Replaced Texan
 

I don't say that about you, but I might not be one of them if you only define it as people who say this about you.

I have beliefs that are often consistent with theirs.

Pro-Life, anti-death penalty (as a general matter, and absolutely for juvenilles and the mentally handicapped), almost entirely opposed to social programs except those that truly help the blameless and helpless (children, handicapped).

But for every Democrat they help on a national level, they manage to motivate me and a lot, lot of people like me on a few core issues.

For Bush, I have to overlook Rummy, spending (ALL KINDS OF SPENDING), occasional allies like DeLay, stupid civil-union bans (fairness issue, not moral issue), etc.

End of the day, there are only a few things that really matter to me.

Abortion. Ending public housing (anyone catch the article in today's NYT-New York Area section re: huge cuts proposed again in housing assistance for midwest and northeastern cities?). Keeping a truly independent U.S. Attorney in place in the N.D. of Illinois. Ending the asbestos scam (anyone catch today's WSJ article/column saying trial lawyers will end up owning 70 of America's largest companies and will use them to fund the Democratic party forever?).

And I'll eliminate any 3 of those issues (I'll even let you, LDE or RT choose which ones to eliminate) if we can just convince someone, anyone, to run on a platform of raising the gas tax nationally by $5.00 and drastically increasing infrastructure spending for mass transit.

Anyhoo, I'm just saying. Some Ds might get motivated to vote when they see some of the more extreme members of the Social conservatives. But some people with social conservative tendencies wouldn't otherwise have too much to use to tell Bush and a lot of Ds apart if it weren't for the social conservative stuff.

And the Senate count sorta tells me that the Rs are on the right path, though my conscience tells me we still have a lotta stuff to sort out... like the death penalty record.

opportunity costs
 

I thought it was your wife who ate children.

opportunity costs
 

I was talking about aluminum tubes, not vans, Hank. If you think your kid is doing drugs, you don't bust him for having a keychain.

opportunity costs
 

you sound like Atticus or John Kerry or something-

I actually parent teens, the Bushes have actually cleaned up terrorist states- you can't give advice to either of us.

opportunity costs
 

Afghanistan I give you, if you're referring to the Kabul metropolitan area. Please remember, though, that there were no links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. No wonder your kids feel like they can't talk to you.

opportunity costs
 

Congrats, you have made the ignore list. I can't promise not to click in times of boredom, but I thought you would want to know that your sheer idiocy and nonresponsiveness and willful assholosity finally pushed you over the line.

opportunity costs
 

Though I mostly agree that fringey is mainly correct about this, I still love you, Hank.

opportunity costs
 

I just sent fringey a pm suggesting she edit- now that you've quoted it you'll have to work with her to edit or else. i won't put her on ignore- I'll put her on the ggg/nfh list- guardez fringe.

the answer is blowin in the wind
 

You don't need to be a weatherman to tell which way the wind blows.

Replaced Texan
 

I think that there are three issues that really hurt the Republicans:

1) Abortion: Most americans are not for making abortion illegal in the first trimester. This is a tough issue because the Democrats at least in California beat us over the head with it. Most Americans agree that Abortion is a bad thing, and would like like to see abortions decreased but making it illegal is not the practical course. The tough question is: If you make abortions illegal, how many years in prison do you give a woman who has had an abortion? I have never heard an effective political answer to that question in a political debate. As long as we don't push for making Abortion legal in the first trimester we are fine, once you cross that line there go the votes.

2) Guns: Assault weapons. If it is reasonable to make mahine guns legal why not assault weapons? What about armour piercingi bullets? The majority of Americans do not see the need to keep assault weapons nor armour piercing bullets legal.

2) Contraception: With 67% of teenagers sexually active, supressing contracpetion education just seems ridiculous. The majority seems to agree with that.

3) Televangalism: Every time you mix money, crass advertising and merchandizing with religion it makes a lot of people uncormfortable. Having these guys all support the GOP is harmful to the GOP image

As far as the Death Penalty is concerned that is one issue that does not hurt Republicans. You may be against it but that issue has been used by Republican in California to defeat Democrats. The Dems have simply stopped running ant-death penalty candidates statewide because it causes them so many problems.

Replaced Texan
 

Uh, 1 2 2 3? god.

Replaced Texan
 

I thought David Brooks was full of shit last weekend when he said that conservatives spent more time on their philisophical roots than the Democrats, but this post has me reconsidering.

TaxWonk cleared
 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,152934,00.html

Turns out TW was just free-speeching. And to think we lost Penske over this......

• Man's Conviction for Threatening Bush Nixed
  Saturday, April 09, 2005
  
  SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court Friday overturned an inmate's conviction for writing a crude, rambling letter endorsing President Bush's death at the hands of terrorists — two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
  
  The letter from Oregon State Penitentiary prisoner Jonathan Lincoln, who was charged with threatening the president and given an 18-month sentence last year, read, in part: "You will die too George W Bush real Soon they Promised That you would Long Live Bin Laden."
  
  Corrections officials intercepted the letter; Lincoln had been serving a 46-month sentence for robbery.
  
  A unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the letter was protected under the First Amendment, calling it "Lincoln's crude and offensive method of stating a political opposition to the president." The court noted "such political hyperbole does not constitute a 'threat."'

*I just mean a wish for death, as I recall, TW's post was not rambling or crude.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05552850.htm

From reuters- al Jazeera-lite:

• Cameraman for CBS wounded by U.S. troops in Iraq
  
  
  NEW YORK, April 5 (Reuters) - An Iraqi freelance cameraman who works for CBS News was shot and wounded on Tuesday in northern Iraq by U.S. troops who mistook his camera for a weapon, the U.S. military and CBS News said.

Oh no! how could we be shooting Cameramen? that's not behaving like we'd want the US to behave, is it Ty?

But wait-

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ter_detained_1

• U.S. Military: Cameraman Detained in Iraq
  
  BAGHDAD, Iraq - A cameraman carrying CBS press credentials was detained in Iraq earlier this week on suspicion of insurgent activity, the U.S. military said Friday.
  
  
  The cameraman suffered minor injuries Tuesday during a battle between U.S. soldiers and suspected insurgents, the military said. He was standing next to an alleged insurgent who was killed during the shootout, the statement said.

Oh- standing next to insurgants can get you shot, that's a little more understandable.

• on Friday, the military said the cameraman was detained because there was probable cause to believe he posed "an imperative threat to coalition forces."
  
  "He is currently detained and will be processed as any other security detainee," the statement said.
  
  CBS News spokeswoman Leigh Farris said, "We're looking into the situation."
  
  A spokesman for Task Force Freedom, Capt. Mark Walter, said the reporter suffered minor wounds and was with "a number of people" involved in the shootout.
  
  Walter said the reporter was detained immediately after the incident, in part because of statements from witnesses to the battle.
  
  Officials are investigating the man's previous activities as well as "his alleged support of anti-Iraqi insurgency activities," the statement said.

lgf asks the question: when he was an innoccent he "worked for CBS", and not that he might not be, he's just carrying credentials?

Doesn't Reuter's proof its stories? This seems somehow inconsistant.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Just to add in a bit more, according to one story in the major media this morning, his camera had footage of 4 roadside bombings that all indicated he was prewarned and prepositioned for each such that he could set up in a suitable location to take the video from before the time the bombings were taped.

Replaced Texan
 

I sorta agree with one or more of these, but...

[Stop reading here if you know where this is going and don't want to hear it again]

Abortion: Surely a majority of Californians don't want abortion to be made illegal, but estimates by NARAL or whoever are that the day Roe is overturned, something like 30 or 35 states will be on the brink of banning it. There is a way to phrase the issue so that people in California aren't threatened with a ban, whereas people in Indiana aren't threatened by California feminists and activist federal judges. Namely, leave it up to the states. Just like how it was before Roe. It was legal in California before Roe. Sounds like the California Republican party has to take this bull by the horns and frame the issue in a way that doesn't sound personally threatening to the majority in California.

Assault weapons: Agreed, though there are at least a few Democrats who are affiliated with the gun nuts too. Not sure what Warner's big-picture positions are on this, but he was governor of VA, land of the NRA.

OTOH, permitted-concealed-carry is something that I don't really see too many strong arguments against. So its not like the Rs should be coming out entirely anti-gun. Anti-assault weapon I don't have a problem with, and I don't think most Americans do either... at least as long as it doesn't seem like the beginning of a wider ban on everything.

Contraception: Hillary Clinton has this right, at least in her public remarks. The country needs to focus more on getting people out of the position where they "need" to have abortions. No way should the Rs be seen as opposing anything along the lines of contraception, unless its on funding grounds, but certainly not on morality grounds.

Televangelism: Generally agreed.

Death penalty: I understand that the country doesn't have a big problem with the death penalty as a general matter. But the issue of putting to death juvenilles, the mentally retarded, and the innocent, is not something either party wants to be on the wrong side of. And the issue has come up in a few contexts where the Rs could actually use it for gain, instead of letting the Ds keep the public focused on the problems in Texas under Bush. Michigan, Virginia and Illinois all come to mind.

A great example is Illinois. Dozens and dozens of innocents put on death row in Cook County. Overwhelmingly Democratic, and overwhelmingly corrupt. There is no way a majority of the country doesn't have some level of concern about all of these cases. The Ds have just managed to steer the issue as a R problem in Texas.

ETA the first "don't"

Hello

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Maybe CBS can examine the credentials and show they're fake?

Berger
 

You are really reaching here.

And you really don't come across as someone with a lot of experience with disclosure either.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Hank has explained that taking pictures of insurgents during combat is per se anti-American, so I'm sure the guy deserved to get shot in any event.

Replaced Texan
 

I'm not sure our problem with wronglful convictions is really a partisan one, although it is certainly in part a racial one.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

It at least raises some interesting questions.

Berger
 

This is very funny, especially on a board filled with litigators.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Not per se, prima facia. I mean, I'm willing to listen to why.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Shoot first, listen to why later.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

I guess you're right. God already picked when he made us the Christians.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

I wish I understood what the fuck Hank's trying to say in these posts. If it doesn't contain the handy signposts of math, or Bush Lied!!, somethimes it's difficult for us neophytes to tell if his masterpiece is again misunderstood, or if he's simply playing with feces again.

In other news, it looks like the GOP, in its goal to redefine today's compassionate conservatism, has embraced its rage at the judiciary with special glee.

From WaPo:

• Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.
  
  Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.
  
  Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
  
  Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."
  
  Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."
  
  Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

Nicely done, fellas. Anyone here still take Bush at his word not to use any "litmus test" in nominating judges?

OTOH, I suppose if we get into the habit of impeaching or killing judges that'll piss off conservatives, a litmus test is moot, as even the most activist judges will be whipped into line, even those that are nominated by, say, Reagan.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

This is very painful to watch. Apparently, strict interpretation/non-activism now means deciding a case in the manner that reaches the result they want. I can't believe it has only been 11 short years since the Contract with America.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Given the stark contrast, I disavow each and every one of these people. Who are they again? Did one of them run for president a la Dean or Kerry? Is one of them killing off America's third largest city al Daley? Who Gatti, who?

What's a "doyenne" anyway? And who the fuck is the Washington Post to say that this "doyenne", this "lawyer-author" and this "chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association" are "conservative leaders"?

Liberal media anyone?

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Perhaps you're being too hard on some of the GOP. The Contract with America was the work of movement conservatives, who have a judicial philosophy from which they have not departed. I'm not going to say that it's not "judicial activism," since the Federalists and their ilk have been all about a form of judicial activism that involves overruling precedents and legislative enactments inconsistent with their philisophy -- see, e.g., what Rehnquist has done with the Eleventh Amendment.

The people who are attacking the judiciary now -- DeLay, Santorum, Cornyn, etc. -- come from a different place in the party. These are cultural conservatives, who both dislike the judiciary's function when it acts as a check on legislative or executive action and clearly enjoy use the actions of the courts as a foil to rally the troops. When you control 2.5 of the 3 branches of the government, it's hard to adopt the pose of a victim of those in power, but these guys have found a way to do it.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Sigh. It wasn't you in particular, but conservatives on this board were pleased to impute the actions of a twit college student pie-thrower to the entire Democratic Party, so forgive me if your claims of media liberalism as the cause of these problems leave me unmoved.

FWIW, it seems that the conference apparently included
members of Congress as well, so I doubt that WaPo was pulling homeless folks off the street to report on a conference that wouldn't otherwise exist.

When you find this, together with the public statements of the House Majority Leader and two GOP senators condemning "judicial tyrrany" marinated with observations about violence against judges, it's probably time to find a different excuse to explain how what we're seeing isn't really today's GOP.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Rather than argue, I'll grant you this. Its totally time for us to get rid of DeLay. I'm writing my people tonight.

But maybe all the others were just in the audience to make sure they take in a variety of viewpoints? That's what we do you know!

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Well, it started with my posting two stories that read serially show a bias at Reuters IMHO. If you didn't understand that part, I really can't help- by the way- did you grow up in Stepford?

Then Hello said the guy from my stories had film of several attacks- Ty said that i think any guy who has pictures of insurgents is per se unamerican. See he was playing with a thread I started last week. i said not per se- prima facia- now this is lawyer talk Gatti, and it would take alot to explain- you should smile like you understand the terms and then ask when you get back to bar review in June. Then Ty said "no! just shoot em"- see he was being sarcastic so then I said you're right cuz god didn't make em christian so they can't be good guys- see I was being extra sarcastic.

Sometimes on anon lawyer chat boards you have to think harder, or just shut up when someone smarter is posting stuff past you.

Hope this helps!

ps would this help you?
http://www.democraticunderground.com...es/sarcasm.gif

its from DU!

Replaced Texan
 

In California Abortion is not a policy issue (at least for the first trimester) but a strategic issue. The California Supreme Court has ruled that the California Constitution Protects the right to have an abortion. They even went so far as to say that a law requiring minors to get parental consent to have an abortion was unconstitutional. The problem is that right to lifers won't shut up. Every time they open their mouths about murder etc. we lose votes. Its that simple. The whole idea about letting states decide is another issue, but one the public doesn't really grasp or care about. When you say everturn Roe all they hear is making abortion ilegal. Every time Republicans bring it up we lose votes in California.

In swing districts and blue states, the Republicans just need to drop the issue. Anytime a Republican leaders talks about Gun Rights, it is taped, turned into a commercial, and used against Republicans in swing districts.

OK.

OK

I understand the probloms with the Death Penalty, but in California, the only thing that California agree on more than abortions rights, is keeping the death penalty. It is Ok to talk about cleaning up the system, but every time a Dem. proposes banning it althogether they get slaughtered.

What they do to the Dems is when the talk about banning it a mailer goes around with a picture of Charles Manson that says, a liberal Dem. saved his life. My opponent wants to save more like him, is that what you want for the future of California? - game over.

Replaced Texan
 

Your first point about the California Supreme Court is one step in support of my point, but the second is two steps back.

I don't have a problem with the Right to Lifers not shutting up about it in a California context. However, as you note, the overturning Roe thing is another issue.

The fact that the public doesn't really grasp or care about the issue is because we (you, me, US) have not framed the issue for them. Instead, we've let NARAL and the NOW and others frame the issue for them. So they hear "making abortion illegal" in a way that threatens them (i.e., on a national level). We can either let them keep thinking that, or we can re-frame the issue in its proper context.

The fact is, if Roe is overturned, and the California Republican party is hurt because Californians all wrongly think that abortion is suddenly banned in California... well the California Republican party is being hurt because it hasn't performed its role in framing the debate.

I see it as almost a near-certainty that Roe is getting overturned in the next 4-10 years. That's plenty of time to frame the issue properly so the California middle doesn't feel threatened.

One more thing. I would argue that the "we lose votes" thing applies only in places like California, but not in the country overall. The largest group of single issue voters in the nation is the pro-life single issue bloc. I'd imagine this is not true in California (though I can't prove it), but by "we" I hope you are only referring to "California Republicans" and not the national Republican party. There was a reason that Bush was a bit more direct in his pro-life positions than Kerry was in his pro-choice positions in the debates; I hope you aren't operating under the misconception that neither did their homework.

Hello

Replaced Texan
 

I don't think you can reframe the issue. And even If you could, I see the whole thing as a waste of time. What do you accomplish by reframing the issue. There is other stuff that can be focused on where you can make a change and doesn't cost you votes.

The CRP has limited resources. And again, focusing on abortion is just a waste of those resources. We need to let the issue go and focus on other stuff.

That is one of the craziest predictions I have ever heard. I don't think Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned in at least twenty years if ever. What makes you think it will overturned in the next four to ten years.

Plenty of time for who? Frame the issue properly? This isn't a debating society. Trying to educated the entire California Republican on the nuances of Roe v. Wade and abortion would take massive amounts of money all to what end?





The prochoice position is much stronger in California (76% of Californias thinks the laws on abortion are fine the way they are - that is about the only issue 76% of Californians agree upon) but across the Nation the majority is strongly in favor of legalized abortion in the first trimester. You will notice that Bush hedges his abortion statement significantly. He states that he wants a constitutional amendment banning abortion but does not think the country is ready for it yet. That is will be a while before it is.
He certainly does not make the abortion thing a centerpiece of his campaign. And if you remember he lost the popular vote in 2000 and I think he won because of the war in 2004.

Seriously though - what makes you think Roe v. Wade will be overturned in the next four to ten years?

Replaced Texan
 

Sure you can reframe it. I've already done it for you. Roe gets overturned [does not equal] federal abortion ban.

I appreciate that you see it as a waste of time, but do you really think you are going to get pro-Lifers to shut up by telling them they are costing you votes in California? I don' think so. Which leaves you to your fate (i.e., losing votes) unless you do something to educate those voters who the pro-Lifers are costing you.

Or are you thinking of some other alternative to praying that they'll shut up?

You can let it go, but will they? Where in this country is this not an ongoing issue?


Yo a Bilmore!

This is easy to me. Even if its not reframed at the California level, the groundwork for reframing the issue at the national level already started last year. You have an aging Supreme Court, a fundamental shift in national electoral politics, 60 R Senators in sight (should that even be necessary) next year for a confirmation hearing.

Basically, I think the idea of a liberal "litmus-test" being applied to a Supreme Court candidate anytime between now and next year is far fetched, but the idea of a candidate with Federalist tendencies being nominated is almost a certainty. Afterwards its a bit harder to predict, but the trend is my friend here, and the electoral trends have been looking better and better since 1996.


To what end? Its not all that complicated, and you are the one complaining that this talk is costing your party votes.

Or we can continue to accept NARAL's demonization.


*Some* people are in favor of all kinds of things, but good luck figuring out if they are more in favor or reduced taxes than they are in favor of legalized first trimester abortion. The only ones you can reasonably pin down to voting are the single-issue voters.

And it ain't so much the popular vote that I'm watching. As far as anyone could tell from his record as of 2000, we basically were running a poorly trained monkey against the Ds wooden puppet. The numbers that really matter for Roe are the Senate and House totals, and those numbers have been trending our way for 10 years.

Anyway, I think the central disagreement we are having here is how the California Rs should address the abortion issue (or whether they should address it at all). As you seem to acknowledge, whatever you've been doing so far doesn't seem to be working so well. And I don't think staying mum and praying it goes away will fare much better.

Hello

dose of bias for the weekend
 

It ain't only a river in Egypt.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

The beauty part is the tension caused by tort reform. They hate the federal judiciary when they decide that sharia isn't the law of the land, but they love them when they are a way of conrolling the run away jury.

Incidently, they are right in the latter scenario.

dose of bias for the weekend
 

Ah. A Self-Referential Masterpiece. Sorry, Hank, my bad.

Don't forget to wash afterwards. Use soap.

Replaced Texan
 

Bush wanted the votes of people who care about abortion, but he doesn't want to spend political capital on the issue.