
Liberals have been warning President Obama for weeks that Republicans and conservative activists would fight and seek to delay confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee no matter whom he picked. Turns out they were right.
In an April 22 conference call with RNC members, which was recorded and passed my way by a source, activist Curt Levey, director of the conservative Committee for Justice, offered Republican operatives candid strategic advice, pressing them to put up a fight against even the most moderate of judges, and providing a glimpse of the GOP's playbook for obstructing Obama nominees.
The crux of the GOP's strategy is to use Obama's nominee to wedge vulnerable Democratic senators away from the party, and drag the confirmation fight out until the August congressional recess, to eat up precious time Democrats need to round out their agenda.
"[I]t wouldn't take much GOP resistance to push a final vote into early August," Levey advised. "And, look, the closer we could get it to the election, frankly, the better. It would be great if we could push it past the August recess because that forces the red and purple state Democrats to have to go home and face their constituents."
Levey acknowledged that a filibuster likely won't last--that Obama's nominee, now known to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, will almost certainly be confirmed. But he hammered home the point to Republicans that there's value in mischaracterizing any nominee, and dragging the fight out as long as possible, whether or not Obama's choice is particularly liberal.
"We wouldn't have a lot to object to if it was [Interior Secretary Ken] Salazar. He's quite moderate as Democrats come," Levey admitted. "We're not necessarily going to say that if he's nominated, but I think that's the truth." Emphasis mine. This advice was met with laughter by one of the listeners on the call. (Salazar was cited in early reports as a long-shot candidate on Obama's short list.)
"Even if it's a nominee that we can't seriously stop, we can accomplish several things, and so a hard fight is worthwhile," Levey implored. "Certainly it can be to the political advantage of Republicans.... There's everything to be gained from making the Supreme Court vacancy a campaign issue in 2010."
"There's broader goals such as just distracting Obama from other items on his agenda," Levey added. "The tougher the fight the less capital and time and resources and floor time in the Senate there is to spend on immigration and climate change, etc."
It's likely, though, that some Republicans, particularly moderates, will ultimately want to support Obama's choice. Levey urged those senators to go along with the delay.
"For those people who do want to support the nominee, and do want to get points for bipartisanship or for supporting the first Hispanic or first gay nominee or whatever it might turn out to be you'll get just as much credit if you support the nominee in August, as if you support them now," Levey said "I urge everyone not to say that the confirmation of the nominee is inevitable, even if we think it is."
So what can you expect the main points of contention--real, or manufactured--to be as the fight drags on? Levey offered a sneak peak.
"When [Kagan] was Dean of Harvard Law School she kicked the military off campus because she felt that the don't ask don't tell policy was discriminatory to gay folks," Levey instructed. That episode will likely become the central focus of Republican opposition to Kagan
"I also think one issue that's going to be closely connected this summer to the Supreme Court vacancy is the Constitutionality of Obamacare, specifically the individual mandate," Levey predicted. "Senators are going to ask about it. The media's going to speculate about how the nominee would vote on it. I certainly plan to raise it."
Don't be surprised, either, if Republicans figure out new and inventive ways to use Kagan to highlight what they view as Obama's political vulnerabilities. For instance, Levey recommended that if Obama's nominee is not a military veteran, Republicans should cite that fact as evidence that Obama is weak on national security.
You can listen to the audio of the call below. Levey did not return a request for comment before press time. An RNC spokesman declined to comment, referring me instead to Chairman Michael Steele's official statement: "you can expect Senate Republicans to respectfully raise serious and tough questions to ensure the American people can thoroughly and thoughtfully examine Kagan's qualifications and legal philosophy before she is confirmed to a lifetime appointment."
Sailormarlowe
May 10, 2010 12:05 PM
Sounds like a plan. The more gridlock, the less harm the Bolsheviks can do. Drill, baby.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrCurmudgeon
May 10, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
You spew like Deep Horizon.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
May 10, 2010 12:41 PM in reply to mrCurmudgeon
You mean Deadwater Horizon?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
May 10, 2010 1:22 PM in reply to jeffgee
More like Deep Throat - no, not the Watergate insider, I mean Linda Lovelace.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fla_kracker
May 10, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Yeah ahole come on down to Florida and buy some oil front property
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
May 10, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Sounds like you want to create another Lake Palin.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darkrhyme
May 10, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Good stuff.
Drill, baby, Kill!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Clavis
May 10, 2010 3:35 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Your mom says hi.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
May 10, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
It's so sad, that this is the level of thought from conservative posters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Hominine
May 10, 2010 11:37 PM in reply to acf_ma
Well when this brand of stupidity is all you've got, it is truly all you've got..
Even this particular moron would rather see their precious right wing legislators run in circles rather than actually try to get something done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
whataretheysmoking
May 10, 2010 12:06 PM
the sad thing is that with 30% of low-info knuckle dragging voters like the sailorwhatever commenter above, it may work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jfields
May 10, 2010 12:10 PM in reply to whataretheysmoking
May work? Uh, it's been their strategy for about 20 years now. It "works" just fine; at least for some values of the word "work" understood only by Republicans.
Hint: out here in the real world, their version of "work" means the opposite.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Effin Rightman
May 10, 2010 12:13 PM in reply to whataretheysmoking
It's Sailorboy. The mind of a child. Meanwhile Obama and Democrat poll numbers continue to rise. Mature people do not want obstruction. Only children. Sailorboy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
May 10, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to Effin Rightman
Agree. The Party of No-and their buttboy Sailormyass-can't shoot straight anymore.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
May 10, 2010 12:53 PM in reply to whataretheysmoking
Don't bother replying to Sailorman. Like most trolls, he seems to be interested only in provoking a response. Ignore him and he'll eventually go away.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mass_murdock
May 10, 2010 3:31 PM in reply to ericf
Go away? And lose our self-parodying mascot? Don't say that. I need him for my trollanalysis project. At least he has maintained his amateur status. I suspect a lot of the other trolls here are on salary.
First you've got the taunting namecallers, they do that for free. Web anonymity has spawned a whole generation of punkass bitches. It's comedy relief, it does no harm.
But then you have the "liberal extremists", the idea there being to push progressive policy into something that actually does resemble Marxism, and to make the movement seem more radical. The sky is always falling, Obama is more conservative than GW Bush, etc. The source of this noise is likely the GOP itself. They are *uniformly* critical of dem policies as being too *right* wing.
And finally the debaters. They have crafted fallacious arguments on issues like global warming and offshore drilling, which they offer up to stymie the movement towards cleaning up our own shit. They provide damage control, and start the long process of gradually spinning oil spills into something positive. Reading what they say about climate change is a clinic in logical fallacy. This variety is most likely employed by the industries they are shilling for. It comes under PR.
So if Sailorman wants to go pro, he's going to have to learn a real trade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
May 10, 2010 1:12 PM in reply to whataretheysmoking
I doubt it does much. Everyday people aren't that concerned about a Supreme Court nominee and the Repugs have been delaying everything in site so this will be seen as the same obstruction as usual. People are getting tired of the part of NO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrCurmudgeon
May 10, 2010 12:08 PM
Conference call or den of snakes?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
May 10, 2010 12:08 PM
Wow! I'm so surprised by this I had to sit down and catch my breath. It is utterly unbelievable that the Repubs are concerned with nothing other than obstructing the processes of government. Who could ever have seen this coming?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AJM
May 10, 2010 12:37 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Only someone who does not believe in bipartisanship.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bright Creature
May 10, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
I'm just relieved that people are getting them on record for that obstructionism. Before, they could always say "oh no, that's not our intention." But enough times like these where people show them actually saying they want obstructionism and they no longer have the plausible deniability.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
May 11, 2010 9:09 AM in reply to Bright Creature
ah but you underestimate them!
all they have to say is: 'that was one person's advice. just because we are doing everything he advised us to do doesn't mean that we are actually following that advice. now i can't speak for my colleagues, but i would be shocked, shocked to learn that any of them were asking tough questions and seeking more time simply for political reasons. we take our jobs very seriously and a lifetime appointment to the supreme court is very serious business that takes time. and tough questions. blahblahblah...'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Effin Rightman
May 10, 2010 12:09 PM
Without even knowing who he would nominate? This is good for the country? How exactly?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
It's Pat
May 10, 2010 12:18 PM in reply to Effin Rightman
They aren't concerned with what's good for the country; their only interests are in themselves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
minnesconsin
May 10, 2010 1:54 PM in reply to It's Pat
Their motto is "Country First".
They'll f*ck up the rest of the world later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 10, 2010 8:29 PM in reply to minnesconsin
+10
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
May 10, 2010 2:38 PM in reply to It's Pat
It is good for the country by putting Republicans back in power, which, of course, is always good for the country. But, I'm sure Obama and Kagan are ready for this ploy. Obama has played the chess matches well so far. Just gotta make sure the Dems in Congress can learn and repeat the talking points, and hope that Reid can move this through quickly now that he's located his spine.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
May 10, 2010 12:10 PM
And if filibustering doesn't work, Senate GOP leaders have promised that they'll hold their breath until they turn blue. Now *that's* leadership teabagger-style!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
May 10, 2010 1:40 PM in reply to Matt Jones
If they turn blue, will they become Democrats?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
May 10, 2010 2:29 PM in reply to jeffgee
Hopefully they'll just explode when they turn a deep crimson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
May 10, 2010 5:41 PM in reply to Rick Jones
Next, pink mist?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 29, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to jeffgee
No. If they turn blue, that means oxygen deprivation and resultant brain damage, making them a shoe-in for the Tea Baggers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Powkat
May 10, 2010 12:17 PM
All of this MUST be conveyed by every Dem who goes on any talk show or does any interview. Point out over and over that having serious questions about a nominee is one thing, but delaying simply in order to serve your political agenda is a violation of the oath of office that every senator takes to 'well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.'
Enumerate all the proof (and be prepared to back it up) that this has been the Republican strategy since day one - point out the paucity of their alternative plans as further proof that they are not seeking to govern, but to obstruct governance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
minnesconsin
May 10, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to Powkat
Exactly. Every Dem who's going anywhere ought to have this on his portable audio player - and when questioned about "not being bipartisan", pull it out and play it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
May 10, 2010 2:31 PM in reply to minnesconsin
Play it at the beginning of the confirmation hearing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
May 10, 2010 12:19 PM
Send this to @Presssec on twitter. This would be fun to blast during a briefing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fla_kracker
May 10, 2010 12:25 PM
Let's face it repigs hate America. Calling progressives nazis only demonstrates the way out of a situation is project your failings on your opponent. It becomes more obvious every day who the real America hating nazis really are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Backcountry
May 10, 2010 2:46 PM in reply to fla_kracker
This has been part of the strategy all along: Call Obama and the Dems "Nazis" and then the Rethugs will be free to act as Nazi-like as they wish.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
truth > spin
May 10, 2010 7:09 PM in reply to Backcountry
Awesome!
Decry someone using the term Nazi and then turn around and call them a Nazi back.
Godwin had no idea how right, or immediate, he was.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
May 10, 2010 12:35 PM
This is a stretch.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
StrangerNY
May 10, 2010 12:40 PM
I understand that there's no truth to the rumor that this guy is a direct descendant of Church Of Satan leader Anton Levey.
But it would be irresponsible not to speculate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnnydoughey
May 10, 2010 12:42 PM
I was once accosted by three Hell's Angels.
I found out later they were pretty much cowards when alone.
It seems with mobsters, there is power in numbers.
The mobs are ruling Washington, folks.
The independent thinkers have long since fled... or been driven out. IMHO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neurodoc
May 10, 2010 12:44 PM
It is so predictable: the nominee is a far left-wing liberal with out-of-the-mainstream legal views who is a lesbian, communist,military hating, socialist, rascist, anti-american activist judge who will institute Obama's plan to destroy America.
Simple. I should be paid to advise the repubs.
This approach, which they will use every.single.time for Obama's nominees will eventually wear thin on most voters but sadly, will always work for the tea-bagger crowd.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
SocceRef
May 10, 2010 3:33 PM in reply to neurodoc
In response to neurodoc above: "lesbian and racist" in the same sentence? Got any more adjectives? Seems you're in need of a neurologist.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
neurodoc
May 10, 2010 3:46 PM in reply to SocceRef
I'm just trying to mimic a typical right wing blogger/talking head. It's really difficult.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
May 10, 2010 8:32 PM in reply to SocceRef
I think you must not have read neurodoc's final paragraph.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
May 10, 2010 12:45 PM
They would oppose Robert Bork if Obama nominated him. It's about partisan obstruction for its own sake.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sedulus
May 10, 2010 12:51 PM
Garbage. Rush ridicules her as part of "liberal elites," etc. Won't get anywhere. She will be confirmed on her merits.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
May 10, 2010 12:56 PM
This playbook should become the talking points of the Democrats. Throw it back in their faces so that if they use any of it, it looks like politics over country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
May 10, 2010 1:00 PM
The problem is Reid is still too concerned with his precious comity, so he will probably allow this to go on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sawgrass
May 10, 2010 2:40 PM in reply to runfastandwin
This wasn't just a warning shot across Reid's bow:
This was a shot aimed directly at Reid's mainmast, aiming to cripple his ship.Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
May 10, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to sawgrass
Call their bluff. Go for a floor vote 30 days after the Judiciary Committee releases their recommendation and if the repukes have the 'nads to filibuster, let 'em. And then make them explain it after all their theatrics whenever anyone said boo about one of Junior's picks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jolly ranchero
May 10, 2010 1:09 PM
"The tougher the fight the less capital and time and resources and floor time in the Senate there is to spend on immigration and climate change, etc."
Translation--we'll do anything to stop trying to fix a serious problem in America if we think it'll help our Party.
Sick shit, these peeps.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
maya89
May 10, 2010 1:13 PM
another strategy derived from nothing but crackpot "talking points"... I think it will bomb just like Frank Luntz' talking points re financial reform bombed...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Phoebe Fay
May 10, 2010 1:17 PM
Seriously, this could be a great campaign issue for Democrats. They can call it "America Second!" and point out the gazillion ways that Republicans put partisanship first, governance second. It's a nice update to the "Party of No."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bibimimi
May 10, 2010 1:22 PM
Whistling in the dark...out their rectums.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
May 10, 2010 1:23 PM
"Liberals have been warning President Obama for weeks that Republicans and conservative activists would fight and seek to delay confirmation of his Supreme Court nominee no matter whom he picked. Turns out they were right."
What is this? What's the purpose of this line exactly? They didn't get Wood, so you throw them this non-I told you so bone? Come on, who doesn't know this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
May 10, 2010 2:12 PM in reply to Viva!America!
Apparently a lot of people didn't know (hopefully the administration did, I have to assume they're at least that smart!), because one of the main talking points about Kagan has been that should would be easier to confirm than others like Diane Wood.
Those of us who have opposed Kagan and supported nominating Wood have consistently said, "It doesn't matter, the GOP will fight like hell no matter what," which was a counter argument to what some perceived as the main advantage to Kagan--she gets along with conservatives. Obviously this memo suggests that the counter argument from those of us who wanted Obama to nominate someone more obviously "liberal" than Kagan was quite correct.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Viva!America!
May 10, 2010 1:24 PM
And this strategy is lame. Won't work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mary Alice
May 10, 2010 1:38 PM
So what else is new?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
susanthe
May 10, 2010 1:46 PM
This is good strategy for the GOP. It puts liberals in the position of having to defend a lousy nominee - and ensures that they get exactly what they want - which is a pro-corporate justice like Kagan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
May 10, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to susanthe
The entire court is pro-corporate and has been since the early 1800s--there's nothing special about Kagan in that regard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eratosthenes8
May 10, 2010 2:05 PM
Is anybody else having trouble getting the audio to play?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
darkrhyme
May 10, 2010 2:06 PM
This should be the Democratic strategy:
"Republicans hate women."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Arundhati
May 10, 2010 2:07 PM
What is the loyal opposition good for, if they don't oppose? Socialism flopped in Greece. Stop the creeping cancer!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
May 10, 2010 2:29 PM
Two words: Goldman Sachs. Get used to hearing about them a lot. While Kagan's position with them had nothing to do with any of the craziness that went down, it won't matter. GOP Senators at the hearings will constantly say, "Now I want to come back to your time at Goldman Sachs" and "In reference to your earlier comment about Goldman Sachs" etc. etc. They will then go on air and talk about how much money Obama got from Goldman Sachs, and it's quite possible (though not guaranteed) that it will play pretty well (i.e. badly).
The military recruitment stuff also does not sound good to most Americans (I personally applaud Kagan for what she did, one of the few good things I've seen from her), and it can be leveraged into a "this is typical Obama, appointing someone who hates the military" meme.
Of course Kagan will be confirmed barring some bombshell revelation, but I think it might be a more politically treacherous path than some seem to think. The piece at http://volokh.com/2010/05/07/closing-in-on-a-court-pick is interesting in terms of gaming out the politics a bit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rick Jones
May 10, 2010 2:47 PM in reply to Geoff Johnson
Obama and Senate leaders need to come out and talk about these two issues right now, loudly, and often. Get the facts in the media, preferably in the first 2 paragraphs of the stories. Try to beat down the lies with the truth before the lies become accepted truth by the talking heads and scribes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Geoff Johnson
May 10, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to Rick Jones
Agreed--this nomination battle is not about whether she gets on the court but all about who scores (or doesn't score) political points. The administration needs to be way out in front of this starting now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
May 10, 2010 2:42 PM
In other news...bears shit in the woods.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
minnesconsin
May 10, 2010 5:55 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
And Francisco Franco is still dead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sawgrass
May 10, 2010 2:48 PM
The garbage goes in, the garbage comes out. So quickly. Via ThinkProgress:
If the White House and Senate Democrats take aggressive action, they should be able to shut down this one-trick-pony argument pretty quickly.Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OhioMan
May 10, 2010 4:54 PM
Obstruction will only get the republicans so far. Saying "no" to everything is not the American way, and real Americans know it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
GTFOOH
May 10, 2010 7:17 PM in reply to OhioMan
Yea, this isn't an era of gay marriage and swifting boating. The American people know we have serious problems going on right now. Job, the economy, regulation of wall street, mining, offshore oil drilling... Just saying NO and running against Washington, is not going to be seen as leadership this time!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
labman57
May 10, 2010 8:16 PM
The Republican Party's opposition to Kagan is simply another in a long list of examples of their obstructionist philosophy during Obama's tenure in the White House.
Fundamentally, it's a decision in search of a rationale.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hodgepodge
May 11, 2010 10:25 AM
Kagan isn't a military veteran? Except for the retiring Stevens, none of the others are either, and it shouldn't matter anyway (unless SCOTUS is going to start conducting military tribunals). I'm willing to bet Levey isn't a veteran either, and these days it's a minority of Senators and Congresspersons who have have any military credentials. If she _did_ have military experience, they'd trash it anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
D Mac
May 11, 2010 12:58 PM
Republicans new Southern strategy: Clean the Damn Beaches,
I don't think the SCOTUS nomination is going to have much
of an effect on politics this summer, drill baby drill !!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
May 11, 2010 2:01 PM
THIS WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING NEW.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
May 11, 2010 2:10 PM
was it John McLame's former Adviser....if so, BETTER NOT LISTEN TO HIM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
May 11, 2010 6:13 PM
what a smug SOB.. I sure hope karma kicks his @$$, because he sure deserves it. This game playing crap in washington needs to stop. They are not there to fight, they are there to help the people of this country and to make laws so that we are all safe. THATS IT! I think we need to go back to the beginning, drop all of this crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Max Thrax
May 17, 2010 2:03 PM
I'll say it again, in 10 years no one in this country is going to want to identify themselves as 'white' out of sheer embarrassment.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tosh
June 6, 2010 2:08 AM
All of this MUST be conveyed by every Dem who goes on any talk show or does any interview. Point out over and over that having serious questions about a nominee is one thing, but delaying simply in order to serve your political agenda is a violation of the oath of office that every senator takes to 'well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.'
Enumerate all the proof (and be prepared to back it up) that this has been the Republican strategy since day one - point out the paucity of their alternative plans as further proof that they are not seeking to govern, but to obstruct governance.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?