home

Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:02:31 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Sen. Bill Frist has rejected the Democrat's offer to pass a few of Bush's judicial picks in exchange for not forcing a vote on the nuclear option which would ban filibustering of judicial, cabinet and other nominees.

Daily Kos says it's a huge tactical blunder by Frist that played right into the hand of Democratic Minority Leader Sen. Harry Reid.

Reid got the Democrats to look conciliatory, forcing Frist and his Republicans to look even more inflexible than before. Damn the guy is good. I'm glad he's on our side.

Agreed. I could have lived with the confirmation of the two Michigan judges to the 6th Circuit as outlined in the compromise offer, but not Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor or William Myers. Sen. Reid said he would not compromise on these most extremist nominations, and he didn't.

I don't think Frist has the votes in his own party to pass the nuclear option. I don't see him as a viable 2008 presidential candidate anyway, but if he loses this battle, he's toast in that regard.

The war isn't over, we need to stay vigilant. I suspect one of the fallouts will be the passage of the Real ID Act. That's unfortunate, for reasons TalkLeft has argued several times. Even so, Sen. Reid has earned our praise. We're lucky to have him.

< Crunch Time for Real I.D. Act | Guantanamo Goes Green >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option | 67 comments (67 topical)
    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 01:35:36 AM EST
    Harry Reid is doing a spectacular job. One telling indicator is that in my legislative process class today, most seemed to think that both parties would suffer fallout from the nuclear option battle. In conservative southern WV, that's practically a ringing endorsement of Democrats. (I know some might point out that WV has 2 Democratic Semators, but WV Democrats are really spelled r-e-p-u-b-l-i-c-a-n everywhere else.)

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 02:30:17 AM EST
    how about one lousy national commerical from the dems, with a semblance of national memory: just a voice, with a picture of frist: voice: "here they go again, taking their ball and going home rather than playing nice. Only this time they're calling it the nuclear option. how democratic sounding of them." then up comes a picture of newt gingrinch next to frist. voice continues: "didn't some guy named gingrinch try to do that once? shut down the government, try to get his way? hmm. history repeats. stop it from doing so. and stop the rights attempt to push through extremist judges." whatever. just an idea. good for, and good luck to, harry reid.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#3)
    by cp on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 02:36:54 AM EST
    it's truly entertaining, watching sen. frist, heart surgeon, shoot himself in his. proves once again, if you send an idiot to harvard, you end up with an idiot, with a harvard degree. did someone say "presidential aspirations"? i thought not.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 04:59:07 AM EST
    I've practiced in front of all three of the Michigan judges in question--they're pretty bad--some of the worst I've seen in terms of temperment and knoowledge of basic law.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:00:35 AM EST
    CP: The republican party would not vote for him if he backed out of this confrontation.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:12:55 AM EST
    Oh well, what can i say?

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:13:58 AM EST
    et al - It will be a blunder only if he loses. We'll see.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:40:21 AM EST
    Extremism has been redefined as being any possibility that the aborto-zealots of NARAL could have their leverage over the formerly independent judiciary threatened.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:41:07 AM EST
    TalkLeft, Given that Owen has received the highest possible rating from the ABA, what is your specific objection to her confirmation? Also, a question or two for those opposed to the rule change (which I also oppose): Do you also oppose the rule change in 1975 that changed the requirement for cutting off debate to 60 from 67 votes? After all, if debate is good, and requiring a supermajority is good, why 60 votes instead of 67, which sets a higher standard and ensures even more debate? If you do oppose the 1975 rule change, how about the 1917 rule change, which did away with the need for unanimous consent? Again, if debate is a good thing, why not return to the longest-lived rule, which ensured debate until everyone agreed? Or, if you simply think changing the rules at all is a bad idea, why not oppose the original rule change of 1806, which did away with the simple majority requirement established in the first congress? And also a few for those who think changing the rules now, for the purpose of confirming 10 judicial nominees: Will you still approve of this change when Hillary Clinton is appointing judges in 2009 and you can do nothing at all to even slow the process down? There are enough liberal and liberal-moderate Republicans in the Senate to allow the loss of just a few seats to open the door to a Democratic president appointing liberal judges gaining their confirmation even if the Republicans still technically control the body. This is most definitely a case of "beware what you wish for - you just might get it". If you still think the rule change is a good idea, will you when the senate changes hands again (as it inevitably will - the only question is time) and you become totally powerless to do anything; hoisted on your own petard as it were? As for myself: Changing the rules of the senate to allow it to conduct our business in a more efficient manner is one thing; changing the rules in mid-stream to allow ten people to be given lifetime appointments just because you can't convince 60 people that this is a good thing, is another thing altogether.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:20:20 AM EST
    justpaul - Please. A filibuster is not a debate. It is a one sided speech. Please quit referring to it incorrectly. By doing so you are playing into the hands of those (I think) you oppose.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:32:28 AM EST
    I think many people here are missing the point: Do Democrats have a historical right to filibuster what they view as extreme nominations or do they not? Has there been one president in history who got EVERY nomination approved? If not, what make this Republican bunch so special that they can't take ONE blocked judge, as Frist showed is their attitude yesterday. Let's not argue about the merits of individual judges, this only sidetracks the debate. The question is not, "Why?", but "Is it right?" Every gov't before has had give and take over nominations. If the Republicans can't play nice, let them blow up the Senate and see what happends in '06. And let's remember, people, Democrats aren't threatening the nuclear option. If the Republicans can use the rules to shut down debate and force their nominees through, then Democrats are perfectly within their rights to remove their implied consent from further legislation, even if it shuts down the Senate...rules are rules...right?

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:43:59 AM EST
    Jim, The purpose of a filibuster is to avoid a vote in favor of further debate. That it is being used now to avoid debate is due to the fact that Bill Frist is an idiot who doesn't understand his job. All Frist has to do to push the issue is to schedule an open-ended debate session with a vote occuring when the senators agree that no further debate is required and make it stick by not adjourning until this happens. By not admitting such, you are playing into the hands of those who simply want to force majority rule with no holds barred. It may be to your advantage now, but it will come back to bite you in the a$$ if it goes through.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:47:53 AM EST
    well said, jp.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#14)
    by cp on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:54:02 AM EST
    justpaul, your questions, regarding senate rule changes in 1806, 1917 and 1975 are irrelevant because, well, it isn't 1806, 1917 or 1975, it's 2005. that is the only relevant issue. unless you've invented the "wayback" machine, and are able to change the course of history, concentrate on the present. why these judges are not deemed worthy also isn't the real issue, it's enough that the republicans, by the current rules, are unable to gather 5 democrats into their fold. since they control the senate, by a 55-45 margin, their inability to persuade 5 people to change their minds is compelling. if i recall, judge bork was rated quite highly by the ABA, so what? his apparent inability to sever his personal views on constitutional interpretation, from law and precedence, are what did him in. i'll give him credit for being honest though, he made no bones about it. gee, i bet anthony perkins and james dobson would vote for frist.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#15)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:57:02 AM EST
    justpaul is trying to muddy the waters. Let the Repubs kill the filibuster...that'll be worth about four or five Dem seats at least in '06. Right now, the cons are between their ideology and a hard place (public opinion). Frist wants to run in '08 so the far-right has him in their sights...he might pull the trigger, since he's retiring...but Blaghdaddy doubts it...not with public opinion where it is. Are the Republicans stubborn to the point of self-destruction? Ask Newt. People, sit back and enjoy the show...there's no one to convince, 2/3 of America are on the Dems' side...let the Cons argue with the public. Our job is done, unless the polls change...

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:02:22 AM EST
    This situation is like Schiavo...remember all the noise and fanfare until the polls came out? Remember the deafening silence that settled over the hill? Why, why, WHY hasn't Frist already pulled the trigger? Same reason Lugar pulled the plug on the vote over Bolton when he realized something- Neither have the votes. Lugar wanted to bulldoze the vote, thinking he had enough, and "suddenly" wanted to wait when he realized he was outnumbered. Frist doesn't have the votes. Try to find 55 Republicans who'll buch 2/3's negative public opinion...you may have 47 or 48, but those extra three are thinking about their seats when Frist and Bush are long gone...try to argue with years more of pork, and they suddenly think the public has a point....

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:03:07 AM EST
    "Pope Fristy, The Gunjumper" has spoken. Let's look for the fool to push one party rule. This nuke option thing is a two-edged sword which will come back to haunt the GOPhers when they are out of power. I look to see some inroads into the Democrats knocking on the doors of power in 2006. I don't see how the republicans can sustain this lunacy past 2008. Perhaps I'm wrong, after all the GOPhers have hoodwinked the country into just charging the WAR on plastic and not raising taxes. There is no free ammo.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:13:56 AM EST
    Well said, Steve. I wrote a column just this past weekend about Henry Hyde and his merry men. Who else doesn't know that this clown admitted after announcing his retirement that, yes, the Clinton Impeachment drama was just payback for Nixon. This is what happens when you turn your heads, people. Is the gov't a playground for these people? I myself think I smell a change in the air, and I hope it's not wishful thinking. Does anyone else notice that when Bush and co. start screaming now, people just yawn? It's not like 2 or 3 years ago. Even moderate Repubs are beginning to speak up. This neo-con run isn't over, but it's past its peak, and let's be vigilant to make sure it keeps passing by on its way to the cemetary to join McCarthyism, Segregation and Prohibition.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:16:34 AM EST
    cp, I don't see them as irrelevant. The rules were changed, by the Democrats, in 1975 in order to limit the ability of the minority to impede action in the Senate. Further limiting such an ability now would only be continuing this Democratic tradition. Are you against Democratic tradition? The same applies to the rule change in 1917, although the parties may have changed positions. And like I said, if you think a minority should be able to hold up a vote to allow further debate, why set a requirement any greater than one? As for 1806, well now that gets back to what was arguably the obvious intention of the founding fathers, which just happens to be the majority rule you now find offensive but which you will surely find just dandy when the Democrats retake the Senate (which they almost surely will if Frist moves forward on this stupid rule change). And exactly when was it that former precedent stopped being of any interest in how things are run? The rules have been manipulated on both sides over the years, but then that's what rules are for. They have also been changed when the manipulation has gotten extreme. I personally don't think we're there yet, and as there are other options, I woudl prefer to see them exercised. But I for one do not agree that history is ever "irrelevant".

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:25:22 AM EST
    Hey justpaul, what are you and the cons gonna say if this nuclear thing goes through and the Democrats withdraw unanimous consent? What are you going to do when half your pet bills die in the Senate because the Dems exercise their Constitutional duty to debate rather than just rubber-stamp most bills, and when they insist on introducing and debating THEIR bills too? Who are you going to blame when the Dems say, "By the rules? O.K., BY THE RULES!" You gonna blame them for playing by the rules when you blame them for not following the rules now? What're ya gonna say? Blaghdaddy'd love to hear it, and he's sure the rest of us do to...

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#21)
    by mpower1952 on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:30:01 AM EST
    I think the Dems have said that Owens has no respect for local governments making zoning rules. And if a business wanted to plunk itself down in the middle of a residential development, they would have to be reimbursed not to do it. I know that's not technical language but I'm going from memory on something I read.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:30:43 AM EST
    I think justpaul has some very good points that his political brethren might want to listen to, because if you noticed he is also against doing away with the filibuster when it comes to judicial appointments. And this is something that JCH, Horse with no name, et al. tend to forget is that the Republicans are only talking about doing away with the filibuster in regards to debates on judges AND NOTHING ELSE. So the people coming out for the "nuklur option" are being bamboozled once again. Also justpaul makes a great point that Republicans(and please excuse me, jp, if you are not politically affiliated with the GOP) want to willfully ignore is that eventually the Democrats will be back in power and we will ram the fictional "liberal" activist judges down the GOP's throat, and I know the Republicans wouldn't want that. So it is the best interest of both sides to maintain the judicial appointment filibuster. But quasi-fascists like PPJ, Horse with No Name, and others who are of the Republican strain and like to post here don't care about the future of America. All they are concerned with is consolidating their vision of one party rule(and I do mean RULE, not governance) over the citizens of the U.S. I hope real Republicans and Democrats alike will stand up against these ideological brothers and sisters of the Taliban.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#23)
    by BigTex on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:34:30 AM EST
    THoughtMechanic - And let's remember, people, Democrats aren't threatening the nuclear option. They're not threatening it now, but they did force a vote on the nuclear option in 1995 (a rose by any other name....) This will come back to haunt republicans, but it can be noted that they are following the democrat's lead and the harm will be minimized. This goes back to the meaning of advise and consent. Why does it take more than a simple majority to have consent? Or for that matter legally does it? This is hardball politics to be sure, but, the fact that the dems opened the door makes it more palitable. Everyone deserves an up or down vote. They deserved it in 1995 when the dems tried the nucelar option, and they deserve it now.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:36:36 AM EST
    >Deafening Applause for Sherman< Bravo, Sherm! Blaghdaddy would love to have said it first, but TL might have a heart attack if he goes on another rant :-) Sherm's right, folks...what are the Republicans going to do when they are in the minority (to which everyone must return) and these "liberal" judges start filling up the circuits in, say, Alabama and Texas and Arkansas? Can you say "Kaboom!"? And they'll have done it to themselves... The danger is that Maybe the Repubs are doing this because they have no intention of ever returning to the minority...that makes Blaghdaddy's blood run colder than any filibuster debate...

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:41:33 AM EST
    BigTex, I wasn't saying that the Dems aren't threatening anything, just that their answer to the filibuster shutdown can't be called "Nuclear" because they wouldn't be changing any rules. Right now, unanimous consent is a gentleman's agreement and the Dems have the right to withdraw that at any time. The rules call for debate on bills by both parties. Why wouldn't the Dems withdraw unanimous consent if the Repubs pull the trigger? You can't attack a party for following the rules when the other party is busy changing them! If unanimous consent goes the way of the filibuster, then maybe we might have some action in the Senate... The only problem for the Cons is that half that action would be Democratic bills...and Bush and co. want to hear nothing from the other side when they have the votes.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:46:58 AM EST
    It really was a stroke of genius if that's what Reid was up to the whole time. If he knew that Frist and Bush would reject the "compromise" (dirty word for cons when they're the ones in charge) and go for the throat. People, I'd bet half of America is wondering right now if a filibuster is related to a loofa right about now...this is a tempest in a Senate teacup, and fortunately, the public is not looking at "Who's in power now?" but rather at, "Would I want my party to have that option if in the minority?" The answer, in the polls, has been a resounding "Yes!" and the cons have nowhere to go except over the cliff. Watching the news on Iraq, Schiavo and Social Security, that's where Bush intends to take them...if they're dumb enough to follow.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:47:37 AM EST
    juspaul - Good point, if correct. But how "open-ended?" If a Demo Senator had the floor and refused to yield, how would you shut it down? Wouldn't that define a filibuster? Something tells me that the Senators have advisors who know the Senate rules much better than you and I and what you are proposing wouldn't work the way you think. In the meantime you keep saying debate and filibuster in the same breath, when the two words are exactly opposite. Sherman - Me? A "quasi-fascist?" Let me see...... You are supporting a filibuster that is preventing the Senate from debating and then voting. I am supporting debating and voting. Sherm baby, you just inserted your foot in your mouth. Hope it tastes good. BTW - If the Demos thought they could win the debate on the merits, they would be demanding the nominees be brought forward. Since they are not, we know they know they cannot win in an honest, open, democractic debate. Sad to see a once great party hide from a battle of ideas. I guess they have none.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#28)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:47:42 AM EST
    I see blaghdaddy is still incapable of understanding simple concepts, so I'm not surprised that he's incapable of comprehending that someone here might actually be neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Not having any "pet bills" in Congress, I see no reason to fear their demise. In fact, the less Congress does in general, the better, at least until we get some honest representation of the people instead of this two-party monopoly on power. Did I say the Democrats weren't following the rules? No, I didn't. Once again Blaghdaddy shows that his only real skill is bad impressions of TV characters. Well, like I said, everybody's got a gift. Anyway.... Sherman, As noted above, I am not a Republican, nor am I in favor of this rule change. The point I was trying to make is that the rules have been changed before, by the Democrats, to suit the Democrat's desires, so their claiming that it's unfair to do so now is disingenuous at the best. But that doesn't mean I think this rule change is a good idea. I would rather see the Senate forced to do its job, which is to debate these issues, then see it continue to defer debate because 41 senators have said they would be willing to filibuster. If that means listening to Robert Byrd talk himself to death, so be it (I CAN think of worse things in life than Robert Byrd keeling over in the well of the Senate). If the Republicans want to change the rules, they should change the one that allows dual-track legislation and force the debate on these nominees forward to its conclusion. That is their job and they are paid very well to do it. SO let them do it.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:53:50 AM EST
    PPJ, It's been done. Senators have read long sections of the bible into the record in an attempt to stop a vote, and it worked, for a while. But you know what, Jim? Here on earth, everyone has to eat, sleep, and use the facilities. There is a practical limit to how long any one person can hold the floor. And there is a logical limit to how long 99* senators will sit there and listen to Senator windbag drone on and on and on. The dual track rule is the problem here, as it has made the senators too comfortable. The filibuster, which used to require actual effort, has become a threat to exert such effort. And because Frist is willing to go along with that, we end up where we are today. If any rule needs to be changed, that's the one. *(I'm assuming here that Kerry will again have failed to show up for work or will have walked out after 10 minutes)

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:00:55 AM EST
    Hey TL, how about letting people discuss actual forum questions here instead of answering points with personal attacks and snarky non-sequiturs? Just a thought... There are a couple of other forums discussing this a little more intelligently...Blaghdaddy bids you all adieu...

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:21:52 AM EST
    So Blaghdaddy asks TL to limit his own input and then leaves. Interesting methodology.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:22:34 AM EST
    If the filibuster is going to exist, it should exist as real debate (or reading the phone book, bible, etc) that cannot be cut off because you do not have 60 votes to stop debate. There is a senate rule that states the opposite - for "efficiency" someone just has to announce they will have endless debate, and unless you have 60 votes it will not to to the floor for any debate. Change this rule if not the other: 14 hours on the floor will look great on C-Span; and this will not be a very often used tactic (which would be good)

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:32:03 AM EST
    I think blaghdaddy was referring to you, justpaul. I joined this forum because it had some good thread, but you and PPJ have to be TL plants to keep the convo going because neither of you have had anything constructive to add in the couple of days I've been looking in. Time for me to go elsewhere as well... Thanks for the forum, TL, keep up the good work!

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:46:29 AM EST
    Thought Mechanic, Yes, I understood what blaghdaddy was implying, but since most of his complaint applied to his own commentary, it seemed odd. With regard to yours: If all you want to hear is people saying that Harry Reid is the second coming, or that anything other than the Democratic talking points is nonconstructive, that's your prerogative and there are many other sites where you can have that need fulfilled. If an honest discussion of what's really at stake is not constructive, I don't know what is. I can't speak for Jim, but I can assure that I'm no plant. Jeralyn is kind enough to allow me to comment, usually without editing, and for that I am grateful. If she wanted this to be a liberal Free Republic, with both opposing views and those deemed insufficiently supportive deleted immediately, she could make it so quite easily. That she chooses not to only shows, IMO, that she has more class than that.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:54:03 AM EST
    Actually, ThoughtMechanic doesn't follow anyone, I think for myself. But why can't we stick to the discussion without the "you're dumber than I thought" and "you don't know anything" comments? To say that the neocons would be "dumb" to follow Frist over this cliff was a political statement, not a personal attack on anyone. As for not censoring your comments showing how classy Jeralyn is, justpaul, you can't censor some and not others and call yourself fair. TL admonished people to stick to the facts and not attack personally, but I didn't see where those with views differing from liberals are at liberty to disregard those same rules. Just wanted to make my own little point. TL is cool, but sometimes the rhetoris and name-calling gets a little dull. And justpaul, I re-read all of today's comments, I couldn't find one personal attack from Blaghdaddy, but I saw some of yours and the other dude's. You can't lay this one on him, you're the one throwing names. Ciao

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#36)
    by soccerdad on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:54:53 AM EST
    ACE wrote
    Thoughtmechanic then followed Blag out of here... LOL. Hey Sherman, don't you have someplace to go?
    and this is the ultimate goal of the rethug noise machine is to limit debate. They have succeeded quite well here. Probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the posts here try to refute the moronic ramblings of the few right wing apologists who just post the same thing over and over and over, never mind it was shown to be wrong months ago.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:59:11 AM EST
    Just Paul, the objections to Owen have been stated repeatedly. Type her name in the search box on the right and all the posts I've written about her will come up.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:00:55 AM EST
    Oops...someone emailed Blaghdaddy and told him a couple of people have agreed with him on the rhetoric...good news all around! Soccerdad...one solution...if someone is offering nothing but snark and vitriol, from now on, why don't the commentators address their comments to the people with whom they're actually discussing...when the nasty dart-throwers see that they're being completely passed over, perhaps they'll find greener pastures. Blaghdaddy loves discussion, but arguing with people who just keep pounding the party line is not only exhausting, it's a waste of time and resources. Let's talk FACTS and not FUDGE, shall we? Back in awhile, take care everyone.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#39)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:07:43 AM EST
    Thought Mechanic, Can you please provide an example of me "throwing names"? Or said that anyone was "dumber" than anyone else? Or suggested anyone didn't know anything? Or where I have disregarded those rules? Please be specific. If I've been in the wrong I'm willing to acknowledge that and to apologize, but your saying it's so doesn't make it so.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:13:09 AM EST
    Thanks TL, It was so far down in the list of search results that I missed it. Good argument, and, assuming the New York Times was correct on their facts, it would be reason to reconsider this nominee. Given that, do you have any idea why the ABA gave her it's highest rating? And I especially like your own comment "Judges are allowed to have personal views on issues. They are not supposed to allow those views to dictate their judicial decisions." I certainly agree with you there. Hope it applies to all judges.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:14:36 AM EST
    I see blaghdaddy is still incapable of understanding simple concepts... Is that fact, justpaul, or name-calling? Do you know for a fact what he understands, or isn't this just silly name-calling because you have no actual rebuttal? Once again Blaghdaddy shows that his only real skill is bad impressions of TV characters... Again, how is this comment relevant to what the discussion involves? Thoughtmechanic then followed Blag out of here...LOL. Hey Sherman, don't you have someplace to go? Yes, justpaul, you may be right...no actual name-calling (to paraphrase Clinton, "it depends on what calling names is, is is...") But do you stand behind these comments as valid contributions and not snarking?

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#42)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:17:05 AM EST
    Wooooow....way to absolutely derail TL's discussion with your contributions, guys. Now I know why Bush keeps all dissenters out of his forums...so he can get in a word edgewise... Keep up the great debate on names and snark, guys...TL must be proud...

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:24:16 AM EST
    Okay Anon. My apologies to Blaghdaddy. My attempt at a small amount of humor based on an exchange from yesterday appears to have offended someone. His skills include more than impersonating TV characters, I just don't know what they are. However, blaghdaddy does still seem to have a problem in that he seems to assume that anyone not sufficiently liberal (using his own definition of whatever that means) is a "con" or "Republican". I guess attempting to correct him on that was improper of me. Again, I apologize if this offended anyone. In fact, it seems that my attempt at humor has so offended someone that it has "derailed" the conversation so that someone could comment on it. Sorry once again. In the interest of allowing the discussion to proceed, I willingly remove myself from it for the time being. Enjoy.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:31:25 AM EST
    justpaul, don't you dare go anywhere. You have debating skills, that much is evident...Blaghdaddy won't call your intelligence into question just 'cause he disagrees with you...but say something besides "you don't know nuthin'" K? Blaghdaddy WAS behaving very differently yesterday, but TL asked to knock it off and he did. He's just a little frustrated that others seem not to have heard or understood... Ask Jeralyn if she has any records of Blaghdaddy's "skills," if he has any. He has corresponded with her more than once, and he can't believe that she'd disagree with the point he's making.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#45)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:50:22 AM EST
    For justpaul: Via TalkLeft, Blaghdaddy makes the case why political blogging is a waste of time... Resonance, April 11, 2005 A blog by Blaghdaddy got a laugh from me tonight...go read his reasons...the guy had some style and some righteous anger - it's too bad he quit so soon...maybe if enough people leave Blawgdaddy (sic) comments, he'll start blogging again. Talkleft, April 10, 2005 Blaghdaddy - Many thanks for posting my email and for your commentary.... Thanks again (Blaghdaddy) - don't mind an intellectual challenge... Fr Jim OUR LADY OF LOURDES CHURCH Email from Father Jim Chern,(Religious Commentator for FoxNpews), March 30, 2005 Blaghdaddy has more, if you still think Blaghdaddy's some liberal nut...how many other bloggers do you know who are on a first-name basis with a national columnist from the other side, and who correspond with them? Blaghdaddy lives to discuss, not to be right 100% of the time...how about y'all?

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#46)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 09:59:04 AM EST
    We have a modest proposal on how to leverage Sen. Reid's recent tactical victory over the "reds" to their continued discomfort and disadvantage.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:28:44 AM EST
    Probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the posts here try to refute the moronic ramblings of the few right wing apologists who just post the same thing over and over and over, never mind it was shown to be wrong months ago.
    It's taken me awhile to not get sucked in to the non-debate. I have to say that JustPaul has some valuable input. I don't agree with him most of the time but he can back up his ideas as logical. PPJ, I've learned to use my "manual ignore" button by realizing that he adds nothing to the debate. But IMPORTANT... let's move forward to common ground and agree that DIVIDERS are not worth responding to.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#48)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:32:00 AM EST
    Deal! Let's make it binding, eliminate the filibustering (Blaghdaddy's been waiting for days to us the word for his own purpose!) and get on with the discussions...

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#49)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:03:30 AM EST
    Dearest No Name - Whatever else I am I have the guts to put my moniker on my comments. I think will start calling you hairless. And perhaps you can tell me why we should all be agreeing? Hairless, you should observe the Lemming as it dutifully agrees with the others... and goes over the cliff and into the sea to drown by the thousands. Blaghdaddy - Self promotion aside, the results will speak for themseles. ThoughtMechanic - Sorry I haven't met your expectations, my good stuff is being filibustered. Blaghdaddy at 9:00AM "There are a couple of other forums discussing this a little more intelligently...Blaghdaddy bids you all adieu..." Blaghdaddy at 10:00AM "Posted by Blaghdaddy at April 27, 2005 10:00 AM Oops...someone emailed Blaghdaddy and told him..." Could you share that email? I think you are BSing us. justpaul - This would be the third time the clouture vote requirement - to stop a filbuster - has been changed. The previous two times it was the holy Demos.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#50)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:06:17 AM EST
    we have a modest proposal on how to leverage sen. reid's recent tactical victory over the "reds" to their continued discomfort and disadvantage.
    love that pudentilla! blogwhoring for skippy all over blogtopia! and yes! we coined that phrase!

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#51)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    Doc Ace, Went to lunch and found out that you still are a jerk. PPJ, yes, you are a quasi-fascist. If it looks like a duck.... justpaul, thanks for the clairification. I still don't think any of the wingnuts that skulk about here have really not noticed what you mentioned earlier about the future perils of doing away with the filibuster in regards to judicial nominations. Now for all of you wingnuts and GOoPers who have a hard time understanding even what your side is saying, the "nuclear option" only pretains to judicial nominations and doesn't work towards changing the parlimentary rules governing filibusters. In other words, they are changing the rules not to benefit the senate as a whole but to make it easier to ram threw nominees. That is it. Consolidation of power for one party RULE. That is why PPJerk,Doc A**, JCH, et al. are eithering lying when they say they believe in democracy or are just ignorant of what the Republicans plan for the filibuster. Not to do away with a "unconstitutional" debate method, but to make sure that no other political party can have any say so when it comes to who will sit on a liftime judicial appointment or not.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#52)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 11:56:05 AM EST
    PPJ- So your response is to call Blaghdaddy a liar now? Good answer...by the way, have you seen Blaghdaddy's posting to answer justpaul? If Blaghdaddy deigned to show you his emails, including the supportive ones from Talkleft, including a response from a columnist for FoxNews, inlcluding Eric Margolis, would you show Blaghdaddy the many emails you get supporting you? If not, back to the topic at hand... Blaghdaddy will not be responding to personal attacks from this point, as he's agreed not to engage in that behavior as personally requested of him by TL. Blaghdaddy will be making his comments and looking for discussion, and all others who want to derail the topics will do so without Blaghdaddy's assistance in providing them more forum with answers.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#53)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 12:21:20 PM EST
    What a witty rejoinder, Doc. Any thoughts about the filibuster that might not be just the same old rhetoric that you and others feel the need to keep regurgitating? Please someone come up with something of substance? Can anyone tell me why they are ok with changing filibuster rules when it comes to judges but nothing else? Any takers?

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#54)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 02:34:51 PM EST
    No, Doc, you are also guilty of snarkiness posing as thoughtful debate. Please don't try to be too terribly sanctimonious when avoiding a response to my question, why is it ok with you people that the Frist and Co. only want to partially change filibuster rules, pretaining ONLY to judicial nominees, but want to leave it pretty much alone in regards to other debates? How does the Republican party avoid looking like they just want to change rules of the game when they start losing? And yes, they must be losing votes on going nuclear since it has been two weeks and counting since they said the were going ahead with the option. I personally couldn't care less about changing parliamentary procedure in the Senate, but what I do care about is that the Republicans feel that when something isn't going their way it is ok to change the rules of the game to make sure you win. And not only do I see it this way, but the majority(you know,majority. That pesky word that Republicans love when it comes to the Preznit but not when it turns out to be people against destroying the filibuster)of Americans see it this way. When I was a child and kids like that wanted to play the rest of us avoided them like the plague, and soon this could happen to the GOP if power mongers are allowed to dictate policy.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#55)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 02:45:54 PM EST
    Sherman, you're a man among boys for that thread. Blaghdaddy bids goodnight to all, take care and talk to y'all tomorrow. TL, thanks again for the forum. We all appreciate it.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#56)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 03:15:49 PM EST
    Blaghdaddy - A liar? Heaven forbid someone would call you a liar. I'm just saying I don't believe you.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#57)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 03:19:41 PM EST
    Sherman writes - "PPJ, yes, you are a quasi-fascist. If it looks like a duck...." So a fascist wants a full up debate? And a believer in democracy wants to prevent debate? Hmmmm. What is wrong with that picture? Sherm baby, you should give up. You made a dodo of yourself, and yet you still keep at it.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#58)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 03:45:23 PM EST
    Hey, what the heck happened to the 4 post rule? Oh well, when in Rome.. PPJ and Doc Ace, what? You guys are SERIOUS? I mean I have heard of the pot calling the kettle black, but c'mon already. Where the heck did I say I wanted to prevent debate, hmmm? Please put exactly where I made that comment and I will agree with you, PPJ. But as with most "debates" with you there is only your way or the highway, and who wants to talk to an Authoritarian like that for too long? I suppose me, but then again I always liked getting on the nerves of folks who think they know it all. Doc, go look up passive/agressive and you will see how it applies to some of your comments not just about me but about others on this thread. Seems to me you don't have the guts to go out on a limb with what you believe, so my responses to you are just a way of saying "Hey little guy, I think you might have something to say, if you could just overcome all those personality problems." I am sure there is a brain running your frame, I just want to know what makes it tick. Still have yet to hear anything of substance from PPJ or Doc Ace that would make me change my mind about my stance on this subject, but I hold out .... hope? No, more like a feeling that soon the "characters" of PPJ and Doc Ace will be exposed as the two lonely guys they must be. Gotta go, had a lot of fun! Didn't learn much, but hey, what "liberal" can? We are too busy feeding babies to Satan (nod to Rude Pundit). See you guys in other threads!

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#59)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 05:45:25 PM EST
    Sherman - You need to understand something. It is not my purpose in life to change your mind. Now, let's explain the purpose of a filibuster. The Repubs have a nominee they want to bring to the full Senate, have a debate, and then a vote. The Demos don't want the nominee brought to the Senate floor because they are afraid that they cannot win the debate, and he will be confirmed. So side B "filibusters" to prevent the nominee being debated and voted on. So, when the person who wants the filibuster, doesn't want the debate, calls the person who wants the debate, a quasi-fascist, then it is obvious the person doing the "fascist" calling doesn't know what he is talking about. That person, Sherman, is you.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#60)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 06:10:32 PM EST
    Jim, I'm not by any means whatever calling you a fascist, but take another look at the following sentence that you wrote: "So a fascist wants a full up debate?" Sure he does, if he knows what the outcome is going to be, in advance. Nothing makes fascism look less like fascism than the Appearance of free discourse. Come on, man. It's only a big issue because everyone knows what's at stake, here. It's mapped out. Were there a less predictable Senate, then the Dems wouldn't be filibustering in the first place. I may be against how they're using the filibuster, but that doesn't blind me to the fact that with each confirmation of this type of judge, another blow is struck for censorship in this country. It oughtn't blind you, either; frankly, as big a lover of the First Amendment as you seem to be, I'm surprised you're so unconcerned.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimcee on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:34:57 PM EST
    The childishness that is going on in the Senate is well reflected by the media and many of the coorospondents on this thread. The Dems are having a tantrum because they can't believe that they are not in charge right now so they are being as disruptive as possible because they know if the full Senate votes the judges will be confirmed and the major media are thier enablers. The Repubs are being really ham- fisted and expect the Dems to just roll over without a fight. The Repubs have a really bad track record when it comes to explaining thier actions to the peole and again the media does thier best to cloud the issues on behalf of the Dems. After reading the preceding comments on this thread it seems that the lines between the two sides have been well drawn...in chaulk and in a child's hand.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#62)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 07:49:14 PM EST
    Glanton - At the risk of repeating myself, if the Democrats think these people are so terrible, they should be chomping at the bit to show the world what crummy people the Repubs have nominated. Besides. Didn't everyone say that Bolton was a slam dunk? I think you sell the Senate short when you think the Repubs will just rubber stamp anyone. As for censorship, I see that as a strawman from the left. That and "religion." My cultural issues are simple. "Out of many, one." Everyone is welcome in my world, just don't show up for dinner and then start complaining it isn't breakfast.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#63)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:30:46 PM EST
    "they should be chomping at the bit to show the world what crummy people the Repubs have nominated." There, Jim, is where we absolutely agree. And it largely speaks to why the filibuster bothers me. Censorship is not a "strawman" to the artists and producers under constant surveillance, the cutting-edge performance venues getting audited at a rate exceeding even the Reagan years; it is not a "strawman" considering the Patriot Act; it is not a "strawman" considering the direction of the FCC: somewhere, on some level of government, we need voices that are bedrock committed to free expression. And Bush's nominees go a long way towards precluding the Court System from treasuring such things. There is also such a thing as censorship of the body, yes? And censorhip of the public science teacher, yes?

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#64)
    by glanton on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 08:32:06 PM EST
    Sorry, above by me.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#65)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:30:56 AM EST
    Guys..... GUYS!!!! Oh My God. Blaghdaddy, JustPaul is not a neo-con and is not in the same class as PPJ and Doc Ace (and Patrick) who should all be ignored as they inhibit debate and destroy consensus. In looking at the posts that lead up to your rather huffy exit, I don't see anything that JustPaul says that could cause offense except to say "I see blaghdaddy is still incapable of understanding simple concepts..." However, before that you say: justpaul is trying to muddy the waters. I didn't see it that way, his point was on topic and well taken as well as well refuted by others. And again, before the JustPaul comments you posted you said:
    Hey justpaul, what are you and the cons gonna say if this nuclear thing goes through and the Democrats withdraw unanimous consent?...What're ya gonna say? Blaghdaddy'd love to hear it, and he's sure the rest of us do to...
    Actually, Blaghdaddy, if you read JP's posts more carefully you will see that he's actually kind of on the fence. Rather than alienating him by dismissing his points I would advocate trying to find common ground. His arguments are those of the conservative mainstream and if we want seats, if we want Govenors, if we want Presidents we'd gosh darned better convince the JustPauls of the country that we can represent them too. And to qualify, this is not the same as compromising ideals - it's finding common language, IMHO to face our common problems.

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#66)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 07:45:02 AM EST
    Mfox, you're right on the money on that one...justpaul is definitely not PPJ or Doc Ace (to whom Blaghdaddy will not respond in future, whatever the provocation). Blaghdaddy was reading justpaul's comment on the filibuster issue (Blaghdaddy thinks they're all going down on this Hill nonsense anyway, that's his blogfor today, but this is Jeralyn's site so just the link) and Blaghdaddy wondered if he'd TOTALLY misread justpaul. So justpaul, if Blaghdaddy pegged you wrong, he apologises. Problem is, with chatterers who like to stir things up, we sometimes end up swinging at each other in the melee...Blaghdaddy will make sure to read very carefully what someone is saying before responding...

    Re: Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option (none / 0) (#67)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Thu Apr 28, 2005 at 08:15:28 PM EST
    Don't worry Blaghdaddy, you get props for being able to refer to yourself consistently in the third person ( I tried it on another thread - its not as easy as it seems!). Trust me, as measured by other exchanges on TL you were both pulling punches. Welcome. Your sight's "aight" (I type hoodspeak much better than I pronounce it!). Or should I be saying "Phat"? or "IL"? ; )

    Frist Rejects Compromise on Nuclear Option | 67 comments (67 topical)