John Kerry says Roberts should release all records

[OnTheRocks]

This Kerry guy.......is a funny man.

Open Mic Night in the Senate

 

"We cannot do our duty if either Judge Roberts or the Bush administration hides elements of his professional record,"

[Ghost of BiB]

This Kerry guy.......is a funny man. 

Open Mic Night in the Senate

388700[/snapback]

 

He'll change his position. At least twice.

[/dev/null]

He'll change his position. At least twice.

388784[/snapback]

 

i don't understand why everyone is on john kerry for changing positions

 

people tend to change positions when they f*ck to better satisfy their partner

as a politician, JK is in the buisiness of f*cking the american people

so by changing positions, he is better satisfying the american people

[Ghost of BiB]

i don't understand why everyone is on john kerry for changing positions

 

people tend to change positions when they f*ck to better satisfy their partner

as a politician, JK is in the buisiness of f*cking the american people

so by changing positions, he is better satisfying the american people

388792[/snapback]

 

I couldn't in my worst drug induced nitemares imagine f***ing John Kerry (or his wife, for that matter).

 

Piccard would, though.

 

Kirk > Piccard.

[Lemur King]

This Kerry guy.......is a funny man. 

Open Mic Night in the Senate

388700[/snapback]

 

Leakers will be fired/leakers that break the law will be fired. Got maple syrup?

[Ghost of BiB]

Leakers will be fired/leakers that break the law will be fired. Got maple syrup?

388818[/snapback]

 

Actually, yes.

[Albany,n.y.]

I wish John Kerry would stop running for president already. He's constantly sending e-mails to anyone who contributed to his campaign and he has this delusion that he can both get the Dems nomination & win the election in 2008.

It's over, John. You proved that you don't have what it takes to win an election on a national level, and you're getting too old. Get out of the way and let someone who can actually win the presidency get the nomination. That means someone who is not from the northeast (this means you too Hillary) and does not have the baggage that causes so many people to hate you and vow never to vote for you.

If the Democrats want to win the presidency in the forseeable future, they'll have to go to someone who has proven he can win elections in a red state. That excludes Kerry, H. Clinton & any other candidate with delusions of grandeur. I'd also throw Edwards out since he was a total dud (and he was an embarrassment on some of the Sunday am talk shows) during the campaign.

I don't care who it is, just give me a moderate candidate from either party and stop running far right & far left candidates. Somehow, I doubt the Republicans will do this until their right wingers start losing and the Democrats may be too dumb to realize the far left is certain defeat.

[Thurman's Helmet]

This Kerry guy.......is a funny man. 

Open Mic Night in the Senate

388700[/snapback]

 

Of course he leaves out the fact that no judicial nominee has EVER done that and in fact Sandra Day O'Connor herself said that that was not appropriate.

[KRC]

Of course he leaves out the fact that no judicial nominee has EVER done that and in fact Sandra Day O'Connor herself said that that was not appropriate.

388874[/snapback]

 

Details...details...

[KRC]

I wish John Kerry would stop running for president already.  He's constantly sending e-mails to anyone who contributed to his campaign and he has this delusion that he can both get the Dems nomination & win the election in 2008. 

It's over, John.  You proved that you don't have what it takes to win an election on a national level, and you're getting too old.  Get out of the way and let someone who can actually win the presidency get the nomination.  That means someone who is not from the northeast (this means you too Hillary) and does not have the baggage that causes so many people to hate you and vow never to vote for you. 

If the Democrats want to win the presidency in the forseeable future, they'll have to go to someone who has proven he can win elections in a red state.  That excludes Kerry, H. Clinton & any other candidate with delusions of grandeur.  I'd also throw Edwards out since he was a total dud (and he was an embarrassment on some of the Sunday am talk shows) during the campaign. 

I don't care who it is, just give me a moderate candidate from either party and stop running far right & far left candidates.  Somehow, I doubt the Republicans will do this until their right wingers start losing and the Democrats may be too dumb to realize the far left is certain defeat.

388839[/snapback]

 

Who, on the left, do you feel has the best chance to win if not Kerry, Hillary or Edwards? I agree with you that Kerry has no shot. He was a failure as a candidate in 2004 and he has basically done nothing to improve things since then.

 

Of course, as long as the right keeps sending out people like Bush and the left keeps sending out people like Kerry, the third parties will continue to benefit. There is a reason why the Libertarian Party is growing faster than either the Dems or Republicans.

[EC-Bills]

I wish John Kerry would stop running for president already...

388839[/snapback]

 

I am sure his crackerjack campaign staff from the last election is telling him this approach is the way to go

[Adam]

I wish John Kerry would stop running for president already.  He's constantly sending e-mails to anyone who contributed to his campaign and he has this delusion that he can both get the Dems nomination & win the election in 2008. 

It's over, John.  You proved that you don't have what it takes to win an election on a national level, and you're getting too old.  Get out of the way and let someone who can actually win the presidency get the nomination.  That means someone who is not from the northeast (this means you too Hillary) and does not have the baggage that causes so many people to hate you and vow never to vote for you. 

If the Democrats want to win the presidency in the forseeable future, they'll have to go to someone who has proven he can win elections in a red state.  That excludes Kerry, H. Clinton & any other candidate with delusions of grandeur.  I'd also throw Edwards out since he was a total dud (and he was an embarrassment on some of the Sunday am talk shows) during the campaign. 

I don't care who it is, just give me a moderate candidate from either party and stop running far right & far left candidates.  Somehow, I doubt the Republicans will do this until their right wingers start losing and the Democrats may be too dumb to realize the far left is certain defeat.

388839[/snapback]

 

I know people in red states who did vote for Kerry- who say there is no way they'd vote for Hillary Clinton. If she gets thenomination, they might as well not hold an election.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I can't imagine that the Dems won't be able to come up with someone better than JK to run in 2008. They definitely need someone from a red state that can at least win his own state and a few more to go with the northeast and California.

 

Gore couldn't even win his own state of Tenn in 2000, and Edwards delivered nothing as VP in 2004. Hilary is unelectable.

 

It was really a drag living in NY for the 2004 election as the state was solidly democratic and neither candidate even bothered much as Kerry took NY for granted and Bush knew he had no chance. Bush even found a way to reward the red states by pushing through the sales tax deduction which meant nothing to NY but was a nice gift for TX, FL, TN and other states with low/no state income tax.

 

It's funny how some of the biggest states can be taken for granted and everything rides on the few battleground states. Almost makes me wish that the electoral college would get scrapped. It would at least make candidates have to campaign in NY.

 

Oh well, not really about Roberts, but I had to get that off my chest.

[OnTheRocks]

i think the battle for the Democratic Nomination will be a dirtier fight than the battle for the White House......if that is possible.

[EC-Bills]

i think the battle for the Democratic Nomination will be a dirtier fight than the battle for the White House......if that is possible.

388968[/snapback]

 

I would say you hit the nail on the head with that statement.

[/dev/null]

I would say you hit the nail on the head with that statement.

388971[/snapback]

 

The Penis Mightier > Anal Bum Cover

 

You're sittin on a gold mine Trebek!

[Chilly]

I couldn't in my worst drug induced nitemares imagine f***ing John Kerry (or his wife, for that matter).

 

Piccard would, though.

 

Kirk > Piccard.

388798[/snapback]

 

Cept that not even she would want Kirk to nail her.

 

Advantage: Picard (with 1 c )

 

 

Who, on the left, do you feel has the best chance to win if not Kerry, Hillary or Edwards? I agree with you that Kerry has no shot. He was a failure as a candidate in 2004 and he has basically done nothing to improve things since then.

 

Of course, as long as the right keeps sending out people like Bush and the left keeps sending out people like Kerry, the third parties will continue to benefit. There is a reason why the Libertarian Party is growing faster than either the Dems or Republicans.

388886[/snapback]

 

The reason why the LP is growing faster then either party is because its not like people are gonna suddenly start loving one of the two monster parties in the US (most people think political parties, especially monster ones, hurt America, and are only staying with oen party because they identify with that party). They're the only credible 3rd party right now (sorry Greens) and if you are truely independent and swayed by another party, you're gonna go to the 3rd party thats more likely to make a difference (the LP).

[KRC]

The reason why the LP is growing faster then either party is because its not like people are gonna suddenly start loving one of the two monster parties in the US (most people think political parties, especially monster ones, hurt America, and are only staying with oen party because they identify with that party).  They're the only credible 3rd party right now (sorry Greens) and if you are truely independent and swayed by another party, you're gonna go to the 3rd party thats more likely to make a difference (the LP).

389100[/snapback]

 

People are leaving the Big Two and going with a different party (the Libertarians) because they are ticked off at what the Big Two are doing to the states and the country. They want them out of power and to send them a message and the best way to do that is support third party candidates. I see this on a daily basis in the work I am doing with the Libertarians. Hell, over the weekend, we saw five people in one county change their voter registration from R/D to Libertarian just over the pay raises here in PA.

 

People are tired of the crap.

[Bill from NYC]

People are leaving the Big Two and going with a different party (the Libertarians) because they are ticked off at what the Big Two are doing to the states and the country. They want them out of power and to send them a message and the best way to do that is support third party candidates. I see this on a daily basis in the work I am doing with the Libertarians. Hell, over the weekend, we saw five people in one county change their voter registration from R/D to Libertarian just over the pay raises here in PA.

 

People are tired of the crap.

389286[/snapback]

 

What pay raises?

[Chilly]

People are leaving the Big Two and going with a different party (the Libertarians) because they are ticked off at what the Big Two are doing to the states and the country. They want them out of power and to send them a message and the best way to do that is support third party candidates. I see this on a daily basis in the work I am doing with the Libertarians. Hell, over the weekend, we saw five people in one county change their voter registration from R/D to Libertarian just over the pay raises here in PA.

 

People are tired of the crap.

389286[/snapback]

 

That might be true in those individual cases in your counties, but the statistics tell a different story over the whole US.

 

People are just as partisan today as they were back in 1952. In fact, if you are looking at the short-term, between 98 and 02 the number of people identifying themselves as independents dropped by 3 points (4 from 00 to 02).

 

The number of people who identify themselves as truely independent of the two major parties has remained relatively stable between 1952 and 2002 at around 10% of the population or so.

 

7-point scale data: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptable/tab2a_1.htm

Graph of true Independents: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/graphs/g2a_2_3.htm

[KRC]

What pay raises?

389288[/snapback]

 

The legislators voted themselves a pay raise. Instead of it being a normal salary increase, they made it "unvouchered expenses" or some crap like that. This way, they do not have to wait until the next general assembly session to get the money. They get it immediately. We are talking an increase of between 16 and 28%, depending on what your status is in the legislature.

[Zona]

The legislators voted themselves a pay raise. Instead of it being a normal salary increase, they made it "unvouchered expenses" or some crap like that. This way, they do not have to wait until the next general assembly session to get the money. They get it immediately. We are talking an increase of between 16 and 28%, depending on what your status is in the legislature.

389673[/snapback]

 

Thats the kind of Crap that makes me write my congressman..

[UConn James]

Back to the Roberts confirmation process, I think Garrison Keillor hits the nail on the head here. Kerry needs to STFU and stop grandstanding as if it's his party, b/c it's not.

 

The Old Scout: The Inexorable Ascent of A Harvard Man

 

July 26, 2005

 

Had the president nominated a bullet-headed troglodyte for the Supreme Court, Democrats were prepared to take to the phones, fire up the Web sites, and sic the dogs of direct mail on him, but when he brought forth a summa cum laude Harvard man, the crowd quieted down and the dogs crawled back under the porch. The gentleman, John G. Roberts, has a fine resume and did well at Harvard. Barring some unsavory revelation about close ties to the Gambino family or membership in a secret militia group, welcome to the Court, sir.

 

This is old-fashioned American elitism and we all believe in it. When you meet the surgeon who will open up your chest, you want his degree to be from a great and famous school, not from the Amigos College of Medicine, P.O. Box 45, Del Rio, Texas. You glance into the cockpit of the 757 and you don't want to see a clown with a big red nose in the left-hand seat. Harvard counts for a lot as well it should.

 

Democrats are still aching from the disclosure that Our Man's grades at Yale were no better than Their Guy's grades at Yale. There we were, feasting off Mr. Bush's little grammatical slips, imagining Mr. Kerry to be a Philosopher King, and then the Kerry grades were released and we had to face facts. That put Democrats in a poor position to lash out at a summa graduate of Harvard.

 

Mr. Roberts has a good story. A boy grows up in Indiana, which is a disadvantage, but he overcomes it by hard work and clean, purposeful living. He learns how to excel without offending anybody, which is a great and rare art, and he ascends to the ivy-clad citadel of Harvard, and he rises through the ranks - managing editor of the law review, Supreme Court clerk, job at the White House - and he plows forward, and avoids the nastier side of politics. Aside from having played Peppermint Patty in a school musical when he was 16 and writing an appeals-court opinion upholding the arrest and handcuffing of a 12-year-old girl for having eaten a French fry on the Washington Metro, there appears to be no blot on his escutcheon. Political labels don't quite stick to him; friends of various stripes have only good things to say about him. He is cool.

 

So he will come up before the Senate Judiciary Committee and he'll be asked about Roe v. Wade and demonstrate his lawyerly skills of elegant persiflage and then off to the Court he goes. This is the civil course. You don't make the man retake his bar exam, you don't send gumshoes to rummage for evidence that he may have eaten lunch with Tom DeLay, you only torture him lightly in a dance of interrogation not so different from what any doctoral candidate goes through in grad school, and then you shake hands and wish him well. This is what Democrats will do. The president was civil and so it behooves the loyal opposition to be. There were worse nominees Mr. Bush might have sent up and he did not. So save your fire for another day.

 

There is of course a good chance that beneath this cool exterior is a cool interior and this thought gives conservatives acid reflux. Maybe Harvard got into the gentleman's head and he does not aspire to be a crusading knight and wreak vengeance on the forces of secularism. He was nominated because he doesn't give off a strong enough scent to get the dogs excited, but maybe he doesn't smell conservative because he is actually a moderate. Yikes.

 

The truth is that every conservative has a liberal hopping around inside and vice-versa. None of us is purely one or the other. Life is messy and if you experience it close-up and not just from books, you're going to be inconsistent. A good mind confronts the essential facts and does not necessarily see what other minds see.

 

So don't get too excited about a Supreme Court appointment. It's just a job. The only people who know what Judge Roberts will amount to will be the historians 50 years from now and even they won't agree about it. I say, if a man can go through Harvard summa cum laude and still be a yahoo, then the country is in worse trouble than we knew.