Obama Should Call GOP's Bluff
[Program Note: Happy Saint Patrick's Day, everyone! I had intended to just re-run a previous holiday column today, such as my travelogue from last year's Paddy's Day journey to Ireland (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3, for anyone who hasn't read it yet), or my personal favorite, the column I wrote about "Saint Patrick And The Snakes." But events have been moving pretty quickly in the political world this week, so instead I had to write a short column pointing out the rampant hypocrisy being exhibited by Senate Republicans right now. So if you're more of a mind to drown your political sorrows today, I'd suggest clicking on one of those links above. For the rest of you, I'm hoping to publish this early enough that it can be read before the festivities really get under way. In any case, hope everyone has a fine holiday today, and as the Irish say: Beannachtaí na Féile Pádraig!]
George Orwell would be proud of Senate Republicans. Or maybe he wouldn't be "proud," but he certainly wouldn't be surprised. This is because he coined the word "doublethink," which is precisely what these Republicans are now revealing to the world. In fact, the Republican position is fast becoming "triplethink," an even more jaw-dropping feat of mental contortion.
Doublethink was defined, of course, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, as the ability to hold two completely contradictory ideas in your head and believe them both simultaneously, without blowing any intellectual fuses. War is peace? No problem.
When Antonin Scalia unexpectedly dropped dead, the doublethinking began in earnest. Conservatives who swear fealty to the United States Constitution immediately called on President Barack Obama to not perform his duties that same Constitution requires, and refuse to name anyone to replace Scalia on the Supreme Court. Scalia's body wasn't even cold before this chorus began, in fact.
Later, when it became obvious that Obama would, in fact, be fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate someone to the highest court in the land, the Republicans came up with an even more bizarre interpretation of what the Founding Fathers intended. The Senate should not act on Obama's nominee, they said, because "The People" [pause for genuflection] should have a say in the matter, through their presidential vote.
This was accompanied by doublethink of the purest sort. Republicans had the gall to claim that Obama making a nomination now would "politicize the process," and instead we should all just wait until after the election to replace Scalia. This is nonsense even the Blarney Stone would blush at, since throwing a Supreme Court pick into the mix of the presidential election is the very definition of "politicizing" the pick. Avoiding such politicization would require voting on Obama's nominee as soon as possible, to remove it from the seething cauldron of politics, not the other way around. As I said, some primo doublethink, there.
But now we're moving into the realm -- unforeseen by even Orwell -- of "triplethink." Doublethink isn't enough, in this day and age, it seems. We've got to hold three contradictory positions in our minds -- and believe them all simultaneously -- according to Senate Republicans. Because some of them have realized that the election might just not work out the way they hope it will, meaning President-Elect Hillary Clinton could be the one replacing Barack Obama. Now that Obama has named a consummate jurist who (at any other point in time) would be the best Republicans could possibly imagine from a Democratic president, Republicans are realizing that if Hillary Clinton gets sworn in next January, she might pick someone else -- someone a lot younger and a lot more liberal. And she just might have a Democratic Senate to confirm her pick. Oh, the horror!
So triplethink was the only answer, it seems. Some Republicans are now openly floating an idea that they think is a brilliant one. They'll refuse to vote on Obama's pick until after the election. But then if Hillary Clinton wins, then they'll quickly confirm Obama's nominee in the lame-duck period at the end of the calendar year.
Let's review the spiral down into irony of the Senate Republicans' thinking. The Constitution is not a "living document" and must be obeyed to the letter. Except, of course, when a Democrat is in the White House. Then you can just start making stuff up. Like inventing a "tradition" that has never existed -- presidents aren't allowed to nominate Supreme Court justices in their final year of office (even though over a dozen out of 44 of them have done so in the past). Furthermore, The People should have a say in the selection -- even though the Constitution was written to take this choice as far away from the popular vote as possible. Judicial appointments were to be made with several buffer layers erected in place of The People ever "having a say" in the process. The Electoral College, the fact that the senators were not originally elected by popular vote -- there are many barriers between the popular vote and judicial appointments in the very same document conservatives are supposed to revere. But none of that matters, because a Democrat is in the White House. A tradition that never was of letting The People have their say (even though the Constitution is designed to prevent this) will avoid "politicization" of the selection, by placing it squarely in the midst of the most political event Americans experience (a presidential election). But now, sensing that the next president might also be a Democrat, Republicans are conceding that they're just hypocritical con-men peddling pure Leprechaun-poop about The People, because if The People elect someone Republicans don't like, then they will ignore The People entirely and just go ahead and confirm Obama's nominee after The People have spoken. Some Republicans in the Senate might have lost their jobs by that point, so they would be voting in direct opposition to their own constituents' wishes.
Got all that? Triplethink! Irony is dead! Hypocrisy is noble! Ignorance is bliss! We're into such uncharted territory that the only way out is a grand gesture to counteract the free-flowing idiocy erupting from the other side.
President Obama should now back the Senate Republicans into an even tighter corner than they've already painted for themselves. He should do so by calling their bluff. Obama should announce that his nomination for the Supreme Court will remain open right up to Election Day -- but that the day after, it will be withdrawn no matter who wins. The Senate Republicans are telling anyone who will listen right now that they are nobly going to listen to what The People have to say, so they're going to have to live with the result -- no matter what The People actually say.
This removes the hypocritical "Plan B" that Republicans seem to now be contemplating. There will be no lame-duck confirmation, Obama should announce, because there will be no Obama nomination after the election -- it'll disappear the moment the winner is called by the networks. Republicans will not be able to have it both ways on what The People have to say, since they obviously can't recognize their own hypocrisy in even contemplating such a course of action after all the sweeping statements they've made about The People.
This would leave the Republicans with some very hard choices. Even if they win the election, would a Donald Trump appointee be better or worse than the man Obama has nominated? Trump might just go ahead an appoint his sister to the job (this isn't as far-fetched as it sounds, as Trump's sister is already a federal appellate court judge -- and a fairly liberal one). If that's not frightening enough for Republicans to contemplate, the only other option is a Hillary Clinton nominee. Possibly with a Democratically-controlled Senate to confirm her choice.
Those two options would have to be weighed against the fairly moderate jurist Obama has just put forth. But with the pronouncement that confirmation in the lame-duck session is completely off the table, Republicans would have to decide to act before the election. This is a lose-lose scenario for them. If a Republican Senate confirmed an Obama nominee, Republican base voters are going to be downright incensed. If the Senate does nothing and they let slip the chance to confirm a moderate on the court, thus giving Hillary Clinton a very young, very liberal pick on her first day in office, the Republican base voters are also going to be incensed. It'll just happen a few months later, that's all.
Which is precisely why Obama should call their bluff. He'd be playing off their own twisted logic, by doing so. If The People are supposed to be a part of the process, after all, then the Senate should not have the option of ignoring what The People say in the election. You can't have it both ways. Put up, or shut up.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Chris: yep. This Supreme Court thing has created multi-tiered hypocrisy on the part of repubs.
Today's anecdote: Older black woman coming into grocery store. She gave me an earful!
"I have never seen anything like this election season. I am horrified at what I am seeing. I am glued to the TV and it is terrible. These candidates are all about them. They are supposed to be representing US. The rhetoric coming out of the right is terrifying. People are struggling out here and it isn't just race. I know people with college degrees that can't get work. They should be focusing on their plans on how to help, not their personalities. I pray by the time we get to November we've cleaned this up."
Who is she leaning towards?
"I am 100% for Hillary. And it's not just because she's a woman! She has the experience and the realism. I like Bernie Sanders but I just don't think he's realistic."
I suppose that Garland is better than having Trump nominate his sister or Mike Tyson, but that's about it. I don't really see why he signed on to troll the Republicans.
"I am 100% for Hillary. And it's not just because she's a woman! She has the experience and the realism. I like Bernie Sanders but I just don't think he's realistic."
Between an adult and a spoiled brat, who do you think America is going to pick? If only that question were as rhetorical as it should be :)
Should have made clear - the spoiled brat is Trump. Bernie is your happy old hippy uncle :)
Spoiled brat? More like mob goon.
That Quicken Loans Arena sure is nice. It would be a terrible shame if something happened to it. Terrible! - Don Trump
You know, it occurs, that if Obama wants to really help Hillary win, he should parrot any centrist policy that Trump proposes when he tries to pivot. If Obama said the same thing as Trump and then a week later they ran an ad along the lines of "Trump is saying the same things as Obama" it takes the middle ground away and turns a rout into a landslide!
Obama should not wait for the election. He should take Garland off the table in October. If Garland is not on the Supreme Court when they start the new term, then he's no longer necessary.
Basically, go all in. Nominate someone to turn out the liberal base. If Dems take the WH (the Senate will follow the WH vote) then nominate a true left wing wet dream. Renominate the same person on 1/3. Schumer changes the rules and we have a true lefty before HC is sworn in.
Oh, and CW, your line "[e]xcept, of course, when a Democrat is in the White House" should be changed to reflect reality: "[e]xcept, of course, when a BLACK Democrat is in the White House."
Chris,
Obama should announce that his nomination for the Supreme Court will remain open right up to Election Day -- but that the day after, it will be withdrawn no matter who wins.
That would be brilliant ONLY if the nominee was in on the fun. But, judging from his emotional remarks at what can be described an a momentous occasion on the announcement of his nomination for Supreme Court justice, I don't think he is. And, so, calling the Republicans' bluff, would be too much playing with this man's life.
Unless, of course, Hillary was also in on calling the Republicans' bluff and agreed that, if she is elected and the Republicans don't confirm Obama's nominee before the election, she will put forth Obama's nominee for confirmation by the Senate.
Whether Obama calls their bluff or not - and, let's get real, here ... the chance of that happening is, very sadly, just this side of never - it seems that, whomever ends up being the nominee (whether nominated by Obama, Clinton or Trump) it will be a choice that Republicans can't be happy about. And, that's good enough for me. :)
And to think some people believe Trump is going to insult his way to the Presidency, well here is a black belt:
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2016/mar/17/what-donald-trump-butler-saw-behind-scenes-real-life-xanadu-citizen-kane?CMP=fb_gu
Funniest think I've read in weeks.
"Perhaps someone like [Trump's] own Melania, whose actual Rosebud (ed: Citizen Kane is Trump's favorite movie - his advice to Kane: "He should have got a new wife" - I'm not making this up) we have yet to see, but which – if the increasingly soft-porn photographs steadily emerging from her former career as a lingerie model are anything to go by – may yet itself be unveiled as the proverbial October surprise. I know. Put that in your snowglobe and drop it."
Sheer genius from The Guardian
OK, before I get to these... this is hilarious.
A modern Irish classic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQn4eVdXy_w
:-)
-CW
neilm [7] -
You know, it might just be the Guinness talking, but that's pretty brilliant...
Speak2 [8] -
Good point, but I was trying to be polite. Heh.
LizM [9] -
I think he's fully aware he may become nothing more than a sacrificial lamb.
Michale -
I know you haven't commented yet, but I just had to say -- your idea of a recess appointment is sounding better and better all the time. Would have let Republicans off the hook, would have gotten someone on the court immediately, and still would have punted the real decision to the next president. Like I said, the more time goes by, the smarter this scheme seems. Maybe the GOP will (by mistake/on purpose) still allow him to do so by suddenly adjourning and letting a real Senate recess happen. Hey, it could happen...
-CW
Chris,
I think he's fully aware he may become nothing more than a sacrificial lamb.
So, that wonderful announcement ceremony at the White House was nothing more than a sham?
That's very disappointing.
Wait a minute. Do you think that Obama would be disappointed if Judge Garland were confirmed in the lame duck session? Did I not hear him say that Garland was his second choice in his previous pick? I think he'd be delighted, having after all replaced an arch-conservative with a moderate, on top of the two liberal picks he's already made, one of whom, Elana Kagan, was best friends with Garland before either one was tapped for the high court.
But I'd love to see McConnell try to squirm out of the sort of box you describe...
This was accompanied by doublethink of the purest sort. Republicans had the gall to claim that Obama making a nomination now would "politicize the process," and instead we should all just wait until after the election to replace Scalia. This is nonsense even the Blarney Stone would blush at, since throwing a Supreme Court pick into the mix of the presidential election is the very definition of "politicizing" the pick. Avoiding such politicization would require voting on Obama's nominee as soon as possible, to remove it from the seething cauldron of politics, not the other way around. As I said, some primo doublethink, there.
Two words..
Biden Rule... :D
If there is doublethink afoot, Democrats thunked it first.. :D
Now that Obama has named a consummate jurist who (at any other point in time) would be the best Republicans could possibly imagine from a Democratic president,
A "consummate jurist" that hates guns..
Sorry, Garland's a no-go from the get go..
Got all that? Triplethink! Irony is dead! Hypocrisy is noble! Ignorance is bliss! We're into such uncharted territory that the only way out is a grand gesture to counteract the free-flowing idiocy erupting from the other side.
WHAT!!!! REPUBLICANS are playing POLITICS!!????
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!
{/sarc}
:D
hich is precisely why Obama should call their bluff. He'd be playing off their own twisted logic, by doing so. If The People are supposed to be a part of the process, after all, then the Senate should not have the option of ignoring what The People say in the election. You can't have it both ways. Put up, or shut up.
So, basically, you want Obama to act like you are accusing Republicans of acting??
Well, ooooookay...
"I call all women O and all men K.. To me, K is masculine and O is feminine. So when I see a couple it's "oooooookaaaaayyy"
-Agent J, MEN IN BLACK III
:D
Michale
Neil,
Between an adult and a spoiled brat, who do you think America is going to pick? If only that question were as rhetorical as it should be :)
But you see, you don't get to frame the election.
The American people do..
And to date, the election is framed as The Establishment vs The ANTI-Establishment...
And it's clear who will win THAT election.. :D
You know, it occurs, that if Obama wants to really help Hillary win, he should parrot any centrist policy that Trump proposes when he tries to pivot.
What part of Trump Doesn't Have To Pivot do you not understand??
Trump has been running a General Election campaign since Day One...
The contrast between Hillary's gross and obvious pivot and Trump's straight and true campaigning is going to make Hillary look like an idjut...
That's of course, assuming she GETS to pivot before the FBI recommends an indictment..
8 Weeks and counting. :D
Michale
Liz,
That would be brilliant ONLY if the nominee was in on the fun. But, judging from his emotional remarks at what can be described an a momentous occasion on the announcement of his nomination for Supreme Court justice, I don't think he is. And, so, calling the Republicans' bluff, would be too much playing with this man's life.
I got the same vibe... If Garland was in on it, I would say 'OK, good manuever'...
If he were NOT in on it, I would think 'wow, what a chickeshit thing to do. Perfectly apt for Obama...'
Whether Obama calls their bluff or not - and, let's get real, here ... the chance of that happening is, very sadly, just this side of never - it seems that, whomever ends up being the nominee (whether nominated by Obama, Clinton or Trump) it will be a choice that Republicans can't be happy about. And, that's good enough for me. :)
Which would simply solidifies and justifies the GOP's choice of NOT confirming Obama's nominee. Because it's NOT about putting the best jurist on the SCOTUS but rather, it's all about scrooing over the GOP as much as possible..
In short, PARTY before Country... It's the Democrat Party way... :^/
Michale
CW,
I know you haven't commented yet, but I just had to say -- your idea of a recess appointment is sounding better and better all the time. Would have let Republicans off the hook, would have gotten someone on the court immediately, and still would have punted the real decision to the next president. Like I said, the more time goes by, the smarter this scheme seems. Maybe the GOP will (by mistake/on purpose) still allow him to do so by suddenly adjourning and letting a real Senate recess happen. Hey, it could happen...
Yea, the GOP really lost an opportunity to exit this debacle with a modicum of grace.. As did Obama...
But, this COULD indicate that the GOP is certain that Trump will win the White House.. Of course, being politicians they are keeping their options open..
"Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops. But it also means I keep my options open."
-Jeffery Pelt, THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER
:D
Michale
So, that wonderful announcement ceremony at the White House was nothing more than a sham?
That's very disappointing.
But par for the course..
Remember the sham Berghdahl Rose Garden announcement??
Michale
Balthasar,
Wait a minute. Do you think that Obama would be disappointed if Judge Garland were confirmed in the lame duck session? Did I not hear him say that Garland was his second choice in his previous pick? I think he'd be delighted, having after all replaced an arch-conservative with a moderate, on top of the two liberal picks he's already made, one of whom, Elana Kagan, was best friends with Garland before either one was tapped for the high court.
Garland's anti-2nd Amendment stance certainly shows that he is unsuitable for the SCOTUS...
Anyone that wants to ignore the 2nd Amendment and disarm Americans is a no-go from the get go...
Michale
So, what ya'all are saying is that ya'all want an UP OR DOWN vote for Garland..
Republicans wanted an UP OR DOWN VOTE for Roberts and Alito.. Both Hillary AND Obama supported a filibuster of those nominees...
This is why it's impossible to get excited about DO YOUR JOB cries from the Left Wingery..
Because, the shoe has been on the other foot MANY times and it was the Democrats who wouldn't DO THEIR JOBS..
Cue indignant cries of, "Well, that's different!!" to which I say, "Of course it is..." :D
Michale
I am also constrained to point out that the "triple think" you allude to is NOT the position of the Senate GOP leadership, but rather soundbites tossed out by rank and file GOP Senators..
So, the LEADERSHIP of the Senate is still firmly behind The Biden Rule, established in 1992 when it was rumored that a SCOTUS member would soon be retiring..
It's as bi-partisan as it gets, people.. A GOP Senate following the STATED wishes of the sitting VP...
Michale
Republicans are following the McConnell Rule - lie a lot and obstruct a lot if the black guy in the White House proposes something.
Republicans are following the McConnell Rule - lie a lot and obstruct a lot if the black guy in the White House proposes something.
And, as usual, the Left Winger brings RACE into an issue that has nothing to do with race...
Par for the course.... With the Left Wingery, *EVERYTHING* is about race....
Apparently, the Party that gave us the KKK doesn't WANT to live in Dr Martin Luther King's world.. A world where people are judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin...
Sad...
Michale
The Constitution is not a "living document" and must be obeyed to the letter. Except, of course, when a Democrat is in the White House.
No no no. It's not the letter. You have to obey the original intent of the framers. It changes from year to year, or moment to moment, but can usually be transcribed verbatim from the Republican platform.
Michale wrote:
"And to date, the election is framed as The Establishment vs The ANTI-Establishment...
And it's clear who will win THAT election.. :D"
But that supposes that everything remains crystal clear. What if it doesn't? What if to secure the nomination, Trump chooses an establishment running mate for his VP, like Rubio? What if to secure her base, Clinton chooses an anti-establishment running mate for he VP, like Sanders? (it does not have to be those two, name any others you want.) What then?
What if it's anti-establishment / establishment ticket vs establishment / anti-establishment ticket? Does the scenario still play the same?
@Michale [#16, #21]
A "consummate jurist" that hates guns..
Garland's anti-2nd Amendment stance certainly shows that he is unsuitable for the SCOTUS...
Anyone that wants to ignore the 2nd Amendment and disarm Americans is a no-go from the get go...
Michale,
Could you detail your basis for claiming Judge Garland is "anti-2nd Amendment"? I've only read about two court cases where he was involved in ruling but as I understood them (though not closely), neither ruling centered on private gun ownership.
But that supposes that everything remains crystal clear. What if it doesn't?
Fair enough.. I will readily agree that if the American people, notoriously finicky that they are, change their minds and embrace the Establishment, then Hillary will likely win the election.
Can YOU concede that, if the American people still have their Anti-Establishment attitude in November that they do now, then Trump will likely become POTUS??
:D
But that supposes that everything remains crystal clear. What if it doesn't? What if to secure the nomination, Trump chooses an establishment running mate for his VP, like Rubio? What if to secure her base, Clinton chooses an anti-establishment running mate for he VP, like Sanders? (it does not have to be those two, name any others you want.) What then?
Should that occur, then we can re-visit the issue...
If Trump picks Rubio, I doubt it will matter to Trumpeteers...
If Hillary picks Sanders, Democrats will just call it pandering.. :D
Michale
AWWW carp!!!
I am assuming you can follow that, JM...
Michale
Could you detail your basis for claiming Judge Garland is "anti-2nd Amendment"? I've only read about two court cases where he was involved in ruling but as I understood them (though not closely), neither ruling centered on private gun ownership.
I read of three cases where Garland (I can't write JUDGE GARLAND because it makes me think of THE WIZARD OF OZ :D) ruled against private gun ownership. One was a case in DC..
Garland ruled about retaining gun records which would surely impact ownership..
He also worked with other judges in the DC case in a failed attempt to reconsider the sweeping Gun Rights ruling in District Of Columbia VS Parker which went on to become DC v HELLER which is the definitive SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment..
More details here:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-supreme-court-nominee-has-anti-gun-record/
While I would be willing to hear Garland out on exactly what he thinks of the 2nd Amendment, as things stand now??
He is not qualified to the SCOTUS based on his anti-gun leanings..
Michale
CW-
Your short columns tend to be very good - maybe it IS the Guinness talking, or perhaps the Guinness is editing? Just don't let the Guinness drive.
dws-26
"It changes from year to year, or moment to moment, but can usually be transcribed verbatim from the Republican platform."
This year it's determined by Fox Nooz, part of the same RNC outsourcing that ran, or tweaked, the Republican Debates.
Regarding Democrats voting for Kasich in Ohio's Wide Open Primary: my anecdotal evidence suggests it was pretty common. My brother voted for Kasich, so did two of my buddies at the fitness center, plus the wife of one of the fitness center buddies. Plus two of the coworkers of one of the wives. My other brother seriously considered voting for Kasich, but went Clinton waiting in line. All in all, I personally know of more Democrats who voted for Kasich than either Clinton or Sanders. None of this was coordinated, just a spontaneous outbreak of "Stump the Trump." Not likely to stop him, but Kasich winning Ohio improved the odds a little.
Finally, how about a mashup of Judge Judy and Judge Garland?
Michale-
Jumping on the smear bandwagon, eh? A better explanation...
Michale wrote:
"Fair enough.. I will readily agree that if the American people, notoriously finicky that they are, change their minds and embrace the Establishment, then Hillary will likely win the election."
Wow, I never thought I would actually see that admission in writing!!! :-D
"Can YOU concede that, if the American people still have their Anti-Establishment attitude in November that they do now, then Trump will likely become POTUS??"
Yes, I can concede that. But I think it is extremely unlikely to happen. For one, too many segments of the electorate are against Trump for too many various reasons.
Secondly, as long as most of the American voting electorate sees itself as either being middle class or upper class, people who think that way rarely if ever vote in the majority to upset the apple cart. Middle class democracies are inherently status quo.
You only get revolutionary change, either democratically or not, when a majority no longer see themselves as middle class, but as poor instead. Then you wind up getting either a Hitler in 1930's Germany or a Chavez in 1990's Venezuela, for example.
Bashi,
Jumping on the smear bandwagon, eh? A better explanation...
A different explanation, to be sure..
Better?? I guess that depends on yer ideological bent. :D
It's a moot point, as Garland won't see the inside of the Senate Chambers anyways..
Michale
Wow, I never thought I would actually see that admission in writing!!! :-D
Then you haven't been paying attention.. I said the exact same thing to Liz a few days ago. heh :D
You only get revolutionary change, either democratically or not, when a majority no longer see themselves as middle class, but as poor instead.
As many of the middle class are saying in the here and now...
:D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"As many of the middle class are saying in the here and now..."
I don't think so. I don't think that's really true of the broad American public. I think it's a misread of Trump's appeal to a segment of the Republican base for very specific reasons that don't apply to other segments.
Trump appeals to the Republican base who feels like they have been lied to, betrayed, and taken advantage of by Republican leaders. As examples: Elect us, and we will make Obama a one term President. Elect us, and we will repeal Obamacare. Elect us, and we will stop gay marriage from ever becoming a reality. Elect us, and we will overturn Roe vs Wade. All things the leadership promised in order just to get votes, but were in reality impossible to do and were never going to politically happen.
The Democratic base in no way feels the same way about Democratic leaders. Bernie's appeal on that side is twofold. One is a reaction against Republican priorities, which have largely held sway over more Liberal Democratic ones in getting enacted, largely because of Republican control of Congress. Secondly, because they don't think that Obama has gone far or forcefully enough in pushing a truly liberal agenda, as a President Sanders or Warren would. Not because of a fundamental sens of betrayal of being lied to by the Leadership.
Michale wrote:
Because, the shoe has been on the other foot MANY times and it was the Democrats who wouldn't DO THEIR JOBS..
When, exactly, have the Democrats refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee? Pointing to the "Biden Rule" as the precedent in this situation is foolish. For the "Biden Rule" to be followed, the Republicans would have to allow for the hearings to take place. The "precedent" refers to what was done previously, not what was said.
When, exactly, have the Democrats refused to hold hearings on a Supreme Court nominee? Pointing to the "Biden Rule" as the precedent in this situation is foolish. For the "Biden Rule" to be followed, the Republicans would have to allow for the hearings to take place. The "precedent" refers to what was done previously, not what was said.
And yet ya'all are simply going by what the GOP has SAID...
The Biden Rule laid out that it's not appropriate to hold hearings this close to a Presidential Election..
It's what Biden *SAID*...
If what is SAID is binding to Republicans, then it's also binding to Demcorats...
You can't have it both ways...
Michale
I don't think so. I don't think that's really true of the broad American public. I think it's a misread of Trump's appeal to a segment of the Republican base for very specific reasons that don't apply to other segments.
And, if Trump ONLY had appeal to the Republican base, you would be correct..
But over 20% of Democrats (and growing) are going for Trump.. Minorities are going for Trump..
That disproves your theory completely...
Michale
As usual Michale embraces another rightwing trope: The "Biden" Rule, which, of course, isn't what the Repubs claim. It's another of their classic taken out of context excuses for obstructionism.
But even if it were "true", so what? So a Democrat says something in 1992 -- says something. Doesn't legislate it. Doesn't pass a law. Doesn't in any way turn it into anything. He makes a hypothetical example of something. That, according to the leading Republican lights, is all they need to justify their actions. The fact that Biden "said something" didn't make it "binding" to anyone. It never did -- because it was a hypothetical.
Not that I expect Michale to go to the trouble of reading the entire passage, rather than the cherrry-picked part because he would like it to be an example of his beloved "both sides do it therefore my side is never guilty of anything" form of "reasoning". That it is just another weaselly lie from a bunch of professional liars is irrelevant.
More relevant, watch the video of Al Franken making republicans squirm as they try to justify their tortured reasoning on this issue. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/al-franken-supreme-court-nominee_us_56eadff2e4b084c6721f9393
Towards the end the camera shows Orrin Hatch sitting there, surrounded by other repubs, all looking sheepish and literally saying "well, you started it with Bork". It's a perfect moment enshrining the level at which the repubs operate.
John M. (37) The Democratic base in no way feels the same way about Democratic leaders. Bernie's appeal on that side is twofold… Yep.
There's a whole different thing going on on the Dem side that Michale cannot grasp.
The Biden Rule was *ONLY* hypothetical because a retiring Justice opted NOT to retire..
It's a moot point.. Republicans are following the BIDEN rule..
Ya'all are just pissy about it because they are using a Democrat rule to their own advantage...
But ya'all crowed to high heaven when the Democrats used the Nuclear Option to THEIR advantage..
Ya'all just don't like it when it's done to Democrats..
That's all this is...
Michale
There's a whole different thing going on on the Dem side that Michale cannot grasp.
And more than 20% of Democrats (AND growing) are going for Trump..
That's the one thing that ya'all ignore.. :D
Again, it's a moot point. In the here and now, this is an Establishment vs ANTI-Establishment General Election...
If this holds true til November.....
Hillary will lose...
Michale
If this holds true til November.....
Hillary will lose...
If she even MAKES it that far.. There is the pending indictment..
ANOTHER thing that ya'all ignore.. :D
Michale
Michale wrote:
"If she even MAKES it that far.. There is the pending indictment..
ANOTHER thing that ya'all ignore.. :D"
Not ignoring, I just don't think it's very likely.
"Minorities are going for Trump.."
I see no evidence of that. Where is Trump picking up 40% of the Latino vote or 40% of the African American vote? And don't say 15%. Remember, even Romney getting what, 27% of the Latino vote, could still not win a general election without carrying more of a percentage than that.
"But over 20% of Democrats (and growing) are going for Trump.."
Again, where is the proof? I don't believe Obama won by carrying Reagan Democrats in the first place anyway. Plus, they are an increasingly shrinking share of the electorate, and of the winning Democratic coalition.
Not ignoring, I just don't think it's very likely.
While I would be interested in the facts you have to support such an opinion, I have to concede.. Yes.. You have addressed it..
I see no evidence of that. Where is Trump picking up 40% of the Latino vote or 40% of the African American vote?
The fact that he is picking up ANY minority voters is proof that your theory is flawed...
Again, where is the proof?
Poll: 20% of Dems would defect for Trump
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/265330-some-dems-would-defect-for-trump-poll-shows
And THAT was before the Primaries that reported TENS OF THOUSANDS of Democrats crossing the line and registered as Republican to vote for Trump..
I would not be surprised if 30%+ Democrats are Trumpeteers...
Michale
What exactly is Hillary to be indicted for? By whom?
I will give you another example of what I was talking about earlier. A tea party Republican was elected to my House district promising if he was elected he would impeach Obama and Obama would be removed from office, among other things. So most of what I heard on my Congressman's website was conservative constituents writing in angrily asking why he wasn't doing his job and impeaching Obama and removing him from office. When that did not happen they felt betrayed.
But that's not how the real world works. They never heard or understood or grasped anything beyond that one simplistic promised message. It was never explained to them that impeachment was only the first minor step. That impeachment does not remove someone from office. That after impeachment follows a lengthy trial. That after that comes a vote by the jury, by the Senate. Something the House has no say about. That as long as the Senate was under majority Democratic control, that was never going to happen. That even with Republican control, it still requires a 2/3 vote. Something, again, that was never going to happen.
Simply electing a tea party member to the House, was never going to oust or stop Obama simply on its own. That's why the Republican base feels betrayed and is supporting Trump.
And my Republican tea party Congressman was only one of two in the entire country who was replaced by a Democrat in the last election.
Paula,
What exactly is Hillary to be indicted for?
The FBI, at the personal direction of Director Comey, a man who's integrity is, according to Democrats, ABOVE REPROACH, has a 150-200-agent strong force that is investigating Hillary's use of a private insecure home-brew bathroom closet email server. This task force is investigating if any unauthorized persons accessed classified intelligence, took classified intelligence and transferred it to an insecure system or discussed classified intelligence in an insecure forum..
In short.. ComSec and Espionage Act violations in the hundreds...
By whom?
On around the first week of May, Director Comey will issue a recommendation to the Justice Department. It's nearly certain that Comey's recommendation will be to indict Hillary Clinton and/or senior staff for the ComSec and Espionage Act violations..
The question of whether or not the DOJ will indict is NOT a criminal question, but rather a political one..
If the DOJ declines to indict, two things will happen..
First, there will be a wholesale resignation of hundreds of FBI agents up to and likely including Comey...
Second, after these resignations, there will be a information dump the likes this country has never seen.. Each and every count of each and every crime will be scrupulously dumped into the public sector.... The press will have a field day....
And Hillary WILL be indicted in the Court Of Public Opinion...
So... There WILL be an indictment... This is fact..
The only question is whether or not it will be by the DOJ or by the CPO...
Michale
Simply electing a tea party member to the House, was never going to oust or stop Obama simply on its own. That's why the Republican base feels betrayed and is supporting Trump.
That's part of it... But what about Democrats who are supporting Trump??
THEY also feel betrayed by Obama and the Democrats because the rich have gotten richer and the middle class has gotten poorer..
So, why would middle class Democrats want Obama's 3rd term when they have been so thoroughly scrooed by Obama's 1st and 2nd term???
This is an ESTABLISHMENT vs ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT election..
If this holds true til November, Hillary will likely lose....
These are the facts...
So, you better hope that Obama pulls something really awesome out of his ass in the next 8 months or so... :D
Michale
Michale
And if the FBI mess wasn't enough to have Hillary quaking in her shoes...
Hillary Has an NSA Problem
The FBI has been investigating Clinton for months—but an even more secretive Federal agency has its own important beef with her
http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/
Hillary ALSO has a brawl going with the frakin' NSA...
Probably the ONE agency in this country that you DON'T want to piss off...
What DoJ decides to do with EmailGate is ultimately a question of politics as much as justice.
Hmmm.. I think I just said that... :D
That said, if DoJ declines to prosecute after the Bureau recommends doing so, a leak-fest of a kind not seen in Washington, D.C., since Watergate should be anticipated. The FBI would be angry that its exhaustive investigation was thwarted by dirty deals between Democrats. In that case, a great deal of Clintonian dirty laundry could wind up in the hands of the press, habitual mainstream media covering for the Clintons notwithstanding, perhaps having a major impact on the presidential race this year.
That's just what I said... :D
It's amazing that I read exactly what I commented just a few moments ago... :D
Michale
Anti-Trump spending has topped 63 MILLION DOLLARS!!!
And all it did was make Trump stronger and stronger...
How do ya'all explain that???
Michale
M-
Two words..
Biden Rule... :D
Two words....
McConnell Rule
Even better I like the Grassley Rule
or....
how about the Hatch Rule?
Michale (49): A google search brings up article after article, 95% from rightwing media outlets announcing Hilllary's imminent indictment. I went through some 9 pages of google listings and saw a chunk of articles from last summer and fall; a whole bunch from January and February this year, ending on about February 2nd. Not much since.
Your rhetoric on the topic seems well in line with your sources. I haven't followed this story much recently because it seems to be mostly hot air and wishful thinking by righties (like Benghazi). I read debunkings months ago and found a few from this month. The debunkers, unlike your sources, seem content to wait for the FBI to come to its conclusions -- the rest is the same stuff that's been out there all along.
You clearly get great joy imagining Hillary being indicted. You just go right ahead and enjoy it while you can because I think you're going to be very disappointed in the end, not only because she won't get indicted, but because 100s of FBI agents won't resign either.
Of course it will just feed your ongoing narrative of Hillary somehow always skates away from crimes (alleged) -- amazing how she does it! -- so you'll be just as happy in the end. The important thing is to alway have a grievance, and you will.
McConnell Rule -- Yeah.
Michale wrote:
It's what Biden *SAID*...
If what is SAID is binding to Republicans, then it's also binding to Demcorats...
You can't have it both ways...
Not asking for it both ways. The actions matter, not the words. I was against the Democrats claiming they would not consider the president's nominee then, so I do not know why you think I would have supported their obstruction. It was wrong then, and it is still wrong today regardless of which party we are talking about! This is what I find so frustrating...this is not a "Republican/Democrat" philosophical debate; it is about "right/wrong" for our country.
Paula -
The McConnell Rule is a good one...
I like the Hatch Rule as well...it can be found in the Congressional Record 107th Congress daily digest pg s.7285.
GT,
Two words....
McConnell Rule
And that is....????
Michale
Paula,
The debunkers, unlike your sources, seem content to wait for the FBI to come to its conclusions -- the rest is the same stuff that's been out there all along.
Having an extensive LEO and investigative background AND knowing the integrity and non-political nature of FBI Director Comey, I can assure you with complete confidence that the Director will recommend Hillary and/or senior staff be indicted for their crimes..
You clearly get great joy imagining Hillary being indicted.
Oh I do, I do... I just LOVE imagining justice being served and criminals taken down...
I love it.. :D
You just go right ahead and enjoy it while you can because I think you're going to be very disappointed in the end, not only because she won't get indicted, but because 100s of FBI agents won't resign either.
Do you want to put your pride up for wager on that?? :D
Say you wear this for a day.....
http://static1.squarespace.com/static/557b41f8e4b0e197d1188067/t/55a5a61fe4b0264e961a50ee/1436919328225/Hillary+for+Prison+Shirt.png?format=1500w
..... if I am right and Comey recommends indictment??
And I wear any pro-Hillary T-shirt of your choice if Comey doesn't recommend indictment?? :D
Are you really THAT sure that you are right and I am wrong?? :D
Michale
Not asking for it both ways. The actions matter, not the words.
Exactly..
And, to date... All we have are the WORDS of the GOP that they won't process the nominee...
I was against the Democrats claiming they would not consider the president's nominee then, so I do not know why you think I would have supported their obstruction.
So you DO agree that Democrats have done what the GOP is doing now...
It was wrong then, and it is still wrong today regardless of which party we are talking about! This is what I find so frustrating...this is not a "Republican/Democrat" philosophical debate; it is about "right/wrong" for our country.
I couldn't agree more...
So, you condemn the Democrat Party for taking the same actions/saying the same things that the GOP is doing/saying in the here and now...
That's all I am saying...
Michale