“I’m 100 percent prepared to support Judge Garland. I think he’s clearly very knowledgable and can serve ably on the Supreme Court, but between you and me, I think there are some more progressive judges out there,” the Democratic presidential candidate [Bernie Sanders] said.
Think about it for a moment. If a Democratic Socialist presidential candidate on the campaign trail gives his full-throated support to President Obama’s nominee, then the Republicans are just going to use that against Garland: “OMG! If Sanders supports Garland, he must be a secret Commie! Aiieee!”
Cautious, or even mildly begrudging, support is the best move Sanders could make to help Garland’s nomination. You’re not going to get Garland through a GOP controlled Senate if he appears to have the support of the left.
I could be wrong, but I think Bernie knew as much and that’s why he said what he did - because it was the smartest play.
Heh heh, I liked your first paragraph. The interesting thing about all this is the different overlapping purposes at work here:
Get Garland approved
Maximize political advantage for Democratic candidates this fall
Advance own presidential campaign
Honor the constitutional process
Different players have different purposes in mind. I think President Obama actually has #4 first and foremost in his mind. Yes, he believes in his pick and yes, he wants him approved, but there’s that big part of him that respects the office of POTUS in a way the GOP truly doesn’t. I think he’s trying to find a way forward that doesn’t break the system that has served our nation so well for 239 years now.
Sen. Sanders of course has #3 at the top of his mind, and #1 is a much lower priority. I’m interested in seeing where Sec. Clinton comes down on this. She’ll hafta say more than just the general “I support Garland” statement she’s made so far.
This question was likely prompted by Bernie’s silly declaration he would ask Obama to withdraw the nomination if he were elected so Sanders could name his own more liberal nominee. Bernie naive on so many counts, plays Republican card, not enlightened to know it is not wise to state political litmus test as main criteria for nominee, shows Narcissism and pretty silly for a non Democrat needing to curry favor.
I am no fan of Mr. Sanders, but I don’t think the way in which he criticized is likely to have any real negative impact. I consider it entirely unsurprising, in point of fact. Several Republican Senators have already indicated that the game changes a bit when you enter the actual lame duck session, and various Democratic sources have admitted from the start that that would be a very different situation than the move McConnell pulled. That Mr. Sanders would prioritize the most progressive thing possible is already what everyone expects from him.
Of course his own campaign is Sanders’ top priority, but I don’t think honoring the constitutional process or getting Garland approved are as far down the list as you suspect. First, Sanders is a pretty honorable guy; second, even from a campaign perspective, it doesn’t do Sanders any good to look like he’s not supporting the President or the constitutional process.
I think Clinton is in a similar bind as Sanders. Clinton has to worry about whether a too full-throated support of Garland from her will be used against him.
Pro-forma declarations of support - with a focus on honoring the process rather than her opinion of Garland - are probably Clinton’s best play too.
All Clinton has to say is “I support President Obama’s nominee. The Senate should do its Constitutional duty and give him an up or down vote, because kicking the can until after the election is not going to change the fact they will need to give this nominee an up or down vote, either after the election or after Jan. 20, 2017 if I am elected President. So the Senate might as well eat their vegetables now instead of trying to hold their breath and hope they don’t have to do their job.”
That would be the “pro forma” support JGabriel spoke of, though. It’d be dangerous for Ms. Clinton to speak very strong praise about Mr. Garland’s appointment because if she were to be too eager, it’d be taken as de facto justification that he’s too left – and somewhat weaken the effectiveness of Mr. Obama’s sledgehammer against the Republicans for pointless obstruction.
Maybe Sen. Sanders’ support would have that effect, but I think just about everybody – left, middle, and right – all figure Sec. Clinton is pretty similar to President Obama in terms of the political spectrum. I don’t think anyone would be the least bit surprised if she was fully supportive of Obama’s pick.
Right now, sure, but the conservative intelligentsia was already beginning its perfunctory pivot to discussing Mr. Obama in kinder terms to be able to contrast the next Democratic candidate harshly against him. I say ‘was’ because the clear and present success of Trump has sent most of them into a panic where they are more concerned about other issues for the moment…
I agree. And that’s pretty much what I implied she should say - i.e., support Garland and focus on the constitutional process that Republican Senators are abdicating.
I was replying to brianwilliams, who seemed to indicate (and, brian, if I read this wrong I apologize) that he thought Clinton should, or would, express stronger enthusiasm for Garland himself. My response was to suggest Clinton would be better off following the course she is following, which is the same course I described, and that you outline above.
GOP hatred of Clinton, always at a high point anyway, is even more exaggerated now that they anticipate running against her in the fall - so showing any personal enthusiasm for Garland is likely to be used as further ammunition against him by the right.
Unless I’m misreading something, I think you’re seeing a disagreement where there isn’t one.
I think we’re all three in agreement. I think the MSM will press her on the Garland question, and I think she’ll answer essentially as JGabriel suggests – leaving her personal opinion about Garland secondary, but making it abundantly clear that she’s 100% supportive of Obama’s authority to make the pick and that she’ll do all in her power to follow through on making it a reality.
“And I cannot imagine a scenario where the President would withdraw his support from his nominee…”
It’s pretty well known that Garland was Obama’s second or third alternate when he was nominating Sotomayor and Kagan. All politics aside, Obama clearly has long wanted a open seat to add Garland to the court.
“The President stands by his nominee and believes that the Senate should confirm him as soon as possible. And I cannot imagine a scenario where the President would withdraw his support from his nominee,” Earnest said.
…and I cannot imagine the President, or his spokesman, saying anything other than the above if asked about this, even if it isn’t true.
I think Sanders said pretty much the right thing. It’s not any surprise (look at all the people here complaining about an older white male getting the nod) that there might be more progressive picks out there. But Garland is a good pick, and Sanders can honestly say he’s absolutely in support. (As a far-fetched analogy: it’s perfectly plausible to say that X movie star is handsomer/prettier than your partner without having to defend yourself against accusations that you’re not really attracted to the person you’re with.)
