It's probably not my place to judge, but of all things for conservatives to distrust about John McCain surely this "gang of fourteen" business is the silliest. This was a disagreement over tactics not any grand questions of principle. There's never been any indication that McCain doesn't favor conservative judicial nominees. Indeed, the upshot of the compromise McCain helped broker was the confirmation of a bunch of conservative judges. It seems to me that McCain's tactics were pretty smart and effective. But even if you disagree and think his tactical judgment was wrong, it was just that -- a question of tactics.
« Stenography: Or, Real Journalism at Last | Main | Parking Reform »
Gang of 14
25 Feb 2008 11:41 am
Comments (21)
Actually, I think it is not just silly but rather revealing that Republican true believers are actively offended by the idea of acting in concert with Democrats, no matter what the objective results. Cooperation with The Evil Ones is by definition wrong, even if the results are good.
This was a disagreement over tactics not any grand questions of principle.
My understanding is that Republicans are angry at him over the tactics, not the principle. McCain just loves punking the Republican party line whenever he can get the chance, and this is a prime example of that, in a case where he doesn't even disagree with the principle.
No, it was a matter of principle, not tactics. The Rublicans had worked out a very, very effective way to get all the conservative judges they wanted, by totally bitching the powers of the Senate to vette judges. The Gang of 14 got together Senators on a bipartisan basis, dedicated to maintaining the role and function of the Senate in the process as it stands.
It's probably not my place to judge
Ho ho ho!
The result of getting conservative judges appointed doesn't matter. The appearance of a willingness to compromise does. It's not about getting their favored policies enacted, it's about showing that they won't take no crap from wussy liberals.
Which isn't to say you aren't right to call it silly.
Gang of 14 -- "bipartisan" cover to give Bush anything he wants.
The thing I find most amusing about this is that they are STILL upset at him. I mean, looking forward, there is a non-zero chance that the Republicans might be both the minority in the Senate and have Dem president when some Supremes retire. Isn't the nightmare scenario Hillary appointing "our" judges? There whole "conservative majority forever" is over. They should be thanking him for not being so shortsighted as the rest of them. This sounds like a good claim for "experience" to me (preserving checks and balances) to be honest and I have no love for McCain.
McCain got to spend even more time with Joe Leibermn. That was reason enough to have really long and serious discussions, long into the evening, with candlelight and cordials.
It's not a matter of tactics, it's a matter of strategy. The Republican strategy is to create an environment where bipartisan is defined as Dems caving to every Republican demand. This is just part of the larger alternative universe the Republicans have been creating (with remarkable success). Now that strategy may backfire b/c the echo chamber that it has created has led to some truly terrible policy-making. Also, the demographics are bad. But it did succeed in creating a hardcore committed political coalition in spite of the fact that the movement largely operates against the interests of the vast majority of the members of that coalition.
That's the problem with McCain for conservatives- he doesn't buy into that whole schtick. So his nomination is really a stick in their eye. It's also an indication of the end of that movement that began with Newt and ended in the culmination of the last 8 years. Hopefully, it's a real end.
I talked to an ex-Thompson-supporter Republican Hillary-hater a couple nights ago, and she hates McCain almost as bad as she hates Hillary. She's cool with Obama, God knows why.
I couldn't help myself and asked her why she hated McCain, who's a rather impressive guy and a hard-right conservative by any but Dobson Moron Zombie standards. (And she isn't a religious loony). She came up with some character-principle-loyalty thing that made no sense.
I shut up before I said "Support McCain, you bimbo! Quit acting like a lunatic! For you, Obama will be much worse than McCain! Obama is mine, bitch!"
In this case it may have been her slippery way of achieving harmony with her boyfriend, a liberal Democrat. It looks like Obama will get a lot of vote from people for whom he is something a blank slate. Anything that works.
I live in Texas, and while I was standing in line to early vote last week, I made a comment that it seemed like a lot more Democrats than Republicans were in line. (I made the comment because I could overhear voters declaring their preference since Texas requires them to declare Democrat or Republican so they can get the right ballot in the primary). Anyway, several voters then told me that they weren't really Democrats, they were just voting in the Democratic primary becasue they all hate McCain and they hate Hillary, so they are voting for Obama because they don't want McCain or Hillary to win.
Isn't the nightmare scenario Hillary appointing "our" judges?
It is, until someone helpful like me points out that she could be appointed to SCOTUS, and serve on that bench for 30+ years.
After the color returns to their faces, the whole "I'm never drinking tequila again" thing goes right out the nearest window.
Try it, you'll like it!
Here's what I want to know: Why hasn't anyone in the MSM written anything about how the Republicans who wanted to use the "nuclear option" to stop Democratic filibusters in 2005-06 are now filibustering far more than the Dems ever did? And why hasn't anyone in the MSM done an analysis to see how often the Republican members of the Gang of 14 are starting filibusters and voting against cloture today?
My wife has subscribed to this theory for years now: If you are a conservative, the self-perception that you are giving Jane Fonda a big "fuck-you" is the single most important factor in every political decision you will make.
This is why their political (and, to be fair) non-political decision-making is so poor. "Gas $3.50 a gallon? Time to buy an H2! F.U. Jane!"
"[H]er boyfriend, a liberal Democrat"
Oh, man. That is just soo gross. Reminds me of the season finale of Curb Your Enthusiasm a few years ago.
". . . there is a non-zero chance that the Republicans might be both the minority in the Senate and have Dem president when some Supremes retire. Isn't the nightmare scenario Hillary appointing "our" judges? . . ."
Posted by Eamon | February 25, 2008 12:36 PM
Since Hillary already gone on record and said that it is perfectly proper for the Senate to filibuster judicial appointments, were I a conservative Senator from a deep red state, I would filibuster every one of her judicial nominees just for the hell of it. If and when she complains about my tactics, it would be a great delight to throw her own stupid words back in her face.
Then we can all sit back and watch as the liberals "intellectuals" jump through the mental hoops needed to justify, at least to themselves, the changing of their position to support using the "nuclear option" to eliminate the filibuster of judicial nominees that they so adamantly opposed to doing so in Bush's term.
Wasn't the stated point of preserving the filibuster the preservation of the senate minority's ability to block the more extreme nominees? If so, doesn't simply vetoing EVERY nominee run directly counter to that? And what's the end game there, an ever-diminishing number of Supremes?
and then I realized that this makes complete sense if it's motivated by F.U. Jane Fonda.
I would filibuster every one of her judicial nominees just for the hell of it
That's cool. I'd have no problem with the Dems invoking the "nuclear option" at that point. Oh, man, the weeping and gnashing of teeth from the red-state yokels over "President Hitlary," or "President Hussein Osama" would be sweet, sweet music.
We'll even chip in to get you a t-shirt that says "The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must."
xoxo,
ibc
i don't see what their problem is with the "gang of 14"? the repubs(a) got a bunch of hyperpartisan conservative judges appointed that otherwise wouldn't have been, (b) gets to, and does, fillibuster every piece of democratic legislation that's come out in the last 14 months, and (c) also got both the supremes they wanted. they got everything they wanted when they were in power and, now that they're not, still pretty much still get whatever they want somehow. not much downside on that one...
So, there’s more to it than Hillary Clinton being elected President of the United States. As POTUS, Hillary also appoints a cabinet of hand picked secular progressives, who oversee every aspect of our daily lives – and at least 300 high-ranking government and non-government positions, both at home and abroad – all to answer to her every whim. An 10x12 color glossy of Hillary's warm, smiling face adorns every government office, and every law enforcement agency from coast to coast. There’s no end to the stuff you can get away with as president. As long-time FOB & FOH Lanny Davis says, The president of the United States can do anything he [she] wants: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Comments closed March 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Not to mention the fact that preserving the filibuster is, itself, CONSERVATIVE.
Posted by Aaron | February 25, 2008 12:00 PM