WWW.RIDESIDE.NET

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-27 15:48:17 +0000

Yeah! Power to the people! "Even the NYT..."

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-29 15:31:06 +0000

Looks like it's going to be a close one. With an overwhelming majority of Dems against Alito, and some crucial Republicans it looking like the majority of Americans are against Scalito. I guess 57-43 and the filibuster holds.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-30 00:00:06 +0000

dream on.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-30 03:00:48 +0000

Not my dream; just an honest guess. I think Bush overreached on this one, and Alito's lackluster performance in front of the Judiciary Committee hurt him (refusal to discuss his past and general contempt for the process). While I would obviously would not vote for him, I sorta liked the guy personally; I didn't sign anything or write to Kerry or Kennedy to stop him. Do you, NP, disagree with my 57-43 guess, and what are you basing it on? Or were you just being antagonizing?

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-30 12:36:10 +0000

Please repost yr "Crucial Republicans" link - I cant click through to anything. thanks, NP

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-30 12:38:15 +0000

What are you basing your "general contempt for the process" remark on? On first read and without other sources to back that remark up that sounds dangerously partisan to me.

Posted by cdubrocker on 2006-01-30 13:09:11 +0000

I had thought that Alito would sail through. But it turns out that Chafee of Rhode Island is a "no." That's pretty significant. Stay tuned. For candidates who are qualified on paper to be on the Supreme Court, I don't know if the Judiciary Committee performance makes a difference. Clearly, the prospect of going before the JC helped to scuttle the Miers nomination. But with a knowledgeable, well coached, and dignified candidate it's usually pretty certain that they'll do fine getting through the JC. I'm not convinced that a JC performance changes many peoples', or senators', minds. It makes for good political theater, though.

Posted by cdubrocker on 2006-01-30 13:19:45 +0000

But I would be less skeptical of the proceedings if the Executive and Legislative branches were dominated by different parties.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-30 15:58:03 +0000

zzzzzzzzz

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-30 15:58:34 +0000

http://www.gopchoice.org/

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-30 16:09:43 +0000

I like how Kerry phoned in his opposition from Switzerland. Way to connect with "the people", John.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-30 16:14:17 +0000

I don't think any Senators came out looking good from the committee meetings, maybe Leahy. Spector and Kennedy certainly did not. But Alito seemed to think the Judiciary Committee was just a formality, and he thought he was a judge, how dare we judge him. His refusal to discuss his CAP membership and constant "I'm not going to speculate on future cases" answer hurt him. 2 weeks ago I would say he would breeze through, but now that Kerry and Kennedy (who essentially have nothing to lose w/ a filibuster try) are gathering the troops, it is really up in the air.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-30 16:20:23 +0000

looks like CDUB is Correct about Rhode Island, maybe DB has something here... I really think that the opposition is just putting off the inevitable at this point, though..

Posted by cdubrocker on 2006-01-30 18:16:00 +0000

I got a kick out of that, too. When not enjoying the slopes, he was talking corporate finance at the World Economic forum in Davos.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-31 13:44:56 +0000

Looks like Kerry can Go back to the Alps, or fundraise, or do whatever he does until 2008... I bet there are more pro-choice Republicans than the vote would indicate, but, while commendable, aligning oneself with the organization that Dawn posted (Republicans for Choice?) probably wouldn't be the best thing for a vote seeking Republican congressperson to do..

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-31 14:14:33 +0000

Unless you're Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island. One of the only two states Bush has never visited either on the campaign trail (I think...) or in office (definite on that one).

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-31 14:17:56 +0000

But one person doesen't really fit the profile of the term "crucial republicans"

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-31 14:51:17 +0000

You are 10Ds child, aren't you? ;) I was completing your thought: "wouldn't be the best thing for a vote seeking Republican congressperson to do.. Unless you're Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island."

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-31 15:14:00 +0000

There goes NP, not valuing differences...

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-31 15:23:56 +0000

_____________.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-31 15:24:36 +0000

I correct everything everyone does in red ink now...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-31 15:26:08 +0000

Wow, was I wrong. The cloture vote wasn't even close 72-25, but the confirmation was 58-42. Way to unite the country Bush.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-31 15:26:44 +0000

?!?!?

Posted by cdubrocker on 2006-01-31 15:30:17 +0000

Way funny, NP! I chuckled.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-31 15:35:39 +0000

What differences am I not valuing? Not valuing Kerry's difference of prolonging the inevitable when our elected representatives in Washington might be able to make progress on other issues that have not been discussed to death? In 1993 when Ruthie Ginsberg was confirmed a lot of repubs may not have liked her, but there wan't a whole big ballyhoo about blocking her - she was qualified, and therefore she got through. Barrack Obama himself said this weekend on Meet the Press that , while opposed to Alito, his party needs to use the filibuster device in a situation where the Dems might actually be able to win. 4 Democrats voted for Alito vs. 1 Republican against. What is this BS about our country not being united? How would you propose that we would be more united?

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-31 15:51:25 +0000

The differences in the Republican party, since the majority of red states are pro-choice. I propose uniting by nominating a judge that wouldn't split into the most partisan judicial vote in 90 years.

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-31 16:11:23 +0000

If there is a suggestion in the above posts that I am not valuing peoples differing views on abortions I find that grossly unfair and untrue. My only statement was that a politician, a creature always searching for the most votes possible in order to get elected, is going to have more of an uphill battle if he/ she goes against the grain of where the rest of the party is. I applaud and share the viewpoint that there should be more fiscally conservative and socially liberal republicans out there - a lot of representatives that voted Alito dont necessarily share all his views.

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-31 16:44:18 +0000

There we go. Now can we stop it with "valuing peoples differences" shtick you use when you disagree?

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-31 17:07:17 +0000

I might politely add that DB inserted "valuing differences" into this thread

Posted by Null Protocol on 2006-01-31 17:20:45 +0000

Of course, I get it. I only use gimmicks and subterfuge when I feel strongly about something...

Posted by dawnbixtler on 2006-01-31 17:42:23 +0000

I'm not commenting on how strongly you feel. You seem to use gimmicks and subterfuge, when it suits your views, but when someone else uses it, you take offence. Just exposing the hypocracies of the past.

Posted by tgl on 2006-01-31 17:56:51 +0000

The politics of party nominations forces candidates to move to the extremes of their parties (right or left). The general electorate is decidedly moderate on the issue of abortion. So, to the extent that politicians need first to pander to their Party to win the nomination, it is an uphill battle if the go against the grain of the party. Although, I'll argue that the RNC's position that Roe be overturned is probably not representative of the majority of GOP voters. ---- I'm not sure what you two are bickering about, but, please, continue.