There’s been a great deal of talk about how Garland is a “sacrificial lamb,” but I’m just not buying it. I think Obama nominated Garland because he likes the nominee, believes that he is a good man, and believes that he can seat him. Here’s my reasoning.
1.) Obama doesn’t do sacrificial lambs, or throw people under the bus, or have people fall on their swords, or whatever other metaphor people want to use. In his administration, there have been, that I can recall, five high profile exits.
The first was Van Jones, and Obama didn’t sack the guy, he resigned, and he had to. He’d made a string of unforced errors, some of which were pretty stupid, and he was just not a good fit with the no-drama Obama team. Rahm left to become Mayor. Hillary left to get ready to become the nominee this election. That leaves Shirley Sherrod and Chuck Hagel. Hagel left because of disagreements with his boss and a whole lot of other issues in the Pentagon.
That leaves Sherrod, and that truly was a shitshow. Obama himself has said this was a mistake. Maybe I am missing some others, but these are the ones I remember. This is not a record indicative of someone who routinely mistreats or screws over people for political gain or when the going gets tough. The man does not “use” people. It’s not who he is.
It’s actually one of the things I admire most about this administration and the man. I think being a halfway decent President is akin to steering the Titanic while juggling blindfolded, and Obama has managed to do this with grace all while half the nation has been trying to trip him, throwing spitballs at him and screaming racial epithets. We’re never going to see an administration this well run again in our lifetimes, and he did it under fire from all quarters.
2.) Obama has never governed as a screaming liberal, and I don’t see him starting now. For better or for worse, Obama has never governed as a hard left progressive. If historians were honest, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would be listed as the best moderate Republican Presidents of the last 100 years. Having said that, Obama has achieved a very progressive list of accomplishments. I have long felt that Obama’s personal views are far more progressive than his governance- I don’t think for one minute his positions on gay marriage ever evolved, I think they are the same today as they were years ago. What evolved is the nation full of neanderthals he is forced to govern.
3.) Obama has a sense of “fair play,” even when it isn’t deserved. I think it would have been completely out of character for him to nominate a left wing liberal to replace Scalia even if he could get said liberal seated. I just don’t think he would do it. I believe Obama trusts the kind of slow revolution with irreversible gains to large dramatic revolutions that can lead to just as radical course corrections. He plays the long game, and understands that seating Garland will already make the center of the court the most liberal it has been in years, and understands that barring a disaster for Democrats in the fall, will become even more so in the not so distant future.
4.) Garland is strong on the role of the federal government an agencies. While this can make many progressives mad, it makes pretty solid sense to me, examining Garland’s record, why an African-American President with a keen take on history would nominate someone who shows deference to the federal government and agency decision makers over “state’s rights.” I believe Obama views that Garland would have been on the right side of many recent bad rulings (VRA, affirmative action, etc.)
5.) Obviously, Obama understands that this puts the Republicans in a disastrous hole politically, particularly since they are basically on record saying “If Obama nominated X, we would confirm,” so Obama went out and nominated X and they are left stammering and shifting from foot to foot as dribble like this oozes out their cornfed pieholes:
U.S. Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama has politicized the Supreme Court nomination process by putting forward veteran appellate court judge Merrick Garland during a presidential election.
“It seems clear that President Obama made this nomination not with the intent of seeing the nominee confirmed, but in order to politicize it for purposes of the election,” McConnell said on the floor of the Senate after Obama, a Democrat, announced his choice at the White House.
“Instead of spending more time debating an issue where we can’t agree, let’s keep working to address the issues where we can,” the senator from Kentucky said.
6.) Obama does not want to leave unfinished business when he leaves office on 20 January 2017. Obama took office with a toxic smorgasbord of disasters both immediate and impending, all because his idiot predecessor couldn’t operate a lawnmower much less a nation. He does not want to do that to Hillary, who he believes will be his successor (and I think he is happy about that). He knows how that screwed up the start of his administration, having to focus on fixing things instead of advancing the ball, and he does not want to do that to someone else.
I think he also believes that this is HIS pick, not just some pick you sock away until the next President, whomever that might be. He’s a Constitutional lawyer, FFS. He actually believes in the process and the Constitution.
So, for all those reasons and probably a few more, I think this is a sincere, serious pick, and not some cynical ploy or sacrificial lamb. I think that not only does Obama think he can get him on the court, he wants him on the court. And I don’t think for one instant he would pull Garland’s nomination should the GOP agree to seat him in the lame duck session.
That’s not the kind of man he is, not the kind of negotiator he is. He sees value in Garland being on the court, and will get him on there, and he would never nominate someone like Garland and then pull the rug out from under him. It’s not in his DNA.
Have at it.
*** Update ***
I’ve added a new post commenting on the “moderate Republicans” line and what I really meant, and this from Aimai in the comments can not be said enough:
I also wanted to add that people seem to have a hard time grasping that Obama’s gestures, choices, policy tactics almost always have more than one side to them. They are usually a plan A and a plan B rolled together. To very young, angry, or stupid political viewers its always a zero sum game in which your first shot is your only shot and you can only get everything or nothing. But Obama’s pick of Garland wins whatever the republicans choose to do. He has asserted his constitutional duty, he has embarrased them publicly, he has split their senatorial caucus, he has given the democrats ammunition in senate races, he has increased the likelihood of right wing primaries, and if they roll over and take garland he gets a pick he is happy with completing three historic appts. Lots of his offers to the republicans have had this aspect. Its why they are afraid to negotiate with him at all.
Personally, I think any analysis of Obama and his administration is silly if it does not keep this extremely telling moment in mind:
“I like to know what I am talking about, Ed.”
The idiom goes that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. Obama has both of his.
Humboldtblue
Bob Huggins may be a raging asshole, but you’ve never been more right than this …
Tim C.
Also, remember the difference between “Moderate” and “Liberal” is a pretty unclear these days. Mostly due to the GOP going full metal wingnut on all levels.
Edit: Also, I’ve felt since about 2009, Obama is also the first Jedi president.
elm
As I said in the prior thread, I agree that Garland’s nomination is a legitimate and sincere attempt to have him seated as a Supreme Court justice. I think Obama will work his ass off to get Garland a hearing and a vote. I think it’s likely that he will succeed.
I don’t know which way Garland and Obama would move if the Senate hasn’t held hearings or made any significant moves come mid-September or early October.
If they delay that long, then it’s possible that Garland will withdraw himself from consideration.
I think the Republicans are mistaken if they assume that their options can’t get worse. They may not have the option to confirm Garland in a post-election session where they scramble to cut their losses.
beltane
I agree with this assessment 100%. Obama is a Constitutional scholar himself, someone who holds the institution of the Supreme Court, and the Federal judiciary in general, in the highest regard. No way would he treat a federal appeals court judge with such disrespect as to exploit him as an easily discarded pawn.
low-tech cyclist
When you put it all together like that, John…yeah. Can’t help but agree.
Nice bit of writing, dude.
300baud
I think you’re 100% right, but I am also sure that they have thought about how this will play out both on the “win” path and the “lose” path. Obama and Garland both know that there’s a significant chance Garland’s nomination will never come to a vote. If it doesn’t, Garland is the perfect choice to do the Republicans maximum damage from now until November. I think that’s no accident, and I think that’s why it’s easy for people to mistake him for a pawn sacrifice.
stinger
Agree with you on all points. Hillary will be able to nominate at least 2 or 3 justices, and if we Democratic/liberal/progressive voters will just do OUR jobs, she’ll be able to get (more) liberal women on the court.
Keith G
I will just move this pertinent comment over from the discussion below….
Are you willing to wager a Happy Meal on that?
Presidents do not relinquish prerogative or powers. I’m curious as to what is it about Obama’s personality or what he has displayed in the past that makes you think he will surrender his choice on this issue.
To do so first of all would be a kick in the nuts to Garland. Barack Obama is not that kind of person. Secondarily but still equally important I think is that Garland is Obama’s type of Justice. I think we got a bit lucky with Sotomayor and Kagan being a bit more liberal than would be the average likely choice of Barack Obama. A centrist like Garland is not someone that Obama would give up just to please Hillary or liberals, nor should he once he’s made the nomination.
Edited to say that I now see Not Max got to the same conclusion a bit earlier. It just ain’t gonna happen.
Eric S.
JC, I agree with you on pretty much every point. I had seen the sacrificial lamb idea or the idea he’ll pull the nomination if the circumstances change to allow a more liberal judge and it just didn’t fell right to me. You articulately put words to my thoughts.
Betty Cracker
Hooboy…let’s see if that brings the screaming mimies outta the woodwork…
WarMunchkin
A million times this. There is nothing political about the choice. There’s no pre-compromising or anything. It’s just that Obama likes the guy and thinks he’d make a good supreme court justice. That’s who Obama is. He does the thing you’re supposed to do. He literally did his job. That wasn’t a political statement.
Also this. The axis has moved so far from traditional politics. The Democratic Party is the party of social progress now, and an economic liberal can’t even get elected in their own primary. So we’re going to pursue broadly market-based solutions to socially liberal concerns from here out.
beltane
Judge Garland’s name was frequently mentioned as a possibility during the previous two vacancies on the Supreme Court during Obama’s tenure. Maybe it’s worth considering the possibility that Obama genuinely respects Garland. It seems to me that the people guilty of using SCOTUS nominees as pawns and tools are bloggers like Markos, not the President. Just to clarify, I say this as someone who is actually to the left of most of those lefty bloggers.
? Martin
Agreed as well. Garland was always on the short list. He was on the list for both Sotomayor and Kagan openings. He’s as suitable of a replacement for Scalia as the GOP was ever going to get out of a Democrat, and the GOP knows it because the GOP indicated that Garland would be acceptable.
This is a straight up play that Obama thinks he can win simply by out-politicking the GOP. He’s not asking too much of them, and that should become apparent to the general public. Had Scalia died a year ago, I think Garland would have been the nominee.
JPL
“Instead of spending more time debating an issue where we can’t agree, let’s keep working to address the issues where we can,” the senator from Kentucky said.
The Senator from Kentucky is on record saying he won’t work with him, so wtf is he talking about.
kindness
Well then John, it’s a twofer. If he get’s a vote in the Senate and is confirmed he’ll be a decent judge. If he never gets a vote in the Senate it will help Democrats win more stuff in November.
jl
@srv: Very few voters understand enough about the law and legal system to even understand much about who Garland is or what he does.
Reactionaries will sob over what the results will be of not putting a social conservative on the court. Establishment GOPers will sob over not putting a corporate flunky on the court. Liberals and many moderates will care about the bad results of not moving the court in a more moderate direction, and another example of radical GOP obstructionism and another attempt to delegitimize anything but the most radical reactionary governance.
There are plenty of political PR experts on both sides working on how to translate the erudite and esoteric Garland the judge stuff into things a voter can understand, and it is not about the mass of voters, but how a relatively small proportion of general election voters, or small changes in turnout can swing individual states.
So, that equals a big fuss. And there will be expensive political fuss generating machines in operation from now until election time. Certainly on the reactionary side.
Ruckus
John, I agree. I do however think Rahm was a horrible choice for CoS and that has been borne out seeing his reign as mayor of Chicago. I wonder if there was some backroom chat about him leaving. The President let him go in the best way but look how he’s been and how the WH has been run since Rahm left. Smoother, smarter, more of a working together feel. The opposite of Chicago from what I hear.
NotMax
It’s a bit of a stretch but think of the patient as Senate Republicans and Messrs. Richard and Depardieu as Obama and Biden showing a photo of Garland in this classic scene from La Chèvre.
Trinity
Absolutely agree John. Well stated.
Waldo
Shorter Cole: Obama respects the office.
And good for him. It’s a refreshingly high-minded approach in the Year of the Donald.
Thoroughly Pizzled
@srv: Yep, still naive, years later, after all his naivete obviously screwed the country and his administration.
Robert Sneddon
This may be a bit too much eleventy-dimensional chess, but…
Obama has a folder full of SC possible picks in the lower left-hand drawer of the desk in the Oval Office because he thinks and plans ahead. Associate Justice Scalia’s death in harness is a black-swan event (usually SCOTUS Justices resign through illness or old age rather than drop dead in situ) and immediately, within an hour of his death being announced, the Senate majority leader says “No way, Jose” to any Obama pick.
Ooookay. The usual deal would be to appoint a someone around 45 years old as a legacy for his Administration. It’s what Presidents do these days, but it’s clear that that sort of choice will never get through the Senate as currently formulated. So Obama spends some time popping hoops and talking it over with insiders and advisors and a plan is formulated.
Justice Garland aged 63, in normal circumstances would be some way down the list of candidates if a legacy appointment is desired by any President. He’d probably like to be a Supreme, any Justice who gets to the top in a Federal Appeals court is ambitious so he’s offered the role of stalking-horse as Obama’s pick. If he loses and the Senate holds out then he’s lost nothing, he’ll still have that top Federal Appeals court position and Obama can put another name forward after Garland withdraws his nomination due to the Senate’s intransigence yadda yadda. If the Senate caves, comforting themselves that he’s not a “youngster” then he gets to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. He can’t lose in such a circumstance and Obama can outflank the Republicans, calling them out on their Constitutional duty and much more. Win-win.
Keith G
@Ruckus:
I often wonder what Pelosi had on Obama to get him to remove that weasel from her coup.
les
Couldn’t agree more. I don’t think Obama plays games; he’s just honest and (for a politician) straight forward, and nobody can tell the difference any more.
Stan
“There is nothing political about the choice”
The choice cannot help being extremely political. This one is wrong, sorry folks.
No democratic president should be nominating a white male to the SCOTUS for a few decades. There is no shortage of highly qualified, traditionally-discriminated-against people. They need to be in highly visible positions of leadership.
Brachiator
Yep. And it amazes and saddens me to think that conservatives, Fox News, etc. have continually and relentlessly demonized the president. and have brainwashed a considerable portion of the population into believing that Obama is a failure who is hated all around the world.
The Soviet Union used to be famous for this level of disinformation. But the leading talk radio station here in Southern California, which leans conservative, barely mentioned the recent Canadian state visit or the visible signs of friendship between Obama and Trudeau. It’s like the trip never happened.
And yesterday hosts were bleating about how Obama politicized the Supreme Court nomination process.
Mai.naem.mobile
I would be shocked if Garland is not a pretty solid liberal. His involvement in the OKC prosecution I’m sure is going to color his view of terror related stuff and to be honest I don’t care.
Anybody watching the Flint hearings? Any pundit complain about how Jason Chaffetz screeches and yells? Why doesn’t he smile? I haven’t watched all of it but has Chaffetz asked Snyder to resign like he has of Gina McCarthy? Also, have the GOP,the party of states’ rights ever pushed the EPA to act on anything? Anything?
JaneE
@Betty Cracker: Because he is right. Eisenhower was more to the left than Obama. So was Nixon in a lot of areas. Clinton would be right at home with the 50’s era moderate Republicans. The GOP has moved so far rightward that anyone not to the right of the JBS has a home in the Democratic party, which is still trying to herd cats.
NotMax
@Betty Cracker
The Overton window is a harsh mistress.
Ben Cisco
What I like about Cole is, a LOT of times he says exactly what I’m thinking.
FlipYrWhig
@Betty Cracker: Well, ya know, it IS a silly thing to say, because
(1) the “moderate Republicans” of old were not that numerous [the Taft/Goldwater segment, a/k/a conservatives, was a big presence];
(2) the Democratic Party of old still had a hell of a lot of Southern segregationists in it, even though the North was labor-friendly.
So saying that Obama is a “moderate Republican” is basically saying “the liberal parts of what a chunk of Republicans believed 50 years ago about the welfare state and civil rights are similar to the liberal parts of what the majority of Democrats believe now about the welfare state and civil rights.” Or, to put it another way, Obama is an American liberal. Putting “Republican” in there isn’t getting you very much.
NotMax
One thing Mr. Cole leaves out is how demeaning it is to Garland to automatically presume he would accept being a sacrificial lamb or pawn. The man wasn’t born yesterday.
? Martin
I think people are underappreciating the strategy here in favor of the tactics. The decisions around Garland go back to the previous two nominees. These came at times when Obama knew he had a much stronger hand – so he was much more aggressive on his choice – younger, female, more clearly liberal etc. He had to know that Garland was an easy confirmation for the GOP, which is why he wasn’t chosen at a time when he could get Sotomayor and Kagan through, reserving him for the scenario where Scalia was off the court, where the GOP would (reasonably) demand someone more conservative. So now he has the scenario he worried about and has a candidate well suited to the circumstances.
Obama isn’t offering a younger, more liberal justice because he already won that fight twice and he knows that, so he can now afford to compromise a bit in order to increase his chance of success. Keeping your powder dry is common strategy among anyone with a long-enough strategic horizon.
les
Another vote for John’s analysis, from the Washington Monthly. Example:
Mingobat f/k/a Karen in GA
@Betty Cracker: As I recall, in 1992 a lot of Democrats were upset with Clinton because he was too far to the right, and Republicans didn’t like him because he stole their issues.
dedc79
@Stan:
You are talking about principles. Principles are nice and honorable to have. I wish we could snap our fingers and have a court that better reflects America’s diversity. The last 8 years should’ve have proven however that principles only get you so far. Right now we have a chance to dramatically change the direction of the Supreme Court – a change that will have an immediate and beneficial impact for america’s minorities. I don’t fault the president for picking the nominee he thought was most likely to get through.
Kay Eye
I agree with your assessment, John, and I believe Garland will be confirmed.
Early on, the odious Sally Quinn went after the White House social secretary, Desiree Rogers, and managed to run her off. I had read that Rogers’s grandmother had some voodoo skills. I hope that contributed to Sally’s descent from her Washington Post throne.
Thoroughly Pizzled
@JaneE: I think Obama would have governed much more liberally if he had Eisenhower’s Congresses. He is not as a person to the right of Eisenhower or Richard fucking Nixon.
Jade
I agree that Obama is a moderate Republican. Due to Garland’s age I think he is a sacrificial lamb. Obama could find a Garland that was much younger if he really expected them to be seated.
gratuitous
Reading over McConnell’s remarks under number 5), I have to wonder if he’s taken to drinking himself silly before noon. How does it “politicize” the process for a sitting president to perform his constitutional duty? Well, except in the extraordinary circumstance where the Senate refuses to do its constitutional duty, but that’s hardly the president’s fault now, is it? And which issue, pray tell, does McConnell see as one where his Senate and his president agree? McConnell doesn’t say, and isn’t he lucky that nobody in the popular media would think to ask such a bone-simple question.
Geeno
As I said toward the end of last thread – there is no doubt in my mind that whatever the plan is, Garland is fully apprised and knows what he’s involved in.
Plan A is obviously “Get Garland on the court”, but there’s also plans B, C and D if necessary dealing with all of the contingencies, and Garland knows what those are (wish I did).
Roger Moore
@les:
This. I think a lot of his reputation for playing eleventy dimensional chess is really about him doing things because they’re good government rather than out of crass political calculation, and that tripping up people who care only about politics and nothing about governing.
Mai.naem.mobile
I think its pathetic that they had to do a little video/political ad introducing Garland? WTF? We have to sell a SC justice like soap now?
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Betty Cracker: You rang?
I get where JC is coming from and agree with the vast majority of it.
But saying “If historians were honest, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would be listed as the best moderate Republican Presidents of the last 100 years.” seems needlessly provocative. And wrong.
Parties change because people and circumstances change.
Why should the default for historians be to view things through a “Republican” filter? If BC and BO were moderate Republicans, then what was Carter? What was Kennedy?
No, I don’t agree with this framing at all. Why can’t they be regarded as moderate Democrats?
“Republican” should be remembered as an epithet. Lincoln’s party has been dead and gone for a long, long time. The Teabaggers have been running the show and attempting to destroy the party since at least 2009. Bill and Barack don’t deserved to be lumped in with those who claim to represent “Republicans”.
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
gogol's wife
I agree completely, except for the part about Bill Clinton and Obama being moderate Republicans. If you’re talking Lowell Weicker, MAYBE, but not any other Republicans I’ve ever heard of. Especially Obama.
NR
@? Martin:
Can we kill this metaphor please? It was bullshit in 2001 and it’s bullshit now.
Fighting for what’s right isn’t like “powder” that gets used up after a while. It’s like a muscle that gets stronger every time you use it.
Just Some Fuckhead
I think a strategic pick would have been a minority like an asian or african-american to get the most political mileage out of a blocked nominee going into the November election.
I know it’s fashionable in Balloon Town to imagine POTUS shares our blog drama but I just don’t think he worries about all that shit. He does whatever The Illuminati tells him to do and politics be damned.
NotMax
@Mingobat f/k/a Karen in GA
(raises hand)
Main reason I couldn’t in good conscience and didn’t vote for him either time.
An affordable luxury, as there was zero chance the state’s electoral votes would go to anyone else.
raven
@Just Some Fuckhead: idiot
rp
This is a good analysis and you’re right that Garland isn’t a sacrificial lamb. BUT, I do think he was chosen in part because Obama is weighing the risks of his nominee not getting confirmed. If the GOP stands their ground, the nominee won’t get a second chance at the Supreme Court. In Garlands case, no biggie — he’s 63 and this was probably his last shot anyway. But if it’s Srinivasan, the Dems lose a shot at getting a brilliant, 49 year old POC on the court. I doubt Obama has a strong preference between Garland and Srinivasan — they’re pretty similar in a lot of ways — but I think the GOP’s position favors the lower risk candidate, Garland.
dedc79
@gratuitous: I’ve gotten into the habit of substituting “blah blah blah” in place of whatever McConnell says. There’s no point trying to make sense of it.
Anoniminous
Trying to predict what a Supreme does on the bench by what they ruled in the past is a bit of a mug’s game. Few people would have predicted the guy who said it was hunky-dory to lock-up US citizens in concentration camps would become a flaming Civil Rights champion.
For what it is worth … which is nothing … IANAL … I don’t a fig about the Law … LS/MFT … YMMV … write if you find work … etc. etc.
Robin G.
Agree with all of this. Obama has every intention of filling this vacancy. It’s the kind of fight he’ll go all-in on.
gogol's wife
@JaneE:
I don’t think you really remember who Eisenhower and Nixon were.
burnspbesq
Garland should be confirmed before the NCAA Tournament ends. There is no principled case that can be made against him. He might not have been my first choice, but the case for him in the current political situation is plausible and easy to understand.
Obama has pushed all the right buttons here. That I don’t think the buttons are working correctly at this time doesn’t change that. Nor does it reduce my admiration for the guy.
NotMax
@Mai.naem.mobile
Preemptive strike to get the message out there first, and against the videos to be forthcoming from the other side of the aisle. The norms have been shattered and their remains cremated.
Chyron HR
@Stan:
Yes, well, hopefully after the revolution we can get Chief Justice Anita Sarkeesian on the Supreme Court, but for now we’ll have to make do with an evil cishet male’s candidate of privilege.
Aimai
@Betty Cracker: With the proviso that for this to be true the category ” Republican” has to be understood to have been emptied of all meaning while “Democrat” has been replaced with a holographic image of Karl Marx.”
O. Felix Culpa
@Stan:
What part of the constitution or even political correctness dictates this? Obama tripled the number of women on the SC and brought in the first Latina. President H. Clinton can add more diversity to the bench over the next 8 years. Garland is an impeccable choice in his own right as a jurist and in the current political climate. As a dear therapist friend of mine says about comments like this, “That’s the ideal, dear, and we live in the real.”
ETA: @Chyron HR: You got there ahead of me. :)
Sophie
I agree with this analysis completely. It was exactly what I thought as I watched the President’s masterful nominating speech in the Rose Garden. Some of the subsequent speculation on the left surprised me a little, though it shouldn’t have. I think people misunderstand who Barack Obama really is.
Linnaeus
@JaneE:
I disagree. Eisenhower was pretty much holding things steady domestically and I would say he was much more right wing with respect to foreign policy. Obama wouldn’t pull an Iran, a Guatemala, or a Congo as Eisenhower’s administration did.
Nixon looks more liberal than he was because he had to deal with Democratic majorities in Congress that were much more liberal than he was.
qwerty42
I have to agree. He has shown he values the institutions of government and the court system so very much. He has taken care with all his appointments, and this (superficially) is no different. Scalia, was an astounding radical; the extreme nature of his opinions were wearing down the very respect and trust the Court must have to function. I believe the President would like a normal, functioning Court. Judge Garland seems very much a man PBO would select under other circumstances as well.
And there is a “political” dimension as well, with the President playing his 11-dimensional chess and the Republicans playing checkers with a few pieces missing (I’d give credit, but not sure where i saw it).
I am going to miss this guy.
Barbara
I agree that Obama is simply too honorable and has too much integrity to knowingly use a person like this. Garland was on the short list along with Kagan. Getting to the short list is pretty hard to do. McConnell must really not be very smart. Announcing a strategy of how you are going to handle something like this is like announcing your BAFO at the beginning of a negotiation. All it does is make the target very evident and much easier to beat. There is simply no way that Republicans can howl about Garland without looking like they have taken leave of their senses, which, of course, they have.
FlipYrWhig
@gogol’s wife:
You could go back to people like Jacob Javitz, George Aiken, and Henry Cabot Lodge. But, yes, those pro-civil rights Republicans from the Northeast. Was that what Republicans en masse ever stood for? The Republicans fought against the New Deal, fer cryin’ out loud. Then you’re back to the pre-Depression Republicans. Maybe Obama is like Bob LaFollette!
dimmsdale
Having taken the short and VERY disappointed view of Obama’s presidency for so long (his overly conciliatory negotiations with the R’s when he could have been tougher, his inexplicable retention of lower-level Bushies in federal agencies where he should have kicked them the F*k out and appointed Democrats/moderates, his continual treatment of Republican foes with a courtliness and dignity they–in my view–didn’t deserve……I wonder if you’re not exactly right about how we’ll view the Obama presidency in a few years, with some distance and perspective.
Granted, the drone murder program is hardly his finest hour, but I even wonder if the Bill Clinton presidency, with its horrific gimme’s to corporate America (at the public’s expense) and its “welfare termination and the hell with the human consequences” atrocity will be viewed anywhere near as well.
I’m looking at Hillary, and considering what she’ll bring to the office (don’t get me started) and getting nostalgic for the Obama approach, and it’s WAY TOO SOON for that!
Barbara
It really is pretty funny when you think about it. McConnell looked immediately at the most short term goal he could think of — who is going to replace Scalia? — and completely shot from the hip: “Nobody nominated by PBO.” They have been backtracking ever since trying to head off the political damage — instead of forcing people to take a one time, difficult vote, they now have to explain this over and over again from here to November. My God they belong in purgatory.
Dennis
I think you are probably right, he wouldn’t withdraw Garland even if a Democratic majority Senate was about to take over. And this is how the Court has moved further and further right. Republicans appoint true believers, and the Democrats appoint only centrists.
Now, in this case, Garland would move the Court left from Scalia, but he wouldn’t move it as far left as a Dem Senate could, so a progressive chance is given away. And when the GOP wins the 2018 midterms and RBG dies/retires, it will move back right again.
In short, Obama negotiates with himself and gives the right the concession position right off the bat.
Princess (now General) Leia
That photo of Garland looking at Obama after the presser leads me to believe this was sincere and not a ploy. Brought tears to my eyes.
Roger Moore
@JaneE:
On some issues. On other issues, the country has moved so far to the left that even some of today’s Republicans would be shunned from polite society in the 1950s for being too radical. LGBTQ rights are the obvious example, but even on things like renewable power, Obama is taking positions that would have seemed radical a generation or two ago.
pat
I think that not only does Obama think he can get him on the court, he wants him on the court. And I don’t think for one instance he would pull Garland’s nomination should the GOP agree to seat him in the lame duck session.
That’s not the kind of man he is, not the kind of negotiator he is. He sees value in Garland being on the court, and will get him on there, and he would never nominate someone like Garland and then pull the rug out from under him. It’s not in his DNA.
Absolutely, I think I love you John Cole.
Mai.naem.mobile
Funny thing is one of the reasons the GOP wants Garland is because hes older and one of the reasons that Scalia got appointed was his young age. The thing is for all you know Garland may end up being on the court longer than Scalia.
dimmsdale
@dimmsdale: ETA: I sincerely hope there’s a concentrated push on all levels–churches, media, thought-leaders in politics etc.–for a new national discourse of civility and decency–both of which have been savagely attacked by Fox News and the right wing so effectively that there’s very little left of either in the national dialogue anymore. I don’t think Hillary has the chops for it, but Bernie does, and Obama does. (Hopefully Hillary can lead on this, regardless; an expanded role for the FCC in public affairs programming would certainly be a start.)
Aimai
@les: Right. I dont understand why the left thinks the only progressive choice is some kind of “fuck you” to the court and the republicans. Its like they imagine the right pick is a left version of scalia–an outspoken, illogical, jerk who gives the right wing and corporations the finger regardless of the legal issues jnder discussion. Thats not a jurist–thats a trained attack monkey. Obama isnt going to treat the court as a partisan football. But his picks have always been constrained by his desire to get the most thoughtful, progressive, temperamentally suited legal scholar onto the court. In a perfect world he might have been able to get all that and more. But he was never going to choose a hard left ideologue who would behave as the courts hard right ideologues always have:sulking, bitching, acting out…etc…etc…etc… And that really (i think) is what the bernie sanders chatterring clssses want:a revenge pick.
Eadgyth
Just have to listen to his extremely thoughtful Nomination speech. It gets pretty amazing. He makes it clear that “a government divided against itself cannot stand” to paraphrase….er somebody or another who Obama reminds me of. Basically Obama posits that Our government by the people, of the people, for the people, will indeed perish from the Earth if it fails at basic fundamentals of high importance, like SJC nominations. He absolutely means it.
Garland I think agrees, and is a fighter. He knows what story is.
scav
@NR: Difference sorta depends if you’re into body-building as a self-admiration goal in itself or actually trying to accomplish moving shit. Attempting to lift the world directly in a deadlift with a joyous cry of “muscle building! muscle-building!” instead of pausing and looking for a damn lever works well in B-movies.
msdc
I like the rest of the post, but this? Yeah, this is bullshit.
Moderate Republicans wouldn’t set up an “anti-war room” in the White House to pressure Congress into not fucking up the Iran deal. Moderate Republicans wouldn’t come out in support of marriage equality. Moderate Republicans wouldn’t pass the largest expansion of the social safety net since the Great Society.
Scott Lemieux has thoroughly immolated the idea that Obama is somehow to the right of Richard Nixon, Our Last Great Liberal President. Nixon did what an overwhelmingly Democratic Congress made him do. Obama does whatever he can slip past an overwhelmingly Republican, tire-rims-and-anthrax Congress. This “moderate Republican” line is a favorite of our progressive betters, just one more variation on OMG OBAMA IS WORSE THAN ______ HE SOLD US OUT.
He’s not a moderate Republican. He is that even rarer creature, a run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat who knows how to put aside the whining and the rending of the garments and all that other symbolic bullshit and actually get things done.
daverave
I wonder if Obama conferred with Hillz about this strategy with Garland? If the next president should be selecting the next SC justice per the R half of the Senate, and it is delayed that long, is she on-board with Garland being appointed during lame-duck time? And after waiting that long, if the R’s retain Senate control, what’s to keep the R’s from never seating a ninth judge until they win the Presidency?
Please provide SATSQ…
SFAW
Fixed
By the way: good essay, John. Thanks
NonyNony
Sigh.
Everything else you have up there I can sign onto John, but this shows that you still haven’t been a Dem long enough (I made the same kinds of mistakes too in my transition from GOPer to Dem, so I understand).
The Dem Party is a Big Tent. It holds all kinds of people with all kinds of views. Bill Clinton and Obama are perfect examples of Democrats. Obama is maybe a shade to the right of LBJ, Bill Clinton was maybe a shade to the right of that. Both of them were to the left of Carter while he was in office, who was probably the rightmost Democrat since FDR but he was undeniably a Democrat.
The problem is that whether you come at this from a far-left viewpoint or from a former Republican viewpoint, either way your vision gets skewed. The Democratic Party embraces a range of views from far left to center left to center. It’s the way the party works. Clinton and Obama are perfectly valid examples of Democrats even if they are closer to that center-left than the left. Your vision gets skewed by the Republican example, where Republicans are Small Tent and always pushing rightward.
Also calling them good “Republican” presidents is an insult to Democrats everywhere, because it assigns “competency” as a Republican trait. It took me a little while to realize that myself but it’s true – when you say they were “good Republican Presidents” you’re falling into the Villager trap of assuming that Republicans are the example of competent, middle-of-the-road governance and that’s just not true. That makes them good Presidents not good Republican presidents. (The last Republican who fit that model is probably Ford, but the last elected Republican president that fit that model was Eisenhower. I wouldn’t even count Bush the Elder because he wasn’t really all that middle of the road, though he gets points for realizing that sometimes you have to raise taxes to pay for stuff. But that’s a really, really low bar.)
Tokyokie
So, according to Yertle, Obama has politicized the Supreme Court selection process by nominating somebody eminently qualified? The bastard! Is there no low to which he will not stoop?
O. Felix Culpa
My theory is that Obama already had an indication the GOP would back down and the Garland pick was necessary (as well as apt) to pave the way. This is an entirely data-free opinion, as is fitting to blog discussions. Future events will prove/disprove the validity of this theory, which is mine.
/Monty Python reference.
Enhanced Voting Techinques
Romney would have never nominated a moderate liberal or had a fight with the Republican controlled Senate like this. Just sayin.
Thanks a lot Obama.Worse than Romeny.
msdc
But I do love this.
gogol's wife
@NonyNony:
Carter was to the right?????
Kylroy
@NR: Yeah, remember how we thundered through a progressive revolution after passing the ACA? (And if you’re gonna argue that the ACA’s insufficient purity was why it failed…sing along with me: “In brightest day, in blackest night…”)
I agree that you can certainly hold back so long you miss the right moment, but the idea that passing legislation against outside resistance somehow builds power instead of expending it is demonstrably false.
gogol's wife
@msdc:
Right.
FlipYrWhig
@Aimai:
That’s the way the Fuck You Left works. Same reason why “the left” used to love Keith Olbermann and Anthony Weiner. The louder the Fuck You, the better. IMHO the same reason why the left older than about 24 loves Bernie Sanders, but that’s a story for another day.
Rick Taylor
Sounds spot on to me, John.
SFAW
@Aimai:
You forgot “intellectually dishonest,” which Fat Nino proved he was, time and again, over the last 15-plus years.
Perhaps, but I would see them as wanting more of a “warrior” pick, to help drag the Court’s Overton window back leftward. Yeah, there’s some overlap.
beltane
@Tokyokie: Obama, like most presidents, was elected by people who voted. This was an inherently political act, which means everything else he does is inherently political. All elected officials are guilty of this.
Aimai
@Linnaeus: correct: this absurd fantasy that nicin was “more liberal” is the result of some kind of moronic game of telephone the left has been playing since obama got in. Nixon had to sign some veto proof legislation that the democrats forced on him. He lied a lot. Also I fucking LOVE the way the disgruntled left calls Nixon a liberal while dragging Kissenger as a war criminal into every discussion of Hillary. Its like their political analysis is based on shit stirring and too much liquor.
FlipYrWhig
@gogol’s wife: Um, yes? My parents, hippie-adjacent if not hippies themselves, refused to vote for Jimmy Carter because of all his born-again Christian stuff.
gogol's wife
@FlipYrWhig:
Oh, you mean his religion. Not his political positions. He was way out in front on the climate-change issue, for example.
I was thinking of him as a politician.
? Martin
@NR:
He is fighting for what’s right – a nominee from a Democratic president over one from a Republican president. Or has the GOP been insufficiently clear for you to grasp that?
Kylroy
@NonyNony: Calling Clinton and Obama the heirs of Eisenhower doesn’t faze me in the least. And even Nixon founded the EPA and took us out of Vietnam; pre-Reagan R’s were not the unalloyed racist IGMFY party we face today.
gogol's wife
Oh yes, Nixon was such a peacenik.
Xantar
@Just Some Fuckhead:
I really don’t understand the idea that the Supreme Court nomination is going to motivate people to the polls. For that to be true, there would have to be a sizable contingent of voters who are saying to themselves, “Well never mind what Donald Trump wants to do or that the GOP is openly racist or that they want to bomb everyone or that they still haven’t gotten on board with marriage equality. I still won’t know which party I’m going to vote for until I see who Obama nominates to the Supreme Court.”
There’s plenty out there to motivate the base of the Democratic Party already. I really doubt Gordon Liu or Sri Srinivasan would have added anything to that.
msdc
@Aimai:
Zing!
Ripley
He’ll always be No. 2 to me.
pseudonymous in nc
It’s an institutionalist pick from someone who believes in the power of institutions over individuals.
It’s being done in such a conventional way that it makes the GOP look stupid when they behave unconventionally.
That it gives Obama the chance to get a lot of Dem senators elected in November is just the icing on the cake.
Though I’d agree with NonyNony here: if you’re reaching back to Eisenhower as your model of reasonable centrist governance, then arguably: a) conditions were more conducive to reasonable consensus-driven centrist governance; b) Eisenhower was not a typical Republican, could conceivably have run on the Dem platform in 1952, and was certainly not a partisan.
Roger Moore
@Dennis:
No. The Supreme Court has moved further to the right because Republicans have made 12 of the last 16 appointments. Between when Johnson appointed Thurgood Marshall and when Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republican presidents got to make 10 consecutive Supreme Court appointments. Any time one party dominates the nomination process to that extent, they’re going to swing the Court very far in their ideological direction.
Cacti
Garland is much too qualified to be a sacrificial anything.
He brings a more impressive legal CV to the table than any of the sitting members of SCOTUS did at the time of their appointments.
If someone wants to kvetch about him not being a fire breathing liberal, so be it.
But the man is absolutely qualified for a SCOTUS appointment.
Lynn Dee
Amen. I agree. You and Martin Longman over at boomantribune have written some excellent posts on this subject.
Dread
I think the best revenge, of course, would be for Hilary to win and the Democrats to take the Senate and then have President Clinton nominate Barack Obama to be Scalia’s replacement.
Gardenfli
@NonyNony:
Totally agree with this. Plus as someone up thread mentioned if Obama & Clinton are considered “moderate Republicans” than what about JFK or Carter? What makes them more or less “Democratic” than Obama & Clinton?
Plus I’m not sure if you can compare Obama to Eisenhower by saying one was more or less liberal than the other without taking into consideration the circumstances which they worked under.
pseudonymous in nc
@Xantar:
It’s more about the general sense that These Fuckers Aren’t Doing Their Jobs, or These Fuckers Are Stopping Government From Working. The GOP is committing a sin against things learned in middle school civics. There is a process, and These Fuckers aren’t following it, and that’s like letting your cellphone ring in church.
John D.
@WarMunchkin: OK, I have to ask this, and I’m not trying to be offensive.
I know a lot of Sanders supporters, and I know a lot of Clinton supporters. Why are all the Sanders supporters shocked at the institutional and voter support given to a lifelong Democrat instead of a guy who has distanced himself from the party for decades, and called them corrupt to boot?
Sanders has been a member of the Democratic party for less than half a year. It’s his “own primary” only because he finally decided he needed the infrastructure that the party could bring. Clinton and Sanders did not start out on equal footing with the Democratic base, and that is not because of DWS, or DNC influence, or any sort of underhandedness. It’s because of his actions, attitudes, comments, and rejection of the party for decades until he needed something from them.
His message is certainly resonating with the base, though, especially with the younger voters, and that’s awesome. I voted for him in my primary. But it’s not surprising at all that an economic liberal is having difficulties winning this primary given his self-imposed hurdles. He has not spent decades building the relationships within the DNC that Clinton has. He has not spent decades building trust and relationships with all of the core constituencies of the Democratic party across the nation that she has.
Shygetz
He’s not a sacrificial lamb, he’s a win-win. He has nothing to lose, as he already has a lifetime appointment to the DC court. He would do a fine job if he gets confirmed, he does maximum damage to Republicans if they refuse to give him a hearing, and will leave the door open to punish Republicans with a more liberal nominee if he gets stonewalled. Only way it would be better were if he were a Hispanic woman.
daverave
@gogol’s wife:
The Richard M. Nixon that abolished the draft the year of my 18th birthday (which was #7 in the lottery as I recall) will always have a special place in my heart. Oh though I might be living in Canada right now…
Miss Bianca
You know, looking at those photos and listening to that speech, I get doubly infuriated by the Republican shitshow. This should have been an unabiguously joyous high point moment fot the POTUS and his eminently qualified, obviously thrilled candidate. Instead, it’s all hedged about with the certainty of continued insult and outrage and speculation and unwarranted bloody-mindedness, all because Those Racist Fuckheads can’t stand to see That One “win”. That’s how they think of it. Doing their jobs and giving the President’s SC candidate the bare courtesy of a hearing and a vote is too much for them – because even that is letting That One Win. Honestly, can’t McConnell – hell, the entire Judiciary Committee – be impeached for dereliction of duty?
Kylroy
@gogol’s wife: Not hardly. But he could be cornered into passing things, whereas the modern Republican party marches in lockstep to a drumbeat of “No”.
FlipYrWhig
@Kylroy: That’s only because Eisenhower leapfrogged Robert Taft, the leading conservative voice within the Republican Party. So we’re back to saying that the liberal Republicans from 50-60 years ago, when the parties were divided more along regional lines than ideological ones, are similar to the liberal Democrats of now. That’s because they’re both liberal.
I mean, we don’t go around saying that Jeff Sessions is actually best considered a “conservative Democrat” because he’s a racist peckerwood, even though 50-60 years ago the racist peckerwoods were all Democrats.
Aimai
@Kylroy: the country has radically resorted itself along partisan lines. Nixon’s southern strategy, the movement of the dixiecrats ingo the republican party, the defenestration or eithering away of the very category “moderate” Republican. The wholesale movement of the southern bsptist and evangelical communities INTO politics as an effort to thwart desegregation of schools–these are all things that make mapping current definitions of democrat or republican onto prior ones very difficult. But at least since johnson the movement of republicans into being the party of racism snd white resentment has been pretty unidirectional.
Shygetz
@John D.: I think it’s a fair point that, given the real legal advantages afforded the two major parties in ballot access law, that the parties should be required to be as open to outsiders as possible and as neutral as possible between candidates. It really should be the voters deciding.
Linnaeus
@Kylroy:
Nixon took the US out of Vietnam very slowly, because he was so intent on “peace with honor” (the appearance of a US victory) and supporting an increasingly inviable government in South Vietnam.
speedbumped
Not sure what criteria Cole was applying when he compiled his list of high-profile exits for item 1, but I think Sebelius and Shinseki both qualify, to some degree, as sacrifices (not necessarily undeservedly).
Kylroy
@dimmsdale: Bernie can absolutely still be a part of that push if he doesn’t win the nomination. If he can get the Berniacs to turn out and vote in 2018, he’ll do the Ds and the world a tremendous service.
FlipYrWhig
@John D.:
But that’s just it — the base of the Democratic Party isn’t highly-educated white male liberals. The base of the Democratic Party is women and people of color. Sanders has galvanized a lot of people _who aren’t the base_. Once you isolate who the base is, you can figure out just what’s going on: he’s had trouble resonating with the base. (ETA: OK, Sanders isn’t just the favorite candidate of highly-educated white male liberals, that’s an overstatement, but I’ll leave it there for effect. His biggest victories came when he tapped into lower-income white voters.)
IMHO a lot of people try to do political analysis on what the Democrats should do by assuming that the Democratic base is liberals, but that’s a mistake.
pseudonymous in nc
@Dennis:
This is bullshit slogan bullshit. The only people who’ve been negotiating with themselves since Scalia popped his clogs are the GOP senators, and they’re doing it in public to hilarious effect.
Ruckus
@Keith G:
I don’t think anyone had anything on President Obama. Rahm may have been a good choice to oversee starting from scratch in operating the WH. He may have had some insights that the President felt he needed or a no nonsense approach. There’s a big herd of people to hire, oversee and lots and lots of minutia to work through. Just being president requires you to delegate authority and see how it goes. Having been a business owner, of a relatively tiny business showed me that. I also had a job where I had about 100 people working for me with five intermediate managers. Without letting go you get nothing done and people leave. My feeling is that Rahm outlived his usefulness and became a liability at some point. In my book it was the first year, but that’s just me.
JMG
There are three possible outcomes here. 1. Garland will be confirmed before the election.
2. Clinton will win and Garland will be confirmed before or after her inauguration. I have to believe Obama discussed this pick with her. Have to.
3. Trump will win, partially due to the lefter-than-thou whiners who’ve been a minor curse of Obama’s administration and a major one of the Internet, and the composition of the Supreme Court will be one of our lesser problems as a country.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@scav:
LOL. And that my dear is the difference between an idiot like NR, and Obama.
Roger Moore
@FlipYrWhig:
Also, too, Carter was a tried and true Cold Warrior. While Reagan gets the credit/blame for the post-Vietnam military buildup, that buildup really started under Carter.
Kylroy
@FlipYrWhig: I think Sanders is making some inroads with women and people of color. (Let me emphasize I mean Sanders himself, and not the substantial number of his followers who required the invention of the term “Bernie Bro”.) If he had more than a few months to try and win people over, he might start forming a meaningful coalition. But a career of never needing to campaign outside (extremely pale) Vermont, nor connect with any larger party apparatus, means he can’t redefine American politics in the course of one primary.
Dennis
@pseudonymous in nc: Whatever. It’s only the latest example. The best one is his refusal to just let the Bush tax cuts expire. There are no excuses there–all he had to do was nothing. Instead, he moved into permanent status about 85% of a very regressive change in tax policy.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@msdc:
Makes you wonder what he could have done with a real liberal Democratic Congress to send him real liberal bills to sign, instead of fucking Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson pretending to be president for a day.
Tracy Ratcliff
@gogol’s wife: You know all the deregulation stuff that Reagan gets the credit for? Started under Carter (trucking, airlines).
Iowa Old Lady
Crooks and Liars has Clinton’s answer to the barking dog video Trump posted yesterday. She’s zeroed on how thin skinned he is and kicked this exchange off by calling him an embarrassment, then followed up by kicking him again.
Ruckus
@Stan:
You are correct. But that doesn’t change the fact that getting that done would never happen with the senate we have. The president doesn’t have the ability to change the rules or the minds of republicans. That closed mindset is baked in and especially this president has no way to play them any more than he’s just done.
It’s nice being a purity pony, makes one feel righteous, but it doesn’t move anything forward, it’s grandstanding for the sake of no compromise. And it guaranties that you will lose most every issue and battle. It’s a head on approach that meets maximum resistance. Sometimes you have to out flank your opponent to move forward.
Linnaeus
@JMG:
I don’t think that the “leftier-than-thou whiners” will be a significant factor in this election, just as they weren’t in prior elections.
Punchy
Wow, that McConnell quote is unreal. He’s injecting politics by performing a Constitutionally mandated function of his job.
In likely related news, 7 Onion writers just read that quote, and retired on the spot.
Peale
@Kylroy: And that’s how they’ll win in the long run. For too many years, the So called progressives have rallied behind people who aren’t interested at all in taking over the institution. They prefer to be small, unpopular and outside of a system they think is corrupt. It’s a movement that is destined to remain immature. Kids following leaders who frustrate them so they drop out until the next generation of kids becomes frustrated and drops out. Never two generations or even three working together. It’s just been one big circle of nothing.
If Sanders can bring them into the party and keep them there, showing that they can be a regular voting block that won’t disappear with frustration, they might make quite a bit of progress rejuvenating the party rather than destroying it. But it is a difficult cycle to break because progressive culture has a distrust of existing institutions rather than respect for them. It doesn’t help to melt down rather than fight on, and accept leaders who, when they melt down, lash out at every other group for selling out.
If he can’t bring them in to something sustainable, Sanders is another in a long line of progressive “leaders” who is in it for himself while charging everyone else with selfishness and hypocrisy. I’d be disappointed if that turns out to be the case.
redshirt
I’m proud to say I sincerely love President Barack Hussein Obama.
Cacti
Speaking of “leftier-than-thou-whiners,” you might want to go ahead and write your epitaphs for the Sanders campaign.
Obama privately tells donors that the time is coming to unite behind Clinton.
schrodinger's cat
@Betty Cracker: There are no moderate Republicans, they have gone the way of the dodo. Calling Obama a moderate Republican is giving Republicans an undeserved compliment and an an insult to Obama. YMMV.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@redshirt:
Me too.
/Obot
FlipYrWhig
@Peale: IM NOT LIKE YOU I’M NEVER GONNA SELL OUT
Linnaeus
@Cacti:
This doesn’t surprise me at all. Obama has been careful not to be disparaging of Sanders, but reading between the lines of his comments up to now, you can see that he favored Clinton.
Kylroy
@Peale: Disappointed, but not surprised. It’s a good thing Sanders ran in the Democratic primary rather then going the Nader route, but the fact is he spent a long elected career as an independent and only became a Democrat when it afforded him a larger stage. If he’s willing to support the party he ignored for several decades *after* said party rejects his leadership in the primary,*then* I’ll be surprised. And impressed, honestly.
John D.
@Shygetz: It’s perfectly fine to feel that way. It’s wrong, historically and legally — the RNC and DNC are 501(c)4 organizations — but you can feel that way.
@FlipYrWhig: The “base” is much, much bigger than you claim here. The *largest* portions are as you claim, but as a big tent, the Democratic party contains many poles. And Sanders has managed to energize over 6 million voters to cast their ballots for him. He’s not doing as well as Clinton, which strikes me as it should be, but he’s definitely gotten large swaths of Democrats supporting him.
redshirt
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: I’ve never felt this way about a politician at any level. The man is just so smart, so grounded, so good, it awes me. Almost a decade now and he’s never slipped in my eyes for even a moment.
It’s been psychically refreshing for me to absolutely trust the President, which is something I’ve never done before.
And as per the topic, of course I agree with Obama’s selection of Garland, because he made it.
FlipYrWhig
@schrodinger’s cat: There used to be liberal Republicans. Never a majority. They died.
If a liberal Democrat reminds you of a liberal Republican, it’s because he or she is liberal. I don’t know why making it more complicated than that is supposed to be a sign of political sophistication.
japa21
@Dennis: Wrong again. It might do you well to revisit that time period. If he had done nothing, not only would the Bush tax cuts not have expired but several other things, like Unemployment Insurance and several other safety net programs would have been cut drastically. By agreeing to extend those cuts for 1 year, he saved thousands of people from needless suffering.
Ruckus
@Aimai:
Its like their political analysis is based on shit stirring and too much liquor.
Perfect.
FlipYrWhig
@John D.: I think we’re just disagreeing about what the base means. You’re right, it’s a messy and pluralistic party. It encompasses a lot of interests. But that’s also why promoting one of those segments to the status of The Base is a mistake. It’d be like saying that the Republican base is home-schoolers. That’s certainly part of the story, but that doesn’t mean that every attempt they take to make an argument to people other than the home-schoolers is an ill-considered betrayal of deeply held principles.
FlipYrWhig
@japa21: BUT THAT TRILLION DOLLAR COIN THO
schrodinger's cat
@FlipYrWhig:
That’s why I likened them to the extinct dodo.
I
prob50
Couldn’t agree more, John. A thoughtful and excellent post.
FlipYrWhig
@schrodinger’s cat: Right, I wasn’t disagreeing with you, just taking off from your earlier comment.
CONGRATULATIONS!
Hope so. I’ve had enough, more than enough, of the “dismantle the government” crowd, and let’s face it, the only way we’re going to drag the South out of the 19th century is by eliminating as many “states rights” as possible.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@redshirt:
The guy has the most stable mind of anyone on the world stage, and the easiest wit. I love that he’s madly in love with his wife, and she with him. I don’t think he’s perfect, but I think he tries to make the best decision out of a sense of enlightened self-interest as a personal principle, and is mindful all the time that he’s the president of all of the country. It’s more than we deserve, I know that.
jayackroyd
+1
FlipYrWhig
@CONGRATULATIONS!: I think I read that he taught antitrust law.
Aimai
@John D.: do they self identify as democrats? That is the question.
redshirt
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: No one’s perfect, but he’s closer than most people. :)
smith
@Peale:
I think Sanders always intended to make a sustainable mark, otherwise he would have run as an independent. He’s succeeded at what he set out to do: To challenge the Ds to be serious about economic justice and to use it more consistently as a criterion for good policy. That he’s come so far is probably a pleasant surprise to him, and I’m sure he’s aware of the opportunity to help bake economic justice into the bones of the party. He won’t be the nominee, but he will definitely have the ear of the nominee.
One other thing his candidacy has done is to make it much easier for candidates from now on to pick up this flag and run with it, as he’s proven it to be a viable political stance. If the Bernie Bros stick with the program for a few cycles, I believe they will get their president.
Chyron HR
@Cacti:
Ha ha, joke’s on you, all Sanders has to do is show up at the convention and all the superdelegates will switch to him because he’s just plain better than Hillary.
And since someone got the sads :^( the last time I said this because it was mean >:^(, allow me to clarify that this is the Sanders campaign’s official strategy as publicly stated by his campaign manager following Super Tuesday 3.
Miss Bianca
@redshirt:
This. And, well, all of it.
WarMunchkin
@FlipYrWhig:
We call this the McArdle.
Domaninion
“cornfed pieholes” is my new favorite thing to say
Sophie
@Miss Bianca:
Same here.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@FlipYrWhig:
From the NYT after Ohio: “Among those with family incomes over $100,000 per year, Mr. Sanders outpolled Hillary Clinton by nearly 10 percentage points. Middle-income voters, with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000, split evenly between the two candidates. Voters in families earning less than $50,000 per year sided decisively with Mrs. Clinton.”
I think only people fairly comfortable in their circumstances thinks rocking the boat by tearing up large swaths of the economy sounds like a great idea.
Linnaeus
@smith:
Agreed – if that happens, that will be the real significance of the Sanders candidacy. It’s a sign of the end of DLC-style politics as a predominant force in the Democratic Party.
Dennis
@japa21: Sorry, how would they not have expired? It was written right into the 2001 law. The GOP would have had to pass a new bill to undo that and they didn’t have a veto-proof majority.
El Caganer
@Chyron HR: That’s not a strategy, that’s a delusion.
John D.
@Aimai: He’s gotten 2 million votes in closed and semi-closed primaries, so, I’m gonna go with “yes”. He is definitely the preferred candidate for the liberal wing of the Democratic party.
Mnemosyne
@Mai.naem.mobile:
Meh, it’s 2016, and people like videos. They did one for Obama’s nominee for Librarian of Congress, too.
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@El Caganer:
Check out the comments in the Salon articles about Bernie’s path to the nomination if you want to see weapons grade delusion.
John D.
@Linnaeus:
Um, what?
Clinton is primarily attacked for being a DLC-style politician, and she is winning.
Did you mean that it signals the end of DLC-style politics as the ONLY force in the Democratic party? Because your version is nonsense.
Weaselone
It’s probably already been mentioned, but I will add the following.
1. Garland out of all of Obama’s short list was probably most enthusiastic to be nominated despite the guaranteed shitshow. The younger judges and the better liberals people are pining for would love to be on the Court, but were likely less than enthusiastic about having their name put forward.
2. Garland has been in Washington awhile. That means he likely has his own considerable collection of friends, allies and favors to call in. He’ll be able to lobby significantly for his own appointment.
dedc79
O/T but anyone know if there’s any truth to reports that anonymous has published Trump’s actual cell phone # and social security #?
Davebo
A really good post especially for a guy just off (hopefully) flue medications.
Off topic, but the Cruz foreign policy team is indeed star studded!
maryQ
This:
I believe Obama trusts the kind of slow revolution with irreversible gains to large dramatic revolutions that can lead to just as radical course corrections.
You. Rock.
FlipYrWhig
@WarMunchkin: Eh. See below. That’s kind of his thing: youth + highly-educated white liberals. Michigan was different. Maybe Missouri was different too. But is that “the base”? Highly-educated white liberals — a group that includes me and most of my friends — _think of_ themselves as the Democratic base, clamor for more respect and consideration, etc. But if that’s not the Democratic base, but rather one interest group among many, then there’s no real reason why Bernie Sanders should be treated as the _true_ Democrat, the _true_ liberal, and so forth. It’s a mistake people constantly make.
Mnemosyne
@the Conster, la Citoyenne:
It is strangely comforting to know that even when Obama is wrong about something (like drones or public education), he’s genuinely wrong and not just making a cynical stance. Someone who is genuinely wrong can sometimes be persuaded to change their stance, as has happened with some of the education stances.
Peale
@smith: I think they’ll get it, too. They aren’t really all that far off. Youngsters and apparently more liberal than expected rural democrats have been receptive. I’m pretty sure that those rural dems aren’t voting for Sanders simply because Clinton is some kind of city slicker. If they like his ideas, the youngsters will be poised to bring that group forward and build on it. That could be good news for the party, to bring in people from outside. Because it does feel sometimes like the party bigwigs, and especially its idea makers, are concentrated in a Northeast corridor cocoon.
Brachiator
@Dennis:
You are absolutely, totally, dead wrong about this. There were always tax extenders at play here, provisions that had to be dealt with before the end of the year. One year there was also the extension of unemployment benefits to consider.
Simply “doing nothing” would have hurt low and middle income taxpayers, small businesses, and created havoc for the IRS with tons of retroactive law changes once Congress got their act together.
There was never, I repeat, never a time when the only thing on the table was the Bush tax cuts.
Chyron HR
@dedc79:
That’s not possible–Trump isn’t a real person, he’s just a character from TV. Like the Swedish Chef.
Linnaeus
@John D.:
I would argue, as her defenders do, that Clinton herself has moved away from positions that would have been considered the DLC norm 20 or so years ago. This is indicative of a larger shift within the Democratic Party.
Case in point: LGBT rights. In the 1990s, a Democrat could equivocate on that issue and still get elected in most parts of the US. No Democrat could do that now, except perhaps in some local races in very conservative areas.
japa21
@Dennis: They were doing just that. And along with the tax cuts expiring, everything else would have. Maybe, just maybe, some of the other safety net stuff could have been put back in eventually, but highly unlikely. So if they pass the bill to extend the tax cuts but let the other benefits expire, Obama vetoes it, what then. Sure the tax cuts expire, but at the cost of several, hundreds of thousands suffering. Perhaps the suffering of others doesn’t matter to you (not accusing you of that) but to him it meant a lot.
NR
@Kylroy:
70% of the public wanted a public option. 70%. The only “purity” in that case was the Democrats choosing their pure corporate interests over what the vast majority of the public wanted.
Loviatar
Ha, no wonder he’s beloved by the group of former Republicans on this site. However, it kind of makes you wonder why Clinton doesn’t get the same kind of love.
Aimai
@John D.: not to hear his most ardent supporters tell it. But i agree–despite the big rallies i think the numbers indicate he is not getting that many new people yo the polls. So perhaps those teo million are regular, registrred, dems. Why, then, do they keep making the argument that sanders can count on hillarys voters but she cant count on his?
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@redshirt:
He’s the coolest person in the world, too. That can’t be faked. It’s simply impossible to make fun of the guy, because he’s smarter than you, taller than you, better looking than you, funnier than you, can sink a three pointer and/or have you killed if you fuck with the US. It’s been an amazing 7 years, and he’s provided the blueprint for future leaders, none of whom will likely ever be as charismatic.
dedc79
@Chyron HR: We’d be so much better off with President Swedish Chef
Tim C.
@Chyron HR: SLANDER!!! Seriously. The Swedish chef was in a really *good* television show.
Aimai
@Loviatar: repressed homoeroticism?
Chyron HR
@dedc79:
Yeah, but his Supreme Court appointments would get borked.
Linnaeus
@the Conster, la Citoyenne:
Obama is the Isaiah Mustafa of the presidency.
Weaselone
@Peale:
This more liberal than thou stuff is getting irritating. Sander’s appeal to young voters, rural and male whites is not based on his being more liberal. These are groups that were doing quite well in this country and are now doing worse. They therefore respond to his economic populism and lower emphasis on other social issues.
Mnemosyne
@John D.:
The DLC is dead, and Hillary has disavowed a lot of what they (and she) did in the 1990s. The Blue Dogs are likewise dead — they were all voted out in 2010. Hillary has wisely re-aligned herself with current Democrats rather than clinging to outdated policies from 20 years ago.
redshirt
@Mnemosyne: Obama has not been wrong on drones. Drones are a technology, not a morality. Using them in lieu of actual troops has undoubtedly saved lives.
I don’t know what you’re referring to in regards Public Education, but I’m willing to bet Bams wasn’t wrong there either.
Kylroy
@NR: Do you seriously believe that the presence of a public option in the ACA would have changed the results of the 2010 elections?
the Conster, la Citoyenne
@Linnaeus:
Obama is still better looking, IMHO, with a nicer smile. When Obama smiles, it’s real. Not everyone can smile for realz, and it’s a quality in a politician I highly value.
redshirt
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: *Swoon*
My only regret is the knuckle dragging minority that is the Republican party and their thralls in the media which have managed to besmirch such an incredible person. It started early too – remember Obama’s speech in Berlin in 2008? McCain turned the 100K plus audience somehow into a negative. Not for the majority of people, but enough to make a difference.
Ella in New Mexico
@FlipYrWhig
Aaaaaand another example of a random comment on a thread that has nothing to do with the Democratic Primary in which you and so many others here are compelled to meander back onto Bernie Hatin’.
For a few of you one track-minded big thinkers, every single post is 6-no, 5-no—1 degree of separation from how this relates to the “Stupid Bernie Sanders Supporters”.
Reminds me of every time I ever read anything with a right wing commentariat: cant get past their deep, deep, irrational hatred of Obama. Only now we’ve got the PUMA’s coming out of the woodwork to get their just rewards for 2008, apparently.
We need a new term for this. Sanders Derangement Syndrome? Na, been done. Godwin’s 2.0? Na, too far out there. Please, some one help me with this.
It’s getting so frigging old.
redshirt
@dedc79: Borski borski borsk!
FlipYrWhig
@Weaselone: IMHO his appeal is to young voters via something like populism and to highly-educated white Democrats via liberalism and Clinton fatigue.
My Truth Hurts
I completely agree with this post.
Amir Khalid
@NR:
70% of the American public wanted a public option in the ACA; but its provisions weren’t being voted on by plebiscite, were they? Only the US Senate was voting, and not enough Senators wanted it.
Brachiator
@Aimai:
Possibly because a lot of Sanders voters are young, students, etc. The fear is that if they don’t feel deep rushes of enthusiasm for their candidate, they will not turn out in large numbers.
On the other hand, right now, Trump supporters seem highly motivated to come out and support him.
Obviously, though, no one knows whether all this enthusiasm will be as strong later in the year.
Aimai
@the Conster, la Citoyenne: I also wanted to add that people seem to have a hard time grasping that Onama’s gestures, choices, policy tactics almost always have more than one side to them. They are usually a plan A and a plan B rolled together. To very young, angry, or stupid political viewers its always a zero sum game in which your first shot is your only shot snd you can only get everything or nothing. But obama’s puck of garland wins whatever the republicans choose to do. He has asserted his constitutional duty, he has rmbarrased them publicly, he has split their senatorial caucus, he has given the democrats ammunition in senate races, he has increased the liklihood of right wing primaries, and if they roll over snd take garland he gets a puck he is happy with completing three historic appts. Lots of his offers to the republicans have had this aspect. Its why they are afraid to negotiate with him at all.
John D.
@Aimai: I have no idea, because I’ve always considered that argument a crock of shit.
Well, I lie. I know exactly why that argument is made. I know why Clinton supporters made it in 2008, and why Sanders supporters make it in 2016.
They are losing, and know it, and are desperately trying to salvage something out of it. They can spin it however they want (“The next states look very good for us”, etc.), but right now it is just a mad scramble to try to get their platform implemented as much as possible, and to feel good about something as their dream shatters. So they threaten to take their ball and go home if they aren’t catered to. Eventually, all parties calm down and come together, but it’s kinda fraught with emotion until then. That’s why poking at them until everything chills out — usually post-nomination clinch — is counterproductive.
I watched 2008 and learned what not to do. I made up my mind to support whichever (D) candidate came out with the nomination whole-heartedly, no matter my vote in my primary. Much less stress this election season. I can just focus on data and ignore narrative.
Marc McKenzie
If historians were honest, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama would be listed as the best moderate Republican Presidents of the last 100 years.
Please stop. Can’t we just call them Democrats and leave it at that? The GOP hate these two men; if they were really Republicans the GOP would be falling all over themselves to praise them to the skies.
Other than this, a solid write up.
John D.
@Mnemosyne: Well, yes. That’s why I said she is primarily *attacked* as a DLC-style politician. I was highlighting the hypocrisy inherent in the anti-Clinton camp.
gogol's wife
@daverave:
I guess you missed the bombing of Cambodia.
FlipYrWhig
@Ella in New Mexico: Maybe if the same group of howler monkeys hadn’t been acting the same way on every issue since 2002–GRIEVOUS BETRAYAL OF THE LEFT BASED ON THIS NEW LITMUS TEST I JUST HEARD ABOUT–before ultimately latching itself onto Bernie Sanders last year, different explanations for their conduct would be necessary. Merrick Garland = public option = Donnie McClurkin = warrantless wiretapping = 50 State Strategy = Christine Cegelis.
Shygetz
@John D.: I’m sorry, are you saying that state ballot access laws don’t treat major political parties different than third party candidates and independents? Because that’s not an opinion, it’s a verifiable fact.
FlipYrWhig
@Amir Khalid: NR says that’s because The Democrats were wooed by their corporate paymasters into taking a fall. Not because different Democrats see the world differently from one another, but because it’s all a carefully orchestrated corporatist conspiracy with the goal of raking in dough and spiting him personally.
melanophis
@Dread: Yes, Dread! That’s my best-of-all-possble-worlds fantasy, as well.
Of course I was also one of those who fantasized 8 years ago that BHO would have Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the gang water-boarded in Guantanamo immediately upon taking the Oval.
Aimai
@Ella in New Mexico: how can it be old? Sanders has been a democrat for half a year. His supporters are burning down democratic web sites and smearing a former president, former first lady, former senator and former secretary of state snd the current head of the party and current president as corrupt, liars, inauthentic, murderes snd corporate lickspittles. How is that not germane to conversations about our current president and his strategies and motivations? If hou are unaware of it i direct you over to dkos where i can assure you there is no chinese wall separating ssnders supporters from opinions snout obsma snd his supreme court pick.
Turgidson
Yeah I think this post is pretty much right. While I think the political angles were considered, it probably comes down to Obama sincerely believing Garland is the best candidate for the job. The fact that Garland is a guy the GOP will look extra-idiotic for mindlessly opposing is just a nice perk.
From his perspective, Garland might have been the candidate on Obama’s short list most willing to be the “pinata” and going into this realizing he might not ever get confirmed, since he surely realizes he’s getting too old to make anyone’s shortlist in the future. If this was likely to be his last shot anyway, why not accept the nomination and see what happens. After all, Obama has won way more of these pissing contests than he’s lost.
Like most liberals, I’d prefer that the nominee be 40 years old and at least as far left as the Notorious RBG. But if Garland gets confirmed, he could still easily serve 20 years and be a key vote on countless watershed cases. And it looks pretty stupid for liberals to say “Obama is entitled to choosing a nominee!!!” when blasting GOP political obstruction, then saying “What a terrible nominee!” when talking amongst ourselves about the politics of the nomination.
Garland is a solid pick and might have the best chance of busting the GOP blockade. Let’s see how it goes.
Marc McKenzie
@msdc: “He’s not a moderate Republican. He is that even rarer creature, a run-of-the-mill liberal Democrat who knows how to put aside the whining and the rending of the garments and all that other symbolic bullshit and actually get things done. ”
^This.
Sister Rail Gun of Warm Humanitarianism
@Xantar: The ads are already running in several states including NC. “Why won’t Senator Burr do what the people of North Carolina are paying him to do? Why is he refusing to do what he swore an oath to do?”
FlipYrWhig
@Aimai: YOUR CANDIDATE IS A CORRUPT BLOOD SOAKED WARMONGER WHO DISGUSTS ME AND ALSO YOU SAY MEAN THINGS
Miss Bianca
@Chyron HR:
That’s “borked, borked, borked”, thank you!
Thx for the mid-afternoon pick-me-up laugh. : )
@FlipYrWhig:
You too. Cut it out! It’s like BernieBroOldmanCat with you and if I keep L’ingOL I can’t pretend my mind is on Very Serious Things at work here…
NR
@Kylroy: Yes, I do. The bill overall would have been much more popular and would not have been the massive political liability for the Dems that it was.
Aimai
@John D.: sure–im not actually puzzled by this behavior. But I am an anthroplogist and im interested in it. Also i think people should be less whiny ass titty baby passive agressive dxtortionists about their votes. “Imma bote for Jill Stein like I always doooooo!” Is a piss poor thing to be patting each other on the back about.
NR
@Amir Khalid:
Yes, and? I don’t think I ever said anything that contradicts this.
I’m simply saying that invoking “purity” when it comes to the ACA is silly, considering that the public option was far from some purity pony. It was something the vast majority of the country wanted.
Aimai
@NR: those two things are not contradictory.
danielx
I’m not sure that evolved is the right word.
JaneE
@Roger Moore: On some social issues, probably, but not on the economy in general. The interstate highway system was seen as federal overreach by the far right, its benefit to the economy and businesses specifically notwithstanding. As for renewable power, Carter put solar panels on the white house. Reagan tore them off. Who knows where we would have been if Carter’s vision had prevailed?
Mnemosyne
@John D.:
Oh, okay, never mind then. We agree. :-)
Gardenfli
@FlipYrWhig:
What was the “issue” with the 50 state strategy?
JaneE
@gogol’s wife: I don’t recall either of them having a philosophical issue with federal supremacy, nor with using it.
Mnemosyne
@Turgidson:
I think there’s another part of the calculation people are overlooking — this is the Democrats’ first chance in years to replace one of the conservative justices. The stakes are very, very high, and throwing that chance away on a long shot would be stupid beyond belief. And this president ain’t stupid.
We can put a liberal firebrand in when the notorious RGB retires after Hillary’s election. Time will be on our side if Democrats keep the White House in November.
John Barleycorn
I agree strongly with this analysis, and would just like to add one small point. I think President Obama deeply respects the institutions of government, and seeing the politicization of the Supreme Court is probably eating him up. He sees Justice Garland as a significant help to restoring respect to the judiciary and moving away from the partisan drama of Scalia.
Chyron HR
@NR:
Who knew that “No Death Panels” and “Keep Government out of my Medicare” were actually demands for a public option? Not for the last time, we shake our heads and sadly wish Obama had a fraction of your political acumen.
les
@Dread:
He’s way too moderate to satisfy the folks who can’t tolerate Garland. He’d likely be Garland. He doesn’t actually think the SC should be two competing sets of bomb throwers. Amazing, that.
John D.
@Shygetz: I’m saying that “parties should be required to be as open to outsiders as possible and as neutral as possible between candidates” is ahistorical and unsupported under current law.
The DNC and RNC are organizations with published bylaws that are voted on by the members of those organizations. Why should they be required to listen to outsiders? Neither one of those organizations sprung forth from the brow of Zeus — they were formed by people, and grew into their current importance through the actions of their members. Parties come into being, grow, and die; ask the Whigs how that goes. We appear to be witnessing the death throes of the GOP right now. Should that happen, either an existing party will grow to fill that vacuum, or one or more new parties will come into being to do so, or both.
If you want to implement your ideas, join a party and get the bylaws changed by convincing a majority of the members to do so, or form a new party with those ideas and convince enough people to join you to make it happen.
les
@Kylroy:
Where “cornered” means “knew his veto would be overturned.” There’s no US political spectrum where Nixon is on the left.
max
I had no problem with the Garland pick, Cole. My original thought was Kelly, using exactly the same reasoning Obama is using here apparently, but maybe that didn’t work for whatever reason. If he gets in he moves the Court away from Bush v. Gore, if nothing else, and that works for me.
max
[‘Random chance delivered an unexpected shot at the Court.’]
Shygetz
@John D.: Why is because, due to the preferential treatment under ballot access law, there is considerable evidence that the two major political parties act as quasi-governmental entities. And, again because of their preferential treatment under ballot access laws, they should be required to operate as democratically as possible. This isn’t ahistorical–the US has been under repeated international criticism for this very reason for many years. Yes, it isn’t how current law works, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t think it SHOULD work that way, or that such people aren’t right. If the RNC and DNC want to give up their preferential ballot access, then I’d be happy to agree with you.
max
@danielx: We are a nation of spuds.
max
[‘…’]
les
@Linnaeus:
And some of us remember Nixon and Kissinger kept the US in Vietnam for domestic political profit. Nixon was a liar, a cheat, a war criminal, a common criminal, a racist, a misogynist, an anti-semite, a xenophobe, a conservative power freak and general all around scum bag. I’m having a load of trouble with the notion of any comparison with Obama.
Aimai
Miss Bianca I’ve been wondering if you were named after Margery sharp’s character? Plus also too flipyourwhig is getting to resemble old man cat.
max
@FlipYrWhig:
I’m going to vote for Hillary… soon as we get this party platform business sorted out.
max
[‘:)’]
Linnaeus
@les:
I’ll cosign all of that.
FlipYrWhig
@Gardenfli: The issue was that the 50 state strategy got a bunch of Blue Dogs elected and was masterminded by a guy who said he wanted to be the candidate of guys with Confederate flags on their pickups, but when the same people who profess to hate Blue Dogs and all they stand for heard that there would no longer be a 50 state strategy, it became temporarily the Worst Betrayal Evar. Running Tammy Duckworth against Christine Cegelis was the Worst Betrayal Evar. Running Sherrod Brown against Paul Hackett was the Worst Betrayal Evar. Picking Kirsten Gillibrand over Caroline Kennedy was the Worst Betrayal Evar. Yes, Duckworth, Brown, and Gillibrand were all part of the way the Democratic Party spat on its liberal base. There’s always some new thing.
Like Peale said earlier, there are just too many hills to be told you have to die on.
FlipYrWhig
@Aimai: High praise indeed!
Miss Bianca
@Aimai:
Indeed she is my nymsake. Unlike me, she is a Fucking Lady. I aspire.
Linnaeus
@FlipYrWhig:
As I recall, the knock on Brown was that he was too liberal to win a Senate election in Ohio, and Hackett was the pragmatic, sensible choice. That was quite wrong.
Keith G
@Ella in New Mexico: Have patience.
The Sander’s campaign has been an overwhelming help to the fortunes of HRC, and better yet (as was already typed above) has increased the foundational strength of the left side of the Democratic Party.
People like to dump on all things Bernie because it’s the internet and dumping is fun and also many here are amazingly tribal. But if there were a game ball to be given out in the Democrat’s locker room after the general election, Bernie would be a wise choice.
Once some this Sturm und Drang fades, it will be easier to correctly categorize the achievements of Sen Sanders.
John D.
@Shygetz: OK, but…
I get that you think it should be that way. And that some other people agree with you.
That does not change the following:
1) It has never been that way here.
2) Current law does not support that; in fact, your complaint about state ballot access laws is exactly the opposite.
That’s why I called it ahistorical and unsupported by current law.
I thought you were making a broader point beyond how you felt about the situation.
FlipYrWhig
@Linnaeus: Oh, that’s not what I remember, at least in the halcyon days of the “netroots.” The framing was that Paul Hackett was a people-powered insurgent but the party and/or the Establishment and/or RAHM were intervening in the process; Sherrod Brown was hence a pawn in the long game of the party disenfranchising its activists.
gogol's wife
@les:
Thank you.
Applejinx
@John D.:
Dream shatters?
We dreamed we’d matter.
Mission fucking accomplished. Say hi to the new, named, self-aware, cohesive faction of the party. Tea Party ain’t got nothing on us. The difference is, we’ll stop at nothing to bring lefty liberalism, not The Dark Ages ;)
FlipYrWhig
@Keith G: The thing I will give the Sanders campaign much respect for is how it managed to connect with young people. I would never have expected that, and I don’t think Hillary could accomplish it. Kudos to them. Harness that. It widens the discussion. It will make the Democratic Party a force for better things.
The rest of it is the same quarter-to-third of the Democratic Party that (ETA) always thinks the other two-thirds to three-quarters of the Democratic Party isn’t liberal enough. And the candidate himself is kind of a crank.
John D.
@Applejinx: The dream of Sanders being the nominee is obviously the dream being referred to here.
If you were truly “the new, named, self-aware, cohesive faction of the party”, you’d (collective you) stop threatening to vote Trump, or 3rd party, or stay home.
We’ll see after the convention.
gogol's wife
@JaneE:
I don’t understand your rejoinder. You said that Nixon and Eisenhower were to the left of Obama.
See Les’s comment at #237 for a more accurate characterization of Nixon.
les
@gogol’s wife: You’re welcome. The mere thought of Nixon makes me…intemperament. Wait, what, that’s not a word?
daverave
@gogol’s wife:
I guess you missed the bombing of Cambodia.
uh, wut?
Aimai
@Miss Bianca: I adore Miss Bianca. Read all the books to my daughters. I loved her especially because she was a poet.
Aimai
@Applejinx: get to working, then.
Keith G
@FlipYrWhig: Oh yeah…He can seem crankish. I have no idea how deep it goes.
The thing is, I bet my supper that Bernie never thought he was going to get to the height that he has managed….and it shows. Some of the negative that folks like to pin on what has happened are issues caused by scaling up a “back of the envelop” idea. He knew he had important and potent ideas, but he didn’t count on the rocket fuel.
Ella in New Mexico
@FlipYrWhig:
OMG WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Sanders Derangement Syndrome it is, then.
Aimai
@Keith G: there’s an error here. I adore Bernie and love what he is doing. I despise the portion of his most vocal supporters who have been led to believe that they are the only moral, educated, aware, political actors. I also object to the savaging of the Democratic Party, older voters, black voters, Hillary voters. The argument is literally the mirror image of the right wing approach–because hillary and her party are corrupt anything that tears her/ them down is fair game. I love Bernie as a conventional candidate–which he is. But his supporters are like people who took out a mortgage to buy a house, lost the bidding war, and are now vacillating between saying they never liked it anyway and trying to burn it down so no one can shelter in it.
prob50
Ooh, LOVED that video clip, JC.
I’ll just bet that dipshit reporter was thinking he was striking a big “gotcha” moment. Then he had to sit there like a turnip while Mr. Prez took him to school.
FlipYrWhig
@Aimai:
Yeppers. And it’s the same people who have been doing the same exact thing since I started reading blogs in 2002. I can’t fault 19-year-olds for being passionate and blinkered about their candidate and the state of liberal politics in 21st-century America. I can fault 45-year-olds who act the same way.
redshirt
@FlipYrWhig: Bob in Portland stands above and athwart your reality.
Ella in New Mexico
@FlipYrWhig: Pot, meet Kettle. :-D
Keith G
@Aimai:
Some? Many? Most? All?
Maybe it is regional. I engaged neighbors who have “Bernie” signs and found no such animus.
I have seen the click-batey headlines circulating yesterday, but I think we will get a clearer view once we get past the conventions (and some undoubted rat fucking) when the choice is Hillary or Trump/Cruz.
Something about the clarification that occurs at the sight of the hangman’s noose.
But we should not let HRC off lightly. She has contributed to what is out there and she should be able to make a winning argument that gets enough of that support on her side.
How hard will she try?
Brachiator
@FlipYrWhig:
Perhaps this accounts for some of the more enthusiastic Sanders support. Obama (and Clinton) bashers have been reliving the “failure” to get a public option since 2008. They keep rehashing the same tired arguments and ignore reality, the positive impact of the Affordable Care Act on the lives of real people.
And now in Sanders they have someone who is “pure,” who has not taken a penny in corporate money, and who promises to fulfill all their dreams.
FlipYrWhig
@Ella in New Mexico: Touche.
FlipYrWhig
@Brachiator: Oh, definitely. Sanders is like the living antithesis of the “corporate” Democrats, meaning everything from their entanglement in the finance sector to their insistence on wearing suits and combing their hair. (Child of an ex-hippie ex-scientist speaking, what can I say.)
Mike in Michigan
@Mnemosyne: I have been a life long, phone banking, money contributing, door knocking Democrat all my life. In 2008 I was originally a Hillary supporter. Wicked smart and policy driven. I thought in 08 she was more qualified than Obama. In every instance and at every occasion Obama has made me proud. It is my belief he is the best President in my lifetime (68) years.
Once Obama got over trying to work with the Republicans he has played them like a fiddle. I suspect the SCOTUS nomination to be more of the same. I saw a strain of sincerity at the announcement presser. He believes in this man and I believe Obama is doing what is best for the party and the country.
NR
@Chyron HR: Gee, it’s almost as if there were lots of people who didn’t like the ACA for different reasons.
And FYI, it doesn’t exactly take a political genius to figure out that when over 70% of the public wants something, and that something makes the bill better, including it is probably a good idea.
Gardenfli
@FlipYrWhig:
Thanks
Jacel
Something I hope doesn’t repeat when the next Democratic president starts in office is filling the cabinet with the best of Senators and Governors from around the states. So many of those holes got filled badly by opportunistic Republicans, or left holes in the number of Senate votes available at crucial times. A President deserves the best people to be found, but the cost was great when Obama started his administration.
Chyron HR
@NR:
Oh, look NR is clinging desperately to one poll result as the word of god. Again.
If over 70% of Americans wanted a public option, then the percentage of Americans that were fundamentally opposed to health care reform at all would have to be 30% or less. As somebody who was awake during 2009 and 2010, I feel confident in stating that it was much larger group than that.
mclaren
Wrong.
Hate the Clintons all you like, John, but they’re fabulous administrators. Everything Bill or Hillary touch winds up extremely well-run. Hillary’s state department was the best-run state department in at least 20 years. She tried out innovative soft power approaches like coordinating twitter campaigns in favor of the Arab Spring uprisings.
Bill will surely have a hand in Hillary’s White House, and Bill Clinton’s Clinton Global Initiative is by universal acclamation by far the best-run and most effective NGO out there.
I’m no big fan of Bill’s Hillary’s Republican-lite policies…but in terms of sheer efficiency and effectiveness of their administrative abilities, you cannot fault these people. If anything, Hillary West Wing will probably be more efficiently and more effectively run than Obama’s. And that’s saying something.
mclaren
Second best.
Dwight Eisenhower was the best moderate Republican President of the last 100 years.
Eisenhower avoided the rollback Cold Warrior demands that he send the U.S. army into Eastern Europe when the Soviets took over Czechoslovakia, thereby avoiding a thermonuclear war.
Eisenhower also avoided sending troops into Vietnam in a full-on invasion.
Eisenhower was also given the option to launch the Bay of Pigs, which he avoided.
Basically, Eisenhower’s administration is a bucket list of all the fuckups of the Kennedy administration, except Eisenhower avoided ’em whereas Kennedy fell right into each and every one.
mclaren
@Chyron HR:
You are incorrect, sir. Applying logic and math to human behavior always produces absurd results.
It is easily possible (in fact, common) for a jury to approve a verdict with which they all individually disagree. Same human behavior going on here. Many people overall approve of health care reform while being fanatically opposed to this particular health care reform proposal.>
mclaren
@Aimai:
Those of us who support Bernie Sanders are the only moral, educated, aware, political actors.
By all means, continue to hurl feces at one another, though.
NR
@Chyron HR: It was way more than one poll.
pseudonymous in nc
@Dennis:
Bullshit. You saw it years ago, and now you’re shoehorning it into a place where it doesn’t apply. Nobody’s doing any negotiating here apart from the GOP senators who now see that Yertle led them into a crevasse.
SFAW
@mclaren:
Wow, I don’t think I’ve ever seen you joke before.
SFAW
@mclaren:
Hungary? Because I think Czecho was 1968. Hungary was 1956, I think.
Uncle Cosmo
@mclaren:
Stalinist seizure of Czechoslovakia occurred in 1948 (google “Jan Masaryk defenestration”) on Truman’s watch; Brezhnev’s squashing of the Prague Spring occurred while LBJ was POTUS. Clearly you meant Hungary (1956).
Hungary at the time had no common border with any member of NATO. A US/NATO armed ground intervention would have had to traverse at least 200 km of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, or Austria. The first two were Warsaw Pact members & would have fought back. The last had emerged from four-power occupation post-WW2 less than 15 months before the Hungarian uprising (27 July 1955 vs 23 October 1956). By the terms of the Austrian State Treaty the newly-reconstituted nation was committed to strict neutrality between the two alliances & would have had no choice but to refuse to grant NATO forces free transit.
Everything in Ike’s experience as a commander of armies would have argued against intervention, no matter what his political preferences.
AxelFoley
@msdc:
Thank you, thank you, thank you!
AxelFoley
@NonyNony:
Another thank you!
AxelFoley
@schrodinger’s cat:
This.
AxelFoley
@les:
This. All this.