Redstate

FWIW, this leaves out McCain, Snowe, Chafee, and Specter.  They need 2 more votes.  So we need 7 of these 8.  I think if they are forced to vote, we can get 7 or 8.  But I think they are absolutely interested in a compromise.  It wouldn't surprise me to see one agreed to on Monday night.

I will actually be a little surprised if Reid pushes it through and forces a vote on the filibuster rule by preventing cloture on any of the current 7. He doesn't have the public with him right now, and even the most moderate Republicans in the party disagree with his tactics, even if they want to preserve the filibuster in general terms.

By giving up the filibuster now over the court of appeals, and I think it is clear from those comments that Frist has the votes if he really needs them, Reid gives up a huge weapon in a Supreme Court fight. Refusing 7 judges all at once (10 if you count the 3 who gave up because of the destruction it was causing their lives) just looks obstructionist. The public sympathy is not with Reid on this one.

On the other hand, if Reid were to let the 7 through, then all of a sudden the stats for confirmation approvals go up and the Democrats suddenly look much more reasonable and much less obstructionist. That would then give them a stronger hand to play if they wanted to filibuster a supreme court nominee. He can say "we gave them every unreasonable, extreme nominee he wanted on the court of appeals. But when it comes to the highest court in the land, that's where we draw the line." That would work well for them to defend the use of the filibuster then... if it still exists.

The only problem for Reid with that approach is that nobody likes a loser, and if he gives up now after all his whining and carping, he will look like a big loser. (I'm not a public official, so it is not inappropriate for me to call him that!)

Who wants to bet that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R (sort-of) - SC) will be ALL over the Sunday shows this weekend?

Giving in now on Reid's part would make no sense in terms of retaining the ability to filibuster a Supreme Court Justice should the chance arise (which it almost certainly will).  If he rolls over now without the confrontation, then Frist still has the ability to demand a vote on changing the rules whenever he pleases (like...say...right before a justice is nominated for the Supreme Court?).

And I don't know what figures you're citing that attest to the public being on Frist's side of this arguement.  Almost every poll I've seen sees the public quite in favor of keeping the filibuster (generally by 7-9%) with the recent Pew poll being the first that comes to mind http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=243

Forgive me, but the Pew poll here is hardly authoratitive on the subject.

First: 1502 ADULTS polled by phone over the weekend - not voters, not registered voters, but anyone who picks-up the phone on a Saturday or Sunday evening and claims to be older than 18.

Second: by their own admission, 65% are not following the action very closely (39% say they are not following it at all).

Third: with the monolithically pro-Democrat coverage of this issue in the MSM, the fact that the "change the rules" question came out 28 (favor) - 37 (oppose) with this cohort is actually pretty encouraging.

BTW, I won't answer for where Pat's (above) numbers are coming from.

"Reid is playing a major game of chicken here. If he loses, he loses big."

This is a very perceptive interpretation. While it may not necessarily occur with the Sup. Ct. nomination, I cannot understand why the Democrats want to fire the filibuster weapon now. What options do they have if this fails? I think they're stuck with pure media/politics/character assassination/persuasive argument. Shouldn't they want to save the last ditch option for the last ditch? Then again, maybe this is the Supreme Court nomination we're watching after all, and they highest vote getter of this round, gets the promotion later this summer when the vacancy arises.

May 14, 2005 --As the Judicial Nomination battle moves to its final days in the U.S. Senate, two weeks of partisan posturing have failed to change public opinion in a significant manner.

Today, 57% of Americans say that "Senate rules should be changed so that a vote must be taken on every person the President nominates to become a judge." That's unchanged from two weeks ago.

Rasmussen is polling 57-25 in favor.  That's pretty significant.

How about a non binding Sense of the Senate vote to determine if the filibuster is appropriate.

From CSPAN

SENSE OF THE SENATE is legislative language which offers the opinion of the Senate, but does not make law

The vote would be say simple majority, 51. If 51 Senators say filibuster then no cloture, it's a test vote.

Here's the main thing the vote is secret. Since this is only a Sense of the Senate I think it could be done. Does away with party arm twisting for the most part.

Probably won't work, but worth some thought.

The Democrats are searching for a face-saving measure to limit the loss of contributions to the party and to Democrat candidates.

I sense that the Republican leadership understands this is a winning issue and even the moderate Republicans are on board now.

People for the American Way[pdf] via kos.

Senator Susan Collins R-ME

[T]o change the rules of the Senate and to invoke what they are calling the nuclear option ... would so poison the well that I fear that it would be very difficult for us to tackle those major issues that are coming down the road.

Senator Arlen Specter R- PA

I'm going to use every ounce of my energy, Wolf, to avoid confronting the nuclear option, because I think it would be disastrous for America. The Senate has a long, rich tradition for protecting minority rights.

Senator Chuck Hagel R- NE

It's important that we protect the institution of the Senate and the tools of minority rights because if those are eroded, you will then put the institution on a slippery slope to keep--by straight majority vote. By saying this rule's going to change. This rule's going to change. ... I do not like this approach. It's a dangerous approach. It's an irresponsible approach. And it further erodes the constitutional minority rights element of the Senate.

Senator John Warner R VA

We can't do damage to the Senate rules, which would come back to work against the interests of the Republican Party when we're in the minority. ... This is the last bastion, an institution that protects the rights of the minority.

Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana

On the fundamental issue, I believe we are skating over very thin ice here with regard to the continuity of life in the Senate as we've known it,' Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) said on CNN's `Late Edition.' `I'm opposed to trying to eliminate filibusters simply because I think they protect minority rights, whether they're Republicans, Democrats or other people.'

Senator John Sununu of New Hampshire

"I'm just thinking through the history and the precedents of changing the rules.  Like any rules change, I want to ask the question: If the rule is changed, is it something I'm comfortable with whether I'm in the majority or the minority, whether we have a Republican president or a Democratic president?"

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska

"`The fact of the matter is that there has been an ability to filibuster judges from the day the Senate was formed,' Murkowski said earlier this year. `And out of protocol, or courtesy, or just a recognition of the Senate's constitutional obligation to give advice and consent on the president's judicial nominees, filibusters weren't even considered up until the 108th Congress. That's where I get frustrated,' she said. `I don't want to have to change the rules because now some people have decided that they can now use it to their advantage to permanently block a president's nominee. It may be that you have four years or eight years of judges that one side doesn't like. But then you've got eight years of judges that the other side likes, so there's an evening of the process,' she said. `I don't like the nuclear option, let's put it that way, and I hope we don't get to the point where we have to institute it.'

The group claims a secret vote would only garner about 38 votes for changing the rules based on past public statements regarding the nuclear option.  The question is, can Frist muscle the moderates to bowing to the party line or will they vote their conscious?

WaPo/ABC - Two to one oppose rule change

Time Magazine Two to one oppose rule change

CNN/USA Today/Gallup 52-40 favor filibusters

NBC/WSJ - 50-40 want no rule change

Non-partisan polls

You guys need to get used to the idea that we don't believe your media or their polls any more. For every 'fact' you read in your media, we read a different fact in our media.

You think our polls are BS. We think your polls are BS. We are no longer in a Universe where people are disagreeing about policy in the presence of a common set of facts.

We learned the hard way that we couldn't trust your facts. If we did, we'd believe that Dan Rather's memos were real. We'd believe it's possible to flush a book down a toilet. We'd believe that Al Gore invented the Internet.

But we don't believe any of those things. And we don't believe your polls, either.

So now the problem is, how do partisan struggles get resolved, when the partisans no longer agree on what facts are in evidence?

Let me suggest that it is done by out-fundraising, out-organizing, and ultimately out-voting the opponents so as to make it possible to simply roll over them no matter how loudly they scream.

This is the legacy of a decades-long Gramscian "march through the institutions" to turn the organs of news dissemination into the trumpet of the left. This is intended to de-stablize the society; and it does. But there is no guarantee that a destabilized society will fall over in the direction hoped-for by the Gramcians. They might be standing in just the place where the bricks come down the hardest.

Hence the Irish curse: May all your wishes come true.

The usual practice is to become a journalist first, and then a prostitute -- Jeff Gannon

Unhinged would be a massive understatement.

I think you kid yourself about how widely believed the so-called "mainstream" medis is. In a story on May 8 concerning the formation of a new Panel of Wizards to enhance the Times' credibility, the New York Times had this to say, not least about itself:

A recent study from the Pew Research Center found that 45 percent of Americans believe little or nothing of what they read in their daily newspapers, a level of distrust that may have been inflated because the questions were asked during the contentious presidential campaign when the media itself was often at issue. When specific newspapers were mentioned, The Times fared about average, with 21 percent of readers believing all or most of what they read in The Times and 14 percent believing almost nothing.

I would imagine that a member of the 21% who believe that the Times is highly credible have a difficult time with the idea that 14% are sufficiently pissed to say they believe almost nothing in it, and that everybody else has their doubts. But them's the facts: 45% believe little or nothing of what they read in their daily newspapers. Destabilizing? You bet.

I truly believe most of this Senators are conflicted.  They would like to have the system in place that served from the 1800s until the late 1990s.  But they also see that Democrats are abusing the filibuster by using it as a partisan veto over the President's appointments in an unprecedented way.  That's why they are looking for a compromise that would keep the filibuster for judicial nominees but allow up-or-down votes on all current nominees.  The "New, New Deal" would satisfy those criteria and I think it has a decent chance of being agreed to.  However, if forced to choose between the "disastorous nuclear option" and denying an "up-or-down vote" to qualified nominees due to aobstructionist, partisan Democratic minority, I think 7 or 8 of the above quoted Senators will side with putting the majority-rule tradition back into place even if it means having to use the "nuclear option."

Political coverage I would perhaps agree that partisans are only willing to hear what they want to hear.  You are an object example in that regard.

People who are not particularly partisan or not politicaly active/aware will tend not to believe much of any political coverage because it makes their head hurt having to think through the issues.

But, 45% believe little or nothing of what they read in their daily newspapers?

45% don't believe :

"'Star Wars' breaks single-day sales mark"

"Showdown vote set for Tuesday on filibusters of Bush nominees"

"Mary Kay Letourneau marries former student"

"14 dead recovered from Andes; 31 Chile troops still lost"

Is this really what you are trying to say? Is the 'MSM' lying to us about everthing? Does the 'alternative' media of Rush, Hannity, Savage etc. present the only true picture of what's going on in the world around us?

It's indeed much simpler to focus on one particular lens with which to view the world rather than try to sort out the truth from the myriad of conflicting and confusing lenses available but wishing it so don't make it so.

Is this really what you are trying to say? Is the 'MSM' lying to us about everthing?

No, that's just how the New York Times reported it. If you don't believe it either, then that's two of us. See? We're already on the way to 45%, and this is the New York Times we're talking about.

What I figure is that Pew had one of those questions where people had to choose from 5 points on a continuum ranging from "Believe all or most" to "Believe little or nothing", and the high score received by 'little or nothing' reflects people's attempt to fit how they feel about newspapers these days into the continuum provided. That they picked the option reflecting the least amount of credibility should probably not be taken literally, but rather as the most emphatic way of saying "I don't trust them" available to those answering.

This makes much more sense than positing vast numbers of tin-foil-hatters who suspect the newspapers of lying to them about the high school sports scores.

But as an example from my own experience, when I see that the Washington Post has come out with a new poll that says X, I do not suspect for one moment that X is true. What I suspect is that the Washington Post wishes that X were true, and it is hoping to influence the value of X by creating what might look like peer pressure to the weaker minds out there.

I formed this opinion upon viewing two consecutive issues of the San Francisco Comical, in 1980. One day's paper was headlined "Too Close to Call." The next day's headline said, "Reagan Landslide." I have since observed this behavior on the part of newspapers (most of whom are relying on AP) many, many times.

Perhaps you will recall, speaking of recalls, that Gray Davis had a 50-50 chance of keeping his job. "Too Close to Call." Said so right in the LA Times, the day of the election. You can only watch them do this so many times before you join the 45% who figure, "It's just them again."

Same thing with this Tom DeLay deal. You cannot convince most Americans that all these CongressCritters aren't doing this stuff. So when they see this big jihad against DeLay, with breathless reporting of every new "bombshell," they figure it's just the Democrats in the media — the same ones who lie to them about the polls — putting on another Peter Benchley show about some guy the DNC wants to get rid of. That's a yawn, and in fact that's exactly what the polls are showing — nobody cares. They don't care about Bolton, either. It's just the Democrats in the media blowing the trumpet of the left. Quick, where's the sports section.

Just think, half the people you think are being reached by the mainstream media are treating it just that way.

Agreed, this is the reaction of most 'normal' people, those who do not hove reflexively to the interpretation of one of the 2 parties.  Such is the level of political discourse in this country given the current level of partisanship between the two political parties.  Most people would rather not be forced to pick a side but prefer to say a pox on both your houses and keep their own counsel, or perhaps more accurately simply block out politics entirely until they are forced to confront issues.

But if you look objectively at what political reporting there is, aside from editorial opinion, most reporting is of the he said she said variety on the issue of the day with no attempt to devine the underlying truth.  Reaching a conclusion requires a little digging which most are not inclined to do, either they accept their respective party line or they simply tune out neither of which bears any indication of the underlying truths or falsehoods of the issue of the day.

Are you saying Newspapers, broadcasters and cable news networks should not report on Tom Delays troubles because there is no there there?  

These quite possibly are paraphrases, since I'm failing my google roll to find precise quotes:

"It is the intellectuals who are the dupes of their favourite newspapers; the poor read the sporting news, which is mostly true."  -- C.S. Lewis

"All newspapers should be by law divided into four parts: Truth, Probability, Possibility and Lies."  -- Thomas Jefferson

Are you saying Newspapers, broadcasters and cable news networks should not report on Tom Delays troubles because there is no there there?

I would see them focus on the 'there,' and not on Tom DeLay. For example, the Washington Post discovered the fact that one Nanci Pelosi, who is apparently a Member of the House, failed to file any report whatsoever concerning a trip she took to South Korea.


Here's a question for the class... did the Washington Post

a) Run a big story headlined "Pelosi Hid Details on South Korea Trip"

b) Bury this nugget at the bottom of a story about Tom DeLay

c) Call Nancy Pelosi's office and tip her off, quick before somebody else finds it

I'll let you guess which one they did (if you don't know). Let's just say that the press can be quite accommodating when the Rules Violator turns out to be a Democrat. To the point that someone who is not a Democrat just shakes their head in disbelief when they see it.

that Lugar, my RINO Senator, didn't join the seven others. Really amazing. I guess sometimes he does pay attention to the people who elected him.