lindq, only time will tell with regards to your first comment, but I certainly disagree with your second. My view of our goal in Iraq was to oust Saddam and to foster and environment where ALL the people of Iraq have a say in the future of their government. While the methods of achievement can always be seen as fuzzy, I find this objective to be quite clear cut. To this end we have shown surprising (to me) progress in a fairly short time. I am unexpectedly pleased at the cooperation between the national factions. JB
AAA: >I confess to not understanding how you could select >Kerry based on your judicial test of keeping the Court >grounded in the center. Well, my best guess is that you and I disagree with just where "center" is. As I am quite certain this is correct, your confession is no surprise. >That sounds like a Court that will not go out of its way to >make law and one that will respect both tradition, well- >understood rights and the coordinate branches. I think >the current Court is a frightening failure on that scale. The fact that citizens right and left of me consider this court a "frightening failure" for exact opposite reasons confirms my belief that they are walking an always difficult but centrist line. I prefer it stay just that way. >This is the Court that somehow found a previously >undiscovered constitutional right to homosexual sex, >while at the same time being utterly incapable of >understanding how banning politcal ads right before an >election could infringe the First Amendment. As previously stated, this is the Court that both the right and left find bitching points. From my centrist position I find some of these points valid and some are just "I want it my way and don't give a shit about the constitution" partisan crap. Our varied views are what make the discussion interesting and from my view I am thankful that neither side get's exactly what they want. >It was a Court that upheld a state university's racial >preferences with the observation that it would not >be constitutional 25 years from now. I search the >Constitution in vain for any suggestion that laws can >ripen into unconstitutionality over time, like cheese. I agree with you on that point. >The common thread of these radical decisions is that >they emanated from the Court's liberal wing. To put the >Court back on course and avoid more such mischief in the >future, it seems obvious to me that the power of this liberal >wing should be curtailed, not augmented as Kerry would >surely do. And as you would expect from my previous statements, we disagree on this one. With every court since I began following ('76) I have scratched my head at times over certain decisions, but for the most part I have been pleased with the balance created by the nearly evenly shared time in Presidential office (3 terms for Dems, 3.75 for Reps). A Dem next term would keep us on an even keel, but as I also previously stated, I am happy enough with the current balance that I could let another factor swing me if I find it important enough. JB
Turok, I understand what you're saying, but I guess my point is that it is inevitable that the current balance will be altered. Bush or Kerry will appoint judges with radically different approaches. The two most liberal members now are the Clinton appointees, Breyer and Ginsberg, and Kerry has a much more liberal record than Clinton. Hence, it is reasonable to assume he would look for even more liberal justices, perhaps one of the activists from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Personally, I think the Court has done enough legislating for a while, so I would view that as a negative development. Whatever our viewpoints, I think you're right that it is an important consideration that should be a big factor in a person's vote.
Are you kidding? It sounds like our flaming a-hole of a Prez. Look, this stuff is starting to add up in a way that is going to be very uncomfortable for the Republican Party. Read what O'Neill had to say. It corroborates the stuff that Clarke is saying. The administration is going crazy with the spin control. They are looking like a gut shot dog. It's pathetic and sad in a way, but they are getting what they deserve. Of course, if you are determined to support these bozos, you can go read Fox 'News' and continue living in la la land. m
That's an obvious lie or self-delusion. You obviously swallow the right wing propaganda hook, line and sinker. GULP... m
It's possible that because he was demoted, he's got an axe to grind. Why wait this long to reveal it? The things he alleges don't make sense. Would Bush start an open campaign to make Iraq the culprit after hours of flying around in Air Force One? I think all that would have been done before the return to the White House.
Nope, I don't listen to anything fed to me by the right or the left. Don't get me wrong, I'm a hardcore republican, but that is in ideology only. I don't need people to tell me how to think. Let me give you a different anaolgy. I'm a trader, pretty hardcore at that. But I don't listen to anybody tell me how to trade. Same thing, I make up my own decisions. I really wish you would start doing the same. Stop cheerleading for the left. It's very unbecoming of you.
Max: >It's possible that because he was demoted, he's >got an axe to grind. Of course it's possible. EVERYONE is Washington has an axe to grind. Your logic can work equally well on many of the accusations against Kerry. Treat both sides with equal skeptisicm and I'll call you fair. >Why wait this long to reveal it? To sell a book silly. So what? The accusations still must be examined and weighed by all on their own merit. >The things he alleges don't make sense. They make perfect sense to me. Right or wrong (and I say mostly right) Bush has had a hard on for Iraq from the start. He WANTED Saddam to be responsible cause it would have been a nice, neat and convenient way to rid the world of a guy the world needed rid of. >Would Bush start an open campaign to make Iraq >the culprit after hours of flying around in Air Force One? >I think all that would have been done before the return >to the White House. You'll have to explain this timing problem you're having with the events. I don't follow your complaint. JB PS. I'm undecided about Clark's accusations, but his story had more credibility to me than the attack dogs that the White House has been rolling out in defense.
Ahhh...the denial stage. Nothing a good 12 step program won't help, but you have to really want to get better. JB