DOUGLAS V. GIBBS<---------->RADIO<---------->BOOKS<---------->CONSTITUTION <---------->CONTACT/FOLLOW <----------> DONATE

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Harry Reid Concedes Garland Confirmation Until After Hillary Clinton Is Elected

by JASmius

Wow, I'm....amazed.  This is so unlike Dirty Harry to just run up the white flag like this.  Or at all.  This is the guy who's been the indefatigably obnoxious bane of Republicans on Capitol Hill for over a decade, always fighting, always insulting, always sliming, always getting in our faces, calling President Bush a "loser," agitating endlessly against Operation Iraqi Freedom, ramming ObamaCare through reconciliation, serving as Barack Obama's loyal goalie against the restored GOP House, nuking the confirmation filibuster.  Harry (G)Reid never gives in, never gives up, always wins, and does so by always playing bare-knuckle hardball.

Until now:

Senate Minority Leader Harry [G]Reid predicts the Senate will confirm Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court after Hillary Clinton wins the presidential election in November.

Oh, no, they're not.

The Nevada Democrat says Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to consider a high court nominee until a new president offers a nomination for the vacancy is “dumb advice” for Republican senators.

[G]Reid said at a news conference that it would be foolish for Republicans to wait until after the election. But he predicted Democrats would win the White House and Republicans would choose to confirm the moderate Garland over a [Rodham] nominee, who might be more liberal.

Except that Judge Garland is no "moderate," as has been well-documented.

I'm not sure what to make of this.  With the Senate GOP firmly resolved to stuff ANY nomination long before O selected Judge Garland, I thought the core purpose of going ahead with his nomination anyway was to use him as a general election campaign cudgel - "extremist, obstructionist, racist [natch] Republicans should 'do their job' and confirm the president's 'moderate' Supreme Court nominee or 'pay the price' in November," etc.  Indeed, the polls are already headed in the Dems' direction on this issue.  To maximize their advantage, doesn't their Senate contingent have to be in the vanguard of that effort?  Sure, the nutroots can agitate and protest (although how much or hard they would do so for an old white guy is debatable), and The One can bully from the pulpit, but the main battlefront is on Capitol Hill, and if Senator Pencilneck is pulling the plug on the effort even before Easter, that for all intents and purposes forfeits said cudgel.

The fact that Judge Garland is an old white guy fraudulently billed as "moderate" was thought to be a secondary drive to actually get him confirmed by making it more difficult for Senate Republicans to maintain their election year blockade.  In which case (G)Reid has thrown that goal summarily out the window as well.

It's just so unlike the Dems to...well, ever surrender on anything.  It's just not something to which we're accustomed.

Maybe Dirty Harry is just on the glidepath to retirement and finally out of his trademark "piss & vinegar," which is possible, I suppose.  Although I tend to think it's much more that with almost half the GOP electorate committing general election hari-kari, and a Hillary Clinton presidency all but assured, they're willing to just wait for the Scalia seat to fall into their waiting hands like overripe fruit.  Why fight for it, in other words, when Trumplicans are handing it to the Democrats gift-wrapped?

The answer to that question is that they enjoy fighting, running up the score even when they know victory is a fait accompli.  It's the core collective identity of the Left.


Is Mrs. Clinton going to take up that baton?  And which is the greater Donk risk, taking the chance that she botches the Garland pitch, or if she doesn't, that that uncharacteristic passivity becomes habit-forming?

Too weird.  Almost vergito-inducing.  Good thing I'm sitting down right now.

No comments: