RSS
Using PayPal
On Samuel Alito: Don't Confirm Him
Share / Recommend - Comment - Print - Tuesday, Jan 10 2006, 5:56PM
Much of Washington has been consumed with the coverage of the Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination hearings, and I suppose that I should have been glued to C-Span as well -- but I wasn't.
Instead I have been assembling some of the pieces for the upcoming launch of Bolton Watch and readying myself for a New America Foundation staff retreat.
Nonetheless, I have been hoping that something I saw in the published transcripts of his statements or in other news reports would lessen my profound unease with this appointment.
Alito has been a distinguished conservative judge whose long record of decisions give a clear portrayal of his work and opinions. However, his brand of conservatism should remain in the periphery of our court system and not be allowed to ascend to the highest court in the land.
He is firmly anti-abortion. His mom said so. His record -- formal and informal -- attests to this. And despite holding views that would roll back a woman's right to control her reproductive circumstances, he carries a solidly far-right wing sensibility in many other areas, particularly with regard to general egalitarianism in our society and race.
But the clincher is that he is committed to a vision of expansive Executive Branch power in our government at a time when the other branches sorely need to be propped up -- and need to get back in the business of curbing Executive authority. Our democracy is in fragile shape on many fronts -- and the Courts and Legislature must reassert themselves and end the de facto monarchy America has tripped into.
When John Kerry lost the election, I felt that he had never really made the case to the American people that that election was mostly about the Supreme Court choices the next president would make. Kerry failed to connect on this issue -- but the Congress, particularly if Democrats hold mostly together -- could conceivably draw some Republican votes from those who know he will undo Roe v. Wade and who are uncomfortable with his strong embrace of unlimited presidential authority.
He is just the wrong guy. When John Roberts was nominated, I endorsed him -- much to the consternation of some of my liberal and progressive friends. John Roberts was no John Bolton, whom I opposed in the foreign policy sphere, and Samuel Alito is no John Roberts.
I can't run this campaign against Alito. Others are working it -- but those moderate Republicans, who are pro-choice and minimal government type conservatives, should feel real pain -- profound citizen pressure -- if they plan to endorse Bush's choice.
To win this, Alito's candidacy needs to be killed by freezing moderate Republican votes.
-- Steve Clemons
» Next Article - Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World: Albert Brooks' New Film Fails
Sorry, but Bush is 2 for 2 after Alito's confirmation hearings. Polls support his nomination.
Like, Bolton, the question is not whether he will be confirmed. Beacuse he will, barring some radical surprise. The real question you have to ask yourself is what is continued fight for? If it is for 2006, then will having all Democrat senators vote against him or even filibuster help in 2006? I predict the fight (which is already lost) will go on. And instead of gaining many seats in this off year, Democrats will only gain one or two. Or maybe even lose another seat.
Democrats are still fighting the short game. What about the long term plan?
If the short term game of having a Supreme Court reject an unlimited presidency is lost, is there such a thing as a longer term game?
Steve. Alito must be defeated. I see no chance for the Republic to survive otherwise barring the military revolt Col. Wilkerson hinted at. Once the NeoCons have no restraint from the courts they will have complete control.
Don't believe Alito in the hearings. He is slick and he is lying. When he says "the President is not above the law" he is neglecting to add "because the President is the law."
I urge everyone to read this Buzzflash editorial. And while it may sound alarmist it is dead on.
http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/06/01/edi06002.html
Here is a quote from that editorial:
"Alito is the mastermind behind presidential signing statements that allow Bush to -- in essence -- rewrite congressional law by stating his interpretation of the law. This, in reality, eliminates the need for a Congress at all."
and
"This isn't a theatrical production. We're about to see the balance of powers guaranteed in our Constitution dismantled.
An election was stolen in 2000 by a 5-4 vote. It's about to get a lot worse."
"An election was stolen in 2000 by a 5-4 vote. It's about to get a lot worse."
I believe that an election was also stolen in 2004 by the Republicans in the state of Ohio.
George Bush and his fellow travelers will stop at nothing to bring about the downfall of democray.
I agree with the posts here and Steve's comment.
The issue with Alito is not Roe vs. Wade. Our
Republic can survive if Roe is overturned. But a
Republic with unchecked executive power, where
the president gets away with being entirely above
the law, is no Republic at all. Alito's view of
presidential power is by far his most disturbing
approach to law.
The more I think about the possibility of overturning Roe, the more I cringe. But I don't think that is the most pressing issue, as has been pointed out. We need to force the media to look at some of the other reasons people are weary of Alito. Unfortunately, the media seem to be parroting talking points instead of analysis. Most people support his confirmation, but most people don't have a clue what he's about.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure the Dem caucus will hold together on this one. Nelson, Nelson, Dorgan, and Landrieu will most likely defect. At most, the anti-Alito Republicans would be Chafee, Collins and Snowe. Even in the best case scenario (all Dems + "moderate" GOP) we are still three votes shy.
Not sure how likely a filibuster is, though Reid/Durbin could probably hold enough people on this one (and maybe pull Chafee along since he's up for election.)
Now there is a way out of this mess bearing in mind that the West and East Coast acknowledge there's such a thing as bible thumping middle America. It would be a swell idea to all of you mildly well educated to actually make a trip to North or South Dakota, visit Arkansas or Alabama and empower the poor, the homeless, the needy. Where do the poeple of New Orleans go besides A God?
You people just can't get over the election of 2000!! It was ok when Clinton eavesdropped on Aldridge Aimes without a warrant but Bush can't do it when someone is talking to Al Qaeda to commit another 9/11. When Alito is confirmed you people will be crying just like you did when Bush beat Gore and Kerry! The GOP will keep winning election after election as long as the Dems have people like Kennedy, Schumer, Pelosi et al running the party.
I love it when libs go off the deep end. Very amusing.
Elections have consequences. Try winning an election.
I'm very happy to comfort your little conservative minds, mostly because I'm Dutch. Now on conservatism vs liberalism:
During the civil war the conservatives fought for a truly conservative course: leave us be with our way of life: slavery. You lost.
During the 19th century conservatives fought against voting rights for the common people. You lost.
During the 1960s conservatists fought against equal rights for blacks. You lost.
During the 1970s conservatists battled against women's rights. You lost.
And now you silly lot have taken on gays. My guess is you'll loose again.
BorkAlito....
As the Republican party is increasingly being taken over by right wing Christian fascist loons the GOP conundrum may be winning their base but losing the rest of America.
It is appalling that the left has allowed the blinding issue of abortion to undermine the legitimacy of liberal philosophy. Do democrats have any idea how many "red" states hang in on the conservative side, due solely to this extremely damaging obsession that liberals have with the "freedom" to destroy unborn children? It is time democrats (forget the lost and hapless feminists) woke up and realized that they are shooting themselves in the political foot, by clinging to a cause that is obviously of questionable moral worth.
One problem with your arguement is that while John Kerry may not have made the argurment the election was about supreme court selections, George Bush clearly did. Rather than driving away a few Republicans that support abortion, it attracted many new voters to the Republican cause. Bush one the election on a promise of conservative justice and I hope the Senate recognizes this.
Sorry Mark,
As an unabashed California Conservative with Conservative friends, Bush's promise of a conservative Justice carried zero weight. Especially Roe vs. Wade. It never enters into my thoughts or my friends.
Elections have consequences. Try winning an election.
And they say liberals politicize the Supreme Court....
More specifically, though the Republicans have all the power now (due mostly to the fluke of a President who won a minority of the vote in 2000), the Democrats in the Senate represent roughly the same population as the Republicans, and therefore have a duty to support the interests of their half of the country. Every one of those Democrats "won an election," and their job is not to roll over and abandon their constituents just because there's a Republican president. If Bush had nominated someone after consultation with the opposition party, as Clinton did by nominating Ginsburg and Breyer (both named as acceptable choices by the leader of the opposition), that might be another matter. But Alito was nominated because he was conservative enough to be unacceptable to the "liberal" half of the country. Why shouldn't the Democrats stick up for their half and let the Republican half run wild?
o democrats have any idea how many "red" states hang in on the conservative side, due solely to this extremely damaging obsession that liberals have with the "freedom" to destroy unborn children?
Ah, but what about the flipside -- the states that are Democratic because the Democrats are the pro-choice party? New York often votes Republican at the state level, but is solidly Democratic at the national level largely because of the abortion issue. Ditto California. Ditto Massachusetts. The Democrats would lose as many states by giving up on abortion as they would gain.
And of course the "freedom to destroy unborn children" always was, has been and will be extended to affluent women (who could always get safe abortions even under an abortion ban). The only effect of abortion restrictions is to make sure that there is abortion on demand for the rich and restricted access for the poor. To give up on abortion on demand would be to give up on equality (equality among full-grown human women, not the fake equality that gives a fetus superior rights to a full-grown woman), so no thanks.
sadly, alito will see the bench, Roe will be pecked at until the choice issue is back in the hands of the states,, it will be done in a way that alito suggested back in the reagan years,, tiny steps. you wont even know it happened,, sit back, enjoy.. executive orders and signing statements have long been a method of executive abuse, that with respect to abuse, the court has never really cared to play with in the past.. signing statements like the one addressing mccain's anti torture bill are just a politically savvy way of using the veto stamp without actually using it or explaining it.. bush isnt really legislating with the signing statements,, he doesn't need to, he has the executive order for that,, he's just whispering @#$% off. I fault mccain and the rest of washington who have an issue with bush over this matter for not jumping down his throat for it, they just let him get away with it!! the executive will become even more unhinged and devastating if the people so disturbed by it in washington dont really make a concerted effort to follow through, get on the media with some clear comments about why this is all wrong and backwards and put up some firewalls in the process.. its pretty straightforward - checks and balances - these are not hard arguments to make.. alas,, yes justice alito get used to it.. man i hope im wrong..
Italian Americans unite! Suppport Judge Alito call your senator, we as Italian Americans have not exercised our power. Judge Alito is a good man and needs our support call and write your senator we need Judge Alito to be confirmed by the same large majorities as Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Judge Ginsberg is much farther to the left that Judgw Alito is to the right and if the easternern or western senators do not vote for Judge Alito simply because he parts his hair on the right side deny them your vote at election time.
Regards
Jim Giraldo
"Judge Ginsberg is much farther to the left that Judgw Alito is to the right..."
If you want to post here, Jim, fine. But get your facts straight first.
From the Washington Post: http://tinyurl.com/a2uzn
"...Judge Ginsburg was a consensus choice, pushed by Republicans and accepted by the president in large part because he didn't want to take on a big fight. Far from being a crazed radical, Ginsburg had staked out a centrist role on a closely divided appeals court. Don't take it from me -- take it from Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). In his autobiography, the Utah Republican describes how he suggested Ginsburg -- along with Clinton's second pick, Stephen G. Breyer -- to the president. "From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democratic administration," Hatch writes..."
"...By contrast, University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein found that Alito, in the overwhelming majority of cases in which he dissented, took a more conservative stance than his colleagues. In short, if this were an SAT analogy, Ginsburg would not be to liberal as Alito is to conservative. Nor could her tenure on the high court be called "Ginsburg Gone Wild."
Not that conservatives aren't trying to make it look that way. On the night of the Alito nomination, for instance, Fox News's Sean Hannity pushed this argument. "You knew the very extreme positions of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but you gave the benefit of the doubt to President Clinton," he prompted Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
None of this, of course, answers the hard questions posed by the Alito nomination: Is his judicial philosophy within the ideological goalposts? Do those goalposts shift depending on the balance of the court, or the ideology of the departing justice? In grappling with those questions, though, no one should be taken in by the Ginsburg fallacy. It's what the justice herself might call a straw person."
When you have an executive branch that can use its position to increase its power by appointing judges who will side with the executive branch, you get a closed loop process that feeds on itself...to our country's severe detriment.
Alito already has shown an ability to lie and deceive in his first two days of testimony. He clearly wasn't truthful in his "inability to recall" the Princeton organization with which he identified in his 1985 job application. He also danced around questions from Senator Feingold when asked about his practice sessions and any input related to the NSA spying authorization. He obfuscated to no end.
I'm hopeful that the Senate will move forward with great caution with Alito. I wouldn't trust this guy as far as I could throw him.
The confirmation of Alito will untimately be a good thing for moderates and liberals. For once the American public will see what happens when they elect a radically right (or left)President. This confirmation won't become evident in the short term (read 2008) but it will have a lasting influence on Presidential elections beginning in 2012.
It is easy to pick out "liberal" movements that succeeded, and that we would mostly all agree were a good idea. But that does not mean that all liberal movements succeed, or that they are all a good idea. There are times when conservatism (defined as "resisting change") is a good idea.
For example, there is a liberal group called NAMBLA which promotes sexual relations between men and boys. I believe most people who define themselves as liberal on many issues would be conservative on that one. I have seen interviews with some animal rights advocates who seem to want equal rights for humans, cockroaches and rats. Again, conservatism is the way to go on that. Although progress can be a good thing, it is also profoundly useful for a society to have a conservative element that protects us from those liberal movements that are really not a good idea. So a discussion on whether conservatism vs. liberalism is better in general is not particularly useful--it all depends on the issues.
Most of the pro-alitos here are plants and probably getting paid. the 'overwhelming force' strategy from the right on this confirmation is absoluetly transparent and has been declared. It's a top tactic for this crowd - trash talking. The tone of their comments is exactly like what I hear from packer fans or vikings fans when baiting one another. Most of these people do not concern themselves with the consequences of this imperial executive for our nation but are instead only interested in the vanity and rush of the short-term political win. Steve has this absoluetly correct. If this trendline continues to its logical end, history will judge Democrats terribly but the Republicans - especially those who in Steve's excellent phrase, yield to the "profoud citizen pressure" - as criminals and dogs.
Good Riddance, Roe & Kilo...
NAMBLA's goals certainly do fall into the liberal category. Who champions the rights of teenagers and adolescents to have individual freedoms and an active sex life? Liberals. Who advocates the position that homosexual relationships are just as valid as heterosexual ones? Liberals. Who defended NAMBLA when a family sued them after their son was victimized by a NAMBLA member? The ACLU, a liberal organization. Yes, fortunately NAMBLA is a fringe group, but it is unquestionably liberal.
There are also fringe conservative groups of which most conservatives are not proud, which also supports my point: you cannot say that a particular agenda is virtuous because it is either liberal or conservative. "Common sense" in these discussions would be beneficial, if more "liberally" applied.
I think its pretty clear that Alito is a perjurer, and that alone should disentitle him to a seat on the Supreme Court. The man lies whenever it suits him, and he feels entitled to lie under oath? Yeah, the fruitcake lobby has picked another winner.
I have to say this is the single most dispiriting thing I've read in months:
I can't run this campaign against Alito. Others are working it -- but those moderate Republicans, who are pro-choice and minimal government type conservatives, should feel real pain -- profound citizen pressure -- if they plan to endorse Bush's choice.
Steve, I really saw your smackdown of Bolton as a delightfully successful scrimmage in case of someone like Alito coming along to "kingmake" the Bush Administration and its forthcoming reprise (in Karen Hughes). I even double and triple checked that Bush's BS endrun around it (recess appointment) would not work for The Supremes. This very combination of facts has kept me able to sleep at night. Now it's here. Can't you hire an executive assistant and delegate other obligations? We really need you on this, Steve! For all the reasons you state yourself.
I have to say this is the single most dispiriting thing I've read in months:
I can't run this campaign against Alito. Others are working it -- but those moderate Republicans, who are pro-choice and minimal government type conservatives, should feel real pain -- profound citizen pressure -- if they plan to endorse Bush's choice.
Steve, I really saw your smackdown of Bolton as a delightfully successful scrimmage in case of someone like Alito coming along to "kingmake" the Bush Administration and its forthcoming reprise (in Karen Hughes). I even double and triple checked that Bush's BS endrun around it (recess appointment) would not work for The Supremes. This very combination of facts has kept me able to sleep at night. Now it's here. Can't you hire an executive assistant and delegate other obligations? We really need you on this, Steve! For all the reasons you state yourself.
Steve's pro-Iranian "smackdown" of Bolton, really worked, huh?
Go Ahead and try to reject Alito...the next nominee down the pike is Janice Rogers Brown.
Try winning an election.
Don,
We won the election in 2000, and probably in 2004 as well, but for the cheating of the Republicans.
Our right to fair and free elections does not exist in this country.
HA!
2000: I'm sorry, military votes DO count. Therefor, Bush DID win. The electoral college choses the President, not the popular vote. Check Chucky Schummer's constitution he was waving around like an idiot if you don't believe me. Or blame those idiots in Palm Beach County who couldn't read a ballot! HA! HA-HA-HA!
2004: Would you like me to show you those exit polls again?
I think you're suffering from Post Election Selection Trauma.
PS. I heard a rumor that Stevens is about to retire. GO SEAHAWKS! HASSELBECK --HUGE GOPer!
I think its pretty clear that Alito is a perjurer, and that alone should disentitle him to a seat on the Supreme Court. The man lies whenever it suits him, and he feels entitled to lie under oath? Yeah, the fruitcake lobby has picked another winner.
Posted by Den Valdron
Well, that didn't stop Gonzales from being confirmed, so hey, why not give a pass to another lying fanatic? Heck, perjury??? Give that man the Medal of freedom!!!
Marky! Where have you been?
You'd better get over to Firedoglake; people have been wondering what happened to you.
Good to see you again!
Don: A lot of us know that much about our country "sucks" at the moment. However, instead of leaving, we recognize that it is our patriotic duty to do everything we can to reclaim it from the neo fascists who are destroying it.
This is not an easy battle, but, we will prevail.
You're becoming a hate based country, Susan in Iowa.
Take a look around at Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly. Scope out Free Republic. Listen to the way the right wingers talk, the language they sling around.
Apologies folks -- a spam/hacker accessed a vulnerability in my site and was apparently targeting Alito commentary. About 35 comments were removed -- and there is nothing I can do to replace them. We've fixed the problem and patched this vulnerability. I apologize for those who spent time on passionate good posts -- some supporting my view and some really taking me on toughly. All of it was and is welcome -- as long as it stays clean -- but this problem caught us unawares. Best,
Steve Clemons
I guess that there must be a hackers for Alito group out there in cyberland.
This always leads me back to the same conclusion. If the so-called conservative agenda was so good for America the right wouldn't have to resort to the tactics that they use, lying, repression of free speech, etc.
What about all the slander guys like Al Franken throw around?
Dont let radicals speak for the establishment, its your fault if you mistakenly take Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly as the voice of the Republicans.
Ted Kennedy is an absolute disgrace of a human being.
One of the reasons why I took the right turn when I was younger in choosing the party I believed in is because of Ted Kennedy. He is "called the conscience of the Democratic party", odd when even many Democrats will say he may not even have one of his own. He routinely says a man has to do what a man has to do, even if its using slander, exploiting tragedies like Katrina, or lying outright.
Now, instead of looking at a jurists prudence, he and Durbin and Schumer, "the triad of tribulation", have narrowly tried to misrepresent some sort of bias in Alitos rulings, which is a joke.
Apologies folks -- a spam/hacker accessed a vulnerability in my site and was apparently targeting Alito commentary. About 35 comments were removed -- and there is nothing I can do to replace them. We've fixed the problem and patched this vulnerability. I apologize for those who spent time on passionate good posts -- some supporting my view and some really taking me on toughly. All of it was and is welcome -- as long as it stays clean -- but this problem caught us unawares.
Posted by Steve Clemons
They also targeted the thread on the Al Jazeera. I know of at least three posts that were removed.
The various posts by Republicans/trolls (paid or not) boasting about "winning an election" "elections have consequences" reveal the true extent of the danger facing America today. By exploiting the same flaw Hitler did in electorally gaining control of Germany, the "WINNER TAKES ALL", by ”winning an election by ANY means necessary”, one can indeed control the press, think tanks, voting process, business rules, public perception etc to ensure that a coup is self perpetuating, at least until there is either a military defeat by an outside power or a revolution within.
Republicans make no bones about translating a corrupt voting system into the right to determine outcomes, not in proportion to the revealed preference of constituents, but into the right to impose a fabricated majority preference into the preference imposed on the rest.
By so focusing on "winning elections", the emphasis has shifted from a political process that seeks positive sum gains where the society as a whole gains, into playing at best zero sum gains where wealth is merely redistributed. Rather than building the TRUST inherent in mutually beneficial endeavors (and the TRUE source of all economic wealth) the ruling kleptocracy further generates into playing negative sum games. Seen from the perspective of the ruling elite, entitled to use military force for its own pleasure, all that now matters is whether the benefits TO THAT ELITE outweigh the costs TO THAT ELITE. All other costs and benefits are irrelevant, driving the divergence between the “Two Americas”. What matters now is not how we can develop trust and cooperation to implement mutually beneficial institutions, but how we can MAINTAIN POWER per se, and use that power for the benefit of a favored ruling class. We are so close to becoming the essence of the communist/authoritative society we once abhorred.
We cannot have a Supreme Court selected by a political process that is the final referee, anymore than one could have a fair athletic contest where one side gets to make the rules and select the referees. The inertia of the Supreme Court as a neutral arbiter begun under George Washington (who had BOTH wide support AND abhorred campaigning) has long been dissipated. While not a sufficient condition for democracy, an independent Supreme Court/judiciary is indeed a NECESSARY condition for democracy. THAT is what is at issue in the Alito nomination.
"Ted Kennedy...routinely says a man has to...us[e] slander...or l[ie] outright."
Hi, JS.
Would you like to be regarded as sane?
Provide some evidence that Sen. Kennedy routinely says such things.
I am reposting my comment from yesterday, since Den Valdron's response is still here. I don't really understand this in his response: "You're becoming a hate based country, Susan in Iowa," but I take his point about Ann Coulter et al. It's true that awful things come out of her mouth. But she doesn't own the franchise. You can find equally disgusting fantasies about physical misfortunes occurring to political opponents on some left blogs.
My point is that sinking further into the slime along with Ms. Coulter doesn't advance any result we care about, like, say, keeping Alito off the S.Ct. bench. My guess is that people in the political center who were listening to the hearings were more likely to be attentive to tough, substantial, well-prepared questions, than to emotional rambling from either side of the table. The appearance of reasonableness and seriousness is more likely than ranting to engage people in really listening.
If we keep upping the ante on poisonous hatred in political discourse, where do we stop? I'm hoping that the 2006 elections will be an expression of people's weariness with the whole toxic, hateful corrupt stew that DeLay exemplifies and Coulter applauds. The Iowa caucuses are on Monday, and I'm going to show up.
Posted by Susan in Iowa at January 11, 2006 11:37 PM: The venomous tone of many of the posts here is remarkable. We all share a country, and there are plenty of people who hate us just for that. Adding our own mutual animosity to the mix seems pointlessly self-destructive.
That this particular post on Alito seems to have really called out the haters is interesting. It suggests that he is more than a nominee: he is the evasive--and thus nominally empty--vessel into which our hopes or fears are poured. And it also suggests that Steve strikes a nerve with a particular sort of conservative.
I have listened to almost all of these hearings, and I think Steve is right about Alito. He is the wrong nominee for a time when executive power has become a source of deep and legitimate concern. His answers on this topic have been to avoid condemning presidential lawbreaking, and to recite that the President is restrained by the Constitution. (And then, only if some institution of government is willing to intervene.)
Alito is clearly leaving himself room to find that no presidential excess in time of war is unconstitutional, and therefore mere statutory illegality is not a bar to whatever Bush/Cheney want to do. If Alito can get enough justices to go along with this view, even the conservatives should worry, (and some of them do).
Alito is no John Roberts. He is homage to the Dobson/Falwell/Robertson wing of the GOP. The president could have done so much better, and recently did.
"Ted Kennedy...routinely says a man has to...us[e] slander...or l[ie] outright."
Hi, JS.
Would you like to be regarded as sane?
Provide some evidence that Sen. Kennedy routinely says such things.
The Actual Text of My Post:
He routinely says a man has to do what a man has to do, even if its using slander, exploiting tragedies like Katrina, or lying outright.
I meant to put a man has to do what a man has to do in quotations, because he has said it on several occasions.
the using slander, exploiting tragedies, and lying outright, was an exemplefication of his relatively inadequate senatorial service.
He used Katrina to attack Bush, not on actually not improving the disaster response after 9/11, but on issues of race.
Like Ted Kennedy would know anything about the issues of race, he wouldnt know because while America suffered through the depression, his corporate raiding father kept him spoiled and isolated in the New England Mansion.
He has lied on numerous occasions on the Senate floor in discussions on the Iraq war. At one point even falsifying an exchange he had with an officer at the Pentagon, who came out to state forcefully he never even had an exchange.
There are hundreds of examples of Ted Kennedy's antics, but above all, he just reaks of the partisan B.S in the country.
If you want to get rid of Bush, thats ok with me.
But we have to be fair, one for one, Ted Kennedy goes with him.
I'm saying that your whole society is corrupt and degenerate JS. That your society engages in vile and violent language. Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are just the cheerleaders. But guess what, they're your cheerleaders, they reflect back on America. You used to be great, and now you wallow in the gutters.
Den,
It's more like we've been riding the wave of capitalism only to be dashed on the reef.
I'm saying that your whole society is corrupt and degenerate JS. That your society engages in vile and violent language. Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly are just the cheerleaders. But guess what, they're your cheerleaders, they reflect back on America. You used to be great, and now you wallow in the gutters.
Liberals and Dems, all alike in typecasting Republicans with the Neo-Con Right.
I am a Republican, but I am not with O'Reilly and Coulter, this is something liberals have difficulty understanding.
They do not reflect anything about America or government, they are talking heads who earn money by irritating you. And they succeed every day you type something like that.
You really don't understand JS. This is not about Republicans or Democrats. I'm not a Republican or Democrat or an Independent. I'm not even an American. I'm a Canadian. All my life, I have respected and admired the United States and the bold and forthright vision that it has stood for. I cannot admire you any longer. Your society is corrupt and degenerate. I say this with regret. A light is going out in the world.
Reader Comments (46) - post a comment