Politics: A new beginning

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
IT seems like a curious thing for an employer to do, unless they assume everyone is blindly loyal. Depending on what the employer is like, what about saying something like "I'm not sure I'm a good person to have working the phones on the campaign, given I don't support X for office. I'm happy to continue performing my regular duties, though." If they rebuf her, then she can make plenty of calls discouraging people to vote for this candidate.

The opposing candidate can also make a lot of hay out of this.

And, to follow up on Ty's point, the wrongful discharge laws generally will let you terminate for good cause or no cause but not for bad cause, and bad cause often involves being terminated for objecting to doing illegal things - if she can establish illegality, I'd say she can build a wrongful termination case.

I may just work for too many companies, but these are tough cases to win.

[Skeks in the city]

I think the democrats would win more elections if they gave up the Atticans and moved right on social issues. I bet the Reagan democrats outnumber the Atticus democrats.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
I think the democrats would win more elections if they gave up the Atticans and moved right on social issues. I bet the Reagan democrats outnumber the Atticus democrats.

They probably do outnumber me. I'm a bit like Tigger; there are many wonderful things about me, but I'm the only one.

What, pray tell, should the Demos move right on? Where has the DLC-run Democratic party gone left of the mainstream on social issues? Abortion rights? Gun control? Confederate flags?

Restrict your analysis to social issues, the battlefield of your choosing.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
What, pray tell, should the Demos move right on? Where has the DLC-run Democratic party gone left of the mainstream on social issues? Abortion rights? Gun control? Confederate flags?

Religion and affirmative action come to mind.

[sgtclub]

US settles Linda Tripp suit for $550K.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/031103/11/md1u.html

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Religion and affirmative action come to mind.

Dems have been tarred as pro-affirmative action, but as far as elected officials go, it's moot point. The executive and legislative branches have given up on almost all vestiges of it; the parts that remain are relatively uncontroversial. The rest is all regulatory stuff (i.e., FCC broadcast license diversity requirements) that aren't seriously at play in any contested races I've observed.

As for religion, what? The Dems are somehow out of the mainstream on this? Most of them pay lip service to keeping the Pledge of Allegience as-is. I haven't heard the party take any kind of anti-religion stance; they fall over backward to pander to a Southern white man's idea of religiosity. Unless you're saying everybody's got Roy Moore all wrong, both parties are singing in the same choir when it comes to America's peculiar brand of official state religion (vague assurances of staunch Christian morals).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
IMH(and not well informed)O,

okay then, we agree on ground rules. we can argue without knowledge base, with arguments founded on hyperbole. but if either of us do know something about a topic of argument, gentleman's agreement, we'll warn the other.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
I think the democrats would win more elections if they gave up the Atticans and moved right on social issues. I bet the Reagan democrats outnumber the Atticus democrats.

actually, and depending on what you mean as social issues, I think you're real wrong. To win, the Dems should move right on economic issues, and the perception of pandering to constituent groups. the Republicans should actually move left on gay/abortion issues to win more.
but at some point if you "move to win"one must ask the question why run.
oh, and let me go on record first. if atticus ran for something I would cross party lines to vote for him. one of my socks knows him so i think I might have some pull if he held office. I guess I'm an atticus republican.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
US settles Linda Tripp suit for $550K.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/031103/11/md1u.html

Heh. I was about to post, although CNN says it's $600k. Smells bad either way.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Heh. I was about to post, although CNN says it's $600k. Smells bad either way.

for a violation of the Privacy Act... how poetic, or anti-poetic I guess.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I didn't bail on that. I bailed with respect to his exagerated statements that the DEMS are opposing "all nominees" and the "for 200 years" stuff.

I know -- that's what I was referring to -- the text in the beginning of his article that I mocked.

Originally posted by sgtclub
I actually agree that the DEMS lower the challenge standard for minorities. The challenge for Estada is based on the fact that he didn't deliver requested privileged docs, even though no nominee has ever agreed to deliver those and I believe all living solictor generals (both DEM and GOP) weighed in on the side of Estrada. The challenge for Brown is that she made some fairly contraversial statements in certain speeches over the vears, though they haven't been able to tie these positions to her rulings.

Compare these with the basis for the challenges of the other stated noniness that have been opposed. Pickering is allegedly a racist, which if true would be a valid reason (it's not true and given the work he has done in his home state, it is extremely insulting). Pryor is on the record as anti-abortion and the DEMS don't believe he can separate his personal views from that required of him under the law (even though he enforced the 10 commandments removal, against his personal beliefs). Owens has infringed far to much on the right to choose (based on her rulings in parental notification cases).

I agree with Ty and most knowledgeable observers that the documents were just a pretext re Estrada -- they feared that he was a young and extraordinarily talented "true believer" -- a Nino Jr. -- who would hop to the SCT at the first opportunity.

Now, Club, look at the reaons you recited for Brown and the others. It appears that all of those nominees, male/female, black/white, are being opposed, as Hank said:

". . . but it was based upon the merits of how the nominee appear to think or rule."

BTW -- with Pickering, as I understand it, the stated reason is his opposition to affirmative action programs. Some low political types slur that into a charge or implication of "racism" -- but I don't think we've heard that express charge on the floor of the Senate. Not even as Williams would interpret it -- though the man can apparently see through all words Senator Schumer actually said to distill his opposition to Brown into a charge of "not being black enough".

S_A_M

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I agree with Ty and most knowledgeable observers that the documents were just a pretext re Estrada -- they feared that he was a young and extraordinarily talented "true believer" -- a Nino Jr. -- who would hop to the SCT at the first opportunity.
S_A_M

so your point is that they didn't blacklist him because he was hispanic, and would be much harder to stop from getting to the Supremes, once appointed. instead, you believe they invented reasons to stop him because he was too powerful of a legal mind, and your party wouldn't want him to rise to a high level, but they did so with racial blinders on.

to sum up your argument then:
Its not that he was qualified, but held to a tougher standard than a white guy.
Instead he was too qualified, and the Dems will stop anyone who is young and extraordinarilly talented?
Were you the one who said somethng I wrote yesterday was hilarious?

[sgtclub]

Drudge is reporting that CBS has cancelled the contraversial Reagan mini series. It will air uncut on Showtime.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Drudge is reporting that CBS has cancelled the contraversial Reagan mini series. It will air uncut on Showtime.

This should scare everyone.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
This should scare everyone.

Uhm, why? The market speaketh.