McCain on Judicial Appointments

By Jeralyn, Section Judiciary
Posted on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:27 AM EST
Tags: John McCain (all tags)

Share This:

I didn't hear John McCain's speech on judges yesterday, but Andrew Cohen at the Washington Post's Bench Conference and Ann Althouse provide their views.

Would McCain stack the court with right wing ideologues? Of course he would. There's no better reason, other than the war in Iraq, to make sure he doesn't win in November.

Update: 11:12 pm Comments now closed.

< Hillary's Options | Clyburn: Clinton Should Not Drop Out >

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news
Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
Contributors
- T. Christopher Kelly
- Armando Llorens
TL Alumni
- John Wesley Hall

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- Hosted by Scoophost
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Template Design based on WordPress Relaxation Theme
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2008. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com.
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
Stats
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

McCain on Judicial Appointments | 202 comments (202 topical)

Althouse is SHOCKED that (5.00 / 3) (#2)
by andgarden on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:53:22 AM EST

there is an ideological component to the selection and confirmation of judges!

Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:58:37 AM EST

The co-chairs of McCain's legal advisory team are Ted Olson, who argued Bush v. Gore, and Sam Brownback, a Senator so wingnutty he makes Rick Santorum look moderate. There is no doubt that he would give the conservative base exactly what they want on judges, just like Bush did.

As a civil defense attorney, mind you, I find practicing before Bush appointees to be a little slice of heaven. It's almost too easy.

hah (none / 0) (#17)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:41 AM EST

The law of unitended consequences. Their picks are so ideological that thye are ineffective conservatives.

lol.

[ Parent ]

please explain? (none / 0) (#20)
by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:06:41 AM EST

As a civil defense attorney, mind you, I find practicing before Bush appointees to be a little slice of heaven. It's almost too easy.

Having no background in the legal field I can't follow it.

And McCain sure looks prepared for any Supreme Court cases on vote-counting "problems." Tho with Stevens on he's probably covered anyhow.

[ Parent ]

What I am saying (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:58 AM EST

is that I generally represent businesses, and these judges are just so ridiculously pro-corporate.

The old Reagan judges were plenty conservative but they were never quite like this. With Bush appointees, you know exactly what arguments will push their buttons because they all come pre-programmed with the Federalist Society talking points. You just have to know the right buzzwords.

[ Parent ]

They are generally (none / 0) (#44)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:59 AM EST

too incompetent to argue.

because they are appointees based on ideological loyalty.

[ Parent ]

: Now I get it (none / 0) (#53)
by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:13 AM EST

thank you.

[ Parent ]

I think Steve defends (none / 0) (#50)
by Molly Bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:51 AM EST

deep pocket (read corporate) defendants. GOP judges find ways to rule in favor of Steve's clients. To be clear, I don't think Steve's clients are little girls who get their intestines sucked out from defective pool drains.

No disrespect intended to Steve. I represent banks and, gulp, developers (how do I look at myself in the mirror?!)

"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by Steve M on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:54 AM EST

In fairness, my opponents aren't those little girls, either. I do have to sleep at night.

[ Parent ]

Well, life is (none / 0) (#59)
by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:23:43 AM EST

a series of compromises. Not exactly easy to find "right livelihood" these days. And I bet you're doing enough to balance out the carbon load, so to speak, with the rest of your life.

[ Parent ]

: I do get to practice out of my home (none / 0) (#64)
by Molly Bloom on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:25:46 AM EST

So my gasoline use is low.
"Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
[ Parent ]

I hate to say this (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:00:23 AM EST

but given the option between BHO and McCain... In all good conscience I cannot and will not vote for BHO. For me, my vote is for country first, party second. And I have come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party I've seen in this primary season is NOT one I can support from BHO to Daschle, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Dean, Brazile, Richardson, etc. They make me physically ill. And BHO is not nearly ready for prime time and cannot be forgiven for playing the race card to divide this country. I find the entire BHO Express repugnant. I will live with a McCain presidency. We survived Dubya for almost 8 yrs (though he will forever have the blood of millions on his hands)... I can learn to live with a known quantity rather than a loose, elusive canon.

Congratulations (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by flyerhawk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:06:15 AM EST

on joining the Republican Party.

Please pick up your Pro-Life and Stay the Course buttons at the registration desk.

[ Parent ]

Heh (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:09:48 AM EST

You're either "with us or against us". My party seems to look alot like THEIR party these days. Might as well.

[ Parent ]

Don't (none / 0) (#29)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:10:33 AM EST

forget the Private Property is ok buttons, and More Bigger Gov't is not the Answer buttons either.

[ Parent ]

: Big Government (none / 0) (#65)
by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:25:52 AM EST

is OK if it's Homeland Security, though.
Big Government Spending is OK if it's in Iraq, too.
U-huh.

[ Parent ]

Your reply (none / 0) (#70)
by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:31:17 AM EST

is not only offensive, it's off base. I think I will be changing my party affiliation to Independent. And don't lump me in with pro life, stay the course... I loathe what the Bush II admin has done. But that does NOT mean I can be blackmailed or insulted into a vote I cannot and will not make. Do not dare judge me.

[ Parent ]

You gotta admit... (none / 0) (#73)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:36:21 AM EST

coming to a site called TalkLeft and stating how youre basically going to vote for McBush in the GE is just asking for some sort of retort.

[ Parent ]

Not at all... (none / 0) (#75)
by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:39:29 AM EST

which is very funny, actually. Because I came here to be able to talk and read about my candidate of choice without the vilification and baiting and taunting of BHO supporters. So, you see, you don't have the faintest idea about me or my values or what my voting truly means to me.

[ Parent ]

So... (none / 0) (#82)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:48:15 AM EST

you want to come here and express your opinions without ever being challenged on them? Good luck with that on a political website. And I dont know how long youve been here, but aggressive Obama supporters usually get destroyed around here.

[ Parent ]

sorry, but... (none / 0) (#87)
by A DC Wonk on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:03:21 PM EST

for many of us the difference between HRC and BHO is miniscule compared to the difference between either of them and McBush. You're talking two good solid liberals and a flaming right winger.

So, for many of us, we have a hard time comprehending those who would support one of the solid liberals, and then, claim they will take actions (or inactions) that will help the flaming right winger.

[ Parent ]

And for many of us (none / 0) (#95)
by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:29:56 PM EST

the difference between Clinton and Obama is wide enough to drive a truck through. It depends on which policies are most important to you.

[ Parent ]

: But... (none / 0) (#98)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:39:30 PM EST

what positions does McBush have that make him better?

[ Parent ]

Oh, no, we are not (none / 0) (#96)
by Molly Pitcher on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:37:42 PM EST

"talking two good solid liberals and a flaming right winger." We are talking one good liberal vs. a right winger and a wanna-be, as near as many of us can tell. This IS a place were one can safely say that Obama is no substitute for a GOOD liberal. Some may vote repub and I will not vote. And R vs W and SCOTUS won't scare us. (I lament the gay rights issue, but O. has not by any means shown that he is not just another straight male that doesn't give a durn--plus he wouldn't be much on women's rights.)

[ Parent ]

The problem is... (none / 0) (#14)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:04:25 AM EST

as you mentioned, many people didnt survive the bush admin. Also, you think Obama played the race card to divide the country? What exactly do you think the republicans are going to do after the primary? Think theyre not going to bring up race? Ha.

[ Parent ]

I can't really be concerned... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:09:29 AM EST

I believe BHO will reap what he has sown. If the Republicans play the race card, let em. Brazile didn't seem to care last night that she dissed a whole block of core Dems... BHO didn't seem to care that he dissed a whole block of core Dems... He ONLY cared about alienating AAs from the Clinton camp. Who was it that was willing to do whatever to win? I say, let the Republicans have at him and by extension the rest of the sorry folks on his train. No one is more deserving... IMHO

[ Parent ]

so you had a problem (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by TruthMatters on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:13:43 AM EST

with Obama doing it so you won't vote for him. but say hey if the GOP do it I don't care so you are voting for them?

so I mean this really isn't anything more then you are mad at Obama and will vote against him no matter what the GOP will do if they get the white house again.

[ Parent ]

staying at home is an option (none / 0) (#41)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:05 AM EST

howvere i'd sell obama on this and this alone:

he can torture McCain over the IWR vote in a debate.

just like he tortured Edwards and Clinton.

That's worth my vote.

[ Parent ]

People are pissed right now... (none / 0) (#42)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:43 AM EST

and venting. Im not saying everyone will change their minds, but once emotion dies down clearer thoughts will prevail.

[ Parent ]

I won't vote for BHO (none / 0) (#74)
by Liberty4 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:37:01 AM EST

for many, many reasons... Playing the race card is just one of them. I am not "mad" at BHO. I will not vote for him because he is nothing more than any other pol; he is a liar, devisive, ill-equipped to lead; has very poor judgment; is arrogant; insulent; petulant; unqualified; and full of empty words. He is not a doer, he is a talker of doing... nothing more. And I don't believe he is as left as he pretends to be. So, I cannot and will not vote for a candidate who IMO is not right for the position of POTUS.

[ Parent ]

: Fine... (none / 0) (#80)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:57 AM EST

but that doesnt mean you have to vote for a republican, since most everything you said against Obama would easily apply to McBush.

[ Parent ]

That is (none / 0) (#32)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:06 AM EST

correct, Obama played the race card to teach his gramdma a lesson, and to bring the country together by playing the race card.

[ Parent ]

: These primaries tell me... (none / 0) (#93)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:00 PM EST

a couple things. One of them is that the Dem party is split in its choice.
And frankly, I don't see evidence of your claim that he's bringing the country together...

[ Parent ]

So ............ (5.00 / 5) (#13)
by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:03:14 AM EST

It's going to be "I'm not the other guy 2.0" as our strategy? Great. That worked out so well for us last time. I'm sure that folks like my husband will be swayed particularly when you got Brazile out there saying how little he matters. Personally, I'm going to make peace with the idea that the GOP is going to get theopportunity to ruin the government for 4 more years. I certainly don't expect men to really give a darn about my reproductive rights. They haven't so far.

Obama IMO Has Been Extremely Wishy Washy On (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:22 AM EST

choice. If I'm going to base my vote on the types of people he would appoint to SCOTUS, I want to hear from him directly on what type he will appoint. I want clear words and examples.

He'll appoint "unifying" people (none / 0) (#33)
by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:10 AM EST

people that will bring "change" to DC. Sigh.

[ Parent ]

It Is His Zest In Uniting With The Republicans (none / 0) (#43)
by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:45 AM EST

that has me concerned. How much more is willing to sacrifice to keep his "unity pony" up and running?

[ Parent ]

Call me a cynic (5.00 / 1) (#63)
by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM EST

I see no rason that he wouldn't throw women under the bus As I said above. I have yet to see the male dominated three branches of goverment do anything other than play politics with women's lives I need look no further than the partial birth abortion ban to see that.

[ Parent ]

: He already has (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST

since they don't seem to be bought off with a kiss and a "sweetie."

[ Parent ]

Oh dear... (none / 0) (#94)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:27:46 PM EST

That's how we wound up with Powell and Rice.

[ Parent ]

Wishy Washy On Choice (none / 0) (#45)
by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:17:11 AM EST

at least its consistent with his other positions.

[ Parent ]

: "Present" (none / 0) (#84)
by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:52:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]

McCain can only stack the court (5.00 / 7) (#16)
by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM EST

if the spineless Democratic Senate allows him to do it.

You just... (5.00 / 2) (#24)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:49 AM EST

answered your own statement.

[ Parent ]

Not if Hillary is Majority Leader (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by lilybart on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:11:03 AM EST

I am not saying it is over for her, but if it is, then I think she would be a GREAT Majority leader, and since the Pres has to work with the majority leaders, she could be very powerful in getting her best ideas heard or enacted.

[ Parent ]

: Agreed... (none / 0) (#35)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:12:27 AM EST

Im so done with Reid.

[ Parent ]

Practice the excuse (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:15:17 AM EST

We need 67 Democrats in order to get anything accomplished.

[ Parent ]

Not for blocking judicial appointments (none / 0) (#129)
by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:04:47 PM EST

The Republicans would not have the votes to stop a filibuster.

[ Parent ]

Yes... (none / 0) (#130)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:08:55 PM EST

but long drawn out filibusters are not only a stop gap measure, but make the party doing it look lame. And lame = loss of votes.

[ Parent ]

: Not really (none / 0) (#131)
by Manuel on Wed May 07, 2008 at 02:49:32 PM EST

Plus you can always allow an up/down vote if you can get 50+ votes. The problem has been that too many senators (like Obama) have been predisposed to defer to the excutive. It is well past the time that Congress asserted itself as an equal branch. Advise and consent has to mean something.

[ Parent ]

interesting this was scheduled (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Capt Howdy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:07:29 AM EST

on the day of the hot primary so as to get as little media coverage as possible.

I so don't care anymore (5.00 / 2) (#22)
by Emma on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:09 AM EST

I just don't care who he puts on the bench. Sorry. Judicial appointments are the sword of Damocles the Dems have been holding over my neck for years. Enough is enough. And I'm a lawyer, I know how bad it's going to get. I just can't work up the energy to care.

a spanner in the works (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:09:46 AM EST

They held gevernment in all branches for 6 years.

They didn't make a serious move on banning abortion.

I double dog dare them to do it with a Democratic Senate and House and a majority of Dem Governorships. The political windfall for the dems if they dared to overturn Roe v Wade would equal all the tea in China.

And the GOP know it.

there are now substantial roadblocks (none / 0) (#40)
by LHinSeattle on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:03 AM EST

stopping non-rich women, younger women, rural women from getting safe, accessible contraception -- let alone when they need pregnancy termination.

I live in WA State w/a Dem governor. There was a decision recently that allows pharmacists to deny a patient a legal, medically necessary prescription based on merely the pharmacist's personal viewpoint. And the drugstore does not have to have another pharmacist to step in and dispense the medication when the 1st pharmacist wants to deny. I'm referring to Plan B, the medication which does no harm to existing pregnancy but can prevent a pregnancy from occurring.

It's happening, folks.

[ Parent ]

They may never... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:18:45 AM EST

overturn the big one, but they'll kill it piecemeal.

[ Parent ]

: R v W is probably irrelevant. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:22:33 AM EST

a thousand little things like zoning laws and what not ensure limited access.

[ Parent ]

Yeah and it doesn't need Roe v Wade overturned (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:19 AM EST

to do it.

It's an ineffective SCOTUS ruling already.

Many red states simply have no clinics for family planning or abortion proceedures.

getting there didn't require overturning a ruling. And the SCOTUS can't make sure poor women have real access.

[ Parent ]

Roe v Wade... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:24:53 AM EST

is just one of the things the gop doesnt like. You cant possibly be saying that they'll have ZERO impact on the american legal system.

[ Parent ]

I think they like having RvW (none / 0) (#78)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:35 AM EST

to run against.

If they did ban abortion, they'd lose a key issue for general elections.

[ Parent ]

Fine... (none / 0) (#83)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:50:56 AM EST

but, as I stated before, thats just one of the things Democrats care about. So, are you saying more conservative judges would have ZERO impact on the american legal system?

[ Parent ]

They would destroy (none / 0) (#115)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:14:38 PM EST

any political GOP majorities.

Short answer--blackmail on this issue isn't convincing.

[ Parent ]

: To you... (none / 0) (#120)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:27:14 PM EST

but for some, even some that come to this blog, it is. So one more vote gained by this is one more vote we may not have had before.

[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0) (#67)
by cawaltz on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:26:45 AM EST

and Democrats have done little other than throw women under the bus to save their political hides.

[ Parent ]

PLan B. Doesn't that have some issues? (none / 0) (#79)
by nycstray on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:42:51 AM EST

Seems to me, IIRC, when life begins could jeopardize it. This is a question that needs to be answered by Obama so we know where we stand with him

[ Parent ]

: Obama Has Already Answered That Question (none / 0) (#107)
by MO Blue on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:01:40 PM EST

In an interview, he said he doesn't know when life begins.
Sorry, I'm too lazy to use my primitive google skills to find a link.

[ Parent ]

McCain Can't Stack the Bench By Himself (5.00 / 1) (#89)
by BDB on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:10:01 PM EST

He would need the Senate to confirm them. Which they would, of course.

Which is why I have very big problems with the democratic party beyond Obama. This primary election may have made my problems with the party clearer, but they've been there for awhile and are hardly limited to the party's nominee. In many ways, he's the least of my problems with the democratic party.

In fact, I'm offended by the argument that I have to vote for Obama because otherwise the democratic party won't protect my rights.

As I've said elsewhere, I have two rules in politics:

Ask nothing for your vote and nothing is what you'll get; and
I don't vote for politicians who don't ask for my vote.

Obama has six months to earn my vote. He has an advantage, I would never vote for McCain. But he's going to have to earn it. I won't lose the leverage I have to push the Democratic party in the direction I want. I will not be taken for granted.

McStain's Gonna Be #44 (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by tokin librul on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:15:38 PM EST

He may not actually get elected, but he's gonna be the next preznit. I feel it like a cold wind in my bones...

No more Republican Supreme Court justices. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
by kirkaracha on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:18:34 PM EST

Roberts is 53. Alito is 58. Thomas is 59. Souter is 68. Breyer is 69. Kennedy is 71. Scalia is 72. Ginsburg is 75. Stevens is 88.

The next president will likely replace some Supreme Court justices. All of the liberal justices are over retirement age and Justice Stevens has death on speed dial. I do not want the Supreme Court to be dominated by conservatives for decades, so I will be supporting and voting for whoever the Democratic nominee is.

I heard it (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:51:32 AM EST

And yes, it was scary. Thing is, if Obama is the nominee I think McCain could end up getting the chance to stack the court.

So then... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM EST

lets kill that chance.

[ Parent ]

are you quite certain... (5.00 / 1) (#100)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST

That Sen. Obama won't be beholden to those anti-choice folks (Casey for one) who are currently supporting him?

After all, he did make that comment about how mistaken we pro-choice advocates are.

[ Parent ]

As questionable... (none / 0) (#103)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:53:58 PM EST

as Obama is on this, McBush is a lock.

[ Parent ]

So (5.00 / 1) (#106)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 12:59:48 PM EST

we should vote for a terrible candidate in the hopey-changey that he MIGHT not be as anti-choice as McCain.

Sorry, I think we can wait until 2012 for a real Democrat.

[ Parent ]

I'm sure... (none / 0) (#108)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:05:12 PM EST

the additional 4000 dead American soldiers will appreciate that.

[ Parent ]

They are going... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:08:21 PM EST

...be just as dead with Obama as they would be with Clinton or McCain.

noone is going to get out of Iraq.

[ Parent ]

Again... (none / 0) (#117)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:16:34 PM EST

you have some sort of proof to support this claim?

[ Parent ]

: Ask Samantha Powers n/t (none / 0) (#121)
by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:38:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]
: The wars will continue (none / 0) (#137)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST

It's not like the security situation will disappear if we wish it.

[ Parent ]

Oh the truth (none / 0) (#141)
by Militarytracy on Wed May 07, 2008 at 04:32:54 PM EST

It burns

[ Parent ]

: "Oh the truth it burns" (none / 0) (#144)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:23:10 PM EST

Speaking from personal experience yeah? He has said no truth that isnt already obvious. My point is that McBush will go to war with Iran. Obama wont.

[ Parent ]

Frankly... (none / 0) (#113)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:11:17 PM EST

I don't think so. I think he's gone way over the top to get these folks...and will find out that he needs to keep them content. That means that he's going to have to keep whatever promises he made to them.

I think this is a serious problem that folks over at DKos haven't really thought about with all the "pie in the sky" dreaming about a "new kind of politics" that I see as little more than a newly polished version of snake oil.

There is just politics...there is no new kind of politics.

Effectively, he tossed pro-choicers under the bus with that comment. He tossed a friend of 20 years under the bus last week. Fairly shortly Bill Ayers will be under that bus to when that picture goes viral.

There are a lot of folks under that bus. And they are the same ones that he's going to have to pull back out from under the bus.

I'm an IndyDem (not a camp follower). Have never not been a Dem. But I'm one reallyreallyreally pissed Dem who does not like having my back covered in tread marks for his sophistry.

[ Parent ]

Im definitely not... (none / 0) (#119)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:23:46 PM EST

going to defend anything DK does regarding this primary. But what I will say is what you just said, there is no new kind of politics, meaning any pandering he did during the primary could be written off as pandering.

I will concede that its not impossible, but, like you said, he has to worry about getting re-elected. And if he actually were to move against any sacred cow in the democratic values AS PRESIDENT, he knows he would not get re-elected. Losing your base is death.

Ultimately neither of us have any actual proof either way. But what sways me on this is McBush has bent over for the neocons, and we all know what would happen under their magic wand.

[ Parent ]

Where do I send the memorial bouquet? (none / 0) (#123)
by misspeach2008 on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:40:40 PM EST

Obama has already lost a substantial part of the Democratic base, and Donna Brazile put her seal of approval on it last night.

[ Parent ]

: Send it to... (none / 0) (#127)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM EST

the funeral home housing all the most basic Democratic values to be threatened under a McBush administration. Personally Ill be most interested to see how McBush will enforce free speech zones on the internet. Should be innovative at least.

[ Parent ]

as for your comment on pandering (none / 0) (#134)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 03:12:29 PM EST

The same could be said re: the McCain camp.

Obama's taken thwaps at base Dem voters with his comments and event participants since the early days...not just elected ones...the voters.

Why should I believe that he's not going to do the same when he gets into office?

[ Parent ]

That is... (none / 0) (#145)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:30:12 PM EST

an apples to oranges comparison. When McCain says hes going to destroy RvW, he strengthens his base and when he actually does it, same thing.

When Obama seems questionable on RvW, in theory he attracts moderates. But should he actually destroy it, he destroys his base.

[ Parent ]

actually... (none / 0) (#147)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:41:26 PM EST

he pushes a lot of moderates away with the pander.

I am not a revolutionary progressive by any means.

But his telling me that I've somehow made a mistake on choice by not embracing the "faith based" opinion of anti-choicers when trying to uphold my niece's right to choose...that's when my hackles go up.

That's part of the reason I opposed Casey...

I don't see apples and oranges. He isn't special.

[ Parent ]

Do you have... (none / 0) (#150)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:53:03 PM EST

the exact quote? It seems to me that he was saying we should attempt to understand what the opposition says, rather than outright dismiss them. So that isnt an endorsement of anti choice thoughts, but more of an acknowledgement that theyre humans too. And they have their beliefs for a reason that they believe is right. I think understanding that is the first step in working towards changing someones mind. But none of that might apply since I cant remember exactly what he was saying.

Also I agree that pandering is always folly. But my point was that hes doing it to garner votes, as ill-advised as that may be.

And I wouldnt say Obama is special either. For me Id much rather have HRC as the nominee, but I dont get to make that final decision. In the end Im advocating that he isnt McBush. And while that isnt exactly an exciting point to be pushing, I feel the neocons have controlled and damaged enough in the past 8 years. Lets not give them 16.

[ Parent ]

No... (none / 0) (#152)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:21:38 PM EST

it's posted here somewhere.

Even still...the assumption is that pro-choice advocates haven't paid attention.

It's not that we haven't paid attention. It's that the opinion of a anti-choice advocate is that...opinion.

That opinion legally stops where my body, my sister's body, my niece's body begins.

Like any other candidat, he has to earn my vote. Thus far, he hasn't even come close.

[ Parent ]

I can see... (none / 0) (#154)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:41:00 PM EST

that interpretation of his words, but I think hes more trying to remind us that they feel just as strongly about their beliefs as we do ours. And I think this battle can only be won by turning as many of them as is possible. Now thats not to say we dont get in the trenches and fight, but personally I like it when he appeals to discourse when winning these wars.

[ Parent ]

: Perhaps if he'd stop (none / 0) (#156)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:11:32 PM EST

trying to remind us that the other side "has feelings too."
I've done a lot of discourse analysis, and what his discursive turn did was prioritize the anti-choice position to the detriment of "the base" in an effort to pander.
This isn't the first time he's done that. I doubt it will be the last.

[ Parent ]

Plus... (none / 0) (#153)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:35:42 PM EST

The idea that somehow the anti-choice opinion is so much more important/agonized over is bunk.

I sit here wondering if the nurse had told my sister what was going on with the so-called "infection" in her milk duct before she entered the later stages of her pregnancy, would my sister be going through the fight against what is now a Stage 4 breast cancer.

I don't know what the right answer is. But to have some candidate suggest that I'm somehow without a moral compass and haven't taken anti-choice positions as more than someone's personal faith/belief/opinion really...

Votes are earned.

[ Parent ]

Again... (none / 0) (#155)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:45:34 PM EST

I see what youre saying, but do you think youre own personal experiences are clouding your view here? I of course realize we cant escape our personal experiences, nor should we. But we also cant let them wholly dictate our interpretations.

[ Parent ]

I think... (none / 0) (#157)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:22:55 PM EST

that I've been poked, elbowed, and almost punched escorting women through protest lines.

I think that I've sat and hugged crying students who were faced with 30 ft high anti-choice billboard protests on campus and the yelling screeds of anti-choice advocates.

I think that the opinion of an anti-choice advocate ends where I begin.

I think that the pharmacists who refuse to give out the Morning After Pill because it's unacceptable to their religious beliefs should be fired on the spot for ignoring the prescription of a doctor to a patient.

I think that legally, anti-choice advocates are welcome to their opinion. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with it, respect it, or pay attention to it. Because I really don't think that they just want to be heard. I think that they, like my aunt's crazy preacher (she turns her hearing aid off ::shrug::), want to change the laws to make abortion go away.

To think that "all they want is to be understood" after so many many years of protests and screeds and posters and bumper stickers...is naive at best.

[ Parent ]

The problem is... (none / 0) (#158)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:31:53 PM EST

fighting them on their own terms wont ever work. Its like the middle east. Do you think the best retort to terrorist bombing is to do more bombing?

[ Parent ]

You don't fight them on their terms... (none / 0) (#160)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:49:59 PM EST

But you do stand your ground. They aren't interested in giving ground in a sit down exchange.

By acknowledging their POV and the "morality" crap, you've given up ground in hopes that they'll be willing to give ground back.

Problem is...they aren't going to do that. They will take what you've given and then run with it.

Most of the anti-choice advocates who live around me do not see a middle ground. Honestly? The more moderate advocates I've talked to...they don't see a middle space.

And no, comparing this to the ME over-simplifies the complex inter-relationships that have been going on in the ME for the past several centuries.

Both are incredibly difficult topics in and of their own right. I don't think that they are comparable.

[ Parent ]

In the details... (none / 0) (#163)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 10:59:09 PM EST

they may not be directly comparable, but the overall point is how hostile, uncompromising approaches are doomed to fail. You can win battles with aggression, and sometimes its called for, but to win a war you have to convince the other side how theyre wrong. And I think we'd both agree that thats what the ultimate goal is.

As far as your examples, theyre antidotal evidence, which I can also give as counterpoints. But that doesnt really lead anywhere.

[ Parent ]

It's anecdotal (none / 0) (#167)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:08:44 PM EST

And ostensibly...the opinions of anti-choice advocates are opinion.

I'm not interested in winning. The law's already on my side.

Ostensibly, we won ages ago when the Supreme Court ruled on RvW and other cases.

All discussion with regards to it have simply been attempts to overturn RvW.

And when he pandered to the anti-choice crew, he bought the anti-choice frame.

[ Parent ]

RvW was a battle... (none / 0) (#169)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:15:48 PM EST

not the war. I think that point would be made should we ever get a real conservative coalition on the supreme court, one thats worse than what we have now.

[ Parent ]

and the only candidate (none / 0) (#170)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:21:06 PM EST

I trust on this particular issue is HRC.

She has made efforts to talk to folks...while not thwacking at pro-choice advocates in the process.

[ Parent ]

To be honest... (none / 0) (#173)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:30:48 PM EST

I havent heard her views on RvW. I suppose Ive gone off assumption, which is that she'd roll over dead before she ever let it get overturned. Though Im unsure how she'd handle the more grey areas.

For me, were I to have the perfect candidate on this matter, Id want one who'd advocate that EVERY abortion was legal. I dont care if theyre in the delivery room, crowning. If the woman wants it aborted, thats whats done, no questions asked... but I may be on the extreme end of it and will NEVER get that kind of candidate.

[ Parent ]

and I'd say that (none / 0) (#176)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:48:27 PM EST

your particular preference went the way of the dodo, in part, because some politician types were bullied into engaging in a discussion where they lost ground to anti-choice advocates :)

Under her, there'd be no chance of an anti-choice judge.

Ginsberg...

Just saying.

[ Parent ]

Im definitely not saying... (none / 0) (#177)
by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:29:41 AM EST

Obama is the best choice here. What I am saying is that youll never change someones mind by shouting at them how theyre wrong. Never. The only way to keep RvW is to ensure that people eventually see the flaws in their reasoning, which can only be accomplished through dialogue. Now this cant happen in every situation, which is the case for all of your examples of personal experience. But thats why theres a difference between a battle and a war. And playing the long game wont be easy. Rather, it will be very hard, as is always the case when trying to change someones mind. But this issue is important enough to try.

[ Parent ]

They aren't interested in logical (none / 0) (#180)
by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 01:50:56 AM EST

arguments. They know that they aren't going to win the logical argument...so they spend the better part of their time avoiding the logical argument.

Look, a pathos-laden argument like this is what has been wandering around the various campuses. Something 2x as big showed up at the university I did my doctoral work at...it showed up again at the Big 10 university I had my first teaching gig at.

These folks have been at this for decades trying to get people to engage in the "dialogue" so long as it's on their emo/pathos/faith/belief/opinion level. When well meaning folks who are a bit on the naive side give in, events like this happen.

Emotive arguments are their strong suit. They don't want to deal in logic. That's why they talk about how their opinions aren't getting "respected."

And frankly...the assumption is that the pro-choice advocates are the one standing in the way of discourse and progress. Guess again...

He stuck his foot right in it...

[ Parent ]

Id say this... (none / 0) (#181)
by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:03:10 AM EST

youre addressing the far right, not moderates or just normal conservatives. So yes generally they are incapable of being turned... though if a nazi skinhead can be reformed anyone can. But yes, they are exceedingly unlikely to be swayed. Then again, they are not the majority. Most people are more reasonable then they are, and throwing fire at the more sensible ones keeps them on the dark side.

So you fight the battles with the far right, we both agree on that. But from there you win the war with everyone else. Thats what Im saying, having expounded on Obamas words.

[ Parent ]

I'm addressing my neighbors (none / 0) (#183)
by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:37:13 AM EST

They aren't far right. They aren't extremists.

They just aren't interested in dealing logically with what they "believe" are articles of faith.

[ Parent ]

Again... (none / 0) (#188)
by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:36:59 AM EST

this is antidotal evidence. I personally know conservatives who have gone from having no compassion for women impregnated by rape to now being ok with a very very early abortion, yet still advocating for life... but understanding how theres a choice involved. So we have counter examples based off of personal experience. Neither will sway the others opinions.

[ Parent ]

The spelling is anecdotal... (none / 0) (#190)
by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:20:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: Ha... (none / 0) (#194)
by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:25:28 PM EST

um, can I play the 'im just an artist' card on this one?

[ Parent ]

and sorry... (none / 0) (#184)
by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 10:48:19 AM EST

but I don't buy your interpretation of Obama's words.

It seems like you reading his words and "hoping" for the best with other things informing your POV.

I don't have that hope. And frankly, after a series of shots aimed at base voters, from him and his supporters, hope isn't on the same continent.

[ Parent ]

For me... (none / 0) (#189)
by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST

your view of Obamas words are heavy skewed by your own personal bad experiences with the far right. Much like one might feel about environmentalists if say a loved one was killed from a spike planted in a tree while cutting it down.

I respect you. Youre intelligent and fun to debate with. But on this one I dont think youre looking at this objectively.

[ Parent ]

my interpretation (none / 0) (#191)
by kredwyn on Thu May 08, 2008 at 07:29:13 PM EST

hangs on the candidate's use of implied argument, understanding of the context of the comments (pandering), the word "mistake," and finally, on the seeming prioritization (see Perelman on the use of value hierarchies as a way of group identification), by Obama, of a "moral struggle" on the part of anti-choice advocates.

I learned a long time ago how to try and step out from behind my personal screens when it comes to analyzing persuasive discourse.

[ Parent ]

: Firstly... (none / 0) (#196)
by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 11:10:02 PM EST

I wanted to say, again, that he Is Not my first choice, but at this point, what other choice do we have? HRC, my preferred candidate, most likely isn't going to win. So Im working with what weve been given.
Secondly, I've been going over his words again quite a bit and I see what your objections are. But I sincerely think it was all in the pursuit of votes. Now is that a great thing? Absolutely not, but I really do believe that if he were a white candidate he'd have different rhetoric. Throughout this process, as Ive watched his campaign, Id say hes desperately tried to avoid coming off as the angry black man, because that will kill his votes (see wright). So in that same vein he wants to come off as `one of them', with `them' being your average white male moderate. I don't think it goes any deeper than pandering. So, like any politician, you have to take what they say with a grain of salt because they all play this game.
Now if you want to have a conversation about political integrity, then yes, he should own is roots, step up and defend the values of his chosen party. And I think a white male candidate could get away with the latter in this current political atmosphere (I mourn Wellstone daily). But a black man, if he wants to have a chance for winning, has to prove hes the right kind of black. Just like a woman has to prove shes strong. It's an unfair barrier, but its definitely there. For me, Id almost rather lose and see a candidate embrace whats real than have Obama constantly bending over just to get elected, but Ive yet to successfully take over the world so my wants don't matter.

[ Parent ]

I'm out... (none / 0) (#172)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:28:57 PM EST

Student conferences tomorrow and more papers to read.

Ultimately, there are ways to engage the opposition while not tossing your own base under the bus. Thus far, Obama hasn't been able to figure out how to do that.

[ Parent ]

Again... (none / 0) (#174)
by Thanin on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:33:50 PM EST

Id maintain this is an issue of perception of his comments. Where you say he throws pro choice under the bus, Id say hes trying to get us all on it to hammer this out. Neither can be absolutely proven.

[ Parent ]

I don't see your interpretation... (none / 0) (#175)
by kredwyn on Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:22 PM EST

[ Parent ]

: My interpretation is... (none / 0) (#178)
by Thanin on Thu May 08, 2008 at 12:35:28 AM EST

that he wants a dialogue to be built, rather than an endless shouting match. So where you see backstabing and under bus throwing, I see a desire for winning the war through discourse.
I did want to say that Im glad there are p