Monday, May 23, 2005

The Status Quo is Preserved

Here is the Deal posted from Daily Kos.

Let me be honest, I wanted a showdown. I wanted to see Reid fight the floor fight and continue to make the Republicans look bad falling on their sword.

"Do you think the country would be better off if the Republicans controlled Congress, or if the Democrats controlled Congress?"
Republicans 36% (41%)
Democrats 47% (45%)

The Republican's were losing traction and what does the Democratic block do? They give in. 7 Democrats broke rank and made a backdoor deal to force their party to give in. I want to point out that the D's that broke party unity are all in competitive seats. Lieberman is going to be challenged on the left, Byrd has been placed on three different target lists, Nelson is a Democrat from a red state, Landrieu barely won her seat, and Salazaar was part of the Democratic revolution in CO.

The total list of 14 includes:

Democrats:
Robert Byrd (West Virginia)
Daniel Inouye (Hawaii)
Mary Landrieu (Louisiana)
Joseph Lieberman (Connecticut)
Ben Nelson (Nebraska)
Mark Pryor (Arkansas)
Ken Salazar (Colorado)

Republicans:
Lincoln Chafee (Rhode Island)
Susan Collins (Maine)
Mike DeWine (Ohio)
Lindsey Graham (South Carolina)
John McCain (Arizona)
John Warner (Virginia)
Olympia Snowe (Maine)

Is this a surprise? Absolutely not. If you look at the post I made this past weekend you see that Democrats main problem is a lack of party unity and party identification unity. This merely proves my point.

The real winners of this deal are McCain who is placing himself to run for president in 08, all the moderates of both parties (since they brokered the deal), and the Bush White House because they are getting what they want... an up or down vote.

The losers are Reid, Frist, and the far sides of the aisle for both parties. Frist lost the most because he wasn't able to champion such a sweet Republican deal, nor was he able to keep his party together on this.

With all that being said the three nominees that will be considered are Janice Rogers Brown, Pricilla Owens, and William Pryor.

Move On had this to say about them:

Janice Rogers Brown, a Justice on the California Supreme Court, would threaten the most basic protections for workers and the environment that have kept our country strong since the Great Depression. She follows a radical judicial philosophy, (often called "Constitution in Exile") that says courts have a duty to block Congress from interfering with a corporation's "right" to profitably pollute, or an employer's "right" to demand unlimited hours at any wage from their employees. On the state Supreme Court she has attacked California's anti-discrimination statute, affordable housing laws, fees levied against major urban polluters, and laws that protect whistleblowers from retaliation by their employers and consumers from corporate fraud.

Pricilla Owen
, a Justice on the Texas Supreme Court, has been repeatedly admonished by her own conservative colleagues for what Attorney General Alberto Gonzales described as her "unconscionable judicial activism." As a candidate for the Supreme Court job Owen defied ethics standards by accepting substantial campaign contributions from giant corporations including Enron and Halliburton and then later issuing rulings in their favor. In case after case where individual rights came into conflict with corporate profit, Owens has sided with the latter – including cases where a liquor vendors' negligence left a nine-year-old with permanent brain damage and where major companies have argued their right to unfettered profit should exempt them from all local environmental laws.

William Pryor Jr.
served as Attorney General of Alabama, where he took money from Phillip Morris, fought against the anti-tobacco lawsuit until it was almost over, and cost the people of Alabama billions in settlement money for their healthcare system as a result. He called Roe v. Wade "the worst abomination of constitutional law in our history," and has consistently argued against the federal protections for the civil rights of minorities, lesbian and gay couples, women, and the disabled.

Neither party can claim an overwhelming victory, but the Republican Party is getting the better end of this deal and we all have to live with that until 2006.

UPDATE 5/23/05-11:31
Burnt Orange Report has Sen Reid's statement. I am starting to see how this is going to play out. The tactics look to be to weaken Frist to slow down the agenda and prevent his Presidential run, get the moderates in play to preserve those seats in 06 and 08, and then develop a diverse but united Democratic coalition. Looking at Reids statement it was a big gamble that could pay in dividends. The next 24 hours will determine who wins or loses.

3 Comments:

At 9:30 PM, Blogger P.M.Bryant said...

I disagree that the GOP got the better end of the deal. I think the edge goes to the Dems, but it is unclear.

I say the edge goes to the Dems because we still have some power to block an extreme Supreme Court nominee.

As for the showdown that was averted, I was not comfortable relying on the votes of Susan Collins, John Warner, and Mike DeWine. So I can't say I'm heartbroken that it didn't happen.

 
At 9:40 PM, Blogger Matt Glazer said...

You missed my update by a mere minute. I agree with you but I am concerned that the Republican's get to have their vote on these already extreme candidates.

 
At 9:13 AM, Blogger Cincinnatus said...

True, but according to Lindsay Graham at least one of these three nominees isn't going to get approval. If this happens, then I think the Dems come out of this with an unquestioned win.

Plus, we don't knows if we had the votes to stop the option or not.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home