# The way things are looking why isn't the GOP scrambling to approve SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 15, 2016, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443 "2016-06-15T17:55:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 10:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/41 "2016-06-27T10:35:10Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 911 would have been more likely to be caught, because Gore gave a fuck, and wasn’t sitting back chuckling about how awesome he was gonna cowboy the economy, _hyuk!_ Even if they had stopped it, Al Qaeda would have just hit us again later, because foiled attacks don’t invoke retaliation. But it’s unlikely they would have. An engaged President can’t find out things if his agencies can’t even share intelligence. > [@](#): > > That is not accurate. There has been no declaration that there will never be ground troops ever, no matter the scope of the conflict. Now that you know that’s wrong, hopefully you won’t repeat it. The last time a Democratic President committed ground troops was LBJ. Since then, it’s been airpower only, with ground troops only put at risk for “peacekeeping”. Obama has resolutely ruled out ground troops to fight ISIS, although he has been putting them in piecemeal on the downlow, whlie insisting they aren’t actually ground troops. The point is that the Democratic base demands no wars, but will accept wars that aren’t quite wars because few or no body bags come home. That limits Democratic Presidents’ options and would have limited Gore’s response to 9/11. > [@](#): > > Obama is fantastically good on national security. And McCain would have had us at war with Iran, because McCain is a chucklefuck. It’s certainly not a foregone conclusion that it would have been a Dem lock, but they certainly would have been superior, simply on the basis of having policy based on reality, than what the GOP would have pushed upon us. We’re not interested for the purpose of this line of discussion on whether there’s some objective measure of a President being “good”. What matters for the purposes of predicting election is how the public perceives the President. And the public wants more from Obama on ISIS than we’ve been seeing. The public trusts freakin’ Donald Trump more on fighting terrorism than Hillary Clinton: [http://pollingreport.com/wh16.htm](http://pollingreport.com/wh16.htm) And that’s worse than it looks since Trump is the worst Republican ever and Clinton has a stronger reputation than most Democrats on national security issues. Put a more normal Republican up against a more normal Democrat in a time when national security is a top issue and the Republican wins. As a matter of fact, there hasn’t been a single race since Vietnam that a Democrat has won when national security has been a top campaign issue, with possibly the exception of 2008 thanks to GWB screwing it all up. But now Democrats are in charge and doing less than the public demands, entrenching the public view that Democrats are weak on national security. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 10:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/42 "2016-06-27T10:51:44Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The last time a party got three straight terms was nearly 70 years ago. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > :dubious: > > It is a wonder though that many Republicans forget about the three consecutive terms Republicans got with Reagan and Bush father about 30 years ago. That doesn’t count since Reagan wasn’t really all there. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 11:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/43 "2016-06-27T11:02:44Z")
Sorry, should have said more than three straight terms. Clinton will have an uphill battle winning a fourth term for her party, although given her past performance once in office she may do fine. Plus she might draw Ted Cruz, which would be another big help to her. But this idea that Republicans won’t win for a generation is nonsense. Things are always changing. Europe is moving to the right. I don’t think we’re going to keep on being more left than them, especially since Democrats seem determined to not heed the warning signs just as the european left didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/44 "2016-06-27T14:50:21Z")
Yes, I agree “for a generation” is more than can be confidently predicted. Unexpected events can intervene, and the Democrats are proven masters at snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The GOP is in a grand reshuffle of what they are all about that started at the end of the GWB years and is still not over, but that does not completely cripple them. > [@adaher](#): > > . > The last time a Democratic President committed ground troops was LBJ. Since then, it’s been airpower only, with ground troops only put at risk for “peacekeeping”. Obama has resolutely ruled out ground troops to fight ISIS, although he has been putting them in piecemeal on the downlow, whlie insisting they aren’t actually ground troops. Hmmm… You saying he’s doing it more the pre-Tonkin-Gulf way (“advisors”)? ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/45 "2016-06-27T15:19:47Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Two were stolen? I’ll give you one. And without that “stolen” election, the Democrats would be blamed for the housing crisis and their lack of response to 9/11. Not having to take responsibility for 2001-2008 is the best thing to ever happen to the party. No shit. Thanks, Dubya! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/46 "2016-06-27T18:44:18Z")
> [@bengangmo](#): > > Same for the housing crisis - there were plenty of indicators that could have been picked up prior to the meltdown without anything extordinary There would’ve had to have been a series of highly-restrictive regulations in order to curtail the greed of Wall Street, banks, and individual mortgage brokers and borrowers. There’s no chance Gore or Congress would’ve had the political will to pull that off in the face of then-recent deregulation. The housing bubble was bound to burst regardless. ---
**Author:** ![Lok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e8c25b/32.png) [@Lok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lok)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2016, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443/47 "2016-06-27T18:55:52Z")
> [@Siam\_Sam](#): > > That doesn’t count since Reagan wasn’t really all there. 😉 Hey! Nancy was all there 8 years! With her astrologer even! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-way-things-are-looking-why-isnt-the-gop-scrambling-to-approve-scotus-nominee-merrick-garland/757443.md?page=2)