Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/15/17229/7847

Today Bill Nelson(D-Florida) introduced a "sense of the Senate amendment".

It reads:

It is the sense of the Senate that Congress should reject any Social Security plan that requires deep benefit cuts or a massive increase in debt.

All 44 Democrats signed on.

Along with 5 Republicans; Collins, Snowe, Dewine, Specter, and Graham.

Unless Bush resorts to fuzzy math, he doesn't have 60 votes. Back to the workshop, Prez...


:lol

 

[Fragamemnon]

That's 44 D, an I (Jeffords) and 5 Republicans. They still have 50 votes and Darth Cheney to break the tie, though I'm surprised to see that some of the deficit hawk Republicans aren't signing on as well.

That being said, they were never anywhere near sixty as long as Democrats held together to oppose the legislation and refused to compromise on private accounts. Even more telling about the current state of Bush's social security reform plan is that poll numbers continue to plummet, his Rove's genrational/racial divide-and-conquer approach has failed spectacularly, and both the House and the Senate leaderships REALLY do not want to let this one come to a vote upon which the issue can become nationalized for the 2006 midterms.

Bush lost this one, the writing is on the wall. There's zero runway for any plan right now on the issue. That's why you've seen the corporate whoring legislation breeze through lately-because once First goes nuclear (and he will, because it's the ONLY way he'll have any credibility as a candidate with social conservatives in 2008), the Senate is gonna shut down completely. You won't be able to fart on the Senate floor without having a Dem force a roll call vote asking for a resolution for a can of air freshner. When Rehnquist calls it quits in June, prepare for the best f'n C-SPAN since Orrin Hatch went berserk with his pile of tax lawbooks in 1995.

 

[videogamer]

once First goes nuclear (and he will, because it's the ONLY way he'll have any credibility as a candidate with social conservatives in 2008)

What issue would Frist go nuclear on? Are the judges (my guess) that big of an issue for the social conservatives? I know they talk a lot about "activist judges", but these rejections of judges have been going on for quite a while now. Of course, if Rehnquist leaves, then it totally makes sense.

 

[Fragamemnon]

Frist has himself backed into a corner here. Let me explain.

On one hand, he's retiring in 2006. This is his last hurrah as Senate Majority Leader. It's no secret that he's debating a 2008 nomination for President-the Republican field will be very open and Frist certainly has the name recognition down to make a run for it. HOWEVER, he hasn't really endeared the conservative base during his time as majority leader. He's been unable to get anywhere on the social conservative agenda-he's a workaholic, but he's was consistently outflanked by Tom Daschle before this Congress and is already losing some fights in this Congress as well, in large part due to his inability to fragment and peel off Democrats while losing a couple of Republicans.

Essentially, he's not viewed as someone who served in Washington at the crest of Republican power and enabled the kind of sweeping reform with the majority that the base would have liked.

Now he's got the chance to redeem himself in the eyes of the GOP faithful by making a VERY public power grab and sending the most blantant of parlimentary FUs to Democrats by abolishing the judicial filibuster. It has wide conservative base/activist support and will get him tons of good press in the ring wing media for doing so, even if it comes at a steep cost. If it means that the Senate can install a Bush-selected wingnut SC justice with 50 votes, they'll be estatic with him, regardless of the irreperable damage done to the Senate and the parlimentary standstill that will occur afterwards.

Going nuclear seems to be the way for Frist to leave office with a bang and set himself up well to run in 2008 if that's what he wants. If he doesn't want to run in 2008, it's likely that he deliever the rules change and will instead kindly ignore the Bush re-nominees while the Democrats filibuster them down again.

It's a tough spot for him. Without going nuclear, I don't see how he finishes in the top five in Iowa or South Carolina in the 2008 primaries.

 

[Triumph]

Interesting analysis, Frag. Who else do you see running on the GOP side in 2008? Santorum? Jeb?

 

[Mandark]

I'd bet money against them going nuclear. All the nasty procedural stuff the GOP does they try to keep quiet, and this would be very public. I know they have their talking points lined for this lined up already, but I don't think they're confidant of their ability to sell this.

My prediction: The nuclear option is publicly mentioned every time they need leverage to break a filibuster or something of that nature. Like FDR threatening to expand the Supreme Court and pack it with friendly judges, or an NFL team considering a move to Los Angeles to get a new stadium deal.

 

[android]

What does going nuclear mean? I've never heard of that phrase in that context (then again I'm Canadian).



Edit: Thanks Mandark

 

[sc0la]

What does going nuclear mean? I've never heard of that phrase in that context (then again I'm Canadian).

We're american. we nuke everything.

Japanese, Terrorists, microwave burritos, etc

 

[Mandark]

In the Senate, the minority party can filibuster (basically talk and talk and prevent a bill from being voted on). To break a filibuster, 60 out of the 100 Senators have to vote for cloture (end of debate).

The nuclear option would be a procedural ruling that it takes a simple majority to bring cloture, instead of 60 votes.

 

[Incognito]

They're fundamentally changing the rules of the Senate just so Bush can push through 10 of his most conservative judges to lifetime appointments. It's ridiculous, and with that said, the GOP will do it.

They've already started with the talking points, fellas. Instead of "nuclear" option, GOPSpeak terms the phrase "Constitutional Option", now. Expect lots and lots of bullshit about the constitution and supermajority.

As for 2008, Raoul, look at Gov. Mitt Romney from Masschusetts; Senator George Allen from Virgina; Senator Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania(He faces reelection in 2006 and his lost is almost assured against Bob Casey Jr. (D); Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska.

The Weekly Standard wants Bush to tap Cheney as his successor.

There's lots of talk about Rudy Guliani and John McCain, but those two can't make it past the primaries. Especially Rudy, he's far too liberal.

 

[sefskillz]

Senator Chuck Hagel from Nebraska.

Yea, totally. He was almost picked as VP by Bush and he has ES&S voting machines working for him