let them complain (4.00 / 1)

I doubt they will all hold together for a filibuster lacking any evidence of wrongdoing.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

---

by: Hopeful in NJ @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 17:55:27 PM CST

Chips are Down: The truth (4.00 / 2)

Progressive Punch lists a score for each Senator or House member on the close votes, labelled "chips are down."  What the scores show is that the voting percentages dip preciptously on close votes and all those 20% become 8% or 12%.

Add up all 49 Republican scores in the Senate and the chips are down total comes to 3.258 votes.  I took an easy way to approximate the loss of Democratic votes from their 51 members and came up with about 8 votes.  I suspect that we are looking at around 45 votes as the "natural" breakout of a 51-49 Senate.  A lot of Democrats stray at least 20% to 30% of the time, only 5 Republicans fit that bill (the Maine ladies, Specter, Coleman, and Gordon Smith).

Bipartisanship is either an old myth or it is the Democrats crossing over to support the Republicans and pass Bush's legislation.

Wait a month and things will be much easier though still difficult.

As we all know, the red states are chronic takers of federal largesse, paying less than they receive in benefits.  A vengeful stance by the Michigan two could shut down all the agricultural payola, particularly targeting it to heavily Republican states (two Senators) like Kansas,Alabama,Texas,South Carolina,Georgia and Mississippi.  Especially to corporate farmers.

Ironic (and moronic), isn't it.  Kansas is a major producer of corporate jets.  The Republicans are stupidly screwing their own.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 18:01:32 PM CST

quel surpris (4.00 / 2)

What a shocker. Republicans repay Democratic (yes, LIBERAL) support for bipartisan appointees like Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Chao, Norton, Mukasey by actually seriously challenging a Democratic nomination. Actually, that is how it is supposed to work. Holder DOES have questions to answer that bother me; what is really annoying to me is how the Republicans do not seem to be the weak-kneed apologist that the Dems inevitably are. And this difference is always reinforced by the DLC/Lieberman/Hildebrand attacks on the "angry Left", the shrill Left, the far Left, the left extreme, the left blogs, the DFH's; as far as I know one can essentially go as far to the right as one wants without risking attacks from other Republicans. For the Dems the attacks on the left seem to be gratuitous.

---

by: VLaszlo @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 18:02:46 PM CST

Agreed (4.00 / 1)

I can't wait to see notions of postpartisanship die.  It was a harmful campaign rhetorical fiction that too many people bought into.

---

by: md @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 18:39:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sounds like you and the senate GOP can get beyond partisanship and (0.00 / 0)

collaboratively oppose holder's nomination....

i, for one, would like to either hear someone make the progressive case against holder, or see some pushback from the left on his behalf.  it is time for people to start making a choice here, since there very likely will be serious hearings, and his nomination could be derailed.  

---

by: seabrook @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 19:05:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sen Carper defended Holder (0.00 / 0)

Carper rose to speak this evening after Sen Sessions, who had gone through his long record as a US Attorney, stressing that pardons are rare, and that Marc Rich's was especially egregious, Sessions indicated that Holder is going to be held accountable for that pardon (or at least his part in it).

Sen Carper quietly reminded us that he'd spent time on boards that considered pardon requests, and while Governor of Delaware, had the final say on accepting or rejecting a proposed pardon - therefore he'd taken final responsibility for the decision. Thus he removed the onus from Holder, as it was President Clinton who made the final decision on Rich.

---

by: Books Alive @ Thu Dec 11, 2008 at 20:48:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yes, I may have betrayed the cause, (4.00 / 2)

by suggesting that maybe Holder should answer some questions, just as I think Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Chao, Norton, Mukasey, and how did I forget Chertoff, should have been given more than a pro forma look and then approval. (And I will throw in as well that both Roberts and Alito should have been filibustered). There have been questions raised about Holder's role in the Mark Rich pardon which should bother people; at least I know the pardon bothers me; it smells to me like that pardon was not only unjustified but there smelt like a quid pro quo to give this infinitely wealthy criminal the pardon. I think others are bothered as well. I want to know what about the pardon appeal was sufficiently worthy that Holder passed it along. As you know pardons are granted infinitesimally often; something about this appeal must have made sense to Holder. Nothing about this appeal made sense to me. I would like to know why Holder thought the merits of the case justified a pardon.

It sounds like you and the Obama-chorus think any questions asked of an Obama appointee is an outrage. I do not agree with that viewpoint.  

---

by: VLaszlo @ Fri Dec 12, 2008 at 06:27:52 AM CST

[ Parent ]