Aw: White House issues Kagan propaganda video

posted at 7:41 pm on May 11, 2010 by Allahpundit

Impressively slick and impressively quick: Obviously, they didn’t finish filming this until yesterday afternoon. Something about it doesn’t sit quite right with me (possibly the emphasis on schmaltzy biography during what should be an analytical process), but I think I’m just jealous at what a good idea it was. And needless to say, the next Republican president will take full similar advantage. You know what would have been an even better clip? Kagan as the second coming of the Messiah:

In Elena Kagan, who is just one year apart from him in age, Obama has found somebody whose biography, temperament, and values (as far as they are known) closely resemble his own.

Like Obama, Kagan graduated Harvard Law School and taught law at the University of Chicago. Look into the backgrounds of Obama and Kagan, and you’ll find evidence of radicalism that was tempered by personal ambition. Obama served as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and Kagan was the school’s first female dean, and they both had a reputation for treating conservatives fairly, despite ideological disagreements. Just as Obama ran for president on a thin public record, Kagan doesn’t offer much of a paper trail, leaving her views on many key issues open to speculation…

In announcing the nomination on Monday, Obama praised Kagan’s “temperament — her openness to a broad array of viewpoints; her habit, to borrow a phrase from Justice Stevens, ‘of understanding before disagreeing’; her fair-mindedness and skill as a consensus-builder.” He spoke of her recruitment of conservative professors and her encouraging students to “to respectfully exchange ideas and seek common ground…”

All of those are qualities that, coincidentally, Obama’s admirers see in him.

Yeah, and look what a centrist pragmatist he turned out to be. Serious question: Is the Kagan battle a battle worth fighting? Oh, I know that we are going to fight it — tea-party fee-vah demands nothing less of the GOP — but isn’t it just, in Evan Bayh’s words, “sad kabuki theater”? Gabe Malor makes the case that she’s a mortal lock to be confirmed (“Kagan’s the best we’re likely to get out of Obama’s short list”) and Jenny Erikson wonders what the point of a protracted fight would be (“This isn’t going to change the make-up of the court”). The answer, I guess, is that it’ll give the GOP a chance to make its case about differences in right/left judicial philosophy, but since (a) Kagan doesn’t have much of a paper trail with which to frame her as a consummate left-wing judge and (b) she’s bound to be evasive and run through ye olde “I will apply the law as written” reassurances anyway, what’s really to be gained? Apart from pressing her on Harvard’s policy towards military recruiters, it’ll be mostly song and dance for the base, no?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:19 PM

I’m confused…?

… I think not, but you still haven’t addressed the main issue.

Why would you want someone on the highest court in the land that has absolutely no experience as a judge in any venue?

Seven Percent Solution on May 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM

This reads like a high school girl talking too loudly on her cell phone.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Thanks for the laugh…

Seven Percent Solution on May 11, 2010 at 9:24 PM

Looks like Paul Giamatti in drag !

cableguy615 on May 11, 2010 at 9:26 PM

This reads like a high school girl talking too loudly on her cell phone.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 9:21 PM

Yeah that’s what happens when I read back Seven Percent’s logic.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:26 PM

Uniformed? You’re uninformed.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 9:17 PM

Oh snaps!

Besides, crr6’s comment is busted even if it was just Ricci that was discussed – which even you remember.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 9:19 PM

No, it’s not. Yo just misread it.

My point wasn’t that when a nominee has judicial experience you don’t seem to care too much about their record, my point was that when a nominee has judicial experience (or as in Sotomayor’s case, a lot of judicial experience on one of the most prestigious circuits) you don’t seem to acknowledge that it’s a plus.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:26 PM

I’m confused…?

Yep.

Why would you want someone on the highest court in the land that has absolutely no experience as a judge in any venue?

Seven Percent Solution on May 11, 2010 at 9:23 PM

Because she’s brilliant and because being a circuit court judge wouldn’t prepare her too much for the job anyway. You do realize that nominating non-judges for as SCOTUS justices is nothing new, right? It hasn’t happened in awhile but it used to happen all the time. Rehnquist is one example.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:28 PM

It’s your brief, Counselor. Don’t blame its poor quality on the facts of the case.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 9:28 PM

haha you’re a moron.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:29 PM

In Elena Kagan, who is just one year apart from him in age, Obama has found somebody whose biography, temperament, and values (as far as they are known) closely resemble his own.

I hate her more already.

Midas on May 11, 2010 at 9:31 PM

Not when it sucks.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 9:31 PM

See you might have a point there if you could name more than one “bad” case in her years and years of experience as a district and circuit court judge. But you can’t. And that’s why you’re a moron.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:33 PM

Sitting in an office and writing about law and sitting in an office and writing about law are two totally different things.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 8:21 PM

This is a great quote.

The only difference is the lower case S in sitting.

1. Sitting in an office and writing about law
2. sitting in an office and writing about law

Yeah I think everyone got the point of that post except for you. Let it sit for a little. Just let it sit.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Oh, but I can.

Ricci and Silverstein vs MLB

That’s two = busted.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 9:37 PM

Oh wow, two! So her entire judicial career sucks because of two cases you disagree with.

So what was wrong with the MLB case? Be specific.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:39 PM

She also apparently thinks the ‘attorney general’ is the person who has cautionary words on the side of cigarette packs.

Brilliant.

Midas on May 11, 2010 at 9:41 PM

Because she’s brilliant and because being a circuit court judge wouldn’t prepare her too much for the job anyway.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:28 PM

I rest my case…

Seven Percent Solution on May 11, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Sitting in an office and writing about law and sitting in an office and writing about law are two totally different things.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 8:21 PM

This is a great quote.

The only difference is the lower case S in sitting.

1. Sitting in an office and writing about law
2. sitting in an office and writing about law

Yeah I think everyone got the point of that post except for you. Let it sit for a little. Just let it sit.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:38 PM

Nah, I’m pretty sure that makes sense only in your demented state.

Midas on May 11, 2010 at 9:43 PM

I rest my case…

Seven Percent Solution on May 11, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Your case is resting in peace.

Dark-Star on May 11, 2010 at 9:45 PM

Seven Percent Solution on May 11, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Oh by the way, she clerked for Thurgood Marshall. Clerking for a SCOTUS justice is probably the best practical experience you can. Clerks generally write the majority of the opinions.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:45 PM

No, but that’s all that was needed to bust your sophomoric claim.

“No”? So her judicial career didn’t suck? Or are there more cases you disagree with? Go ahead, I’ll give you some time to Google some more.

Um, like she thumbed her nose at like contract law and she like wouldn’t have received credit like if it hadn’t been a popular like decision with the fans like.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 9:46 PM

Yeah, sounds outrageous.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:48 PM

I’ll do even better. I’ll copy-paste it whenever I want.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 9:49 PM

Ok, but be sure to copy and paste the post I quoted as well.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:50 PM

The problem with this thread is that Crr6 lost a long time ago (as per usual) but you keep on squabbling over minutiae.
Kagan is just another partisan hack whose “best quality” iis that she owns Obama kneepads. Not unlike quite a few others.

mad scientist on May 11, 2010 at 9:53 PM

Honestly, I think she is a plus for the conservative cause. She will not vote any differently than Stevens, they are both extreme liberals, so that’s a wash. The difference is that she is a ditz. No experience, an out-of-touch-with-reality academic view of the world, and based on her performance as solicitor general, she will be a joke. She won’t win any other justices to her point of view, and she will be an embarrassment to Zero for a long time to come.

OK, a decent jurist who would follow the constitution would be preferable, but that ain’t gonna happen with Obambi, so she’s the next best thing. The R’s should vote against her, and let the Dhims take all the credit for her.

iurockhead on May 11, 2010 at 9:56 PM

blink on May 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Now that sounded like a girl talking loudly on her cell phone.

And that whole tantrum could have been averted if you had just read the rest of my post…

Her entire judicial career doesn’t suck because of two cases I disagree with.

Or are there more cases you disagree with? Go ahead, I’ll give you some time to Google some more.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:48 PM

Now go ahead. Google some more Sotomayor cases and then pretend you’re outraged by them, even though you’ve never heard of them until today.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 10:08 PM

Clearly this video is a “Tool of Empowerment” which will be a “Means of Emancipation”. Therefore, it is acceptable, and will be permitted to exist, as opposed to all those distracting X-Boxes and iPods…

Haiku Guy on May 11, 2010 at 10:10 PM

blink on May 11, 2010 at 10:03 PM

Why are you arguing with an idiot college kid that has never worked in private industry and doesn’t understand value?

Inanemergencydial on May 11, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Sure, but the context doesn’t help you at all.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 10:08 PM

haha. It does you’re just dumb.

I’m feeling generous so I’ll explain it to you.

Would you expect the pilot of the biggest plane to have at least some air time, and not have just read about flying, wouldn’t you?

How about a Doctor? Reading a book and actually having practiced medicine are two totally different things…
Seven Percent Solution on May 11, 2010 at 8:19 PM

Sitting in an office and writing about law and sitting in an office and writing about law are two totally different things.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 8:21 PM

The point being of course, that Kagan will be doing the same thing as a SCOTUS justice as she did as an academic. Namely, sitting in an office and writing about the law.

So there isn’t as big a jump from “academic” experience to “practical” experience like there would be with being a doctor or engineer because being a SCOTUS justice is a relatively academic job itself.

I mean, even Seven Percent understood it. That doesn’t bode well for you little buddy.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 10:14 PM

The point being of course, that Kagan will be doing the same thing as a SCOTUS justice as she did as an academic. Namely, sitting in an office and writing about the law.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 10:14 PM

Wow, you really ought to have quit while you were ahea… well, while you were less behind.

Just about every post points out in more detail that you haven’t the foggiest clue, lol.

Midas on May 11, 2010 at 10:26 PM

Ha ha. Really? Then show us all these writings about the law she did as an academic.

blink on May 11, 2010 at 10:17 PM

Well I don’t know why I need to show them to you, they’re relatively easy to find. Especially if you have Lexis (as you said you do…).

You can start with Presidential Administration. I’ve heard Private Speech, Public Purpose is good as well although I haven’t read it. Both are widely cited and respected.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Wow, you really ought to have quit while you were ahea… well, while you were less behind.

Just about every post points out in more detail that you haven’t the foggiest clue, lol.

Midas on May 11, 2010 at 10:26 PM

lol yeah totally! And I’m sure you just don’t have time to point out exactly why you think I don’t have a clue! lol!

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 10:30 PM

but she has not apparently ever been a practicing lawyer; a law student, a Supreme Court clerk, a teacher of law, a gov’t employee, but she hasn’t even practiced law, tried one case for a client (that wasn’t the gov’t) She sees law as an academic exercise, something really interesting to “think” about! Brilliant! a “theoretical” SCOTUS

Oh, and if someone can enlighten me as to the source of that accent, I will appreciate it.

Willie on May 11, 2010 at 10:44 PM

blink on May 11, 2010 at 10:46 PM

She graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School in 1986.

Kagan clerked for Judge Abner Mikva of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1986 to 1987. In 1988, she clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of the United States Supreme Court. After that, she worked as an associate in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Williams & Connolly from 1989 to 1991.

She has never been a judge…yet.

kingsjester on May 11, 2010 at 10:51 PM

In this circumstance, with this nominee, in this political climate… we fight for the fun of the fight!

mjbrooks3 on May 11, 2010 at 11:15 PM

Why are all liberal women and ugly?

YankeeinCA on May 11, 2010 at 11:44 PM

meant fat and ugly? …PIMF

YankeeinCA on May 11, 2010 at 11:46 PM

“I’m Obama’s lapdog” — in her own words

Schadenfreude on May 12, 2010 at 12:06 AM

She has a nice smile, but it hurts to watch her speak because by her expression you would think it causes her great pain.

Oleta on May 12, 2010 at 12:16 AM

While military recruiters were banned as too morally unfit to show their faces at Harvard, guess who was invited on campus? Every left-wing freak and America-basher you can think of.

Here’s an advocate for “sex workers”. Here’s some activist who thinks Congress murdered the Constitution by establishing a military tribunal system. Those kids he’s brainwashing don’t grasp that the his “logic” would not result in treating terrorists like citizens, but in treating citizens like terrorists. Here’s Noam Chomsky and a bunch of Arafat groupies.

According to Kagan, they’re all morally fit to influence our nation’s students.

But servicemen aren’t.

And here’s the author, Mr. “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” himself, Bill Clinton, –giving the Harvard Class Day speech!

You remember Bill Clinton, don’t you Elena? You worked for him, didn’t you?

But you didn’t ban him from the White House. He just wrote the thing and imposed it on the services. No, instead, you banned recruiters like Pvt. William A. Long and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula.

Well–you can’t really “ban” them anymore, since they were murdered in the line of duty while serving on the front lines of an Arkansas recruiting station by a Mr. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad.

I can already see the “Free Abdulhakim!” picket signs on Harvahd Yahd.

“I wasn’t insane or post traumatic nor was I forced to do this Act,” Mr. Muhammad said…”

Nor was Elena Kagan forced to ban better Americans than herself from the Harvard campus.

But she did it anyway.

Noel on May 12, 2010 at 12:28 AM

White House issues Kagan propaganda video

Transparent…

Khun Joe on May 12, 2010 at 3:29 AM

WELCOME TO OBAMUNISM; WHERE THE PUBLIC ONLY GETS THE FILTERED NEWS THAT OBAMA AND HIS CRONIES WANT RELEASED.
YOU’LL GET SUPREME COURT DECISIONS FROM THEM TOO.
THIS IS WAR WITH THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Cybergeezer on May 12, 2010 at 8:04 AM

Because she’s brilliant

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:28 PM

Um, no. She’s not. Did you even read her opening statement in Citizens United? Pure comedy.

But even if she were, that’s not a good enough qualification to be SCOTUS justice.

fossten on May 12, 2010 at 8:07 AM

Next releases from the White House will look like videos from terrorists wearing burqas to mask their identity.

Cybergeezer on May 12, 2010 at 8:08 AM

It’s not closed captioned in Spanish. Racists.

stvnscott on May 12, 2010 at 9:07 AM

Comment pages: 1 2