[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

Hopefully nobody actually listens to me about politics.

I kinda think McCain's busy running for President. Frist was too, but now he's out of it; he needed that religious right support and he failed them. The field's fairly wide open now.

The hard right hates it. Tacitus, as is often the case, is fairly sensible.

Comments

[mgrasso.livejournal.com]

Wow, this is just such a great quote:

[Social Security, the filibuster, and defending Tom DeLay] is a stupefying squandering of political capital that speaks ill of the party leadership from the White House to the RNC to the Office of Senator Frist to the offices of activists from Main Street to K Street.

It's true, but has this ever been different when it comes to parties ensconced in power? They get a little crazy. Think about the Democratic Congress in 1993: you had the Metzenbaum ethics problems and the new Clinton White House going on all sorts of ill-advised legislative adventures. Ecce the Contract for America.

What the Democrats have to do then, I believe, is ride a reformist wave into power again in '06, as the GOP did in '94. The Republicans in '94 had term limits and all that stuff; the Democrats in '06 need to talk issues like, well, ethics and separation of powers.

[bryant]

Yep. This year has put the Democrats in pretty good position for that. 2006 is gonna be all about Schiavo, Delay, and Frist.

[bryant]

Although -- Metzenbaum, ethics? Did I miss something in 1993? Quite possible.

[mgrasso.livejournal.com]

Shoot, am I thinking of the other guy, the one with the Congressional Post Office problems? Memory hazy; please try again.

[mgrasso.livejournal.com]

Rostenkowski. My bad.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

This White House seems to specialize in the squandering of political capital.

[jeregenest.livejournal.com]

Cowardly Democrats.

[bryant]

Reid's last count showed them either 1 or 2 votes short of beating the nuclear option.

Question is, of course, would it have been better to let that happen? You have to assume that Rehnquist retires about fifteen seconds after the filibuster is removed. If you don't beat the nuclear option, you lose Roe v. Wade. Huge stakes. (And that's why the religious right is so pissed off.)

I think I'm OK with a moderate center winning this one. Doesn't mean I like the moderate center, but I can live with the result and it blunts the power of Dobson et al for the next few years.

The next two big questions: who gets nominated for Chief Justice and who's the fundie candidate in 2008. This could blow up again pretty easily if the moderates can't agree on what constitutes extraordinary circumstances.

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

It never ceases to amaze me, reading hard-right political blogs, that so many right wingers seem to be under the impression that "they" are somehow still under threat of "losing" to the Democratic Party. They talk about how this "seals the fate" of the Republican party being "Majority in Name Only" and about how Bush is now "doomed" to appoint a "moderate Supreme Court judge" as if OH MY GOD THE LIBERALS ARE WASHING OVER THE WALLS IN HORDES! HORDES I TELL YOU!

They control all three wings, they have their finger on the pulse of what most American want to hear and believe, the Democrats are in disarray and liberalism in this country is a dying, maligned concept. How much more do they need in order to feel safe?

[righteousfist.livejournal.com]

The world is not enough.

[bryant]

They don't want majority rule. They want majority dictate.

[tayefeth.livejournal.com]

What the heck is "Majority in Name Only"? If the American people agree so wholeheartedly with the Republicans, they shouldn't have trouble getting 60 Senate seats. If not, well, guess what, if the American people don't agree wholeheartedly with the Republicans, maybe they shouldn't have the right to do whatever their campaign contributors ask.

[head58.livejournal.com]

Is the left any different?

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

Well, no, but frankly I think our panicked attitude is a bit more on target (of course, I would, being a liberal). But, I mean, we were beaten in the last two elections, currently do not possess a majority in either house, and have got three years and change to wait until the next presidential election. I honestly find it a bit more justifiable to panic when the opposition is free-and-clear in the win zone for the next, oh, four years or so.

If we assume they won't cave, it's a good deal.

[eyelessgame.livejournal.com]

I have mixed feelings, all of which are ably quoted by better wordsmiths on other blogs than mine (Josh Marshall, Matt Yglesias, et al).

If we assume the seven Republicans who signed on to this won't cave to the Senate leadership when Bush's inevitable Thomas clone is nominated to the SC, well. But I cannot believe that Bush will nominate a justice who isn't dedicated to overturning Roe v Wade. Ever.

If another justice besides Rehnquist steps down before 2006 we'll still see the overturning of Roe v Wade -- I don't really think there's much room for debate on that. (Personally abortion isn't a hot button with me, pro or con. But it's a big deal to a lot of people.)

We are certain to see Chief Justice Scalia in any case.