On the eve of meltdown, the Senate center holds, producing a compromise that allows three Dubya judges — Priscilla Owen, Janice Brown, and William Pryor — through in return for a nuclear standdown. The Dems are heralding this as a victory, but, with Rehnquist in ill health, this may just postpone the conflict…
Tag: Democrats
Duck and Cover.
Opportunities for a compromise dwindle as the Senate verges on the precipice of nuclear meltdown. Honestly, it’s still hard for me to fathom Frist having the votes.
Dems at the Gem.
Howard Dean, meet Al Swearingen. ‘Deadwood”s skepticism of government and celebration of individuality couldn’t be timelier. And its viciously profane yet pragmatic demonstrations of tolerance feel more stiff-spined and American than an anti-defamation industry that has been enthusiastically adopted by the same conservatives who once mocked it.” Salon‘s Matt Welch gamely makes the case for “Deadwood Democrats.”
Eve of Destruction.
As Frist’s press secretary gets tang-tungled trying in vain to explain her boss’s support for a 2000 judicial filibuster, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), one of Catkiller‘s stooges (who also blamed courthouse violence on activist judges a few weeks ago), sets the nuclear gambit in motion with a call for cloture. This will come to a head Tuesday, unless the moderates can avert the cataclysm. “Throughout the past three days of debate, Democratic senators pointed repeatedly to the Senate’s approval of 208 of Bush’s judicial nominees. Instead of being satisfied with a 95 percent success rate, the highest for a president’s judicial nominees in the past two decades, Bush has shown that he wants to have everything his way, the Democrats charged. By comparison, Republicans blocked 69 of President Clinton’s judicial nominees during his two terms.”
Nuclear Chess.
As Frist’s nuclear countdown ticks off, Senate moderates attempt a compromise, Senate aides hone their maneuvering, and Senate freakshow Rick Santorum (R-PA) invokes Godwin’s Law in claiming that Dems were “the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, ‘I’m in Paris. How dare you invade me?’” (C-SPAN link via Quiddity.)
Catkiller’s Big Day.
Undeterred by the Dem’s last-minute attempt to let less-controversial judges pass through first, Bill Frist initiates the nuclear countdown in the Senate. “‘I don’t rise for party,’ said Senator Frist. ‘I rise for principle.’” That is to say, the principle of seeing all the right-wing fundies line up behind his 2008 presidential bid.
Defcon 2.
Nuclear negotiations break down between Reid and Frist, setting the stage for a cataclysmic Senate meltdown this week over Karl Rove’s pet judge, Priscilla Owen. (That is, unless the Ben Nelson-John McCain compromise — which seems a considerable capitulation by the Dems — gains currency with the GOP.) Can Catkiller really have the votes? Surely, there are more than three so-called “conservatives” in the Senate who would vote against this type of radical rule change. Or has the GOP sunk so low? Update: A few days old now, but ah well: Salon offers a handy nuclear primer.
Burying the Hatchet (and the Lede)
“I know it’s a bit of an odd-fellow, or odd-woman, mix,’ she said. ‘But the speaker and I have been talking about health care and national security now for several years, and I find that he and I have a lot in common in the way we see the problem.'” As a testament to politics making strange bedfellows, Hillary and Newt make the rounds. But will this type of bipartisan rapprochement seem antiquated after we enter the Nuclear Age next week?
Nuclear Apostasy.
“The Republicans’ hands aren’t clean on this either. What we did with Bill Clinton’s nominees — about 62 of them — we just didn’t give them votes in committee or we didn’t bring them up.” On ABC’s This Week, Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE) pretty much announces he’s not voting for the nuclear option. “‘My goodness,’ Hagel said, ‘you’ve got 100 United States senators. Some of us might be moderately intelligent enough to figure this out. We would, I think, debase our system and fail our country if we don’t [work it out.]”
All’s Blair.
Upon Tony Blair’s third election victory (albeit one that may well lead to his ousting), the WP‘s Dan Balz makes the case that the Dems could learn much from Labor “Blairism”. I don’t think simply moving to the center is the right answer for the wayward Dems — We need to focus less on that type of protective camouflage and more on articulating our own principles, particularly as they differ from those of the GOP, who routinely and as a matter of pride put corporate profits before the American people. Still, there is some food for thought here.
One intriguing passage: “Where Blair, Brown and Labor cannot help the Democrats is on the social issues or the intersection of religion and politics. There is nothing comparable in British politics. Howard tried to make abortion an issue at one point but quickly abandoned it under pressure from all parts of the spectrum. When Blair proposed using the words ‘God bless’ in a speech before the Iraq war, his advisers hooted him down.”