There is a difference between saying no and offering an alternative

[question everything]

Yes, we know that negative campaign does succeed but each campaign is different. I think that one of the reason why Kerry lost (and, please, spare me the voting fraud) is that he did not succeed in carrying the message for what he stood.

I have posted here before about social security - that it is not enough to say no to private account but that we need to offer our view of it including, yes, the deficit caused by the war in Iraq and by the tax cut for the wealthy.

And now with John Roberts. I don't say that we - rather, our Senators - should just shrug their shoulders and vote for him because he is going to win, anyway. Yes, we do need to question him about his stand on the rights to privacy (no need to talk superficially about Roe) about civil rights and about other issues. And, yes, our Senators can vote against him if they are not satisfied.

I don't believe in training the other cheek or in turning over and playing dead. But I think that just objecting to everything that this administration does, without offering an alter naive, or a clear explanation of why we object - will not get us back Congress or the White House.

And let's remember that 7 of the 9 current justices, including O'Connor, were appointed by Republican presidents and yet this court is considered a moderate. So even if he wins, let's not wear black armbands, yet.

[Frances]

1. I agree that it's best to think before attacking

But remember that Bush's model justices are Scalia and Thomas. That is scary.

[question everything]

2. Scalia is considered to be brilliant but has a problem with personality

and, apparently, even in the Supreme Court, justices that get along can get more cooperation.

Thomas got the lowest "grade" from the lawyers - whatever that association is that provide the opinion.

Roberts, at least, is a smart one.

I don't think that Bush can recognize a judge like Scalia or like Thomas if his life depends on it.