Giuseppe Sandro Mela.
Siamo debitori ad Aulo Irzio, compilatore delle ultime parti dell’ottavo libro del De Bello Gallico, di una scultorea sentenza sulla vittoria ottenuta in Gallia da Giulio Cesare.
“Come ha fatto Giulio Cesare con sessantamila soldati romani a vincere in modo definitivo un popolo di quasi venti milioni di persone? Sicuramente i romani erano un esercito disciplinato e ben addestrato, altrettanto sicuramente erano meglio armati ed esperti sia nell’arte degli assedi sia in quella dei combattimenti campali. Sicuramente avevano una possente volontà di vincere ed altrettanto sicuramente erano guidati da un generale di rara intelligenza. Ma questo non basta a dare una spiegazione logica.
Fatto è che Cesare vedeva e percepiva la realtà per quello che era, mentre i galli amavano credere fosse vero ciò che a loro avrebbe fatto piace che lo fosse.”
Questa ultima considerazione eleva Giulio Cesare nel ristretto novero dei grandi generali e statisti.
* * * * * * *
Da due anni a questa parte i liberal democratici hanno riversato su Mr Trump ogni sorta di nequizia, omettendo forse l’aggiotaggio ed il pascolo abusivo. È stata la più grandiosa campagna denigratoria mai vista nella storia umana.
Nessuno si sogna di trarne un giudizio morale, che non compete al cronista, ma salta agli occhi che i liberal democratici americani ed i loro sodali sparsi per il mondo alla fine si sono illusi a credere che ciò che dicevano fosse vero.
Dapprima illusione certa, ma spesso pura e semplice allucinazione.
Il Presidente Trump è un essere razionale ed anche molto scaltro, molto più astuto di quanto i liberal vogliano ammettere.
Ha capito più che bene come i liberal socialisti fossero entrati in fase devolutiva perché non erano più in grado di ascoltare con cura ciò che il popolo cercava loro di dire. Ma non votano solo le élite auto referenziali: votano tutti gli Elettori, anche la povera gente.
«US President Donald Trump on Monday nominated Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a tumultuous confirmation battle over the future direction of the nation’s highest court.»
«”Throughout legal circles he’s considered a judge’s judge, a true thought leader among his peers,” Trump said at the White House. “He’s a brilliant jurist with a clear and effective writing style, universally regarded as one of the finest and sharpest legal minds of our time.”»
«The confirmation of Trump’s pick would move the Supreme Court to the right for decades. A heated confirmation is set to dominate politics ahead of November’s mid-term elections.»
«for decades»: l’illusione liberal è morta, uccisa proprio dal marchingegno che aveva congeniato.
* * *
Nessuno fa il negromante, per cui nessuno può dare sicure previsioni su come andranno le elezioni di midterm.
Sappiamo solo che in questa tornata elettorale da duecentotrenta anni solo tre volte gli Elettori non hanno eletto un senato ed una camera del partito avverso a quello del presidente in carica. Bilanciano i poteri, obbligano agli accordi.
Per il presidente Trump sarebbe già un grande successo se riuscisse a mantenere la maggioranza in senato, fatto che gli consentirebbe di terminare le nomine dei giudici federali ancora pendenti.
Le corti federali hanno infatti il potere di interferire con le decisioni politiche del presidente, ed i liberal democratici le hanno colonizzate con loro strenui sostenitori. Ingordigia e presunzione hanno fato loro fallire il controllo della Suprema Corte, inappellabile, ed adesso le dimissioni di Sua Giustizia Kennedy rendono obbligatoria la votazione in senato per convalidare la nomina che il presidente Trump si appresta a fare: sarà una personalità repubblicana, religiosa, che applicherà le leggi testualmente e non inventandosele di sana pianta, e sarà anche molto giovane.
Con la Corte Suprema a maggioranza repubblicana i liberal democratici saranno ingabbiati per decenni: saranno trattati per come hanno trattato.
I democratici dovranno in breve fare una scelta, quanto mai dolorosa.
O appoggiano il nome stabilito da Mr Trump e consegnano ai repubblicani la Corte Suprema per almeno quaranta anni, oppure fanno ostruzionismo, come lo fecero avverso Sua Giustizia Gorsuch, tagliando così le gambe ai democratici che si presentano a midterm negli stati a forte percentuale repubblicana. L’ostruzionismo è sempre stato penalizzante se fatto a ridosso delle elezioni americane: “It could not come at a worse time”.
* * * * * * *
«Democratic senators running for re-election in Trump Country face an agonizing choice over President Trump’s coming Supreme Court nominee: Vote to confirm the pick and risk demoralizing Democratic voters ahead of the midterm elections, or stick with the party and possibly sacrifice their own seats — and any chance at a Democratic majority in 2019.»
«The actions of a handful of Senate Democrats struggling to hold their seats in red states where Mr. Trump remains popular — notably Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — will have broad implications for the party at a critical political juncture.»
«A decision by one or all of them to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters in their states by backing the president’s nominee would undermine Democratic leaders as they try to sustain party unity»
«And if their votes put the president’s choice on the court, it could hasten the move to the left by the party’s aggressive activist core, while intensifying the clamor for new, more confrontational leadership.»
«But if they hold together on a “no” vote, those senators could not only surrender their own seats, but by expanding the Republican majority, they could also narrow the path of Democrats to a Senate majority for years to come by ceding those states to Republicans»
* * * * * * * *
Per due anni i liberal democratici si sono sbizzarriti nell’arte della calunnia e dell’insulto, senza ottenere alcunché.
Con il loro comportamento grottesco hanno sottominato il prestigio mondiale del Presidente degli Stati Uniti.
Ma adesso siamo arrivati al momento del redde rationem.
Con le nomine alla Corte Suprema Mr Trump ha ottenuto una vittoria strabiliante: se anche adesso lo assassinassero, la Suprema Corte resterebbe repubblicana per altri lunghi decenni.
È facile pagare otto dollari l’ora quattro ragazzotti che andassero a dimostrare con i cartelli “not my president”.
Ma convincere gli Elettori è ben altra cosa.
Ci si ricordi bene: la società civile non sono le ngo, bensì il Corpo Elettorale. La politica la si fa in Congresso ed al Senato, non sulle piazze.
→ The New York Times. 2018-07-07. ‘It’s a Terrible Vote’: Red-State Democrats Face an Agonizing Supreme Court Choice.
WASHINGTON — Democratic senators running for re-election in Trump Country face an agonizing choice over President Trump’s coming Supreme Court nominee: Vote to confirm the pick and risk demoralizing Democratic voters ahead of the midterm elections, or stick with the party and possibly sacrifice their own seats — and any chance at a Democratic majority in 2019.
The actions of a handful of Senate Democrats struggling to hold their seats in red states where Mr. Trump remains popular — notably Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Joe Donnelly of Indiana and Joe Manchin III of West Virginia — will have broad implications for the party at a critical political juncture.
A decision by one or all of them to try to bolster their standing with Republican-leaning voters in their states by backing the president’s nominee would undermine Democratic leaders as they try to sustain party unity. And if their votes put the president’s choice on the court, it could hasten the move to the left by the party’s aggressive activist core, while intensifying the clamor for new, more confrontational leadership.
But if they hold together on a “no” vote, those senators could not only surrender their own seats, but by expanding the Republican majority, they could also narrow the path of Democrats to a Senate majority for years to come by ceding those states to Republicans.
“It is a terrible vote,” Jennifer Duffy, a longtime nonpartisan analyst of Senate races for the Cook Political Report, said about the showdown, which will escalate on Monday with the scheduled official announcement of the nominee.
It could not come at a worse time. A final confirmation vote will probably be called just weeks before an election in which Democrats are defending a sprawling battleground, including 10 states carried by Mr. Trump, with Democratic pickup opportunities in only a handful of states. A failure to hang on to nearly all of the 10 would make a Senate takeover very difficult.
The situation is complicated by the fact that Republicans last year denied Democrats the ability to filibuster a Supreme Court candidate, a tool that would have previously enabled the most vulnerable Democrats to side with the president even as the rest of the party held the line against the nominee and satisfied anxious liberal voters.
In the run-up to his announcement, Mr. Trump has sought to intensify the pressure on Democrats who are on the ballot in Republican-leaning states.
“You deserve a senator who doesn’t just talk like he’s from Montana,” Mr. Trump said Thursday night during a combative stop in Great Falls, Mont., as he assailed Jon Tester, the conservative state’s two-term Democrat. “You deserve a senator who actually votes like he’s from Montana.”
The president delivered a nearly identical attack on Ms. Heitkamp a week earlier in Fargo, N.D., in what appears destined to become a stock line as Mr. Trump visits Senate battlegrounds.
Much of the attention has been focused on Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Manchin and Mr. Donnelly because they broke with their party last year and backed Neil M. Gorsuch, Mr. Trump’s first nominee to the court, showing their willingness to get behind the president’s choices. Mr. Trump racked up huge margins in their states and still draws enthusiastic crowds.
But other Democratic incumbents need to be wary as well, including Senator Bill Nelson, the Florida Democrat who is in a difficult re-election fight with Rick Scott, the Republican governor. Mr. Nelson will need the support of Republican and independent voters to prevail, but also that of Democratic voters in Florida’s urban centers.
Another endangered Democratic incumbent, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, is viewed as highly unlikely to back any Trump nominee despite the political risk. And if Mr. Trump selects Judge Raymond M. Kethledge of Michigan, it could present difficulties for Senator Debbie Stabenow, who is seeking her fourth term in a state carried narrowly by Mr. Trump two years ago though she has so far escaped formidable competition.
As they plot strategy for the coming weeks, top Democrats and their allies are focused initially on holding Senate Democrats together to put most of the court pressure on two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who are centrist abortion-rights advocates. Democrats believe that quick signs of any defections in their party could relieve that pressure on the two Republicans while simultaneously frustrating Democratic voters.
“It is very important that we send a signal out of the gate that this is a winnable fight,” said Brian Fallon, the head of a new Democratic judicial advocacy group called Demand Justice. “By throwing in the towel before there was an opportunity to really pressure the pro-choice Republicans, you would have a sense of deflation among progressives that is the last thing you should want going into the midterms.”
The Democratic leader, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, is facing calls from activist groups to keep his party in line, and he and his team are intent on doing so. But that does not mean he will want embattled incumbents to yield their seats if the nominee is ultimately going to be confirmed with Republican votes.
At the same time, Republican and conservative groups have initiated campaigns in select states trying to establish the president’s coming choice as unobjectionable, while urging supportive calls to Senate offices. They will also try to make any resistance seem the work of far-left activists.
“Radical Left Takes the Reins,” shouted a headline over a release from the office of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican and majority leader. “Radical Groups Demand Absolute Resistance Against Yet-to-Be-Named SCOTUS Nominee, Senate Democrats Comply With ‘Unwavering Opposition.’”
The Democrats under scrutiny have had little to say so far about their intentions as they await the identity of the nominee.
“Like my colleagues, I’ll wait to see who he nominates for the position — and then get to work exhaustively reviewing and vetting the nominee and their record to meet my constitutional duty as a U.S. senator to provide advice and consent for filling this vacancy,” Ms. Heitkamp said after a White House meeting with the president the day after he had attacked her back home in Fargo.
Mr. Tester chose to ignore the president’s assault and instead emphasized his bipartisan credentials.
“Jon’s record is clear — if it’s good for Montana, Jon works with anyone from either party to get things done,” his campaign said in a statement following the Trump rally.
That approach reflects what Democrats believe is a potential backstop for the embattled red-state Democrats. Politicians like Ms. Heitkamp, Mr. Manchin and Mr. Tester have well-established identities in their home states and remain popular with voters of both parties. They hope that relationship, built over years of campaigns, could sustain them should they break with the president.
Other issues are also at work. The new trade war could have negative consequences for agriculture in a farm state like North Dakota, driving down allegiance to Mr. Trump. It was no coincidence that Ms. Heitkamp in the past week held multiple meetings across her state on trade and a new farm bill — two issues with direct impact on voters.
In addition, Democrats proved they could remain united against the president on the tax bill and on repealing the Affordable Care Act, two past instances that were also seen as carrying big political risks. Party strategists say that if they can make health care a cornerstone of the Supreme Court fight, it could embolden the red-state Democrats to push back against the White House.
But Republicans have a history of elevating the Supreme Court above all else, given its influence on major social policy such as abortion, immigration, education, voting rights and the environment.
“For Republicans, the Supreme Court is their biggest voting issue,” said Ms. Duffy, the Senate elections analyst. “What this does is it wakes up the base.”
For Democrats, the test will be whether they can mount a strong challenge to the nominee that satisfies their voters without exacting too high a cost from their most endangered lawmakers.