Hartmann bashing Sotomayor

[Doctor_J]

Saying too pro-corporate by a mile. He wants a new Marshall

[jefferson_dem]

1. Good Lord...

Proof positive that so-called "progressives" can be loony too.

[rainy]

2. What are some of her decisions on Corporate power?

Hartmann might be right.

[Liberal In Texas]

7. We're you listening?

He said she has ruled for corporations and against working people, she has ruled in favor of "tort reform" ideas on jury awards. He also said it is sometimes impossible to determine how justices will end up once they get on the court. Some Repub nominees with conservative track records wound up being the most progressive. (I'm paraphrasing from what I remember.)

Thom is not a loony, he backs up what he says with facts. He said he has been doing research since the announcement and this is what he came up with. Good Lord indeed.

[redqueen]

11. Did he happen to mention the cases he was talking about?

[Doctor_J]

16. He did and I don't remember the cites.

One concerning tort reform (forbidding lawsuits against corporations) and one other along the same lines.

OT: RQ, have you posted any recent photos of yourself?

[Occam Bandage]

19. Tort reform is not "forbidding lawsuits against corporations."

Unless you're very awkward at wording things, it sounds like you don't really know what a tort is.

[Doctor_J]

21. Sorry - "limiting" would be a better word.

And I am repeating what Hartmann said

[Occam Bandage]

30. Sometimes. Sometimes not.

A tort is an injury caused by one to another, the redress of which is usually money. All Hartmann has said is that there is at least one case in the past in which Sotomayor has believed that either the grounds for the tort were too loose, the burden of proof regarding the tort was too low, or that the punishment for the tort was too high. Without knowing the conditions, there's not a whole lot to go on, compared to the many cases we have in which she is clearly and unambiguously ruling in favor of workers.

[wildflower]

107. I heard it too

He talked about her support of limiting damage rewards to people suing corporations, as well as ruling against anti-trust laws. I believe he said the former is what Republicans call "tort reform."

[omega minimo]

55. ad hominem

the poster said they were doing their best to paraphrase.

Thom's site is http://www.thomhartmann.com

[Occam Bandage]

60. You clearly don't know what an ad hominem is. nt

[omega minimo]

65. http://www.thomhartmann.com

[Occam Bandage]

68. Internet!

[Divine Discontent]

174. I think they do - you clearly think the other DUer displays a characteristically ignorant

communication style (hence your reference to awkward writing style). You are rarely polite when inferring your knowledge on matters - you could be more polite but actually choose to be 'this' way. It clearly comes off as arrogant to anyone with comprehension skills and that's unfortunate, because you're quite spectacular otherwise.

[redqueen]

22. Thanks.

And huh? No, I haven't... why?

[Overseas]

123. He was reading from the Wall St Journal, here's a clip

He was just saying that she was more moderate than some of us progressives had hoped. That's all. Not "bashing" her. Republicans appointed super right wing guys, so we look forward to super liberal judges someday too. If right wing judges could be appointed, why not left wing ones? Just to give a more balanced range of opinion to the court. Both will be expected to adhere to the law.

He said he was reading from an article in the WSJ, so I found this, which may be what he was reading:

The judge has favored corporate defendants in suits that test when cases can be brought as class actions. Judges often must determine whether plaintiffs' claims should be pre-empted by more defense-friendly federal and international laws.

"There is no reason for the business community to be concerned" about Judge Sotomayor, said Lauren Rosenblum Goldman, a partner at Mayer Brown LLP who has represented businesses including Wachovia Corp. and Dow Chemical Co.

In King v. American Airlines Inc., Judge Sotomayor ruled against an African-American couple who claimed they were bumped from a flight because of their race. The judge concluded their case was pre-empted by international law that governs air travel. "We urged a different interpretation, but her decision was in conformity with what other courts were doing," said Robert Isseks, a New York attorney who represented the plaintiffs. "We were paddling upstream."

In 2006, the judge was part of a Second Circuit panel that ruled investors couldn't proceed with a class-action suit accusing Wall Street banks of fraudulently pricing initial public offerings. The ruling negated settlements that would have yielded investors more than $1 billion. "That ruling demonstrated that in securities litigation, she is in the judicial mainstream," said Barry Ostrager, a partner at Simpson Thacher LLP who represented a unit of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. in the matter.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124338260937756559.html

[redqueen]

125. Why not left wing ones? Because of the senate, I'd think.

Too many conservatives... on both sides of the aisle.

We need to educate the electorate, and hope they elect better people. With so much $$$ corrupting the process, it's a hell of a long shot... it'll take generations, it seems to me.

[Overseas]

126. Democrats bend over backward to show they are bipartisan

even though Republicans appointed super intense right wingers to the court.

And we have posters here talking about the importance of the impartial rule of law when we ask for more liberal judges, without a care in the world about the very strong right wing ideologues Republicans have succeeded in appointing.

Well yes, the impartial rule of law is important, but that didn't prevent having SCALIA, THOMAS, ALITO and ROBERTS appointed to the court.

So why should it prevent the appointment of a distinguished super liberal?

[redqueen]

128. I don't believe it's bipartisanship.

IMO the RW dems could stand to vote for liberal judges without harming their re-election chances too much... but they're not so liberal, so why should they?

This country and Congress (as a result) are way too right wing. 30 years of saturating the media with the "liberal = bad" meme has paid off well.

[jefferson_dem]

27. High profile cases suggest otherwise.

Hartman is right that it's impossible to be certain exactly how justices will rule after being confirmed. Souter himself has proven that.

While Sotomayor is no Nader, there's no evidence that she's adamantly anti-labor. In fact, the record suggests otherwise.

Did Hartmanm address the baseball/NLRB case?

Sotomayor had to determine if baseball’s leaders had undermined collective bargaining by trying to abandon some of the fundamental ways in which they dealt with the players. The owners’ militancy symbolized their frustrations with player salaries, and with how frequently the union had outflanked management in negotiations and public relations.

The changes would have essentially let owners fix salaries — less than five years after an arbitrator had fined them $280 million for colluding on free-agent contracts.

Daniel Silverman, then the regional director of the N.L.R.B.’s New York office, said that even before oral arguments in the case, Sotomayor told both sides she didn’t need to hear witnesses or read any additional documents. “If she’d allowed cross-examination, the decision would have been delayed; the whole season could have been screwed up with replacement players,” he said.

He said that Sotomayor shrewdly understood that although labor law permitted each side in a negotiation to choose its representative, the competition among clubs for players’ services would have been diminished if all deals were negotiated by the commissioner’s office.

Sotomayor agreed with the N.L.R.B. that the owners could not willy-nilly institute their 1950s-style version of labor relations. If she did not issue an injunction, she wrote, “the harm to the players is the very one the owners’ unfair labor practices sought to achieve, i.e., an alteration of free-agency rights and a skewing of their worth.”

She added, “Issuing the injunction before opening day is important to ensure that the symbolic value of that day is not tainted by an unfair labor practice and the N.L.R.B.’s inability to take effective steps against its perpetuation.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/sports/baseball/27sandomir.html

Also:

She has ruled against companies in a number of high-profile cases. In 2001, she joined a 2-1 decision conferring class- action status on an antitrust suit by merchants against Visa USA Inc. and MasterCard International Inc. over debit cards.

She wrote the court’s opinion in a “surprising pro- plaintiff” antitrust ruling in 2001, said Herbert Hovenkamp, an antitrust expert at the University of Iowa. That decision reinstated a suit accusing the world’s largest oil producers of fixing pay for professional employees.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=az1wvdAlNThs&refer=home

[Liberal In Texas]

74. I don't know, I was running errands and in and out of the car.

The thing is, he wasn't suggesting that she was another Alito, just that she probably isn't as progressive as some of us would want her to be. And right now, Thom thinks, that with the first nomination it's the time to get someone on the court who is very liberal that he may have trouble getting on after the honeymoon is over.

Of course this begs the question, "Does the President want someone who's very liberal at any time an opening comes up?"

[CTLawGuy]

160. did he ever consider that maybe the law

FAVORED the corporation in the particular case on which she ruled? Judging != simply ruling in favor of the person you like better.

[Ian David]

45. You ever actually listen to Thom Hartmann? n/t

[jefferson_dem]

110. Yes.

Not daily but I do catch him from time to time on XM.

I did not hear Hatmann's comments on Sotomayor and am basing my point on the OP's framing...but if he did rant against her as "pro-corporate" then I stand by the "loony" label.

[Ian David]

124. I listened to him about an hour ago. I wouldn't call it a "rant."

He said that he has some concerns, but it's not enough that he would urge that she not get the job.

[Raineyb]

167. Perhaps you should listen to the clip for yourself instead of moving to the knee jerk

"loony" category which is apparently reserved for people calling themselves progressive around here.

[omega minimo]

53. what do you base that on? Thom backs his info up with more info.

[BlueJac]

3. Thom is correct and no looney......

A very thoughtful man that does his research.

[quiller4]

122. Thoughtful yes -- thorough research not so much. He seems tp

stop his research when he finds a few gems to support his point of view. At leasdt that has been my impression and surely was true in his comments about Sotomajor. He had to work hard to avoid cases that disprove his point.

[DURHAM D]

4. I am concerned that it is not definite that she is pro-choice.

Also, what is with all the Roman Catholics on the court. She will be the 6th one. Two are Jewish and one protestant. Are protestants stupid or something.

I was already bothered by the over representation of RCs and now another one.

[Occam Bandage]

20. I thought we got over our national fear of Catholics around 1960.

[DURHAM D]

23. Do you have an explanation for why they are 2/3s of the court? n/t

[CreekDog]

26. If you add Italians, Hispanics and other minority groups to the court

they are likely to be Roman Catholic.

[vaberella]

78. Majority Caribbean people. Haitians are Catholic by 97%. ^_^

[Occam Bandage]

36. Small sample size,

combined with preferential treatment for descendants of immigrants from non-Northern European countries.

[omega minimo]

61. Not Catholics. The Catholic regime.

[dflprincess]

155. That was before Bishops starting to withhold Communion from politicians

who didn't tow the Vatican line. In fact, in 1960, JFK assured us the Church would not tell him what to do (of course Jackie said she didn't understand the concern as he wasn't a very good Catholic).

And I say this as a recovering Catholic who is really turned off by what some Bishops have been pulling, including the hysteria over Obama speaking at Notre Dame.

[CreekDog]

25. I didn't know Catholics should be barred from more seats on the court due to their religion

Nevermind that it is by far the largest denomination in the USA

[DURHAM D]

28. But they are not 66% of the population. n/t

[CreekDog]

29. And black folks are 12% of the population, does that mean no more blacks should be appointed?

sit down. :thumbsdown:

[DURHAM D]

33. Strawman. n/t

[Occam Bandage]

37. Not a strawman at all.

It was a question, in which he invites you to explain how your reasoning does not mean that we ought not promote any more blacks to the Court.

[omega minimo]

59. Tin Man

[omega minimo]

141. that's what happens with no birth control

[MoonRiver]

56. Remember, Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy are also Catholic.

They all don't beat to the same drummer.

[rvablue]

87. Don't forget John Kerry, too! n/t

[MoonRiver]

111. That's right!

Lots of good, rational, reasonable Catholics out there! :)

[omega minimo]

57. yup

[CreekDog]

90. I attend a pro-life church yet I think women should make abortion-related decisions

I didn't know that my affiliation with an organization meant that I supported and thought 100% in agreement with everything they stood for.

Heck, I'm American, does that mean I supported the Iraq War? Did you?

:eyes:

[omega minimo]

137. I dunno

Isn't that how the Catholic Church rolls?

[CreekDog]

139. and if they aren't Catholic then they are naturally pro-choice.

or perhaps you could just ask them if they are pro-choice rather than ask them if they are pro-choice because they also happen to be Catholic.

[question everything]

5. He wants..

Those that can - do, those that cannot - pundit..

I am amazed at the number of people who, apparently, are making a living by talking, writing, expressing opinions, etc.

CNN recently got Ari Fleischer and Mary Matalin as pundits. How many do they need?

What did all these people do before they held office?

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. Please don't tell me you are comparing Hartmann

to Matalin and Fleischer.

:wtf:

[Occam Bandage]

15. True. Both Matalin and Fleisher have both had jobs in government.

:shrug:

[omega minimo]

142. you're such an ace. yet you missed the "held office" comment

selective grammar naziing? :hi:

[question everything]

157. Like Obama's preferred candidate for the Supreme Court

I would like to have talk show hosts and pundits with some experience in what it means to be a regular, working men and women in this country.

It is so easy to click on a keyboard or to be behind a microphone and to express opinions from these high positions.

[omega minimo]

62. Thom is absolutely one of the best. He is an educator. Nuff said.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

121. Would you want your kids to go to a school where the educators had...

neither a degree or experience in the subject matter that they were teaching or at least an education degree? I sure wouldn't. Nuff said.

[omega minimo]

140. Thom educates the public on, among other things, 30 years of Reaganism when no one else could

Your belligerence is a real discussion killer. Nuff said.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

166. ....

:crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:

[ClarkUSA]

6. Really? FACT: Sotomayor ruled in favor of minimum wage for homeless workers in class action suit

Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8432716

This, plus her pro-baseball players' union ruling during the last strike and her recent pro-affirmative action New Haven, CT fire department ruling all sound like pretty progressive to me.

He selected a SCOTUS nominee who's getting a thumbs-up by gay legal activists (quotes and link -->):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8434851&mesg_id=8434944

[jefferson_dem]

35. Thom's Rationale:

Sotomayor may listen to the facts of the case before exercising judgment

+

she is likely not as ideologically pure as Nader

=

She is a corporate shill.

[Dawgs]

39. +1

:hi:

[omega minimo]

64. So you didn't listen to the program

http://www.thomhartmann.com

[Dawgs]

81. I did, and that's exactly what he was saying.

He doesn't like her because she's not progressive enough.

He's okay with her getting the nomination, but he would rather have somebody else.

[omega minimo]

and he concluded she was a "corporate shill"?

[jefferson_dem]

115. The OP says "pro-corporate by a mile"...

If that unfairly represents what Hartmann actually said, you should provide the correction.

[omega minimo]

144. i was going by what you said and then claimed "that's exactly what he was saying"

it seems you need to find the correction.

[Name removed]

71. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uponit7771]

132. The purity assholes think someone wants to her their mouth too much IMHO.

[CBR]

8. I had the unfortunate experience of hearing 25 minutes of Glenn Beck

this morning on a shared car ride. He was talking about how both parties are beholden to corporations and the aristocracy. Fascinating. He was talking about how the elite class does not want to hear the voice of the people and all that. This is how he is waging his 9/12 battle thing.

I have never listened to Hartmann but his biography on Wiki seems interesting.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. Hartmann is much more aligned with progressives than Obama is

Thom is a champion for the middle class and very anti-corporate. If Sotomayer's decisions really are pro corporation I would be surprised if Thom did NOT speak out.

[Occam Bandage]

12. I certainly haven't seen any evidence that she's anything but a great ally for workers.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Thom is whipping up outrage to keep his listeners entertained, in hopes that some actual offensive statements or decisions by Sonia comes down the line later.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. I haven't had time to study her record yet

But I do listen to Thom every day and have no reason to suspect he is wrong on this topic.

[Occam Bandage]

17. There's a post in this thread with three reasons suggesting he's wrong.

There's no reason to suggest he's right.

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. Three cases out of how many?

I think we could probably also find 3 rulings of Alito, Roberts or Thomas that we would approve of as well.

I will take time to study Sotomayor's complete record before I make up my mind. In the meantime I am very familiar with Thom Hartmann and he is definitely a strong progressive voice. And Obama is not very progressive. So I am not surprised that Hartmann would speak out against a decision of Obama's. That's all I feel qualified to say so far.

[Occam Bandage]

34. I also am not surprised Hartmann would speak out against a decision of Obama's.

Hartmann is a talk show host. He makes money by speaking out against things. Talk shows don't attract listeners by approving of things. I would highly recommend you actually do study Sotomayor's record, and not simply parrot what talk-show hosts tell you.

[proud2BlibKansan]

47. I am not parroting anyone

I merely reported what I know about Hartmann. He is also an author. And like I said, a champion for progressive causes. Supporting Obama and never questioning his decisions is not something Hartmann would do. And that's one more reason I enjoy listening to him since I am a progressive.

[Occam Bandage]

51. I'll be very surprised if your final analysis differs from Thom's. In anything, really.

As independent as they claim to be, people who hold talk-show hosts in such high esteem rarely demonstrate opinions differing from those of their preferred voice.

[proud2BlibKansan]

134. As opposed to those who support the president 100% instead of studying issues

and making informed decisions.

As for talk show hosts, in case you hadn't noticed, our air waves are dominated by right wing hate mongers. Thom Hartmann is one of the few voices on our side and I appreciate that he is even willing to speak out on our behalf. If you don't like him, Rush is on lots of other stations. :)

[omega minimo]

147. where the voice you hold in such high esteem

is your own, rarely demonstrating opinions differing from your preferred voice and treating other voices here with petty projections and haughtiness.

Look at how you're treating that poster. Do you ever consider that your assumptions are only that?

:thumbsdown:

[Overseas]

38. Thom is not the kind of guy who whips up outrage to keep his listeners entertained

He's much more of a scholarly type. And he was reading Wall Street Journal reassurances to their readers that Sotomayor's rulings had not been bad for business. That she really was a moderate.

He wasn't "bashing" Sotomayor as the thread title suggested. He was just pointing out that for those of us longing for a strong liberal to balance out the raging right wingers on the court now, she is more moderate than we would like. That's all.

He doesn't want his show to be about Obama bashing, but he does believe that progressives need to push from the left because right wingers are certainly pushing from their side. And they've got control of most of our mass media.

I think President Obama may be acting strategically in this appointment. Present a moderate judge for consideration, who just happens to have more empathy for "the little guy" due to her life story, and let the Republicans bash away.

They will look as ridiculous as they did after he adjusted his Economic Recovery Act to include Republican policies and they all voted it down.

When we look at Sotomayor's record and find that she was moderate, in that she adhered to precedent in many cases and wasn't strident about anti-trust issues and thinks damage awards should be limited, among her other rulings, it will be clearer that Republicans will bash any appointment Obama makes, just to continue their obstructionism.

Then I hope President Obama will make his second choice a strong liberal to balance out the likes of Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.

[Occam Bandage]

41. I've read many articles suggesting she's very much like Souter.

She does have a a number of pro-corporate decisions, and a number of pro-labor decisions. That should be expected; if a judge is always siding with labor or always siding with corporations, it would imply that they were only considering class loyalty and not the facts (it is not reasonable to say that labor is always in the legal right, after all).

You have to look at the balance of the decisions to try to find out what her principles are, and not cherry-pick decisions you don't like. Hartmann was doing the latter, because that's much better radio. That is his job, after all: to keep people entertained so they tune in next show. And the best way of doing that is engendering outrage. Hartmann is very much the type of guy who whips up outrage to keep his listeners entertained. He does so in an intelligent, restrained fashion, but he is fundamentally the same thing as Rush Limbaugh. The two men differ in their style and in their politics, but not in the fundamental way in which they pursue their paychecks. You can say he doesn't, but the reactions to Hartmann's show here on DU demonstrate quite conclusively that he effectively does whip up outrage, effectively does position himself as the ideologically pure alternative to the party establishment, and that it effectively does keep his listeners tuning in. He's smarter and savvier than Rush, and he has a smarter, more liberal audience that demands a more reasonable basis for their daily outrage fix, but aside from that, I can't see a difference.

[Overseas]

43. Exactly! And Souter is a moderate. He was expected to be conservative

but ruled as a moderate on the court.

That's the point! Not that Sotomayor will be a right winger. Just that she will be a moderate, rather than the strong liberal that we want.

[Occam Bandage]

46. Souter was a moderate leftist. The arguments against Sotomayor would be much more tolerable

if they were complaining that she was a leftist whose decisions were tempered by moderation and the facts in the individual cases, rather than being indicative of the blind ultrapartisanship of Scalia and Thomas (albeit from the other side). Of course, that would expose the intellectual rigidity and purism of many self-styled progressives; Hartmann certainly doesn't want to outright say that he wants a justice as blind and as anti-intellectual as Scalia.

Instead, he and his followers try to paint judicial moderation as corporatism or as a failure of progressivism, neither of which are true.

[Overseas]

54. Souter could only be called a leftist in today's climate in which

the national dialogue has been pushed successfully far far to the right.

When we have intensely ideological right wingers stacking our supreme court, we need a few intensely ideological liberals to balance them out.

When we have strong pro-corporate judges like Roberts, we want a couple who have shown as strong of a preference for "the little guy."

Sotomayor is a great, distinguished, moderate judge. She is an excellent appointment in terms of seeking a moderate to replace Souter.

[Occam Bandage]

58. So we need more justices who don't think about the facts in the case,

or about legal precedent, and simply decide based on who the plaintiff and who the defendant are. Judge Judy has more legal depth than that. This type of argument is why I think Hartmann, for all his trappings of dignity, is at heart as anti-intellectual as any other talk-show host.

[Overseas]

99. How did you feel when so many right wing ideologues were appointed to the Supreme Court?

Somehow, the Senate managed to confirm some very intense right wingers to the courts. So now our country needs some solid liberals to balance out them out. Plain and simple.

Right wingers were appointed to stack the courts. IF they could be appointed in spite of their readily apparent biases toward right wing ideologies, then by golly, we can have some clearly liberal judges too.

We have a situation in which the scales are UNBALANCED toward corporate power on the courts. We just need to balance things out.

We can find very liberal judges who are at least as equal in applying the law as were ROBERTS, ALITO, SCALIA AND THOMAS. Four, count 'em. Four super conservatives. But they were deemed okay.

So I trust that we'll be able to find a few more in the future who can balance out those extremes so we can have more BALANCED JUDGMENTS on our highest court.

[Overseas]

50. Completely absurd to compare Thom to Rush. Rush lies constantly.

We don't really have any progressive radio hosts who lie as consistently as Rush Limbaugh. That is completely ridiculous. Thom has a much more detailed knowledge of the facts he argues than most other hosts on the radio or TV. Thom is not a liar.

The reactions to Thom's show here just show that many people love President Obama and don't want to hear any opposition because the right wingers are bashing him already.

Reactions to Thom's show also come from conservatives who lurk here hoping to discredit legitimate voices from the left.

Some other well meaning Democrats think the progressive side should STFU because President Obama is being hounded from the right.

But President Obama himself has told us to let him know what we want. Much as President Roosevelt did in his day.

And many of us kept silent while President Clinton was being hounded from the right, and we ended up losing a lot of battles in the long run.

[Occam Bandage]

52. Like I said: Thom is smarter and savvier.

Rush does lie from time to time. But usually he just spins the news to fit the preconceptions of his listeners. Hartmann does the same. Rush is also blatantly anti-intellectual and puerile, whereas Hartmann acts like an intellectual. Both are simply providing what their listeners want to hear: Rush's fans want to think they're right because they have more common sense and clearer vision than anyone else; Hartmann's fans want to think they're right because they have sharper minds and clearer vision than anyone else. Never mind that both seem to develop an almost symbiotic reliance on the host to provide the common sense, the sharp analysis, and the clear vision; self-reflection isn't a hallmark of talk-show listeners.

(I note both also inspire the same angry loyalism in the face of any criticism.)

[Overseas]

63. Thom does not "spin the news to preconceptions of his listeners"

Thom discusses the news from his perspective as a progressive with very strong scholarship.

Rush does not lie FROM TIME TO TIME. He lies every day and he slings unsubstantiated mud every day.

Thom does not do that. I have never heard him sling mud at anyone and I've listened to him and other progressive radio hosts for years now.

I've heard other progressive hosts call out right wingers rather crudely, but not Thom. And even our crudest hosts are usually discussing some kind of right wing lie that has hit the news.

Progressive hosts I've heard have usually done a lot more homework, in terms of reading news from a variety of sources (both conservative and liberal) before doing their rants.

[Occam Bandage]

66. Rush's fans don't think Rush does either.

And I know for a fact that Rush fans think that spin on left-wing shows is nothing but lies and unsubstantiated mud. They think MSM reports are nothing but lies and unsubstantiated mud.

Thom doesn't call anyone out crudely. He's smart, and he's savvy. He acts like an intellectual. That's why I say his style is different from Rush's.

[omega minimo]

92. he's also a real person and not a professional liecaster "entertainer"

again, your comments are absurd.

[Overseas]

109. Guess what? I may just be able to evaluate information as well as you can.

I know it may be shocking to hear, but I may just be better able to evaluate information than the image you have of "Listeners to Talk Radio." I might even be an intellectual, even though that's unfashionable these days.

I've heard lots of lies from Rush Limbaugh and have yet to hear one from Thom (although I've disagreed with a few of his opinions). That's a big difference for me. I think you would just like to continue pretending that the quality of the hosts' scholarship doesn't matter. It matters greatly to me.

I am not a fool. I have lived and studied for decades myself. I have read news and economic theory and history from a variety of perspectives. Believe it or not, I can evaluate the quality of information quite reasonably, even though I listen to progressive talk radio. Whether or not Rush's fans think he's really smart is irrelevant. The quality of scholarship is more important to me. I have heard lots of lies from Limbaugh but have yet to hear one from Thom. (Although I've seen many emotional summaries of what he has said like "Thom slams Sotomayor" that are very different from his much more nuanced approach.)

But you seem bound and determined to smear Thom by lumping him together with someone who is totally different, so I'd better sign off now.

[omega minimo]

151. "angry loyalism"? In reponse to claims that Hartmann lies like Rush & his listeners are Dittoheads

"Never mind that both seem to develop an almost symbiotic reliance on the host to provide the common sense, the sharp analysis, and the clear vision; self-reflection isn't a hallmark of talk-show listeners."


Or maybe shock that your pronouncements are the smug bleatings of an arrogant ass? That you imagine people in "symbiosis" with a talk show host from -- where: your ivory tower? mom's basement? upside down megamansion?


Ah the little people. They let "just anyone" post on DU. Even those who got their opinions off the back of a cereal box.

[Left coast liberal]

100. Thom does not whip up outrage. Have you even listened to his show?

You sound like the kind of pompous person who is intimidated by someone as intelligent as Thom Hartman.

Whoops! Your ID is showing.

Go study up on the new justice pick and stop embarrassing yourself!

[omega minimo]

149. You can't see a difference so you insist there isn't one. Your claim is complete nonsense

"And the best way of doing that is engendering outrage. Hartmann is very much the type of guy who whips up outrage to keep his listeners entertained. He does so in an intelligent, restrained fashion, but he is fundamentally the same thing as Rush Limbaugh."

The notion that Hartmann "whips up outrage" is ridiculous and proves you really know little about the man or his work.

That he "whips up outrage to keep his listeners entertained" is a steaming crock of horse shite.

Hartmann's listeners are not interested in -- many repulsed by -- "outrage," faux "outrage" tactics and radio talkers who do that.

Not sure what the big deal is, what the vested interest in slamming Hartmann is here.

Aside from your supercilious certainty that those who favor certain talk show hosts are slavish morons parroting their ideas; plus another's claim that Hartmann doesn't have the proper educational pedigree to do his job.

This is the most pretentious pettiness I've seen here in maybe EVER, trying to insult one of the few lucid on air voices we have -- and trash DUers who respect and value his work.



"...the reactions to Hartmann's show here on DU demonstrate quite conclusively that he effectively does whip up outrage, effectively does position himself as the ideologically pure alternative to the party establishment, and that it effectively does keep his listeners tuning in."

That sort of statement only reveals how some will project their own pettiness and narrow motivations on others.

That Hartmann is a gracious and loving soul makes these specious claims against him all the more ridiculous.

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. +1

:)

[omega minimo]

67. See the thing about integrity is, you can't diss Hartmann like that and be taken seriously

[Occam Bandage]

76. Now, see, that is actually an example of an ad hominem.

Ad hominem is when someone attempts to discredit an argument by claiming the speaker is not trustworthy or to be taken seriously. You've claimed my disrespectful statements regarding Thom Hartmann mean I am not a serious person, and thus my arguments related to his show and/or his opinion on Sotomayor are invalid.

On the other hand, if you were to say, "your positions on Thom Hartmann's show are flawed because of X, Y, and Z, and because of the depth of your ignorance on Thom Hartmann show, I cannot take you seriously when you are talking about Thom Hartmann's show," then that wouldn't be ad hominem, because the argument to the person would be a conclusion based on evidence, and would not be used as the basis of a further argument.

[omega minimo]

84. self absorbed much?

" See the thing about integrity is, you can't diss Hartmann like that and be taken seriously"

Thom's integrity withstands a suggestion of some lame motives for saying what he said.

"You can't diss Hartmann like that and be taken seriously."

The diss cannot be taken seriously. You making the diss can't be taken seriously.




The comment was about the absurd claim, out of character with his integrity, disempowering the absurd claim.

It's not All About You.

[Occam Bandage]

89. A linguistically invalid contortion.

The sentence, "you can't diss Hartmann like that and be taken seriously," does not mean the diss cannot be taken seriously. It means that the antecedent of "you" can't be taken seriously upon condition of a diss of Hartmann. See my previous post for an explanation of why that is an ad hominem, and how that sentence might be reconfigured to not be an ad hominem.

I'm not really concerned with what you say about me; I just thought it would be a useful means of explaining what an ad hominem is and what an ad hominem is not, given your confusion earlier in the thread.

[omega minimo]

93. It means it's the internet and I posted my idea in the top line. Deal with it. It means what I meant

not what you say I meant :puke:

[OwnedByFerrets]

73. Then you certainly dont know Thom Hartmann. Why dont you

open your ears and listen rather than drinking koolaide?

[Occam Bandage]

79. This is a good example of what talk radio does to people's minds.

"You're a kool-aid drinker. Shut up and listen." Said by Rushbots, said by Hartmann fans.

[jefferson_dem]

112. Yup.

Flip sides of the same rusty coin, it seems.

[Raineyb]

168. And said by you. n/t

[Doctor_J]

13. Yes, he's now predicting that Obama I will be Bill Clinton III

or at least unless we (the people that elected him) get tough on him.

[proud2BlibKansan]

18. Clinton is not very progressive either so that does make sense to me

[omega minimo]

70. Hartmann talks about 30 years of Reaganomics, Clinton and Obama have continued it.

There's no surprise at the Obama Admin's positions from clues during the campaign. Aside from loading the admin and cabinet with Clinton people, retaining Bush people and policies..........................

Corporations run the government. It's one big happy presidential family.

For Obama to do the right thing, yes he needs the people to push.

[Raineyb]

169. Well that's not exactly a radical idea.

There's been plenty of people saying that around here.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

32. Hartmann has also knows far, far more about psychotherapy and ADHD than he does politics.

He should probably stick to what he knows best.

[Overseas]

40. That is not true at all. He has studied economics and history for many years.

He knows a lot more about economics and history than many others who parade themselves as experts on the media and have more official credentials.

He regularly debates experts with opposing political and economic opinions on his show and beats them every time with facts and great detail about domestic and international political and economic history.

[Occam Bandage]

42. I don't think there's a talk show host out there

for whom his listeners don't believe he regularly beats the tar out of any and all 'so-called experts' on his show, and for whom they don't believe their chosen host is a brilliant combination of self-taught expertise and grounded realism. At least we recognize it as pseudo-populist anti-intellectualism when Republicans do it.

[Overseas]

72. Except that there are facts involved. Definitely NOT anti-intellectualism.

Facts that I have read and studied in a variety of sources myself. Events that I have lived through myself, in the US and overseas.

There is a big difference in the quality of discourse between most of our progressive hosts and the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

I'm really not sure why you are so eager to equate the two.

[Occam Bandage]

83. Hartmann's show does not put on anti-intellectual airs. I agree.

I think it is anti-intellectual at its core, as all talk radio is, because it achieves success by presenting and reinforcing pre-existing opinions. The opinions are unchanging, and exist fundamentally not because of the facts, but because of who is presenting them. You see in this thread many people saying, "well, I don't know if that's true or not, but I know Hartmann said it and I know Hartmann is a champion of the people." His show does not act anti-intellectual, but it creates the exact same anti-intellectual mindset in his listeners.

The fact that Hartmann provides more facts than Rush does to support his listeners' opinions doesn't really change the equation in my eyes. Liberals have been conditioned by the Bush years to be skeptical, and require more facts before they accept their opinions--but since the host decides which facts get filtered to his eager audience, it doesn't matter. They request, and Hartmann provides. There are conservative "intellectual" pundits who do the same.

[omega minimo]

77. Bitter much? How odd for lucid Hartmann to have vehement detractors like lucid Sirota does

People don't like Malloy either. Truthtellers be damned!! Damned anti intellectual, smarty pants, pseudo populist people, dammit!!!!

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

97. Wow, I would have never guessed that you like Malloy, too.

:sarcasm:

[omega minimo]

138. ":::sarcasm:::"

:rofl: :rofl: RU tryin to make me :cry: :rofl:

IS LIKING LUCID THINKERS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INSULT? :spray:

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. His degrees are in homeopathic medicine.

Look, I've studied world religions on my own, having read many books on the subject, but that doesn't make me any kind of expert on the issue. It just means I have a slightly more informed opinion than the average Joe. Thom may have a slightly more informed opinion than the average person, but the average person doesn't know shit either.

[omega minimo]

80. "The average person doesn't know shit either"

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

95. Are you agreeing or do you just like to repeat things? (nt)

[omega minimo]

152. Ah, you must be one of those Liberal Elitists we've heard so much about. Never actually met one

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

165. I'm the elitist, but you're, apparently, the know-it-all?

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The only thing that makes me "elitist" is that you can't come up with any kind of defense for Hartmann and you know it.

[omega minimo]

176. "Know it all"!!! You just said "the average person doesn't know shit either"

:crazy:

[Overseas]

82. I value scholarship and informed opinion. Thom is a great scholar.

That's all. Love his ardent scholarship of history and economics. Love his ability to counter right wing assertions with historical and economic facts.

It is refreshing to me to listen to a scholar with such an active intellect.

You may prefer to listen to something else.

[omega minimo]

86. Evidently

"You may prefer to listen to something else."

great post :thumbsup:

[Occam Bandage]

91. To an ant, a mouse is very tall indeed. nt

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

94. You may enjoy anyone you want.

But there's a difference between deriving entertainment value and putting too much stock into an "informed" opinion (and I use the word "informed" very, very loosely). I don't know you, so i cannot say if you've crossed that line, but many here have.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

98. By the way, once again, his "scholarship" is in homeopathic medicine, not politics.

If I were treating the flu, I would value his scholarship.

[Overseas]

113. I guess studies without a formal degree don't qualify for you

But they do for me.

So for you, I'd only be qualified to talk about poetry.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

120. On an official radio show? You're right, you wouldn't.

He has zero experience and zero formal education in politics, public administration, social science, business, or anything remotely related to politics. That qualifies Hartmann to talk politics on DU, with everyone taking his opinion with a boulder of salt, but not as a supposed pundit or expert in the media.

[cali]

116. Tom can't change the course of the country.

it matters no more that he's more aligned with progressives than that my next door neighbor is more aligned with progressives.

[bullwinkle428]

31. Hartmann had the temerity to suggest that Obama is a moderate,

and not a hardcore progressive, so it's only logical that his Supreme Court choice would follow in that same mold.

[omega minimo]

48. Thom doesn't lie.

:yourock:

[OwnedByFerrets]

69. Thom tells it like it is. Bravo to those willing to speak the truth...

rather than be brainwashed by koolaide. Like many here are.

[CreekDog]

101. Of course don't take a kool-aid approach to things Thom says either

he's not always right. he was wrong about the Republican filibuster and didn't even realize that they didn't need to keep talking to sustain one --and he hammered on this for probably more than a year.

he's not necessarily right on any issue, including this one.

[vaberella]

75. Yeah, I heard that from some DUers today. It started last night. RM is another one pushing it. n/t

[Overseas]

88. We may want someone more liberal, but it is a great appointment by President Obama precisely because

she is a moderate and not a "wild-eyed liberal."

He is making his first appointment in the bipartisan spirit. Choosing someone who adheres to the rule of law and precedent, with excellent credentials. She was appointed by George Herbert Walker Bush. Republicans should feel comfortable with her.

But Republicans will go ahead and bash her shamelessly and that will further demonstrate that they are just trying to obstruct anything and everything President Obama does.

Then he can make his second choice someone who can balance out the strident right wingers on the court like Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas.

This is not an either/or situation.

It is okay that more progressive Democrats wish Sotomayor was more liberal. That's a good thing. No one can say, then, that Obama was choosing a super-duper-liberal to scare the Republicans and those who are intimidated by them.

[vaberella]

96. I don't know what more liberal/progressive or RW has to do with the law.

You see I think this is where O is at. He's looking for someone who's qualified and focuses ONLY on the rule of law and won't allow her personal political convictions get in the way. That's what we want, a lawyer who's doing his/her job...following the rule of law.

I get really unnerved by all this talk. She's fine as she is. I would have preferred Sunstein, but she's fine and I see nothing wrong. And as you said, when she gets appointed and she's making opinions on cases she'll vote properly.

[Overseas]

130. Balancing out the intense right wingers on the court. //nt

[onenote]

85. did he mention any examples of cases in which Marshall adopted an "anti-corporate" position?

Not saying he didn't -- just would like to know what cases they are.

[Zodiak]

102. So now Thom Hartmann is thrown under the bus

By the same DUers who post in every "Obama got criticized" thread looking for the unfaithful to demean and bully. You know, the ones who post 20+ times in a thread casting aspersions, pseudo-psychoanalyzing, and accusing these media figures of "wanting attention" (nevermind that posting 20+ times in a thread might make themselves a better target for the "wanting attention" accusation).

It gets old. In fact, it got old a long time ago.

Pretty soon, there won't be any progressives but the ones under the bus....the price for looking at policy and not "rah-rah"ing everything with a D after it. When election times comes up, who is going to get blamed for any electoral losses? I bet it will be the people under the bus....they always are. Don't you people know that you MUST vote Democratic and you MUST shut up and not be heard?

So far it has been:

Paul Krugman
Johnathan Turley
Rachael Maddow
Keith Olbermann
...and now
Thom Hartmann.

I'm sure there are more, but I cannot keep up with the latest witch-hunt and 2 minute hate. I apparently do not get the memos. They aren't delivered under the bus.

Oh wait....I forgot Dave Sirota....how could I forget him? And Cenk. And Greenwald.

[Liberal In Texas]

103. Also, the OP was over the top. Hartmann was NOT trashing Sotomayor.

There are sure a lot of posters here who like to sensationalize the slightest thing or hear things that just aren't there.

[Doctor_J]

163. True. My bad. He was expressing disappointment that Obama

didn't appoint another Thurgood Marshall. He was more bashing Obama than Sotomayor

[Liberal In Texas]

164. Frankly, I wouldn't characterize what he said as "bashing" anybody.

This is nothing but pure hyperbole and you know it.

[Bucky]

104. One person criticiing a public commentator is not "thrown under the bus"

a little perspective here: you actually have to have power or influence--or at least a forum more significant than a internet message board to "throw someone under the bus." Besides, two or three disgruntled posters hardly represents the consensus view of the DU board. It may seem like a few DUers are trigger happy to announce progressive commentator X is "dead to me"--but you might want to balance that with the 1000s of posters who are saying no such thing.

[Zodiak]

118. There are about 20 in total

And they are very, very prolific posters. Many post over 100+ a day.

If I were to share their mentality, I would accuse them of grandstanding to get attention. As it stands, it only LOOKS that way.

And the 1000's of posters who do not feel that way do not post....mostly because they are immediately besieged by piranhas looking to slice the throat of the next malcontent, I would wager.

[MadBadger]

129. 1,000 people criticizing is not "throwing under the bus"

its called CRITICISM

[Zodiak]

150. That does not make much sense.

I am afraid that I do not understand your logic here.

The number of people doing this one way or another has no bearing on the behavior and posting habits of said people, the topic to which I was referring.

The only reason I mention the number is because I wanted to make a point about multiple posting, and no more was intended than that.

But it is undeniable that there is a segment of DU that routinely seizes on media figures' criticism of Obama from the left and then starts multiple threads roundly rejecting (throwing under the bus) such figures, cross-posting in these threads multiple times. The logic behind many of these cross-posts are based on one form or another of sophistry (as enumerated in my original post).

If you are referring to the other "under the bus" people I refer to, well then, the people under the bus du jour are the gays, the populists, the poor, and a bunch of doctors and nurses and teachers...not to mention the peace movement.

Numbers do not matter when it comes to the bus...only who is driving, and who is choosing who stays and who goes.

[omega minimo]

153. Spot. On.

It's starting to not even look real. Just a game to them. Or insanity. Or something.

[debbierlus]

105. Thom Hartman has always been thoughtful, factual, and articulate in presenting his positions

I have listened to him for a very long time. He is a people's advocate and very well educated on the topics, on which he speaks.

When I saw that the Republicans are going to role over on this nominee right away, it became clear that it was because the TRUE dictators of our system (the corporations) have christened this an acceptable choice. Obama has represented the corporations over the people consistently thus far.

Why should this be any different?

[QC]

119. Hartmann is an enemy of the people. n/t

[MadBadger]

127. In your world, we cant criticize those who criticize the President's choices

Hypocrisy you say?

[Zodiak]

143. Criticize is fine

Rallies with little substance is bad form. Multiple ones is excessively bad form. I don't mind the mention of Turley's involvement with the Clinton impeachment thing or other such substantial criticism, but the fake psychoanalysis of people's motives and the infantilization I could do without.

[Overseas]

135. Thank you for saying this.

It really seems to me that a lot of those pretending to support President Obama are really more determined to bash the liberal pundits and to give Obama supporters a bad name as a bonus.

If they were really Obama supporters, they'd be glad he was getting heat from the left. Because that would demonstrate that he isn't a crazy liberal as the Republicans would have it.

Instead of responding to the criticism raised by the liberal commentators, they just stomp on the commentators in general, and that seems more designed to discredit the commentators than to really defend the president.

That is very discouraging when we come here looking for democratic discussion.

That's why I'm beginning to think a few of the most strident bashers have an entirely different agenda.

I think there are a lot more right wingers here pretending to be Obama supporters than there are right wingers pretending to be progressives raising "concerns" about his policies and appointments.

The ones that stomp on liberal pundits alienate far more people.
(1) They may convince a few who haven't heard those pundits that they're not worth checking out, which is one plus for the right winger, and then
(2) they get in the bonus of alienating a lot of others who support Obama by pretending to be defending him at all costs, with intense intolerance for divergent opinions. They seem just too perfect as examples of the right wing critique that President Obama has "followers" with fanatical devotion.

[Zodiak]

148. I honestly do not care about motives

I try very hard not to ascribe them, but I am occasionally guilty of it, myself.

I just think it is bizarre behavior to hang out on DU all day (which I would have to do to post so much) seizing on any criticism of a politician and using every method of sophistry to counter that criticism.

The name-calling needs to stop
The attribution of devious intent in the absence of proof needs to stop
The strawmen (exhibited by the last response to this post) need to stop
etc. etc.

And I am not demanding it, I am asking. We should all at least make an attempt at respecting each other intellectually enough to not pull out sophistry as the weapon of choice. It is not in keeping with a healthy internet community.

And yeah, both sides are guilty, but these multiple-threaded "throw the liberal media person under the bus parties" are emblematic of this condition.

[CTLawGuy]

161. what I worry about...

In 2000, enough progressives thought Al Gore was not liberal enough and voted for Nader - 93,000 in FL - to allow the election to be handed to Bush by the Supreme Court. Becuase the left could not stay unified, the nightmare of the last 8 years was able to take place.

And all their petty greivances about Al Gore were trivial by comparision to the horror of the Bush administration - if anyone wants to challenge that statement, I'm all ears, but I highly doubt anyone here would disagree with it.

I do NOT want another repeat of 2000. I do NOT want the idea that our democratic presidential nominee is no different than a Republican to plague the left once more. If it does, we could be seeing President Palin or President Jindal.

So I will speak out against unfair and hyperbolic criticism of Obama. Want to disagree with him, fine. Call him a corporate sellout? - out of line. The perfect is not the enemy of the good.

[Overseas]

136. Deleting duplicate.

[billyoc]

145. Hey, what about ME!

:rofl:

[seaglass]

162. And Russ Feingold...don't forget about him. n/t

[Thrill]

106. So its ok to pick when she rules for corporations? But not when she rules for workers and unions??

I heard Thom. And thats basically what he was doing. He seemed to only focus on those cases

[BeyondGeography]

108. Hartmann thought Edwards was the best candidate

[Liberal In Texas]

117. So did a lot of us.

[redqueen]

131. Good thing we didn't get our way. (nt)

[Raineyb]

171. So what? n/t

[Raineyb]

172. Dupe

[islandmkl]

114. Dear Tom: i don't necessarily disagree with you, with the following exception:

the damage to itself the Republican Party is HAVING to deal with due to this nomination...

Obama KNOWS he is facing a fight, especially in his first, FIRST, truly significant appointment...and he set his opponents (mainly on the other side of the aisle) up to face the dilemma of doing damage to their Latino supporters while attacking Sotomayor...

catch-22, anybody??

yeah, we would ALL like a more-left-progressive nomination, just to ease our minds about some competition against Scalia&all...

i think Obama plans to be around long enough to appoint 2 more judges, at least...and i think he believes he will have the same, if not more, power to nominate whoever he chooses in the future...

we play checkers, we want the King NOW...Obama is playing chess, and he has made few moves, yet his opponents are being weakened with each move...

it could have been a better choice, now, IMMEDIATELY, for the left...i agree...but there is a lot of 'getting better' to do, and a great deal of it will take some amount of time...

[Overseas]

133. That's why I don't understand all the Hartmann and Maddow bashers

You'd think they'd be glad that some liberals think Sotomayor too moderate. That shows that President Obama is not choosing a scary socialist liberal for his first appointment.

Yet instead of saying they are glad Sotomayor isn't 100% liberal and praising President Obama for a more balanced choice, they're stomping on Thom and Rachel.

That's why I don't think some of the posters are really pro-Obama. I think they are more anti-liberal.

If they were really pro-Obama, why wouldn't they just say they are glad the president has chosen someone who has ruled for labor as well as for corporations?

Instead they're all about trashing some brilliant liberal pundits.

[omega minimo]

159. Those who can, do. Those who can't, denigrate.

[ShortnFiery]

146. Thom Harmann calls em as he sees em.

She is, by all accounts, a moderate from the bench.

To our benefit (progressives), the right-wing smear machine will attack her so savagely that by the time she's finally on the bench, she will steer liberal.

However, Thom Hartmann makes sense to me. She has sided with the GOP and corporations more than one would as a "liberal" activist judge.

Hell, she was nominated initially to the bench by H.W. Bush.

[Cleita]

154. He wasn't bashing her. He was explaining where she was coming from.

That's telling the truth, not bashing. He actually wants her confirmed because he thinks she will be a fine justice. Did you listen to everything he said?

[neverforget]

158. Exactly. Too bad the OP didn't include that.

[AlexanderProgressive]

156. OP acts in good faith, but provides no evidence

In the form of an extensive list of cases where Sotomayor supports corporations unfairly, along with a list of cases in which Sotomayor supported the average guy.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

170. I've stopped listening to both Rachel and Thom for that very reason.

Both of them whine too much for me. Sotomayor is the best choice that we could have at this time. In this moment. I am a proud liberal, but sometimes, the purists simply don't think pragmatically. We have to be pratical considering the climate we are now in.

[Raineyb]

173. Perhaps you should listen to Thom before agreeing with the OP

The OP mischaracterizes what Thom did and is basically bashing Thom. He/she is doing exactly what those who are accused of being purists are generally accused of doing.

[Sebastian Doyle]

175. Bullshit.

Why is it that Chimp Bush, who didn't even WIN the goddamn election, can pick a right wing, Opus Dei, corporatist jackass who had never even seen the backside of a court bench until 2003, and all the spineless DLC/Blueballers in the Senate lineup to kiss his ass.

But Obama wins in an electoral fucking landslide, has high approval ratings (despite his unwillingness to undo much of Chimp's damage) and he can't use his actual (as opposed to Chimp's fictional) political capital to restore a little REAL balance to the very court that allowed Chimp to squat in the White House in the first place.

Sorry, not buying it. As I said in a previous thread, Sotomayor will likely be an adequate replacement for Souter, but she is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "best choice we could have had". Not by a long shot.

[OwnedByFerrets]

177. Well stated and right on point.

[omega minimo]

179. THANK YOU. Will you please OP your post in honor of Apologist Weasel Word Thursday?

:bounce: K/R

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

180. Tell that to the DLCers and the Blue Dogs. They won't vote for a liberal judge.

That's the problem. You can't compare the situation to Bush. The Repukes walk in lockstep. The Democrats do not. I'm right there with you in terms of the double standard. I think it is utterly disgusting how the Dems are expected to choose "safe," moderate judges while the nutcases on the far right can choose Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts and yet no one blinks an eye.

But I don't believe that those who are complaining are being realistic about the political climate we are in. We don't have enough progressive Democrats in the Senate. THAT--not me--is the problem!

[omega minimo]

178. "have to be pratical considering the climate we are now in" w/a Dem WH & Congress + R's in decline?

"We have to be pratical considering the climate we are now in."

:wow: :wtf: :rofl: Shirley, you must be joking.



You are just repeating apologist talking points with nothing of substance to justify it.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

181. See my post above. Then, go talk to Max Baucus, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson

Kent Conrad, Bob Casey, and all of the other Blue Dogs and DLC senators now serving.

You can laugh and ridicule me all you want, but it's not a joke. These Democrats are not TRUE Democrats. They are NOT going to vote for a liberal or progressive judge.

As for President Obama who is also NOT a liberal or a progressive, what makes you think that having him as the president with a congress full of moderate and conservative Democrats will change things?

Wake up. These are the facts.

[omega minimo]

183. We have heard all the apologist crap for years. The OP is right to raise the questions. More of the

same capitulation from -- yes a compromised leadership -- will lead to more of the same.

Giving up the fight in order to win this much control of the government is what got us in this mess.

Wake up. These are the facts.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

184. O.K., since you have the facts, how do you propose we get rid of these suckers?

What do we have to do, since these people are in bed with the corporations, as is Obama, it seems these days. I'm not giving up the fight. I'm being realistic. Tell me what we are supposed to do to get rid of these fake Democrats in the Senate? Then, tell me how to persuade a president who has been running away from liberals, trying so hard to prove he's not one? I agree with the premise that these fools also seem to capitulate, but I don't agree that you have provided a solution to this.

You tell me, since you know it all.

[omega minimo]

185. I was with you right up until the damn insult. Why do some have to be asses. You want an answer or

NOT?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Go figure it out yourself. :evilfrown:

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

186. What insult? You insulted me! I'm asking for a solution to this issue.

We have many Democrats in the Senate...and in the Congress, for that matter...who don't think as we do. They don't care about what we care about. And we have a president who has backtracked on a host of promises that he made during the campaign. He is also running scared at the thought of anyone calling him a liberal. So, how do we rectify the situation?

[omega minimo]

187. No I didn't

Okay. I reread the posts. I'm sorry if you were insulted but I DID NOT INSULT YOU and that's your problem.

As strong as my words got was to mock "apologist crap" we've heard for years. That's not YOU. I commented on talking points and your provided some detail.

I started with "We have to be pratical considering the climate we are now in." and :rofl: ARE YOU OFFENDED BY LAUGHING SMILIES?

Ya gotta admit, after all we've been through, after the Bushco years, after the Impeachment Off The Table Because We're Campainging years, after succeeding in gaining the White House and Congress, it's funny to keep saying:

"We have to be pratical considering the climate we are now in."

:rofl:



I appreciate your specifics, comments and continuation of what might be a discussion

But if this is a macho fistfest I ain't gonna play. When you say "SINCE YOU KNOW IT ALL" YOU are insulting YOU are making it personal and YOU are advertising that you want to play toughguy.


Homey don't play dat.

[zulchzulu]

182. Hartmann doesn't get it...

We're replacing Souter with a Latina version. We will have at least two more to pick in the next few years.

Trashing Sotamayor as too "pro-corporate" is mealy-mouthed Purist Parlor Talk. Fuck that shit.

[Raineyb]

188. Perhaps you should listen for yourself. The OP's characterization is completely off the mark

[zulchzulu]

189. I'll look for the archive...

I generally agree with Thomm on most issues, but sometimes he strays into utopian opinions that fall flat for me. If he was stating that there's no real proof that she is a die-hard liberal (whatever that really means), that's not only obvious but that judgement is overseeing the political strategy with Obama's pick.

After all, everything is political or even if it's not meant to be, it becomes political eventually...