GOP headed for civil war

It's been said better by others, but the bottom line is that the GOP will eat itself over the next four years as the extremists and the moderates do battle. You can see that already happening with this wave of resignations/force outs at the CIA. But Arlen Specter (who was smacked by Bill Frist today) is caught in the middle of what might be GOP Armageddon. Over on freerepublic, someone posted a long, threatening rant that if Bush/GOP did not overturn Roe v. Wade during the next four years, fundies would desert the party in droves. It's quite a screed.... and has drawn almost 1,500 comments -- way more than any other post I've ever seen over there (and I lurk there a lot to see what's going on with them). Read the "declaration" and then some of the comments -- this bunch is headed for a civil war. My view is that Roe will not be overturned, and that this will become a crisis for them in four years. And no, the pro-lifers won't turn to the Dems; or a third party -- they'll stay home. As the the "Pro-Life Warning to the Republican Party" suggests.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1279039/posts

The Gonzales nomination for AG also has them very nervous.

THIS might be the only thing worth watching over the next couple years.

I only hope there's enough left of this country for Dem leadership to put back tohgether in 06/08.



:hippie:

the country will be here; all of us who believe in the Democratic party and liberal causes everywhere will be here; these Republican fuckers are having their day -- and I gnash my teeth as hard as anyone -- but the wheel keeps turning and will grind them to dust far more quickly than most imagine.

Yup, if the gop doesn't turn completely over to the fetus lovers there's gonna be hell to pay. This I hope to god is the zenith of the gop. It's going to be an awful crash when it comes.
What I still can't believe is that there are many repugs who still think that their party is the party of Ike.

If I can have a ringside seat at these idiots tear each other apart, then at least I'll be able to get something out of this fucking eleciton.

:evilgrin:

You know who it is.

...than to the DNC. :)

You too? ;-)

I think we may be on to something here!

:evilgrin:

the republicans fight for control of their party. after the keyes debacle, god only knows who will take control.

I'll buy you a bag of popcorn!

Bush unwittingly appoints a Souter or a Kennedy or an O'Connor in 2005.

This justice then makes a number of less-than-Scalia votes in the following session.

We gloat about it, dancing around in our homes, our party's representatives cheering Bush's appointee on the talking heads shows, etc etc.

Can you imagine the frustration of the fundies?
Veins popping-out of James Dobson's head on Wolf Blitzer's show?
Ralph Reed frowning.. in that stick-up-his-ass way he frowns?
Jerry Falwell predicting a rain of toads on the ranch in Crawford?

Meanwhile, Pelosi is on there praising "the wisdom of the court, and the wisdom of its new member, Justice X."
A rep from the ACLU will be on there smiling away, lauding the ruling as "justice for all involved."

Wow! I can smell the frustration and desperation from here!

I'd say that one contribution to why Bush I lost in 1992 was when he appointed Souter. The fundies lost any fire they had for him.

I hope and pray for such a scenario to develop. It'd be a godsend to us.. (pun intended)

The Federalist Society will pick the next judges. And, believe me, they'll be anti-choice. They have no qualms about tearing this country to pieces.

I know that he's not as bad as thomas, scalia, or rhenquist, but didn't he vote the wrong way on Bush v Gore and almost all other 5 to 4 issues?

Both O'Connor and Kennedy are committed conservatives. Contrary to popular media lies, they are not moderates, they only appear so because they are in the "middle" of a center-right SC. So you are right that they often side together in 5-4 conservative decisions.

I don't think either are "hacks," however. Both relish their positions as "swing voters" on the court. It allows them to write the controlling opinions and therefore possibly have a larger legacy than they otherwise might.

People think that O'Connor is more middle of the road because she saved Roe in Casey, but she really isn't; she's just a conservative who also happens to believe in women's rights.

Kennedy is a true intellectual conservative (instead of crazy reactionary like the Scalia-Thomas-Rehnquist trifecta). His main problem is he is also a wuss. More than once, his initial vote on a case would have thrown the decision to the center-left wing of the court, but then he relented after considerable lobbying by Scalia et al. He is often afraid to go out on a limb if somebody convinces him it really is a limb. However, given the opportunity, he'll write the swing decision for the conservative majority that leaves a tiny glimmer of hope for the liberal side. He did that in the recent Pennsylvania redistricting case.

If you are really interested, I recommend Closed Chambers by Edward Lazarus.

Isn't O'Connor usually on the left and Kennedy on the right of these decissions? Bush v Gore is the only one that I remember them both taking the wrong stance on.

voting together to give the win to the reactionary three.

Here are some:
Gratz v. Bollinger (the other MI affirmative action case, saying plan was NOT ok)
Pliler v. Ford (AEDPA case limiting rights of habeas petitioners)
Vieth v. Jubelirer (Pennsylvania redistricting--Kennedy was the swing vote to the bad side on this one, but left the door open)
Illinois v. Lidster (arrest during a random traffic checkpoint didn't violate 4th Amendment)
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (vouchers OK to pay for religious schools)

All of the cases I named are not 5-4, but they are all examples of O'Connor and Kennedy joining together on the "wrong stance." Unfortunately I loaned my copy of Closed Chambers to a friend and I don't have the energy to go digging through my criminal procedure notes to see if I can find more. Suffice it to say, Kennedy, although a more middle of the road conservative than Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist, rarely has the stomach to hand the win to the Stevens side of the court, so he will swing right more often than not.

This law student thinks you know the structure and substance of the legal system pretty well.

You've discovered my secret. But I was recently where you are now (graduated in '02) so I will listen to you rant about law school any time you like.

BTW, one of my very best friends in law school was a single mom and I just had so much awe for her. Many days in law school (and even some days now), I felt like I could barely take care of myself and my kitty cat. I could not have been responsible for a whole other life (or lives). So you go on with yer bad self LawStudentMom!

but I am a married mom (my husband of 20+ years provides a whole lot of support).

Actually, in one more week, I am going to know if I passed the Bar (I graduated in June 2004).

Then I will proudly change my name to ... I will have to think of something new.

I do have an 8-year-old daughter that I have to be a shining example for ... poor English (excuse).

Even with a husband (and a helpful one at that), I'm sure it was tough sometimes, so you've earned your props!

If you're still waiting, you must be in Cali. I know it's the toughest, and my fingers are crossed for you. Please let us know the good news (or let us help console you just in case that's necessary, too). :fingerscrossed:

And, yes, I'm in good ol' SoCal - the Inland Empire (Riverside/San Bernardino Counties) - a red fundie pocket. Oh, well. I'll let everything know this Saturday.

As long as the justice is anywhere to the left of Scalia, we should act like we loooove him. Dems should treat him like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread, and the conservatives will have a huge internal battle over it.

We need to take advantage of their greed. They control everything now, so they're expecting to get 100% of things their way. If "only" 98% of things go their way, they will be unhappy about it - especially if we're jubilant about them. They like getting their goals attained, but part of their goal is to see our side down in the dumps. If they see us happy over something - even a crumb - they'll rage in childlike fury.

PM me if you want a concrete suggestion.

This was so worth signing on for!

--julie

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

would find themselves shelling out for a whole lot more maternity leaves and losing cheaper workers to forced childbirth.

If corporate America doesn't feel it's in their best interest, it won't be done. However, don't expect the right to stop yapping about it.

with every day that passes, Roe becomes more and more "settled" law. It may be forever be a 5-4 issue.... but my feeling -- and it is nothing more than that -- is that the 5 will always be to uphold.

O'Connor and ESPECIALLY Stevens are well overdue for retirement. Kennedy is a partisan RW hack and I highly doubt that he will switch to affirm Roe v Wade. Unless they put another souter on the court, Roe v Wade is gone.

as a single issue if I had to (e.g., I would NEVER support an anti-choice candidate for any office ever), I am actually more afraid of the permanent destruction the SC will continue to do to this country in two areas:

1) Civil rights & liberties -- these were already in danger even before the USA PATRIOT Act; they have given policie almost unlimited rights to search us, our cars,and passengers during ANY routine traffic stop, e.g.

2) So-called "property rights" -- this is the means by which the Repubs are stopping attempts to control sprawl, limit old-growth logging and road building, retain open space and critical habitat, etc. They just passed a devastating initiative in so-called "liberal" Oregon which will effectively limit all local zoning and planning laws because it will require already cash-strapped local governments to compensate all property owners everytime they pass any ordinance that might limit additional development. I find this movement especially criminal and destructive of the near-dead concept of "community."

Repubs make me more angry than I can say. :grr: :grr: :grr:

The FMLA guarantees unpaid leave, so corps could just change their policies to make all leaves unpaid. Cheaper for them, and it would fit in with the recent pattern of reducing health benefits, pension benefits, etc.

Also, if the "cheaper" workers left due to pregnancy, there'd be another even cheaprer worker right behind her waiting to take the job.

Given the behavior of multinationals, I am not convinced that overturning Roe v. Wade wouldn't be in their perceived interest.

n/t

:)

The Corporations and the Fundamentalists are control freaks with opposite agendas. It will be interesting to see who is slighted first.

But it will be fun to watch, unless it gets too bloody. I never liked gore shows.

Oh well, I hope you're right. It will be interesting to watch. When they start attacking from the pulpit, will they be investigated like the NAACP?

in the whole of the Republican party now. The few who are left, like Specter, are being ousted.

There are only some people at FR who are finally, finally realizing that they've sold their party and their souls for the sake of winning, for the sake of power.

The ultimatum given Specter by Frist recently, the cleaning out of the CIA--whew.

Some people are just NOW figuring this out? It's amazing.

I think that as along as the extermist faction has the power to punish people who stray, then the moderates will be kept in line. They won't like it, but I think they will stay.

I honestly think this will be the one. Either way, they lose. Overturn it, and you lose the moderates and old schoolers. Keep it, and you lose the fundies. Both of them make up a significant part of their base.

If Bush makes an appointee this year, and if a challenge reaches the high court by 2008, the GOP is skrewed. Just guessing, but I'd bet that the GOP candidate gets a -5% popular vote penalty for 2008 if this happens, no matter what the ruling says.

accelerate everything?

what wedges can we drive?

what flammable liquids can we splash on every spark?

I just want to be helpful.

while we turn our energies to developing candidates and positions to fill the hole in the ground that is left behind by the explosion.

button on and my 'Bush Lied, People Died' bumper sticker blazing at them to keep the fires of hypocrisy burning

From 2000 to 2004, there was a comfortable consensus within the ranks of Bush supporters; the neoconservatives made strategic concessions towards fundamentalists, and both extremist groups, in turn, found it necessary to appease the moderates.

We are now seeing the shedding of pretense, as Bush has adopted neither a policy radical enough for the religious zealots who supported him, nor a stance moderate enough to assuage already bubbling doubt of paleoconservatives who walked into the booth believing their vote for Bush was one for values and moderation.

My concern is that Bush cares not for the support of these groups, but only for the unchallenged power he has accrued.

When he is abandoned both by rational conservatives and armageddon-afficionados alike, the facade will have fallen to the ground - leaving uninformed America to stare in awe at the bloody inner-workings of tyrrany once disguised as democracy, while those of us who have known all along, simply shake our heads in resignation.

When such disaster strikes, do you not think that Bush will create circumstances which will assist him in attaining absolute power? That he would work outside of the laws of morality and ethics to do so? Has he not proven his capacity for that yet?

Awaiting the implosion.

consolidated and got more systemic. I'm not sure they will self destruct they have such long roots. I think we have to awaken the masses that dance to their magic flute. We have to filibuster everything they do, email the media constantly and organize our opposition.

''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And
while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll
act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and
that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you,
all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
Bush aide to Ron Suskind

Yep...I think I'm gonna enjoy this.


James Dobson
The religious right's new kingmaker.

"...He's already leveraging his new power. When a thank-you call came from the White House,
Dobson issued the staffer a blunt warning that Bush "needs to be more aggressive" about pressing
the religious right's pro-life, anti-gay rights agenda, or it would "pay a price in four years."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2109621/

but the GOP has been jerking the Fundies around promising to overturn
Roe for 25 years now. They never deliver, but they keep on promising.

Maybe the Fundies have gotten sick of this game and will hold Republican
feet to the fire over it this time. I certainly hope so. But the GOP learned
in 2000 not to take these people for granted, and spent mucho time courting
them. If someone believes God wants Bush to be President, this is not some-
one with much critical thinking or will of their own, so will they turn on God's
choice when he doesn't come through?

that could keep us from doing the work that we need to do.

I believe that the pro-lifers will NOT abandon the GOP no matter what they threaten because they have no place to go. Only a miniscule proportion of people in this country (right or left) will ever vote third party in a national election until we change to proportional voting, instant run-off, or some other system that will allow people to believe that their vote will not be "wasted." It's also unlikely that we'll see droves of people go from voters to non-voters. Voting behavior is heavily predicited by parental voting habits, education, and and voting participation in the previous election. Thus, it is unlikely that we will see significant numbers of 2000 voters simply stop participating in the system.

We cannot be complacent that the GOP will implode (although I'd like, no, love to see it). We cannot even include it in our plans. We have to be strategizing to beat a GOP potentially stronger than the one we faced on 11/2. I'm glad they're debating it and wasting their time on it, but let's do our own thing.

Also, as has been pointed out in another thread I read recently, the GOP may not even want to win on the abortion issue. If they get it outlawed, they may become vicitms of their own success (something like what happened to the Dems after the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, some people thought the work was done). Having the abortion windmill to tilt at brings in the cash on a regular basis, but if they won that battle, they may indeed see a loss of a cash cow.

Finally, let's not count on another Souter being appointed again--ever. Rove et al have proven themselves amazingly astute. They know exactly who their picking, and no one on their list is anything other than a Scalia clone borm and bred and the bowels of the Federalist Society.

case it or not if you catch my drift! In pug counties now more votes are cast than registered voters.

They don't give a rats ass about you once you crawl out of the womb ...

So funny.. they are infighting.. See Rove got his way..but will not be able to keep the promises..
The party will fall apart now.
Divided they fall..

They will fall
Push the radical clerics and their followers to the constitution party

I missed it. Are they still trying to get him off of the Judiciary Committee? I've been avoiding the news. ;)

I only have listened as the baby was crying, but I think they basically said that Specter must approve all of Bush's appointees - or else!

Or else what? Can they vote in another chairman of the Judiciary? Does he HAVE to step down if they want him to?

I think they would put in another chairman unless he promised.

Even though it is typically based on seniority, they can do it, but it would be a slap in the face of all Senate moderates.

he gave a speech basically saying they are going to change the Seante rules to eliminate the fillibuster so that the Dems can't block votes on the nominees. This would take the wind out of Specter's position that Repubs have to work "with" the Democrats to find candidates that will be acceptable. Now, they can simply ignore us.

which however is not to mean I agree with their position. I used to think these fundies were die hard Republicans just for the sake of being so and agreed with most, if not all, the positions of Republican party, including foreign policy, taxes etc.

But when I read the frequent threats "..or else we will let the Democrats destroy everything that YOU believe in..", with the 'you' capitalized, it meant that they aren't blind supporters of the Repukes. They have a very specific agenda that they passionately believe in which has nothing to do with wars, world domination, tax cuts for the wealthy..etc. And because their fanaticism is SO extreme, they were willing to overlook/forgive the murder of 100,000+ innocent REAL LIVING flesh and bones adults and children, just in the hopes of saving some gooey of undifferentiated cells some day.

and I didn't even read the freeper posts. I say that because you would THINK they'd be THRILLED their little puppet boy stole the election again, but nooooo, instead they are freaking out and eating each other.

I mean if half the country will vote for their leader, what makes us think that we'll be safe over here?

They control it all, straight up full power. Whatever internal war they wage, it is likely to spill over externally.

Much like the plausible one in our party.

they need it to get elected. same with the FMA. they will try to keep it on the front burner w/o actually doing anything about it.

that says kiss my ass.

southern democrats are what you NEED. so don't piss us off.

about southern Democrats?

these are the same bastards who think killing innocent Iraqi civilians is just A-OK

I would not pin hopes on a GOP in-fight. They did not get to where they are now because they suck at organization.

It could also be that the Dominionists will demolish the moderate Republicans and take over the party. Bush owes them, he knows it and they know it too, and if he gives into them they will simply take what is offered and insist on more. If they decide to feed the dragon rather than face it we're all screwed.

excuse my ignorance...

of judges. So that we can't filibuster to stop the confirmation of ultra-right loonbags, and they can be confirmed with a straight majority. It is a totally unprecedented move in the 228 years of our nation, but of course they don't give a shit about that... They call it the "nuclear option" because once they pull that kind of thing, they leave themselves open to a democratic senate majority under a future democrat president doing the same thing to them. Although I guess as long as Diebold is counting the "votes" (wink, wink) that's not much of a worry.

i can see them trying this...long-term planning has never been a forte of thiers.

peace

"With all respect, and in full agreement with your position on abortion, I would
remind you that if we do not will the war against radical Islam, abortion will
cease to be an issue for Christians, because all the Christians will be dead."

Huh? Exactly under which circumstances will the several billion Muslims manage to exterminate the several billion Christians? These people are screwed up to believe this shit.