R.I.P. Republican Party

OSUBucks wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Biden has been President for one week.  Maybe some guys on here should relax a bit and give him several months before jumping to conclusions. Just a thought.

Nah. Turnabout is fair play.

Besides, we were told that someone competent behind the wheel was all we needed and then, BOOM, it would all go right.

#Resist

I’m just glad that the head insurrectionist has been removed from office.

https://www.propublica.org/article/capitol-rioters-planned-for-weeks-in-plain-sight-the-police-werent-ready

OSUBucks wrote:Biden has been President for one week. Maybe some guys on here should relax a bit and give him several months before jumping to conclusions. Just a thought.

Do the certain people here not have a right to criticize the new President? For the past 4 years they have heard the same criticism for a President they supported.

Just like the kid who is Green Bay Packers fan in my classroom, walks in the other day saying he didn't want to hear it from the Bears Fans. He's been dishing it out all year and he couldn't take it when the same people the was teasing all season had some fuel to tease him.

So far I am not a fan of the Presidents use of the Executive Orders, which many are useless and he is just signing them for the optics of it, but I would rather see meaningful actions that fix the biggest problem in our country, unemployment. Not creating more government handouts but creating jobs so fewer people are reliant on the government to survive.

Anybody else see Merrick Garland is Biden's nominee for Attorney General?

Head Idiot wrote:Anybody else see Merrick Garland is Biden's nominee for Attorney General?

That's not questionable at all. Conflict of interest much?

Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS.

OSUBucks wrote:Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS.

So he can absolve any of the Biden family's sketchy dealings?

dusty7 wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS.

So he can absolve any of the Biden family's sketchy dealings?

I doubt it. I don’t think the prosecution of Hunter Biden is going very far. I do know the political right will keep digging though, that’s politics in the US today.

OSUBucks wrote:

dusty7 wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS.

So he can absolve any of the Biden family's sketchy dealings?

I doubt it. I don’t think the prosecution of Hunter Biden is going very far. I do know the political right will keep digging though, that’s politics in the US today.

Yep, just as the Dems kept digging on Russian collision to no avail. Anything to try and smear the opposing side regardless if has any truth or not.

dusty7 wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:

dusty7 wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Merrick Garland should be on the SCOTUS.

So he can absolve any of the Biden family's sketchy dealings?

I doubt it. I don’t think the prosecution of Hunter Biden is going very far. I do know the political right will keep digging though, that’s politics in the US today.

Yep, just as the Dems kept digging on Russian collision to no avail. Anything to try and smear the opposing side regardless if has any truth or not.

Agree, Trump will need to spend years and millions of dollars trying to keep himself out of jail. Eventually the Democrats will get to see those tax records among other things. The lawyers on both sides will stay busy for a while.

Head Idiot wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Biden has been President for one week.  Maybe some guys on here should relax a bit and give him several months before jumping to conclusions. Just a thought.

Nah. Turnabout is fair play.

Besides, we were told that someone competent behind the wheel was all we needed and then, BOOM, it would all go right.

#Resist

"C'mon man, gimme a break"

dusty7 wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:Anybody else see Merrick Garland is Biden's nominee for Attorney General?

That's not questionable at all.  Conflict of interest much?

What conflict of interest?

Really...I don't understand how anyone could consider naming a federal judge to the AG post a conflict of interest.

Merrick Garland should have been on the Supreme Court, but was blocked. Now he's potentially up for AG.

I literally cannot find anything wrong with the man. Please enlighten me on why he is such a terrible pick.

tincup1215 wrote:Merrick Garland should have been on the Supreme Court, but was blocked.  Now he's potentially up for AG.  

I literally cannot find anything wrong with the man.  Please enlighten me on why he is such a terrible pick.  

I don't think it is. It's just interesting.

Teetime wrote:

dusty7 wrote:

Head Idiot wrote:Anybody else see Merrick Garland is Biden's nominee for Attorney General?

That's not questionable at all.  Conflict of interest much?

What conflict of interest?

Really...I don't understand how anyone could consider naming a federal judge to the AG post a conflict of interest.

Apppointed by the President while an investigation of the President's son is taking place. He could easily be influenced (or even forced) to end the investigation by the President. I am sure this isn't the first time this has happened but if there is an ongoing investigation involving a member of the sitting President's family and whoever they appoint has the authority to stop an investigation, the appointee should be delayed until the investigation is completed.  

He could be in a position where Biden told him, "I will make you the AG as long as you end this investigation or ensure nothing is found on my son."

If Trump was in this position the left would be livid at him having the power to appoint someone that could ensure that his son doesn't not get into any trouble.  Not saying Trump wouldn't have done this, he likely would've if he didn't, but it's a bit of an ethical dilemma in my opinion.

Biden won’t look upon his AG as his personal lawyer like Trump did his AG’s. Garland is seen as a moderate as is Biden. Garland probably wouldn’t be a top pick for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Garland has a reputation of being tough on crime. I’d think he’s a guy most could live with.

OSUBucks wrote:Biden won’t look upon his AG as his personal lawyer like Trump did his AG’s. Garland is seen as a moderate as is Biden. Garland probably wouldn’t be a top pick for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Garland has a reputation of being tough on crime. I’d think he’s a guy most could live with.

Is Biden considered a "moderate" only by the left? I know my Conservativism perspective can adjust my perception of his status on a perceived scale, but I think most ConRep see him as left, just not as far left as the VP. Is he "labeled" by the media as moderate to make his actual position more palatable to the right??

OSUBucks wrote:Biden won’t look upon his AG as his personal lawyer like Trump did his AG’s. Garland is seen as a moderate as is Biden. Garland probably wouldn’t be a top pick for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Garland has a reputation of being tough on crime. I’d think he’s a guy most could live with.

I understand this and I hear he may also come down hard against the big Tech companies.

He very well may not look at his AG as his personal lawyer but sadly there is nothing to prevent that from happening. I guess you could say that Trump set the precedent and nothing was done to stop it. It's also possible that Trump was under the assumption that the AG was the Presidents lawyer.

Both of the last two presidents have used the Justice Dept and AG in unprecedented ways.

general maximus wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Biden won’t look upon his AG as his personal lawyer like Trump did his AG’s. Garland is seen as a moderate as is Biden. Garland probably wouldn’t be a top pick for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Garland has a reputation of being tough on crime. I’d think he’s a guy most could live with.

Is Biden considered a "moderate" only by the left?  I know my Conservativism perspective can adjust my perception of his status on a perceived scale, but I think most ConRep see him as left, just not as far left as the VP.  Is he "labeled" by the media as moderate to make his actual position more palatable to the right??  

Face it, most conservative Republicans think most Democrats are left, period.

The above looks to me that, of all the Democratic candidates for President, Biden's voting record as a Senator placed him as the most conservative of the candidates (I discount Mike Gravel's candidacy as never being a serious one).  Of course, you will note the American Conservative Union source for this data, so this can't be a case of the media portraying him as moderate.  The number 12.67 means that Biden's career voting record agreed with American Conservative Union positions 12.67% of the time.

Granted, nobody will mistake Biden as a conservative or a centrist.  However, all politicians, when measured against their same party peers, have to fall somewhere on an array of most conservative on the right side of the array, and most liberal on the left side of the array.  When measured against other Democratic Party 2020 Presidential candidates, it's pretty clear that most serious candidates were to the left of Biden. Therefore, on an array containing only those presidential candidates, Biden wouldn't be a moderate at all. He would be far right.  When I measure him against all congressional Democrats, it's my opinion that he probably falls somewhere in the middle third.  I fully realize that this is more of a commentary on how left of center the Democratic Party has become than it is on whether or not Biden is a moderate.

If that graph takes into Biden's entire career, then that's the reason for the high conservative score. Biden would have been a moderate Republican in today's world early in his career. He has taken a very liberal turn these past 15 years.

OSUBucks wrote:Biden won’t look upon his AG as his personal lawyer like Trump did his AG’s. Garland is seen as a moderate as is Biden. Garland probably wouldn’t be a top pick for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Garland has a reputation of being tough on crime. I’d think he’s a guy most could live with.

would you consider AG barr a 'wingman' to trump? like the holder - obama arrangement.

general maximus wrote:

OSUBucks wrote:Biden won’t look upon his AG as his personal lawyer like Trump did his AG’s. Garland is seen as a moderate as is Biden. Garland probably wouldn’t be a top pick for the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Garland has a reputation of being tough on crime. I’d think he’s a guy most could live with.

Is Biden considered a "moderate" only by the left?  I know my Conservativism perspective can adjust my perception of his status on a perceived scale, but I think most ConRep see him as left, just not as far left as the VP.  Is he "labeled" by the media as moderate to make his actual position more palatable to the right??  

Garland was confirmed by a Republican controlled Senate 76-23.

Garland's confirmation vote came to the floor of the Republican-controlled Senate on March 19, 1997. He was confirmed in a 76–23 vote and received his judicial commission the next day.

The powerful republican on the judiciary committee Sen. Cornyn of Texas has already said that he will support the Garland AG nomination.
https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/content/news/cornyn-support-merrick-garland-ag


When Garland got McConnelled out of the SC seat...these were quotes about his service:

“I think he was really trying to pick somebody that he thought at least some Senate Republicans would accept right now,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the Judiciary Committee who was one of the few Republicans to vote for Garland when he was nominated to serve on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

But the current environment is too “toxic” and “politicized,” Hatch said, to consider confirming any Supreme Court nominee before the next administration.

“It isn’t the person – Judge Garland’s a good man,” Hatch said, adding that he has “respect” for Garland and “fought for him” back in 1997. “But this is different.”

Hatch added he was willing to at least talk to Garland now that he’s Obama’s nominee – a step many other Republican senators haven’t been willing to take.

But conversations aren’t confirmations, and so far, the vast majority of Republicans have remained united behind McConnell and Grassley.

Garland does have a track record of support from some Republican senators. When he was confirmed to the federal bench in 1997, seven sitting GOP senators supported him: Collins, Hatch, Inhofe, Dan Coats (Ind.), Thad Cochran (Miss.), John McCain (Ariz.), and Pat Roberts (Kan.).

Voting against Garland at the time were Grassley, McConnell, Judiciary panel member Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), and Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says his chamber’s refusal to consider Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court is nothing personal.
At least one of the senators who backed Garland 19 years ago is refusing to dismiss his Supreme Court nomination out of hand.

“Judge Garland is a capable and accomplished jurist,” Collins said in a statement, noting that she will “look forward” to meeting with him, as she has done with all Supreme Court nominees. Collins is one of the few Republicans who has declined to join the Republican boycott.

But other former supporters are already refusing to consider Garland’s nomination as a matter of principle.

“The right thing to do is to give the American people a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court justice,” Coats said in a statement Wednesday. “The next president, with input from voters in the upcoming election, should fill the current Supreme Court vacancy.”

Garland is no stranger to long, drawn-out confirmation processes. Then-President Bill Clinton initially nominated him to the bench in 1995, but his candidacy got mired in a bitter dispute fueled by Grassley, who wanted to reduce the number of seats on the D.C. bench. It would take until March 1997 before the Senate voted to confirm Garland’s appointment, 76 to 23.

Head Idiot wrote:If that graph takes into Biden's entire career, then that's the reason for the high conservative score. Biden would have been a moderate Republican in today's world early in his career. He has taken a very liberal turn these past 15 years.

12 of those past 15 years he has been out of the senate, so there is no voting record of his to look it.

Here is what the ACU has for his scores in his early years as a senator:
1973: 9
1974: 6
1975: 19
1976: 4
1977: 22
1978: 21

The ACU score average for his first term as senator comes to 13.5, as opposed to his lifetime average of 12.67.  There is less than a percentage point's difference between his first term average and his lifetime average. Looks pretty consistent to me. His first term score average is not even close to "moderate Republican" territory.

Looking at some of Biden's recent EOs, I think it's a tad obvious he moved more toward the left.

Maybe he's just a product of the times and moved more toward the left just as others have moved more towards the right and created the divided world we have seen.

general maximus wrote: I know my Conservativism perspective can adjust my perception of his status on a perceived scale, but I think most ConRep see him as left, just not as far left as the VP.  Is he "labeled" by the media as moderate to make his actual position more palatable to the right??

Why worry about how the media labels him? You and the other ConRep's must have some basis for having formed your opinion of him as "not as far left as Kamala Harris"? What issues has he disappointed you on?