SO? SO WHAT?

Am I supposed to care? Am I supposed to be outraged that a politician has the foresight to recognize that the outcome will be one of several strictly defined possibilities? Am I supposed to do be baffled and confused or morally outraged that he knows in advance what his reaction to various rulings will be? He already knows he doesn't support it, he already knows this, and from that he can know what his statement is going to be.

Did you expect Republicans to be dancing in the streets with glee if SCOTUS ruled against their position? Don't be obtuse. There's two parties to any case before SCOTUS, those on this side and those on that side. One side or the other will always have a little bit more dissatisfaction with their ruling than the other. It'll always happen. It's the nature of the court.

So this guy prepares for any eventuality -- ok I guess he didn't tape a "Martians ate the Chief Justice" response, but bear with me -- and I'm supposed to be outraged by it? No. Disagree with his politics, maybe. Disagree with his positions, maybe. Disagree with his methods, maybe. But give a damn that he can anticipate rulings and toss in an "If you believe as I do..." message?

Farks given: Zero.

Dr. Mojo PhD: I think the legal reasoning of SCOTUS will mean a lot... but I don't think it means that this will suddenly cause a radical shift in how people think.

As a politician it sure as hell should have a huge impact on your argument. To put forth arguments before you see the legal arguments...proof that you are a partisan tool. I don't think that is a good thing in a politician.

Ok, so lots of people prepare remarks and what not. But it takes a special kind of dipshiat to record something that starts with "Today, the court did something that none of us could have expected" for something that hasn't happened yet.

Moron.

Emposter: Prepping multiple speeches for any possible outcome is normal.

Media-savvy Farkers know this, most voters don't, and politician don't want them to. They want people to believe that they are intellectually capable of reacting spontaneously and eloquently to real time events.
One simplified definition of "news" goes: "That, which they do no want you to know".

Politicians and their campaigns farking up with technology, the internet, and social networking is also normal. This is neither newsworthy nor outrage worthy.

I can't offhand recall another incident, where the scripted political performance has been revealed this clearly, by someone accidentally the whole thing before the event. It's a rare, real life please-ignore-the-man-behind-the-curtain moment.
It's also pretty funny.

Sabyen91: As a politician it sure as hell should have a huge impact on your argument. To put forth arguments before you see the legal arguments...proof that you are a partisan tool. I don't think that is a good thing in a politician.

I watched the videos and, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he actually spoke to any legal arguments he anticipated being made. He spoke to disagreeing with a ruling, and if people felt as he did (that they disagreed with this ruling), then they should vote for him. It's definitely proof of partisanry, but he's a Party politician, that's what they do. He knows his conscience won't agree with a pro-HCR ruling no matter what.

If you want an example of a partisan tool, look no further than this Washington Post editorial in all its idiocy:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, slapped down President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency's arrogant denial of property owners' right to contest in court the EPA's administrative abuses. It was a revealing decision - about the Obama administration, more than the court.

This is about Sackett v. EPA. The problem here? The Sacketts first challenged the EPA in 2007/2008. Here's an Idaho district court ruling concerning the Sackett's challenge to the EPA dated 7 August 2008, which (as you well know), is three months before Barack Obama was elected (let alone inaugurated for it to be in any way considered "his" EPA).

This is a partisan tool. This is "facts be damned" bullshiat. Damn Obama and his magical time machine again! Despite the fact that Barack Obama hadn't been elected, let alone inaugurated when Bush's EPA issued an "arrogant denial of property owner's rights", the deranged lunatic at WaPo still blames it on Obama. It was a revealing decision about the Obama administration -- who named Sonia Sotomayor, one of the nine justices who ruled unanimously in the favour of the Sacketts over what Bush's EPA did -- and who had nothing to do with the EPA when it gave its compliance order.

That is being a pure partisan tool about SCOTUS rulings. That's not disagreeing with how SCOTUS interpreted the evidence before them, that is literally making evidence up to suit your partisan agenda. That's psychotic.

And that's where these two things differ. Is Mourdock partisan? Of course. Do I agree with his partisanship? Hell no! But he's not actually making anything up. He's not warping reality to suit his deranged needs (as much as he might need to in other circumstances). I watch those videos and it's a statement to other partisan voters who feel the same as he did, that the case of HCR currently before SCOTUS has its strongest merits on the conservative side of the case, and that if the evidence isn't read that way it's clearly wrong.

Well, let's admit it. We've all felt this way about court cases. We all have. Let's not mince words -- I'm sure you knew before hand that if eg. Citizens United came out the way it did, you wouldn't agree with it, regardless of the arguments (like the First Amendment arguments used to get the ruling).

I don't think that levies us from the service of partisan liberals to that of partisan liberal tools. This guy might just be a tool -- probably is -- and this doesn't change that, but it's not like everything he does has to prove that or be some shade of it. A bank robber's a bank robber cause he robs banks, not because in his down time between robberies he jerks off and eats cereal.

It's just kinda technologically illiterate, in an old fuddy-duddy kind of way.

Dr. Mojo PhD: We know this. We know not to act shocked when people who find merit to their arguments that they should own slaves, or be allowed to spy on people with thermal imaging, or get abortions are dissatisfied with court rulings; again, one party always leaves the court room unhappy with the judgment

And I realize it is to be expected but that is no reason to give a guy a pass just because he is expected to be a farking tool.

You are all farking wrong, left and right. Without the legal arguments, this man prepared statements. In other words he doesn't give a fark if it is legally sound, he only cares how it makes him look.

Aarontology: Meh. It's called covering your bases. I'll bet every major politician has prepared a couple of different statements or speeches for this.

Depends. Does the argument by the Supreme Court matter to politicians? These tapes were made without seeing actual legal arguments.

DrPainMD: It's 1400 pages... nobody knows what it is.

It became effective March 23, 2010. Dated to yesterday (June 21, 2010) that's 822 days. If you can't manage to read 1.7 pages per day, you're a low-functioning retard.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Am I supposed to care? Am I supposed to be outraged that a politician has the foresight to recognize that the outcome will be one of several strictly defined possibilities?

You might step back and laugh that he pre-recorded "the court did something that none of us could have expected".

It was so unexpected, he pre-recorded a response?

I think that is funny. But you are busy ranting, so rant on!

Dr. Mojo PhD: Am I supposed to care? Am I supposed to be outraged that a politician has the foresight to recognize that the outcome will be one of several strictly defined possibilities?

I'm pretty sure you're just supposed to giggle a little at the screw up.

I know it's the politics tab and all, but not every link is supposed to inspire outrage. Fark is meant to be for laughs.

Not exactly Hari Seldon, is he?



Remember when Obama went to Germany, and McCain and the GOP criticized him for not visiting the troops? And that's when Obama's people put the 'troll: problem?' mask on and revealed he HAD visited injured troops in Germany? And how it was suddenly how Obama was staging things because he visited troops ...that ...he'd been a dick if he didn't visit them?

When teenage girls do that, they're rightly called two-faced little shiat-stirring biatches.

By itself is it a story? No, hell no. But add in the cancer answer from last week, and the my idea of compromise is Dems agreeing with me and you start to see a guy who isn't ready for prime time. Remember he's a state treasurer in a state where that position means jackshiat.

He exists to prove there is a ceiling to the Peter Principle.