Where do you think he was planning to do with them, then? Were they for the family video collection?
True. Mourdock just has some kid who screwed up and posted all the videos publicly though.
Oh, stop it. That’s silly. There are much better ways than that.
He could certainly add them to his video collection but that would not be why he produced several responses to an unknow SC decision. The airwaves/internet will immediately be inundated with responses to whatever the SC decides. These immediate responses will all have been pre-planned.
The SC was asked to address 4 specific questions. Mathamatically-speaking, “IF” we only limited the SC to a simple yes or no (on or off, zero or one) response, which they never do, there would be 16 possible combinations from “all yes” (0000) to “all no” (1111). Add in the usual opposing opinions and the possibilities are almost endless.
“Like the vast majority of Hoosiers, Richard hopes the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare, which our opponent Joe Donnelly dutifully supported. But as the Boy Scouts say, ‘be prepared.’”
Mourdock isn’t the only one who is preparing multiple responses.
I understand that Joe Biden is coming out with his own line of “Sock Sauce” for those times when a politician simply can’t keep their foot out of their mouth.
It will be available in Regular, BBQ, and argyle. hehehe.
Au contraire - Biden has one and only one response ready for whatever the decision is:
“This is a big fuckin’ deal.”
Are you under the impression that the videos are some sort of legal analysis or point-by-point rebuttal? Mourdock, like most of the country, only really cares about one of the four questions.
The point is that preparing a video in which you display a visceral, emotional response to something is obviously cynical pandering if you do it before the thing happens.
The first question addressed by the SC was whether the SC had jurisdiction to decide this case. If the answer is “no”, there won’t be any other decisions.
“Pandering”? Politicians pander? I’m shocked, SHOCKED to learn that politicians pander to their constituates. Yes, Mourdock is pandering. So does Obama, Romney, Biden, Bloomburg (NYC), Imanuel (Chicago), Boehner, Pelosi, etc…
Are you under the impression that only Mourdock has prepared visceral responses?
I know what the questions are.
Yes, I’m under that impression. I haven’t seen them from anyone else, so I have no reason to believe they exist. Politicians who want to talk about things generally hold press conferences. Nobody gives a shit about their prepared videos except their campaign staff.
The videos could be used as political ads in his race.
It’s possible, but if so they’d presumably include the “I’m X and I approved this message” thing in them.
Just actually looked at them.
No way they are political ads. They’re poorly-made videos intended for his website.
I would not consider competent any politician who did not have responses prepared covering all of the possibilities. The only noteworthy point here is that somehow the responses got leaked in advance, which is a fairly minor deal in the grand scheme of things.
For comparison, Nixon had a speech written and ready to go in case disaster had struck Apollo 11 and the astronauts weren’t able to come home. Of course he didn’t want it released in advance, because that’d be a major buzzkill. But if it had come to that, it’d be even worse to not have anything to say.
(emphasis added) I see what you did there. 
Now that you mention it, so do I. That was completely unintentional. But I have a policy of retroactively intending all puns.
This article touches on why I think it would be a partisan move to rule against the ACA
“I continue to find it extremely unlikely that Justices Roberts and Kennedy will support a 5-4 decision that has such an insubstantial basis in 75 years of Supreme Court case law,” said Yale University Professor Bruce Ackerman, the only respondent who said the court is very likely to uphold the insurance-coverage requirement.
…
“It’s become just a very partisan battle cry on behalf of an argument which a few years ago was thought to be completely bogus,” Fried, who represented Republican President Ronald Reagan’s administration at the Supreme Court as U.S. solicitor general from 1985 to 1989, said in a telephone interview. “For objective observers on all sides, this was thought to be a lousy argument and the only people who were making it were sort of the wing nuts.”
Essentially my POV is seen in the above quotes.
Meh. I don’t even think it’s embarrassing. He shows consistency across the different versions, and he’s clearly trying to look prepared and on message. It shows he’s not an amateur.
Well, I guess most political challengers are technically amateurs, but, yeah, he knows what he’s doing.
When Bowers v. Hardwick was decided, objective observers on all sides thought it was unlikely that the court would revisit that issue.
But they did.
And you tell me: was it partisan that the Court overruled Bowers the way it did?
Are you asking if it was partisan that Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas voted to uphold a law that denied homosexuals a right of privacy? Or that the “liberal wing” joined by Kennedy and O’Connor voted to strike it down? Either way, it sounds fairly partisan.