Type to search

Garland Nomination Forces GOP To Defend The Indefensible

Congress Featured Post Memo Pad National News Politics Top News US

Garland Nomination Forces GOP To Defend The Indefensible

Share
Judges, Merrick Garland, Obama

Apparently, President Barack Obama still believes that congressional Republicans can be shamed.

Apparently, he thinks he can persuade GOP senators to consider his Supreme Court nominee with an implicit threat to expose them as hypocrites, obstructionists and revanchists if they refuse.

Has Obama learned nothing over the past eight years? The GOP Congress is shameless.

Although Majority Leader Mitch McConnell made it clear within hours of the death of Justice Antonin Scalia that he would refuse to consider — no hearings, much less a vote — any nominee Obama proposes, the president went ahead and performed the duties assigned to him by the U.S. Constitution: He selected a worthy nominee to fill the vacancy.

And not just a worthy nominee, but also one whose credentials, in a rational political world, would draw broad bipartisan support. That nominee is Judge Merrick Garland.

Chosen for a seat on the D.C. Court of Appeals by President Bill Clinton, Garland is a centrist who is highly regarded throughout Washington. He’s a former
prosecutor; as a Justice Department lawyer, he oversaw the trial team that prosecuted Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and his accomplice, Terry Nichols. In his 1997 confirmation, he received 32 Republican votes, seven from senators still serving.

Allow me to make a prediction: None of that matters. McConnell will still refuse to hold hearings on Garland’s nomination, no matter how much his party’s hypocrisy is held up to public view. According to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, 63 percent of Americans believe the Senate should at least hold hearings on Obama’s nominee.

So what? Garland and Obama had barely left the Rose Garden, where the announcement was held, when McConnell reiterated his pledge to stonewall. “The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country,” he said, “so of course the American people should have a say in the court’s direction.”

I have news for the Senate majority leader. The American people had their say in 2012, when they re-elected Obama with 51 percent of the vote, 5 million more votes than Mitt Romney received. And Obama is still the president. There is nothing in the nation’s founding document that suggests the chief executive should forfeit his duties during his final year.

Count me among those who wish that Obama had nominated a black woman, a first for the nation’s highest court. Not only would GOP obstruction in the face of a highly qualified black female jurist have likely motivated an enthusiastic turnout among Democratic voters in the fall, but it would also be an important symbol in a diverse country. Black women are a crucial part of the progressive coalition, and there are plenty among that cohort who would be excellent choices, including Attorney General Loretta Lynch and U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Of course, such a nominee would likely have given up any chance to actually serve on the Supreme Court, since Republicans would have taken the next several months to mount a smear campaign against her. That would have made her toxic, even if Obama’s successor is a Democrat.

The same applies to Garland, who has agreed to take one for the team. He’s smart enough to know the political calculus: Obama picked him to force Republicans to defend their indefensible position.

Already, conservative groups are gearing up to spend millions to make sure no weak-kneed Republicans fall out of lockstep with the marching orders from on high. (If you’re sick of seeing millions spent secretly to dominate the political process, by the way, you should pay attention to the Supreme Court. The Citizens United case, which allows corporations to spend freely on elections, was brought to you by a high court dominated by conservatives.)

If nothing else, this ought to bring to an end to the attempts by some Washington observers to pin the blame for the reckless partisanship that threatens to swamp the ship of state equally on Democrats and Republicans, on Obama and his GOP antagonists. That’s just nonsense.

It ought to be clear by now that the GOP’s one remaining principle is to oppose Obama at every turn — and utterly without shame.

Cynthia Tucker won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007. She can be reached at cynthia@cynthiatucker.com.

Photo: President Barack Obama (L) arrives with Judge Merrick Garland prior to announcing Garland as his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, in the White House Rose Garden in Washington, March 16, 2016.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Tags:
Cynthia Tucker Haynes

Cynthia Tucker Haynes, a veteran newspaper journalist and Pulitzer Prize winner, is a Visiting Professor of Journalism and Charlayne Hunter-Gault Distinguished Writer-in-Residence at the University of Georgia. She is also a highly-regarded commentator on TV and radio news shows.

Haynes was editorial page editor of The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper for 17 years, where she led the development of opinion policy. More recently, she was that newspaper’s Washington-based political columnist. She maintains a syndicated column through Universal Press Syndicate, which is published in dozens of newspapers around the country. Besides winning the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 2007, Haynes has also received numerous other awards, including Journalist of the Year from the National Association of Black Journalists.

  • 1

121 Comments

  1. yabbed March 19, 2016

    Perhaps if Judge Garland were not a Jew and were an evangelical Christian whose every decision would be Bible based the Republicans in the Senate would look more favorably on him as a nominee. It is clear that their idea of a fit Supreme Court Justice is a Clarence Thomas and their preference for a nominee would be Bible quoting Papa Cruz.

    Reply
    1. FireBaron March 19, 2016

      Ah, but the Evangelical Christian Republicans only read the Pentatuch, Joshua, Judges and the Letters of Paul. They pay no attention to the teachings of Jesus and his hand-picked desciples, only to Moses, Joshua, the Judges and that former Saducee who made a living out of persecuting the followers of Yeheshua bar Yosef al Nasari.

      Reply
    2. TZToronto March 21, 2016

      Having painted themselves into corner, the GOP can either refuse to consider any nominee–even one of the Koch brothers–or cave in and explain their wimpiness to their far-right, racist base. Stupid!

      Reply
  2. charleo1 March 19, 2016

    When a gaggle of, “Conservative groups,” needs to spend millions to insure the elected representatives of their hostage political organization don’t step out of line to simply do their jobs. It’s little wonder the Republican Party finds itself on the brink of irrelevancy, and collapse, and rightly so. It’s core constituency having abandoned it for exactly this kind of cowardly capitulation to it’s real masters, deep pocketed lobbyists firms, and the shadow government puppet masters of the billionaire donor class. Shame on McConnell shame on these modern day ignominious Judases, and their 40 pieces of silver.

    Reply
    1. FireBaron March 19, 2016

      I believe the GOP started on the road to irrelevancy when they appointed Michael Steele and Rience Priebus as chairmen of the party, then did nothing either of these men recommended to grow the party.

      Reply
  3. Patrick Drazen March 19, 2016

    I don’t quite agree that “Obama (has) learned nothing over the past eight years… The GOP Congress is shameless.” If Dr. King’s use of satyagraha and civil disobedience teaches us anything, it is that all people have a conscience, no matter how deep they may bury it in the back yard. Nominating Judge Garland has forced them to either own up to their absolute rejectionism, publicly, or to find a way to walk away from it. Some, like Kentuckian Mitch McConnell, are harder nuts to crack, because they’ve been taught since childhood that it’s better to drink muddy water and sleep in a hollow log than for a white man to take orders from a black man. Others have begun to respond to the logic of Garland’s nomination and are willing to break ranks–Senators such as Ayotte and Kirk. President Obama is counting on these breakaway Senators, as he did in passing the Affordable Care Act. He still believes in the two-part strategy of of hope AND change; we can’t have one without the other, and we who believe in liberal democracy must hang onto hope to bring about the change.

    Reply
    1. FireBaron March 19, 2016

      Ayotte and Kirk are both from swing states that the President carried. Kirk is filling the seat formerly occupied by the President. For them to show as obstructionists would pave the way for a Democrat to beat them. For them to cave means Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin are going to find candidates to force them into tough primaries, which they may lose.

      Reply
      1. Dominick Vila March 19, 2016

        The latest example of obstructionism may be a blessing in disguise for Democrats. It is exposing a level of radicalism that is inconsistent with what most Americans believe and wish. The best thing that could happen to Democrats this election year is for Republicans to continue to reject any SCOTUS candidates nominated by President Obama.

        Reply
    2. itsfun March 19, 2016

      Not even one Republican voted for obamacare in either the House or Senate.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

        Why would any Republican suck up vote against their biggest billionaire HMO campaign donors? Ask McConnell how many of his campaign donors are “HMO CEOs” or as he stated way back in March 2009, “I know many HMO CEOs…” Yes…we are certain he does.

        Reply
        1. David March 20, 2016

          Eleanore!!! How about Hildebeast and her $250,000+ private talks with Wall Street brokers? She going to vote against her biggest financial supporters?

          Reply
          1. TZToronto March 21, 2016

            When was the last time some Wall Street insider offered you $250K to make a speech. If that actually happened, did you, or would you, make the speech?

            Reply
      2. johninPCFL March 19, 2016

        But the GOP members proposed and added 168 of the 800 amendments to the act while it was under consideration in the Senate. I’m sure many were designed to be “poison pills” (like the 10% tax on tanning) so the bill would have no chance of passing. But it was taken up and passed whole by the House in lieu of any of the five bills they had considered that year.

        Reply
        1. itsfun March 19, 2016

          I consider the 10% tax on tanning as racist. How many blacks go to tanning studios?

          Reply
          1. charleo1 March 19, 2016

            Whites consistently earn 12% more as a group than Blacks. But, according to the Right, no racism there.

            Reply
          2. itsfun March 19, 2016

            That has what to do with a racist tax?

            Reply
          3. Sand_Cat March 19, 2016

            Keep going. With every post you look more racist and hypocritical yourself.

            Reply
          4. David March 20, 2016

            Far more Blacks play in the NBA than Whites. But, according to the Left, no racism there.

            Reply
          5. johninPCFL March 19, 2016

            Yep. Figures that the GOP would be that way.

            Reply
          6. itsfun March 19, 2016

            What way?

            Reply
      3. Sand_Cat March 19, 2016

        That despite the fact that it was a Heritage Foundation plan trying to use “The Market,” that magic force the GOP is always pushing when it suits them, further exposing their hypocrisy (and yours).

        Reply
  4. Jack Hughes March 19, 2016

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

    Every US senator takes the oath above, yet in their hyper-partisan zeal senate Republicans admit to abrogating the section where they have sworn to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office” regarding President Obama’s court appointments.

    Reply
    1. johninPCFL March 19, 2016

      Yeah, the constitution “matters” to the GOP until it matters what they do.

      Reply
      1. Meganjbeveridge4 March 20, 2016

        “my .friend’s mate Is getting 98$. HOURLY. on the internet.”….

        two days ago new Mc.Laren. F1 bought after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, 17k$ Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a days ..with extra open doors & weekly. paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over 87$, p/h.Learn. More right Hereo!481➤➤➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportsJobs/GetPaid/98$hourly…. .❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:❖:❦:::::o!481………

        Reply
      2. Dominick Vila March 20, 2016

        McConnell and his gang may not realize this yet, but by refusing to consider a Supreme Court nominee submitted by a President that was elected and re-elected by a plurality of Americans, during the last year of his administration, they established a precedent that applies to all future Presidents.

        Reply
        1. johninPCFL March 20, 2016

          Well, myopia is their hallmark. Last major foul-up? After FDR they pushed through a Constitutional amendment to limit the president to two terms. Next president that had a chance at a third term? Ronald Reagan.

          Reply
        2. David March 20, 2016

          Wait isn’t that what Biden and company said about Bush’s SC nominee in his last year? Guess it depends on who is saying it! You ridiculous libtards!?

          Reply
          1. johninPCFL March 20, 2016

            More blowhard myopia. Seems like Bush’s nominee got a hearing. Where’s the new nominee’s hearing? When?

            Reply
  5. itsfun March 19, 2016

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/briefoverview.aspx
    Actually the Congress can just change the number of Judges to 8 or 7 or 6 or whatever they want it to be. They could just say we now have 7 judges by changing the Court rules. The Chief Justice is in the Constitution, but the number of justices is set by rules made by Congress. Technically they can just change the number now set and wait until the election is over and then decide if they want to approve the appointee.

    Reply
    1. Jack Hughes March 19, 2016

      They could, but it would be unprecedented — and proof that the Republicans had politicized the Court.

      Reply
      1. itsfun March 19, 2016

        Do you really believe the Supreme Court is not politicized?

        Reply
        1. Jack Hughes March 19, 2016

          Not to this hyper-partisan extreme. Democrats have confirmed Republican nominees through the W. Bush administration, but today’s Republicans apparently will not confirm — or even grant hearings — to Democratic nominees.

          Reply
          1. itsfun March 19, 2016

            We will never know, but I would say the Democrats would be saying and doing the same things if Bush tried to name a Supreme Court Justice in the last year of his term.

            Reply
          2. Sand_Cat March 19, 2016

            They might have. So, I guess that makes it right, at least for someone like you.

            Reply
          3. johninPCFL March 20, 2016

            Talk is cheap. Reagan got his justice in DURING his last year, facing a Democrat Congress.
            Of course, Democrats do their jobs while complaining. The GOP shuts down the government by not doing their jobs, while complaining. This time it appears they will just complain while not doing their jobs.

            Reply
          4. itsfun March 20, 2016

            Reagan nominated Kennedy before the last year of his last term. He was confirmed in Reagan’s last year. As far as shutting down the government, all Obama had to do was compromise on he Republican Budget, he wouldn’t and he shut down the government. The Congress makes the rules on how many Judges there are on the Supreme Court. If they want to, they can just change to rules to say we only need what is there now.

            Reply
          5. johninPCFL March 20, 2016

            So, in your mind, the GOP Congress passed a budget bill and the president refused to sign it into law? Or were they mouthing off about how they would pass along more benefits to their owners and the president called their bluff? Seems like option 2 is what actually occurred.
            You do know that budgets are meaningless since Saint Reagan took SOME spending out, right? You know that only spending bills are important in this context, right? You do know that, like Reagan, Obama has never refused to sign a spending bill, right?
            So far as the court, yes, Congress can pass a bill and the president can sign it into law changing the number of justices. Aside from that, maybe the Senate could get down to actually doing a little work for the $millions we spend keeping them in their finery. Seems like we’ve regressed into the 1700s and created a new class of Lords and Ladies who have no responsibilities other than finding ways to keep their thing going. At least Rubio was honest enough to make a choice, unlike Paul.

            Reply
          6. itsfun March 20, 2016

            Congress has the power to change Supreme Court rules. They don’t need the President to sign rules.

            Reply
          7. johninPCFL March 20, 2016

            “Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.”

            Reply
          8. itsfun March 20, 2016

            Changing the rules does not require a bill. I think the Senate only makes the rules for the SC

            Reply
          9. johninPCFL March 20, 2016

            Just never before in the history of the country, even when FDR was trying and HAD the Senate. Like I said, only in right-wing blowhard land can Congress change the number at a whim.

            Reply
          10. itsfun March 21, 2016

            Many people here have been talking about the Senate not doing its “job”. I posted where the laws say the Senate makes the rules for the Supreme Court and could even change the number of justices to whatever they want. I posted where the Constitution only requires a Chief Justice and how that Chief Justice is appointed. In the past the Senate has used a rule that was made for and only used to resolve financial issues until Harry Reid decided to use it to pass the Obamacare tax. But that was okay with left wing progressive crazies. Now I just point out how a rule can be changed and you go nuts and call names and write about ancient history. Amazing when you don’t get your way or disagree with someone, how you can become the south end of a north bound horse.

            Reply
          11. johninPCFL March 21, 2016

            Yes the Senate can change their OWN rules whenever they choose. Dole made his rule changes, Lott made his, and Reid made his. The rule you’re so offended about being modified was put in place by Bob Dole in 1985 to limit filibusters. Not exactly founding-fathers stuff there.
            Only in right-wing blowhard land can the Senate change the makeup of the court without the consent of the president. As I presented, every single time it has EVER been done, it was done with a bill passed through BOTH houses of Congress and signed by the president. Maybe Limbaugh believes otherwise, but 250 years of precedent say otherwise.

            Reply
          12. itsfun March 21, 2016

            The rules put in place by Dole were intended to be used to resolve financial issues only. Reid raped them.

            Reply
          13. itsfun March 21, 2016

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

            Go to the paragraph about tenure and you will see the Congress has complete control over the number of Justices on the Court.

            Reply
          14. johninPCFL March 21, 2016

            I never said “Congress” didn’t, to wit: “… the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” I don’t see any reference to “tenure” or “duration of service” in Article 3. Is there a section that you know of?
            I’m refuting your claim that the Senate can act and set the number of justices unilaterally. Congress can, and has at least 6 times in the past, adjusted the number of justices, from a low (and initial count) of five to a high of ten. The current count of nine was set in 1869.
            Each time, Congress passed a bill and the sitting president signed it into law. That’s how it’s been done for the last 250 years. Maybe the modern GOP sees something in the Constitution that the rest of us missed for the last few centuries.

            Reply
          15. itsfun March 21, 2016

            Try reading the Constitution for once. It demands a Chief Justice. It is up to Congress and Congress alone on how many justices there are at any one time. The number is not a law, but a rule set by the Congress, not the President.

            Reply
          16. johninPCFL March 21, 2016

            Sorry, wrong. As I said: “The Judicial Circuits Act of 1866 (ch. 210, 14 Stat. 209) reorganized the United States circuit courts and provided for the gradual elimination of several seats on the Supreme Court of the United States. It was signed into law on July 23, 1866, by President Andrew Johnson.”
            Changing the makeup of the court requires a president’s signature, converting and act (or bill) into law.

            Reply
          17. johninPCFL March 20, 2016

            “The original U.S. Constitution did not set the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Therefore, it was up to Congress to decide, and in 1801, it set the number at five. But things didn’t stay that way for long.
            Congress increased the number to seven in 1807, to nine in 1837, then to 10 in 1863.
            Then, in order to prevent President Andrew Johnson, who was soon to be impeached, from naming any new Supreme Court justices, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act of 1866. This Act reduced the number from 10 to seven. The decrease was to take effect as the seats became vacant.
            However, only two seats were freed up by 1869, so there were eight justices. Congress added one seat back in, and decided that there should be nine justices. The Judiciary Act of 1869 officially set the number, and it has not budged since.”
            It seems that only in right-wing blowhard land does Congress do whatever it whims. Each time in the last 250 years that the number of justices was changed, Congress passed a bill and it was duly signed into law by the sitting president.

            Reply
    2. Sand_Cat March 19, 2016

      I suspect the president might have something to say.

      And here YOU are, defending the indefensible.

      Reply
  6. Phil Christensen March 19, 2016

    “President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday…”

    I’m sure he does now.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/269719-white-house-obama-regrets-his-filibuster-of-supreme-court-nominee

    Reply
    1. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

      Why should he when Gingrich and his gang of rebels did the same thing to Clinton?

      Reply
      1. Phil Christensen March 19, 2016

        Please inform yourself with a quick read of the constitution. Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the house. Confirmation hearing are held in the Senate.

        Reply
        1. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

          Please inform yourself….The House Republicans like all bully men like you and your kind “act as if” …I know it is the Senate Republicans who get to vote on SC nominees but not even you can be so stupid to think that attack dog Ryan and his Kock commanders are not turning the screws in the Senate.

          Reply
          1. Phil Christensen March 19, 2016

            No, you didn’t know it was in the Senate. That’s pretty obvious. But if you keep stalking me, I’ll continue being your teacher today.

            Reply
          2. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

            Hey Jerk…My first employer was a Republican woman who was a SBA umbudswoman and had many “friends” in the Senate..Who the hell are YOU to tell me what I know? You can’t teach yourself to pee straight into the toilet…I chew guys like you up and spit them out on an hourly basis. You have NO idea who I really am.

            Reply
          3. Phil Christensen March 19, 2016

            Well, so far you’re an abusive harridan who takes herself far too seriously.

            Reply
          4. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

            Well so far you are a bloated male ego that makes most women puke. Try again Big Mouth..The only thing superior about you is your superior BS.

            Reply
          5. Phil Christensen March 19, 2016

            Hmm… “superior…” that’s your word, isn’t it? Kind of obsessing on it, aren’t you?

            Reply
          6. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

            No..that’s your idea of who YOU are…Not mine joy boy…Kind of BSing aren’t you? You love to dish it out but you can’t stand when a woman is smarter and more accomplished than a pathetic fool like you can ever be. Grow some…yours are the size of popcorn kernels.

            Reply
          7. David March 20, 2016

            Eleanore!!! Now, now. What did we say earlier about your constant fascination and obsession with male genitalia? Take your medicene…

            Reply
  7. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

    Remember when Alberto Gonzalez, a former Texan lawyer was given the top job at the Justice Department by Bush? Remember why he HAD to resign? It was because he hired ONLY Republican U.S. Attorneys.

    The right wingers and Republicans see nothing wrong with politicizing U.S. laws and therefore have the unconscionable desire to infuse ALL U.S. laws and law enforcement with their “For Profit” brand of Conservatism.

    Let’s be honest. The Republican men today have no balls and no brains. They prove this every time they fall into another Obama trap.

    As it stands right now, they are backed into a corner. If they take a recess ever in the months ahead, Pres. Obama has the right to do exactly what Bush ’43 did..place the nominee without Republican consent. and by the way..who the hell are Republicans that everyone in the country must live in fear of their rules?

    So..now..they will have to work their stupid butts off without ANY recess or they will end up refusing to allow this president to do what every Republican president in U.S. History has had the right to do…have his nominee presented before the Senate. The ball is in the court of these ball-less men.

    Reply
    1. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

      BS ….manufactured by right wingers who drink their “haterade” every morning. Try again hot shot.

      Reply
      1. Phil Christensen March 19, 2016

        It’s called video. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Used to be recording on tape, now mostly converted or recorded digitally. I can help you with your research if you want to look it up.

        Reply
        1. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

          Yes..video…like the edited video your jackass Jason Chaffetz R-CA used to try and sink Planned Parenthood? Or maybe you mean the phony emails your hot shot Gowdy edited to sink Hillary..not working is it hater boy?

          I don’t need any man’s help. YOu can’t fit your balls into your Fruit of the Looms without McMommy’s help…so don’t offer to help someone who has always helped herself.

          As for your silliness..to me your posts all sound like a guy who gets off through massive hatefulness…How about get an education dummy?

          Reply
          1. Phil Christensen March 19, 2016

            I think you meant to type “how about getting…” Also, you need a comma after “education.”

            You sound like a joy at home, but you may continue to sit at my feet while I teach you. This classroom is open to all.

            Reply
          2. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

            I think you meant to grow up but instead thought being a school teacher who plays with your students after school is the same as giving “lessons” to others.

            Hey jerk..I’m a published author of 2 novels, 4900 SEO online blogs, business content, technical white papers and you? You are the last turd I flushed.

            Do yourself a favor Mr. Superiority Complex…I left you in the dust ages ago…You are nothing more than a pathetic example of the male gender that didn’t evolve.

            Reply
          3. Phil Christensen March 19, 2016

            The love just pours from you. Feel free to take the last word on this conversation and the one below. Peace and tranquility.

            Reply
          4. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

            You bet I love love love love busting your male superiority complex. I intend to get the last word…I’m sick of men like you assuming the last word always belongs to a man. Suck it up before it sucks you up.

            Reply
          5. TZToronto March 21, 2016

            I’m not sure what an education dummy would be, but the lack of a comma is not necessarily wrong. In any case, if Eleanor tells you to get an education dummy, you’d be wise to do it.

            Reply
          6. Phil Christensen March 21, 2016

            LOL. White knight.

            Reply
        2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth March 19, 2016

          Phil is going through another bout of emotional catharsis. Hopefully he can purge himself in a week or two, take a breather, and maybe, just maybe, gain some clarity.
          And then, we’ll see what happens.

          Reply
          1. Phil Christensen March 20, 2016

            Nah. Just passing the popcorn. Reflecting with some bemusement as the usual fascists take to their fainting couches.

            Reply
          2. Arnold Brockington March 20, 2016

            the fascists are in the White House, using executive orders to enable the slaughter of Christians in the Middle East, by ISIS. It is a sorry day that we have to rely upon the Super Fascist-Russia to do the “right thing”!

            Reply
          3. dpaano March 23, 2016

            You don’t even know the meaning of the word!!!

            Reply
          4. Arnold Brockington April 7, 2016

            Definition of fascism. : a political system headed by a dictator in which the government controls business and labor and opposition is not permitted. Sounds like the Obama White House to me. Sounds like “I have a pen” executive action.

            Truth in MSM can turn this around.

            Reply
    2. Sand_Cat March 19, 2016

      Unsurprising: you show up to defend the indefensible. Again.

      Reply
      1. Phil Christensen March 20, 2016

        You’re projecting. Again. Unsurprising that simple concepts are lost on you. Again.

        Reply
        1. Sand_Cat March 20, 2016

          It is you who projects. Irony is usually lost on most Americans, but especially those who can call the most far-right lunatics in Congress the “Freedom Coalition.”
          Don’t know what to say to you. Obviously you like to troll here instead of combatting the lunatics on the right. A shame. You actually sound like you have some brains sometimes.

          Reply
          1. Phil Christensen March 21, 2016

            “It is you who projects.”
            Seriously? That’s a bit junior high. Even for you.

            Reply
          2. Sand_Cat March 23, 2016

            Better “junior high” than no rock bottom. You show up to defend the indefensible regularly.

            Reply
          3. Phil Christensen March 24, 2016

            That word means what you think it means.

            Reply
  8. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

    Check out who the dailycaller.com really is…a right wing BS attack site that shows the militancy of middle aged men who walk around hating anyone who dares disagree with them. Don’t you Corn Pones and Mutton Chops ever grow the hell up?

    Reply
    1. Arnold Brockington March 20, 2016

      And it was the idiot in charge that will bring a gun to a knife fight! This clearly shows the militancy of the middle aged man in the White House, Militancy only toward his fellow Americans.

      Reply
      1. Eleanore Whitaker March 20, 2016

        No…it clearly shows what the “male gender” has become. This current president is by far the most adept at sinking the Republicans at their own game. Your post is a ball faced lie…His record since Bush left office is more success than dipshit males like you can lay claim to if you lived four more lifetimes.

        You are the perfect example of how low your gender has stooped to when you cannot even give credit where it is due. So..go Kiss Herman Cain’s ass or the dipshit Ben Carson..token blacks who allow the GOP to use them like dockside harlots.

        The problem with men like you is that this president is so squeaky clean you are eating boths sides of your buttocks to get to your anus.

        Reply
        1. David March 20, 2016

          Eleanorr!!! Such nasty talk!!! Calm down and take your medicene provided free by ObamaCare. Success? Hmmm…national debt pushing 21 trillion? The last 2 trillion owed to health industry for guarantees under ObamaCare. What a great leader!

          Reply
          1. Independent1 March 23, 2016

            You just love to make up fake statistics don’t you?? You can’t substantiate 99.9% of what you post!!!

            But then when you’re a pathological liar, who cares, right??

            Reply
          2. David March 24, 2016

            Well, you can Google this as well as I can. 19.1 trillion current national debt — usdebtclock.org
            “health care risk corridors” and Obamacare insurance company bailouts — Forbes
            “Pathological liar”? That’s something Hildebeast and her followers can be labeled.
            By the way, how does it feel to have yet another one of your posts turned and shoved up your a..hole?

            Reply
          3. Independent1 March 24, 2016

            Sorry,not buying the Forbes article it’s a bunch of total BS!! Fact is Obamacare IS SAVING taxpayers, states and hospitals across the nation billions of dollars!! In reduced costs! That Forbes article was posted by a RIGHT-WING idiot!!
            The supposed monies projected as costing the government over the next ten years are being offset by billions in savings!!! Go stuff it!!

            Reply
          4. David March 25, 2016

            Facts apparently trouble you. Not surprised.

            Reply
          5. Independent1 March 24, 2016

            Oh! By the way, I’m sure you’re going to love this, not only would Hillary crush Trump in a match-up election, the GOP has hit an all time low in favorability – 33% favorable; 60 percent unfavorable.

            According to a Bloomberg Politics poll released Wednesday, Clinton leads Trump 54 percent to 36 percent in a contest between the two front-runners.

            Trump s favorability rating is at an all-time low in the survey, while his negative rating has gone up 13 points since November and has hit a new high.

            Also troubling for Trump, only 29 percent of likely general election voters nationally have a favorable view of him, compared to 68 percent who view him negatively.

            http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-clinton-would-crush-trump-in-general-election/ar-BBqQrt5?ocid=spartanntp

            Reply
          6. David March 25, 2016

            Stay on point. We can talk about Hildebeast v. Trump after he wins the nomination.

            Reply
  9. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

    You know what American women are discovering about the bully boys today? They can’t wipe their own butts without excuses and help. Then, they wonder why women are fed up when they embarrass the country with men like Ryan, Gowdy, Cotton, Issa, McConnell and the rest of the Mutton Chop Corn Pones all massing in their playpens with their Pampers overloading and waiting on Mommy to change their diapers for them.

    Reply
    1. 788eddie March 19, 2016

      Seriously, Eleanor, why haven’t you considered running for office.

      I enjoy a lot of your comments, as well as your ideas.

      Reply
      1. David March 20, 2016

        I hear there is an opening for dog catcher…

        Reply
        1. 788eddie March 20, 2016

          And for you, David, there is an opening for rectal oriface.

          Reply
          1. David March 20, 2016

            Uhhh…your mouth?

            Reply
        2. David March 20, 2016

          Uhh….your mouth?

          Reply
        3. TZToronto March 21, 2016

          Dogs would then be caught efficiently and humanely. I suspect that Eleanor would be able to do any political job better than those who already have them.

          Reply
          1. David March 21, 2016

            Lol…maybe when she is not obsessed with male genitalia!

            Reply
    2. Arnold Brockington March 20, 2016

      democrat women need to stay away from Libya and playing with nation building.
      Remember four died and Hillary lied!

      Reply
      1. 788eddie March 20, 2016

        Eight Congressional Committees belie that statement, Arnold. (Or were all of the Republican members of these committees just incompetents?)

        Reply
        1. TZToronto March 21, 2016

          Yes–and so are those low-information folk who have no idea that even Republican-dominated committees have been unable to conclude that Secretary Clinton was not responsible for the Benghazi attack. (Frankly, there are undoubtedly many who have never even heard of Benghazi.)

          Reply
          1. 788eddie March 21, 2016

            You are most likely correct, TZ.

            Reply
      2. dpaano March 23, 2016

        Gee, how many died during Bush’s administration……let me count them!!! Too many to imagine….and over 4,000 of our service men and women killed or maimed due to GWB’s unwarranted war! As for Benghazi….get over it. They’ve already come to the conclusion that she didn’t lie!! But, you keep believing the BS that you’re told!

        Reply
  10. Eleanore Whitaker March 19, 2016

    Republican men today act as if they are the only government….until a few Americans haul their asses out of the House and Senate and dump them in Afghanistan…that way all that bullying of theirs can finally have validation.

    Their conservatism is a miserable failure as proven by the bankrupted states of Kansas, Iowa, Louisiana, Michigan, Maine and Alabama. While they were busy handing out billions of state tax dollars to their polluter industries, they forgot all about education..so now Kansas and Iowa had to shut schools down before the official school year ended because Republican conservatism was so economicall sound that they can’t afford to keep schools open.

    Hear that wailing and whining in the distance? That’s Republicans living under Republican conservatism begging for more federal tax dollars. Never mind they already get 65% of every U.S. budget to spend from the rest of the states. FREEloaders…much?

    Reply
  11. Joseph Simmons March 19, 2016

    This is an election year for every representative and one third of the Senate. The Republicans say government should be run like a business. Businesses fire those who do not do their job. We should take them at their word and vote Democrat!

    Reply
    1. docb March 20, 2016

      **The Loud squeaky wheel gets the grease…**. Get out , get active, and GOTV!

      Yes, quiet *letters are placed on the back burner…to be read by the aides LATER*…It is PUBLIC descent, published letters , and traceable emails and calls to their local and DC offices that work..They detest being confronted in writing or with a paper trail.

      Additionally, Contact even the ‘safe’ Senators…to inform them of your concerns…not just the vulnerable.

      The DC numbers are 1.866.220.0044 or 1.866. 338.1015… Their websites have email and local phone numbers…Get the name of the person that answers the phone …You can tell them you are reporting to the local news outlets…

      Reply
    2. Arnold Brockington March 20, 2016

      That democrat idiot in the White House is a perfect example why we should vote republican/tea party!

      Reply
      1. Independent1 March 20, 2016

        Wow! He sure has accomplished a lot for an idiot!! – not only has he clearly outperformed Reagan in every financial/economic measure you may want to use as a comparison – his accomplishments outnumber everything all the GOP presidents in office since Teddy Roosevelt managed to accomplished in their disastrous terms in office all combined.

        And if you don’t think all the Republicans in office since Teddy were disastrous – gives us an explanation for how this happed:

        Since Teddy, the average GDP growth for all Republican Presidents averaged a paltry 2.6%/yr while the average GDP growth for Dems was a much better 4.3%/yr.

        Since the ’29 stock market crash – the market gain during years of Republicans was actually negative – if you had invested $10,000 in the market in 1930 it would be worth less than $9,000today; whereas under 43years of Dems the gain has been over 300% – that $10,000 would have grown to over $350,000

        In the 20 years Reagan and the 2 Bushes were in office, America created a paltry 24 million jobs while in the 18 plus years Carter, Clinton and Obama were in office America created almost twice as many jobs – over 40 million.

        Explain all this please – why anyone in their right mind would vote for a Republican who is going to tank the economy!!!

        Reply
        1. dpaano March 23, 2016

          You can give them all the statistics, but they won’t believe you. They’ve all been brainwashed by the GOP and their conservative media outlets! They never learn and keep listening to the lies that they are told. To heck with statistics…..those are just “numbers” to them! They are the “uninformed masses” as I call them and they will never change!

          Reply
      2. CrankyToo March 22, 2016

        And another dumba$$ con man drives by…

        Reply
  12. Bob Eddy March 20, 2016

    And sadly their obstruction has been somewhat successful with very little backlash meaning, of course, we can expect it to continue through the next eight years…or at least until people finally reject the “both sides are equally culpable” argument.

    Reply
    1. dpaano March 23, 2016

      Unless we are able to throw out some of the Republicans that are up for re-election in the House and the Senate and take back the majority….then they will be sorry, especially, as I said, a Democratic president is elected!!! We can only hope, but their actions now are not helping the Republican candidates in their re-election attempts!

      Reply
  13. I of John March 21, 2016

    The writer grouses that Obama hasn’t learned that he can not shame the GOP. But that is not why he does what he does. Showing that the GOP should be ashamed is only icing on the cake. Obama nominated someone who is so undamaged and clean that any attempt to sling mud at him gets the GOP in trouble. He doesn’t need to fight for this nominee much since the alternative, after the election, will drive them to vote for Garland. Obama plays the long game and he’s practically won already.

    Reply
    1. dpaano March 23, 2016

      What’s really going to be interesting is what they’ll do after Hillary is elected president and picks at least two or three more liberal judges…..especially if we take back the majority in the House and/or the Senate!!! They would be much better off if they give Garland the seat on the Supreme Court! Will they EVER learn? They seem to like to put all their eggs in one basket, and that never works out well!

      Reply
      1. I of John March 24, 2016

        I wonder if the GOP would try to stall for 4 years!

        Reply
        1. Daniel Jones March 26, 2016

          They’ve tried stalling everything else for eight..

          Seriously, though, this is the perfect shot by the President. After two cynical terms trying desperately to disallow *everything* Barack Obama approved of–even their own bills–it’s come to where they either hold the damned hearings or risk being voted out of office when enraged voters get a crack at them in the coming months.

          Reply
          1. I of John March 28, 2016

            I think the GOP has proven that they have no interest in governing. It’s up to the electorate to agree and turn them out of office.

            Reply
  14. dpaano March 23, 2016

    Great article….typical blockade of the GOP for anything that President Obama puts forth….even a highly recommended centrist justice like Judge Garland. They liked him when they were in charge, but now, all of a sudden, because President Obama nominated him….it’s a different story! And this is what our taxpayer money goes for….they paychecks! Too bad they don’t do what they’re supposed to do! They all need to be thrown out, especially the Republicans up for re-election this year!!! We need to take back the House and the Senate and try to find candidates that are willing to reach across the aisle and bring back compromise in these two groups!!! This is getting ridiculous and it is NOT helping the American people!

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.