 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: ceitagh Date: 13 Aug 00 - 11:11 AM Thanks Rhymer, i think i'll frame that. :-D Ceit |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: DougR Date: 12 Aug 00 - 02:01 PM Ceitagh: I find little to quarrel with in your posting, and I see now that you live in Canada. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 12 Aug 00 - 03:16 AM Ceitegh! Ceitegh! Hooray! A teeny weeny nut shell in it for a crack, Hand me the set of pliers, the dwarf threw out his back. Simply smashing s'nopsis, bull market by the horns; You aced this little pop quiz, star golden crown adorns! thanks! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: CarolC Date: 12 Aug 00 - 02:53 AM ceitagh, I think you are right in many respects. However, deception by politicians isn't really anything new around here. Franklin D. Roosevelt got around using a wheelchair after he lost the ability to walk because of polio. Most of the American public new nothing about it at the time. F.D.R. didn't want people to know he couldn't walk because he was afraid he would be percieved as being weak. It's a state of affairs that's been around for a long, long time, I think. My own opinion about the majority of people voting is that it's not going to happen as long as we have the electoral college. Respectfully, Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: ceitagh Date: 11 Aug 00 - 02:14 PM They're all fakes. ok, since i've started, i might as well continue....this is a rant, so ignore it if you wish. I am constantly amazed at american politics....amazed occasionally, envious occasionally, and occasionally extremely, extremely cynical. ok, usually extremely, extremely cynical. there is such a liveliness to american politics, i love the contstant debate, the constant bill passing and discussing and vetoing and protesting....that is what keeps the important issues from simply being buried, that is what allows the populace, if they care to get involved, to have a voice. Here (in canada) I often feel that nothing will or can ever change, as it is incredibly difficult for private members bills to pass (or even get a hearing) and the majority of members aren't allowed to vote their conscience anyway. But despite the lively debate and passion in the american system, it seems that every election year there is more concern that nobody tip the boat than there is anything else. The candidates all put on their straightjackets and choose their carefully measured and weighed partners in rhetoric, tour the country with tailored speeches and quotable sound bites, fitting their "strongly held personal beliefs" (yeah whatever) to the current audience, trying to be everything to everybody....while simoutaneously pouring tons of money (from where? at what price gained?) into subtle smear campaigns designed to be broadly accepted as damning truth. this negative campagning, unfortunatly, works as well, and along the same lines, as a gossip campaign in a student council campaign. it need not be true, and it must never be spoken where it may be refuted, but whispered in hallways and sent in mass e-mail chains to....where it lodges and festers in the minds of many, and woe to the campaign that tries to rise above it, because they've lost. Its all hateful. And it is not democracy, not when the majority does not vote, and those who do, will not vote for who they truly want. 'nuff said.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 11 Aug 00 - 01:34 PM Curiouser and curiouser, unwasted on life The caliber of conniseur is seen on his knife Though tricky the devil, a precedent's vice The jester doth revel in naughtier nice! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Ella who is Sooze Date: 11 Aug 00 - 04:27 AM ooo Thomas, you are in the wrong century me thinks. Wasted in this one - lol. Should have been the court jester. Hey nonny nonny no? Ella PS (na na na na naaaaa) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:40 PM Mbo you are a treasure, allow me to explain You have a great intensity, in it please remain I find you quite consistant, A music minded man You're really quite traditional, your role is in the plan... Dare to be your double, the one who walks with power The one who seeks not trouble, not now or at any hour You've got a special genius, on that we all agree And I for one appreciate your musicallity!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Mbo Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:19 PM Does PS mean Pigeon S***? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 10 Aug 00 - 01:03 PM Oops..... She did reply, and in good faith! Now you must understand I've got a little crow to taste Delicacies unplaned SORRY 'BOUT THAT, I SOUNDLY SAY P.S. though PS here shall stay..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:50 PM Ella's gotta wetter blanket She did not reply And put it firmly down Just like the crown'd royalty I fear that she may...frown |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: DougR Date: 10 Aug 00 - 12:15 PM Ella: Have you considered just not tuning in to the political threads? There are not that many, and by far the majority of the threads are not political. Just a thought. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Ella who is Sooze Date: 10 Aug 00 - 05:33 AM Woah get off your soap box Now I would never insist on the banning of politics talk totally - I believe in freedom of speech. And I also think that you get loads of hype all around elections, wouldn't it be nice if there was somewhere which was free from all the hype and a place to relax and away from the politics It is just I think that perhaps mudcat is not the best place to do it. I think that mudcat should be as non political as it can, after all music is meant to bring people together - and it does. Secondly I get fed up with the American over hype of Elections and the huge amount of money spent on them. Now, I work for a government group in the UK and I would like to think I can escape from politics and go to the mudcat where I can find out about music, and catch up with what is going on with everyone elses music pastimes. Okay Whistle... you like politics. Hooray. And thankyou Mbo for your support. Though I am not worried in the slightest - I can hack it. lol so there we go - I just think it is the wrong place to discuss these things. Though I do understand the general need to do so.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Mbo Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:47 PM Don't worry Ella, I'm with you. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: DougR Date: 09 Aug 00 - 01:00 PM Whistle Stop: I was in agreement on the balance of what you said in that posting. Ella: It would be difficult to post meaningfully to this Thread without it involving politics. If you were urging the banning of political duscussion on the Mudcat, sorry, that just won't happen. As long as the differing viewpoints respect the right for folks to differ with them, however, why not discuss politics? On the Lieberman issue, I think Gore chose him for two reasons: 1. He needs to distance himself from Clinton, and Lieberman offered the best opportunity to do that, and 2. His handlers suggested that selecting a Jewish candidate to run with him would get him a great deal of publicity (which it certainly has ...breaking down the walls, etc. etc.) I'm confident that they never would have suggested it if the polls didn't indicate that it was a good idea. Candidates in both parties rely far to much on polls, in my opinion. One never knows when one hears a candidate express his/her views whether or not those views are really the candidates, or the result of a poll or opinions gathered from a focus group. Lieberman made perhaps the most effective speech of any in the Senate on the misbehaviour of our President. In the long-run, however, when push came to shove, he did not support impeachment. To him, the president was "half pregnant." As to the religious issue, any and all who heard Gore and Lieberman on GMA this morning would have to agree, I think, that the two of them played the religious card to a fare-the-well. They were both stumbling all over themselves to claim who had said a prayer when, and who had said it first. Poor interviewer, Jack Ford; it was obvious, at least to me, that he truly was interested in interviewing the Senator, but the Vice President couldn't abide not being the center of attention in the interview. He couldn't resist tossing in his own two cents at every opportunity. Personally, I think the Senator is a decent, honorable man who has represented his state well. He was a great choice for Gore to make, and it probably will help him. Whether it will help him enought to get him elected, we will just have to wait and see. The Vice President candidate has never been enough before (for either Party) to carry an election. The race is still going to be between Bush and Gore. My opinion only, of course. DougR
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Mrrzy Date: 09 Aug 00 - 11:51 AM There was some very interesting stuff on NPR today comparing and contrasting this year's democratic ticket with JFK's, and how hard it was then to elect a Catholic president, how JFK refused to "play the religion card" and Nixon too, and so on. Very very interesting and I hadn't thought of that comparison at all. Of course, at my age I don't remember that election year, but you folkies who do, what do you think of that? About tokenism and so on: I don't think that's what it is, I think the "handlers" think he's the best chance Gore has. But I fear, I fear. I remember when I found out, after living in the US for a few years and witnessing amazingly prevalent anti-black racism, that blacks had gotten the vote before women. I was SHOCKED. I mean truly shocked. I would never have pegged us as being more misogynistic than racist. And I see everyday antisemetism; and I think of the Redneck In The Street Who Votes: would they be more likely to object to a semite or a female? Again, I find myself assuming more antisemitism than misogyny, so I think this is a bad idea in terms of Will It Sink The Boat (NOT in terms of Should It Be Done - it's long overdue to have ANY variety in the White House) - but I've underestimated misogyny before, so maybe I'm wrong, and a woman would have hurt the ticket more. As you see, I am very pessimistic about this whole thing... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Whistle Stop Date: 09 Aug 00 - 08:44 AM Ella, we like the politics; why shouldn't we keep this thread going? DougR, thanks for the constructive input on democracies vs. republics. I am not an expert in political theory, but I assume your correction is based on the fact that the US is not a DIRECT democracy. Point well taken, although I think my subsequent discussion about the need for compromise, negotiation, etc. is still valid. To get back to the original topic, it seems that Lieberman is generally well-regarded by his colleagues, as Gore himself is (campaign bickering notwithstanding). I just wish they didn't feel so compelled to play the "God and morality" card. This persistent moralizing is damaging to the public discourse, and in my opinion most of it is as phony as a three-dollar bill. In my experience those who feel the need to proclaim their superior virtue often possess less of it than their peers (Richard Nixon was one of the most sanctimonious bastards who ever occupied the White House). I would probably feel better about the Lieberman nomination if I didn't think that it was based primarily on moral posturing and Jewish tokenism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Ella who is Sooze Date: 09 Aug 00 - 04:30 AM Please Stop with the politics..... please please please..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 09 Aug 00 - 03:14 AM The basic quality that makes Americans seem like one coherent group, is the desire to be on the winning team. This often implies that the voter "needs" to vote for someone they are convinced can win. But who does the convincing around here anyway? The conservative press. As long as we listen to their banter and bicker, We will take the lesser of two evils, or drop out of the "I care about politics" school of thought completely. Nader is the most reasoning candidate, the most logical man, and has a track record supremo. He should be hard to beat, but he's hard to hear because he contradicts most of what we are taught. The professional politicians would/do not appreciate his approach, because their carrers depend on the system we now have...Pork Barrel! SUUUUUUUIE! SUUUUUUIE! SUUUUUUIE! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: GUEST,Luther Date: 09 Aug 00 - 12:55 AM kat/katlaughing -- thing is, there really isn't a lot of hard data there. The list of presidents and the number of justices they appointed, yes, that's "hard data" in the sense that it's factual. But the relevance of those facts to Roe v. Wade is arguable, to say the least. Even if you accept that 2.62, or 2.8, or 2.5 Supreme court appointments per president is meaningful data, the rest of the argument is conjecture, based on speculation about who will retire, who will be appointed, the future balance in the Senate, etc. That there will be new appointments to the court in the next eight years is a safe bet; that these will be "anti-choice" appointments who will overturn Roe is something of a stretch. Bush not only has to be elected, he has to be re-elected, and with polls showing %70 support for Roe, I don't think he's going to play the "pro-life" card for real. McCain campaigned as "pro-life", look where it got him, and that was the Republican primary. Roe was written by a Nixon appointee, and has survived Carter, Reagan, Reagan again, Bush, and nearly three decades of "pro-life" posturing in Congress. I don't think it's going away. For a pithier, funnier, and more cogent take on this, check out Michael Moore's column "Ain't Falling For That One Again" at www.grassroots.com I can't stretch my imagination far enough to see Nader winning. But I can see a Green party strengthened from the turnout that would result from everyone whose conscience says vote Ralph, voting Ralph. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: thosp Date: 09 Aug 00 - 12:37 AM well CarolC i hope Ralph gets the chance to prove you wrong---- personally i don't think that those who have been working with the machinery of government have been doing thier job very well -- peace (Y) thosp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: CarolC Date: 09 Aug 00 - 12:31 AM northfolk/al, I think you said it best yourself. Ralph Nader...has done more for the American people from outside the halls of power... Nader's strength is in his ability to persuade people to use their real power. The power of the purse. The purpose of a president is to work with the machinery of government. That involves a whole different kind of ability and skill. Respectfully, Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: northfolk/al cholger Date: 08 Aug 00 - 11:57 PM What a pitiful state of political affairs...gore picks Lieberman to make himself look more attractive... and this is being done because he feels threatened by shrub? The knock on Bush was that he was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and now his son, who was born with a silver spoon in his nose...and an instant 40 million dollar warchest...is a threat to the peoples candidate? Let me tell you, gore ain't that candidate... Build a party, Build it around a platform, Build it to serve a constituency that has structure and can deliver votes when needed...Build it as a non electoral party, until it reaches substantial numbers... Until then, do like I will do, vote for Ralph Nader, who has done more for the American people from outside the halls of power, than any politician of recent times... And to our new mudcat friend, who thinks that the center is bigger than the left or right...the center is the target for the Bush Gore crowd, and they don't care if it is 2 voters, or 45 million voters...the real political power will come to the party that can invigorate the people who are around 60% of potential voters who have decided the current candidates aren't worth their time. I just left the primary election party in my community, 1200 people voted, out of 10,000 potential...I know who the candidates ought to be courting....
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Aug 00 - 11:19 PM I kind of like the Ficus write-in campaign; if I thought it would count against Bush I'd vote for Ficus in a minute. But I still think that Gore is the closest thing I've seen to someone I'd vote FOR, rather than someone who is The Lesser Of Two Evils. Remember that bumper sticker... CTHULHU FOR PRESIDENT - Why vote for the lesser of 2 evils? And I do fear for the future of reproductive choice, although it isn't the only thing I'd be afraid of under Bush/Cheney. But it probably is the one that would most directly affect me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: thosp Date: 08 Aug 00 - 11:09 PM "The modern civil rights movement began when Rosa Parks refused to sit down in the back of the bus. It makes us look like jerks for saying there's nothing we can do." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------"Look back and you'll see that liberal Republicans of the 1970s were better than most Democrats today," Nader says. "That's what we've gotten by voting for the lesser of two evils; it just legitimizes the downward slide of our political system." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- just a couple of excerpts from Nader speechs --- peace (Y) thosp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: DougR Date: 08 Aug 00 - 10:08 PM Molly Ivens! Gag! I'm glad Lieberman is not at the top of the Demo ticket! :>) DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: katlaughing Date: 08 Aug 00 - 09:57 PM Whew! Leave it to Molly to find a great solution!! Since Wyoming is SO traditionally GOP and I know I will be outvoted, I probably WILL vote for Ralph, although last I knew he hadn't enough signatures to get on the ballot here. Well, I guess I can write him in... Sure wish Lieberman was the top of the Democratic ticket...oh well, thanks Greg! kat
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Greg F. Date: 08 Aug 00 - 09:17 PM I think Molly Ivins has the best take on this I've seen so far, & hope I'm not trying anyone's patience with the length of the following excerpt:
" My voting philosophy is simple: In the primaries, go with your heart; in the finals, vote your brain.
"For short-term strategy, lets get Nader the 15 percent support in the polls that the Debate Commission says he needs to appear in the presidential debates. The point here is to move the debate. I am so sick of having to listen to Newt-Gingrich, Rush-Limbaugh Republicans and the Democrats who keep caving to them that I'll vote Nader in a New York minute.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: bflat Date: 08 Aug 00 - 08:40 PM I must have missed this Thread while in between refresh. I too started one on composing a song for the occasion. Frankly, I think Joseph Lieberman is much more than politics. Here is a man who seems to vote based on a belief system rather than sheer party loyalty. I respect that. He also has a sense of humor. Got to like that. I like that Lieberman removes that specious challenge of W that he stands for restoration of character to the Oval Office. It's a great choice. Let the above thread "Gore and Lieberman" die out unless someone sees and opportunity for a campaign jingle. Jingles can pay a lot of money by advertisers. bflat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: katlaughing Date: 08 Aug 00 - 06:45 PM Luther, I would liuke nothing better than to believe Nader would win and to be able to vote for him in good conscience. Please give specifics as to your argumanet against what I posted from NARAL. I hardly think using hard data about the justices, and the people who might appoint new ones, to try to predict what they might do about women's rights, is akin to trying to prove someone is the anti-christ. Whether you all think it is an old horse that has been beat to death or not, I don't agree. A woman's right to choose has always been threatened and continues to be. Whatever we can do, those of us who support that concept, to keep it intact, we should do, including voting to keep two very anti-choice people out of the White House. Thank you, kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 08 Aug 00 - 04:58 PM Pragmatists will steal the show, while nature's bounty must sadly go, The drama in the trad. folk songs, Is carried over, on and on Take the highway's motel nights, And leave to freaks the holy sites, As nations, hungry, take our lead, we lead them on, we greed their need The same old story, written well, Dead horses beaten with crafted spell, While the wealthy wring the old hard sell, of a nation naught in change to dwell The water here is sweet and fine, your horse won't drink or sing with mine, That 'peace is good' we won't allow, with alarms and locks and dogs that growl Snicker thou at sincere thought, Remember naught how we've been bought, Vote for stagnancy, thou wilt...The Rome and Babylon we've built I appologise for my shortcommings, Misspoken words and errant strummings, But you too resist quantum leaps, In failsafe fashion,...vote for creeps!
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: DougR Date: 08 Aug 00 - 04:19 PM You make some very good points, Whistle Stop, and reasonably stated. I would quarrel only with the fact that you consider the U. S. a democracy. This is a republic that we live in, not a democracy, and it was designed so from the beginning. That said, however, your points about compromise is absolutely on target. Were Nader elected, and I believe the majority of us on this Thread think that is not likely, if he was working with a congress that was not sympathetic with his programs, he would get nothing done. I seriously do believe, however, that one should vote for the person that best represents his/her own point of view, regardless of whether the candidate has much change of winning or not. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Whistle Stop Date: 08 Aug 00 - 03:09 PM Bartholemew raises a good point, in his typically inoffensive and extremely articulate way (I wish I could be like that!). It's not just a question of whose views you like -- it's also a question of who is going to be able to accomplish what he sets out to do if he DOES get elected President. Despite its shortcomings, this IS a democracy -- I reject the arguments of those who would define it otherwise because it doesn't measure up to the ideal (what country does?). The way things are structured in the USA, the Legislative branch is in charge of making the laws, the Judicial branch is in charge of interpreting the laws, and the Executive branch is in charge of administering the laws. And all, directly or indirectly, are subject to the will of the voters. Which means that people have to work together to get things done -- and working together means compromising, convincing, persuading, maneuvering, horse-trading, etc. A President needs to be able to form alliances and coalitions with people he might not otherwise associate with, and work with them on a sustained basis; he needs to try to win the big battles, even if it means losing the smaller ones. If he can't do those things, the only power he has is the power to make things worse. You may not like it, but that's the way it works. You want Nader? Vote for him. But think about whether he'll be able to accpomplish anything -- not in some Utopian democracy of the future, but in the country that we actually have today. If you vote him in and he's unable to accomplish anything, when do you think the millions of other voters in this country will give someone else like him another chance? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: GUEST,Luther Date: 08 Aug 00 - 02:28 PM kat/katlaughing, yes I do believe what I posted. If you look critically at the argument at the link you posted, it's not really an argument at all. It's a conclusion, with a few facts drawn from here and there and some dubious math to prop it up. It's effective propaganda, but it doesn't bear close examination: the argument itself is structured a lot like those that prove so-and-so is the anti-christ, or draw mysterious parallels between Kennedy and Lincoln, etc. I do not believe that a Bush presidency will result in Roe v. Wade being overturned. I do not believe that I can in good conscience vote for Gore. And, truth is, my entire understanding of the cosmos would be turned upside down if Nader were to win. I don't expect it to happen. But look at Perot. He didn't win, either, but now the Reform party is a very real power -- not in the presidential race, no -- but they got Jesse Ventura elected. I mean, how surreal can you get? Why did the perotistas become "real", in such a short time? Because they were unhampered by Hipness, by affectations of world-weariness, by cynical posturing about the "lesser of two evils". In short, they believed. I believe in Ralph, I believe in his intelligence and his decency, and I'm going to vote for him. I don't expect him to win. But that's hardly the point.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: DougR Date: 08 Aug 00 - 02:20 PM Thomas the Rhymer: I, for one, am proud of you. Flaming accomplishes nothing, though it might provide the flamer some inner satisfaction. A big swig of Guinness will do the same thing and cause a lot less grief. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: catspaw49 Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:57 PM Here Horsie.....Here Horsie.........HEY!!! Could somebody drag that dead horse over here so I can beat it again??? I'm not going into it again actually, but I would suggest that ploitics is a matter of methodology and once the system is established, the thing takes its own course and it may meander a bit, but it is pretty much going to be the same, regardless of the office holder. Remember that Thomas may have made it to the court but Bork did not. I would recommend reading some of the works of Jacques Ellul...........OKAY, drag the horse over to the pond and we'll see if we can make him drink......... Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:47 PM I will not flame, I will not flame, I will not flame I will not flame.... When people can't stop pretending that our two party system is Democracy, or that working within the system is going to change the environmental impact of consumer society's addictions, or that violence perpetrated by CIA plants has anything to do with the WTO protests,......I will not flame I will not flame I will not flame I will not flame..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Jim the Bart Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:37 PM Thomas - Thanks for the compliment. Being able to grasp the obvious is a definite step up for me. I used to think the whole system was too hopelessly messed up to fix. The conclusion I ran to was that the only hope was to blow it up and start all over. Unfortunately, when you start over with the same people and the same history you end up in the same place. It does matter who you vote for. But you have to remember what you're voting for, too. You're voting for someone who will govern the country as it is, while moving it gently toward what you want it to be. When I think of Nader, I see Jimmy Carter. A vote for Carter was, as Hunter Thompson put it, a "leap of faith". He was a guy from outside DC who was going to radically change the political scene. All he did while in office was make Ron Reagan look good by comparison. That is not a mistake I will make again. I admire Nader. I always have. But just as Carter's best work was done after he was out of office, Nader's is done as a voice crying out in the wilderness. What Nader would have to do to get elected would effectively silence that voice; what he would have to do while in office would emasculate it. If I'm too much of a pragmatist for some, that's OK. The revolution (which I have been praying for since the 60's) is not going to start in Washington DC. The revolution is an internal process. It starts here. It starts where people discuss the ideas that may (or may not) improve the world. You may think that Nader is the answer. I think he's dead wrong on trade and would be a terrible president. Who's right isn't as important as the discussion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: DougR Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:15 PM Shoot shucks, kat, my love! Do you REALLY think I'd do that? The bumper sticker's a good idea though. Maybe I'll pass it along! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: katlaughing Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:09 PM Luther, surely you cannot believe that? Have a look: From NARAL: The next President may have the opportunity to appoint enough Supreme Court Justices so that the Supreme Court overturns Roe/Casey. Whether this occurs depends on three factors. First, the next President must be given a chance to appoint a sufficient number of Justices, at least two, to overcome the current 6-3 split in favor of Roe/Casey. Second, because the President will likely only get two to three appointees, the purported President's appointees must replace existing pro-Roe/Casey Justices. Third, he or she must appoint and the Senate must confirm Justices who would overturn Roe/Casey. If an anti-choice President is elected, all three factors will possibly, if not likely, occur.
The next President will likely nominate two or three individuals who will serve as Supreme Court Justices. One-hundred and ten Justices have served on the United States Supreme Court (John Jay, the first Chief Justice, through Stephen Breyer, the most recent appointee). These 110 Justices have been appointed by 42 Presidents (George Washington through Bill Clinton), for an average of 2.62 Supreme Court Justice appointments per President. Moreover, since 1869 when the maximum number of Justices serving on the Supreme Court was fixed at its current level of 9 (hereinafter "modern times"), the average number of Supreme Court Justices per President is even higher: 70 Justices (William Strong through Stephen Breyer) have been appointed to the Court, and these Justices were appointed by 25 Presidents (Ulysses S. Grant through Bill Clinton), for an average of 2.80 Justices per President.2 Either two or three new anti-choice Justices are sufficient to guarantee Roe's demise if these Justices replace current pro-Roe/Casey Justices.
Given the age of the current membership of the Court, it seems likely that at least two of the next three Justices to leave the Court will be ones who support Roe or Casey. The current Court is comprised of three blocks of Justices. Each member of the first block, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas, would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Each member of the second block, O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter, would not vote to overturn Roe, but would continue applying the more restrictive undue burden standard they announced in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Each member of the third block, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, would vote to uphold Roe. The following chart presents the three blocks in visual format:
(Sorry I cannot get the format of this right. I will post a link at the end, if anyone wants to go look at it. Thanks, kat) Block 1 - Anti-Choice Justices Block 2 - Pro-Casey Justices Block 3 - Pro-Roe Justices Chief Justice Rehnquist Justice Scalia Justice Thomas Justice O'Connor Justice Kennedy Justice Souter Justice Stevens Justice Ginsburg Justice Breyer The current membership of the Court listed by age, as of January 2001, the beginning of the next President's term, as as follows:
Stevens - 80 (Born April 20, 1920) Thus, three of the four oldest members of the Court recognize that the Constitution protects the right to choose an abortion under either Roe or Casey. If only two of these three Justices left the Court (most likely Stevens and O'Connor) during the next Presidency, the outcome of the 2000 election could determine whether Roe survives. Furthermore, even if the three oldest Justices left, the next President could appoint three anti-choice Justices who would join with Scalia and Thomas to overturn Roe. Finally, it seems likely that an anti-choice President would nominate Justices who would overturn Roe/Casey and that the anti-choice Senate would confirm their President's choice. The Senate is likely to remain in anti-choice hands for the foreseeable future. Currently, there are only 32 pro-choice members of the Senate, and pro-choice Senators such as Republican John Chafee of Rhode Island have announced that they will not seek reelection in 2000. Thus, pro-choice forces are not likely to retake the Senate in 2000 and will probably have difficulty overcoming their low numbers by 2002. Therefore, anti-choice Justices who would overturn Roe/Casey are likely to be nominated by an anti-choice President and confirmed by an anti-choice Senate.
The historical record demonstrates that it is accurate to say that the outcome of the next election may determine the fate of Roe v. Wade and a woman's right to choose.
NUMBER OF SUPREME COURT JUSTICES PER PRESIDENT WHO NOMINATED THEM 1 Even after the 22nd Amendment, which limited a President to two terms, a President appoints on average 2.5 Justices. (Twenty-five justices divided by 10 Presidents). 2 Two Justices, John Rutledge and Charles E. Hughes, have been counted twice in the 110 total because they served as Associates Judges, resigned from the Court, and later both served as Chief Justice. Three other Justices have been Associate Justices before becoming Chief Justices: Edward White, Harlan F. Stone, and William Rehnquist. These three Justices were promoted to Chief Justice when they were Associate Justices, and therefore were only counted once because their appointments to Chief Justice did not change the fact that only one new Justice was appointed to the Court. Here is that link: CLICK HERE
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: katlaughing Date: 08 Aug 00 - 10:32 AM DougeR...you rascal, you,....spoken like the true Republican you are...pushing us off on Nader, just so'se you have any chance at all of getting ole' Dubya in office! Pretty canny there!**BG** Have you proposed that as the national bumper sticker for the GOP? Maybe they could even donate campaign finance money to Nader, yeah, I like that. The GOP gives him lots of surplus so he can really fire up his campaign...they keep urging all of us liberals to vote for him and voila! Nader DOES get elected!! Yee-Haw!!! Thank you DougeR for that bit of inspiration!! Hahaha!!! One thing I think we can all agree on? Except Mbo...EVERYONE NEEDS TO GET OUT AND VOTE!! kat |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: GUEST,Luther Date: 08 Aug 00 - 10:25 AM Mrrzy, I do not believe that for a minute. Look at the records of the justices on issues like, for example, abortion. Then look at who appointed them. There's no real correspondence at all, is there? It's a myth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Aug 00 - 10:06 AM "Nothing terrible is going to happen if Dubya wins" - You gotta be kidding. He'll turn the Supreme Court back into the Spanish Inquisition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: DougR Date: 08 Aug 00 - 09:47 AM You SHOULDN'T have to duck, Whistle Stop, you merely spoke your mind, and that is your right! The majority of the folks on the Mudcat are Liberals so you you should have nothing to be concerned about. Liberals are very liberal when it comes to tolerating a viewpoint not their own. I still say vote Nader! If you believe he is the best person for the job, that's what you should do! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Whistle Stop Date: 08 Aug 00 - 08:41 AM Well, let's see. I agree with CarolC that Clinton has been a much better President than he's given credit for. But I also agree with Luther that we should vote for the person we want to win, rather than betting on it like a horse race. TTR, I hate to break the news to you, but the WTO protest fiasco in Seattle did more to harm the protesters' various causes than it did to help them; they certainly didn't win a lot of hearts and minds in the rest of the country. This is what happens when people decide to "take it to the streets" without first deciding to get their shit together. In my most humble opinion (and recognizing that this may not endear me to the majority of Mudcatters), people are much too quick these days to opt for street protests; it's fun, it's relatively easy, and it's oh so romantic. Create a ragged list of "causes" to complain about (don't bother with solutions; that's someone else's job), round up a bunch of college students, encourage them to clown around (pharmaceuticals don't hurt) and create disturbances in the streets (since it's a "protest," the usual rules of civility are suspended), and then disavow all responsibility when things go awry. As for me, I have more respect for people who actually work within the system to bring about change -- it's frustrating, and you have to content yourself with compromise and incremental progress, but in the end it's a more honorable way to proceed. Street protests are have their place, but as far as I'm concerned they are what you should resort to when the system freezes you out -- they should not be the first option of choice, as I fear they are for too many people who don't have the patience for the more tedious process of working for real change. And if you do opt for protesting in the streets, as far as I'm concerned you have to take responsibility for what you've unleashed, whether it's what you intended or not. A rant of my own; I will now proceed to duck and cover. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: CarolC Date: 08 Aug 00 - 03:32 AM The center is bigger than either the right, or the left. That is a provable fact. That's why Clinton got elected twice. He targeted the center. The only question is, which way will the center go - to the right or the left. If Nader takes too many votes away from Gore, I'm betting on the center going right. I've seen it happen too many times before. Carol |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Thomas the Rhymer Date: 08 Aug 00 - 03:16 AM O.K. then... When the WTO meets in Seattle and the town turns into a HUGE protest, does this represent apathy? NO IT DOESN'T! The discontent that is brewing in America is real, even if there are TOO MANY ISSUES to allow a nice clean adgenda to be set. But it DOES seem to be fashionable for aware people to be cynical, and it is even more GLAMOROUS to not vote! The very real REALITY is that if we could activate this huge segment of the population (you know, the gifted annimated left) to actually vote, AND vote their conscience... NADER WILL WIN. It is as simple as that. When it comes right down to it, less people will vote for dubaya shrub than we think... it is actually a small percentage of the voting populus. The level of intimidation that we experience from the conservative capitalist corporatives (CCC) of the world is basically a guilt driven fantasy, and it only exists if we allow it to be real to us. When the WTO met, and the ensuing rallies took place, there was a presence made by people (who were not just finding an excuse to break windows and vandalize honest business people...I really wish they had not done the violence thing), expressing their concern for the overall direction of 'progress'. That is the taproot for global change, and we are 'the people' who can make it happen. NADER REPRESENTS THIS FORCE, and we have a quasi-responsibility to remind people that individuals WILL make a difference. I am just amazed at the scope of change that awaits us... if we snap out of it and network like we mean it! Love and honor! ttr |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: Ebbie Date: 08 Aug 00 - 02:54 AM Well, Luther, I agree with you that pulling Rachel Carson out of the hat was unconscionable- but I was only exploring the thought that the beginning of a movement (Hush, Spaw) is all that's required of an individual, that it is up to us We, the people to respond and carry it forward. Frankly, I liked his book. Among the things I despair of if Bush/Cheney get in is ANWR. I see no earthly reason to invade and trash a Refuge - for God's sake - in order to see if there is more oil in Alaska to send overseas , for God's sake... End of Rant Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: CarolC Date: 08 Aug 00 - 02:51 AM Ok, this is the way I see it. You have two choices. Whether you like it or not. In order to win, a candidate must have the majority of one of the parties, and also most of the swing vote. Nader can't do it. I promise. So it's Bush or Gore. If Bush is elected, he'll know full well that it wasn't the environmentally conscious voters who elected him. He will know that he doesn't need their votes in order to get re-elected. So he won't feel in the least beholden, or accountable to people who vote on environmental issues. Gore, on the other hand will know that he needs the environmental constituency in order to get re-elected. He may not change things as fast as we wish, but he will move things in the right direction, as opposed to Bush, who I'm quite confident will move things in the wrong direction. The problem with wanting change to happen quickly is that you get a backlash. That's why the environmental movement of the 70s became such a joke. A lot of politicians played on people's fears about losing their jobs in order to justify environmentally bad decisions. I know many people think that Clinton has been a bad president, but I have seen real change for the better, and without a backlash. He has worked very hard to move us in the right direction without creating fears about the economy and jobs. I think that's what we want. Respectfully, Carol
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Not At All Musical: Thoughts on VPs? From: GUEST,Luther Date: 08 Aug 00 - 12:42 AM oops, that's www.michaelmoore.com -- what a place for a typo |