Barack Obama should follow LBJ’s courageous example and step aside, so that a more able Democrat can lead us forward.
Here is what LBJ said in March of 1968 (emphasis mine):
Our reward will come in the life of freedom, peace, and hope that our children will enjoy through ages ahead.
What we won when all of our people united just must not now be lost in suspicion, distrust, selfishness, and politics among any of our people.
Believing this as I do, I have concluded that I should not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year.
With America’s sons (sic) in the fields far away, with America’s future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world’s hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office–the Presidency of your country.
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.
Barack Obama has demonstrated that he either will not or can not actually fight to advance the causes that I and we believe in. He has again caved. On each of the major issues that face us — health care, corporate tyranny and exploitation, human rights, and privacy — he has folded before even beginning the game.
I encourage my Representative, Mike Capuano, to vote against the proposed debt ceiling “compromise”. I encourage my party to find someone who will actually lead us.
I will not vote for Barack Obama for President in 2012.
I wasn’t planning on having to knock on your door to get your vote for Obama in 2012, but I’ll do what I have to do, Tom.
Don’t do it for him, so that he gets to President — yippee! Do it because you don’t want a President Romney, or Perry, or Bachmann. If you think there’s no difference you’re out of your mind.
I won’t go so far as to say there is “no difference”.
The last choice we had was between John McCain and Barack Obama.
I see no evidence that Barack Obama did anything differently from what John McCain would have done. What am I missing?
If so, I wonder what you would have thought when a President McCain vetoed any and all federal stimulus. We would have gone from “too small” to nothing. There’s one example. Check out a list of the enactments of the 111th Congress and you’ll see dozens of additional bills McCain likely wouldn’t have signed.
would have encouraged this behavior and the policy agenda the Republicans have, and we would have been a stroke or recurrence of his skin cancer away from a President Palin, that’s what.
http://www.palinaspresident.us/
McCain voted against Lilly Ledbetter (2007, again in 2009). Obama signed it in to law. Ask your wife what she thinks about the ability to sue over pay discrimination against women.
Also, say hi to her. I miss running into her at CVS.
if they’re enjoying/looking forward to being able to ride on your insurance until age 25. McCain voted against that.
Sure, its not single payer, but its an improvement. And I hope that they are all doing well.
about birth control — what they plan to do Jan 1, 2013 when its covered with no copay through their insurance. They could use the pill, which requires daily vigilance, or they could switch to something else like Depo which requires a shot once every three months, but has different side effects. The point is, with McCain as POTUS, the decision your daughters would make would be constrained not just by whats right for their bodies, but whats right for their wallets. A shame indeed.
Cause yeah, I hadn’t thought of that. I can’t wait until Jan 1, 2013, when daughters no longer have to think about anything more than what’s right for their bodies.
The Salem Harbor coal fired plant, along with perhaps 100s of other coal plants across the nation will be closed by 2016, due to a combination of factors including an aggressive EPA. You think the guy who voted against eliminating oil and gas subsidies would have put those folks in the EPA.
At least with cigars you get some pleasure when your lungs frown. Not so much with general air pollution.
I went all out in 2008 but I now realize I was duped. Tom and I have no real reason to vote for the guy in 2012, simply because of the EC structure. It’s more likely than not that he’ll take Massachusetts and its electoral votes even if we stay home or vote 3rd party. I would say I’d vote for him if he’s actually in danger of losing Massachusetts, but if in November 2012 he’s in danger of losing Massachusetts he’s almost certainly toast nationally.
It’s tough to appear “smarter than thou” if you’re going to pretend Massachusetts’ electoral vote were up for grabs in the first place.
Of course, “vote for the guy who’s not as much as a disaster as the next guy” has worked out well for modern Mexico and Japan.
If not the Democratic or Republican ticket, think of the possibilities of the Democratic AND Republican ticket. Check out http://www.americanselect.org and let me know what you think.
Think about this concept for a moment. Instead of trusting local governments to tabulate votes for a candidate, we instead need to trust a nameless, faceless organization who will tell us who wins this “primary”. Trust them.
This seems a lot like MERS – shifting an age-old foundational public process to a private corporation that is responsible to no one.
I suppose this is the logical conclusion in a country that is largely more concerned with American Idol than the political process.
Can you explain who is actually behind this thing, and who is funding it? Seems awfully shady…
What would you have done differently? The White House clearly did not think the 14th Amendment covered them.
Perhaps he should have said “heck with it, we’re using the 14th Amendment.”
The right thing for President Obama to do, way back when the talk of “austerity” began, was to reject the austerity narrative.
The White House should have been saying, for the last year or perhaps two years, that America needs jobs, America needs to restore wealth to the bank accounts of the middle class, America needs to raise receipts rather than cut spending.
There are two significant and interconnected ways to raise receipts:
a) Significantly increase taxes on the wealthiest one percent
b) Restore full employment
Just as Barack Obama lost the health care debate before it began by rejecting government-sponsored single-payer health care, he similarly lost the economic debate before it began by choosing to throw virtually all Americans under the bus rather than risk alienating the very wealthy.
You know, criticism is good and well, but the whole “we should have fought for single-payer” canard is so ill-informed, so wishful, such lefty fantasy, so unaware of recent history … Yeesh. Neither Obama, nor any other Dem candidate offered a single-payer plan in the primaries. So the idea that Magic Mister Obama would push for one as President is goofy-talk. Please consider the possibility that without Massachusetts — and “Romneycare”, we wouldn’t even have a national health care law at all.
And “alienating the very wealthy” … Obama has said every single freakin’ time that we should raise taxes on the wealthy. He can’t do it single-handedly … or maybe he can by letting the tax cuts expire.
I understand disappointment with Obama the man, but you’re pinning all of your disappointments with our political system as a whole on him. And that’s silly.
Anyway, I’m all done here.
I’m pretty sure Kucinich touted single-payer as his health care plan, not that he would be my choice for nominee, but just to push back on your claim that nobody did.
Second, Obama has indicated single-payer would be ideal so that should have been his starting point, but he caved on the public option the first time a Republican (or maybe it was Nelson or Lieberman) so much as said “Boo!”
Third, HR 676 already had dozens of House cosponsors that it could easily have been at least a viable alternative and part of the debate, if for no other purpose than to tug left when so money others were tugging right. If the President had put the weight of his office behind 676 I am certain it could have gotten more votes and at least come close to passing. Add blowing traditional Senate rules out of the water as part of the strategy and it just might have worked. I really don’t understand why on this issue you have always been such a downer.
Why do you think this would have happened? I’m unsure what carrots or sticks Obama should have offered to make this happen. As you know, a decent chunk of Democratic caucus consisted of Blue Dogs that had no incentive to back single-payer in conservative districts. Obama had little to offer them. If anything, perhaps Reid and Pelosi should have tried harder to get these votes for single-payer, since they have more carrots and sticks available to them to get their members in line than the President does.
As far as blowing traditional Senate rules out of the water, I’d agree that it would be great if this happened, but that’s up the Senate and has nothing to do with Obama.
…along with the inherent institutional weight of the Presidency. Merely saying the President wants something would be worth a few more votes in his own party, then to round up a few more he goes directly to the people and gets them to lobby their members. I also believe that the right arguments made often enough can also flip popular sentiment. After all, if Bush could sell us on invading Iraq, why shouldn’t Obama be able to sell us on single-payer?
Of course, Obama did say that he wanted single-payer. But this wasn’t enough to get a few more votes in his party. It might have been possible for Obama to get a handful more Democratic votes if he strongly pushed for single-payer (as opposed to “merely saying” that he wanted it, which he in fact did). But even that’s unclear, since nearly all (or even all) of the Democratic votes against the health care bill that eventually was enacted came from right, not the left. I don’t see how Obama would have convinced these members to vote for something more to the left than the health care bill that they voted against.
In order for members from conservative districts to vote for an extension of single-payer health care, the American people have to be convinced that it is in their best interests. Obama might have done more to build this narrative, but it’s far more of a long-term project that the entire progressive movement has failed to adequately accomplish for decades. In the meantime, Obama signed into law a bill that got us closer to universal health care than anything since the 89th Congress.
The progressive movement needs to build on this and work towards single-payer — hopefully with a better and more effective message than the arguments that haven’t worked to this point.
I actually remember him commenting kind of as an aside during the campaign only that single-payer might be ideal if we were starting from scratch. However, that was never his platform and I don’t believe he ever mentioned it again once he became POTUS. If during his health care address to Congress in Sept. 2009 he had said, “I will put the full weight of the White House behind HR 676,” THAT would give it the push I was refering to.
Charley has had the only reality based commentary in this thread. And thats telling. I am tired of the ‘he promised me puppies and rainbows’ faction of the party. Get over yourselves and give the President a Congress he can work with.
…am getting tired of the patronizing attitude toward those of us who wanted more. I and I’m sure many others know how government works, thank you. I’m not opposed to compromise as the end result. I’m just tired of Obama surrendering our core principles BEFORE he even sits down at the negotiating table.
Being told by Democrats that you are “unserious” or “childish” for criticizing this President is beyond infuriating.
I think we have to face the facts and realize that Obama is not really surrendering core principles before he sits down at the negotiating table. He simply does not share the same core principles that most liberals share, so they were never really there to be surrendered. He is not failing in these negotiations, he is getting what he really wants. His 16-dimensional chess game is not being played against Republicans, it’s being played against us, and we are losing.
Jconway, how can blind support and cheerleading of this President, especially so far in advance of the election, do anything to help change his approach? Or do you agree with his approach and the policies he’s helping to implement?
I will not vote for the Obama governing today. If he changed course and started to fight for the interests of the bottom 98% of Americans, I would reconsider that decision. But with so many Democrats declaring themselves “In” for his re-election already, he has no reason to change course. The only ones who might be able to get his attention are not in the bottom 98%, and they don’t want what I want or what you claim to want.
Please tell me how a President Christopher would have gotten Max Baucus, Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and the blue dogs to pass single payer or a public option? Whats that I hear-crickets? Support this President or support the tea party, those are your choices in this system. This has been a center-right country for sometime, and in that reality adopting even national Romneycare is a big step forward. Go past 495 sometime Christopher, you will soon realize that our Congress disproportionately represents the more guns no taxes crowd to a t. Illinois is entirely red outside of the Chicago city limits for example. Thats the reality we have. You make laws with the Congress you have, not the Congress you want.
…but I definitely would have lobbied Baucus, Lieberman, and Nelson to vote for single-payer, and if I weren’t making headway with them I would have gone to Montana, Connecticut, and Nebraska to lobby their constitutents. I also would have asked my VP to go to the Senate and preside at such a time when he could make a ruling having the effect of overturning the filibuster rule. We are not necessarily a center-right country; issue-specific polls that I have seen from time to time suggest otherwise, but in either case bold leadership is required and we don’t see that from Obama.
Sixty votes in the Senate.
Crushing majority in the House.
And he did sh-t all with it.
Ooh..I know…we need to elect more puppies and rainbows Congresspeople.
If I recall he had about 30-40 Congressmen that voted against his weak tea health care reform, and they were Democrats. Imagine how many more would have voted against a public option or single payer? Baucus was literally in bed with lobbyists and crafted a majority of the bill, Nelson and Lieberman were some of those 60 votes and I distinctly remember the bill needing to be watered down significantly for them to pass it. As long as big money is in politics we are going to get crappy health care legislation. Also considering how unpopular the reform is and how it might not even be implemented I will take the victories where I can get it. We cannot expect one President to undo Reagan in a single term, and that expectation by the rainbows and puppies faction was never realistic. Again elect real Democrats to Congress and the President will be able to get what he wants. Until that happens quit your bitching. Its either Barry with all his flaws or some dittohead teabagger. Any other vote is a vote down the toilet. Remember how good those Nader votes felt after eight years of Bush? I didn’t think so.
These 30-40 Democrats might have been persuadable had there been effort, but we will never know. Incidently there are MORE than 30-40 who are cosponsors of HR 676.
1 – Your need to use profanity and false equivalences tell me how unsure you are of your own argument. I’m working to elect “real” Democrats right now, thanks. Even if it isn’t somebody I’ve been told I most adore.
2 – Yes, 30-40 Congressmen voted against health care after Obama undercut most any campaign for it. These people aren’t fools — most of them were there before Obama became a national figure, and aren’t going to spend their political capital to help someone who’ll undermine them. How many voted no because the bill was going to safely pass? How many voted no because they realized that they were sticking their neck out for a “leader” who wouldn’t do the same for him? If I’m in Congress, and I see Obama endorsing against sitting Democrats (as in RI governor), why the heck should I do him any favors?
I can’t agree that if Obama is failing, my job is to lower my standards.;
Polls indicated that the majority of the country favored either single payer or the public option. So much for those being views of the “far left”. What ever happened to the public option that Obama supported during his campaign and dropped in a flash once elected?
I smelled a rat in early May 2009 at a OFA meeting on the subject of health care. The rank and file attendees overwhelming favored SP or PO. The people running the meeting refused to mention the PO as a possible course, talking only about goals such as lower costs and more people covered. The goals were so unspecific, it was impossible to say whether they would comprise an adequate solution. Obama’s people never gave a plausible explanation for walking back from campaign rhetoric before the fight even started.
I respectfully disagree with your blaming only the political system. When the opposition, who holds only one of two houses of Congress, is being blatantly unreasonable, the President is still able to take extraordinary actions to steer the country on a reasonable course. The president did have options, e.g the 14th amendment and probably others if he was willing to ask some good lawyers. Instead we are seeing a precedent for one branch of Congress to hold the other branch and the president hostage over the debt ceiling. Mitch McConnell said this explicitly yesterday. He hopes to take hostages again in 2013.
Unless there is a pun you intended and that I missed you need to check the title of the above comment. One of the worst typos you can make is spelling “public” without the L:) I believe the new platform allows you to edit comments.
Thanks for the heads up. But how to edit? It’s not obvious on the ‘My Comments’ page.
If you look at your comment on the My Comments page there IS a link under each one that says “Edit”. However, when I tried clicking that for a couple of my comments I got the message, “Oops, no comment with this ID.” Editors?
For each comment, I only see the title, comment itself, followed by my logon and timestamp. Editors?
LBJ’s ego couldn’t have taken a defeat. The Dixiecrats hated him for his civil rights record. The liberals hated him for his war. The people hated him for his impotence in stopping the rampaging riots. He opted out before he got replaced by the people.
I think BHO’s situation is different. Who’s he got going against him? Bachmann? Romney? The other lightweights? They’re all the same. Paul is different, in having an ideology, but he’ll not get the money needed for a national campaign by relying on individual donations – and the press hates him.
BHO only has to be the lesser evil to get re-elected. Like it or not, the opposition is more like the comedy team he ran against last time. I expect very light voter turnout.
Four more years. {sigh.}
“Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” –H. L. Mencken
… you’re going to regret your outburst of emotionalism.
There are still budgets to be forged for this year and next, and for the first time in a long long time the Democrats go into the negotiations more unified than the Republicans… Not, of course, because of any greater unity on the part of Dems, but because of sheer fractured chaos on the part of the Repubs. I daresay John Boehner finds greater sympathy in the White House than he does in his own caucus. In addition, that squinty fella, Cantor, is nowhere to be found: perhaps his ambition to lead is somewhat lessened in the face of the what he’s seen from his putative followers? Lisa Murkowski is publicly calling Tea Partiers loony and the Murdoch sideshow coupled with general unwillingness to shine a light on the seamier side of the GOP, which seamier side is the only thing showing at present, has left FOX news with a stunted and grumpy case of the speechless.
Since the election Obama has been faced with a disciplined and fairly neatly aligned opposition. This is no longer the case. Disarray. One good budget with revenues completely obviates the “super commission” and any triggers. It’s not a sure thing, but I like our chances better than I did a week ago.
A pair of colossal capitulations. First, extension of the Bush tax cuts. Second, endorsement of core Republican demands in the face of an entirely predictable, entirely manufactured, crisis that occurred at the time and place of the GOP’s choosing. This is no success.
I’d say he was a failure, but by now we have to realize that his worse-than-his-idol-Reagan policies are EXACTLY what he wants. Obama is a lying liar to all those he hoodwinked with his message of hope, and the ultimate corporate tool – doing the kind of damage to this country that Karl Rove could only dream of doing.
If Obama is our nominee come 2012, God help us all. I won’t be voting for him. Donald Duck it would be.
I’m not angry enough to say I won’t vote for Obama next year.
But I won’t give him a dime of my money (not that he needs it) and I won’t lift a finger to campaign for him.(like I did in 2008)
As a strong voice for progressive values and as the voice of a coherent, forward thinking agenda, he is a failure. I never expected Obama would be some rabid liberal, but I did expect him to fight hard for his base. Instead, I have watched him dither, get outfoxed by the Republicans, and wind up conceding on issue after issue.
And on issues like education, holding wall street accountable, the environment, taxes, he has been incoherent and wishy washy.
What does he have to show for three years of work? A crappy health care bill and Bin Laden dead? I’m sorry to say this, but the Clinton campaign and (gulp) the Republicans were right about this guy.
This is Massachusetts.
Your cousin in Ohio, I hope, sticks with Obama. The alternative IS worse. Much worse.
With all due respect, that is a dangerous way to think…yes, Obama is likely to win MA, but we can’t take anything for granted. There is too much at stake in 2012, and that kind of thinking got us Scott Brown last year. And I agree with you about the alternative to the President…it really is much worse.
I learned the hard way that every vote counts. My first vote ever was for my mother, and apparently the clerk at my school made some sort of error, and the clerk at Somerville City Hall threw out the ballot. She lost by six votes (not, thank God, one).
Um, intent of the voter?
In fact, I’m pretty sure I would not have voted for my very conservative Republican Mother who thought FDR was the devil and sent the country down the road of socialism, God bless her. And come to think of it, she would not have voted for her very liberal Democratic daughter either, and I know because she told me so.
…yes, Obama is likely to win MA, but we can’t take anything for granted.
He’s been taking US for granted for three years. It’s only fair to return the favor.
Rather than taking us for granted, the facts show that the Obama administration has been very good to MA. On health care, clean energy, education, infrastructure investments and many other issues, the Governor Patrick has had a strong ally in DC to help move his agenda. Pretty sure that would not have been the case under a McCain presidency.
I was referring to progressives – what some are fond of calling the Left Wing of the Democratic Party. Obama has not noticeably catered to that us since he won election.
Tom, certainly I have harbored similar dark thoughts and then I shake myself and realize all my crying will do no good, and play Sarah Jarosz singing Tom Waits song and climb off my cross —we can use the wood.
to paraphrase Sarah–this song and politics needs audience participation.
There is a doctrine about Opposition in my religion. Essentially, the more good one tries to do, the more opposition to doing that good from what Star Wars calls the “dark side” can be expected.
Thus, when I am hit with especially egregious difficulties trying to help an indigent client, on one level, I figure I must be doing the right thing.
The poem I posted deals with the reality that not caving in, not appeasing, not going off and getting drunk when opposition appears means:
-You get stronger
-Your character learns courage
-You gain in fortitude (an old, unfashionable, but necessary virtue for a healthy society)
-You gain discernment
-You gain in self discipline, and the ability to proactively make choices rather than just react
Every time anyone takes the easier, softer way out, they become diminished in all these qualities.
No, I am not impressed with what I see from the leadership of my party in this regard with regard to how “opposition” has been handled. Not at all.
I encourage President Obama to step down, so that someone more willing to advocate the policies I care about can step up.
We are not radical enough. Too many of us have forgotten that we fight real power, and when we fight real power we often suffer real pain.
The wealthy (whether Republican or Democrat) have learned that they can take our money without fear of consequences. They have learned that they can kidnap, abuse, and torture without fear of consequences. They have learned that they can exploit our desire to provide health care for our children and loved ones to steal us blind — without consequences. I strongly suggest that we need to jump outside the familiar boxes of politics, jobs, and “getting along”.
We need to show those who claim to represent us that there are consequences for betraying us.
We need to show those who do business with us that there are consequences for stealing from us.
We need to march in the streets. We need to start shutting down bank offices. We need to start making it impossible for insurance companies to do business as usual.
We have to decide if we want the Worldwide Wrestling Federation as our government or something more substantial. I’m sick to death of voting for one candidate because the others are so much worse. Yes, they’re very bad. So what. We’ve just been screwed by “our guy”.
It’s time to make some noise, folks.
going off and getting drunk. In moderation, of course. 🙂
I consider Obama to be a Republican who has successfully run as a Democrat. All his efforts to be bi-partisan, with people who express no interest in compromise, make sense in that context. Once in a while he is liberal, esp. on social issues, but in general he sides with big business.
I cannot recommend Obama for 2012 except as the lesser evil. I would donate to any traditional, New Deal Democrat willing to primary him.
Obama turned out to be a corporate camp-follower. It’s going to be the lesser of two evils again next year, but both choices will be evil.
I think most followers of this blog are disappointed with President Obama. I sure am, and I’m willing to consider not voting for him. But I wish people would pay more attention to the Supreme Court. Right now conservatives have a 5-4 majority of the justices, and that slim majority has produced devastating decisions in just the past two years. That majority has gutted campaign finance reforms, eroded consumers’ rights to seek recourse in the courts, and defended big business interests at every turn. The eldest justice, Ginsburg, is also probably the most liberal. It’s likely that the next administration will select at least one and perhaps three justices. The difference between a second Obama term and a Republican could mean the difference between a 5-4 or 6-3 liberal majority and a 7-2 conservative majority.
I agree that it is a big concern. But I also think that Obama will nominate a a moderate or conservative justice to replace Ginsburg, one more similar to Kennedy than anyone else on the Court. He or she will have impeccable credentials (Harvard or Yale grad, maybe Stanford if he decides to slum it, former SCOTUS clerk, time at OLC or elsewhere in DOJ) and Obama will praise his or her brilliance rather than mentioning much at all about his or her philosophy. And Democrats, even though they wanted Goodwin Liu, will fall in line to support this nominee against vicious and totally irrational attacks from the Right.
We’ll get Merrick Garland, when we should have got Pam Karlan. Or maybe we’ll get Harold Koh, and the administration can point to liberal unhappiness (because of his advice about Libya) as reasons why Republicans should accept him.
Maybe the administration and the media will be right that a further left candidate could not get confirmed, but we will never know because Obama will never nominate, and certainly never fight for one. We’ll be told that this is all that was “possible,” and liberals who say that this was just the easy choice or the one that Obama really wanted will be shunned and called “unserious.”
His two nominees so far – Sotomayor and Kagan – are not even close to Kennedy, and have been on the opposite side from him of most important cases (except when Kennedy goes along with the “liberals”). Should he nominate Merrick Garland, that, too, is nothing like Kennedy.
I’d love to see him nominate Pam Karlan as much as you. If he does, awesome. If he plays it safe and goes with Garland or someone along those lines, that is a hell of a lot better than we’d get from a GOP president.
I think his main concern is going the easy route rather than pick the best jurist.
Sotomayor was replacing the most liberal justice and he had 60 votes. There wasn’t going to be a big fight about a minority female justice replacing a very liberal justice. If he had picked a centrist, there would have been a revolt of the left.
Kagan had no record except for a flawless resume and she had already been confirmed.
I predict he will nominate a centrist like Garland, or even a more conservative justice – and, I think, one who will be closer in ideology to Kennedy than to anyone else on the court. And we’ll swallow it because we’ll constantly be told by the administration and the media that this was the most liberal person that could be confirmed. Maybe that will be true, but I think we’d have the same success leaning on Brown and the Maine Senators to confirm a left-of-center judge as we would with a center-right judge.
We won’t be getting a one-for-one replacement for Ginsburg, not by a long-shot. Obama will avoid that fight.
I don’t disagree that his picks will be better than a GOP President, but I don’t think his future picks will be anything to be excited about. The overall makeup of the court will shift to the right, as it maybe already has (we still know so little about Kagan).
in the Arizona campaign finance case? If not, read it. It will make you feel better.
It was a great dissent, and a good sign, but I’m not convinced yet. I hope she is all that people like Larry Lessig say she is, but that’s still quite tbd, in my opinion.
I think Ginsburg is a reliable vote on the correct side on most issues, though I agree she is not a heavyweight driving the court in any direction. Unfortunately, I think only Stevens could do that for our side, and we probably won’t see a liberal like that again for at least a couple generations (nevermind someone like Brennan). I suspect that Ginsburg’s replacement will not be nearly as reliable a vote.
I’m not sure where you get the idea that Ginsburg is some sort of super-lefty. As a judge, she has always struck me as quite cautious; left-of-center, to be sure, but not someone with an overarching jurisprudential vision. I suspect that Kagan will turn out to be a much more vigorous voice for left-of-center jurisprudence than Ginsburg has been.