BTTT
Mark Levin, too??? Wow, I can just imagine the scurrilous comments the zombies have hurled at him over this. Amazing that Bush wants to totally divorce his electoral base from the views of so many distinguished---and hitherto lauded on this forum---conservative commentators. I don't recall even Clinton being this hysterically sensitive to criticism (and he was admittedly pretty much neurotically sensitive).
I can't understand, if Levin believes this of McCain and the gang, what he wanted Bush to do. What would it serve to have the type of nominee he had hoped for demeaned and debased by the Democrats followed by a display of Republicans who wouldn't trigger the "nuclear option?"
As for McCain...I made up my mind long ago that I would never vote for him.
Bush's troops are becoming demoralized by this. FIGHTING the Democrats would immensely help in 06 and 08.
There is always somebody who wants to run everybody off the cliff.
McClain sees himself as like Henry Clay, the "Great Compromise" guy. Obviously Clay stopped the Civil War from starting in 1830-40 instead of 1861, but in 1840 the casualty rate would have been much lower and the Constitution preserved. (Railroads.) Sometimes it is better not to put off "civil" war.
The fault is with McCain, that jerk Lindsey Graham and the rest as well as with the President who did not exploit his bully pulpit and arouse the country against the filibuster concept and intimidate the Senate into good behavior.
Now we have a nominee who is a cipher, who moves the national debate not one centimeter toward a proper understanding of judicial review. At best, we get lucky and get a reliable vote. But we set no standard against which a democrat president will have to contend.
bttt just for McLame
Being that the "Gang of 14" already concluded that Janice Rogers Brown was acceptable, I believe Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and John Warner all would vote in favor of a Senate rules change if their Democratic counterparts broke with the Gang and joined a filibuster.
...was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose. This president has been poorly served by his Republican "allies" in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
-----
Exactly. This is why it can be said, without error, that the Senate Repubs have done a terrible job of controlling the radical leftist (AND MODERATE) enemy in the Senate. Also another reason why the RINOs need to be cleaned out and STRONG, FIGHTING, CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP restored to the Repub party. We are paying a big price for the lack of same.
Strategically, it would have been useful to flush the Gang of 14 out. If McCain has any POTUS aspirations, he would've voted for Luttig. I'd like to see the delicate Senator Graham vote down Luttig-- that'd went over like General Sherman Day in South Carolina. And Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas), Landrieu who lost her base, Bobby Byrd (even without a Capito challenge), Bill Nelson and Senator Warner (R,VA) would have had a helluva time voting against a brilliant Virginian-- especially if doing so made them look like soft on crime Pinkos.
I think he's precisely wrong. McCain would have no choice but to vote nuclear in a nomination fight. The guy has to win a few primaries if he wants to be president.
McCain will go nowhere in 2008. His campaign is an MSM fabrication that only he thinks is an actual possibility.
The burden of proof would have been on them to indicate why the nominee did not deserve to be seated on the Court. Now the burden of proof is on the Administration to indicate why the nominee deserves to be seated on the Court -- other than the basic lines we've been fed so far.
The right nominee chosen by Bush plus the bully pulpit actively used by Bush plus a strong leadership role by Frist....
The gang of 14 would have folded like a fancy silk suit.
JMHO...I guess its something we'll never know for sure.
McCain's BlunderSSSSS
It's plural, varied, and would take most of FRs available bandwidth, but if you are going to discuss things, you should try to do so correctly.
The burden of proof would have been on them to indicate why the nominee did not deserve to be seated on the Court. Now the burden of proof is on the Administration to indicate why the nominee deserves to be seated on the Court -- other than the basic lines we've been fed so far.
If true, it is even MORE of a reason to have a confirmation battle over a known originalist. Conservatives need to know which Republican Senators are willing to fight for known originalist judges and which ones aren't. Those that aren't willing to fight for such justices need to be targeted and eliminated.
Should Miers not end up being a female Scalia, it is imperative that Republicans in the gang of 14 be targeted and eliminated along with George Voinovich and any other RINO unwilling to fight for such justices.
I'm glad to see Mark broadened his analysis from yesterday, he is always inciteful.
I don't see why Frist could not have just gotten 51 senators to sign letters of agreement and sent them to the president, confirming the candidate, and let the democRATs have their little whine-fest. That would have satisfied the Constitutional dictates and left the minority in just that - minority status.
The Constitution just says that a majority of the senate has to agree in order to comfirm an appointee, it does NOT dictate the formality by which the consensus is achieved.