Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Courting Disaster With Obama? Hardly.

The prospect of a Barack Obama presidency seems to be driving the conservative legal establishment around the bend.

“Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election,” Northwestern University law professor and Federalist Society co-founder Steven Calabresi wrote in the Wall Street Journal this week.

The constitutional horrors of an Obama presidency, Calabresi said, could include “a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants...”

Writing in National Review Online, Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center was equally alarmist. “Simply put, the survival of the historic American experiment in representative government will be in serious jeopardy if Barack Obama is our next president,” he warned.

Wow, and I thought he was just a socialist.

The role of the courts and the impact of the next president is one of the most under-covered stories of the campaign. But it’s easy to exaggerate the impact of the next president, even if you aren’t imagining the ghost of Earl Warren lurking under your bed.
As Terry Eastland, who has managed not to succumb to the fevered worries of his fellow conservatives, noted recently in the Weekly Standard, a Democratic president would probably simply be doing “maintenance work” on the Supreme Court, at least in his first term, replacing one liberal justice with another. “Obama couldn't create a liberal majority unless at least one conservative, or man-in-the-middle [Anthony M.] Kennedy, were to step down, and that looks doubtful, at least in the next four years.”

At the same time, I think Eastland understates the effect of a John McCain presidency when he says that, given a Democratic-controlled Senate, “actually replacing liberals with conservatives would be far more easily said than done.” A robust Democratic majority would curtail a President McCain, but that does not mean that McCain appointees would be the same as those of President Obama. A McCain appointee to replace, say, Justice John Paul Stevens, 88, would almost certainly shift the court to the right.

So how much do conservatives have to worry about the court in an Obama presidency?

Certainly, many liberal legal activists believe that President Bill Clinton squandered his chance to reshape the federal courts and would press Obama to be more ideological. Obama chose not to join the Gang of 14 a few years ago to forestall Senate filibusters. He voted against both of President Bush’s nominees, John Roberts and Samuel Alito --although The Post reported that he had to be talked out of voting for Roberts.

Exhibit A in the conservative indictment of Obama is his statement to Planned Parenthood in July 2007 that “we need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

This stance, Calabresi said, is tantamount to requiring “the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating” the oath they take to dispense justice impartially. But as University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse, no wild-eyed liberal, pointed out, Obama “is not saying that judges should distort the meaning of law so that people they empathize with can win cases. He's saying judges need to understand the realities of the world, most significantly, what life is like for people.”

Exhibit B is a 2001 radio interview in which Obama made the entirely unremarkable observation that the Warren Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society." This is supposed to be evidence of Obama’s secret radicalism. “Is his provision of a 'tax cut' to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes,” Calabresi asked, “merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth?”

What’s so wonderful about this attack is how delicately Obama’s critics choose to pick the cherries. Obama said he agreed, as the Supreme Court ruled this year, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. He disagreed with its ruling invalidating the death penalty for child rape.

Obama’s discussion of the constitution in his book “The Audacity of Hope” is distinctly nuanced, expressing qualms about liberal overemphasis on courts. “I wondered if, in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy,” he wrote.

In an interview with the Detroit Free Press this month, Obama described the court as an “institutionally conservative” organization reluctant to get out ahead of public opinion. The Warren Court did, appropriately so, Obama said, “because the political process didn’t give an avenue for minorities and African Americans to exercise their political power to solve their problems. So the court had to step in and break that logjam.”

However, he said, “I would be troubled if you had that same kind of activism in circumstances today.”

I don’t doubt that Obama judicial nominees would not be to conservatives’ liking. Fair enough. I haven’t liked President Bush’s, and I doubt I’d like President McCain’s any better. That’s what elections are about, and it’s why I wish there had been more campaign discussion about the role of the court.

But the suggestion that electing Obama threatens the rule of law, representative democracy and liberty itself is so unhinged it is hard to take seriously, except as a measure of how worried some people are about their party losing its grip on power.

By Ruth Marcus  | October 29, 2008; 6:19 PM ET
Categories:  Marcus  | Tags:  Ruth Marcus  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: How Common Is the Hatred?
Next: Black Angst

Comments

Oh come on now,as Messiah Empty Suit Liar
Barack Hussein Obama,The Spread The Wealth
Marxist/Socialist Democrat and "He Never
Knows When To Shut Up Big Mouth" Joe Biden
are a TOTAL DISASTER OUT LOOKING FOR A
PLACE TO HAPPEN! Please forgive for having
to shout in Caps,but most Kool Aid Drunken
Obamabot Cult Members are deaf! Just Say
NOBAMA/NOBIDEN! NO MARXIST/SOCIALISM!
Vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin 2008!

Posted by: claudinelong | October 29, 2008 8:49 PM | Report abuse

Ruth, I hope you continue with this theme. As your post makes clear (and as claudinelong's comment demonstrates), conservatives are really doing themselves no favors with their line of attack against Obama. Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but virtually all the pro-McCain and anti-Obama rhetoric I'm seeing these days comes across as "unhinged," as you say. It's hard to take a political movement seriously when its adherents all seem like irrational, hateful lunatics.

Posted by: simpleton1 | October 29, 2008 9:22 PM | Report abuse

If it is the antithesis of what republicans have crammed down our throats, and placed this country in the dire straights it finds itself, I am all for it.

Posted by: tydicea | October 30, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Wonderful closure! I just do not understand how blinded bigotry expressed by Calabresi can still be heard from someone working in academic environment!

Posted by: sljeme | October 30, 2008 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Obama admits he is undergoing therapy because of the racial division he is feeling as Nov. 4 draws near.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/obamas-daily-show-intervi_n_139123.html

Posted by: AverageJane | October 30, 2008 1:02 AM | Report abuse

The hyperventilation about Sen. Obama's likely approach to the Supreme Court is misplaced. Read the Obama endorsement Cass R. Sunstein, Professor, Harvard Law School at politico.com (http://www.politico.com/arena/bio/cass_r_sunstein.html) and you'll find a fascinating account of how Sen. Obama approached the FISA issue. Liberals disagreed vehemently with Obama on this issue (I was pretty PO'ed myself), but Prf. Sunstein's account provides insight into Sen. Obama's approach, thought process, and respect for the law and the Constitution.

As editor of the Harvard Law Review, Sen. Obama, by many accounts, may have been considered liberal, but was still able to collaborate effectively with conservatives. He certainly is intimately familiar with the great legal minds of our time across the political spectrum.

I expect Obama will appoint at least one of the great Supreme Court Justices of our time.

Posted by: ScottinNC | October 30, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

"Oh come on now,as Messiah Empty Suit Liar
Barack Hussein Obama,The Spread The Wealth
Marxist/Socialist Democrat and "He Never
Knows When To Shut Up Big Mouth" Joe Biden
are a TOTAL DISASTER OUT LOOKING FOR A
PLACE TO HAPPEN! Please forgive for having
to shout in Caps,but most Kool Aid Drunken
Obamabot Cult Members are deaf! Just Say
NOBAMA/NOBIDEN! NO MARXIST/SOCIALISM!
Vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin 2008!"

Posted by: claudinelong | October 29, 2008 8:49 PM

Ruth, like you, I to once thought that such claims and accusations were too unhinged to take seriously. But when you read something like this--all too common, as I'm sure you're entirely aware--it gives you pause. It's clear that somewhere in the dark, terrified recesses of the reactionary mind indescribable horrors are lurking--and they look a lot like ordinary Democrats.

It's doubtful that the person who wrote the screed above knows the least thing about Marxism, or even socialism in any of its forms (Sweden, for pity's sake, has been raised as bogeyman in this campaign!). Instead, what has happened is that the fearmongering has taken root to such an extent that even the people who fabricated it--Calibresi and others like him--have ended by believing it themselves. That is something to take seriously, I believe, because the belief in Obama's inherent evil will only grow over time, festering like a wound in the extreme right wing. This is the narrative they will give credence going forward, and that could prove dangerous in many different ways.

This poster is by no means an exception. I have conservative friends who have seriously advanced the idea that Obama is comparable to Hitler and Stalin, and is secretly planning to turn the government over to "them" after he is elected.

I once heard Saul Alinsky (you know, that other "community organizer" associated with Obama, proving Obama is...well, something like a small town mayor with really bad ethics) define a liberal as "the guy who leaves the room when a discussion turns into a fight."

He was right. It's a chronic and debilitating disease we suffer from--the constant expectation that discussion of differences can be rational and even friendly, unless unreasoning fear takes over. Eventually, the shouters transmute their own fear into something that is itself to be feared. By failing to understand the difference between threat and disagreement, they feel cornered and compelled to attack.

Good reason to leave the room before they get their hands on any blunt instruments.

Posted by: FAC1 | October 30, 2008 1:03 AM | Report abuse

Shut up stupid!

Posted by: zippergyrl1 | October 30, 2008 1:13 AM | Report abuse

Sad when the uneducated crowd gets on the internet, but the irony of mocking technology while they use it to suppress science is truly rich.

Vote Palin and McCain!!! if you want your kids to have a 3rd World education....

Posted by: bhuang2 | October 30, 2008 1:17 AM | Report abuse

What ridiculous claims!

Obama was a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR.

The constitution is safer with Obama, who actually knows what it says, than PALIN- who doesn't even know what the constitution says the job of VP is.


Gimme a break.

Posted by: julieds | October 30, 2008 1:47 AM | Report abuse

In this election, Conservatives are proving, once and for all, that they are deranged. These people are NUTS.

Posted by: mnjam | October 30, 2008 1:49 AM | Report abuse

Fortunately, one of the last things that one need worry about is a law professor's views being taken seriously by the general public.

Posted by: turningfool | October 30, 2008 2:23 AM | Report abuse

"Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election,”
he's right, you know, in that "the very idea" he's talking about is the Bushies' idea of subverting the rule of law by politicizing Justice and dessicating liberty by eavesdropping on our conversations... the sooner we've jettisoned this "very idea," the better...

Posted by: greekway | October 30, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

Claudinelong, you are one stupid woman.

I am reading another book about the breaking of the constitution in Gitmo, just as one example of Bush's lunacy supported by McCain.

This time it is the horror the US mob inflicted on an Australia with the enthusiastic support of my former government.

Kidnapping, torture, rendition - it is a marvel that the man survived and it is only due to the amazing work of Joe Margulies, a US human rights lawyer.

If you want to have your human rights protected and the constitution preserved then you will vote for Obama.

If you want further trashing of the constitution and destruction of the rule of law stick with McCain.

After all he doesn't have a clue what the rule of law means and nor does that idiot Palin who learnt her political skills at the knee of her former boss Ted Stevens who is now a convicted felon.

Posted by: shepherdmarilyn | October 30, 2008 4:20 AM | Report abuse

This isn't about a party or anything else, if it where the same for the other party.
This comment is to project the mind behind the Charisma & Image drawn.
what kind of reactions, what does he influence himself with..
The photo is authentic and according to a New York Times Book Blog written May 21, 2008 the original photo was taken by Doug Mills for the New York Times was taken of Barack Obama in Bozeman, Montana.
Book is called, 'The Post-American World' -- IT IS THE MUSLIM/ISLAMIC VIEW TO DESTROY AMERICA FROM WITHIN.

Life is a open book..

This is the calibar of the mind that people are chosing.. He may be bright & believeable but his mind is a social mind.
Remember Joe the Plumber.. he uses words like punished in the interview with a possible voter.

Ecomony talk has ended, people discovered his underlying of spearding the wealth of business people..
People esp. trusted Obama for all his economy statements.. this one was accounting issue, THEY DONT TRUST HIM NOW.

Go to Joe the Plumber of people Videos.. on McCain site..they will do the accounting for Obama. They get it.
Esp. the one from Cuba..

HE RECIEVED HUGE CAMPAIGN MONEY BUT IT ISN'T FOR FREE, HE IS OWNED. HE HAS ALOT RIDING ON HIS BACK FOR
FOR THE PRESIDENTAL DEAL WITH UNTRACEABLE GIFTS.. WHY DOES EVERYTHING HAVE BE BEHIND THE VEIL.

HIS 30 MINUTE, ESP THE MUSIC MADE FEEL LIKE I WAS AT A MOVIE, WITH ALL THE BELIEVABLE TUNES & IMAGES TO PROJECT
WHAT HE WANTS YOU TO THINK.. LIKE JOE THE PLUMBER...

IN PUBLIC ARENA, THIS IS PG-13. This is his true self when he is underpressure.
Added Obama: "God bless the people of South Carolina, God bless America, and (OBCENE WORD)BLANK you, Nate."
AND FUTHER HIS IS IN ANOTHER COUNTRY.
THE CURRENT NEWS...SECURITY

LIBERTY VS LIBERIAL
I VOTE FOR THE NEXT YOUNG AMERICAN PRESIDENT.. like yourself.

NOBAMA BE SAFE AMERICAIN.

/>_http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5411_
/>(http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5411)


Posted by: suttons77hotmailcom | October 30, 2008 4:45 AM | Report abuse

Jesus the socialist?

Acts 2:44-45 (King James Version)
44 And all that believed were together, and had all things common;

45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Acts 4:34-35
34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

Not part of the Republican Bible?

Posted by: bdunn1 | October 30, 2008 4:45 AM | Report abuse

This is why the Repub party is in descent. The people making the most noise are the extreme right type and they are controlling the party. The moderates have no voice. The absurd comments are driving the country to the Democrats as they are the ones making intelligent conversation and have some sort of vision.

Posted by: Falmouth1 | October 30, 2008 6:06 AM | Report abuse

To Suttons77:

Please post your comments in English rather than gibberish. More important, most McCain supporters posting on this site seem to be missing the irony of any Republican pontificating about the "rule of law."

Posted by: rbionaz | October 30, 2008 6:31 AM | Report abuse

To Suttons77:

You write:

IN PUBLIC ARENA, THIS IS PG-13. This is his true self when he is underpressure.

Added Obama: "God bless the people of South Carolina, God bless America, and (OBCENE WORD)BLANK you, Nate."

AND FUTHER HIS IS IN ANOTHER COUNTRY.

THE CURRENT NEWS...SECURITY

Now, Suttons, I must admit that, at best, I only really half-understand what you're trying to say here, but I'd like to point out to you that the quote you attribute to Obama "underpressure" is from an article in The Onion. It's satire. (That is to say, not real. Or, meant to be a joke to those who are smart enough to tell the difference between real events and jokes.)

Here, try reading it for yourself:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/obama_modifies_yes_we_can_message

I'm sorry to respond to your antagonism with antagonism, but you, Suttons77, are a great fool.

Posted by: bwhoover | October 30, 2008 6:57 AM | Report abuse

HEY, claudinelong,

Zip it, B!

You empty post LOSER! All your posting will get you NOTHING, so say Hi to the NEW USA. You got 5 Days, and I hope you leave before then.

God Bless
(you kool aid drinking nasal talking yahoo redneck)

Posted by: LeftwithNochoice | October 30, 2008 6:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama, Hilary, any Democrat is critical to rebalance the national courts...abolutely critical.

Posted by: vtcxc | October 30, 2008 7:04 AM | Report abuse

Thoughtful people I know have been concerned about the health of the rule of law throughout the Bush years. He is the one who ignores laws that Congress passed and he signed based on "signing statements," and has systematically moved to eviscerate regulation and oversight by Executive Agencies by seeking to undermine regulations, redefine when enforcement will occur, and generally ignore the mandate of most agencies. He is the one who threw a HOST of international treaties, RATIFIED treaties that are the "Law of the Land" out the window. He is the one who had tabs put on federal judges to mark them as problems if they used discretion in sentencing. He is the one who politicized ordinary government service positions - and broke the law doing so.

And NOW the conservatives are suddenly concerned about the rule of law? Where have they BEEN?

I am gravely concerned about the direction that this country is headed in, but I do not distrust Obama in that regard. I profoundly distrust anyone endorsed by the National Review, at this point.

Posted by: badmommy | October 30, 2008 7:13 AM | Report abuse

you skip the fact that obama did a 180 on a few key positions after acorn defeated hillary. gun control being one. if he thinks i believe he wants to let americans saty armed he is crazy. and the dems will take every piece of property they can by eminent domain to raise the tax base. and thats just the beginning. the fairness doctrine will be law by feb 1. maybe they can pardon bernie ward and put him back on the air.

Posted by: 12thgenamerican | October 30, 2008 7:28 AM | Report abuse

I am very sorry to say this, but I read Calabresi's piece and then I read it again and then I read it a third time.
I can only draw one conclusion.
It is simplistic and intellectually dishonest.
It is an embarrassment.
i do not know what possessed a distinguished scholar to engage in such a foolish activity.

Posted by: djah | October 30, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

Well - it just goes to show you the real value of a pedigree education and credentials. When push comes to shove, it's back to the same old fear-based reptilian aggressive reactiveness and common bigotry.

Posted by: alanms | October 30, 2008 7:49 AM | Report abuse

This is what conservatives do best. Take their greatest weakness and apply it to the other guy. There would be no shift in the court if Obama were to appoint justices on the liberal side of the court with liberal justices. However, should McCain win, he will likely appoint judges that call themsleves strict constructionist, but really apply their ideology to the constitution rather than the apply the constitution to the law.
This court has set equality rights back 30 years with some of their recent decisions, particularly the absurd decision that you can only get renumeration from a company that has been discriminating against you for years, and will continue to discriminate when it comes to 401Ks and pensions for only 6 months prior to being accused of discrimination.
This court is already on the way to ensuring people lose more of their freedoms. The only way to stop it, is to stop the appointment of these ideological judges who disregard the laws and use their ideaology in terms of how to interpret the constitution. This court thinks that equal protection under the law means that your votes can be disenfranchised, that you can only receive renumeration for a short period of time due to discrimination, and before you know it, they will be regulating the type of medical care women can receive.
It's a disgusting tactic right out of George Orwell's 1984, but the American people won't fall for it this time.
The patriot act, the clean air act, the healthy forests initiative, all mean the opposite of what they intend.

Posted by: chibeardan | October 30, 2008 7:50 AM | Report abuse

air guard fly boy bush offered lady liberty a beer she thought my what a nice guy to drink a beer with
,she woke up 8yrs later with two wars flat broke after flyboy george invited all of his frat boy banker friends to the party and they stole her ATM card and drained her accounts.
the banker friends even told her they were evicting her from her house since she couldnt pay the mortgage because they had stolen all of her money
meanwhile dick georges friend set up a torture chamber in the basement..he was into kinky stuff...all in her house.
just a few minutes a go george told her he was leaving her but that he had another friend who was a flyboy also,....
a navy flyboy
who would take care of her with his anti-witchcraft friend from alaska.
apparently she would be put in charge of dicks torture chamber in the basement...
lady liberty was appalled that she had fallen in with such horrible drunken people who only cared to get drunk and cause trouble.
lucky for her she still had her cell phone she quickly texted a friend she remembered from the senate that ONE guy who tied down the loose nukes.
he was tall dark and handsome he didnt show up by himself though he came with 100 million people.
to protect lady liberty,
the drunks and robbers saw what was coming and where so scared they threatened lady liberty to change her mind they said terrible things about her friend from the senate.....
but she had had enough they had tricked her with beer promises and had stolen her ATM card and had a two wars with the neighbors......
and there was still that mess in the basement from the torture chamber and that evil man dick seemed to be hiding down there no one every seemed to see him except for that one day when he shot his friend in the face.
her friend from the senate said dont worry about evil dick we will flood the basement and drown them in their secret chambers after we free the torture victims.
the drunks george and john will be grounded and sent away to some remote desert location
the witchcraft women will be sent away to to a cold dark place where hell freezes over every winter and there is no sun for 6mths of the yr.
lady liberty was pleased she felt bad about herself a little bit for being so dumb with those fancy flyboys and their frat boy kegger friends ..
but she really felt good that she remembered her friend that never offered her a beer

just her freedom

Posted by: JudgeAlan | October 30, 2008 7:52 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for trying to minimize the danger to Americans.

The problem is both the Supreme Court and federal judges in general.

Conservative members of the court consider the Constitution and then ask whether an outcome is constitutional. Liberal members make the decision and then create an argument to justify the constitutionality. Conservative members are like scientists. They think objectively. Like a mathematician, they consider the boundary conditions for the problem first. What does the Constitution say and how was it meant to be interpreted? They understand that the founding fathers made it difficult to modify the Constitution for very good reasons. Liberal members are like philosophy professors. They have a feel-good outcome in mind and will do what it takes to justify the outcome. Somehow they have decided that the amendment process has no function. The Constitution becomes their philosophy.

Consider the case of illegal immigration. It is conceivable that a future court will decide that we have an implied "common law citizenship" in the Constitution. That is, persons who manage to stay here illegally and avoid deportation for a certain period of time will automatically become citizens. Think its impossible? Think again.

In mathematics, we have a number of fundamental rules. Consider the property of associativity in addition: (A + B) + C = A + (B + C). We say this holds universally. However, if we say ...well...maybe it doesn't hold under this circumstance or that, then buildings come tumbling down. The problem is, our building is our country.

I am not voting for a candidate. I am voting for a conservative Supreme Court and federal judges.

Posted by: hipshot | October 30, 2008 7:56 AM | Report abuse

So where was the Federalist Society Schmuck
when Dubya and Dickie were raping the Constitution in the name of "Homeland Security"

Posted by: tmcn2 | October 30, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

Old McMoron volunteers Cindy McCain to enter the topless, bottomless Miss Buffalo Chip Sex Contest at this year's Sturgis Biker Rally.

Google McCain violating Public Trust

McCain calls his wife a C*nt numerous times and cheats on her with numerous women including Lobbyist Vicki Iseman.


Moron Con Communists Econ Terrorists think Trillions in Tax Hike Bailouts of Junk Mortgage Companies, Junk Banks, Junk Insurance, Junk Auto Companies is what Free Markets are about. Not Free Markets, but FreeLoading Markets for the Rich Lobbyist Connected Criminals

Moron Con Extremists are the only Idiots that think wasting Trillions in Splurges, Illegal Wars, Nation Building other countries while America Crumbles is Patriotic.

Biggest Bank Failures Ever

Lowest Consumer Confidence EVER at 38

Worse drop in Home Price EVER down 16.6%

Biggest Insurance Company Failure Ever

2 Biggest Mortgage Companies Failure Ever

Now, the Communist Moron Con Econ Terrorists has the Communist Fascist Extremist Govt owning the Biggest Mortgage Companies, Biggest Auto, Biggest Banks and Biggest Insurance Companies

Largest increase in the National Debt Ever nearly $8 Trillion, a Trillion increase per year under the Moron Con Econ Terrorist War Criminal Pro Life Mass Murderer Serial Killer in Chief

Posted by: mawt | October 30, 2008 8:11 AM | Report abuse

Is anybody having the same feeling that if you buy a pita bread in the grocery people will think you are a terrorist? Rescue of America rights is the highest priority in this election. One more extreme right judge can led to a disaster for democracy.

Posted by: Sapiando | October 30, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

We want a Adulterer, War Criminal, Lobbyist Ownied McMoron Con to run the country with his Call Girl Retard.

Posted by: mawt | October 30, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

You mean the 'right to welfare' like Governor Palin increased in Alaska, where every citizen gets $3000 dollars from the oil companies, regardless of whether they work or not, for doing absolutely nothing but breathing Alaska air?

You mean that kind of welfare and wealth redistribution?

Posted by: HillMan | October 30, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama admits he is undergoing therapy because of the racial division he is feeling as Nov. 4 draws near.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/29/obamas-daily-show-intervi_n_139123.html

______________

Did you listen to the video?? It was a JOKE!!!!

Posted by: vs1123 | October 30, 2008 8:16 AM | Report abuse

Why independent voters may not vote for Obama, or vote at all: Fatigue. I don't believe Obama is a bad man. I never bought the Muslim garbage. I believe people can have aquaintances with whom they don't agree. (It's called "bipartisanship" in Congress - if it exists at all.) But I didn't buy into the Obama-as-Messiah bandwagon either. Look at the posts on this "PostPartisan" list. It's the most one-sided example of partisanship out there. THIS is why I have no hope whatsoever that anything will change under President Obama. I'm not anxious to see a PTA mom running the Senate. But I'm less interested in wide-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth Bush-haters running the White House. Where are the pragmatists? Excuse me, but I think I have better things to do with my time than stand in horribly long lines to vote like I've been told to do by the rabid partisans on either side of this mess.

Posted by: mwcob | October 30, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

He just didn't mention to mention that Obama would fund Osama Bin Laden and world wide terrorists... oh, sorry, my deepest apologies, I forgot that it was the CIA under GOP President who did it!

Posted by: roberto-old-european | October 30, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

"Courting Disaster With Obama?" Yes, because Obama is wrong again--this time with Social Security. Obama's so-called "supple intelligence" (Washington Post endorsement), has a plan to mess with Social Security. Obama says he will give a tax cut to 95% of the people. But 40% of the people pay no income tax. Obama replies, that yes, they do pay taxes. They pay taxes (payroll taxes) into Social Security. However, the Social Security tax is in fact an entitlement, the nation's biggest social insurance program, paying benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship and death. Obama wants to turn Social Security into WELFARE by giving people back the money they paid in, and more. Social Security was never, ever intended to be WELFARE, and by giving back the money that 40% of the people have paid in, Obama will end Social Security. The money will run out. Don't mess with Social Security. McCain for President.

Posted by: Deanna2 | October 30, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

The right wing seems to be incapable of rational thought. Obama was a professor and taught constitutional law. He has demonstrated a deep and abiding respect for the law. When the right wing has to parse statements made 7 years ago and twist what was obviously meant you know they are desperate. If I had a student who was being taught by the Northwestern professor I would seriously think of having them transfer to a different class. This man is clearly unstable.

Posted by: cdierd1944 | October 30, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

The Republican fanatics are suddenly concerned about the rule of law, which they ignored as long as it was trampled on by their good ol' God Fearin' Republicans, because they know that their leaders absolutely know what is best for ALL Americans while they stuffed tax dollars in their pockets.

Now that someone who does not even lie and profess to share their zealot beliefs, as did out current criminal president, those God Fearin' facists feel they might not be in charge of making the rules and pickin' what laws the will and will not follow. Their pocket stuffin' royal family is about to get booted back to their Texas elitist stronghold, while Real Americans take change.

Real Americans see what this contry can be and instill hope and pride in their fellow Americans to strive for those higher goals.
Real Americans work with other countires to help them make a better life for their people, not to make more money for their political supporters and themselves.
Real Americans do not force their beliefs on others, they repect the opinions of others.
Real Americans do not use fear and scare tactics to create submission at the cost of liberty and freedom.
Real Americans hold their helping hand out to other Americans without asking what party they belong to or judging who they are likely to vote for or what God they pray to.
Real Americans do not see the troubles of their fellow Americans as an opportunity to pillage and profit from their situation.
Real Americans would never send America's youth off to fight a war without adequate support or equipment just for political expediency.
Real Americans would not deny those young Americans warriors care and treatement for what they were asked to endure and sustained just so money could flow to pork projects.
Real Americans would not torture prisoners no matter what their classification.
Real Americans would not divulge the identity of American Inteligence Agents for selfish purposes.
Real Americans would make war a last resort option.
Real Americans would try to resolve differences with other countrys not dictate terms to these countries and threaten war as the consequence of not following those dictates.
Real Americans seek balance, knowledge and judgement in the American Justice Department, not patronage, criminal activities, dishonesty and party loyalty above loyalty to the American citizens.

Calling yourself "Real Americans" like the Alaskan Governor does, do not make you a Real American.
Believing in Christianity, and/or a specific God does not make you a Real American.
Not questioning your country's leaders and not holding them responsible for criminal actions, does not make you a Real American.
Belonging to a specific political party does not make you a Real American.

What makes a "Real American" is living the values of a Real American, and not just at election time, but all the time.

It's time for America to be lead by Real Americans.

Posted by: pjc8300892 | October 30, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Just remember these people like Deanna2 voted for Bush, they helped create this mess.

Sad part is, they would probably do it again. To BDunn1, the republicans invoke Jesus to win elections, they however DO NOT practice what he preached. It is just a ruse to win over ignorant people who read story lines and not the actual content. I have never met a more scared and fearful group than the republican base. They live in fear and vote based on fear. During the past few elections they campaign based on fear.


Franklin D. Roosevelt, First inaugural address
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Posted by: gatorskinz2000 | October 30, 2008 8:33 AM | Report abuse

The constitution is based on a federalist perspective - a limited central government with only three areas of authority:

To protect militarily.
To protect economically with tariffs.
To settle issues between the States.

That's it!!!!!!!!!!

No healthcare
No welfare
No taxation
No Social Security

Posted by: jjcrocket | October 30, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

all this republican bleating is just code for their panic about the prospect that the slaves are about to take over the plantation.

they can all take two running jumps and go straight to......

Posted by: butlerguy | October 30, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I'm sure you wouldn't complain if Obama gets elected, and the Republicans can keep enough seats to filibuster, when they filibuster liberal Obama nominnees just like the Democrats filibustered Bush's nominees for the first 6 years of his presidency. Lately they just refuse to bring them to a vote thinking that Obama will get in and nominate liberal judges.

Posted by: RobT1 | October 30, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse

Maverick Personality Disorder:

http://tinyurl.com/5ggtte

Posted by: caraprado1 | October 30, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Oh God how funny all these toxic kool aid
drinking Obamabots are since Obama has told
them and all of us,so many lies that they
no longer can tell the truth or even be able to remember what the Truth really is
here now then..It damn sure is not the mad
out of touch with reality lunatic cocaine
addict scrambled brain con artist and lying
egomanic Socialist Democrat Loser Messiah
Barack Hussein Obama that is speaking
anything that can be can Truth since Obama
and Crazy Joe Big Mouth Biden cannot even
remember which outright lie they told the
masses of foaming at the mouth rabid out
touch with reality Obama Cult Members.
Just Say NO to Obama & Biden Brand of
Out Right Socialism by Voting for the
Next President of the US John McCain and
Next Vice President Sarah Palin!

Posted by: sandylong5274 | October 30, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

I'm a pro-life Democrat voting for Obama. For the first time in decades I have a sense that we are voting for a person who may be willing to face the brutality of abortion and help change the culture. Technology has made banning abortion an exercise in police statism, what we need is for abortion to be seen as an unnecessary tragedy. Pregnancy was once shameful, and that was the reason for back alley abortions and for orphanages and child abandonment. Early infanticide did nothing to address the real problem: every child conceived, regardless of her parents' wealth and power, regardless of her imperfections, should be received into the community of humanity with care and safety.

Obama may get it eventually - and he may be able to help the rest of us get it, too.

I've worked with Federalist Society members. I often leave meetings with them wishing they would eat more vegetables and whole grains and attend a few of Shakespeare's plays. They have the ferocity of the old Jesuits, and the self-righteousness of Oliver Cromwell - neither will help us build a more humane and sustainable society.

Posted by: practica1 | October 30, 2008 9:21 AM | Report abuse

The only thing the far right needs to know, and this comes from one who has recently quit a lifelong membership in the Republican Party:


THE MODERATES MUST BE INCLUDED OR THE PARTY WILL DIE A WELCOME, SLOW, AGONIZING DEATH!!

There. I feel better. And the far right, the religious zealots, and the bigots can start their own party. Call it whatever you want, but NOT the Republican Party.

It is about time.

.

Posted by: swanieaz | October 30, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

Thanks Ruth for the observant opinion. Yes, I quite agree with your charcterizations of those using those arguements against an Obama presidency. Your observation of: "the suggestion that electing Obama threatens the rule of law" as being "unhinged" also applies to so many other concerns being projected into this campaign has brought out a lot of "unhinged" fears, though. It is bringing the worst out in people who fear a minority person's presidency, instead of looking at the person's views, opinions and "unhinging" the already "unhinged". If you are reading some of the post on other articles concerning Obama's campaign you'll see some of the god-awfullest garbage of hate being spewed and I don't think the republican campaign is helping those kind of people, one single bit but driving them close to an edge,such as those 2 "skinheads", aren't far from being pushed over already. I sure wish we could've gone through this campaign without some of that garbage being spread near and far.

Posted by: jackfrmi | October 30, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

"Time They Are Changing" Who's really care what the conservatives worry about! They have 8 long years of bush’s nominees. It's time for the court, "they are a changing!"

Posted by: ctang08648 | October 30, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Hilarious because Senator Obama has far superior bona fides than Professor Calabresi.
Northwestern is a fine university, but i pity anyone in one of Mr. Calabresi's classes. I'll take a double helping of the president of the Harvard law review with a side of University of Chicago constitutional law professor please.

Posted by: mykulw | October 30, 2008 9:48 AM | Report abuse

How ironic for a concservative to be concerned about rule of law after eight years of an administration that simply ignored the constitution. And the only activism that has occurred on the court lately has come from the conservatives.

Posted by: eddiehaskel | October 30, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Why do we WANT to elect someone for President that is so divisive and controversial? I also want change but not change for change sake. Going from the far right to the far left will only worsen our problems and further weaken our country. We need moderation and "We the People" need to take back our country. If electing a man 72 years old that has lots of life's experiences and has a proven track record of moderation is right then we should vote that way regardless of party affiliation. Brack Obama is too controversial, too left leaning, has too many questionable associations and is just another say anything slick talking, used car salesman politician. He is trying to divide and conquer, by race, religion and income and that is NOT what this country needs. The United States needs to get back to the basics starting with the guiding principles of our founding fathers. We need to do what is in the best interests of the majority and quit kow-towing to every special interest group. I for one do not trust Obama with our national security and Joe Biden is not even close to being qualified for VP if it is based on common sense and basic moral values. I say go with the mavericks and let them clean out the crooks in Washington. While we're at it, we need to go after all media sources and hold them accountable for presenting news factually and accuately so "We the People" can make our own decisions. Finally, do we want two attorney's running our government or two regular people? Seems to me a no-brainer...

Posted by: TheRepublicrat | October 30, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

The stark contrast between their growing degree of "unhinged-ness" and Obama's calls for a return of American courage is a thing of beauty.

I expect they will stop at nothing to stay in power, including "count the vote" fraud. It doesn't require a huge alteration of results. If there is one electronic voting machine for 100 people, and each machine makes two undetected errors a day, it will alter the result by 2%.

Posted by: patriot16 | October 30, 2008 10:13 AM | Report abuse

Ms. Marcus: Thank you for once again dispelling the nonsensical notions that partisans on both sides of the political spectrum are spewing.

Posted by: squatty418 | October 30, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Pretty amazed here how folks who claim to be tolerant (Dems) and are spewing such hatred towards republicans. Facts are facts and taking out all the attacks from both sides and here's what I come out with. Obama has no track record accept for that he won't make a decision. Check facts on his voting record. Secondly, state of Illinois is in pretty bad shape and much worse than most. Public education system is one of the worse in country. Muncipilities sales tax rates amoung highest in Nation. State pension fund is billions in the hole. Murder rate has increase by 18% in just this last year and one of the highest in nation. All Facts. Obama made alot of promises to the residence of Illinois and has not followed up on not one of them. He can't fix his own state but Dems thinks he can fix America???


Posted by: Come_on_people | October 30, 2008 10:32 AM | Report abuse

This election is about Americans repudiating fear and divisiveness.

We will have an all too brief interlude before the neocons find a new banner to re-organize under. During this time, as the Kool-Aide wears off BOTH sides, people will realize that Obama is far more hawkish and Constitutionally conservative than either side thinks he is. Its all there in his writings and his words if you can read past what you want them to say.

I have been deeply frustrated over the past 8 years because it seemed like Americans were simply watching helplessly as their country was hijacked. Where was the marching in the streets? Where was the outcry? When I asked college students why they weren't speaking out about their rights and the future of their country against fear, torture, human rights abuses, loss of civil liberties, I got shrugged shoulders, as if it never occurred to them that they had the power to change their country's direction.

The best part about this grassroots movement for Obama is that the "little people" like me, who had never contributed to a political campagn before, opened our wallets and consolidated our power. Finally, the people have discovered their power. But it also means we will feel like we have the power to throw him out if he disappoints.

America's center finding their power - its an awesome thing. We may be 8 years late for the party, but our presence will be felt!

Posted by: patriot16 | October 30, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

how sad that the only arguments the "conservatives" can muster are projections of disaster (when indeed it is the current administration that has emasculated our constitution, partisanized our courts, and aggrandized our executives) and spurious ad hominem attacks on their opposition - not limited to the candidate, but including that candidate's supporting constituency - in the most snarling and rabid manner possible. how very sad.

Posted by: bajacalla | October 30, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I will vote AGAINST McCain to stop the flow of white male country club federalist society judges from being appointed.

Posted by: finleysteve | October 30, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

I hope this is the year the far right conservative movement finally chokes to death on their "fear pills". They have driven our country to its knees and they are still trying to claim they are the party for the people. GIVE ME A BREAK!

Posted by: ccclam | October 30, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Marcus has selected the perfect word to describe the hysteria on the right about an Obama presidency: unhinged.

Precisely so.

The right in America has become profoundly unhinged from reality; the characterizations of Obama issuing even from the Republican Party's standard bearer, McCain, are frankly delusional (restoring the top tax rate to a level still below that of Reagan's first term is socialist? really?).

And then there is ceaseless venom and attempts at character assassination (this last, again issuing from the mouth of McCain himself).

But when we get to the judiciary, the right's rhetoric is nothing less than hallucinatory.

Considering the astounding abuses of the judiciary during the Bush years (illegally packing the Justice Department with ideologues, ordering attorneys to make false prosecutions, etc.) I think we see the right looking in the mirror and imagining that Obama will do the things that they themselves have already done.

To all evidence Obama - a serious constitutional scholar - is far better than that.

The right needs many years in the wilderness to regain contact with reality (and decency).

Posted by: careysub | October 30, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I should hope that the Federalist Society is soiling its shorts at the prospect of an Obama presidency. They deserve to. I am quite sure that the responsibility for rating judicial appointees will be taken from them -- such an ideologically driven organization as the Federalist Society should never have had that role in the first place -- and restored to the non-partisan ABA where it has always belonged.

It is interesting that they call themselves the "Federalist Society," when in fact their views are rooted in the views of such rabid ANTI-Federalists as Patrick Henry who opposed ratification of our Constitution. I admire Patrick Henry, mind you, but only for his role as a firebrand during the Revolution, not for his subsequent rantings. They should, to avoid confusion, call themselves the "Confederationalist (as in "Articles of ...") Society" instead.

Indeed, it is my FERVENT hope that our Senate majority is so overwhelming that we can begin to weed out Bush and other Republican appointees to the Federal judiciary who display their "injudicious conduct" (legitimate grounds for the impeachment of Federal judges) by elevating their ideology over our constitution, laws, and justice. We can start with Samuel Alito, an easy target for having ruled in favor of his own pocketbook in a case that came before him as an appellate judge in which he refused to recuse himself when he had a clear and unambiguous conflict of interest.

We need to weed these guys out, and impeach enough of them to put the fear of God into the rest of 'em. It is quite unjust that 80% of our Federal judiciary are Republican appointees.

Posted by: FergusonFoont | October 30, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Obama's presents is felt by 605 million dollars and biased news reporting from the MSM vs the 85 million McCain has to spend with (1) real unbiased news station. The dems have had to spend 7 times what the reps had to work with and look how close this election is. Makes me wonder if the tables would have been level what the outcome may have been. Obama is buying votes from the lower 40% tax bracket. If the country was looking for change so bad then why is Obama having to spend so much money. Should have been a walk in the park. Lets not forget that Bush had a 90% approval rating just a few years ago and what has changed that? Maybe it was the housing markets that was forced down the publics throats by the Dems. By the way a few folks are complaining about the bailouts. Just so you know the bailouts are LOANS. Not the free money for nothing socialistic idealogy that some of you believe Bush & Democratic controlled congress passed.

Posted by: Come_on_people | October 30, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I teach Advanced Placement American Government. In my room I display many politcal bumper stickers. One of my favorites? " Fearful People Do Stupid Thnigs." I'm quite certain that it applies to these irrational alarmists.

Posted by: Albie1 | October 30, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Well, Calabresi is quite the source. For a legal scholar, some of his opinions veer into nut bag territory. An example. Recently at Politico, when responding to whether the administration could be trusted to handle the financial crisis, he said: "The day will come, and not before long, when Americans will wish that George Bush was still president."
All you need to know.

Posted by: keller1 | October 30, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

An Obama victory, while disastrous for the US I'm afraid, may actually be just what the Republican party needs to get back on track and back to its conservative roots. That being said, it seems that this election is a lot closer than anyone wants to admit, and given the desperation and intolerance of some of the comments we see coming out of the left, the Obamabots are getting kinda nervous.

Should be fun to watch.

Posted by: luca_20009 | October 30, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Someone posted "The right in America has become profoundly unhinged from reality; the characterizations of Obama issuing even from the Republican Party's standard bearer, McCain, are frankly delusional (restoring the top tax rate to a level still below that of Reagan's first term is socialist? really?)." No not really, what republicans are complaining about is raising those folks taxes and giving it to those who didn't pay or even contribute to our society. That's socialism people. If the taxes where used to fund roads, education etc... they probably wouldn't have much to stand on concerning the tax plan. Taxes shouldn't be touched in any manner for the middle class or for those who don't pay anything. For the government to increase its income then it MUST help in providing jobs. More people at work means more money for government. Government must stop the spending habits it has created by both sides of the political races. Middle income tax payers are 80% of our economy. Seems as though creating tax credits "welfare" isn't going to do anything for the long term accept deteriorate the foundations of our society.

Posted by: Come_on_people | October 30, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse


The federalist lawyers, insane evenin the 80s Reagan years, when they were absolutely sure they'd rule forever,

have only gotten more outrageous. Those inside their little fold get screechingly crazy high on their own wild thoughts.

But they are creatures of power, and will go where the power is...climbing down from their treetops to get ahead.

Hope so, otherwise this country is in more trouble than anyone has imagined. And at least they know they've run into a constiutional lawyer smarter than any of them. And a decent, fair broadreching American as well.

Posted by: whistling | October 30, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

It IS all about conservative worry about losing power. And here we go again with their favorite tactic: FEAR MONGERING.

Screw'em.

Posted by: binkynh | October 30, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

This is Republican fear mongering. I urge everyone to re-educate themsleves on the process of changing the Constitution. The President cannot do it alone or Bush would have abolished it already. McCain scares me with his Supreme Court nomination potentials. He wants more justices like Alito and Scalia who dont read the law as its written today.

Posted by: Libertarian1 | October 30, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

He is not black enough, he is too black and a racist, he is an Arab, he is Moslem, he is a socialist , he is a communist he is terrorist and now his election will end American democracy. What hog wash. Both Obama and McCain are patriots and will protect America and American interests with vigor. O is willing to listen and think of America as a leader of the world and M is wants to conquer the world. The world is too big for us to conquer. We have tried it and it bankrupted us. Whether O or M is elected , America will get over its problems and we will go on and prosper, period.

Posted by: ProudAmericaan | October 30, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

claudinelong: i seriously think you need psychiatric help. your comment sounds more like paranoid raving than a serious look at the issues. i promise you dear, should obama be elected it will not mean the end of all things. in fact, they might even get better!

AverageJane: thanks for guiding us to the Obama therapy comment. It's a pity that things like "humor" and "irony" go right over your head. you can't seriously think that anyone who watches that video of a laughing Obama joking with Jon Stewart would actually think he is in therapy, could you? or wait...you're a Republican and will believe anything about Obama. Terrorist. Muslim. Appeaser. Socialist. I'm trying to be nice here, but gee you folks are both stupid AND delusional. Get a life, OK?

Posted by: byrdland49 | October 30, 2008 11:53 AM | Report abuse

To be serious about the Constitution, you must recognize that there are some actions that might be really good in the short run that conflict with the Constitution of the USA. Then you must recognize that the Constitution is more important than the short run. Otherwise, the Constitution is not worth the paper it is written on. You seem to think that the short term well being of folks can override the Constitution. OK, let's take an example that is very important at this time. Obama thinks free speech rights can be suspended against his critics. What do you think of that? What do you think of suspending other Constitutional guarantees to support short term help to the suffering.

Posted by: JohnMarshall1 | October 30, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

"Courting Disaster With Obama?" Yes, because Obama is wrong again--this time with Social Security. Obama's so-called "supple intelligence" (Washington Post endorsement), has a plan to mess with Social Security. Obama says he will give a tax cut to 95% of the people. But 40% of the people pay no income tax. Obama replies, that yes, they do pay taxes. They pay taxes (payroll taxes) into Social Security. However, the Social Security tax is in fact an entitlement, the nation's biggest social insurance program, paying benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship and death. Obama wants to turn Social Security into WELFARE by giving people back the money they paid in, and more. Social Security was never, ever intended to be WELFARE, and by giving back the money that 40% of the people have paid in, Obama will end Social Security. The money will run out. Don't mess with Social Security. McCain for President.
Posted by: Deanna2 | October 30, 2008 8:21 AM
Deanna2 -- You have no idea what Social Security is or how it works do you? Every citizen who works pays into Social Security. In return when they retire they receive social security benefits based on what has been paid in and number of years they have worked. So, yes in one sense, you do get back what you paid in and if you live long enough, maybe a little bit more. “Obama wants to turn Social Security into WELFARE by giving people back the money they paid in.”

But, basically each generation of workers pay for the ones before. That was how it was set up. In other words the monies collected by SS from people who are working. This money is put into the SS general fund and checks are written to people that are currently retired. Since there are more people working than retired, SS has a surplus and interest is earned on that money.

As you get closer to retirement SS sends you a statement of how much you have contributed to SS and how much you can expect to receive each month when you retire depending on when you decide to retire. The early you retire the less money you receive.

If you retire and then find another job (maybe one less stressful or because what you are collecting in SS is not enough to meet you expenses) SS still is taken out of your wages.

But do not believe me – visit http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ and http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html to learn how and why Social Security was enacted.

Posted by: Amused1 | October 30, 2008 12:13 PM | Report abuse

"Courting Disaster With Obama?" Yes, because Obama is wrong again--this time with Social Security. Obama's so-called "supple intelligence" (Washington Post endorsement), has a plan to mess with Social Security. Obama says he will give a tax cut to 95% of the people. But 40% of the people pay no income tax. Obama replies, that yes, they do pay taxes. They pay taxes (payroll taxes) into Social Security. However, the Social Security tax is in fact an entitlement, the nation's biggest social insurance program, paying benefits for retirement, disability, survivorship and death. Obama wants to turn Social Security into WELFARE by giving people back the money they paid in, and more. Social Security was never, ever intended to be WELFARE, and by giving back the money that 40% of the people have paid in, Obama will end Social Security. The money will run out. Don't mess with Social Security. McCain for President.
Posted by: Deanna2 | October 30, 2008 8:21 AM

Deanna2 -- You have no idea what Social Security is or how it works do you? Every citizen who works pays into Social Security. In return when they retire they receive social security benefits based on what has been paid in and number of years they have worked. So, yes in one sense, you do get back what you paid in and if you live long enough, maybe a little bit more. “Obama wants to turn Social Security into WELFARE by giving people back the money they paid in.”

But, basically each generation of workers pay for the ones before. That was how it was set up. In other words the monies collected by SS from people who are working. This money is put into the SS general fund and checks are written to people that are currently retired. Since there are more people working than retired, SS has a surplus and interest is earned on that money.

As you get closer to retirement SS sends you a statement of how much you have contributed to SS and how much you can expect to receive each month when you retire depending on when you decide to retire. The early you retire the less money you receive.

If you retire and then find another job (maybe one less stressful or because what you are collecting in SS is not enough to meet you expenses) SS still is taken out of your wages.

But do not believe me – visit http://www.socialsecurity.gov/ and http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html to learn how and why Social Security was enacted.

Posted by: Amused1 | October 30, 2008 12:17 PM | Report abuse

I'd like to thank all the "low-information voters" out there for helping me realize that "low information" is the same as "stupid."

This fear mongering is ridiculous. So which is it? Is Obama Muslim or is he a devout follower of the Christian Rev. Wright?

None of that matters because we are at a point in time when we simply need some new leadership in Washington. And competent leadership at that.

Anyone who can find the people and talent that Barack Obama has found to run his internet/media/ground campaign will make a pretty good president in my book.

No offense, but Sarah Palin isn't fit to be a county commissioner in any of the 100 counties in the state of North Carolina, where I live. What real challenges has she faced in Alaska, except to figure out how to make money from oil fields? Give me a break.

Socialist? WTF is George W. Bush's bailout to Wall Street?

Send McCain back to the Senate, where he can have lunch with Lieberman and send Palin back to Alaska where she can wait for The Rapture in her new clothes.


Posted by: tony_in_Durham_NC | October 30, 2008 12:20 PM | Report abuse

Where were all those conservative whack jobs when the Bush administration was shredding our constitution to pieces? They didn't seem to be worried a bit then!

Posted by: motherforobama | October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

You would expect a law professor to know the constitutional amendment process. It requires 2/3 majority of both houses of congress and 3/4 ratification of state legislature. THE ACTING PRESIDENT DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A FORMAL ROLE IN THE AMENDMENT PROCESS AND CANNOT VETO IT.

Posted by: Libertarian1 | October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

You would expect a law professor to know the constitutional amendment process. It requires 2/3 majority of both houses of congress and 3/4 ratification of state legislature. THE ACTING PRESIDENT DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A FORMAL ROLE IN THE AMENDMENT PROCESS AND CANNOT VETO IT.

Posted by: Libertarian1 | October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

You would expect a law professor to know the constitutional amendment process. It requires 2/3 majority of both houses of congress and 3/4 ratification of state legislature. THE ACTING PRESIDENT DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A FORMAL ROLE IN THE AMENDMENT PROCESS AND CANNOT VETO IT.

Posted by: Libertarian1 | October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

You would expect a law professor to know the constitutional amendment process. It requires 2/3 majority of both houses of congress and 3/4 ratification of state legislature. THE ACTING PRESIDENT DOES NOT EVEN HAVE A FORMAL ROLE IN THE AMENDMENT PROCESS AND CANNOT VETO IT.

Posted by: Libertarian1 | October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

You know, for the last several election cycles, I think that the importance of the courts has been virtually ignored. Our presidents have 4 year terms but our Supreme Court justices may be interpreting the laws for 40 years. It seems to me that having a court that is severely tilted to the right or to the left just dosen't represent the average American. Presidents come and go but they may leave their legacy for a generation on the courts. At this time, replacing Judge Stevens with a staunch ideological conservative would stack the court to the right for many years to come. In that scenario, I'd be sure that their collective ideology would please a relative minority of the population but would be inconsistent with the rest of America.

Posted by: Rogie | October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

We should give even the Bush-unbalanced current judiciary some credit, people. Several times they have stood up for the rule of law on torture, and on habeas corpus, in the egregious monstrosity that is Guantanamo. But Obama's actual point about the judiciary (as opposed to the straw-man that peope who misread him have posed) stands here as well -- the courts have a limited role in preserving human rights. Guantanamo is still there, and the Bush administration is postponing its inevitable abolishment for as long as it can, despite the way this flies in the face of established principles of justice, and despite the indefensible way the Guantanamo kangaroo court system over-expands the power of the executive, and despite repeated court rulings against the administration. Courts are only supposed to do so much. It takes the political process to overturn some abuses. You can't preserve freedom and dignity just with lawsuits. We also need elections for that. Elections like this one.

Posted by: pressF1 | October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

You know, for the last several election cycles, I think that the importance of the courts has been virtually ignored. Our presidents have 4 year terms but our Supreme Court justices may be interpreting the laws for 40 years. It seems to me that having a court that is severely tilted to the right or to the left just dosen't represent the average American. Presidents come and go but they may leave their legacy for a generation on the courts. At this time, replacing Judge Stevens with a staunch ideological conservative would stack the court to the right for many years to come. In that scenario, I'd be sure that their collective ideology would please a relative minority of the population but would be inconsistent with the rest of America.

Posted by: Rogie | October 30, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

Socialist? WTF is George W. Bush's bailout to Wall Street?

Its a loan not socialism. That's going to be paid back.

Posted by: Come_on_people | October 30, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure I got hit by a piece of the sky falling, it was labeled Obama Presidency....

Unlike the disaster that has been hitting the American public for the past eight years.

Posted by: atidwell | October 30, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

There is no sugar coating who Obama is-a socialist. He belonged to the socialist New Party in 1996. He has gone on record as wanting to redistribute the wealth. He will nationalize health care into ineptness. He believes in "sensible" gun control-which directly conflicts with the third very clear section of the 2nd amendment: "shall not be infringed". And no, the supreme court is not in danger of becoming more conservative when he replaces John Paul Stevens. In fact it will become more radically to the left with his nomination of someone of the same ilk as Wm Ayers or Rashid Khalidi.

Jim
San Diego

Posted by: reginacoeli | October 30, 2008 12:44 PM | Report abuse

It is obvious that the right wing nuts are afraid that Obama will emulate their own people (GW Bush, Tom Delay, Dick Cheney) and try to establish a dictatorship.

Socialism, constitutional right to welfare, etc. would only occur if 1) Obama were elected dictator, or 2) the vast majority of the citizens decided they wanted these things, which is unlikely.

The United States is a democracy; when politicians go too far to the left or right, they get voted out of office. That has happened throughout our history, it happens in other democracies, and that is happening now. The wing nuts have run the Republican party too far to the right, and are just terrified that Democrats will treat them the same way they have treated Democrats for 30 years!

Posted by: risejugger | October 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

You mean lost rule of law like the abolition of habeas corpus, limitless detentions with charge (forget trial), warrantless domestic surveillance, and the systemization of torture, including some of the very acts our Federal Government used to prosecute?

Mrs. Palin is right about this: I see the world very differently than she does.

EJ Hurst II, Attorney at Law
Severna Park, Maryland

Posted by: JayHurstAtty | October 30, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Someone commented on Obama's tax plan & Social Security. Social Security payments made to a retiree is based on what you paid into it. So if Obama give's that money back to the lower 40% in tax breaks won't they be hurting when they retire? Who's going to support them then? I do have to agree that is not welfare now but its going to cause welfare for the elderly when they have nothing to collect.

Posted by: Come_on_people | October 30, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

Additionally, as to the "socialist" charges, Mr. Obama does not seek public ownership of the major means of production, which is what "socialism" requires. Even if he wants to "redistribute" wealth from top to bottom, is this any worse than redistributing it from bottom to top, where the taxpayers (we) have "bailed out" banks who are now giving part of that wealth to their shareholders? If one is socialism, so is the other.

I would add this: socialism, unlike communism, does not forbid private ownership or capitalist enterprise. Much like we already have in the U.S., "socialism" implies that small capitalistic enterprises are in fact essential for a community's growth. Socialism simply means that no corporation "too big to fail" belongs in private hands -- like we allegedly did with the bail-out, and short-term, limited nationalization of certain banks.

Posted by: JayHurstAtty | October 30, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Claudinelong,

You are a disgarce to this country,
"Kool aide drunken Obamabot cult members".
It's a shame people like yourself can wake up every morning with the same racist feelings and attitude that this country attempted to overcome decades ago. Do not turn this presidential race into a 'racial race'. I can respect your dissaproval of Barrack Obama but not if you make dimeaning comments like this. Don't tell me you see no racism in your comment, and don't play dumb with me or anyone else. These stereotypes must stop and look at both candidates as candidates, not white and black, not democrat and republican, not liberal and conservative. Look at each candidate with the same and equal oppurtunity as you give the other.

drxldragon600@gmail.com

Posted by: DrxlUgrad | October 30, 2008 1:10 PM | Report abuse

Come_on_people wrote:

"...No not really, what republicans are complaining about is raising those folks taxes and giving it to those who didn't pay or even contribute to our society...."

-------
Dang, and you call US a bunch of elitists? Young school teachers (to pick one among many examples) are in the group that would most benefit from an adjustment of the tax brackets. Many of them pay no taxes...

Posted by: kcInSD | October 30, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

In response to post by risejugger.
If people didn't want those things as you have stated then why vote of someone who proposes them? Lets not forget that we have a Democratically controlled congress with a possible Democratic President. So if they choose to run roughshod over our constitution, raise taxes, disregard media if they don't like tuff questions who is going to stop them. Oh I know. Its militia that has no arms to take back control because guns where outlawed. I will say that the Democrats have one thing that's right its that people are too stupid to make logical decisions with any kind of foresight on our own. The majority of people will believe anything you tell them if you tell them enough times. Let's just vote because it our right is the mentality I'm seeing. Not whats best for society. Only what are they going to do for me mentality. 40% of the population is going to get a check and all they have to do for it is vote for Obama. Sounds like the juggernaut of intellect here should be able to figure it out that votes are being bought. If McCain was doing that wouldn't you be saying the same thing? Republicans are pointing out these areas of concern along with others that we should all be concerned about and instead of explaining to them without the crass insults you choose to ignore these issues and call republican retards and such. I know there are things that people are saying that can't be easily explained and if they can't then admit that you don't know the answer or give a logical explanation as to why. Democrats should be standing up and telling Obama to straighten these questions up before pledging allegiance to someone we barely know.

Posted by: Come_on_people | October 30, 2008 1:17 PM | Report abuse

The quote, “Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election,” is 100% correct and is the primary reason I cannot in good conscience vote for Senator McCain. Domestic spying, extraordinary rendition, fiddling with haebus corpus, ignoring the Supreme Court about the detainees at gitmo, the Supreme Court ruling that proof of innocence is not a reason for appeal, are but the highlights of how the idea of liberty is under attack by the Republicans and conservative justices.

Posted by: caribis | October 30, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

dear julieeds,
How do you come up with Palin not knowing what the Constitution says about being a VP. Palin nailed this one and Biden was way off. You would think with all of his so called political experience, he would have gotten this one right. Of course, the press never took him to task on his "wrong" answer.

Posted by: RockyZ | October 30, 2008 1:22 PM | Report abuse

12genamerican, what are you talking about? It was the Supreme Court (dominated by Republicans) who approved the eminent domain law. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

Also, I think Obama will be too busy to worry whether you are carrying concealed or not. If you would read a little you would know that the Supreme Court also said it's OK to bear arms. However, you are still not allowed to break the law with your guns. The Supreme Court hasn't changed that, yet. You see, all your fears are unfounded. Read a little, learn a lot!

Posted by: littlepaws | October 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Ruth, you quoted:

“Simply put, the survival of the historic American experiment in representative government will be in serious jeopardy if Barack Obama is our next president.”

“Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election.”

Are these guys suggesting that we suspend the lawful election of Barrack Obama and appoint John McCain president in order to preserve our representative government, avoid losing our liberty and preserve the rule of law? Would McCain then use his executive privilege to declare himself absolute president?

Or might it possible that Obama would win the election, but the Republicans would refuse to give up power and have him arrested, executed or exiled? Would Palin preside over the execution or exile of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid?

Will they attempt to silence opposition and jail us all? Do they have enough prisons?

Posted by: GaryL1 | October 30, 2008 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Post by kcInSD
"Dang, and you call US a bunch of elitists? Young school teachers (to pick one among many examples) are in the group that would most benefit from an adjustment of the tax brackets. Many of them pay no taxes..."

Yep young school teachers, fireman, police, military etc.. Everyone must start out at the bottom and work their way up just like with any other vocation. You don't start at the top making the most money and be the least experienced. We all know and understand that when selecting a career field. It's' called experience and that school teacher will be compensated for her experience once she earns it..

Posted by: Come_on_people | October 30, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

It's surprising how many of these right wingnuts do not get satire. I just received, by email, a piece of satire written by a columnist in Phoenix. It was so far out that you would have to be mindless to believe it. I do believe that the person who sent it to me met that qualification!

Posted by: littlepaws | October 30, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Following are a list of reasons why I cannot support an Obama/Democrat agenda.

Higher Taxes - This goes way beyond Joe the Plumber (Raising limits on SS exemption and tax rate, raising capital gains, eliminating home exemption from cap gains,etc)
Using the tax system as welfare - people who pay no or little taxes get back more than they pay in.
Government Control of Health Care
Support of Freedom Act (You would think Dems would support Freedom of Speech, but it appears this is true only when it favors them)
Support of Unionization of American workforce (huge mistake-and you think lots of jobs havgone overseas-wait until this happens)
Higher Minimum Wages - Inflation
Socialism (Government control of everything)
Pro Palestine
No abortion restrictions at all, including Govt funding of abortions

I could go on and on, including Obama's lack of experience in running anything of note. Most unqualified Presidential Candidate ever.

Posted by: RockyZ | October 30, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton for the Supreme Court!!

It would be good for her, good for Obama & good for the country!

Posted by: cyberfool | October 30, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that All man are created Equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life,liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"
Yes Mr. Calabresi, the world is being turned upside down, and you sir are wrong side of history. President-Elect Obama 08

Posted by: logcabin1836 | October 30, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

"Come-on-people" provides a nice demonstration of the unhinged, reality-free, rhetoric of the right.

"Come-on-people" asserts:
Someone posted ... "(restoring the top tax rate to a level still below that of Reagan's first term is socialist? really?)." No not really, what republicans are complaining about is raising those folks taxes and giving it to those who didn't pay or even contribute to our society. That's socialism people.

Presumably "Come-on-people" is referring to Obama's proposed modest expansion of the earned income tax credit (expanded by Reagan and supported by McCain) to allow to offset a part of the taxes levied on working Americans through the payroll tax.

A tax on income is a tax folks, and these working people are paying it.

I doubt if all taxes on income were converted to payroll taxes as the mechanism of collection "Come-on-people" would conclude that suddenly workers had now been freed from taxes.

Posted by: careysub | October 30, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

I'm more afraid of Republicans than I am of terrorists!

Posted by: DGSPAMMAIL | October 30, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

The consequences of the Bush presidency have been the worst terrorist attack ever on American soil, an illegal preemptive war that is costing us $10 billion a month, a less stable Middle East, a dampening of American influence throughout the world, a rise in regional influence for a dangerous Iranian regime, a speculative bubble on Wall Street, a global economic meltown, a $700 billion socialist bailout for the fat cats at taxpayer expense, an explosion in health care costs and in the number of uninsured, the suppression of legitimate science for political ends (climate change, stem cell research, etc.), and historically low consumer confidence.

What hasn't changed is that exploiting fear is still Page 1 of the Republican playbook.

Posted by: spotfoul | October 30, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

A McCain Supreme Court Nomination is much scarier. It would threaten our right to privacy from the government. He stated on the View that he is an originalist as far as the constitution is concerned. If were not for activist judges we never would have had the privacy from the government as it is today. It is not explicitly stated in the constitution and has been inferred. As a result we have been granted things such as miranda rights and were free from warrantless wiretappings, until Bush. The Supreme Court could ultimately take our right to privacy away. I dont know about you, but I don't want the government watching my every move.

Posted by: ELReinhard | October 30, 2008 1:55 PM | Report abuse

"So if they choose to run roughshod over our constitution, raise taxes, disregard media if they don't like tuff questions who is going to stop them. Oh I know. Its militia that has no arms to take back control because guns where outlawed."

??????
You don't know these guys or something?
They are the Democrats, if your over forty, they've run the country most of your life, but you're worried they are going to overthrow the Constitution?
They aren't the party that has a problem with the Constitution. They ran things just fine with the Constitution in place without all these extra-constitutional end arounds.
They don't have a president with over 600 signing statements.
Gitmo, rendition and torture aren't Democratic values, they are the Republicans handiwork.
You're not going to be taken seriously until you can find some kind of connection between the crazy crap you seem to believe and the reality the rest of us have lived through over the last fifty years.

Posted by: dijetlo | October 30, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

bdunn1, you forgot Luke 12:48:

"To whoever much is given, of him will much be required; and to whom much was entrusted, of him more will be asked."

Posted by: nodebris | October 30, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Is there sane person who believes the crap that the rightwingnuts scream about Senator Obama? They must have been locked in the closet watching only Fox Nuz to believe the lies they scream out about Obama. It looks to me that the only followers McCrash and Palin have are the radical wingnuts. The majority of Americans want to end the war, allow abortions under most circumstances, and follow the ideals of helping the weak, sick, poor, and aged. To the wingnuts, this is socialism. For me, for this election, my vote will be for anyone but a Republican. Until they sift out the wingnuts, their party machine will continue to be disfunctional, intolerant, hate mongering liars. They do not represent the American or Christian ideals we should aspire to in the future.

Posted by: clairevb | October 30, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Is there sane person who believes the crap that the rightwingnuts scream about Senator Obama? They must have been locked in the closet watching only Fox Nuz to believe the lies they scream out about Obama. It looks to me that the only followers McCrash and Palin have are the radical wingnuts. The majority of Americans want to end the war, allow abortions under most circumstances, and follow the ideals of helping the weak, sick, poor, and aged. To the wingnuts, this is socialism. For me, for this election, my vote will be for anyone but a Republican. Until they sift out the wingnuts, their party machine will continue to be disfunctional, intolerant, hate mongering liars. They do not represent the American or Christian ideals we should aspire to in the future.

Posted by: clairevb | October 30, 2008 1:57 PM | Report abuse

The following reasons I cannot support Obama.

1) His resume to which his only limited experience was not even executive experience.
2) Not passed one piece of legislation for the state of Illinois.
3) Chicago municipality sales tax among the highest in the nation. Approaching 11% in some cases.
4) Chicago education system one of the worse in the country.
5) State pension budget deficient in billions.
5) Chicago murder rate up 18% in last year alone and among the highest in the country.

This don't even address the issues with some of his contacts and the people he chooses to associate with. What about how his campaign has lifted the security measures to ensure that donations under $200 are untraceable and many of them are from people who used purchased visa debit cards. Alot of information that can not be explained. What about the LA Times video tape?

McCains list and there is a list of concerns but just not to the magnatude of Obama's.

Posted by: Come_on_people | October 30, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that she characterizes some of Obama's views as nuanced. As a third-party observer, it seems to me that lack of nuance is one of the worst things wrong with the current right wing. Black/white. You're either with us or against us. We won't talk to leaders of rogue nations, period. It seems to me that nuance is one of the skills a world leader needs to master most and use most often. And I'm sorry, but either McCain doesn't have it or Rove won't let him use it.

Posted by: bucinka8 | October 30, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Why bother with the ill-informed, frequently psychotic arguments of right-wingers?

Just remember: these people supported GWB not just once, but twice, and probably would again.

That tells you all you really need to know about them.

Posted by: nodebris | October 30, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

Rocky Z, this one's for you:

Sarah Palin on the role of the Vice President in an interview with NBC affiliate KUSA on Oct 21, 2008:
"[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom."

The Constitution on the duties of the Vice President:
Article 1, Section 3
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.

Posted by: ELReinhard | October 30, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Thank You Ms. Marcus. Calabresi - Oh Please. You taking your talking points from intellectuals such as the 'bug man' Tom Delay, the NRA or that Anti-American Grover Norquist? This line of idiocy is the biggest load of bunk I've ever heard. Northwestern should fire this disingenuous mental midget. He posts similar drivel on Politico.com Arena. Just embarrassing and phony.

Buh Bye GOP! Enjoy permanent minority status in Government - starting Tuesday.

Get out and Vote progressives! Throw these anti-logic, anti-intellect, anti-science dunces out!

Posted by: IwillkickyourrightwingA | October 30, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Yonkers, New York
30 October 2008

I can understand why these Republican Cassandras are fear-mongering and scaring the nation out of its wits by saying in effect that Barack Obama would be a disaster for America!

They are now going over the top, to extremes in fact, because they know that their candidates, the McCain-Palin duo, are almost certain to go down in a historic defeat, carried away as many other Republicans will be on November 4th, like flotsam by a tsunami of ming-boggling ferocity.

Republican George W. Bush's 8-year presidency has been an unmitigated disaster for America--both in the domestic and in the international arenas. It has absolutely nothing redemptive about it.

Under Republican George W's watch, Americans who are now gripped by a financial and economic crisis that has brought them fear, suffering, distress, anger, angst, a feeling of helplessness and powerlessness and hopelessness.

A McCain presidency will very likely prove to be only a pathetic and miserable duplicate of George W's failed presidency. I don't think the United States can or need to take that horrible risk.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Posted by: MPatalinjug | October 30, 2008 2:28 PM | Report abuse

WHO IS OBAMA?

AS MARTIN LUTHER KING SAID, YOU SHOULD NOT JUDGE A MAN BY THE COLOR OF HIS SKIN BUT BY THE CONTENT OF HIS CHARACTER


OBAMA’S TRACK RECORD

FRIENDS: AYERS (terrorist), WRIGHT (anti-white racist), REZKO (convicted felon)
KHALIDI (PLO Member. Anti-Israeli)

FOREIGH EXPERIENCE: UNCONDITIONAL MEETING WITH AHMADINEJAD

SENATE EXPERIENCE: 100 WEEKS, 100% PARTIZAN VOTE

ECONOMIC MESSAGE: "SPREAD THE WEALTH AROUND"

WEALTH DEFINITION: $250,OOO THEN $200,000 THEN $150,000

POLITICAL PLATFORM: "TAXES TO FUND SOCIALISTIC WELFARE"

MIDDLE EAST: "CLAIMED UNDIVIDED JERUSALEM - NEXT DAY CHANGED HIS MIND"

COMMANDER IN CHIEF: "FORFEIT A VICTORY IN IRAQ"

ACORN: “VOTER REGISTRATION FRAUD”


OBAMA SAYS: “YES WE CAN”

MCCAIN SAYS: “YES WE WILL”

THIS IS NOT A TIME TO TAKE A RISK WITH LIBERAL ROOKIE - MCCAIN IS THE RIGHT CHANGE WE NEED

Posted by: DemocracyRules | October 30, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

It's funny to me to see how scared racist white people are. I find it utterly halarious. We've had 43 white guys in a row and the last one drove this country into the ground with his incompetent staff and needless war. Some whites still feel the need for supremecy and if a black man becomes President they know that can't hold us down anymore. It's about time. Obama '08.

Posted by: Carolp23 | October 30, 2008 2:32 PM | Report abuse

Come on people,

Fine dont vote for him, but Dubyas list was way longer on why not to vote for him in 2000 and 2004 and i bet you still voted for him....

Posted by: rharring | October 30, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

suttons77 wrote: "He may be bright & believeable but his mind is a social mind."

As opposed to what? An anti-social mind? A selfish mind? One of the things that makes humans so successful is that we do, once in a while, look out for the needs of others.

Posted by: kcc3 | October 30, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008

Posted by: hclark1 | October 30, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Year-after-year of increases in worker productivity and real wages and salaries are still going down. The top 5% have all the wealth and no, they didn't earn it or work hard for it. They stole it from the workers when they agreed to all sit on each other's board of directors and vote each other stock options and golden parachutes.

Redistributing the wealth is not socialism, it is justice and righting a very wrong aspect of our corrupt and warped economy.

Posted by: rb-freedom-for-all | October 30, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Amen, sister! I read that WSJ article this morning, and was so disgusted at that ridiculous list (“a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants...”) I nearly vomited. The level of partisan fear-mongering, bias, and willful ignorance that the author injected into that list is staggering. But, that isn't suprising, is it?

Posted by: ayepenny | October 30, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

"1) [Obama's] resume to which his only limited experience was not even executive experience."

-------

Yes, let's talk about executive ability. Senator Obama has done a much better job of running his campaign (staffing, discipline, fundraising, strategy, tactics, etc.). Senator McCain's campaign appears to be imploding, what with his advisers trashing Sarah Palin as a "diva" and a "rogue" BEFORE the votes are tallied.

Posted by: spotfoul | October 30, 2008 2:54 PM | Report abuse

I don't know what is scarier, that Mr Calabresi says such things and believes them to be the truth or he says them just to rile up the LIVs.

Whatever the case, one thing is obvious, Mr Calabresi has been of his medication for way too long.

Posted by: Roofelstoon | October 30, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" President-Elect Obama will be the fulfillment of this promise made some 232 years ago. This is the American Dream, this is the American Promise. God Bless Barack Obama, God Bless the United States of America!

Posted by: logcabin1836 | October 30, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Good gravy! John McCain's self-proclaimed "hero" Teddy Roosevelt favored the progressive income tax and even more steeply progressive (read "redistributive") taxation of inherited wealth. The Republican right of his day branded him a "socialist," too.

Teddy's cousin Franklin Roosevelt was also called a socialist, a communist, and much worse by the Republican right of his era when he enacted that great redistributive tax scheme we now know as Social Security.

Nothing new under the sun. Who, exactly, is outside the American mainstream? HINT: It's not Barack Obama.

As for the appointment of judges: I look forward to Obama's picks. Here's a guy who is deeply knowledgeable and passionate about constitutional law, and who has the deepest respect for the integrity of the judicial system. After eight years of Bush packing the courts with right-wing ideological hacks and Federalist Society patronage hangers-on---the bottom-dwelling types Steve Calabresi hangs with---Obama will bring a welcome infusion of professionalism to the judicial selection process.

Posted by: bradk1 | October 30, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

THIS IS NOT A TIME TO TAKE A RISK WITH LIBERAL ROOKIE
------
But a conservative rookie, minor leaguer even, is OK?

Posted by: bucinka8 | October 30, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

ELReinhard, this ones for you.
Nothing wriong with what Palin said about role of Vice-President. She did not say she was going to vote on Senate matters (of course, unless a tie). Don't you think as "President" of the senate, she should interface with Seanators and help make good policy changes thru discussions, and influencing other members of the senate. Seems she is right on, so I do not get your point at
all.
However, in the Vice-President debate, Biden (Mr Experienced Politician) said the following: "Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that." No senator Biden, everyone should not know that because that is not what Article I of the constitutions says. Article I defines the role of the VP as President of the senate, and does not mention anything about being part of the Executive Branch.

Posted by: RockyZ | October 30, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Under Bush, our justice system has become increasingly ideological, partisan, and incompetent (as evidenced by the Bush hires - Gonzales, Goodling, and their ilk.) If Obama and his justice department can clearly read resumes, lay off the ridiculous religious litmus tests, and appoint well-educated, competent people it will be a vast improvement.

Posted by: jak2 | October 30, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: careysub

"Come-on-people" provides a nice demonstration of the unhinged, reality-free, rhetoric of the right."

"Presumably "Come-on-people" is referring to Obama's proposed modest expansion of the earned income tax credit (expanded by Reagan and supported by McCain) to allow to offset a part of the taxes levied on working Americans through the payroll tax."

So Scareysub you are saying that because people are also paying into medicare and social security items of which they will collect as some point are to be considered taxes and these people should get a break from that? NOT. They are collections for their retirement future. you can spin it anyway you want. But to me its a forced deposit or whatever but they are not taxes in the since that this money is being used to support welfare but being saved for your future retirement.

My point was it is not fair to those who will be taxed at a much higher rate than they are currently being taxes at. Of which is already higher so you want to justify higher taxes so that those who don't pay FEDERAL INCOME taxes will get a check. Sounds like socialism and smells like socialism. If the tax money was used to build roads & infrastructure, improve military, emergency services etc.. Then yes it would be appropriate. But not to give it to those how have not contributed. And why such sarcasm in the wonderful description you gave of me. I am only debating the issues here and offered no indignation to your point of views. Talk about being unhinged and being reality free. Lets stick to the subject here of which is not your or my personal opinions of each others character. I'm not running for president or any other office. Just wondering how you justify that Obama's plan is better than McCains and offered my point of view.

Posted by: Come_on_people | October 30, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

The supreme court only shows its true right wind ideology when it comes to workers suing after getting injured.

Under the current court no matter how guilty the corporation is - the worker will lose. See recent court rulers as evidence of that.

But when it comes to protecting the unborn these gentlemen are the picture of liberalism.

So I fail to see how Obama could make things any worse than they already are.

Maybe the new justice appointed will look at Joe the Worker and see a human being not a sucker.

Poor Joe believed his management team understood safety concerns, cared about him and his family.

Joe was injured due to neglect by the management team.

But when he turns to the courts for justice he wins until the corporation appeals to the supreme court.

And guess what Joe ends up getting nothing.

Posted by: agapn9 | October 30, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus is insightful as always, but why give the Fascist point of view such respectful treatment? Would you treat neo-Nazis or Klan representatives so seriously if they had a foundation supported by Dr. Dobson and Liberty University?

I am just slack-jawed with amazement at the sheer gall of these modern-day Mussolinis (to be sure, chutzpah does seem to be in the Fascist DNA).

By any conceivable objective standard, Obama's view of the constitution is consistent with American legal traditions of the last century or so. By contrast, the Evangelical Christian theocrats of the Federalist Society not only want to trash the First Amendment and politicize the federal criminal justice system -- they've ALREADY BEGUN TO DO IT!

These claims about Obama are no different from Hitler's Big Lie, coming from people who themselves have been hammering holes in the constitution for the last 8 years. Not unlike the Nazis accusing the Jews of secret conspiracies to take over the government when it was the Nazis who were doing exactly that themselves.

Posted by: tboyer33 | October 30, 2008 3:27 PM | Report abuse

Calabresi sounds like another ignorant racist to me. He's like a thinly veiled John McCain who spouts the word "welfare" with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge and gets his point across to the white neo-con facists.

Posted by: CHICO13 | October 30, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Next thing you know someone is going to insist on government "for the people," and then where will we be? Presumably not following the Unitary Executive mentality of Scalia and John Yoo. Be very, very afraid.

Posted by: mileswms | October 30, 2008 3:28 PM | Report abuse

Please ignore the alarmist rantings of the Republicans' "Great and Poweful Odds" charade. The voice you hear comes from an easily frightened, paranoid white man behind a curtain.

Posted by: JackTar1 | October 30, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

I recall after the 2004 election hearing a few people say, "Elections have consequences." Hmmm, come to think of it, one of the people that said this was Senator John McCain. What he said was correct then as it is now. That, "my friends" is post-partisanship.

Posted by: kermit5 | October 30, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

You do elect a President in the U.S., don't you, not a dictator?

It's the very idea of democracy that the people can choose something different from before. Republicans seem less and less willing to accept this.

Posted by: asoders22 | October 30, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

An expanded Robers court offers far more danger to America than the democrats could likely ever muster. With their views supporting the American taliban and oligarchical wealth and corporatism, we could see our freedaom and future evaporate right before our eyes. A slow sure death by a hundred cuts. Also, now that the democrats will likely control the White House and the Senate, do you suppose the republicans will want to expedite those "up or down" votes on nominees, like they have the past 8 years?

Posted by: watchingduck | October 30, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

You do elect a President in the U.S., don't you, not a dictator?

It's the very idea of democracy that the people can choose something different from before. Republicans seem less and less willing to accept this.

Posted by: asoders22 | October 30, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

>>>"Oh come on now,as Messiah Empty Suit Liar
Barack Hussein Obama,The Spread The Wealth
Marxist/Socialist Democrat and "He Never
Knows When To Shut Up Big Mouth" Joe Biden
are a TOTAL DISASTER"

Why do they resort to name-calling and ALL CAPS, if they're so right?

What happened to athletic, but reasoned and civil debate?

And do they not realize that more exclamation points and ALL CAPS and namecalling they put into their "arguments" the more ground they lose with reasonable people?

Why resort to namecalling, if you're right?

Posted by: EgoNemo | October 30, 2008 3:47 PM | Report abuse

>>>"Oh come on now,as Messiah Empty Suit Liar
Barack Hussein Obama,The Spread The Wealth
Marxist/Socialist Democrat and "He Never
Knows When To Shut Up Big Mouth" Joe Biden
are a TOTAL DISASTER"

Why do they resort to name-calling and ALL CAPS, if they're so right?

What happened to athletic, but reasoned and civil debate?

And do they not realize that more exclamation points and ALL CAPS and namecalling they put into their "arguments" the more ground they lose with reasonable people?

Why resort to namecalling, if you're right?

Posted by: EgoNemo | October 30, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

Please sit at ease. An Obama presidency will respect the U.S. Constitution. Also, Obama is an intelligent man who allows for robust discussion on the issues. Conservatives need to worry less about Obama than liberals need to worry about McCain. We do forget that there has to be Senate approval for any justices.

Posted by: EarlC | October 30, 2008 3:54 PM | Report abuse

You know the professor is correct it is just that he speaks in code. Raw capatilism is one of the three totalitarian systems with the other two being fachism and communism. In capitalist totalitarinism it is merely the owners of the capital that control the society and not the politboro or a supreme leader. Certainly not the people under any of the systems. He is correct when he says Obama can institute change in that system. What the professor doesn't say is this type of change is only possible when the capitalists fail in their implied civil responsibalities as they have over the last 20 years and even more egregiously over the last eight years. The fact is public institutions control an ever increasing share of the wealth (public pensions, mutual funds et al.) and the capital classes took outrageous risks with the money and lost a good deal of it. What did the good professor think was going to be the result? That we should merely sit idly by and watch a new class of capitalist rulers be created from the gains gotten by stealing our money? Apparently this is what he advocates which by the way is why "we" were forced to bail them out because they control the government. So in effect they are like profligate children. Dad I lost your retirement savings gambling can I have another $700Bn please? The god professor says sure son here's the money but be more carefiul next time and above all don't change anything.

Posted by: jhadv | October 30, 2008 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Wow, and I thought we were tough on Bush in '04. I mean if we knew that they would call Obama everything from a terrorist to a socialist (aren't the two mutually exclusive), we should have named Bush as the treasonous, socialist (yep, that's right), tyranical, bloodthirsty torturer with daddy issues that he is. Conservatives are really showing their true colors. I mean Bush sent us to war b/c he wanted to prove his daddy wrong! How bad do these idiots think Obama will be. I assure you he won't lie to get people killed. Does it get worse than that?

Posted by: TMFB | October 30, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Is there sane person who believes the crap that the rightwingnuts scream about Senator Obama? It looks to me that the only followers McCrash and Palin have are the radical wingnuts. The majority of Americans want to end the war, allow abortions under most circumstances, and follow the ideals of helping the weak, sick, poor, and aged. For me, for this election, my vote will be for anyone but a Republican. They do not represent the American or Christian ideals we should aspire to in the future.

Posted by: clairevb | October 30, 2008 1:57 PM

To clairevb - I can assure you I am a very sane, normal person, and the same is true for the many friends I hang around with. And I agree with all you say, which is why I am voting republican. Yes I want to end the war by winning it. I've know many in the military in Iraq, and they all give me the unbiased truth (not the media slant), and it is 100% unamious that it would be a travesty to pull out now. We will win, but not by pulling out tomorrow. I will disagree with you on abortions, but wholeheartedly agree with you on helping the weak, sick, poor, and aged. But I want to do it on my terms, not by force of the govt. I am not wealthy (except by Democratic standards), but give more to these people than any of the candidates and probably you. Mostly to the homeless and disadvantaged children. We help our neighbors when needed - exzample-you don't see us Houstonians asking for govt handouts after Ike. we just pitch in , help either out, and clean up the mess. that is Christian principles that I and almost all Republicans follow. I take it by your pro-abortion stance you are not a Christian, as the Bible is very clear on this issue.

Posted by: RockyZ | October 30, 2008 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Look at the last 8 years.

Does anyone even care what the conservatives have to say? I, for one, don't.

Posted by: srakesh | October 30, 2008 4:07 PM | Report abuse

The perverse conservative republican menace with their SOBs that have been promoting this crap for too long are shaking in the boots and scared to hell that the rights only for their kind are soon going to end, and their hold on this country pulse is going to hang a noose around their crooked necks. The business as usual for their carp is finally going to come to an end and a change for what is good for this country is on the way.

Posted by: winemaster2 | October 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

And how can these "legal scholars" possibly claim that Obama will shred the Constitution when Bush/Cheney has been using it for toilet paper these past few years. Is there any sanity left in this country!?!

Posted by: TMFB | October 30, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

a great article, Ruth! i'm also surprised at the limited discussion about our supreme court in this campaign period. we should be well informed of what our court system stands for, how democracy is share among all people. from understanding of constitutions, i see Obama qualified to carry this rationally and correctly, unlike Palin who apparently haven't study into the page about the VP constitution duty. that's should be fear, not fear of losing brainwashing power among the people or slaying society to preserve extreme, divisive culture and brand it as the American culture.
i hope the nightmare ends on Nov. 5th, 2008 for everyone's goodness.

VOTE!

Posted by: abc2008 | October 30, 2008 4:24 PM | Report abuse

This, along with Dobson's gay-bashing over Obama's apparent win, is a harbinger of what we can expect from "patriotic" "Christian" neocons.

They are telling us they won't accept an Obama presidency and now it is time for liberals and Democrats to follow Obama's example, have some balls for a change and exercise your Second Amendment rights because the neo-nazi movement of the white religious right has gained enough momentum to finally over through this country and the freedoms we have left after eight years of Herr Cheney.

Posted by: coloradodog | October 30, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

I must say I am very disappointed with the American people that full 40% seem willing to buy into the hurtful ideas spread by both the McCain-Palin campaign and would-be supporters. The very notion that Barack Obama's presidency would be notably different from any of his "white" Democratic presidential predecessors is ludicrous. Yet I receive e-mails, see postings here and elsewhere, hear statements of co-workers that seem to momentarily, at least, bought into some hysteria that Sen. Obama is any less than any other human beings.

As in the communist-bating era of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, there seems no shame among so many. Would the same thoughts be attached to any other African-American or Hispanic-American or Native-American who strives to hold high national office? Would anyone dare to question Gen. Powell's integrity in the same way? This is sheer nonsense in the wake of a failing candidacy of Sen. John McCain. Sen. McCain needs to accept that not everyone achieves the height toward which he/she aims. Where is our strength, our human pride in stomaching these baseless brays of fear and hatred? Is that the best America and Americans can be? I surely hope not.

Posted by: Jazzman7 | October 30, 2008 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I am just floored at all the negative rhetoric that is being spewed. It needs to stop now. It it counterproductive and helps no one.

Posted by: tracy41 | October 30, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

If you don't want to see in America:
1. the economy will stagnate if not dead - over 70 percent of CEOs fear that Obama presidency will be a disaster. This is well known fact among the economy elites and think tanks. http://www.chiefexecutive.net/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=Publishing&mod=Publications%3A%
2. most growing small businesses and the major companies’ will move to overseas for the fear of their finance future under Obama,
3. people will line up, like the Soviet Union in the past (now in Cuba), for fresh bread, vegetable or fruits, or even for a toilet paper, because we are heading towards socialist gov. under Obama.
4. babies born-alive will be murdered under abortion doctors’ instruction if Obama becomes president because Planned Parenthood will challenge it and Democrat dominated Congress will pass the 3rd trimester killing and so called the live fetus killing (they have to call the fetus to kill it even he/she is outside of mother’s body alive) and Obama won’t veto it.
5. Parents’ can not say anything when anyone urge your kids (esp. your kid’s school teachers or your kids’ Sunday School Teachers for that matter) “try it(homosexual act), you’ll like it” under the ENDA and the Hate Crime Act that will again pass and become Federal Laws if Obama becomes the president. Already the Lesbian/Gay active group’ put the slogan in colleges, “You don’t know until you try it”
6. Parents can’t prevent teachers’ demonstrating their gay/lesbian sex in front of their minor kids under the ENDA, and Hate Crime Act and these bills will pass if Obama becomes the president,
7. Christian pastors, Jewish rabbis, Muslims Imans being arrested in front of their congregation for speaking against homosexual act under the Hate Crime Act.
Then, Vote for McCain/ Palin!

Posted by: honkiedarn | October 30, 2008 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Marcus,
Good article you got some appeal. Surprising that they are allowing such a closed minded professor at Northwestern. I wonder if Northwestern is aware that Calabrisi and Bin Laden are from the same Madras school of higher learing. Outright ignorance that is the fear America such be concerned with. Stupidity!

Posted by: JoseMidwestHeartland | October 30, 2008 4:59 PM | Report abuse

"Conservative members are like scientists. They think objectively."

Then please explain Bush v. Gore, and how the SCOTUS said it could not be used as precident.

Posted by: jimcummings | October 30, 2008 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Honkiedarn,

bread lines if Obama wins? Nonsense.

I live in a country where the social democrats (not communists) have often ruled. Right now they don't, but I assure you, what they got us was a prospering country with universal health care, five weeks vacations, and so on. And yes, we have freedom of speech and both public service and commercial television.

In Europe, we are stunned by all those misconceptions of Obama being a "socialist". He is actually not.

Posted by: asoders22 | October 30, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

When the election is over, mark my words, these screaming mimis will disappear from the ether. They will not be heard from again unless or until summoned once again to scare the crap out of the common citizen. Their shrill cries of certain disaster from the darkness serve no purpose other than to terrorize. If the thinking conservatives of William Buckley's ilk clean house and rebuild a republican party that does not rely upon extremism to prevail, perhaps they can reclaim power with pride.

Posted by: merrill1 | October 30, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"What about the LA Times video tape?"

What about it? Isn't this the same guy McCain gave more than $600,000 to in order to start and run his organization.

Looks like McCain is the guy funding terrorists.

Posted by: jimcummings | October 30, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

How come if liberals are the ones who wish to appoint activist judges and rule from the bench, it is the conservatives who have an politicized, activist association (The Federalists) for lawyers and judges?

Posted by: j2hess | October 30, 2008 5:11 PM | Report abuse

The conservative position regarding one party (read Democratic) governance is perhaps not as ludicrous as it seems when considered from their point of view. Just look at the last eight years and the mess the conservatives have made. Curiously the good professor has nothing to say about one party rule when it is in conservative hands. Therefore we have to conclude that, according to Professor Calabresi, only when the Democrats are in control of the Presidency and Congress can all these evils come to pass. First, let us point out to the professor that we have hard evidence (you just have to open your eyes and look) that when conservatives control both branches of government disaster indeed is the result. However, the evils that Calabresi predicts will befall us when the Democrats are in charge of both branches are based on pure speculation without a single shred of factual evidence to back his predictions. This tendency to make predictions based on some fairyland view of the world seems to be characteristic of conservative thinking and illustrates the complete emptiness of the conservative mindset and lack of concern for the suffering they cause.

Posted by: elm2020 | October 30, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

It wasn't activist to decide the 2000 election. That was done by judges appointed by Republican presidents, who affirmed a contested election held in the state in which the brother of one of the candidates was the executive. God forbid judges be active in support of poor people or children, who are the largest group on public assistance. No, let's have our judges be activists in support of rich, privileged men like George W. Bush and let one of those judges sneer at the populace 7 years later on "60 Minutes." That's the kind of activism that circumvents any concept of democracy.

Posted by: innocentia74 | October 30, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

“Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election,”

Well, exactly. Is this guy being ironic or what? We've lost our constitutional rights to everything from the right to photograph military coffins, to being able to hold private phone conversations; lost the enforcement of laws requiring use of scientific opinion in formulating environmental policies and requiring following the Geneva convention and prohibiting wiretapping.

Can this guy be so out of touch that he does not appreciate his own irony?

Posted by: imhodudes | October 30, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

We are witnessing a Neconservative hysteria moment. Obama winning, a Democratic congress and the epitome of laissez-faire meltdown, is all too much for these folks all happening at once.

What I've give to be a big business shrink these days. It would be a gold mine.

I would reassure them that there is too much beer and old pickup trucks to let progress occur in this country that fast, and too many people who still won't buy baking soda because it supports communism.

Posted by: ffcaruso | October 30, 2008 7:25 PM | Report abuse

Those aren't conservatives upset that they won't have a 9-0 extreme right wing majority on the Supreme Court.

Those are unpatriotic cowards.

Posted by: WillSeattle | October 30, 2008 7:29 PM | Report abuse

The Swift Boaters, like the 18-yr. locust on a 4-year schedule, are predictably crawling out from under their slimy rocks to once again give us the GOP rallying cry
-- everyone but a Republican is not only a scumbag but has no right to even challenge our strangehold on the country. After 8 years of the worse rule in American history, these perverts have the gall to suggest once again it's their way or the highway. For once in your life, why don't some of you hypocritcal Cretans put the country first, the party second.

Posted by: ospreytom | October 30, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

Didn't Sarah Palin tax the big oil companies and redistribute that wealth to the people of Alaska? Not just once, but several times? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, must be a duck, huh? Socialist Duck Palin!

Posted by: goheidigo | October 30, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

The neo-cons are totally unhinged and terrified of an open, democratic and constitutionally centered administration.

Posted by: Billy1932 | October 30, 2008 9:23 PM | Report abuse

So, they haven't been paying attention to what's been done to the Constitution for the last eight years, I take it?

Posted by: xwordqueen | October 30, 2008 9:53 PM | Report abuse

The entire Republican Party has been taken over by a group of right-wing facists, supported by the meanest, most reactionary part of our white working class population. The conservatives who still support John McCain and Sarah Palin do so without any thought of the damage these two would do to our democracy by appointing judges that they conside to be "constructionist". The judges that they have appointed so far have proven to be nothing but politicians willing to sway with the political wims of the White House and the Congress, not to any strict construction of the Constitution, which by the way, our forefathers meant to be a living document, or they would not have included in our Constitution a method of changing it.

Posted by: Chagasman | October 30, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse

To those true Democrats that care.

William Ayers,
Wrote a Communist manifesto, titled "Prairie Fire".

Ayers dedicates this book, to none other than Sirhan Sirhan the brazen assassin of Robert F. Kennedy.

Obama keeps good company, doesn't he ? now idiots can go vote, for him.

Posted by: dashriprock | October 30, 2008 10:01 PM | Report abuse


cmdrs concede has deteriorated markedly over the last two years

attacks are at an all time high

Afghanistan is now a deadlier battlefield than iraq


well well

and who was given the job of senate chairman of the oversight committee on Afghanistan when he came to dc (to give him something for his empty resume - because it sure wasn't an area of expertise for mr done nothing).

mr. Obama hasn't held ONE SINGLE MEETING of that committee in two and a half years.

why?

he says he's been "too busy"

running for a job he isn't qualifed for in any way shape or form


mr. obama's been too busy


for over two years

in just the period of two years he was placed in that chairmanship - 180 american service women and men have died

while Obama was too busy


where is the baby wipe press with this story


Obama la la land


Flaccid, non journalists


the people didn't nominate Obama
the super delegates, dc geriatric boys club and media did


this isn't a democracy

it's a travesty


ruth... put on your reddest lipstick and give him and the boys another big wet kiss

Posted by: Thinker | October 30, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I hate to be the one to tell the conservatives, but the number of judges on the Supremes is at the discretion of the congress. It would be difficult for them to reduce the number, but if the senate is bulletproof, then raising the number by two is not a problem. The Supremes have no number of members mentioned in the Constitution. If President Obama has both houses behind him he could ask the number be raised to nullify the conservatives that are now on the bench. I think it would be a really nice move. I'd buy a ticket to see that happen.

Posted by: spencer911 | October 30, 2008 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Imagine that, another liberal media member that loves Obama. The thing about Mr. Obama that seems to be swept under the rug is his record. There isn't a whole lot to look at, as he has yet to author a piece of legislation in his lifetime. True leadership (ha, ha) He also voted present on many important issues, instead of a yes or no vote. (way to take a stand Barack, true leadership,yea right). He was voted the most liberal member of congress, now there is a proud accomplishment. I am not one to hold up John McCain as the next great President, but at least the man has taken some stands on issues and chllenged the status quo within his own party. Barack Obama has simply hid behind platitudes of hope and change. He must of mentioned investing our dollars at least ten times in the last debate. Is that like a politically correct way of saying,I'm going to raise your taxes? He wants to throw more money at education. We already spend more then anyone else, with worese results. Money is not the problem, standards that set expectations for our children are. The truth is his "change" is more of the same. Personally I want to keep my money, my guns,and my freedom to say what I want( see fairness doctrine), and all of Obama supporters can keep the "change".

Posted by: powercat1 | October 31, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Imagine that, another liberal media member that loves Obama. The thing about Mr. Obama that seems to be swept under the rug is his record. There isn't a whole lot to look at, as he has yet to author a piece of legislation in his lifetime. True leadership (ha, ha) He also voted present on many important issues, instead of a yes or no vote. (way to take a stand Barack, true leadership,yea right). He was voted the most liberal member of congress, now there is a proud accomplishment. I am not one to hold up John McCain as the next great President, but at least the man has taken some stands on issues and chllenged the status quo within his own party. Barack Obama has simply hid behind platitudes of hope and change. He must of mentioned investing our dollars at least ten times in the last debate. Is that like a politically correct way of saying,I'm going to raise your taxes? He wants to throw more money at education. We already spend more then anyone else, with worese results. Money is not the problem, standards that set expectations for our children are. The truth is his "change" is more of the same. Personally I want to keep my money, my guns,and my freedom to say what I want( see fairness doctrine), and all of Obama supporters can keep the "change".

Posted by: powercat1 | October 31, 2008 12:12 AM | Report abuse

"The constitutional horrors of an Obama presidency[...] could include “a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants [...]." WAPO 081031)
Other amenities that a socialist, a.ka. redistributionnist, a.k.a. dirigist president may include as did the French prez Mitterand, a special tax on tape recorders, an annual tax on radios, on TVs - heavier for color TVs, equal to the price of a TV set each 3 years on the tax -, a tax on all inheritances from parents and/or family members - 30 to 45% of the value of the estate, no choice of the heiresses - the state has distributive rules deciding rank for inheritance for any family member, rank and rate unchangeable by parents -, income tax rate on wages and revenues up to 80% (sic), as the government will look to anything to get money for its programs to distribute priviledges and so recruit new voters for its next reelection. Add a tax by the government for internet users, for laptops users, for bicycles, for lakes and rivers for fishermen etc. The redistributionnist imagination is without limits. Those taxes are sometimes applied after already paid the 15% sales tax on everything.
The only limit is the impossibility to check if the tax is paid. So the tax on radios was abandonned but not the tax on TVs, as inspectors run the Paris streets to check through windows for light of TV screens and then visit the appartment and ctrl of the payment of the tax. With all the taxes, Mitterand and Chirac could build for the people such absurdities as the Arche de la defense, a great library in Paris whose books are flooded by the Seine river, A Muslim Institute with special windows to filter the sun rays which cost each window the price of a house etc. "Pork barrel" is not reserved to the members of Parliament but to the government.

Posted by: rivenq | October 31, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

"Just to think about.

Obama/Biden vs McCain/Palin, what if things were switched around?…..think about it.

Would the country’s collective point of view be different?

Ponder the following:

What if the Obamas had paraded five children across the stage, including a three month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter?
What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review?
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his graduating class?
What if McCain had only married once, and Obama was a divorcee?
What if Obama was the candidate who left his first wife after a severe disfiguring car accident, when she no longer measured up to his standards?
What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married?
What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization?
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard?
What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five?
(The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)
What if McCain was a charismatic, eloquent speaker?
What if Obama couldn’t read from a teleprompter?
What if Obama was the one who had military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing seven planes?
What if Obama was the one who was known to display publicly, on many occasions, a serious anger management problem?
What if Michelle Obama’s family had made their money from beer distribution?
What if the Obamas had adopted a white child?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected reality, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?
This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes positive qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative qualities in another when there is a color difference.

Educational Background:

Barack Obama:
Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations.
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden:
University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science.
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

vs.

John McCain:
United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:
Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Education isn’t everything, but this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our standing in the world. You make the call."

Posted by: techguy6 | October 31, 2008 12:23 AM | Report abuse

"The constitutional horrors of an Obama presidency[...] could include “a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants [...]." WAPO 081031)
Other amenities that a socialist, a.ka. redistributionnist, a.k.a. dirigist president may include as did the French prez Mitterand, a special tax on tape recorders, an annual tax on radios, on TVs - heavier for color TVs, equal to the price of a TV set each 3 years on the tax -, a tax on all inheritances from parents and/or family members - 30 to 45% of the value of the estate, no choice of the heiresses - the state has distributive rules deciding rank for inheritance for any family member, rank and rate unchangeable by parents -, income tax rate on wages and revenues up to 80% (sic), as the government will look to anything to get money for its programs to distribute priviledges and so recruit new voters for its next reelection. Add a tax by the government for internet users, for laptops users, for bicycles, for lakes and rivers for fishermen etc. The redistributionnist imagination is without limits. Those taxes are sometimes applied after already paid the 15% sales tax on everything.
The only limit is the impossibility to check if the tax is paid. So the tax on radios was abandonned but not the tax on TVs, as inspectors run the Paris streets to check through windows for light of TV screens and then visit the appartment and ctrl of the payment of the tax. With all the taxes, Mitterand and Chirac could build for the people such absurdities as the Arche de la defense, a great library in Paris whose books are flooded by the Seine river, A Muslim Institute with special windows to filter the sun rays which cost each window the price of a house etc. "Pork barrel" is not reserved to the members of Parliament but to the government.

Posted by: rivenq | October 31, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

"The constitutional horrors of an Obama presidency[...] could include “a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants [...]." WAPO 081031)
Other amenities that a socialist, a.ka. redistributionnist, a.k.a. dirigist president may include as did the French prez Mitterand, a special tax on tape recorders, an annual tax on radios, on TVs - heavier for color TVs, equal to the price of a TV set each 3 years on the tax -, a tax on all inheritances from parents and/or family members - 30 to 45% of the value of the estate, no choice of the heiresses - the state has distributive rules deciding rank for inheritance for any family member, rank and rate unchangeable by parents -, income tax rate on wages and revenues up to 80% (sic), as the government will look to anything to get money for its programs to distribute priviledges and so recruit new voters for its next reelection. Add a tax by the government for internet users, for laptops users, for bicycles, for lakes and rivers for fishermen etc. The redistributionnist imagination is without limits. Those taxes are sometimes applied after already paid the 15% sales tax on everything.
The only limit is the impossibility to check if the tax is paid. So the tax on radios was abandonned but not the tax on TVs, as inspectors run the Paris streets to check through windows for light of TV screens and then visit the appartment and ctrl of the payment of the tax. With all the taxes, Mitterand and Chirac could build for the people such absurdities as the Arche de la defense, a great library in Paris whose books are flooded by the Seine river, A Muslim Institute with special windows to filter the sun rays which cost each window the price of a house etc. "Pork barrel" is not reserved to the members of Parliament but to the government.

Posted by: rivenq | October 31, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

"The constitutional horrors of an Obama presidency[...] could include “a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants [...]." WAPO 081031)
Other amenities that a socialist, a.ka. redistributionnist, a.k.a. dirigist president may include as did the French prez Mitterand, a special tax on tape recorders, an annual tax on radios, on TVs - heavier for color TVs, equal to the price of a TV set each 3 years on the tax -, a tax on all inheritances from parents and/or family members - 30 to 45% of the value of the estate, no choice of the heiresses - the state has distributive rules deciding rank for inheritance for any family member, rank and rate unchangeable by parents -, income tax rate on wages and revenues up to 80% (sic), as the government will look to anything to get money for its programs to distribute priviledges and so recruit new voters for its next reelection. Add a tax by the government for internet users, for laptops users, for bicycles, for lakes and rivers for fishermen etc. The redistributionnist imagination is without limits. Those taxes are sometimes applied after already paid the 15% sales tax on everything.
The only limit is the impossibility to check if the tax is paid. So the tax on radios was abandonned but not the tax on TVs, as inspectors run the Paris streets to check through windows for light of TV screens and then visit the appartment and ctrl of the payment of the tax. With all the taxes, Mitterand and Chirac could build for the people such absurdities as the Arche de la defense, a great library in Paris whose books are flooded by the Seine river, A Muslim Institute with special windows to filter the sun rays which cost each window the price of a house etc. "Pork barrel" is not reserved to the members of Parliament but to the government.

Posted by: rivenq | October 31, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

"The constitutional horrors of an Obama presidency[...] could include “a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants [...]." WAPO 081031)
Other amenities that a socialist, a.ka. redistributionnist, a.k.a. dirigist president may include as did the French prez Mitterand, a special tax on tape recorders, an annual tax on radios, on TVs - heavier for color TVs, equal to the price of a TV set each 3 years on the tax -, a tax on all inheritances from parents and/or family members - 30 to 45% of the value of the estate, no choice of the heiresses - the state has distributive rules deciding rank for inheritance for any family member, rank and rate unchangeable by parents -, income tax rate on wages and revenues up to 80% (sic), as the government will look to anything to get money for its programs to distribute priviledges and so recruit new voters for its next reelection. Add a tax by the government for internet users, for laptops users, for bicycles, for lakes and rivers for fishermen etc. The redistributionnist imagination is without limits. Those taxes are sometimes applied after already paid the 15% sales tax on everything.
The only limit is the impossibility to check if the tax is paid. So the tax on radios was abandonned but not the tax on TVs, as inspectors run the Paris streets to check through windows for light of TV screens and then visit the appartment and ctrl of the payment of the tax. With all the taxes, Mitterand and Chirac could build for the people such absurdities as the Arche de la defense, a great library in Paris whose books are flooded by the Seine river, A Muslim Institute with special windows to filter the sun rays which cost each window the price of a house etc. "Pork barrel" is not reserved to the members of Parliament but to the government.

Posted by: rivenq | October 31, 2008 12:24 AM | Report abuse

The ignorance of many McCain supporters and the hate they spew is beyond mind-boggling.

And it defies common sense.

What do they make of McCain's statement to Larry King last nite that Obama is in fact, *not* a Socialist?

I suppose now that they've drank the Kool-Aid, it's too late to bring them to their senses..

Posted by: angrykeyboarder | October 31, 2008 3:00 AM | Report abuse

We have survived Bush's attacks on our rights and the constitution: habeas corpus, spying on citizens, refusal to enforce congressional laws,etc.

We'll survive McCain or Obama. The next election is always the most important or most apocalyptic. Give me a break.

Posted by: brianb1 | October 31, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

bhuang2 wrote:

"Sad when the uneducated crowd gets on the internet, but the irony of mocking technology while they use it to suppress science is truly rich.

Vote Palin and McCain!!! if you want your kids to have a 3rd World education...."

Gee, bhuang2, I am assuming that you are an asian minority that must have done well by working hard through the education system thus resulting in a good life and wealth for your wife and kids. I wonder which of the candidates most closely mirrored and understand your situation? John, the underachieving son and grandson of 4 Star Generals, McCain who graduated 3rd from the bottom of his class despite the best education afforded to him by his privileged family or Barack, the son of a single middle-class parent, Obama whose mother emphasized hard work and education and thus made him earn everything he is today. By the way, if your id is indeed bhuang2, I am guessing that your last name is Huang which sounds strange and elicit images of "Communist" China to the GOP. Remember, China will the next Axis of Evil to the GOP. Are you willing bet your future with them?

Posted by: JohnWWW | October 31, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

The constitutional horrors of an Obama presidency, Calabresi said, could include “a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants...”
--------------------------------------------
This has nothing to do with "liberals vs conservatives" and everything to do with racism.

Oh and let's add claudinelong to the list of bigots for the nasty comment about kool aid drinkers.

I never really thought about how racist people were until this election. Sure, I knew racism was out there, but the pure hatred eminating from some people is amazing....and sad.

Posted by: MUPPET | October 31, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

I am Turkish and I can objectively tell you how US looks from outside right now. No one in US media wants to admit it but people in US are very prejudice. US claims to have put back the racism in their country and focusing on other countries being undemocratic and racist. You have no right to push judgment any other country, while your people still harbor racist feelings. Fix your own mindset before judging others.

Posted by: kasinaiyan | October 31, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

So people think Obama, the constitutional law professor, will treat the constitution WORSE than Bush, who called it "just a f---ing piece of paper"?

Posted by: schala1 | October 31, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

McCain's anti-Obama rhetoric is sounding increasingly unhinged. This is certainly not showing moderates and/or undecideds that he is "the adult in the room."

I have yet to see McCain making any case for himself, but instead, just tearing down Obama.

Posted by: chi-town | October 31, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

If anyone's becoming unhinged it's Obama and his erratic running mate Joe Biden.

Where's Biden been hiden' anyway? Haven't seen much of him since he had difficulty explaining to that Florida news woman why Obama is not a Marxist.

And what's this about Obama throwing conservative newspaper reporters off his airplane? What's he hiding?

And why won't Obama encourage the LA Times to release the video of him at that going away dinner for his buddy Khalidi?

And ever since Obama disowned his great spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, he seems to have disappeared. Do they have him locked in a closet somewhere or something?

What is the Obama campaign so afraid of?

Posted by: SeekTruth | October 31, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Obama is more than a socialist. I know the Republican Voters are out there as a sleeping giant they all will pull McCain through. They don't forget the dirt brought up on Obama. They (know) he is a socialist. They know the democrats have a bill right at this moment in the senate trying to raise taxes of the middle income people that Bush vetoed. They know Obama does not have the experience needed to be a Strong President, one that will not be swayed by other Countries. In fact one that has Americas best interests in mind. Obama wants one world order. Very sad and scary times we live in if that goes through. Obama promises things he cannot give. We are in debt. How can he pay people that do not work a refund. How can he spread the wealth? With our hard earned money??? Come on undecided's he has charisma but he is not what we need. Not to be trusted. Vote Mc Cain!!! Mc Cain , Palin is the choice. " Put your Country First!! Stand with Mc Cain.

Posted by: Barrack_007 | October 31, 2008 5:55 PM | Report abuse

I have found the hyperventilated rhetoric coming from the Republicans about the possibility of an Obama presidency astounding, and frightening in itself. I heard a Chinese-American woman on a radio call in show talk about having escaped from REAL Communism and knowing Socialism and she was appalled that Republicans were so blithely comparing our democratic processes to such atrocities. Don't the Republicans understand that they cheapen not only themselves but our credibility in the world by such slander? I hate the idea of John McCain being elected and I don't agree with his policies -- but fascist? I wouldn't demean myself by throwing such a blatant charge around. This campaign is going to be studied and I hope the abandonment of the center by the McCain/Palin allies and the subsequent loss of that key voting block is going to be seen as the most important point of this election. Then maybe parties will stop trying to scare the hell out of people.

Posted by: Omyobama | October 31, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Obama let his law license lapse in 2002. Wouldn't consider him a serious constitutional scholar or attorney at this point. He's been too preoccupied with achieving the presidency, which is the executive branch of the government!

Posted by: judithod | October 31, 2008 11:54 PM | Report abuse

Just ask yourselves are we as a nation better off than we were four years ago? It clearly is an easy answer for the majority of us.Just get out there and vote for change.

Posted by: digguron | November 1, 2008 2:00 AM | Report abuse

OBAMA SAYS --My Economics Bill Will Help America - NOT EXACTLY, your 111 economic policies were just combined into a proposal which lost 99-0,

> and even YOU voted against your own bill.

OBAMA SAYS --I Have Always Been Against Iraq - NOT EXACTLY, He wasn't in office to vote on terrioism at the time.

obama says-I Am Tough On Terrorism - NOT EXACTLY, he missed the Iran Resolution vote on terrorism and your good friend Ali Abunimah supports the destruction off Israel .>

Obama says-I Have Always Supported Universal Health Care - NOT EXACTLY, your plan leaves us all to pay for the 15,000,000 who don't have to buy it.

>To present those who are on medicare benefits need to check out and investigate Obama's comment in the last debate on exactly WHERE would make cuts in budget.

Obama said he would cut medicare subsidies to the insurance companies. AT close inspection to find out what it would affect.??? It would affect all supplemental plans (Humana, Secure Horizons,AARP etc.).

IT MEANS premiums would go up,medical costs, and drugs and CO-PAY FOR SENIORS.

Today OBAMA said he wanted to apply penalties to those whom don't want his health plan.

Guess the right catch phrase for this election should be ---WAKE UP AMERICA THE FREEDOMS YOU SAVE WILL BE YOUR OWN!!!To the present the Los Angeles Sun has refused to release the video of Obama ties to the Acorn. MCCain has said he will press for release of the video in national news. We shall see?

Posted by: moonstream1 | November 1, 2008 3:25 AM | Report abuse

See this if You have doubts about Obamas readiness. Great stuff!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o81VuUcwnEk

Posted by: Ivfab | November 1, 2008 5:31 AM | Report abuse

'' Courting Disaster With - -'' ??!!

We did that already, remember ? - - in 2004; now we are all paying the price for it !!!!!!

Even if Prez Obama uses only 10% of his intellect, foresight and judgement, THIS COUNTRY WILL FARE MUCH BETTER, COMPARED TO THE LAST EIGHT D-I-S-A-S-T-R-O-U-S YEARS !!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: bsbuster | November 1, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

The far religious right have pushed the Republican party right over the edge, of sanity. They've been hijacked by the paranoid, and it seems, especially in this election, they've invited it. Now, they don't know what to do with this monster. Palin rallied the base, which turns out to be people out on a day pass from the local asylum, and really, did the base need to be rallied? They may not have been crazy about McCain, but I highly doubt they would've ever voted for Obama. Their votes were always in the bag for the Republicans. They would've had a better chance had they rallied the moderate. For all the "Obama is the most liberal senator" talk, he's the one who has behaved most moderately this entire election. When the extreme right first started exposing their inner demons, I was genuinely afraid. Now, I realize, their day pass has almost expired. They had their 15 minutes to spew, & it didn't work. Whenever I see the posts that include anything pertaining to 'bot's, con's, or political ideologies that are clearly over their heads, I just skip it. It's always the same things screamed over and over. It really doesn't get any more believable the 200th time it's screamed at you in all caps.

Posted by: tn71 | November 1, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

Ruth Marcus: “But the suggestion that electing Obama threatens the rule of law, representative democracy and liberty itself is so unhinged it is hard to take seriously, except as a measure of how worried some people are about their party losing its grip on power.”

This is a ‘Straw Man’ argument in which neocon comments like Calabresi’s are posted to contrast what a liberal majority would do constitutionally and, unlike Chavez in Venezuela, the neolib minority (not to be confused with economic liberalism theory) in the Democratic party does not have and cannot obtain the necessary power to mandate a constitutional change to ‘socialism’ (government ownership of all produced wealth) or ‘rule of lawyers without human rights’ (criminalization of individual freedom as in Muslim and Chinese societies). Unlike Hitler, Castro and Chavez who changed constitutional covenants by armed political force, changes to the American constitution require a Constitutional Convention with state (and popular) ratification. This is virtually impossible, although the absurd Thirteenth Amendment (prohibition of alcohol without knowing the causes of the problem) was ratified by state governments who represented ten percent of the population on the issue. In order to constitutionally mandate socialism, it would require a Congressional renunciation of Article I, Section 8, paragraph one (powers of the congress) of the Constitution with both Executive and Judicial consent. Let the neolibs or neocons with any majority try that; life would become very interesting.

On the other hand, one of the great injustices of modern American society (the problem didn’t occur to the Founders, even if they were prescient in other ways) is the fact that the modern sciences have given man an ability to govern his own health and well being through medical technologies and the only American authority for regulating this human life process is through Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3: “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations and among the several States”. That is, human life processes such as conception care, birth aid, medical care, and aging aid are treated as commercial activities. If ‘progressive’ governments, whatever that means, are to upgrade constitutional powers, it should be to define the limits of citizen responsibility for enhancing each other’s lives through a constitutional covenant using these new medical technologies in a context of the Preamble’s six covenants of Justice, domestic Tranquility, Common defense, general welfare, liberty, and especially ‘our Posterity’. Life is not a random event anymore and the future depends on citizens being truly free of illness in all its forms, including the primitive belief that life is meaninglessand random.

Posted by: arjay1 | November 1, 2008 10:40 AM | Report abuse

Sorry, it is the 'absurd Eighteenth Amendment' not the Thirteenth that was being discussed in the previous post. The thirteenth Amendment is the straight forward abolition of slavery and involuntary servitude after the Civil War. One might consider legislation in a new Congress that makes modern addictive drugs a form of slavery with severe punishments for its making and transportation instead of its enslaved use.

Posted by: arjay1 | November 1, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

I agree with Mr. Calabresi that "Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election.” That is exactly why I am voting for Mr. Obama: we must restore the rule of law and defense of constitutional liberties after the unprecedented efforts by the current administration to explicitly dismantle them. All the evidence available to me says, no screams, that Mr. Obama is better suited to this task than Mr. McCain.

Posted by: jessewalker4 | November 1, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

All the hate mongering by the neoconservatives against Obama is hypothetical at best, its subjective blowty conjecture based on fear! Are we surprised?

The truth is in what a GOP president has done in eight years of his fascist presidency! The "talking to god" about war "gut instinctive colloquial self-righteous reactinary garbage was true- we as a nation have the social/eaconomic scares to prove it! No more neoconservative fear mongering- its deadly!

Posted by: rubenlruiz | November 1, 2008 2:44 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, maybe Obama can appoint the liberal versions of Thomas and Scalia? Sounds OK to me, and frankly, I hope it scares the crap out of every neocon republican who has stood by cheering while Dubya and Cheney ran our country into a ditch the past eight years. Any of these clowns who thinks we are better off in ANY area than we were when Clinton left office has koolaide being piped into all their orifices.

Posted by: Pearl77 | November 1, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

It is with such relief that the elections are close at hand and we will begin a new presidency and hopefully an new era. The last eight years have truly been hell. It has been simply amazing the division among Americans. It's been like being in one country and watching another. The nasty, negative, smear and fear has been horrendous and not soon forgotten by many.

I have already voted so therefore I have put my faith in the one candidate I believe has the calm strength, hope and inspiration to move us forward out of the black hole we find ourselves in today. A man who will inspire the world into believing we can be a great country again. A man of tolerance in a diversity of cultures. A man who understands and reaches out to fellow Americans in need. A man of hope, who will think hard before sending our sons and daughters out to war. but someone with firm resolve in protecting our country from those who would harm us and our interests abroad. With his win there will be no more "do as I say because only I know best" mentality, no more warrantless wiretapping on private American conversations, an end to the suppression of medical scientific research, an end to the tramping of the constitution and to the threat of it's changes to reflect a religious connotation for certain groups of people and an end to the failed policies of deregulation and less government philosophy which truly meant huge profits to big corporations and fat cat lobbyists who we now are having to bail out with our tax dollars, a bill our children will inherit. It's time for a return to sanity in an insane world.
So with my vote for Barack Obama & Joe Biden I end my blogs. May you all have the same peace I found when I cast my vote.

Posted by: washingtonstate2008 | November 1, 2008 6:55 PM | Report abuse

It's past time, I think that we ask ourselves the really difficult question here. What is this disease, this ideological cancer at the heart of American society that provokes this kind of extremism and outright smearing? Why do otherwise educated and seemingly intelligent professionals prostitute their own training, experience and integrity, all in the interest of ensuring that one party over another maintain power? What is it exactly that these people fear? What is it that they hope to gain?

Make no mistake. This is a cancer and it is spreading throughout our national discourse, polluting any intelligent disagreement, and poisoning the very air of our democracy. This win-at-any-cost, say-anything, do-anything mentality has been a disaster for our political system and is rapidly making rational policy-making and debate simply impossible. We need to stop it, or whoever wins the next election will find themsleves without a country to govern.

Posted by: pbin21 | November 1, 2008 8:52 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA TELLS SAN FRANCISCO HE WILL INTENTIONALLY BANKRUPT THE COAL INDUSTRY!!! Audio Unearthed
YOUTUBE ^ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdi4onAQBWQ
ATTN: Coal states Virginia , Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Indiana and more guess what Obama told San Francisco about you.

San Francisco Gate Interview January

Posted by: 4elise | November 2, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

This is a wake-up call for the Conservative Party. Go back to the tenents set decades ago, less government, more state's rights...instead of relying on the lame current Republican candidates. If they win this election, the Bradley Effect is real. No other explanation can be made for the extreme contract in party platforms:
Democractic Party...makes sense
Republican Party...attack mode from the Rove play book.

Posted by: Jade4953 | November 2, 2008 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Remember, Republicans ALWAYS accuse the other of doing exactly what they are or intend to do.

It's part of their implementation of Nazi propaganda tactics. Someone ought to do a study comparing Republican to Nazi strategy--I'll bet you'll find that they converge far more than they differ.

In the meantime, here's my poetry/music performance video about this, titled "They would repeat history": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzwIikmqiU4

Posted by: itchy2008 | November 3, 2008 4:16 AM | Report abuse

I doubt America's courts will shift from the current heavily ultra-conservative bent to anything other than a center-right group, even if seven justices were replaced during two terms of President Obama.

The reality, as we all know, is that Obama is actually a moderate (in world terms, center-right), as compared to the ultra-right McCain, so it's unlikely any radical change will be forthcoming.

Posted by: WillSeattle | November 3, 2008 4:31 AM | Report abuse

While it is common for candidates to say things that they do not want to do when elected, the desire to leave Iraq without reason and to do exactly the opposite of President Bush in all events is hardly reason for confidence in Senator Obama.

Posted by: gary4books | November 3, 2008 5:19 AM | Report abuse

The fact is that Fake Messiah "I Have No
Knowledge That My Aunt Is An Illegal Alien
and Under Deportation Orders" KNOW NOTHING
Barack "Spread The Wealth" Hussein Obama
and Big Mouth Old Fool Joe Biden are both
a pair of Walking Disasters Looking For
A Place To Happen! Stop This Marxist and
Socialist Democrat Liberal Disaster From
Happening to Our USA by casting your Vote
for Sen John McCain and Gov Sarah Palin!

NO WAY! NO HOW! NEVER OBAMA & BIDEN!

Posted by: claudinelong | November 3, 2008 7:44 AM | Report abuse

I love this. The Republicans have been in charge for 12 YEARS in Congress 8 YEARS in the White House and wow what a surprise, the mess the GOP has made and exacerbated with the fascist ideology you want to make an argument AGAINST a Democrat in control. I look at it this way, you all screwed it up for over a decade and now your party is in ruins and you have done the Country a favor by this, The GOP will be marginalized for at least a decade and that my pathetic fascist friends is Karma.

Obama and the Dems I know will not do any worse than Jr. and Cheney have while in charge. Go wrap yourself around Palin and watch your party tank. I will so love it while it happens. The GOP is a joke and you have gotten what you sowed.

Obama\Biden 08!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: pwalters03 | November 3, 2008 8:37 AM | Report abuse

Oh come on now,as Messiah Empty Suit Liar
Barack Hussein Obama,The Spread The Wealth
Marxist/Socialist Democrat and "He Never
Knows When To Shut Up Big Mouth" Joe Biden
are a TOTAL DISASTER OUT LOOKING FOR A
PLACE TO HAPPEN! Please forgive for having
to shout in Caps,but most Kool Aid Drunken
Obamabot Cult Members are deaf! Just Say
NOBAMA/NOBIDEN! NO MARXIST/SOCIALISM!
Vote for John McCain and Sarah Palin 2008!

Posted by: claudinelong | October 29, 2008 8:49 PM

Claudine: I agree with you vote for McCain/Palin. The new slogan "The Audacity of Mediocrity"

Posted by: Thatsnuts | November 3, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

When I see some of these seriously unhinged anti-Obama/Pro-McCain folks ranting here, I can see why McCain is losing.

John McCain forgot the one important lesson of modern American politics. The key to winning an election is to win over the majority of moderates and independents. The base of your party will never win you an election.

From the looks of it, only a small minority of right-wing kooks are going to be seriously disappointed when McCain loses this election.

Posted by: chris30338 | November 3, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

The Federalist Society? They're not the only ones upset. Every pin-headed racist, extreme right-wing whacko is going to have to explain why they won't support our "Commander in Chief' in a time of 'war'. Why they think hating and attacking the man elected by the biggest landslide in 50 years makes them 'more American' than anyone else.

Listen for the sound of their narrow little minds exploding in the next couple of weeks as they are forced to face the reality of their failed ideology, failed politics and THEIR failed attempt to tear the fabric of our American way of life.

Posted by: thebobbob | November 3, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

What I am afraid of is the tax increases under Obama. For most of the campaign it was no one making under $250,000 would get an increase. Last week he changed that to $200,000 Where was the press on that one??Oh that's right in bed with Obama

Do you remember the 1970s and the 70% tax bracket. I know that the 70s retro is in right now, but do you have to take 70% of my income also????

Posted by: kathymac1 | November 3, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

What I am afraid of is the tax increases under Obama. For most of the campaign it was no one making under $250,000 would get an increase. Last week he changed that to $200,000 Where was the press on that one??Oh that's right in bed with Obama

Do you remember the 1970s and the 70% tax bracket. I know that the 70s retro is in right now, but do you have to take 70% of my income also????

Posted by: kathymac1 | November 3, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

Ask some coal miners how they feel about 0bama now that the tape of him pledging to bankrupt the coal industry has finally leaked out from our "in-the-tank" media.

Posted by: NeverLeft | November 3, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

What's scary is the plan for America laid out by George Bush in a speech at the Citadel military college on Sept. 23, 1999, which neatly reflected the ideology of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative institute formed in 1997 by The Nw Citizenship Project, under the direction of its president, Sen. John McCain. This speech was mirrored by a report that PNAC produced in Sept. 2000, "Rebuilding America's defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for the New Century" (RAD). As noted by the authors of RAD, PNAC was based on the defense strategy outlined by Dick Cheney's Defense Department in the 1992 Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) at the end of the George H. W. Bush administration. The DPG also is known as the Wolfowitz Report . . .

It is all too lengthy for this forum. Look it up. Bush did, however, speak of a global missile system, finding ways to control the Internet, the "bond of trust between the American president and the American military", etc. He also stated that the PNAC vision would not be brought to completion in his time, but would have to be carried on by a successor. It appears that successor would be John McCain, a principal founder of PNAC--and whose administration likely would consist of former PNAC officials and signatories--such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Randy Scheunemann, James Woolsey, John R. Bolton, Robert B. Zollick, Gary Schnitt, Richard Armitage, Max Boot and Michael Goldfarb.

Look for faulty voting machines (again), my friends, on Nov. 4.

Posted by: TomCamfield | November 3, 2008 1:05 PM | Report abuse

What's scary is the plan for America laid out by George Bush in a speech at the Citadel military college on Sept. 23, 1999, which neatly reflected the ideology of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative institute formed in 1997 by The Nw Citizenship Project, under the direction of its president, Sen. John McCain. This speech was mirrored by a report that PNAC produced in Sept. 2000, "Rebuilding America's defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for the New Century" (RAD). As noted by the authors of RAD, PNAC was based on the defense strategy outlined by Dick Cheney's Defense Department in the 1992 Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) at the end of the George H. W. Bush administration. The DPG also is known as the Wolfowitz Report . . .

It is all too lengthy for this forum. Look it up. Bush did, however, speak of a global missile system, finding ways to control the Internet, the "bond of trust between the American president and the American military", etc. He also stated that the PNAC vision would not be brought to completion in his time, but would have to be carried on by a successor. It appears that successor would be John McCain, a principal founder of PNAC--and whose administration likely would consist of former PNAC officials and signatories--such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Randy Scheunemann, James Woolsey, John R. Bolton, Robert B. Zollick, Gary Schnitt, Richard Armitage, Max Boot and Michael Goldfarb.

Look for faulty voting machines (again), my friends, on Nov. 4.

Posted by: TomCamfield | November 3, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

What's scary is the plan for America laid out by George Bush in a speech at the Citadel military college on Sept. 23, 1999, which neatly reflected the ideology of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neoconservative institute formed in 1997 by The Nw Citizenship Project, under the direction of its president, Sen. John McCain. This speech was mirrored by a report that PNAC produced in Sept. 2000, "Rebuilding America's defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for the New Century" (RAD). As noted by the authors of RAD, PNAC was based on the defense strategy outlined by Dick Cheney's Defense Department in the 1992 Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) at the end of the George H. W. Bush administration. The DPG also is known as the Wolfowitz Report . . .

It is all too lengthy for this forum. Look it up. Bush did, however, speak of a global missile system, finding ways to control the Internet, the "bond of trust between the American president and the American military", etc. He also stated that the PNAC vision would not be brought to completion in his time, but would have to be carried on by a successor. It appears that successor would be John McCain, a principal founder of PNAC--and whose administration likely would consist of former PNAC officials and signatories--such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Randy Scheunemann, James Woolsey, John R. Bolton, Robert B. Zollick, Gary Schnitt, Richard Armitage, Max Boot and Michael Goldfarb.

Look for faulty voting machines (again), my friends, on Nov. 4.

Posted by: TomCamfield | November 3, 2008 1:06 PM | Report abuse

Sorry about the multiple postings. My computer was balky and I apparently was too impatient to move on.

Posted by: TomCamfield | November 3, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

As if Obama could, in any event, pose any more threat to the Constitution by appointing Liberal judges than Bush/Cheney did by simply ignoring the Constitution and seizing power as it pleased them to do so!

We are electing Democrats to RESTORE the Rule of Law, not to end it!

Posted by: martimr1 | November 3, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh how funny as to how all bent out of shape all the paid Obamabot posters,Obama
ACORN Pals,and DNC Members are whenever anyone dares question their hero,the Great
Fake Messiah Barack Hussein Obama or his
Big Mouth Sidekick Joe Biden on anything!..

No thanks but I refuse to let old
Spread the Wealth Obama steal me blind, just so Barack Hussein Obama can turn around and give it to His Illegal Alien
Fugitive Criminal Aunt,who was ordered to
be deported,or to all of Obama & Biden
ACORN Election Stealing Pals,and other
typical Obamabot Scum! Vote NOBAMA/NOBIDEN!

Posted by: sherrykay2008 | November 3, 2008 3:55 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company