Bolton, and the 'nuclear' option

Say goodbye to the filibuster, cause that's what this is really all about. Karl Rove called a meeting and explained the 'facts of life' to Frist. This Bolton mess is making shrub look ineffective AND they have some impending Supreme Court retirements to prepare for. KKKarl doesn't want a prolonged fight over Rehnquist replacement. These Senate battles - and the apparent Dems success in them - are seen to be undermining shrubs 'leadership', and delaying the grand plan of dismantling Social Security.

They'll have a re-vote, and if they don't get cloture, Frist will invoke the 'nuclear' option and kill the filibuster for all time.

so they'd have to come up with a whole new set of bullshit.

...doesn't matter if it's a judicial nomination, a cabinet nomination, or just legislation. The only thing that can't be filibustered (under current Senate rules) is budget bills.

They don't need any new bullshit, they'll use the same justification they were going to use to kill the filibuster of the Court nominees. And once they kill the filibuster for one thing, it's dead forever.

...that Republicans have heavily used the filibuster in the past to block non-judicial nominations. Judicial nominations were only occasionally filibustered by both parties.

You could be right...

or

it could be that the strategy is to threaten the Dems with a recess appointment if the vote isn't allowed.......although that doesn't make much sense except for the fact that a recess appointment might be seen as a defeat for dubya that KKKarl doesn't want.

We may have picked the wrong fight here -- Bolton leaves when * does, whereas the Janice Rogers Brown, et al. are on the bench for life. If we end up losing the filibuster over this, what will we have gained at all? (Sigh.)

...we were gonna lose the filibuster anyway you cut it. Once Frist started down that road by publically talking about it, the filibuster was doomed. All it was going to take was the Dems standing their ground to provoke it.(I wouldn't be surprised to see another "compromise" by the "moderates" to avoid the nuclear option once again.)


And Brown, et al were going to get their appointments confirmed, either through "compromise", or after the republithugs killed the filibuster.

If ever there was a need to STAND-FAST with the time tested Filibuster it is NOW!

BTW it would be considered an abuse of power for them to use the nuke option given that the WH has NOT come across with the requested documentation.

Yes, they will coerce, blackmail and bribe Senators, but NO WAY will they, if they have functioning brains, NUKE the Democrats in the Senate.

if they force this on bolton without releasing the requested documents and threated the so called 'nookyoulur' option again. they made a deal, the dems let the nominees through, this is just another dominance play.

...cause this could blow up in the republithugs face. Arrogant asses that they are, KKKarl doesn't care, but you know some of those NE moderate (R) Sen have got to be looking at the polls.

With the gang of 14, they are in the minority.

Or will they once again give in to bush to "preserve" the filibuster?

For example, Voinovich almost certainly would oppose going nuclear over Bolton. I suspect a few other repugs would too. I think this is about justifying a recess appointment, not going nuclear.

onenote

Rove will have found his easy marks to use again and again and again.

but I fear you may be right.

Anyone who still thinks there's no difference between a Democrat and a Republican and that it doesn't matter for whom they vote, or if they vote, can look at the fact that our country is now ruled by an anti-democratic theocratic majority, and have no one but themselves to blame.

That's what I can't figure - I mean, at some point, you'd think the American people would awaken from their self-induced TV coma and realize they're being FUCKED. What option do we have against their stranglehold on our democracy but an uprising? Is that what they want???

Killing the fillibuster won't make the Frat Boy look more effective. It will show once again that he can't get his way on the same level playing field on which past president played.

That won't make him look like a strong leader. That will make him look like a dangerous dangerous tyrant.

...but why else would the WH demand Frist hold a revote that they know they're gonna lose?

I don't think KKKarl gives a rats ass about anything other than bush getting his way. Getting his way PROVES he's a strong leader.

And I don't think that bunch in the WH knows the difference between "strong leader" and "dangerous tyrant"

I'm not saying your hypthesis is wrong, either.

He wants another vote so he can build the case for having to use the recess appointment. I don't think there's much chance he'd go after the filibuster rule on Bolton. He'd probably have more than the repub gang of 7 opposing him. For example, Voinovich, who wasn't part of the original gang of 7 almost certainly would oppose going nuclear over Bolton. Probably several others as well.

onenote

Then it would look like the power grab that it is.

. . . pulling the trigger on the nuclear option might just be the Saturday Night Massacre.

A personal reminiscence is in order here. When I heard the news bulletin on television that Special Prosecutor Cox had been fired and that Attorney General Richardson and Asst AG Ruckelshaus resigned rather than do the firing, I immediately reached for the phone to call Western Union to wire my Congressman to urge the impeachment of the president (such was the state of telecommunications in October 1973). I took an hour to get through to Western Union. I knew right away exactly what was going on.

...that was the end of Nixon, and it was obvious. Thank god there were still Republicans with principles then. We'd be hard pressed to find the likes of Richardson & Ruckleshaus these days. I don't think you could find even one in this administration, much less two.

They are desperate to have one of their own in the UN to destroy it in order to protect themselves.