As regular readers know, my wife Millet and I were married last month. (It's pronounced Mill-ette. It's a Hebrew name that isn't even a name in Hebrew. Long story. But, as you can imagine, it's one I adore.) And when some readers asked why I had come back online so soon after the big day I explained that we had decided to take our honeymoon in May.
Well, that day is upon us.
We're going to be away, south of the border, for a week. And we're leaving early Sunday morning.
Now, a cynical and untrusting person might say, 'Hey, wait a minute. You spend days raising funds from hundreds of your readers. And the first thing you when you're done is leave the country?'
I admit one can arrange the facts in that way. But I assure you that doing so creates a false impression. Rest assured, I am returning. And TPMCafe is on track for our launch in mid-May.
I'll say a bit more about that in a moment. But first, I want to introduce you to the two guest bloggers who will be minding the store in my absence: Matthew Yglesias and Kenneth Baer.
I'm never up to speed with what all the latest blogs are. But I started reading Matt's blog when he was still in college only two or three years ago. He's a staff writer now at The American Prospect. And he's simply one of the most impressive young journalists in Washington today, in any part of the profession. I'm especially pleased that he's been such a strong and cogent voice on Social Security since we are sure to face a new tide of bamboozlement in the week ahead.
Kenneth Baer has one foot in the world of journalism and another in the world of brass-tacks DC Democratic operative land. He was a speechwriter for Al Gore in 90s. And I find that usually when I bring up this or that Democratic pol in conversation, it ends up that he's either worked for them, worked for someone who was running against them, wrote a speech for them or knows some secret about them that I'm psyched to know but would just assume others didn't. In any case, he knows Democratic DC -- a diminished specimen, admittedly, but still worth knowing more about.
Kenny's guest blogging stint, which will get started Wednesday afternoon, because he's following the British elections (which are next Thursday) extremely closely. So he'll be able to get you up to speed on Wednesday and explain all the ins and outs of it as the results come in Thursday evening.
I'll be back on Sunday.
Let me sign off with a note to contributors. Again, thank you. More than 1500 of you contributed over the previous ten days. You all gave generously. And many of you wrote notes that meant a great deal to me. To say that I was and am humbled would be an understatement. But I must confess that that was not my only or perhaps even my most potent feeling. As I looked over the notes yesterday and the names of various contributors, I had this moment when I imagined all of the various contributors in a crowd or all together in one place. And the thought suddenly came to me: #$@!, I really better make sure this thing doesn't suck!
So, let's hope. But I think you're going to like what we've come up with. We've got a great stable of contributors lined up. Journalists, pols, essayists, political operatives, novelists, policy hands, academics and various people I'm not precisely sure how to categorize. We're also working on new ways for the community of people who read this site to communicate with each other and contribute to the site with their own ideas, insights and observations.
And one other thing. And this again to contributors. In many of your notes you write "to Josh and staff" or something like that. Well, there is no staff. There are various folks without whom I couldn't put this site together -- the guy who helps me with the tech side of the operation, my research assistant and others. But the site has never had a staff -- as in people beside me who have regular paid job working on this site. That, in fact, was the main reason, for the fundraiser, because with the new site in addition to TPM I need to hire a staff of at least one to help me run the whole thing. As of now, though, no staff. Which brings me to my final point. As I said, I'm very appreciative of all your contributions. And I'm responding to each of you individually with a note of thanks or responding to questions you asked. But, honestly, writing 1500+ thank you notes takes a long time. This was actually the only major planning failure of the whole fundraiser. Tomorrow I'm leaving for my honeymoon and I feel confident my marriage will not last long if I spend much of any time working on writing the thank you notes.
All of which is a long way of saying that most of you won't hear from me individually till after I get back. But let me assure you nonetheless that your contributions are greatly appreciated.
I'll be back in a week.
--Josh Marshall
(ed.note: As noted yesterday, Ivo Daalder will be one of the contributors to the national security and foreign policy blog at TPMCafe.com. As we build toward the launch of the new site, we'll be bringing you occasional guest posts from Ivo and other contributors.)
Whatever happened to Bush’s “global war on terror”? For three years, the president didn’t let an opportunity go by without repeating that we were in a global war against evil terrorists. But he’s gone strangely silent ever since his reelection last November. My Brookings intern, Jina Chung, examined the text of Bush’s speeches over the 12 months, as posted on the White House website to see how many times Bush referred to the “war on terror” or some variant of the phrase in the six months since November 2 and how many times he did so in the six months prior the elections. Here’s what she came up with: Before the elections, Bush mentioned the war on terror three times as often as after. In fact, he referred to it more often in the thirty days prior to the election (71 times) than in the six months since (66 times).
Why this sudden reluctance to talk about what for years was Bush’s signature foreign policy issue? Part of the reason, surely, is that the war on terror was central to Bush’s reelection effort. “We can go to the country confidently on this issue,” Karl Rove told the GOP months after the September 11 attacks, “because Americans trust the Republican Party to do a better job of keeping our communities and families safe.” And there is no doubt that confidence in Bush’s ability to fight terrorists proved to be decisive in his defeat of John Kerry.
But I think something else, something more significant is going on — which is that Bush increasingly appears to think the war on terror has actually been won. That’s not as surprising as it sounds. For Bush, the invasions of Afghanistan was the first phase in the war on terror; Iraq has turned out to be the last. In Afghanistan, Bush maintains, the terrorist infrastructure was destroyed and Al Qaeda was severely disrupted. The terrorist network “has been severely diminished,” Bushed argued in his prime time press conference Thursday night. “We are slowly but surely dismantling that organization.” As for Iraq, remember that Bush called this the “central front” in the war on terror as far back as September 2003. With January’s elections and the installation of a new Iraqi government just this week, Bush I think now feels that the terrorists are really on the run — and that he is the true victor in his war.
I am not saying that Bush is right in thinking this. He’s, in fact, deeply mistaken. Terrorists have hardly been defeated and, if anything, the botched invasion of Iraq has done wonders for their cause. But what I am saying is that Bush appears to believe that the tide in the war has turned — that victory is not only likely, but is actually at hand.
And this helps explain another strange turn of events — the return, in recent months, of Bush’s pre-9/11 foreign policy. Before the terrorist attacks, Bush’s foreign policy consisted of worrying about great powers and rogue states — and abhorring involvement in nation-building and dealing with the world’s great calamities as misguided forms of foreign policy as social work. The policy priorities emanating from the White House and Foggy Bottom today are little different. A key priority now is containing China through strengthened alliances with Japan and India, and support for Taiwan. That is what Condi Rice’s trip to Asia last month was all about. Another priority is preventing rogues like North Korea and Iran from threatening us and our allies with nuclear weapons. And rather than worrying about the nexus between tyrants, terrorists, and technologies of mass destruction we’re back to worrying about madmen and missiles (which, Bush reassured us on Thursday, missile defenses will take care of).
The only difference between Bush’s pre-9/11 foreign policy and now is his new rhetoric about freedom and liberty. But let’s not kid ourselves — rhetoric is one thing, actually following through is another. After Bush decided to walk hand-in-hand with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia last Monday, it’s surely no longer possible to take this rhetoric seriously anymore.
--Spencer Ackerman
John Tierney, the Times new conservative columnist, has another column on Social Security today jumping on to the president's new bandwagon. His premise is that Democrats are "aghast" at the president's 'new' Social Security proposal because he "has finally called their bluff." He's proposing a way to make big cuts in Social Security while still protecting the poor. And as Tierney goes on to explain, this has given the lie to the established arguments for Social Security, which Democrats commonly make.
Tierney's piece is woven through with various misleading arguments, which you'll probably be able to catch when you read it. But look more globally at the argument that he, taking the president's lead, is now embracing.
The privatizers have spent almost six months arguing that Social Security is bad as an investment plan because it doesn't have a high enough rate of return. Now they have taken to arguing that it is bad as a welfare program because it gives too much to those who aren't poor.
Social Security is also, I'm willing to concede, an abysmal hair dryer. But the point isn't relevant.
And here we have the essence of the matter. In their effort to phase out Social Security, privatizers continually try to evaluate it in terms of something that it is not. Tierney reveals his own assumptions and prejudices by claiming that Social Security is simply a poorly designed old age welfare program that unwisely provides benefits for middle class people too.
Social Security is neither a poorly designed welfare program nor an investment plan with a poor rate of return. And the privatizers are losing this national debate because Americans, overwhelmingly, understand that.
Social Security is a defined-benefit Social Insurance program that provides a baseline level of retirement security for everyone. Middle class people pay into the program during their working lives and they get benefits back when they retire.
That is not a flaw in the design. That is the design.
By a decisive margin, Americans understand that system and they approve of it. Yet it is a system that offends the sensibilities of privatizers like Tierney.
So their attempts to bamboozle continue apace.
--Josh Marshall
9/11 really does change everything.
Here's Sen. Wayne Allard (R) of Colorado justifying Republican use of the nuclear option in a letter now being sent to his constituents ...
In light of recent terrorist attacks, it is readily apparent that we face a new age of global unrest, a world in which terror has replaced formal declarations of war as the major threat against freedom and democracy. A necessary component of providing justice to those who would do harm to our nation is to maintain an efficient court system - a court equipped with the personnel and resources that enable it to fulfill its role as a pillar of our constitutional system of governance.The current filibusters of President Bush's Circuit Court nominees clearly demonstrates an active effort by a minority of Senators to block the confirmation of well-qualified judicial nominees. I firmly believe that these tactics have damaged the judicial nomination process to an unacceptable degree, and now it must be corrected. It is shameful that the action of a handful of Senators has created a vacancy crisis that threatens the service of the very justice upon which our great nation depends.
Without the nuclear option, the terrorists will <$NoAd$> have won.
Ironic.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, we're done. Our TPMCafe Fundraiser went from the morning of April 20th through the evening of the 29th. And over those ten days 1522 TPM Readers contributed online. A few dozen more did so by mail. Needless to say, if you didn't get a chance and would still like to contribute, we will not turn you away. As it always is, the 'contribute' link is down there on the left sidebar beneath the ads. But for now no more harping or pitches in the posts. The Fundraiser has been a great success. I cannot thank you enough. More tomorrow on TPMCafe and what's coming next week.
--Josh Marshall
Headlines that warm TPM's soul.
Nina Easton in The Boston Globe: "Many of Bush's allies retreating on private accounts"
--Josh Marshall
As of 5:11 PM this evening we have 1373 contributors to our TPMCafe Fundraiser (here's a brief description of what TPMCafe will include).
We've got a bit more than six hours remaining. And given that it's Friday evening, the pace of contributions seems certain to slow. But we're holding out for 1400 contributors before we finish up at midnight.
--Josh Marshall
Fainthearted no more!
One-time Faction member and would-be Dean, Rep. Moran (D) of Virginia talks to Rawstory.com about President Bush and Social Security phase-out.
--Josh Marshall
As noted earlier, with all our chattering about our TPMCafe Fundraiser we want to bring you some news today about what we'll be including in the initial launch of TPMCafe.com.
One of the features of the site we're most excited about is a group blog focusing on foreign affairs and national security.
This is a subject that I haven't written about recently as much as I have in the past. But, as you know, it's one that interests me greatly. And this group blog will provide an informed and lively discussion of national security issues both as events develop in the news day to day, but also taking a broader view, thinking about the challenges that face the United States in the years and decades to come, and how to meet them.
The blog will have about half a dozen contributors who mix backgrounds in government work on the National Security Council, international relations and journalism. We're still finalizing the list. But two of the contributors we're ready to announce are Ivo Daalder of Brookings and Anne-Marie Slaughter of Princeton University.
Ivo served as director for European Affairs ('95-'96) on President Clinton's National Security Council staff, where he was responsible for coordinating U.S. policy toward Bosnia. And from 1998-2001, he served as a member of the Study Group of the U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century (i.e., the Hart-Rudman Commission).
To find out more about Daalder's work you can read the Foreign Affairs review I wrote last year of the book he recently wrote with James Lindsay, America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy.
Slaughter is the Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs and an expert in international relations and international law. Her most recent book is A New World Order. And, no, I didn't review that one. But, hey, I can only write so much.
Needless to say, we couldn't be happier that such impressive folks have signed on.
We'll be bringing you more on other contributors to the new site shortly ...
--Josh Marshall
House Republicans say they're ready to vote on a Social Security phase-out bill. Will Democrats succumb to latent Faintheartedness? Will the Conscience Caucus fall into line?
Everyone on our Conscience Caucus list has either said they're opposing phasing out Social Security or has expressed reservations about doing so. Now would be the time to check back with these folks and find out whether they've changed their minds in favor of phase-out.
--Josh Marshall
As noted a bit earlier, a bunch of you would love to send food and drinks to these students filibustering Frist. And I've actually got numbers of several places who can deliver to them. But let's hold on a second so that this can be coordinated. Otherwise, they're just going to end up with 50 pizzas in front of their stand in the next hour. And despite the great college student capacity to consume pizza, a lot of it will still go bad. I'm trying to figure out a way this can be done to keep these kids swimming in party food as they continue their filibustering. So I'll be updating you shortly.
Late Update: While you're waiting, here are pictures of Rep. Rush Holt filibustering Frist (reading from Aesop's Fables, we're told) earlier today. By the end of this filibuster Aesop himself may even stop by.
--Josh Marshall
Eggggcellent ...
Alabama's Anniston Star goes nuclear on the "constitutional option".
--Josh Marshall
Uchchchch!
Beantown Bamboozled Bad by Bush!
Headline of article in the Boston Globe: "Bush would trim benefits of well-to-do."
As this post at ThinkProgress shows, Bush is defining the "well-to-do" as anyone making over $20,000. I had no idea the staffer I'm going to hire with the help of all your contributions was going to make out like such a friggin' tycoon ...
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader EF for bringing us the ugly truth.)
--Josh Marshall
They've got their own URL: www.FilibusterFrist.com.
Check by the site now to see Rep. Rush Holt filibustering Frist.
Late Update: We've gotten a number of emails asking how you can buy a copy of coffee or have a pizza ordered and sent over to these kids who've been filibustering Frist day and night for three days. I have no idea. But I'm checking into it.
--Josh Marshall
Representative Rush Holt (D) of New Jersey to join the filibuster against Frist at 2 PM!
And just think: if a member of the House can do it, shouldn't senators be able to too?
--Josh Marshall
By George, I think we've got it!
As we've been telling you, we needed get past a minimum of a thousand contributors for our TPMCafe Fundraiser, which ends tonight at midnight tonight and you came through. We not only got past 1000, as of this morning we're at 1272 contributors. And that means we've now awarded six brand-new and official TPM Privatize This! T-Shirts to contributors #1000 (John Fredland), #1050 (Ralph Lemley), #1100 (TPM Reader FJ), #1150 (Anon.), #1200 (Alex Navarro) and #1250 (Peter Swarth).
We've got just a little more than twelve hours to go, so we really need those last-minute contributions. So please keep them coming. Thanks in advance. And we'll keep awarding the amazing TPM Privatize This! T-Shirts to every fiftieth contributor. Number 1300 isn't that far away!
Just so everyone knows, your privacy means a great deal to us. So rest assured that while we're eager to show our appreciation we would never publicize anyone's name without their explicit permission. The two anonymous contributors above we haven't yet heard back from. So if and when we do, and if they choose to go public, we'll bring you their names too.
Actually, one other thing. One winner said thank you, but he didn't need a t-shirt. And another was beside himself with joy, but said his fiancee would probably fight him for the prized TPM t-shirt. So we've made the executive decision to transfer that unclaimed t-shirt over to the enfianced couple to make sure the prize doesn't lead to any relationship difficulties.
Now, with all this razzle-dazzle about our fundraiser, over the course of today we're going to be bringing you more details about TPMCafe.com. And we'll start in our next post with details about the new national security and foreign policy blog at TPMCafe.
--Josh Marshall
I take it that we will be forced to allow at least 48 hours for the collective media swoon over President Bush's embrace of "progressive indexing.
Here's a bit from CNN's "Morning Grind" ...
When President Bush takes his new (Democrat-friendly?) pitch for "progressive indexing" across the Potomac this morning, look for signs of his new resolve. His Social Security plan still faces an up(Capitol)hill climb, and nothing he said last night changed that. But few things embolden Bush more than bold strokes, and from Social Security to North Korea to the filibuster/faith debate, he made a few of those strokes last night....
Progressive indexing might not sound sexy. But the idea (developed by financier Robert Pozen) of offering bigger checks to low-income retirees, and cutting benefits for the middle class and wealthy, is the most dramatic move Bush has made to broaden his reform plan's appeal since he publicly embraced the largely unappealing private accounts last year. Bush may have addressed millions of TV viewers last night, but his remarks were narrowly targeted to people named Snowe, Chafee, Nelson and Lincoln -- moderates in both parties who say they want Bush to focus less on private accounts and more on shoring up the system's long-term solvency. He did that last night. (So far this morning, no one's used the word "welfare" to describe Bush's plan. But stay tuned).
If you've dewobbled your knees and caught your breath, let's remember a few elementary points.
First, the White House has <$Ad$> been saying the president supports 'progressive indexing' for months. So I'm not sure it counts either as dramatic, let alone a move. Second, let's state specifically what this to-some-sexy-sounding proposal offers: steep benefit cuts for all but the lowest income Americans and meager increases in benefits for them. It's hard to see how there's anything particularly progressive about gutting Social Security for the entire middle class. And how this comes off as a politically attractive proposal once anyone understands it is hard to figure.
All that has happened here is that the president has temporarily bamboozled a few folks in the media by trying to spin phase out. He is calling for steep and growing benefit cuts for everyone in the middle class and he still demands a partial phase-out of Social Security to be replaced by private accounts.
Social Security's support of the poorest Americans is a critical part of what it accomplishes. But Social Security is not poor relief. That is only what the president wants to make it -- in part because, once it is, it is far easier to cut further, since it has no organized political constituency.
Social Security is the sheet anchor of the modern American middle class. It's why working Americans can approach retirement with an assurance of security and a modicum of leisure. It stimulates economic vitality by creating a floor of security that facilitates economic risk-taking in investment and business. It's why parents don't have to shortchange investment in children's education by supporting parents in their old age. It provides economic security to families hit by catastrophe and misfortune in mid-life. As I said, it's the sheet anchor of what we've come to know in the last century as middle class life.
--Josh Marshall
Okay, I have a job for some rich tech-guru: Get these students filibustering Frist set up with a more robust webcam set up!
These young worthies are performing an important public service making the now-faltering Sen. Frist into an object or mockery and ridicule on news wires across the country. And yet from what I can tell they're webcasting their filibuster to viewers across the country with a jury-rigged contraption that can't handle the traffic they're getting.
So they're not able to stream video any more but rather have to rely on a substantially more feeble 30 second refresh set up.
And this isn't some idle matter. Without constant surveillance, Frist and maybe Santorum and Mark Levin could swoop by with a bunch of their goons, toss these kids in a van and we'd never hear from them again.
We've already gotten one of the world's preeminent physicists to show up and lend a hand. So certainly we can get these folks a decent web cam, right?
--Josh Marshall
Interesting. The Post pretty much nails the new Bush plan on the front page of tomorrow's paper: cut pretty much everyone's benefits a lot. The sweetener? Poor people's benefits won't be cut as much!
--Josh Marshall
Filibustering Frist Update!
We're told the first pol to join the students filibustering Frist was none other than Jersey Assemblyman Reed Gusciora (D). Next up may be Rep. Rush Holt. And more might be on the way.
--Josh Marshall
Falling out amongst themselves, Republicans fight over different versions of phase-out.
--Josh Marshall
There was so much bamboozling going on tonight in that press conference that it was easy to miss one essential contradiction in the president's argument. You don't have to worry about private accounts, he said, because if you want you can fill your account with US Treasury bonds which have no risk at all. They're backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. But he says that the very same Treasury notes, when they're in the Trust Fund, are just worthless IOUs.
--Josh Marshall
Are they really that stupid <$NoAd$> or they getting paid? Headline on an AP story running at CBSNews.com: "Bush Smiles At The Little Guy."
The article begins ...
President Bush put a populist face on his Social Security plan by urging Congress to tilt the system to benefit low-income retirees of the future as part of a plan to shore up the program's finances.At a prime-time news conference Thursday night, Mr. Bush said he envisioned a plan under which all future retirees could "count on a benefit equal to or higher than today's seniors," a formula that left open the possibility that guaranteed benefits for middle and upper income seniors could be cut in later years to bring Social Security's finances into balance.
So that's smiling on the little guy, a plan that promises huge benefits cuts for everyone in the middle class. And that formula? Apparently the author of the piece doesn't get that the president meant a benefit equal to or higher in straight numerical terms. Freezing benefits in today's dollars amounts to huge benefit cuts in itself. How would you like to be making what people made for doing your job in 1960?
Late Update: A couple readers have written in to say that what the president was referring to was so-called 'progressive indexing' and that this does not call for freezing benefits at their current nominal dollar levels. True. But what I'm pointing to is where the president is setting what you might call his line of guarantee -- the line he's saying no one will fall below. And, as I note above, where he's setting that line already amounts to a massive cut in benefits that only grows with time.
--Josh Marshall
What did I miss? The president offered no specifics at all. He still says some portion of Social Security must be phased out and replaced with private accounts. And just as it has been since the beginning of Bamboozlepalooza, pretty much everything he said was meant to deceive his listeners.
Start with his three principles from the beginning of the news conference. The first two principles used coded language which translates into massive Social Security benefit cuts for the entire middle class. I bet it didn't sound like that when he said it, did it? His plan would turn Social Security -- the sheet anchor of the American middle class -- into old age welfare.
Principle number three was just the same old demand for private accounts dandied up in different clothes
Basically, from this president, it's phase-out today, phase-out tomorrow, phase-out forever.
Beside that, I heard a lot of whining about politics and how everyone isn't nice to him.
Which makes me think about the conceit which started President Bush off on this titanic effort: his belief and repeated claim that Social Security wasn't the third rail of American politics any longer. No more current in rail; lost its juice. He'd grabbed it a couple times and he'd come out just fine, he always said.
Folks weren't stuck in old-fashioned ways of thinking anymore and wouldn't punish politicians who tried to upend Social Security or phase it out and replace it with private accounts. Plenty of Washington's worthies act as though this 'third rail' phraseology is a challenge to politicians' courage, a symbol of benighted public opinion that won't let right-thinking statemen do what needs to be done.
But why shouldn't the public punish politicians who try to scam them into phasing out the most popular and successful government program in American history? It doesn't occur to these folks that some people think that this amounts to a vast hoodwink on the middle class. And those who try to pull something like that deserve every ounce of political payback they get.
However that may be, it turns out it's still the third rail, as it should be.
I'll tell you, back when we designed the anti-privatization T-Shirt we've been selling and giving away for the last few months, the first version of the shirt was entirely different. On the front it had a cartoon character guy grabbing on to the rail and getting fried out of his mind. And that over a caption that read "Feel The Juice!" with all the appropriate squiggly electricty lines around the words.
On the back it said, "Social Security: The Third Rail of American Politics Since 1936."
Subtle? No. But I can't say that bothered me.
I decided against it because it underplayed just how difficult it was going to be to turn back the push for privatization. It took too much for granted.
But tonight, watching the president complain about the rough shake he and his folks are getting, and having heard the same whining from congressional Republicans all day, that line kept popping back into my head as the best response: Feel The Juice! They deserve every bit.
--Josh Marshall
Filibuster against Frist hits the AP Wire.
Late Update: See their webcam here. The cam doesn't seem to be streaming at the moment. But soon enough I assume they'll get the live feed back up and running.
--Josh Marshall
Duce! Duce!
From The Hill: "Reps. Tom Feeney (R-Fla.) and John Sweeney (R-N.Y.) have been meeting with 30 House Republicans over the past few weeks to coordinate a more aggressive strategy to defend Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), according to a Republican source familiar with the meetings."
Lest anyone forget, both Feeney and Sweeney had high-profile roles in the Florida 2000 travesty.
--Josh Marshall
Meet the DeLay Rule Dead-Enders, the twenty House Republicans who voted against restoring the House Ethics Committee, even after Speaker Hastert told them it was okay.
Or, as we're calling them, the Pay-As-You-Go Twenty ...
Barton
Blackburn
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Carter
Cubin
Culberson
Gillmor
Gohmert
King (IA)
McHenry
Otter
Pence
Poe
Price (GA)
Simpson
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Weldon (FL)
Quite a cast of characters.
--Josh Marshall
Husband and wife physics team take up TPM faculty challenge to filibuster Frist, win glory and t-shirt!
According to our informants on the scene, this afternoon Edward Witten and Chiara Nappi approached filibuster organizers conducting their filibuster against Frist and informed them they were ready to take up the TPM challenge.
Photographs of their stints filibustering have been posted here.
By our interpretation of the faculty challenge rules, Witten and Chiara are entitled to two t-shirts. But apparently they only require one.
So two remain! Who will get them?
Late Update: We're told it's now started raining at the scene of the filibuster. So they're battening down the hatches. But the filibuster continues.
--Josh Marshall
You can't stop fighting to save Social Security because he won't stop trying to phase it out.
According to afternoon wire reports, at the president's primetime press conference tonight, he will finally tell the public precisely what he does and doesn't support (aka, negotiating with yourself.)
Actually, in Scott McClellan's words, President Bush will "talk in more specific ways about his ideas for making Social Security permanently sound [and] some new proposals that he will talk about that he believes ought to be part of any solution." So, it's quite possible that we're just going to hear some more of the same mumbojumbo because he's still afraid to put something down on the table.
But clearly, with the failure of the Bamboozlepalooza Tour now conceded, the president wants to reshuffle the deck and force the debate on to some new phase.
So with that in mind, a few thoughts ...
First, you know what we'll hear. Democrats only say no. They don't have a plan. Wrong. Democrats do have a plan: it's called Social Security. And that's not mere rhetoric. It's an upfront, level-with-the-public statement of fact. What it means is that Democrats want to preserve Social Security as a defined-benefit system of social insurance. You can only say the Democrats have no plan if you take it as a given that the program must be radically restructured, like many of the talking heads in Washington. And Dems just don't agree.
Nor does this mean that they're flatly opposed to any changes. Social Security hasn't remained untouched for seventy years. Nor are the Democrats saying that every jot and tittle of all its complex tables of inflows and outflows are sacrosanct today. There are several quite detailed Democratic plans which have already been put forward, with mixes of minor benefits cuts and tax increases to bring the system into long-term solvency. What the Democrats oppose are radical cuts of the sort President Bush supports in order to fundamentally change the nature of the program, pay for his tax cuts and aide in not paying back the Treasury securities sitting in the Trust Fund.
The president was just reelected. He made phase-out his signature issue. His party controls majorities in both houses of Congress. It is not up to Democrats to do all his heavy-lifting for him and spell out every last detail. He was reelected. He said he wanted to lead. So lead.
So, as I said, Democrats have a plan: Social Security.
Second, and I'll be searchingly curious whether a reporter asks this at the news conference tonight: all of President Bush's scare-mongering about Social Security rests on the premise that the money borrowed from the Trust Fund either will not or cannot be paid back. If it is treated as a given that it will, little he is saying makes sense. So who will ask, specifically and on the point: Mr. President, will you guarantee that all the money that you and your predecessors (Clinton, Bush and Reagan) have borrowed from the Trust Fund will be repaid in full with interest, as prescribed by law? And if so, why are you trying to convince people that Social Security runs into any difficulties at the end of the next decade.
Third, keep your eye on the admittedly-much-diminished Fainthearted Faction. As we've said from the very beginning: this is in Democrats' hands to stop. Or, even a relative few of them, can start the ball rolling toward phase-out.
--Josh Marshall
Jersey pols getting ready to join students filibustering Frist?
More to come ...
Late Update: Still three TPM Privatize This! T-Shirts waiting for the first three members of the faculty who take the plunge ...
--Josh Marshall
Help us exceed our goal! We're only 9 contributors away from 1000 contributors to our TPMCafe Fundraiser and almost two days left to go.
A TPM Privatize This! T-Shirt for contributor #1000, another for #1050 and so on as far as we get until midnight on Friday.
--Josh Marshall
The long arm of Sen. Frist? Did Sen. Frist pull a little nuclear option (sort of a tactical nuke, I guess) on the students filibustering outside the Frist Campus Center?
Earlier this evening (or morning, whatever), we brought you word that the students on the Princeton campus were going into their second day of 'filibustering' outside the Frist Campus Center -- the building the senator's family paid a bunch of money to have named after him. And we linked to the impromptu, outdoor webcam they'd just set up to allow believers in constitutional government around the country to observe their on-going effort.
But at 2:52 AM this morning, just under two hours after we pointed to their webcam, we received a rushed email from one of our correspondents on the scene telling us that the campus police had arrived, trying to shut it down and asking to see paperwork showing they had permission to operate the webcam.
Not long after, said protest webcam went dark. No word yet on whether the filibusterers have been taken to an undisclosed location or perhaps extraordinarily rendered.
Late Update: They're back online. When we find out what transpired, we'll let you know. (ed.note: Do you know what really happened? Believe me, not a clue.)
Truly Late Update: I'm told that as yet not a single member of the school's faculty has deigned to join the students in reading from the podium. A TPM Privatize This! T-Shirt for the first three faculty members to take a turn at the filibuster!
--Josh Marshall
It all started on November 16th with the DeLay Rule and Shays Handful.
The DeLay Rule supporters then went out and tried to justify the rule to constituents. By way of example, here's how Rep. Dreier, Chairman of the Rules Committee justified the Rule to his constituents; here's page 1 and 2 of how Speaker Hastert did; and here's how the biggest single recipient in Congress, Rep. Ferguson of New Jersey explained what happened.
Eventually, the House Republican Caucus had to knuckle under on the DeLay Rule because of all the constituent outrage. But at the same time, figuring no one would notice, they eviscerated the House Ethics Committee so as to do everything in their power to protect the recidivist ethics rules violator DeLay.
A month later, just to make sure DeLay wouldn't be in any danger at all, Speaker Hastert purged the Ethics Committee of the three Republicans who had refused to vote for the DeLay Rule in the firt place (the so-called 'Night of the Long Gavels').
And now, here we are, almost three months later, and the Republican Caucus has once again been forced to repeal the DeLay-protecting rules they voted for and justified to their constituents only weeks earlier. By a vote of 406 to 20, the House today repealed all the rules passed in early January which deep-sixed the Ethics committee to protect Rep. DeLay from more scrutiny, admonishment and sanction.
Tonight, Rep. Chris Shays may not have the whole world in his hands. But he's sure got the whole House Republican Caucus.
Predicted Broder-Fineman-Russert co-spin: "Sure the DeLay Rule was unpopular. But what new ideas do the Democrats have? All they can do is say 'no'."
--Josh Marshall
Bug Man Blues, performed by Jeff Birnbaum of the Post: "Now that it's clear that his controversial private-paid trips abroad will be put under a microscope in Congress, Tom DeLay is in serious danger of being declared in violation of House ethics rules, legal experts say. Lawyers who specialize in ethics cases believe that the Republican House majority leader from Texas might be in technical breach of at least a few congressional regulations. According to published reports, a registered foreign agent paid for one of DeLay's overseas trips and a registered lobbyist used his credit card to pay for another foreign airfare -- actions the rules prohibit. DeLay may also have accepted gifts that exceeded congressional limits, taken an expense-paid trip overseas for longer than the rules allow and not disclosed all of the benefits he received."
--Josh Marshall
They won't stop!
Bill Frist may have given their school a lot of money to put his name on a building. But these students at Princeton won't stop filibustering Frist.
They've been going now for going on two days and much of it has been done in the rain.
As we told you on Tuesday, students at Princeton University are holding their own filibuster outside the campus's Frist Campus Center, reading from phone books, judicial nomination dossiers, Dante, the Bible, whatever they can get their hands on, all to protest Sen. Frist's effort to abolish the filibuster with the transparently ridiculous claim that the judicial filibuster is unconstitutional.
In fact, with some shoe-leather and handiwork and by begging for back-up batteries from fellow students, they've managed to put up an outdoor Frist filibuster webcam.
I'm watching them right now and so can you.
As of about 1:17 AM, I'm watching and one student has just handed off the megaphone to another. And now she's reading from some unknown document, putting her voice on the line to say that there are some things more important than Bill Frist's desperate desire to run for president in 2008.
Well, I'll try not to let the emotion of the moment get the better of me as I watch these idealistic young worthies talk all night long. But stop by the webcam and see what they're doing. And maybe somebody should send them some batteries. Or a long cord. Or some sandwiches ...
Who'll be the first pol to stop by the podium and get in on the act? Is Rush Holt in the district?
--Josh Marshall
There's a fascinating article (sub. required) in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal about the state of the Bolton nomination. All the parliamentary niceties aside, the upshot is that Republicans may bring Bolton's nomination to a vote even if he doesn't get approved by the Foreign Relations committee.
TPM Reader TS dropped me a line this evening, noting the article and asking me, in essence: can they really do that?
The answer, I told him, is that if they really want to, a majority, or rather a Majority Leader backed by 51 senators (or 50 with Cheney) can really do anything he wants. They can abolish the filibuster. They can bring Bolton to a vote. Whatever. The senate has no referees or rulemakers who don't work at the pleasure of the majority.
There is a certain logic to the proposition that anything that comes to the senate should go to a vote of the entire senate. The only problem is that both Houses of the United States Congress have operated for more than 200 years by the committee system, which says that that logic isn't the one we follow. Nominations and laws die in committee all the time. Just ask Bill Weld. It's happened, literally, for centuries.
Don't get me wrong. Individually, these rules have been bent or broken here and there. The WSJ article itself notes that something similar happened with Ken Adelman's nomination in 1983. But when you take together the nuclear option business, this new part of the Bolton drama, and other recent developments, you see a leadership (and really, because that's who's controlling this, a White House) which wants to win every time at any cost and is pretty much indifferent to the existing rules if they get in the way.
(Note that the constitutional interpretation at the heart of the nuclear option is ridiculous on its face. But if Cheney will say it that's all they need. We'll get to this point in a subsequent post.)
In a sense this shouldn't surprise us since it is precisely the same mentality and approach that's informed what they've done in the country at large -- the Schiavo case being the textbook case.
It's like I said a couple weeks ago, the Republican party is becoming an anti-constitutional party. They're not comfortable with the rule of law -- inside the Capitol or out.
Late Update: I've gotten a number of emails about this post, each along the lines of, no you can't change the rule on filibusters with a mere 51 votes. You need a super-majority to amend senate rules. In this case, I think my meaning has been misconstrued, though I thought I was clear. This comes down to a difference between can and may. By the rules, the Republicans can't pull the nuclear option. The whole effort is based on a ridiculous argument about constitutionality -- the idea that the constitution requires a vote by the entire senate on every judicial nominee. And they're making that argument to get around the impossibility of getting 67 votes to get rid of the filibuster, as the senate rules dictate. But clearly they can do it. And they just might do it. The simple fact is that there is no outside authority that does or can pass judgment on how 51 senators choose to interpret the rules or how Dick Cheney chooses to interpret the constitution. So, I stick to my assertion that so long as they are not bound by a good faith interpretation of the rules or the constitution, 51 senators and/or a vice president of their own party, pretty much can do anything they want. When you push past the soft tissue of law, almost anything becomes possible.
--Josh Marshall
If you couldn't be at the anti-privatization rally yesterday outside the Capitol building, you can see some of what it looked like in this picture taken from the crowd.
--Josh Marshall
Plumbing the depths of unpopularity.
It's one thing to say that Social Security phase-out is unpopular. But it seems that President Bush has done such a disastrously bad job pitching it that it barely has majority support among wealthy business owners.
In a poll highlighted on Daniel Gross's new blog, it turns out that phase-out polls 48% among "affluent consumers", a mere 52% among "business owners" and only 59% among "owners of larger businesses."
So, in other words, if the president could only restrict the franchise to owners of large businesses, he might actually be able to pull this off.
--Josh Marshall
DeLay runs for W as Hastert opts to remove custom-built ethics heat-shield from House!
--Josh Marshall
As of Wednesday at 1 PM, 880 TPM Readers have contributed to our TPMCafe Fundraiser. We need to get past 1000 by the end of our fundraiser on Friday. Click here to find out how to contribute! And thank you, in advance.
--Josh Marshall
Princeton progressives go all night long!
Yesterday we brought you news that students at Princeton University had decided to take matters in their own hands and start filibustering Bill Frist whatever those jokers in Washington end up doing.
Specifically, a bunch of them got together and began reading any document they could find in front of the Frist Campus Center, the building Frist's family paid a ton of money to get named after him.
We're told it ended up raining. But these young worthies kept at it all night.
According to the campus paper, "students on Frist North Lawn continuously read from the U.S. Constitution, 'My Pet Goat' and other documents to protest recent actions by the man whose family funded the building before which they were standing."
Will campus 'wingers break the filibuster? Will they call out the Pinkerton Men? And how many votes do they need for cloture? Inquiring Minds ...
Late Update: You can see pictures of the on-going filibuster here.
--Josh Marshall
Denver Post debamboozles.
From this morning's editorial: "Conservatives made it easy for Salazar to pick sides. After all, threatening to change the Senate rules is such a drastic step that even the Republicans refer to it as the 'nuclear option.'"
(ed.note: Note of thanks to TPM Reader WA.)
--Josh Marshall
They say zig; they zig. They say zag; they zag.
ABC's The Note reports for duty on the nuclear constitutional option: "NEWS SUMMARY: The Republican White House is standing firm in support of DeLay, Bolton, private accounts, nuclear power, a lean budget, and the constitutional option on judges."
--Josh Marshall
An entry for Valiant Effort Watch.
The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto tries to salvage the RNC's 'nuclear option' bamboozle: "With a vote expected soon on what the Democrats (borrowing a term from Trent Lott) call the "nuclear option," suddenly they are talking compromise."
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader PO for sending us the link.)
--Josh Marshall
Another note of thanks for all your contributions to our TPMCafe fundraiser. As of early this afternoon we're up to 670 contributors. And that puts us well on our way to having the funds we'll need to hire a staffer to help administer the site, as well as cover various design and technical costs.
We really need to get past the 1000 contributor mark by the time our fundraiser ends on Friday. So if you'd like to be part of what we're trying to put together here, click here to find out how you can contribute.
As noted earlier, we plan to launch TPMCafe.com in mid-May. And we're hoping, by the end of this week, to be able to bring you a firm launch date as well as a tentative list of the contributors who'll be joining us in our new venture.
--Josh Marshall
We just got late word that Sen. Lieberman -- freshly out of the Fainthearted Faction -- is going to be at the big pro-Social Security rally today at the Capitol. Apparently, only members of the leadership are going to speak. But he will be there showing his support.
Now remember, Faintheartedness recidivism is a major social problem in the United States Senate. So let's show Joe we support him in his recovery and help him stay with the program.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader SC chimes in: "The Social Security Tour is exactly what Republicans - and all opponents of big government - should be against. In this case, the government has spent tens of millions of dollars on the "road show", and they are farther away from the goal (support for Social Security overhaul) than when they started. I wonder what might happen when these big-government republicans start to spend trillions..."
--Josh Marshall
GOP leaning toward No Frist Use on the nuclear option?
Not likely. According to this new story out from AP, Sen. Frist is saying, no deals. All seven judges have to go through or else. (For more on the strategic backdrop, see this post from last night.) In other words, the Majority Leader is willing to fight to the last Republican for his presidential viability.
--Josh Marshall
White House exteeeeeeeends Bamboozlepalooza Tour past 60 day deadline!
Because two months of humiliating failure just isn't enough ...
--Josh Marshall
Excellent! A little street theater. Or, I guess, a little elite college campus theater. But, hey, same difference.
Washington may be waiting on the edge of its seat for the filibustering and nuclear optioning to get started. But students at Princeton just won't wait.
It seems that a few years back the Frist family (yep, that Frist family) donated a big chunk of change to the University to build what was later named the "Frist Campus Center." And starting this morning, students and even faculty members will be standing outside the building 'filibustering' Frist -- reading aloud from phone books, bios of the seven nominees, the bible, textbooks and probably a bunch of other stuff since they're going to go for 12 hours straight today. And they'll probably keep going tomorrow.
Here's some more information on what they're doing from one of the filibuster's organizers.
--Josh Marshall
Big Pro-Social Security rally today at the Capitol, with anti-phase-out bigwigs and congressional leaders like Durbin, Hoyer, Baucus, Rangel, Reid and Pelosi in attendance.
This is a big event, a veritable festival of counter-bamboozlement.
It gets under way at 1 PM.
See the details here.
Dozens of other rallies are taking place in cities across the country today. Find out if there's one in your neck of the woods.
--Josh Marshall
Interesting. Part of the promo for a segment on tonight's Nightline: "Should a United States Marine face the death penalty for killings he committed in Iraq during wartime? Is the military making an example out of one of its own to show the world that it can police itself following the humiliations of Abu Ghraib? These two questions frame tonight's program—a hard look at the rules of war."
See more here.
--Josh Marshall
Bush enlists DeLay in final days of Bamboozlepalooza Tour. Is it double-or-nothing on phase-out? Or should we be looking at the president's airplane tickets for that Jack Abramoff Amex number?
--Josh Marshall
'Nuclear Option' Bamboozlement detox all the rage in Capital!
First there was Chip Reid last night debamboozling on NBC Nightly News. Now we're hearing that the folks at NPR seem to have gone through a thorough de-bamboozlement program overnight and were telling it like is on this morning's shows.
We'll bring you more details when we get a transcript or a clip.
--Josh Marshall
Eventually we're going to reach a cosmic tipping point (though I guess we won't know it at the time) when the number of anti-Tom DeLay websites will be greater than the number of days Tom DeLay has remaining as Majority Leader. Who knows? Perhaps we're already there.
For now, here's the latest: hammerthehammer.com.
--Josh Marshall
The Washington Post and other news outlets tonight are reporting that Senate Democrats are hinting about a possible compromise on judges -- specifically, that they might cut a deal that would allow two or more of the seven filibustered judges to go through.
This in turn has caused splutters of outrage and bewilderment among some Democrats who believe Sens. Reid and Durbin are considering throwing in the towel just as it is becoming clear that voters overwhelmingly oppose what the Senate Republicans are trying to do.
But I'm not so sure.
Let me first stipulate that I know no more about any potential deal than what I've read in the papers this evening. And the devil is most certainly in the details.
A deal that would let most of the seven judges go through in exchange for assurances that would allow Senate Republicans to try to go nuclear again six months from now would be a disaster.
A deal that would allow perhaps the two least egregious judges to go through in exchange for taking the nuclear option off the table for good might not be a bad deal at all.
The key here is that there are many moving parts to this puzzle and it's key to understand each one of them.
First, this isn't just about these seven judges. It's about three and a half more years of judges President Bush still has yet to appoint. And even more, it's about one or more crucial Supreme Court nominations he'll get to make. The American judiciary will look very different in 2009 with the filibuster than without it. And letting through a couple judges now to secure that difference isn't necessarily such a bad deal.
Second, there are sometimes tactical advantages in appearing to be reasonable, even if the reasonable compromises you float are ones your political opponents will have a very hard time accepting.
And this brings us to the third and perhaps most important point. There's no way to judge the best way to approach this stand-off without seeing clearly just what a powder keg Bill Frist and company are sitting on.
If you think ending the filibuster is the 'nuclear option', just watch what happens when Bill Frist rings up James Dobson and says, "Sorry about the judge thing. The Democrats won't let us."
At that point you can start with the horizontal mushroom clouds coming out of Dobson's ears and it's pretty much a chain reaction through the rest of Wingnut Nation from there on.
That means two things. First, Frist probably just isn't in a position to accept the 'compromises' Democrats are floating. And I suspect they know that. Second, should he accept such a compromise, it will unleash something close to a civil war on the right flank of the Republican party -- a development with possibly grave consequences for Republicans in 2006 and thereafter.
So, to pull this all together, I'm not saying Democrats shouldn't keep up the pressure on their senators. They must. And any deal that doesn't put the nuclear option off the table in a permanent and meaningfully binding way is a joke. But let's remember what this is about. It's about whether the Democrats retain their significant lever of power to block President Bush's most extreme judicial nominees. Democrats give that up, they lose. Republicans give that up, they lose. It's really that simple. A couple judges passed through are a secondary matter. From having watched so far, I get the sense that Sen. Reid sees all those moving parts. So I'm inclined to give him the room for maneuver he needs to back these folks into a ghastly trap.
--Josh Marshall
Agitprop and victim-vamping for the <$NoAd$> faithful.
This is a clip from an email sent out tonight by Townhall.com and an outfit called The Center for Individual Freedom (hysterical capitalization and emphasis in the original) ...
Majority Leader Bill Frist IS GOING TO PULL THE TRIGGER to end the blockade against President Bush’s judicial nominees, but the outcome is still in doubt.In fact, high-level sources in the Senate are telling us that Majority Leader Frist will deploy the “Constituional Option” -- dubbed “nuclear” by the liberal media -- possibly within the NEXT FEW DAYS.
The liberal media, cat's-paw of the Trent Lott.
It's almost sad how these hucksters lie through their teeth to their own followers just to juice them up into ever higher and wider gyres of wingnut paranoia and congested rage.
--Josh Marshall
Straight outta Springfield!
Sen. Durbin serves up the counter-bamboozle smackdown to Sen. Kyl on the Newshour (emphasis added) ...
GWEN IFILL: Does Sen. Frist have the votes in order to force this nuclear option?SEN. JOHN KYL: Well, I'm not going to characterize it as a nuclear option. That's what the opponent....
GWEN IFILL: Or a constitutional option. Whatever term we're using today.
SEN. JOHN KYL: It is a constitutional option because the Senate has the right to provide its own precedents. That's what would be done. I won't predict vote, but I don't think we'd go forward unless we thought we had the votes.
GWEN IFILL: How about that. Sen. Durbin, what's your nose count these days?
SEN. DICK DURBIN: Well, I can tell you it's very close; it's down to one or two Republican senators. And they understand the basics. First, this term nuclear option was coined by Trent Lott, a Republican. It's not a Democratic way to try to color this debate.
No wonder we like that guy so <$NoAd$> much!
(ed.note: Thanks to TPM Reader DJW for the tip.)
--Josh Marshall
Summa Bamboozlica.
Media Matters assembles together the full and comprehensive dossier on the RNC's now-flagging 'nuclear option' bamboozle.
Also included is a select listing of Bill Frist's willing co-bamboozlers in the fourth estate.
--Josh Marshall
Did you see NBC Nightly News tonight?
TPM Reader KM says Chip Reid may have gotten himself debamboozled in time for the evening telecast.
But he was so deeply bamboozled this morning on the 'nuclear option' that we want confirmation.
Let us know what you hear.
--Josh Marshall
You think SpongeBob had it bad? What do you think James Dobson will do to Bill Frist if Frist doesn't go nuclear?
--Josh Marshall
Birds of a feather fly together.
This from Reuters: "In a show of support, President Bush will give embattled House of Representatives Republican leader Tom DeLay an Air Force One ride to Washington from Texas on Tuesday, a White House spokesman said."
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader BB sends us another in our on-going series of Great Moments in 'Nuclear Option' non-Bamboozlement. This just out from a late afternoon article by Richard Morin and Dan Balz in the Post (emphasis added) ...
GOP leaders are threatening a rules change to prohibit the use of filibusters to block judicial nominees and have stepped up their criticism of the Democrats for using the tactic on some of Bush's nominees to the federal appellate courts. They say they are prepared to invoke what has become known as the "nuclear option" to assure that Bush's nominees receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
Needless to say, Ken Mehlman has <$NoAd$> probably already dispatched a crack team of specialist bamboozlers to give Richard and Dan a good working over. So send positive thoughts in solidarity with these two as-yet-unbamboozled worthies.
--Josh Marshall
He's fallen and maybe he can't get up<$NoAd$>. TPM Reader JH sends us in the confirmation of the Chip Reid's double-self-bamboozle-backflip on Imus this morning.
Let's go to the tape (emphasis added) ...
What it is all about is this so-called Nuclear Option, it's complicated, but basically the Republicans are threatening to change the rules in the Senate, so that the Democrats can no longer bloc these seven or so very conservative Bush Federal Court nominees. Democrats are saying 'If you're going to do that than we are going to pull the trigger on what we call the Nuclear Option, meaning we are going to shut this place down. We're going to turn the Senate into a legislative wasteland', which some people say it already is, but they are going to block everything they can.
Uuuuufff.
You see there on the slo-mo he goes in for the GOP hoodwink and then tumbles into a full self-bamboozle mistaking the 'nuclear option' for what the Dems want to do in response to the nuclear option.
The thrill of victory and the agony of the self-bamboozle ...
--Josh Marshall
First on judges. Then on Bolton. Then on Social Security? This blog catches a comment from Sen. Specter that others may have missed.
--Josh Marshall
TPM Reader LB chimes in: "Dear Josh, as someone pointed out as well -- you? Yglesias? -- what makes the move to end filibusters nuclear is that it isn't being done in the standard way of changing a rule -- rather, it is to be claimed as out of order and then the President of the Senate (Cheney) asks for a majority vote and then so rules. That's bending if not breaking parliamentary procedure and THAT's what's nuclear about the scenario."
--Josh Marshall
More unconfirmed reports. Did the bamboozlers bag WNYC's Brian Lehrer? The bacillus is spreading the very heart of the Democratic homeland!
Late Update: 'Blogoland' has the transcript.
--Josh Marshall
Ughgh, now they're falling like flies!
We're getting in unconfirmed reports that NBC's Chip Reid, on Imus apparently, not only has fallen for the RNC 'nuclear option' bamboozlement but has even added to it by calling the Dems' response to ending the filibuster the 'nuclear option' rather than that being the 'nuclear option' itself.
In other words, Chip not only fell for the bamboozle, but before he could find his way to the first microphone he managed to pull a further self-bamboozle. I know, I know, not pretty. But when these folks are this far gone it seldom is.
Help us confirm these accounts and do what we can to save Chip's dignity. He's fallen. But, with your help, he can get up.
Oh the humanity ...
--Josh Marshall
Ahhh, always a sad sight to behold. NPR joins the Times in talking a dive for the 'nuclear option' speech police.
--Josh Marshall
Iowa headline writer has a laugh at Broder's expense?
In David Broder's here much-mocked column on the battle over the filibuster, he claims to be outlining a sensible bipartisan compromise to avert the 'nuclear option.'
Broder's editors at the Post gave the piece the deeply Broderian title: "A Judicious Compromise."
Opinion page editors at Iowa's Quad-City Times gave it a read and decided they'd run it with a more apt title: "Democrats should back down."
--Josh Marshall
At James Dobson's Democrats versus believers in God rally tonight, Sen. Frist had this passage in his speech ...
Now if Senator Reid continues to obstruct the process, we will consider what opponents call the “nuclear option.” Only in the United States Senate could it be considered a devastating option to allow a vote. Most places call that democracy.
As you can see, Frist is pushing <$Ad$> the bogus argument that "nuclear option" is a phrase coined by Democrats whereas in fact, as he certainly knows, it is a phrase coined by Republicans.
In isolation, it doesn't much matter whether we call this the 'nuclear option' or simply abolishing the filibuster. But it's worth taking note of Frist's knowing falsehood because it is quite evidently part of a larger RNC push over the course of the last week.
I've been made privy to the internal communications of a number of national news organizations at which there are now running arguments over whether to go along with the Republican claim that 'nuclear option' is a Democratic epithet or term of abuse which should be banned except in cases where Democrats are directly quoted using it.
So, as you're reading the coverage in the coming days, watch to see which news outfits have fallen in line with the RNC-directives.
Late Update: Good Catch! Atrios finds two recent instances where Frist himself calls what they're trying to do the 'nuclear option'. And lest there be any question, the issue here is not so much what phrase we use to describe the abolition of the senate filibuster, it is to shine a bright light on members of the press, to see if they will accurately report that it is Republicans who are breaking precedent here, not the Democrats. Whether they fall in line on this 'nuclear option' mumbojumbo is just one element of the story.
--Josh Marshall
Frist tries to get on both sides of the threats against members of the judiciary debate.
See his speech before James Dobson's Sunday night rally for the claim that Democrats are against believers in God.
You'll note that in coverage of Frist's speech many reporters have bought into his spinners' claim that Frist is coming out against threats against the judiciary. But of course he's giving a speech at a pep rally for the people orchestrating the most extreme attacks on the judiciary. And he's doing nothing but dishing out praise for them. So as I said, Frist is trying to position himself on both sides of the threats against members of the judiciary debate. But actions speak louder than words.
--Josh Marshall
One TPM Reader stepped far enough back to pose what should be an obvious question: Why did David Broder think only to suggest a 'compromise' to the Democrats on judicial nominations?
Not only does his suggested 'compromise' come almost wholly out of the Democrats' collective hide, he also puts it entirely to the Democrats to give way, rather than the Majority Republicans.
I think the answer is obvious.
Like most of Washington's permanent class (perhaps we might call it, The Permanency), Broder has a soft spot for power. Or perhaps just, force.
As noted earlier, Broder could make an argument on the merits in the Republicans' favor: one on the basis of simple majoritarianism (a not insubstantial argument). But this point only holds his attention for two sentences before he wades into a longer discussion of the Democrats' need to trust and the Republicans' ability to retaliate.
I think Broder sees the Republicans as strong and assertive and the Democrats as weak and conciliating (not an altogether unrealistic perception). And power counts to these folks because it's attractive, admirable, alluring.
Seems harsh, I know. Even to me. But I think it's true.
--Josh Marshall
From a TPM Reader: "Another reason Broder is Wrong ... Another reason the Newt-powered gov't shutdown was not popular was that the public perceived it as Republicans trying to bypass process to force Clinton's hand. In the current situation, it is the Republicans, again, who are tying to bypass process to force the Democrats hand. In the current situation as in the past, it is the Republicans who are forcing the issue. I think the Republicans will be seen as the creators of situation, not the Democrats. Most Americans don't like bullies."
--Josh Marshall
Just a note for those of you looking for the latest news on the Valerie Plame story. Murray Waas's new blog 'Whatever Already' has been the source for the latest updates, all based on his extensive and continued original reporting on the subject.
--Josh Marshall
David Broder and various other DC mandarins say that Democrats are asking for trouble if they bring the senate to a standstill over the nuclear option. They point to the fact that Newt Gingrich's Republicans took the blame for the government shutdowns in 1995-96, not Bill Clinton.
I should say first that I worry about the politics of the Democrats doing this too. But there's not nearly as much cause for worry as these worthies' imagine.
Some of their confusion stems from the fact that few of them could ever quite get their heads around the idea that the Republicans took the hit for Gingrich's government shutdown -- in part because most of them were secretly enraptured with Newt at the time.
Broder's reference to the power of the president's bully pulpit as the lever that will shift public opinion against the Democrats is just another example of his inability to grasp that the public turn against the Republicans in late 1995 and early 1996 was a reaction, on the merits, to Republican excesses, not the result of some inscrutable black magic Bill Clinton managed to pull off with a few press availabilities.
The more obvious flaw in Broder's reasoning stems from another bit of Washington myopia. What killed the Republicans on the government shutdown, in addition to the pure recklessness of the stunt, was that the government did shut down. National parks closed. Various government services and functions stopped operating. It had an immediate and direct effect on people's lives.
Shutting down the senate does nothing of the sort. The government and all its essential services will go right on functioning as usual. All that will change is that some not-particularly-popular Republican legislation might not pass. Or perhaps James Dobson won't be able to get an anti-SpongeBob bill shepherded through Congress by one of his favored legislators. To imagine that that will have an impact equal to that of shutting down the government's non-emergency services can only be called a uniquely Washingtonian view.
Don't get me wrong: shutting down the senate over judicial nominations is risky business. But parallels drawn by Broder and others show mainly how out of touch they are with what happens outside of the DC region.
--Josh Marshall
David Broder's suggested compromise on the nuclear <$NoAd$> option ...
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.
Why can't Broder just bite the bullet and make an argument on pure majoritarianism (a reasonable argument) rather than suggesting, as he does here, that the Democrats give up the lever of power represented by the filibuster in exchange for an unenforceable promise from the Republicans to be nice?
Perhaps we can all come together on a bipartisan basis and ask what Broder is smoking -- and whatever it is, that he at least smoke it in Washington, so he'll have some clue of what's been happening in the capital for the last five years.
--Josh Marshall
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}