I will only donate campaign funds to Democrats against Roberts.

[liberalnurse]

Of course we are speaking of just Senators.......but this will be my benchmark. I will also note who was the most vocal against him as well! Any other opinions?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

1. That's a lame benchmark.

Your measuring stick is an absolutely pointless vote? Get real.

[liberalnurse]

3. I'm voting, just not giving any Democrat my money

if they support Roberts. I will be looking at who voted for and against Roberts. Are you telling me you give each Democratic Senator hard cold cash? If so, I'm impressed.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. I don't. You made it sound like you do though.

Why are you making such a bold statement then?

[CBGLuthier]

4. What is pointless about it

Sure, he will probably get confirmed but does it have to be 98-2 which is what I have as the current count.

Why can't it be 60-40 so they can at least send a message that this guy stinks.

[LittleClarkie]

5. Three so far: Reid, Kerry, Kennedy

97 - 3. We shall see who else.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

11. Send a message to whom?

To the people who already believe it? To the ignorant masses that barely know who John Roberts even is? To the people paying attention but still don't see why we think he's terrible? Because if you're sending that message to the third group, you're shooting yourself in the foot. We've got almost NOTHING on this guy to support the claim that he sucks.

[nonconformist]

14. How about a message to their BASE, to show they give a shit? nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

15. I would hope the base doesn't want us to slit our own throats.

But then again, I stand corrected.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nonconformist]

19. Did I say that?

Stop putting words in my mouth.

I've noticed there is another SCOTUS nomination. I wasn't aware we only had ONE CARD TO PLAY IN 8 FUCKING YEARS. I wasn't aware that voting for what you think is right, even if you know that the outcome will be the opposite, isn't an option. And you have to be kidding me on the "leverage" argument. We have fought virtually NOTHING so far. Bush has gotten what, 98% of his judges appointed? These appeasement votes haven't been working out all that well for us, you'll note.

We should have forced their hand with the nuclear option back in May. The vast majority of the American public was on our side with that. They would have been forced to pull their bratty fascist shit on live TV, and cause a major rift in their own party for it. Instead, we allowed them to say that we can only use the filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances" of which THEY will determine and framed it as some sort of "victory" for the democrats. It matters not, because the filibuster is DEAD. We didn't use it then, we won't use it now, and we won't use it for the next SCOTUS appointment. They've given us zero confidence in that they'll really fight for anything.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

20. Putting words in your mouth? Explain this line then please:

Maybe to men, it's more of a "trivial" matter.

I didn't put those words into your mouth - you did.

[nonconformist]

22. Yes, I said that.

I did not, however, say that everyone that disagrees with me doesn't care at all about women - like you said. If I offended you, I do apologize. However, I am getting really tired of men saying this is a "pointless" vote. It's not pointless to me.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

23. It's pointless regardless of gender because we can't win

There is absolutely, positively no way we can win on this vote. It's over. It's done. Me being a man or you being a woman doesn't change that.

Taking a stand on this is also pointless. Even if every Democrat did what you wanted, it would have no positive effect other than to make you feel better. On the other hand, it does, in fact, have serious potentially negative effects, as well as hampering whatever little possibility we'll have at stopping the next anti-women and corporate nominee. I'm sorry, but I think that far out weighs the short lived feeling of satisfaction you might get out of a no vote.

I don't know about you, but I'm tired of salivating over moral victories. I want REAL victories, but I know they're not going to happen today.

[CBGLuthier]

24. Please, just tell us the negative consequences

I am absolutely serious. Please tell me how doing the right thing and voting as a representative of the people can have negative consequences.

I am not an idiot. I know about political expediency and playing the damn game but if we don't expect something of these people then WTF should we support them or even be democrats?

By your thinking we may as well just join the republican party and sell our souls to Bush because we sure don't want no negative consequences.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. It's simple.

Most people don't think Roberts is that bad. We have nothing to prove that Roberts is that bad.

Therefore, if we vote against him en masse, we will essentially be saying that we're just going to vote against ANYONE Bush nominates. This completely destroys any leg we would be standing on when the next nominee comes down the pipe. Further, it green lights Bush to nominate Atilla the Hun, which is something he is not all that likely to do currently with his poll numbers nose diving and support eroding within his own party on Capitol Hill. He can't really afford a serious fight right now. But we can't just fight about anything, or we lose that leverage.

And I'm sorry, but my not wanting to be a mindless zealot in no way suggests that we should just "join the Republican party and sell our souls to Bush". You obviously *don't* know about "playing the damn game" because if you did then you wouldn't have to ask that ridiculous question. You would already know that our party doesn't have the power to do a goddamn thing in this situation.

[CBGLuthier]

28. Sure they have power

They could have demanded he answer some fucking questions and if he didn't walk out on him.

We will never, ever win playing the game by their rules.

The time for decorum and kissing ass is long past. Personally, I believe every true democrat should walk out of congress rather than letting Bush have his fucking way every step of the way.

Want a war Mr. Bush. Sure.... we don't care, our kids aren;t dieing. Fuck the People.

Want a tax cut Mr. Bush. Sure... we don't care... fuck the people, we make more money than them.

Want to steal TWO GODDAMN elections Mr. Bush. Sure... we don't care... FUCK THE PEOPLE, WE GOT OURS!!!

As far as I have seen Nancy Pelosi is the only person with any balls in the whole fucking place. All of our elected "men" gave theirs up when they allowed the fuck to take office.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

29. Call me crazy, but was Pelosi not in office when Bush took over?

Personally though, I've no time for zealots of any variety. Best wishes to you in the future.

[nonconformist]

37. A few major flaws with your argument.

First off - you're assuming this is politics as usual when it's anything but. The scenario that you are describing is how we've been operating for the past 5 years - we don't want to be seen as "obstructionists"; we need "leverage" for the BIG ONE. I hate to point out the obvious, but what we've been doing ISN'T WORKING. Not only is it not working and this country completely in shambles, but they're really starting to piss off a good portion of their base. I am not alone in my frustrations, far from it. And I am hardly a radical "burn it down to save it" purist. And increasingly, the BIG ONE is becoming some mythical fantasy.

The reason that republicans win elections, voter fraud aside, is that they cater to their BASE. They catch a few stragglers in the middle, and there you go. The democrats try to cater to the middle, and take their base for granted. Say what you will, but we're LOSING. It's not WORKING. The impression is that we're weak... and the reality is that we're weak. If you really DO want to win again, these are the facts that need to be recognized. And if anything has been made abundantly clear over the last few years, this has long left the 'politics as usual' arena. These are dire times. This is a Chief Justice that will sit for 30+ years. He will be the person that interprets our constitution. This is no light matter.

And I disagree that we have no evidence that Roberts is bad. He's unqualified, for one thing. He was part of Bush's council to stop the recount in 2000 - it's a conflict of interest. Not to mention many of his prior statements and rulings - from everything to Roe vs. Wade to weakening the separation of church and state. The majority of Americans think that Roe vs. Wade should stand.

Can we stop his appointment? Probably not. Can we voice our displeasure and vote accordingly? Absolutely. I don't see why voting in accordance to our party platform would discredit us - I think it would be the exact opposite. As an aside, Bush's popularity is in the toilet. People are starting to look at every move he makes with increased skepticism. A smart political move would be to capitalize on that with Roberts, as well as bring up other phenomenal Bush appointees like Brown. Worrying about overplaying our hand is ridiculous - we're barely in the freaking game here.

[liberalnurse]

38. My primary issue is that I

will NOT give any of the Yea Sayers one red cent..........I'm sending my hard earned dollars to the ones who DO fight for me.

[Generator]

41. You rock!

With much more cohesion and less anger than I ever could. I concur completely.

"Worrying about overplaying our hand is ridiculous - we're barely in the freaking game here."

Yes I was told by a famous Du'er that our "filibuster compromise" saved Roe v. Wade. Today I've seen it as an argument as why we cannot fight this appointment. And honestly, Roe is the least of my worries about this guy. He scares me to death. And of course, I will pay attention to the Democrats that vote SMARTLY and smell a snake-Kerry always seems to be able to-because I tend to go for the smart ones and think the appeasers are fools. There is nothing to win by not voting conscience here. That they STILL think so scares me to death even more-thus my thinking that any real change ain't gonna to be happening on the hill any time in the next dozen years but on the streets-where all change, all movements really happen. They don't happen with those that are trying to only save their jobs.

[EFerrari]

43. Exactly. And what kind of opposition is afraid

TO OPPOSE.

:shrug:

This is why I went Green. The Green just call bullshit. They don't over determine their position to death. If you want something DONE, give it to Greens.

It saddens me, regardless, to see the shambles this party is in. We used to have a mission and it used to be respectable. We used to be proudly raucous and not a little feared in many places.

[TwilightZone]

2. No, thanks.

We need to win in '06 and '08. Setting one-issue - one-vote, in fact - benchmarks isn't going to help.

[CBGLuthier]

6. one issue, I can think of more than that

They don't care about gay rights.

They don;t care about women's rights.

They don't care about civil rights.

They don't care about the murders of over 100,000 non-americans so one asshat can feel he is a man.


And if you want to dispute these points, show me where they fought anything Bush has wanted.

When they start fighting Bush, they can have my money. I am not giving them one damn penny until they start taking stands.

[EFerrari]

8. You won't win in 06 let alone in 08 unless these people grow some

huevos. For one thing, they've managed to let all the VOTING MACHINES be owned by Republicans.

liberalnurse is right. Someone has to draw a line -- while there's still something to draw it on.

[TwilightZone]

9. And not supporting them is going to help that how?

Sorry, but withholding support because Joe Democrat didn't agree with you on every single decision he has ever made is ridiculous.

I have no problem drawing a line. My line just happens to be between the Republicans and the Democrats.

Apparently, yours is in the middle of our party instead of between them.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

18. Quite well stated.

I love your last line. That really gets to the heart of the matter.

[EFerrari]

25. Nice try

I don't support Beltway podpeople no matter what initial they have after their name.

That's called quality control.

And, btw, I'm a Green. :hi:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. So let me get this straight

You're trying to tell Democrats what they should be doing to win... but you're not a Democrat and you're not leading anywhere near an effective campaign to get anyone of your own party elected yourself? Do I have the facts straight there?

[EFerrari]

30. No.

I never tell anyone what they should be doing. So, no. Your facts aren't straight and I call bullshit on your tactics.

On edit: Good luck trying to invalidate people here. And I hope you have a big fat cushion for your rear.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Oh, but you ARE doing that.

Just look a few posts north. You state specifically that "You won't win unless..." So I'm pretty sure my facts are straight.

[EFerrari]

33. Vash, stating the obvious is not a command.

Go look up who holds the controlling interest in Diebold, Sequoia, et all.

I've no interest in upsetting people, at all. If I've been offensive, I apologize.

But this whole "let's let this one go because the next thing is worse" strategy has gotten us exactly HERE. With the Blackwater mercenaries occupying NEW ORLEANS.

Time for a new strategy.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

34. But what you're talking about

isn't going to be fixed through words, or hell, even civilized action alone. What you're talking about needs to be fixed with marching in the streets and/or armed rebellion. If you really and truly feel that the elections are rigged (and I'm not passing judgement one way or the other), merely voting against Roberts when he's going to be confirmed anyway isn't going to change that.

[EFerrari]

36. I think you're right in a way. We need, those of us who can cross

party lines to support our values -- we need to find a way to do that. My family is generations of Dems.

My 70 yr old mom will be in DC for the 24th. She doesn't need to do that; she could be home and comfortable.

I guess I'm coming from the viewpoint that rolling over hasn't helped. And Andy sure talked my ear off about all the egregious problems with electronic voting.

This is as serious as possible. And unless our elected reps start REPRESENTING US we have a world of hurt in our future.

[TwilightZone]

35. That's rather convenient.

Some of us would actually like to win back Congress and the White House, thanks.

Quality control? Well, that's ok if your idea of quality control is Republican control of the government. Until a third party demonstrates that it can win a national election, withholding support from the Dems does nothing but help the Reps stay in power.

[EFerrari]

42. If you want to win back Congress, get yourself to the elections

forum.

Posturing won't do it. You need to secure the election (I said tiresomely AGAIN.)

[liberalnurse]

40. I love support!

Drawing a line as to when, where and to whom I send my hard earned cash to is a reasonable step.

When I get mail solicitation from a Democratic Senator who voted for Roberts....I will just send a letter of explanation as to why there is not a check this time for them. I will also identify the Senators whom I chose to support with cash instead of them this time.

[Mr_Spock]

7. I'm most worried about the next appointment at this point.

This guy is replacing a pretty right-wing guy. The next appointment will be where the rubber hits the road - let's save our ammunition for this most critical appointment...

[KharmaTrain]

10. Let's Try This Scenario

The Repugnican Party is looking at 2006 a lot differently than we are. They see a real big goal in sight...a veto proof House and Senate.

Just winning 5 more Senate Seats gives them 60. Fillibuster? Bye Bye. While it appears that doesn't seem likely as early polls show more Repugnican seats in trouble than Democratic ones...there still is need to keep this in mind as to who one picks their fights with.

Several of the Democratic seats...Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Florida are being targeted and are in states with strong Repugnican voter turn-out.

Weakening support for Democratic candidates in a vote they really had no way of stopping could also mean losing a vote in 2007 to end the Iraq invasion or prevent two more nominations from being rammed through.

[pepperlove]

12. I like it

:kick:

[meganmonkey]

21. Opinions?

Just :hi:

See you Friday!!!

:woohoo:

(I'm a one-track poster today!)

[bugslsu9]

31. What are your qualifications for the House?

I am running, and can use the money, obviously!

[liberalnurse]

39. The House is not in this vote.......

So, I will probably send ya some cash.O8)