about Klobuchar's vote against Barr for attorney general: Klobuchar predicated her opposition to Barr on her disagreement with Barr’s view of executive power. She purports to maintain a more limited view of the president’s constitutional authority (a view that she never advanced during the Obama administration). Despite her reputation as a moderate, Klobuchar reliably toes the Democratic Party line on the thinnest of pretexts (Barr’s “expansive view of executive power”), as in this case. When a Democrat next wins a presidential election, perhaps in 2020, he or she will need to staff his Cabinet and fill vacancies on the Supreme Court. The Klobuchar Kriterion establishes senatorial disagreement with a nominee’s views as fair ground on which to oppose the nominees. Indeed, Klobuchar’s floor speech alludes to her previous opposition to the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. She says her view of executive power differs from theirs. If the Klobuchar Kriterion applies to a Democratic president’s likely nominees, why should any conservative Republican ever vote in favor of their their confirmation (for any reason other than pure political calculation)? Someone should ask Senator Klobuchar and her fellow candidates to answer the question. https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/02/the-klobuchar-kriterion.php
I think the "worry about how republicans are going to act when..." has lost its relevance. First, to not even consider a highly qualified USSC candidate (Merrick) for partisan reasons alone was a first to happen. Second, this republican congress appears to have abdicated its role as co-equal branch of government by allowing presidential overreach gone amok. And third, Barr's views on presidential overreach are pertinent and should be cause for concern in light of trump's current example of presidential abuse of power.
This is going to happen regardless. It reminds me some of Merrick Garland not getting a vote either...... it is the new norm.
yes . . . except Garland was a gamble. Clinton was supposedly a shoo-in for President. This could easily have backfired on the Republicans as a one-off move. It may be the new norm now, but at the time that was not necessarily the case.
Some have it and some don’t and you cannot always tell who will and will not. I never expected Elizabeth Warren to struggle with the media or the pressure and she clearly has. It is early and Klobuchar could get the butterflies out now and be fine but worth following. Running for President isn’t the Senate or a Governorship.
[Premium Post] She's done -- she simply does not have what it takes to be a contender. She is smarter than Horizontal Harris, I'll give her that, but in no way is she a leader. No natural instincts. Maybe a VP candidate. GOOD DAY
She turned it around big time. First five minutes was uncomfortable to watch because of her shaking but done well since then
translated: "@amyklobuchar calls #GreenNewDeal 'delusional.'" This is the tell-it-like-it-is-ness that Klobuchar said would make her different in the 2020 field.
Both Harris and Klobuchar come out in favor today... I favor anything that encourages greater voter participation.
The NY Times must REALLY not like Klobuchar: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/us/politics/amy-klobuchar-staff.html
