Vox Blogoli 2.2: Charge!
Here's the current shape of the Grant v. McClellan GOP judicial strategy battleground:
GrabAByte wants to see the GOP "just do" the nuclear option, if only to see a Klansman's head explode. (Sorry---no permalink).
MDV Outlook thinks there will be a battle, and like the Washingtonians who once came out to view an anticipated Civil War skirmish, it should be entertaining.
The View from the Holy Coast yells "Fight! Fight!"
Screaming Diatribe demands Democrats surrender, and doesn't think the GOP needs to change the rules to win.
TBFKADVK says, simply, "Grant!"
Elgin Tyrell has a great photo illustration up which frames the debate nicely.
Ace of Trump says fortune favors the bold and Janice Brown should be the first battle.
California Mafia thinks--gasp!---Arlen Specter is right, at least about depoliticization of the process.
The New Federalist Papers sees no alternative---Grant it must be for the GOP.
The Larsonian says the Senate GOP is too nice---McClellanesque, one might say.
The Regulator posits the problem with a GOP stand---looming budget battles, no pressure from Dubya, and no electoral consequences if Frist opens his fist on this one.
Redford Outpost wants to let the public decide.
Poor Country Boy paints the picture simply: since the Democrats can't win electoral majorities otherwise, the judiciary is their last redoubt---they must be beaten there.
Notes in Samsara calls Hugh names, and promises karmic retribution if the GOP fights "consensus" on the judiciary.
Kicking Over My Traces advises a better avatar than McClellan or Grant---Patton: up-or-down on the entire slate of nominees.
Socially Conservative thinks obstructionism is a flat-out loser for the Democrats.
Wagonboy's Garage challenges "Drippy Harry" to make his day.
Mount Virtus wants an unconditional surrender from the Dems.
Criwulf thinks the real battle will be replacing Stevens on the Supreme Court.
My Dogs Are Smarter paraphrases Napoleon: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is in the middle of making a mistake."
Whew.
That's a lot to chew on.
Some points raised by the above:
1. The Democrats have already changed the rules of the Senate game by obstructing justices, something which simply was not done until the Bush Administration came in. The original argument seemed to be that since Bush was "selected, not elected" the Democrats did not have to let him appoint anybody to the Courts. Now that that weak argument's been shredded, they simply claim that most of the inconsequential appointments have been filled, a very weak standard indeed. The Robert Byrds of the world who claim reverence for precedent yet ignore their own caucus' discarding of the same out of pure political pique are simply rank hypocrites.
2. The judiciary is clearly the last redoubt of Leftism in America. Without the White House, without Congress, without the state governorships, without the state legislatures, the Democrats are on the verge of being eliminated as a national party. They simply lack access to the levers of power, and the advantages of incumbency mean they need a revolution to get them back. They have clearly decided to use the Courts to impose Leftist will by fiat, without recourse to the will of the people. This will further erode their electoral position. The Left is simply hoping that the cult of personality will elevate Hillary Clinton to the White House, where she can ensure Leftist domination of the Courts for the forseeable future, until demographic shifts or the swinging pendulum of public opinion swings back their way (an American defeat in the War on Terror would help). This kind of white-knuckle political gamesmanship is virtually unprecedented in American history---perhaps the only example would be the domination of the Republican Party by the abolitionists and their eventual ascent to national power. Unfortunately for them, the Democrats have no single issue to rally around, only a hodgepodge of crackpot ideas which are essentially warmed-over Bolshevism.
3. If the Democrats intend to adopt the Gingrich model, they should first understand it. Gingrich didn't simply obstruct the Democrats. He first rallied the party around ten core ideas, most of which were new. This Contract With America was then put to the test of the electorate, open and honestly, and the electorate ratified it by throwing the Democrats out of the House for the first time in a generation. Moreover, the Democrat Speaker of the House was defeated, an electoral feat not matched until Puff Daschle got booted in the past election cycle. Once in power, Gingrich successfully beat down the Clintonistas, finally losing only when the Clinton/MSM axis managed to cast him as a big crybaby during the government shutdown. Since Bill first had thong on his pizza during the shutdown and eventually got impeached for lying about it in a court case, I don't think the Democrats emerged unscathed from the whole shutdown debacle. They haven't regained the House since, much to their dismay, and only regained the Senate by political machination. In short, you can't have a popular uprising if your ideas aren't popular.
4. As for the notion that GOP Senators will shy from the judicial battle due to love of pork, lack of outside pressure, or out of sheer arrogance and lack of accountability, it seems the Awesome Power of a Fully-Operational Blogosphere might be brought to bear on that, no?
The battlefield has been shaped. For better or ill, this is where we must fight and conquer, or fight and die. The future of America depends on Republican control of the Courts and the removal of the last impediment to reshaping our military, our national institutions, and our economy to ensure prosperity, peace, and liberty for the forseeable future. Victory in the War on Terror depends solely on victory in the Senate. If we fail, left-wing judges will do everything possible to enshrine treason as patriotism and cede American jurisdiction to European bureaucrats.
We didn't choose this battlefield. We didn't choose this battle. We must choose victory, for the sake of our party, our countrymen, our progeny, our legacy.
Update:
The California Mafia comment above has been edited to better reflect what KG was getting at, per the comment to this post. If I misinterpreted KG's original post, I apologize and hope this edited comment better captures its flavor and intent. In any case, please check out the source---lots of good stuff there.
GrabAByte wants to see the GOP "just do" the nuclear option, if only to see a Klansman's head explode. (Sorry---no permalink).
MDV Outlook thinks there will be a battle, and like the Washingtonians who once came out to view an anticipated Civil War skirmish, it should be entertaining.
The View from the Holy Coast yells "Fight! Fight!"
Screaming Diatribe demands Democrats surrender, and doesn't think the GOP needs to change the rules to win.
TBFKADVK says, simply, "Grant!"
Elgin Tyrell has a great photo illustration up which frames the debate nicely.
Ace of Trump says fortune favors the bold and Janice Brown should be the first battle.
California Mafia thinks--gasp!---Arlen Specter is right, at least about depoliticization of the process.
The New Federalist Papers sees no alternative---Grant it must be for the GOP.
The Larsonian says the Senate GOP is too nice---McClellanesque, one might say.
The Regulator posits the problem with a GOP stand---looming budget battles, no pressure from Dubya, and no electoral consequences if Frist opens his fist on this one.
Redford Outpost wants to let the public decide.
Poor Country Boy paints the picture simply: since the Democrats can't win electoral majorities otherwise, the judiciary is their last redoubt---they must be beaten there.
Notes in Samsara calls Hugh names, and promises karmic retribution if the GOP fights "consensus" on the judiciary.
Kicking Over My Traces advises a better avatar than McClellan or Grant---Patton: up-or-down on the entire slate of nominees.
Socially Conservative thinks obstructionism is a flat-out loser for the Democrats.
Wagonboy's Garage challenges "Drippy Harry" to make his day.
Mount Virtus wants an unconditional surrender from the Dems.
Criwulf thinks the real battle will be replacing Stevens on the Supreme Court.
My Dogs Are Smarter paraphrases Napoleon: "Never interrupt your enemy when he is in the middle of making a mistake."
Whew.
That's a lot to chew on.
Some points raised by the above:
1. The Democrats have already changed the rules of the Senate game by obstructing justices, something which simply was not done until the Bush Administration came in. The original argument seemed to be that since Bush was "selected, not elected" the Democrats did not have to let him appoint anybody to the Courts. Now that that weak argument's been shredded, they simply claim that most of the inconsequential appointments have been filled, a very weak standard indeed. The Robert Byrds of the world who claim reverence for precedent yet ignore their own caucus' discarding of the same out of pure political pique are simply rank hypocrites.
2. The judiciary is clearly the last redoubt of Leftism in America. Without the White House, without Congress, without the state governorships, without the state legislatures, the Democrats are on the verge of being eliminated as a national party. They simply lack access to the levers of power, and the advantages of incumbency mean they need a revolution to get them back. They have clearly decided to use the Courts to impose Leftist will by fiat, without recourse to the will of the people. This will further erode their electoral position. The Left is simply hoping that the cult of personality will elevate Hillary Clinton to the White House, where she can ensure Leftist domination of the Courts for the forseeable future, until demographic shifts or the swinging pendulum of public opinion swings back their way (an American defeat in the War on Terror would help). This kind of white-knuckle political gamesmanship is virtually unprecedented in American history---perhaps the only example would be the domination of the Republican Party by the abolitionists and their eventual ascent to national power. Unfortunately for them, the Democrats have no single issue to rally around, only a hodgepodge of crackpot ideas which are essentially warmed-over Bolshevism.
3. If the Democrats intend to adopt the Gingrich model, they should first understand it. Gingrich didn't simply obstruct the Democrats. He first rallied the party around ten core ideas, most of which were new. This Contract With America was then put to the test of the electorate, open and honestly, and the electorate ratified it by throwing the Democrats out of the House for the first time in a generation. Moreover, the Democrat Speaker of the House was defeated, an electoral feat not matched until Puff Daschle got booted in the past election cycle. Once in power, Gingrich successfully beat down the Clintonistas, finally losing only when the Clinton/MSM axis managed to cast him as a big crybaby during the government shutdown. Since Bill first had thong on his pizza during the shutdown and eventually got impeached for lying about it in a court case, I don't think the Democrats emerged unscathed from the whole shutdown debacle. They haven't regained the House since, much to their dismay, and only regained the Senate by political machination. In short, you can't have a popular uprising if your ideas aren't popular.
4. As for the notion that GOP Senators will shy from the judicial battle due to love of pork, lack of outside pressure, or out of sheer arrogance and lack of accountability, it seems the Awesome Power of a Fully-Operational Blogosphere might be brought to bear on that, no?
The battlefield has been shaped. For better or ill, this is where we must fight and conquer, or fight and die. The future of America depends on Republican control of the Courts and the removal of the last impediment to reshaping our military, our national institutions, and our economy to ensure prosperity, peace, and liberty for the forseeable future. Victory in the War on Terror depends solely on victory in the Senate. If we fail, left-wing judges will do everything possible to enshrine treason as patriotism and cede American jurisdiction to European bureaucrats.
We didn't choose this battlefield. We didn't choose this battle. We must choose victory, for the sake of our party, our countrymen, our progeny, our legacy.
Update:
The California Mafia comment above has been edited to better reflect what KG was getting at, per the comment to this post. If I misinterpreted KG's original post, I apologize and hope this edited comment better captures its flavor and intent. In any case, please check out the source---lots of good stuff there.
1 Comments:
Just to be clear, when I say that Sen Spector has the right idea, I am talking about his attempt to depoliticize the process. I just doubt its going to work - the dems have nothing to lose at this point.
Post a Comment
<< Home