When Will Mitt Take Off the Gloves

As Newt Gingrich improbably surges to the status of front-runner in the Republican presidential race, Mitt Romney is faced with the dilemma of what to do in response.  It's a tricky position he's in.  Gingrich apparently has a double digit lead in Iowa, while also leading in the polls for South Carolina and Florida.  Romney faces a dangerous scenario in which Gingrich wins big in Iowa on January 3rd, garnering a whole lot of momentum, publicity, and, potentially, money.  Romney still seems likely to prevail in New Hampshire on January 10th, by which time the field will probably be winnowed considerably.  (Ricky we hardly knew ye).  It seems to me that at this point the anti-Romney voters -- who seem to be the majority of GOP voters -- will move toward Gingrich.

Gingrich appears positioned to be able to win convincing victories in South Carolina on January 21st and Florida on January 31st.  At that point, it will probably be a two man race (plus Ron Paul, who really doesn't count) and Romney will be bleeding profusely.  He will no longer be inevitable and his "electability" -- his major selling point to most of his supporters -- is going to seem far less compelling.  One senses too that Romney will not perform well at the moment when it all seems to be slipping away -- certainly his recent whiny disaster of an interview on Fox suggests this.

All of this argues for Romney to go after Gingrich aggressively right now and try to prevent this scenario from unfolding.  Certainly there is much to attack.  But the question is, can he do so in a manner that is both effective -- we are down to a matter of just a few weeks now before these contests unfold -- and is not costly to Romney in terms of the Fox and talk radio primaries.  Although many on the right see a Gingrich nomination for the disaster it will be, there remains such a deep skepticism regarding Romney that a poorly conceived attack on Gingrich could have a rallying effect for his opponent. 

It's the sort of difficult tactical situation that Romney has been able to avoid as his other potential challengers self-destructed.  Gingrich strikes me as different -- although he is deeply flawed and has more baggage than any front-runner I've ever seen, he has been in the big time before, he has an incredible capacity for bluster, and basically, his warts are well known to the Republican audience.  Many of them just don't care -- they view him as a leader and as someone who presents an exquisite "fuck you" to the establishment (whoever that is), notwithstanding the fact that Gingrich is the kind of grifter that Sarah Palin could only dream of being.  

I have my doubts that Romney has the chops to pull this off.  The question then is whether he can recover -- South Carolina has generally been the pivotal contest in competitive GOP nomination races -- and beat Gingrich on the more favorable turf that will follow Florida.  

Personally, I am rooting for Gingrich with all of my heart.  If Obama can't beat him, then I agree for once with Will Wilkinson: "we all deserve to die in a purifying fire."       

     

Comments

[kathy a.]

it looks like other members of the party -- ones with long memories of newtie's earlier follies -- and others are working to ensure he doesn't get nominated.

[low-tech cyclist]

Gingrich seems to share with Palin a severe allergy to the work of campaigning. If Romney weren't looking so weak right now, I'd say he still didn't have much of a chance. But Romney seems to have approximately zero intestinal fortitude, and Gingrich can probably run circles around him.

South Carolina has traditionally been where insurgent GOP candidacies (e.g. McCain in 2000, Huckabee in 2008) go to die. But I don't see SC becoming Mitt's firewall unless Gingrich starts to self-destruct between now and then.

I, too, am rooting for Gingrich. He's every bit of the worst of the GOP, a slightly more respectable, politically savvy and experienced version of Rush Limbaugh. And while the GOP base seems to love him (probably because they see him as being a fuck-you to people like us), few outside the camp of orthodox Republicans seem to have much use for him.

[Joe S]

Romney is viewed by Republican base voters in the same way Joe Lieberman is viewed by Democratic base voters. Nothing Romney is going to say is going to have any effect. Romney's only chance is for Newt to implode-- and I don't see that. I think its Gingrich v. Obama. That's good for Obama-- it maximizes his chances of winning. But I think there's a nontrivial possibility the Republican will win, especially if the crisis in Europe hits a critical mass. If that's the case, I want Romney or Huntsman. I disagree with them on basically all policy issues. But at least we won't end up in a nuclear war or in a second American Civil War. With the rest of these jokers, you really can't tell. They all have psychological problems and/or are deeply ignorant of the ways of the world.

[oddjob]

They all have psychological problems and/or are deeply ignorant of the ways of the world.

When little people cast long shadows that means the sun is setting.

[Joe S]

I wonder if that means the sun is setting on the Movement Conservatives or whether the sun is setting on the USA.

[kathy a.]

c'mon, guys! eyes on the prize -- in this case, i mean long-term in the US, and victories where we can get them in 2012 -- at the national level, state and local -- they are all worth fighting to avoid something worse.

but it would indeed be lovely if the clown car & associates all got left at the side of the road. i think obama will win, if only because the alternative is hideous (although i really think he is not a bad guy, and has been gravely hampered by the antics of the opposition, who do not fucking care about people). i'd be overjoyed if these nuts went down in flames, and their cohorts in our various states and localities.

[nancy]

If I were Romney, I'd take off the gloves immediately if not sooner. Although I suppose for those who'd like to jump into another international conflict, this was one of Newt's brave and bold moves.

[kathy a.]

oh oh oh -- newt's big campaign expenses include not only the 2 loos, but also, paying himself $42,000 for his own mailing list.

[kathy a.]

sure, anybody could need 2 bathrooms for one person on a speaking tour. i guess. i can generally get by with one in a suite, even sharing.

paying himself for his own mailing list -- and so generously! $42,000!! before other creditors get paid! -- is kinda extra-special.

[Sir Charles]

As I said, the kind of grifter that Palin could only hope to be.

[beckya57]

I have the same mixed feelings as Joe. Under normal circumstances Gingrich couldn't possibly win, but these aren't normal circumstances at all. If Europe blows up and unemployment here hits 15% in response I don't think it will matter how crazy Obama's opponent is. That said, if we continue to muddle along like we are now I think Obama will beat Gingrich easily. I too am skeptical about Romney's chances at this point. It's become quite obvious that the GOP base can't stand him, and as we all know primaries and (to an even greater extent caucuses like Iowa's) are disproportionally dominated by base voters.

[low-tech cyclist]

With any luck, Gingrich could be the same sort of liability to the GOP in down-ticket races that Goldwater was in 1964.

[ikl]

This is a very strange primary. Until recently, I really thought that Romney would win it. Now it is hard to be confident of this (I certainly wouldn't count him out though). Gingrich is such a clearly weak nominee that it is hard to imagine that the Republican powers that be won't try to stop him if he doesn't implode soon. But time is running short and Romney has to be very careful about how he attacks Gingrich so as not to reinforce the notion that Gingrich is the "true conservative" option. This is the problem he running a "Gingrich is not electable but I am" line of attack, for example.

[oddjob]

it is hard to imagine that the Republican powers that be won't try to stop him if he doesn't implode soon

I think they already are and it's not working. At this point I think the only thing that stands in Newt's way to the nomination is Newt himself (a very real obstacle, given his lack of discipline, erratic temperament, and loose tongue). My impression of the GOP base is that they've decided what they most want is the candidate who can most impressively raise a middle finger to all powers that be. This is of a piece with my belief that the Tea Party is not a political movement, but a collective temper tantrum.

[Paula B]

re: need for two bathrooms.
If you're two-faced, you might have other duplicates in your anatomy.

re: the Tea Party is not a political movement, but a collective temper tantrum.
Love it!

Newt Gingrich, from the people who brought you Sarah Palin, George W Bush, Dick Cheney. He'll fit right in.

[KN]

Oddjob, yesterday at 11:47 AM, good one.

Alternatively the sun could be rising.

[KN]

Scripts chopping off my comments again, the last one vanished. Can't someone adjust the time outs on this comment script?

[nancy]

Oh KN. My help suggestions didn't work. Argh. So sorry.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Whew, maybe it's finally going to be possible to discuss politics again, now that it seems obvious it will be Obama vs Newt. (Assuming that neither his diet, his dissipation or his dickishness have a fatal result for the ex-Squeaker of the House -- if so, then it will be a free-for-'all but Romney.')

My apologies for those of you who this applies to, but it was getting more and more frustrating discussing politics with people so far out of touch that they believed, even against the 'clown car,' that there were enough Republicans out there willing to vote for delegates pledged to Romney -- or that the delegates that they would vote for would, under any circumstances, join the 'bandwagon.'

I have been complaining about the 'let's broadcast tyhe game from the Goodyear blimp' attitude of the entire pundit class -- both 'mainstream' and 'blogger' pundits -- and it still worries me. It's what gave us the Disaster of 2010 -- and there's no evidence I've seen that the pundit class even remembers that there are any other elections than the Presidential. But nothing showed it more than the Romney delusion.

I still insist that it is a shame that this was a delusion -- that a Romney nomination would have given us not only a sure win -- which we still have -- for the White House, but would have driven so many Republicans to stay home that we would have had shots at the 'unwinnable' Red State Senate and House seats coming up. (This is, of course, making the highly dubious assumption that there is anyone left awake and 'grounded' in the DNC, and that the idiots who cost us the chance at Senate gains in 2010 have found some other way of occupying their time.)

But it was and is not possible for someone who combines the fatuousness of Dukakis, the 'plastic man' vibes of Dick Gebhardt, the stiffness of Tom Dewey and the absence of a base in the Joh Connally tradition, all overlaid by his Joe Isuzu reputation -- and who has a 'religious problem' that wll keep a large number of (dis-proportionally Republican -- and 'Red State Republican') from voting for him even if they liked or trusted him -- to somehow find enough voters that will tolerate him to elect the delegates he needed. (And I repeat, the delegates that will be elected will not be the type that jump on the bandwagon on the -- false -- premise of 'electability.' If he doesn't go into the convention with a majority, there's no way he could get one.)

Has any candidate running in a contested primary benefitted less from the successive 'crash and burns' of Pawlenty, Bachmann, Trump, Perry, Christie and Cain. Ordinarily any candidate would pick up some supporters when their rivals -- even rivals from other 'philosophical camps' self-destructed, but Romney stayed at a max of 30%, and overall seems to have dropped down to 20. He might have gotten a little momentum from NH -- if no main competitor had arisen. Now, if he even wins it, I'll be surprised, and if he gets over 40% I'll be shocked. And that's his best shot.

Now that the Pesidency is as settled as anything can be 12 months before the election, maybe we can get back to discussing 'real politics,' meaning those state and local issues that are going to make the big difference. Maybe we'll remember Howard Dean and start actually supporting candidates running in 'unwinnable' races -- unlike the way we conceded Alaska to Murkowski by ignoring and refusing to support Scott McAdams.

Unfortunately, that will mean we'll have to at least reing in our favorite pastine of commenting about what one blog pundit said about another blog pundit's refutation of a column by one mainstream pundit arguing the importnce of a news story that none of the commenters ever looks at closer than third-hand.

Maybe (dream on, dreamer) I'll even see the sort of comments that were standard when reading THE CARPETBAGGER REPORT got me into the political blogosphere. The ones that started 'now that I'm home from two hours at the local GOTV organization...' Comments that remid us that politics is something you DO not just something you write about.

And my ain't I in a triumphantly grumpy mood this moring -- and being interrupted by a dyslexic meter reader didn' help.

[kathy a.]

i dunno, prup -- i'm not ready to call it for newt. the man is congenitally incapable of looking like anything but an ass, and he has some serious baggage. ethics violations, anyone? booted from his last big public position? talking divorce settlement with his first wife while she was in the hospital with cancer; carrying on with his lover while leading the charge against clinton in the impeachment proceedings; that half-million or so in unpaid bills at tiffany's. also, he's not respected as an academic; his main business experience is self-promotion; and he's nasty as a human being. he wants to go to war with iran. he hates poor people, arguing only recently that they are just lazy, and that poor kids should just be put to work [yes, he wants to scrap child labor laws]. he once proposed the death penalty for drug dealers [that's unconstitutional, by the way], whilst trying to cover his sorry own ass during his extraction from the speaker-of-the-house gig.

um, yeah. he has leadership of such a quality that it is offensive on both sides of the aisle, in ever so many ways. i just don't see this combo of attributes being attractive to the hard-core religious conservatives, the old-skool republicans, or to the all-about money sector [because he has no plausible business cred, and because of the loose-cannon factor].

the recent history of the clown car has been pretty explosive, too, and it is many months before the GOP decides on its candidate. wasn't it just a little while ago that cain was the sweetheart of the party?

[oddjob]

kathy, on the other hand if the GOP base has decided what they most want is the candidate who best captures their collective id they'd be hard pressed to find a better choice than Newtie (warts & all).

[kathy a.]

guess we all just need to hang on for the ride, no?

[nancy]

Well, and then there's this emerging force. One can imagine a third party spoiler harnessing both Citizen's United with the power of the net as an unprecedented possibility.

I'm with kathy -- Newt's imploding. He just doesn't know it yet. And once an ass... Man makes Cantor seem almost likable in contrast.

And Prup, I'm probably the only nerd here who's still breathlessly awaiting a recount for a city council seat. My small check is in the mail to help pay for it. :)

[Sir Charles]

nancy,

Americans Elect will prove to be a joke -- they will no more be heard from than their 2008 predecessor, whose name I can't even come up with right now. I can't believe The Guardian takes this seriously.

I do not see signs of Newt imploding yet. Indeed, I think there is a huge panic going on among establishment right wingers of all stripes because he is not yet imploding and they understand that he is unelectable.

[nancy]

Sir C -- I wouldn't take it seriously either if it weren't for Citizen's and all manner of the unforeseen it makes possible. I just saw it play out locally. Our mayor is still trying to figure out what hit her. Her opponent ran as non-partisan with GOP cash flowing into his coffers.

Do you see Rove directing American Crossroads funds to a Gingrich campaign? I can't imagine that scenario. But then, I thought none of my friends would be handing off votes to Nader when they did either. So what do I know.

[KN]

Nancy - not your problem, I used most of those 'tricks' already on posts that it too k a long time to compose. I got lazy and didn't keep copies in the local buffer so got hosed when a reload came up blank. My own fault in that sense but one has to wonder why the timeout is so short. Just an arbitrary number or something integral to the blog software that no one knows how to modify?

No matter. I am better tonight. Will try to compose a comment offline and then paste it in and post it quickly, that should work no? Perhaps prup and others use that technique.

Thanks for the response.

[KN]

Already breaking my little resolution, Kathy a. - against this field of has beens and wannabees scrambling like roaches to avoid scrutiny, Obama can probably win. The chances of having a supportive congress, however, are another matter. I have seen claims that he had a super majority for the first two years of this term. Bull. The bottom line is that congress is the problem.

The one upside I see is that if Obama is re-elected he has nothing to worry about in terms of the future and can get a bit more aggressive. That would be a good thing. I hope it happens that way.

[kathy a.]

oh, i'm so with you KN -- both about the importance of legislative races, and about obama being able to do more in his second and last term.

[beckya57]

I think Obama will be more aggressive, but I don't see him being able to "do more." Congress and to a lesser extent the Supreme Court won't let him. The GOP has paid absolutely no price for their endless filibustering--which is unprecedented--and will continue to do it as long as that's the case. Assuming Obama wins--which is not a sure thing at all--I think we'll see 4 more years of stalemate, with periodic uproars like we just had over the debt ceiling. And I still think the GOP will make it impossible for Obama to get a SC nomination confirmed if one of the 5 right-wing seats comes up for grabs.

[kathy a.]

gotta work the state battles. and it is ever so important that nobody in teh clown car gets to nominate a supreme court justice.

[Sir Charles]

becky,

I tend to agree with you, although I think sooner or later he would get a Supreme Court nominee through -- as long as it's not late in the second term. I think you can probably filibuster a couple of nominees, but at some point there will be too much pressure not to allow an up or down vote.

[beckya57]

Sir C--Obviously there's no way to know until it happens. Supreme Court nominations are much more public than the other stuff that the GOP has filibustered, which would support your case. On the other hand, I still find it unbelievable that the GOP has gotten away with all the filibustering they've already done, which is truly unprecedented. I also am sure they know how incredibly important that 5th seat is, and how much the landscape could shift if that seat went the other way. I just can't see them letting an Obama nomination for that seat go through, unless Obama nominated a movement conservative, which he naturally would never do. Of course, I also can't see the present SC upholding the ACA (or at least the mandate), and you don't agree with me on that one either.

[KN]

It finally dawned upon me that I am taking things backwards, since I am late to the game, I will address comments last first and work backwards, I am having a bit of a problem with time and chronology lately so pardon if you will my inconsistencies.

Taking in the last several posts after prup's @12/09/11 12:34 I can't muster any concern for who the republican nominee will be. It simply doesn't matter, provided of course that the issues are the fulcrum
upon which the election turns. None of the right wing candidates is able to even articulate what the issues are that we confront let alone propose policies that will confront them and undertake to improve things.

So why should we, if we have a progressive mind set, devote so much energy to divining what the right wing voters will ultimately do? The truer issue seems to me to be the down ballot choices - without a solid
majority in congress Obama will still face essentially insurmountable obstacles.

I do have to concede to prup that is last point is spot on. All this Punch and Judy primary garbage is not only inane but pathologically in denial. There are many genuine and serious issues that the US needs to address and none of them are being seriously discussed, let alone engaged while these spurious debates about whether a blastocyst is a human being go on. Or the equally spurious claims about a debt crisis.

Here's a novel thought. What debt? The government creates money. The government is the source of all money. All this bickering and brinksmanship over cutting back spending is really just an effort to put the
squeeze on ordinary people and force them to work more for less - be competitive with China. The fact is we are already seriously competitive with China, a product that is ten times better than another is worth at least ten times as much. China by and large produces junk. It is cheap junk but it is still junk.

Personally I am gravely concerned about the carbon issue. There are plenty of people with no background or knowledge of deep time who claim that the sudden change in climate that we are currently observing is no
big deal. It has happened before and things worked out fine. I even saw a reference to a paper published a few days ago to the idea that 29,000 years ago or so carbon saturation levels were not that important to the change in climate trends that brought about the current interglacial. I didn't see a single criticism that mentioned the fact that the paper concerned a climate change that took place during one or two millenia,
and we are observing a more rapid change over a period of just a decade.

I'll stop here out of pessimism.

[KN]

quick come back since I am still awake.

Kathy a. thanks.

beckya57 - I'd characterize your point of view as experessed above as realistically pessimist. There is nothing wrong with that point of view since the last three years have shown that irrational bigotry and utter disdain for suffering are perfectly fine traits for republican politicians.

However, to you and SC I would point out that for instance the POTUS can behind the scenes greatly stimulate the very much needed and ultimately highly perjorative outcome of the impeachment of Clarence Thomas, and perhaps Scalia as well. Thomas is transparently on the take and as such should be pilloried.

You never can tell what will happen. Obama as a rule has been a paragon of restraint. I think that is his nature, and it has stood him in good stead. But I also think he knows quite clearly that he has achieved the mountain top. He was dealt about the worst hand any president has faced since Lincoln. Through all the opposition he has still managed to achieve a number of significant things. I would not be at all surprised if he could foresee that with a second term he will have one and only one chance to truly change the destiny of this country, and I think that he will do his best.

If he is not re-elected it will be because of the greatest fraud in history.

[Paula B]

KN---As you might have noticed, I've been offline a lot lately, so never got back to you on the UMass thing. I was there from 1999-2003, working as a writer in the science news office, covering micro, plant and soil, vet sci, nursing, public health, entomology, forestry, food sci and probably other areas of research. When asked about my work, I generally said I had the best beat in the house: blood, guts, sex, bugs and dirt. I left UMass thanks to a massive layoff to return to freelancing, but still miss being on campus. Don't miss the daily parking hunt, however. I took that job because I had written about James Robl's mammalian cloning lab in vet sci for Newsday, and thought it would be a great opportunity to watch and write about whatever grew out of his work, before it went commercial. Of course, Robl left shortly after I got there. I also covered the early days of Derek Lovley's soil and water remediation projects, something you're probably familiar with. Derek's still there, raking in the grants. Good for him! Amherst is the same. I hear they're thinking of installing a beer pipeline parallel to waterlines on North Pleasant Street, to alleviate Thursday afternoon traffic. ;] We can continue this conversation offsite, if you want to contact me through my blog.

[Paula B]

another thought on Anderson/bbw, concerning our grandchildren. Since we are what we eat, what does that say about future generations and whatever they use as a base for knowledge, cultural or otherwise? The moving picture in all its forms is so young, and not always reflective of thoughts deserving a legacy. Can any generation build a library of cultural knowledge on such a thin base?

[Sir Charles]

becky,

I think the filibuster problems are going to continue. If the Dems manage to hold on to their majority in the Senate -- which is going to be quite an uphill battle -- they will have to try to decide if they want to do something about it. Sadly, with a majority of one or two, I don't know that they can pull it off even if they wanted to.

As for the Supreme Court, I think you can look in some ways back at Nixon's struggles with trying to fill Abe Fortas's seat back in 1969-70. He lost with both Haynsworth and Carswell, but eventually got Blackmun through (much to our ultimate pleasure). Now the analogy only goes so far. Both Haynsworth and Carswell got up and down votes. The parties were far less disciplined and far more ideologically diverse in those days as well -- 17 Republicans voted against Haynsworth and 13 against Carswell, while 17 Democrats voted for Carswell and 19 voted for Haynsworth. It was quite a different world.

The reason I think the ACA will be upheld is that a variety of conservative jurists have already upheld it and I think they represent a reasonable sampling of where at least a couple of the right wing justices will go. At least to date there is only one court that found one aspect of the law -- the mandate -- to be unconstitutional -- and upheld the rest of the law, a result that would be highly problematic practically. I think the most likely outcome is that the law be upheld in its entirety.

We will find out in June I guess.

[beckya57]

SC--I remember those Nixon SC battles, but as you point out, the parties were much more diverse back then. We're both old enough to remember when you could see a liberal Republican somewhere besides in a museum! I don't think that has much to do with the present era. The thing that's amazed me the most has been the press' passive acceptance that 60 votes are now required to pass or confirm anything in the Senate, as though it's always been like that. I just don't see them putting enough pressure on the GOP for them to back down on an Obama nomination.

As for the ACA, you're presenting the legal argument, which I of course am totally incompetent to engage in one way or the other, I'll just take your word for it. The legal arguments I've seen all pretty much agree with yours. The question is whether this gets decided on legal vs. political grounds. I see the ACA decision as the most politically salient SC decision since Bush v. Gore, and expect it to be decided the same way for similar reasons. I just can't imagine the 5 right-wingers handing Obama and the Dems a victory like that, and I'm expecting them to tie themselves into pretzels with the legal arguments allowing them to deny that victory, just like they did with Bush v. Gore. If it's treated like a legal issue rather than a political one I think your arguments would hold. I'm just skeptical that that will happen, given the players and the stakes. I hope you're right.

[KN]

beckya57 in last message I see, here here. However, the mandate is also a huge plus to the insurance industry. So I think there are some nuances to the game that are not obvious.

PaulaB - alright, I'll go see if I can find you on another channel. But as of now I have no clue where your blog is. Perhaps you can enlighten me with a link?

No actually, I have no knowledge of Derek Lovley. My tenure are UMASS was pretty long ago, I left in 1983.

U Mass is a great school though and I enjoyed every minute of my several years there.

So give me a link to your blog.

cheers,

[Sir Charles]

becky,

I was shocked by Bush v. Gore, so I suppose I could be shocked again.

I think the difference is that the facts of Bush v. Gore were so unique that the Court had less compunction about doing what it did. I think that they would have to do far more violence to existing precedent to overturn the ACA. It is certainly not beyond the realm of possibility though.

[corvus9]

KN, the mandate may be a good thing for the insurance industry, but I am not so certain that the ACA is as a total package a boon, especially with the medical loss ratio in there.

My expectation is 7-2. Obviously I think we will get all 4 liberal justices. I think Kennedy would be aware of the massive violation of precedent, and thus will guarantee the vital fifth vote, especially if that lets him write the opinion. I remember seeing eons ago on Lawyers, Guns, and Money some opinions and writings by Scalia that would seem to explicitly endorse something like the mandate, and I think he values his judicial philosophy to much to violate it explicitly, especially if it doesn't get his side anything (because Kennedy will be a yes vote). Thomas usually does whatever Scalia does. Roberts and Alito, however, are total partisan hacks, and I see them being against just to be against it, especially Alito.

However, Thomas is on the make through his wife, so I could see him going against it to keep her in good standing with the conservative gravy train, which gives you 6-3. But then, Roberts might not be willing to go so hyper-partisan on a judicial matter, which would get to back to 7-2. So I am sticking with 7-2, with Alito as for sure, and either Thomas or Roberts as the second dissenter.

[kathy a.]

bush v. gore was briefed and decided in lightening speed, and the issues were pretty narrow. there was great pressure to just decide something, and fast, to avoid a lapse in the presidency. those circumstances, and the issues, were unprecedented, and the urgency was enormous.

the issues regarding the ACA are considerably more complex, and they have been bubbling up through the lower courts, as is usual. the track record in lower courts, even with conservative justices, is pretty strong. only one piece has been held unconstitutional, by one court; and the reasons it is constitutional have been worked up well and accepted by other courts. the court absolutely does not view itself as a political entity.

that said, it is hugely important that members of the clown car not be nominating future members of SCOTUS. those appointments can last decades. there will almost certainly be a vacancy in the next presidential term. and it is vitally important that new members of the Court be well-qualified legally, recognize the Court's special role, and bring perspectives based on broad human experience.

we can go a little while with only 8 justices, but it would be unseemly in the extreme, and unprecedented, to torpedo every nomination for SCOTUS.

[kathy a.]

KN, clicking on paula's name links to this site: http://www.birdsonawireblog.com/

[Paula B]

thanks, kathy. Once you're at my blog, KN, you'll see an email address near the top of the page. I wasn't trying to get you to leave cogblog, I just thought it would be more polite for us to talk about UMass outside this blog's political debate. no problem.

[KN]

Okie doaks all, thanks for the help, I am a tech savvy numb skull sometimes.

I also blew it on my tenure at UMass, I actually left there in about May of 1980, it is 1983 when I got to L.A.

SC - I would be inclined to agree with you except that I think this court is the ultimate plutonomy court, bought and paid for. Citizens United was a decision that was specifically expanded and engineered by Roberts et alia for the benefit of their overlords. So nothing would surprise me at this stage, however, I do think that the insurance lobby is in more than a little quandary over the mandate. They on one hand would love to have 35-45 million new customers forced to buy some kind of junk insurance from them. The only thing they are bitching about is that word "junk". They are very upset at having to meet a medical loss ratio of 80% when medicare routinely comes in at around 95%.

corvus9 - interesting calculus, however, I can't buy it. I think that Obama has pushed this in front of the court as a kind of I dare ya thing and he may have timed it just right or not but every one of the justices must be mulling over how they are going to be perceived in the near future. I am not student of this kind of thing so my opinion is about as reliable as that of Alan Grayson on this point, namely nil. I think the court will swing to the right even further to mollify the rabid plutocrats and nullify the whole shebang. If the timing is right, it will work very strongly in Obama's favor because despite all the propaganda, people are beginning to realize that this law is a step in the right direction.

More broadly - bush v. gore was a trevesty. Judicially all that should have been ruled upon was the claims of what to recount in the immediate election, but instead they chose to appoint bush president. In a perfect world this would now begin to impinge on them in the form of a whole series of impeachments.

In the world as is, however, more of the same is to be expected and those emoboldened by skating past any liability for serious conflict of interest will no doubt reach further rather than moderate.

You know, most of us do not recall, but I was in Bogata not that long after the communists shelled the supreme courts there. Once in a while hubris is given a comeupance.