Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

As soon as the GOP stupidly made its play, they've been playing with fire. If they hold up Garland for essentially 11 months under the pretext that "The people deserve a voice" then Hillary should nominate the libbiest lib that ever libbed, especially if the Dems gain hold of the Senate.

If the GOP doesn't act hypocritically at that point and allows the vote, great. If they all of a sudden filibuster, then the Dems would be well within their right to go nuclear, which frankly would not be a bad thing, either.

I'd like to see Dems make this a much bigger issue than it has been. If I were Obama, I'd (and my press secretary would) begin every public speech or comment asking when Congress is going to vote on Garland.

Dems should make the GOP pay for not following the Constitution.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I'd like to see Dems make this a much bigger issue than it has been. If I were Obama, I'd (and my press secretary would) begin every public speech or comment asking when Congress is going to vote on Garland.

Dems should make the GOP pay for not following the Constitution.

If it were reversed Fox would have a date counter on screen at all times. MSNBC should do that, assuming they are still on the air.

I don't think it really gets much juice, though. Maybe because they think they can get a better nominee from Clinton, the left is not choosing to really highlight the Garland obstruction.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

If it were reversed Fox would have a date counter on screen at all times. MSNBC should do that, assuming they are still on the air.

I don't think it really gets much juice, though. Maybe because they think they can get a better nominee from Clinton, the left is not choosing to really highlight the Garland obstruction.

I'm guessing this. When (not if) the Senate goes nuclear on SCOTUS nominations Hillary can put in whoever she wants. Perfect way to guard your left flank by appointing arch liberal. At the very least you'd get a carbon copy of the 4 Dem appointees already on the court.

As far as campaigning goes though, I'd be making hay out of the fact that Goopers want Donald Trump to decide who fills the next court seat. Good luck defending that if you're sitting in a Dem state and running for re-election.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

I'd like to see Dems make this a much bigger issue than it has been. If I were Obama, I'd (and my press secretary would) begin every public speech or comment asking when Congress is going to vote on Garland.

Dems should make the GOP pay for not following the Constitution.

And yet, it was OK when Bush's nominees were up for consideration?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

And yet, it was OK when Bush's nominees were up for consideration?

Interesting.

I just watched the movie "Confirmation" on HBO recently. The mere fact that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court in my mind nullifies any whining or argument about obstruction from the GOP side.

Also, all of GW's picks for the most part were confirmed. He put Alito and Roberts on the bench. He even put Roberts in charge.

 

[unofan]

And yet, it was OK when Bush's nominees were up for consideration?

What nominee of Bush's did not get a vote or would not have gotten a vote if not withdrawn?

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Interesting.

I just watched the movie "Confirmation" on HBO recently. The mere fact that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court in my mind nullifies any whining or argument about obstruction from the GOP side.

Also, all of GW's picks for the most part were confirmed. He put Alito and Roberts on the bench. He even put Roberts in charge.

So a nomination process that took place 25 years ago has greater bearing on current events than the obstructionist behaviors exhibited by both parties in the years since then?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

So a nomination process that took place 25 years ago has greater bearing on current events than the obstructionist behaviors exhibited by both parties in the years since then?

Not assigning any weight. I just find whining by the party who put Thomas on the Court laughable.

Also, I find it laughable that President Obama pussed out and nominated a centrist and the GOP is still crying rivers of tears. Best scenario for the Democrats is for the GOP to continue denying Garland so Clinton can nominate and Senate then will confirm a real liberal to the Court.

 

[unofan]

So a nomination process that took place 25 years ago has greater bearing on current events than the obstructionist behaviors exhibited by both parties in the years since then?

Alito was confirmed in 3 months, even with the holiday recess in there. Roberts was confirmed in 3 months from his initial nomination, and about two months from his re-nomination for chief justice upon Rehnquist's death.

Kagan and Sotomayor were both nominated in May and confirmed by August.

This isn't your average obstructionism, this is unprecedented absurdity.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Alito was confirmed in 3 months, even with the holiday recess in there. Roberts was confirmed in 3 months from his initial nomination, and about two months from his re-nomination for chief justice upon Rehnquist's death.

Kagan and Sotomayor were both nominated in May and confirmed by August.

This isn't your average obstructionism, this is unprecedented absurdity.

Don't let any facts get in the way of their moral relativism.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

This isn't your average obstructionism, this is unprecedented absurdity.

I agree with you, the GOP is making the maximum number of mistakes possible in this whole process, likely leading to more of their party's members losing their races come November. It's just I find it equally absurd to look at a confirmation process from 25 years ago to argue that today's complaints by the GOP carry no weight.

 

[A Shot and a Goal]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

So now that Ted Cruz is toast is Carly Fiorina still running for Veep? Nice career move by her to join the ticket just in time to see it go swirling down the crapper.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

"But we'll get into all that. Let me give you one little thing: My instinctive feeling right now is that Trump is gonna win, beat Hillary badly, that it could be landslide proportions. " - Rush Limbaugh

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Yup, he's doing his job: promoting all things R and denouncing all things D when it comes to the elections. Why bother quoting him?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Yup, he's doing his job: promoting all things R and denouncing all things D when it comes to the elections. Why bother quoting him?

Because he claims conservatism. I'll bet he uses the term conservative 100 times a day on his radio show. While liberal can be used to accurately describe Democrats (and Republicans somehow managed to turn it into a derogatory term), conservative can no longer be used to describe Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the GOP or anyone associated with it.

I find that interesting.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

"But we'll get into all that. Let me give you one little thing: My instinctive feeling right now is that Trump is gonna win, beat Hillary badly, that it could be landslide proportions. " - Rush Limbaugh

Holy smokes! Maybe Rush is right in claiming a large portion of his listeners are liberals looking for a quote.

 

[unofan]

Holy smokes! Maybe Rush is right in claiming a large portion of his listeners are liberals looking for a quote.

That shouldn't be a surprise, all shock jock radio (of which Rush and his ilk are charter members, along with Stern) know this is true.

The anecdote is:
The average radio listener will turn the dial after 6 minutes.
Fans of Howard Stern listen for 15 minutes because they want to hear what he'll say next.
Detractors of Howard Stern listen for 30 minutes...because they want to hear what he'll say next.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Also, I find it laughable that President Obama pussed out and nominated a centrist and the GOP is still crying rivers of tears.

Obama explicitly said he was trying to end the ***-for-tat feud by nominating somebody maximally acceptable. It wasn't a wuss out -- he has his eye squarely on the history books. Pretty much everything Obama has done fits his self-image as "National Healer Ahead of His Time." He's run his presidency as a historian looking backwards from 2050.

 

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Because he claims conservatism. I'll bet he uses the term conservative 100 times a day on his radio show. While liberal can be used to accurately describe Democrats (and Republicans somehow managed to turn it into a derogatory term), conservative can no longer be used to describe Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, the GOP or anyone associated with it.

I find that interesting.

Why? Trump is basically the same platform as Cruz and Rubio, other than his critique of Bush's Iraq folly, which good Repubs just don't do. Maybe he's a bit more isolationist/anti-free trade than Repub orthodoxy, but who knows how much of that is just talk to win over the angry white man rubes.

But immigration, racism, bashing the poors etc., is right there with them, and most everyone else in today's Republican party. Only difference is he comes right out and says it, instead of speaking in coded terms and dog whistles.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XI: the Two Party Problem

Why? Trump is basically the same platform as Cruz and Rubio, other than his critique of Bush's Iraq folly, which good Repubs just don't do. Maybe he's a bit more isolationist/anti-free trade than Repub orthodoxy, but who knows how much of that is just talk to win over the angry white man rubes.

But immigration, racism, bashing the poors etc., is right there with them, and most everyone else in today's Republican party. Only difference is he comes right out and says it, instead of speaking in coded terms and dog whistles.

Yes, but it's not conservative. Conservatism ended when W took office.