Now why would he say this, just before the weekend? He's the first Dem compromiser to make a statement like this.
Only one possible reason comes to mind. He's been told that the Dems are going to filabuster, to force the GOP to use the nuclear option. The Dems are going to try to run on the GOP being unfair to the minority, changing the rules, and they will try and gum up the Senate..Pryor was trying, feebly, to stake out his position in advance.
Even though the hearing will be long and arduous, it's important to remember that marking out the territory early will be important.
Rehnquist, and/or O'Connor will retire, and the next day Bush will announce his nominee. Look for all 55 GOP senators to say that of course they'll wait to see what happens in the hearings, but they fully expect to support and vote for the nominee. The usual. Which means that the Dem will have to counter the public perception of approval, that it's a done deal; by announcing that the nominee is the worst possible thing ever that W could have done.
The hearings then become kabuki theater, and it's a question of how long Specter lets them run, and then how long Frist lets the circus go in the Senate before asking for cloture, whiuch will fail.
The rules change will then be invoked, with Graham and DeWine initiating it, in an attempt to gain some degree of expiation with the GOP base. So look for all the other GOP signers, including McCain, to support Frist. So the Dems will want a solid party line in opposition.
They will attempt to make the case NOT about the merits of the nominee, rather about how "bad and unfair the GOP is."
Pryor's comments today have made than crystal clear. Gonna be a fun summer for us political junkies......
FYI
Oh BOY!
If I remember correctly you said that if the Dems filibustered, the nuclear option was back on the table, and you would support it. Sen Mark Pryor of Arkansas said that "...in his opinion, the agreement means that the nuclear option is off the table..." Senator Graham, were you lying about the agreement, or is he lying about the agreemen? If you are lying, well I'm not surprised. If Sen Pryor is lying, you made an agreement with someone who couldn't be trusted. In either case you have done a very poor job of representing the people of SC. Maybe though you are trying to represent the liberals of NY, or trying to curry favor with the perky Katie Couric. You have time to speak with her, but not repond to your constituents. And now I see you are backtracking on your support of the war on terror. If you thinkpublic support is waning then get out there and make the case why it is necessary. Of course public opinion of your constituents didn't matter when it came to selling out the president and the country on judicial nominees. I'll never forget.
Ick. All that's missing is the soft-focus camera.
Now, if O'Connor also goes, that would be interesting, provided Bush nominates someone who can read to take her place.
FREEPER BUMP!!
Perhaps Dubya nominates Brown, Pryor, Owens (in that order)-
they have already been defined as "non-extraordinary".
This issue would be moot, don't you think.
Thanks for noticing this Ken. Of course since this agreement is all in the minds of the signees, the Constitutional option is on the table as soon as two GOP signatories go along IF the other 48 GOP Senators are willing. I guess we don't know about some nonsignatories?