I decided to post the first installment here; in the future, they will be posted at akou.
This week's topic: filibusters on Meet The Press.
MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issue this Sunday: the explosive debate about the so-called "nuclear option" and filibusters. With us from the United States Senate: Republican Majority Leader Bill Frist and Democratic Senator X of Blogosphere. Frist, Dem X, only on MEET THE PRESS.
Senators Frist, Dem X, welcome. Let's get straight to the point. Senator Frist, will the Republicans launch the so-called "nuclear" or "constitutional" option to prevent the Democrats from filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees?
SENATOR FRIST: The Constitution gives the Senate the prerogative to accept or reject any of the President's judicial nominations. It's our duty as Senators to give each nominee an up or down vote. The nominations of ten judges have been filibustered numerous times. In all cases, the nominees hold impeccable credentials, are highly qualified and deserve the opportunity to simply have their nominations either approved or denied by a majority of U.S. Senators. The judicial filibuster is being abused by the minority to prevent the Senate from doing its Constitutional duty to reject or consent to the President's nominees. Consequently, the majority will be employing the constitutional option this week to restore order in the Senate so that we can perform our duty under the Constitution.
MR. RUSSERT: Dem X, your response?
DEM X: Well Tim, there were so many inaccuracies in Senator Frist's statement, many of them intentionally misleading, that it's hard to know where to start. But let's start at the basics. First, let me explain to your viewers this whole talk of a "constitutional option." The media has played fast and loose with the facts on this, saying that the Democrats call it the "nuclear option" and the republicans call it "the constitutional option." What everyone forgets is that it was a Republican, Trent Lott, who coined the term "nuclear option", when he advocated a rule change which would quote "blow up the Senate." So the good Senator can euphemize the action all he wants by calling it a "constitutional option" because the GOP thinks that polls better, but the fact is it's the Republicans that want to go nuclear and obliterate precedent, fairness, and the integrity of our judicial system.
MR. RUSSERT: OK. Nuclear option, Constitutional option. Different terms for different parties. But the question is, Dem X, are the Democrats prepared to shut down the Senate over these 10 nominees, all of which have majority support? Do you think that's fair?
DEM X: No one is going to shut down the Senate. That's just more distortion and scare-tactics from the Republicans. Look, if the Republicans decide to break the rules, if they choose to do away with a venerable Senate tradition just to push these radical, unqualified judges through to please the Christian right, then we're just going to make the Senate work. The Democrats don't want to "shut down" the Senate. We'll just take the time and focus on issues that we as Democrats think are important: healthcare, jobs, and education. Instead of working 3 days a week, we'll ask that the Senate work 5. If average Americans have to put in a 40 hour work week, shouldn't the Senate be held the same standard? So that's what will happen if the majority decides to break the rules.
SENATOR FRIST: Tim, the simple fact is that Americans want these judges to be confirmed. When President Bush won re-election in November, he had the most votes of any President--ever. Americans approve of his philosophy and judgment, they trust him to nominate decent, qualified judges, and they expect that those judges will be confirmed. These obstructionist tactics are unprecedented and--
DEM X: With all due respect, Senator Frist, the American people did not vote for this. What the right forgets in its attempts to silence the minority is that, while the President received many votes, John Kerry received the second-largest vote total in American history. Moreover, the President won re-election by the narrowest margin ever. So it's plain wrong to argue that the President's ever-shrinking mandate somehow compels confirmation of these extremist judges.
Democrats have approved of 95% of the President's nominees. Out of 215 nominees, we've approved 205. Why are the Republicans complaining that they didn't get 100%? Did they give 100% confirmation rates to any Democratic President in the past?
SENATOR FRIST: Well, Dem X, those figures are misleading. That's district court judges. When you look just at Appellate Court judges, the rate is much, much lower. Like I said, not giving an up-or-down vote to a nominee with majority support is unprecedented.
DEM X: Unprecedented? Tim, it's hard to believe that the distinguished Senator can claim that with a straight face. Unprecedented? When Clinton was President, the Republicans blocked 69 nominees--who had majority support--from even getting to floor. And the Senator has the audacity to ignore history and tell America that it's unprecedented? What's unprecedented is the level the Republicans will stoop too in order to push their agenda. Making up facts, distorting the record.
Look, Tim, the simple question your viewers should ask themselves is this: Do I want a one-party government? Because that's essentially what the Republicans want here; they want to quash dissent and force their radical agenda on the entire nation, whether Americans want it or not.
The filibuster exists to protect the American people from the tyranny of the majority. It exists so that when the President, as he has here, nominates unqualified, extremist judges, they won't just be rubber stamped by a passive Senate. So what Americans have to ask themselves when it comes to the filibuster is "Is absolute power something I want in my government, do I trust them with it? Or do I want to preserve the filibuster, which is the sole barrier that exists right now between absolute power and a responsible government?
MR. RUSSERT: Well, gentlemen, thanks for the lively debate. We're almost out of time--
DEM X: Tim, if I could have a couple seconds to make a quick announcement.
MR. RUSSERT: An announcement? Sure. Does Meet The Press get an exclusive?
DEM X: Well, I'll tell you what. I'm surprised that your show--none of the morning shows, really--are addressing the Downing Street Memo, a British government document which essentially proves the President misled us into an unnecessary war. I wanted to take a second and inform your audience about it, since, for some reason, no one in the media will touch this with a ten foot pole. So that's what I wanted to announce. And if you want an exclusive, I'll come back next week and discuss it with you, because Americans deserve to know the truth.
MR. RUSSERT: Um...ok. Thank you, Senator Frist, Dem X. Next, we'll talk to the Congressman who found Nancy Pelosi's shoe....