...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...
Remember the following when the Senate Democrats cry "extreme circumstances."
Bush . . . stated that Americans 'expect a Senate confirmation process that rises above partisanship.' Indeed... we expect and desrve a quick confirmation. Bush did right by establishing what the precedent of fair treatment is. The 1993 confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who replaced a retiring conservative, was voted on an confirmed with 96 votes a mere 42 days after her nomination was submitted by President Clinton in 1993. Some liberal pundits have suggested that Bush's victory in November doesn't give him a 'mandate' to replace O'Connor with a conservative. However, Clinton, in his first year of office after winning without a majority of the vote had a near painless confirmation process for his nominee, who, as I previously mentioned, replaced a retiring conservative.From Blogs For Bush.
Annie:
I had a simiar discussion with Orren Hatch one day at lunch, as I was compaining that I had helped Barbara Boxer get two tough nominations through the Republican Senate, working with him on both.
I asked him why there is no reciprocity, to which he answered "They don't play fairly like we do; winning is more important than integrity or justice."
You cannot deal logically with one who is not logical.
Posted by: shelly on Jul. 16, 2005Yes, Annika. Yes, Shelly. Let us remember this example the next million times we hear the Republicans urged to give up some political something in order to win the good will of the Democrats:
1) Thomas is Borked.
2) Ginsburg is politely confirmed.
3) Confirmation hell breaks out against Bush' appointees.
I remember Annika herself creating this negotiation meme:
"Never give up a concession to gain goodwill."
I completely agree.
Posted by: gcotharn on Jul. 16, 2005Which is to say:
GO FORWARD WITH THE NUCLEAR/CONSTITUTIONAL OPTION!!!!!
K-rist, can't you people get laid on a Saturday? Me either, so when the blood letting comes, if you don't have a target, keep your head down so you don't get hit. Yes I HAVE been drinking.
Posted by: Casca on Jul. 16, 2005Nuclear Option. Easier said than done. (except by W)
Frist was not shy, he just didn't have the 50 to do it, viz. "The gang of 14".
That so called "compromise", as distasteful as it was to many of us, may yet turn out to be the key to the rules change.
If the Dems who were part of the 14 try to allege that "unusual circumstances" exist in a situation where the 7 R's (or even enough of them) disagree, perhaps some of the squishes will actually grow a spinal cord and join Frist, the rest of thie party and W in getting the rule changed once and for all.
I think this was the thinking of at least Lindsay Graham, Mike Dewine and John Warner, who did sign on to the compromise. The others were the usual suspects, John McCain, Susan Collins, Olympia Snow and Lincoln Chaffee.
I was personally surpised not to see Chuck Hagel in the deal, as he was always one of those who was iffy on the cloture vote. He may still be.
I am bothered by just one thing, and that is the fact that I am a pro-choice Republican; otherwise I am conservative about every other major issue.
I am not sure that I want to open the door for Bush or the right wing part of my party to jam in a couple or three of pro-lifers in order to change the 6-3 Roe v. Wade vote to 5-4 the other way.
You never get it all, do you?
Posted by: shelly on Jul. 16, 2005Shelly,
Interesting point - I wish I believed the Stupid Party was smart enough to "win by losing" via 7 Repub Senators joining the "gang of 14." Maybe they are smart enough. Maybe the Great Pumpkin.... oh never mind.
Posted by: gcotharn on Jul. 17, 2005