1. Anonymous says:

    I think this is a loss, but if you think the confidence game works, then I think it’s a huge victory. Viva democracy!

  2. Anonymous says:

    Wait, here’s an idea. The Dems’ new theme can be that this was a victory for moderation itself, and thereby wrap themselves in the mantle of moderation and present the entire House, the WH, and the Frobson crowd as extremists.

  3. Anonymous says:


    I don’t think we’ve got to pit ourselves as the moderates (and, listening to Boxer as I speak, I know it wouldn’t work).

    I think we only need to appeal to the principle of constitutionality. Balance of powers.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Boxer has a very public hold on the Bolton nomination and, according to Steve Clemons, one or more Senators has a private hold. If the mods have agreed that there would be no more attempts to strip minority prerogatives, does this mean there has to be a cloture vote or discharge petition or something like that to advance Bolton to the floor? In other words, is there some kind of test vote like that in which our new-found moderate friends could just in effect ask for more time to resolve issues, or make it plain they won’t vote to advance the vote until more issues are resolved? I really don’t undestand the arcana of Senmate procedure, but I seem to recall reading that something has to happen to overcome the holds.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I think the hold is a threat to filibuster. So to bring Bolton to the floor would be a direct challenge on Frist’s part (and he–and the rest of the GOP–might see it as a way for Frist to save face). Which is why if he WERE to bring it to the floor, you could encourage the 14 to oppose based on principle of Senate privilege, not on opposition to Bolton (it would give the many moderates who don’t want Bolton cover to oppose him).

    On the other hand, Graham seems to be saying that Bolton is now a slam-dunk. So his nomination may have been part of the deal, too. Certainly Holy Joe would like to see him approved.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Thanks. Makes sense. So there might have to be a cloture vote, but it would pass, unless others feel they should get the information, or otherwise force Frist to slow down. Then we will see the vote.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I hope I’m wrong, but it seems to me it’s wishful thinking of the most naive sort to think Brown is going to go down on her up-or-down vote.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Boxer has demanded three categories of documents before this thing goes forward. If the indication is that the R’s intend to fast-track it in spite of her, she might do well to narrow her request to just the NSA intercepts to avoid the standard GOP talking point that the Dems are just fishing.

    If we keep the news focused on the intercepts for a few days, even Joe and Mary from Peoria will start to find it mighty sinister that Bolton was spying on US citizens and no one will admit what was in those intercepts. Previously, I think the Dems were disinclined to make it just about the intercepts because they might turn out to be a dud, but the stonewalling has reached such absurd levels that there simply has to be something juicy in there.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Take the holds off, take up the Bolton comfirmation in the full Senate. Extended debate, but no filibuster. Bring out the dirty laundry, call out the stonewallers, read out the history of intel â€fixed around the policyâ€.

    Double-dog-dare the Republican leadership to win an up-or-down vote. Dare the Mod’s to show the Rad’s who is inthe driver’s seat.

    And get that on the record before the agreed judicial nominations come to a vote.

  10. Anonymous says:

    If Brown goe down this will be a huge win. as I call it it’s a win. The republicans have now acknowledged the
    judicial filibuster a valid senatorial tactic, which means we can use
    it. Their left complaining that their judges are or aren’t
    extraordinary, which is is a stylistic issue, not a substantive one.
    Should we filibuster another Owen or Pryor if they come along– by all
    means! That’s the point. Now we have means and for the Republicans to
    threaten them again is simply bad faith, ordinary Americans won’t
    agree on whether a particular judge warrants extraordinary
    circumstances or not, but they can agree on what bad faith is.

  11. Anonymous says:

    RonK, I like the way you think. If I ever run for anything, will you run my campaign??

    Although I should warn you, it’ll be for the European Parliament from somewhere in Ireland. It’ll look a lot like Seattle. Only without the skiable snow. Of course, this year, that wouldn’t have made a difference anyway.