What I see is a very strong trend, among the Republicans mostly but not exclusively, to kick out or reject anyone who acts like there's a difference between the House, where hyperpartisanship is the rule, and the Senate, where that dynamic ensures nothing will happen in terms of governance.

We'll see how it plays out in KY, AZ and even the PA Dem race, where I think Specter's old Republican identification has to be what's putting him at risk.

TV the biometric national id card is a provision of Harry Reid's immigration reform bill called "BELIEVE" I think.

I didn't even know about it until I was using the ACLU as a source for one of my final papers and stumbled across that. Not surprisingly the ACLU is not the biggest fan of this idea.

Elena Kagan is Obama's pick, per NBC news

jerseyhoya wrote:Elena Kagan is Obama's pick, per NBC news

I'd just like to say, as one slightly left of center guy, that I don't actually think Ed Whelan called Kagan a prostitute (although his actual point was pretty pointless).

Greenwald is not gonna be happy.

While I suspect he's overstating the case against Kagan--by all accounts she has a lot more between the ears than Harriet Miers did, and it's silly to conclude that her positions as Solicitor General will perfectly align with her views sitting on the bench--the larger point he makes is pretty troubling: it seems like the best way to get nominated for the Supreme Court is to be super-cautious through your whole career.

Of all the names floated, she was the one I really hoped wouldn't be the pick.

dajafi wrote:What I see is a very strong trend, among the Republicans mostly but not exclusively, to kick out or reject anyone who acts like there's a difference between the House, where hyperpartisanship is the rule, and the Senate, where that dynamic ensures nothing will happen in terms of governance.

We'll see how it plays out in KY, AZ and even the PA Dem race, where I think Specter's old Republican identification has to be what's putting him at risk.

But it's the same year where we've nominated Mark Kirk and Mike Castle to run for Senate, both of whom have ACU scores in the 50s. And Scott Brown, a pro choice GOPer whose first big vote was supporting a Dem jobs bill, got elected in Massachusetts. If Kirk and Castle both win, the GOP moderate caucus in the Senate will be as big as it's been for a while. People are making a big deal out of a few instances of the GOP booting members when it fits their narrative and ignoring the other data points that prove it wrong.

Kentucky isn't really interesting for this argument either way. Trey Grayson isn't going to be interested in crafting legislation any more than Rand Paul is. It's an establishment vs. grass roots fight, but if anything Paul is the less partisan choice. If McCain loses, that'd be a hell of a thing. Even still it's not like McCain has been popular with the GOP base in Arizona. He was below 50% in the GOP primary in 2008.

dajafi wrote:Greenwald is not gonna be happy.

While I suspect he's overstating the case against Kagan--by all accounts she has a lot more between the ears than Harriet Miers did, and it's silly to conclude that her positions as Solicitor General will perfectly align with her views sitting on the bench--the larger point he makes is pretty troubling: it seems like the best way to get nominated for the Supreme Court is to be super-cautious through your whole career.

Of all the names floated, she was the one I really hoped wouldn't be the pick.

She will no doubt be looked upon as the next uber-liberal by those with constituencies to whom they must feed red meat. At best, this pick appears uninspired; at worst, the idea of what is a liberal on the court appears to have changed with the last two picks made by a Democratic president.

By far my favorite part of this nomination is that less than 14 months ago when Arlen Specter was trying to be a conservative, he voted against Kagan when she was up for Solicitor General.

I figure she'll be a fairly reliable liberal vote, as will anyone Obama nominates, but her nomination the same weekend as Sestak pulled ahead of Specter is so delightful.

I'm a little disappointed in the Kagan pick. Not for any ideological reasons, but because it continues the NE Ivy league Establishment total dominance of the court.

Sestak 5 points up on Specter according to both Rasmussen and the Morning Call tracking poll.

TenuredVulture wrote:I'm a little disappointed in the Kagan pick. Not for any ideological reasons, but because it continues the NE Ivy league Establishment total dominance of the court.

and she's a Mets fan

jerseyhoya wrote:Sestak 5 points up on Specter according to both Rasmussen and the Morning Call tracking poll.

I don't like him because he gives me the creeps, but Sestak getting name recognition and getting some momentum going to the election is the only chance you have of not winning this seat imo.

I want Specter to lose. And if he doesn't lose I hope he dies.

DCCC pulling out of HI-01

Freak circumstances there, but all signs pointing to a GOP pickup

jerseyhoya wrote:I want Specter to lose. And if he doesn't lose I hope he dies.

Jerz, I have a serious question here: neither Sestak nor Specter are likely to win statewide. It's a Republican year. But who do you think is MORE likely to pull off the upset? I go back and forth on this every day. Some days I think Specter is an old political bulldog who will, once he gets past a primary challenge, hit Toomey harder than he's ever been hit before. Some days I think nominating Specter is about equivalent to going to the door of every conservative in Pennsylvania, ringing the bell, when the door opens, screaming "I LOVE SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, BIG INHERITANCE TAXES, ABORTION, GAY MARRIAGE, AND FLAG BURNING," throwing poop in the face of whoever answers the door, and running: i.e., it's the best possible way to rile up that base.

In other words, if the goal is to put a Republican on one of Pennsylvania's two senate seats, I feel like the Democrats nominating Specter might actually help achieve that goal, rather than hindering it. But maybe I am wrong.

Wouldn't it be deeply satisfying anyway to smash Specter in a general election?

I don't know who has a better chance of winning the general election. Sestak and Specter both have a decent chance I guess. The primary is early enough that they'll be able to raise money. Toomey really is quite conservative. Specter will have the negatives of being establishment and seeming like a craven opportunist, but he can talk about how he has delivered for Pennsylvania and how he's an independent voice and all that garbage. Sestak is more unknown, so he has room to grow, but he's voted as a generic Democrat (he literally has a American Conservative Union rating of 0 from his first three years in Congress), so painting him as such probably won't be too hard despite his bio from being in the military.

I really want Specter's political career to end. It would be more satisfying at the hands of Toomey, who should have beaten him six years ago, but I'll take what I can get.

I'd like to see a third poll's take on the D primary (Quinnipiac, where art thou?), but I hope Specter is pretty effed. An Obama visit might not even be enough to save him.

Brown is saying he'll step down over the next few months, and it seems like Labour is pressing hard for a Lab-Lib deal.

jerseyhoya wrote:Brown is saying he'll step down over the next few months, and it seems like Labour is pressing hard for a Lab-Lib deal.

Really? The plot thickens...

something good about Kagan, she doesn't want the executive to have crazy powers


She also doesn't even have a driver's license. Pretty cool.