Yup, John, you’re completely right. Why just this minute they’ve all taken off their masks to show their true alien lizard faces and are feasting on live hamsters while taking mud baths.

Posted by: Colman | May 24 2005 9:48 utc | 4

Frist is not being held accountable by the religious right for the moderates postponement of the nuclear option. The RINO’s are. Frist wins their continued and invigorated support as the hero who tried. We know Frist will never be president, but they don’t know that. He’s in the money.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 24 2005 10:46 utc | 6

The NYTimes reports :
‘ After thanking him [John McCain] on the Capitol steps for the “wonderful” deal, Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, acknowledged that Democrats had cleared the way for possible confirmation of three judges many in the party opposed. But Ms. Boxer said that others had been held off and she described the agreement as a “big victory” for Democrats…
‘ “If an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that’s not extraordinary circumstances, we, of course, reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow,” said Senator Mike DeWine, Republican of Ohio, another lawmaker instrumental in the compromise…
‘ Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the No. 2 Republican, said, “The way I read it, all options are still available with the timing to be determined.” ‘
Even Barbara Boxer’s been at the Kool-Aid.
The Demoplicans got nothing.
The Republicrats got three nominees confirmed, and the status quo ante.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | May 24 2005 11:32 utc | 8

A Demoplican victory? I don’t know.
As I understand it, it takes 60 senators to end a filibuster and 67 senators to change the rules on ending filibusters. The Republicrat assertion was that, no, a simple majority could change the rules. And to scare everybody even more they were going to have Dick Cheney show and repeat that assertion from a seat higher than everyone else’s and say it with a snarl.
Well, instead of just rolling over, an opposition, a collection of Senators ready to battle for victory for democracy, would have said at that point “no” you are wrong, would have pointed out that the very same tactic, the filibuster, has been used in the past by Republicrats as well, and would have rolled out their precedents for saying these things.
I’m told that the Senate Parlimentarian, himself a Republicrat, agrees with that more general and heretofore unquestioned interpretation of the Senate’s rules. Have him say a few words on that subject.
If the Republicrats persist in tuning over tables and breaking the chairs in the Senate point out that that is very bad behavior indeed and that it is being undertaken in a temper tantrum by a president who, not satisfied with having more than 200 of his proposed appointees consented to by the Senate insists on even the 10 or so judges who are considered beyond the pale of judicial right conduct; who insists on total power, over the Executive, the Judicial and the Legislative branches of the federal government, and make that the subject of Senate speeches until their power play is rescinded by a party chastened by the people of the Republic’s reaction to its very demise.
As it is the Demoplicans have just allowed three more reprehensible appointees in under the rope and have set themselves up for a replay of exactly the same situation at a time to be determined by the Republicrats.
And they will then be on record as having approved of, and catered to, the Republicrat assertion that is the basis of the Senate’s demise.

Posted by: John Francis Lee | May 24 2005 12:18 utc | 10

@Colman,
We will never know what a Dem victory might have looked like because the Dems blinked first. Possibilities were:
A) The 14 moderate Senators [concerned enough about an historic loss of minority filibuster rights and concerned about polling favoring filibuster rights] might very well have also voted no on the proposed GOP ‘nuclear’ plan to kill the filibuster. This would have resulted in a Dem ‘status quo’ victory but an inevitable theocratic electoral revenge upon the RINO Republicans who voted no. [However they are already being vilified by the theocrats for the compromise itself, so what’s the difference? Now that they see that compromising and voting with Dems both endanger their seats, they might vote with Frist the next time he proposes the nuclear option.]
B) The Democrats might have split to avoid looking “obstructionist” and hoped that by losing the battle, the GOP would look “extremist” in the 2006 war. But I think they had a better chance to win both the battle and the war when the GOP moderates were looking at the general polling numbers instead of at the theocrats polling numbers. The Democrats may still lose the battle when the Republicans break the compromise; and they’ll lose the 2006 war because they sold out their own liberal base again by caving on outrageous court appointees.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 24 2005 15:34 utc | 12

A catastrophic success.

Posted by: beq | May 24 2005 16:28 utc | 14

john, to reiterate what b pointed out it only takes a majority to change senate rules. it takes more than that (60 or is it 67?) to confirm a judge. so your statement that all the dems would have had to do was say “no, your wrong” is simply inaccurate. the thugs were saying ‘confirm our judges or we will take away the the 60/40 split all together.’ to subtract the option for filibuster completely strips a minority party of any power. also included in this ‘compromise’ was the stipulation that the president consult leaders in both parties before sending a judge up for confirmation. in other words, don’t be sendin one of those extremists up for the SC. doubt if he’ll listen. even tho the extremists are running wild w/ threats against any rethug who doesn’t tow the line at least there are a few moderates in the senate who acknowledge that a one party rule is not healthy. and it is easier for them to make a compromise now than to go against their party in a vote. although we had a few willing to cross over it’s doubtful we could have pulled enough to win in the 50/50 split once cheney weighed in. otherwise the dems wouldn’t have compromised at all. once the senate approved changing the rules to accomadate the extremists they would have been able to do it again and again and…….

Posted by: annie | May 24 2005 17:06 utc | 16

“I’d rather see Owens/Brown get their seats with dems on record opposing”
Dems will oppose as a block when the vote comes up on Owens. What they backed down on was filibustering to prevent a vote at all. Because they are in the minority, they likely won’t have enough no votes opposing Owens. So you’ll get your wish.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 24 2005 18:46 utc | 18

JD,
There were three issues to vote upon: 1. rules change [to determine how many votes needed to achieve cloture] 2.cloture [to stop a particular filibuster] 3. confirmation [of a particular judicial nominee]
The term nuclear option only applies to #1 above. Voting on #1 was averted by the compromise. I was saying that the Dems do not have enough votes for #3 above.

Posted by: gylangirl | May 24 2005 19:42 utc | 20

@JDMcKay – And repub #1 option is on very shaky constitutional grounds.
I´ll cite from Josh Marshall’s readers

Just to follow up on the earlier post about whether there could be a court challenge to the nuclear option, here’s what readers have said.
The overwhelming majority of readers who wrote in — ranging from political junkies to con law profs (many of whom also seem to be political junkies) — agree with what I’ve said earlier: absolutely no way this ever gets into court.
A pretty small minority see some arguments that might at least get a hearing. But even they see it as highly unlikely. So all of this suggests that as a practical matter there’s no reason to think of this as a serious possibility in evaluating what’s transpiring in the senate today.

The overwhelming legal opinion is that Senate procedures can not be challenged on a constitutional base.
I was astonished by this too, but this really seems to be the case. Therefore ther was no other chance then this compromise – as bad as it is. And it IS bad.

Posted by: b | May 24 2005 20:24 utc | 22

I’m with John, another democratic cave in. Are these supposedly democratic representatives ever going to grow a spine? Stupid me for even thinking they are going to be a democratic representative.

Posted by: terrorist lieberal craigb | May 24 2005 21:03 utc | 24

Bernard:
re TPM post you cite: yes, I saw that. And I don’t doubt the courts would shy away from this. Not a certainty, but… Hey, wouldn’t it be something if Janice Browne sat in judgment? Ha ha ha. 🙁
In any event, seems pretty clear that if indeed pushing the nuke option was defended by the courts, it would be done so based on deference to procedural perogatives while holding their nose over same perogative’s convenient ignoring of Senate rules constructed on constitutional guidelines. There has been much written about this, and not just by angry liberal bloggers.
Jesselee links/quotes a good deal of American Enterprise Institute’s Norman Ornstein here:
| http://blog.dccc.org/mt/archives/002809.html
Ornstein’s post is Nuclear Option constitutional and historical course: 101. (I’ll spare the quotes… Jesselee’s comments are as worthwhile as the article.)
Beyond all this, Josh (TPM) said on May 20: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_05_15.php#005716
…
So it wouldn’t seem a bad deal to me if the senate democrats were to allow up or down votes on some or even most of the judges in question, if what they got in return was some ironclad guarantee that the Republicans would no longer try to break the rules and abolish the right to filibuster.
…
If the filibuster is ‘saved’ today at the cost of letting the most constitutionally noxious nominees go through, do we really imagine that the pressure will be any less when we get into a Supreme Court battle? The question answers itself.
The situation would be different if the deal did not allow through at least the two most extreme nominees, Owen and Brown.(…)
So all of that is my thinking on why it might be good on substance and on politics — depending of course on the precise particulars of the deal — to give the Republican moderates a few judges now in exchange for putting to rest this plan to break the senate rules with false claims of the filibuster’s unconstituionality. But any agreement that concedes on the present nominees in exchange for kicking the can down the road till the next fight on which the stakes will be even higher is just stupid.
Well, guess what? We got Josh’s “stupid” option. He continues:
The truth is that I think this whole debate is really hypothetical or moot. They’ve decided to break the rules with their false claim of unconstitutionality. And if that’s true then Democrats should confront the situation at that level, without fear of doing so, without fear of ‘losing’ in the narrow sense of the term. It’s just about the rump caucus of Republican moderates and whether they want to join their colleagues in their rule-breaking.
Many readers argue that the sort of ‘compromise’ I suggest still wouldn’t be worth it because it would further confirm the Democrats’ reputation — both to themselves and to the electorate — as weak, as trimmers who won’t take a stand on a point of principle. In this sense, conceding anything would grant a measure of legitimacy to what is plainly an illegitimate action, one demonstrably based on false claims.(…)
I just watched Frist speaking on the floor, explaining this “compromise” gets past the “unprecedented obstructionism of the minority party in recent years.” Just prior, Bush had a TV op w/Owens making similar claims while extolling her many virtues. And yesterday, during a late afternoon recess, Hatch made a statement explaining that repub Fortas fillibuster was different because, in Orrin’s words, it was a “bi-partisan fillibuster”. Now, Sen Sessions is up there crowing “she got 88% of the vote”, she’s “one of the most qualified nominees in history of the Senate”… oh, fuck me!!!
And 60+ Clinton nominees repugs smoked is now an irrelevant annecdote.
AFAIC, these 2 women are rotten to the core. There was no reason… nothing to be gained from this… NOTHING. Never since W’s 1st innaugeration have the stars been lined to support a principled dem stand:
* Iraq’s going to shit.
* USD is going to shit.
* Public abhors repub Shiavo stunts, and has repubs defensive.
* 3-4 Americans support dems position.
* Public massively distrusts Bush Soc Security bamboozle.
So, of course the dems take advantage and hoist a white flag. Now I see on TPM word from the grapevine is dems discussing a Soc Sec “compromise”.
Face it, we’re fucked.

Posted by: JDMcKay | May 24 2005 23:33 utc | 26

There’s a lot of timing involved in “kicking the can down the road,” and I trust Reid’s sense of timing. Or more precisely, I can’t but trust his sense of timing, since I have no picture of the moving parts involved in the whole process (one that I take, rightly or wrongly, to be pretty complicated). I think that Reid, given his success at blocking the Yucca Mountain project, has shown that really understands the delaying mechanisms at his disposal

Posted by: alabama | May 25 2005 0:06 utc | 28

O c’mon alabama. It is finally time for you to recognise that this is all bullshit. Reid this, Reid that. Sure he’s an accomplished politician. We are way beyond that now.
Unless and until he (Reid) is able to stand up and call a spade a spade, drag the nasty repugs in to confront something resembling the truth, he is just playing their game. And losing, by definition; it is THEIR game.
If you need a tutorial on what is the truth here I can get into that later. For me right now it is enough to say that the repugs are and have been relying on lies lies lies to make a case for 1) killing a lot of Iraqis, 2) convincing the populace (thru the media) that we are in danger of being slaughtered by the terrorists, and 3) that we are in the right, supported by GOD, and have nothing to worry about when it comes to the ultimate judgement.
Point is, giving Frist ANY slack is to accept that our future is up to the greys, or the devil, or to whoever you assign responsibility for the behavior of these aliens who claim the right to control us.

Posted by: rapt | May 25 2005 1:16 utc | 30

beq, nice to see you again! I still remember last year when we listened to the readers on NPR reading from the Declaration of Independence. I feel mixed too. We’ve postponed the filibuster vote, but won nothing.
I didn’t like that quote from DeWine. I live not only in his district, but his home town, which is pretty Blue. Next time I see him in St Paul’s Catholic Church, I’d like to hit him with the right, solidly Catholic line about “being of this world,” which he is whenever he goes solidly Bush/Republican.

Posted by: francoise | May 25 2005 1:30 utc | 32

Alabama:
I think that Reid, given his success at blocking the Yucca Mountain
project, has shown that really understands the delaying mechanisms at
his disposal
agree w/that.
But not your trust of his “kicking the can”. I ask: what was purpose of fillibustering these nominees in the 1st place?
a) Was it an exercise in sharpening pencils?
b) Or did it mean something… like maybe these nominees were unnacceptable?
These nominees are dangerous. They have been trained in the weekend getaway, all expenses paid seminars of the Federalist Society, and chosen for the evident thoroughness and reliability of their indoctrination.
Frequent assertions of BushCo. fascist tendencies by liberal community are not just mendacious blowing of smoke, rather well grounded Orwellian fears justified by 4+ years of experience backed by mountains of evidence. Where even as recently as last election many in these liberal communities would not use such terms, now I hear/see/read such stuff regularly. These nominees fully embody all the charactaristics underlying these eerie BushCo tendencies. Empowering them to rule 2nd most influential courts in the land by such notions is not a small thing. If people don’t comprehend this by now, it’s to their shame!!!
I just listened to Leahy on the floor talking about this agreement, and as a consequence he was hoping/imploring “the president” to recognize the “spirit” of the agreement so that, in the future, he will seek advice on nominees from the minority leadership.
Do you think this will happen? Or is it more likely that Bush will shove his nastiest, most hardened idealogue when the time comes for SCOTUS nomination, accompanied by scowling psychophonia from the rw wurlitzer doing the same bullying bull shit they’ve done with increasing intensity and furor since Gingrich’s “revolution”?
I’ll take odds… and bet Rove has already written the script.
Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me a thousand fucking times, and I may as well put on the white robe.
I’m damn tired of swallowing my anger.

Posted by: JDMcKay | May 25 2005 1:54 utc | 34

If you need a tutorial on what is the truth here I can get into that later.
Why “later,” rapt? Why not now , instantaneously and immediately now ? You know I don’t know the truth–and never claimed to know the truth–so I obviously “need a tutorial” from someone who does. And right away! So lay it on, rapt, but do it right now –no delaying, please, no pauses, no exercises in “timing”! Just the total, instantaneous, punctual truth… Anything less, and you’re playing their game….(Ah, but wait, rapt! You said “later,” didn’t you?….So you do it, too, don’t you? I mean, you actually wait . You actually time things!…So tell the truth, rapt: you’re playing their game–it’s your game, too…but then maybe it’s everyone’s game…..).

Posted by: alabama | May 25 2005 4:53 utc | 36

rapt, I read an article three or four years ago about the lemming phenomenon, which turns out to be remarkably complex. They don’t go plunging over the edge for any simple or obvious reason. I read the article in haste, and can’t recall its argument (I think it was published in Le Monde , or maybe in Libération ).
I find the notion (very wide-spread) that the media exercise a powerful control over people’s minds to be suspect, unproven, and, finally, a kind of demonization. At the very least, it forecloses the possibility that people are making decisions, consensually, quite in advance of the media. How they might do this is a question; or as Melville puts it (rather enigmatically) at one point: “to treat of human actions is to deal solely in secondary causes”.

Posted by: alabama | May 25 2005 14:35 utc | 38

Alabama,
Where did you get that Melville quote that “to treat of human actions is to deal solely in secondary causes”? I’d like to read what else he had to say on this – and thank you for that nice little phrase.

Posted by: citizen | May 25 2005 16:40 utc | 40

the mass media filter out important discussions and present us w/ the options and “realities” that make us passive – chomsky
yet we cannot discount the active role of propaganda in misinforming, manipulating and leading the audience, readily observable in the u.s.
domestic propaganda is propaganda directed…inwards to control and deflect the purposes of the domestic electorate in a democratic country in the interests of privileged segments of that society – alex carey
whoever controls my experience of the world controls me
i cannot agree w/ the stmt that the media does not control people. just watch the advertising on children’s tv programming.

Posted by: b real | May 25 2005 17:23 utc | 42

I have difficulty, Colman, with the concept of “mind control”–as in the phrase “mind control steadily oozing from the media”. Something’s going on, that’s for sure, but I’m not about to suppose that the media are “powerful”. They might, for example, be “weak,” and they might have no influence on people at all. That people put up with things and do things, even very bad things, is beyond doubt, but the decisive role of the media here is certainly open to question. Since I’ve always assumed that freedom of the press is an essential precondition for democracy, and I’m an in all essentials a democrat, I have a lot of thinking left to do on this most baffling of subjects.

Posted by: alabama | May 25 2005 17:31 utc | 44

Well, I suppose examining the conventional wisdom in detail is always a good thing, but what cause do you have to suppose that the media has little or no influence – I’m with you on the mind control – rather than a very significant influence? If the media (in the widest sense) tells the US public that Iraq was linked to 9/11, what effect will this have? Do you question that the effect will be to help build support for a war against Iraq?

Posted by: Colman | May 25 2005 18:01 utc | 46

Colman
“media has” “media…tells”
Media have.

Posted by: slothrop | May 25 2005 20:18 utc | 48

Slothrop: interesting point. I think I can justify using a singular there, as I am viewing “the media” as a single thing rather than as a collection of things. Not strictly accurate, but comprehensible. Deduct marks from my scorecard if you like.

Posted by: Colman | May 25 2005 21:02 utc | 50

I’m not satisfied with that description of the process, remembereringgiap. Not at all. For one thing, people actually subscribe to “Murdoch” (whom we’re taking here as a metonym for the media generally–not exactly a rigorous move on our part). They subscribe to Murdoch’s papers, tv networks, magazines, and who knows what else besides? Isn’t it rather simple, finally? No subscribers, no Murdoch? So why are they doing this thing, all those subscribers? Certainly the act of subscription is one for which they are to be held, and to hold themselves, responsible….Put simply, Murdoch’s subscribers (of whom there seem to be billions) like the way he does things, which is to dumb things down, and keep them that way. His subscribers certainly know that he’s dumbing things down; everyone knows it, for the simple reason that every one, now and then, has his or her own lucid intervals, in which he or she must recognize that life is rather more complicated than the Murdoch idiom would allow. So what do I make of this elective preference for “Murdoch”? Nothing I wouldn’t have found in Freud a good while ago. It’s the “death wish”–the drive for a simpler life-form. I would say that our present-day discourse, at every point of the political spectrum–left, center and right–expresses a “discontent” with civilization in all its terrible complexity. I take this “discontent” as the great common denominator–the great point of consensus–in American politics (and elsewhere)nowadays. I think it’s dangerous, incalculably violent, and hard to construe (we haven’t construed it yet). And, as I’ve hinted earlier, I’m prepared to doubt that the media have created that discontent–not that aren’t obliged (by their shareholders) to bring it to marketplace….Is it something that wells up “before” language? Maybe so. It’s an intricate process for sure.

Posted by: alabama | May 25 2005 22:20 utc | 52

I agree when it comes to Murdoch, Berlusconi, Redstone, and so on, their media power is great because of their political manipulation. Even something like Canal Plus under the French government’s Agence Havas shows how the intersection of public and private power in production of culture is not optimal for democracy.
On the other hand, alabama rightly recognizes the ostensible power of the consumer to just not watch American Idol or CNN. In general though, consumer preferences are constructed increasingly by a few global media titans whose politics intend to protect the class interests of media titans. Honestly, at least on my T.V., there’s not much cultural diversity; the distance separating PBS from Fox, not great. The average consumer has limited choice, a fact militating favorably to elites. But, I can’t really prove all this, because, after all, the “average consumer” could choose to read a book by Plekhonov and listen to downloaded mp3s of the Swans and avi. film files of Teshigahara, all of which are costlessly distributed via the Internet. Really, Chomsky and Michael Powell are both right. Consent is manufactured, but nothing cultural is really withheld from consumers.

Posted by: slothrop | May 26 2005 0:30 utc | 54

haha. “are” complex.

Posted by: slothrop | May 26 2005 0:37 utc | 56

murdoch is a monster. the rest are scribblers with a little drink in them as is said in the third man or as aptly described by gorgeous george galloway
there are a number of other convergences. the generation (of swine) who have become journalists in the 80’s till now are almost without exception, dumb & lazy. in the english speaking world the commentators of substance do not exist. the proprietors of the medium themselves are as i sd freebooters & carpetbaggers. the ideologues or the eccentirc patron like graham at wapo simply do not exist any more. it was a deeply comprimised medium anyway eevn within its proper contexts. it was a vacuum waiting for murdoch to fill it. redstone et al could own anything & their media ownership is no different from catfood or pigiron
murdoch is qualitatively & quantitatively different. born to a relatively rich jewish family in melbourne where jews were still excluded from the establishment – rupert took his revenge & burnt it down. his false affinity with the mob is his premeditated desire to be the centre of power – if not the power, itself
beaverbrook or hearst in their madder moments were not as demoniacal as murdoch nor had anything like his real political power.
he sells fear & absolutes. the others follow. to speak of ‘choice’ in this world is patently absurd. the people have dissolved themselves
slothrop, sometimes things are not complex or multilayered – sometimes they are brutally simple. they are neither convuluted or conspiratorial. as in the your arguments against a ‘national character’ – you do not see the most basic facts – illegality, immorality & corruption have their centres. & the centre today is in the united states. rupert murdoch would not be there otherwise. he has made his money creating the national character & choosing the political leadership
tho we still have some good papers in france i rarely go to them for information – i go to quarterlies, to specific journals, to the internet. the mass media i gave up when i was very very young
& it is not the politically constituitive that concerns me so much – they are all whores & self servers. no it is what he has done to humanity. he declared a guerre géneralisée against the better instincts of humanity & it would seem on three continents he has won. & he has his teeth already in the chinese soul
he has attacked & destroyed that wich i most foreign to scholars, especially the scholars of today, community
the other convergence is that the left & especially the left intelligentsia afterthe great successes of the sixties transformed into traitors, traitors to the cause, to their class & to their ideas. hitchen is not so odd in that sense, not at all
the left intelligentsia became devotees of rajaneesh & went up the arsehole of the world to find themselves in the nineties in the world of their nightmares & in our decade they find themselves in the pictograms of their youthful idealism. they have been corrupted & became corrupt. tenure tends to do that
it is in essence, a sorry old world

Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 26 2005 1:42 utc | 58

could there be a more glaringly obvious open-and-shut case that our “modern” media, absolutely, positively, does very much indeed exert powerful dominion over our societies, extending right down to the interior of an individual, than the king of pop himself? stan goff’s got a recent, decent guardian piece by terry eagleton up at his site – the ultimate postmodern spectacle: Michael Jackson and his trial hold a mirror to modern western civilisation and its blurring of fact and fiction.
you call this civilisation? i picked up an old copy of diamond’s (stanley, that is, not that optimistic chap) in search of the primitive this week. this modernity thing’s not turning out so well…

Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home.

Posted by: b real | May 28 2005 5:27 utc | 60