Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
BigSteelThrill

Bernie Sanders HQ! *A decent human being.

Recommended Posts

Clinton has Michelle Kwan speak at Boise St tonight. No numbers, but it looks like the same venue Cruz used on campus and he had a 1,000.   Sanders will fill up 10,000 seat Taco Bell Arena on Monday, the day before Idaho caucus 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, cstu said:

What I'm saying is that Republicans are pretending to support Bernie the same way they did with Nader.

Did you read the earlier Republican quote?

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess what I'm asking is, do you think John McCain doesn't actually think the amendment he and Sanders worked on together was the first real reform of the V.A. ever?  Do you think McCain is feigning support for his own veteran's healthcare amendment to make Sanders look better when talking to a reporter? One he worked very hard on with Sanders and is absolutely very proud of?

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Henry Ford said:

I guess what I'm asking is, do you think John McCain doesn't actually think the amendment he and Sanders worked on together was the first real reform of the V.A. ever?  Do you think McCain is feigning support for his own veteran's healthcare amendment to make Sanders look better when talking to a reporter? One he worked very hard on with Sanders and is absolutely very proud of?

McCain and other Republicans have been planning this tear down for years. Brilliant foresight on their part. I assume we'll soon start hearing them heap praise on Hillary in a continuation of this brilliant strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AnonymousBob said:

McCain and other Republicans have been planning this tear down for years. Brilliant foresight on their part. I assume we'll soon start hearing them heap praise on Hillary in a continuation of this brilliant strategy.

I mean, who's the ####ing conspiracy theorist here, the one who thinks the editor at the NYT is changing an article hours after Sanders himself shared it and failed to even note in the article that it had been changed, or the one who thinks John McCain doesn't really like his own Amendment and is trying to make Sanders look good so he can beat Hillary and the Republicans can take the White House (despite the fact that Sanders polls better against every single Republican and has for months)? Because the first one actually happened. 

Edited by Henry Ford
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, timschochet said:

Suppose Hillary doesn't run to the right but retains her current positions through November? Would you reconsider? 

You'd have to ignore the fact it's already begun to go down this path.  What's the point of the question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AnonymousBob said:

You're getting played if you believe this.  Maurile just pretended to post that to rile up Bernie supporters.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Henry Ford said:

I mean, who's the ####ing conspiracy theorist here, the one who thinks the editor at the NYT is changing an article hours after Sanders himself shared it and failed to even note in the article that it had been changed, or the one who thinks John McCain doesn't really like his own Amendment and is trying to make Sanders look good so he can beat Hillary and the Republicans can take the White House (despite the fact that Sanders polls better against every single Republican and has for months)? Because the first one actually happened. 

Both are conspiracy theories, but at least AutoBob's was tongue in cheek.  I think some of the Bernie folks actually believe the NYT editor changed the article for political reasons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, tommyGunZ said:

Both are conspiracy theories, but at least AutoBob's was tongue in cheek.  I think some of the Bernie folks actually believe the NYT editor changed the article for political reasons. 

Perhaps you missed where cstu argued that's what actually happened.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AnonymousBob said:

Taibbi has always been a smart guy.  Gee, I wonder if there's an appetite for among Rolling Stone readers for a story about how the most influential news source in the US is in the bag for Hillary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tommyGunZ said:

Taibbi has always been a smart guy.  Gee, I wonder if there's an appetite for among Rolling Stone readers for a story about how the most influential news source in the US is in the bag for Hillary?

Did you read the two versions of the article?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure reads like a management decision to avoid giving Sanders too much credit rather than something an editor would do to improve the story.  

OTOH the Times has been brutal to Hillary prior to this -- more or less repeating Republican talking points as "news".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

Did you read the two versions of the article?

of course not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wdcrob said:

Sure reads like a management decision to avoid giving Sanders too much credit rather than something an editor would do to improve the story.  

OTOH the Times has been brutal to Hillary prior to this -- more or less repeating Republican talking points as "news".

Assume you are talking about the server thing?  I'd agree.  It's baffling how every single "news" source skipped over the important part of the server fiasco and went directly to email content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, pantagrapher said:

We're not talking about an NBA team tanking a season for draft picks.

No, we're talking about a Revolution. Know any great countries that were born that way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Assume you are talking about the server thing?  I'd agree.  It's baffling how every single "news" source skipped over the important part of the server fiasco and went directly to email content.

You've made this point repeatedly, and it may have merit.

But the larger question here is whether or not the New York Times in the last year has been friendly or unfriendly to Hillary Clinton, and to me there's no question that the answer is unfriendly. Especially during the summer and  fall, day after day article after article highlighted and magnified Hillary's supposed shortcomings as a candidate and made a criminal indictment for wrongdoing seem imminent. Even after the newspaper's editors half-heartedly and unenthusiastically endorsed her, they continued to run first page stories questioning her popularity, competence, and ethics. 

To suggest now that this same newspaper is "in the bag" for Hillary and is deliberately changing stories about Bernie Sanders in order to protect Hillary seems highly implausible to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:
23 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Assume you are talking about the server thing?  I'd agree.  It's baffling how every single "news" source skipped over the important part of the server fiasco and went directly to email content.

You've made this point repeatedly, and it may have merit.

But the larger question here is whether or not the New York Times in the last year has been friendly or unfriendly to Hillary Clinton, and to me there's no question that the answer is unfriendly. Especially during the summer and  fall, day after day article after article highlighted and magnified Hillary's supposed shortcomings as a candidate and made a criminal indictment for wrongdoing seem imminent. Even after the newspaper's editors half-heartedly and unenthusiastically endorsed her, they continued to run first page stories questioning her popularity, competence, and ethics. 

To suggest now that this same newspaper is "in the bag" for Hillary and is deliberately changing stories about Bernie Sanders in order to protect Hillary seems highly implausible to me. 

You're barking up the wrong tree.  I didn't suggest it...not even close.  However, there's no denying the story was changed.  Your guess is as good as mine (well, maybe not AS good, but close enough ;)  ) as to why it was changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, SkyRattlers said:

No, we're talking about a Revolution. Know any great countries that were born that way?

Not sure you're following the conversation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, wdcrob said:

Sure reads like a management decision to avoid giving Sanders too much credit rather than something an editor would do to improve the story.  

OTOH the Times has been brutal to Hillary prior to this -- more or less repeating Republican talking points as "news".

I've made no statements as to what their motivations were, but the way they changed the story after Bernie's campaign shared it without even indicating that it had been changed was ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You've made this point repeatedly, and it may have merit.

But the larger question here is whether or not the New York Times in the last year has been friendly or unfriendly to Hillary Clinton, and to me there's no question that the answer is unfriendly. Especially during the summer and  fall, day after day article after article highlighted and magnified Hillary's supposed shortcomings as a candidate and made a criminal indictment for wrongdoing seem imminent. Even after the newspaper's editors half-heartedly and unenthusiastically endorsed her, they continued to run first page stories questioning her popularity, competence, and ethics. 

To suggest now that this same newspaper is "in the bag" for Hillary and is deliberately changing stories about Bernie Sanders in order to protect Hillary seems highly implausible to me. 

There's a big leap between "sandbagging Sanders" with an article and "sandbagging Sanders because the entire organization is in the bag for Hillary and changing stories to protect her."

Besides, when asked if Hillary or her people had reached out and asked the editors to change the article, one editor said he doesn't remember that happening.  That should be the end of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, cstu said:

 

17 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

A Nordic person explains why it's not homogeneity (still waiting, people) but self-interest that makes their system so attractive to Scandanavians.

:goodposting:

Quote

The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship. Rather, Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble. This is what Americans fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch services for me.

 

Lol at the author trying to say that Sweden isn't any more homogeneous than the US.  

This is what she fails to understand- people here want all kinds of "free" stuff, but they want someone else to pay for it.  The "millionaires and billionaires" and "fair share" rhetoric is pretty firmly entrenched now, but the reality is that everyone will have to pay more in taxes if we want all of these things, just like they do in the Nordic countries.  I'd imagine Bernie realizes this, but it's an impossible sell politically- look at how people freaked out over the higher taxes in his plan, even though it would have paid for their own health insurance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bananafish said:

One of the things I love about Mr. Henry Ford (among many) is his systematic and dispassionate dismembering of antagonists. I would just call them idiots (which is childish, I admit), but his approach is much more effective.

:goodposting: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, humpback said:

Lol at the author trying to say that Sweden isn't any more homogeneous than the US.  

This is what she fails to understand- people here want all kinds of "free" stuff, but they want someone else to pay for it.  The "millionaires and billionaires" and "fair share" rhetoric is pretty firmly entrenched now, but the reality is that everyone will have to pay more in taxes if we want all of these things, just like they do in the Nordic countries.  I'd imagine Bernie realizes this, but it's an impossible sell politically- look at how people freaked out over the higher taxes in his plan, even though it would have paid for their own health insurance.

OECD says Sweden by capita has the 10th biggest immigrant population

Wiki states one in five living in Sweden either born outside Sweden or born from Parents who were

Not as homogeneous as you think

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bananafish said:

You mean they aren't all blonde bikini models and meatball shapers? Seems made up.

Some of those 'meatballs' are falafels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, humpback said:

Lol at the author trying to say that Sweden isn't any more homogeneous than the US.  

This is what she fails to understand- people here want all kinds of "free" stuff, but they want someone else to pay for it.  The "millionaires and billionaires" and "fair share" rhetoric is pretty firmly entrenched now, but the reality is that everyone will have to pay more in taxes if we want all of these things, just like they do in the Nordic countries.  I'd imagine Bernie realizes this, but it's an impossible sell politically- look at how people freaked out over the higher taxes in his plan, even though it would have paid for their own health insurance.

I think she realizes "it" (that we want the free stuff without increased taxes), she's just trying to explain why paying for it can be satisfactory if you're getting good stuff in return. She feels like (and is apparently not the exception) she gets really good services and support in return for her higher tax payments, services and support that allow her to pursue capitalistic opportunities to the best of her skills and industry. It's a good argument but, indeed, a tough sell here. I know because I'm trying to sell it on message boards all the time.

I continue to wait for someone to explain the connection between homogeneity and successful social programs like UHC because my simple mind isn't grasping it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, pantagrapher said:

Not that it matters much at this point, but I think this is a bad move: Sanders: I'd Ask Obama To Withdraw SCOTUS Pick If I'm Elected

I don't.  If Sanders has the chance to ask him to do that, it's November 9, less than 90 days from swearing in.  If the Senate hasn't confirmed him by then, they're hoping for a Republican win and going to confirm him if they don't get it.

If Obama plans to withdraw him in the event of a Sanders victory, they lose the ability to do that.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:
1 hour ago, pantagrapher said:

Not that it matters much at this point, but I think this is a bad move: Sanders: I'd Ask Obama To Withdraw SCOTUS Pick If I'm Elected

I don't.  If Sanders has the chance to ask him to do that, it's November 9, less than 90 days from swearing in.  If the Senate hasn't confirmed him by then, they're hoping for a Republican win and going to confirm him if they don't get it.

If Obama plans to withdraw him in the event of a Sanders victory, they lose the ability to do that.

I agree with pantagrapher.

I think the whole argument that the next President rather than the current President should make the pick is distasteful. When the Republicans make that argument, it is transparently partisan. If their own party had the White House, they would never make that argument. But here is Bernie, with his own party in the White House, making the same argument. That gives cover to the Republicans for what ought to make them look bad, but Bernie is providing direct evidence that "the other side does it too" (in addition to the evidence that Obama and Biden have both done it in the past), which seems to justify the Republicans' otherwise odious position.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I agree with pantagrapher.

I think the whole argument that the next President rather than the current President should make the pick is distasteful. When the Republicans make that argument, it is transparently partisan. If their own party had the White House, they would never make that argument. But here is Bernie, with his own party in the White House, and he is making the same argument. That gives cover to the Republicans for what ought to make them look bad, but here is Bernie providing direct evidence that "the other side does it too" (in addition to the evidence that Obama and Biden have both done it in the past), which seems to justify the Republicans' otherwise odious position.

He didn't say the President wasn't allowed to make the pick or shouldn't.  He said he'd request the ability to put someone uber-liberal in if elected. He also said Garland is a good pick, he supports the President, and Obama has every right and responsibility to put a lock up for confirmation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I don't.  If Sanders has the chance to ask him to do that, it's November 9, less than 90 days from swearing in.  If the Senate hasn't confirmed him by then, they're hoping for a Republican win and going to confirm him if they don't get it.

If Obama plans to withdraw him in the event of a Sanders victory, they lose the ability to do that.

If Obama were to withdraw the nomination on his own, that's one thing. I doubt he would. It's not his style. He fulfilled his constitutional duty and I suspect he will advocate—even after the election—that Garland get his fair hearing through the process, as he should. The problem is that if Bernie believes Obama fulfilled his duty and his nomination did not violate some mythical rule, what grounds would he have to ask him to withdraw it? He would basically be acknowledging that the GOP was correct and that the next president should make the nomination.

I realize this is a problem for liberals who wanted to see a more liberal nominee. And I know it would be gratifying to see Clinton or Sanders nominate a super libel justice to really stick it to the GOP. But I think that by doing that they would have to first find a way to rationalize taking that nomination away from Obama. Sanders can ask, but I doubt Obama would withdraw Garland. And frankly, I don't think Sanders should ask.

I suspect Clinton, as much as we imagine she'd stick it to the GOP, realizes this and would back up Obama's nomination of Garland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pantagrapher said:

And I know it would be gratifying to see Clinton or Sanders nominate a super libel justice to really stick it to the GOP.

I think it is Trump who wants to nominate a Super Libel Justice.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pantagrapher said:

If Obama were to withdraw the nomination on his own, that's one thing. I doubt he would. It's not his style. He fulfilled his constitutional duty and I suspect he will advocate—even after the election—that Garland get his fair hearing through the process, as he should. The problem is that if Bernie believes Obama fulfilled his duty and his nomination did not violate some mythical rule, what grounds would he have to ask him to withdraw it? He would basically be acknowledging that the GOP was correct and that the next president should make the nomination.

I realize this is a problem for liberals who wanted to see a more liberal nominee. And I know it would be gratifying to see Clinton or Sanders nominate a super libel justice to really stick it to the GOP. But I think that by doing that they would have to first find a way to rationalize taking that nomination away from Obama. Sanders can ask, but I doubt Obama would withdraw Garland. And frankly, I don't think Sanders should ask.

I suspect Clinton, as much as we imagine she'd stick it to the GOP, realizes this and would back up Obama's nomination of Garland.

They aren't taking anything away from him.  He said if he's elected, he's ask Obama to withdraw the nom to punish the GOP with a super liberal pick.  

You're talking about a scenario where the Republicans haven't confirmed the nominee in the next eight months.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is currently zero pressure on the Republicans to confirm Garland.  All they have to do is wait it out and confirm him if Sanders or Clinton gets elected, refuse to hold a vote if a Republican gets elected. It's an absolute win-win for them 

Sanders' statement at least puts a tiny bit ofpressure on.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

They aren't taking anything away from him.  He said if he's elected, he's ask Obama to withdraw the nom to punish the GOP with a super liberal pick.  

You're talking about a scenario where the Republicans haven't confirmed the nominee in the next eight months.  

Bernie would be asking for something instead of simply acknowledging it's Obama's. What grounds does he have to make that request?

And yes, we're talking about a scenario where the Republicans haven't confirmed the nominee in the next eight months.

Edited by pantagrapher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pantagrapher said:

Bernie would be asking for something instead of simply acknowledging it's Obama's. What grounds does he have to make that request?

And yes, we're talking about a scenario where the Republicans haven't confirmed the nominee in the next eight months.

The sole grounds for the request is to punish the Republican Congress for playing this game with the Supreme Court nomination.  If they truly wanted to tank the nominee, they could block him by voting "no." They're seeing whether they can do better. He's explaining to them through the press why that may not be a very good idea.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

He didn't say the President wasn't allowed to make the pick or shouldn't. 

Granted, Bernie's position and the Republicans' position aren't exactly the same.

Bernie's is arguably worse. (Also arguably not as bad, but I'll leave that argument aside for now.)

The Republicans are saying: "Obama has the right to nominate someone, but we think he ought to let the next President make the pick instead (whoever the next President is)."

Bernie is saying: "Obama has the right to nominate someone, but I think he ought to let the next President make the pick instead provided that the next President is me."

The second one seems even more self-interested than the first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

There is currently zero pressure on the Republicans to confirm Garland.  All they have to do is wait it out and confirm him if Sanders or Clinton gets elected, refuse to hold a vote if a Republican gets elected. It's an absolute win-win for them 

Sanders' statement at least puts a tiny bit ofpressure on.

There's tremendous pressure for republicans to put Garland through the process. The issue could flip the Senate and hurt them in the House. If they confirm him after the election, it looks even worse for them, because it truly gives up the game. And like I said: Hillary will simply say the nomination was Obama's and the process should continue with Garland. I know this is boring, but it's what will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

Granted, Bernie's position and the Republicans' position aren't exactly the same.

Bernie's is arguably worse. (Also arguably not as bad, but I'll leave that argument aside for now.)

The Republicans are saying: "Obama has the right to nominate someone, but we think he ought to let the next President make the pick instead (whoever the next President is)."

Bernie is saying: "Obama has the right to nominate someone, but I think he ought to let the next President make the pick instead provided that the next President is me."

The second one seems even more self-interested than the first.

No, he isn't saying "he ought to let the next President pick provided that next President is me" he is saying "he ought not let the Congress play 'Let's Make a Deal' by waiting to see what's behind door number 2 before choosing."

If the Senate takes twice as long as it's ever taken in history to confirm a SC nominee, that's exactly what they're doing.

Edited by Henry Ford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, msommer said:

The largest number of "foreign born" are from Finland, which isn't exactly the polar opposite.  I'd also point out that the percentage has been growing recently (not really surprising), and it was much lower when these policies were implemented.

In any event, you obviously have to look beyond the foreign born population % to see how homogeneous a country is.  If you compare things like ethnicity, race, religion, language, culture, etc., it's obvious that the US is far more diverse than Sweden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pantagrapher said:

There's tremendous pressure for republicans to put Garland through the process. The issue could flip the Senate and hurt them in the House. If they confirm him after the election, it looks even worse for them, because it truly gives up the game. And like I said: Hillary will simply say the nomination was Obama's and the process should continue with Garland. I know this is boring, but it's what will happen.

I disagree that there is tremendous pressure, because the entire Republican base and every Republican candidate are telling them not to confirm.  If they wait until after the election, they can say "oh, well, we'd rather him than someone that liberal Hillary or Bernie would put up" and they still have plenty of time to confirm before swearing in happens. Or they get what they want.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

No, he isn't saying "he ought to let the next President pick provided that next President is me" he is saying "he ought not let the Congress play 'Let's Make a Deal' by waiting to see what's behind door number 2 before choosing."

If the Senate takes twice as long as it's ever taken in history to confirm a SC nomineez that's exactly what they're doing.

That's a reasonable way to look at it, but I still disagree that it's appropriate.

Garland is a good nomination, and it was Obama's nomination to make. Obama would be wrong to withdraw the nomination for political gamesmanship purposes, and Bernie would be wrong to ask Obama to do so.

I think judicial nominations should be free of that sort of gamesmanship even if any particular instance of it can be framed as retaliatory or preventive or whatever. The Republicans are being lame. That doesn't mean that Democrats should sink to their level. (I realize that I'm unrealistic about this.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

That's a reasonable way to look at it, but I still disagree that it's appropriate.

Garland is a good nomination, and it was Obama's nomination to make. Obama would be wrong to withdraw the nomination for political gamesmanship purposes, and Bernie would be wrong to ask Obama to do so.

I think judicial nominations should be free of that sort of gamesmanship even if any particular instance of it can be framed as retaliatory or preventive or whatever. The Republicans are being lame. That doesn't mean that Democrats should sink to their level. (I realize that I'm unrealistic about this.)

I think Garland is a fine nominee, but I also don't think Obama appoints him in a scenario where the GOP isn't being a bunch of obstructionist ###holes.  He's a 63-year-old who agreed with the majority to strike down expenditure limits in federal elections for non-PACs. He's a compromise pick.  And if the GOP won't take the compromise unless they get to see if they can do better, the compromise should be off the table if they can't do better.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, humpback said:

The largest number of "foreign born" are from Finland, which isn't exactly the polar opposite.  I'd also point out that the percentage has been growing recently (not really surprising), and it was much lower when these policies were implemented.

In any event, you obviously have to look beyond the foreign born population % to see how homogeneous a country is.  If you compare things like ethnicity, race, religion, language, culture, etc., it's obvious that the US is far more diverse than Sweden.

I don\t think you have actually rebutted anything I said. 

You may have rebutted something you think I said, but that's on you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Henry Ford said:

I think Garland is a fine nominee, but I also don't think Obama appoints him in a scenario where the GOP isn't being a bunch of obstructionist ###holes.  He's a 63-year-old who agreed with the majority to strike down expenditure limits in federal elections for non-PACs. He's a compromise pick.  And if the GOP won't take the compromise unless they get to see if they can do better, the compromise should be off the table if they can't do better.

I don't know whether he was a compromise pick. He seems like a perfectly good candidate -- the kind of candidate who should be strongly considered even if compromise were not a factor.

If he was a compromise pick, maybe it was a mistake for Obama to compromise; but I think it's a mistake that he should have to live with at this point. It rubs me the wrong way to withdraw the nomination of a perfectly good candidate just for the sake of sticking it to the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't know whether he was a compromise pick. He seems like a perfectly good candidate -- the kind of candidate who should be strongly considered even if compromise were not a factor.

If he was a compromise pick, I think it was a mistake for Obama to compromise; but I think it's a mistake that he should have to live with at this point. It rubs me the wrong way to withdraw the nomination of a perfectly good candidate just for the sake of sticking it to the other side.

I think a lot of pundits saw the nomination and wanted to turn it into some brilliant gambit by Obama. "Aha! He stuck it to them by picking the oldest, most boring guy possible!" But like you I wonder if this was not simply the guy Obama thought would make the best Supreme Court justice, that there's no gambit to this at all. Ideological affinity is one thing, but there's more to the job than that.

And sorry, I'll take this to the SCOTUS thread next time.

Edited by pantagrapher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Maurile Tremblay said:

I don't know whether he was a compromise pick. He seems like a perfectly good candidate -- the kind of candidate who should be strongly considered even if compromise were not a factor.

If he was a compromise pick, I think it was a mistake for Obama to compromise; but I think it's a mistake that he should have to live with at this point. It rubs me the wrong way to withdraw the nomination of a perfectly good candidate just for the sake of sticking it to the other side.

Orrin Hatch has spent the better part of a decade saying if Obama nominated Garland, he'd help him get confirmed, including mentioning a week ago that Obama could nominate him, but he would bet Obama wouldn't because he wanted to make it a partisan issue.  Garland made sense six or seven years ago, he's looking at a few presidential terms at most on the bench at this point.

It's already political gamesmanship, and has been since McConnell made his announcement. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say what you want about Sanders, he is extremely familiar with how to play the political game.  He doesn't play bait-and-switch like *ahem* some other candidates, he plays chicken.  Which is how he can be effective, bipartisan, and still honest.  When he says "I will request the ability to make them pay for their obstructionism" it's going to give some Republicans pause. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.