JMM notes that many are saying that the retirement of Justice Souter, like all other earthly events, is good news for Republicans. I expect to hear the phrase “a chance to get their mojo back” a lot over the next few weeks. Now, logic dictates there is no way that it is good news to have an Supreme Court vacancy occur while you are an opposition party with fewer than 41 Senate seats. That’s not my point here, though.
My question is this: why is it a smart political strategy to insist that absolutely everything is good news for your party? Other things in life don’t work that way. It’s not considered a good idea to insist you don’t need medical attention when are suffering from a life-threatening ailment. It’s not considered a good idea to run out the clock when you are behind. Why is politics so different from the rest of life?
Johnny Pez
Not to get carried away, but this is how realignments happen.
conumbdrum
Hooooooot Smalley, futhermuckers!
jrg
Baby Jesus hates bad news. You don’t want to disappoint Baby Jesus.
Third Eye Open
My Econ 101 prof used to say that, “Economics is the study of common sense, while politics is the study of nonsense” I think this is silly, they are both nonsense. In what other field can you answer detractors by claiming ceteris peribus, or “drill,baby,drill” are reasonable, well-thought-out answers to difficult, multi-faceted issues?
Shibby
I think it’s an inherent feature of the myth of the Republican party. Many of their views are defined by absolutes, i.e. black and white, good vs. evil. Good things only happen to good people. Ergo since they define the republicans as inherently right, all occurrences for them must be good, otherwise they aren’t the heroes of the story. Also, it’s probably for morale purposes as well.
plaindave
“…why is it a smart political strategy to insist that absolutely everything is good news for your party?”
Your intended audience is incapable of reason or logic. Your base.
Hunter Gathers
Since when do conservatives follow logic? These are the same people who claim tax cuts create revenue for the federal government. The same people who say they loose elections because the party isn’t conservative enough. Nutjobs who claim that their views are in the mainstream , even though they only amount to 20% of the population. And assholes who claim Matthew Sheppard wasn’t murdered because he was gay, it was because he was being robbed. Evidently tying someone to a fence post after beating the holy living hell out of them is common procedure for burglaries these days. These are not sane individuals.
Thoughtcrime
The GOPers are self destructing and need to get a grip on themselves.
Here’s the perfect event for them and their “beltway” pundit supporters: events.sfgate.com/san-francisco-ca/events/show/86937853-masturbateathon
Tithonia
They’re still trying to create their own reality.
KG
Tithonia gets it right. they still think it’s about spin and winning the day/news cycle.
Mark S.
It will give them a chance to remind everyone that they’re anti-choice and they hate gays.
Oh wait, that hasn’t been working so well lately.
Brachiator
The Republigoons may say whatever they like. All I know is that I was disappointed that Democrats didn’t make more of the importance of possible Supreme Court appointments during the primary and the general election.
Turns out it didn’t matter. The economy and the general incompetence of the Republicans took care of that. And the plain fact is that Obama is going to be able to put his stamp on the Court early in his administration. Justice Souter’s announcement timing gives the Obama administration plenty of time to ponder selections and set their strategy for securing the necessary votes, and Al Franken might even be in the Senate by the time the vote rolls around.
This is going to be fun. I expect to see the Republicans hold up an empty sheet of paper, promising to come up with an alternative set of nominees any minute now.
Stevenovitch
Ever hear the phrase perception is only everything?
In politics this is true. The truth doesn’t matter nearly as much as what the electorate thinks is true. You can control what the electorate thinks by simply repeating the same bullshit over and over again.
In real life these things are decided in much more definite terms. As per your examples, you die, or lose the game. It doesn’t really matter what the perception is after that because, you know, you’re dead.
Joe Buck
I’m still worried that Obama’s going to play Mr. Bipartisan and name someone to the right of Souter, and the Republicans will stilll kick up a massive stink because he didn’t pick Bork, who is after all entitled to the seat because he was wrongly rejected just because he was a right-wing maniac.
LD50
That’s not the way the world really works anymore: the Republicans are an empire now, and when they act, they create their own reality. Thus, they’re simply ‘creating the reality’ that everything is wonderful for the GOP and terrible for the Democrats.
If enough people believe it, it’s true.
Jen R
why is it a smart political strategy to insist that absolutely everything is good news for your party?
Who said it was? Looking around, I don’t see that the Republicans got where they are by employing smart political strategies.
omen
didn’t this “that’s good news!” reflex start out by somebody spoofing a hillary supporter every time her campaign took a turn for the worse? did republicans adapt that for their own? once again they’ve been caught unable to recognize satire.
Jay C
To agree with Josh Marshall (who, I think, is trying a little hard to look “sage” here – but with whom agreeing is rarely a mistake) – the only “good news” I can see for Republicans is yet another opportunity to get their mugs on TV bloviating away. Bloviating away, most likely, as strident oppositionists; yawping about abortion, or gun rights, or gay issues, or whatever overheated “hot-button” nonsense they think the “base” is going to want to hear. All in vain, of course: there’s a vanishingly small likelihood that President Obama will nominate anyone truly unacceptable: but in the position today’s GOP is in, there’s no such thing as bad airtime.
I mean, there IS: they can always (and probably will) use the exposure to make themselves look even more extremist, out-of-touch and obstructionist than before: but we’ll have to wait and see.
Oh, BTW: a really classy send-off for Justice Souter from Erick Erickson of RedState. Couth.
LD50
BTW, isn’t Souter the judge that Ann Coulter ‘joked’ about poisoning?
Marcus
It’s really pretty simple, when you consider that the Republicans only have two tactics.
1. When in power, they Do Nothing, Obstruct or Complain.
2. When not in power, they Do Nothing, Obstruct or Complain.
So regardless of Obama’s pick the right will do what they always do. Do Nothing, Obstruct or Complain. So what’s not good about some news, any news that fits into one of their game plans?
Jen R
Neal Horsley is getting publicity this week for mule fucking, and Erickson wants to play the bestiality card?
(until this moment, I never knew there was a bestiality card)
Marcus
@LD50
Me thinks it was Justice Stevens.
Dennis-SGMM
“Made it, ma! Top of the world!”
-Cody Jarrett (James Cagney), White Heat
JR
I agree with #s 16 and 18… this may have nothing to do with political strategy and everything to do with the people saying such things, early and often as they do, trying to justify their continued employment and relavence…
Hunter Gathers
Stay classy, RedState. Stay classy.
Erickson must be quite the ladies man. Because we all know how much the ladies love the perpetually pissed off.
JK
Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck will have steam coming out of their ears and fire coming out of their nostrils screaming that the sky is falling.
Hopefully, Obama’s staff can avoid a screw-up like Douglas Ginsburg, the Reagan nominee who got nailed for smoking pot and for God’s sake the nominee shouldn’t have a tax problem or a nanny problem
Dennis-SGMM
This is good news for Republicans because they’ll get even more face time on the news, they’ll be able to obstruct, filibuster, grandstand, and again turn their backs on their stated principles (Upperdown vote! Upperdown vote!).
Meg
if they didn’t have “good news” they would have no news at all (to paraphrase albert king). gotta stay relevant some how.
really, just this mindset of thinking that whatever happens is good for the goddamn Party grosses me out.
At my job I took a training class in suicide prevention. The counselors instructed us to present a cheery side to people who were thinking of taking their own lives. They would put us in these scenarios like “okay their wife has left them, their house is foreclosed, their liver is failing, and their dog ran away. They’re feeling like suicide is the only way out. What do you say?”
And of course you can’t suggest suicide is rational. You have to say: “Well sir, with all of that pain, I wouldn’t really blame you for thinking of suicide. I’d probably feel the same way.” No, its better to deny them their feelings and say “Whatever it is, suicide is not the answer. Think positively!” Maybe suicide prevention counselors are advising the GOP.
Crusty Dem
why is it a smart political strategy to insist that absolutely everything is good news for your party?
Well, I don’t think it’s ever smart to blatantly lie to people all the time, eventually even some followers might get it, and you I don’t see the benefit of having your opponents laughing at you…
That said, it’s a part of the machine. If everything should be good news, then you can go full rage when someone does something to turn it bad (even if it’s completely reasonable). I actually think it’s the defining feature of wingnut psychology; demonstrating a complete inability to see things from any point of view other than your own (what “I want” is, by definition, what is “fair”). In general, it’s exactly the kind of behavior I expect from my 5 year old (my 7 year old is already past that).
Bhall35
For old times’ sake!
Indylib
@Joe Buck:
Could happen I suppose, but the first guesses for the short list include some pretty liberal legal voices.
I’m pretty sure Obama has figured out that there’s no use in trying to get bipartisan support on SCOTUS picks, the wingnuts are going to scream bloody murder no matter who he picks, so he might as well at least pick someone in the liberal mainstream.
Davis X. Machina
The main problem is, the ceteris are never paribus.
asiangrrlMN
Wait, wait. You mean it isn’t good news for the Republicans that Souter is retiring? Huh, Who woulda thunk it. I’m more curious as to why Souter waited until the new administration took charge before retiring. Maybe he’s not as right-leaning as one would think. Wait, reading his bio, he moved more to the middle during his time on the bench. Hm.
I don’t think Obama will appoint someone who’s more right-leaning. Obama is pretty clear on Roe v. Wade (why is that still the fricking litmus test?) and most other civil rights issue. The only one I worry about is gay marriage, and that’s more in theory than in practice.
We shall see….I think this will be the impetus for the collective half-brain of the rabid right to explode.
P.S. Putting my feminist hat on for a minute, I hope he chooses a woman. So does Ginsburg.
omen
@Bhall35:
i was reminded of this one. from a bush town hall where he was trying to sell privatized social security:
MS. MORNIN: That’s good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn’t it? I mean, that is fantastic that you’re doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
JK
From the mind of hogan at Redstate
Third Eye Open
@Davis X. Machina:
After my Macro prof. stumbled through a tortured explanation for how one gauges the relative health of an economy using GDP as a large metric, when these indicators treat all expenditures as net positives, I stopped buying-in. Literally every car-crash, heart-attack, and oil spill is technically a good thing. This is when I stopped believing in the laws underpinning their models. Then I became one of John’s minions, and everything became clear…
TenguPhule
“We make our own reality”
JGabriel
DougJ @ Top:
It’s not that politics is so different from the rest of life; it’s that Republicans are so different from the sane and the responsible.
.
Comrade Luke
I just wonder which Goldman Sachs person Obama has in mind for this.
asiangrrlMN
@Comrade Luke: Ouch! A palpable hit, sir. I have to agree with the thought, though. This is one area in which I am in disagreement with my prez. I don’t think the banking system and Wall Street need to tweaked–they need to be razed and rebuilt.
Bhall35
@Omen
Good times.
JGabriel
TenguPhule:
Ironic, isn’t it, how much watching Republicans make reality is like watching sausage being made – from humans?
.
Mnemosyne
@Joe Buck:
He will probably pick someone centrist and uncontroversial to normal people (like Sebelius at HHS) that the right wing will go into full hue and cry over. We will have at least two or three weeks of Republicans on the news every night and on every Sunday talk show talking about how Obama’s nominee will be the end of America and the beginning of the socialist-fascist-Islamist state. They’ll spend the confirmation hearings throwing “tough” questions at the nominee like Rep. Barton’s “tough” question for Stephen Chu.
And then the nominee will be confirmed by the Senate and all the Republicans will have managed to do is get their identification numbers below 21 percent and make themselves look like morons on national TV. Again.
Comrade Kevin
Which way does Souter wear his baseball cap? How does he roll?
asiangrrlMN
@Comrade Kevin: Straight-up gangsta, bitches! That’s how Souter rolls with his homegirls Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Knowaddimean?
Doctor Science
asiangrrlMN:
I hope he chooses a woman. So does Ginsburg.
Damn right. After the display during the oral arguments for the current teen strip-search case, it’s painfully obvious that we cannot rely on male Justices to consistently think of women as people.
Hunter Gathers
Mmmm, soylent sausage. It’s what’s for dinner.
JGabriel
@Marcus:
I wish. Unfortunately, the last 8 years of destruction say differently.
.
asiangrrlMN
@Doctor Science: That still makes me mad. I don’t know what the hell they were thinking. They weren’t. I think it was in that case that the girl said it was creepy that all these old men were so into strip-searching teen girls.
Blech.
Hunter Gathers
@asiangrrlMN: Never underestimate the ability of old white men to obsess over naked teenage girls. Creepy doesn’t even begin to describe it.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@Joe Buck:
You had to mention Bork! You know what, on the subject of a few posts ago: They can talk about Joe Biden’s gaffes all they want. He kept that lunatic Bork off the Supreme Court! For that he can spend the rest of his life drooling on my shoes and I’ll wipe them off with a smile.
JGabriel
@Meg:
Do you have Albert King in a can? If so, you’d better let him out!
Wait, no, that’s not quite right…
.
asiangrrlMN
@Hunter Gathers:
I know. I used to read the sports websites, and it would creep me out when the Sports Guy would put girls on the birthday watch. The minute they turned eighteen, it was ok to drool over them. It’s not the only reason I stopped reading the sports sites, but it was a major detraction for me.
Ash Can
It’s all about catapulting the propaganda.
Speaking of which, wasn’t Eric Cantor supposed to have made some budget-cutting suggestions by now? Or is he too busy working on the GOP’s image-rehabbing project?
TenguPhule
And having the seen the process, you want nothing more to do with the final product.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
Moderated! I know better than to use the so-boner-pill-ism word, but I forgot the footwear word!
kid bitzer
bluffing was the essence of rovism.
his strategy was always to beat down opposition by making it look as though his candidate’s triumph was an inevitability.
it’s a trait you see in kristol, norquist, pretty much the whole thuggish gang: they are constantly trying to psych the opposition.
and for a long, long, time it worked on democrats. democrats used shit themselves if rove said ‘boo!’.
that’s why he had ‘the numbers’ in 2006, i.e. pretending that the repubs were going to sweep when in fact they lost seats.
but it’s a very brittle game. that’s why he so quickly turns into baghdad bob whenever he has to face a losing hand.
now most of us know to laugh at these jokers. they got nothing.
MNPundit
Eh maybe if I had confidence Obama would nominate someone to the left of Roberts.
MikeJ
LGM reminds us Souter was nominated because Ken Starr wasn’t wingnutty enough.
Mwangangi
@asiangrrlMN: It’s not just the sports sites; pretty much any female approaching the age of majority will have a countdown on a (whatever she is famous for) related site.
harlana pepper
Ya’ still don’t love me. I know, I know. Edwards and all that mortifying shit. I’m a big girl. I can take it. But Tunch, must I live without Tunch?? Can we work out some kind of visitation agreement??
Brachiator
@Joe Buck:
I really don’t care whether Obama picks someone to the right or left of Souter. The important thing is that Obama gets to make the selection.
Robert Bork is really no longer in play. Few people even know who he is or why he was so beloved by some Republicans. I don’t even think that many Republicans know who Bork is.
Most important, the idea of picking someone to the left or right of Souter is ridiculous. Souter was originally a stealth choice, someone with little paper trail who was supposedly going to be reliably conservative. It didn’t turn out that way, now, did it?
Not only did Souter turn out to be moderate, many of his opinions are direct rebuttals to and corrections of the opinions of Antonin Mad Dog Scalia (who imagines himself to be the intellectual leader of the Court).
If Obama nominates someone who even comes close to Souter in his or her ability to grow and to quietly, but firmly, stand his or her own ground against Roberts and Scalia, the country will benefit greatly.
This is going to be fun.
steve s
People like winners. If the GOP is seen to be in a winning mode, they’ll become more popular as a result. True, the current media narrative is that the GOP has lost both engines, caught on fire, and is about to crash land in a swamp of HIV+ crocodiles. And that’s a pretty accurate narrative. But the talking heads get bored and eventually jump on new and exciting narratives, and ZOMG the GOP is teh Comeback Kid! would be a new and exciting narrative. So the GOP is trying to repeat it over and over and hope the media eventually jumps on it out of boredom, whereupon that ‘people like winners’ effect would actually cause their membership to increase, reinforcing the new narrative in a positive feedback loop.
JGabriel
steve s:
Really? Cause I’m thinking the proper response to seeing the GOP in a winning mode is terror.
After, of course, one has ruled out election fraud.
.
Mwangangi
Actually my response would be waking up. There wouldn’t be any enjoyment gained from playing out that nightmare scenario. What, you aren’t a lucid dreamer who likes to stay in nightmares for the fun of it? Guess it’s just me then…
DBrown
The answer to your question is simple : this will motivate their base like no tomorrow and get the American Taliban or so-called christians to foam at the mouth and really see what the demorats are really like and what happens when the repub-a-thugs are out of power. This is their wet dreamn next to stealing from the midlle class as they get their votes for more of the same.
Josh Hueco
More or less what DBrown said. A judicial vacancy will get the rubes riled up over Roe v. Wade and the amorphous specter of ‘Activist Judges’…one…more…time! But times have changed. Most people are generally supportive of a federal guarantee of first trimester abortion rights. Fewer and fewer people apparently are incite-able by cries of ‘Activist Judges.’ And a popular president who avoids drama and takes pains to act bipartisanly will nominate a sane, progressive justice.
Robertdsc-iphone
With the POTUS’s legal background, I wonder if he gets a small thrill at this aspect of his job. Even with the hydra of crises he’s dealing with, I hope he draws some enthusiasm from the process of making a pick for the Supremes.
kay
Souter is a favorite of mine because he wrote the conservative dissent in Bush v Gore.
You had your liberal dissent, and then you had Souter’s dissent based on bed-rock conservative legal theory, and then you had the conservative wing in the majority, making stuff up.
I date the complete loss of principles and rationality in the “conservative movement” to that decision. Once they went that far, all bets were off.
Xenos
@JGabriel:
People with authoritarian personalities are terrified of being portrayed as losers. Now that authoritarian ‘crazification factor’ types make up a large percentage of those left in the rump GOP, an admission of failure by the party leaders would be disastrous to moral.
bob h
How will it be to the Republicans’ advantage to have the TV screens incessantly showing the angry, whineing faces of McConnell, Kyle, Cohen, et. al. ?
Balconesfault
@Brachiator:
My particular fantasy is that Obama nominates someone with with high snark capabilities – who constantly taunts Scalia for his hackitude, and Thomas for his lightweightiosity, until both start thinking this Supreme Court gig isn’t so fun after all.
And hell, just for shits and grins find a lapsed Catholic who’s now a Unitarian Universalist.
Marshall
This is a common tactic of propaganda.
1.) Our rise to power is inevitable.
2.) As proof of that, everything that happens is a sign of our inevitability, demonstrating our competence, the favor of God, etc.
This can be surprisingly effective when the party disseminating the propaganda is, in fact, gaining power. When the trend is in the other direction, it may still sway the some people, and comfort the true believers. Anyway, once you buy into the notion of your inevitability, it is about all you have left.
anonevent
The Republicans are still working under their “winning” strategy: Everything points toward them winning. When it goes their way, then it was due to the will of God. When it doesn’t, then Democrats conspired against the faithful to thwart God’s will.
Just wait until they are at the gates on giant spice worms.
aimai
I’ve posted my patented strategy for success over at If I Ran the Zoo but what the hell, I’ve got some time to kill. Obama should line up three or more potential judgeship candidates in an order from least fire breathing/radical to most and explain that he will nominate them each in turn until one of them gets approved. Under this system the Republicans will either have to hold their fire somewhat because calling the first one the most eviliest thing since time began will leave them no room to excoriate the second one. Or, they will literally exhaust themselves trying to come up with lines of attack and attacking while knowing that their strategy is Pyrrhic from the get go. Not that that would deter them (cf coleman) but it weakens their strategy by making it look foolish and self defeating even to their own team.
aimai
PaulW
@Shibby:
Shibby is right on the nose here. It’s always good news for Republicans because they DARE NOT think about anything bad happening to them. They just think that the electoral cycle will roll itself back around again with a few Democratic screw-ups and when that happens EVERYTHING will be “good news for Republicans” for real. Problem with that thinking is that there might not be a Republican Party left to take advantage of it. After all, if the Democrats screw up, but the Republicans are still a bunch of ignorant tax-cut obsessed morans, people may prefer starting up a viable Third Party instead. Which is why I still think Perot came out with that Reform Party ten years too early. By the way, who owns the copyright for the Reform Party, might be a good time for them to start recruiting Congressional candidates…
PaulW
@Balconesfault:
Well, my dad’s the lapsed Catholic but he raised his sons Unitarian. Should we get on the phone to my brother who’s the lawyer and see if he wants the job? ;-)
Snarki, child of Loki
why is it a smart political strategy to insist that absolutely everything is good news for your party?
It all makes sense if you have a brain the size of a walnut.
this time not idiotic
THIS *IS* EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY! !!
JL
I am waiting until Michelle Bachmann makes a statement on the Souter retirement. Hoot lives!
canuckistani
Because that tells your supporters that you have a Cunning Plan, a plan so Cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel, and everything that happens is part of the Cunning Plan that will lead to your historically inevitable triumph!
NonyNony
There are a variety of reasons. Let’s start with one of the less obvious ones:
As Democrats slowly lost power from the 80s through roughly 2006, the narrative was always “Democrats in Disarray” – everything was bad for the Democrats. And I mean EVERYTHING – Bill Clinton’s VICTORY in 1992 was bad for the Democrats. And mostly everything was bad for the Democrats because you had a lot of Democratic politicians whining about the fact that they were losing power and they saw every single thing that happened as evidence of the Democrats losing power.
This was (probably correctly) perceived as weakness on the part of Republicans. Seeing Democrats whine that everything is going so badly for the party, and complain about how directionless the party was, and cry about how they kept losing elections made Republicans feel all warm and glowy inside. So now they’re afraid of showing weakness and so won’t even face up to the reality that they’re dying and need to fix things. Of course there’s a difference between admitting you have a problem and being a whiny cry-baby about your problem. Some Democrats back in the day were doing the former, which was healthy and probably directly or indirectly led to 2006 since they were in good shape to make a case that they were ready to lead while the Republicans obviously weren’t. Some were doing the latter, which is mock-worthy. Republicans conflated the two together back then and mocked both groups and now can’t admit they have a problem without “looking weak.” And since Republicans have a big problem with valuing surface impressions over substance, it’s going to be very hard to get them to do anything that would make them “look weak” even if it actually is the best long-term strategic move for the party. (And, of course, they have a problem understanding the difference between “strategy” and “tactics” anyway, and this plays into that).
@Balconesfault:
You, my friend, are my hero. Do you know just how awesome it would be to see a Unitarian Univeralist on the Court? Never going to happen in my lifetime – only slightly more likely than seeing an atheist up there – but damn, that would be awesome. Especially an ex-Catholic convert. That would be hysterical.
Napoleon
@kay:
I date it to the impeachment of Clinton. The second that happened I realized that the Republican party was rotten to its core, was anti-democratic, anti-American and dangerous to the continuation of the rule of law in this country. I don’t know how anyone could have seen that as anything but that.
BP in MN
How about someone like me, a lapsed Unitarian?
NutellaonToast
I think it’s just how they think they can attract the most people. It plays to people’s desire to side with the winner. If it’s “good” for them they must be “right.”
They figure everyone thinks everyone’s lying anyway. Most people will ignore the lie and move on, but a few will hear it and be like “gee whiz, that’s swell” and join ranks. So if each lie you tell gets you a few dozen converts, then you just need to lie a million times and you’re set.
See, I’ve explained both quality and quantity with that one.
The Grand Panjandrum
I know this is unlikely, but it would just be the cherry on the sundae if Obama nominated HRC. Jesus! I know that is not likely, with Obama’s general penchant to avoid drama, but just for the entertainment factor it is a fun mental exercise. Imagine the heads spinning about in wingnuttia. Oh things they would say! One wish, two wish, Red state, Blue state!
August J. Pollak
In all seriousness, because they have to continue the myth that the status quo is Republican control and Democrats being in charge is a “mistake.”
The media, especially the DC media, is hardwired to the idea that the GOP is “supposed” to be running the country. Obama and a Democratic-controlled Senate is an “anomaly.” Therefore, everything the Democrats do has to be a mistake, a gaffe, a pratfall, like some wacky “you won’t believe what those silly Democrats did next!” sitcom pitch. “Good news for Republicans” continues the narrative that the current political climate isn’t “how are Democrats governing?” but “how are Republicans doing at getting power back?”
This is why Republicans attack Obama with taunts of being “The One” and “Messiah” and all that. Because it’s straight out of the Rove playbook of attacking Democrats for their own faults. Republicans are the ones who need to be seen as infallible.
This is all about mainstreaming the idea that Democrats controlling the government just isn’t supposed to be.
MikeJ
She’s doing a decent job where she is, and there are gonna be two more positions just in the first term. (Stevens and Ginsburg)
dkilmer
Why is politics so different from the rest of life?
Except Wall Street, where companies will ignore actual periods of time in order to show a profit.
Ash Can
@Balconesfault: I love starting the day with a laugh over my morning coffee, and this whole post had me going. Thanks for the lulz! :D
Dennis-SGMM
I can hardly wait for the voluminous advice that the conservatives will give Obama, along with copious lists of what they find unacceptable. And I sure wish that I would get a buck every time one of the puditocracy uses the phrase “Obama would be wise to…” That this will temporarily reinvigorate the PUMAs is just icing on the cake.
Kirk Spencer
@The Grand Panjandrum: While HRC (and Bill) have often been bandied about for the purpose, I’ve another option for exploding heads: John Edwards.
Thing to note, I think, is that it doesn’t matter who gets selected by Obama, some heads on the right will explode. They’re really not convinced they lost.
The Moar You Know
For the true drama bomb, he should nominate Bill.
DBrown
Obama is a Constructional scholar and would never nominate a second rate lawyer (Edwards) or an inexperienced one (HRC) or someone who would be unable to handle the heavy duty writing of legal opinion (Bill.) Obama is a top-notch legal expert who will carefully determine an outstanding candiate (that is, find a true legal heavy weight) to fill the post. Any other conjecture is exactly that; Obama is the sharpest legal mind to occupy the Presidency in the last hundred years and there is no way he would use this post as a reward or to make a pointless statement.
used to be disgusted
@94: It may take us a while to figure it out — because we’re so used to thinking in partisan terms — but I wonder whether DBrown actually has the significant story here.
Obama is going to get a chance to nominate a substantial number of justices. I would guess 2 or 3 in his first term alone.
He’s also a Constitutional scholar. The real story to come out of this might be that we end up with a court that actually reflects a coherent point of view about the Constitution, rather than partisan reflexes. I’m not sure about this — partly because Obama’s stated views on Constitutional law (as I understand them) are pretty bland and mainstream. But he might have philosophical leanings that are not explicit in his stated views.
AkaDad
The President deserves an up or down vote on Supreme Court nominees!If Obama wants to keep his promise of bipartisanship, He should appoint a nominee that Republicans choose.DaddyJ
@kid bitzer: Baghdad Karl. I like it!
Cyrus
Jen R is right way back at 16. Republicans lost seats in Congress in the last two elections and lost the presidency to a black guy named Hussein. It is very unlikely that any political strategy they’re practicing at the moment is smart strategy. You can always say “what if” and imagine that they’d be doing even worse if they weren’t acting triumphalist, but there’s no evidence of that.
Like others have said, there’s a superficial and not necessarily wrong intuitive appeal to calling everything a victory: nobody likes or respects a loser. But I think it’s more of a requirement for the conservative party than for the other guys. If you want things to stay the same, the assumption is that things are going well for you right now. You’re constantly embattled but hanging on just fine, thank you.
For the more progressive party, it’s the reverse: you’re constantly pushing forward and just barely making inroads. The corrolary of “we shall overcome” is that you haven’t overcome yet.
SGEW
@this time not idiotic:
Ya know, nowadays I really love yelling that every now and then – and being sincere about it!
viz:
Headline: “Sec. of State Hillary Clinton Defends Abortion Rights Worldwide”
Commenter: This is excellent news! For Hillary!
celticdragon
Well, there’s no accounting for taste.
After the Kelo decision, I was all for having his house condemned and turned into a museum.
Martin
The biggest problem that Democrats and liberals have is defending policies using facts and science. The GOP is the party of faith – faith in God, faith in lower taxes, faith in closed borders, faith in more guns. When your base doctrine depends on ignoring facts, you can’t expect them to suddenly start ignoring facts.
To the GOP, reality is expected to conform to their faith, not the other way around.
Balconesfault
@BP in MN:
What’s a lapsed Unitarian – someone who suddenly wakes up believing in dogma?
LD50
Would the wingnuts feel better if it was a fundamentalist Unitarian?
Brachiator
@The Grand Panjandrum:
Hillary Clinton is lucky that Obama threw her the State Department bone instead of leaving her to stew as a junior senator. I know that PUMAs and some others think that Hillary is the bestest womanest woman ever, and in the past the Senate has been very gracious when one of their own has been a Court nominee, but Secretary is not remotely among the best judicial candidates. She didn’t even pass the DC bar fer baby Jebus’ sake.
And while the image of Bill Clinton and Clarence Coke Can Thomas sitting next to each other would be funtabulous beyond belief, the former prez is tainted goods as far as being Supreme Court material. I also think that his ego would see it as a step down, somehow.
It’s not. The only people who even pretend that this is a rational strategy are pundits and some bloggers. The GOP keeps going for smoke and mirrors, but the majority of the public is still behind Obama on this one. Until they show some substance (or the Obama administration stumbles badly with the economy), the GOP will continue to languish in the wilderness.
Corner Stone
@DBrown:
Good sweet Lord! Where should we send funds to buy you a new pair of kneepads? The ones you’ve got now surely have to be worn down to nubbins.
He’ll propose who he’s fucking told to propose. Do you honestly think the POTUS sits around scouring judicial briefs looking for his soul mate? Hell no, his team will scour, devour, consult and make the list. Then he’ll be told which one it will be and he’ll propose them.
Corner Stone
@Brachiator:
It would also slow down his consumption of hookers and blow as he jaunts around the world.
Corner Stone
@Stevenovitch:
Otherwise known as The Lieberman Doctrine. Holy Joe told his constituency that “no one wants to end the Iraq War more than I do”, and a big enough chunk of them believed that and his other easily refuted bald-faced lies and put him back in the Senate.
Fuck you Connecticut! Fuck you up your stupid ass!
omen
@Brachiator:
omgosh, that would be too funny. high squirm factor for both of them.