It reminds me of the old saw about American democracy being the worst…except for all the alternatives. I don’t know if I believe that one necessarily, but I think Citizens United is more benign than any conceivable alternative. Because any conceivable alternative will not just surgically remove the yucky stuff and leave all other freedoms intact, with no unintended consequences. Best not to mess with the beautiful thing that is the First Amendment, IMO.
A letter I’m sending to my Republican U.S. Senator, Rob Portman, today:
*Dear Sen. Portman:
I was very sorry and disappointed to learn that you were backing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s intransigence in refusing to even consider a nomination to fill the vacant U.S. Supreme Court seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
I agree with former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by President Reagan, that the seat should not remain vacant for a year and that the Senate should fairly consider any nomination made by President Obama. The Democratic-controlled Senate confirmed Justice Anthony Kennedy, also appointed by President Reagan, early in 1988, an election year. There is no reason other than naked partisanship that the Republican-controlled Senate cannot take up an Obama nomination this year, including hearings and an up-or-down vote.
I hope you will change your mind, and look forward to your response.
Very truly yours,*
*Dear Elendil’s Heir,
You weren’t going to vote for me anyway and our great state has closed primaries. I remain
Very truly yours,
Sen. Robert Portman (R-vaguely not crazy).*
*Dear Sen. Portman:
You don’t know that about me, and there’s always November. I have written you other letters praising particular votes you cast or statements you made, but this time, no dice.
Thanks anyway.*
*Dear Mr. Heir:
We have ways of looking into these things.
Toodles,
Rob.*
The Republican intransigence just doesn’t make any sense. If they let an Obama nominee through this year, they would likely get a moderate. If they wait till next year the most likely outcome would be Clinton nominating a liberal to a Democratic senate. The next most likely outcome would be Trump nominating someone out of left field like Mark Cuban. Either way, blocking an Obama nominee just because Obama is doing the nominating doesn’t make sense. If the Republicans continue on this path I hope every Democrat running against an incumbent Republican for the senate this year beats them over the head with their obstructionism every chance they get. I think the only way this bunch of Republicans will learn a lesson is by loosing elections, and I’m hoping they loose plenty this fall.
PS. I know the obvious answer is that they are appealing to the Republican base. The problem with that strategy is the Republican base is no longer large enough to win national elections on it’s own.
Jeb Bush is not a clear counterexample, because the Presidency and high-profile Senate races give LOTS of coverage to major candidates, whether they have big pools of money or not. You will note I said that “especially in state and Congressional levels” in my post. Downballot candidates are especially prone to influence by Super PACs. What we are talking about here is potentially a permanent Republican majority in state houses and Congress, with the Democrats controlling only the Presidency and a few high-profile Senate seats … if that. Note also that SuperPACS can spend money on the ground game as well, with phone messages and paid door-to-door campaigners.
This is all entirely beside the point. The issue in Citizens United had nothing to do with government economic or fiscal policy.
Well, you have to look at voters. They tend to trend older. And the older voters tend to rely more on traditional media. Like TV and cable TV. That’s why the ads work. Millenials are much less influenced by such media. My son, who is a Millenial, does not even watch TV, period. Never has, really. Probably never will. But do you think the big money guys aren’t aware of this? Do you think they are not thinking about ways of choking and controlling the Internet so the opinions they favor get through and others don’t? They’ve got people who are just as capable of figuring these things out as we are, and unlike us, they have the money and influence to do something about it. Thinking they won’t, or won’t try, is naive.
No, it’s directly on point. Whatever the issue was, the effect was to give a huge advantage to corporations and the mega-wealthy in influencing US politics. There is no way to spin this as not being a economic issue. Do you think for a moment that the wealthy conservatives who have been given the equivalent of a 50 caliber belt-fed machine gun vs. our single shot muskets give a shit that the original issue before the court was not an economic one?
Sure they will, or will try. But we can’t take everything we don’t like and make it illegal without overly constraining civil liberties.
ETA: I was thinking the same about Portman. There must be an art to convincing a purple state senator that you’re actually a swing voter, but I’m not sure how you would best phrase it.
I guess that depends on whether you favor “one man one vote” or “one dollar one vote” … which is the world Citizens United is creating. I mean, if you LIKE oligarchy rather than democracy … have at, Hoss. Citizens United is your dream.
How do Republicans do that without losing face. We’ve learned from their numerous declarations that this is all about this principle that there is a tradition of not nominating anyone in an election year. Seems like that might possibly look like BS if all of a sudden they change their minds when it suits them.
I can’t type any slower to help you understand this, so I am at a loss at this point. Do you understand the difference between an “economic issue” and economic policy?
Citizens’ United had nothing to do with the government spending money.
(post shortened)
Who is this Obama (not Hairy Reed) nominee that you speak of?
The hypothetical one that Senate Republicans are issuing press releases about.
Eh, we’re not getting one until the Democrats have gotten full value out making McConnell say “nope!” to an array of potential moderate Republican candidates like Sandoval. Once the Republicans are firmly established in the public’s minds as a bunch of breath-holding toddlers, Obama will ramp it up with an actual nominee. Rinse, lather, repeat.
Politics is a fun game to watch as long as you don’t mind the millions of tax dollars they’re spending to play it.
As I’ve recently relocated my US residence to Florida I looked into contacting my new Senators on the subject. It turns out that one, Bill Nelson, is a Democrat (and former astronaut) who appears to be moderately liberal and so is probably already okay with considering a nominee when one emerges.
The other Senator is some guy who hasn’t been seen for months. Apparently he’s off doing a “thing” right now and is retiring at the end of term anyway, so I suppose there’s no point in writing to him.
We forced Obama to pick who we wanted him to pick - a Republican.
That’s not going to happen though. He was just a decoy and he just went on record that he wants his name out if consideration.