Now we get to see if George Bush is really a uniter or a divider.
Posted by muckcat at June 9, 2005 02:44 PMAgain I ask, what good will these votes do for Nelson or Salazar when they are running for re-election. Particularly for Salazar. These votes will be long forgotten in 2010.
Everybody does something for at least one reason, and most politicians do things for more than one reason.
They each had the chance to vote with Harry Reid and every single member of their party. Neither their two votes on Pryor, nor Nelson's vote on Brown, would have changed the outcome.
So what is it? What were there reasons? Have either of them explained it? Senators should have to explain their votes.
Posted by James E. Powell at June 9, 2005 02:53 PMWell, I know for certain that Democrats have been had. It was never formally confirmed, but I have read on several other blogs that there was an agreement among the gang of 14 centrists to at least vote against ONE of three extremists (Owen, Brown and Pryor). Either we progressives were fed a line of shit from the centrists (otherwise, how did that political rumor of a deal get out?), or some deluded progressives who wanted to make a bad deal look like a Democratic victory tried to bullshit the rest of us.
IF, and it is a BIG IF, there was some poliitcal bone thrown to Democrats with this judicial filibuster deal, we got fucked with our pants up.
Why is that?
Simple: Republicans got three more extremists on the federal bench. What is going to stop the Republicans from pushing for those other 4 judicial nominees that Bush wants? Self restraint?
Why don't we all go and ask folks like former Senators Max Cleland of Georgia and Carnahan of Missouri how they did when they cut deals with Bush and the Republicans. I'm sure that they would have great things to say about how Republicans treat those Democrats that work with them in a "bipartisan" fashion.
Posted by Merlin1963 at June 9, 2005 03:31 PMMerlin,
I am with you all the way. If there was a deal, we better see it go into play within a few weeks, or we should all assume that we were taken for a ride. Either by the Republicans or by our own or by both.
There are times when Democrats have to vote against the party for state reasons, like farmers in a rural state or the coal industry in West Virginia. It is regretable, but there are votes on such issues that can be career-enders.
But when did a vote on a judicial nominee, or for that matter even a cabinet nominee, ever end a career? I can't think of any examples from the last fifty years.
Cleland and Carnahan are just two recent examples. We may as well add Daschle and Gephardt to bone pile. Gephardt's Rose Garden stroke of Bush cut the legs out from under Daschle's attempts to get a better deal in the senate, and ruined him with the rank and file of his own party. He must have been totally delusional to think he could win the nomination. Daschle's regular stroking of Bush and bipartisanship did him no good. Frist shit on a senate tradition and campaigned against him.
Can we think of any Democrats who have benefited from being lapdogs for the Republicans? Have the Republicans decided not to run a campaign against any of them? Do they get good jobs with right wing think tanks when they retire? Corporate board positions? What?
A quality and practice that we ought to insist upon for our future support is a straight answer to the question, "Why did you vote for ________ ?
Posted by James E. Powell at June 9, 2005 04:04 PMOnce again, the Democrats have demonstrated the incredible ability to delude themselves that everything is fine in America and that it doesn't matter when they horse-trade their votes for whatever the GOP emptily promises.
The complaint about John Kerry not having 'anything to stand for' is shown by the Democrat votes for these radical bastards. If these religious-based radical judicial activists weren't worthy of opposition (as demonstrated by the GOP moderates' votes), then no one is, and they should cease any opposition to anything the GOP wants whatsoever. They should just go ahead and give Bu$h all of his nazi kangaroos and John Bolton too! To do otherwise only raises false hope in those of us who are pointlessly counting on them.
If the Democrats don't start acting like the opposition party they are supposed to be, there won't be anything left of this nation to oppose for.
Posted by pessimist at June 9, 2005 04:23 PMI'm damn tired of people pointing to Salazar's win and saying "SEE? SEE? A Blue State dude can win in a red state!"
To which I can now safely reply "SEE? SEE? He's just like the other neutered Dems from red states." And his vote for Pryor proves it.
Posted by Arvin Hill at June 9, 2005 04:39 PMpessimist,
The truth is on these three judicial votes, the Democrats were largely united. On the last two, they only had one guy, then two, break ranks. That's not too bad.
The alternative was to invite the nuclear option. And whether for good or ill, they backed down. My guess is that they backed down because it was appellate judges, not a battle that they were necessarily winning in the public's mind. They weren't losing, which was good, but they weren't winning either. They are saving it for the supreme court, which is when we will really need it.
Posted by James E. Powell at June 9, 2005 04:45 PMConfirmation David W. McKeague, of Michigan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge, approved 96 to 0.
Confirmation Richard A. Griffin, of Michigan, to be U.S. Circuit Judge, approved 95 to 0.
Lets make that five judges approved. Sen. Frist has been busy. Why did these two get filibustered? No opposition? I sure do like this deal. Shows that the practitioners of the filibuster were not principled or the principle was not worthy. Now there are 12 Dems that can't be counted on, the deal only had 7.
Posted by peter at June 9, 2005 05:06 PMagain......if we didn't want these judges the time to stop them was 2002 and 2004, not now. The GOP, through hook or crook, are the majority in the Senate..that is game, set, match. These radical judges would have been voted in, even if the "nukular" option would have been needed. You can blame Nelson and Salazar for weak-knees or downright turncoat-ness, but they are not what caused these bad judges to be passed...it was the Bush GOP.
Posted by T2 at June 9, 2005 06:34 PMThey are saving it for the supreme court, which is when we will really need it.
As others in this thread are showing through their comments, that time may have already passed.
Posted by pessimist at June 9, 2005 07:34 PMKeep throwing stones at Sen. Salazar and he may become a Republican just like his predecessor Nighthorse-Campbell did. Then you'll lose one of you few brightspots from the 2004 vote.
Posted by peter at June 9, 2005 07:41 PMpeter,
I doubt that Senator Salazar will change parties because I question his vote in the comments on a blog. I mean, seriously.
And if he switches to the Republican Party it will be because he wants to, not because of something some one else did or said.
And asking a putative Democrat why he is voting like a Republican, or asking any senator about any vote, is not 'throwing stones.'
And if he is going to vote with the Republicans whenever it matters, in what way was his election a 'bright spot?'
the only two Democrats who voted with Bush and the American Taliban on this pick.
I thought it said "this prick." My mistake.
Posted by firedoglake at June 9, 2005 09:42 PMThanks for the above comments re the supposed "side-deal" that one of the three worst nominees would be defeated. I thought maybe I'd dreamt it! Senate Dems were had, and apparently now have nothing to say about the matter. Calling all reporters, possible major story.....anyone home?
Posted by euzoius at June 10, 2005 08:54 AM