Good morning Christy. That old phrase about choosing one battles. there’s so many of them right now, it’s a challenge to choose. It’s a constant fight in a democracy and a citizen’s work is never done.

It is a constant battle — and the choices on which ones to pick and which to let go? It’s a bevy of buffoonery, a plethora of pulchritudinous puffed-up prickery out there. *g*

Oh joy. Newsmax is advertising for subscriptions on MSNBC.

Does the liberal/left/radical wing of the Democratic party have any leverage with the Administration? If Dawn Johnsen can be held up indefinitely, and the Republican party is taking the stance that filibustering of nominations is the democratic way, will the administration be slowed to a standstill by bureaucratic obstructionism? Will the seating of Al Franken change anything?

Federal judges have a lifetime appointment. We cannot afford to have the Obama administration making faux compromise choices, sacrificing better balance on the federal courts on the altar of “bipartisanship.”

I believe that Obama is by nature a centrist, and is happy to nominate centrists, but the result of alternating between centre and conservative is to migrate always to the right.

BTW I wish we could find an alternate label for the right, because the two meanings of the word resonate with people. Partisan, conservative, status quo, libertarian, anachronistic. None of those quite fits. I need a thesaurus.

Hopefully they (Gingrich, Rove,etc) are digging their hole with the voters even deeper.
“assholery” digging deeper

It’s a bevy of buffoonery, a plethora of pulchritudinous puffed-up prickery out there.

Having some fun with sentence construction this morning I see.

Obstructionist works for me. I think the rethugs need to be painted with a brush that says “Party First” and to hell with what is best for the country.

I wish I had a good answer on the left-wing leverage question, but it’s a spotty sort of thing because some folks refuse to do pushback against bad decisions, preferring instead to be “team players” regardless of the soundness of various decisions.

So that division on the left on whether to pushback or not against a bad Obama decision/policy undercuts effectiveness in my opinion. Which leads to not so solid results on a week to week basis.

The good thing about the back and forth on the left is that we don’t walk in lockstep, which leads to better testing of ideas and concepts against questions, I think. But the right’s advantage with the lockstep voice is that there is no division undercutting their message — even when it’s stupid, I suppose.

It’s a conundrum.

And, yes, I think the Obama tendencies are centrist — which anyone should have known would have been the case had they paid attention to his actual legislative record. Still better than McCain’s tendencies, but we can’t afford to allow him to creep rightward if we want to see better balance on the federal courts.

Lord, I hope so. Because I’d really love to see Newt Gingrich put himself out to pasture again with his idiocy. His continual political resurrection act is getting way old.

Just a little. *g*

Millineryman, I though you might have been offended by the “asshattery’ in the title.

Newt is the embodiement of everything that is vile about politics. His hypocracy knows no bounds. If this a$$hole had an ounce of honor or integrity he would have faded into oblivion many years ago.

Not at all. Hats are very symbolic so an asshat is not out of the question. Think of a dunce cap with devil horns and elephant on it.

Good Morning, Christy.
How was the ceremony yesterday? Is this the group that’s going to save the world from asshatery? Did I just make up a new word?

You forgot to put a religious cross on the hat.

Kindergarten graduation was adorable yesterday. Lots of parents with kleenexes, let me tell you. And now? The Peanut is home with me for the summer break — which will be fun for both of us, if not all that conducive to constant work for momma for the summer.

For Newt, it’s all about Newt getting more publicity, more attention…and more money. Ick.

Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor: You Read, You Decide
by Newt Gingrich
06/03/2009

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

My initial reaction was strong and direct — perhaps too strong and too direct. The sentiment struck me as racist and I said so. Since then, some who want to have an open and honest consideration of Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court have been critical of my word choice.

With these critics who want to have an honest conversation, I agree. The word “racist” should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable (a fact which both President Obama and his Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, have since admitted).

My mind is in a pain reliever induced fog (tooth extraction yesterday) so I didn’t read the whole thing.

What’s in it for the right wing?

NPR’s “On The Media” didn’t delve into the Overton process but did explain part of what’s in it for the right wing.

NPR’s “On The Media” – - Friday, May 29, 2009:

http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/05/29/01

[…] Defying and supporting a supreme court nominee has become a veritable cottage industry […]

BOB GARFIELD: […] But never mind Sotomayor’s qualifications. In the weeks leading up to her confirmation hearings, she will be subjected to public evisceration. Tom Goldstein, a partner in the lawfirm Akin Gump and founder of SCOTUSblog, says any high court nominee is but fuel for the politics industry. […] You know, there’s one last wrinkle to this, and that is, barring the discovery of bodies dug up from underneath Sotomayor’s porch […] she’s going to be confirmed by the Senate. She’s a, you know, relatively uncontroversial nominee. Tell me, again, what’s the point of all this frenzy?

TOM GOLDSTEIN: The point of it is fundraising. […]

BOB GARFIELD: […] should news organizations not keep that in mind before they rush to report the most extreme allegations and overheated rhetoric?

TOM GOLDSTEIN: I think that they should. They shouldn’t be dismissive when there are real issues about a nominee. Even if that’s brought to your attention by an interest group, that’s perfectly fine, but you have to just put on a filter of common sense that lets you know whether or not this is a serious charge in a very serious context or it’s just somebody who has set their hair on fire in order to draw attention to themselves. And here, so far, it seems much more the latter than the former.

A filter of common sense, of course, would filter out most of the content of FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, and talk radio.

Spare yourself the pain: he’s trying to argue that although his words were intemperate, she’s a racist, she has “judicial impartiality” problems (meet the wingnutty phrase of the day), and that he was right and we’re all just meanies for calling him skeezy for tweeting about false equivalent racism from the grounds of Auschwitz and he wants us all to STFU about it.

Thanks, no surprise there.

Nice. You’ll have a garden assistant. It sounds like you’re connected with the other parents, so, maybe some summer play dates.

Has anyone asked Tom Foley what he thinks of Judge Sotomayor?

Their wanting you (and others) you to stfu is not going to make that happen. Go Christy.

Mornin’ Christy and Firedogs,

in case y’all missed it yesterday -

Ms Hardin Smith’s Advanced Civics class has a summer school extra credit assignment

go to Christy’s post, pick one on the list and provide links showing the individual’s reversal on filibuster for judicial nominees, better yet, SCOTUS nominees

I know firedogs like to dig and frankly it shouldn’t take too much work with these hypocrites
(took me 1 little google to get to Miranda)

c’mon, get on it

Thanks for the reminder. Am hoping to get some digging time in on that myself today, after the FIL dialysis pick-up and some play time with The Peanut. Nothing like a little wingnuttery reading to make your own life appear sane by comparison. *g*

amusing aside -

Miranda has gone Mean Girls on Wendy Long and her Judicial Confirmation Network

over money ?, territory ?, cred ? all of the above

I don’t have a ready answer on that one — but I’ll look into it. That sounds like a promising story, doesn’t it? In terms of amusement, I mean.

I think the folks in that thread have already done most of what needs to be done. The group asking for the filibuster is renamed from a group against filibusters in the Bushie days. Case closed (details abound in the thread).

I caught the letter and signatories right before we were ready to leave for The Peanut’s kindergarten graduation yesterday. A lot of those names matched up from the prior effort, but not all of them, I don’t think. But I didn’t have time to search them all before we left.

And far too many of those folks are getting a hypocrisy pass these last few weeks.

Really appreciate the work folks have already put in on that — it’s really helpful.

This ”a$$holery” that you speak of started on the msnbc loop sided media circus tv channel and web site. Almost all of the commentators on msnbc look for the most outrages angle on avery story they speak about.

Watch the bbc and get educated.

(One Big Ass Mistake America)

And Fox News with Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and the whole longstanding shock jock genre of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and company have no responsibility for this?

Sell it to someone whose been in a coma since the 1980s. This has been an ongoing circus since long before MSNBC was even a network.

It’s a constant fight
A constant fight
You’re pushing the needle to the red

I agree that Obama seems to be too interested in bi-partisanship, but I suspect it stems from an innate personal trait of being a pleaser. He wants to be liked.

If we can make enough noise and apply enough pressure, I think we can use that to our advantage.

Obama’s obviously not going to go to the mat or expend any political capital to fight for stuff. So it’s up to us to make him to it.

I’m organizing a health care forum after the county Democratic Party meeting this Saturday and I’d like to continue to focus on specific issues for each month’s meeting from now on. We need to do more than ever at the grassroots level to push public opinion.

In our health care forum I’ve invited someone from Physicians for a National Health Plan (actually the local chapter) to talk about how single-payer is the best option, but barring that we need to defend the public option in whatever plan gets through.

We’re not just towing the Democratic Party line. We’re pushing for the radical change at the party level.

I’m hopeful this model will be effective and shifting the debate at least at the level of the populous even if the MSM still desperately clings to their totally distorted view of where the “middle” is.

And far too many of those folks are getting a hypocrisy pass these last few weeks

and a big phat check !

y’all should click on Christy’s “circle remains unbroken” link – Yglesias gives a perfect example of just how easy it is to get your hands on some righteous cash

Well put, i agree. Every time the wingnuts open their incredibly ignorant, bigoted mouths they should be slapped down. Blogs such as yours, media journalists such a s Olbermann, Maddow , are a few that do but we need every Progressive, in or out of office , to call these evil liars out. Over and Over and Over again…

Change does not come easily for any of these folks. Especially because change means diffusing power and unsettling donor base folks who profit from keeping things status quo.

But change is not going to happen if we just throw our hands int he air and walk away. It may be incremental and not wholesale change in a lot of areas, but a change for the better — even a small one — is better than just giving up in my book.

i have bever heard a newt twitter…frogs singing, yes…but no newts.

This ”a$$holery” that you speak of started on the msnbc

Uh…no. Roger Ailes, The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the rest of the echo chamber that sits and feeds each other’s bs back and forth until it drowns out rational discourse started this, back in the 70’s, following the advice of Lewis Powell. MSNBC is a late arriving bit player.

I couldn’t agree more Christy. That’s what I’m trying to do at the local level, not throw up our hands, but be vigilant in pushing for change.

And I think it’s important to realize it’s not going to come quickly. Change is slow and incremental and you’ll burn out fast if your expectations are for some touching movie sequence where the crowd slowly starts clapping along. That’s not the way it works in reality.

All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good (people) to do nothing.
–it turns out this may not be a real quote, but that doesn’t make it any less true

Thanks, Christy. Good post as always.

I do not believe that in my 50 years of observing the american political (chinese fire drill) that I have ever seen a senate leader as useless as Reid. The man has no balls at all, how did he become the senate leader? Isn’t there anyone out there that will stand up to the rethugs? Despite having won a big majority in 2008 the dems are acting as if they lost and the rethugs won who are, BTW, so much better at bomb throwing than they are at governing. The rethugs, when they were in chargte, acted like they were IN CHARGE. The dems are acting like they are sorry they won. Unfortunately the rethugs are playing hardball while the dems are playing T-BALL. This entire congress leaves me shaking my head. They(rethugs) scream loud enough and long enough and they get their way.
History revisionists, the rethugs believe that if you own the past you own the future. As darth cheney continues on his way revising the history of the last 8 years with the full acquiescence of the MSM-while of course the rethugs continue to whine about how “libral” the msm is-history is being revised even as I write this. darth cheney is turning from being the dark lord nto someone who is now simply a vp trying to do his best when all around him other people are all at fault. From stating that alQaeda and Iraq were in bed together to now saying that the CIA said they were, the record no longer reflects the truth. cheney tells a blatant lie on network TV which never calls him on it. In fact only TDS on the comedy channel and the “left” TV shows on msnbc show the original clips. In the MSM worldview they do not matter, history is revised on the fly, and no one who cares can do anything about it.

Thanks for laying this out so clearly, Christy. I’ve been thinking exactly along these lines. The Repubs always *appear* to be clueless in their strategies (and there’s evidence of course that that’s true after their trouncing at the last election), but if you look a bit harder, you’ll see there’s always an underlying aim that stops any real progressive progress – in this case, as you point out, portraying Sotomayor as the outside limit of “liberal” acceptability. Somehow we’ve got to stop these jerks.

It may be incremental and not wholesale

Preferably! Wholesale change almost always produces a backlash and relatively short-term change, while incremental change is almost always much more deep-seated and longer-lasting. Think the frog in the pot of water, but in a good way.

The reason the Democrats aren’t putting up a fight on this issue or really any issue is that they are in essential agreement with what is going on. We have the Republicans on the far and loony right and Democrats on the right. They are fighting over turf all of which is considerably to the right of most of the country, squabbling over positions none of which address any of our country’s problems.

The truth is that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress and certainly Obama don’t want a liberal judiciary. Far from hindering them, the Republicans are giving them, albeit inadvertent, cover for what they would be doing anyway.

Why would that be the very same Roger Ailes who runs Fox News? Why, yes indeedy, it is.

Unfortunately the rethugs are playing hardball while the dems are playing T-BALL.

I love this quote. You should make it into a t-shirt.

I was just thinking it would make for a nice postcard slogan for cranky mailers. *g*

I don’t know what Ailes did before he was the predominant media wizard for NIxon ‘68, but since then, his entire career has been nothing but a sustained attempt to elect Republicans. 40 years. The idea that he’s doing something at FOX other than that is, frankly, silly.

But…but…they are fair and balanced.

*snerk*

My youngest is in t-ball again this year. The first couple of games his first year were cute, but it gets old fast.

I guess that’s what makes it such a perfect metaphor for our Democratic congress.

I do not believe that in my 50 years of observing the american political (chinese fire drill) that I have ever seen a senate leader as useless as Reid… Despite having won a big majority in 2008 the dems are acting as if they lost

I could not agree more. Democrats are useless and Republicans are criminals. That is the state of our political system. We push for real solutions to real problems. We push to get Democrats elected. But how many times have we seen them take the help and then once elected embrace the same corrupt status quo they swore to change?

But…but…they are fair and balanced.

Just ask ‘em. They’ll tell you so.

The truth is that the vast majority of Democrats in Congress and certainly Obama don’t want a liberal judiciary

It would be nice to know what the pols think a ‘liberal’ judiciary is. Apart from upolding Roe vs Wade, it is hard to find a litmus test. Upholding habeas corpus would seem to me to be something conservative — in the old fashioned sense of conserving. Maybe I’m just mixed up here.

The problem and the horrible truth is that the Village do not believe in the rule of law, except for little people. ‘Liberal’ means equal justice for all. Jeez, what a thought!

AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hardin Smith and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

Enough of the political secret handshakes, decoder-ring messages and dog whistles, the Democrats have enough juice right now to ram this nomination through the Great Wall of China and in so doing ,with NO deference to the fascists on ANYthing, they keep the lid off of any preceived limitations of acceptability to future nominees. At the same time, the Democrats hafta set their own limitations on acceptability of future Nazi nominations…no more Mr. Nice Guy and no more Federalist Society hacks!

It is time for the Democrats to kill the friendly fascism that they have tolerated since 1981.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, AND REMEMBER THERE IS NO COMPROMISING WITH FASCISM!

Conservatism seeks to maintain the status quo…the entire life-cycle of any system can be analyzed according to how well it adapts and changes to the constantly-changing conditions around it. “Adapt or die” is the evolutionary imperative, that applies to all systems, which to me sets conservatism fundamentally at odds with how the universe works.

But…but…they are fair and balanced

Does fair refer to skin color?

Personally, I’ve always preferred the John F. Kennedy definition from his acceptance speech for the liberal party nomination in NY, all the way back in 1960:

“…f by a “Liberal” they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a “Liberal,” then I’m proud to say I’m a “Liberal.”

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word “Liberal” to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a “Liberal,” and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view — I hope for all time — two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man’s ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility….”

Citizen Knut:

With all due respect Brother Knut, fuck the polls…the only polls that embue power are those in November every two years…it’s how the majority uses that power when they have it to move the boundaries of acceptability in ideology and policy. The Democrats gotta get their mojo workin’ or they will squander (again) the opportunity the voters have given them to move our politics forward out of the fascist dung-heap in which we find ourselves.

The democrats have the juice in theory, but in practice they seem to be a bunch of lilly-livered cowards. Of course some of them I suspect are really Republican double-agents, but can’t explain all of them.

But We the People need to find a way to stiffen their spines. That’s what I’m attempting to do at least with our local Congressman.

The bigger question in my mind, as Hugh asks above, is why they aren’t using that “juice?” Any number of possible reasons, but the same ones don’t seem to apply across the board.

It’s awfully frustrating to watch from here, though, let me tell ya.

Sorry folks but the dems need to get permission from the masters of the Universe on Wall Street before anything is done.

Christy, you are incorrect in your analysis. The issue isn’t necessarily about your centrist democrats at this point, it is about the political life of the Republican Party. There is a internal struggle going on between those that feel the ‘Era of Reagan’ is over and we should move past it, and those that say the ‘Era of Reagan’ will never be gone as conservative principles don’t ‘go away’. Most conservatives in the party understand that Obama’s liberal pick is going to make in through in record time, but it doesn’t mean she isn’t going to get picked apart on substantive issues along the way. This will be left up to the people you listed above as many elected Republicans are afraid of being termed a “racist or sexist” from the liberal community. Many Republicans feel the right-of-center should allow her to go through without much of a fight based off this threat of being a racist.

You are right about the media throwing those people up to make news and yes it is a circus. Its unfortunate our ‘news people’ can’t simply report the news any more, they have to create it. Luckily for the people on your side of the isle, most news people are more liberal than they are conservative.

Wealth and power is seductive, and we need to keep in mind that just as we are trying to figure out ways to manage our politicians, they’re trying to figure out ways to manage us.

But different pols have different buttons that need pushed.

In my case. The way I see it anyway, my senator Bayh needs to just be electorally removed. He’s completely souled out.

My rep, Joe Donelly can be a frustrating Blue Dog, but I think we can create the pressure and the political cover to get him to do the right thing, we just haven’t been as effective as we need to be yet. But at least he’s accessible, and I get the sense he’s a decent guy.

So, Dems went all ballistic opposing Clarence Thomas, and you know how that went. Thomas almost seems to be putting a thumb in the eye of progressive ideas when he writes opinions.

Can’t help but think that Judge Sotomayor will keep a close eye on the direction the country is moving once confirmed, as acknowledging change and not being so corporate cozy is the opposite reaction to conservative foot dragging, recalcitrance, and near oligarchy.

So late to this thread that I’m probably EPU’d with this, but Eric Boehlert at Media Matters has a great takedown of the Sotomayor flap, with an interesting perspective on WHY the media has so badly failed us. It is a must read, IMHO.

Sotomayor, Gingrich and the demise of our press corps

Sufi, I am in South Bend. Are you?

I have no use for Bayh or Donnelly. UGH.

Obama disses TV “news channels“.

http://tvnewser.com/politics/p…..117996.asp

During [the Tuesday, June 2] NBC News special “Inside the Obama White House,” as the president and Brian Williams were driving to get burgers, Williams asked Pres. Obama whether when he’s watching cable TV and lands on a news channel and sees a debate underway about him, does he stop and watch?

I generally don’t. Mainly because I don’t find most of the cable chatter very persuasive. I’ve used this analogy before, it feels like WWF wrestling. Everybody’s got their role to play. I know a lot of these guys. And if Pat Buchanan is having a conversation with Chris Matthews or talking to Keith Olbermann, everybody’s got their set pieces and, so, I don’t feel as if I’m learning anything from the debate.

- – Barack Obama

- – tvNewser.com

I get it.

I’ve complained about the frequency of Sotomayor posts versus the dearth of Dawn Johnsen posts… this post helps give me some perspective – because wingnuts are using the SCOTUS nomination for high profile fund raising and throwing red meat to their base. not so much with Johnsen…
Johnsen is timely and we need her to be confirmed.

Because that assholery gives them notoriety. In today’s tabloid media environment?

There’s no such thing as “bad publicity.”

Thanks for throwing down the gauntlet on this one. The judiciary is a place where we can all win or lose our civil liberties and I am with you 100% on keeping those thank you very much. The crucial check of the judiciary is what we should be fighting for. We have so much to lose.

Abbey Lincoln – People In Me

None of this rightwing attack machine crapola is about Sotomayor alone. It’s designed to throw up an artificial wall on Sotomayor as the “most liberal” judge the right will accept without a big, honking fight. It’s meant to warn off the Obama administration and the Dem leadership in the Senate.

bingo christy, right on the money

where bush (or handlers) demonstrated genious was to trott out the MOST concervative judge they could find, ram them down our throats and threaten that if these judges were not approved then an even MORE concervative judge would be appointed

so some think obama is some kind of poker player, some kind of “third dimensional chess player”, in fact we see he plays his cards pretty bad and he can’t play chess at all

you have hit the nail on the head, this is about moving the bar for what can and cannot be proposed

I have seen some of sotomayor’s rulings as well and to be quite frank I couldn’t give a flying hoot if she’s not accepted

not one bit, however given obama’s record for playing his hand as badly as can be played, he will actually find a judge even more concervative then sotomayor

I want to add to my point concerning which direction sotomayor rules when I said;

I have seen some of sotomayor’s rulings as well and to be quite frank I couldn’t give a flying hoot if she’s not accepted

limbaugh actually went public that he would support sotomayor if he knew she were anti choice

bing, I rest my case

Kindergarten graduation was adorable yesterday.

Our family still has fond, and often re-told memories of our daughter’s kindergarten graduation, at which she sat on the edge of the stage, waving her skirt [and exposing her undies], when not hitting her fellow “graduates” with a rolled up program.

This was 18 years ago. She’s now a gainfully employed college graduate.