All but one of the Senate Democrats considering running for president in 2008 oppose the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice of the United States. The “no” camp includes Sens. Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Only Sen. Russ Feingold is a “yes.” But as James Taranto of The Wall Street Journal and liberal columnist Eleanor Clift of Newsweek wondered, how might these senators vote if there were a secret ballot and they didn’t have to worry about appeasing the left-wing base?
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
- Skeptic on Jail consultants straining patience
- Chas on Health care reform would save state money
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Politico on Health care reform would save state money
- Politico on So they said
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on Open thread 11/22
17 Comments
Voting “no” on Roberts and “yes” on Iraq.
The Democrats don’t have a chance unless they go with somebody like Feingold or Gary Hart or Wes Clark.
They’re picking their battles based on what plays instead of based on what’s right.
The Republicans seem to be guided by ideology (i.e., values). The democrats seem to be guided by expediency, which is why we’ve been getting pounded (although Kerry did get the most votes in 2000, never forget that).
The Republicans’ values are sh*tty values, but at least they seem to stand for something . . .
I didn’t know Kerry ran in 2000.
But! If the Democrats lean to much to the left, with the moveon.org, American way, Hollywood crowd, they will continue to loose elections.
Although there are plenty of registared Democrats, many of them will not vote or align themselves with the militant left. Most Americans are just not strongly socalist, as the left hopes they think they are.
The Democrats need a spine. All they do is beat around the “Bush” so to speak.
What did Kerry get the most votes for in 2000? Was it a senate race? I feel so mislead…
I meant Gore, douchebags . . .
Wow, let’s all pounce on a typing error.
It still doesn’t change the fact that Bush DID NOT win with a majority in 2000.
You’d think the Dems could capitalize on this, but they’re so busy running to the middle, they probably won’t–
://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/28/business/28tax.html
Published: September 28, 2005
The total income of Americans in 2003, adjusted for inflation, was 4 percent smaller than in 1999, new tax return data showed yesterday.
While the number of taxpayers grew by 5.6 million individuals and couples, average income fell even more – by 6.5 percent – while the average wage slipped slightly, with the average job paying $5 a week less.
Over all, incomes were $263 billion lower in 2003 than in 1999 when adjusted for inflation to 2004 dollars, according to data that the Internal Revenue Service posted yesterday on its Web site.
Most of this decline occurred among investors and others with incomes of $1 million or more. The number of Americans making that much fell by 12 percent, to 181,300 taxpayers in 2003, from 205,124 in 1999. Their average income fell, too, to just under $3 million, a decline of more than $572,000, or 16 percent. Over all, the income of this group fell by $190 billion, or 72 percent, of the total decline.
Hey, Jimmy, spin for me how big investors losing money is really a good thing . . .
Galahad attacks again. Facts and stats on what has happened while Bush is in office. Nothing mentioned that the economy was already heading down in the last year of Clinton’s administration, and no I am not blaming Clinton. Not to mention the effect 9/11 had on the economy, of course the attack was probably Bush’s fault along with the hurricanes. The economy has and will always cycle, you cannot sustain the growth we had in the nineties and it will not continue to suffer like it has in the last few years. As we speak the economy is moving upward, with the oil prices limiting it’s growth, but as oil stabilizes and it will the economy will grow. No matter how much you like to point fingers or claim credit the economy will continue to have ups and downs no matter who is in office.
Natural cycles . . . like global warming, right, Darrell?
Funny how the “natural cycle” during Clinton’s eight years was poverty went down every year and the “natural cycle” of Bush is that poverty went up for four years and counting.
Just a coincidence, right, D?
Are you a Wichita Eagle puke, Galahad. You win the award for the most posts (not to be confused with the most ‘contributions’) and a supporting role for spewing partial facts, just behind moveon.org. Did ya look at the ocean temps since records were kept? Nah. Takes too much time and you would find facts that would fly in the face of your spin. Where do you find the time to cut-n-paste from moveon.org? I leave for a few days to help folks in New Orleans, and come back to see you have posted on most all WE blogs. I’m impressed. You should run for Precinct Chair on the Peoples Rebublic of Sedgwick County ticket.
So you are saying that Bush and Clinton were able to effect the economy the very day they entered office, since every year including year one the economy was a result of who was in office. Wow, I didn’t realize they could make such major changes that have such an immediate impact. Please point out to me how each did it, I am truly amazed.
ID–
Welcome back. I needed a little more gratuitous name-calling in my life, and you are so eager to provide it.
Here’s an article from today’s BBC.
Arctic ice ‘disappearing fast’By Richard BlackEnvironment Correspondent, BBC News website
Part of what we’re seeing is the increased greenhouse effect; I’d bet the mortgage on it, Mark Serreze, NSIDC.
The area covered by sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk for a fourth consecutive year, according to new data released by US scientists.
They say that this month sees the lowest extent of ice cover for more than a century.
The Arctic climate varies naturally, but the researchers conclude that human-induced global warming is at least partially responsible.
They warn the shrinkage could lead to even faster melting in coming years.
More at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm
There’s a nice graph showing an 8 percent annual decline in arctic ice since 1978.
Darrell–
I’m saying that government policies affect the economy, yes.
Are you going to say that Carter wasn’t at all responsible for “stagflation?”
I am gonna have trouble supporting ANY Dem who votes for Roberts or with bush in any way.
It is WAY past time for Democrats to stand up and fight. Throw the wrench in the works. Stand against anything and everything that reeks of bush and his corrupt party.
No, I never said policies could not effect the economy. My point is you cannot look at who is in office and blame or give credit. Effects on the economy take time. To say that the economy is good and the president gets the credit, or its bad and the president gets the blame is simplistic and wrong. If you tell my this policy hurt or helped the economy I may agree or disagree, but to correlate the current economy as to who is in office I will never agree with.
Darrell, your desperate spin of Bush’s disasterous policies are highly entertaining.
The guy is one quarter short of FIVE YEARS to get the economy back to what Clinton’s economy was on it’s worst day.
He hasn’t succeeded.
When do we get to come to the dead obvious conclusion that his policies are bad for the country?
Again I say tell me the policies. You can point fingers and make accusations all you want, but how do you expect to convince anyone without facts. Show me the policies and explain how those policies effected the economy. Point out Bush’s bad “policies” and Clinton’s good “policies” please.
DD–You don’t need to study the DNA of an apple tree to know if it has good apples.
Clinton–paid down the nat’l debt, built a budget surplus, increased average take home pay, decreased poverty, lowered unemployment and created jobs.
Bush–the opposite.
That’s some bad apples . . .
Galahad,
For your information did not have a budget surplus, unless you are including social security tax receipts in the total. My point is even if it were true it was more likely Ronald Regan’s policies than his, as the economy does not react quick enough to take effect during that presidents term. Simplistic analysis would be to say gosh it happened when he was president it must be to his credit or blame. And please don’t jump to conclusions on this and think I am blaming Clinton for the downturn. The downturn would have happened regardless. The economy cycles up and down on it’s own for the most part influenced very little by government policies short of interest rate adjustments