Spare Me Your Pseudo-Moral Outrage, Ted Olson!

I had to laugh heartily when I spotted former Solicitor General Ted Olson's polemic ('A Disgraceful Process') in the latest issue of TIME Oct. 1, p. 27).  First it helps to jog readers' memories on just who this asshole is, in case they forgot.   He was the chief lawyer for the Dumbya side in the now historic case of Bush v. Gore in 2000.   This was yet another case of the archaic Electoral College playing a major role in grabbing a presidency for a Repuke - in this case George Bush Jr.  But maybe the bigger picture - as spelled out by Vince Bugliosi in his book, 'The Betrayal of America'-  was how the then Supreme Court basically chose the president.

As Bugliosi writes (p. 41,  Chapter: 'None Dare Call It Treason'):

"In the December 12 ruling by the Supreme Court handing the election to George Bush, the Court committed the unpardonable sin of being a knowing surrogate for the Republican Party instead of being an impartial arbiter of the law."

As an accomplice to this perfidy we find one Ted Olson, taking the side for BushCo.  Now this villain of the piece (an accomplice to "treason" by Bugliosi's reckoning), wants us to get all worked up over the terrible deed being perpetrated on Brett Kavanaugh. Olson writes to start:

"HOW LOW WE HAVE SUNK. the DEMOCRATS have demanded an FBI investigation into an alleged drunken assault from 36 years ago, between teenagers, at a party in a private home."

How low have we sunk? Before you go into that, you'd do well to ask that question of Sen. Mitch McConnell who happily kept Obama's SC pick (Merrick Garland)  on ice for the better part of a year, to deny ANY process. And now Olson has the nerve to insist on Kumbaya - and Kavanaugh confirmed with zero impediments?  Note also Olson's parlance: "an alleged drunken assault ....between teenagers"  thereby cynically conflating victim (Dr. Ford) with alleged perp (Kavanaugh)..

And then, predictably, Olson trots out the usual canned attacks perfected by the Reepos:

"The accuser doesn't remember exactly when the offense took place or exactly how she got to the house. And she allowed her name to be publicly associated with the accusation only after the completion of a two month investigation into its subject, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, by the U.S. Sente Judiciary Committee and two days of questioning by 18 senators."

Ok, back up here a bit. The "investigations" were bogus because they were partisan and that is why Dr. Ford called for the FBI investigation (something done as a matter of course, especially if new information comes to light).  It was clear Christine Ford didn't trust the bullies and buffoons of the Senate GOP to do any proper investigation, and by the end of the two months that was obvious. Hell, the pair of  elderly GOP Senate Judiciary Bozos  - Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch- didn't even pick up on Kavanaugh's assorted lies.  So why the hell would Dr. Ford feel any confidence in the process up that point?   Yes, Olson mentions the FBI did its own investigation too, but now he disallows a further one that new information from Dr. Ford has some to light.

As for as the bit about not being clear on details, anyone who's taken a Psychology 101 course knows this is standard for a sexual trauma survivor.  Nearly all specific details are lost in a protective "limbo" (the victim is protected by her mind's own impaired memory from re-living them, as my newly minted Ph.D. (in Psychology) niece Shayl has made clear.).  As Dr. Shayl also added: "It's incredible to me Olson wouldn't know that as he appears not to be a stupid man. And yet he writes with full -on steroids stupidity"

He also whines a lot, emulating other Reepo whiny bitches, e.g.

"Today's confirmation proceedings are characterized by acrimony, political grandstanding, nasty charges, protests, mischaracterizations and quite possibly defamatory innuendo."


So what did you expect? That for a guy specially selected by the nation's number one admitted pussy grabber, things would be all sweetness, light and decorum? Hardly! Given the polarization of the nation and a budding tyrant and traitor left with no checks on his own behavior we have already entered the era of constitutional crisis and political warfare. Only a rank imbecile or naive fool would fail to see that, and Michael Moore's new film makes that clear. (See my review two posts earlier).

The beginning of the last paragraph of Olson's petulant screed is almost laughable given how he summarily dismisses the fact the same Dr. Ford has been mercilessly bombarded by hate emails, death threats, and hacking (impersonating her online) from deranged Trump cultists.  This has forced her and her family from their home and even forced them to hire security.  WHY,  Mr. Olson, would any woman bring that upon herself and her family just for a lark, or made up story?

Anyway, Olson scribbles:

"It is surprising that anyone of the character, integrity and standing required of our highest court would allow their names to be submitted for such deplorable treatment."

Yeah well, maybe - like Kavanaugh - they believed they could get away with their crimes and attempted rapes. Want me to believe your boy is all in the clear and the model of morality being portrayed? Then let him take a lie detector test like Christine Ford did, and also allow and actively encourage the further FBI investigation.

Unless, of course, he has something to hide!  We now know, for example, that Kavanaugh's sexual misconduct continued beyond high school to Yale where a Colorado woman - Deborah Ramirez - has now accused Trump's fellow pussy grabber of gross, indecent exposure.  E.g.

Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct ...

Then, there's also been the titanic response (720,000 tweets on  #WhyIDidn'tReport) to Dotard's tone deaf questioning of Dr. Christine Ford, i.e. in not reporting Kavanaugh's attempted sexual assault earlier.

Let's get it clear that the deprivation of Kavanaugh’s life or liberty is not at stake, but rather the privilege to hold one of the most important positions in the nation, for which good character and fair treatment of others is necessary.   We may be able to excuse the fact this guy was nominated by the nation's number one serial sexual assaulter, but we cannot have his confirmation if there's even a whiff of  extreme sexual impropriety, as there appears to be.

It's time that Ted Olson and his fellow moralizing  hypocrites wake up, and stop treating the victims of Kavanaugh's assaults and misconduct as the perps wreaking "disgrace" on the SC confirmation process.


See also

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/john-grant/81230/awesome-uncontrollable-male-passion-meets-its-match

And:

Alex Henderson

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Republicans

These 5 Far-Right Republicans Just Proved They Don’t Take Sexual Assault Seriously

Why Democrats May Soon Have To Embrace Political Warfare To Stop Trump And the GOP.

How our Founding Fathers settled political disputes - the duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton - with the latter shot dead for his effrontery.(From The New Republic, March, 2018)


"The way democracy is conducted today may have hit a new low in the lifetime of most Americans—but not in the life of the republic. The United States has been here before. For almost the entirety of the country’s first century of existence, politics was a zero-sum game—and often a blood sport. All fights were to the death, and those parties that lost were eliminated. The Federalists ceased to exist. So did the old Whigs, after losing their battle to the death with the Democrats. " -   Kevin Baker, 'The Myth Of Normal America', The New Republic, March 2018, p. 14.

"At their heart, appeals to moderation willfully ignore an obvious and indisputable aspect of our presidential system: the ahistoric procedural tactics marshaled by the Republican Party to accomplish their objectives are adopted because they usually work. And despite brief episodes of political blowback when the party reaches too far, Republicans have done incredibly well for themselves by pushing the limits of acceptable political behavior to their advantage." - Tim Donovan, 'Dems Fighting Words',  The American Prospect, Aug. 26, 2006

"Unpleasant as it may be for Right wingers to think about, their articles of faith are essentially spinoffs of wrong ideas about baboons. ...The baboon model, of course, fits hand in glove with the idea that humans are killer apes who have always hunted and eaten flesh. Wrong or not this theme works well in the dog-eat-dog culture of industrial capitalism...Put together in a package they make up a political outlook known as Social Darwinism." - Jim Mason, 'An Unnatural Order: Uncovering The Roots Of Our Domination Of Nature And Each Other, p. 79.

Let's get real here: the hope of many Democrats - like my wife,  Janice- that Trump and the gangster GOP will be stopped by Robert Mueller or elections in November ( and two years hence), may be no more than a pipedream. This is because the tacit assumption made is the Ds' political opponents will act as rational and responsible actors - as opposed to rats using Russian hacking, voter suppression, rigged electronic voting machines  or other vicious tactics -  i.e. to stay in charge of the current rolling national disaster.  The point? It may be necessary for the Dems - to survive as a viable party, far less win elections - to go "nuclear" in terms of political warfare at multiple levels. 

 As long ago as April, 2010, I wrote about the message in Michael Tomasky's American Prospect piece,  'Dems' Fightin' Words', in which he observed the extent to which Democrats had devolved to become political Caspar Milquetoasts. That is, deliberately eschewing hard nosed, no -holds barred  partisanship for a debate style emphasis on "reason and temperance",  based on invoking policy points.

Little wonder from that point the Dems have been thumped time after time (especially in governorships)  until now they have almost been gerrymandered out of existence by the Repukes. Oh, even as the lower federal courts are being stacked with right wing nuts.  Without the will to fight, and by that I mean bringing a metaphorical "Uzi" or anti- aircraft gun to the proverbial "gunfight", they likely will go the way of the Dodo ….or the Whigs.

This is also the theme of Kevin Baker's New Republic article from March, 2018,  'The Myth Of Normal America'.    E.g.
https://newrepublic.com/article/146915/american-politics-has-never-been-normal

A myth, sadly, that the Democrats largely appear to be operating under.  But for context let me provide a few quotes from Baker's article, starting with the genesis of what I will call the political war state:

"Republicans’ pursuit of the “Southern strategy” to scoop up Wallace voters, followed by the Clintons’ largely disastrous effort to reshape the Democrats from a culturally diverse party with shared liberal economics into a center-right economic party with shared cultural values, have pushed our politics back to the winner-take-all past. Can we expect the results to be any different after Trump than they were the last time around, if we find ourselves back in the old-school, antebellum political system? Well, what’s the popular definition of insanity again?"

The point about the Dems' "center right economic party" - leading to the DLC  or "Democratic Leadership Council" - is a solid one because it was suggested by Tomasky (ibid.) that this is what turned the Dems away from partisan fights to Milquetoasts- and losing.  This also led to "a diminution and loss of an overarching and motivating vision".  Not surprisingly, the Dems moved toward corporate elitism (and Neoliberalism) - effectively becoming "Republican lite".

The problem is that this pose simply emboldened the GOP  - which went on a tear to destroy the Dems totally - using propaganda of whatever form, as well as bare knuckle tactics such as gerrymandering on steroids, voter suppression (including in the 2000 general election in FLA) and  reaching their apex (nadir?) with the blocking of any Senate hearings for Merrrick Garland. Oh,  and the more recent total capitulation to the traitor Trump - thereby becoming his de facto henchmen.  To  fix ideas, just look at the recent mouthings of the trio of Reepo quislings:   Lindsey Graham, John Kennedy (Louisiana backwoods inbred - no relation to JFK) and Orrin Hatch - denouncing John Brennan after Trump stripped his security clearance.

Another timely, excellent Baker point to ponder:

"Democracy is a system designed for human beings to exist in and prosper under, together and indefinitely. As in any successful means of living, it depends to some degree on mutually agreed-upon forgiveness (if not forgetting). War, on the other hand, is meant to achieve a set objective, for as long or as short a time as that takes. Its aim is to break the will of an opponent to resist, and it builds momentum—and often morale—by dwelling more and more on the perfidy of the enemy. Atrocity builds upon atrocity, propaganda replaces truth and objective analysis, “winning” surpasses any other objective, and all rules that exist are the more likely to be discarded the longer the war continues, with each blow that follows the next falling harder and more heavily. 

The politics-as-war we live under now escalates steadily, with each transgression inviting another. The Democrats who finally unseat Trump, or merely succeed him, will have to respond in kind to him and his ilk, no matter how superior they may feel in ethics and motivation. It’s the logic of war rather than the logic of democracy."

 

 
The last point is a critical one to process which is likely to blow away many Dem centrists, moderates  or "powderpuffs". I.e. those who cling to the use of "civility" or civil tactics and strategies to oust the human pustule in the White House and his retinue of lesser pustule enablers.  Hence, the theme needs to transform to the "logic of war"  rather than the "logic of democracy". Why? Because for all intents the Repukes have demonstrated by their actions they've no interest in democratic institutions or processes. Hell, they will not even provide a constitutional check on the powers of the pretender occupying the White House.   So hence Baker's admonition for the Dems to "respond to Trump in kind". In other words, become just as vicious and unforgiving, striking back as he has. Oh, and even go beyond that to altering the system itself. How ?


Again, we go to Baker for specifics:

"Democrats will have to become more partisan and more ruthless just to survive. Let’s say Republicans do add another 60, or 250, or 300-plus seats to the federal judiciary. Democrats will have no choice but to add even more, if they hope ever to pass a program that will not be struck down by the rabid new partisans filling our courts. 

 

For that matter, the best way for Democrats to make certain that Republicans never duplicate what they just did with Merrick Garland and Neil Gorsuch—refusing even to consider the Supreme Court nominee of a sitting president for months on end and then installing their own party’s ideologue instead, as soon as they won an election—would be to expand the Supreme Court by appointing two new justices, as soon as they have the opportunity.... It would be easy to say that this way madness lies, but this is the way America used to do business. 

As Richard Primus points out, before most of our modern federal judiciary existed, it was much easier for the party in power to manipulate the law by simply changing the number of seats on the Supreme Court, up or down. Why not? There is nothing in the Constitution that says they can’t—any more than there’s anything saying that Mitch McConnell can’t have the Senate wait until “the people have spoken” in a distant presidential election"

Will the Dems have the cojones to add more Supreme Court seats? How about more federal judiciary seats?  My take is most of the current Dems in power - namely Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi  - will not go that route because they will regard it as "extreme".  In this case, we can only expect more Dem losses because the two dem leaders regard our politics like a college debate society as opposed to political war. This is also precisely the criticism leveled at the last generation of D leaders by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber in their book, Banana Republicans | PR Watch

Baker has this further warning for any Dem leaders, including Schumer and Pelosi, prepared to tolerate more GOOpr ruthlessness as opposed to taking the bastards to the mat.

"Lawlessness, long tolerated, has a way of coming back on one’s own party. Democrats, ruminating upon what meat doth our Caesar feed, may be dumb, but they’re not stupid. They understand that the Gorsuch coup was another escalation, another coarsening of democracy. They get that McConnell’s silence and McCain’s pledge about not approving a Hillary nominee, period, was a clear suggestion that any Democratic president would be considered illegitimate—and that should one be elected, we can expect a four-to-eight-year Republican blockade of any Supreme Court nominees, and nominees to other vital government posts as well. "

So, in other words, Trump and the GOP have already declared a state of war- against the Dems. The latter perforce will now have to muster the will to fight like rabid Tasmanian Devils to stop the further destruction of our Republic and its devolution into a One Party state that Rampton and Stauber have warned about.

But again, is there the will?  My bet is the Dem party will need to tilt far more leftward in Antifa-style to mount the will to fight on the scale and intensity needed.

Baker again:

"Judging by the events of the last year—and the last 30—that crisis may soon be in the offing. The tactics formulated by the right, and eagerly adopted by Trump, have proved so successful that their opponents would be foolish to forswear them. And if Democrats still don’t happen to possess more than a knife to bring to this gunfight, they seem at least to recognize that it is a gunfight."

Fine. But I still want them to not only recognize the "gunfight" but to bring an Uzi and an anti-aircraft cannon or two.

Finally:

"Just three days after this column appeared, Trump sandbagged a meeting with Republican and Democratic senators to devise a bipartisan immigration bill, by bringing in some of the worst anti-immigration bigots in the Congress and announcing before them all that he was for more immigrants from nice countries like Norway, and not from some “shithole countries.” In short order, all the president’s men were insisting that they had heard nothing, nothing at all; other Republicans were denying he had said anything bad or claiming that he had actually said “shithouse countries” (a befuddling distinction); and Trump himself was insisting, once again, that Democrats wanted to let murderers and drug dealers into the country to kill us all in our beds.In one fell swoop, the president had inflicted on Americans a vulgarity that we had never before seen in our daily newspapers or heard on our newscasts and followed it up with his usual tsunami of lies, coerced perjury, and lethal smears. The sad truth of the matter is that it was years ago that one political movement in this country obliterated the “rules”...…. What the United States is immersed in now is not politics as usual but something much worse, with as venal, as vicious, and as openly racist a group of individuals as have ever controlled its government."

 In other words, we are in the midst of a political upheaval, a war for all intents, and every manjack who wants to see the end of Trumpism and the GOP quisling enablers - needs to act like it's a war - not a college debate.

The Nature of Implicit Biases: What Are Yours?

How many of us are remotely aware of the role of implicit bias in governing our social and political choices, or even lesser day to day choices?  Of course, most of us are fully aware of our conscious biases or should be. These are biases we may not be proud of but can acknowledge as being in the open. For example, I have a definite bias against the words or actions against Republican lawmakers I deem untrustworthy such as Lindsey Graham, Orrin Hatch, and Trey Gowdy. Virtually nothing any of these guys do will be judged as honorable or decent by me.

Then there are the implicit biases or those which which we don't know we have.  These can often only be dredged up by taking sophisticated tests such as the one associated with the link below (available at Harvard):

https://implicit.harvard.edu


More specifically, implicit biases are those which we more or less unconsciously absorb over a lifetime - often from the culture itself, These biases, lying below our cognitive radar, then work automatically to color our perceptions and influence our choices.

The recognition of the existence of these hidden biases has given rise to Project Implicit, housed jointly by Harvard, The University of Virginia and the University of Washington.  Using the online test in the link above, some 20,000 responses are collected per week and hundreds of researchers are using the data to predict how people will behave based on their unconscious choices.  To this end, the online test seeks to measure the pervasiveness of dozens of implicit social biases, including those based on race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, weight, age and religion.

Some of the findings -  based responses from six million test participants -  made over a decade,  are listed below:

-  Some 75 percent of whites, Hispanics and Asians show a bias for whites over African -Americans

- Two thirds of respondents feel better towards heterosexuals than gays.

- The same proportion feels better toward thin people than the obese.

- Just as many African -Americans show a preference for whites as for blacks

-  More than 80 percent showed a bias for the young and these included people over 60.

Basically, Project Implicit arrives at its results by presenting test takers with assorted people shown in photographs and then assessing results based on positive or negative words used.  For example, say I might be shown the image below:

 And then asked to pick the word pair which best conforms with my perception, e.g.

A (stable genius, cool winner)  or  B (unstable moron, lazy loser slob)

Well, I am pretty certain to select word pair (B) because that conveys to me what the image presents
to my perceptions. (And from what we know already of Dotard's habits, e.g. taking cheese burgers to bed with him, this is fairly spot on.)

In the actual test you select different categories of  Implicit Association Test ( IAT), e.g. one will ask you to distinguish the faces of people who are obese or thin. Another will ask you to recognize photos of Dotard Trump and those of previous presidents.  Another IAT requires the ability to distinguish the symbols related to gay and straight people.  Yet another IAT requires the ability to recognize white or black faces and tell images of weapons from harmless objects.

Give it a try!

My own IAT selection was the one for science, liberal arts and gender links. The result given for my test was:

1. Your data suggest a strong automatic association for Male with Science and Female with Liberal Arts.

This general tabulation of aggregate results was included:


One current ancillary project of the main project is to see whether liberals or conservatives are more enthusiastic about the future. Well, I can tell you now that even in the absence of said results most of the liberals I know are in despair over the future if we don't get rid of the Trump cabal in the net election cycle. Why? Well, how about mercury polluted air (from coal-fired plants), poisoned lakes and rivers, E coli and worm-laden food (thanks to pared back regulations) to start with.  Add on Bird flu and West Nile fever epidemics thanks to cuts to the CDC budget, and the hottest consecutive years in a row - thanks to ramped up climate change.

I am sure at the same time the conservos will just believe the future will be peachy dandy even if Trump gets in a 2nd term-- because if those things do erupt they will dismiss then as "fake news'- ot "what God ordained anyway".

Let's hope that two successive Dem waves-  in 2018 and 2020 - ensure the future is birghter.

Senate GOOPs Using Trump As "Shield" To Push Through Despicable Bills

Maybe an image for the future - but not yet - the rats (GOP reps) remain ensconced on ship Trump.

Wonder why so much media oxygen is being allowed by the Reeps to be consumed by the Trump kerfuffle and his unstable administration? It's a deliberate plan adopted by the GOP to take attention off what they are doing behind the scenes, including already passing a banking deregulation  bill and eliminating the ACA.   In the first, the House voted 233 to 186 on Thursday for a sweeping rewrite of the rules governing Wall Street in "the Financial Choice Act".  According to the WSJ (June 9, p. B1) it "would unwind major parts of Dodd-Frank by relieving healthy banks of regulatory requirements". If this thing is passed by the Senate one wonders what excuses the Goops will offer if there's another financial meltdown.


And that's just the beginning. After 4 months of being paralyzed by the Trump ongoing shit storm, the Goops have decided to use it to their advantage as a shield. So while millions of Americans had their eyes glued to the tube and Comey hearing, the Repukes in the Senate Financial Committee were honing a plan to ram through - with only 50 votes - the final demise of the ACA that would leave over 20 million with no health care.

Holding 52 seats in the Senate, the GOP can afford to lose only two members of their party on a vote to undo the health care law they have assailed for seven years. They will not receive any support from Democratic senators or the Senate’s two independents (Angus King and Bernie Sanders), but they can count on support from Vice President Mike Pence to break a tie, if needed.  Well, they expect it will be needed and are in a rush to get the deal done - with no hearings or discussion - before the heat dies down on the Trump v. Comey battle and the hyped up news cycle on the ongoing probes.

To fix ideas on this so it's less abstract, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) erupted Thursday at a Senate Finance Committee hearing over how Senate Republicans are conducting negotiations over the GOP-backed American Health Care Act.  Recall this AHCA will demolish Obamacare, and eliminate all kinds of basic provisions including maternity care, visits to ERs, and mental health care. Those with pre-existing conditions will also have to pay much more. The worst aspect is how state coffers will suffer from having over 20 million tossed off Medicaid by 2020. Here in Colo. the state budget deficit is expected to skyrocket to $893m once the federal matching funds for Medicaid are gone..

Given these repercussions you can imagine Sen. McCaskill's rage at what the Repuke vermin were attempting. Finally squeezing an answer out of chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) confirming that there would not be any hearings on the bill, McCaskill erupted on the lack of transparency and bipartisanship surrounding the discussions. But we've seen this act before, especially with the scumball Hatch, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2017/01/democrats-locate-their-gonads-and-hatch.html


Hatch tried his sleazy best to assuage McCaskill by saying that Republicans "have invited" Democrats to share their ideas, as egregious a claim as when he bloviated back in January:

"I don’t remember us treating their nominees this way...."

referring to Den senators rightful questioning of Trump's nominees to fill his swamp.


As it should, this elicited a scoff from McCaskill:

 "When you say that you're inviting us and I heard you, Mr. Secretary, just say that you'd love our support — for what? We don't even know. We have no idea what's being proposed. There's a group of guys in a back room somewhere that are making these decisions."

But this is the GOP M.O. now, grabbing all the cheese they can while the 'Momma Rat' (Trump) tries to fend off "the cats".  They don't have the honor or integrity to come out in the open and deal with bills the normal, established way. They have to try to do it under a cloak and in secret to ensure their hateful agenda is unleashed on the American public - especially while they're mostly preoccupied by Trump's ongoing circus and the Russia investigations.

Rather than act as honorable reps and patriots, including joining the Democrats to seriously investigate their monkey in the White House, they'd rather hitch their wagons to his sorry fortunes to pass their despicable bills that will leave millions without even a pot to piss in. Indeed, as the WSJ reported two days ago, 18 Ohio counties are already going to be without health exchanges and that means - in opioid country - many will not get narcone (naxalone) when they need it to counter an opioid overdose. Will these GOP sewer rats be prepared to take responsibility for the thousands - many Trump supporters- who will now perish? I doubt it, no more than they take any responsibility to put country over party in the Trump investigations.

McCaskill  to her credit acknowledged that Democrats had "made mistakes" when crafting the Affordable Care Act, but she noted that at least there were hearings then where Republican amendments were proposed and accepted.   Hence, it was expected the GOP would do likewise now with their AHCA. But again, they are not because they are sewer rats devoid of honor - using the Trump chaos as an expedient shield to cover their actions.

McCaskill's last words to Hatch ought to enrage every red-blooded American to pursue these GOP Senate rats into their neighborhoods and conduct aggressive protests:

"You couldn't have a more partisan exercise than what you're engaged in right now. We're not even going to have a hearing on a bill that impacts one-sixth of our economy."

See McCaskill in action here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRt7tqlD-og

Democrats Locate Their Gonads And Hatch Pitches A Hissy Fit

It was delightful this afternoon to see the beet red face of Sen. Orrin Hatch on the tube - about to pop a blood vessel- as he castigated the Democrats for using a boycott. As I wrote in three previous posts it was time for the Dems now to shake off the post-election slumber and move into permanent combat mode. No collaboration with this hoodlum administration, come hell or high water.

Their display today proved they're paying attention, if not to me then to a very energized and impatient base tired of seeing pussyfooting in place of political opposition.  Hatch's hysterics are especially choice given this asshole and his Reepo pals did pretty much the same for the past  8 years. So what the fuck is wrong with Orrin? Has he got Alzheimer's or something?

To set the scene: Confirmation votes for Health and Human Services nominee Tom Price and Treasury nominee Steve Mnuchin were delayed on Tuesday morning after Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee boycotted hearings, denying the committee the necessary quorum to proceed. It was a dramatic move by the minority party to try and stall the confirmations of both Cabinet appointees.

It was just the sort of thing I had been calling for, including in a post two days ago, when I referenced a former Senate aide (Adam Jentleson)  who wrote in The Washington Post ("Senate Democrats Have The Power To Stop Trump If They Use It") about procedural measures to solidly muck up the works and slow everything to a grind.

The asshole Hatch, too dumb to get it, believed it was all about "bitterness", i.e. at Trump's, Russian assisted election win, as opposed to resistance and political warfare. So no surprise the smug son of bitch from Utah was apoplectic over his colleagues’ behavior. Know what  I say? Tough! Suck it up, maestro, and get used to more!

Here’s a choice selection of quotes from Hatch’s tirade against the Democrats.

“I don’t remember us treating their nominees this way. Assuming that they don’t support these two [Price and Mnuchin], then they can vote against them.”

Well, sure, that's on too, Senator.  But it's also nice to fuck up your overall process and timeline as well.

The gentleman from Utah wasn’t done, bloviating:

“We’ll see if they will come and do the job that they’ve been elected and sworn to do. I’m very disappointed in this type of crap, I mean, my God, there’s no excuse for it.”

Well, there's actually plenty of excuse for it, given you and your Reepo mates are simply prepared to make a Faustian deal with Bannon and Trump to shut up, while they destroy any polity as well as the constitution. So this is a way of Senate Dems delivering a wake up call, that people are paying attention to this administration and not just to their disgusting picks. (Who I have labeled despicables)

The committee chair stood up for the honor of the nominees, saying that Democrats “really shouldn’t treat dignified people who are willing to sacrifice and serve in the government this way. … This is the most pathetic thing I’ve seen in my whole time in the United States Senate.”

Dignified people? You mean this bunch of alligators Trump and Bannon intend to now fill the D.C. swamp with? Put a sock in it, Hatch.

To drive it all home, Hatch said of the boycotting members:

“To not be here and participate, that’s a total abnegation of their duties as senators, and I think it’s pathetic.”

Think what you want you goddamned, sniffing, pompous little asshole, we on the other side thought it was great. Anything to fuck your side up since you all seem to lack the will to hold the Trump fascists to any account, so committed are you to hanging onto his coattails to get your vicious agenda through.

To be clear, Hatch's posturing and histrionics  (including actually calling the Dems "idiots" for holding their ground) was a pointed attack on the asymmetric obstruction strategy traditionally employed by a true opposition party. The fact is it relies heavily on  governing and institutional norms, never exceeding what the basic rules allow. So I have no remote idea why Orrin is getting his panties in a twist. Does he wish to rescind the applicable Senate rules? Does he wish to be "king" of the Senate and just order all of the opposition to do his bidding because he (or Trump) says so?

Truth be told, Hatch's spiel might have carried some righteousness and moral weight had it been delivered by anyone but Sen. Orrin Hatch.  He's indisputably one of the biggest hypocrites in the Beltway.   He also seems not to know, or care, that another reason for delaying the votes is to do further cross checking on the nominees (Price and Mnuchin) due to press reports that suggest both have not properly completed their conflict of interests questionnaire and been forthright on their issues. (Including Mnuchin's of a $100m account he appeared to forget. As Jim Hightower put it, "maybe it was just chump change for him)

Maybe, but I somehow doubt it.

Anyway, good work, Dems. Now keep it up. I want to see more delay tactics as well as NO votes for all of these crappers. If the Repukes want them let them vote for them. That goes for you too, Joe Manchin, on the Sessions vote!


Update:

This morning the GOP Senators declared all out political war by nixing the need for a quorum to vet nominees. They are now officially in league with the other Nazi scofflaws of the Trump administration, after gaslighting the rules of  their own institution.

SCOTUS Nominee Merrick Garland Is The Best Deal The Reepos Will Get - And They Should Take It!

Obama introducing Merrick Garland Yesterday morning.

Taking a page directly out of the script for 'The Godfather' ("We'll make 'em an offer they can't refuse') Barack Obama called the obstructionist Repukes' bluff yesterday by nominating moderate Merrick Gardner to the Supreme Court.  While some in the corporate MSM referred to him as a "moderate liberal" he is nothing of the sort.  In his 19 years on the bench, Judge Garland has established a solidly centrist voting record that reflects no strong political ideology. He has sided with the government in cases involving habeas corpus petitions from detainees at Guantánamo Bay, and has voted against criminal defendants more often than his liberal colleagues.

In any kind of sane universe and nation, the repubs would be jumping for joy that they'd gotten Obama to come to their side more than they'd ever believed. Hell, his pick even had most of the liberal blogosphere in an uproar yesterday - but they need to get over it and appreciate Obama's chess move.

Obama is basically calling the Reeptards out for being the obstructionists they are, and forcing them to adhere to the Constitution, which stipulates the Senate shall give its "advise and consent" following a SC nomination. Even someone like Scalia - a strict constructionist - would interpret that in the active sense (i.e. of actually holding hearings ) and not the passive aggressive sense of "deny and obstruct".

Because if you deny hearings at all, like the SOB Mitch McConnell is advocating, then you're merely acting the part of a constitutional fraud who mouths the words of respect for it but doesn't really believe in them. Thus, it was choice seeing this asshole squirm soon after the announcement and again interject the red herring that "we need the people to choose". Totally oblivious to the fact they already have, when they elected Barack Obama in 2012 by 5 m votes over Mitt Romney. Last I checked, Obama's term is still in effect with over 300 days left in it, so his nomination of Garland means he is doing the people's will. The ones who elected him in 2012. For McConnell to disregard or disrespect that is to spit on the will of the voters that he now appeals to.

In the midst of all the kerfuffle erupting we also heard Sen. Orrin Hatch being asked why - if he supported Garland before  - he wouldn't do so now. He came up with the lame excuse that "times are different" because we are in the midst of an overheated, politically polarized climate and an election. So what? You're going to hold up hearings because of that? That's a bloody cop out which would leave the highest court without a deciding member for over a year.

More to the point, Hatch, who sits on the Judiciary Committee, insisted in 2010 said Mr. Garland would be a “consensus nominee” and said there would be “no question” that he would be confirmed to the Supreme Court with bipartisan support.

As recently as last week, Hatch repeated his praise, saying that if Mr. Obama wanted a real moderate, he “could easily” name Mr. Garland, but predicted that “he probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election.” So now Obama has called Hatch's bluff and what does Orrin do? He tries to weasel out of his recent supporting proclamations.

Clearly,, the pukes are gambling that they can win the 2016 election and put their own guy in, but that is a big gamble. To show how much nerve they really have some actually offered that if it turns out that Hillary wins in November, they WILL allow Garland as a Lame duck pick. Oh gracious me, really! Of course they would allow him then because they'd shudder to consider a really liberal  HRC pick in January, 2017! So they're just trying to hedge their bets.

But it won't work! Even the WSJ in a piece 2 weeks ago ('Some Republicans May Suffer For High Court Line') noted up to five Reepo senators  - including Kelly Ayotte (NH) and Ron Johnson (WI) could lose their Senate seats to Dems if the Repub intransigence pisses off state voters who disdain the optics. The same piece noted a Quinnipiac poll at the time showing 56 percent of Americans "believe the Senate should hold hearings and vote on Mr. Obama's Supreme Court nominee."

And this was even BEFORE there was an Obama nominee! What exactly do you really think good ol' Mitch and his boys will do when new polls come out - after seeing this moderate nominee- and they show 70 percent or more are demanding hearings? I promise you the Reeps will change their minds faster than that movie producer in The Godfather did when he awoke with the severed horse's head in his bed (after initially refusing to put the Don's godson in a movie).

See, in the limited realm of reality, Obama knows  - and the Reeps too - that this is the best  deal they will get. They needn't confront a firebrand liberal in confirmation hearings, but a steadfast moderate who already proved his law and order mettle by pursuing and ending the Oklahoma City bombing case.

If they don't take it, and they lose in November -  a huge possibility given how many female voters especially are cringing from Trump's theatrics - as displayed on Chris Hayes' All In last night, they could be plausibly facing a real liberal nominated by HRC, and then - given all the time they would have already wasted (and the public mood growing ever more impatient) they will have no place to run or hide and no more lame excuses like the 'Strom Thurmond' rule or the "Biden rule". (Biden clarified that irrespective of his opinionating (it was not a "rule")  in 1992 the Dem Senate never refused to even hear or vote up or down on a Reep nominee.)

If the Republicans have any political sense at all, and actually like maximizing their odds, they will take this deal and not look back, or pander to their extremist base. Because in the end it will be the best deal on offer- and the best they will get this year or next.  Now, the jig is up - or soon  will be - so  Senate Republicans must stop stonewalling and give this widely respected federal judge an up-or-down vote.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/robert-reich/66483/tell-your-senators-to-do-their-job