Patting the wrists, rolling the eyes.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think that there are three issues that really hurt the Republicans:

1) Abortion: Most americans are not for making abortion illegal in the first trimester. This is a tough issue because the Democrats at least in California beat us over the head with it. Most Americans agree that Abortion is a bad thing, and would like like to see abortions decreased but making it illegal is not the practical course. The tough question is: If you make abortions illegal, how many years in prison do you give a woman who has had an abortion? I have never heard an effective political answer to that question in a political debate. As long as we don't push for making Abortion legal in the first trimester we are fine, once you cross that line there go the votes.

2) Guns: Assault weapons. If it is reasonable to make mahine guns legal why not assault weapons? What about armour piercingi bullets? The majority of Americans do not see the need to keep assault weapons nor armour piercing bullets legal.

2) Contraception: With 67% of teenagers sexually active, supressing contracpetion education just seems ridiculous. The majority seems to agree with that.

3) Televangalism: Every time you mix money, crass advertising and merchandizing with religion it makes a lot of people uncormfortable. Having these guys all support the GOP is harmful to the GOP image

As far as the Death Penalty is concerned that is one issue that does not hurt Republicans. You may be against it but that issue has been used by Republican in California to defeat Democrats. The Dems have simply stopped running ant-death penalty candidates statewide because it causes them so many problems.

I sorta agree with one or more of these, but...

[Stop reading here if you know where this is going and don't want to hear it again]

Abortion: Surely a majority of Californians don't want abortion to be made illegal, but estimates by NARAL or whoever are that the day Roe is overturned, something like 30 or 35 states will be on the brink of banning it. There is a way to phrase the issue so that people in California aren't threatened with a ban, whereas people in Indiana aren't threatened by California feminists and activist federal judges. Namely, leave it up to the states. Just like how it was before Roe. It was legal in California before Roe. Sounds like the California Republican party has to take this bull by the horns and frame the issue in a way that doesn't sound personally threatening to the majority in California.

Assault weapons: Agreed, though there are at least a few Democrats who are affiliated with the gun nuts too. Not sure what Warner's big-picture positions are on this, but he was governor of VA, land of the NRA.

OTOH, permitted-concealed-carry is something that I don't really see too many strong arguments against. So its not like the Rs should be coming out entirely anti-gun. Anti-assault weapon I don't have a problem with, and I don't think most Americans do either... at least as long as it doesn't seem like the beginning of a wider ban on everything.

Contraception: Hillary Clinton has this right, at least in her public remarks. The country needs to focus more on getting people out of the position where they "need" to have abortions. No way should the Rs be seen as opposing anything along the lines of contraception, unless its on funding grounds, but certainly not on morality grounds.

Televangelism: Generally agreed.

Death penalty: I understand that the country doesn't have a big problem with the death penalty as a general matter. But the issue of putting to death juvenilles, the mentally retarded, and the innocent, is not something either party wants to be on the wrong side of. And the issue has come up in a few contexts where the Rs could actually use it for gain, instead of letting the Ds keep the public focused on the problems in Texas under Bush. Michigan, Virginia and Illinois all come to mind.

A great example is Illinois. Dozens and dozens of innocents put on death row in Cook County. Overwhelmingly Democratic, and overwhelmingly corrupt. There is no way a majority of the country doesn't have some level of concern about all of these cases. The Ds have just managed to steer the issue as a R problem in Texas.

ETA the first "don't"

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Just to add in a bit more, according to one story in the major media this morning, his camera had footage of 4 roadside bombings that all indicated he was prewarned and prepositioned for each such that he could set up in a suitable location to take the video from before the time the bombings were taped.

Maybe CBS can examine the credentials and show they're fake?

[Adder]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Yes - ever heard of an earnings call. Those are scripted you know.

You think contents includes notes, huh? You may be right, but I think its cloudy and when coupled with the stress on "originals" makes me wonder.

You are really reaching here.

And you really don't come across as someone with a lot of experience with disclosure either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Just to add in a bit more, according to one story in the major media this morning, his camera had footage of 4 roadside bombings that all indicated he was prewarned and prepositioned for each such that he could set up in a suitable location to take the video from before the time the bombings were taped.

Hank has explained that taking pictures of insurgents during combat is per se anti-American, so I'm sure the guy deserved to get shot in any event.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
A great example is Illinois. Dozens and dozens of innocents put on death row in Cook County. Overwhelmingly Democratic, and overwhelmingly corrupt. There is no way a majority of the country doesn't have some level of concern about all of these cases. The Ds have just managed to steer the issue as a R problem in Texas.

I'm not sure our problem with wronglful convictions is really a partisan one, although it is certainly in part a racial one.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hank has explained that taking pictures of insurgents during combat is per se anti-American, so I'm sure the guy deserved to get shot in any event.

It at least raises some interesting questions.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Adder
And you really don't come across as someone with a lot of experience with disclosure either.

This is very funny, especially on a board filled with litigators.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Hank has explained that taking pictures of insurgents during combat is per se anti-American, so I'm sure the guy deserved to get shot in any event.

Not per se, prima facia. I mean, I'm willing to listen to why.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Not per se, prima facia. I mean, I'm willing to listen to why.

Shoot first, listen to why later.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Shoot first, listen to why later.

I guess you're right. God already picked when he made us the Christians.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I guess you're right. God already picked when he made us the Christians.

I wish I understood what the fuck Hank's trying to say in these posts. If it doesn't contain the handy signposts of math, or Bush Lied!!, somethimes it's difficult for us neophytes to tell if his masterpiece is again misunderstood, or if he's simply playing with feces again.

In other news, it looks like the GOP, in its goal to redefine today's compassionate conservatism, has embraced its rage at the judiciary with special glee.

From WaPo:

• Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.
  
  Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.
  
  Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
  
  Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."
  
  Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."
  
  Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

Nicely done, fellas. Anyone here still take Bush at his word not to use any "litmus test" in nominating judges?

OTOH, I suppose if we get into the habit of impeaching or killing judges that'll piss off conservatives, a litmus test is moot, as even the most activist judges will be whipped into line, even those that are nominated by, say, Reagan.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
In other news, it looks like the GOP, in its goal to redefine today's compassionate conservatism, has embraced its rage at the judiciary with special glee.

This is very painful to watch. Apparently, strict interpretation/non-activism now means deciding a case in the manner that reaches the result they want. I can't believe it has only been 11 short years since the Contract with America.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I wish I understood what the fuck Hank's trying to say in these posts. If it doesn't contain the handy signposts of math, or Bush Lied!!, somethimes it's difficult for us neophytes to tell if his masterpiece is again misunderstood, or if he's simply playing with feces again.

In other news, it looks like the GOP, in its goal to redefine today's compassionate conservatism, has embraced its rage at the judiciary with special glee.

From WaPo:

• Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy is a fairly accomplished jurist, but he might want to get himself a good lawyer -- and perhaps a few more bodyguards.
  
  Conservative leaders meeting in Washington yesterday for a discussion of "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny" decided that Kennedy, a Ronald Reagan appointee, should be impeached, or worse.
  
  Phyllis Schlafly, doyenne of American conservatism, said Kennedy's opinion forbidding capital punishment for juveniles "is a good ground of impeachment." To cheers and applause from those gathered at a downtown Marriott for a conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith," Schlafly said that Kennedy had not met the "good behavior" requirement for office and that "Congress ought to talk about impeachment."
  
  Next, Michael P. Farris, chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association, said Kennedy "should be the poster boy for impeachment" for citing international norms in his opinions. "If our congressmen and senators do not have the courage to impeach and remove from office Justice Kennedy, they ought to be impeached as well."
  
  Not to be outdone, lawyer-author Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law."
  
  Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

Nicely done, fellas. Anyone here still take Bush at his word not to use any "litmus test" in nominating judges?

OTOH, I suppose if we get into the habit of impeaching or killing judges that'll piss off conservatives, a litmus test is moot, as even the most activist judges will be whipped into line, even those that are nominated by, say, Reagan.

Given the stark contrast, I disavow each and every one of these people. Who are they again? Did one of them run for president a la Dean or Kerry? Is one of them killing off America's third largest city al Daley? Who Gatti, who?

What's a "doyenne" anyway? And who the fuck is the Washington Post to say that this "doyenne", this "lawyer-author" and this "chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association" are "conservative leaders"?

Liberal media anyone?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is very painful to watch. Apparently, strict interpretation/non-activism now means deciding a case in the manner that reaches the result they want. I can't believe it has only been 11 short years since the Contract with America.

Perhaps you're being too hard on some of the GOP. The Contract with America was the work of movement conservatives, who have a judicial philosophy from which they have not departed. I'm not going to say that it's not "judicial activism," since the Federalists and their ilk have been all about a form of judicial activism that involves overruling precedents and legislative enactments inconsistent with their philisophy -- see, e.g., what Rehnquist has done with the Eleventh Amendment.

The people who are attacking the judiciary now -- DeLay, Santorum, Cornyn, etc. -- come from a different place in the party. These are cultural conservatives, who both dislike the judiciary's function when it acts as a check on legislative or executive action and clearly enjoy use the actions of the courts as a foil to rally the troops. When you control 2.5 of the 3 branches of the government, it's hard to adopt the pose of a victim of those in power, but these guys have found a way to do it.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What's a "doyenne" anyway? And who the fuck is the Washington Post to say that this "doyenne", this "lawyer-author" and this "chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association" are "conservative leaders"?

Liberal media anyone?

Sigh. It wasn't you in particular, but conservatives on this board were pleased to impute the actions of a twit college student pie-thrower to the entire Democratic Party, so forgive me if your claims of media liberalism as the cause of these problems leave me unmoved.

FWIW, it seems that the conference apparently included
members of Congress as well, so I doubt that WaPo was pulling homeless folks off the street to report on a conference that wouldn't otherwise exist.

When you find this, together with the public statements of the House Majority Leader and two GOP senators condemning "judicial tyrrany" marinated with observations about violence against judges, it's probably time to find a different excuse to explain how what we're seeing isn't really today's GOP.