Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Another good (bad) article on Kagan...

Found THIS on HuffPo today.  Good stuff. WAKE UP, LIBERALS!!!

Classic?  I think it'll be right up your alley.

On the other hand, I still don't think we have much of a choice here.  I'm far from HAPPY about that, but anyone who thinks this is "just as bad" as whoever these tea-bagging Right Wingers will foist onto the Republican Tickety in 2012... Well... A few months in and I guarentee you'll be PINING for the Obama days again. 

Just don't think that my recognition of that shitty reality in any way means that I'm endorsing it.  The more I read stuff like that, and think about how MODERATE Eisenhower & Nixon were, and how LIBERAL Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson were - all while still being light years away from Socialism or Communsim... I mean come on... That talk was downright absurd THEN...

So... How absurd is it NOW?!  Carter, Clinton, Obama... Every democratic President has been to the right of his Democratic predecessor and every Republican President (Reagan, Bush, Bush) has been to the righr of EVERYONE, and yet somehow all we here about is "Socialist this" and "Communsit that..."  I mean WTF?!  Kagan a "budding Commuist?" Part of the "NYC Communist Front?"  Are these people TRYING to sound ignorant?  Are they COMPETEING with each other to see who can vomit out the LEAST ACCURATE portrayal? 

Who the hell can listen to this garbage? Seriously.


  1. The "choice" we have is to do everything in our power (not much, admittedly) to bury the Obama beneath this Kagan thing. This needs the Harriet Miers approach (it's actually far worse for us than the Miers thing was for the conservatives, because Miers would have been a reliable reactionary--she just didn't have the paper-trail to prove it). An uprisig on the left.

    I haven't been writing much at my Left Hook! blog, or the other venues I frequent for political fencing because I've been writing about movie stuff lately (which I'd much rather write about), but I've already composed an angry rant on this for the blog, and I think I'm going to end my temporary absence and see if I can raise a little stink.

    Obama could appoint almost literally anyone and the Senate would confirm it, and this is what he's going to try to do to us. As soon as it happened, it seemed to me the culmination of everything I've written about he and his administration. He throws the liberals under the bus every time, even when he doesn't even have to (which is the case, here). This is one of THE most important choices he'll get to make.

    Relentless, merciless, pitiless hell should be raised.

    --the Moonbat

  2. Class,

    I hear you, and I hope you know that I feel the same frustration as you do hear here. But you misunderstand me when I ask for a 'choice.' Maybe I wasn't specific enough. I wanted one that would (1) do some good, and (2) do no harm. If Dennis Kucinich was a viable Presidential candidate, I'd vote him. As it was, I voted for Gore, and would gladly do so again. But whatever negative feelings I may have about the Democrats are hugely dwarfed by my fear, hatred and loathing of the Conservatives and the Republicans and the Funny-Mentalists and the Warmongering, Fearmongering, Xenophobic, Superstitious, Tea-Bagging Right-Wingers.

    Now... please correct me if I'm wrong - You've certainly earned the right to tell me I'm full of shit and expect me to take it to heart - but in our respective writings, I think there's a different motivation behind our judgement and our evaluation. You say you're a pragmatist - but I say you're the idealist and I'm the pragmatist. I say this because you jusdge [Obama, Legislation, a Nomination, whatever] against what you KNOW is RIGHT. (And there's certainly nothing wrong with that.) I do the same, but to a greater extent I judge it against the ALTERNATIVE. (Which is what often leads to me to what looks like a 'compromise' position.)

    And by "the alternative," I don't mean Kagan vs. Wood. I think you know I'm 100% with you on something like that, and that certainly was the perfect alternative for OBAMA to take. The thing is Kagan vs. Wood isn't a choice that I have. MY CHOICE was Obama vs. McCain. And somehow I don't think Wood would have been on McCain's short list! And THAT'S what stops me from wanting to see Obama truly laid low over this. As displeased as I am about Kagan, and the Democrat's in general - I have little doubt that I would hate McCain's (and Sarah Grima Wormtongue Palin's) nomination(s) (because there would be two by now, with a third by the end of the term) ten times as much. You may say otherwise, but I've seen enough, admittedly tepid, defense of Kagan to know that Reproductive Freedom, Gay Rights, Religion-free education, etc... all stand a better chance of surviving the term, than they would have under the alternative. And I've also seen what Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito represent. She's NOT one of THEM. I'm sorry, but she's not. And we could have a court with SEVEN like that by the end of this term.

    Again - I'm with you here. This nomination is frustrating as HELL to me - as is my realization that it's in my interests to accept it and MOVE ON. And in truth I realize that we BOTH consider BOTH aspects of these things. So fine, count me as one of those liberals you hate who are willing to give the Dem's a pass - at least electorally - when they pull shit like this. Just remember that I do so not out of any party loyalty, but rather out of abject terror of what these tea-bagging anarchists would do to this country with a Palin-esque president. Which they'll have if we let them!

    Hey, don't get me wrong: it sucks! And I'll say it again: I hear you! But I just can't bring myself to follow a path that will bring this country to such utter ruin. I don't see THAT happening now. (Sorry - I just don't.) But I sure as hell see the POTENTIAL for it.

    (OK... Now... How many times to I have to say "Kagan Sucks" to make amends?)

    PEACE, my friend. And Thanks, as always, for your comment.

  3. Ha! It only took you 4 days to stop backing away! Hate to say "told you so," but...

    My position on the Kagan thing isn't a matter of comparing what's right against what's practical. The Obama wasn't being "pragmatic" by choosing Kagan--he could have had just about anyone he wanted. Look at what the choice of Kagan will do, practically speaking, to the court: I just wrote an article on one example of it earlier today at my own blog. Multiply that by dozens, and you only begin to see how bad it could be.

    If you hold to some notion of "pragmatism" that makes you unwilling to punish Obama for something of this scale of Horrendous, you hand him a license to do whatever he wants, no matter how outrageous (and, having assumed responsibility for his actions, loose the right to be taken seriously when complaining about anything he may do). Conservative policies have the entire status quo behind them; they're easy to adopt and usually require minimal tending to maintain. Liberals policies, on the other hand, are things for which one must fight. If, because you've bought the "fear" card the Demo leadership peddles or for whatever other reason, you're more committed to narrow party politics (or, worse, to particular politicians) than to liberal sentiment, you defeat yourself before you even begin--preemptive surrender. That doesn't sound very "pragmatic" to me.

    Go down that route, and you're a slave to the party, rather than the party being a servant to you and the others who comprise it. All they have to do is wave a Republican voodoo fetish at you and you clam up and get back to doing Massah's bidding. The whole idea of electing Obama and the Democrats was that we WOULDN'T have to put up with bullshit like Kagan anymore. If the Obama is ever to be corrected on anything, we--and that's a collective "we," obviously, not just you and I--are the ones who have to do it. The Republicans are running around ranting about Kagan being an ugly socialist lesbian, and probably a suffragette--they're not going to do a damn thing to hold Obama accountable on something like that. It falls to us, and our proper role, here, is NOT to bend over and take it.

    Harriet Miers would probably have been just as reactionary as her replacement, but she had no paper trail to prove it, and that was unacceptable for conservatives. Bush was the most popular president among conservatives in the history of polling, but they were unwilling to let him have his way on that one. They fought the fight, and they won, and we're the worse for it, they the better. It is NOT in the interests of liberalism, the court, or the U.S. itself that we just roll over and die on this one--eat the shit sandwich Obama is shoveling, just like every other time. The very idea is more disgusting than the nominee.

    I'm better than that. You are, too.

    --the Moonbat

    BTW, read the current post on my blog for just one example of the havok Kagan could wreak on the court.

  4. I'll be sure to check out your blog.

    Just answer me one question: If 'punnishing' Obama means that the next Republican wins, either outright, due to a lack of liberal support for Obama, or because we post a serious 3rd Party Challenge (assuming the Tea Party doesn't follow suit on the right) are we better off? Does THAT serve liberalism? Does that benefit America?

    I'm hearing everything you say, and I have no doubt that your heart and principles are in the right place. And this is why, as usual, I do not (can not) dispute any of your POINTS. Your FACTS, your STATEMENTS, are not in question, at all.

    But you say that I'm "buying into the fear card, played by democratic leadership." And do you know what? YOU'RE GODDAMNED RIGTH I AM! Shit, it ain't even THEIR fear card! It's MY OWN! It's the card I'VE BEEN playing to anyone who will listen! Becuase I've SEEN what lies accross the ailse, and after eight years of Bush, the Republicans have NOT become more moderate. (If they did I might start voting for them once again!) But if anything they've doubled-down and pulled even HARDER to the right. So can you honestly say that the Dem Leadership doesn't have a POINT? Can you honestly say you'd be willing to 'punnish' them with potentially another 6-12 years in the minority in Congress and another 4-8 year hiatus from the White House? Would either Liberals OR America be better served by that? I'm sorry, I just don't see it.

    Believe me, I'm still with you on Kagan. And I understand completely what you're saying about her not being the "pragmatic" choice." Of course she isn't - and I never said she was. In fact, I THINK that one of the articles I linked to was arguing the exact opposite: Essentially that WOOD was the pragmatic choice NOW, given the huge (but soon be to dwindling) majoritis he holds, with Kagan held in reserve for the NEXT nomination (most likely to replace Ginsburg) in which he would likely have less of a majority, or none, and thus would be in greater need of a moderate nominee. So yeah: I still say this was a disastrous, stupid and completely unecessary compromise / choice / whatever. My judgement on THAT hasn't changed. But MY CHOICE is not Kagan vs. Wood, it's OBAMA vs. his potential primary and eventual Republican challenger.

    Are you willing to risk that? You think we'll be better off?

    Because I'm NOT. And I DON'T. (Not unless that Primary challenger is (1) more liberal and (2) likely to win.)

    And I guess that's I'm so much more willing to eat that "shit sandwich." But who knows? I'm still keenly interested in what you have to say on these things, so many there's hope for me yet.

    Moonbat. :)

    Thanks again for your comment.