Kaganology 101

The erstwhile Digby reminds us that the White House never really changed its mind on Elena Kagan for the Supreme Court.  The why of that should raise red flags:

There's a lot of talk today about the White House settling on Elana Kagan for the Supreme Court, along with some fairly alarming reports that she didn't care about diversity when she was the dean of Harvard Law. This doesn't speak well of her, especially since she is such a blank slate that such actions tend to be the only clues we have about her worldview. (I have assumed that if Obama ends up nominating her we will know for sure that he's decided to run for the hills in anticipation of a right wing surge, which only means he's decided on appeasement rather than leadership. Surprise.)

Oh yeah, and she was on a Goldman Sachs advisory panel too.   This is starting to make a certain amount of sense now as to why Kagan was always the frontrunner.

So I'm told by various people that Kagan is the only confirmable possibility. I would love to know why that should be true. The Republicans have had little trouble since Bork confirming far right federalist society clones, whether they had a Democratic or Republican Senate. It doesn't seem logical to me that there isn't room for an unabashed liberal on the court with a 59 vote majority in the Senate.

Kagan is an unknown quantity, unlike Roberts and Alito who were clearly both conservative a highly political. Yet Bush managed to get them confirmed. I guess I just don't understand the double standard when it comes to Democrats and I refuse to capitulate to the common wisdom that says no Democratic president can ever confirm a known liberal.

Pay-Bork is a bitch, as they say.  30 years of painting liberals as everything that has gone wrong in America, when the reality has been the opposite (Reaganomics, Poppy Bush's Gulf War I, Clinton's post 1994 triangulation and impeachment, and Dubya's complete wrecking of the country to really put the icing on the cake).  We've had 4 recessions since then thanks to the free market.

Conservatism is all about sending money up the chain, Liberalism is about sending it down.  Ergo, Liberals are the enemy.  And poor people don't own media conglomerates and get to frame the debate.

Really is that simple.  Obama raised the white flag on this a long time ago.