflict within the ruling class. And such developments could create openings for mass upheaval—even revolution—from below. Sudden crisis could create the basis for an eruption of opposition unlike anything this country has ever seen.

But first we must soberly confront what we are up against—including how late it is in the game and how difficult it is to "undo" a fascist regime once it becomes established. In short, time is not on our side. As one Nation editorial put it, concerning the course Bush is on, "Somewhere along that road lies a point of no return."

Right now, to be frank, Bush and the Christian fascists have the momentum—and the power of the state behind them—and the people are woefully behind where we need to be in stopping this nightmare from becoming even darker. The Bush gang is not going to be stopped without the most energetic, self-sacrificing, determined, and organized struggle. And it won’t be stopped without a major, major leap beyond past—albeit very important—forms of opposition and protest. We need a whole new level of resistance.

As the RCP statement put it, what is needed is "resistance, in the words of Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, ‘that refuses to be bound by the terms of mainstream politics or the notion that this politics represents the "ultimate word" on the "will of the people." Resistance that will not just protest the juggernaut of war and fascism but go all-out to STOP it. Resistance that will reach out and win over people who have been deceived by this madness but whose deepest interests are opposed to it. Resistance that will be united—but will still include space for dreams and debate.’"

There is an urgent need for many people, of diverse viewpoints, to come together—right now—to strategize, transform the current situation, and forge such a resistance, including by mounting a major society-wide rejection of the Bush inauguration/coronation on January 20.

This current juncture in human history screams out for a whole different vision of how society and the world should be organized, a whole different conception of what life is about and the morals and values that reflect that, and a whole different envisioning of how the future should unfold.

Bob Avakian has developed a deep analysis of the current order, including the particular juncture we confront today, as well as a profound and sweeping vision of a radically different and truly liberating future. This too is something that many, many people, of diverse viewpoints, need to come together—right now—to discuss, strategize about, and boldly take up.

Our future—the future of humanity—depends on stopping Bush and the Christian fascists from determining the future.

> "We encourage the executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration."

Goodness me, I wonder if Bush has the chops to cope with being "encouraged" to "consult." I expect he'll do just fine.

"Hello, Hillary? This is George. I'm thinking of nominating [naughty, ultra-conservative, un-progressive threat to the Republic] for a Federal judgeship. Whaddaya think? ...Well, I kinda figured that's what you'd say, but I wanted to run it by you. ...Of course I'm still going to nominate him. Nice talking with you, sweetie."

Ah, the troll droppings get longer... and stinkier. Ace, you're hitting the big-time!

Meanwhile, Den Beste weighs in.

I can't believe how vicious people get when their pet peeves don't get resolved in exactly the way they'd wish. Settle down, guys. This isn't a bad deal at all, and pronouncing fellow Republicans anathema just makes you look silly. It almost sounds like you've all forgotten which party you're supposed to belong to.

"BrewFan's mother wears Army boots."

Yeah, well I bet my mom can beat up your mom! Nyahhh!

"This isn't a bad deal at all, and pronouncing fellow Republicans anathema just makes you look silly."

Megan, I love you and agree with you 99% of the time but I feel like these 7 yahoos betrayed their party. By them failing to stick together, we lost an opportunity to make sure the president got an up or down vote on his judicial nominees (I personally don't think the Demos would have filibustered once they knew there were enought votes to end it so we would not have had to pull the trigger on the constitutional option) AND they, imho, violated the trust thats been put into the Republicans candidates over the last two election cycles; all of whom made it an issue to get reelected. The only positive I see in this is McCain is done as a presidential candidate, and hopefully, as a US Senator.

Brewfan -

Senator McCain has never had any chance whatsoever in the presidential primaries or a national election, so if that's the only positive you see, I'm sorry to disillusion ya. ;)

But honestly, we haven't lost anything. We gave away zero. We didn't get the savage no-holds-barred grudge match we wanted, not yesterday, but so what? The only certainty in a fight like that is that both parties will come away scarred.

I didn't particularly want this. I've been agitating for some time over the GOP's lack of nerve; I've been saying a lot of the things I've been hearing from disappointed Republicans since last night. But it's no longer applicable, because if you look at this deal objectively, it is just not damaging to us, our interests, our spin, and (especially) our majority.

"Give every nominee an up or down vote!" - great principle, if you've got the guns and the numbers to enforce it. At this time, with these judges, on this issue, we didn't.

So we took a sure thing instead of a sure body blow with an uncertain outcome - this is bad?

Take the 60% and declare it the victory that it is. It's smarter than hurling the 60% back in the faces of the people who got it for you, decrying them as traitors and cowards, and blaming them for a nonexistent defeat.

There's no point in attacking each other. No point. None. All it ensures is that the Democrats will get more votes.

"What difference does it make if this is the way they act," blah blah blah... well, if that's the way you feel, go ahead - elect them and find out. I doubt you'll be any happier, but I'm sure all of us will be a lot less safe.

This isn't a zero-sum game, guys. Save your principles for when we can afford them.

If they are perceived as rigid ideologues, the institution will suffer.

Unfortunately, that perception has become nothing but the equivalent of Democratic Party propaganda.

The perception should be that the judge is qualified, and the credibility of any given decision should be found in the body of each opinion. Not in DNC talking points. Not in the party of the president who nominated him.

The DNC and the People for the American Way (ha!) have done a masterful propaganda job here. They have managed to convince a sizable group of people that all of these judges (even the ones Bush has not yet nominated) are "extremists," and "threats to the Republic."

All without giving any details. They promoted these labels solely with emotionally-charged language and repeating the same conclusory phrases over and over.

Ask your average man on the street if he thinks that the Constituion should be amended by (a) each Supreme Court as it sees fit, or (b) the Constitional Amendment process, which includes actual voting.

Bork was right. In Tempting of America, he explained that if we politicize the Court, by allowing it to make political decisions, then we get political judicial appointments. We've arrived.

Earl Warren destroyed the Supreme Court. He was a politician who neither knew or cared about the true role of the Court. He used it to accomplish his pet agenda, mainly in the areas of criminal procedure and public education (i.e., busing and quotas). He openly discussed the fact that he had an agenda. Giving the Court an agenda destroyed its credibility.

As a result, the Supreme Court is gone. It is no longer a credible institution. It's just hard to tell because they wear the same robes and occupy the same building. And it has avoided all the hard cases for 15 years. But it does not exist as the same institution it once was.

A couple quick points then it's off to work!

1) The 'compromise', afaik, was not 'authorized' by the party; this undercut the authority of Frist and is not a good thing.

2) I'm very naive when it comes to some things so, that said, I believe the Advise and Consent clause as I and most other conservatives define it is worth fighting for. These judicial filibusters, as you know, are a very recent phenomena and are frankly unconstitutional.

3) If we can't stick together on such important issues then we will become the next party of special interests a la the Democrats. There has to be some discipline for those who consistently break ranks.

Check my blog for my further thoughts on this, but come on, people: how many of you even had an opinion on the filibuster before this rhubarb erupted? The fact that as many lefties as righties are moaning in horror this morning tells me that, at worst, no one got everything they wanted -- and that's hardly a crushing defeat.

I've always thought that Frist misplayed his hand by not saving the so-called "nuclear option" for the Supreme Court, and this agreement means that breaking the filibuster is still in the cards if Democrats kick up dickens in confirming the next Supreme Court justice.

And yes, McCain might as well start planning what he's going to do in retirement, because he just flushed his presidential aspirations right down the toilet. I am surprised at DeWine though; he's been a pretty reliable foot-soldier for the Republican party so far. But the fact that DeWine signed on gives me a bit of comfort because I don't think he signed off on this deal lightly.

Lighten up, folks. When the nutcases at the DU and the other nuts at Free Republic are pissed off, you just know the deal can't be all bad!

We have preserved the Republic.

God bless us everyone.

Bill Frist? He's one of them white niggas I was talkin' about. He's my white nigga bitch.

Monty,

Per your request I visited your blog. Two questions/thoughts:

1)How do you post a comment on your blog? In fact, if one wants to communicate with you and ask you a question like this how does one do that without using Ace's bandwidth?

2)The Twins suck

Hm. I didn't know it was okay to post badly-written term papers on this blog. Gotta remember that for later.

And Michael:
But you're no frigging war hero. I mean, maybe they slapped you around in the Hanoi Hilton and all, but you probably cried like a baby.

The slapping around part didn't bother me. The torture was pretty tame until they made me listen to Abba. I'd like to see a man who wouldn't cry at that.

Way to go GOP. Way to use that majority status. Way to whore it up for the cameras you "mavericks." Pathetic.

The GOP better be ready for war when the SC nominations come up. No compromises there.

Somebody in the "leadership", that would be you Mr. Frist, better grow a pair and slap these guys around. I'm not giving these losers any money if all they're going to do is reinforce defeat.
And why does W have to go along with this "get approval from the Democrats first" crap?

Next time some moonbat tells you the Christian Right is running the country, you can add this to the list of contradictory evidence.

BrewFan:

I am still hosted on Blogger (pyuck!) and Blogger's commenting service has two big drawbacks: it's extremely slow, and it's a huge comment-spam target. I don't have the energy to police my comments section, especially on older posts.

One of these days I'll bite the bullet and start my own comments.

You can email me at mrmanley_at_charter_dot_net if you have a specific issue you want to discuss offline.

how many of you even had an opinion on the filibuster before this rhubarb erupted?

I did. A lot of people did.

A lot of people have believed, for a long time, that the filibuster ought to be a real filibuster. They should have to actually get up on the floor, bring out the phone books, the port-a-johns and filibuster live and in person.

Allowing a phony filibuster by just refusing to vote changes everything. In a real filibuster, several things happen. First, it brings real attention to the issue. It becomes a media spectacle. As a result, the opposition must be able to clearly articulate its principled position, and do it under intense scrutiny. This has the effect of making them save it for the most important issues.

Second, a real filibuster brings all Senate business to a halt. Absolutely nothing else gets voted on while one or more windbags drone on. Again, this means that filibusters will be reserved for critical issues, and only those that they are willing to stake out a clear, principled position that justifies such behavior.

Under the current version, they get to basically change the majority-wins system into a 60-votes-wins system. There's no downside to it. No risk. They can (and will) use it for everything.

I think I have figured it out. McCain is really French.

Megan, this has nothing to do with whining because we don't get everything we want. That happens sometimes and I understand.

But if that starts happening when you have a clear advantage, it's a very bad sign.

A boxer (most likely Ali, though I can't find the quote) said that he could tell who would win a fight in the first 5 seconds. He could clearly see that one fighter came out of his corner looking for blood. The Democrats are the only politicians here who have shown desire to win. They are the party out for blood in this fight.

I'm sure this has already been said, but since Brown, Owen, and Pryor are now going to be voted on and confirmed, the same judges that the left has spent so much time and money labelling as "extremist" are now going to get to the court. So, as soon as a SC vacancy comes up, just nominate one of them for it. The left really can't say they are "extreme" anymore.

Anonymous,

I don't lionize POWs because suffering is not the highest virtue, but I also don't believe that calling the guy a Commie mole or some hapless stooge either. Being a Vietnamese POW was no picnic, and I don't believe McCain deserves to have some no-name punk piss all over him because he doesn't agree with the senator's political posturing.

I'll take second place to no one in excoriating McCain for grandstanding and hunting for that fawning media spotlight. I think it shows a narcissistic streak and a fear of being the "bad guy" in the eyes of the NYT and people who really matter. You can lambast McCain in all kinds of ways, but I don't see how dragging his stay in Hanoi into the equation has asnything to do with the way he votes, or is indeed anything other than vulgar, tasteless mudthrowing. No class.

Hubris - And every one of those guys is a hero.

Based on what you know about John Kerry, do you really think he's a hero?

In my opinion, enlisting or being drafted into the U.S. Military does not automatically make one a hero. It's what one does when inside that uniform that makes the hero.

Is a WW II paratrooper who was shot and killed before he reached the ground, before he saw a single scrap of combat, a hero in my book? Yes. Because I have nothing else with which to judge save that he died trying to defend this country and its ideals.

Is a 'soldier' who lies, deceives, cowars, and disgraces real soldiers a hero? No.

I see your point and understand your passion on this subject. More so, I admire that passion.

By the way, Ace, maybe you can delete that comment that is simply a posting of a complete Revolutionary Worker article? I don't like the Commies, but I don't know if this guy ought to be stealing their stuff either.

Alex_fs,

I agree. The fact that McCain is an asshole is established fact. How he became an asshole is conjecture and really doesn't matter. You nice folks in AZ need to do the rest of us a favor and get rid of him! Thanks in advance.

Hopefully, this is just a ruse to make them look moderate until the next time. But I doublt it.

That "revolutionary worker" article violates Godwin's in the very first line; gotta be some kind of record

Alex_fs:

YOU show some fucking class by not putting fucking words in my mouth, asshat. Once again, POW status does not make one a hero and is not to be applauded. If you don't like it, take it up with the military. It's their rules, shithead.

Hopefully, this is just a ruse to make them look moderate until the next time. But I doublt it.

I would love nothing more than to believe this is all part of a plot, but from what I've seen, Republicans are too stupid to pull something like that off.

Anonymous: stow your anger. You're not contributing to the conversation and it would be very helpful if you would shut your mouth. Thank you.

I'm not terribly worked up over the McCain debate reagrding his POW years, and I'll preface my remarks by saying I really can't stand the man's politics.

But a couple of points. Unlike the other senator compos mentions, McCain could have shipped back to the states after the Forrestal fire. He didn't.

He was also offered an early release from the North Vietnamese (they were attempting to use it in a propaganda play). Hell, they demanded he accept it, and when he wouldn't, they beat the shit out of him. He refused the special treatment, and refused to be a party to their PR stunt.

So I'd have to his service in Vietnam was pretty damned admirable. Maybe hero is an overused expression, but he's earned my respect for his service.

Another thing that everyone should remember here is that this agreement only exists between 14 Senators out of 100. There are 48 Republican Senators who are probably pretty pissed off right now, and will be bringing the heat on the "mavericks".

Another thing to remember is that this agreement isn't a law or an official rule, and means approximately squat in terms of being binding on other Senators. The Dems will almost surely filibuster; the Republicans will then have to discover if they actually have any balls and break the filibuster. This "deal" does nothing but push that confrontation down the road a ways.

The value in this deal, as I see it, is that it "outed" the Republican leaners. I don't doubt that Frist and other Republican leaders will now have a come-to-Jesus meeting with these folks and explain some home-truths to them. McCain is a lost cause, but Chaffee and DeWine seem to have acted on principle and will most likely be unforgiving if the Democrats renege.

In my view, this deal was necessary in a way to show a "good faith" attempt to resolve the problem before breaking the filibuster officially.

It's a trap!

The sight of "sheets" Byrd rambling on about a "victory for the center" really made me ill.

When the Assualt Weapons Ban was up for vote Clinton was "negotiating" with Trent Lott. They reached a deal and shook on it. Clinton then proceeded to walk to the podium and before the waiting reporters announced that: "the negotiations have broken down, the Republicans have not acted in good faith."
When the vote was cast Al Gore was trotted out to cast the deciding vote and hold his own press conference that the measure had passed against the objections of "the gang who couldn't shoot straight." That was treachery of the lowest order, but so is this. They have finally proven him right.

The left really can't say they are "extreme" anymore.

Of course they can. They can and they will. They will (once again) reveal themselves as hypocrites, of course, but since when has that ever mattered to them?

Don't make the mistake of assuming that allegations of hypocrisy have any affect on Democrats. They live and breathe it. It is their stock in trade. They have no principles but the relentless advancement of their agenda (which is not really a principle at all, really). When they are caught in an indefensible position, they betray the assumption that makes it indefensible in the first place.

In this case, they will oppose Owen's or Brown's nomination to the Supreme Court by saying they have new information that justifies their new position on her (i.e., they will lie). When that lie is exposed, they will simply say that they made this filibuster agreement under duress of being bullied by the evil Rethuglican tyrannical majority and say that they never wanted her on the appellate court in the first place, but did what they had to do, but now they have no choice blah blah blah....

It is called the rule of expediency. Democrats are still enthralled with Marx, whether they know it or not -- they still believe that the ends justify the means.

What bothers me most about this deal is the fact that we are counting on the good faith of those who have thus far shown none, and also counting on the ability of wimps like Senator Snowe to enforce the terms of the deal.

Trust me when I say that Snowe values popularity above principle. Always.

Damn Phinn way to dash my hopes. I was trying to maintain a little optimism. Unfortunately you are correct.

PlacidPundit: Check your own anger. The asshat, Alex_fs, is attributing statements to me I did not make. Now, fuck off. Oh, wait, PLEASE fuck off. Thank you. :-)

I was trying to maintain a little optimism.

I think the only optimism that one can maintain in all this is that, when the Democrats trot out the "extreme circumstances" loophole in bad faith (which will happen with the first Supreme nomination, if not sooner), the Repubs will have the stones to declare the deal breached and go nuclear anyway.

There is only one way to defeat these people -- by relentlessly pressing every advantage. Like every conflict, this is a contest of wills. The "leadership" has yet to catch on to this aspect of reality, though, because they are whores.

Blank, somebody else made the turncoat suggestion earlier and I included both slurs because I objected to both. No strawmen being built here, at least by me. Besides, where did I call McCain a hero? Pots and kettles.

I'm unclear about why you are so fixated on Maverick McCain's military service if you disdain him in so many ways.

I'm not angry, Anonymous. I simply want to keep this conversation on topic. And John McCain's hero status has nothing to do with it. I'm sorry you're having a spat with Alex, but somebody has to be the one to stop arguing. I nominate you to be what Lindsey Graham isn't—a man.

Blank, somebody else made the turncoat suggestion earlier and I included both slurs because I objected to both.

Both slurs? You don't give up, do you asshat.

No strawmen being built here, at least by me. Besides, where did I call McCain a hero? Pots and kettles.

Where did I say you called McCain a hero, asshat? Must I tell you where to shove your cookware?

I'm unclear about why you are so fixated on Maverick McCain's military service if you disdain him in so many ways.

I didn't bring it up, asshat. YOU did.

What is your problem? You can't read? No short-term memory? Are you such a slob of a debater that you think you can attribute madeup statements to anyone just because you disagree with them?

Posted by: Alex_fs on May 24, 2005 10:56 AM
I'm not angry, Anonymous.

Sure you are, PP. You got all emotional when you throught your pal was being attacked, conveniently ignoring all the asshat remarks he has made and is continuing to make. Pure emotionalism on your part. Unless making shit up is okay in your book, too, of course.

Now I nominate you to be a man and stfu.

The Therapist is freakin hilarious.

Very first sentence "Fresh from a stunning victory over their own majority..."
Heh.

They reached a deal and shook on it. Clinton then proceeded to walk to the podium and before the waiting reporters announced that: "the negotiations have broken down, the Republicans have not acted in good faith."

Are these the same people that whenever they have the power to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations they won't use it? What the fuck do you think?

Like Spain, The Republicans Surrendered...

"Fresh from a stunning victory over their own majority..." The Republicans managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, AGAIN!

I was tired of the anon troll's antics when he first began.

I'm all for different perspectives, but if you are unable to present yours with civility and frankly, without cowardice, I would prefer you find another site with which to share your 'input.'

How about minding your manners so we can take what you have to say seriously. Else we can just ignore you until you go away or until the powers that be ban your IP address from posting.

Hey, Anon, get a name, and then maybe people will start taking your opinions seriously.

Stop hiding.

Hey, Anon, get a name, and then maybe people will start taking your opinions seriously

heh.. that won't be enough for me

I'm with compos and Slublog, anon: if you aren't going to identify yourself, then just shut up and go away. And Alex_fs -- please don't feed the troll.

And when BrewFan said:

The Twins suck.

You delusional, too? It's not your website. And I'm not going to be banned for objecting when people makeup shit and try to attribute it to me. If you find that offensive, fuck off. And don't give me that cowardice shit. It doesn't say compos mentis or any other pretentious latin phrase on your birth certificate.

Screw off, Monty. Not one of you can back up the shit you are flinging. What is this? Some sort of old boys club? Any one of you can make as many factually challenged statements as you want and you will back each other up? Attack me all you want. But not one of you have proved what Alex the Asshat has spewed and continues to spew.

Slublog - What bothers me most about this deal is the fact that we are counting on the good faith of those who have thus far shown none,

I agree with that statement.

I tend to think though that the Republicans involved aren't stupid and have their reasons for 'agreeing' to this. Maybe, as has been said, this is all just smoke and mirrors anyway and they know it. Maybe in the bigger picture this doesn't mean jack and they couldn't care less. Maybe there's another agenda. I believe they know what they're doing.

I love the fact that all these posters with names like Slug, dave, compos, etc. criticize others for their anonimity! Smart!

I'm tired of you assholes trying to attribute things to me that I never said. Really. Sick and tired of it.

Like that time I said I'm completely hetero, but enjoy taking it up the ass occasionally? That was me.

Or when I said I had a raging case of crabs and the inside of my pants looks like a termite colony? Guilty as charged.

Just say pooter. Pooter, pooter, pooter, pooter, pooter!
Now doesn't that cheer ya'll up?

It's SLUB, not Slug. Criminy...

Also, I provide an email address and a link to a website you can visit. Sometimes, on that website, I invite people to read my column in a local paper, which includes my real name, Peter, and a small picture, along with a small bio.

It's not too hard to find out who I am, but it's impossible to figure out who you are. That's the difference.

So please, spare me the vapid arguments.

Just to be clear; everybody who posts on here without a fakey name is ME.

Stupid link didn't work. My HTML skills are lacking.

Try this one instead. It's about local tax stuff, though, so it may be somewhat boring to non-Mainers.

Just say pooter. Pooter, pooter, pooter, pooter, pooter! Now doesn't that cheer ya'll up?

Honestly, yeah it does. Thanks. :-)

And Anon? We're not trying to prove what Alex said. We're talking about Judicial nominees and pooter.

Starve the troll of attention and he'll slink off elsewhere, folks. Remember that we're eating Ace's bandwidth here, not our own; respect Ace by keeping the posts at least marginally on-topic.

Compos Mentos
counting on the good faith of those who have thus far shown none, AMEN!
And they never will because they can't give what they don't have.

Pooter! Pooter pooter! Hey, it works!

The majority party is scared shitless of the media. They haven't come to terms with the declining influence of ABC et al.

You guys are right. I apologize for my vulgarity and stupidity.

By the way, I have no friends and I frequently purchase cartoon pornography.

Slublog

Last year, Mainers sent 13 percent of their income to Augusta. As a point of comparison, God only asks for 10.

Great line I'm gonna use that, great article too!

PS I've long wondered what Slublog stands for.

Damn, Phinn, you're making a hell of a lot of sense. We ought to get you on Ace's show to debate Jeff Larkin.

And just let me second Phinn's opinion on this naive argument that now Democrats "can't" oppose a nominee without looking like hypocrites. Democrats can and will do whatever the fuck they please. And the MSM will have their backs by spinning the debate to their favor.

My God, what are people thinking to believe that Democrats are affected one bit by charges of hypocrisy? This whole filibuster was a hypocritical position to begin with. A large portion of the Democrats were already on record as being opposed to filibustering judicial nominees. Did that stop them? No.

You don't compromise with Democrats ever. Period. They'll fuck you every time.

Ask George Herbert Walker Bush.

And Anon? We're not trying to prove what Alex said. We're talking about Judicial nominees and pooter.

PP, I never,ever said I took Alex's judiciel nominees up the pooter. All I ask is that you Asshats stop accusing me of shit I never said.

The majority party is scared shitless of the media. TRUE!

They're a bunch of pooterheads!

72 - those are Slublog's words, not mine. Just to give credit where it's due.

Monty - I agree that we're guests of Ace, however, the man has previously invited us to share our geekdom then trash each other for it using his bandwidth. Besides, he's getting traffic numbers from us, which translates to those uber-bucks he's after ; )

I agree with Phinn from much earlier today when he (?) says that the Senate should force filibusters to actually happen. It won't cause the filibustiers to drop from exhaustion, the filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1960 showed that if the filibustiers have more than ten or so Senators they can actually wear down the rest of the Senate in round the clock sessions.

But, as Phinn points out, forcing the filibustiers to actually hold the floor while the Senate is in session does mean the NOTHING gets done and this makes the filibuster a much riskier political weapon to use, as it should be.

You're all Asshats, I tell you!

Now, I have to go play with my imaginary friends who make me feel funny in my special place.

Monty,

I apologize for breaking bad on you about the Twins. I'm still a little bitter about my beloved Brewers blowing a three run lead in the bottom of the 9th to the Twinkies of all teams :)

Yes, they're acting like 72 pooters w/o cooters!

Working off Placid's note to me, but really I'm talking to all y'all here, including Ace:

I declare, you guys sound like "K-Lo" at NR ("I'M NOT GOING TO CRY about the filibuster pieces we had ready to roll for the morning. Nope. Where's the whiskey?").

I should think that alone would give you pause...

"if that starts happening when you have a clear advantage, it's a very bad sign."

But we didn't have a clear advantage. Not this time. We have never had the votes on Saad and his nomination process has been a nightmare from the beginning. We had a clear advantage on 3 nominees and those are the 3 we now have a guarantee on.

And frankly, Saad is quite valuable as a martyr in Michigan. I would've liked to have seen him on the 6th Circuit CoA, but Stabenow's up in '06 and she's a freshman who barely scraped up 49%. We'd need about 70k in a replay, and this helps.

It bears repeating that we gave away nothing. Nada. Zilch.

No commitment on Myers and Saad? We didn't have that anyway.

The alleged violation of the executive's authority? Worthless even as "deal-breaking" PR; the President didn't sign this deal. Zero standing.

"Extraordinary circs?" The Dems claim every conservative nominee comes to the Senate under those. No change.

"Commit to oppose rules changes" is subject to a "in the light of the spirit [of the deal]" clause - which gives the Republicans the exact same out "extraordinary circs" gives to the Dems.

Honestly, this isn't a hand you should be complaining about. It just isn't. This is like hoping for four of a kind but ending up with a full house, and then bitching out the dealer while the only other guy in the game just has a high card. And it's the 9 of clubs.

This is not rational.

"A boxer (most likely Ali, though I can't find the quote) said that he could tell who would win a fight in the first 5 seconds. He could clearly see that one fighter came out of his corner looking for blood."

Whoever said that was full of it, as Ali's own boxing techniques (if not his rhetoric) proved. He played the long game. He let the other guy, the one out for blood (or glory, or whatever) exhaust himself while picking and choosing his shots, only leaving himself open towards the end, when the other guy couldn't take advantage of it. Politics, like boxing, is a long game. It doesn't reward passion.

"The Democrats are the only politicians here who have shown desire to win."

I suppose it's arguable that they've shown a greater desire to win. Possibly because they've forgotten what it feels like.

"They are the party out for blood in this fight."

True. And that's why they lost last year, why they've been losing this year, and why they'll keep losing next year.

Try not to screw it up for us, 'k?

Nice analysis Megan. The more I read this agreement, the more I'm thinking not too much is going to come of it in the long run. My worry is the thinking behind it, this "we need to compromise instead of acting like a majority" attitude will keep coming up and cost us battles we should win. But I am happy that at least 3 judges are finally goint to get their vote.

But the "K-lo" comparison was just a low blow. Really low.

this makes the filibuster a much riskier political weapon to use, as it should be

Plus, by being riskier, the genuine filibuster ends up being reserved only for those positions that are very clear, sound and defensible, since only these positions can survive that level of scrutiny. As a result, a filibuster ends up being used for core issues.

I would do handsprings if members of the Senate would drop the whole schtick about the value of moderation. It's such a transparent propaganda tool. Moderate does not equal correct. Moderate does not equal better. Defend your ideas! Take a position! Make your case!

Hayek was right -- politics attracts the worst sort of people.

he will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently.

(I'm a he, by the way.)

However, when Phinn says the following it sends shivers of paranoia up my spine:

Don't make the mistake of assuming that allegations of hypocrisy have any affect on Democrats. They live and breathe it. It is their stock in trade. They have no principles but the relentless advancement of their agenda (which is not really a principle at all, really).

and

Democrats are still enthralled with Marx, whether they know it or not -- they still believe that the ends justify the means.

and

There is only one way to defeat these people -- by relentlessly pressing every advantage. Like every conflict, this is a contest of wills.

And I am quoting Phinn for expediency, the quotes are I believe indicative of many on the right's views of their domestic political opposition. Why does this set of views so frighten me? Because it first demeans and depersonilizes the opposition: "they" have no principiles;
"they" will do anything; "they", unlike an implied us, cannot be trusted in the least. Then it demonizes the opposition, "they" are really our old enemy the commies (how fucking ridiculous on its face is that? Well, watch the response to the question.), and these enemies will stop at nothing to achieve "their" ends. Finally, the argument comes around to equating the political struggle to defeat "these people" is to do whatever it takes because this is after all war.

I am not calling Phinn or anyone else a fascist, that would at this time be rediculous, but I am saying that accepting this line of reasoning is how fascism happens, and that is what I find so frightening.

PS: I am also not saying that this is a line of reasoning only found on the right, far from it. But the right IS in power at this time and so the reasoning is more frightening from the right.

Megan - well said. I find intelligence very sexy. *wink* And you're a gun owner. Oooooh, I'm getting soooo hot. I feel like going craaazy. But you have to be into Betsy ; )

Seriously. Good post.

Trust me. She's into Betsy.

Jeez, I can't believe this thread survived the night. Oh well.

Life for most was brutal, ignorant and short.

The 4th Reich:

Don't have the time or energy to correct your many silly statements, but FYI, the reference to Thomas Hobbes reads thus:

" . . .and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

I have a political question that perhaps someone here can answer. Is the filibuster, and of course closed door meetings and open debate, the only way the minority can have a say in legislation? If the answer is yes, than why absolve it? If the answer is no, than Democrats have nothing to fear.

I wish I could look at it the way you do Megan, but I can't. I think about SS reform - not gonna happen, income tax reform - not gonna happen, healthcare reform - not gonna happen, etc, etc, ad nauseum. And how do I know all the things I care about aren't going to happen? Because we can't even stop the filibuster of appellate court nominees with a 55-45 majority. Some here would say I'm giving up, or I'm a pessimist but I really can't see anything to hang my hat on right now that would make a difference in my attitude.

Brak-

"the "K-lo" comparison was just a low blow. Really low."

You wouldn't be picking on her height now, would you? That wouldn't be very broad-minded of you...

:)

It bears repeating that we gave away nothing. Nada. Zilch.

I disagree, Megan. Winning (and losing) has to be measured from a baseline reference point. You are measuring from the status quo, and conclude that little has changed. But I measure from where we would have been if another route had been followed, and see there is a net loss.

In other words, when you have the majority, and you therefore should have won, but end up with a tie, that's a form of losing. You end up with less than you would have had if victory had been obtained.

This was a loss. It was a loss because it was an opportunity not to create martyrs, but to crush the propaganda tools of the opposition.

"But the Senate has tradition of unlimited debate ..." CRUSH! There is no debate without a real, live filibuster.

"These judges are extremist ..." CRUSH! These judges are imminently qualified, you're criteria for judicial extremism is indefensible, and it is wholly inappropriate to disqualify anyone based on philosophy in the first place, Sen. Schumer.

That's how to defeat them.

I would do handsprings if members of the Senate would drop the whole schtick about the value of moderation. It's such a transparent propaganda tool. Moderate does not equal correct. Moderate does not equal better. Defend your ideas! Take a position! Make your case!

I have a different take on what is moderate and why moderates are so valuable. To me a moderate is not someone with no passion, someone who takes political positions based on expediency. To me a moderate is someone who is not tied to a party line, who is not a slave the his or her ideology. Moderates are the antithesis of extremists. Moderates are capable of exercising critical reasoning and at times this will lead them to surprising positions; and extremist will almost never surprise you. Moderates, because they keep the ability to exercise individual and critical thought are flexible when presented with new contexts; extremists are rigid in their ideology and so have great difficulty seeing new challenges or opportunities. Without moderates we have either gridlock or domination. Without moderates we wear blinders to that which is outside of the dominant ideology.

You should be thanking your stars that McCain, Graham et al are in your party. If you lose the moderates it will be a disaster for your party.

The same way that the Dems thank their lucky stars for Zell Miller and Lieberman, right?

Bork was right. In Tempting of America, he explained that if we politicize the Court, by allowing it to make political decisions, then we get political judicial appointments. We've arrived.

Phinn:

Don't disagree at all. BTW, I keep a copy of The Tempting of America in my office (mostly because it has the complete text of the Constitution as an appendix.)

I just don't think this filibuster deal merits being treated as watershed event in the ongoing effort to return the Court to it's proper constitutional role. The "compromise" really just amounts to some meaningless gloss on the Senate's role of "advice & consent" regarding judicial nominees. In the meantime, we get some vacancies filled.

Laura -

And look where the Dems are now.

Man, I just wanna vomit. The entire Republican Party has been sold out. I'm not forgetting this one, Senator McCain.

Is the filibuster, and of course closed door meetings and open debate, the only way the minority can have a say in legislation?

Is it true that the only time Dems give a rat's raw ass about the minority party having a say is when it's them?

Anybody here remember this concern being brought up before?

Laura - Not Zell, but yes the Dems should thank their stars for the Liebermans and Feingolds and Nelsons in the Senate.

Phinn -

"You are measuring from the status quo, and conclude that little has changed. But I measure from where we would have been if another route had been followed, and see there is a net loss."

3 birds in the hand, 7 still in the bush vs all 10 in the bush. Going with the traditional 2:1 value assessment, what we've got has a 3 point advantage over what we might have:

(3 x 2) + 7 = 13 vs 10 x 1 = 10

Not to mention that hunters rarely have to worry about the PR aspects of bagging their prey.

Yeah, I'm probably more concerned because it's my party, Laura. But I never cared much about politics before. So, it's an honest, though naive question. I do care about the broad implications for future legislative business, regardless of who is in the majority. You can believe that or not.

I am not calling Phinn or anyone else a fascist, that would at this time be rediculous, but I am saying that accepting this line of reasoning is how fascism happens, and that is what I find so frightening.

Ha! You should know, vonKreedon, that I am not actually a conservative. I am a libertarian. I'm actually considered a rather hard-core libertarian by most conservatives and liberals. I consider fascism and Communism to be largely indistinguishable, except in their rhetoric.

But I realize what the Left really is. For one, they have superior propaganda. For another, they are wholly anti-liberty, and so I do not hesitate to say that I despise everything they stand for.

There is a component of right-wing soca!ism among the "Right" in America, but it also includes a sizable contingent of liberty-lovers and free-marketers, even if they are unaware of their intellectual roots. So, I end up thoroughly hating the Left, and being selective about my support and opposition of the so-called Right.

And when I say "crush" them, I am talking about winning the PR/propaganda war.

Your intimations of nascent fascism are just a straw man. And a classic propaganda technique, by the way. If you want to debate me, do so according to what I actually say, not by making half-baked comparisons to fascism. Unlike the Senate Republicans, I am very confident that my positions are sound and worth promoting and defending.

To me a moderate is someone who is not tied to a party line, who is not a slave the his or her ideology.

What's wrong with ideology? There is nothing wrong with having an ideology. The problem is having an incorrect ideology.

I believe in complexity, the need for exceptions, the possibility of the unknown, and the careful application of principles to facts on a case by case basis -- all of the classic liberal tenets of the careful application of reason. (These intellectual habits were perfected and once enshrined in the Anglo-American common law, by the way.)

But moderation is just a fig leaf for all of these things. It is a pretense, designed to imitate reason and thoughtfulness. In itself, moderation of political ideas means nothing. In its current political formulation, moderation is for whores.

3 birds in the hand, 7 still in the bush vs all 10 in the bush. Going with the traditional 2:1 value assessment, what we've got has a 3 point advantage over what we might have:

(3 x 2) + 7 = 13 vs 10 x 1 = 10

You'll have to explain where this 2:1 value assessment comes from.

Uh, you've never heard the adage?

What is wrong with the Republicans? This is almost a total cave-in. Why?

Does anybody have an email address for Bill Frist? Is there anyone else we should be emailing (RNC?)?

Maybe if they get flooded with emails they'll realize how angry people are. I don't know how they can be so clueless about this. Talk about royally pissing off a huge chunk of your base. What the hell are they thinking?

Phinn says:
But I realize what the Left really is. For one, they have superior propaganda. For another, they are wholly anti-liberty, and so I do not hesitate to say that I despise everything they stand for.

Wow. The Left is "wholly anti-liberty"! The whole left, that then would mean that I am anti-liberty. And since I am anti-liberty, what does that mean wrt how I might be treated? Now, some on the Left are anti-liberty, as are some on the Right. Some on the Left are fanatical about their definition of liberty and what should be done to protect it, as are some on the Right. But of course it is much easier to lump everyone on the Left into definitive statements.

Phinn also said:
If you want to debate me, do so according to what I actually say, not by making half-baked comparisons to fascism.

Dude, I quote you liberally (pun, naturally, intended) in the course of my posts.

Phinn phurther says:
What's wrong with ideology? There is nothing wrong with having an ideology. The problem is having an incorrect ideology.

I am certainly not arguing against having an ideology, having strong passionate political positions is a good think IMO. But I disagree that the problem is having incorrect ideology; the problems arises when people cannot see that others may reach different ideological conclusions without demonizing them for their conclusions, and when ones ideology gets in the way of dealing with changing realities.

Moderates aren't political whores, political whores are.

Just a few more comments and we will pass the thread below on the same topic.

Go Thread Go!

Uh, you've never heard the adage?

Oh, I get it. Duh.

Well, the adage is not exactly true, mathematically speaking.

Plus, the adage speaks to the cost of collection and the risk of failure. Those factors are not applicable here. The cost is simply what it takes to vote on a rule change. The risk of failure is determined by the candidates' fitness for office, which is the Senate's job to begin with.

I am not married to the idea of getting particular judges through. That's a very short-sighted goal. The proper goal should be to ensure that the judge-selection process is restored.

You seem to have bought into the whole "what happens when we're in the minority" argument that McLoser advanced. The truth is that we never filibustered their judges, so we're not giving up anything.

Moderate, schmoderate.

This is ridiculous. Only a tiny minority of Republicans could be considered extreme by a reasonable person.
The entire country has shifted left. The 'right wing extremist' fringe is so marginal it might as well not exist. Liberals would like to re-categorize anyone who is anti-abortion or (gasp!) Christian as a zealot, but that just isn't so.

Democrats, however, have indeed been taken over by socia*lists. The realities of living in an unabashedly capitalist country blunts the impact; but when they do anything that might actually be pro-business their core hisses at them (I am excepting the rare Southern Democrat whose base remembers what his party used to stand for).

The fact is, open faced conservatism wins. So...who the fuck needs a moderate Republican?

what does that mean wrt how I might be treated?

You get treated the way everyone else gets treated -- with full respect for your basic human dignity, as expressed by your rights to life, liberty and property.

As for your agenda, however, that gets stopped dead in its tracks. Respecting you as a human being does not mean we have to allow you to promote or enact harmful governmental policies.

Dude, I quote you liberally (pun, naturally, intended) in the course of my posts.

... and then you go on to add your half-baked drivel about how it "sends shivers" down your spine and how it's how fascism starts, blah blah blah. That's the part that I was referring to.

Phinn -

The bird-in-the-hand thing was a joke, mostly. Sheesh.

"You seem to have bought into the whole "what happens when we're in the minority" argument"

Not at all. There's no need to attribute other people's arguments to me when I've laid out my own quite clearly.

I honestly don't foresee our party being in the minority again for a very long time, so that argument is completely irrelevant to me.

I want to save the nuke for a SCOTUS appointment. That's when the country will be focused and we can make a bigger splash.

I don't think nuking the appointments filibuster is a bad idea. I think it's great, in fact I'm all for it. I was talking it up a long time ago. I just want to deploy it for maximum effect.

With less public attention and a lower court, it'll hurt us. The more attention we can get and the higher the appointment being filibustered, the more it'll help us. It was wise to pass it up now with an eye to far more important battles already looming on the horizon, and in addition, this has helped to prime the public for the big one.

And I'll once more repeat that a nice little skirmish has been won. Handily, with no losses.

There is no downside to this.

Laura wonders:
The fact is, open faced conservatism wins. So...who the fuck needs a moderate Republican?

Because in a democracy moderation makes for better government? Hell, in a dictatorship moderation makes for better government.

And Laura's statement that, "The entire country has shifted left. " is interesting. I wonder how the right, or at least the Republical party, managed to gain control of the Presidency, both houses of Congress, the majority of governorships and state legislatures?

(that was me, by the way)

and when ones ideology gets in the way of dealing with changing realities

One's ideology should by definition account for changing circumstances. That's what an ideology is. It's a set of beliefs and principles that you carry over from situation to situation, thereby allowing you to deal with changing circumstances.

As far as "reality" goes, you'll have to be more specific. The Left has so abused the term that I no longer can be sure we are talking about the same thing.

Phinn the anonymous says:
Respecting you as a human being does not mean we have to allow you to promote or enact harmful governmental policies.

Right, so once the right wins, according to Phinn, I will have the right to live freely and happily as long as I don't promote any harmful policies. And you wonder about my paranoia.

The entire country has shifted left.

Lauraw:

Huh? Did you mean to say "shifted right"?

You know why I'm not happy with this deal? Because friggin' O-Dub is happy.

"No doubt that this is a win. Why? Because the filibuster is still a part of our political system. Checks and balances have been preserved. Yes, we will get some right-wing judges, but less of them. Frist is angry. Dobson is angry. If those two wet blanket extremists will be upset, I'm happy. Period."

Darn it, I hate making political opponents happy. Especially if it's Willis.

Because in a democracy moderation makes for better government?

Wrong.

Protection of our rights is what makes for better government.

Laura -

"The entire country has shifted left."

First time I've heard that one.

"Liberals would like to re-categorize anyone who is anti-abortion or (gasp!) Christian as a zealot"

Sure. I think it's more accurate to say that the entire leftist/liberal wing of the Democratic Party has shifted further to the left.

"The fact is, open faced conservatism wins."

Absolutely. But I don't see how you can reconcile that with your initial statement about our supposed national shift to the left.

"So...who the fuck needs a moderate Republican?"

You're right, we don't. Let's take out the Specters when we can and get the Toomeys in - but let's do it while remaining electable, and let's do it without creating divisions and distrust in the party. And let's be realistic about when and how we should do it, and how loudly we should talk about it (not at all) - look at the damage that their internal ideological crusades are inflicting on the Democrats.

Our primary goal should always be to elect Republicans and defeat Democrats. If that isn't our first priority, it doesn't matter what our second priority is.

Megan - well said. I find intelligence very sexy. *wink* And you're a gun owner. Oooooh, I'm getting soooo hot.

The only thing sexier than a woman with a gun is a woman in camos with a gun. So you're a gun owner? Pistol, rifle, shotgun or all of the above? Tell me about it.

There is no downside to this.

Can't believe we're agreeing. Maybe Butters should rethink his position.

"Laura - Not Zell, but yes the Dems should thank their stars for the Liebermans and Feingolds and Nelsons in the Senate."

vonK,

Now I know you shoot from the hip if you think Feingold is moderate. Your credibility slipped a bit with that one.

Right, so once the right wins, according to Phinn, I will have the right to live freely and happily as long as I don't promote any harmful policies. And you wonder about my paranoia.

You can promote anything you want. Expect me to oppose you if it's anti-liberty.

If your mode of "promotion" is just talk, I'll oppose it with talk. If your mode of promotion is action, I'll oppose it with action.

And I'm not the Right.

Megan says:
Our primary goal should always be to elect Republicans and defeat Democrats. If that isn't our first priority, it doesn't matter what our second priority is.

I would think that the first goal would be to enact policies that advance your societal goals. Electing Republicans is a means to this end, not an end in itself unless one's societla end is simply partisan power politics, and I don't get that feeling about you.

Butters -

"Can't believe we're agreeing."

And, as usual, it feels really wrong to be on the same side of an argument as Cedarford. But you have more experience with that than I do - any advice on how to deal with the shame, the guilt, the overwhelming compulsion to wash your hands five or six times every hour?

Brew - Go back and look at my definition of moderate. Feingold fits that definition.

Sorry for not putting a time frame in that statement vonkreeden.
I am talking over the long term; compare members of both parties now to their colleagues from 50 years ago.

any advice on how to deal with the shame, the guilt, the overwhelming compulsion to wash your hands five or six times every hour

Actually, yes. Frenzied masturbation works pretty good. Shoot, we're washing our hands anyway.

Phinn - Opposition to what I promote is a good thing. But that is not what you said. You said:
Respecting you as a human being does not mean we have to allow you to promote or enact harmful governmental policies.

Note that this sentence says that you are not under an compulsion to allow me to promote policies that you see has harmful. This is different from I will oppose policies you promote.

Now, this has been fun, but I have to get off and do some work. Talk to you all later.

vonKreedon -

"I would think that the first goal would be to enact policies that advance your societal goals."

Yes, as well as all my other goals. And that's best accomplished by getting Republicans elected and keeping the Republican party strong, so that's what I'll do.

"Electing Republicans is a means to this end"

The best means I've found yet. There isn't any other, not at this time. So "partisan power politics" is precisely the game I play, and I have no qualms about it whatsoever.

Butters -

"Frenzied masturbation works pretty good"

Hey, whaddaya know - you were right.

You guys, I didn't mean the country had just slid left recently. Sorry if thats what it sounded like.
I mean it aint what it used to be, and now conservatives = the moderates of old.

"Brew - Go back and look at my definition of moderate. Feingold fits that definition."

I did and he doesn't even fit your definition (flawed as it may be) of a moderate, vonK.

Megan said:

So "partisan power politics" is precisely the game I play, and I have no qualms about it whatsoever.

I worry that sometimes when people play political "hardball", the turn politics into a game rather than a process. The object becomes the win rather than lawmaking and governance: the true purpose and goal of our elected officials. I don't vote just so Republicans can "win"; I vote so that my country may benefit from a party whose ethics and philosophy are best suited (in my opinion) to the general welfare of all.

lauraw,

FWIW, i understood your point and agree with it.

Laura -

Okay, I get what you were saying now, and it makes more sense. But I still don't think it's perfectly accurate to say that "now conservatives = the moderates of old" given that women only got the vote 85 years ago and "separate but equal" facilities were considered perfectly acceptable 52 years ago.

Those weren't "conservative" positions back in the day - they were just plain wrong. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding you and you're talking about a different time frame or only isolated issues, but it's still a bit difficult to tell. A lot of the social mores of previous times were caught up in the subordinate role of women.

I'm not saying that things have improved across the board, but a libertine isn't necessarily a liberal.

VonKreedon,

Why don't you call in? We never get liberals. We'll be easy on you; but it would be nice to have a contrary opinion.

MyCountry: Thing is, this isn't legislation; it's 'advise and consent' -- which, IMO, means no appointment-related filibusters. Ever. Not to mention that the Dems have already, uh, suspended the (legislative) filibuster rule when it suits them. Surprised? Not really.

Now I'm looking long view, though. Bush hasn't signed on to this. If by 2007 he's traded O'Connor and Rehnquist for Janice Rogers Brown (this part's almost certain now) and, say, Michael Luttig (with no other vacancies or, e.g., Estrada in that spot), we'll have won and this day will be a footnote at best. If some spineless Kennedy-type ends up on the Supremes, we're screwed and these turncoat 7 will go down in infamy. Has this day brought us closer to the second outcome? It would make sense if it had, but it could also be the reverse.

Wait and see, I guess. And yell at Senate 'leadership'.

I am in Megan's camp here in that I feel that the compromise is not as bad as it is being made by others. The problem I do have though is that this compromise was done without the Republican leaderships participation and that 7 Senators basically took the rights away of 48 other Senators. It also does not help that I despise some of these RINOS as I would a crooked cop.

Being hated and maligned by the Liberal Media and Hollywood for thirty five years has left conservatives very gun shy, especially since the First Felon was in office. But what surprises me is how they keep on making the same mistake over and over again: if you ignore the continuous wild shrieking of the Liberal Lunatic Fringe (the Democrats) and say so, they lose power and you gain power. Henry Kissinger once said: “if someone says ‘I support Joe, and I know that the allegations about beating his wife are untrue’ and Joe responds with a heated denial, his heated denial only adds credibility to the charge. If Joe ignores it and says he is not going to dignify that with an answer, it makes it much less believable.”

On the other hand, to try to take high road all the time doesn’t work either. Before the first W election, when Irving Crystal was being interviewed by a BBC reporter he was asked: “Many have charged that Mr. Bush is a dangerous extremist, how do you respond?” He stumbled around and lamely said he was not. What he should’ve said was: only a dangerous extremist could think Mr. Bush is a dangerous extremist. It is high time we stop letting Liberals call us extremists when the truth is that it is Liberals who are the extremists. And they know it too, which is why they hide who they really are. They believe they’re “ahead” of everyone else and in time we’ll all catch up to them, and so far it has been true enough that they’ve adopted this method in everything they do, while managing to silence many people who don’t agree with them but are afraid to say so by demonizing them. In many ways they have changed this country and much for the worse. But they know deep down conservatives are not extremists, they’re trying to paint them as such because, as in everything else, they believe (and justifiably so) that if they shout it loudly enough and long enough, it’ll become so. That used to be called intimidation and brainwashing and there are times when we simply cannot ignore the slap of the gauntlet and must come out swinging with everything we’ve got!

We never get liberals.

I'll second that -- thanks for joining the fun, Von. Please feel free to invite all your leftie friends to comment here in the future. We need a few liberals so that we can get ourselves foaming at the mouth without having to insult each other over nit-picking issues.

Megan - OT, but very good analysis of the boxing style Ali was taught. It was how Ali was so successful - a long strategy on top of excellent skills. The only times he deviated and went into slugfests, he was hurtin'. Joe Frazier gave him no choice in "The Thrilla in Manila" because Frazier hated him so much that he was willing to die to get back at Ali for demeaning and humiliating him as a Stupid Uncle Tom. Frazier almost died in the hospital from his trauma, and cognoscenti say Ali's present manifestations of brain damage (Parkinson's is a cover story only) was mostly due to what Frazier did in that fight. The other ones were where Ali elected to punch it out with a buck Marine named Ken Norton and got his jaw broken, and his Larry Holmes whipping...

Megan - Are you a gun owner? And if so what do you own?

Fellow right-wing gun-nuts:

See post at 07:16 PM in this thread, and follow-ups for details

CF-

"It was how Ali was so successful - a long strategy on top of excellent skills. The only times he deviated and went into slugfests, he was hurtin'."

Right you are. A lot of the people in our party who've been so upset since yesterday would do well to set aside some time and watch the slugfests, as well as the long-game matches... it's instructive.

Alright 'Megan' what did you do with her? You know what I mean. This Megan:

I don't want a compromise. I like to gloat, and you can't gloat without winning; you can't win without a fight, and you can't have a fight if you have a compromise. Screw compromise. We should be picking fights and winning them - it's time for those pussies in the Senate to find at least one goddamn spine among the lot of them...

Posted by Megan at May 19, 2005 01:09 PM

We want her back!

On Topic -

The filibuster deal was sadly about what the Republicans deserved at this point. Bush is still declining in the polls (46% approval), and 2/3rds of the country thinks we are going in the wrong direction.

The Terri Schiavo Pander-Fest to RTL extemists turned into a disaster for several Republican Senators after getting severe criticism at home a la` the Danforth Letter, and they had to show their constituents they are not in the grip of the Theocrats. The biggest voter issues are the health care insurance crisis, Iraq, jobs, illegal immigration, and energy. And none of those issues would be able to be addressed by the Senators if they went into abortion politics gridlock after exercising the Byrd Option.

Without the Schiavo fiasco, I doubt Warner, Collins, or Graham would have joined McCain. Even Snuffy Smith (Lincoln Chafee) could have been reined in, but he caught major Schiavo heat when he went back home....But, given weaknesses and wanting to avoid the impression that once again the Reps were willing to throw bombs on behalf of religious right extremists --- it seemed prudent to punt a bit....let the Dems screw it up by exerting the filibuster inappropriately in the future

It was a good move long term for Republicans in the sense that they know the President is weak, his issues are not being well-received by the public. They too have real problems with his lack of consultation, even with the Republican caucuses. Bushies have royally pissed off certain Republican Senators by appointing judges to Districts the Senators represent without ever asking the Rep Senators who was on their own list. And Bush has pulled this with other programs he bypassed his Party on, like Man to Mars and lowballing his prescription drug boondoggle and dealing directly with Big Pharma lobbyists and sleazeball Tauzin. So page 2 of the "deal" was also about fed-up Republicans finally telling Bush to open lines of communication to Congress and quit blindsiding them.

And the Republicans have major bills pending on defense, immigration, energy, and transportation - the stuff they have to run for re-election on - on top of appeasing the Religious Right on the judges issue. And know that legislation could have been derailed by simply playing hardball abortion politics.

Also, the Repubs have to face the truth that the public thinks the country is going in the wrong direction and may chuck several Repubs in 2006, and the Repubs face significant odds they will be out of the Presidency in 2008 - as many of Bush's actions haven't panned out as once hoped....so they do have concerns about the day when they return to the minority and keeping the ability to block the worst liberal ideas, or Ruth Ginsburg - type jurists that NYC shyster Chuckie Schumer has in mind....

See what happens when you humor it

But I still don't think it's perfectly accurate to say that "now conservatives = the moderates of old" given that women only got the vote 85 years ago...

Sorry for my incoherence. Don't know where you are, but here in the NE its like we're going to get April for the rest of our lives. Cold, rainy, and not enough coffee can fix my brainbox today.

Good points of course Megan, we are more civilized now.
But regardless of improved social mores; the union-busting, program slashing instinct has also left the party. They want to reform social security, not phase it out.
Not sure where neo-cons fit in the spectrum; many of us are not religious and to the social left of those who are.
But pretty much anything to the left of a modern Republican is Very Far Left, historically speaking.

Don't know what I just said but I'm a-gunna hit 'post' anyway.

He got "theocrats" and "schiavo" in there, but somehow forgot "zionists." I think he is slipping.

O/T- this thread title has put the AC/DC song in my head all day

Brewfan -

"Alright 'Megan' what did you do with her? You know what I mean."

Heh. I'm still that Megan. ;)

But this particular kind of compromise - where we get something and give up nothing; we just kick the can the road a bit - wasn't being discussed back then. Back then a "compromise" would've meant withdrawing a nomination or two. It took some major groundwork to get us this unexceptionable deal.

I just think that if we can get a bigger fight, a more serious fight, and a fight we're far more likely to win with far fewer casualties, we'd be fools to go for anything smaller, less important, and more costly. Let me try another analogy since apparently no one liked the poker one.

Right now we've got a superior scouting force, skirmishing with a weakened Dem force. But our advantage can be approximated at about 4:3 only, and we have no snipers or air support, just ground troops. We still have a tactical advantage, so shouldn't we crush them now? We'd take casualties, but it's still attractive.

But wait - the enemy is giving up some ground and fortifications we want and they're withdrawing. We see their main force in the distance; ours is still catching up to us.

Let's let them go. Let them rejoin their main force, such as it is - and let the battle be fought in a far more strategic location, with overwhelmingly superior numbers on our side, and every weapon we can bring to bear. 4:3 or 2:1? I know which odds I prefer to have on my side.

Let's bide our time and crush them once and for all, instead of wasting our energy on outlying skirmishes. Then we can sit back, relax, and gloat all night.

One of the side effects of this mess is the Democratic leadership is off the hook for a while having to scream "extremist" at every nominee that comes along. They can use the seven Democrat moderates that the media is so in love with now. Free pass. No more Schumer, Kennedy, Reid.

Dammit.

Frist could still force their "extreme circumstances" hand by making them declare one (or more) of the seven is unnacceptable, and therefore will be filibustered. He doesn't have to go along with this deal.

Laura -

I gotcha now. Thanks for taking the time to clarify; this in particular is a very good and very important point:

"regardless of improved social mores; the union-busting, program slashing instinct has also left the party. They want to reform social security, not phase it out."

I'd like to see that instinct return myself but I'm not sure if it's politically possible anymore. Institutional impetus is one of the hardest things to combat; on the intelligence/military side, of course, it needed 9/11 to make us start to do a 180. And we're still turning five years later.

Depressing thought. But heck, I'm in Arlington VA and it's not much better than wherever you are... must be something in the weather that's making us all so maudlin.

"I just think that if we can get a bigger fight, a more serious fight, and a fight we're far more likely to win"

Obviously this is Bush's two to three nominations to the Supreme Court, along with the GOP retention of the WH in 2008. That's the war, this is just a skirmish whose importance in the war can only be judged when it's all over.

To further Megan's analogy, this is about getting your troops positioned, and supplied, and scouting the next battlefield.

So to quote Bluto: " What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!"

Fanks Megan.
It would be easier to get the thing to turn if there weren't so many hands pulling the wheel in the opposite direction.

The correct Animal House reference is Lindsey Graham saying to Bill Frist: "You fucked
up -- you trusted us!"

Megan, perhaps some clarification is in order. When I say that Republicans should be out for blood, I don't mean that they should waste effort, obviously. But they have to view the Democrats as the enemy. They should be seeing politics as a war instead of a gentlemanly game.

I listened to a local radio interview with Lindsey Graham earlier. His stated rationale for what he did was that he trusted the Democrats and thought that it would be brotherly to compromise instead of fighting them.

That is the danger here: Republicans are not interested in governing. They are interested in getting along at all costs.

Republicans are not interested in governing. They are interested in getting along at all costs.

Are you kidding? Somebody needs to tell Karl Rove he's out of line. No more gutter politics, Karl.

Take my hand in your right hand, Karl, and Hillary's with your left, and sing along:

Kum bye yah, my Lord, Kum bye yah . . .

Placid, AIM me @

Cancer Marney

Too drunk to really follow a staggered conversation here.