And the collapse of the McConnell strategy is already commencing.
Now that Obama has called his bluff (easy to do, Obama knew he was holding nothing) and presented a throughly moderate, obviously acceptable candidate (even to Republicans) they are on the horns of the McConnell Dilemma.
With this albatross hung around their neck (perhaps I should say, with this Garland hung around their neck) for the entire campaign season the Democrats get to hammer on the principle that the vast majority of Americans accept, and is historically valid, that the sitting President gets to nominate the justice, and the Senate should hold hearings. This is aimed at Senatorial candidates, not the Presidency.
On the other hand, if they buckle and meet with Garland, then the McConnell Principle is plainly exposed as stupid insincere posturing.
Republicans should be honest, because everyone knows what is going on. They should say we wonât nominate an Obama pick because we want another conservative and wonât compromise. By creating an imaginary argument, âlet the people decideâ they are forced into a position where they either prove themselves liars, or canât stop president Clinton from nominating a less moderate judge.
Gracious reply â and, yes, youâre right that the way that the Republicans and some other media have been abusing the term makes it easy to have any mention of it generate a knee-jerk reaction.
What is interesting is that the fact that some GOP have now used the term PROPERLY to say âwe would consider Garland in the lame-duckâ makes it much harder for them to go back to the message that the President is currently [that thing that he isnât]. This nomination has really bollocked them up, and it should be fun to see more fractures appear as the Senators who are up for reelection start to act on their own self-interests.
I hope the republi-cons DONâT vote on this nominee! He is NOT A PROGRESSIVE and that is who the President should be nominating. That is what PROGRESSIVES voted him into to office to do!
Another Republican unwilling to his job. In a normal world, he would be removed from office after a few weeks of relentless media coverage for not doing the work he was hired to do.
Sen. Roy Blunt, (R-MO), who is on the leadership team, agreed that Republicans could not reverse course now. Blunt also added that he, like many in the GOP, will not even meet with Garland.
If the Republican actually stick to their guns and refuse to vote on Garland, and then lose the Senate majority (hopefully because of this, but then whatever), hereâs what I hope happens. New Senate takes office Jan 3, 2017. Obama re-sends nomination of Garland, the Dems rush hearings in newly constituted Judiciary Committee, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer brings vote to the floor, Garland is confirmed. If the Republicans threaten filibuster, then the Dems make new rule eliminating all nomination filibusters. Done and done. Sure, I would like a younger, more liberal justice, but I would also like to see the Republicans get ouchy butthurt.
Yes, and Flake and other Republicans are saying that theyâre open to confirming Garland only after the election (ie before Clinton can nominate someone more liberal) - which is during the actual lame duck time.
âI think it is the next president, and I have said that all along. Itâs about the principle not the individual,â Perdue told reporters in a scrum on Wednesday. âOf courseâ he added, if Romney had been elected, this principle would be a different principle."
The initial error message is apparently false, so ignore it.
Otherwise you get a double post.
By now on TPM you should know that you canât believe everything you read, given Mr. Marshallâs difficulty grasping the concept of copyediting, which appears to have infected his staff too, if, perhaps, only out of loyalty.
