For the most part the script for Elana Kagan’s appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee had already been written.  Historian Joseph J. Ellis described the scene well nearly two months ahead of time:

These hearings have become highly partisan affairs over the past 30 years, and given the recent closed-ranks posture of the Republican opposition, we can expect all the sharp-edged political weapons to be deployed against the nominee. The chief weapon will be the claim that Supreme Court justices should interpret the Constitution as it was written, not impose their political or personal convictions on the semi-sacred text. Woe to the nominee who has left a paper trail that deviates from the original intentions of the Founders, or what a hostile Senate interrogator defines those intentions to be.

The RNC, for their part, telegraphed their Party’s intentions for the hearings in advance.  As noted at The Hill, May 10, Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would focus on Kagan’s DADT position at Harvard, and her 1993 speech before the Texas Law Review in honor of Justice Thurgood Marshall.

… She quoted from a speech Marshall gave in 1987 in which he said the Constitution as originally conceived and drafted was “defective.”

Marshall cited in particular the definition in the original Constitution to slaves as representing three-fifths of “free Persons” when counting the nation’s population. That reference was rendered moot after the Civil War with the ratification of the 13th and 14th amendments abolishing slavery and granting full citizenship to all people born in the U.S.

True to form, the GOP contingent led by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) proceeded to frame Marshall as a “liberal activist” –   the same Justice Marshall whose work on behalf of the NAACP in 1954 helped facilitate the end of segregation, later serving as U.S. Solicitor General, elevated to the Supreme Court during the LBJ administration.

Interestingly, when asked later, Senators Sessions, Orrin Hatch (R-UT), and Tom Coburn (R-OK) were unable to list a single instance of “judicial activism” perpetrated by Marshall.  But their strategy wasn’t about making a sustainable legal argument; rather, Republican criticism of Marshall turned out to be yet another sounding of the dog whistle intended for their base who, apparently, lament the outcome of Brown v. Board of Education – Stay classy, GOP!

Fortunately Senator Al Franken (D-MN) was on hand to set the record straight on two counts.  Watch the below clip, snipped by firedoglake.com, as Franken elevates the term “judicial activist” out of the meaningless context in which it is so often used, successfully defending Marshall’s legacy in the process.

Within his assessment of the “Judiciary Committee Winners and Losers,” Harper’s Contributing Editor and legal expert Scott Horton highlighted Franken’s performance:

…I applaud Al Franken. Not only did he provide an alternative point of interest during slow points with his skillful doodling, Franken also proved himself an astute student of the Republicans. For years, they have used confirmation hearings to take their digs at their least favorite judges and judicial policies. Franken has responded in kind, taking a deep look at the Roberts court’s strange biases in favor of business and against labor and its innate hostility to business regulation. Who are those “activist judges” that Sessions complained about? Franken makes a persuasive case that they’re precisely the judges Sessions is so wild about: John Roberts, Sam Alito, Nino Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

Back from his vacation, Stephen sends up Senator Jim “Creme” DeMint (R-SC) and his “Waterloo” meme.  DeMint articulated what became the Republican strategy to “break” Obama by defeating the administration’s effort to reform health care in July, 2009.

Now that the Democrats have successfully passed reform, DeMint has taken to pushing back the goal posts, telling Face the Nation‘s Bob Schieffer that the true test of the GOP’s cynical strategy will come with the results of the 2010 midterm elections.

Stephen, of course, has some fun with DeMint’s assessment:

Crossposted at Care2.com ~ Originally published 6 March 2010

President Barack Obama outlined his administration’s proposal Wednesday, seeking to bring reform of the American health care system to a successful conclusion.  Considering  the recent spurious criticisms from reform opponents, it appears that, indeed, the arduous process of steering health care reform through Congress may well be nearing its end.

It’s really only become apparent in the last week or so.  Leading up to and during the White House bipartisan health care summit, Republican politicians have repeatedly acknowledged the need for reform, but that Democrats should scrap their health care bills and “start over.”

Meanwhile, the Democrats began to show some spine leading up to the summit, signaling their willingness to use the budget reconciliation process to pass reform, if necessary.  Consequently, Republicans’ concerns over the use of reconciliation became more prominent within their media talking points, and at the Blair House summit where the issue was frequently raised. Since the summit’s conclusion, however, GOP concerns over reconciliation have evolved into what appears to be panic.

Republicans are decrying the potential use of the parliamentary measure, attempting to gloss over the GOP’s historical record, having happily employed the measure when it suited them.

Further, in their attempts to rationalize their hypocrisy — insisting that the pending health care legislation is beyond the parameters of reconciliation — they have engaged in a campaign of historical revisionism.  Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) wrote an op-ed, published Mar. 2 in the increasingly subjective Washington Post, is a prime example of how Republicans are falsely framing the historical use of reconciliation.

Regarding Hatch’s opinion piece, Steve Benen of The Washington Monthlywrites, “Hatch is simply and unambiguously wrong.  And the Post published his demonstrably false arguments anyway…” From Benen’s Political Animal blog, Mar. 2:

The whole pitch is absurd to the point of being insulting. Hatch has repeatedly supported up-or-down votes on legislation large and small. Indeed, he thought it was a great idea for delivering massive tax breaks for the rich — packages that cost far more than health care reform now — but whines incessantly when Dems consider the same procedure to pass a modest fix related to health care.

Hatch really ought to be embarrassed.

But Hatch, and those who mimic his intellectually dishonest argument, aren’t embarrassed, as Rachel Maddow deftly explains in this clip from her Mar. 2 MSNBC broadcast:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Adding emphasis to his lack of shame, Hatch tweeted his response to Maddow’s damning assessment.  Here’s his tweet by way of PoliticusUSA:

@maddow ran me down on her show last night over my views on health care reform. Wonderful badge of honor.

However, if you watched the above clip you’d know that Maddow’s assessment had nothing to do with his “views.”  Rather, as Maddow indicated in her response tweet, it was Hatch’s misstating of the facts which were at issue.

Sadly, no matter how plainly the GOP’s efforts to falsely frame reconciliation are laid out, they’ll continue beyond the bill’s passage.  And, as Maddow put it in the above clip, “It’s going to pass.”

What I’m struggling with is, how could Republicans expect anything different from the Democrats?  It seems to me that consistently obstructing Democratic efforts on health care — and everything else, for that matter, guaranteed that reconciliation would be used.

They’ve already telegraphed their intentions to use health reform’s passage as a campaign issue in the 2010 midterms, asserting that using reconciliation will cost the Democrats votes.  However, wouldn’t a failure by the Democrats to use any means at their disposal to conclude a year’s worth of work cost them more?

Frankly, the GOP needs to get over it.  I think is was Jon Stewart who put it best.  Following Obama’s 2008 election to the presidency, Stewart reminded the already whining congressional Repbulicans of what their electoral losses meant.  “You’re in the minority,” Stewart said.  “It’s supposed to taste like a s#!t sandwich.”

See Also:

• Igor Volsky, “Republicans ‘Agree On About 80% Of the Issues,’ But Want to ‘Start Over’ on Health Reform.“  ThinkProgress.org, 26 February 2010.
• Watch Rachel Maddow’s March 3 follow up segment regarding her tiff with Sen. Hatch at MSNBC‘s site.

I caught Rep. Anthony Weiner’s — “Republicans are a wholly owned subsidiary of the health care industry” — remarks from the House floor, Feb. 24, and immediately knew I wanted to share it here.  But, when I saw Rachel Maddow’s analysis that evening, my inclination became obligatory.

Weiner is awesome, of course, but Maddow concludes the below clip stating America’s health care reform dilemma in manner so rational that, in my opinion, it should give the staunchest reform cynic pause.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

*Sigh*  I really wish the Democrats would have let Weiner attend today’s health care reform “summit.”

Crossposted from Care2.com’s Political Causes Blog ~ Originally Published 13 December 2009:

On Dec. 11, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4173: The Wall Street Reform and American Consumer Protection Act.  The House legislation is intended to address the systemic risk in the financial services industry.  It specifically includes language strengthening government oversight of the financial derivatives market, and creates the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

The bill must survive the Senate before becoming law, but getting it out of the House was a significant accomplishment.  If not for the legislation, itself, but the fact that not a single Republican voted for a bill intended to get a grip on Wall Street could prove politically useful for Democrats down the line.

One would think that this would be cause for celebration on the left.  However, as Nate Silver posted Dec. 12, the response from the left, “particularly the online left,” was surprisingly lacking of enthusiasm.

Nate Silver, FiveThirtyEight.com, posed the question, Dec 12:

If An Economy Recovers and No One Cheers It, Does It Make a Sound?

Silver finds it curious that those on the political-left are having trouble recognizing positive economic news when it occurs:

…there seems to be extreme reluctance among the left, and particularly the online left, to praise any economic successes achieved by the Congressional Democrats and the White House.

I do not expect Democrats, certainly, to be cheering the roughly 35 percent run-up in stock prices that has been achieved since Obama took the Oath of Office (we can pose an interesting counterfactual about whether Republicans would be touting the bull market if the roles were reversed). There have, however, been some other successes…

Careful not to appear too optimistic, Silver offers his objective analysis of the lowly state of present economic affairs and finds that the Democrats haven’t performed perfectly, but that their performance has been “pretty good.”

Be sure to read Silver’s post for his grading of the Democrats on “three policy imperatives that emerged from the economic crises of last year.”

For our purposes, let’s return to the original question: why the pessimism from the left?  Is it health care reform battle fatigue?  Or, rather, is it something less specific; for instance, have some on the left been persisting under a set of unrealistic expectations?  I’m hardly qualified to answer such questions, but since progressive positions are the ones I find most agreeable, I’ll venture a guess that its the latter.

The 2008 campaign season and the hard fight to get Barack Obama elected, in which the disparate progressive movement played a significant part, has left us with a hangover of sorts.  For me, what was most frustrating about advocating for Obama was refuting the accusations of idol worship from opposition on the political right.

When I think about it now, it seems silly.  Obama was merely a secondary target of the meme, his supporters were the primary focus.  But the notion that Obama walked on water was ephemeral; I, honestly, know of no one who actually viewed candidate Obama in this manner. Now, it appears some progressive factions want the president, not only to walk on water, but to do so while juggling chainsaws left by his predecessor.

I don’t wish to overstate the matter.  For many on the left, optimism is still exists.  But, for those who’ve abandoned it, here’s a few random thoughts on managing expectations:

1. We shouldn’t suffer under the delusion that, because the Democrats enjoy majorities in both houses of congress, there exists a rubber stamp for progressive initiatives.  Remember that in order to achieve those majorities the Democrats ran conservative candidates; additionally, even if the entirety of congress were Democrats, passing laws of any consequence would still look like herding cats.
2. All of the time and effort that went into ensuring Obama’s victory was not misspent in any way, shape, or form.  Keep in mind, though, that for our efforts what we got was a pragmatist.  But this is not a bad thing.  Pragmatists are uniquely suited for cat herding.
3. Don’t forget that our political opposition fights dirty and is incredibly well resourced.  Their skill in crafting perception is very effective among low information voters.  If you need a reminder of how effective they can be, read Joe Conason’s Oct. 5 Salon post, “The vast right-wing conspiracy is back.”
4. Our fight is about swaying the political center, and it’s a marathon, not a sprint.  The two party system is the present reality of the American political landscape.  That reality dictates that whomever is able to sway the vast political center will retain the reins of government.  But, controlling the reins can be a frustrating task (recall #1 on cat herding), and it can also be fleeting.  Should progressives be inclined to overreach beyond the comfort zone of the center, they’ll likely have to forfeit those reins at the behest of a center-dominated electorate, drifting to the right.
5. Every bit as frustrating is the speed at which Washington moves.  Pardon the cliche, but it truly is a marathon, not a sprint.  Even if the Democrats are able to maintain their majorities for years to come.  Just undoing the damage done by the Bush administration will be ongoing long after Obama completes his second term.

This list could go on, but you get the point.  If progressives wish to continue to have a positive impact, they’ll have to manage their expectations; a measure of acceptance that what they believe to be politically righteous is not always politically achievable… yet.

Please don’t misunderstand me.  I’m not suggesting that those on the left should refrain from vociferously advocating for their numerous causes.  The voicing of opposition to escalating the war in Afghanistan, and advocating for health care reform, to name just two, go beyond advocacy, existing as moral imperatives for today’s progressives.  What I am suggesting is that when progress is made — like the passage of HR 4173 — it shouldn’t be ignored.

As Nate Silver concludes, “…you may have a robust recovery by the middle of next year, but with neither the White House’s conservative nor liberal critics willing to give them much credit for it. Voters may stay away from Democrats as a result, pushing the country toward more conservative economic policy and ensuring that liberal critics of the economy aren’t lacking for greivances any time soon.”

*shiver*