Daily Kos

Feingold response, blocked judges

by kos

Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:35:18 PM PDT

For those who want to be angry at the deal, Feingold is with you:
This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House. Confirming unacceptable judicial nominations is simply a green light for the Bush administration to send more nominees who lack the judicial temperament or record to serve in these lifetime positions. I value the many traditions of the Senate, including the tradition of bipartisanship to forge consensus. I do not, however, value threatening to disregard an important Senate tradition, like occasional unlimited debate, when necessary. I respect all my colleagues very much who thought to end this playground squabble over judges, but I am disappointed in this deal.
As an aside, the following judges are NOT getting an up or down vote: William Myers, Henry Said, Brett Kavanaughm William Haynes.
  • ::

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 510 comments

  •  The presidential hopefuls... (4.00 / 2)

    of '08 are staking out their positions.

    Carrie French, age 19, died in Iraq on June 5, 2005. Why?

    by Susan S on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:31:35 PM PDT

    •  Frist is no longer a Presidential hopeful (4.00 / 2)

      He doesn't have a base. Robertson said a few weeks ago that Frist doesn't have a chance, and now Dobson's flock thinks of him as a complete failure.

      by srbaxley on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:52:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  regardless -- (3.50 / 2)

        I have every expectation that his ambition will still drive him to seek the nomination.

        With the far right radicals not about to carry Frist's water any longer, is it presumable that Allen then is the likely recipient? The thought of George Allen [or Santorum or Brownback] as the Republican nominee does make me shudder; not out of fear that he'll win, but out of fear that he was even that close to winning. Hell, he could win.

        Not if WE have anything to say/do about it... and we have LOTS to say/do about it :)

        www.michiganliberal.com -- Check it out!

        by Michael McGuinness on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:09:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They will have to fight (3.50 / 2)

          Allen, frist Santorum and/or Brownback will have to fight it out to show the extreme wingnuts who is the wingiest!  This will be a major battle and one that may doom them from the start.  If it doesn't and majority are not scared by the lot of them....then I'm moving far, far away!

          by houndog on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:43:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Any Republican nominee is scary (none / 1)

          They voted for Shrubya twice. You can't get more sheeplike than that. George Allen is apparently the most likely (and the dumbest, which is interesting in some puppetmaster way I can't quite put my finger on). The important thing is how the campaign is waged after their candidate is chosen. Frist will run because he doesn't have anything else to do after he gives up his Senate seat, but he has zero hope of actually winning the nomination. This also torpedoes McCain's chances because Dobson's crew will go all-out against him. They think of him as a traitor, and these are the people who vote in primaries. He looked good in his victory speech earlier, but I don't think this helps him politically.

          by srbaxley on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:44:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ummm... (none / 1)

          ...shouldn't we, like the repugs in '03, hope for the most unelectable opponent possible?

          Remember when they were salivating at the prospect of running against Dean?

          We should hope for someone as bad as Frist. You can bet they hope we pick Hillary.

          Anybody heard about a so-called underground movement for Cheny '08?

          The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

          by dj angst on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:46:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yep (none / 0)

            I'd vote for Frist in the primary right now if I could.  This guy is so beatable it's a joke.  But ofcourse that is why he won't be there in the end, and is the same reason Dean was not around in the end either.

            As for Hillary.  I can't get my mind around her chances yet.  As a female candidate from New York, I think oh god, not again.  But then I ponder the reality that she is a Clinton, and all conventional wisdom goes out the door when it involves the Clintons.  I can tell you one thing, she will have the best advisers in the business, starting with Big Willy.  

            by Chidem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:17:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'll vote for Hillary (none / 1)

              just to see the shots of Bill going out to get the paper in his robe and slippers.

              by spatne on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:48:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ha (none / 0)

                No kidding.  He would love being first "lady."  It would be the ultimate fuck you to every Republican out there.

                by Chidem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:52:08 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That's right. (none / 0)

                  "President Clinton". It would be payback for Bush II.

                  John McCain '08 - Stay The Corpse!

                  by kitebro on Tue May 24, 2005 at 05:16:13 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  On George Allen (none / 0)

                    George Allen is essentially Bush the Turd with the sharp edges rubbed off.  He's dumber than dog-doo who isn't as mean as Bush is, and is the pawn of rightwingers.

                    However, he's also connected to the huge VA GOP corruption scandal, AND he's also been hanging out with the Dobson crowd.  Considering how unpopular the Dobsonites are becoming, this can be used against him -- especially if the Reid/Feldman "The Senate (Democratic Caucus) Stands with the People" framing takes root.  (Which reminds me:  We should all thank Terri Schiavo for causing the Dobsonite wingnuts to reveal their worst sides to everyone!)

                    John McCain will end Roe v. Wade if he's president.

                    by Phoenix Woman on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:09:47 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  I'll vote for Hillary (none / 1)

                just to see if she can make some winger heads explode. They really loathe her for some reason.

                by Admiral Santa on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:52:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because she is a (none / 0)

                  Clinton and they are the only politicians over the past 20 years the radical right Republicans have been unable to destroy.  

                  In fact, everytime they go after one of them, their poll numbers jump.  

                  by Chidem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:56:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Unfortunately (none / 0)

                  It wouldn't be wingers heads exploding. It would be those who nominated Hillary having their heads explode as they realize that the minority of the party who declined to nominate her, felt so strongly that they voted Green, Independent, or even for McCain.

                  Believe you me.

                  by NewDirection on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:04:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'd give you a 10 (none / 1)

                    for that one if I could.

                    If Hillary gets the nod, I will walk back out the Dem door .... again...  I'm really trying to help the party, but if they continue to refuse to listen to the progressive wing, then they will keep loosing and I might as well be putting my efforts behind my beliefs and try to build a replacement to step in at the right time.

                    Healthcare for ALL! NOW! & OneCare at MySpace

                    by SarahLee on Tue May 24, 2005 at 01:11:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Great Tragedy (none / 1)

                      Is that centrists, or those who are centrists on the issues being highlighted in the campaign, like Kerry, keep getting called "liberal." In light of how clueless so many Americans are politically I suspect many people think that "liberal" actually means the positions of folks like Hillary.

                      Democratic primary voters and party honchos, getting the message that people don't like "liberal," but missing that they are condemning that wich the label is applied to, not what it means, then favor more and more centrist candidates... And down the spiral we go.

                      by NewDirection on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:23:24 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  we've forgotten... (none / 1)

                The Roman emperors used to say that if you wanted history to remember you fondly make sure the emperor that succeeded you was worse.

                We've had four years of the worst president in history and that makes Bill Clinton's administration seem like the era of enlightenment.

                However, I remember those days and remember how WJC wouldn't stand on principle - continuing to water down his plans just to get something passed.  He was also too quick to deal with the Republicans instead of fight them.  I also remember how many of his policies were actually quite conservative.  Now, the Clintons look like ultra-liberal intellectuals next to GWB - but that wasn't so just 5 yrs ago.

                Anything but McBush

                by jpeskoff on Tue May 24, 2005 at 06:07:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  There are some journalists (none / 1)

            On Chris Matthews show a week ago Sunday who think that Cheney will be asked to run if the other far right candidates do not catch on with the public and poll badly. I can see Rove and Bush begging Darth Cheney to save the party and emerge as the anointed. Cheney could say he is the reluctant candidate but patriotism and duty call and all that horseshit.

            Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

            by wishingwell on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:18:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No way!!! (none / 1)

              Having Cheney run would be awesome...  In general, the American public really dislikes him.  He's doesn't have the "guy you can cozy up with at a BBQ" quality which seems to be the most important factor in getting votes nowadays.  Run, Cheney, run!!!

              Thanks,

              Mike

              The United States of America--the only country in the world where being educated and cultured actually *lowers* your social and political standing.

              by LordMike on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:40:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Run Cheney!! (none / 1)

                Crank that treadmill up to 11 and RUN Baby!!!! (give those Duracells a GOOD workout!)

                by sooner on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:02:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLL (none / 0)

                  Thanks, I needed a good , deep ,laugh!!!!

                  He is a very unlikeable SOB. A Republican friend of mine said Cheney scares the living shit out of him. I told him ...well Cheney runs the country now as it is...wake up....You should have thought of that in November. Really some GOPers really are naive and thinks Bush runs Cheney.LOL>>>LOL..what sheep..baaa baaa..
                  Can you see Cheney on the campaign trail when he did not even want to stand at the debates? He would go to these rallies and sit on a stool and only did these small gatherings. He would talk in a monotone and never stand up.

                  Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

                  by wishingwell on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:35:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Run Cheney Run ! (none / 0)

                  That guy makes DR. Evil look like Santa Clause.

                  by jackieca on Mon May 23, 2005 at 11:05:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Then we can crank out the song... (none / 0)

                Ch..Ch..Che..Cheney of Fools....

                Cheney will need an extra set of batteries, a crash cart at every rally, debate, State of the Union Address, Meeting, Press Conference....he will need a cardiologist instead of a Press Secretary.

                Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. Martin Luther King Jr.

                by wishingwell on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:38:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Don't believe it for a second (none / 0)

              Of course, I still think there is a chance he doesn't even make it out of this term as a way to allow a hand-picked successor to assume the throne.  

              by Chidem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:54:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Dean "unelectable" (3.75 / 4)

            Remember when they were salivating at the prospect of running against Dean?

            Don't you mean "Remember when they were pretending to salivate at the prospect of running against Dean"?

            If they really wanted to run against Dean, why did they keep saying publicly that they did? Why was Dean the only one that Republicans ran ads against in Iowa? How stupid do you think they are? Do you honestly think they were looking forward to running against a budget-balancing, NRA approved straight-talking tough guy who provided healthcare for every child in his state and had a consistent and courageous stance against a war that was rapidly turning into a debacle, and was proving a phenomenal, unprecedented fundraising ability from 100s of 1000s of grassroots supporters? Seriously. Republicans played Dem primary voters like a violin and they're still probably laughing about it.

            Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.

            by miasmo on Tue May 24, 2005 at 06:24:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  On a similar note, (none / 1)

              who do you suppose they want to face this time? All I hear from Republicans (the ones they put on the TV, that is) is "Of coarse she'll get the nomination" and "I'm sure she'll be a very strong candidate." That's what genuine salivation looks like.

              Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.

              by miasmo on Tue May 24, 2005 at 06:33:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  This is why we need a national primary. (none / 1)

              "Why was Dean the only one that Republicans ran ads against in Iowa?"

              If we had a national primary, the little shit GOoPer groups like Club For Growth couldn't screw with it as easily.

              Support the troops. Drive a smaller car.

              by republicans are idiots on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:35:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  "What did WE do to deserve...Bush?" (none / 0)

                Hell...that's easy (assuming that by "we" you meant "Democrats").  You nominated that monumental idiot Kerry, who did everything he could to distance himself from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

                "You go to war and you could lose your heart, your mind, your arms, your legs - but you cannot win. The soldiers don't win." -- Anonymous Soldier

                by aybayb on Tue May 24, 2005 at 10:03:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  food for thought... (none / 0)

              ...but with so many layers of deciet, my bile starts to rise.

              Perhaps that's what makes them so successful. The suspension of the gag reflex.

              The Multinationals and the Religious Right have identical goals: Profit from war, ignorance and fear...and the GOP is their Party.

              by dj angst on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:20:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Underground Cheney movement... (none / 0)

            Yes, heard it mentioned two weeks ago on This Week.

            If it's being considered at all, I think it's a ploy to link him up with someone who's not himself electable.  Get the ticket elected and then have Big Dick "resign for health reasons," thereby elevating Mr. Unelectable.

            by Joon on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:04:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I think he means Feingold (4.00 / 2)

        Russ For President

        • • Get Your John McCain - NOPE T-Shirts & Stickers
        •

        by KingOneEye on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:12:29 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Are you kidding? (none / 1)

        He'll start going on about the "backstabbing moderates" and they'll rally around him.

        The fundies don't give two shits about whether a leader fucks up as long as he can use it to feed their persecution complex.

        I have evidently Energised the Discourse and Made Politics Real Again. -Spider Jerusalem

        by agrajag on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:34:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  just a beauty contest (none / 0)

      Senators don't stand a chance in Presidential races, precisely because they're the key players in such sorry spectacles as the "nuclear option".  

      by Big River Bandido on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:57:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  small box there friend (none / 0)

      Feingold speaking his mind is nothing new. To suggests there are other motivations is trivial.

      by jacob wi on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:02:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Senator Hopeful? (none / 0)

      Since 1960, "hopeful" is all that senators have been when it comes to getting elected president. That doesn't mean that this won't change in 2008, but Frist has always looked like an also-ran to me.  I'm wondering who are the crazier-than-batshit Republican governors who might be considering a run.

      by Spideysense on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:06:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The corporate choice (none / 0)

      is Jeb is my guess. Whoever it will be, here's what they'll look like:

      a) they will be malleable and probably stupid
      b) can/will forward the money issues (cutting regulations, social programs, taxes, etc)
      c) talk a good game on social issues but won't push too hard to solve any of them which would negate their utility

      by storme on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:12:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  i agree (none / 0)

      i like feingold. and would probably support him at least initially in the primaries, but i cant help wonder if this is him trying to shore up support with the base (aka us) or what he really believes in. and this is a damn shame that this thought even enters my head because i believe feingold is one of the most principled senators we have. still, politics is politics...

      Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs - Isaiah Berlin

      by grinnellian on Tue May 24, 2005 at 11:11:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Keep,,,,, (none / 0)

        believing it about Feingold.

        After the word principle in the dictionary, there is a picture of Russ.

        Personally, I have loved the guy for years, but no matter what your feelings are about him, no one can ever accuse him of not having principles.  Russ is all about saying, doing, and voting what his conscience tells him, party be damned.  The quality I love most about the man.

        "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4100+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

        by Miss Blue on Tue May 24, 2005 at 12:16:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  thanks (none / 0)

          for the encouragement. i think you're right. i gotta believe in russ. if not him, then who?

          ...and i hope his recent divorce doesnt hurt him in '08. i cant think of the last presidential candidate without a spouse. (though maybe kerry would have done better without teresa)  :)

          Liberty for wolves is death to the lambs - Isaiah Berlin

          by grinnellian on Wed May 25, 2005 at 12:42:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Leahy (4.00 / 2)

    didn't sound like he liked it either, from what I heard on CSPAN earlier.

    Nor did Boxer.

    by Patricia Taylor on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:31:38 PM PDT

    •  I'm disappointed, too. (4.00 / 2)

      I think we might have won.  And, even if we hadn't, we'd have won in the court of public opinion and, thus, in '06.  But I look at it this way.  It was a tie, really.  And a tie when you are a 45 - 55 minority isn't so bad.

      by Anaxamander on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:41:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "a tie when you are a 45 - 55 minority" (4.00 / 8)

        This is about rules. You have enough votes to filibuster at 40. By what logic do you need 51 votes to exercise that right?

        I think this was a win for us, and the failure of a plot against the constitution, but I don't buy that we somehow got more than our numbers were entitled to expect.

        We were reduced to bargaining for the right to have the rules of the Senate apply to our Senators. One vote should be sufficient for that. Anything else is lawless extortion.

        -7.38, -9.23

        by macdust on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:39:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree (2.00 / 2)

          We did win.  This was close to Reids original compromise.  The rethugs wanted a complete go on the supreme court...they didn't get it.  It was all or nothing for them.  We are more reasonable, and that's what wereally wanted.  Closing down Senate business would have been a disaster for us.  We would have lost that battle because, have you noticed lateley.....who the hell has control over the media....not the left as we all know.  We would have lost that one for sure.

          by houndog on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:49:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  America doesn't think you won (4.00 / 3)

            America thinks what the press tells them:


            Moderate senators reach filibuster deal

            Centrists from both parties reached a compromise Monday night to avoid a showdown on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees. (AP)

            You libburl extremists should listen more to the good Democrats, like Lieberman. You and Frist are two peas in a pod. Just the same.

            Nice move, centrists.

            by Smallbottle on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:56:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is a bad deal for America! (4.00 / 8)

              Where is the outrage that 7 Dems and 7 Reps could negotiate away, behind closed doors, an important check and balance on the tyranny of the majority. If our Founding Fathers had followed this path and compromised with the British to give away the rights of the colonies to self-determination of local issues, then there would have been no "United States of America."

              This deal is an affront to democracy. It is an abomination of the institution of the Senate.

              This issue was not solely about which judges would get a vote on the Senate floor, but more importantly, whether the executive branch, through its majority status in the Senate, could effectively neuter or eliminate the last arrow in the quiver of the minority to temper the power of the majority. This was a power struggle between the executive branch and the Senate. To call this power grab a Constitutional Crisis is not an overstatement of the importance or the gravity of the situation.

              As a centrist, I feel that I have been ill-served by both parties.  And that little cabal that brokered the compromise .. I say to them .. "how dare you ... who made you the arbiter of which rights the minority shall have and under which circumstances they may exercise them"? Is this not arrogance of power?

              If some of these Republicans were so loathe to have to vote against their party on this issue and in favor of protecting the institution in which they serve and the democratic checks and balances on which this country depends, then they should not be Senators.

              For the Dems who gave the moderate Reps a lifeline, how dare they whittle away the rights of a democratic institution?

              This deal is un-American and it is antidemocratic.

              And yes, this very calm and rational centrist is OUTRAGED at this compromise.

              by Jon B Good on Tue May 24, 2005 at 12:28:03 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I agree, it sucks. (4.00 / 3)

                How can Democrats talk about how these nominees make us want to puke one minute, but as soon as the Republicans threaten to take away the filibuster, we cave and allow people like William Pryor to have an "up-or-down vote?"

                I'm as pragmatic as the next guy, but does anyone honestly believe that when the SC nominees come down the pike, that the Republicans won't go nuclear if there's even a hint at filibuster?

                This is a bad deal for Democrats, and a bad deal for America.  Democrats lose because they don't have clear principles in their push to become centrist.

                I am getting so tired of Democratic Accomodation when whate we really need Democratic Principles to come back to the forefront.  And we wonder why we keep getting beat.

                Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it.

                by gavodotcom on Tue May 24, 2005 at 04:03:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Its all a matter of trust (4.00 / 2)

                  Which sucks for us.  Yes, the agreement gives a good definition of the advise and consent clause, and it implicitly ties that to the extraordinary cicumstances situation, which should indicate that the republican signees reserve the right to go nuclear only if the president seeks the advice of the democrats and they still filibuster.  Of course, that situation will not happen, almost by definition.  So if the implied agreement is kept to, I consider this a win, as Bush now can't appoint whoever he wants to the SC.  However, since extraordinary conditions are not spelled out clearly, they could claim extraordinary circumstances whenever they want, and we're back to just hoping that they're resposible republicans.  This is exactly where we were on Friday, except now three wingnuts get to the courts.  I'd like to trust that the public will lash out at senators breaking this agreement by going nuclear, but I can definitely see a spin machine saying that the dems went against their word first.

                  "Mr. President, make a little money sending people you don't know to Iraq. Mr. President, I don't like you, you don't know how to rock!" - Dick Valentine

                  by Easy B Oven on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:06:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Options (none / 0)

                I agree that the outcome is bad & hard to swallow.

                Our other option, though, was... the Republicans vote to change the rules and then we have no fillibuster on any judicial nominations ever.  Plus all of the rejecetd lifetime nominees over whom we've been fighting get confirmed.  (In the compromise only 3 of them get confirmed.)

                I'm curious, what outcome do you think would have been better?

                "Calmer than you are."

                by Sheffield on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:01:08 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  What are you talking about? (none / 0)

                The whole point of the deal is to preserve the filibuster, which it did. How can you argue that the group of 14 threw that right away?

                And besides, they have every right to vote the way they want. All they agreed was that they would all vote the same way on two judges (yes on Owen and Brown) and the nuclear option (no). Plus some vague language on filibustering judges in the future "only in extraordinary circumstances," which is laughable. What more could you ask?

                by ColoDem on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:38:29 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Let 's not forget (none / 0)

                what Emiliano Zapata said,  "Es mejor morir de pie que vivir de rodillas" (It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees).

                by Gabby1984 on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:38:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  related quote (none / 0)

                  But what do the dead say?

                  Did anybody ever come back from the dead any single one of the millions who got killed did any one of them ever come back and say by god I'm glad I'm dead because death is always better than dishonor? Did they say I'm glad I died to make the world safe for democracy? Did they say I like death better than losing liberty? Did any of them ever say it's good to think I got my guts blown out for the honor of my country? -Johnny Got His Gun

                  "Can we all get along?"

                  by hotspur on Tue May 24, 2005 at 09:58:55 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The fruits of our victory is ashes in our mouths (4.00 / 2)

              We 'won' the right to avoid a showdown now.  It doesn't guarantee that the nuke option won't be reserved for later use - perhaps on Supreme Court nominees.

              ...and at what cost?  We'll now have the two of most radical right-wing judges ever sitting on District Courts for the remainder of their lives.

              Sometimes in the long-run it is best to fight and lose.

              Anything but McBush

              by jpeskoff on Tue May 24, 2005 at 06:17:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  It was close to Reid's original compromise (none / 0)

            --which is why this is such a crushing defeat for us.

            by corvo on Tue May 24, 2005 at 06:39:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  who controls the media (none / 0)

            a.) Reid's compromise sucked.

            b.) Yeah, they control the media. It's not a level playing field. But hasn't past experience taught us that being bullied into timidity doesn't work? Tolerating abuse doesn't stop the abuse. Dems need to start punching back. Yes, it's going to get ugly. Dems just need to roll up their sleeves and get to it. If Dems continue to play by the rules, we lose, because the rules are rigged for the other team. Either Dems continue to look wishy washy with no principles and continue to lose, or they start speaking truth to power and expose the fraudulent myth that the corporate media is liberal. By not playing the game and by standing up to the media as well as the Republicans, Dems can bring a little clarity to the situation so people can wake up. (note: Dems also need to cleanse themselves of their own sucking at the corporate tit.)

            Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.

            by miasmo on Tue May 24, 2005 at 07:12:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  But with even losing 5 Senators, they could have (none / 0)

          executed a major power grab.  It would have been awful... completely wrong.  But so was Delay's redistricting in Texas.  Didn't stop him.

          by Anaxamander on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:08:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and look what's happening to him! (none / 0)

            he's going down, slowly but surely.

            on this one, messed up as it is, i think we should have had it out, and if they chose to radically alter the Senate rules, they would be judged harshly for doing so in the long term, and in the short term, maybe they eradicate the filibuster, or maybe they impale and totally humiliate themselves.

            now we get this deal instead which restricts minority party rights further, sets a terrible precedent that people such as Brown and Owens weren't worth filibustering, and simply prolongs this struggle until there is a vacancy on SCOTUS or some other important Federal bench.  in the meantime, the cons are going to put the screws to all 7 of the R's who helped engineer this deal, and depending on what kind of ammo they have, they'll corral some votes back to the nuke side...

            John McCain will ban abortion.

            by itsbenj on Tue May 24, 2005 at 12:29:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  2006 (none / 0)

        while we might have won public opinion over reversing the filibuster and the extremists winning, i'm not convinced the public at large will remember anything that happens now in 2006.  

        Who will remember are activist base and the senators themselves.  i do think this is good for us because moderate republicans are going to get tired of the extremists putting them in ridiculous situations.  the republicans have been delayed from enacting other horrible legislation for a few weeks and a lot of political armtwisting was wasted on preserving a practice that has existed for 214 years.

        by kevin19611 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:18:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  When you're sent to a Re-education Camp... (3.00 / 2)

          are you going to be hoping the Moderate RepublicansTM will wake up and save you?

          These people are just political opportunists.  They'll embrace populist and Democratic values when Democrats are in power.  Until then, don't hold your breath.

          Madam, if you were my wife, I would drink it.

          by gavodotcom on Tue May 24, 2005 at 04:07:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Throw Janice in the mix to nix (none / 0)

      and I'd be a lot happier.  She was one of the worst.  But as long as the GOP sees is at a defeat for their side, I'm content.

      Visit RemoveRepublicans.com and follow every 2006 Senate race.

      by AnthonySF on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:50:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Disunity is good (4.00 / 2)

    It shows that we had to give up something.

    The Gas Tax Holiday is a Mental Vacation.

    by JimTXDem on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:32:26 PM PDT

    •  Exactly (none / 0)

      I agree Jim - this response from Feingold is not a bad thing at all. Compromise means that neither side is completely happy, and that's what we've got here. It's a fair deal from a centrist perspective, but I can certainly see how those on both sides would be displeased with it.
      Much analysis of mine over at Charging RINO if you're interested.

      www.chargingrino.com - because not all Republicans have gone off the deep end.

      by JBD on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:39:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I'd call it a slight Republican victory (3.50 / 4)

        ... despite the disappointment of Dobson and the Freepers.  The reason is that the only thing that has changed is that some previously unacceptable judges are getting through: the Dems have not given up the filibuster, and the Reps have not given up the threat of the nuclear option.  One of the Republican "moderates" said straight out that he'd treat any Democratic filibuster in the future as a deal-breaker, meaning the nuclear option will be back on.

        That said, if Reid was unable to line up 51 votes, it might be the best that can be achieved.  But claiming "we won" is just spin.  The small faction of "moderates" can claim victory, but the Senate "moderates" are not centrists by any historical definition; McCain's positions are quite conservative, for example.

        by Joe Buck on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:44:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Squash that bullshit right now (4.00 / 12)

        If I read once more that "compromise means both sides leave the table unhappy" I'm going to puke on my damn keyboard.  

        THERE IS NO COMPROMISE WHEN IT COMES TO BREAKING THE RULES.

        PERIOD.

        END OF STORY.

        We lost this game the minute Reid uttered the word "compromise."  I don't know what Kos and the others were smoking when you guys applauded that move as outflanking Frist.

        The only type of compromise we should have permitted were up or down votes on one of the filibustered 10 for an up or down vote on one previously filibustered/bottled up Clinton Circuit Court nominee.  That's a "compromise."  This is getting robbed and being able to keep $20 for cab fare.

        -Hope never cost Corporate America a dime -Somebody blow Bush so we can impeach him already.

        by DWCG on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:48:49 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  what a liberal attitude (none / 1)

      I'm not sure if I'm trying to be insulting...

      no, not, you are welcome to your opinion, and normally I think I would by default agree.

      But this time I think it was time not to capitulate.

      strong infrastructure and fair play

      by pyrrho on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:54:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree... (4.00 / 4)

        ...oh, I agree wholeheartedly. Feingold appears to be our only Dem with balls, metaphorically speaking, of course, lol. Oops, and Boxer.

        Hope has not failed until the last person gives up the fight.

        by gbreez on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:02:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sen. Reid (none / 1)

          Was just on a replay on CSPAN.  He suggested Bush show some "humility" in his judicial selections.  That man has some balls.

          by colorado thistle on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:08:26 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Feingold was a complete no show till (1.66 / 6)

          after the vote, and he has the big cajones? Please, this is my nomination for the most silly post of the year.

          He is a looser... Three periods - looser, looser, looser. (period.)

          by oysterface on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:47:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you're out of line (none / 0)

            There never was a vote.  Feingold criticized a deal made by 14 senators, a deal which cut out his role in the process by precluding a vote.  Most politicians seek to duck issues until they have to vote on something.  Feingold has taken this one head on, and I admire him for speaking out strongly on behalf of people who feel as I do about this.    

            You've made your distaste for Feingold quite plain, without giving any reasons why you feel that way.  What troubles me about your post is that you come close to citing deliberate falsehoods as presupposition for an attack on someone's character. That's a very right wing thing to do.    

            by Big River Bandido on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:37:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  did Feingold speak out (none / 1)

              on the floor of the Senate?

              No. I'm bashing him only because I'm trying to compare his stance with Hillary - as potential candidates. Many people on dkos said Hillary wouldn't step up to the floor. And criticised her for that. I don't know - criticise her because she is a star or not; but Feingold is a SENIOR SENATOR and he didn't speak out on the floor - I really don't see how he is so worthy of praise and a presidential nomination when he doesn't speak out on the biggest issue of 2005.

              by oysterface on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:55:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  In other words... (none / 1)

                you have an agenda.  

                by Big River Bandido on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:03:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  yes. I do. (2.50 / 2)

                  doesn't everybody? But my agenda in this post and in the last week or so is to try to point out the difference between the latitude that folks give Finegold and the vitriol that they spew (sorry for the blatent adverbial slur) on Hilleray. I think it is sexist. And go ahead and with the zeros and ones and twos. This is bigotry and needs to be called out.

                  by oysterface on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:10:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, Feingold is the junior senator (none / 1)

                from Wisconsin.  He has been in the Senate little more than a dozen years -- not at all a long time in that august assemblage.

                Btw, re Hillary, we discussed in several diaries today that analyses this weekend said that the Dem leadership decided to not have her speak sooner because it would just make the Repugs go ballistic and take attention off the issue of the Senate rules . . . so they saved her for the very last, as she wanted to speak, because by then Frist was next up with the cloture motion.

                Just sayin' -- there was all kinds of strategy going on which was not that evident to us. . . .  And elsewhere, I've suggested -- to some agreement -- that Feingold also may have been held away until now so that he could come out in his maverick ways and issue this warning to the Repugs.

                "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                by Cream City on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:36:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  He did speak out on the Senate floor. (4.00 / 2)

                Sen. Feingold spoke rather eloquently last Tuesday, May 17th.

                Sen. Russ Feingold's statement on the floor of the Senate, Tuesday May 17th

                Some excerpts:

                Article II, Section 2 spells out the Senate's role in nominations. It states, in relevant part, that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..." That's it. Some have managed to find in those few words a requirement that the Senate give all judicial nominees up-or-down votes. Even if someone isn't a strict constructionist, I can't for the life of me understand where they get that from. It may be the policy they prefer, but it's not a constitutional requirement.

                He's 100% correct in the above statement and that which preceeds it regarding the Republicans' attempt to change the name of their attempted coup to the "constitutional option".

                The Constitution does not prohibit opponents of a judicial nominee, or any nominee for that matter, from using a filibuster to block a final vote on the nominee. The majority does not have a constitutional right to confirm a nominee and a nominee has no constitutional right to a vote. As the senior Senator from West Virginia said the other day, the Senate has often denied consent to a nominee in the past by refusing to schedule a final vote. I have not always supported those actions, but I have not pretended that they are unconstitutional.

                Sen. Feingold's statements on this issue and every other in the last 4 years have been spot on. I would be proud to vote and work to get him elected in 2008.
                 

                "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

                by green917 on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:37:11 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'll be,,,,,,,,,,,,, (none / 0)

                  right there with you Green.

                  "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4100+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

                  by Miss Blue on Tue May 24, 2005 at 03:57:47 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  my apology (none / 1)

                  Sorry to have gone a bit over the top on this one. Thanks for pointing out Feingold's position and speech. I'm revising my position: I don't think I'd vote for hime in a primary but if he wins there, of course he has my vote. And it wouldn't be an ABB kind of vote. Anyone know where he stands on choice?

                  by oysterface on Tue May 24, 2005 at 06:09:20 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Pro choice,,,,,,,, (none / 0)

                    Russ is pro-choice, and voted against the Partial Birth Abortion ban.

                    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4100+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

                    by Miss Blue on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:01:46 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Clintonian on abortion (none / 0)

                    I.e., on his website: "safe, legal, and rare."

                    Ugh.  Not blaming him for the phrase, but . . . legal is enough to say, as that makes the procedure safer.  (No procedure is always safe.)

                    But rare is a Clintonian concession to the conservatives, allowing all the erosion of Roe v. Wade in the concessions to "moderation."

                    A Constitutional right, as it was so construed, is a Constitutional right.  Are there others that ought to be "rare"?

                    I would like to see Feingold modify this if he does want to move forward as a standard-bearer of progressivism, not of political compromise when it comes to rights.

                    "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                    by Cream City on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:07:03 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Love your posts,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (none / 0)

                      and I seem to recall you have been a fan of Feingold.  

                      The teen pregnancy rate in WI is extremely high - one of the highest in the country.  I think the "rare" part of his statement is an acknowledgement that we must do more to educate people about contraception, abstinance, etc., rather than deal with an unwanted after-effect of unprotected sex.  

                      Russ is still a state Senator, and he has first and foremost, from the day he was elected, put his constituents first.  I really do think this remark was addressed to we in WI.  He most certainly isn't wishy-washy about being pro-choice, or he would not have voted against the partial birth abortion ban.  It was not a popular vote with his more conservative and religious constituents.

                      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4100+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

                      by Miss Blue on Tue May 24, 2005 at 12:24:01 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Fan on all but Ashcroft (none / 0)

                        and the way he conducted his first campaign, but outweighed by much else he does so well.

                        I am an even greater admirer of his rabbi sister, btw.:-)

                        Re teen pregnancy, yes, it is high in Wisconsin, but because we still have (late Great Migration, etc.) a much larger agricultural-to-urban population in transition.  It is dropping fast as that transition is nearing its end stages.

                        Main point is that the term rare is still not acceptable to me.  He just picked it up from Clinton, I suspect, as the party mantra then.

                        So if he means sex education, he can say sex education.  I really doubt that would lose him Dem/liberal votes -- and he's not going to get others who already disagree with him on so much else, as I say, on which he does so well.

                        "Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

                        by Cream City on Tue May 24, 2005 at 02:23:54 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Oysterface, (none / 1)

                You might want to check your facts.  First, Feingold spoke out on May 17.  Here is his statement in the Congressional Record.  "The Senate is now being asked to change the rules by breaking the rules," Feingold said.  "There is no principle involved here. There is just power."

                Second, and less relevant, I don't know what you mean by a senior senator.  Feingold is the junior -- not senior -- Senator from Wisconsin.  Herb Kohl is the senior senator from Wisconsin.

                If you're going to castigate someone, please at least have the relevant facts correct.  

                No complacency. Donate. Contribute. Volunteer.

                by jim bow on Tue May 24, 2005 at 08:27:40 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  respectfully disagree (none / 0)

          There were 37 Democrats who had the courage to not cave in.  We need to give them more courage, and more company.  

          by Big River Bandido on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:51:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  what's that, pyrrho? (none / 0)

        Isn't that supposed to go something like "another victory like this will finish me"?

        eh?  eh?  I love puns.  Or near-puns.

        I'm actually relieved that this ends up politics as usual.  The insaniacs don't get a win, and that's good by me.

        mbr + dv + woyg

        by keirdubois on Mon May 23, 2005 at 08:42:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  pyrrhic victory (4.00 / 4)

      the frame we should be using is the pyrrhic victory.   maybe with a term more accessible to the history-deprived.  what we should be saying is:
      democrats took up the fight to save the senate from an extremist power grab, and in that we were victorious.  but the victory came at great cost.  to begin with three judges known only for their beyond-the-pale right-wing activism will likely be pushed through the senate without discussing the fact that they have been found to be woefully unqualified by the bar, lacking the credentials even for the office of dogcatcher.

      so we get credit for a victory, for sacrifice and also get across that the republic is being permanently damaged by the extremists.

      l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

      by zeke L on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:10:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't see how it was pyrrhic... (none / 0)

        You are assuming that we would have won the nuclear option vote.  We wouldn't have.  Even if it didn't go through the first time, they would do it again until it worked.  I know that's what a lot of people here want, but it's bad for the country.  It's not even that great for us politically, because the elections are still very far away.  Let them try the nuclear option again in July of next year and see their poll ratings drop again.

        If we ever get in power int eh senat again, we have to close this nuclear option loophole.  I don't see how it can exist in the first place!

        Thanks,

        Mike
         

        The United States of America--the only country in the world where being educated and cultured actually *lowers* your social and political standing.

        by LordMike on Mon May 23, 2005 at 09:48:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  maybe you have a different definition? (4.00 / 2)

          whether we might have won the nuclear option vote isn't relevant to whether it was a pyrrhic victory or not, which is defined as
          a victory that is won by incurring terrible losses
          we won in the sense that the filibuster has not been eliminated, but accepted a likely approval of three unqualified extremist judges, something which inflicts terrible damage to the republic.

          and in any event, my main point is that this is the tack we should be taking with the media.  some people here are claiming it as a victory, others think it's a defeat, others are more concerned about how to position it.

          l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

          by zeke L on Mon May 23, 2005 at 10:30:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If it's a victory, (none / 0)

            that means Bush is a lame duck.  

            The influence of the [executive] has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.

            by lysias on Tue May 24, 2005 at 03:30:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Hit the nail on the head.... (4.00 / 2)

            Absolutely pitch-perfect, Zeke.  Our talking points should be

            1. We saved the Senate from extremists who wanted to end the rights of the minority, when those same extremists used those same parliamentary procedures to block 65 of President Clinton's judges.

            2. It came at great cost to us and to this nation, and now several woefully unqualified judges will be given votes.

            3. If the President continues nominating judges better known for their bad judgement and biased opinions than for reasoned and constitution-based decisions, we will stand in opposition to protect the Constitution and the American people.

            ...Feingold is looking pretty good to me.

            Sandra Day O'Connor: "...A state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."

            by radical centrist on Tue May 24, 2005 at 05:55:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  They aren't? (none / 1)

    I thought all the judges were renominations, meaning they had already gotten up or down votes?  

    Please don't use the Republican framing!

    When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

    by RequestedUsername on Mon May 23, 2005 at 07:33:36 PM PDT