Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Dire Consequences with a McCain Supreme Court?

By Robert Parry, Consortium News. Posted May 16, 2008.


Imagine the dire consequences if McCain appoints a fifth radical Supreme Court justice who believes in an all-powerful Executive Branch.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Robert Parry

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

If John McCain wins the presidency – and gets to appoint one or more U.S. Supreme Court justices – America’s 220-year experiment as a democratic Republic living under the principle that “no man is above the law” may come to an end.

To put the matter differently, if a President McCain replaces one of the moderate justices with another Samuel Alito – as McCain has vowed to do – then Justice Department lawyer John Yoo’s extreme vision of an all-powerful Executive could well become the new law of the land.

On May 6 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, during a speech aimed at appeasing conservatives, McCain promised to appoint justices in the mold of George W. Bush’s selections, Justice Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, expanding the court’s right-wing faction that also includes Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Those four justices already have embraced the Bush administration’s radical notion that at a time of war – even one as vaguely defined as the “war on terror” – the President possesses “plenary” or unlimited powers through his commander-in-chief authority.

As expressed in classified memos by Yoo when he was a key lawyer in the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, there should be, in essence, no limits on what a war-time President can do as long as he is asserting his duty to protect the nation.

Alito also is associated with this concept of a “unitary executive,” holding that a President should control all regulatory authority, define the limits of laws via "signing statements" and – at his own discretion – override treaties, the will of Congress and even the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

Under this theory, a President can cite his commander-in-chief powers to spy on citizens without warrants, imprison people without charges, authorize torture, order assassinations, and invade other countries without congressional approval.

With just one more Alito, that view would claim control of the U.S. Supreme Court and allow a new five-to-four majority to, in effect, rewrite the Constitution. The founding principle of the United States – that everyone possesses certain “unalienable” human rights – would be history. [For details, see Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush.]

'Activist' judges

All this would occur under the right-wing assertion that McCain was appointing justices who “strictly interpret” the Constitution. It has been a long-held tenet of the conservative movement that “activist” judges were at fault for outlawing racial segregation and other statutes that discriminated against minorities.

More recently, the Right has concentrated its wrath on Supreme Court rulings that struck down laws criminalizing abortion and homosexual acts.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: john mccain, democracy, election 2008

Robert Parry's new book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
They might, ah, participate in the theft of an election?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 16, 2008 12:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real vote in 2000 for the president was 5-4, cast by right-wing members of the Supreme Court in direct contradiction of their long-standing support of state's rights on such matters as counting votes.

Since then, Bush has appointed a corporate tool and a right wing maniac. So, the Supreme Court is now in pretty bad shape. That is definitely a very good reason why a Democratic president is a must this time.

I'd like to see Ralph Nader throw his weight behind the Democrats, because the Supreme Court may be the very one institution that has handed more power over to corporate interests than any other, starting with the infamous ruling of "a corporation is a person."

Ron Paul does a good job of annoying the party leaders on the Republican side, and draws a good following - so why can't Ralph Nader do the same? Likely it is his combination of hubris, pride, arrogance, and the fact that he couldn't win even a small percentage of the vote in any Democratic primary after his behavior in 2000. Dead silence on the stolen election from Nader, other than to come out and say "Aww, let's give Bush a chance" - draw your own conclusions. (try Message to Ralph Nader)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not a great article but it is a good point
Posted by: Rune on May 16, 2008 1:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congratulations Democrats, you have finally figured out how to distribute talking points and get everybody to repeat over and over, just like you role models in the GOP. This month's message is John McCain is George Bush. See above for details. Oh, wait, there are no details. That was it. See above for more posturing in place of details.

That said, John McCain has been doing his best to suck up to his arch rival in hopes that he can fool enough of the fragmenting Republicans into believing he would represent what George Bush was supposed to be to them, not what he clearly is: an unprincipled crook and a failure. This begs the question of why they voted for Bush instead of McCain almost eight years ago. Oh, right, Bush stole McCain's lines back then thanks to Karl Rove turning them into his candidate's talking points for a couple of weeks in which they were repeated over and over until the nomination was locked up.

Such is the state of American politics. Again, congratulations, Democrats, for learning to be just as shallow, conniving, and ineffective as your role models. I am sure it will bring you the same sort of success it has brought the GOP if you stick with the current strategy enabling the corporate agenda that the Republicans have championed until it becomes an acknowledged centerpiece of your party's platform, too.

But I digress. Or this articled diverted from any sort of pithy analysis and I just went with the flow. I dunno, it's late.

But here is what I thought I might mention. Most of what we are being led to believe about the mainstream candidates is illusory. And history has shown that presidents never really know what they will get when they try to pick well qualified Supreme Court justices that will lean one way or another. (On the other hand, both Bush's deliberately picked unqualified ideologues and got just what they were after.)

However, if there is one area in which McCain and Obama have been fairly forthcoming and candid about what they intend to do as president --and I think there may well be but one such matter -- it has to do with what they will look for in Supreme Court nominees.

McCain has said very plainly that he will look for more staunch conservatives with which to pack the court. In that regard, he may differ from Bush in terms of litmus tests, but the effect will be more or less the same as if Bush got to do the deed himself.

Obama, who hints at appointing Republicans to his cabinet (with McCain now matching the ploy in reverse), has not said what sort of ideological measures, if any, are important to him. What he has said on several occasions is that he wants justices that have some personal history and appreciation of what it means to be among the growing ranks of the less fortunate classes of people in America. That does not guarantee that another millionaire with investments in many of the corporations that are corrupting the whole of U.S. government will not be his among his leading choices, put it does give more room for hope than McCain . . . which is, after all, the main thing Obama is selling.

So, let us hope. Personally, I am hoping against hope that we don't limit our choices to McCain and Obama, but if things go as our corporate overlords have planned for us, I suppose we can hope that we get the lesser of evils this time rather than the greater evil. I guess that is a measure of how dire things are when a glass half empty strikes so many as a cause for celebration.

Cheers!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» I think they are frauds, basically. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Just a little question...
Posted by: saltoafronteira on May 16, 2008 3:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the USA are the supreme court justices above the law or, in any case, free from criminal prosecution, by some immunity status?
Cant one file a civil or criminal suit against them?
In such case, who will judge them?
Are felonies commited in the year 2000 still under criminal prosecution or the course of time avoids any step?
If the answers are correct, you, as citizens, or some of your civil rights association, MUST file them !
Even if, in the end, you loose, they will feel they are not entirely safe on their ivory towers !
It is time to use all legal weapons to harass the criminals. Didnt they create a coup d´état?
File them as the traitors they are.
That way, the R.A.T.S. in office, as well has the future ones, will think twice before they do it again.
Dont let them continue stealing your country !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If McCain wins, pack your bags
Posted by: Moonray on May 16, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This election -- assuming it is honest, which is a big if nowadays -- will decide once and for all whether American democracy works as intended. Our democracy was intended to allow the people -- the generally virtuous, generally intelligent citizens -- to indirectly control their own government and thereby keep public affairs relatively orderly and aboveboard. It hasn't worked out that way. Over the past 220 years or so we instead have often been led by scoundrels and fools, and in recent years that trend has become much more evident.

After decades of cloudy political landscapes Americans now have a clear choice between progressivness and backwardness, between blatant corruption and (relative) virtue. If the majority of our voters choose the Republican to be president, that majority is either profoundly stupid or hopelessly corrupt. And America will have lost its status as an icon of democracy and freedom and will have begun its descent into chaos and ruin. And I, for one, will get the hell out of Dodge.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When LAWYERS run all branches of Government you have TYRANY!
Posted by: williameon on May 16, 2008 4:35 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All safeguards are off and
All bets are off.
So far the only safe bet has been,
Things will get worst.
The squeeze is on.
The Dark Army is occuping the Homeland.
Gas, Taxes, Debt and Foreclosures are through the ROOF! while
Oil Monopoly Profits are setting new records.

The Wolves are guarding the hen house.
Chicken Hawks are running the Military.
Bankers loot The Treasury.
The Dollar is Tanking.
America is in the Poor House.
No Food, Pool, Pets or Cigarettes.

Lawyers are mercenaries.
King George III fought the Revolutionary War with Prussian Mercenaries
King George II is using an
Army of Lawyers.
Where is the balance of power?
Gone.
We live in a Corpirate Dictatorship
The Republic is DEAD.
Corruption has killed it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

False choices
Posted by: 2cynical on May 16, 2008 5:09 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You had me right up to the point where you pulled a Rovian switch and offered the false choices of either McCain or Obama.I agree with you that McCain would be a disaster for progressiveness on the Court,and that Obama MIGHT be a better choice,but the choice you did not offer,Hillary Clinton,would be the more friendly alternative for those of us who truly believe that the next nominee to the Supreme Court will be of historic importance.Obama is NOT YET the nominee,and his deliberate vagueness regarding issues and positions on the things that matter most to me,give me pause.I am afraid you might be helping to elect McCain by attempting to frame the debate in such a way as to brand Hillary's supporters as the spoiled brats who will saddle us with the third Bush term.In fact,I feel the opposite is true.If we nominate Obama then we will SURELY have 4 years of McCain to regret it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: False choices Posted by: Knowmad
Why do women vote for Republicans?
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on May 16, 2008 6:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In case these women didn't know, after Gonzales v. Carhart, SCOTUS is just one vote shy of overturning Roe v. Wade.

President McCain will surely place one or more conservative Justice on the bench.

I can understand white male voters that go for the Republican party, but women who vote for conservative candidates? I just don't get it!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Same reason "NASCAR dads" do... Posted by: westomoon
just remember.....
Posted by: Marlena on May 16, 2008 6:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the first "unitary executive" was in 1930's Germany, it was then called the "fuhrer state" It's "legal" basis was crafted by Carl Schmidt, who had a student Leo Stauss, who is the mentor of people like John Yoo, and Grover Norquist, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolferitz..and a lot of other "neo cons" Truer to call them neo fascists..these people are under any definition traitors, and ought be treated as such...and, yes this really is our last chance before the evil and banality engulf us. And to the dems who whine "if they win the nomination im not voting for them" that will guarantee a full blown American fascist state.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

People, People. Mccain won't see to it that Roe v Wade is overturned. There's enough votes for that.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 16, 2008 7:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Currently, the Court is already packed with 5 rightwing justices ready to overturn Roe vs. Wade but guess what ? They ain't gonna do it and you know why ?!? The cons very badly need the issue to keep the pot simmering just for political expediency. There are far worse things the current court is doing against America both on the economic and foreign policy front.

STOP WORRYING ABOUT FRIVOLOUS ISSUES SUCH AS "ABORTION" AND PAY ATTENTION TO TAKING BACK JUSTICE ON THE ECONOMIC AND FOREIGN POLICY FRONTS.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bobby Decker AKA THE ARTIST FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE PURPLERAIN MAN
Posted by: Bobby Decker on May 16, 2008 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
" REPUBLICANS NEED ROE V WADE TO MILK....AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO NOTICED THAT IN A PRIOR JANUARY 22 1973 AMERICA SOMEONE LIKE MIKE HUCKIBEE WOULD HAVE PROBALLY BEEN A WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN HUEY LONG STYLE POPULIST DEMOCRAT......IF ANY OF YOU PEOPLE READING THIS ARE FEELING LIKE FAT PIDGIONS.....YOUR
ONLY JUST THE SAME AS UNION MEMBERS SUPORTING
NAFTA BILL...ER...ARRY !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Changes
Posted by: carbon-based on May 16, 2008 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bear in mind that the courts do not make the laws, they interpet and apply the ones our law makers make.. Case in point..Calif gay marriage rule.

Democrats dont like the laws, change them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Changes Posted by: westomoon
» RE: Changes Posted by: carbon-based
Warning
Posted by: QQOblivion on May 16, 2008 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We should keep in mind that if McCain wins, his coat-tails will likely help elect a new Republican majority to the Senate. Then ANY -- and I mean ANY fascist nutcase -- who is nominated by McCain will easily get confirmation.

The Supreme Court is one of the biggest reasons to vote against McCain.
This is not a game! This is serious shit! You have been warned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Control of the Supreme Court
Posted by: badkitty on May 16, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's an ugly way to put it, "control of the Supreme Court", but it's pretty much what it comes down to--control of the Supreme Court was the major issue in the 2004 election and is this year too. For all those who won't vote for Obama or Clinton, and vote for McCain as a backlash against the Democratic nominee they don't like, I urge you to ask yourselves--is there any chance that either Clinton or Obama would nominate a person as undemocratic as McCain would? I can't imagine that. Hold your nose if you must, but remember the Supreme Court. I think Justice Stevens would love to retire, but he's hanging on until he feels that a replacement for him would not be John Yoo or a close ideological friend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Federalist Society Tory Swine are a greater threat to our Republic than al-Qaeda..!
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 16, 2008 9:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is already a majority of Federalist Society Tory swine on what used to be our Supreme Court..!

People should realize it no longer is The Supreme Court it's The Federalist Society Court..!

The Federalist Society is a greater threat to Our Republic than al-Qaeda could ever be..QED..!

They Hate, when I say that..!

LOL..!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Absolutely true! Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Also, don't forget how Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, and Scalito got a "free" pass.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 16, 2008 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democrats had the power to stop them but THEY DIDN'T. Back when RAYGUN chose Scalia and Bush chose Thomas, the Democrats had a "strong" majority but guess what ?!? Plenty of them crossed over to give the GOP their votes. As for Bush II choosing Roberts and Alito, the Democrats didn't even bother putting up a fight whatsoever so a completely "easy" pass ! If you want to complain about the next Republican president ensuring a "conservative" court, be my guest and ignore the fact that the Democrats were equally responsible for caving in and empowering the fascists ! And don't worry, your "lovely" piss poor Democratic Party will easily give Mccain's choices an "easy" pass and may even make it look like Roberts and Alito were having "tough" confirmation battles !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A vote for Nader is a vote for McCain. Posted by: thoughtcriminal
Houston
Posted by: bettyn on May 16, 2008 10:36 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face facts: The capitol of the United States is no longer Washington, D. C. It is Houston, Texas. What the corporate bigwigs in that city decide will take place, will happen. Forget about anything or anyone else. Forget elections, the economy, the environment, our courts, the media, reproductive rights, and the coming war with Iran. What these "ole boys" say they want, they will get, even if it means they will send their Blackwater thugs in to mow us down en masse should we try to revolt after another rigged election.

Trust me, I know what I'm talking about. I lived there for twenty+ years and I've seen how things work with these people. There is NOTHING you can do about it but just pack your bags and GET OUT NOW! This bunch wants to control all the oil left on this planet and nothing will stop them, even the threat of a nuclear holocaust. If they can't get what they want, then the HELL with the whole works.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Houston Posted by: HoboHomo
» Houston, you ARE the problem! Posted by: HoboHomo
On May 16 in 1958 something occured to me here it is.
Posted by: Nightstallion on May 16, 2008 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On this date more years ago than I want to remember, I said to myself. The Republic was a bad idea in 1799 and it is a worse one now. All republics have ended in Emperors benevolent or no. You had a chance to fight for states rights people and you would rather let Abe do it. Listen slavery was dead long before Lincoln started raving about it. By doing so(raving about it) he breathed new life into it and five generations of stupid resentment followed.

I know no one believes this because there is not a creature among you who will read both sides of that history. It is painful filled with dirty dealings on both sides but it started with a disagreement over STATES RIGHTS, not slavery! Southerners stupidly let it become so for that it is they who should be tarred and feathered NOT the Carpet Baggers, after all Opportunism is natural even in humans. You will get what you deserve if McCain gets into office personally I can’t wait! I am already headed for the door.




On MAY 16th this mad shit pop out my head
Land here PLOP!
Warble rabble grovel knave
Misanthropic fools are brave
All, with other human life
Never feel the true mans strife
Oh babble hebephrenic sloth
With thy mouth a foam with froth
Gibber gabble drabble do
Mindless kind less scrabble brew
Try the pregnant to unscrew
Take burgeoning madness hence
With human childishness dispence
Adam had’em Atom bomb
Falling from creations plam
Who will sing this saddest psalm
Or heal the blistered soul with balm
Abba scrabba screeba screw
Dibble bobble gobble dew
Boma bimba domba dee
WHAT'S THIS GOT TO DO WIF' ME!
Why don’t we just wait and see?
Domba dimba dumba chi
People arming in the woods
Are not modern Robin Hoods
Want to play survival game?
Harsh cold and hard to tame.
Inca Mayan Aztec too
Toltec Druid and kangaroo
If you wonder where they went
Or how that civil culture rent
You can know it was by dent of timing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What would things be like under a mcswine "administration"?
Posted by: willymack on May 16, 2008 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the court and other things
Posted by: allyourbasearebelongtous on May 16, 2008 1:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the ussc, global warming/climate change, the war in iraq, the current economic "rough patch"/recession -- there are just so many reasons why our country, and the world as well, can't afford a mccain presidency and a continuation of the insane policies of the last 8 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First he will not win- unless stolen again..Then listen for the SNAP
Posted by: Purple Girl on May 16, 2008 2:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If by chance theyare stupid enough to try and steal this election- by handing it to Mac or Hillary, Someones going to find out what happens when the Dogs snap thier chains!
Micheal vick could have only dreamed for the Vicious Take down WE will level on their asses. They have Yanked our Chains far too many times already- one more trick and Their asses will be ours for LUNCH!We will not wait for Congress nor SCOTUS -they will also be on the Menu.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch Alito, Scalia, And Roberts Sing A Different Song.
Posted by: gradioc on May 16, 2008 5:34 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once Obama is elected (I really don't have any doubt as this point), hide and watch as the right end of the court reveals its true motivations. GWB is President? Damn the topedoes and that pesky constitution, power is good. BHO is President? Whoa, let's slow down and think about this. They will reveal themselves as the party hacks they truly are. Not Thomas, though. He's a real nutjob true beleiver. He'd vote to give Nader a king's powers if he were elected. The others are just lying partisan bastards with the firmly held legal beliefs of an alley cat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

you should have thought about that in 2000 when voting for Nader
Posted by: jennlee on May 16, 2008 10:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Universal Health Care is the issue now.

We pro-choice democrats argued a lot about the damage to the Supreme Court if Nader took votes away from Gore. Nader added to Bush's "win." (Oh by the way, back then there was a huge democratic chorus of "both parties are the same" from the anti-Gore Nader-ites.

Well, now you can see both parties are not the same.

The Supreme Court we have is partly due to democrats.

We have all had to pay for your folly.

Remember this:

Barack voted for Dick Cheney's 2005 Energy Bill.
Hillary voted no and stood up to the oil companies.

Barack was no where to be found when congress voted on heh General Betray Us ad. Hillary voted to affirm Moveon's right to free speech. (Thanks Moveon.)

Hillary voted NO on the confirmation of US Judge Thomas Griffith. (Griffith is fiercely anti Title IX) and thrity women's rights groups and civil rights groups petitioned congress to reject Grifffith.
Barack voted yes on Griffith.

Barack voted yes on Bush's Class Action Fairness Act. (You know the act that has made it harder for people to file Class Action Lawsuits).
Hillary voted NO.

Barack voted (affirmed) with the republicans to prolong Terry Schavio's life.
Hillary denounced it.

We HAD a liberal front runner. (Who also appeals to republicans) We HAD the best candidate for the the 2008 election.

You tore her apart. You repeatedly called her a whore, a bitch, old.

And that was a sad thing.

Every girl in the USA will change once we have a female president.

Women will get stronger.

Clearly, we are not there yet.

I am staying with the Senator who is backed by thirty Flag OFficers. Becasue, in case you hadn't noticed, we are in two wars.

As far as the SC goes:

I have fought tirelessly for abortion rights for 20 years.
Now I need Universal Health Care.

Funny, I would've thought that progressive democrats would have stood beside me on that one....

I will never vote for a junior senator to handle a faltering economy and two wars. That's a joke.

Clinton or McCain. I have no fear. No regrets.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This cracks me up too: every time you talk facts about Obama the BO supporters
Posted by: jennlee on May 16, 2008 11:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
never talk facts.

Out of all of what was mentioned above you pick out the "whore"comment.

Not the Dick Cheney energy bill not the Terry Schavio, not the Credit Fairness act.

Unbelievable.

This is a leftist replay of the 2000 election Remember when the dems were incredulous that republicans could vote for someone with no experience because they wanted to have a beer with him?

Well, welcome to their club. You are now officially a leftist who wants a candidate not qualified because he talks the talk.
But, if you read really closely you can see, for a fact that he doesn't walk the walk.

Oh, I forgot to mention he is heavily backed by ethanol.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: But how 'bout an answer? Posted by: westomoon
» RE: But how 'bout an answer? Posted by: westomoon