David Broder: A Judicious Compromise.
Here is what should happen: The Democratic Senate leadership should agree voluntarily to set aside the continued threat of filibustering the seven Bush appointees to the federal appeals courts who were blocked in the last Congress and whose names have been resubmitted. In return, they should get a renewed promise from the president that he will not bypass the Senate by offering any more recess appointments to the bench and a pledge from Republican Senate leaders to consider each such nominee individually, carefully and with a guarantee of extensive debate in coming months.
Bwaahahahahaahahhahahaha! Hoo. Wait. I have to read that again: "(The Dems) should get a renewed promise from the president that he will not bypass
the Senate by offering any more recess appointments to the bench...." Yes, the Dems should get that promise from the preznit, but they won't. What world has Broder been living in for the last 5 years? Maybe he should read his own front page.
The Dems have approved FAR TOO MANY conservative hacks already anyway (damn them). I think they've been FAR TOO GENEROUS in their approval rate, which hovers sickeningly at 95%. And dumbyass has done exactly what for the Dems and the rest of us? (Besides lie us into a war, bankrupt the nation, hold a fire sale for the corporations, attack civil liberties, and ruin our reputation around the world?)
But wait! There's more: The Dems, in exchange for lying down and taking it, should also expect "a pledge from Republican Senate leaders to consider each such nominee
individually, carefully and with a guarantee of extensive debate in
coming months." Broder is smoking crack. Repugnican "leaders" don't consider anything except for their payoffs and their position in the party caste system. So goes their logic: If I kowtow today, i'll run the Heritage Foundation/Lockheed Martin/Lichtenstein tomorrow. What's to argue?
Why should the Democrats be the first to step back from the abyss of the "nuclear option," the possible rules change that would eliminate all judicial nomination filibusters and thereby make confirmation possible with 51 -- not 60 -- votes?
The principled answer is that elections matter.
Nice of you to weigh in, Dave, and I hope you'll pardon my French, but this is just a load of imperious bullshit. If Broder can get off his pedestal perch for one damn moment, he might see that the American People think elections matter, too. That's why they want the Dems to fight the illegitimate B*shCo agenda. Keerist.
Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more than talking important matters to death.
Wow. Wow. Holy Divorce From Reality, Batman! You know, this is exactly why I am on a news hiatus. I just don't have the time/patience/iron stomach to put up with statements like this. I just don't have all day (or even a portion of the day) to refute all of the assumptions in that sentence, but, f*ck it, this is just too annoying.
1. Voters placed Repugs in control of the White House. Debatable.
2. Voters placed Repugs in control of the Senate. Debatable.
3. "Control"? Creepy. Voters place representatives there to do the people's bidding. Hahahahah! I know that's a load of horsepuckey we sell to the kiddies in Civics class, but still...
4. "While the opposition still has a constitutional role to play..." Whoa. It's constitutional, just procedural, a little nitpicky rule and not essential to a well-functioning democracy, hunh? Not checks and balances, not fostering debate and compromise so that our reps can reach the best decision for the coutnry? Well, that says something for how Broder thinks gubmint should be run, I guess. Control, a mute and passive opposition.... Hmm. Sounds like a system we already have in place. Can't put my finger on it though.
5. "At the end of the day (this) function has to be more than talking important matters to death" (read: debate, compromise)?? Hey, you washerwomen, politics is about more than talking! Quit yer jibba jabba. We got work to do! Like corporate giveaways and mortgaging the future and logging! Yes, and less rights! And fewer benefits! And fuck the poor! You, too, gays! We love you soldiers -- here's my stupid yellow magnet to prove it -- but don't think we think you deserve any services when you return home. No, siree. This ain't socialism. And, girl, you better get your ass back in the kitchen. And to think the Dems want to spend all their time talking important matters to death.
Barkeep, another double and keep 'em coming!
But there are also practical reasons for the Democrats to take this path. Their tactical position is weak. The Judiciary Committee cleared two more nominees last week. The Republicans -- with Vice President Cheney in the chair -- could well muster the 51 votes needed to change Senate rules and abolish judicial filibusters. If that were to happen, Democrats have said they would use every rule and procedure available to them to bring the work of the Senate to a halt.
Whaaaaaa? The Judiciary Committee cleared two nominees last week before Broder's sage advice could be delivered to the cackling hen Dems from Up on High? Shocking. How did the Dems EVER know how to function in their jobs w/o Broder's Solomonic wisdom lighting the way?
Building such a roadblock to consideration of such important legislation as energy, Social Security, welfare reform and the routine financing of government would bring down deserved public condemnation, and the mighty megaphone of the White House would ensure that Democrats took the brunt of the blame. Democrats need to remember what happened to Newt Gingrich when he shut down the government for a few days in 1995 in a budget dispute with President Bill Clinton. It was not Clinton who lost public support.
The mighty megaphone of the White House, hunh? Hmm. Does Broder have megaphone envy? Is that why he's using his tin-can-on-a-string column to give advice to the Dems and "spare" them the brunt of the blame for -- what was it again? For doing the will of the people and ensuring that debate and criticism and rejection, if need be, occurs so that King George doesn't continue to think that we are his loyal subjects and that he makes all the decisions in the fiefdom? I mean, is it just me??
And no he didn't compare the Dems' response to the Nuclear Option to Newt "The Original 'I Am the Federal Government' Asshole" Gingrich's Contract On America! Man, that is rich. Let's see, a more apt comparison might be, oh, I don't know, comparing Frist-DeLay's unparalleled arrogant overreaching to Newt Gingrich's theretofore unparalleled arrogant overreaching. Yes, that would be more appropriate, unless, of course, one were hellbent on portraying the Dems as obstructionists. With a judicial approval rate of an appalling 95%, I'd think the Dems were f*cking grease-the-wheel'ers. The jerks.
Broder smokes crack in his basement, I'm afraid. Really, I can reach no
other conclusion after he offers up a sentence as poorly argued as: "Building such a roadblock to consideration of such important legislation as energy, Social Security, welfare reform, and the routine financing of government woudl bring down deserved public condemnation..." I'm sorry, what? What in the hell is Broder on about? Newsflash: the Dems also think energy, SS, welfare, and "the routine financing of gubmint" are important! That's why they're, um, debating, critiquing, compromising, and roadblocking when they have to. We can't just let the Empire proceed apace. Jeebus! Public condemnation guaranteed if they do not fight the Empire on those important pieces of legislation.
Dammit, I'm sick of this. Broder goes on to counsel the Dems on what else they should do to play dead when it is screamingly obvious to everyone in the room that the Repug pirates have commandeered the ship. And Broder's advice to the Repugs re: unseemly powergrabs and the subverting of American democracy? [crickets chirping.] The silence speaks volumes.