1

MCCONNELL: Yeah, I never filibustered a Supreme Court nominee. The vice president and Senator Reid have. So far I've never done that. It would take an unusual nominee to justify that.

Sounds like he just dared Hugo-bama to promote the most unusual nominee he can find.

2

Is being gelded now a requirement for Republican leadership positions? 

3 Not to mention the dozens of federal and appelate court judges that were filibustered by the demonrats.

4 So if Ruth Bader Ginsburg kicks and Bambi nominates some radical straight off the Ninth circus, they'll filibuster? Finally?

5 McConnell reminds me of that song by the Hues Corporation, "Don't rock the boat, baby."

6

"It would take an unusual nominee to justify that."

Well, try Jennifer Granholm on for size.

I am not making this up.

7 Is being gelded now a requirement for Republican leadership positions?

Now?  It's been that way for as long as I can remember.

As a Tit Having American (happy Boobquake!), I must say that it's offensive to believe that my delicate feelings must be taken into consideration when reviewing my qualifications for anything.  This is one of my greatest complaints about modern "feminism", namely, that I am reduced to a Victorian handmaiden who faints at the slightest offense or stress.  My resume and background should be subjected to the same scrutiny as a male candidates, no more but also no less.  I'm a big girl, I can take it.  Really. 

8 These battles are fought in front of audiences that include more than the base.

Right now McConnell says, "It would have to be really bad to filibuster". Part of the theory is sound reasonable now, say all the nice things and then if they do filibuster McConnell can say, "I was going to let this go but damn....".

Also, if McConnell says, "hell yes we'll filibuster", the story becomes "Republicans are hypocrites on judicial filibusters". Given what was said back then, it would be true. Now the Democrats are the hypocrites.

Nothing wrong with not going to 11 until there's a need to. Now, if it he had ruled it out entirely, that would be different but it's not what happened.

9 The GOP really needs smarter leadership in the Senate, someone that can at least keep Snowe and Collins in line more often. Boehner in the house always comes off as a much stronger leader, look forward to him as speaker.

10 Mitch McCannell is a fine Senator with impeccable credentials. We need more like him.

11 Is this the same brave determined bunch that did everything but give Holder a handjob when he was up for confirmation? Tell me again how these losers became the conservative leaders. Currently there is not enough tequila in Mexico to make me want to donate to the RNC...and it's only getting worse. Calling the GOP the Stupid Party is now an insult to stupid people everywhere. I'm tired of the Stupid Party -- what we need is the Moron Party. Anyone got any ideas? I hate Mondays. More coffee.

12 Obama will nominate a federal judge currently presiding in Chicago.

McConnell is Maj Leader if the GOP takes the Senate back.  Good gawd where is Trent Lott when you need him.  Can Thune take over?

13 Dear Sen. McConnell: Never, ever get into a poker game. yours sincerely Mr. Fuck You ---- Drew had lamented on another thread that even though Barry looks like a one-term loser, he still thinks the GOP will screw up 2012. Exhibit number one: The above story.

14 You people are haters.

15 The Obami were saying that the Republicans were going to filibuster any nominee, so they might as well go full on moonbat in their nominee. I think McConnell is just acting reasonable so Obama has no excuse to go far left in his choice. Then when he does, the Republicans have a good explanation for a filibuster.

16 BTW I confidently predict, hoping I'm wrong, that Mitt Romney's Boyfriend will go on air today praising McConnell for his political prudence. Hello Barry, you'll be with us until 2016!

17

I believe that any nominee should face the same scrutiny as Janice Rogers Brown had to, and she was ultimately filibustered by the demonrats. Sauce for the Goose, etc.

18 Good gawd where is Trent Lott when you need him.

I think he is now probably a lobbyist, he even retired early so he could escape a federal law that expanded the time you had to wait to become a lobbyist after leaving office. Be sides, he was kind of terrible too and came off as a good ole boy cracker lawyer.

19 Dear Sen. McConnell:

Never, ever get into a poker game. Please come play poker with me.  Mama needs new stompy boots.

yours sincerely, ATC

20 I'm with DrewM on this one.  What can McConnell really say about this and not take political damage from it?  We're prepared to filibuster Obama's SCOTUS nominee, no matter who that person might be?

He said what he needed to say and covered the "but if that person is too extreme" bases to give himself an out.  It's just bad politics to start talking about a filibuster of a completely unknown candidate.  Eventually, that "party of no" crap -- no matter how manufactured -- starts costing you, and at this point and in this case, it would be a hard charge to refute.

21

Mama needs new stompy boots.

 

And someone to stomp!

22 There's no point in angering the moderates in this country by standing up for conservative values.

23 The media still has "Pubs running scared. That said, it's unlikely that they'll filibuster a SCOTUS nominee. However, I can see other obamanations that might stiffen their spines in the not too distant future.

24 About two months ago, I got heat from a poster here that was defending Mr. McConnell's leadership.

I don't remember the handle used, but it was a spirited defense along the lines of "You have no idea what this man is made of."

Well...

How's my ass taste?

McConnell may be a reliable vote, but he is NOT A LEADER.

25 25

Along those lines Grognard, as I stated earlier. A strong leader could keep Snowe and Collins in line more, instead they seem like frightened gazelle about to bolt on every single important vote.

26 grognard (or anyone else mad a McConnell)...

What exactly do you want him to say?

I would agree if this were his first reaction after hearing a name without time to look into the record but there's no name yet.

What is he supposed to say other than, "if it's a really bad nominee we may filibuster"? Which is, um, what he said.

27 This is one of my greatest complaints about modern "feminism", namely, that I am reduced to a Victorian handmaiden who faints at the slightest offense or stress.

But as we've seen since McCain picked Sarah Palin as a running mate, they can sure dish it out.

28 @27 -

Ok, fair question.

First, there's nothing to say yet.  There's no nominee.  He should make it clear that the character of the confirmation process is directly dependent on the character and qualifications of the president's nominee. If the president wants a smooth confirmation, he had better pick someone qualified and non-controversial. Period.

This puts everyone on notice that there will be a fight, if there is a fight it's Obama's fault, and everything is still on the table.

All without having to say that a filibuster is likely OR unlikely.  In fact, it's never mentioned. 

Which is called "keeping the cards close to the vest." 

Add that failure to the "keeping the caucus in line" failure, and he's a very weak leader.

29 Someone needs to remove Mitch's TVs from his office and home.  Then check for his spine. 

30 One more thing - Lindsey fucking Graham has more balls than McConnell.  McConnell can't keep that POS in line. Just for what he's done with Schumer and the rest of the commie Dems to carry their water for them, he should be stripped of his committee assignments.

 Enough said.

31 Generally I don't support the filibuster being used against Supreme Court nominees but this lack of civility with the nominating process really began with Kennedy's filibuster of Robert Bork and continued with the hostility shown towards Justice Thomas. I understand McConnell is trying to come off as civil towards the process while keeping the possibility of a filibuster open. I guess in an election year I'd just like to see a little more red meat from the guy who might be majority leader in 9 months.

32 I have a simple question:

Is McConnell retarded or just a coward?

33

Add to that the fact that he noted long, long ad repeatedly that dear Harry Reid and the Full Biden both supported filibusters of Republican Judicial nominees.

 

Is he dealing with a fair, objective media? No. Witness how they downplayed violent  'peace' protests, villfied Tea Party demonstrations, and then went back to downplaying violent pro-illegal immigration riots.

Is he dealing with pathological liars on the other side of the aisle? Yes. (Biden. 'Nuf said).

Did he even have 41 votes when Sotomayer went through the nomination process? I don't think that it was even an option, except within the committee itself. He has it now. But as was noted above, he has to herd cats to do it.

 

Now, even if Scranton's own Joe Biden supervises the destruction of the filibuster, they create material that can and probably willl be used in the midterm elections. Between that and the growing odor from Obamacare, November is shaping up to be an ugly, exciting time.

34 grognard (or anyone else mad a McConnell)...

What exactly do you want him to say?

Posted by: DrewM. at April 26, 2010 12:03 PM (9B5OK)

"We will do whatever we have to, to stop this insane Precedent from naming another unqualified idiot (who didn't think that adjectives existed in Spanish, after she was already enrolled at Princeton) to the most important court in the land.  The Precedent's contempt for our nation and our Constitution will not be allowed to gain a lifetime seat on the SCOTUS, as that would be one more nail in the coffin of the greatest nation to have ever existed.  This is not Indonesia."

35 This puts everyone on notice that there will be a fight, if there is a fight it's Obama's fault, and everything is still on the table.

All without having to say that a filibuster is likely OR unlikely.  In fact, it's never mentioned. 
Posted by: grognard at April 26, 2010 12:08 PM (v0kvW)

Right but he didn't bring up the filibuster, Wallace did in his question. Gabe didn't quote it but here it is from the link...

WALLACE: All right, back in 2005 when Democrats were in the minority and they were filibustering judicial, Bush judicial picks for the bench, you said this — and let's put it up on the screen. "Any president's judicial nominee should receive careful consideration, but after that debate, they deserve a simple up-or-down vote."

Question, are you willing to say right now that you will not filibuster, you may vote against, but you will not filibuster President Obama's nominee?

Given that question, the answer seems reasonable.

As for keeping the kids in line, I talked to Jack about that once. He said it's hard as majority leader but damn near impossible as minority leader. The problem is right now McConnell has no carrots or sticks. As majority leader he controls the flow of legislation on the floor. If you want something passed for your state, he has to sign off on it.

Right now, he's got nothing but persuasion and vague threats. Remember, he can't threaten too much since he'll need their votes to stay leader at some point. It's a tricky balance.

36 he (Graham) should be stripped of his committee assignments.
Posted by: grognard at April 26, 2010 12:13 PM (v0kvW)

The leader doesn't make them. It's based on seniority and a vote of the conference. Can those be bypassed with a push from the leader? Sure but it takes an awful lot and in the end it's not a unilateral decision.

37 25 About two months ago, I got heat from a poster here that was defending Mr. McConnell's leadership.

I don't remember the handle used, but it was a spirited defense along the lines of "You have no idea what this man is made of."

Well...

How's my ass taste?

McConnell may be a reliable vote, but he is NOT A LEADER.

Posted by: grognard at April 26, 2010 11:58 AM (v0kvW)

 

Yeah, I have a vague recollection of that discussion, and if I recall correctly, you stated emphatically that  Rand Paul is going to soundly defeat Mitch McConnell in this fall's election.  Do you still have that opinion?

38

Question, are you willing to say right now that you will not filibuster, you may vote against, but you will not filibuster President Obama's nominee?

Posted by: DrewM. at April 26, 2010 12:23 PM (9B5OK)

"Considering the un-American and destructive way that the un-American, un-Constitutional, idiotic health scare takeover was shoved down America's throat, in opposition to all law, sense, and tradition, there is no question that we reserve the right to filibuster any nominee that will take the same un-American view of our nation as The Precedent.  The future of this nation depends on it.  This is not a game and the damage that has been done by this Washington junta is already extensive and, much of it, irreparable."

39 30 Someone needs to remove Mitch's TVs from his office and home.  Then check for his spine.

Don't forget to increase my Geritol drip while you're at it. Yes, I am a doddering old fucking geezer that would rather take a nap than be a hard ass.

40 McConnell may just be keeping his cards hidden. If he says he'll filibuster anyone Obama puts up before Obama gives us a target, it makes him look unreasonable. Of course, it's GOP leadership we're talking about here, so he's probably just being a squish.

41 IP = 119.127.203.103

42 Hmmmm.

You know that whole "Vote for Republicans or else the world will end" schtick isn't convincing me that anything will really change here.

43

This is maneuvering.  McConnell's words from 2005 are up on a display. DOes anyone here think that Biden and Reid will crow now about their use of the filibuster for just that purpose. Dream on. That  is the likely reason why the nuclear option, which Dems derided, is being dusted off. And Biden's position may be crucial in enabling this.Which means that they'll need to dust him off as well.

 

McConnell already gave a more genteel version of what others have said here. In normal times, this should go through. If Obama does something stupid (place your bets here) then we may do exactly what the current Dem leadership did. The only thing he left off was the "address all complaints regarding the use of this nail festooned bat to the clowns that created it in the first place".

44 It's amazing to me that we don't just say "the democrats can expect the GOP to return to them the standards they used in recent memory"  "Obama found the filibuster appropriate for Roberts and Alito, the democrats found a full trial appropriate for Thomas.  And that level of discourse will only persist if the democrats do not return to a mutual standard.  So we're going to play this one by Obama's standards, and await the nominee to see how those rules apply.  Hopefully the democrats learn it's not so fun to be on the receiving end of that standard, and we can return back to more reasonable era."

45 And yeah, this is not what counts.  This was a gotcha quote meant to force the GOP to abide by a different set of rules.  We're used to it.  What matters is how they handle power between not and November.  They know what we want.

46

This is maneuvering.  McConnell's words from 2005 are up on a display.

Posted by: Blue Hen at April 26, 2010 12:51 PM (R2fpr)

The thing is, if McConnell had a brain, he would explain that our system has been so abused and corrupted by this insane administration that the world of 2005 no longer exists.  Too many legislative traditions and taboos have been broken - and laughed about by the Washington junta - to go back to how business should have been done in 2005.  McCaonnell is offered the perfect opportunity, by his own words in 2005, to express how much damage has been done to our system by the lunatics in Congress and The Precedent - and America understands this point very clearly.

If the GOP keeps trying to act as if it's just life as usual (when the last SCOTUS nominee was forwarded EXPLICITLY because of some alleged empathy over reason - which is so intellectually offensive that it makes me puke) then they are demonstrating that they just don't know what the hell is really going on.  These are not normal times and the US cannot take very much more from the Washington junta.  McConnell doesn't have to say that, but he certainly ought to give the impression that he understands it.

47 Without a nominee, it's hard to say "We might just filibuster."  It smacks of prejudice. I think he's actually left the door open to filibuster an "outrageous" nominee.

Still, I think people expect way too much from the GOP.  We're still the party of adults, which hampers us, but it's the only positive feature we have.

Well, that and the fact that far fewer of our politicians are lawyers.

48 McConnell is a major reason the republican party is rejected. If Kentucky needs an old white guy in the senate, why doesn't McConnell go and Bunning stay? He is an embarrassment. I am a white, female, and during the Bush years, McConnell was one of the reasons I mostly voted for the other party. Republican Party - Do not put him out front and especially in front of TV cameras, he doesn't help the party.

49

 

he would explain that our system has been so abused and corrupted by this insane administration that the world of 2005 no longer exists.  Too many legislative traditions and taboos have been broken - and laughed about by the Washington junta - to go back to how business should have been done in 2005. 

 

An excellent point, and useful grist for the mill in November. The question then becomes, is this the time and place to say it, or should he defer, and let another person wade in?

50 McConnell has no maneuver or plan. Remember his brilliant "plan" on Health Care? I believe it was, "If we let you have a vote, will you let us go home by 8 PM?"

51 I hope he is just saying that to sound good but I am not holding my breath.

52

An excellent point, and useful grist for the mill in November. The question then becomes, is this the time and place to say it, or should he defer, and let another person wade in?

Posted by: Blue Hen at April 26, 2010 01:14 PM (R2fpr)

I think the point about how the current Congress and Executive have been destroying our system should be expounded on at every opportunity.  The Porkulus, with the demand to pass the most expensive extraordinary funding ever, sight unseen, which is a total waste - the health scare, with the reconciliation, demonpass, ignoring town halls, backroom deals that would make Boss Tweed blush, the "I don't care about the Constitution", the midnight votes, the demand for empathy in judges and justices (which is among the worst of things ever forwarded by the White House) ...  The GOP must make sure that none of this is forgotten, all the way to November.  And the GOP must stress how much damage they have been doing to our system in the process, which his 2005 declaration contrasted with what is necessary now perfectly illustrates.

The problem seems to be that the GOP (not all, but the leadership and most) are scared to say how totally un-American this administration and Congress are.  They can't even find the more circumspect descriptions of that point, but that un-American (anti-American) abuse of our institutions and processes is precisely the most dangerous aspect of the dems in Washington and almost all comes from The Precedent.

The GOP should never let this point escape any discussion.  I would even like them to use Steny and Nanzi's words against them, explaining how they are trying to hide behind projection.  If the GOP waits until September or later to talk about this stuff, it will be far too late.  It's pretty much too late, already, but at least they need to show that they are aware of what is happening and how threatening it is to the American creed - and I would suggest using that phrase "American creed" if possible.

53 And the GOP must stress how much damage they have been doing to our system in the process

"they" being The Precedent and the dems, of course.  I was sloppy in the way I phrased it above.

54 I think trying to actively block anyone short of Gordon Liu for the Supreme Court would bite us in the ass. I'd still like some retribution for Bork and others such as post-Bork strict constructionist nominees that never even got nominated because of opposition they'd face, leaving us with weak sisters like Souter. However, I'll lay blame on the Congressmen on our side who failed to strongly support their President's right to nominate his own people as much as the crapweasels like Kennedy who bloviated about Jim Crow and back-alley abortions. If you want the Court back, vote Republican in 2012. We'll be the ones with a black eye if we go nuclear on Barry's SCOTUS nominee(s) - particularly with the media still eating out of his, err...., hand.

55 Yes, I meant Senators - still working on cup #1.

56

Yeah, I have a vague recollection of that discussion, and if I recall correctly, you stated emphatically that  Rand Paul is going to soundly defeat Mitch McConnell in this fall's election.  Do you still have that opinion?

Posted by: Natasha & Boris at April 26, 2010 12:27 PM (ITzbJ)

No, that wasn't me.  That was some other participant.  I also remember that yahoo, and he didn't seem to get that it might be logistically difficult for Rand Paul to beat McConnell, incidentally.

57 Way to preemptively disarm yourself, dummy.

What did you expect? And this guy is supposed to be the Senate Republican leader??

58
DrewM is entirely correct.  It would just be plain STUPID to announce a filibuster before you even have a nominee named.

Way to drive off the independents who've been flocking to our side all year, jackasses!

I presume those who are on this bandwagon are from the J.D. Hayworth Wing of the Institute for the Mentally Challenged.

59

Yeah, I never filibustered a Supreme Court nominee. The vice president and Senator Reid have. So far I've never done that. It would take an unusual nominee to justify that.

Geezus, whether you're going to filibuster or not, you say you're going to filibuster.  Otherwise, you get the worst candidate, and I guarantee you a more moderate choice was just tossed in favor of a stronger leftist.  What a dumb ass.

We need our esteemed Senators to take a basic negotiating class.

60

Also, if McConnell says, "hell yes we'll filibuster", the story becomes "Republicans are hypocrites on judicial filibusters". Given what was said back then, it would be true. Now the Democrats are the hypocrites.

This is tactics, not strategy.  The short term affect on this  one is the only effect.  You talk tough now to keep from getting a turd of a nominee later.  People aren't gong to vote Democrat or Republican next November based on what McConnell says. 

61 You talk tough now to keep from getting a turd of a nominee later.  People aren't gong to vote Democrat or Republican next November based on what McConnell says. 
Posted by: rdbrewer at April 26, 2010 02:39 PM (mK4Ek)

If McConnell says 'we're filibustering' before there's a nominee he sounds like an asshole. He kept it on the table. Now, we can get all annoyed about how strongly he kept it on but it's a matter of degree and nothing else.

Two things...

One-Obama isn't factoring a Republican filibuster into his equation. He knows that it either won't happen or he can break it. He's more worried about the balance between "moderate" Democrats in the Senate and rallying the base for the midterms than anything.

Two-Republicans won't filibuster. There are too many quotes out there from '05 that they will look like idiots and more importantly...McConnell knows he can't win it.

There's no upside to picking a fight you can't win. It'll rally the base you say but guess what...the base is rallied. You'll annoy way more swing voters with it than you'll piss off the base.

If the Democrats didn't filibuster Roberts and Alito, the Republican won't with the next Obama nominee.

62

If McConnell says 'we're filibustering' before there's a nominee he sounds like an asshole.

Well, let me rephrase.  He should say, "If the president sends a controversial nominee, I will filibuster."  I don't believe he should just come out and say "I'm going to filibuster."

63

Why pre-emptively suggest that you are willing to take one of your cards off the table?

I guess McConnell would argue that he has not really limited his options, this still leaves him the capacity to filibuster by claiming that Obama put forth a very unusual candidate that he feels he has no choice but to filibuster. Problem is

(1) the Dems and MSM would cry foul and McConnell would be left trying to disprove a negative - this is distracting to the effort at the very least;

(2) the tactic IMO begs Obama to put forth a more leftist candidate than he otherwise would have and call McConnell's bluff; 

(3) the Democrats don't pre-emptively disarm themselves, ever - why should the Republicans?;

(4) this cedes ground to the Democrats, who always claim that the left wing nuts they put up for nomination are 'centrists', thus he would have to nominate Bill Ayers before McConnell could claim the nominee is 'unusual';

(5) there is a better way to phrase it. As a couple of people have said in the comments, leave it open, state that the type of reception the nominee receives will depend upon his or her record, that they expect the president to nominate someone who is not an extremist, and who has a track record of representing the Constitution.     

64 McConnell's poker face.   A better photo of McConnell's poker face.

65 "If the president sends a controversial nominee, I will filibuster."
Posted by: rdbrewer at April 26, 2010 03:36 PM (mK4Ek)

Isn't that what he did? "Controversial" may be a lower standard than "an extraordinary individual outside the mainstream with really bizarre views," but as I said, it's a matter of degrees, not outright surrender as Gabe makes it out to be.

Any nominee is going to be "controversial". Just saying that means you are promising to filibuster.

McConnell kept his powder dry and his options on the table.

I don't see what he did wrong here.

66

McConnell kept his powder dry and his options on the table.

See, I don't know about that.  He said he's never done that before.  Like RM says, yeah it sets the stage for a filibuster and a claim this nominee is really bad.  But does't it also draw the bad nominee, eliminating the opportunity to bluff altogether? 

The timing of the bluff here is critical.  We don't want to fight over a kook, and now we're more likely to get the kook.  We dont want to have to filibuster. The whole idea is to avoid the need to filibuster by saying it's on the table now.

Using the word "controversial" is understatement and part of the bluff.  It makes the noose larger, to encompass more potential nominees.  McConnell wants to project the image of a guy drooling over the opportunity to filibuster.  That's why I said "controversial."  "I'm the crazy, crazy filibuster man."  The other language places limits on McConnell's potential action, makes the noose smaller, and does more to encourge kooky nominees.

Seems like.

67 >>>One-Obama isn't factoring a Republican filibuster into his equation.

Totally incorrect.  The Precedent is hoping for one, since he can do more damage to our system with a fight.  That's why he specifically called for "empathy: in his first nomination.

>>>He knows that it either won't happen or he can break it. He's more worried about the balance between "moderate" Democrats in the Senate and rallying the base for the midterms than anything.

Also wrong.  The Precedent couldn't care less about how the Dems fare in the mid-terms.  He just doesn't care.  The dem majorities have already served their purpose for him.  Now, he wants to do damage with an opposition in Congress.

>>>Two-Republicans won't filibuster. There are too many quotes out there from '05 that they will look like idiots and more importantly...McConnell knows he can't win it.

Again, wrong.  ANyone who compares Washington today to Washington in 2005 just doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.  It takes an intentional forgetting of everything that's happened since Jan 2010 to make that sort of comparison.

>>>There's no upside to picking a fight you can't win. It'll rally the base you say but guess what...the base is rallied. You'll annoy way more swing voters with it than you'll piss off the base.

Oy.  More fear of "driving away the independents".  Guess what?  Independents won't stand behind wishy-washy idiots who demonstrate an inability to fight for what is important. ... Never mind.  You wouldn't understand.

>>>If the Democrats didn't filibuster Roberts and Alito, the Republican won't with the next Obama nominee.

Posted by: DrewM. at April 26, 2010 03:30 PM (9B5OK)

Again with comparisons to the old world ... My G-d.

68 Posted by: rdbrewer at April 26, 2010 04:14 PM (mK4Ek)

The other way to look at it is McConnell sounds reasonable so if he does do it, it doesn't sound like a knee jerk thing.

I get what you are saying about trying to paint it now but Obama doesn't look at any of his potential nominees as "out there" or "controversial". To him they are mainstream and he figures Republicans will call anyone he picks an extremest. He knows this because it's what he would do.

Alito and Roberts seem like mainstream conservative guys, to the left they look like monsters. The mirror image is true (at least in terms of perception).

Again, there's no reason to think McConnell and his 41 votes (which he can't keep together anyway) are part of Obama's equation. This is for external consumption. Both are playing to the middle of the electorate and deciding how far they can go.

By the very nature of the situation, McConnell is playing the weaker hand.

69

Oy.  More fear of "driving away the independents".  Guess what?  Independents won't stand behind wishy-washy idiots who demonstrate an inability to fight for what is important

There's a lot to be said for that.  Reagan's stay-the-course politics with conviction picked him up a shitload of Democrats.  (Weren't those the people originally called blue dogs?)  Seems like independents were less of a voice then, but whoever they were (prolly blue dogs), he got them too.

 

70

The other way to look at it is McConnell sounds reasonable so if he does do it

I guess it comes down to whether you're playing for an acceptable pick or a successful filibuster.  I favor the former.  To the extent people remember today's "Mr. crazy, crazy filibuster man," I don't think it will matter that much when he has to filibuster.  Having a slightly more effective filibuster is of less value than the chance of not having to filibuster in the first place.  Mileage will vary.

71 I guess it comes down to whether you're playing for an acceptable pick or a successful filibuster.
Posted by: rdbrewer at April 26, 2010 04:39 PM (mK4Ek)

Fair point.

The other difference between us is how much anything McConnell says will factor into Obama's decision making.

I just don't think it matters much to Obama at all. Also, McConnell threatening to filibuster is an empty threat and Obama knows it. We can all think of 4-6 Republicans who jump no matter who the nominee is and another 5-6 who will unless the nominee the judicial equivalent of a convicted child molester.

More to the point, I think McConnell is honestly opposed to judicial filibusters on principle. You may say that's a weakness we can't afford but normally conservatives are in favor of standing on principle, even if it hurts us in the short term. Maybe not all the time but we value that kind of thing a lot more than liberals do.

72

There's a lot to be said for that.  Reagan's stay-the-course politics with conviction picked him up a shitload of Democrats.  (Weren't those the people originally called blue dogs?)  Seems like independents were less of a voice then, but whoever they were (prolly blue dogs), he got them too.

 

Posted by: rdbrewer at April 26, 2010 04:33 PM (mK4Ek)

Yep.  People respect those who stand firmly behind their beliefs.  And when those beliefs are correct, as is the case with protecting America from an obvious onslaught of un-American actions and policies from the lunatic left and The Precedent, they need people to stand firm.  Wishy-washy types such as Drew desires just serve to deflate people, as they see no one willing to fight an obvious threat.  Drew is more scared of independents (who don't think or act as he claims) than he is of the damage being done to the nation.