Nuclear Option thread! (Senate debating Owen)

Frist
Chair Brownback
Harry Reid
Ted Kennedy

It's a battle of the Senatorial stars.

As Bill Frist insists that we should start off with the most controversial judge.

I can't see how Frist is thought of as a Presidential candidate, the guy is much less charming than Bush. Say what you will about GWB, but Frist is just swarmy.

Any estimated start time for the "Nuclear Option"?

EDIT FOR AROUND 9:48AM CST

(no images please, no matter how amusing or relevant. I've put you in the straightjacket of not posting stuff)

•  Possible tips

  Especially if I can find a way to take a shower in the next hour without missing anything.

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:37:54 AM PDT

  •  maybe put

    the url in there somewhere?  

    http://www.cspan.org/watch/cspan2_rm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

    by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:49:21 AM PDT

    •  Maybe

      and you can take screen captures of the page too

      by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:51:39 AM PDT

    •  Thank you!

      On c-span's website the broadcast was not obvious.

      by 4jkb4ia on Wed May 18, 2005 at 01:21:42 PM PDT

•  Thanks for the thread

  Looks like the Dems are trying to show that they are not really obstructing judicial nominees--are willing to pass many judges who could be on the bench in a matter of days--shows that the repugs are just looking for a fight.

  by dmac on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:40:22 AM PDT

  •  Looking for a fight...Specter?

    Is ol' Arlen saying that he thinks some of these judges will lose a roll call vote?  Does he know something?

    At any rate Arlen's speech has been good and concilitatory.  Perhaps there is a way out...or not.

    by UTBriancl on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:55:22 AM PDT

•  84% of Texans

  Yes, Texas is a good place to find out if someone is mainstream.

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:40:59 AM PDT

  •  with justices like these

    Former Justice, now Senator Cornyn:  "I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news and I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in - engage in violence." [Senate Floor, 4/4/05]

    Former Justice, now AG Gonzales: Saying he was sickened and outraged by photos of Abu Ghraib abuses, Gonzales described the U.S. troops in them as "people who were morally bankrupt having fun." Other abuses of foreign detainees probably were caused because "there wasn't adequate training, there wasn't adequate supervision."

    "I respectfully disagree that there was some kind of permissive environment," he said.

    by debraz on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:23:22 AM PDT

  •  These numbers are idiocy

    Texas also elected a supreme court nominee who had been disowned by his party.  Apparently all you need is an (R) by  your name.  I can't seem to remember, but one of the supreme court nominees had made several bizarre comments about colonizing Mars.

    by UTBriancl on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:03:46 AM PDT

    •  Colonizing Mars!

      This made my morning.

      And now I'm making a list of whom to put on the first ship:  Frist, Delay, Lott. . . .

      by Cream City on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:07:16 AM PDT

    •  oops

      I meant supreme court judges.  I think he won the election.

      The texas supreme court has one of those strange nomination processes.  I think they are nominated by the governor, then confirmed by the voters through an election.

      Does anybody know?

      by UTBriancl on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:12:36 AM PDT

      •  Here we go...the Texas S.C. has a glorious record

        From the Handbook of Texas Online: Judiciary.

        In 1976 Donald B. Yarbrough, a lawyer who was distinguished only by the similarity of his name to that of a better-known politician, was elected to the Supreme Court; he resigned during impeachment proceedings after being indicted for a felony offense of aggravated perjury before a grand jury, and he was convicted and sent to prison. Stephen W. Mansfield was elected to the Court of Criminal Appeals in 1994 despite having made false claims about his experience and personal background, for which he was later reprimanded by the State Bar of Texas. After the Constitutional Convention of 1974qv voters did not adopt a new state constitution that would have permitted non-partisan election of judges. The legislature has rejected many proposals for the appointment or nonpartisan election of judges, and the topic is still hotly debated.

        by UTBriancl on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:21:43 AM PDT

•  Frist is ugly

  What a A*H*!!

  by snowbird42 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:43:10 AM PDT

  •  and a psychopathic one at that

    

    by voltayre on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:41:03 AM PDT

    •  If in some heavenly dispensation,

      he somehow becomes the Republican nominee, the Dems should slather this crap all over him.  Fair is fair:  if a war hero can, through some postmodern trick of media manipulation, be somehow tarred with treason, then Dems can certainly take the "low road" on this one.

      I mean, they can't "Rathergate" the Dems:  this is in his own biography.  He admits the stuff.  We should question precisely why a man that would do this could be seen as having the moral compass to run a country.

      by Dale on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:11:40 AM PDT

•  Follow the rules!!

  This is the line they need to keep repeating

  by dmac on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:43:28 AM PDT

•  Frist

  Someone on another thread said he looked likes the typical villian who always pops out at the end of each Scooby Doo episode as the one being behind the criminal hijinks.

  "And I would've gotten away with it too, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids and that dog!"

  Okay BF calm down.

  by HairOnFire on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:43:50 AM PDT

•  Go Kennedy!!

  Is this theater?

  by snowbird42 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:43:57 AM PDT

•  C-Span

  They're debating now...

  http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspan2_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS2

  by amejr999 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:44:23 AM PDT

•  roll call on compromise

  Breaking on Raw Story:

  The basic structure of the deal remains intact as it was first reported by Roll Call on May 9.

  • That four of the seven filibustered nominees would be approved for a vote, with California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown and two of those from the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals potentially on the approval list;

  • That three would be rejected, with William Myers to the 9th Circuit and Henry Saad to the 6th Circuit possibly on the filibustered list;

  • That at least six Democrats would foreswear any other filibusters except in "extraordinary circumstances";

  • That at least six Republicans would foreswear Frist's effort to end filibusters by the parliamentary, party-line vote now known commonly as the nuclear option.

  Those involved include: Democrats Nelson, Pryor, Salazar, Byrd, Lieberman, and Landrieu, aides said. Also attending: Sens. Tom Carper (D-Del.), Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Bill Nelson (D-Fla.).

  On the Republican side, senators include McCain, Snowe, Collins, Warner, and Graham. Also thought to have attended include GOP members of the Judiciary Committee: Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio).

  also, FWIW, a bunch of senators met last night at Warner's (VA) office. Snowe (ME) came out saying this:

  Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who has voiced concerns about the party-line evisceration of judicial filibusters, said she thought there was momentum toward a deal. "I would say more likely than not," she said before the critical afternoon sessions.

  by thirdparty on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:45:15 AM PDT

  •  I wonder if Snowe is just wishful thinking.

    But either way, this makes Frist look like a powerless fool.

    by ablington on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:10:10 AM PDT

    •  exactly

      I could live with any half-decent "compromise," as long as the filibuster is preserved for the supreme court, the nuclear option is off the table for the forseeable future, and Frist comes off looking like a powerless fool.

      I believe this is the most likely outcome right now. There's no real rush as the trigger won't (can't?) be pulled until next week. There are enough GOP Senators working hard on this that I think something will be worked out. Frist/Cheney/Rove trying to get them in line will be like herding cats.

      by thirdparty on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:17:09 AM PDT

      •  Supreme Court

        The problem I'm having with that deal is, let's assume that Shrub predictably nominates some legal-lightweight Christofascist to the Supreme Court after Rehnquist goes.  We'll probably end up back at square one, because if the Democrats threaten a filibuster, they will be accused of going back on their word - because, of course, no GOPer sees it as an "extraordinary circumstance."  And of course, since the Democrats have supposedly broken the agreement, the GOP gets to as well, and we are looking at Senatorial Nuclear War, v.2. In which case the GOP gets to have its cake and eat it too.

        by Nim on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:38:45 AM PDT

        •  Best Case

          Actually, a Rehnquist retirement first is the best case scenario.  Let them appoint some fundie nut job.  It won't upset the balance of the court.  It might even make the Dems look better if they go completely nuts and appoint either Ashcroft or Bork or some other unpopular idiot.  We can throw up our hands and say, "It was what they wanted".  Then we have ammo if O'Conner or, all deities forbid, Stevens run into health problems or die.

          All together now --

          Hold on Justice Stevens, hold on.

          by out grrl on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:55:19 AM PDT

        •  Not necessarily.

          Think about it this way: If Dems were to filibuster a particularly repugnant SC nom, and if the GOP were to make a stink all over again, it would be even BIGGER news than the current nuclear mess, and I am willing to bet that we will retain our high public support numbers because (lets face it) we will probably have even more egregious examples of impending theocracy prior to the next SC nom. I do think people are wising up to the bullshit.

          SO...

          a. we filibuster a SC nom, they threaten nukes again, people get even more disenchanted with the GOP for making a stink all over again. Hopefully this happens prior to 06.

          b. They destroy the filibuster now, and we have no power to stop a repugnant CS nom. Public opinon of the GOP continues to fall, etc.

          At best the GOP has very short lived victories here.

          by ablington on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:56:15 AM PDT

•  We should count

  how many times the say "up or down vote"

  by snowbird42 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:45:17 AM PDT

  •  and again and again.... n/t

    by dmac on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:49:38 AM PDT

  •  Drinking game?

    Hoiw manmy for:

    Unconstitutional
    Unprecedented
    Obstructionist
    

    by gladkov on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:02:19 AM PDT

  •  too bad it's so early here

    <snark>
    we could make it a drinking game.  We'd be soused in a 1/2 hour.
    </snark>

    by Hummingbird on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:05:06 AM PDT

    •  I don't know what your body weight is...

      but at this rate, I'd be soused in 10-15 minutes.

      by brighton on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:33:38 AM PDT

      •  ya

        come to think of it me too.

        I'll stick with tea
        

        by Hummingbird on Wed May 18, 2005 at 09:20:32 AM PDT

•  Frist

  Is one of the slimiest creeps crawling the earth. I hope that he reaps the reward he is truly due.

  by high uintas on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:48:04 AM PDT

•  Frist!!!!

  Yammering on about how he wants to return the Senate to how it used to work.  His nose is growing.

  Sounds even worse with that faux-aristocratic Southern accent he's putting on.

  by Christian Dem in NC on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:48:38 AM PDT

•  "Waaaaah, the minority is doing it!"

  Frist is projecting, big time.

  
  "I hate these filibusters"

  Mr. Frist, if you can't get 60 votes for cloture, that shows your lack of leadership, doesn't it?

  Rat Bastard

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:50:55 AM PDT

•  New drinking game

  every time Frist says "up or down"

  by HairOnFire on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:51:35 AM PDT

  •  Great Idea....

    Too bad I'm at work:)

    by Mikecan1978 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:59:19 AM PDT

  •  Hey...

    Hey Frist, how about an up or down vote from the judiciary for the people held at Gitmo?

    by TexasDemocrat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:34:25 AM PDT

  •  rick

    If Santorum says 'up or down' I'm likely to puke

    by AggieDemocrat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:37:52 AM PDT

    •  There's a Guckert/Gannon joke here somewhere n/t

      by DriftawayNH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:44:29 AM PDT

•  He's repeating himself

  How many times has he said "214 years" and "Senate tradition?"

  by Christian Dem in NC on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:51:58 AM PDT

  •  let's save you some keystrokes

    "how many times has he lied already?"

    by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:59:19 AM PDT

  •  they are trying

    to make the entire country drunk!

    by Hummingbird on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:21:34 AM PDT

  •  How many times did they say

    "She speaks RUSSIAN! She played the piano at AGE THREE!"?

    Its just masturbatory repetition for the sound byte. They want to be sure it gets on the news and repeated by the talking heads.

    by Tuffy on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:54:22 AM PDT

•  RECCOMEND THIS DIARY

  Nuclear option thread...

  by amejr999 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:52:14 AM PDT

•  Projecting Projecting Projecting

  "The other side is changing the rules"

  ..

  wait a minute..

  "Every Judicial nominee, with a majority support, deserves an up or down vote"

  WHY ARE YOU DISCRIMINATING AGAINST UNPOPULAR JUDGES????

  Rat Bastard

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:52:45 AM PDT

  •  In other words...

    ...we have 55 votes, yours don't count.

    by WWGray on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:41:17 AM PDT

•  no such thing as "judicial filibuster"

  I feel like the Dems have mishandled this talking point.

  There's no distinction between a judicial confirmation or any other kind of debate in the cloture rule.

  The Cloture rule is to stop extremism, not to deny anybody any up/down votes.

  That's really what it is. The Rethugs want us to believe that this is somehow specific to judicial nominees, and indeed there will be a post-nuclear distinction. But that simply opens a pandora's box leading straight to hell. Because now the door is open to say "filibuster doesn't apply to x," where x can be any legislation or treaty or whatever, using the same logic.

  by Florida Democrat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:53:17 AM PDT

•  when we write our Senator

  I gag. Sadly Frist is mine.
  Is Rove behind him?

  by snowbird42 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:53:27 AM PDT

  •  i don't know

    but he's definately behind mine ("anything but the" Norm Coleman).  

    by guyermo on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:16:30 AM PDT

•  Why does he keep saying

  Accept or Reject when he knows they will win?

  by snowbird42 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:55:11 AM PDT

•  Oh.. that's where the 84% claim comes from

  because 84% of Texans re-elected her, that means 84% of them think she's mainstream.

  Texas is a state that elected Don Tarbrough to the Supreme Court.

  Not Don Yarborough, but Don Yarbrough.

  "Priscilla Owen gives food to the poor!"

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:56:01 AM PDT

  •  From what I've been reading

    It seems like anyone whith a law degree who will whore for big business lands in the Texas Supreme court. I think the Texas Supreme Court should be a disqualifier rather than a resume booster.

    by strengthof10kmen on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:00:47 AM PDT

  •  you know

    that 84% would be amazing if she were to run unopposed.  Not likely with state supreme courts, but possible.

    by guyermo on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:18:11 AM PDT

    •  Well, she was unopposed

      It was a retention election.

      by Adam B on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:21:46 AM PDT

      •  Unopposed Re-election

        We do not have retention elections here in Texas.  She ran unopposed for re-election.

        by Othniel on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:36:28 AM PDT

        •  so that means

          she lost 16% of the vote to a wide variety of write-ins, and probably 60% of the people who did vote for her did so simply because there wasn't another choice.  so really, she most likely had less than 35% of real support in the entire state.

          by guyermo on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:47:30 AM PDT

          •  If I remember right

            Owen ran unopposed once, and against a third-party candidate the other time.  Texas Supreme Court elections are just like those for every other office - including the need to raise money for ads, etc. A third party candidate would have a tough time running a state-wide campaign against her.

            Janice Rogers Brown is the nominee whose re-election statistics are misleading because it was a "yes-or-no" vote.

            by Crystal Patterson on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:57:22 AM PDT

        •  my bad

          I was thinking of California.

          by Adam B on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:45:11 AM PDT

  •  and tom delay

    and the state that sent that bastion of integrity tom delay to the house

    by AggieDemocrat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:38:41 AM PDT

  •  DOJ Bio

    Her DOJ bio says:

    In her successful re-election bid to the Supreme Court of Texas in 2000, every major newspaper in Texas endorsed Owen.

    Any bets on that being true?

    by kiva on Wed May 18, 2005 at 09:20:43 AM PDT

•  I am so sick of hearing her backgroud

  Does that make her a good judge?

  by snowbird42 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:57:18 AM PDT

  •  Background?

    Wait.  You mean she was a concert pianist during her youth, too?
    

    by happiness cat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:44:28 AM PDT

•  Judicial elections are not an indicator of

  how mainstream people are.

  Considering the fact that they're partisan in Texas

  Considering the fact that they're "Keep her/dump her" in California

  Considering the fact that people don't even know who their judges are and vote "yes" no matter what

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:58:49 AM PDT

•  Now he's talking about their retention votes

  They were retained by such large margins that it would be ridiculous to suggest that they're out of the mainstream.

  I know this is bogus ... can't remember why off the top.

  by Christian Dem in NC on Wed May 18, 2005 at 06:58:53 AM PDT

  •  well, for one example

    boxer repeatedly pointed out a number of cases where brown * stood alone * on court opinions.  it was great.

    by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:02:42 AM PDT

•  Lying again

  Does he remember Abe Fortas?

  by Christian Dem in NC on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:00:20 AM PDT

•  Richard Paez!

  And Frist refuses to answer yes or no on if he filibustered Paez.

  Rat Bastard.

  Yes or No!

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:01:44 AM PDT

•  Schumer

  Just asked about Frist's fillibusters.

  by amejr999 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:02:02 AM PDT

•  "To Assassinate these nominees"

  I'll file that under "phrases not to use"

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:02:13 AM PDT

  •  especially today

    with a hearing going on about judicial security with Judge Lefkow testifiying.

    by debraz on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:35:34 AM PDT

•  Follow up Schumer

  Make him answer the question!!

  by dmac on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:02:46 AM PDT

•  has the

  mass filibuster text message alert thing gone down?

  by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:03:16 AM PDT

  •  No -- any attempt at filibuster is days away

    as Frist first has to put a good face on it and allow debate before he can say there has been enough to move to a vote.

    by Cream City on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:12:11 AM PDT

•  "Filibustering Richard Paez was ok!"

  "because he got a vote!"

  apparently Frist filibusters to work out his vocal chords, instead of denying a nominee his

  UP OR DOWN VOTE

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:04:25 AM PDT

•  reid

  "gonzales called own 'unconscionable'"

  by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:05:41 AM PDT

•  Frist's answer ignores the point.

  The reason Schumer asked about Paez is that he did eventually get confirmed. Frist thinks that's an adequate answer, but the Republican complaint throughout this fight has been that the filibuster imposes an improper 60 vote barrier to confirmation.

  Paez had to -- and did -- overcome this barrier precisely because Frist and his colleagues put it in his way. That the votes were there to smack Frist down has nothing to do with the fact that he tried to impose the same 60+ barrier that he now says is unconstitutional.

  by Kagro X on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:06:11 AM PDT

•  When is somebody gonna mention

  that kid whom Owen's delays caused to die?

  by Christian Dem in NC on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:06:34 AM PDT

  •  put that in the context

    of Owens having to wait for "an up or down vote".  She sat on that case for 1 1/2 years when both sides had asked for an expedited decision.  

    by debraz on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:37:18 AM PDT

  •  The hell?

    Details, please.

    by jthomas666 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 09:57:13 AM PDT

•  Harry

  On the Supreme Court:

  California has one Democrat
  California has 6 Republicans

  Whaaaaaaa?

  Triumph of the Socialist Revolution?

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:08:00 AM PDT

  •  simple

    SCT judges in CA are nominated by the governor, then approved in retention elections by the people.  And other than Gray Davis, we haven't won much there . . .

    by Adam B on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:13:03 AM PDT

•  "her opinions

  if they were not on such serious matters, would be laughable.  seriously.  'laughable'

  by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:08:31 AM PDT

•  If Reid sticks to the dictionary for this

  he could probably continue to beat the life out of Frist

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:09:33 AM PDT

•  Joining the fray

  I want a plush Harry Reid doll to hug.

  by The Witch on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:10:28 AM PDT

•  "The Arrogance of Power"

  that's a good soundbite.

  "It's not enough"

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:11:34 AM PDT

•  arrogance

  "arrogance of power of this republican administration"  thank you reid

  by amejr999 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:11:53 AM PDT

  •  George Lakoff

    in his book Don't Think of an Elephant talks about one of the most effective Democratic frames that we aren't using: "The Republican Power Grab".  Reid is invoking that repeatedly by referring to arrogance.

    Give 'em hell, Harry!!

    by RenaRF on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:17:50 AM PDT

    •  Nice

      And Leahy just used that exact expression, "Power Grab"

      You say it here, it comes out there!  
      

      by TGos on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:37:03 AM PDT

•  This great paramour....

  :snicker: Who said the Senate wasn't funny?

  by The Witch on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:13:14 AM PDT

•  Paramour of Virtue

  Paragon

  either way.. Cheney is a crook

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:13:24 AM PDT

  •  I don't know who the paramour of virtue is

    But isn't Jeff Gannon the paramour of corruption?

    Just sayin'.

    by The Witch on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:13:57 AM PDT

    •  Nah,

      he's the pompatus of man-whore.

      by Field Marshall Stack on Wed May 18, 2005 at 12:09:55 PM PDT

•  Reid seems nervous...

  stumbling over his words, etc. He's getting better, but you can tell he's not on top of his game.

  by Florida Democrat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:14:23 AM PDT

•  Reid & the Lakoff Frame-Busting Effort

  This morning, in his statements opening the debate on judicial appointments, Harry Reid put George Lakoff's methods into practice on the Senate floor.

  If you haven't read Don't Think of an Elephant, get it.  Read it.  Reid directly attacked the Republican-constructed frame around judicial nominees.  Specifically, the Republican frame paints Democrats as obstructionists.  It claims Democrats want to leave judicial seats open.  It claims that Democrats will not approve the President's judicial nominees.  By moving to consider so-called "consensus appointments", e.g., those who will pass with 60 votes and Ted Kennedy's tag-team on why the President hasn't nominated judges to 30 vacant posts, the Democrats destroyed that frame.

  Spread the word and frame it correctly - further tear down the Republican frame!!

  by RenaRF on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:14:39 AM PDT

•  REID! REID! REID! REID!

  n/t

  by Muboshgu on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:18:12 AM PDT

•  Reid is not inspiring confidence....

  ...in me.

  Sounds flustered.

  by johnnyNYC on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:22:45 AM PDT

  •  you'd be flustered too

    if you had to speak to the same !@#$%& lie as often as he's had to...

    by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:25:18 AM PDT

  •  that's cause this is already over

    and everybody in the Senate knows it, now we have fifty hours (less) of "debate" and then they cram it down our throats...

    Now, if the Dems could hang strong together and shut down the government, and keep it shut we could at least eek out a moral victory that could pay dividends in 06, but alas that battle has already been lost too, I think..

    by TustonDAZ on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:27:38 AM PDT

  •  FOX News cut off Reid

    during his comments. Bastards!

    by younggoodmanB on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:04:08 AM PDT

•  Specter's up

  When did he go bald?

  by Christian Dem in NC on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:23:12 AM PDT

  •  After his cancer treatments.

    by strengthof10kmen on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:24:44 AM PDT

•  how is specter's health?

  i like the bald look.  hope he's alright.

  by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:23:55 AM PDT

  •  Think he has prostate cancer

    by NYPragmatist on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:25:00 AM PDT

    •  no, he has Hodgkin's disease n/t

      by etagloh on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:30:16 AM PDT

    •  yes, i know...

      hence the wondering how he's doing...

      by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:30:59 AM PDT

  •  hodgkins

    He has Stage IV Hodgkins.  It was discussed on Kos a few days ago.  Don't claim any expertise, but it was mentioned that survival rates are very high even in Stage IV (upwards from 75-85%) so he the odds are with him.

    by dqw5644 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:25:23 AM PDT

    •  That's 5 year survival rate

       if I understand correctly.

      by murphy on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:39:16 AM PDT

  •  He actually look pretty good bald n/t

    He'd look better if he were bald and voting to retain the filibuster. But we might see that yet.

    by emptywheel on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:59:44 AM PDT

•  This could be the moment

  where we know if the nuclear option is dead yet.

  by Christian Dem in NC on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:26:50 AM PDT

•  Anything besides c-span?

  I'm at work.  I can listen, but I only have Windows Media Player on my computer and I can't install any other players.  Is it streaming anywhere else where I might be able to access it?

  by dqw5644 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:27:10 AM PDT

  •  never mind

    After I posted I noticed that you could access cspan through Windows Media.  

    by dqw5644 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:28:16 AM PDT

  •  Go to the C-SPAN 2 main page

    On the sidebar,there is an option to listen/watch with WMP.

    by The Witch on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:28:23 AM PDT

  •  You can use

    Windows Media Player - C-Span's front page lets you choose which player you use for the streaming video (look in the lower right corner of the page)....

    by Crystal Patterson on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:30:16 AM PDT

•  Damn...

  I'm watching on mute in my Civ Pro class....

  Anyone know how to read lips?

  by NYPragmatist on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:27:39 AM PDT

•  I thought Specter was on our side?

  Thought he was gonna vote w/us. Or is he starting out with "Dems are being nasty, but that's no reason to fuck with the system"?

  by The Witch on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:27:50 AM PDT

  •  hes making me ill...

    had to stop listening for a second...

    by imusselm on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:28:58 AM PDT

•  Specter

  looks like a gnome.  And he's lying...  moderate repug my ass.

  by Hummingbird on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:28:23 AM PDT

•  ACK! Specter smacking Dems

  I thought I liked him, but now he's accusing the Dems of pursuing "payback" for the GOP Congress's treatment of Clinton.

  by sjb8888 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:28:29 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, but he's smacking his party around too

    Mentions how they dragged out Clinton's nominees when they took over.

    Specter begged the Repubs to confirm them, but they refused.

    He's whacking around both parties.

    by Christian Dem in NC on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:31:10 AM PDT

  •  Ya

    I had sympathy for him sorta when he got smacked by the extreme right and when he got cancer...
    but now he's showing he has no consience.

    Go ahead specter, join the rest of these goons who are trying to destroy the Constitution!

    SHAME ON  YOU!

    by Hummingbird on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:32:14 AM PDT

    •  Anita Hill

      never forget or forgive him for being the attack dog on Anita Hill.

      by HairOnFire on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:38:43 AM PDT

      •  Never, never, never, never, never. . . .

        And I never will forget or forgive any of them, whose names are engraved upon my memory. . . .

        by Cream City on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:15:29 AM PDT

        •  sonic youth

          "i believe anita hill..."

          by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:30:51 AM PDT

  •  he also mentioned

    that the average appointment time for justices spiked during clinton's admin and he just slammed bush for making recess appointments.

    maybe i'm watching a different cspan?

    by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:32:39 AM PDT

    •  Specter wants a compromise

      His message to both sides has been "look, your hands are dirty too, let's work something out."  What he's saying today is not new.

      by Steve M on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:50:37 AM PDT

•  Spector condemns stats then spews them!

  Like a firehose.  Stats, stats, and more stats.

  All that after referring to the comment that there are "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"!

  by cyberKosFan on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:31:54 AM PDT

  •  sounds like he hates pretty much everyone...

    n/t

    by imusselm on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:33:31 AM PDT

    •  at least

      he's not prejudiced

      by eunichorn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:57:31 AM PDT

•  asdf

  i cant tell if hes gonna go for it or not

  im guessing hes in frists pocket

  by Muboshgu on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:32:46 AM PDT

•  Maybe it's not about

  the Dems fillibustering more because of 'payback' but because Bush has sent more REALLY crappy nominees that needed to be fillibustered.  

  by strengthof10kmen on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:34:39 AM PDT

•  Video

  For those not able to see this mornings action we have posted the video here.

  We will be posting video throughout the day so check back often.

  by Brian Hopkins on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:36:28 AM PDT

  •  Thank you sir!

    You are doing a service!

    by The Witch on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:38:30 AM PDT

    •  Your Welcome

      We are going to try to keep videos coming throughout the day as we inch closer to the "nuclear option".

      by Brian Hopkins on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:46:57 AM PDT

  •  well, now...

    don't you just rock!?!

    : D

    by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:50:16 AM PDT

•  Specter

  weird how someone can go from looking young around 66 (in 1996) to around 75.

  It's weird to realize that Specter is 75 years old.

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:36:30 AM PDT

  •  It's all about the hair

    I heard somewhere that he was quite vain about his hair and very upset when he lost it because of the chemo.

    by sjb8888 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:38:37 AM PDT

  •  I believe that Specter and Ford

    are the last surviving members of the Warren Commission.

    by debraz on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:40:56 AM PDT

    •  Specter was not a member.

      Specter was counsel.  Ford was a member of the Warren Commission.

      by lysias on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:48:40 AM PDT

      •  council to the Warren Commission

        council, member, whatever.  Last men standing.

        by debraz on Wed May 18, 2005 at 09:10:53 AM PDT

•  The Sith GOP:

  Liars and Cheaters.

  It ain't complicated.  They are lying, and they are cheating.

  
  

  by jre2k8 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:37:22 AM PDT

•  Specter is UNDECIDED

  He just said "it's better to remain silent" to foster a compromise.

  This is definitly good news.

  by Florida Democrat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:37:23 AM PDT

  •  That is Warner's position too

    Intentional silence.  It makes a lot of sense, really.

    by Steve M on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:51:35 AM PDT

•  Ha ha.

  Arlen says "nukular" too.

  by Kagro X on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:38:07 AM PDT

•  Specter is Such a Weasel

  He's basically creating a false balance between the two sides in this matter.

  You know, once upon the time there were actual GOP moderates.  Among others, Charles Matthias, Chuck Percy, Lowell Weicker, and Jim Jeffords (in his Republican days) were fine Senators with real independence. They stood for something.

  Arlen Specter stands for nothing.  Ever since the Bork vote, he's been willing to be rolled by the GOP right.  He's completely pathetic.

  by GreenSooner on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:38:11 AM PDT

  •  I don't mourn Percy

    We got Paul Simon and then Dick Durbin after him.  I'm pretty happy with that.

    by nightsweat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:49:50 AM PDT

    •  asdf

      Alan Dixon ... Durbin came along much later ...

      by wystler on Wed May 18, 2005 at 09:13:18 AM PDT

      •  Dixon took the other seat

        Barak's got Dixon's seat.

        Link here for history.

        by nightsweat on Wed May 18, 2005 at 01:47:27 PM PDT

•  asdf

  It looks to me like Spector's beating up on both sides and is still attempting to broker a compromise. I get the feeling that he really does not want to see it come to the nuclear option but, if a compromise can't be reached, he will vote with Frist.

  by green917 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:38:20 AM PDT

•  Enough with the "up or down" shit!

  Do they think this phrase makes the debate easier for the public to understand? I don't.

  by sjb8888 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:41:34 AM PDT

  •  Don't you get it

    that's their market tested phrase. It's obviously working or they wouldn't use it. It is the phrase they will use to hang us all with.

    by mrblifil on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:43:39 AM PDT

    •  Yeah, I get it

      I know they are extremely precise about their language and hammering home "approved" wording, but I just have a hard time seeing how the "up or down" meme makes any sense to anyone.

      I also get infuriated by their continual appeal to "fairness." It's so incredibly hypocritical.

      by sjb8888 on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:48:55 AM PDT

      •  I agree...

        All this talk about how the Democrats shouldn't vote down party lines would be funny if they weren't serious. It's like he's implying that the Republicans aren't voting down party lines.
        Ick - I can't watch anymore.

        by MCinTX on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:50:57 AM PDT

  •  The 10 most overused new phrases

    in 2004... I remember "red states/blue states" was on the top. "Up or down vote" will make the list this year.

    Incidentally, "straitjacket of party loyalty?" Maybe he thinks that we can get more done if we're fragmented? The MAJORITY has the luxury of breaking that straitjacket.

    by The Witch on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:44:21 AM PDT

  •  Standard response

    to up or dow, up or down, up or down...

    Siddown already!

    by ogre on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:46:14 AM PDT

•  "I clearfully examined the roll call"

  "And found that Zell Miller was one of the Democrats who voted for cloture on Mr. Myers, so I guess only one Democrat voted for cloture"

  :D

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:41:54 AM PDT

•  Specter's compromise:

  "If you'd just do what Republicans want, this would go away!"

  Some compromise.
  

  by hyperbolic pants explosion on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:42:25 AM PDT

  •  As Republican Clayton Williams said in 1990

    "If it's inevitable, just relax and enjoy it."

    by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:44:29 AM PDT

    •  Or as Darth Vader said...

      ..."It is your destiny."

      Or Agent Smith, along the same lines.

      Can't the bad guys get a better dialogue writer?

      by viget on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:21:07 AM PDT

•  There is no way...

  the GOP will "release" its members from party loyalty, in voting for judicial nominees. Spector keeps returning to that straitjacket of party loyalty; he must know, he's wearing it tightly.

  by scorpiorising on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:43:10 AM PDT

  •  yannow...

    maybe (?) being confronted with a serious disease has given specter pause to think about the bigger picture?

    by Cedwyn on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:53:51 AM PDT

•  RBH

  Though they can be amusing, posting images in play by play threads like this one is generally frowned upon, as it bogs down the load time. Could you edit your diary and insert a request to refrain from posting images?

  Fanks...

  by bumblebums on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:43:56 AM PDT

  •  done

    straightjacket of not posting stuff

    by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:46:12 AM PDT

•  What kind of compromise is that?

  Dems just agree to not filibuster and go forward with "up or down" votes on the nominees? Party leaders relieving members from the "straitjacket of party loyalty?" Yeah, right. First of all, the Dems have precious little of that, and the GOPers breathe in lock-step. And who of them would believe they wouldn't be punished in the future for siding with the Dems? I don't get it.

  I think Specter's setting the stage to vote with Frist or at best abstain. I hope it's abstain, but I doubt it.

  by hyperstation on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:45:32 AM PDT

  •  It's called the...

    ...why don't you don't you dems stop representing your party and kiss our asses compromise.

    by Alumbrados on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:08:33 AM PDT

  •  That's the Sudetenland compromise

    We get assurances that the GOP has no fuhrer political ambitions on the Constitution.

    by ogre on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:48:55 AM PDT

•  Heard today that McCain

  is also going to abstain...where would that leave us??

  by dmac on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:46:29 AM PDT

  •  It means the Republicans have a majority.

    without him. If McCain were needed to gain a simple majority he would vote with the Republicans. McCain defends his party before his country every time it matters.  He is just good at faking it.

    by Thistime on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:50:44 AM PDT

•  Specter lives in fantasy land

  Unless "The party line straightjacket" is the Republican mind control chip he wants them to deactivate during these votes.

  by nemesis enforcer on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:47:13 AM PDT

  •  Has he mentioned the blue slips?

    It must have slipped his fair minded retrospective.

    This is as close to the truth as a Republican will ever come and it is still a lie.

    by Thistime on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:53:08 AM PDT

•  Nuclear Constitutional Option

  Well, that's a unique way to refer to it

  by RBH on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:47:24 AM PDT

  •  Nuke the Constitution Option

    ...would be more accurate.

    by mataliandy on Wed May 18, 2005 at 08:08:50 AM PDT

•  Now we see how floating a compromise

  was viewed as weak- Specter is saying that if we could agree to some, then our case saying that they are all too extreme fails.

  Thanks, Nelson et al.

  by sandblaster on Wed May 18, 2005 at 07:48:12 AM PDT