Unlike some of my friends, I don’t like comparing right-wing politicians to Hitler. Then again, I also don’t like when the politicians themselves do it. Here’s Rick Santorum, last week, on the filibuster:
"It's the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine,'"Should the “frothy mixture” decide to run for president, I want him to be asked about this EVERY DAY. And I wouldn’t mind some occasional use of “will you condemn this” card, either.
And speaking of the filibuster fight, a compromise tonight means that, for the time being, it’s over. A rare triumph for centrism in Washington, and as the obnoxious, rabid partisans of both sides are hopping mad, I say it’s a wonderful thing. Don’t expect it to last, however- "extraordinary circumstances" is a loophole big enough to push Ted Kennedy through.
Posted by Stephen Silver at May 24, 2005 12:48 AM"A rare triumph for centrism in Washington, and as the obnoxious, rabid partisans of both sides are hopping mad,"
I wouldn't call John Warner or Bob Byrd centrists. This is, rather a triumph for the Senate as an institution, and for those who appreciate that. It bothers me to read people on the right who I don't usually consider radical zealots treating this as not only a defeat but some kind of catastrophe. Three out of five ain't bad. Politics is the art of the possible, but apparently there are a vast amount of those out there who would rather throw a hissy fit over not getting 100% of what they wanted than grow up a little and learn that.
"I say it’s a wonderful thing. Don’t expect it to last, however- "extraordinary circumstances" is a loophole big enough to push Ted Kennedy through."
The thing is, that to make the deal work in the future, any of seven Dems who want to rely on that clause would have to bring not only all their own party members into agreement but most of the seven R's as well. And the likelihood of that strikes me as VERY slim. The deal pushes the fight over judicial filibusters in principle down the road, but it gives added leverage to the GOP when that does happen, as it invariably will. So I just don't get it why we would treat this as some kind of disaster.
Posted by: Dave J at May 24, 2005 11:13 AMDave J-Agreed. Given only the choice of obstruction or rules change I would have said fine, change the rules. A compromise here though is very good for conservatives in the long run.
Steve-I think a precedent has been established for up-or-down votes that may make it tough for even Ted Kennedy to invoke "extraordinary circumstances". Maybe not, time will tell I guess.
Also, note the vote on Owen today.....81-18 for sending to the floor which means more than the 7 Democrats voted for it. Why wasn't that vote 62-37 or so? Hmmmmmm.
Posted by: Dave E at May 24, 2005 08:12 PM"Senator Man-on-Dog"?
Posted by: LilB at May 24, 2005 09:14 PM