More on the Compromise

Byron Williams has a good article at Working for change, analyzing the current lay of the political landscape and the reactions to the Compromise. I particularly like this bit.

The senators' efforts, though admirable, failed to address the real problem: two different games being played simultaneously with two sets of rules. While the 14 bipartisan senators declared "check," those in opposition to any compromise are responding with, "I will buy Boardwalk."

Anyway well worth checking out.

Round the Horn - Where's Your Head At?

I'm at work and in a super bad mood. But never mind that lets see what's going on around the Liberal Coalition.

blogAmy has a really nice piece of animation with some questions that we need answers to.

LeftyBrown's Corner has remembrances of a favorite comic book series.

Collective Sigh has some nice coverage of a recent Scott McClellen press conference and a question by Helen Thomas.

Dohyi Mir has a podcast (well, Ntoddcast) of his thoughts on Episode III.

The Gamer's Nook points you to an online quiz that can tell you what your worldview is.

In Search of Telford has a post on the culpability of right wing blogs in stirring up the worlds Muslims to hate is (in reference to the Newsweek brouhaha).

Rooks Rant has a reaction to the Compromise of the Century.

Trish Wilson's Blog has the perfect gift for possessive stupid guys to give to their girlfriends.

Sooner Thought is reporting that the guy who crafted the term "freedom fries" and "freedom toast" is, well, having second thoughts.

The Goblin's Lair has some insights into a recent amnesty interenational report.

And that's it for another week. Enjoy!

Quote

"Is it really necessary at this late date to point out that the problem is torture and abuse, not dubiously sourced reports of torture and abuse?"

-Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker

The Marines

This is a nice story. Apparently the Marines are to be honored by appearing on a commetrive silver dollar (which will be worth much more than a dollar, being a collectable and all).

Crimes, Follies and Misfortunes

"History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind." - Edward Gibbon

Here's the story. In the 1930s through the 1950s, the Democratic Party was split between several wings (much like today). One wing, in the South, was politically conservative particularly on racial matters. Another wing, in the Northeast and Great Lakes states was politically liberal. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Northeastern Liberals, with the able help of Lyndon Johnson, passed several bills designed to protect the Civil Rights of African Americans. Such bills alienated the Southern Democrats.

The Republican Party in the same party was also split. They had some progressive / populist liberal members, and some old style conservative members. They had little influence in the South, which had been solidly Democratic since the civil war. They supported the Civil Rights legislation, and it couldn't have passed without their support. So a bright day for the Republican Party. Conservative Southerners, however, fled from the Democratic Party (as Lyndon Johnson predicted they would) en masse. This shift much more closely identified the Republican Party with Conservative principles, and in particular the Racial Obsessions of Southern Conservative Whites (Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond spring to mind). In all fairness, of course, 2000 is not 1970, and they have made a lot of progress in stifling racist statements and programs.

This little history lesson is brought to you, courtesy of Mr. Jay Bryant who seemed unclear about this history. Instead he taught this version of history. Democrats were racist and Conservatives were not. While in broad strokes that is true of the 1930s, certainly it is at least a little misleading.

Anyway the rest of Bryant's article is on why the Republicans should be happy to see the filibuster go. Mr. Bryant paints a picture of a completely Democratically aligned media back to the 1930s, which seems a bit extreme. At any rate that's why the Republicans can't use filibuster.

The filibuster is a useless tool for the Republicans, because they haven't the nerve to use it, and never have. The reason behind this timidity is, of course, media bias. A Republican filibuster would be the object of such intense media pressure that it could not possibly succeed. A Democratic "nuclear option" would never be called that, and never regarded as a radical trashing of tradition. It would be, instead, a noble reform.

Who coined the term Nuclear Option? Trent Lott! Not the "liberal" media. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Get it? Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. Trent Lott. OK? Do I need to repeat it any more? Trent Lott.

Anyway I'm calmed down now. Long story short, Jay Bryant is still apparently hoping they trigger the nuclear option.

Post Card from the Monster

Yeah, I know it's been a long time, but he finally got back in touch with me, because he had a very important message to share with the peoples.

ARGGGHLEE BARGHHLEE

This is the monster speaking. Me have important news to share with the peoples. My good friend (who did not promise to give me gazelles and then not give me gazelles) Random Goblin starts a blog. It be very good. It called the Goblin's Lair and it have very nice logo at top. Go read it. Now. Or monster will eat you!

Yes that be me. The Monster. In the Lincoln bedroom. That time, it only cost two bushels of apples to visit. Now it cost lots more!

Arrghhh!

Well I would also recommend reading The Goblin's Lair - looks like it has a lot of thought provoking stuff so far. Well worth considering.

Making Progress

From yesterdays Press Briefing by Scott McClellen.

Yesterday, these judicial nominees that the Senate is now moving forward on were being blocked. These are nominees that have waited for a number of years to receive an up or down vote, and now they're going to get one. We consider that to be real progress and so we're pleased that the Senate is moving forward on these judicial nominees.

. . . But the fact that they're moving forward on these nominees who have waited for years is positive. And that is progress.

. . . He [President Bush, natch] considers it to be real progress, and I think any way you look at it, it is.

. . . I think it's a sign of real progress.

Q Are you going to use the word "victory"? I mean, that's the term everybody is looking at. Is it a victory or is it not a victory?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's real progress that they're moving forward on these nominees. I mean, that's the way I would describe it.

. . . And there has been progress made.

Can you guess what word popped up on Mr. McClellens Word of the Day Toilet Paper?

Your Twice-Weekly Rush: Bring 'em on

From yesterdays program.

So it would be real simple if the Republicans -- well, it's real simple. It'll never happen, but if these 48 Republicans say, "You know, we're not part of this. We're simply not going along with this. We weren't consulted, the president wasn't consulted. The president's powers have been diminished here." Just vote on the constitutional option. Vote on it; bring it up. Frist, bring it up. Bring up the constitutional option. "But the deal says he can't do it for a year and a half." Well, he doesn't have to agree to the deal.

How would that play out? My guess is that Frist would look like insanely partisan.

A Horse Built by Committee

This Modern World has recently opened its blogging doors to additional commentators. One of those commentators, Jack Hitt, made some very cogent points on what the Compromise means for Republican Party.

The other way to view this whole compromise is a struggle between two presidential strategies. Frist is playing to the radical right base—that’s clear. Graham may well be in the running, working a different angle. He has been speaking lately on broad national issues, was in Iowa last year, and has taken more centrist positions on touchy issues such as Abu Ghraib and social security. He may be trying to wage a Clintonian strategy from the right. Or, he may have consulted his polls (or his instincts) and realized that the first Republicans who pull back to the center will be the big winners in 2006 and 2008.

Not sure why Mr. Hitt doesn't mention McCain as a presidential hopeful (which he probably is). On the other hand, pissing off other Republicans isn't a new strategy for McCain.

The last bit of the post, about Trent Lott, is particularly interesting.

U2 News

In all this talk of Senate Compromises and what not, it's easy to forget there is other news out there. And here it is; U2 is thinking of rerecording Pop. According to Bono, "There is still talk about the band going back in and fixing ‘Pop’, actually going in because the bones of a great album are there. It didn't communicate the way it was intended to. It became a niche record. That's not what it was intended to be. If we'd just had another month, we could have finished it."

This is good news, as Pop has some brilliant songs on it, including "Discotheque," "If God Will Send his Angels," "Playboy Mansion," "Do You Feel Loved?," and the staggeringly brilliant "Please." Plus some others that might have been great if they had been cleaned up a little.

Your Weekly Rush: The Compromise

Caught a bit of Rush while I was driving around at lunch. He was talking to two women who were upset that the Senate Republicans had caved and that 14 senators were holding the nation hostage (sort of). Anyway Rush urged one of these women (and by extension his audience) to call Bill Frist and have him bring one of the rejected Senators forward, and trigger the nuclear option.

This is really a great idea actually. That will show those compromising Senators who the boss is. And it will show the American people what kind of person Bill Frist is. He's not going to compromise. Ever.

That's exactly the sort of man we want as President. Unless, you know, we don't.

Between the lip and the cup confirmation

Here is confirmation of a previous story.

Between the lip and the cup

As always the Wall Street Journal puts it best.

"THE ATTLE FOR THE COURTS may have been averted in the senate."

I don't know about you, but I don't know if I could have taken another attle.

Done with that

Caught a little bit of Senator John Cornyn (R. Texas) before getting bored watching the debate. He clearly would rather have used the Nuclear option. He also reiterated the pleasant deception that for 200 years Judges got up or down votes (a phrase that needs a ton of qualifiers to be true). At any rate, in his mind the Nuclear option is still on the table.

Joshua Zeitz, writing over at the Huffington Post, evidently feels the same way.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist agrees to preserve the filibuster, though he reserves the right to re-ignite the nuclear option if Democrats exhibit "bad faith and bad behavior." That is, if the Democrats dare ever to use the filibuster again.

Gosh, what a great deal!

I guess your opinion on the Nuclear option depends on whether you think you could have won that fight or not. Reading this, I am forced to conclude that Zeitz thinks that a more forceful strategy could have won the day. How else does one explain this statement? "If Senate Democrats can't stand up for themselves, how can they be trusted to stand up for the most vulnerable members of society who desperately need their help?"

I disagree with his assessment. I think refusing this compromise would have been a tactical mistake for the Democrats. I don't think we could have won this battle, and without even the threat of a filibuster, Senate Democrats and the independent judiciary would be in a much worse position than they are now.

We've Got a Chance to Start Over

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R - South Carolina)is talking right now, and has repeated this several times. Near as I can tell, it means that Democrats had better learn their lesson and let President Bush nominate whoever they want.

He's saying that if one of the Democratic Senators decides to filibuster, he will get back into the Nuclear Option business. Interesting discussion. He also put forward the position that because the Republicans have the majority, they are the mainstream. Since Pryor, Brown and Owens will win the vote, they are mainstream.

The Compromise

Many of you have probably alread heard that the nuclear showdown has been averted by a last minute compromise worked out by, among others, Sen. Robert Byrd, and Sen. John McCain. The AP describes the compromise this way.

The agreement, crafted over the past several weeks by seven Republicans and seven Democrats, also opened the way for yes-or-no votes on two other of President Bush's judicial picks who have been in nomination limbo for more than two years - William H. Pryor Jr. for the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The agreement, which applies to Supreme Court nominees, said future judicial nominations should "only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances," with each Democratic senator holding the discretion to decide when those conditions had been met.

Of course it goes without saying that one party's extraordinary circumstances are another parties obstructionism. Basically the fight over the filibuster has been pushed back to another day.

To me this is a victory. We didn't get a whole loaf but we got some important slices. In particular, President Bush and his advisors have to consider Democratic opposition when nominating a Supreme Court Justice. Had the Nuclear option been triggered, they could have nominated Ann Coulter, and, assuming a party line vote, gotten her through. Now that's not as possible (I'm assuming that at least 7 Republicans senators would see her as an "extraordinary circumstance."

It hurts Frist, who certainly would have scored big with the Dominionist base had he stood up for principle (even if he lost). Now he has to pretend to be pleased about a compromise he didn't craft, one that a potential rival for the nomination (McCain) helped craft.

And the Right Wing Base doesn't like this compromise at all. From the innocuously named but very right wing Focus on the Family comes this statement. "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush's nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest."

From Powerline, a right wing blog, comes this commentary. "What a hideous deal! The Democrats have agreed to cloture on only three nominees, and they have made no commitment not to filibuster in the future, if there are "extraordinary circumstances." Of course, the Dems think any nominee who is a Republican is "extraordinary." The Dems have just wriggled off the hook on some of the nominees that, politically, some of them did not want to be seen voting against."

On the other hand, Democrats are taking this as a win. Consider MoveOn.Org's reaction. "President Bush, Bill Frist and the radical right-wing of the Republican Party have failed in their attempt at seizing absolute power and the "nuclear option" is off the table. Our members fought hard to preserve the filibuster, which will now live to see another day."

So all is not well in Republicanville. But there's no shortage of umbrellas in Democrattown.

Ignorance is Strength

Or so the old saying goes. But is it true? Well on movies you generally see really strong guys who are also kind of, well, dumb. Take the incredible Hulk. Or Mr. Incredible (despite having a big heart, it's clear who the thinkers are in that family). So does ignorance make one more physically strong? To test this theory, read this article by Herman Cain, and see if you feel any stronger.

Admittedly Cain does reference the same saying, but he means it to apply to ignorance that Democrats are spreading about President Bush's plan to save Social Security. But right there is his first little nugget of ignorance. President Bush has steadfastly refused to put forward his plan. He's parceled nuggets here and there (most notably in his Press Conference a couple of weeks ago). But a proposal has not yet been put forward.

Mr. Cain also ignores the Social Security Trust Fund, denigrates the offer of a compromise by Democrats, suggests that earnings can be passed onto heirs (the versions of the plan I've seen require you to buy an annuity with your savings to provide an income for the rest of your days, which is non-transferable), and condemns Democrats for not having a plan of their own. The last one is traditional Conservative strategy right now, and it's total crap. But you already know that.

Anyway I was going to ask if you felt any stronger, but it occurs to me you've been reading me, not the actual article. So do you feel any less strong?

More Star Wars Politics

Debra Saunders, in her latest article, takes on Star Wars and finds it wanting.

For me, the "Star Wars" saga faded with "Episode VI: Return of the Jedi." It wasn't the cutesy Ewoks, although the teddy-bear warriors were irritating beyond belief. No, the big problem was the fact that Darth Vader, who had killed countless souls without hesitation and destroyed an entire planet just to make a point, nonetheless wholly redeemed himself by refusing to kill his own son. Thus Vader won a coveted spot in the afterlife sitting by the eternal campfire with Jedi good guys Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda.

The dead Darth-turned-Anakin looks happy, too. You can imagine him turning to his old chums, and saying, "Sorry about Alderaan. Have a nice day."

If only Hitler had sired a son. Then, after the Blitzkrieg and the Holocaust, Hitler might have had that redefining moment that would have gotten him in touch with his paternal inner self, and taken up gardening. Or origami.

This is a fair point. Once could suppose, however, that those dead on Aldereen (or on Hoth, or the Younglings in the Jedi Temple) were taken care of in the force. Certainly Yoda seems to hint at that in the latest movie, where he suggests that Anikin learn how to let go of those that he loves.

The contrast, however, is that we only see Jedis as blue ghosts, and Yoda, at the end of episode three, indicates that the ability to maintains one personality in the living force is a bit of a trick. Of course in some forms of Buddhism (from which the ideas of the Force borrow, somewhat) maintaining a distinct identity in the face of infinity is not desirable.

At any rate, Saunders then goes on to talk on how George Lucas has presented the movie as a subtle dig at the administration, and accuses him of elevating moral relativism.

Thus, we discover, as Obi-Wan says before the final light saber duel, that the Sith are evil (despite their germ of good?), not just for what they do, but because, "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." In Lucasworld, moral relativists are the real good guys in a universe of gore.

Which doesn't make sense because the Jedi do trade in absolutes, as does every tribe. They've got their rules, too -- and they're pretty good rules, if they do become overly cumbersome, hokey and dangerous at times.

Here's a sign, early in the movie, Lucas gives moviegoers that Anakin Skywalker is drifting toward the dark side. After hacking to death every body in his path, Anakin has an evil mastermind at his feet. Kill him, the future emperor coos.

Afterward, Anakin notes it is not the Jedi way to kill an "unarmed" man. Forget that this particular villain can't be unarmed as long as he has his mind. Forget that he is the reason so many others died, and the Jedi didn't fret about their end.

Of course this begs the question of whether the Republic has the death penalty or not. To make a real world comparison, Howard Dean has gotten a lot of flack for wanting Osama Bin Ladin to stand trial. I don't know whether bin Ladin can be taken alive, but if he can, I want him to stand trial as well. A society of justice is better than a society of blind vengeance.

Robert Novak keeps his Eye on the Ball

Specifically his latest article underlines what this whole shebang is about, the Supreme Court.

Senators droned on last week, supposedly debating two female nominees for the U.S. appellate bench, but it was a sham. The real issue was the future makeup of the Supreme Court, which explains the audacious Democratic strategy of blocking President Bush's choices for lower courts.

Fair enough, up to a point. But Novaks need, financially, to portray Republicans as heroic and Democrats as evil bastards does trip up his analysis. For example, he basically assumes that the only reason for opposition to Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown (and the others) is a strategy to scare President Bush when the actual nominees come up. He also argues that Democrats and Republicans aren't really listening to each other because Democrats make arguments which the Republicans debunk. And then the Democrats repeat those same arguments. But he doesn't note that the same thing happens in reverse (presumably because in his partisan addled mind Democrats never refute anything Republicans say.

Oh and if situations were reversed, is there any doubt that Congressional republicans would be doing all of this and more?

New Format, New Quote!

And, for once on time, a new Quotes page.