Bill Press: Nuclear Sellout

[Boo Boo]

Here's Bill Press at the Huffington Post asking the million dollar question. Not "Who won?", but "Why is this a good deal?"

Let's see. Under the terms of the compromise reached by 14 moderate Senators...

1. Bill Frist is saved from falling on his face by triggering the nuclear option - and not having the votes.

2. Extreme right-wingers Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor will now be confirmed.

3. William Myers and Henry Saad will probably also be confirmed, with or without a filibuster.

4. And, once Bush makes his first Supreme Court nomination, Republicans will still have the right to drop the nuclear bomb, outlaw the filibuster, and cut off debate.

Where's the compromise? Why should Democrats support it? What did Democrats gain by it?

Quick! Somebody tell me why this is a good deal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/theblog/archive/bill-press/nuclear-sellout_1589.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

[Carolab]

1. Ya got me.

I can't figure it out, either.

I guess if they disallow the agreement to take effect; i.e., a Republican says "no" to "extraordinary circumstances", then they look like uncompromising liars. That's the only bright note I can see. But if they DO go nuclear, what difference does it make, if they achieve complete control over the courts? OTOH, if Dems object, THEY look like they are deal-breakers, so wouldn't that stop them from doing so?

[Boo Boo]

2. The only way I see this turning into a real victory

is if Bush/Rove/Frist, in a fit of petulence, provoke another Nuclear Option showdown and lose. Then this current deal could be seen as consensus building and giving Senate Republicans the cover they need to go against their President. Otherwise, we're just getting bullied by a President that "won" by less than 52 percent of the vote, and a Senate majority that represents 45% of the U.S., all in the name of pandering to a minority of right wing extremists and fundamentalist "Christians."

If we assume, for the sake of argument, that we were going to lose then at least we live to fight another day, I guess, but it's not clear to me that we were actually going to lose.

:sigh:

I'm trying to take a wait and see attitude, but it ain't easy.

[Carolab]

3. Dean labeled it a "win-win" situation...

for us, in the MTP "interview" with Russert. Russert, of course, didn't really allow him to expand upon it.

[Boo Boo]

4. Hope he's right about that. /nt

[ElectroPrincess]

5. Based on their track record, he's not ... we've been punked AGAIN!

Time to throw the ba*tards out and start anew.

[genius]

73. It's time we put someone who won't fold in as our minority leader.

[0007]

6. The Dem's were out snookered again.....by the repukes.

This was a bad deal. We had over 70% of Public Opinion in our favor and the sheep were starting to wake up.

You can talk to me until the cows come home and never ever in your wildest imagination make me believe this was a good deal.

[ArkDem]

51. You must have grown up on a farm.

[0007]

55. New York City is a farm?

[ArkDem]

69. Well, the poster was talking about sheep waking up and cows

coming home.....

[0007]

72. ......and foxes guarding the hen house. LOL!!

[reality based]

7. I'm not convinced that we had the votes to uphold the filibuster

But then I'm not sure we want the filibuster for the long run. The best thing about the compromise that I see is that it puts the Republicans and Frist in some disarray and it postpones the nuclear option until the Supreme Court nominations. If the Senate were a body of people of basic good will and commitment to democracy and republican government, the compromise would be good in that it prevented a meltdown. However, I think many Democrats do not perceive the true nature of many of their Republican opponents; a crisis may be needed to rescue our government. If an indirect result is some sort of Social Security sellout, as Graham has hinted, the deal will have been a disaster.

[0007]

9. This was the crisis but the Dem's buckled. We were going to

win either which way the filibuster went.

[LuPeRcALiO]

11. right.

And now that we've surrendered the fillibuster without a fight it's time to put Social Security on the chopping block and come up with a "bipartisan compromise" that leaves us with an equally hollowed-out shell.

[0007]

54. With the rise of gasoline and groceries, Social Security is gone.

[Freddie Stubbs]

13. Barbara Boxer said that the Democrats did NOT have the votes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3726367

But what does she know?

[reality based]

20. Who were the Republicans?

McCain, Chafee, and Snow had announced I think. Collins (is she ever out to lunch!) probably. Warner maybe. That leaves Arlen "single bullet" Specter, the savior of Clarence Thomas. I really think he was a thin reed to rely on. Would Nelson and Landrieu have stayed hitched? I don't know if we can count on any of them in a future nuclear option vote-- now that they have the "extraordinary circumstances" excuse. But time can change things. The compromise gives room for something to happen. Weak I know.

[Boo Boo]

59. Hey, at least it's something!

And if we didn't have the votes then what the hell, it's better than nothing.

:shrug:

[reality based]

61. You don't play chess, do you?

[returnable]

8. His very first point is flawed.

There simply is no evidence that the Dems had the votes to kill the nuclear option.

Press's entire premise unravels from there.

[CWebster]

10. Not according to this:

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=41363&ntpid=10

Feingold's remarks at the end of the article:

Feingold, a member of the Judiciary Committee, was blunt in his dismissal of claims that the deal that has put Owen on the appeals court represented a legitimate "compromise."

"There was no effort to reach a real compromise that would take into account the concerns of all parties. A compromise at the point of a gun is not a compromise," he said. "I strongly opposed the threat of the nuclear option. I believe this was an illegitimate tactic, a partisan abuse of power that was a threat to the Senate as an institution and to the country. Attempting to blackmail the minority into giving up the rights that have been part of the Senate's traditions and practices for centuries was a new low for a majority that has repeatedly been willing to put party over principle. Unfortunately, the blackmail was partially successful," said Feingold, who explained that "the end result is that nominees who don't deserve lifetime appointments to the judiciary will now be confirmed."

[returnable]

12. And...?

At what point does Feingold produce evidence that the Democrats had enough votes to kill the nuclear option? Surmising that the Owen vote is representative of how senators would've voted on the Nuclear Option is pure speculation.

[CWebster]

14. Read the entire article

I just added the Feingold quote at the end of the article because I didn't want you to miss it.

;-)

[returnable]

16. deleted...

posted in wrong spot :hi:

[returnable]

17. I did read the entire article...

...and again I don't see any proof that the Democrats had the votes to kill the nuclear option.

The editorial merely speculates the Democrats may have been able to sway some moderate Republicans. But that's purely guesswork. The Cap Times writing there "was at least a reasonable chance" for a blocking of the nuclear option is hardly hard evidence that we had the votes.

Plenty of other media sources are claiming Frist had the votes he needed.

No one knows how a vote on the nuclear option would've played out. Suggesting otherwise is pure folly.

[kenny blankenship]

19. No--the real question is

how do YOU prove that the nuclear option has been killed. What is provable is that the mere threat of a rule change was all that was necessary to get these unacceptable judges confirmed.
We're supposed to believe that having been rewarded for their aggression, the Republicans will behave nicely from now on. I submit the nuclear option is plainly alive, not dead.

Now if the Republicans would go that far for a couple of judges, what do you think they will do to see a hardcore fascist elevated to the Supreme Court?

What has been killed is not the nuclear option but the filibuster, which cannot be raised as a possibility unless Republicans agree that "the circumstances are extreme". And in exchange for that we got nothing. Worse than nothing: the Republicans were allowed to get their way both on the judges and in their desire to hollow out the filibuster, and got it without having to do something all Americans would recognize as a radical overturning of this country's governing institutions.

What has happened is that by refusing to fight for basic principles, Democrats have NORMALIZED Republican subversion of established democratic process. This is the kind of craven shortsighted decision that comes back to bite the Democrats in the ass sooner rather than later, like John Kerry's Iraq War vote.

[returnable]

23. Huh?

I never said the nuclear option was killed. Where did I ever say that? I don't for a minute think this compromise is airtight and won't be challenged, and very soon.

I'm with the folks who think this deal merely kicked the can down the road a bit and will no doubt implode over a Supreme Court nominee.

In the meantime, a couple of rightwing judges won't get seated in the judiciary. Yeah, I know that Owen, Pryor, and Brown were the Big Names, but giving the boot to Saad and Myers is helluva lot better than letting all 5 through, which was a very real possibility prior to the compromise.

[CWebster]

24. The first thing I heard after the compromise

was some pundit talking about how they doubted whether they had the votes for the other two anyway.

So the Repugs got what they wanted and still gained public regard for the moderate bi-partisan compromise.

Nice.

[returnable]

27. "some pundit"

That's just one person's opinion. And had Frist been able to activate the nuclear option, what, exactly, would the Dems have gained from that?

Again, none of us know how the votes would've played out.

I disagree with the notion that the GOP is winning the PR battle, though. Everywhere I look, I'm reading and hearing about the growing schism within the GOP's ranks. This deal essentially split the Republicans apart.

You may think the Dems rolled over on the compromise, but I don't think that's how it's playing out in the general population.

[CWebster]

33. True, but there was agreement within the group of pundits

as if it was common knowledge inside the beltway.

Further down there is a post about the risk Frist was taking--but hey, it turned out great for him, he didn't have to resort to risk and the Repugs still accomplished their mission. That is the thing with the Repugs, they always are in lock-step--that is how they consolidate their power. Meanwhile they have the Dems believing they won something or that there are rifts developing on the Right. Don't you think they would prefer that perception compared to the backlash the nuclear option would have provoke? After all, they can't totally anniliate the Democrats--they need the illusion of an opposition party. They need the pretense of checks and balances.

They are shrewd operators when it comes to power.

[returnable]

36. They certainly are shrewd

No argument there. But they aren't immune to missteps.

I don't buy the view that the outrage we're seeing from the religious right is a manufactured put-on.

And I don't buy the view that the nuclear option would've triggered a GOP backlash. Call me cynical, but I doubt the masses would've rose up in the streets in response to this abuse of power. The masses have been letting the GOP take a big ol' shit on 'em for the last several election cycles, and they keep coming back for more.

Expecting the people to finally wake up to corruption of this government is an exercise in false hope.

I think our only real chance to turn this thing around is for the GOP to eat itself from within.

[CWebster]

41. Not immune to missteps?

It seems impossible for them to make any regardless of whether they do or not.

I think the RR will never be satisfied--they are easy to disappoint.

Note the irony--that you refer to missteps and then observed there wouldn't be a GOP backlash? While I observe that they haven't been held accountable for any missteps yet--but they know Bush's numbers are tanking and they know the public gave low scores to the Repug Senate and they remember what happened to Newt when he got just a little too brash and pushy.

It was essential to do damage control.

[returnable]

47. I'm still not convinced...

...that the outrage is just damage control. I think it's ironic that we give the radical right so much credit for its control over the GOP agenda, and yet still want to dismiss its obvious disappointment with the compromise as being no big deal.

As for missteps, I think the GOP makes them all the time. The Terry Schiavo case being just one recent example. And, hell, Dubya shoots himself in the foot every time he opens his mouth.

But until people start actually voting them out over such matters, I'll hold on to my cynicism.

[martymar64]

65. The outrage of the RR is real

Their objective during this little exercise was not getting some judges through in a compromise, but to eliminate the filibuster. The filibuster over judicial nominees is just a way to set a precedent. Once the precedent is set and accepted by the acquiescence of the Dems, then they will disallow the filibuster on other Senate business, including legislation. That would allow them to ram their whole agenda down our throats, including privitization of SS, a draft, and any number of Enabling Acts to turn us even more into a theofascist police state.

[kenny blankenship]

39. My apologies if I confused you with someone apologizing for this deal

My only excuse is that I haven't had my coffee yet.
I disagree though about the can just being kicked down the road. It's not just the same situation only deferred in time, the road itself is being changed by the movement of the can. The political environment is being warped by the persistence of these struggles which at their core are outrageous assaults on our governmental traditions. Democratic deal making is lending the Republican powergrabs the color of legitimacy and conditioning the public to accept these moves as inevitable. A brief spectacular fight over Fristian power grabbing in which we lose is more to our benefit than a long drawn out death struggle over the same outrageous violations of our American system (which we also will inevitably lose). One path exposes the Republican Party as a fascist movement and prepares the popular backlash, the other path gradually accustoms the people to view these attacks on tradition as normal, and the filibuster's prolonged death by a thousand cuts numbs them to the loss of the balance between minority versus majority party powers and rights in our constitutional system.

[returnable]

49. Again, I disagree with the premise...

...that the nuclear option would've created a massive voter backlash against the GOP. No one has provided any evidence that the American people would rise up and throw the bums out over this fight over congressional procedures.

And while delaying the inevitable showdown over the filibuster may seem fruitless, I think anything that buys the minority power time to consolidate its votes and its support is better than nothing.

Cuz had Frist triggered the nuke option on Tuesday, that's exactly what we would have: nothing. No voice, no chance to even fight over a Supreme Court nominee, nothing.

[CWebster]

52. But , even with a biased media

the Right does not have a mandate. The country is split--and probably it would be less so without skewed polls and stolen elections. Still Bush's numbers are falling, the social security scam is unpopular, the Shiavo case was a blunder, Iraq is a disaster, the US is despised around the world and so on. It would be very risky for them now to push their luck. If they (officially)muzzle the Democrats and shut down the minority's remaining avenues of particiopation--that could be a real crisis. They must, at least, preserve the barest illusion of fairness. there can be no suggestion of a coup.

[returnable]

53. I agree with pretty much everything you just wrote

"Still Bush's numbers are falling, the social security scam is unpopular, the Shiavo case was a blunder, Iraq is a disaster, the US is despised around the world and so on. It would be very risky for them now to push their luck."

I agree.

That's why I'm glad the filibuster has been preserved for perhaps the ultimate showdown over a Supreme Court nominee. Yes, it sucks that The Compromise© allowed the GOP to push through 3 nutjobs. But the alternative - Frist wiping out future debate, getting all 5 crackpots through, and then topping it all off with an unchallenged SCOTUS nominee or two within the next two years - was far less appealing.

The battle for the Supreme Court will be the battle royale that'll put all the cards on the table, and that's where the fight can and must be won.

It was a flawed deal, I don't deny that. But I honestly think it was the best that could be worked out. Otherwise, we'd be staring down the barrel of at least 2 more years of unchallenged and unrestrained rightwing appointments. At least now, we can be in the fight.

I believe Frist's hand has been weakened by this deal. As you have noted a few times, public support has backed the use of the filibuster. Now we have key Republicans in the Senate are on record as defending the right to filibuster. The deck is being stacked against him.

If Frist tries to go nuclear now, especially over the SCOTUS, THEN you're likely to see a backlash.

We simply don't have that kind of leverage when the debate is limited to the DC Court of Appeals.

[CWebster]

56. Well, I hope you are right,

but excuse me for being wary of this battle cry always put off till tomorrow with the notion that there is a secret plan afoot or we muct choose our battles.

Now they are proposing a "compromise" on Social Security, while we're asked to wait for the fight over the next hill?

When are they ever going to step in the ring?

[returnable]

58. I hope I'm right, too.

Cuz otherwise, we are really screwed :hi:

As for Social Security, yeah, I've heard the rumors that the Gang of 14 have been hashing out a compromise. But I haven't seen any details, good or bad, so I can't blow my top. Yet.

[returnable]

15. deleted

Oh, thursdays...

[CWebster]

18. You're right--I was thinking of the amount to filibuster

The final vote broke along partisan lines. Fifty-three Republicans and two Democrats, Louisiana's Mary Landrieu and West Virginia's Robert Byrd, voted to confirm Owen. Forty-two Democrats and one Independent, Vermont's Jim Jeffords, voted against confirmation.

Those numbers are significant because they show that Democrats had the 40 votes that were needed to sustain a filibuster against Owen.

[returnable]

21. No doubt

I'm positive Owen would've been shut out (again) had the Dems been allowed to filibuster. Unfortunately, there was no guarantee that allowance would've been granted.

[CWebster]

22. Still the outcome is the same

The Right just got their hanging judges by threatening to nuke. Well, they didn't have to -that worked out well for them.

[returnable]

25. Perhaps.

Time will tell if this was a fool's bargain for the Dems or not.

Personally, I'm taking solace in the fact that it has pretty much jumpstarted the GOP's internal civil war. Another crap judge on the 5th Circuit cracker factory might be the price we had to pay for a total Republican implosion for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

[CWebster]

28. I don't think there is a civil war though

and it would be foolish for us to find some consolation in that.

[returnable]

31. Again, time will tell.

We'll know soon enough one way or the other.

If we lose even more seats in 2006, I'll be more than happy to let ya tattoo "I told ya so" on my forehead :hi:

[LuPeRcALiO]

26. If Frist had pulled the trigger, it would have been a shot

heard round the world. "Frist rewrites Constitution." Whether he got the rule change or not, it would have caused major backlash, which is about all we've got going for us at the moment. Now we don't even have that.

[CWebster]

29. absolutely

That is why there is no fissure on the Right--they all played a part to achieve their objective and the Dems fell for it. Well, some of them did, but they have always been working in tandem as well.

[Norquist Nemesis]

30. That's how I see it

It only delayed the inevitable and gave more fodder for Frist. The Wimps and Whiners (and a few "moderate" Dems) will now vote in such a way as to deploy the option and destroy the filibuster. Frist has them over a barrel.

It's now the morning after a one night stand and the Democrats are once again the ones who got screwed.

[LuPeRcALiO]

34. yep. And next time it's Miss Social Security's turn

to go for a ride in the Republicans' big car.

[Norquist Nemesis]

45. The legislation's already been introduced for that date

The Bill's been introduced in the House to change SS to have individual accounts.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h109-440

109TH CONGRESS
H. R. 440
1ST SESSION


To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for individual security
accounts funded by employee and employer Social Security payroll deduc-
tions, to extend the solvency of the old-age, survivors, and disability
insurance program, and for other purposes.




IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
FEBRUARY 1, 2005
Mr. KOLBE (for himself and Mr. BOYD) introduced the following bill; which
was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to
the Committee on Rules, for a period to be subsequently determined by
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall with-
in the jurisdiction of the committee concerned




A BILL
To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide
for individual security accounts funded by employee and
employer Social Security payroll deductions, to extend
the solvency of the old-age, survivors, and disability in-
surance program, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.

4 (a) SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the
5 ``Bipartisan Retirement Security Act of 2005''.

[returnable]

32. Prove it

Americans have been lied to about war, about the economy, about health care, about social security and so on.

Yet they still keep giving the GOP seats.

You think that by allowing Frist to nuke the filibuster, we'd suddenly experience a surge in GOP backlash? What country have you been living in the past 5 years?

[CWebster]

35. That is when Newt overstepped his bounds.

[returnable]

38. Interesting you should bring that up...

...cuz the Dems response to the nuclear option would've been to shut the government down, just like Newt and the boys did.

And we know how that played out.

Yeah, I know the circumstances were different, but I also know how our media operates.

The story wouldn't be "Principled Dems Stand Up to Corrupt GOP Congress", it would be "Spoiled Sport Dems Shut Down Government."

What triggered the shutdown wouldn't matter - the story would be the Democrats took their ball and went home.

And as Newt knows, that ain't a winning a campaign strategy.

[CWebster]

44. It could've just as easily been blamed on Clinton

But he held firm.

That didn't stop them though, as we well know.

[martymar64]

66. Actually a shutdown would've worked

Had the nuke option been used, the DEms could shutdown the Senate by various procedural moves or by the Texas way of denying the Senate a quorom. No Quorom, no biz! If you recall, public opinion was firmly behind the Texas Dem legislators when they left the state to prevent the redistricting grab by the Rethugs.

[LuPeRcALiO]

37. This would have way bigger than the Shiavo backlash

and that was pretty big. Polls are showing around 70% opposed to the rule change. One recent AP poll found that "78 percent believe the Senate should take an assertive role in examining nominees rather than just giving the president the benefit of the doubt." And so on.

http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050521/NEWS06/505210484/1012

[returnable]

42. What Schiavo backlash?

DeLay and some of his cronies got some bad press, sure. But we won't see any concrete evidence of a voter backlash until the next election cycle. I'm crossing my fingers that it pays off at the voting booth in 2006, but I'm not holding my breath. The outrage over Abu Ghraib was pretty severe, too, but no one paid for it in November.

As for that poll, sure, Americans' like the filibuster. No real news there. But it remains to be seen if they'd actually vote someone out of office over it.

Americans by an overwhelming majority favor stem cell research, too, but that didn't stop them from re-electing a man who vehemently opposes it.

[LuPeRcALiO]

46. we don't have time to wait unto 2006.

By that time your Social Security benefits will have been "reformed" down to a sheet of Blue Chip stamps and a complimentary drinking glass.

[returnable]

48. "We don't have time to wait unto 2006"?

You're undermining your own argument, cuz the backlash you were hoping for was all about winning back some seats in 2006. What, did ya think the makeup of Congress was gonna change today, tomorrow, or next weeks cuz of the nuclear option?

[LuPeRcALiO]

50. no, the backlash I'm hoping for is all about alerting the U.S.

electorate to the fact that Congress is being railroaded by a right-wing junta that is NOT on their side.

If constituents start making noise, more people like Voinovich might start peeling away, or trying to.

And I mean right now, before they destroy SS with another "bipartisan compromise."

[returnable]

57. Voinovich's turn on Bolton has been a pleasent surprise...

...but I don't think he's completely surrendered his membership in the rightwing junta just yet. After all, he did vote to confirm Owen, who was arguably the biggest whackjob of them all. No one has convinced me that this showdown over circuit court judges would've lead to a backlash. The only real backlash I'm seeing right now is coming from the radical right, and it's directed at John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and so on. Works for me.

As for Social Security, we'll just have to wait and see. That debate has been breaking our way since Dubya first opened his mouth, so I'm optimistic.

[kenny blankenship]

67. You've got it backwards

Now I see what your problem is. You think that the Democrats should wait until the people become completely irate and spitting mad with the repukes before taking a stand. No wonder you're confused!

[returnable]

71. Huh?

"You think that the Democrats should wait until the people become completely irate and spitting mad with the repukes before taking a stand."

Where did I say that?

In fact, nothing could be further from what I think.

I simply believe that banking on some kind of backlash is foolish. And I'm quite tired of each new scandal or GOP power grab being trumpeted as the one that FINALLY creates a backlash.

We've seen corruption piled upon corruption from this administration, and the country still remains completely polarized. We're not going to win back our government through a massive wave of anti-GOP sentiment. Anyone who thinks that or is counting on it is kidding him- or herself. Or deeply confused.

We're gonna win it back by chipping away seat by seat, and by fostering a culture war within the GOP.

[yebrent]

63. That could still happen.

And next time around, it will be that much closer to the 2006 election. Plus, it may happen with a Sup. Court nominee, which could create even more public awareness and backlash.

[LuPeRcALiO]

70. good point.

Still, now we've got those three judges, and likely the other two, and who knows where public opinion will be next time around.

For example, what if they try to put Rogers-Brown on the Supreme Court? Would the public back a big showdown over an African-American female judge? Would Dems even have the stomach to fight it?

My guess is no on both counts.

[NightOwwl]

40. Another reason to worry...

I just started a thread on a possible Social Security compromise stemming from this new-found "bi-partisanship." It's here if you are interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1811047

[LuPeRcALiO]

43. thanks

that's exactly why I'm worried

[genius]

60. kick

[Paradise]

62. Thanks; thought I was going mad. n/t

[progressoid]

64. Its a WIN dammit!!

Haven't you been listening? James Dobsen said its a win so it must be a win. Right?

:silly:

[Eloriel]

68. That PRECISELY articulates my sentiment (and confusion) on this

"compromise" shit.

[genius]

74. kick

[fujiyama]

75. I like Bill Press

I haven't seen him on TV in a while.

I've been unsure about this whole compromise up until now, but I'm thinking in the end it will be disasterous for the Dems and we will have gained little if anything.