I believe that’s his story: that he saw, first-hand, what happens when a guy gets investigated and spends key presidentin’ time playing defendant; and that caused him to realize, now that Obama is president, I want to advocate for a change in the law so a commander-in-chief can make decisions when minutes count and doesn’t have to busy himself with a headache like I could tell you tales about.
Okay, sure, he can make that argument. But any Dem senator worth her cafeteria pass should be able to tear it to shreds. Turn this into an inquisition on the Mueller investigation and things could get juicy.
I agree. I think that one way you fire voters up about issues is, as shown by the GOP’s example of the past 2 decades, you show that you as a party are fired up enough that you won’t compromise.
The Democratic Party doesn’t stand behind it’s own issues; why would I seek them to stand behind me on my issues?
Still, Dem senators should be able to make a pretty good case that the current president is in the crosshairs of a serious investigation, and isn’t it convenient that he’s nominated someone who just happened to come around to thinking presidents should be shielded from such investigations?
And they can still brand every Republican who supports this nomination as a hypocrite, since their party so gleefully investigated a former president for much slighter reasons.
Make this nomination process a referendum on Trump’s obstruction. Look how far he’ll go to protect himself! What on earth is he so afraid will come to light?
It’s legitimate to ask what experiences in the Bush Administration may have helped inspire his newly-minted belief that Presidents–and presumably Vice Presidents?–should not be bothered with investigations into such minutiae as lies about yellow-cake and such.
In fact, it’s perfectly legitimate for Congressional Democrats to ask questions about any or all of the documents generated by Judge Kavanaugh over the years. Note, for comparison, that during the confirmation process for Justice Elena Kagan, over 160,000 pages of records were requested for review by the Senate–and that was just from her four years working for the Clinton White House:
Why shouldn’t Kavanaugh’s work for Bush and for the Starr investigation receive the same level of scrutiny?
And, yes: the scrutiny should highlight that one little distinction between Kavanaugh and the other Federalist-Society/Heritage Foundation-vetted candidates: the opinions he’s expressed relating to the question:
Is a President above the law?
Yes, Kavanaugh’s consistently deferential stance toward the rights of corporations over individuals should be kept in the spotlight. Yes, Kavanaugh’s record on women’s reproductive issues and civil rights should have a major place in confirmation hearings, and in the public debate.
But Congressional Democrats should highlight the question: was this man chosen because he could be counted on to help Trump escape justice?
So they should continue the strategy of the past 20 years, even tho it’s a losing strategy. We know it’s a losing strategy: look at the makeup of Congress, the nations Governors, state legislatures, etc. All GOP dominated, and heavily.
Why do you advocate continuation of a losing strategy?
How’s that working the past 20 years? :dubious:
Another losing strategy. You seriously overestimate the critical thinking skills and desires of the American public that made the Kardashians famous and important (they secure pardons from the POTUS now, remember?) and elevated sweatpants and clogs to a national fashion statement, I think.
I have never once advocated for any form of dirty politics, so this is a no-go for discussion.
Pithy but I think you’re still ignoring (and by that I mean not considering) certain points (which is co-mingled with your reference to “dirty politics”). It’s like you have a blind spot about how to be strong about a good goal; as if only evil goals can have real strength behind them or something.
Well, that’s what I get for trusting NEWSWEEK: “Writing for the Minnesota Law Review in 2012, in an article titled ‘Separation of Powers During the Forty-Fourth Presidency and Beyond,’ Kavanaugh said his experience working for the Bush White House made him realize being president is ‘far more difficult than any other civilian position in government.’”
OMG what a crock of shit. Like he had no idea, while he was trying to remove Clinton from office for lying about a blowjob, that being president was hard?
No…the Dems shouldn’t vote to confirm. They should put up a unified front to oppose the confirmation. There are times to concede and conciliate and times to fight, and right now, at this time the Dems should be fighting this administration on each and every thing it tries to do. And they should say why. This isn’t just a tit for tat strike back because of Obama going back and forth to Bush I, it’s a structured and open eyed refusal to deal with an administration that is taking this country off a cliff.
I’m not a Dem, so grain of salt, but I think this is the time to show their true metal and fight, not cave in.
Yes. It’s an opportunity to both show our backbone and demonstrate that we’re the adults. Make this nomination a 100-vote referendum on every way this administration flouts the rule of law, up to and most especially including Trump’s self-dealing and obstructions. If we lose (and we probably will), at least we show that we’re not just holding our breath until we turn blue, but that our reasons for standing our ground concern the rights and future of every voter.
That is not a good analogy. They were voting FOR something, doing their jobs, advocating for their constituents (however misguided). That’s what voters like to see.
I don’t think voters want to see gridlock and obstructionism. And don’t get me wrong, the Republicans are masters of obstructionism, but voting to abolish Obamacare is not an example of that. Refusing to fund Obamacare after it’s been passed would be obstructionism; refusing to enforce various aspects of Obamacare would be obstructionism, but attempting to repeal it is opposition, not obstructionism, and the difference is not subtle.
And I now see that I wrote a terrible title for this thread. I did not mean to imply that Dems should vote for Kavanaugh. That would indeed be rolling over. I meant that Dems should not obstruct the process with delaying tactics, which is what many are advocating.
By all means, let the Dems vote unanimously against whoever Trump nominates for anything. Let them vigorously debate his qualifications. But don’t put up a bunch of stupid delaying tactics that do nothing but piss off Dem and Rep voters alike.
I entirely agree, as I said in my previous post. I apologize to one and all who thought I was saying Dems should vote for Kavanaugh. Of course they shouldn’t. What I was trying to say was that they should oppose, but not obstruct. Delaying tactics can only postpone the inevitable, and will hurt them at the polls.
