On Alito, John Edwards says:

[GreenPartyVoter]

"Remember when President Bush promised to be a "uniter, not a divider?" Apparently that was just talk. Under his watch our nation has become bitterly divided, and now, faced with the opportunity to name a Supreme Court nominee who reflects mainstream America, President Bush is making yet another divisive choice, nominating Judge Samuel Alito to the highest court in the land."

Alito is a far-from-moderate judge in the mold of Justice Antonin Scalia. His record is troubling: he has tried to sharply restrict a woman's right to choose and to eliminate protection for unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. He has regularly worked to cut back on protections for the victims of discrimination based on race and sex. Just imagine how he might restrict other essential freedoms if he is allowed to sit on the Supreme Court.

My friend Harry Reid urged President Bush to nominate a moderate, fair-minded candidate to replace Sandra Day O'Connor and specifically warned that nominating Alito would be very troubling. But President Bush did not listen. He chose to please those in his party who seek to sacrifice our rights rather than to do what's right for the country. He's been doing that for five years now, and yesterday's announcement was just more of the same. That's why I am opposing Alito's nomination. And that's why for the past year I've been running a grassroots campaign that aims to get our country back on course. I call this campaign "Raising the States."

http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/raisingthestates/

[ananda]

1. Is this a fundraiser message?

Why, for once, can't it just be about doing something?

Why couldn't he go ahead and say the F word: FILIBUSTER!!!

Sue

[GreenPartyVoter]

2. It's American politics. Everything is about fundraising. :^(

[AndyTiedye]

3. because of...

the :nuke: option :cry:

[mountaindem]

4. typical

not typical John Edwards, typical DU.
Closed-minded, hate-mongering DUers.

Democrats don't want to win elections, they want to divide one another.

[AndyTiedye]

7. ???

I don't think I said anything to deserve a response like that.

I was not bashing Edwards or any other Dems, I was defending them.
What is divisive about that?

I don't fault the DC Dems for backing down under the threat of the :nuke: option,
they are trying to make the best of an extremely bad situation.

If we filibuster, they impose the nuclear option and pack the Court.
Then we "shut down" the Senate by procedural means. In an election
year. With the Repubs using their control of the media to constantly
blame the Democrats for all the stuff that isn't happening because of
the impasse. What means do we have to tell our side of the story?

[Broken_Hero]

5. good response....

[GreenPartyVoter]

6. Yeah, I like John. I hope he will run for another office sometime.

[FreedomAngel82]

8. I really like his messages

This Email was about how Bush said in 2000 he was a uniter and how he lied and he only cares about one group of people in this country and himself and he appeals to the fundies for whatever purpose. Probably so he can get away with things and they not question him and the whole "patriotism" nonsense.

[Cleita]

9. Bush was a divider from the beginning.

I even said that on one of my first posts on DU that as a uniter he has done nothing but to pull us apart and this was before 9-11. DU agreed with this. After 9-11 we decided to give him the benefit of the doubt because we were in shock, but he did nothing but divide and polarize us almost immediately again.

FUCK HIM!