Final Say on Next US Supreme Court Justice: the NRA

***

[Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has made a de facto change to the US Constitution by expanding the Senate’s advice & consent to include the NRA.]

The Senate Defers to the N.R.A.

by The Editorial Board  March 24, 2016

 It turns out that the most important voice in the Supreme Court nomination battle is not the American people’s, as Senate Republicans have insisted from the moment Justice Antonin Scalia died last month. It is not even that of the senators. It’s the National Rifle Association’s.

That is what the majority leader, Mitch McConnell, said the other day when asked about the possibility of considering and confirming President Obama’s nominee, Judge Merrick Garland, after the November elections. “I can’t imagine that a Republican majority in the United States Senate would want to confirm, in a lame-duck session, a nominee opposed by the National Rifle Association,” he told “Fox News Sunday.”

Put aside the absurd rationales Senate Republicans have trotted out for not holding a hearing on the Garland nomination, and consider how extreme this latest position is. As long as Republicans control the Senate, Mr. McConnell says, they will delegate their judgment to the N.R.A.’s paranoid far-right lobbyists, whom nobody elected, and who staunchly oppose measures, like universal background checks, supported by 90 percent of Americans — and three-quarters of N.R.A. members.

Mr. McConnell says he wants the next president to fill the vacancy. But if a Democrat wins the election, the N.R.A. will surely oppose any person he or she nominates. What will Mr. McConnell and his caucus do then?

In other words, forget the voters. Forget that Judge Garland has been supported and praised by top Republicans and Democrats for years. The N.R.A. doesn’t like him — for no fact-based reason — and that’s all that matters.

It is hard to calculate the damage Republicans are doing to the nation and the court, even as poll after poll shows that a majority of Americans believe the Senate should hold hearings and an up-or-down vote.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., a conservative, has spoken out against the increasing politicization of the nomination process. Ten days before Justice Scalia’s death, he said at a public forum, “Look at my more recent colleagues, all extremely well qualified for the court,” referring to Justices Samuel Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. “The votes were, I think, strictly on party lines for the last three of them, or close to it, and that doesn’t make any sense.”

His remarks seemed to come out of another era, back when the Senate confirmed nominees like Justice Scalia in 1986 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 by unanimous or near-unanimous votes.

The process has been deteriorating for a while, but the current Republican caucus has now driven it off the rails. Under its twisted logic, there is no reason for the Senate ever to consider a nominee from a president of the opposing party. To do so, the members seem to suggest, would be doing the president a favor. This isn’t governance; it is the unhinged tantrum of a party whose ideological rigidity has already paralyzed Congress, and now threatens the Supreme Court itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/24/opinion/the-senate-defers-to-the-nra.html?_r=0

***

A Letter to the Editor Re: Ted Cruz

***

 

[To the NY Times Editorial Board]

To the Editor:

Re “2 Cruz Victories Buoy Challenge to Trump Drive” (front page, March 6):

We know who wants to stop Donald Trump’s journey toward the Republican nomination for president, but who is going to stop Ted Cruz’s increasingly successful challenge?

As a moderate Democrat, I would be satisfied with either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. But should the Democratic nominee falter in the general election, Mr. Cruz scares me as a potential president far more than Mr. Trump. Why? I fear that Mr. Cruz may actually believe some of the rhetoric he espouses and is politically ruthless enough to attempt to enact an ultra-rightist agenda that would send our country on a death spiral.

Mr. Cruz and Mr. Trump are at opposite ends of the definition of narcissism: Mr. Trump wants everyone to like him and praise him, while Mr. Cruz’s arrogance is so monumental that he simply doesn’t care whether anyone likes him, because he knows that when he utters a pronouncement, it is gospel. That is the scarier of the two extremes.

In the end, I would hold my nose and support the con man who says we should make America great again, rather than the con man who says we should make America Christian again. While neither is fit to be president, and both are evil in their own ways, I’d rather opt for the rallying cry that comports with the spirit of our nation.

MICHAEL SCHNEIDER

Laguna Beach, Calif.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/opinion/sorting-out-the-ruckus-in-the-gop.html?nlid=65886944&src=recpb

***

Demagogue for President

***

Demagogue for President

by Charles M. Blow | March 3, 2016

Sometimes you have to simply step back from the hubbub and take stock, with cleareyed sobriety, at a moment in history to fully appreciate its epochal import. Now is such a time.

A nativist, sexist, arguably fascist and racist demagogue who twists the truth is the front-runner in the race to become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee, over the protestations of the party’s establishment, who rightly view his ascendance as an existential threat to an already tattered brand.

He is odd and entertaining, vacuous and vain, disarming and terrifyingly dangerous.

And, according to The New York Times, he “could lock up the nomination in May” if he “keeps winning by the same margins.” Furthermore, the Republican Party is seeing record turnout on its way to this end. There is a political revolution in this country but, so far at least, it appears to be one driven in large part by the Republicans.

Let this sink in, America.

Stop thinking that it’s all a joke, a hoax, a game. It’s not. Maybe he began this quest as a branding exercise, but it has morphed into something quite real: a challenge to the collective moral character of the republic. The success of his candidacy so far calls into question the very definition and direction of America.

Later we can condemn the media for its complicity in his rise, the way we and the candidate operated in a symbiotic relationship, exchanging cheap ratings for free publicity, but it can’t be undone now. The candidate has now risen.

This is a guy who began his presidential bid by branding Mexican immigrants as drug mules, criminals and rapists.

This is a guy at whose rallies minorities have been shouted down and even manhandled — like the University of Louisville student Shiya Nwanguma — with little or no condemnation from the candidate.

This is a man who refused to immediately and unequivocally denounce and disavow the former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard David Duke, who said on his radio program that voting against the turgid real estate developer was tantamount to “treason to your heritage.” I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that we can safely assume that Mr. Grand Wizard emeritus meant white heritage.

Again, America, let that sink in: America’s white heritage candidate, according to the illustrious David Duke, is the person so far winning a plurality of votes in the Republican contests and collecting a large share of that party’s delegates.

Indeed, his candidacy is providing a refuge for, and giving voice to, white fear and anger over the inevitable changing demography of the country, the erosion of the center and the rewarding of whiteness as a commodity.

Anger, not policy, is in fact the cornerstone of his candidacy. His policies are carpaccio-thin. He feeds his followers vague, morning-mirror affirmations like “make America great again” and endless “winning,” while largely avoiding particulars and parrying fact-checkers and his own history of inconsistencies.

And yet, the people who support him, angry at the establishment, their own party, America itself, don’t really care. He has touched their frustration and they feel reflected in his brutishness.

But even beyond the troubling racial realities of his candidacy is the misogyny of it.

This is a man who has called various women “disgusting,” “a slob,” “grotesque,” “a dog.” And he says that he cherishes women.

His candidacy also promotes what would surely be characterized as war crimes — interrogation tactics “a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding,” and killing the families of terrorism suspects.

Not only does he want to build a wall on the border, he wants to round up and deport those undocumented in this country, stop Muslims from entering and send back Syrian refugees.

One last time, America: Pause and let all that sink in.

I don’t want anyone to say, when we look back at this moment, that they didn’t see the signs. I don’t want anyone to feign surprise. I don’t want people to say that they didn’t take it all seriously because they had faith that their fellow citizens would somehow see the light and not allow this candidate to rise.

No. You don’t get that option. He has risen and continues to rise. Most smart money is on him becoming the Republican nominee, unless party leaders can devise some last-minute plan to blunt him.

And, it is not at all clear to me that, whoever the Democratic nominee is, she or he would have a cakewalk to an easy victory in the general election.

Say this out loud: The leading candidate for president on the Republican side is a demagogue. He is on track to be that party’s nominee. He is attracting record numbers of voters to the polls. If he wins the nomination, he could also win the presidency.

Scared yet? Good! Stop laughing this off. It’s not a joke. It’s quite real. And you need to remember the moment that you woke up and realized just how real it was.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/opinion/campaign-stops/demagogue-for-president.html?emc=edit_th_20160303&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=65886944

***

Idiots of the Internet – Part 7

***

See all parts (and a lot more) on Joe Santago’s youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/user/JoeSantagato/videos

https://youtu.be/1T1B-l9RPaQ

***

Feeling the Bern: 2 Questions for Bernie Sanders

***

 2 Questions for Bernie Sanders

Nicholas Kristof | Feb. 4, 2016

When Bernie Sanders won election as mayor of Burlington, Vt., in 1981, I called his office to see if there was a story there about a socialist elected official. I was interning at The Washington Post (I didn’t mention the intern part!) and spoke at length to some assistant who answered the phone in the mayor’s office.

I asked about Sanders’s plans, and the aide kept answering with “we” — which I thought a nice glimpse of contagious office socialism. After half an hour, I had enough to check with my editor, so I asked the aide’s name. “Oh,” he said a bit sheepishly, “actually, I’m Bernie Sanders.”

Sanders’s lack of political airs has helped catapult him forward in the presidential race, overcoming a 50-point deficit to just about tie Hillary Clinton in Iowa. He comes across as winningly uncalculated: Other candidates kiss babies; Sanders seems to fumble for a baby’s “off” switch so he can tell you more about inequality in America. Most politicos sweet-talk voters; he bellows at them.

I admire Sanders’s passion, his relentless focus on inequality and his consistency. When he was sworn in as mayor of Burlington, he declared: “The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the millions of families in the middle are gradually sliding out of the middle class and into poverty.” That has remained his mantra across 35 years. And yet, I still have two fundamental questions for Sanders:

Can you translate your bold vision into reality?

On that, frankly, I’m skeptical. I’m for Medicare for All, but it won’t happen. And if it did, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a bipartisan group, found that Sanders’s sums come up short by $3 trillion over a decade.

Likewise, Sanders says he would prod America’s allies in the Middle East to lead the charge to defeat the Islamic State. Yes, but how? The United States has already been trying unsuccessfully to get these allies to do more against ISIS. What new leverage does he bring?

The Washington Post last month published a scathing editorial headlined “Bernie Sanders’s Fiction-Filled Campaign.” It derided his “fantastical claims” and added: “Sanders is not a brave truth-teller. He is a politician selling his own brand of fiction.”

I think that’s too harsh, for Sanders panders less than other politicians (a very low bar), and he has often staked out lonely positions that turned out to be correct—such as his opposition to the Iraq war. But there remains this open question of how he could achieve his ambitious agenda.

I also wonder if his age may be relevant here: Sanders would be 75 when he took office, by far the oldest person to become president (Reagan was 69; Clinton would be a slightly younger 69). Sanders now is indefatigable, but people often slow down in their late 70s and their 80s.

Another reason for skepticism is his congressional record. In 25 years in Congress, Sanders has been primary sponsor of just three bills that became law, and two were simply to rename post offices in Vermont; he did better with amendments. Clinton wasn’t particularly effective as a legislator, either, but to me Sanders’s record suggests that his strength is as a passionate advocate, not as a deal-maker who gets results.

Can you get elected? Or would your nomination make a President Cruz more likely?

When voters are polled today about how they would vote in a general election, Sanders does pretty well. For example, he beats Ted Cruz in the RealClearPolitics average, while Clinton loses to Cruz. But at this stage that’s almost meaningless: Republicans are blasting Clinton while ignoring Sanders. If he were the nominee, he would be savaged.

One particularly sobering item for Sanders supporters: A Gallup poll last year asking voters what kind of person they would be unwilling to consider voting for. Six percent of Americans say they wouldn’t vote for a Catholic, and 7 percent wouldn’t support a black or a Jew. Some 24 percent wouldn’t vote for a gay candidate, and more than a third would refuse to vote for a Muslim or an atheist.

However, the most objectionable kind of person by far was a socialist. Fifty percent of Americans said they would be unwilling to consider voting for a socialist.

Maybe Sanders could convince them that a “democratic socialist” isn’t exactly a socialist, or maybe he could charm some voters into rethinking their beliefs. He has done just that very successfully in Vermont, a state where he now wins elections by overwhelming margins, and skeptics have been underestimating him for 35 years. But if a Democratic nominee starts off with half the voters unwilling to consider someone like him, that’s a huge advantage for the Republican nominee.

So can he accomplish his goals, and is he electable? Lots of us admire Sanders and we would like reassurance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/04/opinion/2-questions-for-bernie-sanders.html?emc=edit_th_20160204&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=65886944

***