"One party rule is bad!"

[gratuitous]

Is this the best the NRSC can come up with? It certainly doesn't seem to have been much of a concern for Republicans during the early part of this decade, but now the prospect of one party controlling the House, the Senate and the White House has them squealing like piggies stuck in a mud fence.

Are they that stupid, or do they think Oregonians are that stupid? Either way, the ad seems unpersuasive and a waste of the NRSC's dwindling funds. I hope to see the ad a whole lot more in the next 72 hours. And I'm hoping that Avel Gordly and Elisabeth Furse see it every stinkin' time it's on, and both of them bitterly rue they day they decided to film ads for Gordon Smith. Way to hitch your wagons to the Titanic, ladies.

[quakerboy]

1. I think here in Oregon

they might have gotten more traction out of playing up Gordies appointments and seniority.

[dhpgetsit]

2. In general, I agree.

This season, the adults have a lot of work to do so having a filibuster proof majority would be nice.

[classof56]

3. I just did some phone banking for Merkley.

A fellow volunteer said she'd talked to a voter who'd already cast his ballot and had written a letter to President Obama. Yes!

I am terribly irked by the "one party rule is bad" ads. NRSC might have the idea we're stupid because Gordo was re-elected, but I'm predicting we won't get fooled again. As for Gordley and Furse--I'm guessing when the Titanic goes down, Gordo won't follow the "ladies first" rule when it comes to jumping on the life boats!

[funflower]

4. Until we have a monarchy, government will always be divided.

Nobody ever accused the democratic party of agreeing on everything, that's fer sure.

[cascadiance]

5. They had the congress and the president AND the SCOTUS!

We still won't have control of SCOTUS for some time yet, unless SCOTUS gives us fuel to impeach one or two of them, which might happen. I think they're ruling on that case on voting registrations in Ohio was a signal that they are wanting to be more "careful" now to protect the Republicans' last hold on power in government come 2009.

[Greyhound]

8. I'm pretty sure the SCOTUS has nothing to do with impeachment.

But, Democratically controlled Senate should enable Obama to appoint truly progressive justices to counter-balance the current embarrassment.
:kick:

[cascadiance]

9. I'm not talking about impeachment of Bushco, but of certain members of SCOTUS itself!

Yes, Supreme Court Justices can be impeached too! Not for just ruling on cases that you disagree with them on. But if they would be found to be arguably breaking the law in doing things like what some might argue to be obstruction of justice, there are areas they could be impeached. That is probably why SCOTUS didn't let Nixon get away with trying to ignore subpoenas by the congress in those days. They knew that if they stood in the way, their heads might also be on the chopping block if they perhaps were found to have obstructed justice in those instances.

[Greyhound]

10. I see, good point.

I'm not aware of anything that even "silent Thomas" has done that can be construed as illegal, but then I'm not a lawyer, nor did I sleep in a hotel run by reich-wing fascist war mongers.

[cascadiance]

11. Illegal is probably the wrong word, since ultimately SCOTUS decides what is legal and not legal...

... though ruling against constitutional law and other laws and if its arguably to protect other lawbreaking/lawbreakers, then Congress might view such actions as "impeachable".

I think possible areas for impeaching this SCOTUS might be:
1) If they knew of wrongdoing that was being covered up on appeals to the supreme court to expose such wrongdoing that they refused to hear, or ruled against (ie. Sibel Edmonds case). If it can be shown that they intentionally avoiding ruling on this case, that's close to impeachable.
2) If they rule against the congress's attempts to serve subpoenas on this administration, then arguably that is also impeachable, if it can be shown that their ignoring subpoenas wasn't truly about protecting secrets necessarily, but more to cover up their wrongdoing. The latter in my book is obstruction of justice, and that is why SCOTUS in the time of Nixon didn't support him on these sorts of rulings.

[Permanut]

6. It Ain't Working

Merkley has been steadily pulling ahead for a month now, but still showing only about 6 points ahead. One thing though, Gordo has nothing but lies and innuendo to work with, and I happen to know that, because Jeff is my wife's brother's wife's brother's wife's brother. I'm series!11! Talk about your reliable source!

[LWolf]

7. So is 2-party rule.

Let's break the 2-party system and let all the rest of the U.S. have some representation.