What Democratic Party?
The Kingdumb of Jesusland is in serious trouble. The erstwhile subjects of King George are unhappy with his rule:
A majority of Americans said the presidency of George W. Bush has been a failure and that they would be more likely to vote for congressional candidates who oppose him, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll.
In the latest CBS News/New York Times poll President Bush's approval rating is stuck at a dismal 42 percent, with 51 percent of Americans give him a negative job approval rating.
Also, according the the CBS-NYT poll, 70% said that they expect the deficit to grow larger while 40% said they think health care will be worse.
That cannot be allowed, as the oil-igarchs who put George on the throne with a mission to flush American democracy aren't quite ready to open declare the establishment of the American monarchy. An uprising of the masses would divert scarce resources away from their Divinely-inspired task of capturing the world's petroleum reserves in order to serve the Earthly desires of the True Republican God's Chosen Ones.
But they are close to revolt! That is why the addition of Corporate Sam Alito to the ranks of the Supreme Court Jesters is so vital, especially when "a clear majority, 64 percent, is concerned that the Bush administration’s anti-terrorism measures could threaten their civil liberties. A third are 'very concerned'." Adding a secure pro-corporate vote on the Court would ensure that the rabble will be put down.
And where are the champions of the oppressed people? Falling down on the job of meeting their responsibilities.
Senator Barack Obama Is "Reported To Be Opposing a Filibuster of Alito Inside the Democratic Caucus", and he's getting support from those who feel An Alito Filibuster Would Make the Democrats "Look Bad". Party sources said Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) and others worry that a filibuster will detract voters' attention from issues that Democratic leaders consider more promising.
What issue could be more promising than the demise of the Constitution at the hands of neo-conmen seeking to turn the world into their own little piggy bank and party spot while the rest of the world's population is expected to cater to their lightest whim?
Nancy Goldstein of Orcinus asks "How many more times are we going to be ABLE to listen to their lame excuses?"
For five years now it's been "Please baby, baby, baby, please! I'm sorry I was a no-show last time, but hey, that was because I was working overtime to save up to do something extra special for next time, which is the really big event - right, baby?"
Last April, when the Democrats backed away from filibustering extremist appeals court nominees, it was, "Don't you fret, baby. We're not going to go to the mat over small fry like Owen, Pryor, and Brown because we're saving the filibuster for the big one - you know, the Supreme Court, baby."
Months later, Democrats folded rather than fight John Roberts, the young-ish yes man with a penchant for executive privilege and a wife who used to head an anti-choice organization. After all, they said, they needed to save their energy, and the filibuster, for the next Supreme Court nominee, who would undoubtedly be worse.
Well, baby, the moment of truth has arrived. It's Alito-time, and the lyin'-ass boyfriends are backpedaling again. Why aren't they going to raise a ruckus this time?
"And what's the point of trying to do anything until we've recaptured the Senate or the White House?"
I'm not terribly inclined, as my readers know, to use profanity in my posts.
But if the Democratic Party wants any more of my money, they can just go fuck themselves.
What she sez! She isn't the only one feeling let down.
In an editorial, the Palm Beach Post say that the Democrats have a case, but probably won't make it:Republicans on the Judiciary Committee supported Judge Alito because, they said, he will strictly interpret the Constitution and not be an "activist." What Republicans mean is that Judge Alito will rule the way they want. President Bush wants to make the court much more conservative, and he clearly has a nominee who would do so.
Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito (L) laughs with Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (C) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter as they speak to reporters in the Capitol in Washington January 25, 2006.
The question is whether the president has earned the political backing to do so, and based on the 2004 election and his poll numbers, he clearly hasn't.And the Democrats' response? Given the bumbling of those on the Judiciary Committee, the Democrats may be incapable of mounting an eloquent and persuasive filibuster, though John Kerry has called for one. Apparently, they will let it happen. Two of the 44 Democrats plan to vote for Judge Alito, and another opposes a filibuster, which would take 40 votes. Whatever the reason, if they again shrink from a fight, even when they have a good one to make, their party and the country will be stuck with the result.
They aren't the only ones to think so.In not promising to filibuster Alito, the Democrats AND the Republicans in Congress are signing the death warrant of Congress as an institution. 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.[T]he problem with putting Samuel Alito on the United States Supreme Court isn’t that he wants an Imperial Presidency, as such. He doesn’t, not in any general sense. No, what he wants is a Republican Imperial Presidency.
So why do right wing judges consider spending unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns by the wealthy few (often to the point of drowning out other, less affluent voices) to constitute Freedom of Speech? Well, as the man said, “follow the money.” Who benefits when politics is all about money?
And while we’re on the topic, why are they so free in allowing restrictions on the “common man’s” ability to express his or herself?It all kind of speaks for itself, doesn’t it? And, unfortunately, with Alito on the Court, it’s going to continue speaking, louder and louder all the time.
When it comes to far right judges like Alito, judicial philosophy really isn’t their bag. These are political operatives. They aren’t trying (primarily) to change the law: They’re trying to change America, and to change it in ways that are repugnant to the vast majority of Americans.
This is an important fact to remember, as a New York Times Editorial for January 27, 2006 points out:Does anyone see the dangerous potential for influence peddling, judicial lobbying, conflicts of interest and the fundamental issue of judical ethics? The judicial lobbying problem is more serious in one respect than the scandal enveloping Congress. Lawmakers operate in an overtly political environment, but the decision-making process of judges is supposed to be impermeable to clever efforts by special interests to buy access and favor.
The framers of our Constitution designed the judicial branch with lifetime appointments because doing so would allow an independence from political influence and ideological dogma. In their day, accepting gifts, sponsorships, and concocted notions of compensation for mocked up educational sessions would have been reason for removal from the bench. The Constitution does allow removal of a sitting Justice or Judge for misconduct.
Given the climate of scandal that has been hitting all three branches of government, one would expect to hear at least one or two outcries from the Republican party. Are there no Republicans or conservatives that will speak to the issues of ethical conduct?
There certainly aren't many Democrats! One of those who positioned himself as a principled member of the opposition has betrayed the trust bestowed upon him after reading his high-toned essays on America by selling out for personal advantage;All we can say about the announced support for Alito by our former hero, Robert Byrd, is Et Tu, Robert?
Here is the Senate's most eloquent supporter of the separation of powers backing a Supreme Court nominee who believes in the "Unitary Executive" (Dictatorial) powers of a Republican president. Such a theory is nowhere in the Constitution and in fact is in violation of the explicit balance of powers guaranteed in the Constitution.
All we can say is that even Robert Byrd must have succumbed to cutting a deal that the GOP will not support his opponent in West Virginia in 2006 with anything but minimal funds and backing from the national party.
Nothing else can explain such a betrayal of the Constitution.
And that goes for all of you in the Senate - except for Jim Jeffords - who refuse to recognize your duty to your nation.
To paraphrase Nancy Goldstein, how many more times are we willing to be betrayed? We progressives cannot support Bu$hCo initiatives, and yet the only other option was to support those who turn on us and disappoint us every time they face a challenge.
There is no opposition political party.
In my mind, there is no clearer example to present that the Democratic Party is dead, and has been for a while now. It has become every bit the GOP-lite that they have been accused of being. They might even just be a psy-op being perpetrated on those of us who retain our progressive ideals in the face of mounting evidence that we are diminishing in numbers just to get us to surrender to the Bu$hCo 'Inevitable'.
Our options to oppose the oil-igarchy diminish daily, and will soon disappear as Alito commences performing his Bu$hCo duties. I fear the day that no other option exists than to storm the American Bastille in frustrated response to some inane Republican 'Let them eat cake' comment.
The day that happens, the Great Experiment is finished.
Benjamin Franklin did warn us "A Republic - if you can keep it". I'm very sorry we let you down, Ben. Everything you and the others risked to create this nation was all done in vain.
You should have been like today's neo-conmen and just watched out for your own self-interests.
Copyrighted [©] source material contained in this article is presented under the provisions of Fair Use.
FAIR USE NOTICE
This article contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of democracy, economic, environmental, human rights, political, scientific, and social justice issues, among others. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material in this article is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes.