[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > The vote comes > up again in 2004 - how much can get done in two years? Not a lot. And then > what will happen? People will vote for change again, and there ya' go.
Except that the conservative Supreme Court justices chosen and confirmed to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist and Sandra Day O'Connor will be there until they die or choose to retire. There's no voting them out, and what the Supreme Court decides effects our life every day. As obvious examples, we have Bush as president, reproductive rights, civil rights, all because of what the Supreme Court decided. Ideally, judges are completely impartial but in reality that's never the case. They're labeled conservative or liberal partly because of what party they're affiliated with, and partly by looking at their legal decisions over time. Their underlying political philosophy always comes through in their decisions; even if it's subtle, it's still there. So when a president can "pack" the court, as Bush is now able to do, that president's influence is felt for decades. And when someone as conservative as Bush is able to do that there will be serious consequences in ways we can't even imagine now. All other presidents have had to nominate somewhat moderate judges in order to get them confirmed; Bush will not have to do that. > I voted for some Repubs and some Dems...I tried to vote for the person and > not the party, I don't think this generalization stuff does anybody any good This has been expressed by many people on the list and seems to be the operating principle in politics these days, but I don't agree with it. I think the generalization stuff is why people are not involved. How can anyone decide on anything if it's all fuzzy? Then people just vote for whoever seems likable, or whoever gives the simplest and most appealing message, whether it's truthful or not, and not many people bother looking deeper. If there's no difference in the underlying philosophy of each party, why do you think there ARE separate parties? It's not by accident that, for example, it's always a Democratic representative who wants to extend unemployment benefits or raise the minimum wage, or that the Homeland Security bill is held up because the Democrats want some benefits for the workers, or that Bush's nominees for judges, who when questioned say they'll overturn Roe v. Wade the first chance they get, are not confirmed by the Democrats. It astounds me that people do not see any difference between the parties, especially these days when the Republicans are ruled by such right-wingers. Didn't anyone but me see the platforms at the conventions? That list from each one showed what each PARTY is aiming for and there was a huge difference between the two in 2000. It doesn't mean either party will neatly achieve those goals, of course, but with the president and Congress both of the same party it is much more likely that they will. It takes a huge amount of money to run a campaign and that effects everything, and there's a lot of compromise in politics (or there was anyway before this new configuration) so such give-and-take always confuses things, but for people to say there's no difference in the parties just shows that people are not looking very closely. It would take an extremely unusual Republican for me to vote for that person, and I've not ever come across such a person. Even if the candidate is a moderate, there is a reason she or he has chosen to identify with the Republicans. For me, it comes down to this: I don't agree with the basic philosophy of the Republican party, which is that "rights inhere in the individual". I think the responsibility to the community is much more important, and so does the Democratic Party. And again, it never plays out so neatly, or ideally, but those are the starting points. Sorry for the teaching rant. Obviously, what I see as a superficial understanding of the political system bugs me. My comments are not aimed specifically at you, Bob, even though your message is what finally got me to writing this stuff down, for whatever it's worth. Debra Shea
