My feeling aligns pretty closely to yours, in that the bargaining position of the President, and likely the 55 GOP Sens as well, is highly limited. The polling data look too foreboding.
I wonder how many GOP ducks are in a row right now behind the potentiality of a far-right nominee. It just seems to me beyond the realm of possibility that many of them wouldn't find the political dangers of rubber-stamping a Dobson Approved candidate too much to bear.
Posted by Matt Langer at July 3, 2005 10:33 PMDeal? What deal? Honestly I don't think the public knows or cares a rat's ass about any deal between the two sides of the Senate. If the democrats decide to take the republicans to the wall on this it will be the first time the public has heard of it. They will have nothing to lose in terms of public perception.
Meanwhile, my conservative mother is disgusted by the behavior of the repubs in almost everything they've done that this will be the first time in 50 years she will be rooting for the dems. Says a lot about public perception to me.
I agree, Steve.
Frankly, this was one of the two main reasons I wanted that filibuster deal (the other was that it gave the appearance of the GOP backing down): it saved any "nuclear option" extremism on the part of the GOP for a venue in which maximum spotlight and maximum progressive resources would be shined on GOP actions.
I'd have preferred for this to go down next year, closer to the election when the GOP was trying to pretend that it cared about moderation. But this would really be the next best thing, politically speaking. Let them once again parade their utter radicalism and craven indebtedness to the extremists in our midst, and let the story, for the remainder of this election cycle, be that the GOP threw moderation and the rules out the window in order to seat a nutcase nominee, far outside of the American mainstream, on the Supreme Court.
First Social Security, then the Iraq fiasco, then Schiavo and now this. If the wingnuts had to come into power, then at least let them act like true wingnuts when they got it.
Posted by at July 3, 2005 10:50 PMThe May compromise got pretty significant media play - I think you're underestimating how educated the public is on this issue.
Posted by Matt Langer at July 3, 2005 10:51 PMMatt, you may be right. But given what I've seen around me (granted, a limited sampling) most people aren't wondering how the democrats are going to get around "extraordinary circumstances." They will be concentrating on the issues. Who's going to carry their torch for them.
Posted by addy at July 3, 2005 10:59 PMHere's the point on the nuclear option deal vis a vis Supreme Court nominees: it doesn't mean shit. Supreme Court fights are bloody, public fights, and damage can be done no matter who wins and loses. The goal for the Dems isn't stopping a Bush appointee, it's showing the country that the Republican Party will do anything to install a crazy person on the Supreme Court. Make it ugly as hell, and force people to choose sides.
Posted by Pixie at July 3, 2005 11:32 PM“And the Democrats should be ready to force the GOP to the wall on this, even if the nuclear option deal and the filibuster go out the window in the process.”
Indeed, Steve. If the options are devilish opting for the lesser devil is the clear choice.
In the mean time let us hope that soon, with the dems manning the ship, those other important issues that need to be addressed will take their deserved precedence. But, in my humble opinion, for the time being trying to ensure that those empowered with making dictums that will affect the lives of our children and grandchildren are not right-wing nuts takes the cake.
Paz
P.S. I wonder if Bones is going to bring his phobia towards non-taxpayers on this thread, too…
One day, I hope that the Democrats finally understand that you can't make deals with the devil. Arlene Spector can wish all day long that Bush would nominate a moderate who would bring people together instead of someone who would be divisive, but it just isn't going to happen. Bush wants a fight, and the hell with unity.
Posted by Judith at July 4, 2005 01:02 AMThere may be hope for an interesting split in the between the plutocratic branch and the Christipublican wing of the party. The LA Times had an interesting article, (free registration) available through David Sirota's blog. My favorite gang of thieves, the US Chamber of Commerce, has many millions and battle-ready PACs ready to push for a suitable-to-business judge. They've already sent Karl a wish list.
In the meantime, "Moonie" Dobson, Fallwell and the other holy rollers have been working themselve up for this opportunity for at least the last two decades. I sincerely hope that they can't find a knuckle dragging, olde timey religion champion who is also acceptable to billionaires. If they don't, we could enjoy the ironic spectacle of both wings inadvertantly joining us in tearing down unacceptable candidates, the only kind we have any reasonable expectation of seeing. If the wingnuts win, we take that to the 2006 elections and push it hard. If the plutocrats, Bushie's base, win, the true believers might just pick up their marbles and form a splinter party of Krist. After all, the snakes must all be slithering to position themselves as the next Billy Graham. Ol' Karl would simply cry!
As to the nooculer option, I would love to see just one Senator launch a pre-emptive example of life after the bomb. When the egregious "Energy" bill comes up for consideration, he or she should refuse unanimous consent and demand it be read into the record, all more than 1200(?) pages. Maybe the more thoughtful (I know), maybe those more vulnerable Republicans would consider more deeply the cons as well as the pros of the plan.
Posted by DeminNewJ at July 4, 2005 04:00 AMshiavo...dems 1- repugs 0
social security...dems 1- repugs 0
bolton dems...1-repugs
downing street memo
plame and rove
approval ratings
iraq..etc...etc...etc...
i hope the fraud nominates the most conservative he can find...the repgs have the congress for now..the dems have public opinion ...the fraud is a liar and really hasn't been right about anything..ever...so let the fight begin..conservatives are in a lose lose...2006 will be the time for payment...the start of impeachment for their crimes..
Posted by dennis at July 4, 2005 04:17 AMWell, it looks like the fight may yet happen under the maximum spotlight. I too wish that this could have waited until next year when the public's attention would have been greater. But, you have to play the cards you have. No matter what happens remember, we have the demographics and if they do kill the filibuster then within a few years they will regret it.
Posted by rlprather at July 4, 2005 04:19 AMfor the fringe right..it has ALWAYS been about abortion...this fight will be about abortion..it's at their core..cause they're crazy..to them your rights end when you're born...they touch roe vs. wade..they lose the women ..they will lose power for another 40 years...all that they do is driven by religion..and i think a sick ideology...about 30% of the people in this country are just plain stupid or bleeping crazy they captured another 20% through fear lies and deceit...the fraud in the white house thinks stem cell research is immoral..and lies our children into a war..scott mcclellan...speaking for the fraud says with a staight face " its rediculous to think that karl rove had ANYTHING to do with the valerie plame"...let the fraud name anyone he wants...it's over for them...they..in the end will be lucky to escape jail...
Posted by dennis at July 4, 2005 04:53 AMDems should pull a Bush and say Bring em on.
The large majority of Americans do NOT want a radical extreme judicial nominee and if that is what Shrubster brings forth no idiotic "deal" between only 14 Senators is going to factor into the opinion of what most Americans want for a SCOTUS nominee. If some agreement between only 14 people is used usurp the will of the majority of Americans, go right ahead ....that is right up there with the dirty 5 who picked the 2000 president despite his opponent having the majority votes in the country.
Actually, I am glad that the nomination for the Supreme Court is now and not closer to the 2006 elections. With Bush being confronted with a new appointment now, the focus is solely on that nomination and not lost in all the bs confronting the electorate as we near the 2006 campaigns.
Posted by Judith at July 4, 2005 06:39 AMSteve,
I was one of those that disagreed with you on this rotten deal concerning the use of the judicial filibuster. I thought that the Democrats got conned, and it sure looks like they did. Did anyone catch the fact that Janice Rogers Brown and Owens were mentioned as possible replacements for O'Conner? I am not sure that Bush will pick either of those extremists for the bench, but the fact that they were thrown in as possibles shows how bad the so called deal of the gang of 14 was.
It is now showtime for so called centrists and moderates of both parties. The centrists in the Republican Party will either have to defy their precious President on his Supreme Court nominee, or they will have to explain to their constituents why they voted for a hard right Supreme Court nominee, which I think Bush will nominate. As for the centrists Democrats, well, who the hell knows what they will do? Sadly most do not have any principles except for "compromise" (caving in).
Posted by Merlin1963 at July 4, 2005 06:58 AMdems didn't get conned they bought some time that's all...fact is if frist had his votes the way he wanted ..he would have won...dems did what they could for now..the political climate is changing little by little..
Posted by dennis at July 4, 2005 07:09 AMBen Nelson could vote for cloture on a Bush Nominee, and turn around and vote to preserve the filibuster -- which is the only vote that matters.
The deal brokered by the Gang of 14 only put off Nuclear Holocaust in the Senate -- which may have been the best they could hope for at time. Once the Filibuster is lost, it is lost forever -- and the Nixonian Imperial Presidency will be in place, with an impotent and subservient Congress. This is how our Democracy is transformed into a Dictatorship -- which is a heck of a lot easier for George W Bush, so long as he is the Dictator.
The question is -- can we find enough GOP Senators who love their country more than they fear the wrath of Bush?
Posted by ck at July 4, 2005 07:48 AMAn overstep on the court appointments, will be just as fatal to this administration as an overstep on foreign policy. Team Bush seems hell bent on hanging itself, before even the end of the summer.
Posted by patience at July 4, 2005 08:13 AMcharles colsen of nixon fame..hadf a sign that hung on his wall it read..when you have them by the balls their hearts and minds will follow...
the frauds numbers keep dropping..some repugs will develope a consience
Posted by dennis at July 4, 2005 08:19 AMI agree that republicans can yell and scream but seems to me Harry Reid has his troops united so there is NO WAY a right winger extermist is getting thru - the big thing democrats have to remind voters is that Sandra is only resigning after her replacement has been named therefore it is concevable to go into the next session of supreme court without a new judge.
Posted by smartone at July 4, 2005 08:37 AMJust don't let bushco declare victory, which is what they do best. They act as if his poll numbers are in the +50's instead of the -40's, not because they think its so, but because it's what makes their strategy work for them.
And don't assume that because people don't talk about it, they aren't aware of some things. It's only nuts like us bloggers and C-SPAN junkies that talk about this stuff incessently.
People know about Supreme Court Justices. People know that those two chicks just put on the appeals court just got put on the appeals court, they're just smokescreen material, not legit Supreme Court Justice material.
bush has no mandate, bush has no moral authority, bush is an incompetent fraud. And he's going to lose.
This isn't some Roadrunner cartoon where the Coyote runs off the cliff and keeps running only until he looks down. bush is off the cliff and plunging down his imminent splatdown. And I can't wait.
Posted by Duckman GR at July 4, 2005 09:09 AMIs it possible that those 7 republicans who made the deal with the dems to prevent the nuclear option actually had the larger picture in view? Could they actually vote with the dems to prevent an extremist jurist? There are a few among them I believe who are pro-choice (Olymia Snowe for one)who may feel compelled to reject an anti-choice nominee. The political realities for SCOTUS votes are much more important than the lower court appointments, and some of them probably know that a vote for an anti-choice nominee will be equated to a vote against Roe v. Wade. That's the kind of thing that could cost a seator his/her job.
Posted by Oaklander at July 4, 2005 09:09 AMWomen will be watching the voting on Bush's nomination, whomever that might be. A sure way for the GOP to lose the support of Choice women, is to nominate a candidate who does not support Roe v. Wade. Believe me, that question will be asked in one form or another.
Posted by Judith at July 4, 2005 09:31 AMi think the rove story will prove important..even the resident trolls and other looney tunes may be outraged when they see that karl is either a traitor or a purjurer... who used national security for political purposes..naughty naughty boys these clowns
Posted by dennis at July 4, 2005 09:47 AMI think the idiot son of George Bush will wait until closer to Labor Day to make the appointment. The republi-con and neo-con machine, unable to judge public opinion sinced they started making their own reality as far as public opinion goes, will use the nomination to advance their electoral strategy coming into the 2006 election cycle. I think "Abu" Gonzales will get the nod in an attempt to pull the latino vote. But if the neo-cons try to soldify their base on the right (which in this instance would be right of Dobson), who knows what waste of human DNA will get the nod.
Posted by phidipides at July 4, 2005 10:11 AMMuckdog, Thanks for the laugh. At last you make a post that doesn't piss me off! Maybe next you'll come over to the light side. Nah, Probably not. Happy 4th.
Posted by Oaklander at July 4, 2005 10:39 AMOne would have to be dumber than dog shit to believe the GOP would lend a reasonable interpretation to "extraordinary circumstances," like say, a nominee to SCOTUS who will be MAKING law. However, I supported the compromise for one reason only: that it would make the inevitable showdown more PUBLIC and more visible to the sheeple, many of whom DO care about the SCOTUS. Accordingly, I believe the GOP stands to take a huge fall if they go nook on the filibuster because numerous Americans support existing Senate tradition and understand why it's in place.
Posted by marblex at July 4, 2005 10:45 AMThe goal for the Dems isn't stopping a Bush appointee, it's showing the country that the Republican Party will do anything to install a crazy person on the Supreme Court.
Dead right. Bush is going to get a conservative nominee--somebody we'll hate. The only thing we can hope for, and the object of any strategy, is to make sure that the nomination process leaves the GOP looking like a very scary outfit. There is no winning the battle we face, but the way we lose is of the utmost importance.
Posted by at July 4, 2005 12:48 PMAlthough I agree with some of your comments, I have to say that the article is also a little misleading.
1) 42% approval rating? Latest polls that I saw show that the approval rating is closer to something like 46-48%. Please provide a link...
2) 42% support-for-impeachment? False. The poll said that 42% would support impeachment IF IT WAS PROVEN THAT BUSH HAD LIED ABOUT IRAQ. Since no proof currently exists, and we're not going to see proof for awhile, then this is a misinterpretation of the poll.
3) The polls I saw showed that people actually SUPPORTED the nuclear option. Please provide a link showing where people support the democrats in this case.
I am a through and through Democrat, I'm not bringing up these issues to undermind you. I'm bringing up these issues to you can strengthen your argument against criticism.
Posted by Russell at July 5, 2005 04:41 PMRussell: noted.
Has a filibuster (one that has been carried out rather than threatened) ever delayed action in the Senate for more than a couple of days?
I hope GWB nominates a solid constitutionalist whether or not the left views him or her as a noxious knuckle-dragger. Let's have the debate, and either ride out or nuke the filibuster; I am indifferent to which option we take.
If there is a filibuster, it will end (they all have, in less than two days) and we will then have a vote (as there has always been after every filibuster that I have read about) and our Justice will be confirmed. Then we move on to the next (Rehnquist) where we move Scalia to Chief and nominate another strict constructionist to replace Rehnquist and maintain a majority bloc.
Posted by Marcus Agrippa at July 5, 2005 06:03 PM