December 13, 2005

GOP Leaders Sharing Santorum's Leadership Duties

From The Hill:

Senate GOP leaders and their aides are discussing ways to get more conference members communicating the party’s message next year.

The move is intended to compensate for the fact that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), Senate Republican Conference chairman, will be engaged in a tough reelection battle and so will have less time for his communications role.

An emerging strategy, discussed at a Senate-House leadership retreat last week, is to take advantage of working groups that rank-and-file Republicans signed up for at the beginning of the session but that, with the exception of the judiciary and energy working groups, have done little work.

Posted by Max at 01:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 30, 2005

Alexander to Run for Majority Whip

From The Hill:

Sen. Lamar Alexander has been running a quiet campaign to become majority whip in the next Congress, an effort that will likely be an uphill battle even if Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the leading candidate for the post, loses his reelection bid.

Many of the Senate’s 55 Republicans have committed their votes to Santorum, who would be favored to move up from his post as conference chairman should he win election to a third term in November 2006. If Santorum loses, the race for whip could easily become a wide-open scramble for the powerful post.

“I don’t think he can beat Rick,” said Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), himself a candidate for the post of conference vice chairman. “But it’s everyone’s right to run”

See the article for more, if leadership squabbles interest you.

Posted by Max at 01:28 AM | TrackBack

September 26, 2005

VA '08: A Successor for John Warner

From Bob Novak (Chicago Sun-Times):

Influential Virginia Republicans are eyeing former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie as a possible successor to Sen. John Warner if the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman does not seek re-election in 2008 at age 81.

Gillespie, a former House GOP staffer, headed the Republican National Committee during the 2004 campaign and was a major national spokesman for the party. He currently is on leave from his own lobbying firm and working at the White House to shepherd Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to confirmation as chief justice.

Gillespie told this column he has not been approached for the Senate seat. Nevertheless, the New Jersey native is talked about as the best bet to succeed Warner.

Posted by Max at 12:36 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 03, 2005

Ensign and the Senate Republican Leadership Shuffle

From The Hill:

Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) is waging a remarkably laid-back bid for leadership. Recently, he even offered high praise for Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), his newest political rival.

Cornyn surprised many fellow Republicans by deciding to run against Ensign for vice chairman of the Republican Conference, the party’s fifth-ranking leadership post. But Ensign, in an interview, didn’t seem the slightest bit put off, calling Cornyn a “great friend” with many political attributes.

“I think he’d be a great member of leadership,” Ensign said.

He said Cornyn told him as a courtesy that he was planning to jump into the race for vice chairman before going public with the news.
...
Ensign, who is well-liked within the conference, said that he has spoken to almost every Senate Republican to seek their support and that he plans to keep campaigning for the leadership post. But his warm praise for his colleague signaled that Ensign might not be willing to engage in some of the tough politicking that has dominated other recent leadership battles.

“Sometimes people have hard feelings about leadership races and stuff,” Ensign said, adding that he is not one of those people. He noted that he and Cornyn share a similar political philosophy.
...
Of those scheduled to move up the GOP leadership ladder when Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) retires, as planned in 2006, some specialize in substance more than style.

For instance, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), Frist’s likely successor, is considered an adept floor strategist whose skills do not necessarily translate to the on-air demands of television and radio.

Likewise, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who is running unopposed for conference chairman, excels in policy debates more than press conferences. Republicans often employ Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas), the likely Policy Committee chairwoman, before the TV cameras, but she carefully controls her interactions with the press.

Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the GOP conference chairman who currently specializes in communicating the GOP message, will most likely run unopposed for whip if he wins his tough race for reelection.

Traditionally, the whip spends more time in face-to-face meetings with fellow Republicans than working the Sunday talk-show circuit, so Santorum’s absence on the airwaves would create a communications vacuum that the vice chairman would likely fill.

Both Ensign and Cornyn could step into that role; both are comfortable speaking off the cuff in a variety of settings.
In just the past week, Cornyn, a former Texas state attorney general and state Supreme Court judge, has become an outspoken proponent on the nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Posted by Max at 07:58 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 02, 2005

Frist Supports Stem Cells

This says it best. From The Hill:

More from The Hill:

Frist did not notify either House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) or House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) about his decision to endorse the legislation, DeLay and leadership aides acknowledged last week. Instead, the announcement surprised House leaders just as they were hoping to highlight Republican victories heading into the five-week August recess.

“It was obvious that Senator Frist had planned this for some time, and it really befuddles the mind why he would want to launch that type of message when we should be doing a victory lap on victories that have been a long time coming,” one Republican strategist said.

In response, a Frist aide said, “Once the senator had made his decision, he wanted to let his colleagues know before the August recess.”

The flap is intriguing because the two chambers have been extremely productive this year, passing a flurry of bills last week as well as bankruptcy reform, class-action reform and the budget resolution in the spring.

I'm not quite sure what to think about this. Does it mean that Frist will work to overturn Bush's almost-certain veto of the stem cell bill? Will other Republicans follow his lead? If the Republicans switch sides on the stem cells issue, what will the religious right do? Will they abandon the issue? Considering Frist's switch, it seems like the "stem cells will help us cure diseases" argument is better than the ethically and scientifically confusing religious argument against stem cell research. With a little luck Frist and Nancy Reagan can work together to change a lot of Republican minds...

Posted by Max at 08:59 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 23, 2005

The New Democratic Unity

Yesterday's LA Times has an extremely important article about the newfound unity among the Senate Dems, and its effect on the 2006 elections. I've excerpted most of it, but the whole thing is definitely worth the read.

The appointment of Bolton — a blustery, ardent conservative — symbolized the Bush administration's determination to advance an ambitious and ideologically polarizing agenda that excites Republicans but provokes intense resistance from most Democrats.

Conversely, the GOP failure to break the filibuster against Bolton highlighted the surprising willingness of Democrats — even those from states where President Bush has run best — to stand with more liberal colleagues against major parts of the president's agenda.

That Democratic unity, on issues from Bolton to the federal budget to the restructuring of Social Security, marks a stark departure from Bush's success in his first term at fracturing the party on key votes, like his initial tax cut plan. It also represents the Democrats' key strategic bet for the 2006 congressional elections — a gamble that Republicans, as the party in power, will be hurt most if Bush's agenda is derailed and Washington devolves into partisan stalemate.

Many Republicans believe Democrats are opening themselves up to charges that they are obstructing the president's agenda. That charge proved potent, especially in states Bush carried, during the 2002 and 2004 congressional elections.

"The Democrats are treading on thin ice because they lack their own agenda and you can't just be the party of 'No' on everything," said GOP strategist Scott Reed.

But the Democratic resistance is drawing praise from several party strategists enthused by polls that show Bush and Congress suffering some of the lowest approval ratings of his tenure.
...
Democrats soon could face critical choices on how far to press their hard-line approach as public discontent with the Iraq war grows and the possibility looms that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist will retire.

On both fronts, the party base is clamoring for aggressive resistance. But Democrats in Washington remain uncertain over how sharply to dissent from Bush's approach on Iraq and whether to filibuster a potential Supreme Court appointment that would replace one conservative with another and not change the court's balance of power.

"There are a lot of Democrats from Bush states who will be willing to support a conservative nominee if he is not someone that is so far to the right that he is outside the mainstream," said John B. Breaux, a former Democratic senator from Louisiana who was a leader among party moderates until his retirement last year.
...
Still, operatives in both parties agree that one of Washington's defining trends this year has been the Democratic unity in frequently opposing Bush initiatives. That has surprised the White House and other Republican strategists who believed that Bush's large margins of victory in GOP-leaning "red" states last year would increase his leverage over the 14 Democratic senators from those states.

Instead, every Senate Democrat except Nebraska's Ben Nelson has unequivocally opposed Bush's signature proposal to fund individual investment accounts from Social Security payroll taxes. Every Senate Democrat voted against Bush's 2006 budget this year. And all but three Senate Democrats supported the filibuster against Bolton this week.

Several factors have contributed to this solidarity. To many, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has proved to be a surprisingly tough leader who has stressed party unity as the key to preserving any Democratic influence in a Capitol where the GOP controls all levers of power. Brazile said Reid sometimes enlisted Democratic operatives with close relationships to particular senators to discourage defections. "He calls outsiders to put pressure on this guy or gal not to cross him or cross the party," she said.

Posted by Max at 11:25 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

GOP Senators Meet With Bush

From The Hill:

President Bush and Senate Republicans regrouped at the White House yesterday afternoon amid growing national uncertainty about the war in Iraq and in the wake of a series of setbacks Senate Democrats have dealt the administration.

It was the first time since the Reagan administration that the Senate Republican caucus held a policy luncheon at the White House with the president. Bush attended one policy luncheon held in the Senate during his first term and has attended several conferences at the Capitol attended by the entire conference.

Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.) said the general purpose of the meeting was to “fire up the troops before the next big recess.”
...
Bush covered a broad range of topics, including the war in Iraq, Social Security, the energy bill and the stalled nomination of John Bolton to be U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. The unflagging strength of the Iraqi insurgency, mounting U.S. casualties there and public opposition to the president’s plan for reforming Social Security have been sources of growing concern for congressional Republicans as they contemplate next year’s midterm election.

A New York Times/CBS News poll from last week showed that only 37 percent of Americans support the president’s handling of Iraq — down from 45 percent in a February poll. Eighty Americans died in Iraq last month, more than double the number who died in March. The poll last week also found that only 25 percent approved of his handling of Social Security — slightly down compared to a March poll.

Posted by Max at 11:18 PM | TrackBack

June 22, 2005

2006 GOP Leadership Shuffle

From The Hill:

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) has set her sights on the Republican Policy Committee chair, the No. 4 post in the Republican leadership — just a few days after deciding not to run for governor of Texas.

“She’s been thinking about running for policy chair for a long time now,” said her spokesman, Chris Paulitz. “This is something she’s solidified. … She’s made up her mind.”

On Monday, Hutchison told The Hill she would make her decision after talking to the current policy chairman, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). “I’m trying to determine the best place for me,” she said, adding that she would not challenge a current leader who was trying to move up in the leadership ranks.

Kyl is expected to seek the GOP conference chair next year, and Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) could seek Hutchison’s current vice-chair spot. Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) is expected to retire in 2006.

When Frist retires, Sen. Mitch McConnell, the Majority Whip, is expected to become Majority Leader. Rick Santorum, if re-elected, is expected to move up from Conference Chair to Whip. If Santorum is defeated in 2006, it is likely that either Hutchison or Kyl could move up to Whip. However, other Senators might try to run for such a major position themselves if it is available without a clear successor.

Roll Call (subscription only) suggests that Hutchison might try to run for Conference Chair instead.:

While no challenger has emerged publicly for the Whip post, Santorum
has an early edge if for no other reason than the Republican tendency to promote leaders in an orderly succession. If Santorum were to lose his re-election, that would make for a completely wide open race for Whip.

The race for Conference chairman - whether it's Kyl vs. Hutchison, or just one of the two by acclamation - could turn into the battle for Whip. And each successive race could move up one rung on the ladder.

Or, a GOPSenator could jump into the Whip's race completely from the outside. One name always lurking not too far back in the minds of GOP Senators and aides is Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the former leader who has remained a force for the past two and a half years as an elder statesman and self-anointed deal broker for the Conference.

While no one thinks Lott could challenge McConnell for leader, some think he wants to jump back into one of the lower posts. And Lott has gone out of his way to say things to the media indicating that he's at least toying with the idea.

"I could be the asterisk," he told Roll Call late last week.

A few more leadership positions are also open (Roll Call):

Two other positions will also open up on the GOP leadership ladder, the vice chairmanship being vacated by Hutchison and the chairmanship of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Current NRSCChairwoman Elizabeth Dole (N.C.) is up for re-election in 2008 and cannot chair the NRSC that year.
...
But, if Hutchison gets the Conference post and Kyl stays at Policy, Ensign may aim lower and try to become vice chairman.

As for the NRSC, no names have been floated so far, although some GOP aides are hoping Sen. John Thune (S.D.) will show interest in the position because of his star status on the fundraising circuit as the man who beat former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D).

Posted by Max at 03:19 PM | TrackBack

June 14, 2005

Senators Mentioned As Supreme Court Nominees

From the Associated Press:

While admittedly long shots, GOP Sens. Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Cornyn of Texas are being talked up by some conservatives as possible nominees for the high court.

Seen as most likely to step down is Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who at 80 is fighting cancer. Retirement also might be attractive option for Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, 75, and John Paul Stevens, 85.

Kyl is a stalwart pro-business conservative and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cornyn is a former Texas Supreme Court justice and state attorney general. Both men have been at the forefront in fighting Democratic filibusters against Bush's federal appeals court nominees.
...
"If I was on the president's short list, I think I would have heard about it by now," Kyl said with a laugh.

Cornyn said, "It's flattering, but I like my current job and I'm not looking for another one."

Twenty-six men who served in Congress — 10 only in the Senate, 12 only in the House and four in both chambers — later joined the Supreme Court. The revolving door has turned the other way only once: David Davis resigned from the court in 1877 to represent Illinois in the Senate as an independent.
...
"I would be very surprised to see a Republican senator nominated to replace Rehnquist," said Sean Rushton of the conservative Committee for Justice. "It would make more sense to nominate a Republican senator like Cornyn to replace Sandra Day O'Connor or John Paul Stevens."

The president would be expected to replace Rehnquist with a non-Washington conservative because senators know that pick will not change the court's ideological balance, Rushton said.

But if O'Connor or Stevens leaves, Bush could swing the court further to the right by picking either Kyl or Cornyn. Both senators are considered more conservative than O'Connor and Stevens.

They both also have the advantage of being members of "the club." The Senate has never rejected one of its own for the high court.

Senators have just emerged from a partisan deadlock over Bush's picks for appeals courts. Choosing a conservative senator might be attractive because of "senatorial courtesy" — the idea that senators will not be overly harsh to one of their own during the confirmation process.

Both Senators would make horribly conservative Justices. Unfortunately, it is likely that either one could be confirmed without too much trouble, although Cornyn could face some opposition for his controversial statements regarding violence towards judges.

Posted by Max at 12:07 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

June 10, 2005

Thune Will Oppose Bolton in Protest of Base Closing

From The Hill:

Thune’s boldest move yet is his not-too-subtle signal that he will oppose the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations to protest the administration’s decision to close Ellsworth Air Force Base, the state’s second largest employer.

“I don’t think he’s the best person for the job,” Thune said of Bolton yesterday. “People can ascribe whatever they want to [this decision]. What I’ve said is, I take our foreign-policy posture very seriously and I take our defense posture very seriously. The base issue is something extremely important to me.”

He added, “I’m going to do anything and everything within my power, and use all tools at my disposal” to get Ellsworth off the base closure list.

Posted by Max at 12:36 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 24, 2005

Compromise Reached! Nuclear Option Fails!

Fourteen Senators reached a bipartisan agreement Monday night to prevent a rules change ending the fillibuster for judicial nominees. Since the Democrats agreed to make a deal, it is very likely that we didn't have the votes to prevent the rule change, so this is the best solution we could hope for. Sens. Ben Nelson (D) and John McCain (R) were the leaders of the deal makers. Thank you Benator!

Democrats	Republicans
Robert Byrd	Lincoln Chafee
Daniel Inouye	Susan Collins
Mary Landrieu	Mike DeWine
Joseph Lieberman	Lindsey Graham
Ben Nelson	John McCain
Mark Pryor	John Warner
Ken Salazar	Olympia Snowe

Considering the circumstances, this is the best we could hope for. You can see a PDF of the deal on Kos. Yes, a few nominations that I don't like get approved, but a few remain blocked. More importantly, it gives us some freedom to still fillibuster a really extreme Supreme Court nominee. It looks like James Dobson and the other ultra-conservatives are going nuts, and I'm sure this will really hurt Bill Frist.

Update: I'm watching Fox News now (CNN isn't covering it right now), and they're disgusting spinning this entirely in favor of the GOP. More in the morning about how the real press treats this.

Posted by Max at 12:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

May 18, 2005

And it Begins...

Majority Leader Bill Frist called up the nomination of Justice Priscilla Owen to the Senate floor this morning, starting the debate over whether the Democrats can continue to fillibuster judicial nominees. This debate is likely to last several days, if not longer... Read more in the New York Times, or watch the debate on C-SPAN.

Posted by Max at 12:51 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 25, 2005

The "Constitutional Option"

One of my professors at Bowdoin College, Scott Sehon, wrote this editorial for the Portland Press-Herald on the constitutionality of the fillibuster:

So, if nobody has questioned the Senate rule [allowing fillibusters of judicial nominees] before, why would anyone think that it is unconstitutional? The conservatives suggest that the filibuster is constitutional for legislation, but not for the approval of judicial nominees. In support of this view, they cite the "advice and consent" clause of Article II, which says this: the president "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint" judges.

Senate conservatives claim that this clause somehow precludes the Senate rule requiring a supermajority to end debate. This is an extremely adventurous reading of the Constitution. On the face of things, the "advice and consent" clause simply limits the president's power to appoint judges: He can appoint a judge only if the Senate consents. Article II says nothing about the rules for senatorial debate on the matter.

By claiming that the filibuster rule is unconstitutional, Senate conservatives will be engaging in exactly what they say they are trying to prevent: activist readings of the Constitution to get a desired result by being unfaithful to the text. Even the most jaded observer must be stunned by such brazen and open hypocrisy.

Posted by Max at 11:55 PM | TrackBack

April 20, 2005

Bolton Update

A better explanation has risen about the Bolton nomination yesterday. Republican Senator George V. Voinovich of Ohio surprised many by claiming he was not ready to vote after hearing arguments made by Senators Biden and Dodd both Democrats. Richard Lugar, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, reluctantly allowed for the delay until the first week of may. At different points during the hearing Lugar called for a vote twice.

From the New York Times:

"My conscience got me," he [Voinovich] said after the stormy two-hour session. He said he had gone to the meeting planning to vote for Mr. Bolton, but changed his mind after hearing the case against the nominee made by Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware and Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut, both Democrats.

"I wanted more information about this individual, and I didn't feel comfortable voting for him," Mr. Voinovich said.

The Democrats called the delay a significant setback to Mr. Bolton's prospects, providing opponents with time to seek corroboration for the accusations made since he appeared before the committee a week ago.

Among those highlighted by Mr. Biden was a statement from Melody Townsel of Dallas, a former contract worker for the Agency for International Development who wrote in an "open letter" to the committee that Mr. Bolton, as a private lawyer, routinely visited her hotel room "to pound on the door and shout threats" over two weeks in 1994 in Moscow because she had complained about inefficiency by Mr. Bolton's client, the prime contractor in a foreign aid program.

It was always thought that Lincoln Chafee(R-RI) was the swing vote. Chafee remained quiet throughout the hearing but did claim he was happy that the vote was delayed. With Voinovich creating this delay it is looking less and less likely that Bolton will get the nomination. This is great news.

Posted by at 07:29 PM | TrackBack

"Nuclear Option" Puts Pressure on Republicans

From the New York Times:

As the Senate heads into a showdown over judges, Senator John W. Warner of Virginia is one of a select few Republicans at the center of a bipartisan courtship.

Mr. Warner has not decided whether to back the so-called nuclear option, a rule change that would bar Democrats from using the filibuster to block President Bush's judicial nominees. On Monday, he met with Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader and chief proponent of the change Then the Democratic leader, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, invited him in. By Tuesday, still uncommitted, he sounded leery.

"I just look at this institution as really the last bastion of protecting the rights of the minority," Mr. Warner said, "and we should be very careful before we try and make any changes."
...
In addition to Mr. Warner, they include Senators Susan Collins of Maine, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, Gordon H. Smith of Oregon and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. All are feeling the squeeze.
...
To change the rule, Republicans need 50 votes, plus that of Vice President Dick Cheney, who could break a tie. With two Republicans, Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, on record as opposing the change and a third, Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine, expressing "deep concerns about this approach," the final vote could go either way.
...
In an interview Tuesday, Ms. Collins said she believed that Democrats had "abused and overused the filibuster," a sentiment also expressed by Mr. Warner, who said the judicial filibuster was "not in the best interests of the Senate." But like Mr. Warner, Ms. Collins said she was not certain that changing Senate rules was the answer to the problem.

"I wish this would pass us by," she said, "because I am concerned about the impact on the Senate of trying to put through a change that does not represent a consensus."

Along with her undecided colleagues, Ms. Collins has been the target of advertisements on both sides of the debate. Focus on the Family Action, the political arm of a Christian conservative group, which opposes judicial filibusters, is running newspaper and television advertisements intended to sway the votes of 19 senators in 14 states.

Posted by Max at 05:06 PM | TrackBack

April 19, 2005

Bolton Vote Delayed

According to C-SPAN2 today, the vote for U.N. Ambassador John Bolton has been delayed for approximately three weeks. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee headed by Republican Richard Lugar delayed to vote to allow for more time to investigate new allegations. More information to follow.

Posted by at 10:19 PM | TrackBack

Fillibuster Doomed?

Bob Novak suggests in his Saturday column that the Republicans have enough votes for the "nuclear option":

Republican leaders count only two or three GOP senators who will vote against the efforts to end, by a straight majority vote, filibusters on confirmation of judicial nominations.

Senators Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island will not support this move, and they are likely to be joined by Sen. John McCain of Arizona. That would mean 52 senators would go along with the parliamentary maneuver attempting to end filibusters on judges. Only 50 are needed.

The only Democrat who might possibly join this effort is Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska. But Bush will not press him to break party discipline if his help is unnecessary.

Novak also comments on the Rhode Island election:

National Republican leaders are pressuring Cranston Mayor Stephen Laffey to stay out of the Rhode Island Republican primary election against liberal Sen. Lincoln Chafee.

Although Chafee votes against some of President Bush's proposals, he often sticks with the administration on party-line votes and may do so on the confirmation of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. The White House thinks Chafee is still the best Republican bet in heavily Democratic Rhode Island and does not want him to face a Republican challenge.

...and on West Virginia:

While Republicans claim they are targeting Democratic Sen. Robert C. Byrd for re-election to a ninth term in West Virginia next year, GOP strategists actually regard the Senate's senior member as unbeatable and don't want to waste a serious candidate against him.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, 53, has been talked about as an effective Republican challenger against Byrd, 87. However, national party leaders think she would face an uphill battle. Even if Byrd has seemed more partisan and more eccentric recently, he is considered unbeatable in West Virginia with so many public works in the state named after him.

Posted by Max at 12:02 AM | TrackBack

April 18, 2005

Hagel Might Oppose Bolton

From the Los Angeles Times:

A key Republican member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee suggested Sunday that he might oppose John R. Bolton as U.N. ambassador if more allegations come out about the nominee's character and behavior — a situation that could result in a tie vote in the committee and endanger President Bush's choice to head the U.S. delegation to the international body.

As the committee vote scheduled for Tuesday nears, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) said he remained concerned about a series of accusations questioning Bolton's temperament and wondered whether he was the right man for the job.

"We need a uniter," Hagel said on CNN's "Late Edition." "We need a builder. We need someone who will reach out to our friends and our allies at the United Nations."

And the Nebraska senator hedged when asked whether he would vote for Bolton. "At this point, I will," he said. "But I have been troubled with more and more allegations, revelations, coming about his style, his method of operation."

If either Hagel or Chafee votes with the Democrats tomorrow, the committee would not be able to recommend Bolton, but his nomination would proceed to the Senate floor. If both vote against him, we could block his nomination.

Posted by Max at 11:56 PM | TrackBack

April 14, 2005

Six Senators Needed to Save the Fillibuster

The LA Times reports on the six Senators who could save the fillibuster:

The arithmetic is fairly straightforward. Frist says he needs 51 votes to change the filibuster rule, and there are 55 Republicans in the Senate. One of those votes can come from the vice president, who as president of the Senate can vote to break a tie. That means to win the fight, Frist may be able to change the rules if he loses five senators; Democrats can win if he loses six.

Two Republicans — John McCain of Arizona and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island — have said they will vote with the Democrats against the rules change. Four other senators have said they have concerns about changing the rules and are considering voting against it. They are Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, John W. Warner of Virginia and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska. More are rumored to be privately opposed but fear voting against their leaders.

Seeking to win their support, Democratic leaders divided Republicans into what they called "responsible" and "radical" members of the GOP.

"Responsible Republicans in this country and in this Senate must listen to what's going on in our country," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada told reporters after the weekly Democratic luncheon.

Particularly interesting here is that "More [Senators] are rumored to be privately opposed but fear voting against their leaders." If it looks like the six Senators named above will vote with the Dems, I wonder if more Repubilcan senators will cross over once they know that their effort to eliminate the fillibuster will fail. Some Republicans could improve their images as "moderates" by splitting from the leadership on this issues, and with a little luck, if the crucial six switch sides, several more will too.

More about parliamentry procedure in the extended entry.

Reid suggested that Republicans might be wrong about needing 51 votes to change the rules. Reid said he had discussed the matter with the nonpartisan Senate parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, who said that a rules change needed 67 votes.

"It takes a two-thirds vote to change a rule…. [Frumin] said that if they do this, they will have to overrule him because what they're doing is wrong," Reid said.

Frist and other Republicans contend that changing the filibuster rule would apply to only judicial nominees and would not affect the right of the minority party to filibuster legislation. But in a report made public Tuesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, Congress' research arm, disagreed with that analysis.

If "a change to the rules were accomplished by a majority vote, nothing would prevent other changes to the rules from being proposed, which could then conceivably be accomplished with a majority vote to end debate on them as well," the research service wrote.

Posted by Max at 12:35 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

Delay Struggling to Retain Senate GOP Support

From the Washington Post:

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) implored Republican senators yesterday to stick with him while he addresses questions about his travel and his dealings with lobbyists, as House Democrats unveiled plans to try to make ethics a defining issue for the year.

As DeLay left a 90-minute luncheon with his party's senators, he told reporters that his basic message was "Be patient; we'll be fine."
...
Attendees said DeLay, in extremely brief remarks, told the senators that, if asked about his predicament, they should blame Democrats and their lack of an agenda. The attendees said DeLay thanked Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) for supportive comments on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. Santorum had said that DeLay is "very effective in leading the House," but he also noted that the Texas lawmaker needs to "lay out what he did and why he did it."

More from The Chicago Tribune:

Toward the end of Republicans' weekly policy lunch in the stately Senate Mansfield Room, DeLay (R-Texas) rose to deliver his defense. He said he was the victim of a Democratic conspiracy, blaming liberal billionaire George Soros and the grass-roots group MoveOn.org.

"He wasn't too defensive or combative," said Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.). "He said it was old material, liberal media, a few red-meat buzzwords."

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a former House member, quoted DeLay as telling the senators: "Please be patient. I'm confident that I'll be fine."

Graham added, "He just basically thanked people for . . . being patient and to give him a chance to defend himself. Tom feels very satisfied that the facts, once looked at, are going to be on his side."

Posted by Max at 12:30 AM | TrackBack

April 11, 2005

Republican Strategy for the "Nuclear Option"

The New York Times writes on how the Republicans are going to try and spin their attempt to eliminate the fillibuster:

[Republican Strategists] are returning to an old playbook of their own as they prepare for the fight over judicial filibusters, planning to highlight the role of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, still a lightning rod, and his staff in blocking the judges and defending the filibuster. "It is going to be Kennedy, Kennedy, Kennedy," one senior aide said.

Senator Trent Lott, the conservative former Republican leader from Mississippi, said that Democrats would face their own backlash if they followed through on their threat to shut down much of the Senate if Republicans changed the rules on filibusters. "When they are blocking bills, it is going to be hard to say we are abusing power," Mr. Lott said.

Posted by Max at 10:28 PM | TrackBack

An Effective Strategy for Democrats

From The New York Times:

The party's leaders are increasingly making the case that in 2005, it is Congressional Republicans who are drunk with power, overreaching on issues like Social Security and judicial nominations, ethically challenged, and profoundly out of touch with their constituents.

"What Democrats are saying is, look, these guys are abusing the system," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip of the House. "They're not playing by House rules, by the ethics rules, by the Senate rules, even by the rule of law in the Schiavo case."

Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader in the Senate, has begun issuing a broad indictment of House and Senate Republicans for "arrogance" and "abuse of power," arguing in his radio address on Saturday that they threaten an independent judiciary and the very principle of checks and balances. Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader in the House, has begun declaring: "There is no ethics committee. It has been completely gutted by the Republicans, and this should be a cause of great outrage in the country." Liberal think tanks and advocacy groups are running advertising and issuing e-mail alerts accusing conservatives of what Mr. Gingrich used to call "a pattern of systemic corruption."
...
Several recent polls have indicated a backlash against the Republicans; by 55 percent to 40 percent, respondents in a recent Gallup/USA Today/CNN poll agreed with the statement that said Republicans are "trying to use the federal government to interfere with the private lives of most Americans" on moral-values issues.

Read the article for much more. This same strategy worked extraordinarily well for Newt Gingrich in 1994. Can we do the same in 2006? The poll suggests that if the Republicans keep acting the way they have been the last few months, we might.

Posted by Max at 10:26 PM | TrackBack

March 16, 2005

How Republicans Are Trying to Destroy Social Security

The New Republic's Jonathan Chait has an important piece this week, "Blocking Move: A Principled Case for Obstruction". Chait explains the history of the "Social Security Crisis", and the Republican strategy for getting rid of, rather than fixing, social security. Its rare for The New Republic to put the full text of its cover story online for free, and its definitely worth a read.
--------

Posted by Max at 07:50 PM

March 14, 2005

How to be a Good Moderate Democrat

I may be very liberal, but I have a lot of respect for most of our moderate Democratic Senators. Most of them do a good job balancing their moderate views with the interests of the party. This balance is especially important for the Social Security fight, because it is crucial that all of the Democratic Senators unite against Bush's privatization plan. Two senators, Joe Lieberman (CT) and Ben Nelson (NE) are both willing to consider private accounts. However, there is major difference between the approaches of the two senators on the issue: Lieberman has criticized the Democrats for their refusal to work with Bush, while Nelson has carefully positioned himself as open to Social Security reform, but disagreeing with Bush's plan.

Armando at Daily Kos wrote a great article yesterday, "What Lieberman Can Learn From Ben Nelson". Based on Nelson's performance on Meet the Press yesterday, he explains how moderate Dems can take moderate positions that differ from the party line without hurting the party.

But when it comes to being an "independent" Democrat, Nelson's performance on MTP should be a lesson to Sen. Lieberman on how to do it. First and foremost, Nelson passed up every single opportunity, and Russert offered many, to criticize Democrats. Did not even nibble. Not one little bit. Sen. Lieberman, let that also be your prime directive - do NOT criticize your Democratic colleagues.

Nelson also did two other important things I thought. First, he emphasized the fact that he is representing Nebraskans when speaking on the issue, and that he sees himself as responding to their concerns. Thus, when Russert asked him about the letter from the 42 Democratic Senators rejecting Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, Nelson did not speak of what Democrats should do, rather he spoke of what Nebraskans want him to do. I find this an important difference from the Lieberman approach, which seems to require lecturing Democrats on what they should do instead of explaining what he is doing.

Second, while speaking ostensibly of keeping an open mind, Nelson spoke in a singleminded fashion on the need to address the solvency issue, treating Bush's private accounts proposal almost as a strange oddity. While he would not rule them out said Nelson, the plan would have to avoid adding to the solvency issue. Well, as we all know, Bush's privatization plan requires massive borrowing, severely worsening the solvency issue, while deeply cutting benefits. Let's face it, while Nelson mouths the words "keeping an open mind" - his focus on solvency pretty much closes his mind to Bush's proposal. While Nelson pretends not to know this, he of course does.

--------

Posted by Max at 01:53 PM

March 13, 2005

Senate Bills We Should Be Watching

Coldblue Steele at Daily Kos has a valuable diary entry, "Senate Bills We Should Be Watching". Medical Liability, Abortion Prerequisites, Broadcast Decency, Same Sex Marriage, Permanent Tax Cuts, and Social Security. See the article for details, as well as the Senators to contact to stop these bills!
--------

Posted by Max at 01:03 PM

Senators Online

It seems that some Democratic Senators are finally figuring out the Blogosphere. Instead of creating their own blogs, a few Democrats are starting to come to us, by posting Diary Entries on DailyKos and MyDD. After bloggers created a campaign to send Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) thousands of roses on Valentine's Day as a thank you for her standing up for Democratic values in during Condoleezza Rice's confirmation hearing, Boxer made a post on both blogs thanking us. A few days ago, Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), made a post on both blogs about Campaign Finance Reform and recent discussion by the FEC to regulate internet campaign activism. His post, "Blogs Don't Need Big Government", is a must-read for all bloggers and internet activists. Feingold's willingness to engage in open and honest discussion with the blogosphere on such a crucial issue to political blogs shows that he understands blogging and its importance in modern politics. I hope that more Senators learn from Boxer and Feingold, because coming to us and posting on our biggest blogs is a far better way to engage the netroots than posting on their own blogs.
--------

Posted by Max at 12:47 PM

March 02, 2005

Sen. Salazar Asks Bush to Withdraw Judge Nominees

From an excellent Daily Kos diary entry by Curt Matlock:

Senator Ken Salazar has sent President Bush a letter asking him to make a bipartisan gesture by withdrawing the judicial nominees previously rejected by the Senate.
In his letter, Salazar speaks about the need for bipartisanship and tells Bush he needs to reach out to Democrats. Salazar notes that he has voted for all of Bush's cabinet nominees to this point but says that President Bush's renomination of previously rejected judicial nominees will serve to cause animosity and divisiveness. From his letter:

The decision to re-nominate these individuals will undoubtedly create the animosity and divisiveness between the President and the Unites States Senate as an institution that is not helpful to our Nation and will sidetrack our collective efforts to work on other crucial matters. Therefore, I respectfully request that you withdraw the nominations of these individuals.

Read the full diary entry for the complete text of Salazar's letter. Salazar angered many democrats when he voted to confirm Gonzales as AG. However, this letter could help repair his image with the Democrats. More on the Judicial Nominations currently under consideration coming soon (once midterms are over...).
--------

Posted by Max at 11:43 PM

Supreme Court Nominations

Yesterday's edition of USA Today has a great overview of the politics of a Supreme Court nomination, from the President's selection through Senate confirmation. With more and more talk of Rehnquist's imminent retirement, its worth a read.
--------

Posted by Max at 03:46 PM

March 01, 2005

Senators Starting to Fundraise Earlier

From Bloomberg News:

Of the 33 senators up for re-election in 2006, 24 had more money in the bank at the end of 2004 than the incumbent in the same seat had six years earlier, according to documents filed with the Federal Election Commission. Thirteen had $1 million or more stashed away at the end of last year, compared with nine who had that much at the same point six years earlier.

House members, who stand for election every two years, often begin their next campaign as soon as they take office. Senators, with the luxury of six-year terms, traditionally have a more leisurely schedule of fund-raising. Not this time, as incumbents of both parties are preparing to confront expected challenges or seeking to scare off potential competitors.

``The permanent campaign that you see on the House side is moving to the Senate side,'' said Republican fund-raiser Carolyn Machado, principal of Washington-based Machado & Co.
...
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein had $304,561 in the bank two years before her last Senate campaign. She spent $10.3 million and won the 2000 election with 56 percent of the vote. Two years before her next campaign, she has 10 times more money, $3 million.

``This time, I wasn't going to wait,'' Feinstein, 71, said. ``It just eases the pressure over time to raise the money a little bit earlier.''
...
The senator with the biggest bank account balance on Dec. 31 was Texas Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison, with $6.7 million. Hutchison is considering running for governor of Texas. Second was Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat, with $5.5 million.

--------

Posted by Max at 03:01 PM

To All Democrats Supporting Social Security Phase Out

From CNN's Crossfire, via Atrios:

Paul Begala:

A new poll for the Associated Press shows that a solid majority, indeed 55 percent of Americans, oppose President Bush's plan to privatize part of Social Security, despite Mr. Bush's relentless stumping for it. The GOP chairman in Hawaii says -- quote -- "I think Social Security as it is has served its purpose" -- unquote. That is the Bush Republican view.

It is not, however, the American view. Most Americans do not want Mr. Bush to borrow $2 trillion to cut Social Security benefits and replace guaranteed benefits for seniors with guaranteed fees for stockbrokers. That's why, in a recent NPR poll, just 31 percent of Americans, only 31 percent, support Mr. Bush's privatization plan.

And yet rumors abound that Democrats, perhaps even former vice presidential candidate Joe Lieberman, will find a compromise that allows Mr. Bush to succeed in privatizing part of Social Security. Look, any Democrat who rescue Mr. Bush's assault on Social Security ought to be defeated in a primary and allowed to begin their own retirement early.

--------

Posted by Max at 02:44 PM

February 21, 2005

Social Security in the Senate

Josh Marshall posted yesterday about Joe Lieberman's willingness consider Bush's proposal to dismantle Social Security. While most are confident that Lieberman will ultimately side with the Democrats when it comes to a vote, Josh writes that Lieberman openly considering the options is dangerous:

As we've said from the start, the key to saving Social Security is Democratic unity. Look at those folks on the Conscience Caucus list. With a very few exceptions they are only there because there's no Democratic cover to make the vote. That's created time for the public to look and see what the president is trying to do. And the more they look, the more they turn against his plan. Throw in a few Democrats supporting phase-out and all but a handful of them will firm up and vote with the White House. Let's say every Dem for phase-out frees up three Republicans.
...
Give him Lieberman and suddenly the President is making headway in the Senate where the key vote will be made. A high-profile Democrat, like Lieberman, for phase-out would probably nail down three or four Senate Republicans for the president. In similar fashion, it would put an equal number of Senate Democrats back in play. One or two of those Dems sign on and you'll see them bring more with them. With a shift like that, suddenly phase-out is back in business and quite possibly even filibuster proof.
...
Even if Lieberman eventually decides to keep his hands clean when phase-out comes to a vote, it might not matter since his individual vote probably wouldn't be needed. The damage would already be done.

If you haven't been reading Josh's incredible coverage of the Social Security debate, you should. To understand the positions of each congressman, he has created two labels, "the conscience caucus" for Republicans opposing phase-out and "the fainthearted faction" for Democrats supporting it.
Senators in the Conscience Caucus: *Lincoln Chafee (RI), *Mike DeWine (OH), *Olympia Snowe (ME), Gordon Smith (OR), Arlen Specter (PA).
Senators in the Fainthearted Faction: Tom Carper (DE), *Kent Conrad (ND), Mary Landrieu (LA), *Joe Lieberman (CT), *Ben Nelson (NE).
(*) indicates a senator up for re-election in 2006.
--------

Posted by Max at 09:10 AM

February 19, 2005

Opposition Party

From Political Wire:

"American want Democrats to stand up to Bush," the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire reports. "Fully 60%, including one-fourth of Republicans, say Democrats in Congress should make sure Bush and his party 'don't go too far.' Just 34% want Democrats to 'work in a bipartisan way' to help pass the president's priorities."

Well, it looks like Harry Reid is off to a good start. I didn't like him when he was first elected Minority Leader, but I think that he's doing a good job so far, especially with his refusal to let Republicans label him an obstructionist.
--------

Posted by Max at 03:55 PM

Voting Reform

MyDD has a great story about recently introduced Voting Reform Legislation, sponsored by Senators Boxer, Kerry and Clinton, and Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones. The bill includes making election day a federal holiday, promoting early voting, same day voter registration, no-excuse absentee balloting and uniform voting registration. Read the article for more.
--------

Posted by Max at 12:03 PM

February 14, 2005

Frist Says He Has 51 Votes To Abolish Filibuster

Senate Majority Leader said today that he has the 51 votes needed to change Senate rules to prevent Democratic filibusters against Bush's judicial nominees. Referred to as the "nuclear option" for the dangerous precedent it would set, this rule change would severely hamper the Democrats' ability to prevent ultra-conservative right wing judges form being confirmed. This is a particular concern considering the high likelihood of several Supreme Court vacancies in the next four years.

While the "nuclear option" would certainly help the Republicans confirm Bush's reactionary judicial nominees, its incomprehensible to me that they aren't considering the possibility of them being in the minority again at some point in the future, where this rule change will work against them. While Frist argues that the Democrats violated precedent by filibustering judicial nominees, changing Senate rules to prevent filibusters is an even more dangerous breach of precedent, and its repercussions are likely to hurt Republicans as well as Democrats in the future (hopefully as soon as 2006).

See more about Frist and the Nuclear Option here.
--------

Posted by Max at 10:08 PM