Prairie Weather

Did Obama win bigtime... after all?

Bound to fail,  said the Republicans, and then -- from January '09 on -- set about making his failure their job.  But the guy is no easy loser.  In the end, it's the Republican Congress that got all the rotten tomatoes. 

They may still manage to block the ascent of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court but not without losing more political ground.*  "The odds that 14 Republican senators join all 46 Democratic ones to break a filibuster and seat Garland in the Court before the election hover around zero," Jonathan Chait writes at Daily Intel.  "But the time when Republicans could assail Obama with impunity as some kind of radical may be coming to an end; they may now find themselves forced to acknowledge him as a legitimate and even popular president, the spokesman for the country they never acknowledged he could be..."

...Obama’s approval ratings have edged into positive ground, after having been underwater through most of his two terms. Unemployment has fallen below 5 percent, and as employers have finally run short of spare workers to hire off the unemployment line, wages have begun to rise. Perhaps more important, the opposition party, which has heretofore usually confined its bouts of extremism to legislative stalemates, has undergone a very public descent into orange-haired madness. All this suggests the possibility that, in the twilight of his presidency, Obama may finally be occupying the place he has always craved: the center of American politics. ...Chait, DailyIntel

The mood of the country has changed.  What used to seem like political chaos in the House now looks like good ol' bargaining -- hard work in the best of times but considerably nobler than strong-arming and arrogance.  Rage can only satisfy for moment.  That moment is over.

There is something fitting about the denouement of the Obama presidency. A Republican Party that began his administration with tea partyers in tricorn hats, Glenn Beck chalkboard rages, government shutdowns, and Mitt Romney diatribes against the 47 percent is culminating in meltdown. The contrast between the president and his antagonists is visibly one not just of worldview but of temperament. Reasoned negotiation is the foundation of his political style, stretching back from his time as a Harvard Law ­Review president conciliating between warring right- and left-wing factions. What Republicans have made impossible for most of his presidency may finally come to pass. ...Chait, DailyIntel

___

*However, there is  (apparently) a work-around when the Senate refuses to do its job:

We explain why this is a better reading of historical precedent than any limited to consideration of the last 80 years. ...Constitutional text, structure and history suggest that the Senate Republicans’ current plan not to act at all on any Obama nominee may violate the Constitution. Given this possible constitutional problem, there are also heightened prudential risks to the position Senate Republicans have taken....Balkinization

Maybe the fact that conservatives get away with it here is the greatest indictment of America and its tortured "democracy"

There's Glenn Beck pitching gold as a hedge against nonexistent hyperinflation. Fred Thompson hawking reverse mortgages. The acolytes of direct-mail pioneer Richard Viguerie setting up operations that scare the bejeesus out of old people but use most of the money they raise to pay themselves and their consultants. The talk radio hosts who repeatedly insinuate that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster—and then quickly break for a commercial. Mike Huckabee peddling diabetes cures and Ben Carson praising the glories of glyconutrients to their evangelical fans. The endless production of simpleminded right-wing books as a handy income stream, some of them with more than the usual whiff of corruption. ...KevinDrum,MoJo

Here's the thing as it appears to someone who lived far from America -- home -- during the two decades between the start of the Kennedy presidency and the start of the Reagan presidency.  During that period the media, from TV news to the quantity of published books of all kinds to the numbers of new magazines and Hollywood films,  expanded in all directions and covered all kinds of human behavior.  The ability to con huge numbers of people is a well-paid industry that goes way beyond Madison Avenue.  Take violence.  How much violence, real and fictional, did your mother witness between the ages of (say) 20 and 40?  How much have you seen during the same period in your life? Or just daily?  Start by asking yourself how much TV you've watched over a lifetime...

Yes, I mean all real killings on TV news as well as handheld video clips caught by passersby?  plus all fictional murders? plus descriptions and still photos from (say) on-the-ground media during the Vietnam war or in Iraq?  plus the repetitive videos we saw on 9/11 and continue to see intermittently? How likely is it that you will now be a reliably sensible voter when the issue is the use of force by police?  Are you more likely to give 'em all the rope they need because you've "seen" all the violence they have to deal with?  How reliable would you be on a jury? 

What about the alleged murder of a White House lawyer by the president's wife? Remember?  Was that fiction or fact? 

If a murder is seen in a gritty, realistic  Hollywood drama, how is it remembered? Does some part of your memory treat it as "real"?  Fiction? or representative of "the world we live in"?  What roles do age and education play in one's understanding of the distinctions between fiction  and fact?  When a political commentator or a contemporary novelist suggest that "we don't know the whole story," isn't that a hint from someone "on the inside" that, yes, it was probably Hillary who finished off Vince Foster?  And if someone who is "clearly' guilty of murder disguised as suicide is now running for the presidency, aren't we in "real trouble"?  How many Iraqis is it rational to kill in view of their (fictional) "weapons of mass destruction"?  If Alice was hallucinating about rabbits, should we let our children read about her?  I mean, where do we draw the line?

In the end, Trump took a look at the conservative movement and decided that they were amateurs. The big con needs more than talk radio or direct mail or scary ads. It needs national TV provided willingly and often—and Trump knew exactly how that game worked. He's not running his con any differently than conservatives always have. He just knows how to pull it off way better than they do.  ...Drum, MoJo

Americans -- thank you, media! -- are  ripe for not  only mass delusion but for any  lip-smacker of a con.  Thanks to our habit of blurring the line between fiction and reality, we are vulnerable to cons at all times of the day and  at all levels of our lives.  Right now it's the freedom of speech con and the Trump con!  The media make it so easy!   And we pay them so much for the privilege of being conned!

GOP's war of desperation

All-out war on Donald Trump's candidacy is being planned by the Republican  leadership.  You may as well ponder the alternatives to Trump they offer.  Well, there's really only one:  former Texas governor Rick Perry.  Only this time Perry is sporting glasses ... horn rims that make him look like an aging James Franco after a bibulous weekend. 

This distancing of Grand Old (senile? demented?) Republicans from the actuality of their Party is funny, sad, and ludicrous.  Most of all  it's a waste of time.  After years of clown-car antics, destructive behavior, and outright nastiness, they resemble assorted Russian regimes dating back to early Bolshevik  days more closely than anything like a player in a two hundred year old democratic republic.  The clown car is racing its motor loudly, but the noise is coming from the ditch.

Recognizing that Mr. Trump has seized a formidable advantage in the race, they say that an effort to block him would rely on an array of desperation measures, the political equivalent of guerrilla fighting.

There is no longer room for error or delay, the anti-Trump forces say, and without a flawlessly executed plan of attack, he could well become unstoppable. ...NYT

And if that attack fails? Oh right.  A third party.

...Leading conservatives are prepared to field an independent candidate in the general election, to defend Republican principles and offer traditional conservatives an alternative to Mr. Trump’s hard-edged populism. ...NYT

Of course, "traditional conservative" can mean anything a floundering reactionary wants it to mean at any given moment.  It can come down to whether you prefer to leave the toilet seat up or down.  How Rick Perry fits into the Party's safety zone is what makes one wonder whether they've acquired any self-knowledge at all. 

Another leadership choice is Ted Cruz, the Republican who's so awful that even fellow Republican senators hate him.  Ohio's Kasich gets some respect for being a grown-up, or at least looking like one from a distance.  (Ohioans may have varying views of their governor.) Then, too, some committed delegates may stand between "leading conservatives" who want Trump outta there like yesterday ...and reality.  Trump has a following that has turned its back on Washington's so-called "traditional"  conservatives.  And, anyway, those conservatives haven't even reached clear agreement among themselves.

About two dozen conservative leaders met Thursday at a private club in Washington, where some pushed for the group to come out for Mr. Cruz to rebut the perception that the stop-Trump campaign was an establishment plot. “If we leave here supporting Cruz, then we’re anti-establishment,” said one participant, who could be heard by a reporter outside.

But the group failed to agree on an endorsement, instead pleading for Mr. Kasich and Mr. Cruz to avoid competing in states where one of them is favored. “They’re going to have to come to terms and lay off each other,” said Erick Erickson, an influential conservative commentator, who convened the meeting.

Yet in a sign that there is no such détente, Mr. Kasich ran ads and campaigned in Utah this weekend, angering aides to Mr. Cruz, who hopes to reach the 50 percent threshold needed to claim all the state’s delegates. Mr. Kasich also refused to participate in a one-on-one debate, without Mr. Trump — denying them both considerable media exposure and an important online fund-raising opportunity. ...NYT

There are some very happy campers out there, though -- libertarians and other independents, not to mention Democrats. But Clinton doesn't seem to be any kind of alternative safe haven for right-leaners.  So we're back to Rick Perry, clown-car old-timer.

Obama's choice

There's no reason why Merrick Garland won't be a really good choice for a seat on the Court.  But why did Obama choose him? Maybe, Barret Epps writes, because "Obama is playing on Republican fears of whomever a President Hillary Clinton might tap for the role and is trying to lure the Republicans into confirming an older, more moderate nominee."

Well, yes. Then, as Epps points out, if they refuse to confirm him, they'll look really bad.  Garland is, everyone seems to agree,  a superb candidate.

...To the extent there is political calculation behind it, the president is banking on the residual idealism of some Republican senators to respond. He may believe there is at least some chance Garland will be confirmed. If so, his belief in that reservoir of public spirit is a testament both to his own generosity and to his persisting naïveté.

Of course, the idea that Garland, at 63, is an older nominee who would serve a shorter time on the Court and pose less danger to the conservative legal agenda assumes facts not in evidence. Almost exactly a century ago, another Democrat named a Jewish nominee in an election year. The nomination was deeply controversial, and the Senate delayed hearings and a vote for four months—still a record for delay. The nominee was Louis D. Brandeis. He was 59 years old. Nearly a quarter-century later, at 82, he retired as perhaps the most influential liberal justice in American history.  ...Epps,Atlantic

Just one point needs some discussion -- we've needed to talk about this for decades.  The Constitution didn't specify that its members should be lawyers, much less sitting judges.  Not a dedicated history fan, that's one of those factoids I just happen to remember from college/university. 

Appointing lawyers is a custom, not a requirement. Current Supremes (lawyers all) have given citizens ("folks") less importance than (pretty much in this order) a Christian "god" and large corporations. 

Those judgments would appear to most of us as a sign that they rate the Constitution as highly as they rate the National Enquirer -- with average "folks" rated even lower.  Merrick Garland is a lawyer but he has a strong record when it comes to justice in all aspects of his life.  Couldn't ask for better.  That is, unless we were to consider a Garland who happened to have chosen another profession than the law. 

The passion for justice isn't confined to the legal profession.

Finally! Trump discovers what women are good for...

Well, that too. But how about this?

Remember justice?

Yale Law's Lincoln Kaplan reminds us of a time when justice wasn't skewed in favor of one side "winning."  An awful lot of state sponsored "winning" has resulted in death sentences carried out mercilessly.

Capital punishment is bad enough.  To apply it without sufficient proof of guilt --  just to satisfy the prosecution's "score" -- is beyond barbarity. There have, of course, been good prosecutors.  Kaplan writes about his friend, Merrick Garland who worked for a time as a prosecutor for whom guilt and innocence were the criteria.

Prosecutors today are almost omnipotent in the criminal-justice system, which is basically a plea-bargain system. They have such a wide array of laws with which to threaten to charge defendants that, in ninety-five per cent of criminal cases, they obtain plea bargains on lighter charges. Garland’s focus on guilt versus innocence makes him a throwback, the kind of self-effacing public servant who believes that “the United States wins its point whenever justice is done its citizens in the courts,” as an inscription outside the Justice Department office of the Attorney General says. ...Kaplan,NewYorker

(Not, evidently, in Ferguson, Missouri, though...

Maybe some day we'll have a Supreme Court that's genuinely supreme.)