Nuclear Option Deal Open Thread

by Garemko, Mon May 23, 2005 at 03:48:14 PM EDT

My initial thought is that this sinks Frist's presidential aspirations because of the Dobsonites. Seems to also hurt McCain's chances in the Republican primaries. Enjoy the Freeper meltdown.

Democrats lose a clear issue for 2006 by compromising here. Updates after the jump...

[Update] This deal is politically damaging to the Democrats. Owen, Pryor and Brown are all in.

[Update 2] Okay this is good for the Democrats if we can make it clear that the nuclear option's passage was inevitable and that our compromise averted it. Preventing a right wing power grab can be a good thing. But, the Democrats must also remember that they have only agreed to vote for cloture (or to vote in the Senate) on these nominees. We should turn around and "Bolton" all three of them. We cannot let them go through without a fight on the floor. If these "moderates" ultimately vote for these three judges, they will have once again simply capitulated for the sake of capitulating.

Corked Bats Blog

And Texans fight back at Come and Take It.

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

11 Comments

Sort by

permalink

What now?

What is going to happen now? Who won?

by Max Friedman 2005-05-23 03:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Frist already lost

Frist already lost. This was a test to see if Frist could wranlge the votes needed without the help of the President. The President and VP were already called in to help which shows that Frist's dreams od running ths show are far from reality.

by goplies 2005-05-23 03:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

If we let Owen and Rogers through, then we've lost

I hope that somebody will mount a strong individual fillibuster on each of these, pointing out how bad they are. Ugh.

by Abby 2005-05-23 04:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Some sort of Deal

From the Next Hurrah, Deal Made on Nuclear Option: Revenge Of The Moderates:

We don't have the details of this just-concluded agreement between seven Rs and Seven D's; we do know DeWine (R-Ohio) claims to have been ready to vote for nuclear winter had this deal not come together. We know that moderates have preserved what little power they have, and possibly enhanced it, though I wouldn't jump to believed it. We know that the Portsmouth Navy Yard (Collins, Snowe) and the Groton Sub Base (Lieberman, another participant) are closing for sure.

And we know [David Brooks keeps his track record of always being wrong.

Here's an example of why moderates never accomplish anything in Washington.

Twelve independent and moderate senators - six Democrats and six Republicans - spent much of last week trying to work out a deal to head off a nuclear showdown over judges.

They agreed on the basic approach. The Democrats would allow votes on a few of the blocked judicial nominees (Priscilla Owen, William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown, I'm told). In exchange the Republicans would drop a couple of the nominees (probably Henry Saad and William Myers).
The Democrats would promise not to use the filibuster, except under extreme circumstances. The Republicans would promise not to exercise the nuclear option except under extreme circumstances.

That was the deal, and a very fair one, too. But of course these are moderates. They can't just shove something through on the rough and dirty the way the partisans do. They can't lock themselves in the room until they reach a deal and then march out and announce it to the press.

Then they had these arcane discussions about exactly which words to use. Since even moderates don't really trust one another, they were looking for language that would codify every possible contingency. A few gutless wonders were hoping they could find the words that would protect them when the attacks started coming from the pressure groups on their own side.

RonK predicted this would not come to a vote. Looks like the grown-ups decided to show up for a day, at least. And it looks like Dr. Dobson's reach has his limits. He's the big loser in this, with Frist not looking so good either. Bush loses, too, but don't expect the media to say so.

Well, let's see how it looks in the morning.

by Gary Boatwright 2005-05-23 04:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

I haven't seen/heard the details...

I just came back from the gym when I turned on my tv and saw Reid talking, but I'm happy for the most part because I thought Frist had the votes.

Taegan Goddard of Political Wire puts it best: Instant Analysis: McCain wins, Frist loses. Fine by me :)

by ben114 2005-05-23 04:12PM | 0 recs

permalink

This Looks Pretty Brilliant

Five out of seven looks like defeat, until you realize that the Democrats deliberately forked the GOP here. They did not promise on two of the most passionless, unvisceral candidates who might have passed otherwise if the nuclear option was used.

Meanwhile, the passage of the lightning rod cadets are not even certain. Arlen Specter dropped hints about Willie Pryor back in November of '04 and the Owen/Rogers tandem promises only to bolster the belief that the GOP is cynical about selecting the best wolf in sheep's clothing. And even if they all pass, you can imagine NOW and NARAL will be rake in more fundraising dollars as a result.

by risenmessiah 2005-05-23 04:20PM | 0 recs

permalink

Win the election and all this is moot

The Republicans poll at about 55% on election day. That ought to tell Democrats and their fellow travellers something. What it tells me is that people can at least understand what the Republicans are for and how all their policies fit together under a broad banner of "conservatism". Democrats have no common philosophy, and it kills them. The solid rock of the Democratic coalition was that a rising tide lifts all boats. Black, white, hispanic, what have you. Identity politics cuts both ways. If whites vote for the white party, it will win every time. Are the Republicans the white party? Are the democrats the party of the minorty groups? How the hell can America function on that basis? Its time for Democrats to reengage the American people on a philisophical level, something they haven't done since RFK. Remember if the economy is still hanging in there in 2006, 60 vote filibusters won't matter. Time to wake up, time to wise up.

by Paul Goodman 2005-05-23 04:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Anything less than total Dem submission

should go down as a loss for the Reeps, and the Reeping Heads will probably be shocked and outraged at this treachery. As I speculated elsewhere, this may be a circumstance in which the Reeps want to lose, to take one on the chin even, both to give them fodder for 2006 and to dispel the perception that they have too much power.

Now, with Reep Senators bailing on the party leadership in this big dramatic showdown, the Backlash Narrative can march boldly onward. Liberals in our midst! Let the purge commence! Loyalty oaths for all prospective candidates!

by catastrophile 2005-05-23 04:36PM | 0 recs

permalink

it could be worse

If the more radical wings of both parties are pissed off (especially the Republican party), then it's a good deal in my book. So I like it (even more so with the Freeper reaction.)

by dbp 2005-05-23 05:32PM | 0 recs

permalink

2006

"Democrats lose a clear issue for 2006 by compromising here"

I don't think so. The nuclear option will be right back on the table the moment Bush nominates a Supreme Court Justice, which will probably be sometime next year. This issue will be even more relevant next year, and more people will hear about it.

by Skaje 2005-05-23 05:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: 2006

But how will it not seem at that point like opportunism whereas it could have been a stand on principle? When will we ever be able to make an argument for fillibustering if these three are not extreme circumstances?

That is how I see it. I said "clear issue"--meaning that the Democrats have lost the opportuinity to take a clear stand against an extreme right wing power grab. We will lose unless we successfully frame it this way. But now it will just be forgotten.

by Garemko 2005-05-23 05:50PM | 0 recs