Daily Kos David Atkins (thereisnospoon) posted a piece called.. The Garland Pre-Compromise Is Already Sabotaging Clinton’s First 100 Days ..on Saturday (8/13/2016) the title of which sounds a little harsh, but is not really about Hillary Clinton — imo
It is actually about the Dems as a party and pleasing the David Brooks type with a continued method of compromising with republican obstructionists, even with no reason to, nor any foreseeable gains in doing so.
With a republican president Trump, looking less and less the likely winner, one of the most important decisions Hillary Clinton as President will have immediately before her is filling the Supreme court vacancy.
A question that has been raised by David Atkins is this: Should Hillary stick with President Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland or choose another candidate (?)
I’ve added to the question; why not choose a woman, and a liberal one at at that (?)
Here is an excerpt from the Atkins piece:
“Top Senate Democrats” never seem to learn their lesson about political capital and negotiating with Republicans in Congress. There is no amount of compromising or bending over backwards that will please Senate Republicans or even make them more willing to negotiate with Democrats over other key items. One of the more glaring falsehoods of the Democratic primary campaign was that Clinton would be able to make more effective deals and compromises with the opposition, enabling Clinton to get things done that Sanders could not.
The reality is that Congressional Republicans won’t compromise with Clinton any more than they would have with Sanders. And they won’t be more inclined to deal in good faith with her if she nominates Garland than if she were to pull his nomination and select someone else.
There is an argument to be made that switching out Garland for a more progressive choice would be seen as a “divisive” move by some voters, and that it’s better to remain “the adult in the room.” But this, too, is far overstated. The number of voters who care about the optics of partisan divisiveness is very small and unrepresentative of the needs of country.
The shrinking cadre of petit bourgeois, upper-middle-class, socially liberal yet economically conservative aficionados of David Brooks and Ron Fournier does not need any more pandering from Beltway politicians than it already receives.
Kevin Drum’s response to David Atkins piece is thoughtful but is basically this:
My guess is that Garland received a promise—probably implied rather than explicit—that Democrats would stick with him if they won in November. Obama would work to get him confirmed during the lame duck session, and would recommend to Hillary Clinton that she renominate him in 2017 if necessary.
Roughly speaking, Garland is being a team player in hopes that the team will stick with him even if someone better comes along. The question, then, isn't whether Clinton should try to appease Republicans. It's whether she ought to reward loyalty in a guy who agreed to play a difficult and thankless role.
Actually the question is about appeasing republicans, senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, and the “conservative” Dems like David Brooks.
As for “rewarding loyalty”; to assume that Merrick Garland wouldn’t understand the stakes and the advantage of denying the republican’s their hostage taking options, is underestimating Garland himself — imo
Some Dems are pushing for Hillary Clinton not to perhaps choose a more liberal candidate and to stick with Merrick Garland in order to “preserve political capital”.
It seems to me that the opposite is true when it comes to preserving ‘political capital’.
Dems hold the power by denying republicans the option(s) of 1) rushing to confirm Merrick Garland if Hillary Clinton prevails and the Dems take the senate back — fearing that Hillary may choose a more liberal choice. or 2) If the Dems do not secure a senate majority, the republicans will continue obstruction for as long as they like.
I posted a more detailed comment after listening to a Dem strategist talk about the republicans trying to get “two bites of the apple”
— so nothing of great social or political import — just spreading an opinion that made a lot of sense to me.
And this too (from the earlier comment):
I hope that the Mitch McConnell does try to confirm during the lame duck and that Dems hold out and refuse.
The reasoning being: Hillary Clinton could then nominate a very young and hopefully non-centrist (iow’s not someone that the republicans have already approved of in the past — eg. Merrick Garland) liberal judge — especially a female judge which we could use more of (that last part about nominating a female for SCOTUS was my opinion)
— Mitch McConnell/GOP thinks they can wait around holding Garland’s nomination ransom into after the elections, then preserve their own options — I say shut them down and corral them. They do not deserve to decide when to release their hostages — imo
note: — And nothing prevents Hillary Clinton from choosing Merrick Garland, after denying the republicans any options. Nothing at all. It’ll be all hers to handle
Comments are closed on this story.