Politico's Mike Allen sez: Elena Kagan Will Be Obama's Supreme Court Pick

[Tx4obama]

Mike Allen: "Look for President Obama to name his Supreme Court pick Monday, and look for it to be Solicitor General Elena Kagan, a former Harvard Law dean. The pick isn’t official, but top White House aides will be shocked if it’s otherwise. Kagan’s relative youth (50) is a huge asset for the lifetime post. And President Obama considers her to be a persuasive, fearless advocate who would serve as an intellectual counterweight to Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia, and could lure swing Justice Kennedy into some coalitions The West Wing may leak the pick to AP’s Ben Feller on the later side Sunday, then confirm it for others for morning editions. For now, aides say POTUS hasn’t decided, to their knowledge."

http://www.politico.com/playbook/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/07/elena-kagan-will-be-obama_n_567456.html

[itsrobert]

1. unrec

bad move

[WI_DEM]

4. Why?

[Tx4obama]

2. I have a feeling Obama is going to surprise everyone.

Last Saturday President Obama spent the day with Jennifer Granholm in Michigan when they both spoke at the University of Michigan commencement ceremony.
The media has not said one word about the fact that Obama probably interviewed her while he was there!
Until I hear Obama's decision from his own mouth I won't be believing any of the rumors that are buzzing around the blogs ;)

[Sebastian Doyle]

3. That wouldn't be any better

Geezus, how about a LIBERAL, for fucks sake??

Not a DLC'er. Not a neocon apologist. Not a corporate shill.

I think it's time we took a page from the religious reich's "WWJD" slogan and weigh every decision with the question

"What would FDR do?"

(But then, the DLC follows the example of FDR about as well as the religious reich follows the example of JC, so it probably wouldn't matter to them anyway)

[ThomWV]

5. Agreed. The most liberal voice of the Court must be replaced with an equally liberal voice

Because anything less and the court moves to the right.

[WeDidIt]

6. Because conservatives outnumber liberals two to one in the US

thus moderate is the best we can hope for.

[Sebastian Doyle]

7. Bullshit.

Why are you quoting FAUX Noise propaganda talking points like that?

And even IF there were any truth to it, you have 5 fucking hard core fascist right wing pigs on the court right now. Therefore, even by DLC distortion standards, there should be 2.5 LIBERALS to be "proportionally correct" with that population (mis)estimate.

And since Stevens (a Repuke appointee, ironically enough) is the only liberal on the current court, then he must be replaced BY A LIBERAL. Not a "moderate" ass kissing suckup.

[WeDidIt]

8. Actually, it's a factual statement

According to a Gallup Poll from January 7, 2010, 40 % of Americans identify as conservatives while 36% identify as Moderate and 21% identify as Liberal.

Given that Senators represent entire states, every Democratic Senator has a sizable Moderate constituency they must satisfy if they can hope to be re-elected. Ergo, no person who is openly Liberal will EVER be confirmed in any Senate, even with a super majority of Democrats.

So your only hope of a liberal is somebody who has been passively moderate in everything their entire lives while secretly being liberal.

I am a pragmatic liberal. I understand that in order to push liberal philosophy forward, we must form coalitions with moderates and moderates hold far more power in that relationship than liberals ever will.

Once idiots on the internet who call themselves liberal realize this, we can finally move forward rather than constantly shooting the liberal agenda in the foot and then hanging it from a tree.

You want to know why liberals lose? Idiot liberals with no pragmatism DEMAND that the most liberal policy positions be pushed as is without any moderation at all. That pushes enough moderates over to the conservatives and they require far fewer moderates to maintain a majority than the liberals.

Liberals start from a position of weakness because liberals are the smallest minority in the general population from a strictly political standpoint. IT can only be through intelligent moderation of liberal policies than anything resembling a liberal agenda can be moved forward. Otherwise, we move straight to a conservative agenda from hell.

[joeybee12]

9. You could say moderates and liberals outnumber conservatives...n/t

[WeDidIt]

11. And thus the only way to maintain a majority is to moderate liberal policies

Else a few moderates jump to the conservatives and you have a conservative agenda from hell moving forward full steam ahead.

Fuck, didn't anybody else live through the first decade of this century to see this actually play out?

[Tx4obama]

12. That is not correct.

People that say they are Independents out number dems and repigs.
Dems and repubs are about equal.

[WeDidIt]

14. The Gallup poll says you are wrong

Conservatives outnumber moderates who outnumber liberals by a large shot.

There are conservatives, moderates, and liberals in both parties. Party label is different from political philosophy.

[MadBadger]

16. Independent doesnt equal moderate. Liberal doesnt equal dem and Conservative doesnt equal Repuke.

Thats not how it works. While in the Republican party you mostly see Conservatives and moderates, in the Democratic Party you have liberals, moderates, and conservatives. Just look at Congress. There are a bunch of Blue Dogs that would consider themselves moderate-conservative Democrats. I think I read somewhere that liberals make up about 21% of America.

[WeDidIt]

19. If Liberals could be both intelligent AND patient

a liberal agenda could actually be advanced over time.

But the liberals get impatient and stupid, 1/3 of the moderates form a coalition with the conservatives and everything the liberals work towards gets undone.

[Sebastian Doyle]

30. "everything the liberals work towards gets undone."

...by the DLC. Who get elected with our votes and our money, and then turn around and shit on us, or call us "fucking retards".

[WeDidIt]

32. There you go. Be that internet liberal

Ignore pragmatism and patience.

and push this country further to the right in the process.

[Sebastian Doyle]

49. The only ones pushing this country to the right

is your boss, Mr. Emanuel and his buddies in the DLC.

[immoderate]

38. What do those labels mean?

Years of propaganda have been invested in controlling emotional reactions to those words. How many of those "conservatives" really want to end Social Security, Medicare, voting rights, environmental and certain other regulations?

It's the issues. :)

--imm

[boston bean]

10. The best we can hope for??? No the best you can do if you lay down your gauntlet and don't join

those who want better.

[WeDidIt]

13. Do that

and the moderates jump to the conservative bandwagon and you lose.

That's how it works when you are outnumbered 2 to 1 and have to form a coalition with the moderates. If only 1/3 of the moderates don't like you, the conservatives win.

[Tx4obama]

17. Funny how we're outnumbered and OBAMA WON THE ELECTION! LOL ;) n/t

[WeDidIt]

20. Yep, it's through intelligent liberal pragmatism

His coalition was one where moderates outnumbered liberals more than 3 to 2.

[Sebastian Doyle]

22. What do proportional numbers have to do with the Supreme Court?

Right now, there are 6 Catholics on the court. If Kagan (or Garland) is the nominee, there would be 3 Jews.

This country certainly is not 66.6% Catholic and 33.3% Jewish. Stevens is currently the only Protestant on the court, and Protestants should certainly be better represented, if this were the case (to say nothing of the Muslims, atheists, agnostics, Native Americans, Hindus, Wiccans, etc.)

So it's clear that something is in play here, and it's not a proportional numbers game. Rather it's the same old corporatist playbook that takes place with the DLC/DSCC/DCCC controlling Democratic primaries and the corporate control of the media.

Suppress ANYTHING to the left of the DLC. No matter what.

[WeDidIt]

24. Supreme Court nominees must be confirmed by the Senate

The Senate is a body that, by constitutional design, is a conservative body.

Put up somebody who has openly driven liberal policy and decisions as an Associate Justice to the Supreme Court and you'll have Democratic Senators forced to join in any filibuster effort with Republicans due to the makeup of their state's constituency. You lose by nominating an openly liberal candidate.

It's called pragmatism. It worked very well with Sotamayor, and she's proven to be very liberal even though her record screamed moderate when she was nominated. I believe you'd see EXACTLY the same thing with Kagan.

This culture of instant gratification being driven by internet liberals will be the death of the liberal agenda. Without Pragmatism, conservatives can easily form their coalition with 1/3 of the moderates and seize power. It only takes two years for them to do that.

Liberals need to form a coalition with more than two-thirds of the moderates in order to have a majority. That means that in such a coalition, the moderates outnumber the liberals by 3 to 2, which means the moderates have the real power in the coalition.

Get it?

For the liberal agenda to advance, the key words are pragmatism and patience.

[boston bean]

25. Do you include yourself as one of the ones who would feel justified to jump ship?

[WeDidIt]

26. I'm a liberal

and I stick with the Democrats no matter what because it is the only party where any chance exists that a liberal agenda can be advanced at all.

[boston bean]

27. No self respecting liberal allows themselves to be held hostage

and cow tows to republicanism.

Instead of being a voice for liberalism, you allow yourself to be a pawn and wait for little crumbs to be swept off the corporatist dining room table.

Where do you draw the line? If you don't draw a line, you are a moderate.

[WeDidIt]

34. No intelligent liberal demands the world

only to lose it all because of un reasonable demands in a political climate where nonliberals outnmuber liberals nearly four to one.

[boston bean]

37. You make it sound like you hate liberals, and you say you are one.... ha

You want to treat liberals and their ideas like they have leprosy.

Try winning without the liberals.

Your veneer is dimming.

[WeDidIt]

41. Stupid liebrals piss me off

Stupid liberals gave George Bush his presidency by being so outrageously demanding that Al Gore could not form the needed coaltion to win.

Intelligent liberals, like Barack Obama, impress the hell out of me.

[leftynyc]

35. Until there is a

realistic chance of an independent liberal winning the presidency, we're stuck between Democrats and Republicans. I work with what I have. Seems very self defeating to stay home so conservative religious right freaks get elected just so I can feel self righteous in my purity.

[WeDidIt]

42. And you just described the 2000 election

Liberals who were being stupidly demaanding allowed Bush to become president.

[Sebastian Doyle]

28. And I'm the Easter Bunny

[boston bean]

29. How cute!

Do you lay rotten eggs everywhere you go?

just jokin! :-)

[WeDidIt]

36. You're a myth?

Could have fooled me, but there you go.

[Sebastian Doyle]

40. There's better odds of the Easter Bunny being real

than there is of you being Liberal. ;)

[WeDidIt]

43. Tehre ya go

I knew you'd never be able to form a cohesive argument and would resort to ad hominems.

Yep, bet you voted Nader in 2000.

Relish your purity.

[Sebastian Doyle]

48. I have never voted for Nader

nor have I ever voted for anyone but the Democratic nominee in a general election. I did vote for McCain in the 2000 primary, but it was only as a preemptive vote against the Chimp.

I agree with Ralph Nader on most things. His quadrennial vanity campaign is NOT one of them.

[QC]

53. I'm more inclined to believe you. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

23. What's a moderate? What do they believe?

Doesn't sound policy trump liberal, moderate, and conservative orientation?

[WeDidIt]

31. Sound policy being proven to work

is how you convince moderates they are really liberal and increase those numbers.

For example, in the health care debate, the conservative position was anathema to nearly everybody. You moved what would be considered "moderate" in the debate to the left because clearly the status quo, which was the conservative position, was a dismal failure.

This was how Conservatives built their numbers as high as they are. Their numbers started increasing under Reagan, who was a pragmatic conservative.

Remember "Reagan Democrats"? Those were moderates in a very liberal Democratic Party. They jumped ship, the conservatives grew while liberals have decreased ever since.

We're on the down side of the slope. Obama is trying very hard to push the middle back to the left where it belongs. What is considered moderate today would have been a fairly radical right position in 1976. We need to alter this trend, but that requires pragmatism and patience, two elements lacking in the internet liberal's vocabulary.

[boston bean]

33. You are not convincing a moderate of anything, you are giving them the keys to the house.

Do you really think the healthcare bill was liberal??

You call yourself a liberal, and you keep insulting yourself.

[WeDidIt]

39. For liberals to participate in a majority, moderates will outnumber them 3 to 2

You have no choice. The moderates have the upper hand in any coalition with liberals because they outnumber the liberals.

I am an intelligent liberal. I understand this. You push as much sound liberal policy as you can convince the moderates to agree with and you have patience.

Pragmatism and patience are the keys. Eventually, some moderates will start considering themselves liberal and the number of liberals in the coalition will outnumber the number of moderates.

But so long as the only way to advance you agenda is to participate in a coalition where you are the minority, you have no choice but to pragmatically realize the moderates hold the keys to the kingdom for the time being.

Why do you think Obama always keeps his cool? Everything he does is playing to the moderates because if he loses one third of them, his coalition falls apart. IF liberals are too stupid to look at the numbers and realize their position, then the liberals cut their own throats.

[Sebastian Doyle]

44. Well there you go

We have three moderates on the Supreme Court already. (Sotomayor and the two Clinton appointees) So now we need the two LIBERALS.

[WeDidIt]

47. Sotamayor has been VERY liberal

as have the Clinton appointees.

Your definition of liberal is very narrow.

[boston bean]

50. You're definition of liberal is from outside this world, literally.

[WeDidIt]

52. No, I think that description is more aptly applied to you. n/t

[boston bean]

45. Pragmatism and patience is the death knell of liberalism.

those moderates you hold so dear, are going to vote republican in the very near future.

Go ahead and make due without the measley 20% of liberals who vote democratic.

The liberals (those who call themselves that) may be in the minority, but where you will keep losing the argument is asking people toss away principles and values for votes and after that toss the agenda to the wolves, too. What makes the Democrats any different. Your liberal pragmatism is leading to one party rule.

The platform and agenda of liberals is close to the democratic platform. Are you saying those principles are in the minority and there is no way we can enact them without frightening the ever so glorious moderates. If so, you might as well give up right now.

[WeDidIt]

51. Nope, only about 1/3 of the moderates will

but that's all the conservatives need. We need them all.

I am saying there is no way to enact the liberal ideal of the democratic platform under the current political climate. IT is impossible. Attempting to do so only puts the Republicans in power and sets your agenda back eight years.

So you must enact as much as you can without splitting your coalition.

You seem to think a moderate and a liberal will view end result policy from a platform plank identically. Nothing could be further from the truth. Both the moderates and the liberals see "Health Care Reform" as a good thing, but the moderate vision of that reform is very different from the liberal vision.

If you do not compromise, you lose.

Rhetoric is the art of the perfect. Politics is the art of the possible.

[boston bean]

54. You keep saying we aren't the majority and are being knuckle heads, yet you

know the "moderates" are truly the minority, yet we must cower and be pragmatic and cow tow to their every right leaning thought.

And just get in line you dumb liberals. You are something else, truly, something else.

[WeDidIt]

56. I know the moderates COULD BECOME the minority in the coalition

It takes changing hearts and minds and that requires demonstrating the positions of the left work via strong policy enactment.

Moderates can be a minority in a coalition with the right or a majority in a coalition with the left in today's political climate.

Until the left can convince enough people that the positions of the left make sense and should be enacted, the overall number of liberals will not grow, thus liberals will be a minority in any coalition formed to create an overall majority.

You apparently have poor mathematics skills. It's all about the numbers and liberals only comprise about one out of every five people currently.

[boston bean]

57. You don't do it be becoming a republican, you do it by enacting

policy that will help them. You do it by asking for the liberal enchilada then make some concessions.

The whole way this is playing out, is that the Dems are scaredy cats and are nothing but political animals, to win the next election. These people you want to convince, won't be. You are leaving out the entire other party equation, where these people can easilfy find their new home next time.

Obama is no Reagan, he put us on rightwing path from which we have not recovered. He gutted America.

You don't get it back by capitulating, you get it back by making the case and then the agenda.

[WeDidIt]

60. You left out the most important part

because you cannot enact that policy without the votes of those moderates you formed a coalition with.

Ben Nelson isn't a bogeyman of the Democratic Party. Ben Nelson represents a state that overall is fairly right of center, thus Ben Nelson is more inclined to represent those moderates, and those moderates are scared of going too far to the left. In fact, they're more scared of going too far to the left than they are of going to far to the right.

It's a tightrope walk, and you're still in the minority in your coalition which holds the majority.

Obama could be the Reagan of the left unless the left is too stupid to let him. We could be looking at a forty year liberal revolution, or just another blip on the radar screen before the Republicans take over and roll it all back again. It's up the the left. If they are pragmatic and patient, we'll move this nation to the left over the next two generations. If the left is stupid and demands it all now, it's just another blip before the Republicans take over and roll it all back.

I want to see this nation move to the left over the next two generations.

Where do you stand?

[boston bean]

64. How could us lowly liberals be the cause of the loss of the democratic majority.

We are nothing, and have been told so repeatedly.

You cannot have it both ways.

The loss will be because people feel the democrats let them down and did not go far enough and they will try the other party. The democrats are so busy twisting themselves into pretzels, it's hard to know what they stand for. That is how the moderates feel. The entire healthcare debacle proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt. There was no message. Why was there no message, because dems were afraid to push away moderates. Well look what it got them.

It's as simple as that. It's not rocket science.

[WeDidIt]

71. Because the Moderates hold the power

Piss them off and the Republicans win. It's that simple.

But you appear too proud to do the math and face the facts.

[boston bean]

73. Piss off moderates and Republicans win. What will you say when the Republicans win even if

no liberal policy is enacted.

And you have fought tooth and nail to protect their minority for a win. How will you feel.

[WeDidIt]

74. No liberal policy enacted??????

Where the fuck have you been since January 20, 2009????

Either that or your definition of liberal in the United States bears no resemblance to reality.

[Sebastian Doyle]

58. The best demonstration that the "policies of the left work"

is the propserity of this nation from the time FDR enacted his reforms, up until the day they were systematically destroyed by the Bush Crime Family presidencies of 1981-1993 & 2001-2009, along with their DLC allies from 1993-2001.

We don't need "new" reforms from the likes of Chris Dodd the bank prostitute. We need to go BACK to the reforms that worked.

Of course this is all way the fuck off topic for a thread that's supposedly about a judicial nomination, but it's all the same thing there. Judicial appointments after 1981 have pretty much sucked too.

[BzaDem]

59. What was FDR's majority that allowed him to do this again? n/t

[boston bean]

62. You will never get that majority by capitulating to every rightwing threat.. nt

[BzaDem]

63. You want to know how we REALLY won't get that majority?

By moving all policy far enough to the left to ensure it doesn't pass, and then lose in November.

That's how we'll get a MINORITY all right, but not how we'll get a 100+ seat majority (or even a 1 seat majority).

You should stop thinking you live in the word you want to live in and start living in the world you acutally live in. But I doubt you will. Many people here would MUCH rather be in a "principled" perpetual minority than an actual governing majority.

[boston bean]

66. We disagree, you want to know how we won't get that majority?

Become the other party. Make no distinction, weaken principles and democratic values.

No moderate votes for a republican over a democrat because the ideas are better.

They do it, because they see no difference and try the other team.

[Sebastian Doyle]

67. Bullshit.

If "Democrats" started living up to the name, and being the party of FDR instead of the party of NAFTA again, the 50% of the population who currently won't vote for either party because they are too fucking corporate and right wing might come back.

And then they wouldn't have to waste so much time pandering to the "independent" IDIOTS who really couldn't see a moral difference between the party of corporate fellation and the party of the people.

[BzaDem]

75. Of course you present no evidence that the people that don't vote are much more progressive than

those that do.

Par for the course.

[BzaDem]

61. Thank you for being a voice of reason in a sea of stupidity

As you point out, Sotomayor has been with the liberals on every major decision and has sometimes been one of one or two liberals to write a dissent to an otherwise majority opinion. Kagan would be similar, and yet some people think this would somehow be a "bad thing." This isn't just wrong -- this is stupidity. Thank you for calling it what it is and ignoring the naysayers.

[WeDidIt]

72. It's not so much stupidity as it is pride

Too many on the left are too proud to do the math and face the facts.

It's like the Hillary Clinton followers in May of 2008. Mathematically, Hillary could not win. Those who refused to do the math and face the facts went "PUMA".

[Sebastian Doyle]

55. Sound policy?

You mean like NAFTA? Or the "Telecommunications Act" of 1996 (which enabled the empires of Rupert Murdoch and Clear Channel)? Or repealing Glass Steagal? Or the recent opportunity to solve the health care crisis in this country which was wasted on a giant permanent welfare program for the industry which caused the fucking problem? Or the decision to abandon green energy and instead commit billions to the two most fucking ridiculous forms of energy on the planet, nuclear and offshore oil drilling?

THOSE sound DLC policies?

[BzaDem]

65. I have a question. Is your solution to have Obama disolve Congress?

I mean seriously. You whine and complain about the DLC/bluedogs/etc etc etc, without ever seeming to acknowledge that NO POLICY passes without a significant number of bluedogs. You sometimes seem to want to solve the problem by having Obama enact laws by fiat without actually passing them.

[boston bean]

69. No, most would be happy with him using the bully pulpit. But oh no, can't

do that, might anger some rw moderates. or give the republicans something to talk about.

Whatever happened to the better idea winning out. Convincing people, enacting policy that helps.

[Sebastian Doyle]

70. Let's start by dissolving the DLC

Along with their satellite operations the D(L)SCC and D(L)CCC. And eliminate all DLC'ers from the DNC. Restore Howard Dean as chairman, and reinstate the 50 state strategy.

Then eliminate all DINOs in the primaries (as opposed to CAMPAIGNING FOR THE USELESS FUCKS as Obama is doing right now in Arkansas and Colorado among other places.

FDR passed his policies because he had Democrats in Congress, not Repuke tool DLC'ers calling themselves "Democrats".

Were they all perfect? Of course not. You had the Dixiecrats back then, but they probably stood up for the working class white guys at least.

[dchill]

68. What's a moderate? What do they believe?

A moderate is someone whose main interest is avoidance of letting anyone know what they believe. Including themselves.

[glitch]

46. Politico may be trying to game the ref.

Kagan would be a mediocre choice IMO, which is pretty much built into triangulation.

[blue_onyx]

15. I hope it's not Kagan

[Tx4obama]

18. I'm still rooting for Harold Koh. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

21. that would be a pleasant surprise