Before I discuss my critiques of McCain's speech yesterday on judicial activism, as a partisan Democrat, I'd like to request that he continue to give more speeches along these lines.

Given all the internecine fighting among Democrats over the course of the presidential campaign, I can think of few better ways to unite the Democratic party than hearing McCain loudly proclaim his desire to move the Supreme Court rightward. As much as Clinton supporters may loathe Obama and Obama supporters may loathe Clinton (and those numbers will go down drastically over the course of the general election), many will be scared shitless by the prospect of President McCain replacing the aging "liberal" justices (more on that later), Stevens (age 88), Ginsburg (age 75), Breyer (age 69) and Souter (age 68) with "people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist." (As an aside, I'm curious why McCain repeatedly leaves out Scalia in naming his model justices...)

For Democrats wanting to show a stark difference between the candidates and the long-term legacy their administrations would leave, it doesn't get much better than this. More Americans already think the Court is tilting too conservative than too liberal,/ yet McCain has just announced his intention to accelerate this trend.

In a lawsuit that legal scholars are calling unprecedented, the Republican National Committee has filed suit against Diebold, the manufacturer of electronic voting machines, for breach of contract, negligence, fraud and breach of fiduciary duty - all arising out of Diebold's failure to "fix" the midterm elections in favor of the GOP.

The 189-page complaint, filed, naturally, in the Southern District of Florida, alleges that "Diebold reneged on its promises to deliver a majority of votes to Republican candidates in 49 states."

A footnote to the complaint explained that "no damages are sought regarding the Communistwealth of Taxachussets, which even elected a black guy as governor; as the GOP acknowledges that Diebold could only be expected to perform its contractual promises, not miracles."

Professor Alan Dershowitz of the Harvard Law School commented that this was the first time he could recall an action being brought against a party for failing to carry out a fraud. "Indeed," Dershowitz added, "it would be like O.J. suing a private investigator for not finding the real killer ... Oops!"

CONTINUED at: http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=402

Reprinted from The Satirical Political Report http://satiricalpolitical.com

Kudos to the excellent column and title by Newsweek's Howard Fineman, in describing the Rummy-dump and the partial restoration of the Regime of Bush the Elder, primarily in the form of James Baker and Robert Gates. And, most importantly, thank you Howard, for inspiring this Thin Lizzy song parody:

Guess who just got back today?
Them buttoned-down boys, from Poppy's Days
Haven't changed, now they're back in play
But man, I still think like foxes they're crazy

They were asking if Dubya was around
How you was, where you could be found
Told them you were living in fantasy-town
Driving your old man crazy

The boys are back in town
The boys are back in town ...
I said
The boys are back in town
The boys are back in town
The boys are back in town
The boys are back in town

You know that SECDEF used to "dance" a lot
Every night at the podium saying what the troops ain't got
Man when I tell you he was a fool, he shoulda' been shot
I mean he was dreaming

READ MORE at: http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=405

I know that everyone's eyes are on the elections today.  Ours definitely are -- especially in South Dakota where voters are casting their ballots on the abortion ban.  

It's easy to forget what Supreme Court nomination fights really mean once they are over. They come along every few years, there's a whole media circus around them that focuses only on a very few hot-button social issues, and then, typically after Democrats roll over and die, there's little - if any - recollection of what it all meant, except in the few cases where the hot-button social issues actually come before the court, and they don't usually come up for years, so by that point, everyone has long forgotten which President or political party was responsible for the nominations that swung the court.

What gets buried in this cycle, of course, is the fact that the Supreme Court exerts itself most forcefully on the key financial and corporate power issues - the issues that engineer who are winners and who are losers in America's economy.

Here is one last pitch for Chuck Pennacchio.

For what do we Democrats stand? Is it privacy? Perhaps it is equality and the separation of church from both state and science. Do we believe in protecting the environment? Do we favor diplomacy over preemptive war? Should we asking the wealthy to pay their fair share of taxes? In short, do we believe in the common good?

For far too long in the face of fear, we have lived by a policy of appeasement. As the reactionary right has ascended to dominance, we Democrats have softened our beliefs to fall in line with Republican values. As Republicans have overtaken our elected majority by vigorously appealing to their base, we Democrats have asked ourselves the wrong question: Are we too liberal? Furthermore, should we pursue a more conservative path? Instead of reconnecting with our base--the people who would regularly vote for us--Democrats have sought to capture the less reliable swing-voter. While trending to the right, Democrats have falsely assumed that our base will automatically turnout on election day. The result, rather than being a viable alternative to the Republicans, has been a muddled Democratic vision attractive to no one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060202/ap_o n_go_su_co/scotus_death_penalty;_ylt=Ak6 O2NBLSUZBH2eLoCblZjOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z 2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--

I know it hardly determines the man to be an uber-liberal, but it is still an interesting break with the conservatives on his first full day of work.

Alito joins the four liberals and one moderate to force Missouri to allow a stay of execution rather than expediting it.

I'm not endorsing this, but I am curious what you think. Matt

As yesterdays disappointing episode on the Senate floor shows, there need to be new Dems representing us.  While I would never jump ship and join another party, I do believe that we must show that these senators need to stand for something.  I propose the netroots cut funding to the DNC, DSCC, and DCCC, so long as there are politicians within the party willing to be feed off our money, but refusing to stand for our principals.  

Now, its true that there are plenty of good Democrats who rely on these DC-based operations and it helps to have a well-funded national party.  Still, there are ways to channel your money to quality candidates and the Democratic cause without going through an establishment out of touch with its base and unwilling to represent the 48% of America that voted for John Kerry and the majority that legitimately elected Al Gore in 2000.

For instance, rather than giving to the DSCC, why not funnel our contributions to the specific campaigns of senators or primary challengers who represent our interests.  Or perhaps, if one is concerned that such efforts will damage the 50-state strategy of the DNC, why not send that money directly to the states?  Do we really need to channel our money through an out of touch DC establishment?  Additionally, why not fund organizations like DFA, Move On, or ACT if you are concerned about leaving the organizing operation solely to the states (some of which have yet to truly develop successful operations since JFK)?

In essence, what I am proposing is forcing our party's politicians to think twice about their votes.  Without a willingness on our part to put some teeth behind our words and beliefs, then we stand in no better position than those senators who voted against every issue they supposedly believe in order to cave in and vote for alito (or for cloture).  No senator should get a free pass and know they can vote against our interests, but still receive contributions through the DSCC and DNC; otherwise, the netroots stand for nothing.