Monday, May 23, 2005
A deal? Yes.
CNN says "Senators announce deal on judicial nominees, aimed at averting showdown vote over filibusters. Details soon."
Please, Dear God, don't let it be Whiney Joe... No, apparently it's Ben "Dover" Nelson:
I don't get it. The Republicans have taken away everything but the filibuster (blue slips, etc.) So what good is a "right" to block votes with no power to enforce it? Especially when what was once "extraordinary" is now routine, as the theocrats consolidate their control?
More from Ben "Dover" Nelson:
Really? Why? The "up-or-down vote" thing is a Republican talking point. Why mimic it, and what's good about it?
Of course, the bright side is that the deal was brokered in McCain's office. So McCain (2008) fucks Frist (2008) over big time, which is righteous.
Another bright spot is that it still takes 67 votes to change the rules. If "breaking the rules to change the rules" is the essential issue, the truly gross abuse of power, then this is a Dem win, hands-down. It also means that the Republicans will be less able to ram through their agenda, yes?
And one more bright spot: I didn't hear any Dems promise not to push our agenda. In fact, aren't the bills to do that on the floor already? Heck, we promised not to filibuster in extraordinary circumstances. We didn't promise not to fuck Frist's ability to control the floor (which obviously he can't do anyhow).
Dunno. If I were any good at politics, I'd be a politician! The warrior in me wants to take the fight to the enemy, and go down fighting, rather than live a life not worth living. Perhaps that's not the best way to win elections, though.
I think I'll wait to see what Reid says. But right now I'm thinking this fight was the Republicans to win, and they didn't win.
The highwater mark of the theocracy?
Please, Dear God, don't let it be Whiney Joe... No, apparently it's Ben "Dover" Nelson:
Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."
For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.
(AP via FUX
I don't get it. The Republicans have taken away everything but the filibuster (blue slips, etc.) So what good is a "right" to block votes with no power to enforce it? Especially when what was once "extraordinary" is now routine, as the theocrats consolidate their control?
More from Ben "Dover" Nelson:
“I think it’s a positive step to be able to set aside the nuclear option and also get as many judges as we can in these circumstances an up-or-down vote,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., at the news conference.
(via MSNBC)
Really? Why? The "up-or-down vote" thing is a Republican talking point. Why mimic it, and what's good about it?
Of course, the bright side is that the deal was brokered in McCain's office. So McCain (2008) fucks Frist (2008) over big time, which is righteous.
Another bright spot is that it still takes 67 votes to change the rules. If "breaking the rules to change the rules" is the essential issue, the truly gross abuse of power, then this is a Dem win, hands-down. It also means that the Republicans will be less able to ram through their agenda, yes?
And one more bright spot: I didn't hear any Dems promise not to push our agenda. In fact, aren't the bills to do that on the floor already? Heck, we promised not to filibuster in extraordinary circumstances. We didn't promise not to fuck Frist's ability to control the floor (which obviously he can't do anyhow).
Dunno. If I were any good at politics, I'd be a politician! The warrior in me wants to take the fight to the enemy, and go down fighting, rather than live a life not worth living. Perhaps that's not the best way to win elections, though.
I think I'll wait to see what Reid says. But right now I'm thinking this fight was the Republicans to win, and they didn't win.
The highwater mark of the theocracy?
