If they had they would confirm him ASAP. Or at least give him a hearing.
1. Even the conservative pundits are now saying there's nothing to be gained by refusing to nominate Garland with Trump now securing the nomination. After all, he's quite unlikely to win and who knows who the heck he would nominate if he did win?
Isn't it obvious that there's no hope to fill in the vacancy with another Scalia?
2. In any case, this has become a political liability. Polls show that even Republican voters think he at least should get a hearing.
Democrats are running against two things.
A. Trump
B. The Senate GOP's refusal to confirm or even give Garland a hearing.
Yet McConnell indicates he plans to stay the course. The same course that has brought them to Trump.
If he was at all smart he would at least let him have a hearing eve if he's not confirmed. Just to push back a little on a bad political narrative.
But as usual, the GOP is playing My Way or the Highway which has worked so well for them until now. I mean think about what they could have gotten for themselves back in 2011 if they'd only been willing to compromise a little with President Obama on the Grand Bargain.
As a liberal Democrat, I'm grateful they didn't. If they had we'd have at least a few of the following:
1. Chained CPI
2. A rise in the Medicare retirement age.
3. Having the top Bush tax cuts expire for only those who make over $1 million per year in income, not what we actually got in 2013: it expired for all those who make over $450,000.
1. Even the conservative pundits are now saying there's nothing to be gained by refusing to nominate Garland with Trump now securing the nomination. After all, he's quite unlikely to win and who knows who the heck he would nominate if he did win?
Isn't it obvious that there's no hope to fill in the vacancy with another Scalia?
2. In any case, this has become a political liability. Polls show that even Republican voters think he at least should get a hearing.
Democrats are running against two things.
A. Trump
B. The Senate GOP's refusal to confirm or even give Garland a hearing.
Yet McConnell indicates he plans to stay the course. The same course that has brought them to Trump.
If he was at all smart he would at least let him have a hearing eve if he's not confirmed. Just to push back a little on a bad political narrative.
But as usual, the GOP is playing My Way or the Highway which has worked so well for them until now. I mean think about what they could have gotten for themselves back in 2011 if they'd only been willing to compromise a little with President Obama on the Grand Bargain.
As a liberal Democrat, I'm grateful they didn't. If they had we'd have at least a few of the following:
1. Chained CPI
2. A rise in the Medicare retirement age.
3. Having the top Bush tax cuts expire for only those who make over $1 million per year in income, not what we actually got in 2013: it expired for all those who make over $450,000.
Yep: for however much I do enjoy (and find myself agreeing with) much of the Trump commentary and even a bit of the self reflection over at RedState and TheResurgent (both in the posts and the comments), there's still a considerable thread of thought which runs: "Our problem was we weren't pure enough! No more even THINKING about compromise!!!"
ReplyDeleteWhat's interesting is that the conservative ideologues are the voice of reason. They're pointing out there is no logical reason to still be holding out on Garland now.
ReplyDeleteBut Mitch McConnell is still playing the same game never reflecting it's record of failure.
By the way, I just saw Jennifer Rubin on MSNBC.
ReplyDelete1. She comes across as an intelligent, attractive woman
2. But she's not great at this format just yet. She seems not to be good at soundbite style tv where you have to organize your thoughts quickly.
3. I agree with her and against Tarmron Rule though that Trump can get away with not releasing his tax returns.
Yeah, I saw her on Hardball a couple of nights back for the 1st time (other than her little bio-pic in the WaPo). I've been a "fan" of her column for some time: she actually is a sane conservative on some issues, and I find myself agreeing with her a fair percentage of the time (probably life-time average close to 30 or 35%... but recently more like 50%).
DeleteShe's opposed to the "know-nothing" wing of her party and of the conservative movement in general: talk radio hosts and Fox personalities, the Heritage foundation (especially the changes since Jim DeMint took over, and especially with "Heritage Action"), Ted Cruz no-compromise tactics, Ted Cruz in general, etc.
What I dislike about her is primarily her extreme hawkish stance on foreign policy and her gun-rights extremism (the latter of which I find to be especially odd).
She's also pretty good on immigration and gay rights.
Her main hangup seems to be Israel-which as she has said, Hillary will probably be fairly acceptable for her.
DeleteThe truth is, I'm a liberal Democrat because I'm a small c conservative.
The modern GOP is anything sooner than small c conservative
What is in those returns that he won't release them? And saying 'I would but I'm being audited'' begs the question: why is he being audited?
ReplyDeleteHe assures us there's nothing interesting in the returns. If there wasn't they wouldn't be audited.
ReplyDeleteExactly!
Delete