If the Democrats won't fight for women's rights, what will they fight for?

I can't believe the number of "political realists" who are perfectly willing to sacrifice one of the Democratic Party's cornerstones.

"We can't win a filibuster, anyway." "Roberts will be confirmed, no matter what we do.", etc.

So why bother fighting for anything? Fortunately, there were some Democrats who continued to fight for Civil Rights when it was "unwinnable". There were some Democrats who lost their seats fighting against the Vietnam War even though opposing it was politically "unrealistic".

The Roberts nomination isn't about political gaming, it's about what the Democratic Party stands for.

If they fail to oppose the Roberts nomination by all means at it's disposal, even at the cost of "losing", then the answer is clear.

They stand for nothing.

No donations if they don't stand up for women's rights.

If they are so weak kneed and "practical" as to abandon women's rights they will get nothing from me but contempt.

president to put a pro choice, pro enviroment, pro civil right, liberal in for sc. this is what you are intellectually suggesting to me. and if i dont buy this from you, if i were to suggest that a republican is going to put a conservative in the position, then i am sacrificing the democratic partys cornerstone

i disagree with the very basis of your arguement

Nixon started the EPA.

"Oh well, what can you expect from Bush?" Might as well just bow down to the inevitable and accept it with grace and resignation.

That's pretty much what Chamberlain said.

all you fighting, are you suggesting there is a possibility if we fight this, bush will give us what we want. a pro choice, pro enviroment, pro civil right justice

tell me. if you believe it is possible for us to get that with a fight, i want to hear.

is it possible. not probable, not likely, but merely is it possible

Are you suggesting that the Democrats shouldn't fight it?

Is it "possible" that we will get a liberal on the Supreme Court by fighting Roberts nomination? No.

Is it "possible" that we will stop the war in Iraq by demanding that our reps cut off funding? No.

Is it "possible" that we will get Bush to agree to funding for preventing AIDS/HIV if it includes contraception? No.

Is it "possible" that we will get Bush to shut down CIA covert operations by demanding that he do so? No.

The list is endless.

He's the boss. Elected by a majority of the American people with a congress, also elected, and in power.

So?

any reliance on past political definitions are passe.

On a time-line, "Republicans" could be counted as for women's rights, civil rights and pro environment.

The problem is that "Republican" has been morphed into "Conservative" which is blatant fascism.

Now, the Democrats are in the position of countering fascism. So far, they seem not up to the task.

The political conversation is not about "Republicans" vs. "Democrats," it is about who will stand against aggressive fascism?

The Democratic Party, and This Nation, is facing a larger problem than a Supreme Court nominee. Roberts is only a symptom.

Although, a lot of Germans seemed to think so.

will be ever more horrendous.

We've got 3 more years to go? Heaven help us.

is not like any Republican in the past.

Tip of the hat to "Blazing Saddles".

That we don't ever even come close to matching.

we must face reality according to Hillary -and don't be such a purist, after all, no politician is perfect and we can use these DLC types to beat the Republicans...although increasingly it seems there ain't much left to beat back.

We are about to lose our country for good! :mad:

First they came for the Muslims, then they came for the gays, then they came for the women...

and if we are taken off the Fitz investigation as they planned, you really can expect women's rights as well as other rights to fall because the longer this administration stays in power, the closer they get to erasing American rights.