Mind the Left

17May10

Glenn Greenwald from Salon was great on ABC’s This Week on Sunday.

Especially fine was when he slapped around former White House Counsel Greg Craig for playing defense lawyer and claiming that Elena Kagan is the most qualified nominee to the Supreme Court of his lifetime.


Great stuff. Now, considering that Craig defined Kagan’s politics as progressive in the mold of President Obama himself, all Republicans should come out against her confirmation. Alas, it appears they’re ready to play along. Any idea why?



3 Responses to “Mind the Left”

  1. 1 mrDarcy

    It’s an election year and the Republicans, knowing they have the momentum because of Obama, et al., don’t want to be pigeon-holed as the “Party of No,” which has been used by the left in past, recent elections.

    Of all the Obama-esque issues they could be perceived as the “Party of Yes”, Kagan’s appointment is likely regarded as the least destructive – in the short term. I believe the hope is that her appointment can be offset with a future Supreme Court nominee by a conservative Executive (if all goes well). In the interim, if a legal healthcare reform challenge is mounted between November and the next presidential election in 2012, a more progressive high court will oversee the challenge’s outcome.

    I think it a risky approach not just because of the bench’s movement left but also because Joe Six-pack doesn’t really give a hoot about Supreme Court nominees or appointees. This isn’t an issue you want to let slide and get credit for being a team player because it has little popular recognition (political recognition is another issue but matters little in this partisan environment).

    The result is that progressives will assert that conservatives are still the Party of No come November and right, wrong, or indifferent, some people will agree. And if the Administration and Congress are set on pushing immigration reform and cap and trade through this year, any conservative opposition to Kagan would be drowned out by these issues.

    • I would recommend to republicans that they eagerly embrace ownership of Party of No and turn it into a badge of honor. ie “Saying yes to the Democrats means saying yes to huge deficits, to endless government growth and intervention into our lives, to government supported sex change operations and to telling people that they should quit their jobs so the feds can take care of you etc… We proudly say No!”

      • 3 mrDarcy

        You can certainly recommend such an approach, but as with most things in life, you get catch more flies (oh, I mean butterflies in today’s PC world) with honey than with vinegar. Consistently saying “no” can come across as a petulant child.

        In establishing itself as the Party of No, conservatives should clearly state the reason(s) why in a definitive document that’s distributed to all.

        The Party of No – A Decidedly Positive Consensus

        In additional to our core values, we believe the following:

        • America is a constitutional republic with a traditional emphasis on individual liberties and freedom
        • Government is created by Americans to ensure unhindered access to those liberties and freedom
        • Americans welcome a well-organized and-run government
        • Government’s social role is to offering assistance without usurping personal responsibility and accountability

        In support of these beliefs, we oppose unilaterally the following:

        • America’s transition to a neo-European, social democracy with emphasis on societal tolerances
        • Government’s limiting of those liberties and freedoms emphasized traditionally by the constitutional republic
        • Government inefficiency and waste, which fails to provide a measurable benefit to liberty and freedom
        • Government assistance without defined limits to ensure the respecting of personal responsibility and accountability

        Additionally and in continued support of these beliefs, we support unconditionally the following:

        LIFE: The individual’s right to life should be considered inviolable except in certain highly restricted and extreme circumstances

        LIBERTY: The right to liberty is considered an unalterable aspect of the human condition and emphaisizes personal freedom: the private realm in which the individual is free to act, to think and to believe, and which the government cannot legitimately hinder or invade

        THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS: each individual has the right to attempt to attain – “pursue” – happiness in their own way, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of others

        EQUALITY: All indiduals have the right of being equal before each other, as well society’s establish law; this right should not hindered or invaded unless by due process of law

        TRUTH: The individual demands full disclosure by government be the rule, since trust in the veracity of government is the critical bond with the people

        JUSTICE: The individual should be treated fairly in the distribution of the benefits and burdens of society, the correction of wrongs and injuries, and in the gathering of information and making of decisions

        PATRIOTISM: Virtuous individuals display a devotion to their country, including devotion to the fundamental values upon which it depends

        The later part was “borrowed” heavily from past sources – http://www.easehistory.org/glossary.html .


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: