Why Do So Many Americans ... NOW INCLUDES: The Top 10 Filibuster Falsehoods

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 3:34pm

Another on-target column from Arianna's blog.

==

THE HUFFINGTON POST
DELIVERING NEWS AND OPINION SINCE MAY 9, 2005
May 19, 2005

John Marttila

Why Do So Many Americans Support the Preservation of the Filibuster?

What's going on? Why do so many Americans support the preservation of the filibuster?

Research shows that most Americans don’t fully understand the filibuster. Yet, in poll after poll, sizable majorities of Americans say they support it. A new national poll released by Time Magazine, for instance, says that Americans support the filibuster by a wide margin of 59% to 22%. In late March, Newsweek’s national poll produced a similar result: Americans support the filibuster by a margin of 57%-32%.

So what is going on? How can Americans feel so strongly about a parliamentary rule they don't fully understand?

The answer in a nutshell: “because of George W. Bush.”

President Bush is making a majority ot Americans very nervous about his plans for our federal courts, particularly the Supreme Court, and they are looking for any and all ways to slow him down. Well, not all Americans, Republicans are cheering for their guy.

First, a little primer on conducting polls during the current polarized environment of the Bush era: Turn on CNN and MSNBC and you will be inundated with poll results from national surveys that ask Americans’ opinion on a variety of issues in the news. While these polls serve some purpose, they very seldom tell the full story.

What most media polls don't tell us are the differences in how Democrats, Republicans, Independents, liberals and conservatives view key issues, This matters, because the country is increasingly polarized in the way we look at President Bush, his signature policies, and the people close to him. Republicans and conservatives have remained remarkably loyal to the President, while Democrats and liberals are skeptical of almost everything he proposes.

This leaves self-identified independents and moderates as the political “tie breakers” in today’s American political scene. They tip the balance in favor or against the president and thus are the ultimate swing constituency. And they are very nervous about the president's judicial intentions.

As an example, it’s worth looking at the details of polling on the filibuster. In a recent national survey that my company conducted for People for the American Way, we found, like Newsweek, that 57% of all Americans – “red” and “blue” – support the preservation of the filibuster. But dig a little deeper and you’ll find that there is more to this story: 74% of Democrats are supportive as are 59% of independents and 66% of moderates! These are very big numbers -- and additional results in the poll explained the results.

We asked Americans whether they thought President Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court "will be more conservative than you would like, not conservative enough, or about right?" 41% of all Americans said the Bush nominees would be more conservative than they would like while 13% said the nominee would not be conservative enough. And what about Independents and moderates? 47% of moderates believe the nominees will be too conservative, while only 10% believe the nominee will not be conservative enough. 50% of independents believe the nominees will be too conservative, while only 10% believe the nominee will be too conservative. By any polling standards, these are decisive margins and reveal considerable anxiety.

And there is more. Overall, by margins of 48-37%, Americans want President Bush to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice who will vote to uphold Roe versus Wade. But if you take Republicans out of the equation, who by margins of 46-39% want Roe overturned, you find the following results: Democrats support upholding Roe by 57-30%, Independents support it by 48-31% and moderates support upholding Roe by margins of 56-27%.

Again, these are very decisive margins and they help us explain why Americans so strongly support the filibuster. The filibuster has become a stalking horse for their growing anxiety about President Bush's intentions on the courts. The country is with the Forces of Light.

Why Do So Many Americans Support the Preservation of the Filibuster?

Updated On: 5/19/05 at 03:34 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 3:58pm

The Top 10 filibuster falsehoods

With Senate debate on two of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominees beginning May 18, the heated rhetoric over the so-called "nuclear option" to ban Senate filibusters on judicial nominations has reached its boiling point. The rules of the Senate thus far remain intact, but filibuster opponents have pulled all rhetorical stops, advancing numerous falsehoods and distortions, and, as Media Matters for America documents below, the media have too often perpetuated that misinformation by unskeptically, and sometimes even deliberately, repeating it.

Falsehood #1: Democrats' filibuster of Bush nominees is "unprecedented"

The most prevalent talking point put forth by advocates of the "nuclear option" is that Democratic filibusters of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees are "unprecedented" in American history.

But Republicans initiated a filibuster against a judicial nominee in 1968, forcing Democratic president Lyndon Johnson to withdraw the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. Then-Sen. Robert Griffin (R-MI) recognized at the time that denying nominees a vote was already an established practice. "It is important to realize that it has not been unusual for the Senate to indicate its lack of approval for a nomination by just making sure that it never came to a vote on the merits. As I said, 21 nominations to the court have failed to win Senate approval. But only nine of that number were rejected on a direct, up-and-down vote," Griffin said, according to a May 10 New York Times op-ed by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME).

Cloture votes were also necessary to obtain floor votes on Clinton judicial nominees Richard A. Paez and Marsha L. Berzon in 2000, and Republicans attempted to filibuster the nomination of U.S. District Judge H. Lee Sarokin to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 1994. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), who is leading the Republican opposition to Democratic filibusters, voted against cloture for the Paez nomination.

And these are merely instances when Republicans filibustered Democratic presidents' judicial nominees. The Republican-controlled Senate blocked approximately 60 Clinton nominees through other means. This included strict enforcement under Clinton of the "blue slip" policy, which at the time allowed a senator from a nominee's home state to block a nominee simply by failing to turn in the blue-colored approval papers required for the nomination process. While Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-UT) strictly adhered to the "blue slip" policy to allow Republicans to block Clinton nominees, he relaxed the policy nearly to the point of elimination in his efforts to push through Bush's nominees.

For example, Hatch held committee votes on the nominations of 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl over the objections of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), as well as four 6th Circuit nominees over their home state senators' objections.

Because of these numerous responses to Falsehood #1, proponents have honed their message in order to continue arguing that the present Democratic effort is "unprecedented." The argument has now been reduced to: It is unprecedented for a nominee to be blocked who 1) has clear majority support in the Senate; 2) has actually reached the Senate floor for an up-or-down vote; and 3) did not ultimately get confirmed after being filibustered.

The "clear majority" qualifier is designed to discount Fortas, even though "[i]t is impossible to gauge the exact support for Fortas because 12 senators were absent for the 'cloture' or 'closure' vote, which failed to halt the filibuster," as the Washington Post noted on March 18. The qualifier that a nominee reach the Senate floor disregards the approximately 60 Clinton nominees whom the Republican-led Senate blocked in committee. The qualifier that the filibuster be ultimately successful gets around Republican efforts to filibuster Paez and Berzon, who eventually won Senate confirmation.

Falsehood #2: Bush's filibustered nominees have all been rated well-qualified by the ABA; blocking such highly rated nominees is unprecedented

To make Democratic filibusters appear unwarranted, many "nuclear option" supporters have falsely claimed that some -- or all -- of Bush's judicial nominees have received the American Bar Association's (ABA) highest qualification rating. Others have argued that Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen is the first judicial nominee to be filibustered who received a unanimous well-qualified (WQ) rating from the ABA.

But of the 10 Bush nominees filibustered by Senate Democrats, only three -- Owen, Miguel Estrada, and David McKeague -- received a unanimous "Well Qualified" rating from the ABA. Conservatives have frequently touted Janice Rogers Brown as highly qualified (see Rush Limbaugh and Rev. Jerry Falwell), but she twice received an "Unqualified" rating from the California judicial evaluation committee and currently has the ABA's lowest "passing" rating of Qm/NQmin (meaning a majority consider her "Qualified" and a minority consider her "Not Qualified").

Contrary to some claims, blocking WQ-rated judicial nominees is not a new practice. Republicans blocked 10 of President Clinton's appeals court nominees with unanimous WQs from receiving a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and another WQ nominee received a committee hearing but was granted neither a committee vote nor full Senate consideration.

Falsehood #3: Democratic obstructionism has led to far more judicial vacancies during Republican administrations than Democratic administrations

"Nuclear option" proponents have also used the "empty courtroom" argument to advance their agenda, claiming an unusual number of judicial vacancies during Republican administrations as a result of Democratic obstructionism. But what "nuclear option" advocates don't mention is that the discrepancy in judicial vacancies over the last three administrations is primarily due to the recent creation of new judgeships and the president's relatively slow rate of nominating candidates to fill open spots.

One such claim, that more judicial vacancies existed at the end of the George H.W. Bush administration than following the Clinton administration, is largely explained by the 85 new judgeships created by Congress in 1990. And the argument completely collapses when one examines appellate nominees alone: There were more circuit court vacancies when Clinton left office then when President George H.W. Bush did.

Comparisons of the number of current judicial vacancies to the number under Clinton are also misleading, if not outright false. Most of the current vacant federal judgeships are vacant because Bush has nominated candidates to fill only about one-third of the vacancies. There were never fewer district and appellate court vacancies during the Clinton administration than the 45 vacancies that presently exist, according to Congressional Research Service data obtained from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. In other words, there were actually more judicial vacancies when Republicans blocked Clinton's nominees than there are right now.

Falsehood #4: "Nuclear Option" is a Democratic term

Following the Republicans' lead, many major media outlets have attributed the term "nuclear option" as a creation of Senate Democrats. In fact, Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS), one of the proposed measures' leading advocates, actually coined the term.

Falsehood #5: Democrats oppose Bush nominees because of their faith, race, ethnicity, gender, stance on abortion, stance on parental notification ...

Democrats who have filibustered Bush's judicial picks maintain that their opposition stems from the nominees' alleged inability or unwillingness to put aside personal ideological views and follow the law. But that hasn't stopped "nuclear option" proponents from misrepresenting the rationale for Democratic opposition.

One prominent falsehood is that Democrats have opposed the nominees because of their opposition to abortion rights. But opponents of nominees Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William H. Pryor have cited specific actions and statements related to abortion that run counter to precedent and statutory law. Further, the Senate has confirmed 208 of Bush's judicial nominees -- most with substantial Democratic support -- and few, if any, of these confirmed judges have voiced support for abortion rights. Many Bush appointees approved by the full Senate -- such as Michael W. McConnell, John G. Roberts, and James Leon Holmes -- have voiced opposition to abortion rights.

Conservatives have also accused Democrats of opposing Owen because of her support for Texas' parental notification law for minors seeking abortions. In fact, Democrats claim Owen tried to rewrite the law by imposing obstacles to receiving a judicial bypass that the letter of the law did not require, an accusation first made in an opinion written by her then-colleague on the court, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, in which Gonzales accused the dissenters, including Owen, of trying "to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute" and of advocating "an unconscionable act of judicial activism."

The most frequent distortion has been that Democrats have opposed the 10 filibustered judicial nominees because of their "faith" or their "religion." Additionally, "Nuclear option" advocates have baselessly accused Democrats of blocking Bush's nominees because of their ethnicity, race, or gender.

Falsehood #6: Public opinion polling shows clear opposition to judicial filibusters, support for "nuclear option"

Many media reports have aided "nuclear option" advocates by selectively citing or mischaracterizing polling results to claim that the public is strongly opposed to judicial filibusters.

A partisan Republican poll, which proponents claim suggests broad public support for the "nuclear option," has received significant media coverage. The poll asked respondents whether they agreed with the following statement: "If a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate [underline in original]." But it is misleading because it offers only the option of supporting or opposing "up or down" votes for judicial nominees without any context or accompanying argument offered in opposition. In addition, the poll posits that the judges in question are "well qualified." Some coverage of the poll mischaracterized its results by unquestioningly reporting Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's false suggestion that the poll showed that the vast majority of Americans believe all judicial nominees should receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

In fact, another question from Republican polling more directly addresses the debate over judicial nominees and suggests that the public opposes eliminating senators' ability to block a nomination using the filibuster. Private Republican polling indicated that only 37 percent of respondents supported the GOP plan to prevent Democrats from filibustering judicial nominees, while 51 percent opposed.

"Nuclear option" advocates have also attempted to dismiss an ABC News/Washington Post poll showing even stronger opposition to the rule change by claiming the poll is biased because it didn't specifically mention the terms "filibuster" or "unprecedented." But other polls that specifically mention the filibuster similarly indicate majority opposition to the "nuclear option," and the Democrats' use of the filibuster is not unprecedented, as noted above. The most recent poll to specifically mention the term "filibuster," conducted May 10-12 by Time magazine, found that 59 percent of respondents opposed Republican efforts to "eliminate the filibuster" for judicial nominees, compared to 28 percent in favor.

Falsehood #7: Filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional

Another argument made by those supporting the "nuclear option" is that filibustering judicial nominees is unconstitutional. In fact, the Constitution makes no mention of filibusters, but it explicitly empowers the Senate to determine its own rules. Senate rules allow for unlimited debate on any subject, including judicial nominees. Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which governs debate and filibusters, explicitly states that the rules apply to "any measure, motion, [or] other matter pending before the Senate," including judicial nominations. In response to a May 12 question from Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) on the Senate floor, Frist acknowledged that the Constitution does not require an up-or-down vote for all judicial nominees: "To the question, does the Constitution say that every nominee of the President deserves an up-or-down vote, the answer is, no, the language is not there."

Falsehood #8: Clinton's appellate confirmation rate was far better than Bush's rate

"Nuclear option" advocates have also claimed that the confirmation rate for Clinton's appellate nominees was much higher than for Bush's nominees. But the confirmation rate in Clinton's second term and Bush's first term are nearly identical -- 35 of Clinton's 51 nominees were confirmed, compared to 35 of Bush's 52 nominees.

Another talking point is that "100 percent" of Clinton's appellate nominees were approved once they reached the Senate floor. But that statistic is highly misleading because the Republican-led Judiciary Committee blocked the 16 second-term Clinton appellate nominees by keeping them off the floor and, in all but one case, denying them even committee hearings.

Falsehood #9: Sen. Byrd's alterations to filibuster rules set precedent for "nuclear option"

Yet another faulty claim put forth by opponents of judicial filibusters is that past actions by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) have constituted a precedent for the so-called "nuclear option."

For example, columnist and CNN host Robert Novak claimed that a 1977 parliamentary maneuver by Byrd to break a post-cloture filibuster set such a precedent. A standard filibuster occurs when senators exercise their full rights under Senate Standing Rule XXII, which requires a three-fifths majority (60 votes) to invoke cloture, or cut off debate, on any matter pending before the Senate. But then-Senate Majority Leader Byrd's action in 1977 was a successful attempt to break a post-cloture filibuster; 60 senators had already voted for cloture, but two senators continued to extend debate by offering a series of amendments meant to manipulate a loophole in then-standing Senate rules. In order to end the post-cloture filibuster, Byrd invoked a provision of Rule XXII forbidding dilatory amendments. The precedent Byrd set was novel only because he interpreted Rule XXII to allow the chair of the Senate to rule the dilatory amendments out of order without first requiring a point of order from a senator on the floor.

By contrast, Republican senators are currently considering the "nuclear option" precisely because they lack the 60 votes to invoke cloture on the initial filibuster of the 10 judicial nominees.

Novak's claim is just one instance of opponents of judicial filibusters claiming that actions by Byrd set a precedent for the "nuclear option." The various claims originated in a fall 2004 article by lawyers Martin B. Gold and Dimple Gupta published in the conservative Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. Gold is a former floor adviser to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), and Gupta is a former employee of the Bush Justice Department. The progressive advocacy group People for the American Way rebutted the other arguments for a "nuclear precedent" put forth in Gold and Gupta's article in a February 22 report.

Falsehood #10: Democrats have opposed "all" or "most" of Bush's judicial nominees

"Nuclear option" proponents have drastically exaggerated Democratic efforts to block Bush's judicial nominees, suggesting that they have opposed all of his nominees or all of his conservative nominees.

In fact, the Senate has to date approved 208 judicial nominees, with Senate Democrats filibustering 10. The vast majority of Bush's nominees have received strong bipartisan support. For example, in April district court nominee Paul Crotty was confirmed by a vote of 95-0. Even among Bush's first-term appellate nominees, the Senate confirmed more than 70 percent.

Posted: 5/19/05 at 4:11pm

Joey You & I read the same websites! I think we should open up a political action group togther!

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 4:13pm

ALL the same websites...?

[Gothampc]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 4:13pm

Too bad Dems don't realize that what they say is recorded and can be used for future reference.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1406380/posts?page=1

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Delaware) March 19, 1997: “But I also respectfully suggest that everyone who is nominated is entitled to have a shot, to have a hearing and to have a shot to be heard on the floor and have a vote on the floor.”

Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois)September 28, 1998: “We should meet our responsibility. I think that responsibility requires us to act in a timely fashion on nominees sent before us. ... Vote the person up or down.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) September 11, 1997: “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.”

Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)February 3, 1998: “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) May 10, 2000: “The Founding Fathers certainly intended that the Senate advise as to judicial nominations, i.e., consider, debate, and vote up or down. They surely did not intend that the Senate, for partisan or factional reasons, would remain silent and simply refuse to give any advice or consider and vote at all.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) 5/14/97 : “It is not the role of the Senate to obstruct the process and prevent numbers of highly qualified nominees from even being given the opportunity for a vote on the Senate floor.”

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “I find it simply baffling that a Senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/5/99)

Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD): “Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor.” (Congressional Record, 10/28/99)

Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND): “My expectation is that we’re not going to hold up judicial nominations. …You will not see us do what was done to us in recent years in the Senate with judicial nominations.” (Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume,” 6/4/01)

Richard Durbin (D-IL) "If, after 150 days languishing on the Executive Calendar that name has not been called for a vote, it should be. Vote the person up or down." (Cong. Rec., 9/28/98, S11021)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Let’s bring their nominations up, debate them if necessary, and vote them up or down.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/97)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “It is our job to confirm these judges. If we don’t like them, we can vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 9/16/99)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA): “Our institutional integrity requires an up-or-down vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/4/99)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “[The filibuster process] is used … as blackmail for one Senator to get his or her way on something that they could not rightfully win through the normal processes.” (Congressional Record, 1/4/95)

Tom Harkin (D-IA) "Have the guts to come out and vote up or down….And once and for all, put behind us this filibuster procedure on nominations." (Cong. Rec., 6/22/95, S8861)

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA): “I urge the Republican leadership to take the steps necessary to allow the full Senate to vote up or down on these important nominations.” (Congressional Record, 9/11/00)

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “We owe it to Americans across the country to give these nominees a vote. If our Republican colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But give them a vote.” (Congressional Record, 2/3/98

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ ... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI): “These nominees, who have to put their lives on hold waiting for us to act, deserve an ‘up or down’ vote.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “I hope we … will accept our responsibility and vote people up or vote them down. … If we want to vote against them, vote against them.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee. … But it is the responsibility of the U.S. Senate to at least bring them to a vote.” (Congressional Record, 10/22/97)

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “ "I have stated over and over again … that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported …” (Congressional Record, 6/18/98

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[E]arlier this year … I noted how improper it would be to filibuster a judicial nomination.” (Congressional Record, 10/14/98

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT): “[I]f the person is otherwise qualified, he or she gets the vote. … Vote them up, vote them down.” (Congressional Record, 9/21/99)

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV): “[W]e should have up-or-down votes in the committee and on the floor.” (CNN’s “Evans, Novak, Hunt & Shields,” 6/9/01)

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY): “[W]e are charged with voting on the nominees. The Constitution does not say if the Congress is controlled by a different party than the President there shall be no judges chosen.” (Congressional Record, 3/7/00)

Carl Levin (D-MI) "If a bipartisan majority of the U.S. Senate is prepared to vote to confirm the President's appointment, that vote should occur." (Cong. Rec., 6/21/95, S8806)

Updated On: 5/19/05 at 04:13 PM

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 4:16pm

Golly, what were those quotes in response to, Goth? Careful with your answer, cuz the Republicans are being recorded too!

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 4:18pm

Ah, Gotham, are you, perhaps, quoting Democrats who were also suggesting that Republicans shouldn't be using the filibuster? Which they did?
You can say Dems are whining now...but surely you can acknowledge the fact that, right now, Republicans want to get rid of a device they have used in the past merely because it is inconvenient to them now.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 4:30pm

But Gothy, NEVER did ANY of those Democrats attempt to change 200-year-old rules and destroy the Constitution.

What they did then is what they should be doing now: compromise behind closed doors to approve all the but the most objectionable, then get together--AS A UNITED LEGISLATURE--to vote.

The 10 nominees the are being rammed through the systemn as we speak are the ones that Democrats and Republicans AGREED would not be approved last time.

That's why it's called the nuclear option: It's blowing up the Constitution, and the American people think it's the equivalent of Republican terrorism.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/19/05 at 5:27pm

Tit for tat, Goth, a 10-year-old Republican quote AGAINST changing the filibuster rules, from conservative Republican, former Senate Majority Leader Don Nickles:

"I think it would be a mistake to eliminate all the rules of the Senate dealing with the filibuster...There's real wisdom in the fact that the Senate is a more deliberate body, that not all legislation that we pass is good, and sometimes it makes good sense for us to look at it, and so, no, I wouldn't favor reducing the 60-vote margin to, basically, eliminate cloture or eliminate filibuster." - Sen. Don Nickles, CNN, 1/5/95

Posted: 5/19/05 at 7:14pm

While visiting his niece, an elderly man had a heart attack. The woman drove wildly to get him to the emergency room.

After what seemed like a very long wait, the ER doctor appeared, wearing his scrubs and a long face. Sadly, he said, "I'm afraid that your uncle's brain is dead, but his heart is still beating."

"Oh, dear," cried the woman, her hands clasped against her cheeks with shock, "We've never had a Republican in the family before."

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:49am

You mean they have hearts??

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 7:16am

for another bit of polling data, one can look at rasmussen. now rasmussen's data for the 2004 presidential election had the final projection at 50.2% bush and 48.5% kerry. the totals ended up 50.7% bush and 48.5% kerry. so he's no slouch.

he's got 57% of americans saying that, "senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the President nominates to become a judge."

he's also got 55% of americans opposed to harry reid's plan to shut down the gov't should the gop invoke the nucular option. this strategy has only a bare margin of support among even democrats who support it 41%-37%.

every nominee getting an up or down vote is supported 49%-23%.

democrats have a scant edge over the president in the trust issue with a 44%-39% lead in the question, "who do trust more on judicial nominations?"

time's final election poll had it a 5% race.
rasmussen

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 8:52am

While visiting his niece, an elderly man had a heart attack. The woman drove wildly to get him to the emergency room.

After what seemed like a very long wait, the ER doctor appeared, wearing his scrubs and a long face. Sadly, he said, "I'm afraid that your uncle's brain is dead, but his heart is still beating."

"Oh, dear," cried the woman, her hands clasped against her cheeks with shock, "We've never had a Republican in the family before."

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:15pm

And regardless of polls, do you REALLY think this should be happening, papa?? I feel very strongly that if the roles were reversed that it would still be wrong.

60 votes vs 51 makes better sense to me when putting LIFETIME judges into courts.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:28pm

Agreed. Some issues require more than a simple majority to prevent simply having every issue become a matter of "We're the majority, we win, everytime."

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:34pm

and some issues should be exempt of majority rule--civil rights.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:35pm

But, hey, Buchanan said we need to control the judiciary because it's legislating on things like civil rights (read the Huffington Post today). How dare they tell our legislature, which IS NEVER wrong, they're wrong.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:54pm

it's not gonna come to a vote. frist can't afford to lose it and neither can reid and neither one can be sure they have the votes. my bet is that some dems will break cloture.

on the larger issue of whether they should change the rules, i'm against it because eventually we'll be in the minority again. sometimes in the late 22nd century, i'm betting, but when we are, we'll be kicking ourselves for doing it. plus it does open the door for filibusters to get banished in other areas.

it's all a big show right now and merely a prelude to any supreme court nomination. personally i think the gop shoulda let them filibister nominees and keep nominating minority candidates so we can run a pr war in 2006 in minority neighborhoods with ads showing minority candidates being denied their up or down shot by democrats. several of the ads pecifically in spanish.

but they don't always consult with me and i think are worrried that they might have a vacancy on the supreme court before then and don't want the spectre of 4-4 votes clogging up the court while the senate brawls over a nominee. which, again, i think would only work to the gop's favor if gw nominates 'berto gonzalez and then airs a series of ads depicting the dems breathing fire and brimstone about him with subtitles.

if frist has the votes though he's going to try for it because he thinks it'll make his legacy with the right. i think he's an idiot personally (without a personality and with a filibuster vote in his closet, "duh, forgot about that one") and has about as much chance of winning an '08 nomination as i do, but he's got a wwild hair up his a** about this and dooesn't realize he's being played. in the end i highly doubt that the nucular option's going to get used other than as a way for the kids on my side of the aisle to go back to their base and say, "look what we were willing to do!"

i do enjoy the irony of harry reid holding up the words of 'berto gonzalez, who he fought tooth and nail to block, as evidence of the unfitness of nominees. "the attorney general, who i said was not qualified to do his job and threatened the foundation of the republic, says these nominees are activists and because these statements fit my case i now respect his opinion until i need to point out what a horrible failure he is, at which point i will have lost all respect for his opinion again." (before you start googling that was not a quote from reid)

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 1:57pm

Papa, do you really think Frist is being played? I have a feeling, like you said, he really does think this is his legacy, mistake or not. Just as they refused to allow themselves to believe they were out of step with even many of their own party in the Schiavo case, so he continues to blindly support this current cause without considering the ramifications of his actions.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 2:14pm

nah, bway, he thinks that this will make his bones with the right for the '08 nomination. he doesn't get that they want to win more than they want a "yes" man and he's as charismatic as hans moleman on thorazine. he's got no shot at the nomination, but it's helpful now for him to think that he does so he'll be willing to ride off cliffs. he's not dumb, but he's trusting.

it would be admirable in a way (and a bit scary, but then you've seen him speak so you know he's already pretty creepy) if he did believe wholeheartedly in this and was going to go ahead on principle and damn the consequences, but he's too calculating a politician for that, as evidenced by his via video diagnosis in the schiavo matter. i think the white house thought they were getting a yes-man in frist, they just didn't realize who he was saying yes to.

he thinks that catering to the right will get him his shot at the prize, but it won't because he can't win and everybody but him knows it. it's like kerry clinging to the notion that he'll get another go 'round in '08. both kinda sad, really. but then so's politics.

geez, i'm cynical.

[bwaysinger]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 2:19pm

Well, he sounds pretty amazingly scary to me, when you put it that way.
Of course, I think it's sad that the best and brightest Republican around, John McCain, has put his own beliefs in the backseat to continue to cling at his own chance at a nomination.
But, as you said, them's politics. I might be a Democrat but I'm not stupid enough to think they don't do this, too.
But, I repeat again, what a scary thing to squander your allegiance upon, Bill Frist...

[robbiej]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 2:30pm

My question is...when's the tipping point? This level of extreme polarization can't sustain itself. At some point, it tips and people will crave moderation and compromise (hell...even politicans themselves will...won't they?)

What's so discouraging about this time in our history is that it really does take away from true and considered debate about our government. I'll probably always be a Democrat (unless some better, viable liberal party comes along that I can align myself with) and I actually find arguing basic principles of smaller government w/ more individual (economic) freedom v. a system of government in which we are responsible as a whole (yes...slightly pinko...I agree) fascinating...and healthy.

But that argument has been so perverted and distorted in favor of legislating against people's LEGAL activities. It's absolutely appalling. And someday, perhaps you will be able to tell me how that is 'smaller government'. And someday, perhaps you'll even be able to concur that it's possible for the majority to be wrong.

[Taryn]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 2:53pm

People, please. Americans OBVIOUSLY love filibusters because they've all seen Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 3:17pm

Thank God for Frank Capra.

Thank God for Jimmy Stewart.

Thank God for Jean Arthur.

Bill Frist and Tom DeLay should exit the Capitol the same way Claude Rains did.

[papalovesmambo]

Posted: 5/20/05 at 3:18pm

robbie, you know me, i'd pull the word marriage from any and all legal texts. let everyone file for and receive civil unions with their attendant rights and responsibilities. then they can go and have it blessed by whatever religious institution they so desire if that institution is willing to confer on them the blessings they desire...or have nothing to do with any religion, up to them.

and didn't i just admit that i think this whole nucular option's about as winning an idea as vinegar pie?

i wonder about the tipping point, though. with things as polarized as they are and with people able to pick aand choose their news sources so as to insulate themselves from any opposing viewpoints, i think it's got a ways to go yet. frankly, i don't think that with campaign funding and ad campaigns available to big money donors throuygh 527s that it'll get any better anytime soon. unfortunately, i think that it'll require something unimaginable to bring the country together anytime soon.

the funny thing is though, well maybe not so funny, is that you can still get the majority of americans to agree on more things than they disagree, but politicians and the media have become so adept at cultivating the hot button issues which inflame passions that they don't see beyond the one or two issues that they hold dear. i make an exception in that for the glbt community as the rhetoric and initiatives directed at them can be particularly vehement and vitriolic and pointless.

i have a feeling that the '06 elections will give a pretty good indicator of the future of politics in america. if, as i believe, howlin' howie presides of a catastrophic failure in the midterms, you'll see a new more conservative democratic party emerge as well as a very well funded, liberal and not sorry about it third party. if i'm wrong and the gop loses ground, look for the bloodlettting to begin on that side as moderates emerge to try to wrest control of the party from karl & kompany while the christian coalition launches a scorched earth campaign against anyone who dares to stray from the talking points. either way, i think '06 will pave the way for the most wide-open presidential election in generations and with it a much more frank discussion of the future of america.

Updated On: 5/20/05 at 03:18 PM