The Next Hurrah

Short Takes - a TNH Open Thread

by RonK, Seattle

Nuggets from the slagheap. From Andy Mosher and Bassam Sebti in Baghdad, via WaPo:

Bending over and picking up an onion spattered with blood, he began to cry. "Every one of you in Karrada calls me Crazy Ali," he said to no one in particular. "But I would never do such a thing. I am better than you sane people. At least I do not hurt you."

From New Donkey Ed Kilgore, on Russell Shorto's profile of anti-gay activists in last Sunday NYT Magazine:

And that's why they can't compromise: they're out on a limb with their souls on the line, secular to the core but unable to see it.

In a case of ecumenism run amok, Bullmoose Marshall Wittmann covers the Wasichu front and

declares that he is Dr. Moose, Scholar of Advanced Talmudic Studies!

And NYT columnist David Brooks outdoes himself, arguing:

It's just wrong to seek withdrawal now ... [because?] ... we live in a democracy, where decisions are made by all.

To what majority does Brooks appeal when he invokes "democracy" contra the polls? It's

those serving in Iraq, and their families [who] voted to re-elect President Bush [and] seem to want to finish the job.

Oh, I see. Call me Crazy Ali ... but I would never do such a thing. How about you?

Why Senators Don't Do What They Do

by RonK, Seattle
The naive observer would expect his or her senator to recognize bills that do good things, and to sponsor them, move them through the sausage-works, and vote for these bills when they come to the floor.

The naive observer would be perplexed when an apparent "no brainer" piece of legislation comes up -- like Mary Landrieu's anti-lynching resolution -- and not everyone signs on.

The blogosphere took this up yesterday, and accusatory hilarity ensued. [The naive observer could almost be forgiven for thinking that lynching had been legal until yesterday, and that 20-odd non-sponsors of S. Res. 39 were pro-lynching ... but that is only tangentially our topic.]

For the edification of our naive observer, please join me, Kagro X, and others in an open source brainstorm. How many reasons can we identify -- principled or pragmatic -- by which a virtuous Senator might not support a virtuous item of legislation?

Process-oriented comments  -- reserve your essays on the relative merits of lynching for another thread -- and one reason per comment please.

Here's one for starters: "Our side's Mom and Apple Pie  can lick your side's Mom and Apple Pie".  See comment below.

Short Takes (open thread)

by RonK, Seattle
Owen confirmed, Janice Rodgers Brown confirmed, Pryor confirmed, no almost no GOP defections, and no pound of flesh for the embargo on Clinton's Michigan Circuit nominees.

Here at TNH, some told-you-so's are in order. I'll let 'em speak for themselves, and just note my "reserving judgment" is taking on a darker caste. [Note to self: Is that expression ethnically objectionable?]

But don't let "The Deal" get you down. Let this get you down, instead. A few days back we noted a Third Way analysis re Dem's losing the white middle class ... but hoped Ruy Teixeira would find something to take the edge off.

Our reward? Postings here, here, and here.

The claim that the Democrats lost the white middle class ... by a wide margin is correct. It is also correct that there was little difference between the political preferences of these voters and those of white "wealthy class" ... Bush carried both of these groups by 22-23 points.

The good news? R.T. rounds off some sharp corners, on methodological grounds:"between 2000 and 2004, Bush's margin among non-college-educated middle class whites increased by 15 points, while his margin among college-educated middle class whites increased by just 7 points."

Any good news? Third Way's assessment that Hispanics are "leaving the Democratic party seems a bit strong. On the other hand ...", well, see for yourself.

But isn't some of this an artifact of defective NEP samples? "data indicate that white working class voters are actually a majority (51.5 percent) of all voters, rather than the 43.3 percent indicated by the NEP exit poll." Oy!

Oh, and as noted earlier amid the excitement over W's bad poll numbers in the WaPo poll, Democratic Party approval hit an all-time low.

Looking Ahead: a Flashback

All judgments on the 7+7 deal are premature.

Context: It is a corrupt bargain (horsetrading judicial confirmations) where a corrupt bargain is called for (Yahoo's holding a torch to the Constitution).

Context: The Deal is a temporizing move, not a durable bargain. That's OK. Time works against Bush.

One short story (by Tim Sackton per my suggestion)

FRIST
FOIST
JOIST
JOUST
ROUST
ROAST
TOAST

Any presidential aspirations McCain may have had are also toast, while he gains stature in the Senate. From my post long ago (April, 2002) in a blog far away:

--- An Alternative McCain Alternative ---

The buzz-o-sphere is buzzing (Green (WaMo), Chait (TNR), Kaus, Marshall, Curry (MSNBC)) with talk of McCain 2004 (D).

... he has a better play on the table ... a play with fewer obstacles, more margin for error, better safeties, more elective tempo, and more immediate results. McCain can control the Senate. Today.

 

Your Nuclear Option Resource Center: Monday Edition

By DHinMI

Maybe we're the Nightline of blogs.  When we started The Next Hurrah a few months ago, we figured there would be plenty of issues that we would tackle the might get us some attention for readers, other bloggers, journalists and politicos.  But like Nightline, which began as nightly coverage of the Iranian Hostage Crisis and with which it was long identified, the identity of The Next Hurrah has become linked to the impending Nuclear Option in the Senate.  I don't know that any of us would have guessed that one of us would be named "Bloggers' Parliamentarian," that one of our posts would inspire an uggabugga flowchart, or  that TNH would be compared to the RAND Corporation or nuclear theorist Herman Kahn's Hudson Institute.  (Herman Kahn was one of the main inspirations for Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb; since the comparison was intended as a compliment, that's how we're taking it, but I prefer to think of ourselves as the Union of Concerned Bloggers.)  But we have written a lot on the Nuclear Option, none more than Kagro X, whose series Notes on the Nuclear Option initially brought many of you here, and we're pleased that we've come to be seen as a good resource on this ongoing drama of process and politics.

Bill Frist has been promising the arrival of Godot the Nuclear Option for months, but it looks like it will finally arrive this week.  So, to help those of you looking for a tutorial on the Nuclear Option, or for anyone who may have missed some of our posts and would like to get caught up on the procedural, historical, political and personal factors figuring into the battle over judicial nominations and the filibuster, we've assembled all of our posts in a handy index.  Everything we've written on the Nuclear Option is linked below; we hope it's helpful.  If you have any comments, questions, news, or opinions on the impending launch of the Nuclear Option, please feel free to use the comment thread as a Nuclear Option open thread. 

The Failsafe Option

by RonK, Seattle

When handling devices of unconventional destructive power, it is wise to design them to discourage unintentional activation ... and likewise to raise barriers to intentional activation by unsound or unauthorized operators.

Fortunately the Frist-Cheney device is equipped with just such a mechanism. When Frist pushes the red button, a handful of GOP moderates can suspend the countdown indefinitely -- without surrendering their ability to activate or defuse the device later.

This gives a (possibly shifting) moderate/institutionalist faction a great deal of power over the pace and eventual outcome of Frist's intended chain reaction.

Sub-Nuclear Options

-- by RonK, Seattle

On the face of it, we are witnessing the climax of a spiral escalation that may have begun with US Solicitor Robert Bork's role in Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre. "Democracy!" cry the Republicans, knocking the pins from under our established republican form of government. "See you in Hell!" cry the Democrats.

But as the SELF-DESTRUCT timer ticks down, half the GOP caucus is looking for a way out. Democrats should help them find one.

Today's top-selling "6 + 6" whizbang would have 6 R's oppose the Nuclear Option, and 6 D's support Cloture, on terms to be defined. Too many undefined terms, unenforceable provisions and unconscionable commitments ... but the mere fact that it is under discussion is telling.

Consider the odds and stakes. If the Nuclear Option succeeds, damage to the system is severe, permanent, progressive, and conceivably terminal.

Capitulation yields moral hazards of paying ransom, and further radical encroachment on the Judiciary ...  but the sufficient exercise of democracy can eventually repair it. The word "statesmanship" is not heard much anymore, but somebody always has to be the grown-up.

Remember, the neotheocons' mandate is make-believe. Their base is both limited and implacable. Give them all the judges under the sun ... they'll never satisfy their base. Make every day Schiavo Day, and they'll face a backlash from all sides. A ballot-box comeuppance is coming.

Now that I've got your blood pressure up, let's look at another variation ...

Nuclear Option: The Knights Who'll Say 'Nay'

By RonK, Seattle

It's been suggested that Frist must not have the votes to execute the Nuclear Option -- otherwise he would have already pulled the trigger. I do not share this view. He may have them -- today -- but he certainly faces resistance to using them. And while he works through required pre-launch protocol, he stands to lose votes in unexpected quarters, for unanticipated reasons.

There's a sizable Don't Go There faction. Many committed Ayes would rather it didn't come to this. If it comes, they'd rather it didn't come on their watch. They'd rather capitalize on the threat than commit the act. They'd rather somebody settled. They'd rather be sailing.

The Senate is a deliberative body, whose rules and traditions are biased in favor of painstaking examination of far-flung implications. For all the loose chatter, that examination hasn't occurred yet ... but it will. The Don't Go There's will demand it.

The Option is a gambit only institutional lightweights can take lightly. Lightweights may have no idea how big the stakes are, but they'll smell it in the air when it gets close. Even the airiest will have their depths plumbed and horizons broadened when The Option goes into long hours of deliberation, debate, history, bargaining, search for outs, and further deliberation.

And that's not all.

Contributors

The list of contributors