Tuesday, September 20, 2005

Let’s shoot for 50

Now that Senate minority guy Harry Reid has indicated that he will vote against Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, it’s probable that he’ll only gain about ten Democratic votes. That the Democrats would vote against such a qualified nominee indicates they’re completely in the tank for their special interests. Reid is utterly insane if he believes this is a threat:

During his floor remarks, Reid said Roberts' nomination does not rise to the level of "extraordinary circumstances," the code phrase used to suggest whether Democrats would employ a filibuster, the procedural tool used to block a nomination from getting a full Senate vote.
Oh-no: not the filibuster threat that was spayed and neutered last year! The “Gang of 14” made sure of that and the Coalition of the Chillin’ smiled. It’s transparent now that the Democrats will reflexively vote against any Bush nominee to replace that critical swing vote of Sandra Day O’Connor. Let’s get Priscilla Owen in there or maybe Michael Luttig. Hell, let’s dig up Robert Bork. There will be no filibuster and Bush’s next nominee only needs 50 out of 55 Republican votes.

Let’s drive the Dems crazy and engineer a tie so that Cheney can break it.

Extra – The days of bipartisan votes are over. 96-3 for Ginsberg? You’ll never see that again.

Bonus – John Cole calls Reid’s decision either “tone deaf or brain dead”: “If someone like Roberts is going to get 30-40 votes against from Democrats, I see no reason why Bush doesn’t appoint a fire-breathing ideologue.”

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Merciful heavens, empty posturing from a politician. What HAS Washington come to? As for the rest of your daydreaming, "chill" on this:

"Several senior Republicans, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss strategy publicly, said Tuesday they're starting to fear Bush's troubles could threaten the GOP's standing among voters in next year's elections. By an 8-point margin, voters are more likely to call themselves Democrats than Republicans; there was no gap in self-identification a year ago.

Worries about his political base may play into two presidential decisions that threaten to divide the GOP: Bush's nomination to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and his final plans for Katrina spending."

2005-2008: the real fun begins.

Eric said...

Thanks for that unrelated, unattributed, one-shot poll that indicates a blip in voter identification after years of steady advance by the Republicans:

However, the average Democratic lead in party identification has fallen from an average of 21 percentage points in the 1970s, eleven percentage points in the 1980s, and seven points in the 1990s to only five points, so far, in the 2000s. There is no mistaking the huge change in party affiliation that has taken place over the last 30 years.

Source: http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=444

You remind of some other poster who keeps expounding on the “rapid” rise of attendance at baseball games when, in actuality, the attendance has only just reached the level it was right before the 1994 strike. Hooray: back to zero!

Anonymous said...

Partisanship doesn't move that fast in less than a year. Ever. No war or depression or disaster or anything else has ever made that happen.

So instead of buying that poll, an 8-point shift should be evidence that the poll is bunk.

Look, Bush is right where he was on election night with the voters. All of these silly little polls are just for the sanity of all those folks in the media who were convinced Bush was going to be a one-termer.

Moreover, and unrelated to that point, this marks an important milestone. No longer should any GOP Senator vote for a Democratic nominee if this ends up being a close, party-line vote.

Eric said...

Don't forget that John Kerry received the most votes of any Democrat in Presidential election history...and lost.

(Previous record holder: Al Gore)

Eric said...

That's weird: a comment I was responding to disappeared. I don't think I did anything. Hmmm.

Anonymous said...

As always, we should blame Cindy Sheehan. Here's the deleted post:

"You remind of some other poster who keeps expounding on the “rapid” rise of attendance at baseball games when, in actuality..."

Hmm, I resemble that remark. (And what do you know? A gratuitous hit-and-run baseball comment! Has it really been 2 weeks already?)

You say "back to zero!" on baseball attendance because after all, what else CAN you say at this point in your quixotic quest to pooh-pooh baseball's popularity? That must be the new math, in which "zero" = "the highest figures in the 130-year history of the sport." "Po-tah-toes," "sour grapes," let's call the whole thing off.

By your crisp logic, if Bush had beaten Gore by 512 electoral votes last year, it wouldn't have been significant since that would only have taken the G.O.P. back up to its 1984 level of success.

Anonymous said...

Added comment:
That "record" for the most votes is broken every 4 years, for both winning and losing candidates, even when turnout declines as a percentage. It's a non-retort.

For that reason it would be irrelevant to compare baseball's total ticket sales to past eras, when there were 16 or 20 or 26 teams instead of 30, or 154 games instead of 162. Fortunately (for me), that is NOT what I've pointed out.

I cite the per-game average, which is a constant measurement. That per-game number is higher in 2005 than in any season in baseball history. Even better than before the 1994 strike. Or way, way back.... you know, back when the game was popular.

The Red Sox sold out both 2004 and 2005 before Opening Day. Meanwhile, the Indy Racing League (which airs on ABC and ESPN) just shrank its season, and cancelled some of its events. R.I.P. baseball.

Anonymous said...

Great Blog, check out this business. This is the Goose that lays you Golden Eggs! based business home opportunity usiness

Enjoy!

Anonymous said...

Wow your site is great- ways for kid to make money- if you're interested in making making a profit when you sleep please visit my site ways for kid to make money

Anonymous said...

Your site is quite interesting - free mlm classified ads- Keep up the good work. My domain is

href="http://www.homebusinessandvacations.com">free mlm classified ads
. please check it out.

Anonymous said...

Hi,

Would like more information please about affiliate programs. Can anyone direct me to the right source?

Hope this is not too much out of this blog topic.

I appreciate your help.

Regrads,
spyware cleaner