You won't find many people more despondent than I am. So allow me to doomsay in response to your points:

1. overturning the decision might be a stretch. I'm hopeful here. Let's get that out of the way. The new court will do a lot of damage, though.

2. he can't, most likely. on the other hand, I think Iran getting the bomb is more or less unavoidable

3. he has a mandate now. they don't know they're crazy. the shit that's going to come down the pipe will boggle our minds.

4. a two term republican president? the hagiographies comparing Bush to Reagan are already being written.

yeah. yglesias seems to agree that a 2nd bush administration will blow our minds with its craziness.

i think it's time for me to start indulging in recreational drugs.

i agree with tom that roe v. wade will not be overturned. bush even recognizes that there are exceptions to not allowing abortions, and i imagine that any judge that makes it to the supreme court will at the very least put the mother's health above other issues.

i'm not sure what other "unwinnable" military conquest you are talking about. because it sure looks to me that we have won Iraq, and hopefully now we have the power to finish the job and carry out elections just like we did in afghanistan.

tom: i don't think anyone will ever compare bush to reagan. i mean, i think we all know that reagan was most suave, and bush, well, speaking isn't his strong suit.

as for accountability...what does that mean? is that something you are just copying from the kerry campaign because you thought it sounded good. bush shouldn't be blamed for the bad economy that clinton left him, and the attack on the WTC that left this country out of thousands of jobs. also, its not the government's job to "create" jobs, that's the purpose of the free market. i hope that the government doesn't babysit me for the next 4 years. furthermore, he's doing everything he can in iraq - and holding him accountable for problems there, isn't his fault. are you going to start blaming the troops and generals there for problems?

most importantly, i hope for all of our sakes that kerry realizes that 100,000+ votes in ohio is not like florida in 2000. new mexico have been counted 100%. bush has enough.

i've held my tongue through most of this, i am definitely not trying to offend anyone. i just felt like now was the time to discuss these misconceptions.

because it sure looks to me that we have won Iraq

thanks, jillyn, for making me laugh on an otherwise very bleak day.

is that sarcasm?

as for accountability...what does that mean? is that something you are just copying from the kerry campaign because you thought it sounded good.

Not a good start.

bush shouldn't be blamed for the bad economy that clinton left him, and the attack on the WTC that left this country out of thousands of jobs. also, its not the government's job to "create" jobs, that's the purpose of the free market.

Funny, I thought that was the purpose of the tax cuts. But then they've massively under delivered on the promises of job creation, haven't they? Is there some other justification for cutting taxes during a war for the first time in history? Blaming Clinton is good sport -- those devious Democrats, specifically crafting their policies to produce a vibrant economy for eight years, then tank just as the next guy starts! Dastardly! -- but c'mon. He's the second president to produce a net loss of jobs. That's pretty fucking bad.

he's doing everything he can in iraq - and holding him accountable for problems there, isn't his fault.

Uh... look, we can get all relativism-y on the extent of the president's culpability on the economy. I disagree with you, but I can see where you're coming from. But if you start a war, I think you can reasonably expect some blame when it goes to hell. The President pushed for it, his advisors were its architects, and his cronies have been the ones botching the contracted implementation.

are you going to start blaming the troops and generals there for problems?

No, the problem is that we shouldn't be in that country. And could we please stop with the attacks on our patriotism whenever the left says America has done something wrong? If anyone is blaming the military for the problems in Iraq, it's George Bush and Rudy Giuliani.

holding him accountable for problems there, isn't his fault. are you going to start blaming the troops and generals there for problems?

whose fault do you think it is, if not bush and his administration's?

oh, whatever, i don't care, bush is god, he has done no wrong and will continue to do no wrong and he'll prevent the godless homosexuals from getting gay married. four more years!

what kind of damage will the new court do?

Point 1:
I find it humorous that people now commonly refer to judges, justices, courts, or the judiciary as "activist" when they merely disagree with the outcome of a particular case. Whether they disagree with the legal analysis in the opinion or the fact that the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the case tends to be swept aside. Although I don't have intimate knowledge of the history at that time, I think it's fair to say that Roe v. Wade was seen as "activist" at the time it was heard -- mainly due to the fact that the court granted cert and then came to a [somewhat] definite decision on a woman's right to an abortion.

Point 2:
I don't think Bush is necessarily "controlling" the other branches of government at this point. However, strong-arming from the administration has, in my opinion, pressed on Congress and the federal judiciary enough that they currently grant too much leeway to the executive. Secrecy has aggravated this and probably hindered political accountability in this election.

Point 3
After reading and discussing a fair amount of tax policy this semester, I can fairly say that fiscal policy (i.e, tax law changes) can only have a limited short-run impact on jobs and the economy. Administrations mainly use fiscal policy to show that they are "doing something," despite the fact that what they are doing can only have a very limited result. This ignores the history of problems that fiscal policy changes can have when they stick around for the long-term. Our current situation is the result of the last 10-20 years of political, legal, economic, and international factors -- there is no politically and internationally feasible quick fix. Arguably, some of the early (2001) changes limited the depth and length of the recession; some of the other changes clearly were not added "to create jobs." As far as I can tell, they reflect an unusual paradigm for tax policy that can be quite dangerous for the future if it does not work. In a nutshell, they seek to shrink the future size of government by incurring a sizable amount of current debt that must be paid off in the future -- while accomplishing some other goals along the way like eliminating the estate tax.

Just a comment on the Roe v. Wade issue. First, I find it very unlikely that it will be overturned by the courts, no matter who gets appointed this term. If Rehnquist steps down (and he seems right now the most likely to do so), he'll be replaced with another conservative, which won't tip the balance. If Stevens or Ginsburg step down (not likely, I think, Stevens is old but in good health, Ginsburg has had some cancer issues but is reasonably young and does not seem to be doing poorly), then there may be some issue, but the fact is, only three justices on the court right now have favored an outright overturning of Roe v. Wade (Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist). Both Kennedy and O'Connor have at least expressed willingness to maintain Roe in at least some form (I think this is well displayed in Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania).

That being said, even if Roe v. Wade is overturned (an enormous "if"), the practical effect it will have on American life is not that significant. There is a misconception out there (sadly propagated by some pro-choice groups) that overturning Roe v. Wade will mean no one will have the right to an abortion anymore. Not so. It just means states will have the ability to regulate it, or not, if they so choose. In fact, even state judges can find a right to an abortion in the state constitution (which shouldn't be so hard considering Massachusetts found a right to gay marriage, and the Supreme Court itself provides a great blueprint for reading specific rights into extremely vague and largely unrelated language). The big states, New York and California, certainly won't change their abortion policies. Catherine, if you happen to need an abortion, Virginia might have put you in a tough spot (possibly). However, now that you're in DC you should be just fine. Maryland may also be useful if it comes down to crunch time. If you need one while traveling deep in the heart of Utah, I think you may be S.O.L. however. In short, overturning Roe v. Wade will only affect those in states with conservative majorities that are not near states with liberal majorities.

Peace out.

i know. my use of "activist" was kind of meant to be ironic, since i always see people bitching about activist judges deciding stuff about gay marriage - though they're the same people who would be thrilled if judges decided to overturn roe v wade.

To Justin M.:

I think it's fair to say Roe v. Wade was characterized as an activist decision when it came down because of many reasons, including that it invalidated many state laws that had been around for decades. Importantly, this was done not involving a clear constitutional provision like "the right to abortion must not be infringed". The Supreme Court instead used very vague constitutional provisions (the right to privacy found not in the text of the constitution but rather in the penumbra of the first, fourth, fifth, etc., Amendments). I think that's why this was characterized as an activist decision, because the Court had to really stretch itself to find this right in the Constitution. I realize most people don't care much about this as a procedural issue as long as the result they think is right emerges, but I think it's one of the reasons there has been such a large backlash in this country for the last nearly 30 years.

i'm a little surprised when people don't understand that tax breaks don't immediately change things, but then again, the mainstream media doesn't exactly report on how the economy is definitely improving right now.

as for clinton. i'm not blaming him. i'm also not praising him for the 8 years of good economy. he went in with an economy that was on the rise (due to greenspan, appoitned by reagan), he did nothing to change it for eight years (so that's good), but also, nothing happened during those 8 years to change the economy as drastically as 9/11 did. not blaming, just pointing out that it was well on its way down before bush even got into office. it's like blaming hoover for the 1929 depression.

why don't you guys just say that bush was flying the planes into the WTC, because i believe that's what you are getting at. i mean, if it's his fault that all these jobs were lost (do you really think it just affected the WTC and NY??), then he must have caused 9/11. if that's your stance, then i guess you have a point.

the war has not gone to hell!!!! my god, you believe every fucking liberal newspaper you read. i think you forget that over 1 million iraqis were killed under the saddam regime. apparently that is not important to anyone. that's what, 1/3 - 1/6 of the number killed in nazi germany... i guess that's not very much, we shouldn't have gone there. your right - one american life isn't worth saving one thousand iraqi lives.

as far as patriotism, to say there is a problem (when there really isn't one), and to turn your back on the troops who have done everything they can to help this cause. some of whom are already back in the states and have to hear from the left that they shouldn't have been there and basically that their service was worthless is highly disappointing, and to me, unpatriotic. if you guys want another vietnam, keep it up. the only difference here is that we have already won in iraq...something that LBJ knew wasn't possible and continued to send troops.

did you have a father that was spit on after vietnam becuase of people like kerry? bush is no god in my eyes. there are many things i disagree with (mostly social issues), but to have a traitor to this country and to his fellow troops as the president is just disgusting. really, this point has never been contested by kerry - there is no contesting the statements he made to congress and the affects they had on troops. if you don't know it is probably because your "freedom" fighter Kerry suppressed the media from showing it with frivilous lawsuits. you can find it here (if you watched fahrenheit, it's only fair to watch this too): http://www.buttondepress.com/BostonManifesto/StolenHonor.htm

as for me, i will get my own job, keep as much money as i can (since i worked 18 years to get it - having to go into debt to make it happen), buy my own healthcare and will support the troops no matter what the president decides to do.

i probably won't post anymore on this issue, since other than tom's responses i've basically just received meaningless snide remarks.

To Catherine:

Is it really activist to overturn an initially activist decision?

Not to try to piss you off, but I think it's a legit issue. If Roe was overturned in 1980, probably not. But now that we've had it for nearly 30 years, I think there is some credence to it. Although I don't think it's a fair comparison to the Mass gay marriage opinion. One puts us back to where we were for a long time, the other breaks entirely new ground. Which again, is fine if you agree with the outcome, but to those of us who believe political procedure has some importance, it is probably not the best way to accomplish the goal.

what? i'm not pissed off at anything you've said (and thank you for your good comments) but i don't understand what you're trying to say here. sorry, i got three hours of sleep last night. no, i don't think it would be very activist in the traditional sense to overturn roe v wade, because it's a return to a conservative viewpoint, but i guess i think it would be activist if it went against the mood of the nation. i don't really know the percentages of people who [dis]approve of abortion.

Umm... 9/11 did not cause the tech bubble nor the current state of U.S. manufacturing/industry relative to the world. The attack aggrevated the correction, but it is wrong to think that the current state of our economy is the result of one (or four if you are going to whine), albeit spectacularly devastating, attack.

jillyn, i'm sorry if you think my comments were snide. however, yours are completely reactionary and not necessarily based in reality. iraq is going very poorly right now; the deficit is on the rise; health care is terrible in this country; etc.

i have military vets in my family (grandfather, father, and my brother who will soon be serving actively, and they all voted kerry), and i will always support the troops. i've never said anything deragatory about their service. i'm sorry, but it is completely ludicrous and wingnutty to insist that i am defacing the troops by criticizing bush. if you think anyone who criticizes the president, the war ,or his handling of the war is also badmouthing the troops, that's an incorrect and extremely unfair assumption.

also, the more i think about it, the more you calling me or anyone unpatriotic is complete and utter bullshit. i voted, i studied the issues, i supported a candidate passionately, i made my criticisms known, i support the troops. please tell me exactly what you think i'm doing that's unpatriotic, except not supporting the president in his acctions 100% percent?

Well, it was a little unpatriotic to vote for Kerry. I mean, he was running against your PRESIDENT!

did you have a father that was spit on after vietnam becuase of people like kerry? bush is no god in my eyes. there are many things i disagree with (mostly social issues), but to have a traitor to this country and to his fellow troops as the president is just disgusting. really, this point has never been contested by kerry - there is no contesting the statements he made to congress and the affects they had on troops. if you don't know it is probably because your "freedom" fighter Kerry suppressed the media from showing it with frivilous lawsuits.

Jillyn: Do you believe that atrocities were committed in Vietnam? When soldiers testified that they committed atrocities, do you think that information should have been suppressed? Would you prefer that we were not told about the My Lai massacre (or Abu Ghraib, by extension)?

and you know what? until you've got a little brother who decides to go into the military, who is a leader in his ROTC battalion, who is being fought over by various departments of the navy, who is going to give 4+ years of his life to the military, who will do whatever his commander-in-chief tells him to, and who still manages to have the love, support, and extreme pride of his liberal, latte-drinking, commie family (many of whom have served themselves), you can go fuck a goat. seriously. say all you want about the economy, or taxes, or whatever. at least there are debatable merits there. but it is so low, and so utterly rude and petty and untrue to say that we don't support the troops because we dare to question how dear leader is running this fuck up of a war. i'm sure i've supported troops more than you ever have.

catherine, i just want to be clear. if really all you are saying is that you disagree with bush on the issues surrounding the iraqi war, then i agree that you are not unpatriotic for that point. however, i think you've said much more than that - including that the war should not have been fought at all. i definitely think that statements of that sort destorys the morale of our troops. for me, that is a direct stab at the troops. they can't fight for our freedom without support of what they are doing, and completely disregarding the importance of taking down a dictator that killed over one million of his own men is overlooking the purpose and necessity of the war.

as to the my lai massacre and other terrible things that occurred in vietnam. i'm not denying that any of it happened (although most swift vets have denied john kerry's accusations). my point is that discussing these things in such a public matter during the time of war, when you had men still in Vietnam (instead of quitting after 4 months), men still being held as prisoners is a disgrace to your fellow troops. if he had waited until we pulled out, it might have been different. if kerry had completely ignored the fact that he went to vietnam during his campaign, maybe it could have been ignored. but he held himself out as a war hero, and for a vast majority of the men who served in vietnam, he was seen as a traitor. he helped extend the war, he made situations for POW's in vietnam worse. nothing he said helped anything. remember that vietnam was a democratic ran war. they got us into it. they continued the war well after LBJ was told and admits that it could not be won. there is no doubt that people like john kerry made that war last longer than it should have. furthermore, due to his statements and the statements of other men, troops returned without welcome - something that has never happeneed before, and hasn't happened since.

luckily, i do think the troops are getting support when they return, but i have heard of several stories of troops being told they fought for something worthless. it pains me to know that my boyfriend's brother spent 6 months on a tank, sleeping only 2 hours a night, fighting for something he believes in, and he has to hear from someone it was all for nothing, when he knows he has helped the iraqis - he saw that he was helping them. this is exactly why i say that troops are directly affected by the statements made denying the importance of the war.

however, i think you've said much more than that - including that the war should not have been fought at all. i definitely think that statements of that sort destorys the morale of our troops.

well, that's where we have to disagree then. i'm sorry if some troops think the opinions of those who think the war was a bad idea means that what they've done is worthless. i don't see it that way at all. i can think the war is a terrible idea, but still find nobility and courage in what the troops have done and are doing over there. i don't see why that's so hard to understand.

I supported Kerry for his tax policy. it seemed to make more sense to me to get more money, (especially out of the upper class because they sure as shit don't need 5 or 10 thousand bucks each, but the country could use 10 billion dollars) to help pay for this war and our defecit and get ready for the retiring baby boomers who want their soc. secrity. But then i hear from some other smart people that maybe tax policy won't be enough to really turn the economy around - that you need to get businesses going and stuff to create jobs.
and i think, well, hell if the experts cant even agree than who am I. I'll just do what I always do, go to work, read books, eat sleep and occasionally bone and everything will be probably OK like it always has, and if not well, hell, I'm adaptable.

you should all consider my philosophy of calculated apathy. Sure you could spend all your waking hours doing research and trying to make a change, but your depression from last night and the next post indicate to me that you're beginning to see the diminishing returns of political involvement (has anyone charted a comparison of Kerry's campaign and the Redskins season...just a thought).
Just imagine: there's no dizzying highs, no horrifying lows and life becomes like floating in warm goo. It's really kind of nice...

Damnit, Jillyn—it's because atrocities were committed that troops returned home without welcome. We learned a lesson not to hold the troops to the fire over decisions made by their leadership, but we would have learned no lesson whatsoever were it not for the troops who courageously testified to their involvement in performing atrocities and John Kerry's bringing that testimony to public attention. You advocate silence and censorship in times of war for the abstract cause of "supporting our troops," but it was under those terms that Nixon was able to spread the war to Cambodia illegally—and were it not for Daniel Ellsberg's patriotic actions, we would not know.

You want to grant the government unconditional powers to hide the truth so that our troops feel like we're united? Trasnparency is the check we have on political leaders to ensure they don't order war crimes—it's just as much for our troops' sake as it is for us.

Kriston,

What you say is powerful, and important to the future of our democracy. But imagine how much more potent a speech it would be if you hadn't written it while wearing those silly ass glasses.

Mark: I always take them off at just the right dramatic moment for maximum effect and credibility.