Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
OT: It's about the White House
OT: It's about the White House
NY Times 5/8/08
On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and
Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his
judicial philosophy.*** He is determined to move a far too
conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary
even further and more actively to the right.***
Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict
adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges
in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
That is just what the country does not need.
Since President Bush chose Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court has
***ordered Seattle and Louisville to scrap voluntary school
integration,
****protected employers who illegally mistreat their workers,
*** and constrained women’s right to choose and voters’ right to vote.
Mr. McCain did not mention, of course, how the Roberts-led Court
blithely overruled Congress by nullifying a key part of the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. He did wax nostalgic about what
“the basic right of property” has meant “since the founding of
America.”
***(He did not mention that in 1789 many women could not own property
and African-Americans were property, but he did criticize the idea
that values evolve over time.)***
There was a moment when we were briefly cheered. Mr. McCain declared
that “all the powers of the American presidency must serve the
Constitution and thereby protect the people and their liberties.” We
hoped that would be the start of a serious critique of how
***President Bush has violated cherished civil liberties: endorsing
torture, ordering unlawful domestic spying and depriving detainees of
the most basic right of habeas corpus.***
Mr. McCain himself has eloquently criticized Mr. Bush’s policies on
some of these issues, but he did not raise any of them on Tuesday.
Which brings us back to the Democratic primaries. Unless Mrs. Clinton
decides to quit the race — and she certainly did not sound on Tuesday
like that was her plan — it is going to be up to the superdelegates to
settle this contest. There has already been a lot of discussion about
how they should do so. Choose the candidate who won his or her state
primary or caucus? Or the one with the most delegates? Or the most
votes overall? Or the one who won the biggest states?
Mr. McCain’s speech suggests an additional metric:
*** the candidate best able to explain to voters in coming days what
is truly at stake in this election and why the country cannot, for
example, afford another president committed to packing the courts with
activist, right wing judges.***
There are few policy differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
But there is a vast gulf between Mr. McCain and the two Democrats —
*** and far too little difference between Mr. McCain and President
Bush.***
Instead of sparring, pointlessly, about who first opposed Nafta or
which of these Ivy League-educated lawyers has a more common touch,
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should explain what they will do to
*** restore the balance of power and protect civil liberties.***
They need to talk a lot more about addressing th***health care
crisis*** and the ***mortgage crisis*** and how they would
*** bring American troops home and contain the chaos in Iraq.***
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama can continue to tear each other up and
fight over each superdelegate, or they can debate the issues — for the
sake of the voters.
NY Times 5/8/08
On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and
Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his
judicial philosophy.*** He is determined to move a far too
conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary
even further and more actively to the right.***
Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict
adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges
in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
That is just what the country does not need.
Since President Bush chose Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court has
***ordered Seattle and Louisville to scrap voluntary school
integration,
****protected employers who illegally mistreat their workers,
*** and constrained women’s right to choose and voters’ right to vote.
Mr. McCain did not mention, of course, how the Roberts-led Court
blithely overruled Congress by nullifying a key part of the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. He did wax nostalgic about what
“the basic right of property” has meant “since the founding of
America.”
***(He did not mention that in 1789 many women could not own property
and African-Americans were property, but he did criticize the idea
that values evolve over time.)***
There was a moment when we were briefly cheered. Mr. McCain declared
that “all the powers of the American presidency must serve the
Constitution and thereby protect the people and their liberties.” We
hoped that would be the start of a serious critique of how
***President Bush has violated cherished civil liberties: endorsing
torture, ordering unlawful domestic spying and depriving detainees of
the most basic right of habeas corpus.***
Mr. McCain himself has eloquently criticized Mr. Bush’s policies on
some of these issues, but he did not raise any of them on Tuesday.
Which brings us back to the Democratic primaries. Unless Mrs. Clinton
decides to quit the race — and she certainly did not sound on Tuesday
like that was her plan — it is going to be up to the superdelegates to
settle this contest. There has already been a lot of discussion about
how they should do so. Choose the candidate who won his or her state
primary or caucus? Or the one with the most delegates? Or the most
votes overall? Or the one who won the biggest states?
Mr. McCain’s speech suggests an additional metric:
*** the candidate best able to explain to voters in coming days what
is truly at stake in this election and why the country cannot, for
example, afford another president committed to packing the courts with
activist, right wing judges.***
There are few policy differences between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama.
But there is a vast gulf between Mr. McCain and the two Democrats —
*** and far too little difference between Mr. McCain and President
Bush.***
Instead of sparring, pointlessly, about who first opposed Nafta or
which of these Ivy League-educated lawyers has a more common touch,
Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton should explain what they will do to
*** restore the balance of power and protect civil liberties.***
They need to talk a lot more about addressing th***health care
crisis*** and the ***mortgage crisis*** and how they would
*** bring American troops home and contain the chaos in Iraq.***
Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama can continue to tear each other up and
fight over each superdelegate, or they can debate the issues — for the
sake of the voters.
Re: OT: It's about the White House
In article <4824b803$0$31761$4c368faf@roadrunner . com >, aspasia wrote:
> NY Times 5/8/08
>
>
> On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and
> Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his
> judicial philosophy.*** He is determined to move a far too
> conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary
> even further and more actively to the right.***
>
> Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict
> adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges
> in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
> That is just what the country does not need.
>
> Since President Bush chose Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court has
>
> ***ordered Seattle and Louisville to scrap voluntary school
> integration,
>
> ****protected employers who illegally mistreat their workers,
>
> *** and constrained women’s right to choose and voters’ right to vote.
>
> Mr. McCain did not mention, of course, how the Roberts-led Court
> blithely overruled Congress by nullifying a key part of the
> McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. He did wax nostalgic about what
> “the basic right of property” has meant “since the founding of
> America.”
>
> ***(He did not mention that in 1789 many women could not own property
> and African-Americans were property, but he did criticize the idea
> that values evolve over time.)***
>
> There was a moment when we were briefly cheered. Mr. McCain declared
> that “all the powers of the American presidency must serve the
> Constitution and thereby protect the people and their liberties.” We
> hoped that would be the start of a serious critique of how
>
> ***President Bush has violated cherished civil liberties: endorsing
> torture, ordering unlawful domestic spying and depriving detainees of
> the most basic right of habeas corpus.***
>
> Mr. McCain himself has eloquently criticized Mr. Bush’s policies on
> some of these issues, but he did not raise any of them on Tuesday.
>
> Which brings us back to the Democratic primaries. Unless Mrs. Clinton
> decides to quit the race — and she certainly did not sound on Tuesday
> like that was her plan — it is going to be up to the superdelegates to
> settle this contest. There has already been a lot of discussion about
> how they should do so. Choose the candidate who won his or her state
> primary or caucus? Or the one with the most delegates? Or the most
> votes overall? Or the one who won the biggest states?
>
> Mr. McCain’s speech suggests an additional metric:
>
> *** the candidate best able to explain to voters in coming days what
> is truly at stake in this election and why the country cannot, for
> example, afford another president committed to packing the courts with
> activist, right wing judges.***
>
>
Interesting that liberals want to appoint judges that agree with
their outlook and world view, but then get all bent out of shape when
the GOP does exactly the same thing. Never have been able to understand
how a judge's view on abortions (for instance) are a litmus test when
against it, but not when for it.
In article <4824b803$0$31761$4c368faf@roadrunner . com >, aspasia wrote:
> NY Times 5/8/08
>
>
> On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and
> Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his
> judicial philosophy.*** He is determined to move a far too
> conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary
> even further and more actively to the right.***
>
> Mr. McCain predictably criticized liberal judges, vowed strict
> adherence to the Founders’ views and promised to appoint more judges
> in the mold of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.
> That is just what the country does not need.
>
> Since President Bush chose Justices Roberts and Alito, the Court has
>
> ***ordered Seattle and Louisville to scrap voluntary school
> integration,
>
> ****protected employers who illegally mistreat their workers,
>
> *** and constrained women’s right to choose and voters’ right to vote.
>
> Mr. McCain did not mention, of course, how the Roberts-led Court
> blithely overruled Congress by nullifying a key part of the
> McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. He did wax nostalgic about what
> “the basic right of property” has meant “since the founding of
> America.”
>
> ***(He did not mention that in 1789 many women could not own property
> and African-Americans were property, but he did criticize the idea
> that values evolve over time.)***
>
> There was a moment when we were briefly cheered. Mr. McCain declared
> that “all the powers of the American presidency must serve the
> Constitution and thereby protect the people and their liberties.” We
> hoped that would be the start of a serious critique of how
>
> ***President Bush has violated cherished civil liberties: endorsing
> torture, ordering unlawful domestic spying and depriving detainees of
> the most basic right of habeas corpus.***
>
> Mr. McCain himself has eloquently criticized Mr. Bush’s policies on
> some of these issues, but he did not raise any of them on Tuesday.
>
> Which brings us back to the Democratic primaries. Unless Mrs. Clinton
> decides to quit the race — and she certainly did not sound on Tuesday
> like that was her plan — it is going to be up to the superdelegates to
> settle this contest. There has already been a lot of discussion about
> how they should do so. Choose the candidate who won his or her state
> primary or caucus? Or the one with the most delegates? Or the most
> votes overall? Or the one who won the biggest states?
>
> Mr. McCain’s speech suggests an additional metric:
>
> *** the candidate best able to explain to voters in coming days what
> is truly at stake in this election and why the country cannot, for
> example, afford another president committed to packing the courts with
> activist, right wing judges.***
>
>
Interesting that liberals want to appoint judges that agree with
their outlook and world view, but then get all bent out of shape when
the GOP does exactly the same thing. Never have been able to understand
how a judge's view on abortions (for instance) are a litmus test when
against it, but not when for it.
Re: OT: It's about the White House
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> Interesting that liberals want to appoint judges that agree with
> their outlook and world view, but then get all bent out of shape when
> the GOP does exactly the same thing. Never have been able to understand
> how a judge's view on abortions (for instance) are a litmus test when
> against it, but not when for it.
For liberals, the end always justifies the means. That simple.
--
Barack Obama, May 9: "I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> Interesting that liberals want to appoint judges that agree with
> their outlook and world view, but then get all bent out of shape when
> the GOP does exactly the same thing. Never have been able to understand
> how a judge's view on abortions (for instance) are a litmus test when
> against it, but not when for it.
For liberals, the end always justifies the means. That simple.
--
Barack Obama, May 9: "I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."
Re: OT: It's about the White House
If vote were today obama 51% mc cain 44%
tomorrow we will see if another congressional replacement election
results in another republican loss, which is expected by latest poll
numbers in that state, which was a long term republican stronghold
If vote were today obama 51% mc cain 44%
tomorrow we will see if another congressional replacement election
results in another republican loss, which is expected by latest poll
numbers in that state, which was a long term republican stronghold
Re: OT: It's about the White House
Don't.... feed...... the trolls.
This group is trashed enough as it is.
Don't.... feed...... the trolls.
This group is trashed enough as it is.
Re: OT: It's about the White House
mike wrote:
> Don't.... feed...... the trolls.
>
> This group is trashed enough as it is.
Ah yes... trashed newsgroups. Spammers, OT discussions, adverts,
kooks, trolls and one-man-missions.... all the bane of usenet. What
once were great newsgroups are now little more than junked out shells.
You know, I've been hearing that handwringing horsecrap for 15 years
now... yet newsgroups still churn along... things still get discussed
and some familiar names are still around after many years.
I guess what I'm trying to say dear mike is this... don't get your
panties in a bunch... the group is as healthy and vibrant as it ever
was.
Joe Barta
mike wrote:
> Don't.... feed...... the trolls.
>
> This group is trashed enough as it is.
Ah yes... trashed newsgroups. Spammers, OT discussions, adverts,
kooks, trolls and one-man-missions.... all the bane of usenet. What
once were great newsgroups are now little more than junked out shells.
You know, I've been hearing that handwringing horsecrap for 15 years
now... yet newsgroups still churn along... things still get discussed
and some familiar names are still around after many years.
I guess what I'm trying to say dear mike is this... don't get your
panties in a bunch... the group is as healthy and vibrant as it ever
was.
Joe Barta
Re: OT: It's about the White House
Joe Barta wrote:
> mike wrote:
>
>> Don't.... feed...... the trolls.
>>
>> This group is trashed enough as it is.
>
>
> Ah yes... trashed newsgroups. Spammers, OT discussions, adverts,
> kooks, trolls and one-man-missions.... all the bane of usenet. What
> once were great newsgroups are now little more than junked out shells.
>
> You know, I've been hearing that handwringing horsecrap for 15 years
> now... yet newsgroups still churn along... things still get discussed
> and some familiar names are still around after many years.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say dear mike is this... don't get your
> panties in a bunch... the group is as healthy and vibrant as it ever
> was.
>
> Joe Barta
Besides the op reminded me of one reason I will vote for McCain.
Otherwise he is a disappointment.
Joe Barta wrote:
> mike wrote:
>
>> Don't.... feed...... the trolls.
>>
>> This group is trashed enough as it is.
>
>
> Ah yes... trashed newsgroups. Spammers, OT discussions, adverts,
> kooks, trolls and one-man-missions.... all the bane of usenet. What
> once were great newsgroups are now little more than junked out shells.
>
> You know, I've been hearing that handwringing horsecrap for 15 years
> now... yet newsgroups still churn along... things still get discussed
> and some familiar names are still around after many years.
>
> I guess what I'm trying to say dear mike is this... don't get your
> panties in a bunch... the group is as healthy and vibrant as it ever
> was.
>
> Joe Barta
Besides the op reminded me of one reason I will vote for McCain.
Otherwise he is a disappointment.
Re: It's about the White House
aspasia wrote:
> NY Times 5/8/08
>
>
> On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and
> Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his
> judicial philosophy.*** He is determined to move a far too
> conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary
> even further and more actively to the right.***
>
[...]
Damn! I knew McCain was going to heaven, but I now think he'll be a Saint!
aspasia wrote:
> NY Times 5/8/08
>
>
> On a day when Mr. Obama won a decisive victory in North Carolina and
> Mrs. Clinton eked out a win in Indiana, Mr. McCain spoke about his
> judicial philosophy.*** He is determined to move a far too
> conservative and far too activist Supreme Court and federal judiciary
> even further and more actively to the right.***
>
[...]
Damn! I knew McCain was going to heaven, but I now think he'll be a Saint!
Re: It's about the White House
<aspasia> wrote in message
> Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama can continue to tear each other up and
> fight over each superdelegate, or they can debate the issues - for the
> sake of the voters.
>
No need. Since you have taken the time to post material to get us to vote
for McCain, he is going to beat whoever the Dems put up anyway. Thanks
again for your thoughtfulness.
<aspasia> wrote in message
> Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama can continue to tear each other up and
> fight over each superdelegate, or they can debate the issues - for the
> sake of the voters.
>
No need. Since you have taken the time to post material to get us to vote
for McCain, he is going to beat whoever the Dems put up anyway. Thanks
again for your thoughtfulness.
Re: It's about the White House
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> <aspasia> wrote in message
>> Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama can continue to tear each other up and
>> fight over each superdelegate, or they can debate the issues - for the
>> sake of the voters.
>>
>
> No need. Since you have taken the time to post material to get us to vote
> for McCain, he is going to beat whoever the Dems put up anyway. Thanks
> again for your thoughtfulness.
>
>
It is the judge issue above all that will make me vote for McCain and
not stay home on election day.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> <aspasia> wrote in message
>> Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama can continue to tear each other up and
>> fight over each superdelegate, or they can debate the issues - for the
>> sake of the voters.
>>
>
> No need. Since you have taken the time to post material to get us to vote
> for McCain, he is going to beat whoever the Dems put up anyway. Thanks
> again for your thoughtfulness.
>
>
It is the judge issue above all that will make me vote for McCain and
not stay home on election day.
Re: OT: It's about the White House
on 5/9/2008 4:46 PM aspasia said the following:
> *NY Times 5/8/08*
>
Nuff said!
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
on 5/9/2008 4:46 PM aspasia said the following:
> *NY Times 5/8/08*
>
Nuff said!
--
Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @
