I was right. Obama wants an election year fight over the Supreme Court.

February 14, 2016
"And you're surprised?"

“And you’re surprised?”

Do I know my community-organizer presidents, or what?

Responding to the untimely passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, President Barack Obama declared that he will nominate a successor, breaking a nearly 100-year tradition. Both Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Republican presidential candidates have encouraged him to wait for the next president, who will be elected this November.

“I plan to fulfill one of my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor, in due time,” Obama declared in a statement Saturday evening. “There will be plenty of time for me to do so and for the Senate to fulfill its responsibility to give that person a fair hearing and a timely vote.” Obama emphasized, “These are responsibilities that I take seriously and so should everyone— they are bigger than any one party, they are about our democracy.”

No lame duck president has nominated a Supreme Court justice in an election year for eighty years, a fact which both Florida Senator Marco Rubio and Texas Senator Ted Cruz mentioned in the Republican presidential debate Saturday evening.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R, Iowa) said that “it’s been standard practice over the last 80 years to not confirm Supreme Court nominees during a presidential election year.”

And there’s good reason for that: the Supreme Court, which, since the New Deal, has effectively served as a 2nd, unelected legislature, makes decisions crucial to the  daily lives of Americans on highly controversial matters. Whether the next president is a conservative Republican, a crooked cronyist progressive Democrat, or a Socialist running as a Democrat, it’s been the tradition to not make appointments during a presidential election year because there are so many issues are at stake that people feel passionately about. It behooves us to wait until the election gauges the national mood to see which direction the people, through their choice of president and senators, want the Court to go. It also avoids adding yet another inevitably politicized argument to an already contentious election.

Some writers looked at this tradition and speculated that Obama would honor it and let the Court operate with eight justices until the new president could make a choice. I’m not sure why they would think that, since Barack Obama —mentored by a Stalinist in Hawaii as a boy, a committed Marxist-Leninist as an undergraduate, and a devotee of Saul Alinsky as a community organizer– has never show any understanding or respect for American traditions.

On the contrary, I speculated yesterday that Obama would use this opportunity to pick a fight:

…and…

…followed by…

While we don’t know Obama’s choice yet (1), his statement makes me think I’m more likely right than not. Consider:

Obama’s first job out of college was as a community organizer, the profession invented by Saul Alinsky, the Socialist whose main motivation was the taking of power and who developed the tactics used by community organizers to this day — including Obama. Consider Alinsky’s Rule 12:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

The community organizer wins by dividing groups, setting them against each other so that his side is ready to take action while the other is reeling. Compromise, other than a faux-compromise that gives the Alinskyist what he wants, becomes impossible because the community organizer does not want a compromise.

He wants power.

It is my belief that President Obama will choose someone wholly unacceptable to the Senate majority, but around whom he can rally his side and polarize the issue, painting the Republicans as obstructionists and even racists or sexists (or both). Someone such as California Supreme Court Justice Goodwin Liu, a very left-leaning Asian-American jurist who’s already been rejected for the federal bench by the Senate. Or Tom Perez, the Hispanic Secretary of Labor who, as an Assistant Attorney General under Eric Holder, helped push the Civil Rights Division far to the left.

The Senate would rightfully reject either man (2), and then Obama would exploit this to rally his side in the November election, with the media as his willing flacks. The news articles and network broadcasts and campaign commercials (but I repeat myself) write themselves. It wouldn’t be about judicial philosophy or the nominee’s record; instead, Obama and his allies would strongly imply that the Republicans are derelict in their duty, keeping the Court from doing it’s job, probably from racist motives.

It would be horse manure, but it would still do damage to the Republicans, who’ve shown themselves to be utterly inept at fighting back.

Obama wants this fight. He’s picked his target (Senate Republicans); he’ll freeze them, trapping them with their own words about “up or down votes;” he’ll personalize it (“They’re doing this because I’m Black.”); and he will polarize the issue to get his side fired up for the election. Getting his choice for Justice would be gravy.

Get ready for a wild ride.

Footnote:
1) Can you say “Mr. Justice Eric Holder?”
2) I’m not convinced Obama would be all that unhappy to see his choice lose, for reasons I explain above.

Advertisements

First the race card, now the Palin card?

September 18, 2010

At Hot Air’s Green Room, Doc Zero has a great article on the suggestion that the administration try to save the Democrats’ electoral chances by directly attacking Sarah Palin, supposedly because her social conservatism is such polarizing factor that it would enliven the Democrats’ own base of voters. Doc’s response? “Go ahead, try it:”

He’s right that low-key, largely unknown politicians like Boehner and Cantor don’t make very good targets for the politics of personal destruction.  The effort to inflate stuff Boehner into a Darth Vader costume over the past few weeks was comical.  If the Democrats want to run some more plays out of Alinsky’s faded old handbook, they’ll need to focus on someone exciting.

Palin is linked to other high-profile female candidates, like Sharon Angle and Christine O’Donnell, so she looks like an inviting target.  The subtext of the media narrative Democrats are trying to spin is that outspoken female conservatives are somehow unnatural.  Comfortable, maternal leftism is the natural philosophy of caring women, you see, and the State is their only ally in the quest to shatter those increasingly transparent glass ceilings.  A woman who would enlist in the heavy infantry of the regressive fundamentalist Republicans must be crazy.

I hope the White House takes Ambinder’s advice, because it would be suicidal.  His crack about Palin’s “reveling in the culture wars” betrays his ignorance.  He is confused by the details of her biography, and the sincere affection she earns from her admirers.  His Palin Card is drawn from the wrong suit.  She’s the Queen of Diamonds, not the Queen of Hearts.  Her most impressive statements over the last two years have been on matters of economics, policy, and politics. She has shredded the Administration over health care, the Gulf oil spill, and unrestrained government spending.  She’s endorsed dozens of primary candidates, with something like a 70% success rate.  Her most notable clashes with “culture” have involved asking it to stop making rape jokes about her daughters.

If you want to criticize someone for reveling in culture wars, I suggest you take a look at the power-drunk clowns tossing around gigantic bills that “control the people” right down to the menus at fast-food restaurants.  Just wait until they start rolling out the class-war arguments for higher taxes to sustain their frenzied spending.  That will be some serious revelry.

The statement I highlighted above is key to my support of the former governor, for I’m neither a social nor a religious conservative (the two often overlap, but aren’t necessarily the same). Her positions on the role of government and federalism, on fiscal policy and free markets, on foreign policy and national defense, on energy policy, and on the exceptionalism of America itself all ring true for me. And, though I mostly don’t share it, I admire her religious faith for the confidence and strength of character it gives her. Sarah Palin has something sorely lacking in the current administration: integrity.

And there are evidently a lot of Americans who share my opinion. Sure, her favorable/unfavorable numbers are upside down right now, but I ascribe that to a concerted Democrat and MSM effort to destroy her because they recognize the political threat she poses to their power. As more and more people see her by means unfiltered and unprocessed by the mainstream media (aka, The DNC Marketing Department), I’m convinced those numbers will move in the opposite direction.

It’s not as if the Democrats and their allies haven’t tried this Alinsky trick of trying to distract the electorate by focusing on a  figure and demonizing him or her before:

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

They’ve tried it with Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner, FOX News, and others. They’ve even tried it before on Sarah Palin. Each time it failed as the democratic free marketplace of ideas, the Internet, provided a corrective by exposing their tactics and leaving them looking like fools. And now they may be thinking of doing it again? To the woman who has brought down two Alaska dynasties, single-handedly thrown a spanner into the ObamaCare machine with just a Facebook post, and been a one-woman Title IX bringing new blood into the political arena? Seriously?

Go ahead, then, Team Obama. Play that card. Throw her into that briar patch.

ADDENDUM: Someone will, almost inevitably, bring up her resignation: Doesn’t that make her show weakness of character? When she resigned, I’ll admit I was depressed and dejected, and the word “quitter” loomed large in my mind. But, rather than accept the conventional wisdom, I looked at the local Alaska political situation and the fatal flaw in their ethics law (that an accused politician must pay for her own defense, no matter how frivolous the charge), read her own explanation, and was satisfied she had logical reasons for it. Thus, for me, it became a non-issue, though I accept that others might disagree. For those interested, Mark Levin recorded a defense of Sarah Palin over her resignation. Conservatives for Palin provides their defense in the form of four dialogues.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


When all else fails, cry “RAAAAACISM!”

March 21, 2010

Yesterday there was a demonstration at the Capitol Building in DC against the possible passage of ObamaCare today. Turnout was pretty good for something called at the last minute, and the crowd was passionate. Reflecting the majority of likely voters, they were there to say, in no uncertain terms, that they do not want Congress to nationalize 17% of the American economy, make massive cuts to Medicare, drive doctors from the profession and destroy jobs, and have a real cost north of two trillion dollars.

So, how do the Democrats and their media allies respond? Intelligent debate? A discussion of the merits of the health care proposal in order to sell Americans on the idea?

Oh, don’t be silly. The correct response is “c) Bully your opponents by making false claims of racism.”

The incident The Huffington Post so breathlessly reports (and spread uncritically by Alan Fram of the AP) happened when members of the House walked past demonstrators into the Capitol. Supposedly, members of the Congressional Black Caucus were called “niggers” and Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) was called a “faggot.” And while the HuffPo piece can find a sign that clearly crossed the line (slide one in the slide-show at the bottom of the linked article), they can produce no proof of the name-calling in question. On the contrary, videos of the incident clearly show demonstrators booing the Representatives and chanting “Kill the bill,” but there’s nary an epithet to be heard. Tito’s queued up the footage, you make the call:

And, for another view:

Now, don’t you think that, with all the video cameras in the hands of professionals and amateurs that were at the event, someone would have captured those moments of bigoted hate? Until someone can provide proof, it seems more likely that this is just another attempt to intimidate, smear, and distract by those who know the facts are against them.

Saul Alinsky would approve.

LINKS: More at Big Government and Power Line.