You say I'm a bitch as if that were a bad thing...
What an incredible idea - stumping for democracy.Shainzona - re your post in "Not so precious", here's a relevant squib from GenderGappers:..."Still, AORadio continues to do yeoman work for the BO campaign using the very tactics it once called despicable when the Repugs radio/TV did it; the hosts embraced the hallmark of George Bush et al and made it their own – INDUCE FEAR. "Here’s host Lionel exhorting listeners about how to whip those women supporting Hillary into line and onto the Obama-train: “Be nice and reasonable,” he cautions. “The key is to scare the hell out of them.“Remind them of how old the Supremes are getting and how McCain would pick someone who would make abortion illegal. Women want the war to end and MacC will make war last 100 years. Women are suckers for kids, universal health care and schools so remind them of how these programs will not happen and what we now have will be under funded. Tell them Mc’ll privatize SS, etc.”In short, Lionel and others are advocating exactly what they screamed about when they first broadcasted as Air Americans. See what a difference an -O- can make? Politics as usual – Obama style, is patterned after Bush’s success with fear mongering. Oh, brave new obamaworld."
Oh, puh-LEEZE. The Elephascists will NEVER overturn Roe v. Wade, because they raise so much moolah from the folks who think abortion is EE-vil.The day RvW is overturned is the day that cash cow goes dry. You don't cook a goose that's laying golden eggs for you.
Ivory Bill, you're exactly right. The minute the Supreme Court throws out Roe v. Wade is the minute they no longer have a hold on the Christian Right. When that happens, they no longer have a lock on that voting demographic. That would basically make them the minority party forever. Republicans are a lot of things, but they aren't stupid. Another article I read recently on Roe v. Wade is that even if the Supreme Court throws it out, the end result won't be what most people think. It will then mean that abortion is neither legal nor illegal. States would then be able to pass their own laws regarding abortion. That would obviously mean that some states (the blue states) would inevitably legalize it while some of the red states would outlaw it. Every state legislature would definitely be in an uproar trying to pass their own laws. But what it wouldn't mean is that abortion would be outlawed everywhere. What Democrats really should be doing is passing a law legalizing it at the national level. Then the Supreme Court has to enforce it. And any subsequent congress would have to get the necessary votes to outlaw it. I really don't see Congress wanting to touch it because it would put everyone on record. Even red state republicans would have to worry about whether they would keep their seats over it.
Ivory Bill and Cog are of course correct but my point is that there are plenty of people who do not realize how important it is for the Repubs to have that issue.So when AAR and other sources raise this fear in uninformed people, it does work. The answer is to get the right info to everyone. It's useless for just us to know this.
I am not sure I agree that the Republicans wouldn't overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance, but it's an interesting argument. I worry that some of you are underestimating the power of the Court in general, however, and particularly how conservative judicial appointments are already creating a major rollback in civil rights (such as in the employment discrimination and criminal defense contexts).CognitiveDissonance saidWhat Democrats really should be doing is passing a law legalizing it at the national level.I am not sure this is possible absent a constitutional amendment given the limited powers of the federal government. How would you propose to do this?
I know one thing. I will not vote for Obama because of the abortion issue. I fought and marched for that issue. Let Obama and his young fools turn that page. I am expendable, ya know. Let them protect women's rights. Like Obama and his "present" votes give a damn for my rights. I put my trust in Hillary. Not any in Barack Obama and his spineless values and vapid rhetoric. He already threw his typical white grandma under the bus. I don't need a a memo from the DNC to know my rights are expendable if Obama is in charge. I will vote for Hillary. And if they steal the primary for Obama, I will vote McCain.
Let's face it; Democrats have been using the Supreme Court as a substitute for effective legislation and political backbone for the last 40 years.
Alice AND Jangles! Well said, both of you!
Here's my latest video, "American Idol Obama vs. Supergirl Clinton"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8oHLJSvrFA&eurlIt is about our "presumptive nominee" and why Clinton is a stronger candidate against John McCain.I would appreciate your support in publicizing the video on your blog, if you feel it is appropriate. If you do, can I request that you ask your readers go to youtube and RATE, COMMENT, and mark the video as a FAVORITE to help further promote the video.Thanks for your support.GeekLovehttp://comealongway.blogspot.com/
Let's face it; Democrats have been using the Supreme Court as a substitute for effective legislation and political backbone for the last 40 years.This may be half the story, but the Supreme Court and the constitution also proscribe what legislators can do. Moreover, the Court is the only branch of government that (at least ideally) protects minorities. The things that are happening on the Roberts Court are terrifying. I understand that you are not convinced that Obama will do his best to reverse the civil rights rollback when Stevens and Ginsburg leave the Court, but I urge you not to vote for the known danger of John McCain. This is not just about Roe v. Wade.And Alice, please don't try to convince me that Obama is in bed with Steven Calabresi because Calabresi edited a casebook with Mike McConnell who once recommended Obama for a job.For those of you who are still willing to read the Times, here is an article about likely judicial nominations from the candidates (and yes, Clinton gets short shrift in the article): http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/us/politics/28judges.htmlI note that the collegial but conservative McConnell is rumored to be on McCain's short list, not Obama's.
Post a Comment