I can't disagree that the Dems suck. In 2004, I was in Ohio, where it was as bad as it gets with the Dems. I'm tired of it too. For 18 year after I got tired of it last time (after working on the Jesse Jackson campaigns) I was a hardcore advocate of independent politics. I don't see, jowever, that we are any further along in developing a viable third party or rejunenating social movements. I don't think we should abandon social movements, far from it. But just being tired of the hand we've been dealt seems like a dumb reason to walk away from the table, especially when what we do off the table doesn't seem to help that much by itself.
People also did not seem to register that my main comment about the Dems' refusal to use the nuclear option was a criticism, not a defense.
Anyway, I fear I have revived the pointless, hopeless, endless, nonresolvable argument about whether the 5000 people in the country who might care should or should not cooperate with the Dems in some contexts, like it makes any difference whether we do. That was not really my point, and I do not wish to engage in that debate, whioch persuades no one on either side. So let's leave it. I will not respond to any further discussion of that issue.
I had two points:
(1) With the Court the political outcome of the likely Alito conformation, though bad, is not a foregone conclusion, since Kennedy is a potential swing vote.
(2) It is incorrect to say that the Dems are indifferent to the ideology of the judges who are nominated to the courts. Thsi is actually factually disprovable, if I were not billing late hours for a bankrupt criminal corporation I would find you the studies. Thsi hypothesis cannot be squared with their actual practices in nominating judges. Their failure to stand up against the nominations of smart conservatives cannot, therefore, be attributed to indifference to the ideology of the judges, but must have some other source -- political weakness, lack of conviction, lack of strategy, general cluenessness, something.
Please note that I am not saying that the fact -- and it is a fact -- that the Democrats tend to appoint better judges from our pov is a slam dunk argument for supporting them, but it is a consideration, and pretense that the parties are the same or that the Dems don't care what kind of judges they appoint or allow to be appointed is mistake.
--- Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> wrote:
> Justin:
>
> > Though I actually I disagree with you guys. I
> think
> > the Dems do not believe that it is OK to confirm
> > qualified right wing judges, or they'd nominate
> them
> > when they had the executive. Or at least nominate
> > judges in a political random way. They don't do
> that.
> > Which suggests that they really are just
> spineless. They want to reserve
> > their "nuclear option' without
> > ever using it, not seeing it that now's the time
> if
> > there ever was a time.
>
> Marta:
>
> > So does Howard Dean and this part of the
> Democratic Party just not count?
> > There have been ideological objections from the
> Democrats - the DNC.
>
> I'm sorry -- "pwog" Dems can make all the noise they
> like, but bottom line,
> the Dems as a whole cave, and there are endless
> excuses and justifications.
> I worked with local Dems in the '04 charade, and was
> immediately reminded of
> their lack of real political insight or analysis --
> more interested in The
> Game and who's up on points (most lib blogs operate
> this way). I'm tired of
> it. We may be locked into the 2 Party system, but we
> needn't be submissive
> or quiet about it. I'm with Carrol -- the Dems are
> the nice jailers;
> liberals, their PR front.
>
> Dennis
>
>
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com