So, how do we feel about Landrieu's participation in the COMPROMISE?

[AnnInLa]

Not sure how I feel about it...on one hand she is sure working against us Progressives....on the other hand, she has never been truly a Progressive anyway. On one hand, she saved herself from the wrath of the RW evangelical extremist voters...on the other hand, she seems to have betrayed her Dem principles. Are we glad she seems to be working to ensure her re-election or not? I'm terribly conflicted about Mary.

[funkybutt]

1. I'm with you

In many ways I think it helps for the Republicans to be seen as compromising right now when so many people are realizing that they really are extremists. This "compromise" doesn't exactly fit my definition of a compromise since it seems they didn't give up anything (except 2 nominees that they didnt' think would go through anyway) Also this compromise is predicated on the Republicans keeping their word. So in many ways I feel like we've been sold out on this. I saw this quote on another thread: "If a 95% success rate on judicial nominees is not good enough for the GOP, then it is not Democracy they want, it is tyranny they are after."

On the other hand, we could choose to view this as a victory. We have to face it that we are in the minority here. Maybe this is the "moderate" republicans way of waging war on the far right and this administration. Maybe Mary's move here will help the moderates splinter the republican party. Did she do the best with what we have? I dunno... The scenario could have been that if some dems didn't compromise we'd be viewed as whiny and stubborn. In theory, from a weak position, we've maintained the fillibuster.

So like you, I'm conflicted. Maybe it's just from 5 years of taking beatings but I have a hard time rejoicing about this "victory". As far as Mary Landrieu's role in this, I'm not surprised. She's not a progressive and she's never pretended to be. Is there an alternative to Mary who could win? Not that I know of. *sigh*

[pacalo]

2. Landrieu said on "Nightline" last night that she & Louisiana have a

personal stake in getting the filibuster issue settled, which is the Energy bill. She said it's important for the state.

We all know what happened with the last energy bill, which was crafted by Cheney's task force (read industry lobbyists): Democrats were locked out of the closed-door sessions as the pork laden bill was written, Cheney was taken all the way up to SCOTUS to disclose details of meetings between his task force & the industry. It's now stalled in congress & Mary stated that she wants to get back to work on it. (I'm remembering my embarrassment at hearing McCain reading the list of greedy goodies included in the bill on the Senate floor, which included $227 million in taxpayer-financing for "green" bonds to build or renovate four shopping malls, including a riverfront development in Shreveport, La., featuring a 14-screen theater & a Hooter's restaurant (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/11/21/MNG0E37NGO1.DTL).

Bottom line is I don't trust Mary Landrieu like I once did. I wanted to think she would stand on principle, but I think she's nothing more than a player. But like FunkyButt said, who else would we choose?

That said about Mary, I think the compromise is a good thing. Bill Frist's power was compromised, the religious fanatics were put in their place, the Republicans are splintering, & the most important thing was that they stood up to the White House. In the "understanding", it was stipulated that the WH should do what it should have been doing in the first place: Conferring with the Senate for advice & consent before submitting judicial nominations. This is key. If the nutball had been doing what previous presidents had done, & what the Constitution provides the Senate, there wouldn't have been so much fighting about his choices. The Constitution protects against presidents who believe "it's my way or the highway".

[votefordan]

3. For my 2 cents of the filibuster issue

http://www.danieljzimmerman.com/commentaries.html

[pacalo]

4. Yes, I've thought about the lost opportunities for the '06 elections, too.

My interpretation of the fast-falling approval ratings of Congress (& this administration) is that there is a majority of rational people who don't approve of the Republicans' bullying tactics; nor do they approve of the Democrats' tentativeness in fighting back. But a lot can happen between now & the '06 elections. I don't think this is the end of the bullying attempts. I think the "it's my way or the highway" bullying cowards in the WH are going to put pressure on Frist & DeLay to do their dirty work; it's advantageous to them that the fighting continue.

That's why I think it's important that the Democrats emphasize at every opportunity that it's because the WH has not been following the Constitution's advise & consent provision for the Senate that has caused much of the division over his judicial nominees. Rush Limbaugh & other hate-radio hosts are spreading the false notion that filibustering these nominees is unconstitutional. When one party has majority rule, the filibuster is a welcoming safeguard against ramrodding inequitable legislation. The Republicans may not have used the filibuster on the Senate floor against Clinton's nominees, but that's because they made sure the nominations didn't make it past the committee level.

These judges are being nominated at the appeals level. There is a good chance that they could rule against the Democratic platform on those controversial issues. I say let them. If they make a ruling that is not based in law, but on personal convictions, you take away the Republican argument that only “liberal judges” legislate from the bench. And since these judges are being appointed to the appeals level, a ruling on any controversial matter is bound to make it to the Supreme Court before it is considered to be a legal precedent. The Supreme Court would be the safety net for the Democrats on those issues.

After 2000, I don't trust the Supreme Court's sense of fairness as much as you do. I wouldn't count on it serving as a safety net for the Democrats. Don't forget about the arrogance & in-your-face attitude of Cheney's hunting partner. And that he ruled in favor of Cheney in the FOIA lawsuit right after their infamous hunting trip together.

This compromise illustrates the beginning of more independence of disgusted conservatives against the WH. It's even happening in the House with the stem cell research bill. I've always been hopeful that the religious nutjobs would wear out their welcome. It looks like the time has come.

[votefordan]

8. I dont necessarily trust the SCOTUS

However, I believe that with the political opportunities that can be gained by not stalling on "appeals level" nominees, we should consider all aspects before throwing up a fillibuster on them.

However, when it comes to the SCOTUS nominees, especially O'Connor we need to press this issue home and fight the Republican pundits on the "constitutionality" of the filibuster.

Dont let the Republicans fool the people. We need to get this in letters to the editor, radio shows, etc.

1) The constitution does not require an "up or down vote" on anything. The only time the constitution requires a simple majority is to reach a quorum.

2) The constitution allows the Senate to make its own rules.

3) The places where the Senate is required by the Constitution to pass something with 2/3 does not imply that those are the only times the senate can pass something with a supermajority... those are just exceptions to the rule that allows the senate to make its own rules.

4) "Advice and Consent" does not mean simple majority. Why? Because advising and consenting on a treaty requires 2/3. If advice and consent implied a simple majority you could not require 2/3 for it.

5) If Republicans want to follow the rules they are welcome to open discussion to change the rules to stop fillibusters on judicial nominations. Of course, such a vote would require 2/3 to break a filibuster on that discussion.

"Cloture requires the support of three-fifths of Senators (normally 60), except on proposals to change the rules, when cloture requires two-thirds of Senators voting"

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm

So why not demand that Republicans follow the rule of law and if they want to change the rules to have them do it under the current senate rules.

The "nuclear option" is not valid because the filibuster IS constitutional.

[election_2004]

5. It's all about 2008

I think Mary has hurt herself permanently as far as ever getting to be part of a national Democratic ticket.

However, if she is seen as compromising and working in a bipartisan fashion on behalf of Louisianans, she may eventually elevate her reputation enough to become a "senator for life" in the state like John Breaux - - and overcome her vulnerability in Louisiana elections.

If Blanche Lincoln is the Democratic presidential nominee in 2008, she will help Mary get reelected to the U.S. Senate in '08 and help keep that seat in the Democratic column.

http://www.lincoln2008.com

Our country can't afford to see Mary's seat fall to another Vitter clone in '08. The price for the U.S. Senate is just too damn high.

[votefordan]

9. Good and bad with Senator Lincoln

The good is that she is "southern" which could help with southern states.

The bad is the time spent in Congress. That would be a major point against her.

Another bad is that she was not a Governor. Look at recent presidents and recent failures. Bush, Clinton, Reagan...... all Governors. Bush Sr. was a V-P before serving his term as President.

I would like to see someone like John Breaux make a run for President in 08. Unfortunately, I dont think a moderate can win the nomination nationally.

[Hippo_Tron]

6. She really didn't need to vote for Owen

That's what bothers me more than the compromise. As for Mary I don't expect anything from her other than to retain her Senate seat. I've seen her speak on the floor in person, she has very little personal ability and she's basically another lightweight politician.

[zeal]

7. lightweight

true, I agree

but she's not as bad as Vitter

didn't he just help a bill that legalized cutting in the Basin?