Obama nominates Kagan for Supreme Court to replace John Paul Stevens Su

Right, that's why they all failed, despite every single one of them having control of congress in a less-partisan era without the eternal filibuster being a factor.

I mean FDR couldn't get it done for god's sake...FDR! Truman didn't. JFK didn't. LBJ didn't. Carter didn't. Clinton didn't.

Nixon failed to enact his health care plan too.

 

I think we were in a different time though Sam. No matter what Republicans want to think, the mandate from the people for some sort of healthcare reform was here.

 

i was explicitly talking about any potential democratic candidate who would become the president in 2009 with congressional majority.

but continue making vapid and hollow rhetorical points.

 

Hard to argue that healthcare would have inevitably happened no matter who was minidng the store when FDR couldn't get it passed in 1934.

 

No, I don't. Obama barely got it through. I can't imagine Hillary would have been able to get guys like Nelson or Lincoln on board or hold the middle ground at all.

Dems have had majorities before and totally failed at health care. In fact, Hillary led the last total failure with a large Dem majority. Clinton's position was more *left* - that's why it wouldn't have passed. They barely passed the centrist position.

 

lovely tangent.

barak obama has done nothing that a vapid and hollow DLC presidential candidate wouldn't have. kagan's nomination is indicative of that.

 

only obama has the ability to water down his pre-election commitments?

 

Uh huh. And who is this hypothetical vapid and hollow DLC measuring stick you are using.

 

someone like you.

 

Right, I didn't think you'd be able to come up with anybody. So basically we're left with this: Obama, Sotomayor & Kagan = Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Max Baucus, because you say so.

 

Hillary likely didn't have the ability to pass health care. Obama navigated a very tight window - to assume Hillary could have is naive. It's been tried many times with a Dem Congress and failed miserably. To assume it was inevitable with any President is revisionist nonsense.

 

once again sam, that's not what i said. im saying barak obama's positions have been fairly similar to any DLC candidate. i do think al gore, bill clinton, harold ford, or hillary clinton if elected in 2008, would not have been much different in terms of substantive positions and/or accomplishments than barak obama has been thus far. and that's unfortunate.

 

LOL - Harold Ford can't find the Bronx without a helicopter. But he could have found the votes to pass health care reform...there's simply nothing in the historical record that indicates the "anybody could have done it" theory has much validity.

 

Our nation is a very diverse place. Somebody that has lived their life in California will view the world through the lens of their experience. That is oftentimes an experience that is very different than that had by a New Yorker. If all nine justices are from the same part of the country, they will view the world (and the Constitution) through the lens of that region of the country.

There should be balance on the Court. You cannot have justices from all parts of the country, but you might want to try having them from more than just the Northeast.

With a better balance on the Court, you will tend to end up with a more balanced view of Constitutional issues. It adds to the debate post oral argument.

 

Add to that even those that were outside on the NE . . .were taught in the NE
Some may say 'indoctrinated' *smile*

Rocket River

 

Very true. It is the way one looks at the world that is important.

 

People who think Washington DC, Chicago, Boston, and New York can be collectively lumped in as "East" or "Northeast" and share a collective culture probably need to get out of Texas a bit more.

 

and
* Alabama * Alaska * Arizona * Arkansas
* California * Colorado * Connecticut * Delaware
* Florida * Georgia * Hawaii * Idaho
* Indiana * Iowa * Kansas * Kentucky
* Louisiana * Maine * Maryland * Michigan
* Minnesota * Mississippi * Missouri * Montana
* Nebraska * Nevada * New Hampshire * New Mexico
* North Carolina * North Dakota * Ohio * Oklahoma
* Oregon * Pennsylvania * Rhode Island * South Carolina
* South Dakota * Tennessee * Utah
* Vermont * Virginia * Washington * West Virginia
* Wisconsin * Wyoming


*grin*

Rocket River

 

New York and Boston are a lot more similar than you would probably like to admit.

Chicago is in the Midwest. It is a very different mindset. The West Coast is completely different. At this point, the Midwest and the West Coast mindset has really no voice on the Court.

 

New York and Boston are very different demographically, culturally, etc. You can tell a New Yorker from a Bostonian from a mile away.