Eleanor Clift: Will Obama Ever 'Fess Up to His Merrick Garland Mess?

[BeyondGeography]

In his forthcoming memoir, President Obama will reflect on his “no drama Obama” governing style, so radically different from that of his successor. But will he acknowledge the limits of his signature restraint? His failed appointment of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in 2016 lacked both imagination and hard-ball politics, leaving a legacy of “what ifs” that Obama, if he’s being honest, will confront.

“I think the Garland episode reflects so clearly the inability of Obama to translate his successful presidential campaigns into governing, and the limits of his philosophy of restraint. A liberal lion like FDR might have pursued appointment to the bench by executive order,” says Alexander Heffner, host of The Open Mind on PBS. He makes the case that If Obama had chosen runner-up Jane Kelly, the grassroots activism that propelled Obama into the White House would have kicked into high gear with supporters camped out in Judiciary Chairman Grassley’s front yard demanding he give her a hearing.

Kelly, an Iowa native like Grassley, a former public defender and the embodiment of a public servant, had been unanimously approved by the GOP-led Senate for the federal bench in 2013. Just north of 50, she was considerably younger than the 63-year-old Garland. Progressive groups begged Obama to appoint Kelly, whose story touched hearts, but Obama listened to Republican Orrin Hatch instead, who counseled a centrist choice could get seated by the Senate his party controlled and still does.

“Who listens to Orrin Hatch?” a liberal activist exclaims, still angry at Obama for “taking the path of least resistance. He didn’t want to make waves.” Hatch had given his blessing to President Clinton naming Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Obama thought history could repeat itself. “He was fooled by Orrin Hatch, who then turned around and betrayed him,” this activist says. “He made a terrible mistake, the biggest mistake of his presidency.”

At the Democratic Convention in July 2016, Obama spoke eloquently on Hillary Clinton’s behalf, but did he mention Garland’s stalled nomination? “Not a word,” says the activist. “Not one word.” If a Republican president had been denied his Supreme Court pick by a Democratic Senate, there would have been hell to pay. Obama kept hoping reason would prevail...

More at https://www.thedailybeast.com/will-obama-ever-fess-up-to-his-merrick-garland-mess?ref=home

[Trust Buster]

1. Ridiculous. Turtle was not going to let confirmation hearings under any circumstances.

I guess it was Hillary’s lack of governing that led Republicans to claim that they would not hold hearings for any of her nominees if elected. Clift is full of crap IMO.

[BeyondGeography]

2. So you're cool with him not even mentioning it at the convention?

At least use the issue to drive turnout. Politics 101.

[Trust Buster]

6. That was not Clift's main point. Please read the OP. That was after the fact and would have changed

Nothing.

[BeyondGeography]

7. I read it

And it’s a big part of her point.

[Trust Buster]

8. Nope. That was after the fact. That would have changed nothing.

[BeyondGeography]

9. Resistance is futile

even when you have the White House?

Ok.

[Trust Buster]

11. It was basic math. The Republicans controlled the Senate and would not allow the nomination to

Go forward. Blaming a fine man like President Obama for something totally out of his control is just plain wrong. Intelligent resistance is what I support.

[BeyondGeography]

16. He had the right to nominate anyone he wanted and to fight as hard as he could for his nominee

You’re portraying him as a helpless bystander. Sheesh.

[treestar]

24. It seems to be a wrong impression to have to believe

that our system allows "fighting hard" to work for any point. The only time to "fight" it the elections. There is no provision for getting the opposite party to move to your point of view by "fighting" and when has it ever been done? I hear LBJ was good at "fighting" so how many Republicans did he convince to vote for something he wanted at a point where a congressional house majority was Republican? I just looked it up. Both houses had D majorities for LBJs entire time as POTUS.

Just went through all of FDR's Congresses. All Democratic majorities, both houses, the entire time.

If only we had "fought" for the 2010 and following midterms. But it didn't happen for a black POTUS. Interesting.

[BeyondGeography]

28. The pick was only going to be brought back to life if we won the GE

It should have been an asset for that battle, but it wasn't.

As for the value or lack thereof of "fighting," I'm not sure I follow. At the very least, voters respond to passion. When it came to Garland, there was none.

[treestar]

29. The voters were not a factor at the time

If Obama had more "passion" regarding Garland, then Hillary would have won, or had a better chance of it? I suppose it can always be argued. But then the average voter likely doesn't even understand the courts.

[EffieBlack]

77. That's ridiculous

If people didn't have enough passion to vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump after all they saw and heard during the campaign, moderate Merrick Garland - the guy whose nomination Bernie Sanders promised to withdraw if he won the election because he was too moderate - wasn't going to make any difference.

I'm really sick of this revisionist, let's blame Obama and the Democratic leadership because too many Democratic voters are too fucking stupid to figure out that voting is about more than just proving a point.

I call bullshit on this whole argument.

[heaven05]

230. I second

your motion, uh excuse me, the last line.

[former9thward]

158. You are forgetting the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Johnson had to convince Congressional Republicans to pass that bill. Southern Democrats were determined to stop the bill and they controlled all the committees. With out the support of Minority Leader Everett Dirksen the bill never would have passed.

[treestar]

179. 88th Congress

January 3, 1963 – January 3, 1965
Senate President Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
until November 22, 1963
Vacant
from November 22, 1963
Senate Pres. pro tem Carl Hayden (D)
House Speaker John McCormack (D)
Members 100 senators
435 representatives
Senate Majority Democratic
House Majority Democratic

After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[19]
On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[20

]

So the filibuster complicated that but it seems several other persons get the credit for putting an end to it, Humphrey, Mansfield and the two Rs were among those who introduced the bill.

[Demsrule86]

168. +1000

[lancelyons]

233. Obama could have done a recess appointment

He should have done a recess appointment for the remainder of his term and had cases moved the the court that would guarantee some wins like on Gerrymandering. Obama could have done more and should have.

[EffieBlack]

236. Please do some research

First, recess appointments can only be done during recesses. The Senate did not go into recess in 2016.

And even if a recess appointment were possible, it would have lasted only until the end of the Senate session at the end of the year, and since the Court is out of session from the end of June through the first Monday in October, it would have meant that Garland wouldn't have been there long enough to both hear a case and decide it, so his presence would have had little if any effect at all.

It's getting pretty tiring seeing President Obama, who knew more about the ins, outs, ups and downs of all of this than any of us being second guessed by people who don't have a fraction of his knowledge, as if he didn't have enough information, intelligence or sense to consider all of his options and their ramifications at the time.

[lancelyons]

239. I could be wrong but there was a recess starting Jan 3 2017. Perhaps Im not the one needing to do

I could be wrong but there was a recess starting Jan 3 2017. Perhaps Im not the one needing to do research.

In addition there are other things he could have tried.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-can-appoint-merrick-garland-to-the-supreme-court-if-the-senate-does-nothing/2016/04/08/4a696700-fcf1-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html?utm_term=.d9f402dc594a

[EffieBlack]

240. I've already done my research on this. I know what I'm talking about.

The Supreme Court's 2016-2017 term began on the first Monday of October 2016 and completed at the end of June 2017. The 2017-18 term began the first Monday of October 2017 and ended last month last month. The Court usually hears no cases after April and does no business between July and early October.

If President Obama had appointed Garland between January 3 and January 20, 2017, Garland would have served until December of 2017. But he would not have been able to rule on any cases argued between October and January since he had not participated in the oral arguments. That means he would only have been able to rule on cases the Court heard between January and April. And he wouldn't have ruled on any cases he heard in October through December since he would not be around for the cases to be decided.

Moreover, the Chief Justice has a great deal of say over the Court calendar. It is highly unlikely that Justice Roberts would have allowed any case of serious importance to be decided by a Court with a temporary justice. Instead, any such case that arose would probably have been put off until a permanent justice was confirmed and sworn in.

And, even if Garland managed to hear and rule on an important case, if he tipped the outcome in a way that the conservatives didn't like, the losing party would have petitioned for a rehearing before the new, full Court and such a petition would have been granted, bringing the case back to be reheard before the Court with the Trump-appointed justice.

As I said, a recess appointment would have been a complete waste of time.

And I'm familiar with Diskant's argument, but it is completely spurious. The Senate's failure to act is not and never would be considered a "waiver" that allows a President to unilaterally install nominees in positions. It is a failure to consent, an entirely different thing. The Senate frequently fails to move forward on nominations and just lets them die - that does not mean the president can just give the nominee the job.

And, as I also said, all of this armchair, Monday-morning quarterbacking is ridiculous. President Obama knew better than anyone what all of his options were and made rational choices based on reality, not on what some activists thought he should do after the fact. And, considering most of the activists doing the whining didn't bother lifting a finger to help Garland get confirmed, they really need to just go somewhere and sit down.

[lancelyons]

243. Well it looks like you have done your research. COngrats.. I still think that 3-4 months

I still think doing this would have at minimum thrown some sand back on the democrats ( perhaps at some cost of Obama). Garland would have been able to here case for a few months per your own well put explaination. Possibly a case or 2 that is relevant to democrats could have been voted in that time frame.

Since you have done a great job on this.

What cases where heard and voted on during the time frame that Garland could have done something? Did any of these end in a 4-4 outcome? What cases resulted in 4-4 during that time frame.

[uponit7771]

64. Math is more powerful than talking

[zipplewrath]

18. Well, some where in between

It was part of her point, and a big part of the larger point. Obama's strategy had been (as it had been virtually his entire presidency) was to "work with" the GOP to try to get what he was after. What the author's suggestion was about was that that was a losing strategy all the way. The wrong pick meant that, among other factors, at the convention he couldn't use the opportunity to "force" the issue with the GOP and at the very least turn out a larger liberal vote in certain states. It also meant he was relying upon Hatch instead of Grassley.

I'm a bit dubious that there was any winning strategy. I'm dubious that the voters HRC needed were going to be affected by any of this. The primary short coming on the democratic side was they believed too long that HRC had it wrapped up and in fact were campaigning the last couple of weeks in the wrong states trying to create a lopsided victory to bring in the concept of a mandate. But there is also the real possibility that no amount of campaigning was going to change the Comey letter effect.

[brush]

56. The Comey letter won trump the election, no doubt, but one thing...

needs to be re-examined.

Looking back on it, does anyone really still believe that trump's supposed margin of victory, some 70k votes in three previously Democratic states, just enough to give trump the "win" and the needed Electoral College votes, was not not calculated beforehand and actually occurred with no tampering whatsoever on election day?

[zipplewrath]

60. Tend to yes

I unfortunately know those people. They are "Reagan Democrats". They are low information voters. Micheal Moore saw it coming. There were several people begging the campaign to get back to MI, WI, even PA because of what they saw going on. But the campaign missed it because they were relying upon polling data that was about a week old, and the letter had it changing fast.

538 warned in the closing day that it was getting risky for HRC. Truth is, in March, when she basically had it wrapped up for most nominal paths forward, polling showed her very vulnerable in the general election. The Russians and the Trump campaign knew where their most fertile ground was and they worked it hard. Even in the end, most of the Trump campaign were updating their resumes to get ready for when he lost. They were as surprised as anyone.

[brush]

69. That's the conventional wisdom but I don't believe that there was...

no tampering.

Remember the silly reports that Russians hacked into voting rolls in 21 states, including the states with the voters you say you know, but didn't "tamper" with anything?

Yeah, right!

Many are so quick to believe whatever becomes the MSM talking points as to why Hillary was such a terrible candidate and why she lost, while trump's crooks and Russian handlers and all their dirty tricks, machinations and alleged "non-tampering" goes under reported. They did just enough "non-tampering" to gain exactly the 70k and EC votes to "win" the election.

R-i-g-h-t.

Hey, I was born at night but not last night. I don't believe that crap for a second.

[zipplewrath]

71. The goals didn't need it

There are many reasons to believe that the Russians wouldn't bother. Mostly it comes down to that they could actually DO very little. It would have been hard to actually switch votes on any large scale. At most they could have tried to delete the registrations of people likely to vote for Hillary, but that could be harder to predict than one might imagine. You'd have to sort out who was going to vote how and only restrict those who would both show up, and vote for her. (oh, and don't leave much of a trail). Both parties would love to know how to identify people like that for their GOTV efforts.

Remember, near as anyone can tell, they cared very little about who actually won. They wanted to disrupt the system and put Hillary under a cloud to render her uneffective. Actually preventing her from getting elected was secondary at best.

[brush]

78. You actually believe they had the capability to get into those rolls...

and didn't use what they learned to alter just enough votes, some 70k, an unnoticeable amount to those not wanting to see, on election day?

I don't.

To me the meme that there is never any repug tampering on election day, especially in this day of no paper trails, is just as unbelievable as the loud and frequently repeated trump/repug assertions that Democrats commit massive voter fraud on election day.

Which of those two things is more likely and easier to maker happen in the era of easily hacked electronic voting?

[zipplewrath]

84. How would they?

getting to "the rolls" is different than getting to "the ballots". As I said, you can try to exclude people, but you could as easily exclude people who will vote the way you want them to, as oppose to the way you DON'T want them to. And that presumes they were going to show up at all. You can TRY to change their votes after the fact, but the window of opportunity is small, and without the direct cooperation of the people handling the machines, you may not get much of a chance until it's to late. And as I say, you'd have to pull that off without leaving a trace. Worse, since these states were expected to go for HRC, if they saw evidence of tampering, their first reaction may have been to call foul and demand an investigation. You know Walker's people would have.

You're basically into conspiracy theory land here. Either a tremendous amount of people were involved, or a few people were absolutely perfect in what they did. I usually advise that one not attribute to brilliance, that which can be explained by stupidity.

[brush]

92. You may call it conspiracy theory but you may be into denial...

as if it has been documented in Wisconsin itself that vote tampering on election day hasn't happened in recent elections.

Google it.

IMO it's naive to think it's beyond something that repugs would do.

[mythology]

91. First those are two different systems

Second, it would be functionally impossible to be so precise as to change that few votes to change the election.

Third counties in Wisconsin that hand recounted showed no statistical difference from machine recounted counties.

Vote fraud is an unsupported conspiracy theory.

[brush]

95. Oh, please. Google the election official in Wisconsin itself who...

participated in election day tampering.

To think it couldn't happen when it already has is...there's a word for that.

[zipplewrath]

107. You mean this?

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wisconsin-recount-observers-find-voting-machines-broken-seals/

This? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/28/new-evidence-finds-anomalies-in-wisconsin-vote-but-no-conclusive-evidence-of-fraud/?utm_term=.97fb6fde51e4

Or maybe this? https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/11/28/new-evidence-finds-anomalies-in-wisconsin-vote-but-no-conclusive-evidence-of-fraud/?utm_term=.97fb6fde51e4

So I "googled" it. Maybe you can support your own assertions instead?

[brush]

110. So seals were tampered with, there were anomalities...

but keep holding on to that there-was-and-never-has-been- tampering bone.

[zipplewrath]

114. Not seals

Read more carefully, the only thing "tampered" with were warranty labels.

The security seals were fine. There's a reason Snopes called it "false".

[brush]

120. Anything about the election officiai?

[zipplewrath]

136. Not that I found

Did you?

[brush]

140. You may recall, it was an election official during the Walker election...

and then his recall election who was highly suspected of election skullduggery. She may have even been forced to step down.

My point was that there is a history there of repug shenanigans.

[zipplewrath]

144. You of course have a reference

'Cause ya told me to "google it", so I presume you can find it.

[ehrnst]

133. Why do you think that Mueller has taken so long to find out that "the Russians wouldn't bother?"

Perhaps you should write him a letter and straighten him out.

Join the hordes on the far right.



I think you may also be forgetting that the misinformation campaign on HRC from Russia made it all the way to DU.


Actually, yes, they did care about who won - Russia was helping out Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders, because they knew that was the way to discourage turnout for Hillary.

“Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them),” they were directed, according to the indictment.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/

You're welcome.

[zipplewrath]

135. Because there's years of material

None of us know what he's looking into really. But the suspicion is that it has more to do with money transfers than Russian hacking of voting machines.

[ehrnst]

148. "The suspicion is..."

Is that why Manafort was put in jail? Money laundering for DT?



All of Robert Mueller’s indictments and plea deals in the Russia investigation so far:

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/20/17031772/mueller-indictments-grand-jury

Who benefits from quashing the idea that Russians directly interfered with the election?

Not Democrats. Not anyone that opposes Trump.

Think about that before you post more along that line on Democratic Underground.

And you didn't address this finding from the Mueller investigation:

“Use any opportunity to criticize Hillary and the rest (except Sanders and Trump—we support them),” they were directed, according to the indictment.

Why?

[zipplewrath]

163. Trump

But that's LONG way from the Russians actually changing or making votes.

[ehrnst]

215. Where did I say Russia "was changing votes." That's your strawman, and you keep on attacking it....

You want the term "tampering" to mean that, but it doesn't.

Yes Russia hacked into voter rolls - one does not need to change a vote when one can remove a voters registration

Mueller's investigation is indeed indicting on Russian election interference. Here's a refresher for you:

5-20) 13 Russian nationals and three Russian companies were indicted on conspiracy charges, with some also being accused of identity theft. The charges related to a Russian propaganda effort designed to interfere with the 2016 campaign. The companies involved are the Internet Research Agency, often described as a “Russian troll farm,” and two other companies that helped finance it. The Russian nationals indicted include 12 of the agency’s employees and its alleged financier, Yevgeny Prigozhin.
......................................................

The charges against Richard Pinedo of Santa Paula, California, state that he sold bank account numbers created using the stolen identities of US citizens to people or entities outside of the United States. The Russian groups indicted by Mueller used social media posts, online ads, and rallies in the US to create propaganda efforts “primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” according to Mueller’s other indictment released Friday. Pinedo’s charges appear related to that activity.
..............................................................

Papadopoulos: Back in April 2016, Papadopoulos got a tip from a foreign professor he understood to have Russian government connections that the Russians had “dirt” on Clinton in the form of “thousands of emails.” He then proceeded to have extensive contacts with the professor and a Russian woman, during which he tried to plan a Trump campaign trip to Russia.
..............................................................

Flynn: In December 2016, during the transition, Flynn spoke to Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak about sanctions that President Barack Obama had just placed on Russia, and about a planned United Nations Security Council vote condemning Israeli settlements.

But when FBI agents interviewed him about all this in January 2017, Flynn lied to them about what his talks with Kislyak entailed, he now admits. In December 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to a false statements charge and began cooperating with Mueller’s investigation.

Again - who benefits from the narrative you are pushing that Russia "cared very little about who actually won"?

Democrats? No. Think before you post this stuff on DU. Think before you buy what the Russian bots are selling...

[Cha]

193. Who benefits from quashing the idea that Russians directly interfered with the election?

Exactly.. Why is he denying Russian interference in the 2016 election?

Link to tweet

We were with Bob!

GG doesn't read the news.. only spews Propaganda and Crazy Talk.

BREAKING: Senate Intelligence Committee backs assessment of Russia election meddling

snip//

The Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday backed the intelligence community's assessment that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election to aid President Donald Trump and is continuing its efforts to undermine U.S. democracy.

The finding that reveal Russia meddled in far more extensive ways than previously known is yet another strong rebuke to Trump and many of his allies who continue to cast doubt on the finding from the intelligence community that Moscow carried out an operation to help his candidacy and hurt Hillary Clinton.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10142100777

Here's a little update on Manafort, btw

Link to tweet

Mahalo, ehrnst

[StevieM]

122. She was on the ground in PA and MI in the final week. As well as FL, NC and AZ.

All those states were turned upside down by the Comey letter. And it also prevented a rebound from the damage that Putin's hacking had done.

She campaigned harder in PA, along with FL, than anywhere. And she was never going to win those states while losing MI and WI. Comey and Putin made victory imposssible.

[sprinkleeninow]

201. Yes, this.... eom

[rzemanfl]

134. Bookmarking. n/t

[saidsimplesimon]

90. Excellent logic on your part.

I was guilty of "counting chickens.." just prior to the election/selection. In hide-sight, the HRC campaign should have focused on shoring up the "must win" states. A lesson learned?

[BannonsLiver]

51. You have a bizarre anti obama bent so no surprise you blame him

Maybe there’s some ODS antidote left over somewhere that might be of some help.

[BeyondGeography]

62. I find excessive fealty to be bizarre

Obama did a lot of smart things. Nominating Garland wasn’t one of them IMO.

[BumRushDaShow]

100. Excessive fealty to promoting RW talking points

and attacking Democrats on a site like DU, is truly not a sign of much intelligent thought.

[cwydro]

101. I agree. nt

[treestar]

145. But how many voters know who Garland is?

Or did by Nov. 2016?

[SMC22307]

195. The Democratic Party should have made sure...

everyone knew who Garland was. If the situation were reversed, Rethugs would have blasted it from the rooftops AND gotten their voters to the polls.

[treestar]

223. Rethugs don't have to do anything to get their voters to the polls

I'm not convinced this is a number one issue for the type of Democrats who won't go to the polls without deep inspiration and cajoling.

[SMC22307]

231. It may matter to independents and pro-choice Rs.

And with enough convincing, it might get apathetic Dems to the polls.

Rethugs leave no stone unturned. Why has the Democratic Party not figured out it needs to do the same?

[treestar]

235. It is not the same

Rethugs don't have to leave no stone unturned. Their voters are rabid even if they did nothing. They don't' have to worry about these things. It is simply not the same. Rethug voters get out and vote. And to be fair, don't have obstacles in their way to the same rate.

And we just don't know. We could argue about this all day. People who don't vote, I think, will vote if there are people out there offering to drive them or helping them register, and that's the solution more than whether Obama said this or that. We could as easily argue that if Obama had made a bigger deal about any issue that it would have gotten them to go. But these people are not listening to Obama or anyone. They are just living out there and don't get, like the Rethugs do, that this stuff could affect them.

[SMC22307]

238. They're rabid because the GOP, right-wing media...

think tanks, greedy billionaires, special interests, etc. have been whipping them into a frenzy for decades. And they vote. It's war to them, and they're winning.

[dawg day]

228. Who should he have nominated?

Someone that McConnell would have approved? Uh, like ??

[EffieBlack]

75. Because if he had mentioned it at the convention that would have made a difference?

Good Lord, Obama and Hillary pulled out all of the stops to get her elected and people STILL failed to step up and do the right thing.

And now you want someone to believe that the same people who refused to vote for Hillary because her emails or she was a corporatist or whatever would have run to the polls if Barack Obama uttered the name of one Merrick Garland, the nominee Sanders said was too moderate and whose nomination he would withdraw if he were elected president?

Please.

[tonyt53]

157. Well said!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JustAnotherGen]

229. Amen Effie

I'm done with this type of nonsense. Ain't no going back - so why do people continue to attack Obama and treat him like he was supposed to be the janitor.

Ms. Clift needs to take his name out of her mouth.

Everything today is 45/140's fault. EVERYTHING. It's on 45 and the GOP's shoulders - always.

[Blue_Tires]

146. You ought to be Obama's retroactive Chief of Staff with that 20/20 hindsight

Now start building that time machine and you might as well pop baby Hitler in the cradle while you're at it...

[BeyondGeography]

149. Lame

[Blue_Tires]

218. Well to be fair, I see nothing in this thread warranting any more

energy than I've already spent...

So maybe step your game up and I'll reciprocate and we'll see what's what...

[BeyondGeography]

221. Actually, there has already been almost as much energy expended in this thread

than was devoted to Merrick Garland in the entire 2016 campaign.

[EffieBlack]

237. At least by you ...

[Freddie]

3. What exactly was he supposed to do about it?

Jump up and down and hold his breath til he turns blue?

[Iliyah]

4. Yes, let blame Pres O

[Loki Liesmith]

126. Why not

Obama made a bunch of tactical mistakes that have cost us. He deserves criticism.

[Cha]

165. Yeah, for reality.. not some fantasy bullshit thrown out

there by Eleanor Clift.

President Obama owns his mistakes unlike some asshole pols who try to blame it on other people.

[Orsino]

5. Why ya hittin' yourself, Obama? Why ya hittin' yourself?

It was inevitable that someone would try to excuse the McConnell conspiracy by blaming it on Obama.

[Mc Mike]

12. Like D Rump blaming Obama for Putin invading Crimea.

Then running to kiss Putin's ass, openly, immediately afterward. Illegally not enforcing sanctions.

[nonviolence9]

10. With a different candidate

With a different candidate Obama could have had more support and opposition to McConnell, imho

[BeyondGeography]

13. Thank you

Somebody gets it.

Garland would have worked in a different era. Long ago.

Welcome to DU.

[milestogo]

14. Garland was a centrist candidate.

Should he have picked a right winger?

[NewJeffCT]

33. No

Kelly was to the left of Garland. Kelly, however, would have gotten a lot more support from liberal activists than the moderate and mild mannered Garland. You know, the activists are the people that make phone calls, send emails and faxes and text messages to senators, not to mentioning donating money to run TV ads in support of Kelly.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

79. I wonder if they're regretting their lack of support now

and wishing that Garland had gotten on the bench instead of Gorsuch?


Though I doubt that more phone calls, e-mails, faxes, and tex messages would have ultimately changed the outcome. As I recall from back then, the instant that any Republican Senator said anything vaguely supportive about Garland or even meeting with Garland, McConnell whipped them back into obstruction mode again.


If we wanted Garland or any centrist/left-wing people on SCOTUS, the time for that was voting for Hilary in November 2016.

[NewJeffCT]

86. If there had been a huge pushback from the beginning

it might have made a difference. However, there really wasn't a "red line" out there that McConnell crossed - the nomination just kept hanging & hanging and was nearly forgotten.

[EffieBlack]

102. You're living in fantasy land

If the nominee had been more liberal, the GOP would have fought even harder.

Since when has pressure from Democrats done anything to influence McConnell? We're not talking about trying to peel off one or two Republican votes for a healthcare bill. This was all about the rules and raw power. And McConnell wielded both and phone calls or public shaming from Democrats wasn't going to change his mind or his actions one bit.

[BeyondGeography]

106. That's a legitimate point of argument

So is claiming that a more base-friendly nomination would have been preferable.

With an HRC/Trump contest, their hair was about as on fire as it could be. Maybe we could have used a little more enthusiasm on our side than Merrick Garland could generate.

It's a discussion. See how that works?

[BumRushDaShow]

127. The average voter wouldn't have known who the hell "Merrick Garland" was

and some may have even thought he was the Elephant Man.

Most voters don't vote based on Supreme Court nominees. If anything, your suggestion is that the 3rd party Stein voters would suddenly vote for a Democrat if they had gotten their Tweety "thrill up their leg" nominee, but that is just plain ridiculous speculation to attribute such a swing to a single issue.

[Renew Deal]

202. And how would that make a difference?

You really think McConnell cares about a bunch of Democratic activists?

[EffieBlack]

222. Nothing like revisionist history, is there?

I distinctly - very distinctly - recall asking Bernie supporters who were all about their "revolution" why Bernie and his crew didn't start the revolution right then and gather their forces to demand a hearing and vote on Garland.

I was pretty much told to go pound sand. Apparently, they had more important things to do than to waste time fighting for a nominee they thought wasn't liberal enough for them and would only be replaced by Bernie once he won the presidency.

So, people can spare me the "Obama and the Senate leadership should have fought harder for Garland" Monday morning quarterbacking. I'm not interested in folks who weren't motivated to and didn't make any effort to put their skin in the game back then beating up on our leaders for not taking up a cause in which our base evidenced little to no interest at the time.

[gopiscrap]

206. welcome to DU

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Ahhhh... ODS shit stirring courtesy of someone who is past her "best by" date....

and who seems to have forgotten how the math works in the Senate.

[NurseJackie]

17. "... past her best-by date..." --- HA! :-D

ODS shit stirring courtesy of someone who is past her "best by" date....

[BumRushDaShow]

19. Haven't heard much out of her in a bunch of years

yet here she is suddenly.

[JaneQPublic]

23. Careful...

...That description applies to all of the Dem leadership and many of its leading POTUS candidates.

[BumRushDaShow]

26. The "Dem leadership and many of its leading POTUS candidates." are not "journalists".

[Coventina]

25. Past her "best by" date comes across as pretty misogynistic. n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

27. Is she not a "she"?

Or are you thinking "she" is a "he"?

And guess what? I am a "she" too.

[Coventina]

30. No, I'm saying that declaring a woman is past her "best by" date is

saying a woman past her child-bearing years is worthless.

This has been a common slander against women since the rise of patriarchy.

It's sexist and ageist.

[BumRushDaShow]

32. If a fucking "man" had written that I would have said the same damn thing

I'm sorry if you are offended but it's the same fucking thing as saying the person is a "has been".

How about assuming these terms can apply to everyone? This is why the RW attacks liberals as being wishy washy and "politically correct" and continue to smash us into the ground. Time to get in some faces, get some fucking backbone, kick ass and take some names. I am sick of people attacking Obama over and over and over and ignoring fucking Trump.

[Coventina]

34. If you are criticizing her career then do that.

But saying a woman is past her "best by" date is a sexist insult whether you choose to believe that or not.

[BumRushDaShow]

39. Yes I am cricizing her article and her modus operandi behind writing it

and feel the same way about ilk like George Will who is suddenly having a "come to Jesus" moment. Another analogy - their train has left the station.

There are many columnists out there who "get it". We have so little favorable media that all this does is continue to shit-stir, which to me means that something is about to drop about the other side.

[Coventina]

44. That's fine. Just don't phrase your criticism in misogynistic terms.

That's all I'm saying.

[BannonsLiver]

55. Judging by some of the responses here

She has plenty of company in the “best by” date club. ODS is still a thing apparently, even among supposed progressives.

[sprinkleeninow]

203. I thot elenora went see ya l8r, bye-bye. 🤔

[Crunchy Frog]

20. I have to seriously wonder what an R president would have done in identical circumstances.

[BeyondGeography]

21. They are better at leveraging the Court to mobilize their voters

Many people here place the lion's share of the blame on our voters for their lethargy. That's part of it, but for whatever reason, any suggestions that our politicians can or could have done better are dismissed as fantastical heresy (or worse); just look at this thread.

An R President? A polarizing nominee who spoke to their base and a brawl right up to election day. That's my theory.

[Demsrule86]

154. There is nothing they could do if they didn't have power and now that Collins and

Murkowski indicated they will vote for Kavanaugh, it is game over...a disaster for this country and it makes me sick. I knew those two lying GOP scumbags would vote for the nominee.

[Crunchy Frog]

173. A sitting R president would certainly have made a gigantic stink out of it.

With the elected R legislators joining in, going to the media and holding press conferences, pissing and moaning about how unprecedented and unfair it was.

They would also use every procedural tactic that they could possibly come up with.

Might even do an astroturf "protest" movement, like they did with the teabaggers, when they were harassing and disrupting Dem town halls.

They very likely would have ended up getting their way. If not, at least no one would be able to accuse them of not trying.

[treestar]

22. Someone else could have mentioned it

Had Obama done it, it would have been covered as "whining" and "playing the victim" or "angry black man."

[BannonsLiver]

52. Exactly

I guess some folks reflexively blame the black guy, even alleged Dems.

[EffieBlack]

175. Bernie Sanders "mentioned" him, saying he would withdraw his nomination

and appoint someone more liberal because Garland was too moderate.

With mentions like that ...

And now people want to blame Obama for the Supreme Court.

[Cha]

184. And, someone just jumped on the

thread to blame President Obama for fox sux not being labeled a propaganda machine because he said he wouldn't go on there and he did.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10852775

The Horrors!!1

Thanks Obama!

President Obama has permanently protected more land and water than any president in history.

https://www.lcv.org/obama-legacy/protecting-public-lands-waters/

[treestar]

224. These people are hilarious, had Obama gone on Fox

They would have called him a corporatist sellout who was enabling Fux as a news outlet.

[ehrnst]

216. +1000 (nt)

[NoMoreRepugs]

31. The fact that tRump was elected by 60million+ American

voters tells me just how fragile the balance was during the Obama presidency. That he was able to accomplish as much as he did is a testament to his political savvy IMHO.

[MrsCoffee]

35. Better Believe It!

[Tarheel_Dem]

137. +1

[treestar]

180. lol!

[Hoyt]

37. We can blame Obama for 50 years, but it isn't going to change a darn thing.

Obama did what he thought was right in circumstances, and there is no guarantee that doing anything else would have made a difference. It's done. He has nothing to fess up to.

[NCTraveler]

38. Say what you want. It's on the tip of your tongue.

This is more of a dog bullhorn. Why not just come out and go full overt.

[BeyondGeography]

40. I saw what you wrote

Speaking of disgusting filth.

Is the 25-year-old PBS moderator whose quote you referenced guilty of the same monstrosity just for having an opinion that differs from yours?

[NCTraveler]

41. What I wrote was spot on and I wish it would stand.

It wasn't worth being hidden.

I was spot on.

Just say it.

"an opinion that differs from yours?"

One of the weakest arguments one can make.

[BeyondGeography]

42. Unhide your post then

You're the one playing games here.

[NCTraveler]

43. I don't view racism as a game.

I've made my point clear. All I did was remove a phrase. A phrase you desperately want to say. That is clear.

My words carry the exact same meaning as the post I deleted. The exact same meaning.

[BeyondGeography]

45. A phrase you obviously desperately want me to say

So as to undermine any reasonable discussion of a legitimate issue.

Uh-huh.

[NCTraveler]

46. Trashing Obama is your legitimate issue of the day. Solid.

"the inability of Obama to translate his successful presidential campaigns into governing"

What a fucked up article.

Obvious to anyone who doesn't already find things like this to be comfort food in the first place.

Stay on top of Obama. Hold his feet to the fire.

Continue promoting that he couldn't govern.

Get someone more establishment next time if that is your main concern.

WTF.

Just say it.

Elanor Clift would also like for you to get deep into Anita Hill.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-metoo-moment-came-too-late-for-anita-hill?ref=author

Maybe that can be your issue tomorrow. Build some cred back.

[BeyondGeography]

47. Filling Scalia's seat couldn't have been handled better

There. I said it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

48. What is it

with sensible-seeming liberals/Democrats constantly blaming fellow liberals/Democrats for Republican obstructionism, especially in situations where Democrats aren't in control and there are literally no obvious mechanisms for Democrats in Congress to overcome it? It's annoying and just stupid.

[Vinca]

49. For god's sake at least put the blame where it belongs and that's with McConnell.

Obama couldn't have sold Jesus Christ himself to the GOP and he couldn't make a recess appointment because they never went into total recess.

[jmowreader]

50. Come on. The whole premise of this piece is bullshit.

Turtle wasn’t going to allow hearings on an Obama nominee, no matter how wonderfully progressive and Bernie-ish that nominee might have been. The Last Real President could have reanimated Oliver Wendell Holmes or Felix Frankfurter and still been shot down by Turtle - simply because Turtle was counting on there being a Republican President in 2017 to nominate a serious fascist to the court.

[Wwcd]

58. READ THIS RIGHT NOW ⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️⬆️ POST #50

Thanks.
And you said it all in one short paragraph.


Funny how that happens when all the bull sh** is removed.

[zipplewrath]

61. I think you missed most of the article

It basically was suggesting that leveraging Grassely instead of Hatch was the better strategy.

[BumRushDaShow]

68. Grassley is NOT the Majority Leader of the Senate

which would be the position that has ultimate control over the Senate's legislative schedule. Grassley would have no say in that matter. McConnell IS in that position and WAS in that position when the vacancy occurred, and the GOP made a promise the night before the inauguration in 2009 that they would block anything that he did and the jackass kept as much of that pledge as he could through the entire 8 years. He reiterated the pledge in 2010.

The GOP saw a black face and they completely shut everything down once they regained the Senate.

[zipplewrath]

70. I understand

The point was to create conflict within the GOP caucus between Grassley, who has a certain amount of sway within the GOP (mostly connected with coming from Iowa) and McConnell. In that year, Grassley was going to have outsized influence. But as I say, about the most I would have expected Grassley to achieve is delaying confirmation until after the election, which ultimately wouldn't have changed anything, unless it somehow caused a greater turnout in a few key states.

[BumRushDaShow]

73. Do you guys not get it?

.... And that means the OP's article's author?

Why the hell do you think that Harry Reid had to go with the "nuclear option" for confirmations before 2014? Because the GOP was delaying and blocking with all sorts of procedural hurdles - and believe it or not, Senate Democrats ARE NOW doing the same with a number of Drumpf's nominees. But once the GOP took control, that was the end of that. They completely shut everything down and Grassley would be a good little trooper and would do as he was told. The GOP mentality is to lockstep as much as possible.

The average person (including voters) has little or no clue about the Supreme Court nor really gives a shit when it comes to their daily lives even if you shake them and threaten them with the potential overturning of something like Roe v Wade. Probably half of them have no idea what that even is. The political junkies know the consequences but most everyone else does not have the SCOTUS on their radar as a reason to vote.

This "Monday morning quarterbacking" is complete bullshit. There is that old saying - "The Democrats fall in love and the Republicans fall in line". Time to upend their "line".

[zipplewrath]

80. Take it down a notch

I understand you're the smartest, most knowledgeable person on DU, but believe it or not, some other people might "get" things you don't. The OP has a point. The only real question is whether Grassley would have both chosen, and been able to accomplish anything. Senators do have a bit of a God complex. It's often said that all 100 of them think THEY should be president. So they can get their dander up when enticed. I'm just not sure what if anything would have been accomplished, even if Grassley had tried.

[BumRushDaShow]

85. I don't need to take ANYTHING "down a notch"

What a load of bullshit.

The OP article has no "point" at all except the same shit that has been posted on DU for the past 10 years.

There is a complete disconnect by some that the GOP had and still HAS an agenda and with help from the Adelsons and Kochs and Mercers and many Russians, they were going to get their agenda enacted no matter what. AND now they have the RW-owned Sinclair literally forcing its stations to air pre-packaged propaganda.

Their first prong was the tax giveaway, the 2nd prong is the death of the ACA by a thousand cuts after failing over 80 times to repeal it... the third prong was the SCOTUS, and after that we will see them attempt to gut much of the "New Deal" programs - including the FARM bill due up this year.

Hanging a hat on a right-winger on a mission like Grassley is like running a fool's errand.... even if the person isn't running again like Flake, who has a big mouth as a "critic", they are guaranteed to vote for anything put in front of them by their party.

[zipplewrath]

109. Less caffeine.

But hanging a hat on Hatch was brilliance right? I mean, that was the whole discussion of the OP. But I understand, your superior intellect and all.

[BumRushDaShow]

116. Bullshit. No, as a black woman, I'm going to give you MORE "Maxine"

and less "serene" and zip up my g-suit while I'm doing that.

And it didn't matter WHO he would try to convince. It was going to be blocked. Obama knew that but he had to try anyway because THAT was his JOB as a President. You present your nominee and you try to work politics behind the scenes but there are limits when your party is not in control.

The problem is this entire system of government that we have been under for the past 231 years has been based on the "honor system". You break that "honor" and you will begin spiraling down the abyss.... and it will take a brave bi-partisan group to be able to get back to the "honor". They knew that when they "broke" it. Many of them came into elective office from industries where to maximize your profit, you squeeze until people start leaping out of windows and then take it back a notch. Problem is, they may have gone too far over the cliff and it will take some time to repair that loss of trust.

Right now, there are a whole bunch of "dishonorable" people who got elected in 2010 and after, many who were teabaggers and who didn't know about government or governing and didn't care. They have damaged this institution and although fortunately some of them are finally bailing... the damage has been done to the "trust" of the institution.

[EffieBlack]

178. THIS!

[uponit7771]

185. +1

[Cha]

191. Mahalo, BRDS! You have to go all Maxine

on them for more than obvious reasons.

Thank You!

[EffieBlack]

177. Actuakky, BRDS IS one of the smartest, most knowledgeable people on DU

And she'd dead on on this point.

[Cha]

83. They don't want to get it. They're determined,

facts be damned, to blame President Obama.. for something. Forget about trump's doormats.. let's go after Obama for Bullshit..

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

87. Mahalo Cha!

It makes me wonder if something is about to "drop" this week (maybe something on the Putin meeting) which is why the shit-stirring has started up again.

They played out the Hillary is to blame card, the Pelosi is to blame card, the Schumer is to blame card, so we're back to Obama again. Obama has been out of office almost 2 years but he is a known hot-button discord topic.

Yet Turtle gets a full pass.

[Cosmocat]

138. Sure, cause Grassley didnt punk him

Before then on ACA ...

When was the last time any Republican broke ranks. Since long before BHO stepped into the Oval Office.

As many pointed out in this string, he could have reanimated Ronald Reagan and nominated him and they weren't going to allow it to move forward.

[zipplewrath]

143. As was pointed out

The suggested nomination was "his pick". That was what the suggestion was based upon. That Grassley already had a vested interest that could be leveraged.

[brush]

72. McConnell may be the arch villian in all this, at least on this side of...

the Atlantic. Seems he knew something was coming up with the 2016 election.

He's mananged to pack the Supreme Court with right wing consevatards.

I'm betting he was involved in the Kennedy resignation negotiations.

Now there's a good chance trump's court will find, as this new justice has already stated, that a president can't be indicted and: "Lookout fascism, here we come."

[EffieBlack]

104. Best. Post. Ever.

[still_one]

161. The ignorance of Eleanor Cliff is astounding and surprising.

[Cha]

174. Not surprising to me..

She disses him in the title.. President Obama owns his mistakes not like some asshole pols who blame theirs on others.

EC obviously doesn't know she's talking about.

[Demsrule86]

53. Once again a Democrat is blamed for a GOP bad action...not listening to this person again...tired of

the Obama bashing and general Democratic Party bashing...which is why we are here today.

[zipplewrath]

66. Well, actually

It is the extension of a general criticism that was common for all 8 years. Obama insisted on trying to "work with the GOP" instead of choosing to confront them. The point of the article was that he chose Hatch over Grassley. The former was an attempt to work with the GOP leadership, the later would have been an attempt to create division and conflict within the GOP caucus. No Drama Obama chose cooperation over conflict and that was the point of the article.

I get the point, although I am dubious that in this instance it would have been successful. At the very least I'd a bet that Grassley would have been forced to accept a delay in the hearings until after the election, after which Trump probably would have effectively "canceled" the nomination and done what he did anyway. I am sympathetic to the criticism that his attempts to work with the GOP were misguided. Hillary tried to warn him during their primary that the GOP wasn't going to cooperate, but he wouldn't listen.

[Demsrule86]

89. After we lost the house it didn't matter. And they plotted against him in inauguration day...

We never had as strong a majority as some think with Kennedy desperately ill and GOP Senators took his place and of course the jerk Lieberman.

[zipplewrath]

108. Oh, it mattered

When the GOP was backed into corners (debt ceilings, etc.) he could get deals out of them. Remember sequestration? They learned to hate that. (Liberals weren't all that fond either). And that was the point. You had to back them into a corner, not extend a hand across the aisle.

[BumRushDaShow]

119. "Remember sequestration?"

Democrats still controlled the Senate when the Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed meaning we still had leverage.

In 2014, we had nothing thanks to the purity parade.

[Demsrule86]

153. Sequestration was a disaster for us...no one thought the GOP would got for it...but it

showed how far right the freedom caucus had gone ...after we lost the house, we played defense for six years and then we lost the Senate which cost us a Scotus seat...it is voter loyalty really.

[zipplewrath]

164. Actually, I think they thought the GOP would buckle

I strongly suspected that the administration thought that sequestration would ultimately bring the GOP to some degree of balance or reason. Again, they were wrong.

[Demsrule86]

166. I thought when defense was impacted they would too...but the extreme right are not typical

Republicans.

[zipplewrath]

169. Yup

During the Clinton/Gingrich years I was surprised the extent the GOP was willing to restrict DoD growth. Not as much as Clinton might have wanted, but way more than I thought the GOP would ever accept.

[budkin]

54. The whole thing is infuriating

[MrsCoffee]

57. Let's attack Obama... but LEAVE JILL STEIN ALONE!!!!!

Carry that water.

[Wwcd]

63. The ridiculousness is glaring isn't it. Just dinner among friends, they said.

[Demsrule86]

167. Good point.

[Renew Deal]

59. It is a fantasy to think anyone would have gotten a hearing

You cannot shame the shameless

[ismnotwasm]

65. Are you fucking kidding me?

Jesus Christ I hate this kind of whiny revisionist temper tantrums. And THIS bullshit makes zero sense.

Progressive activists tend to blame Obama more than Hillary Clinton for the Democrats’ failure to rally voters around the fate of the Court. “She thought she would win so why would she have to talk about the court?” is how one of them put it.

Clinton could have, should have talked about the court more, and it might have paid dividends on Election Day. A high point of her campaign for many women was her impassioned defense in the final presidential debate of late-term abortion as a heart-wrenching but sometimes necessary medical procedure.

Wait, wut? WHO didn’t talking about the Supreme Court? When? Which fucking ‘progressive activists”? This sounds like muscular TYT at it utter WORST. I expect much better from Clift. How Fucking disappointing

[tman]

67. Obama did the right thing.

"a liberal activist exclaims" No Thanks. I'll wait to hear it from him, not someone who claims to read his mind.

Nominate an activists 1st choice and have zero chance at confirmation. Nominate someone who you believe is eminently qualified
and you have a chance atleast to win public opinion, and he did, but republicans fear only their base. Thank gerrymandering.

A no win situation. President Obama never struck me as the type to play political games with an institution like the SC.

Had Hillary won, we wouldn't be having this pointless conversation.

[EffieBlack]

182. If he had appointed a liberal darling, GOP would have fought them just as hard

And this notion that if the liberal base is catered to, they will rise up and march forward in unison to fight for the Democratic cause is a fever dream. They would have whined and snarled no matter who was selected - not GOOD enough, Obama! NO
ONE to the right of Bernie would have been good enough.

And when. McConnell blocked them and we lost the seat, they would have attacked Obama for not picking a nominee more likely to be confirmed, like Merrick Garland.

[EffieBlack]

74. Bullshit

If Obama had appointed anyone than Garland, McConnell STILL would have blocked him/her ... and then we'd be hearing nothing but "Hatch told Obama that Merrick Garland would get confirmed. Why didn't he nominate a sure thing? Instead, he tried to be cute and overplayed his hand and got nothing."

Of course, if only Obama had mentioned Merrick Garland in his convention speech, that would have made McConnell give him a hearing and a vote.

Please. This Monday morning quarterbacking is stupid. This is NOT Obama's fault. This is completely the fault of Mitch McConnell and the Republicans who blatantly broke the rules. Period.

[BeyondGeography]

76. Garland offered pretty much zero political value

There were other choices that could have been made.

This is not about the fact of Republican obstructionism, it's about how to confront it politically. Very little was done on that front in this case. That's not bullshit.

[EffieBlack]

98. Bullshit again

If he had selected someone else, he would have been criticized for overreaching.

What did YOU do to confront this politically?

And how exactly do you "confront politically" a Senate majority leader who is hellbent on blocking a nomination and has the votes to do it?

The time for "political confrontation" was in 2010 and 2014 when the Senate could have been saved. But too many Democrats were busy trying to prove some ridiculous point

[BumRushDaShow]

113. Obama could have nominated Dick "Darth" Cheney for the seat

and they would have said "no".

Have you not been paying attention the past 10 years? EVERYTHING Obama wanted to do they said "no". And EVERYTHING Obama DID manage to get done during the early part of his tenure, they are now UNDOING.

It's like a game of "Simon Says" to them, but for real.

[BeyondGeography]

115. No...you're the only one who has been paying attention

You do, however, make a great argument against Garland, whether you realize it or not.

The nominee was never going to get a hearing, right? The GE would determine who gets the seat. So why nominate someone who, when compared with other potential nominees, was a less-than-compelling turnout vehicle in November?

Or did Obama never think it would come to that because, Orrin Hatch?

[BumRushDaShow]

117. Read this post

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210849753#post116

[radius777]

190. I see your side of the argument, it's complicated

though and if Comey doesn't intefere with 11 days to go the point is moot, as Hillary wins easily and Garland gets confirmed in the lame duck session.

IMO Obama also believed Garland would help us with moderates and swing voters.

However unlike some past elections the 2016 election was perhaps the most polarized in recent history, ie that depended on turning out the base, so maybe choosing a more progressive and perhaps nonwhite or female candidate would driven the base to the polls with greater intensity.

But, Hillary did win alot of moderate voters put off by Trump. Many other never-Trump Repub voters simply didn't vote or voted for Johnson. If a very progressive SCOTUS nominee was waiting in the wings it may've given such voters just enough incentive to hold their noses and vote for Trump.

IOW, this argument can easily be argued from both angles.

Again, it comes down to the fact that we had unprecedented interference into a US election that was stolen before our very eyes - that's the bigger issue.

[ismnotwasm]

88. True

And it is not hard find a far more reasonable analysis

Widely regarded as a moderate, Garland had been praised in the past by many Republicans, including influential senators such as Orrin Hatch of Utah.

But even before Obama had named Garland, and in fact only hours after Scalia's death was announced, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void. He said the next Supreme Court justice should be chosen by the next president — to be elected later that year.

"Of course," said McConnell, "the American people should have a say in the court's direction. It is a president's constitutional right to nominate a Supreme Court justice, and it is the Senate's constitutional right to act as a check on the president and withhold its consent."

Supreme Court picks have often been controversial. There have been contentious hearings and floor debates and contested votes. But to ignore the nominee entirely, as if no vacancy existed?

There was no precedent for such an action since the period around the Civil War and Reconstruction. No Democratic president had made an appointment while Republicans held the Senate since 1895.

In a speech that August in Kentucky, McConnell would say: "One of my proudest moments was when I looked Barack Obama in the eye and I said, 'Mr. President, you will not fill the Supreme Court vacancy.' "

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now

I guess it depends on how one spins and what one WANTS to believe,
despite actual, you know, facts...

[sprinkleeninow]

205. turtle* KNEW, didn't he, that HRC would not be elected.

For whatever reasons.

Vile.

[sfwriter]

81. Clift is right

Hopefully we’ve learned the lesson. When faced with bully’s, meet them head on.

I never got the sense that Obama understood what he was facing. He never rallied the base to pressure Congress like the right does.

[BumRushDaShow]

96. You can't change MATH.

When Democrats lost the Senate in 2014 while a good chunk of them went on a "purity" mission, the control went to the GOP and so THEY now control the legislative calendar, the committee chairs, and whether there will even be hearings or not.

You could go in and stomp your feet or pound the podium as much as you want and nothing would come of it.

[sfwriter]

118. Yeah, he should have caught on by 2010.

[BumRushDaShow]

121. No, the scaredy cat Democrats should have stopped running away from him in 2010

instead of cowtowing to the astro-turf teabaggers about how bad "Obamacare" was.

[sfwriter]

123. Agreed

[Raine]

245. Good point! nt

[Meadowoak]

82. Garland should have been a recess appointment.

[BumRushDaShow]

93. The Senate did NOT go into "recess" and no longer does

And when Obama tried to do recess appointments for the NLRB while they were doing their "pro-forma" sessions, the GOP took it to the SCOTUS and the Obama admin LOST the case UNANIMOUSLY. The SCOTUS considers the Senate's "pro-forma" sessions AS being "in session" and not a "recess".

Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter

Posted Thu, June 26th, 2014 3:13 pm

Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English

With only four decisions remaining when the Justices took the bench today, we knew we would have to get something good: all four decisions had the potential to be blockbusters. And we did indeed, starting with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate. Let’s talk about the decision and what it means in Plain English.

As unlikely as it sounds, the Court’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning was its first pronouncement on the scope of the president’s power to make recess appointments. And the Court’s opinion was a mixed bag for both sides. Noel Canning, the soft-drink bottling company challenging the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB, and the conservative and business groups that supported it certainly regarded it as a victory in the sense that the specific recess appointments at issue were deemed invalid. But the president and his supporters could also declare victory, at least to a point: the Court upheld his power to make other recess appointments – as long as they are made during recesses that last at least ten days.

<...>

The Court began with the first question presented in the case: whether the Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments during “intra-session” recesses (breaks that occur within the two one-year sessions between congressional elections) or only during “inter-session” recess (the break between the two one-year sessions). Its answer on this question is a victory for the Obama administration and future presidents who want to be able to make recess appointments. Again relying heavily on a long tradition of recess appointments, it concluded that the constitutionality of a recess appointment does not hinge on whether it is made during an intra- or inter-session recess. After all, the Court noted, if the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause is to “ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government when the Senate is away,” it doesn’t really matter what you call the recess. If the Senate isn’t there, it isn’t there.

But there’s a catch – one that narrows the scope of the ruling. Even if it doesn’t matter whether the recess is an intra- or inter-session one, it does matter how long the recess is. Here the Court said that any recess that is shorter than three days is not long enough to make a recess appointment necessary. And a recess that is longer than three days but shorter than ten days will, in the normal case, also be too short to necessitate a recess appointment. (The Court added that there may be “very unusual” cases – such as a “national catastrophe . . . that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response” – in which recess appointments would be permitted even though the recess was still shorter than ten days.)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/

Ever since the ILK John Bolton was recess-appointed by Shrub 13 years ago, the Senate has pretty much refused to go into recess to allow that to happen again and thus as a standard practice, will have some Senator onsite to gavel in every 3 days during the times when they are out of town, so as to be considered "in session, subject to the call of the chair".

[Cha]

103. Thanks for that research, BRDS! I was

looking for something to show that poster that the Senate did not go into Recess so President Obama couldn't have appointed Merrick Garland during IT.

I have to save this! I'm sure I'll need it.. so many don't know this..

The Senate did NOT go into "recess" and no longer does

And when Obama tried to do recess appointments for the NLRB while they were doing their "pro-forma" sessions, the GOP took it to the SCOTUS and the Obama admin LOST the case UNANIMOUSLY. The SCOTUS considers the Senate's "pro-forma" sessions AS being "in session" and not a "recess".

Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter

Posted Thu, June 26th, 2014 3:13 pm

Court strikes down recess appointments: In Plain English

With only four decisions remaining when the Justices took the bench today, we knew we would have to get something good: all four decisions had the potential to be blockbusters. And we did indeed, starting with a unanimous declaration by the Supreme Court that the president violated the Constitution in 2012 when he appointed three commissioners to the National Labor Relations Board during a brief recess of the Senate. Let’s talk about the decision and what it means in Plain English.

As unlikely as it sounds, the Court’s decision in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning was its first pronouncement on the scope of the president’s power to make recess appointments. And the Court’s opinion was a mixed bag for both sides. Noel Canning, the soft-drink bottling company challenging the president’s recess appointments to the NLRB, and the conservative and business groups that supported it certainly regarded it as a victory in the sense that the specific recess appointments at issue were deemed invalid. But the president and his supporters could also declare victory, at least to a point: the Court upheld his power to make other recess appointments – as long as they are made during recesses that last at least ten days.

<...>

The Court began with the first question presented in the case: whether the Constitution allows the president to make recess appointments during “intra-session” recesses (breaks that occur within the two one-year sessions between congressional elections) or only during “inter-session” recess (the break between the two one-year sessions). Its answer on this question is a victory for the Obama administration and future presidents who want to be able to make recess appointments. Again relying heavily on a long tradition of recess appointments, it concluded that the constitutionality of a recess appointment does not hinge on whether it is made during an intra- or inter-session recess. After all, the Court noted, if the purpose of the Recess Appointments Clause is to “ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government when the Senate is away,” it doesn’t really matter what you call the recess. If the Senate isn’t there, it isn’t there.

But there’s a catch – one that narrows the scope of the ruling. Even if it doesn’t matter whether the recess is an intra- or inter-session one, it does matter how long the recess is. Here the Court said that any recess that is shorter than three days is not long enough to make a recess appointment necessary. And a recess that is longer than three days but shorter than ten days will, in the normal case, also be too short to necessitate a recess appointment. (The Court added that there may be “very unusual” cases – such as a “national catastrophe . . . that renders the Senate unavailable but calls for an urgent response” – in which recess appointments would be permitted even though the recess was still shorter than ten days.)

http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/06/court-strikes-down-recess-appointments-in-plain-english/

[BumRushDaShow]

125. The "recess appointment" talking point keeps coming up over and over

IMHO, DU needs a "Civics" forum somewhere.

There are far too many who post here who have no clue as to how these chambers work and refuse to believe that foot-stomping podium pounding will NOT change the "rules" of each of the chambers and the determination of those who control them.

Look at the DREAM Act and immigration legislation in general. Eddie Munster refused to bring up any of the "bipartisan" drafts for a vote because the possibility was there for them to pass. He, like Turtle, follow the "Hastert Rule" (majority of the majority) in order to even consider whether legislation would be permitted to come to the floor for consideration. And since the GOP was "the majority", then if they didn't support it enough to pass (usually based on whip count) then they did all they could to torpedo it. And the only reason why some stuff DID make it to the House floor was due to "discharge petitions", either actually filed or threatened to be filed, that would force legislation to the floor - but then that requires a certain number ("bipartisan majority" of the total chamber) to be enabled.

[George II]

94. WTF is this? Unless someone can come up with a credible, workable alternative to what happened.....

....everyone should just stop!

When I graduated from college (49 years ago), the last thing I was told about my looming professional career was, if you're going to criticize something you'd better have a viable alternative.

This OP serves no purpose.

[EffieBlack]

105. Don't you know?

if Obama had just nominated a more liberal justice, the Democratic base would have risen up in unison with one voice and forced Mitch McConnell to hold hearings and a vote because, we know how scared McConnell is of the liberal base and how quick he is to do just what we tell him if enough of us say it and we say it loud enough.

And even if THAT didn't work, the very fact that Obama's liberal nominee was left hanging out there would have been more than enough to drive Democrats to the polls in record numbers because, even though it wasn't enough that Hillary Clinton become president or that a racist demagogue NOT become president, the fact that a liberal Supreme Court nominee could be reappointed by a Democratic president, by itself, would have been more than enough to inspire everyone who voted for Jill Stein or Bernie Sanders or no one at all to completely change their approach and line up to vote for Hillary.

If only Obama had done that, we wouldn't be where we are.

THANKS, Obama!

[BumRushDaShow]

130. ...

[George II]

142. Good ones, thanks.

[disillusioned73]

97. Self reflection...

is not permitted in these parts...

[emulatorloo]

111. Revisionist history and gaslighting isn't 'self-reflection'

[disillusioned73]

129. Your right..

it's Susan Sarandon & Jill Steins fault.. my bad

[Cha]

187. SS and stein do own a big chunk of trump.

Link to tweet

[MariaCSR]

99. Everyone's just so upset we're all playing the blame game

Sad

[Drunken Irishman]

112. Why should I buy that the left would've been galvanized with Kelly?

This is silly. The left let Obama down time and time again throughout his presidency. Hell, look at the healthcare fight. Where was the left then when they were drafting policy? The vocal people during that whole span was the tea party movement. I don't recall the left going out and throwing their support by the thousands behind the public option. But I'm to believe they would've rallied and gone to the mat for Kelly and Obama? Yeah right.

[tman]

124. WOW - So what Clift and many here are saying is that......

Obama should've put fourth a young talented nominee from the bench that he knew was NOT going to get the votes needed for procedural formalities much less a vote of confirmation, knowing full well the very messy process and an almost certain rejection by the senate would effectively be the end of that battle scarred nominees career by almost certainly taking them out of contention as a future nominee by a future Democratic President.

But hey, he'll rile up the base.

lol. I'm glad Obama is more thoughful than most in a no-win situation.

[SHRED]

128. What office is Obama running for again?

[BumRushDaShow]

132. Seems that

there are none so blind who cannot see including those on DU who cannot see that Obama is no longer in the White House, replaced by someone else who they seem to systematically ignore.

[mfcorey1]

131. The evil smirk on the face of Mitch McConnell this morining at the press conference is the

reason why we did not get Merrick Garland.

[brer cat]

139. What a ridiculous commentary.

"A liberal lion like FDR might have pursued appointment to the bench by executive order.”

Hey, why not go ahead and blame Obama for not making Hillary President by executive order. We don't need that pesky Constitution. I can't believe this crap has been posted on DU.

[Tatiana]

141. I don't think you can get mad at him for being who he is.

Kelly would have been a better pick, yes, but this is Monday-morning quarterbacking and it's not too productive.

Obama really did want to govern for everyone, including Republicans. He wanted to represent all Americans. He did not like confrontation or aggressive political tactics.

We probably need to find a candidate who is maybe a little different, in terms of political tactics.

[BeyondGeography]

150. Very fair

[Blue_Tires]

147. Nice to see that there is no crisis that some useful idiot pundits

won't try to connect to Obama/Hillary somehow...

And unless Clift was writing this same exact hot take in 2016, then her hypocritical revisionist ass can go to hell

[emulatorloo]

156. +1

[PDittie]

151. Sadly, I think

Clift got this right.

[Cha]

159. Yeah, I'm sure you do.

[Thomas Hurt]

152. The only word that would have moved McConnell was arch-conservative.

He would have had to withdraw Garland and nominate a Kavanaugh.

This whole ground swell of support would have forced McConnell to do anything is a fantasy.

[JI7]

155. It's obamas fault that republicans are racist

[H2O Man]

160. Exactly!

Everyone was happy until he in filtrated America. There was no racism. Nor sexism. No gun violence. No sex outside of the sacred institution of marriage. Alter boys were not altered by priests. Everyone tuned in to "Father Knows Best" seven days a week. It was Obama who created the mess. The whole fucking thing.

I could vomit. President Obama and the First Lady (and their wonderful daughters) were so good .....and that is exactly why the republican scum attacked them daily. I'm not claiming he was perfect, for no human being is. But we were so fortunate to have him serve this country.

[still_one]

162. The REAL reason we are in the situation we are today is because JUST ENOUGH of SOME self- identified

progressives refused to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting


These supposed ADULTS, who to this day have expressed no regrets for what THEY did, also contributed their little part to insuring that EVERY DEMOCRATIC running for Senate in those CRITICALLY IMPORTANT SWING STATES, lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican

Looking for a scape goat, perhaps these political editorialists and reporters should take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves WHY DID SO MANY OF THEM GIVE THE OCCUPANT IN THE WH A FREE PASS? Why were they so anxious to present a picture of false equivalency, perhaps thinking it would make them appear more objective, when in fact it distorted and misrepresented the facts.

FOR ONE EXAMPLE OF THIS BULLSHIT AMONG MANY:

"The Republican Party’s fast journey from debating how to combat human-caused climate change to arguing that it does not exist is a story of big political money, Democratic hubris in the Obama years and a partisan chasm that grew over nine years like a crack in the Antarctic shelf, favoring extreme positions and uncompromising rhetoric over cooperation and conciliation."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html

Maybe they can refresh our memory concerning the WMDs in Iraq again

[BumRushDaShow]

181. +infinity

[tonyt53]

188. Ain't this the truth!!!!!

[ucrdem]

170. She should have saved it for the next McLaughlin show. nt

[blogslut]

171. Hey Eleanor!

You can fuck right off.

[Cha]

172. And, there it is! Yeah, up there on her

perfect little perch she finally found a way she thinks she can blame this all on President Obama..

President Obama owns his mistakes unlike some asshole pols who try to blame theirs on others.

Thank You, blogslut :

[EndGOPPropaganda]

176. And remember Obama caved to Fox in 08

Obama said he wouldn’t go on Fox.
But Fox protested.
And Obama caved.

HUGE opportunity lost to label Fox widely as propaganda.

[Cha]

183. Ooooouuuuu! Ya'll pile on President Obama right

bloody now!

And, don't you worry about if people aren't totally aware that fox is a total propaganda bullshit machine.. 'cause they do.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

197. People are NOT aware

Really Cha, as someone from a red area, lemme say—
Many people are NOT aware that Fox lies to them.
The hyper partisan extremists know the truth and watch it anyway.

But millions of Americans believe Fox is the truth and the real media is biased. Because decades of RW propaganda told them that.


Re Obama: love him for inspiration. Love his work on Obamacare. Loved his fiscal policy.

But I don’t think failing to declare war on propaganda was his biggest issue. For me, Obama’s biggest failing was choosing not to prosecute the torture criminals. John Yoo should be in jail, not a professor at Berkeley.

[Cha]

200. What Ever. I've seen some wild bull

blamed on President Obama over the years but that's one that's been overlooked.

Congratulations!!

I have my own reasons to Thank Obama for what he actually Did Do! Thanks Obama!

President Obama has permanently protected more land and water than any president in history.

https://www.lcv.org/obama-legacy/protecting-public-lands-waters/

[EffieBlack]

192. Oh, Good Lord. Really?

Obama going on Fox fooled America into thinking it wasn't a propaganda machine. And if he hadn't gone on, Hillary Clinton would have won the election and would be appointing her second Supreme Court nomination now.

You've taken this foolishness to a whole nother level.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

196. No. He tried to block them, then caved

Obama is a great leader.

But his conciliatory nature made it hard for him to fight tooth and nail with Republicans.

Obama tried to marginalize Fox in 2009 but eventually backed down. I know someone who was there in the WH. Some aides were calling for him to be more aggressive. But he chose not to go into all out war on Fox.

In my opinion, he should have gone publicly and loudly after Fox for being propaganda in 2009. It would have been effective if he was committed.
Now it’s almost a decade later and we are in EXACTLY the same position with Fox, but it’s had an extra decade to poison American minds.

https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/332707

[Cha]

198. Yeah, in your mind you blame it all

on President Obama.

Well, I say you're wrong.

[EndGOPPropaganda]

199. No I blame the Republicans

The GOP and their billionaire donors are much much much much much much more at fault than any Dem.

But - and I’m aware this will be controversial - I think HRC would have been better than Obama in 08 in retrospect.

Obama probably got more done legislatively, and Hillary would have gotten zero on healthcare.

But Hillary is more of a fighter than Obama personality wise. If not Hillary, another firebrand would have been great. Reich, Dean, Ted Lieu types.

Obama is a great man. But he seeks consensus. And the power hungry gop speak no language but force.

[jg10003]

186. It was simple over-confidence. Obama did not lobby hard for Garland because

he was certain that HRC would win, as we all were. And after the election, but before the inauguration, the turtle would let Garland be confirmed rather then risk a more liberal nominee by Clinton. It seemed like an easy sure-fire plan. After all, trump could never actually get elected, right?

[Cha]

189. President Obama's nominee was

shut down by McConnell at every point. Do the math.

[treestar]

225. And that was a reasonable position at that time

Even The Orange Moron and his staff did not believe he would win.

[andytheteacher]

241. Totally right

There was not an intense anger because we thought we might even get a more progressive judge under Clinton. I really liked the Garland pick-- some non partisan group I saw on TV ranked Kavanaugh the #3 judge in the country in terms of qualifications for the supreme court and Garland was #1.

[regnaD kciN]

194. "If she hadn't dressed so provocatively, she wouldn't have been raped"...

[YOHABLO]

204. Well that's water under the bridge. Look where we are now.

[DeminPennswoods]

207. Clift is correct,

Obama's desire for "no drama" and restraint was/is his fatal flaw. This is who Obama is, but being a nice guy isn't the best characteristic for a president facing the kind of unified opposition he did.

[Cha]

208. Oh Bull.. President Obama was expoonentially

more than a "nice guy".. and anyone who paid attention for the 8 years when he was in office knows that.

There is no "fatal flaw".. that's only your opinion and I reject it.

[DeminPennswoods]

209. I disagree

He was ready to abandon healthcare until Pelosi pushed him into resurrecting it, he was ready to strike a "grand bargain" on the federal budget with Boehner, he went along with cracking down on immigrants/immigration and he wasn't bold enough in informing Americans of what Russia was doing to interfere with the 2016 election. Those are just off the top of my head.

Near the end of his terms, Obama got a more forceful, but, imho, too little, too late. There's no question Obama stopped a lot of stuff the GOP would've liked to have done. And he did inherit and have to dig out of the great recession of 2008.

Obama's personality is what it is. I just think it was a bad fit for the blatant partisanship of the GOP and that they took full advantage of it.

[Cha]

211. Don't care.. you're wrong and so is Eleanor

Clift.

She starts out with a "fatal flaw" in her title. Thinking she's such hot shit wondering if.. ".. Obama will ever fess up.. ?" President Obama owns his mistakes when he makes them. Unlike some asshole pols who try to blame their mistakes on others.

And yes, I realize there are some who had nothing but complaints about him, disregarding all the good he did.. and I'm not interested in seeing any of that ever again.

#Basta! There was enough of that constant ******** for 8 years.

[DeminPennswoods]

217. I learned the term "fatal flaw" when

taking a Shakespeare literature class. That the main characters in his plays always had a "fatal flaw" that sealed their fate.

I doubt anyone is saying Obama didn't do a lot of good things and keep the GOP from doing a lot of bad things. He could have done better especially when he had Dem majorities in the House and Senate.

YMMV

[treestar]

227. The color of his skin was the cause of their blatant partisanship

which they took to new heights because of that. This is why we should have gotten him a D Congress for his entire time, like we somehow managed to do for FDR and LBJ and JFK.

[Adrahil]

219. What was he supposed to do? Send in the Marshals? FFS..... NT

[treestar]

226. It's the only way for the first black president and you know it

and others could have made the drama over it; it would have looked better.

I found that one of the most enraging things the Turtle and Rs did; all of us should have jumped up and down about it and warned that only Hillary's election and a D Congress would be able to crush the Turtle's obstinate partisanship.

[ecstatic]

210. Bullshit. Not going to read the article, but I hope

the author at least acknowledged all the hand wringing going on at the time about Merrick not being progressive enough. President Obama's messaging was usually stomped on by trolls attacking from the left, and, of course, a lot of gullible people sided with the trolls.

[Cha]

212. I'll tell you this, ecstatic.. Eleanor

Clift messes up from the get..

She's all wondering if "Obama will ever fess up.. ".. she sure as shit doesn't know him. President Obama owns his mistakes when he makes them. Unlike some asshole pols who blame their mistakes on others.

[ecstatic]

244. exactly! nt

[moriah]

213. This author argues Hillary did more good by losing than winning.

Rightwing nutjob material right there.

[ProfessorPlum]

214. talk about blaming the victim

what a load of horse shit. "Obama, you were shat upon by a bunch of lying thieves. It's your fault for letting it happen."

[Mc Mike]

220. Screw Clift, she's long ceased being relevant, like the rest of the McLaugh In Group. nt.

[DFW]

242. I know Eleanor, have known her for years. She's not writing to please you.

She's giving her own take on things, which you can agree with or not. Go screw someone else's friends.

[Mc Mike]

246. Your friendship with her means as little to me as your unfriendliness to me.

Very lame argument 'from authority', you're attempting there, D. I'm not writing to please you, or your friends, either.

The one we're talking about can go back to whatever important work she's been doing behind the scenes, in her low profile make no waves or progress manner.

Never saw Lawrence O'Donnell appear on McLaugh In, though I appreciate his take on things. Did see Buchanan, Kondracke, Barnes, Lowry, etc. Not too hard to indict the lopsided rightwingery of the show, run by a rightwing ex-priest and Nixon speechwriter who controlled things. He could cut off the panelists' access in a heartbeat, which whipped them right the fuck into line. Page did make an effort, but it looked like an establishment version of hannity and colmes.

Smug inside the beltway we're all friends and insiders claptrap, designed to massage political reality into alignment with rightwing repuggery.

Always have liked your posts, this one excluded. It would have been more polite of me to say 'screw Clift's take on things', but it would have been more mealy mouthed, too, which means it would have been more in line with exactly why I hated the performance of the Dems on her show.

I doubt your friend reads these sub posts, so her feelings are safe. But maybe if she took after her rightie colleagues the way you took after me, I wouldn't have a problem with her take on things, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

[lancelyons]

232. Be honest this is the democrat way

Let's be honest. Democrats try to play nice. We take the high road. We try to do it with honor and integrity.

Sometimes this doesn't work when faced with a group like GOP who don't care about doing it right and when confronted will lie and say they are doing it right.

Sometimes the bad ruthless guys win.

[BeyondGeography]

234. I agree with that

I think the question is whether we can afford to continue leading with our reason and decency chins given their mentality and methods, which were in place long before the Garland saga.

[VOX]

248. Welcome to DU, lancelyons. Quick tip: try to avoid using "democrat" as an adjective.

It's a vintage slur used initially by Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s. Today, it's like a "gang sign" thrown between Republicans -- "The Democrat Party" (sic) lets them know they're on the same team. And if you're a genuine Democrat, it's annoying and/or offensive.

With true Democrats, it's the "Democratic Party," the "Democratic candidate," etc.

Anyway, good to have you with us, on "Democratic Underground."

[Bettie]

247. His biggest "failing" was believing that the other side

was made up of people who have human decency and a sense of fairness like he does. It is hard to be a person of decency and integrity dealing with people who have neither.

Even if the vacancy had occurred a year earlier, they'd have found some bullshit reason not to fill the seat. In fact, I'll be surprised if any Democratic president ever gets a pick again, since their side always seems to find some procedural way to bring things to a grinding halt even when they aren't in the majority.

In any case, blaming President Obama isn't helpful in any way at this point and quibbling about the relative merits of a nominee who would never have even got even a pretense of consideration from McTurtle and his minions is just a distraction at this point.