G.W. Bush represents a final consummation in the unholy alliance of the Republican party with the right wing fundamentalist “Christians”. This bloc envisions what is tantamount to a state religion, and all other creeds are out in the cold by any measure. Strange bedfellows indeed are this lot. Conservative doctrine used to eschew government intervention in personal affairs. Self determination was once a paramount virtue. Nowhere is this hypocrisy more clearly illustrated than on the issue of women’s reproductive choice. Here we have the Democrats, so famous for passing social reform bills, suddenly bellowing, “Keep the government out of my womb!” Meanwhile, the Republicans are busy trying to legislate morality. The Republicans have basically shed every last vestige of conservative doctrine with their divisive moralizing. We will not even mention special interests at this juncture, save to note how so many corporations have donated substantial sums to BOTH parties’ presidential campaigns. The Democrats are little better in their continuing desire to spend tax dollars on projects that should depend on voluntary contributions. They would make me hurl just as promptly as the Republicans except that they still allow for a pluralistic society in their credo. As a devout agnostic, all of the religious posturing is just so much transparent pandering to the voters. The Latino population currently backing Bush based solely on his anti-choice stance is in for a rude awakening after the election is over. They will be cast off like a pair of ill fitting shoes and forgotten in the mad orgy of special interest whoring that will follow a victory by Bush. I doubt that Gore will acquit himself much better. At least a Gore victory will ensure that the recent progress for women’s rights won’t swirl down the toilet at light speed. Please weigh in with your take on this frightening turn of events.
Errr…vote for steeljaw?
I’m not crazy about Republican politics either, and George W. is about as lack-luster a candidate as they’ve ever had. The same can be said for Al Gore. Clinton is several shades better because he at least has the appearance of being a human being and not some kind of robot. This is without a doubt the crappiest election since I’ve been able to vote. The outcome of this one worries the hell out of me, regardless of who wins. If we’re lucky neither one of these air heads will do much damage in four years. Perhaps by then something will have changed to give us a better choice. I’m trying to stay optimistic.
Needs2know
I love gwbush.com take a look. Youll fall down laughing.
Please remember that the next sitting President will be able to load the supreme court bench like no other in modern times. This alone should terrify anyone into voting for Gore. When it comes to Bush, remember, we’re talking about someone whose sole political experience is governing a Southern state. Southern states are famous for having weak governorships, and Texas is the weakest of them all. In Texas, arguments about the death penalty are usually over voltage. Yeah, Gore has about as much charisma as roadkill, but at least he has some understanding about technology and has been involved in politics a lot longer (good thing / bad thing) than Bush. Would it really be all that bad if an election didn’t center around Hollywood factors like charisma and instead focussed on real issues like leadership capability?
Zenster:
Really? I can’t see more than 2 or 3 justices stepping down in the next four years, consistent with the number of appointments other presidents have made.
Ooohh…shiver, shiver. For crying out loud, we’re talking about a political disagreement, not someone walking into your shower with a butcher knife. Get a grip.
Okay, so let’s see: what was Clinton’s experience? How about Carter’s? Gee, yeah, compared to their resumes, being governor of a Southern state is just very bad experience for the presidency.
I recall being open-mouthed with astonishment when Clinton was ragging on Bush over the fact that his only political experience was the governorship of a Southern state. Excuse me, Mr. Clinton, what job did you hold before you were president? Care to remind us?
And in Arkansas? Or Tennessee?
Sounds fine to me. So if leadership means a lot to you, I guess you’ll be voting for an executive who has plenty of experience forging bipartisan solutions to the problems facing his constituency?..
Oops, that’s Bush. Nope, can’t vote for him, he’s just too scary… :rolleyes:
Please back this up with evidence.
Let’s see.
The oldest members of the Supreme Court are:
John Paul Stevens, 80 (Appointed by Ford)
William Rehnquist, 76 (Appointed by Nixon)
Sandra Day O’Connor, 70 (Appointed by Reagan)
Ruth Ginsberg, 67 (appointed by Clinton)
Anthony Kennedy, 64 (Appointed by Reagan)
Tony Scalia, 64 (Appointed by Reagan)
Stephen Breyer, 62 (Appointed by Clinton)
David Souter, 61 (Appointed by Bush)
Clarence Thomas, 52 (Appointed by Bush)
So, assuming that in the next year, every Supreme Court Justice who hits 72- natural lifespan- dies or retires, the next President will get to appoint three new Supreme Court justices.
Of course, those replaced will have been Republican appointees in the first place, so you’re assuming that some sort of radical shift in policy will occur.
Second, you’re assuming that Bush as President will have a Republican Senate so vastly in his favor that the Democrats can’t threaten a fillibuster. Hell, you’re assuming he’ll have a majority.
And I assume you’re trying to state that modern times means post-Nixon (who also replaced three Supreme Court Justices). Lord knows the SC threw the country right back into the Dark Ages, what with Roe vs. Wade and with upholding the Constitution against Nixon.
Do you feel that Bush plans to order hitmen to take out Ginsberg and Breyer so as to further his plans? Why don’t you suggest that? It’s about as rational and appealing as your OP.
That’s not true!
We use lethal injection. So there. 
I agree that the Republicans are too snuggly in bed with the fundies. But see this thread:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=36293
which shows the Democratic candidates are perfectly capable of opening their big fat yaps and pandering to the same elements.
As an agnostic, I don’t like either candidate very much. As a social libertarian, I disagree with both about equally, albeit on different things. But as someone who is sick of the corruption from Clinton, Gore, and the whole lot of unindicted co-conspirators, there’s no way I’m voting for Gore. That leaves me with Bush, and that’s how I’m voting.
MysterEcks, I feel like I ghost-wrote your post.
I would add though, that Al Gore is a hard core statist who never saw a tax bill or a government program he didn’t like. If you think the Clintons’ nanny state is intrusive, just wait til Gore nationalizes the child-care industry.
As far as appointing SC justices goes, GWB has said that his appointees must respect the meaning of Constitution.
Gore, on the other hand, has already promised litmus tests for gay rights and privacy (i.e. abortion). Which one scares you more?
GWB has said that his appointees must respect the meaning of Constitution. Gore, on the other hand, has already promised litmus tests for gay rights and privacy (i.e. abortion). Which one scares you more?
I think we all know that Bush will have litmus tests too! But we don’t know what they are… And that scares me most of all.
“Uphold the constitution” is about the blandest, vaguest piece of crap I’ve ever heard. I’m pretty sure every potential apointee is fairly intent on upholding the consitution*
*Whatever that means to them…
Zenster, I’d LIKE to call you every synonym for “idiot” in Roget’s Thesaurus. However…
I’ll content myself with this: If George W. Bush is REALLY the ultimate threat facing the USA, then the USA is by far the luckiest nation in history.
Indeed, the good fortune of the USA lies in the fact that, no matter who’s elected President, we’ll remain a prosperous democracy. Neither Al Gore nor George Bush can possibly make any drastic changes… neither CAN do more than tinker a bit at the edges.
TNTruth said:
Oh, so Gore supports equal rights for people. Horrors, upon horrors!
But that’s another thread for another time…
Bush’s picks aren’t going to really be his own. The Christian Coalition and the NRA will do it for him. (But Bush can pick a running mate: see ESPN footage on http://www.gwbush.com for details) Bush will not respect the first amendment, just the second. And maybe the 13th, just to look good.
[/slight exaggeration]
And the privacy issue is also not having the government follow citizens on the Internet, not just abortion.
Jello, what makes you think that GW can’t pick his own cabinet or justices? Sure, he gets support from those groups, but why does that mean that they dictate what he does?
If he agrees with their program, does that make him their slave, or just someone who argrees with their program?
If Al Gore is elected will NOW and the ACLA pick his cabinet?
This whole question of litmus tests is stupid anyway. Gosh, I’m shocked that Gore or Bush will actually pick Supreme Court candidates that share their philosophies! Since when is this a litmus test, for crying out loud?
If you think Gore wants to protect your privacy on the internet, then why does he support the fawking Clipper? Why do Tipper and Joe support censorship?
Please cite references where GW has indicated that he does not support the first amendment. Has he advocated congress passing a law respecting an establishment of religion? Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof? Has he supported limiting free speech, or peaceful assembly, or petitioning the government for a redress of greivances?
For crying out loud, GW has many weak spots. He’s not the brightest light, and I can’t believe he’s the best the Republicans can come up with. But why not attack him with the truth? That he’s a lightweight, yes. But that he opposes the first amendment? Please.
What a great debate!
Waitaminit…Great Debate?
Bubbye! 
John Corrado said:
Just because the three oldest justices were appointed by Republicans does not make them conservatives. Rehnquist certainly is, but O’Connor is a centrist, and Stevens is a maverick who tends to vote liberally on social issues, IIRC. If Bush is successful in getting three socially conservative justices appointed, the balance of power on the court would change radically, and this would most certainly affect the outcomes (in a negative way, IMO) of many cases coming before the Court.
Some of you guys act like the President gets to come to your house every weekend for cookouts and you’re worried if he’s going to break something or throw-up on the rug!
Tell me how any President’s action’s has directly impacted you personally, and don’t include “gettin’ your panties in a wad”.
I propose that the majority of the folks posting here have opinions about policy decisions (strong ones even) but the majority of those policy decisions don’t impact them directly. (unless Monica Lewinsky is still posting here!)
TNTruth said:
I see nothing in the Constitution that persuades me the government has any right to discriminate against people based on who they have sex with, or to dictate what people do with their own bodies. I believe Supreme Court nominees shouldsupport gay rights and privacy. As far as I’m concerned, that is"respect[ing] the meaning of the Constitution"–failure to do so is subverting the meaning to pursue a religious/cultural agenda that has no place in Constitutional law. I disagree with Gore on a great many things, but these aren’t any of 'em.
I trust this will get rid of those feelings of ghost-writerness.
However, keep in mind that to do that, Bush would have to get that past the Democrats in the Senate. And even if the Democrats don’t control the Senate, they can fillibuster the candidate (it takes 60 votes to break a fillibuster; it’s unlikely that the Repubs will have more than 54) until Bush gives up and brings someone else in. Remember, checks and balances.
What makes you think “conservative” Bush appointees would end up any different than the three Republican appointees mentioned above? Let’s see, we have one conservative, one moderate, and one liberal. There’s no way Bush or anyone can predict how a justice will decide a certain case 5, 10, or 20 years down the road. He may think he knows, or hope he knows, but your example demonstrates how futile this is.
The point you make undermines the OP’s fearful, let’s-get-up-in-arms call to action thought necessary to prevent der Fuhrer Bush from taking over the country, the Supreme Court, and start rounding up people for the Camps.
And I thank you for that.