How the F*ck did we let them stall Garland for 400 days

[ksoze]

Last edited Sun Sep 30, 2018, 08:47 AM - Edit history (2)

Really? Looking back, the price of that loss now proves more devastating. Did we fight hard enough? Did we try and play "fair" and buy into their BS about not voting near an election.

[secondwind]

1. I really think Obama thought Hillary would win... end of story... :-(

[Joe941]

42. yup. this.

[Raven123]

43. Not only that, he named a qualified candidate who was pretty conservative

For some reason, he thought pretty conservative would satisfy the GOP. After 7 years, he should have known better.

[NewJeffCT]

46. That was also part of the problem

Garland is a nice understated guy and considered a reasonable moderate (conservative to many of us on DU) - he was never going to fire up the liberal base to go to war for him and fight tooth & nail for the seat. (He was also 8-10 years older than a typical nominee as well)

[JHan]

49. Hold on, did you think that if he named someone more liberal ...

That McConnell would have given the green light to hold hearings?

[Raven123]

64. No, but it might have lit a fire in the minds of voters.

McConnell just played the delay game and inattentive voters were duped.

[George Eliot]

129. People don't get the degree of corruption to the system McConnell is capable of.

None of this is a surprise to me. I read an article years ago about how McConnell became a politician. He hired two guys to guide him through it and it involved a whole lot of lying to please whomever his audience. He's been corrupt from day one. Same with cheating Trump who gladly put people out of business rather than pay his bills. No conscience either one of them.

[JHan]

133. +++

[SkipG]

181. All McConnell cares about is winning

for himself and his party. Even in high school an "election winning" obsession was reportedly the case. But American culture teaches this, so... USA! USA! USA!

[jalan48]

128. Have never understood the desire to please the Deplorables.

[SkipG]

184. If you need them to get elected....

[Eliot Rosewater]

195. If we need them all is lost. If there are not enough NON racists, if there are not enough NON

bigots, if there are not enough NON anit semites and nazis and you know, then what is the point of this thing anyway?

No thanks, dont want em, not now, not ever. If we have to COURT them, convince them to NOT be assholes, fuck that.

[SkipG]

204. It's a case by case thing.

I'm not a big fan of Manchin, for example, but he votes right most of the time.

[aikoaiko]

48. A lot of people were banking on HRC winning.

I certainly thought she was going to win. I thought it would be closer than it should have been, but still an electorial college win.

[apnu]

76. So instead of fighting during his term he sat for over a year?

I call bullshit.

I love Obama, but he took a seat and let this one fly by. Its the worst mistake he made as POTUS. And I think he knows it today. Biden does.

[Gothmog]

78. What do you think that 46 Democrats could do under senate rules?

[apnu]

80. make noise and made it a campaign issue in 2016.

Come on. The Democrats let this go with a shrug.

We, and they knew, they didn't have the votes on a strict party line. but they sat meekly and let the Republicans have this one.

Better to kick up a fuss and lose than do nothing and lose.

[Gothmog]

81. Which they did

The Democrats picked up two Senators and should have picked up more but we had some issues like Comey and Russian interference.

[apnu]

83. Nope.

Was the SCOTUS a thing at the DNC? Nope.

Did Hillary Clinton talk about it at campaign stops all the time? Nope.

Did Hillary, the DNC, or Democratically aligned Super PACs cut ads and run on it and other Republican obstruction? Nope.

Sorry my friend, the Democrats let Garland go.

Had they shown fire and fight on Garland and other issues, the narrow victories Trump had in certain states wouldn't have happened. A lot of folks sat out 2016.

The Comey and Russian interference only work when the count is razor thin.

[BumRushDaShow]

87. If Democrats couldn't win the Senate back in 2016

then what you describe would have STILL been irrelevant.

That ship sailed in 2014 when Democrats ran away from Obama and the ACA in 2014.

[Gothmog]

92. Voters staying home in 2014 gave the GOP the power to block Garland

[BumRushDaShow]

94. Exactly.

It put a nail in the 2010 coffin.

[Gothmog]

90. Clinton warns of possible Trump Supreme Court nominations

I was a delegate to the national convention and this was discussed. The solution is to elect more Democrats to the Senate and for Clinton to win.

Clinton did not talk about this issue in the real world. I attended several high dollar fund raisers when this was discussed.

Clinton made clear to everyone that the future of the SCOTUS was on the ballot in 2016 and we needed to turnout to vote and elect more Democrats https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election/clinton-warns-of-possible-trump-supreme-court-nominations-idUSKCN0WU16O

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton rebuked Senate Republicans on Monday for denying a hearing to U.S. Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, accusing them of obstructionism, and warned of dangers if Donald Trump appointed the next justice.

In a speech in Wisconsin, Clinton put the future of the Supreme Court at the center of the election debate, cautioning that any Trump-appointed justices would be likely to roll back workers’ and abortion rights and “demolish pillars of the progressive movement.”

See also https://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-supreme-court-obama-immigration-2016-6

Hillary Clinton condemned Thursday's Supreme Court deadlock that blocked President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration, calling the decision "unacceptable."
She added that the ruling showed "us all just how high the stakes are in this election."

"As I have consistently said, I believe that President Obama acted well within his constitutional and legal authority in issuing the DAPA [Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents] and DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] executive actions," she said in a statement.

"These are our friends and family members; neighbors and classmates; DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents. They enrich our communities and contribute to our economy every day. We should be doing everything possible under the law to provide them relief from the specter of deportation."

See also https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/20/supreme-court-debate-clinton-trump-guns-abortion/92452362/

WASHINGTON — Under Donald Trump's Supreme Court, federal abortion rights would disappear "automatically." Gun control restrictions would be frowned upon. Justices would put the Constitution first, in the mold of the late Antonin Scalia.

Under Hillary Clinton's Supreme Court, potential nominees would be vetted for their views on court precedents, such as the Citizens United decision that allowed corporations to spend freely on elections. But she might have one less nomination to make, having urged the Senate to confirm President Obama's choice for Scalia's replacement.

Those alternate legal universes emerged Thursday from liberal and conservative analyses of Wednesday night's presidential debate, when the two candidates held their most detailed discussion to date about the future of the high court.

The upshot: Trump's list of 21 potential nominees to replace Scalia and fill any future vacancies is far more specific than Clinton's, who cannot bring herself even to cite federal appeals court Judge Merrick Garland by name. She endorsed him only as "the nominee that President Obama has sent" to the Senate.

I was on the Clinton victory counsel team and on the legal finance committee. This was an important issue during the campaign. I am not sure what more could have been done in the real world other than Obama firing Comey after the July press conference.

[Raastan]

159. + 1

[Power 2 the People]

130. +1

[George Eliot]

132. Agree. Where was the fire and fury by Democrats? However, media does not give Dems same coverage

as GOP. The Democrats and Pelosi tried some attention-getting strategies but still limited coverage. Corporate media wants corporate conservatives on Court. And the GOP uses street language which the Dems shy away from. Bad coverage is better than no coverage. Everything is so complex now. No single answer for anything except lying, name calling, and corruption by GOP works.

[JHan]

154. Hillary constantly talked about SCOTUS.

sigh.

[Eliot Rosewater]

241. I am confused, what could the MINORITY party do when the MAJORITY refused?

[Gothmog]

95. This was an issue in 2016

I went to the national convention as a Clinton delegate. This issue was seriously debated and discussed in the real world. I attended speeches where this was discussed.

We needed to win in 2016 and pick up more than two senate seats to make a difference.

It is sad that so many sanders voters stayed home or voted for Jill Stein. These voters are the reason why Roe v. Wade will be overturned

[ehrnst]

238. So they didn't make the "fuss" that you thought they should make,

even though there was nothing else that could be done?

Because you needed the validation?

[Old Vet]

141. +1000

[Gothmog]

77. McConnell had 54 votes at the time

There was nothing that the Democrats could do under Senate rules

[Raine]

125. Yes EXACTLY

lesson here .... "never count your chickens before they're hatched."

[bettyellen]

127. A lot of bad things came out of that assumption. All of the media bullshit was from a place of

“She is inevitable”. She wasn’t.
Neither is Kavanaugh.

[Crunchy Frog]

144. Whatever happened to the sayings "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" or

"Hope for the best but plan for the worst"?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. Not much they could do when they didn't have a majority

and McConnell manipulated the rules.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. This.

[bdamomma]

13. McConnell

he was part of cabal to not put through Merrick Garland.

[smirkymonkey]

98. He was driving the train.

I can't wait until that evil old bastard finally takes a dirt nap.

[Fullduplexxx]

3. There was nothing we could do about it

[Va Lefty]

5. Probably not, but Dems should have raised hell and shutdown the Senate!

[BumRushDaShow]

11. That's just silly.

Think about it.

[SCantiGOP]

16. Yep

Minority can’t “shut down” the Senate. All they could do is boycott, which would give the repubs the ability to pass anything they wanted.

[BumRushDaShow]

22. The only "tool" that they can use

that the GOP effectively used in the past, AND that Democrats HAVE used currently, is the "hold". But that tool is limited. However it HAS slowed down their nominations quite a bit (and is barely mentioned here on DU), which is why you hear the whining about it from the other side. But that is as far as they can go without having control of the chamber.

[SCantiGOP]

24. That's right

And the only Tool that will really work is our damned VOTE on Nov 6.

[BumRushDaShow]

27. THIS

It would be fantastic if we can hold our vulnerable seats and actually pick up 2 more out of the several possibilities (e.g., NV, AZ, TN).

Something like this -

https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-polls/tennessee/
https://www.270towin.com/2018-senate-polls/arizona/

can be a reality with a BIG BIG GOTV.

[hedda_foil]

38. I believe turtle boy threw out the judicial hold along with the filibuster.

[BumRushDaShow]

45. He threatened to put it up for a vote but his own side torpedoed it.

In order to change the rules they need a majority of that body and he didn't have it from his own side (it is the GOP's most effective tool when they are out of power). See (now-retired) Tom Coburn.

(and to clarify - what was "thrown out" by the Senate majority vote as a rules change, was requiring 60 votes for the SCOTUS pick)

[hedda_foil]

62. Understood. I remember hearing that the privilege of home state senator to hold up a nomination

has been abrogated as well.

[BumRushDaShow]

65. What you describe is the "blue slip" thing

yet another rule.

The GOP judiciary chair (obviously Grassley) had started bypassing that, which is where the Senators from the same state that a nominee comes from, can say yay or nay (object) to that nominee.



It was always more a "courtesy" thing (which added to the Senate decorum). But since this current crop of Senate leadership plans on going out blazing and burning bridges, they have been essentially ignoring past "courtesies" (which is what allowed for "bipartisanship" instead of the extreme partisanship that you see today) and have started ignoring whether the committee received a blue slip or not.

[hedda_foil]

96. Yes, that's it. I'd forgotten the term. Thanks for your help.

[BumRushDaShow]

101. You are welcome!

Have been trying to keep track of these obscure rules myself!

[Gothmog]

79. How could 46 Democrats shut down the Senate

They can slow things down but the 54 GOP senators had a quorum and could still conduct business

[Doremus]

111. Agreed, Va Lefty. Anything but sternly worded letters and giving up.

Seriously, anything is better than nothing.

[NewJeffCT]

55. There were ideas proposed at the time

by some legal scholars.

Since McConnell was acting in bad faith, withdraw Garland and put forth another candidate with the qualifier that if a hearing/vote is not scheduled within 60 days, the senate will be considered to have waived their right to advise and consent...

I'm sure McConnell would have sued and it goes to the Supreme Court, and who knows how it would have turned out with 8 justices?And, at least Obama goes down fighting if the court rules against him.

[mythology]

63. That wouldn't have worked.

In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled that appointments made during short recesses weren't constitutional. Granted the specific case was for the NLRB, but that's the relevant precedent.

[Codeine]

6. They had the numbers.

Shit like this is why people who want to string up Manchin are delusional. It’s a numbers game and the Pukes have the advantage. We change that we change the whole game.

[exboyfil]

54. What do you think Manchin

will do if the Dems get to 51 Senators after the election? I would not be too surprised for him to discover his inner GOP.

[Codeine]

59. I find that fairly silly.

He could have jumped at any time.

[JI7]

150. so why not switch right now before the election ? why wait until after he had already won ?

[at140]

7. Republicrats had the majority in senate,

during the Garland nomination. In Senate & House, the majority leader and Speaker seem to wield huge power.

[DarthDem]

8. No One "Let" Them Do Anything

There wasn't anything that Obama could do about it.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Civics 101

Lose control of the Senate in 2014, lose control of the Committee Chairs and the Senate Calendar.

Period.

[ck4829]

170. Civics 102 - We control the Senate not the white supremacist GOP

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2018, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

Maybe it’s time to start questioning the legitimacy of this so-called “Senate”, I’m starting to wonder if it cares about representing an elite few rather than the people.

[Sugarcoated]

10. I hear people saying we didn't have the votes

But I didn't see our legislators pound this in the media like they should've, like the Repubs would've. They didn't fight for him.

[qazplm135]

15. and that would have worked as well then

as it's about to work now.

[Sugarcoated]

17. I disagree

When Republicans are minority THEY FIGHT in the media and I've seen them work it to get traction. PASSION it matters
We didn't have Emperor Dumbass and this criminal sham government.

[treestar]

20. Example?

[Sugarcoated]

28. The ACA fight Repubs were in the minority

They used every trick in the book and pounded the media. They were, and are relentless and understand the power of the media, work it hard and smart, message better. Democrats cede this to them, everyone on this thread saying, "nothing we could've done", are doing the same. This is the prime reason we need new younger passionate blood in our party. Feinstein should've been out there explaining, countering the RW bullshit that she was playing politics with Dr Ford's letter. Think Beto...we need FIGHTERS

[qazplm135]

33. you are talking about electoral success

not somehow overwhelming the majority on the floor.

Two different things.

[Sugarcoated]

35. It all works together

It all matters. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[treestar]

51. It's crazy the idea we can get around being in a minority

voting is the only answer.

[Sugarcoated]

56. And messaging, media, impassioned reasoned arguments

Anger, outrage...it can change votes on the other side.

[qazplm135]

67. no, not really

not in any meaningful way.

Like the poster above said...voting is what matters, it's the only thing that matters.

[Sugarcoated]

68. I meant changing votes of legislators on the other side

If you are referring to voting by the people, again I say, passion, smarts and a willingness to fight will win more votes. It all goes into te mix, it all matters.

[qazplm135]

69. I know what you meant

and we had a crap ton of marches and earnestness in 2016, didn't work, not just for Clinton but for two fairly progressive senate candidates.

[Sugarcoated]

71. I guess what I'm saying isn't getting understood, either through my inability to convey it

or some other reason. I'm not here to argue, we'll have to agree to disagree

[BumRushDaShow]

100. "I meant changing votes of legislators on the other side"

In 2010, the SCOTUS ruled on the "Citizen's United" case, a case that involved the broadcast of a Hillary Clinton hit-piece as a long-form political "ad" created in 2008. They ruled in Citizen United's favor for this (and similar) forms of "advertising" as being protected by the First Amendment. DU refuses to deal with the background of this case -



The SCOTUS ruling thus allowed unlimited dark money to be funneled into elections, which lead to the 60+ seat turnover of the U.S. Congress (changing Democratic seats to Republican in both chambers). Those "new" GOPers were teabagger scum who were not elected to "play by the rules" and were elected to be extreme partisans.

Subsequent elections in 2012, 2014, and 2016 bolstered their numbers. So what you see in there now, with some finally starting to go, are a large group dumped there from the insane asylum, who refused to "vote for" anything that has to do with what Democrats want.

[Sugarcoated]

108. Yes, I know that

But the SC pick at the end they should've used all means necessary, pounded the media and they didn't. I didn't see it.

[BumRushDaShow]

113. Democrats/liberals/progressives DO NOT OWN any media

Do you remember Moonves' remark? "It might not be good for America but it's damn good for CBS".

Al Franken had tried with Air America, and it pretty much collapsed. Al Gore tried with CurrentTV and that could not sustain itself and was eventually sold to Al Jazeerra.

Democrats take their large amounts of money and give it to programs that benefit people and the environment. Republicans take their money and give it to things that benefit themselves - they buy media outlets - thousands and thousands of small radio and TV stations and large networks (in addition to funding their candidates).

The owners of the media do not wish to hear liberal/progressive voices and you can pound on their doors all you want but only THEY have the power to invite you to appear on one of their shows. Nancy Pelosi can't demand that CBS let her on Face the Nation or Meet the Press.

This might be instructive for you to watch -

[Sugarcoated]

135. I don't think Dems controlling or not controlling the media

is what I'm talking about. It's about doing the media as relentlessly as often as Republicans and not ceding the message

[BumRushDaShow]

137. "It's about doing the media as relentlessly"

Are you not getting it? What are you calling "doing the media"? If you mean "the messaging", they ARE doing the "messaging" but no one is SHOWING IT because we have no control over what they show or don't show.

"Doing media relentlessly" means you need some outlet to "SHOW" your messaging. And outside of sending millions of email messages to constituents (which the DNC and many progressive/liberal organizations already do), in addition to advertising on social media and the internet, the only other "media" that you SEE/HEAR is broadcast and print. And THOSE outlets are primarily owned by the RW and they REFUSE to SHOW our "message".

When you "hear" and "see" people like a Lindsey Graham spouting off nonsense, he is doing so on television because those broadcast outlets have INVITED him on but have NOT done the same with very vocal Democrats in the same ratio as they bring on the RW loons.

It is to the point where the Democratic leadership will give a press conference on the Capitol steps or in Statuary Hall and no media source other than maybe CSPAN will actually show it. And that leaves the impression that Democrats are doing nothing and that is complete and utter BULLSHIT.

Every single fucking day, Nancy Pelosi (and/or the Democratic leadership) gives a press conference and no one shows it except CSPAN. And regular broadcast networks MIGHT show it if there is some controversial issue going on. Every week, Democrats have "Weekly Addresses" to counter whatever the administration puts out for the Weekly address, which Drumpf no longer does consistently anymore -

Here is the one playing for this week from Sen. Patty Murray -

SENATE DEMOCRATS CHANNEL WITH WEEKLY ADDRESSES GIVEN BY SENATORS
https://www.youtube.com/user/SenateDemocrats/videos

NANCY PELOSI CHANNEL WITH WEEKLY ADDRESSES WITH WEEKLY ADDRESSES GIVEN BY HOUSE MEMBERS
https://www.youtube.com/user/NancyPelosi/videos

HOUSE DEMOCRATS CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/user/HouseDems/videos

HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS VIDEOS
https://www.dems.gov/newsroom/videos

DNC CHANNEL
https://www.youtube.com/user/DemocraticVideo/videos

[Sugarcoated]

146. I didn't see it on the news/pundit shows like I saw Republicans fighting for what they believe.

The same faces is what I saw, some passionate some not. I didn't see them out there doing what I thought they needed to do and cable news is all I watch, every day. Agree to disagree.

[BumRushDaShow]

149. "I didn't see it on the news/pundit shows"

What are you not getting? The OWNERS of those "news/pundit shows" CONTROL who is allowed to come on their news/pundit shows and how they are to act (or they will NOT be invited back). Everything in these shows is "controlled". Every "host", "pundit", "panelist", or "guest" gets an earphone jabbed in their ear and it's not there for "decoration". Producers who are off-camera are talking to them and giving them directions.

In fact as a note - some of the biggest progressive firebrands who hosted these "shows", like Keith Olberman and Martin Bashir, were summarily removed when they stepped over a corporate line of discourse that OUR SIDE wanted them to step over. Plus if you look specifically at cable news networks like MSNBC, other hosts like Al Sharpton and Joy Reid, were taken off of weekday daytime/primetime shows and were marginalized to weekends. Fireband SiriusXM host Joe Madison, who is an occasional "pundit" on the cable shows, has described the issues that go on with these shows, where he has told stories about those periods when CNN & MSNBC refused to invite him despite the show host's request because he didn't respect the show's limited parameters or refused to tow the corporate line. And there were other times they so wanted to control what he was allowed to say, that HE refused TO go on when invited.

The "agree to disagree" cop-out in this instance is nothing more than a "lalalala I can't hear you" for this purposeful RW hitpiece OP aimed at liberals/progressives with a "talking point" that refuses to acknowledge how the corporate media operates (whether it is "cable" or "OTA broadcast" ). And specifically for this topic, it simply illustrates the naivete that many on DU have.

During my 4 years in college over 35 years ago, I used to work at the school's radio station. I hosted a weekly Friday afternoon drive time news radio show and also had a weekly public affairs and/or music show, so I know what goes on "behind" the scenes of that format.

It was 42 years ago when I had chance to sit in the studio audience of the taping of a "Mike Douglas Show" episode here in Philadelphia and that entire experience, from the group of 30 paid "audience plants" (the show's executive producer told us who they were as they lined them up at the front of the line before everyone filed in), to the observations of several other producers around the studio floor holding signs for "applause" or "commercial" to indicate to the audience what they are to do or where they were in the show taping - is an experience that IMHO, you need to have.

Next year will be 50 years ago when I had my very first opportunity to "be on TV" and compete in a quiz contest for a local kids show at one of our local broadcast stations and that was my earliest experience of discovering what really goes on "behind the scenes" and beyond the camera in a television studio, and that is an experience that you never forget.

[Sugarcoated]

163. We're talking past one another

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[BumRushDaShow]

164. I know full well what you are arguing

and you are not understanding the mechanics of fulfilling what you are demanding.

[Sugarcoated]

165. Uh huh

Whatever you say

[betsuni]

147. +1

[shanny]

203. The way to get voters to vote us out of the minority position

is to give them a reason to do it. Nominating a centrist jurist with the hope of getting any R votes was not inspiring (as opposed to, say, the next RBG--if you're gonna lose, lose big and show what the stakes are). Sitting back and waiting for the inevitable Clinton presidency to fix it was not inspiring either.

[treestar]

205. If you have to be inspired, you'll be in the minority always

The Founders gave us self government and assumed we would take up that duty and not be dramatic about it.

[shanny]

206. Blaming the voters is always a losing strategy imo.

In fact, I'd call it a new iteration of the definition of insanity.

[treestar]

208. The voters should be participating

If they don't, they don't count. The founders gave you a republic. Participate and don't play the victim. Oh, you are blaming me, boo hoo. Yes, I do blame them! They should not demand other citizens do more - we all have to do our part. Who are they to demand of others? If they want to be left out, they can stay that way! Geez, quit making these people into royal pains who have to be placated. If they don't vote, they don't count and they are to blame for the mess they find themselves in. Catering to them only will make them more demanding.

I vote and don't demand others cater to me and inspire me! Why do I have to do more than other citizens? They were given the chance to participate and if they through it away, they are being irresponsible.

[shanny]

217. "should" and $5 will get you a cup of coffee

[ehrnst]

222. Heard a lot about Black voters in the South "not knowing/understanding who is best for them"

in 2016 from some on the left.

Even right here on DU.

[EffieBlack]

228. Eyup

I saw it, too ... Over and over.

How quickly some (pretend to) forget

[EffieBlack]

230. Definition of insanity is treating voters like fragile little snowflakes who can't handle the truth

Voters need to take responsibility for their choices and actions/inaction.

When did this "I'm not inspired so I'm not voting/I just don't feel a personal connection with the candidate so I'll just sit this out" crap start?

[treestar]

50. The ACA passed

they were in the minority and their "fighting" did not stop it.

[Sugarcoated]

72. It weakened it

and it affected public opinion negatively, the constant pounding of rw media and messaging.

[EffieBlack]

219. Legislation isn't a nomination

Different processes. Among other things, legislation is developed, shaped, negotiated and public pressure can affect what the final version looks like - and even then, it's not really final since new Congresses can come in and weaken or strengthen it.

A nomination doesn't work that way. If the leadership in charge of the process doesn't want it to move and isn't worried about the political ramifications of appearing to be obstructionist, it doesn't move. Period.

All if this Monday morning quarterbacking is ridiculous.

[Sugarcoated]

262. We're talking past one another

We'll have to agree to disagree.

[WillowTree]

192. Funny.......I could have sworn that ACA passed...........

[Sugarcoated]

196. Yes, but it's a much weaker bill than what was intended and should have been

The pressure from Republicans, through constant media and messaging pressured the Dems. Maybe not the only reason it was watered down but it is one of the reasons.

We're talking past one another, we'll have to agree to disagree.

[JHan]

257. It was a weaker bill because we didn't have the numbers.

It's really that simple.

Lieberman torpedoed the public option. But the Bill, flawed as it was, got passed. Then Republicans took over Congress, and any chance to fix it was lost because fixes couldn't leave committee phase.

Lesson to be learned? Give your Dems a majority.

[Sugarcoated]

263. We're talking past one another

We'll have to agree to disagree. Not here to argue endlessly with people who I'm on the same side with, gotta save that energy for the bad guys. Take care.

[JHan]

264. it's about facts:

It's not difficult to understand.

We didn't have the numbers which required reaching out to independents like Lieberman. Analysis that blames Democrats for things outside of their control is analysis which doesn't help our understanding. Take care.

[Sugarcoated]

266. Uh huh

Okay.

[NewJeffCT]

182. The problem with that is

how often do you see Democrats get a lot of time on air to make their case?

In 2016, Trump sucked all the air out of the room, and Clinton received very little coverage until the DNC email leak that the media conflated with her private server, and even then, Trump drove the news cycle 19 days out of every 20.

Since Trump took office, the pundits you see on air are mostly Republicans - the media seems to like to pit pro Trump vs Never Trump Republicans on the air. If you get a panel with a Democrat, they'll be sharing airtime with those two Republicans most likely, and too often the Democrat lets the Republican get away with too much BS (the standard Trumper line is "the economy is fantastic", and the Democratic talking head will say, "yeah, but...&quot

[Sugarcoated]

198. I'm sure that was part of the equation

But so are Dems lack of willingness to get out in front of the cameras and passionately fight. I saw then, and continue to see the same half dozen faces out there. We need young aggressive smart passionate people who find ways to get around the media laziness/status quo. Again, frustratingly, I saw very few Democrats, elected legislators defending Diane Feinstein from the bullshit RW attack line re: the Dr. Ford letter, or even Feinstein herself! That's just fucking lame, inexcusable. I'm done with Dems that don't fight

[BumRushDaShow]

19. How is that going to change the numbers?

Civics 101 - Lose the Senate, lose the control of the Senate business (which includes scheduling hearings). The end.

This idiotic thing about podium pounding and foot stomping is the same bullshit that was thrown against Obama.

Liberals/progressives don't OWN any "media". So they could be doing Cirque du Soleil acrobatics out on the steps of the Capitol and "the media" MAY choose whether to cover it or not. The media invites them on their shows OR NOT.

Do not people recall the 500,000 who marched against the Iraq War resolution and it was not even covered by "the media" at all (CSPAN may have been the only ones)?

[JHan]

156. ++++++

[treestar]

23. Is it going to work now?

There is even a poll showing a majority don’t want Kavanaugh

[tazkcmo]

106. Exactly

Protests have taken place. Democratic Reps and Senators have been all over TV. The only thing that has slowed the process down is the sexual assault charges, not iur voices, not our Democratic officials voices. Absent the charges he would already be confirmed.

[Sugarcoated]

136. Democratic legislators weren't all over the tv for Merrick Garland.

That's what the OP is about. Dems and Obama could've and should have done better. They didn't fight for it.

[BumRushDaShow]

139. "All over TV" is exactly what the RW Corporate media won't allow

WE don't OWN THE TV NETWORKS and they REFUSE to show us "all over TV".

We show up and they pull their cameras & microphones or they refuse to SHOW IT on their later broadcasts.

Their "soundbites" will be all RW loons and us standing there and then they CUT IT OFF and WON'T SHOW OUR RESPONSE.

Why is this concept so difficult to understand?

[tazkcmo]

145. What would it have changed?

Nothing. Read the numerous posts above to find out why. Minority party, rule changes by majority party, etc.

[Sugarcoated]

197. When we start talking past one another

it's time to agree to disagree. We're on the same side, let's not waste energy fighting wit each other.

[Caliman73]

109. There is another thread from a couple of weeks back decrying Democrats not being on the media...

I will say now like I said then, how are Democrats supposed to "pound this in the media" when media coverage since at least 2010 has favored Republicans by sizable majority. Democrats are not invited to the Sunday shows, or to other venues as much as Republicans, but a wide margin.

Do we "bum rush the show" as Public Enemy says? I mean we have Avenatti now so we may be able to get on a few shows.

[Recursion]

175. Did you own a TV?

Because they did pound it in the media. Obama joked about locking Republican Senators in a room and murdering them all like the Red Wedding in Game of Thrones.

[treestar]

209. Did you?

They need to know we back them in order to do that!

The Republicans don't have this problem! At least their voters know what their duty is, to participate. That makes them stronger, period end. They don't whine that Donald or Mittens or Mitch or whoever isn't doing enough for them. They get out and vote.

[maxsolomon]

12. They violated their oath of office.

The swore to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution stipulates that they shall provide Advise and Consent. They did not.

I don't know what the remedy is supposed to be for that.

I would have liked to see more rhetoric from Obama regarding it, but McConnell knows the rules very well. There was no way to force them.

When the Dems take the Senate, there will be no more Trump nominees confirmed, period. Tit for tat.

[unblock]

18. No they didn't. They shattered norms, they did great damage to the fabric of governance,

But they didn't violate any actual rules. Technically, they provided advice, namely, "no".

The constitution doesn't specify any specific senate procedure, so rejecting a nominee without a hearing or vote is technically permitted. It's heinous, but not unconstitutional.

And what good would it be to have forced a hearing? They could have had a sham hearing and a sham vote and the result would have been the same. Maybe that would have played out politically better for us, but we still would have had a vacancy. Then again,sub Ree g t better outrage this way because they can't pretend they were being fair.

I agree with tit for tat. Impeach them both, or at least add more justices.

[maxsolomon]

21. Not rules, their oath of office.

I agree with most of what you're saying. McConnell is a wily old turtle.

[dalton99a]

26. "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body" is gone for good.

Republicans destroyed it some time ago.

Rules, traditions, standards, decorum are mere instruments of control to them.

Their currency of the realm is currency, and the only language they use and understand is power.

[unblock]

31. That's about the size of it.

[raging moderate]

58. The Constitution also mandates that "the President SHALL APPOINT" judges.

What do the words "SHALL" and "APPOINT" mean? The framers of the US Constitution would have expected us ALL to know that the use of the word "SHALL" with the third-person subject confers the force of a mandate for the subject on the following verb. Then, it says, "with the advice and consent of the Senate." The Senators all swore an oath to uphold the US Constitution.

You are right. They violated their oath of office.

[onenote]

70. Presidents leave office without attempting to fill every vacancy that requires senate consent

Did they all violate their oath of office.

Obama had a lot of nominations blocked. But he also didn't put forward names for a lot of vacancies. Do you think he violated his oath of office.

Back when Garland was being stonewalled, I wrote the following. I stand by it:

There has been quite a bit of discussion the past couple of days regarding the senate repubs decision to stonewall any SCOTUS nominee put forward by President Obama. Much of the discussion focuses on whether the repubs are violating some Constitutional duty to hold hearings and a vote. Many, including myself, have pointed out that the appointments clause and its history support the conclusion that there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates that the senate to do anything with a Presidential nomination if the majority that controls the Senate chooses not to do anything. There are several examples (almost all from the 19th Century) of SCOTUS nominations not getting an "up or down" vote because the nomination wasn't acted on after being referred to committee or because the nomination was tabled or the subject of a procedural motion or motion to postpone consideration that prevented any action from taking place. In these instances, the nomination technically is still alive, although most of the time the President withdraws the nomination since its clearly not going anywhere. It also is not that rare for other types of Presidential nominations (ambassador, lower court judge, cabinet/subcabinet post) to get stalled out without any consideration (including no hearing) and such nominations are covered by the same appointments clause language as SCOTUS nominations.

The issue is the difference between Constitutional mandates and Constitutional expectations. As it turns out, this was the subject of a lively discussion I was part of more than 30 years ago in my Con Law class (team taught by a pretty high level group of professors that included noted Constitutional Law scholar Herbert Wechlser and future Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg).

The issue that was presented to us revolved around the creation of the Supreme Court. The Constitution states that "the judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme court, and such inferior courts as Congress may ordain and establish." It also states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the supreme court and all other officers of the United States whose appointment is by law required to be made by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.

What was pointed out to us was that there is nothing in the Constitution that deals with how the Court is to be created, how many justices it will have and various and sundry other matters relating to the Court's operation. It was further pointed out to us that while the Constitution was ratified in June 1788, the first president didn't take office and the first congress did not convene until March 1789 and that first Congress did not pass legislation establishing the number of Justices at six until July 1789 and the first Supreme Court didn't convene until February 1790 -- so the country existed for nearly two years without a Supreme Court.

The questions that we were asked to consider included the following: What if Congress had created a Court with only one justice (such that whenever there was a vacancy there would be no Court)? What if the Congress had not acted to create the Court at all? What if the Congress created the Court but the President refused to nominate anyone. Could the Constitutionality of such actions be challenged? And who would hear the challenge if there was no Court to hear it?

The point of the exercise was to drive home the point that there are Constitutional mandates that can be enforced through legal processes, and there are Constitutional expectations that can only be enforced through the political process. If the first Congress had not created the Court, the answer would have been for the voters to either replace Congress or get an amendment to the Constitution passed that established a mechanism for creating a court and for forcing action to fill vacancies.

That is what we face now: a Senate that is defying Constitutional expectations, but not violating any Constitutional mandate. There can be no legally enforceable mandate for the Senate to take any specific action on a proposed SCOTUS nominee just as there was no legally enforceable mandate for the Congress to set up the Court and bring it into existence together with the President (even though the Constitution mandates that such court is where the judicial power shall be vested).

There is no doubt that a Supreme Court with a full complement of justices is to be preferred over a court with a lengthy vacancy. But the current law governing the Court's operations allows the Court to function with as many as three vacancies (a quorum being specified as six justices).

Ultimately, it will be up the voters, and our ability to convince the voters, to either persuade the Senate to reverse course or to vote out the obstructionists. Its not something that can be addressed through a legal action.

[raging moderate]

225. I did not in any way imply that Obama was at fault here.

Obama was doing his duty in this area as best he could. Failing to secure an appointment does not constitute refusing to make an appointment. Or information is that McConnell refused to allow the appointment process to work.

[redstateblues]

14. ?.I'm pretty sure the Republicans controlled the Senate

What would you have done if you were a Democratic Senator? Elections have consequences

[BeyondGeography]

29. Obama didn't even mention Merrick Garland's name at the convention

I don’t want to have this fight again, but there was no excuse for that. If you think he fought hard enough, fine, we disagree.

Ultimately, we needed Hillary to win.

[Sugarcoated]

32. Yes, yes YES!

Biggest mistake of his presidency

[EffieBlack]

140. Seriously?

If Obama had mentioned Merrick Garland in a convention speech in late August, that would have done what?

[Eliot Rosewater]

30. We? YOU had the power to stop that, WE all did.

But some of us didnt show up in 2010, cuz you know, Obama didnt give us UHC he only gave us MONUMENTAL change and improvement in HC.

Then WE and YOU all had a chance again in 2016, but some of us, and I am NOT saying you, WHINED incessantly about someone.

Nah, a big part of this is on those who chose to do those things.

[EffieBlack]

36. This This This!!!

[mcar]

88. +1000!

[George II]

250. It wasn't perfect, so it wasn't good enough.

[EffieBlack]

34. 2010, 2014

That is all

[LisaM]

37. God, I hate Comey.

May he rot in hell for what he did.

If he's rotting in his own hell right now, good.

[jrthin]

39. We were lost on the high road. nt

[Vinca]

57. That's it exactly.

[CrispyQ]

93. We've been wandering it for almost 40 years. Ironic. -nt

[jrthin]

103. I just keep thinking...the republicans are street fighters.

They show up with super sharp weapons; we show up with paper knives.

[Wellstone ruled]

40. Harry Reid.

He did not want to mess up his personal friendships . And those friendships came back to bite him in his ass.

[George II]

41. How? Read the newspapers, the Congressional Record, history books and study up on...

....Senate procedures.

I don't have to ask anyone or myself how this happened.

[Blue_Tires]

44. k+r

[Thrill]

47. Media never pressed the issue. And Democrats just don't know how

To use the media to get a message out

[apnu]

82. The Dems didn't press the issue.

Using the media is easy. Take a page from the Republican playbook. Mention it in every single interview no matter what the topic.

Plus in the age of social media, which Obama leveraged well in his campaigns, they could have drummed this all day every day.

[CrispyQ]

97. Democrats are good at policy but suck at politics.

The GOP has controlled the narrative for almost four decades. There's really no excuse for this. It's on the dems. They dropped the ball.

[apnu]

104. This. My point exactly. Thank you. (nt)

[muntrv]

53. We didn't turnout in 2010 and 2014, the repukes did and won the House and Senate. That's how.

[Codeine]

60. We have the majority,

but it is unfortunately a poorly-motivated and often-ignorant majority that all too often simply cannot be arsed into the simple act of casting a ballot.

Sigh.

[apnu]

84. We didn't have the turn out in 2016 either.

The Dems are struggling to get folks out to the polls. Fighting for Garland and the SCOTUS and all it impacts, would have probably gotten more folks to show up in Michigan and Ohio, PA also.

[jmowreader]

61. You really don't understand

President Obama could have nominated Kavanaugh and gotten the same result. That shit wasn’t about stopping an “unqualified” candidate from being seated on the Supreme Court. It was about what someone who’s going to be born a hundred years after we all die is going to put in the history book he’s writing.

[Gothmog]

66. They had 54 GOP Senate votes

[jalan48]

73. We're too passive and nice. We need more of our reps speaking like Avenatti.

[scheming daemons]

74. We didn't "let" them.... McConnell had the majority, and complete control over the Senate calendar

[Gothmog]

75. That is how senate rules work

[KCDebbie]

190. I don't get why people don't understand that!

The republicans were in the majority and therefore they decided to not even MEET with Merrick Garland.

There was no way to force Sen Mitch McConnell to hold hearings for Obama's nominee, Garland, short of black-mailing McConnell or using some other underhanded way to persuade him...

[mcar]

85. Rs had the Senate

They were in control.

[jdoyle1x1]

86. It was 293 days

March 16, 2016 to Jan 3, 2017 (the day the nomination expired, the final day of the 114th Congress).

[moondust]

89. Corrupt GOP politicians

bending and twisting the rules to their corrupt advantage. It won't end until somebody with integrity updates the rules to prevent the bending and twisting for partisan advantage--to include gerrymandering, voter suppression, electoral college, revolving door, big money, etc. Republicans will never do that because it would effectively mean the end of them.

[a kennedy]

91. Boggles the mind don't it........

Ugh, they're such slime.......I despise them all.

[budkin]

99. It'll both haunt us, and be a rallying cry... for a generation.

A huge moment in our history.

[Squinch]

102. WE didn't let them. The assholes who don't vote for the Dems because they aren't "inspired"

are the ones who let them.

[EffieBlack]

142. I asked on DU why Bernie didn't harness his "revolution" to fight for Garland

And was told that Garland was too moderate to fight for - and don't forget that Bernie promised, if elected, to pull Garland's nomination and replace him with someone more progressive.

So, the people now whining about "why didn't THEY do more?!" really need to go sit down.

[Squinch]

143. And they're all so impressed with themselves because they think they know something

the rest of us don't.

It's just another side of the coin of entitled white men.

[JI7]

152. it's nothing more than wanting to stick to to those who don't support or focus on their issues

same reason people support trump and other right wing trash . we know why trump supports Kavanaugh but why does the right wing support him so much when the alternative would also be conservative justices that would support them on issues they claim to support but aren't sexual assaulters ? because now it's about sticking it to the liberals. getting their trash on the court. someone like Gorsuch would not give them the satisfaction at this point.

it wont affect them and will preserve their privilege so they will win either way.

[beachbum bob]

105. idiots couldn;t support the lesser of 2 evils for starters

[maxrandb]

107. When someone asks a question like this, I like to respond with

Well, you see...

President Obama didn't fix all of America's problems within a week of taking office, and even had to gall to not deliver ponies as demanded.

We decided that the way to make America "more progressive" was to sit out the 2010 Mid-term election (A CENSUS YEAR), and allow unhinged racists with tri-corner hats and Medicare provided "My Scooters", and screaming like banshees for 14 months about getting "gubmint out of my Medicare", to take over 65% of all State Legislatures and Governorships, as well as a majority of the Federal Government House and Senate.

Then, we sat back as a racist fucking orange circus clown spent the next 14 months demanding to see the first African American President's Birth Certificate. We never showed up to protest at the studios of ...NOT ONE SINGLE one of the 1,500 Hate Radio stations, (MANY BASED ENTIRELY WITHIN THE CONFINE OF 80-20 BLUE TO RED CITIES), who spewed racist birther shit 24/7.

Then, it became perfectly normal for CBS, NBC, ABC, the NY Times, the WA Post, and of course Faux News to present the entire racist birther shit as nothing more than a "he said-she said" issue.

Then we gleefully watched "Game of Thrones" and wondered how people could allow such a fucked up...but totally entertaining...leadership structure take hold in Westoros.

Then we got busy with our kids and our lives as our newly empowered T-baggers drew state and federal congressional districts that looked like a sheep fucking a housecat...we expressed a little bit of concern when all of these "snake swallowing a shriveled penis" districts ensured our new overlords could win 45% of a states voters, while getting 86% of its representation...coincidental of course.

Then we nominated a fantastic candidate, and one that was probably the most qualified ever to serve as President, but all anyone wanted to talk about was some "scandal" about some "email" bullshit...except for some of "us"...who preferred talking about how "our wonderful, started from nothing and worked her ass off to get where she was, truly historic candidate, was just EXACTLY THE SAME as an orange colored, racist freak-show, carnival barking, used-car-powered-by-snake-oil selling and serial unwanted pussy-grabbing moron".

Then, just to ensure we went completely through the Looking Glass and were using the broken shards to slit out wrists, we enabled the party of the "orange colored, racist freak-show, carnival barking, used car, snake oil selling and serial unwanted pussy-grabbing moron", to be the only check on his power.

There's something in there about some Russians doing some shit, but truly...THIS SHIT SHOW IS ALL OURS.

and that's the story of "How on earth have we let them stall Garland for over 400 days?"

[Hekate]

122. Thank you maxrandb for presenting a reality check to this circular firing squad

Gaaaaah.

[JHan]

194. If I could rec posts.... +++++

[EffieBlack]

199. This is one of the greatest post of all time ...

Can you make it an OP?

Oh, and thank you!

[RichardRay]

201. What he said. N/T

[still_one]

110. How the f**k did those naive, guilible folks allow themselves to be conned by those

self-identified progressives who said there was no difference between republicans and Democrats, and encouraged them not to vote for the Democratic nominee by either voting third party or not voting?

[Gothmog]

112. Because they were played by the GOP

I will never forgive nader Rove funded Nader in 2000 and 2004 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....

On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”

It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.

[still_one]

119. I am aware of that. Nader was also made aware of it, and didn't care.

[Gothmog]

124. Nader wanted to cause Gore to lose and so was happy to take the money

[still_one]

131. You are right

[Kaleva]

114. I don't know why you let them stall for 400 days.

[Gothmog]

116. Exactly what could 46 Democratic Senators do under Senate rules

The GOP had 54 votes in the Senate and under Senate rules, there was little that the Democrats could do

[Kaleva]

117. +1

[whathehell]

115. My question too..

More bringing a knife to a gun fight, I'm afraid.

[Hekate]

118. For the millionth time: Dems were in the minority BECAUSE DEMS DIDN'T VOTE IN THE MIDTERMS

Do I need to spell it out further?

[unitedwethrive]

120. Most people thought Hillary would win and appoint someone more liberal, so no one was in any

hurry. We did not foresee the evil and cheating of the other side.

[Andy823]

121. Another hit and run post

Meant to get people arguing?

[Hekate]

123. Always works like a charm, like bringing the bullets to a circular firing squad & then departing

[BlueTsunami2018]

126. No one "let" them, they held all the cards.

McConnell knew the Russians were spiking the punch and acted accordingly.

[George Eliot]

134. I've seen a lot of ads for Kavanaugh. Where were they for Garland?

GOP knows how to frame, how to get media attention, how to put issues in front of all Americans with dirty ads. I never see much from the Democrats in media. They can buy time just like the GOP does. Dirty schemers - the GOP - have no limits in what they'll do. And their ad campaigns are most effective from Willie Horton to Dick and Jane (??) against Obamacare to Dino Rossi's fraudulent ad against Kim Schrier in Washington State. It works so they do it. There's nothing like a visual to leave a meme on a voter.

[EffieBlack]

138. You think more ads would have gotten McConnell to give Garland a vote?

Garland didn't get a vote for one reason: Math.

[George Eliot]

167. So you let it just lie there under most peoples' radar? No, you make people realize aware over and

over and over and over. You build up the candidate so everyone can see him. You let people know in a way they won't forget. It is about getting your side out there. Over and over and over. You won't get anything if you don't try. Not everyone is an extreme Republican.

[EffieBlack]

176. There actually were lots of ads - do you live in a state with a "getable" senator?

But running ads over and over would not have done a damned thing to get Garland a hearing.

The only thing that would have gotten him a hearing was for crybaby Democrats to have stopped whining about revolutions and Obama and Reid not giving them a pony and gotten off of their sorry asses in 2010 and 2014 to go vote so that we didn't lose the Senate. But didn't do that. Instead, they handed the Senate over to Mitch McConnell. And then it was too late and all the ads in the world weren't going to change anything.

And it certainly didn't help when Bernie Sanders threw Garland under the bus because he supposedly wasn't liberal enough.

They could have salvaged it if they had learned their lesson and voted for the only candidate who could have stopped Trump and who would have been in a position to fight for Garland - or at least not put people like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the Court - but we know how that turned out.

So please spare me the "why didn't the Dems fight harder/if we had just run more ads we could have forced McConnell to give us our seat back" revisionist Monday morning quarterbacking.

[George Eliot]

210. How many anti-kavanaugh ads have you seen? I saw very few if any.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/03/18/conservative-group-to-launch-2-million-ad-campaign-to-block-supreme-court-nomination/?utm_term=.99dd20977bf2

Most were republican attack ads.

[EffieBlack]

211. I've seen a lot of them.

They're targeted to states with a senator who might be influenced by constituent pressure.

But generally, these ads really don't make a big difference.

[George Eliot]

213. Can you tell me what group is paying for them? Judicial Crisis Network sponsored Garland's.

Also, it is your opinion that ads don't make a difference. They did against healthcare - remember the ads that sunk Hillary's health plan during the nineties? Dick and Jane I think they were? The Willie Horton ad which sunk Dukakis? Visuals and repeated memes are extremely influential. But they have to used to gain results. The current best user? Trump. Before that, framers like Lee Atwater and Frank Luntz. They knew how to use media!

[EffieBlack]

215. You're referring to 20-30 year old ads

Times were very different then.

There is no way on God's green earth that more television ads would have resulted in Mitch McConnnell allowing Garland on the Supreme Court.

In this day and age, only thing will work: Math. As in Democrats having a majority of the Senate. Period.

[George Eliot]

216. I picked most obvious and atrocious that started the use of media by the right. The Judicial Crisis

Network doesn't spend two million for nothing.

You have a right to your opinion. However, sitting out the fight won't reap results. And it isn't about the math. It is about the People. And they are influenced by media. You can change the math if you inform the people.

[EffieBlack]

218. Not running ads isn't "sitting out the fight."

FYI - the point of the ads is to inform and encourage people to take action. But they only go so far - people on the ground then have to actually FO something.

You seem like you're already well-informed, so what action did YOU take to fight for Merrick Garland? Did you call, write and visit your senators and demand that they force MvConnell to allow a hearing and vote? Write op-eds and letters to the editors? Organize friends and neighbors to engage in targeted advocacy? Call in to local radio? Attend local political meetings to help strategize? Organize a March or other protest? Donate money to grassroots organizations?

Or do you just expect someone else to "inform the People" (and then what?)

[CrispyQ]

232. In 2012 CA had a bill to label GMOs.

It was hugely popular & then 2 weeks before the election, Monsanto & DuPont poured millions into radio & TV ads & the measure failed. If advertising didn't work, they wouldn't have fought so hard for Citizen's United & put so much money into TV/radio ads.

[EffieBlack]

248. Your comparison might be apt if the nomination was a statewide ballot issue up for a popular vote

It wasn't.

But if you want to think that liberal groups spending millions on television ads would have bullied Mitch McConnell into giving Merrick Garland a hearing and a vote, well ... whatever.

[George Eliot]

267. The point was and is ads work. Messaging works.

This is a very simple idea to comprehend. Why so defensive about it? And why do people pay millions to run ads? For anything. BTW, are you noticing that Kavanaugh's confirmation may be in question as a result of all this messaging by news programs and print media?

[EffieBlack]

268. Whatever - we aren't going to agree about the impact of ads on a judicial nomination

That said, given that you think that outside groups aren't doing enough, what are you doing to fight the nomination? You can call, email, text and visit Senators, get your friends to do the same, hook up with organizations that are mobilizing to assist with their efforts, etc.

[George Eliot]

269. More red herrings. The issue is money and messaging.

I would imagine since we are both political beings, we both do our best to make a difference. It does seem I’m the one who believes messaging is important so I leave it to you to answer your own question about me.

But I agree we will not agree. LOL!

[EffieBlack]

270. Not a red herring at all

Ads don't run just for the sake of running ads. And ads by themselves don't change any senator's vote. The entire point of ads is to influence people who watch them to step up and pressure their senators. You already seem to know that Kavanaugh is a problem and don't need an ad to convince you, so you can just move on to the next step and do everything you can to influence senators to vote no. And since people are much more likely to be influenced by people they know than by an ad they see on the television, you can have a lot of impact.

But sitting back and complaining that there aren't enough ads isn't going to do a damned thing to stop Kavanaugh. And waiting on someone else to do the "messaging" if you're not out there trying to influence the people in your orbit, is just copout.

[CrispyQ]

231. It's all over DU. The conviction that something that we haven't tried won't work, so why try it?

I don't get it either. Let's do the same fucking thing that got us here & diss every suggestion to try something different & then wonder why we're always on the bottom. There is a refusal to see & admit that if the democrats had been a true & strong opposition party for the last 35 years, we wouldn't be in this mess. While I admit that the GOP has the brunt of the blame, to not look at what the dems could have done better means if Mueller doesn't root out all the rot that is GOP leadership (& I don't have much confidence that that will happen), we'll be back down this road again, with bigger, nastier ratfuckers.

[Sugarcoated]

148. Republicans understand how important the media is and work it smarter.

[George Eliot]

168. Yes, you get it. Totally. You lose the game you don't play.

[JI7]

151. there are a lot of Frauds and people who DON'T CARE and WANT a Right Wing Court

even now people feel the need to go after Manchin and other right wing racist red state democrats .

never mind that a democratic majority means that democrats would have power over what comes up for a vote in the first place. this means they don't even have to put up Kavanaugh for a vote.

one could focus on trying to help people like Beto O'Rourke win but their troubled consciences feel the need to go after those we need to have a majority and to actually stop kavanaugh.

the same shit happened back then.

frauds who claim to be more liberal but they actually hate certain people(usually women and minorities) and want to stick it to them for not supporting or focusing on what they want.

[George Eliot]

169. Honestly, I think few people want a right-wing court. But extreme right wingers are in control.

That's why the Democrats should get everything out there over and over. Commercials right now showing an angry and lying Kavanaugh would do some good. There are Republicans in red states who don't really watch all the substance but would be affected by commercials showing the real Kavanaugh. I believe that.

[JI7]

153. People on this site that claimed to be progressive Celebrated when Mary Landrieu Lost

same ones that celebrated when Tom dAschle lost.

doesn't matter that for minorites and women in those right wing states that having these dem senators gave them some voice which was lost when they lost to right wing scum.

they still celebrated .

[BumRushDaShow]

157. "same ones that celebrated when Tom dAschle lost."

YES. I have wanted to post that fact (re: Daschle) here many times in the past but have held my tongue because he is so despised. No matter how much people hated him, my impression of him was that like Alan Grayson, he was a firebrand - basically the opposite of George Mitchell and Harry Reid.

Sadly, our biggest (elected) "firebrands" bring baggage with them (some of which is probably what gave them enough "negative" vibe to redirect the energy from that negativity towards a highly animated expression of views on our behalf).

This underscores the difference between those who are current Republicans and those who are current Democrats. The former group operates on a "diet" of constant anger and hate and that gets expressed in their discourse... and the latter operates on a "diet" of listening to various viewpoints and coming up with/arguing the best solution practicable, and although that seems to suggest "weakness", it actually rallies a larger "base" and support numbers.

[Hortensis]

155. Ksoze, the question how the fuck did more good people

NOT fight to keep the debased, depraved extremists who have taken control of the right from getting power?

We all have an absolute duty to stop right-wing extremism.

It is OUR duty. There is no one else!

COUNTDOWN TO THE MIDTERMS: 36 days!

[workinclasszero]

158. The same reason some democrats now are saying "we can't impeach Trump if we don't get the Senate"

Lack of will to fight back against the GOP because.....reasons.

[onenote]

166. Or to put it in slightly different and more reality based terms: Math.

[workinclasszero]

171. Did math stop the GOP from impeaching Clinton?

No of course not.

[onenote]

172. And how well did that turn out for the GOP?

They didn't succeed in removing Clinton. Why? Math.

And in 1998, they became the first "out party" not to win any House or Senate seats in an off year election in over 60 years. And in 2000, they lost more seats (even though Bush was awarded the presidency).

[workinclasszero]

177. Well seeing as how we are living under complete GOP control of the damned goverment

It turned out pretty fu**ing great for the republicans, I'd say!

[betsuni]

183. Do you not know how this happened?

Decades of well-funded, well-organized corruption of the media and judiciary and politics, excellent propaganda.

[workinclasszero]

186. And decades of the Democratic party

not fighting back, which looks like it will sadly continue with the same results of course.

[betsuni]

187. Talking point: Democrats don't fight back.

Prove it.

[onenote]

191. Really? So the years 2006-2016 didn't actually happen?

We won control over both the House and Senate in 2006. We won the presidency in 2008 and 2012.

Yes, we lost the presidency in 2016 (in no small part due to outside intervention). And we lost control of the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014.

But if you think those things happened because the Republican House passed articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton in 1998, you're living in a different world than I am.

[betsuni]

178. +1

[thucythucy]

160. Who was our Lindsey Graham,

ranting full-throttle about this farce?

And were there TV ads attacking the Repubs on this? If so, I didn't see any.

The KGOPers are full of.... intense passion, even when they know they're wrong.

It feels like we're only now tapping into our own passion, even though we've consistently been on the right side of history for something like the past half century.

[VOX]

161. The thinking at the time: "So, Garland waits for HRC. TRUMP? Seriously? Relax, HRC's got Garland.

Ashamed to admit I thought along this line myself. tRump seemed like such a tacky, crude, nutcase-grifter that anyone with common sense would truly avoid.

Add Russian interference, and a creeping climate of nationalism, plus the email bit w/Comey, we got tRump, and all that entails.

Democrats have suffered many nosebleeds from the lofty elevation of the High Road. Sadly, the high road heads right over a steep precipice. It’s a street-fght now.

[Snake Plissken]

162. It's really simple how it happened ...

half of the country couldn't be bothered to come out to the polls on Election Day and vote

[Recursion]

173. Not really anything you can do to force the majority to bring business forward (nt)

[betsuni]

174. Why didn't Democrats stop ______ ?

[betsuni]

185. workingclasszero.

"For the same reason the next Democratic House will not impeach the most criminal traitor BLOTUS. No will to fight evil, no backbone. Call it what you will. It makes me sick. Call it math, that seems to be a popular excuse."

[Adrahil]

180. What do you not understand about....

we had not power to force it.

We did not hold the Senate. What were we supposed to do? Use harsh language?

[louis c]

188. These things happen to your party when you lose elections

[Autumn]

189. Same way we let them get away with lying to start a war.

Same way we let the supreme court appoint Bush.

[ehrnst]

223. "Let them?" And when you say "we"...

In what way did "we let" SCOTUS appoint Bush? Is there a secret higher court somewhere that "we" were supposed to appeal that ruling, that you know about that "we" don't?

And do tell us how we are supposed to "prevent" the GOP from lying.

[Autumn]

224. Yes we. We stood by doing nothing while the ones we elected stood passively mute. We. nt

[ehrnst]

233. You aren't talking about me. Or the Dem reps.

Who is included in "we" besides you?

You still haven't answered what "we" - whoever that is, had as an alternative to the SCOTUS ruling on Gore v Bush.

You say we "let them" install Bush. But you offer no actual way "we" could have "stopped them."

And can you also tell me how continuing to loudly protest the SCOTUS ruling after it was decided would have accomplished anything other than make you feel more personally validated by those Dem reps?

[Autumn]

234. Figure it out or ignore it.

[ehrnst]

235. Got nothing?

No surprise.

Just excuses to justify why you can't stand Democratic leaders. Any of them. At any time.

[Eliot Rosewater]

237. Wow, is this BASH Democrats today around here? Seems so. I am so sick of having to

read this SHIT here...
so sick of it

[ehrnst]

240. Seven days a week with some posters. (nt)

[Eliot Rosewater]

245. And I see one in particular thinks it is HYSTERICAL to BASH Democrats.

[Autumn]

244. I know right??? If only you could say what you really really want to say.

[Autumn]

239. Yeah I've got plenty, the first being I don't have to do what you want.

I'm very fond of and often praise our Democratic leaders, like Feinstein, Harris and a few others. Here I'll give you one recent freebie

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211197965#post1

[ehrnst]

242. Plenty of alternatives to SCOTUS? I don't think so.

You still haven't shared with us what Dems could have done to "stop" or override SCOTUS ruling the way they did on Gore v Bush.

Your excuse of damning Dem leaders them for being "passive" doesn't hold up unless there was actually something they could have done.

[ehrnst]

236. So there isn't a court higher than SCOTUS that could overturn Gore v Bush?

So how do you figure Dems "let" SCOTUS rule on Gore v Bush?

Because Democratic leadership seems to be a go-to reason/scapegoat when things don't turn out the way you want.

That's what I figured out.

[Autumn]

243. You see a lot in people posts that isn't there so you should figure again.

Today, for nearly 20 minutes in the cavernous House chamber, a dozen members of the Congressional Black Caucus, joined by a few sympathizers, tried in vain to block the counting of Florida's 25 electoral votes, protesting that black voters had been disenfranchised. Florida's highly contested electoral votes were crucial in Mr. Bush's victory after a prolonged legal and political battle following an inconclusive election.

Federal law requires a member of both the House and the Senate to question a state's electoral votes in writing for a formal objection to be considered. But the House members had no Senate support. So Mr. Gore, who was presiding in his role as Senate president, slammed down the gavel to silence them and rule their objections and parliamentary maneuvers out of order.

''It is a sad day in America when we can't find a senator to sign this objection,'' said Representative Jesse L. Jackson Jr., Democrat of Illinois, as he stared at the rows of senators, including Democrats who considered it futile and divisive to keep up the election battle.

I love how you ignore what I said about the lies that led us to war. You got nothing there huh?

If you don't know where I got my "the ones we elected "stood passively mute." came from you must not have been around then. You try Google to refresh your memory. It's history .
Now I'm about to make my DU experience a hundred times better by using the little red magic x the admins gave us which will clean up my DU very nicely .

[ehrnst]

253. I asked how the Democrats are supposed to keep the GOP from lying.

You got nothing there huh?

And you still have no alternative other than Dems needed to futilely yell to validate your anger, rather than getting down to work on damage control, which you would likely have complained about them not doing if they had continued to futilely yell.

Now I'm about to make my DU experience a hundred times better by using the little red magic x the admins gave us which will clean up my DU very nicely .

That's something I think would be very beneficial for you. Beats frantically evading answering the hard questions about your comments, doesn't it?

Bye.

[George II]

193. "We", i.e., Democrats, didn't "let" them stall Garland. Any suggestions on what Democrats....

....should have done that would have worked to get Garland a hearing and a vote?

[EffieBlack]

200. I'll sit and wait with you.

Want some? There's plenty enough for us both ...

[Loki Liesmith]

202. The Senate was specifically designed to thwart democracy

McConnell used its rules to good effect.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

207. "Let" is a pretty harsh assessment of the situation IMHO

I don't recall there being any real immediate solutions to the situation at the time. We all shared the same outrage at the time but, short of winning in 2016, there was no immediate recourse. The whole situation still makes my blood boil- just like the 2016 Election.

[EffieBlack]

212. You stop these things with prevention - i.e., voting - not by jumping up and down and yelling

when it's in process because by then, it's usually too late.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

226. Exactly!

Why some people can't understand this is beyond me. It *should* be pretty simple.

[Demsrule86]

214. Garland wasn't stalled. The Senate refused to even have a hearing...if we don't have the

Senate, it will happen again. And if we have the Senate, we won't confirm their people...bad for the country but no going back and McConnell did it...tired of Obama getting blamed for this. There was nothing he could.

[EffieBlack]

220. And most of the people blaming Obama and the Dems for "not doing enough"

didn't lift a finger or do one damned thing to help.

[betsuni]

221. +1

[Demsrule86]

271. You are right. Some don't turn out at midterms or need to be 'inspired' and kneecap

our elected and then wonder why we lose things like a judicial nominee...There was no reason for us to lose the Senate in 14.

[still_one]

227. Because just enough self-identifed progressives refused to vote for the Democratic nominee in 2016

by either voting third party or not voting, because they thought the SC wasn't important enough.

Worse yet, most of those same so-called self-identified progress have no regret or remorse for their actions.


In addition, every Democrat running for Senate in those critical swing states lost to the incumbent, establishment, republican, and those Democrats were progressive by any standard


Those frauds who lied, distorted, and undermined the naive through various social media outlets and other medium with their false equivalency claims that there is no difference between Democrats and republicans, are complicit in what happen.

[EffieBlack]

249. GOP voters - from top to bottom - saw the Supreme Court as EVERYTHING

Too many Democrats saw it as NO BIG DEAL.

So, here we are ...

[still_one]

265. and a lot of folks are and will be sufferring for that Effie. Hopefully we can put the brakes on

this in the midterms in November

[CrispyQ]

229. Since the Bill Clinton witch hunt of the 90s, we've seen exactly what the GOP is - liars and cheats.

But dem leadership has refused to see it. Sometimes I think that because they work so closely with their colleagues across the aisle that the dems in Congress think that their GOP counterparts are basically good people with a different opinion of how things should be run. But people and a party that would do & support the things that the GOP has done over the past 30 years, are not "basically good people."

It's time to take the blinders off & view the GOP for what they are - power hungry fascists who won't stop at anything until they control it all. They're almost there.

Someone better be willing to come down from the high road & get into the swamp.

[EffieBlack]

251. Yes - Democratic LEADERSHIP is the problem

Not the Democratic voters who sit on their asses, don't lift a finger to help (beyond bitching online) and refuse to vote because something.

[CrispyQ]

256. Don't point that finger at me with your assumptions. -nt

[EffieBlack]

258. Who pointed a finger at you? Not I...

[Autumn]

252. Past time to take the blinders off. The time to do that was in 06 and 07.

Great post, thank you.

[ehrnst]

254. I don't know of any Democratic leaders who have those blinders on.

I just think that things aren't as simple as many people think they are concerning governing, legislating and campaigning.

[EffieBlack]

259. True

And they don't take responsibility for their own action and lack thereof.

Why didn't the Democrats do more?

What should they have done?

They could have bought ads and run them all around the country.

What would the ads have done?

They would have informed people and encouraged them to call their Senators and force them to confirm Garland.

Did you call YOUR senators?

No.

Why not?

What good would it do? They don't listen to us anyway. They refuse to lead!

[budkin]

255. You know how they say, "never assume anything"

That's how.

[0rganism]

260. how the f*ck did we let them steal the 2000 election?

same deal. this is their long game in action, and we were thoroughly unprepared for it.

[Tiggeroshii]

261. Same way theyre gonna let us stall the next nominee until the next

Election.


Every dem senator has a chip on their shoulder and his name is merrick garland. Until he is seated they will not rest -you can count on that.