« The New Iraq? | Main | Senate Softball Game »
What is the NY Times Saying?
Sometimes it's hard to believe that the NY Times and I live in the same universe, let alone on the same planet.
From this morning's NY Times editorial* regarding the filibuster showdown/compromise (*happy, fluffy puppies writing alert):
If nothing else, the deal to end the Senate's "nuclear option" showdown was heartening in that it did demonstrate that moderates still exist in Washington, and actually have the capacity to work together to get things done.
So, first the NY Times says it's nice that moderates still exist.
On the other hand, it's not terribly encouraging to see how low the bar is for joining the moderate camp. The seven Republicans who played the critical role in brokering an agreement include several staunch conservatives whose claim to centrism lies in their desire to avoid devoting the rest of the year to procedural battles between the hamstrung Democrats and the overbearing Republican majority.
And then NYTimes says that moderates don't exist.
The pact they forged will preserve the minority's right to filibuster-- block a bill or nomination unless a supermajority of 60 senators votes to proceed. To get there, the seven Democrats involved in the negotiations paid a high price - allowing the nominations of three of President Bush's most controversial nominees to the federal Courts of Appeals to go through to an up-or-down vote that they will undoubtedly win.
The NY Times says that the pact will save the minority's right to filibuster.
In return, the seven Republicans appear to have promised - or at least vaguely indicated - that they will protect the Democrats' right to stop progress on two other nominees, including William Myers III, a former lobbyist for mining interests who would otherwise end up serving on a California appeals court that considers many critical environmental cases.
Then the NY Times tells us the pact will not save the minority's right to filibuster.
Continuing downward in the editorial...
At bottom, the agreement is about postponing any ultimate showdown until the president is called on to nominate a Supreme Court justice.
I disagree.
What's at bottom here is the desire of these fourteen senators to retain their same level of power as individual senators that they currently enjoy.
Frist's move to end the filibuster would not only strip the minority of any power it may have, but it would greatly reduce the individual power of each of these senators.
By requiring only 51 votes to move any piece legislation to a full Senate vote, the Majority leader can, at any time, largely ignore the opinion of any four individual senators. That reduces the power of every senator, especially the true senate minority, the moderates, because he doesn't need them to vote for cloture (the motion used to end debate and move to vote on a piece of legislation).
That is why staunch Republicans like Lindsey Graham and Mike DeWine joined the true moderates. Let's be honest here; there were no philosophical conversions or political baptisms going on in the senate cloakroom Monday afternoon.
The NY Times does get one thing right however:
While the idea of letting the majority rule is at the heart of much in American democracy, it has little to do with the Senate, where some members represent 10 times as many people as others. There is absolutely nothing unfair about allowing a minority that actually represents more American people to veto lifetime appointments of judges who are far outside the mainstream of American thinking.
Okay, well, close to right. Sort of.
The idea of letting the majority rule is not at the heart of American democracy. What's at the heart of American democracy is that the majority governs, it doesn't rule. And the idea at the heart of requiring a supermajority to change the rules in the Senate, is to ensure that the majority do not become rulers, but must instead, follow the principles of good governance.
Wow, that is one convoluted pathway through the editorial meeting process, I must say...
But your reminder is right on, Casey.
The government seems have been reduced to junior high corridor level, with alliances easily made and easily broken, jockeying for alpha-male status, narcissistic outbursts, attention-grabbing, and no one actually doing the homework.
This is when I miss the ability of Senators like Everett Dirksen to LEARN as he went along, and look for Robert Byrd and John Kerry to speak.
Should Bush Veto Stem Cell Research
from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4579073.stm
Little intro piece soliciting comments, then readers from anywhere can have their say. It promises to be interesting. Join in!
It's amazing Bush is in a position to veto - normally the Congress has been a "rubber stamp" operation for him!
How Senate fracas may shape '08
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0525/p03s01-uspo.html?s=t5
but it's all speculation
Off to work!
cutting through the fog...
Who is an "obstructionist"?
In Congress, the Republicans love to label Dems as "obstructionists" if the Dems don't roll over & rubber stamp the Republican "majority rules" agenda.
So what happens with the stem cell research issue?
When the MAJORITY of Congress (Reps & Dems)pass a bill in favor of federally funding stem cell research, then sends it to the prez to sign, and Bu$h, with his 1st ever veto pen, then immediately veto/kill the bill passed by the Majority in Congress, on behalf of the American people...
Will we hear the Republicans in Congress call Bu$h, the Obstructionist, thwarting the "majority will of the people"???
yeah, right....
Happy Hump Day, blogtriots!
In the midst of the sordid ugliness we have bourne witness to over the last 4 1/2 years, may I be so bold as to post a link to infuse some beauty into your soul. (a little extra beauty never hurts)
Incredible art by a wonderful muralist... check out the before and after pics on the projects page.
http://www.ericgrohemurals.com
Thank you MoNkEy. Very lovely and you are welcome to inject beauty into my day anytime.
If Dumbya vetoes the stem cell research legislation, it will be his first veto. Ignoring MSM as I have, I almost missed part of Nightline on ABC as I was channel surfing last night. There is a severe brain drain of scientists from the US who have all gone to foreign countries to do stem cell research. I didn't watch the whole thing, but one of the Americans said he wouldn't come back to the US to do research, ever; apparently other Americans echoed his sentiment. Between the neoCon christians and the neoCon Repukes who are trying to set education back 100 years (not to mention all the other things they have set back to the Victorian era by simple brainwashing bumper sticker phrases), we will end up losing our most valuable and intelligent researchers and scientists to foreign countries where they can do research unhindered by politicians or religious nuts....
Re: the 'filibuster compromise.' Raise your hand if you think the compromise gained Dems absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zilch, bug fat goose egg.... The extremist judges will still come up for a vote (and likely be "approved" this time), and the "best" that might come of it is that the neoCons will have an excuse to criticize the Dems or call Dems liars for being nice enough (or dumb enough) to compromise with the neoCon extremist senators in the 2006 & 2008 campaigns, if the Dems and moderate Repubs vote against BushCo's judicial nominations, just as they did in the past. Democrats LOST, big time!!! (IMHO)
Where, oh where, will we ever find a Dem candidate strong enough to stand up to the BushCo neoCon regime?!? Why, oh why, do the Dems ALWAYS cave in to the BushCo regime?!? Even the few I've respected on a limited basis have done nothing but compromise themselves out of any power or leverage! Too much compromising makes wimps of them all...!!! This is NOT the time to compromise!!! Other times, other issues less important, fine, compromise; not now, not about something as important as lifetime judicial appointments!!! (I wish we had politicians with the balls of Galloway who blasted that horrid twit Coleman! A Dem candidate with as much moxy as Galloway just might actually make MSM news?!?) I'm sick and tired of hearing about Dems who compromise, compromise, and compromise yet again (!), over a broad spectrum of important issues!!! They are compromising themselves out of existence, and out of office, soon to be replaced (I fear) by more neoCons who stick to short and simple bumper sticker messages that will prompt the uninformed sheeples who can't think for themselves to vote for neoCons....
Jeez, Dems: Find your backbones, will ya?!?
[In the on going wars-for-oil era:
Conservation is a dirty word to big oil & big auto/truck makers because it cuts into their profits. Will reality force Americans to give up their love affair with gas guzzlers?]
US dependence on foreign oil growing - Experts say
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. dependence on foreign crude will keep growing despite efforts to spur domestic production, as demand in the world's largest energy consumer outpaces output, industry and government experts said Tuesday.
The rising need for oil shipments to the nation's ports could even hit a level soon that foreign crude producers might have a hard time matching -- translating into likely declines in the nation's stockpiles.
snip~
The prognosis for increased foreign dependence comes as U.S. lawmakers struggle to hammer out an energy bill. President Bush's administration hopes to open up to drilling parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and provide tax incentives to spur exploration.
"Drop in a bucket," said Rick Mueller, Oil Manager at Boston-based Energy Securities Analysis Inc.
"The volumes they're talking about, by the time they start to come on line in 2011 or 2012, probably will not match up with growth in U.S. demand alone, and that doesn't take into account continued decline of other U.S. fields."
snip~
Oil demand in the United States has grown about 2 percent since 2003, while domestic production has slumped about 30 percent to 50-year lows due to declines in mature oil fields. New production from the Gulf of Mexico has helped offset the decline in onshore domestic output this year.
"Imports? They represent the past of the U.S., the present and the future," said Tim Evans, senior energy analyst at IFR Energy Services.
"Two years ago we were importing about 9.5 million bpd. Last year we were hearing a lot of hand wringing from the Department of Energy about how we didn't know if sustained imports above 10 million bpd is possible.
"Now it's not only possible, it's routine and we're pushing 11 million bpd as the upper threshold," said Evans.
All agreed that the mathematics point to a need to include production and conservation in the mix of solutions.
"The mathematics would dictate looking at both sides of the equation, supply and demand," said MacIntyre.
"Absolutely, a greater emphasis on conservation, particularly auto fuel efficiency, is really the largest untapped source of barrels," said Evans. "We're unlikely to boost domestic output a million bpd..., but it would not be that hard to save a million bpd."
Evans noted that with the U.S. gasoline demand averaging around 9.5 million bpd, "if we were to knock that down by million, that would be a 10.5 percent improvement. And if you have a sports utility vehicle that currently gets 15 miles per gallon, you would need an increase only to 16.6 mpg in order to make that 10.5 percent."
"We could basically do that with our eyes closed," said Evans. "Just when you see the ad for the Hummer, turn the page. But that's not something U.S. refiners would like to see, and is not something automakers want to see because their product and profit mix are more based on the truck type vehicles."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050525/us_nm/energy_oil_imports_dc
The only small positive I've found in this is that suddenly it seems some repugs have gotten brave enough to openly criticize the evengelical far right, and say that they are behaving in un-Christian ways. If nothing else, perhaps standing up to the Dobson/Frist power grab in this compromise will knock some of the sheep out of their trance.
Posted by: Carol at May 25, 2005 10:42 AM
I agree completely... in this episode of "This Old House", cracks begin in the foundation which lead to major structural damage.
Welcome to the Wrecking Ball... dress casual.
The Dumbing of America
"He's just like me!" they said in droves...a President who acts like the people he knows!
...and now 4-1/2 years later we are stricken with the functionally illiterate, overly superstitious heretical religiosity, war mongering, Constitutional stomping and corporatist pandering ways of the Bush Administration...
Stupid is as Stupid does...
Chocolate anyone?
I hear it goes well with assorted nuts.
Posted by: Indy at May 25, 2005 11:15 AM
Send in the clones.
This just in, from Media Matters:
Support Dingell and Obey's call to investigate political influence in public broadcasting
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), ranking Democrat on the House Commerce Committee, and Rep. David Obey (D-WI), ranking Democrat on the House
Appropriations Committee, have written a letter to the Inspector General of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) urging him to
investigate recent efforts apparently aimed at imposing a conservative political agenda on public broadcasting. Help make sure that the
Inspector General conducts a thorough investigation.
Key Points:
* The Corporation for Public Broadcasting's own research shows that Americans view public broadcasting as objective and balanced.
* Recent actions by the CPB could undermine the trust people have in public broadcasting.
* Dingell and Obey's call for investigation can help maintain the public's trust in public broadcasting and make sure that politics keeps its Hands Off Public Broadcasting.
* Urge your member of Congress to support this investigation.
Take Action!
Email your member of Congress asking him or her to support the Dingell/Obey letter calling for an investigation into the political influence
being imposed on public broadcasting by CPB president Kenneth Y. Tomlinson. Let your member of Congress know that you support public broadcasting's independent journalism and quality programming.
Visit the campaign at HandsOffPublicBroadcasting.org and take action
today!
I was listening to NPR this morning and Bush was speaking at some SS rally earlier in the month, and they played a clip of him talking to a woman. She introduced herself and said she was 70. He said she didn't have to reveal her age. She said she was proud of her age, but just not to ask her her weight. Dumb Shrub said, well, you look great. You look 100! Uh, I mean, you lool like you'll get to be 100.
NICE. Way to win 'em over. Keep up the good work, shrubby!
Posted by: Carol at May 25, 2005 11:41 AM
He keeps up this kind of "good" work, and NOBODY will live to 100.
Ah, but unused embryo's will be safe, so that's comforting.
Let's not forget this gem from a recent Bush hand-picked attendee "Town Hall" meeting...
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.
[...]
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
MS. MORNIN: Not much. Not much.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, hopefully, this will help you get you sleep to know that when we talk about Social Security, nothing changes.
Ummmm.... It's "fantastic" that someone has to work three jobs to survive in this country? Did I miss something?
From a Local Slant:
Native-Indy anyone in Texas.Today's Houston Chronicle printed a letter to the editor calling Texas Democrats Socialists. I urge all locals to email editor Ms. Mankieu at viewponts@chron.com and let them know that this is way over the top an an apology or retraction should be printed. I just called everyone I could find at the Chronicle 713-362-7491 and sent my responsive letter to them but its very difficult to get them to print anything that doesn't start out saying Dems are socialist, communist etc. I've had enough of their diatribe and especially knowing that this garbage goes out to 4.5 million Texans. Any help would be much appreciated.
I know that we have much larger battles to fight but I am putting up the good fight in this deep red state against their local mouthpiece.
Dear Mr. Gibbons:
I firmly believe that some of your letters to the editor are promoting Hate Speech which violates our Texas Penal Code and needs to come to a stop. Ms. Mankieu in my conversations thinks that such letters are cute and appropriate to your newspaper. I find such comments to be offensive and bordering on Hate Speech.
I ask that they please stop.
5-25-05
Apparently under the guise of the first amendment this paper and its staff continues to print letters, as it did in today’s letters to the editor, calling Democrats socialist. As a native Houstonian and Democrat I cannot begin to tell you how totally offensive and inflammatory such ridiculous comments are to my values. Please tell me, as a native Houstonian, Ms. Menchieu, what you think that such outrageous comments do to promote intelligent discourse or service to this community. At a time this country is at war it would seem that this newspaper would prefer promoting civility rather than such divisiveness. Ms. Minchieu and the staff of the Houston Chronicle owe your readers an apology and a letter of resignation for allowing such garbage/acrimony to be printed in your newspaper. The fact that I continuously read such hate filled language from some of your letters writers from the Republican aisle indicates to me, as a reader, that your newspapers encourages such over the top comments and their circulation to your readers. It appears to me that Democrats in this community are not welcome to read your newspaper.
I urge all Texans to send their complaints to james.gibbons@chron.com General Editor of the Opinion Page of the Houston Chronicle and to
james.cambell@chron.com reader expressions, complaints. Ms. Mankieu is the Letter Writer Editor who is known around here for her right wing slant. I hope they get an earful b/c the Chronicle is so influential in Texas political circles.
Senator Brownback one of the leading voices in the Nuclear Option, announces that he may Filibuster the Stem Cell Bill when it reaches the Senate.
Is that a joke? No I am not kidding.
Posted by: mOnKeY at May 25, 2005 11:52 AM
I wonder how long it took Ms. Mornin to realize what he said.
Ira:
Don't you just wish there were a few more grown-ups in our government?
I'm watching the senate vote on Owens. Not one moderate or progressive rep voted against Owens.
My guess is Bush and Cheney were up late last night working the phones with threats! DISGUSTING!!
We're going to do everything we can to stop it," said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. He vowed to mount a filibuster, ...
Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at May 25, 2005 10:40 AM
Yes! You should see the number of SUV's for sale in this area!
My only hope was this am some GOP from Ocala Fla. called in and is changing his voting options to dems come 06'...YEAH!!
VOTE is 53/46...more outrage to come!
Patti I am particularly disgusted with Chafee who I presume you are talking about. I truly hope Rhode Island voters will remember the kind of jurists Chafee voted to put on our federal bench.
It's okay for the neoCon Repukes to filibuster anything they want as long as the Dems don't filibuster anything.... That was the objective of the "compromise" over the judicial nominees who were voted against once before. Georgie-Porgie just won't take "No" for an answer, since he wants absolute power all the time.... Megalomaniacs must have their way, after all, or they go off in a childish snit with derogatory comments about anyone who opposes them... must be nice to control the world from the "centrist" and manipulative viewpoint of a spoiled toddler in the middle of a temper tantrum who must have the world revolve around him.... Give him his way and everything is smarmily sweet and rosy... Oppose him and he lays on the floor kicking and screaming until adults give in to him....
Hagel rejects Senate compromise.Sounds like he has drunk Dobson's cool aid and is now joining the far right for political gain.
"The biggest surprise in that group was Hagel, who was quoted a month ago in the Omaha World-Herald as saying that although judicial nominees deserve a Senate vote, protection of minority rights in the Senate is important as well. "I would hope that these differences can be resolved without eroding the protection of minority rights in this institution," he said then. Yesterday, he criticized the agreement for not assuring up-or-down votes.
The oil story above is, in some ways, the biggest story out there. Every single day that goes by without a crash program to get the U.S. off oil and onto renewables increases the instability of the world.
What gets confusing is that we are not really "running out of oil." What we're running out of is CHEAP oil at the same time that the surging economies of India and China are creating huge new demands.
In the U.S., oil production peaked in the early 1970s. And depending on who you ask, world oil production has already peaked, or will peak within the next ten years. What that means is that no matter how much money we throw into oil exploration, the return on each dollar spent is going to start going down.
Which means that the price of oil is going to start going up. There will still be lots of oil in the ground. It just won't be cheap oil. And without cheap oil as a source of energy and as a raw material, we are going to be in very serious trouble.
Historians looking back at our times will shake their heads at how stupid the world's leaders have been over the last couple of decades. We knew we were headed into oil trouble several decades ago, but the world's leaders have been incredibly slow in responding to the threat we are facing. Bush's two terms is the nadir so far. On the one hand, we have a world-wide scientific consensus that our carbon-based energy economy is going to drastically alter the climate of our planet. And at the same time, the very substance which we are burning that creates so much of the carbon is itself becoming so expensive that the current version of economic growth may grind to a halt.
And what has Bush done. Essentially nothing.
Repost from other thread:
Where Do We Go From Here?
I think one of the more interesting things to come out of the filibuster debate is this: I don't remember the last time a legislative standoff resulted in both sides claiming defeat. It's true. The blogosphere yesterday, on both the left and right, was filled with irate rantings about giving up on the parties, never voting again, not one thin dime, etc...
What this tells me is that the public is in fact, more - not less - polarized than our elected representatives.
Which brings me to where we go from here.
When the filibuster debate comes back, and it will, what should the Democrats do?
They should walk out. Together. As a group. And they should hold a press conference. I have taken the liberty of preparing their statement, to be issued on the front steps of the Capitol.
"Democratic Senators represent the views of roughly half of this nation. If our colleagues will not allow these views to be heard, we see no reason to be here. It's clear that extremists in the Republican party will not stop until they have total control over this body, and all dissent has been silenced. Our Senators therefore will be leaving the Capitol, and meeting to pursue the agenda of working Americans: National Security, jobs, the economy, health care and energy needs. We will return when this body returns to the business of the American people, and rejects the extremism that has overtaken the Senate. Thank you."
C'mon 2006....
Sorry Patti. Apparently Chafee had the common sense to vote against Owens. Innouye took a pass and Mary Landrieu, Snowe and Collins voted for her. Mary, Mary, Mary where did you go wrong. What party do you think you belong to? Wasn't opening up Anwr enough for us to stomach? Susan Collins when are you up for re-election?
The oil problem Dick refers to has the potential to permanently disrupt our economy and lives. JK stated during the campaign that energy independence was a top tiered issue for us, but I am sorry to say Dick that when we see folks like Landrieu, Innouye and Akaka vote to drill in Anwr, that even many Dems have their heads in the sand and look for simplistic self serving sollutions rather than dealing with our dependence on Saudi oil as the real national security issue that it truly is. Could you imagine where we would have been during WWII had the Saudis decided to dramatically reduce oil production. Oil is I believe a national security issue, an economic issue, as much as an environmental issue.
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/US_Congress
Senate confirms long-stalled judicial nominee
Reuters - 33 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Senate on Wednesday confirmed the first of President Bush's disputed judicial nominees, part of a truce between Democrats and Republicans that will allow the White House to get some of its most conservative choices on the federal bench. By a largely party-line vote of 56 to 43, the Republican-led chamber confirmed Texan Priscilla Owen for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. The vote was made possible by a compromise that averted a possible shutdown of the Senate.
Under the deal, Democrats retain the ability to block future judicial nominees "under extraordinary circumstances," which could shape Bush's first nomination to the Supreme Court, expected later this year.
The battle has been joined by special interest groups from across the political spectrum because the power of the courts to decide so many social and cultural issues -- from gay rights to civil rights to abortion rights.
Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice first nominated by Bush to the federal bench four years ago, was among 10 appeals court candidates stopped by Democrats in the last Congress. Bush renominated seven of them after winning re-election.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'd quibble about that last sentence: Bush was NOT RE-elected. He was not elected in 2000, and most journalists conveniently forget that little factoid.
Gazing into my crystal ball, I make a prediction for the future: If BushCo faces nominating a chief justice for the Supreme Court, he will nominate someone unacceptable, and if/when Dems reserve the right to filibuster, the neoCon Repukes will (once again!) make the Dems "compromise" and hold off a filibuster until some other Repuke-defined "extraordinary circumstance" comes along....
I'd rather the Dems filibuster clear through at least the 2006 election to see if Dems win enough Senate seats to put some balance in the Senate again!
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate on Wednesday approved Judge Priscilla Owen for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, more than four years after President Bush first nominated her.
The vote was 56-43.
Nice post Dick. I was listening to air am last Sunday where they took on Delay and how he hates the environment and anything to do with it. It's popular platform with dems and reps and Delay will do anything to delay any positive votes.
I'm really disgusted today with Byrd's and Landrieau's vote. Playing party to their constituents in red states will never make red people think!
Now off to watch the Bolton junk.
This is how the Bush administration honors veterans:
MILITARY -- VETERANS SUE RUMSFELD FOR MEDICAL CARE: The chief financial officer of the U.S. Armed Forces Retirement Home referred to it as
"streamlined health care services," but a class-action lawsuit filed yesterday on behalf of the more than 1,000 veteran residents alleges that "drastic budget cuts by the Defense Department have resulted in substandard medical care." According to the suit, over the past two years residents lost the ability to "get prescriptions and regular doctor checkups at the home" because of cuts made by the new DOD-installed management. With "their health in danger," the plaintiffs were "left ... with
no choice but to sue Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the home's chief operating officer, Timothy Cox."
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/24/AR2005052401458.html)
Posted by: Indy at May 25, 2005 11:15 AM
So well said.
I asked many a BushCo supporter last year why they want someone as president who doesn't show any more knowledge or expertise than they themselves have. I never got an answer.
And yet we need experts to decorate our homes, choose our shrubs, talk to our kids. Talk about Upside-down World.
Joe Biden has made some decisions I didn't agree with lately, but I sure like him. He's so easy to listen to, understand, follow, look at ;-)
C-span 2 is fascinating right now.