Some Moderate GOPers Now Meeting With Whoever It Is Obama Nominated for Whatever

Maybe just a fig-leaf of cover for them.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) said she agreed to meet with Garland after the White House reached out, but said such a meeting will take place after the Senate returns from its two-week recess in April.

"The White House has asked me to meet with him, and I've agreed to do so," Collins said. "I've never refused an offer to meet with a nominee to the Supreme Court; that has always been my standard practice. And, so, I have accepted that offer, and it will be scheduled after the recess."

...

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) also told reporters that he would meet with Garland, saying, "I meet with people. That's what I do."

Whether to meet with Garland is also splitting blue-state Republicans, who are at the center of the battle for control of the Senate.

Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) each said Wednesday they were open to meeting with Garland.

Ayotte told Politico she would meet with the nominee out of "courtesy" and to explain why she thinks the seat should remain vacant until next year.

Of course, the more the GOP is sure 1 Trump will be the nominee and 2 Trump will lose, the more likely they are to confirm this guy, whoever he is. Better this semi-liberal than someone Hillary would nominate -- with a Democrat Senate backing her up.

Allahpundit bets they might do that anyway.

There is some good news -- Charles Grassley says he's not budging on this, and won't consider Obama's appointee.

Grassley's Democrat opponent (he's up for re-election) is making Grassley's "obstructionism" the case in chief against him.

Jim Geraghty notes:

[H]is willingness to take the criticism for this stance is worth noting for two reasons. First, there was a time when Grassley was more likely to be more conciliatory to President Obama...

Years of Obama being Obama, trolling and mocking and ignoring Congress, have demonstrated to Grassley there’s no point in trying to appear "bipartisan" or conciliatory.

Second, if there were signs Grassley was willing to hold hearings or support an Obama nominee, the conservative grassroots would raise hell and support a primary challenger. So if there's willingness to denounce and punish deviations from the conservative position, why isn’t there corresponding willingness to praise and support a lawmaker who takes the conservative position, particularly when it’s tough?

Indeed. Might be a good idea to occasionally praise GOPers for taking tough stances, instead of just attacking them when they don't. Otherwise they might get the idea that our support can never actually be had -- in which case it's just a good business decision to write off that loss and give up on the quest.

If you're an Iowa voter, maybe let him know you support his current stand.

posted by Ace at 03:21 PM

| Access Comments