[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by Undertoad
Syc, I think it's a more complicated matter than it looks.

Agreed.

I think civil rights are what you lose when the people aren't watching, and I think they're watching right now, although they always have blind spots.

I see many people walking around blind right now, oblivious to the loss of civil rights in recent times. Sure, there are people like us who bring it up...but what do we and our kind represent? Like 1% of the population, if that? (I'm sure it's more, but nowhere near as high as it probably should be.)

And I think there are times in civilizations when people desperately want to give up their civil rights, and I think a poorly-run War on Terror would lead to such times.

As I mentioned above, there seem to be a lot of oblivious folks out there right now. As I see it, the aftermath of 9/11 showed what a bunch of yes men Americans can be. This certainly isn't the first time it's happened, but one of the few times I've seen it during my short lifetime.

Would you say the War on Terror is well-run?

Also, there's a strange factor at work with the presidency. Sometimes you have to vote for the exact opposite of what you want. Only a president from the south, LBJ, could enact the civil rights acts of his day. Only Nixon could go to China. Only Bush Sr could sign the Clean Air Act. Only Clinton could enact welfare reform and NAFTA.

I don't think those are really examples of opposites. LBJ had to respond to social concern...not to mention he became president by accident (or conspiracy, depending on how you view the JFK assassination). Nixon apparently had his eyes on China before he even became president. Bush had to work with a Democratic Congress, and Clinton with a Republican one.

If we went by your examples, Lieberman would then curb attempts at censorship if elected. Now, if Congress stays Republican in 2004, and then he's voted in, do you really think that he's going to curb his censorship campaign? The GOP would probably love him for the concept.

I think this has come up here before, but I think the perfect president for 2004 would be a social liberal, fiscal conservative.

Originally posted by tw
Actually it is only a few judges he is having problems with. Something like tens of nominations are going through with little or no problem. But Bush nominated at least three so extreme that he is having a problem rarely seen with judge nominatons in a Congress even dominated by his own party.

With the two nominees named last week, that now makes 7 that are looked upon as "dangerous." And there should be some concern, especially over those nominated to the DC Appeals Court. All 7 seem to be staunch conservatives, and there has been talk of changing the rules of the filibuster in the Senate to "speed up" the nomination process.

Wait until the budget talks start heating up...