The Problem with Hardball

Captains Quarters has a post concerning Ken Starr and his treatment at the hands of CBS. I guess it looks bad for CBS again, which is not something I take pleasure in, but the subject drifted in the comments thread to Republican tactics for pushing judges. I particularly enjoyed a long rant by Carol Herman, who, among other things, is opposed to eliminating the filibuster (I think). I take it she self-identifies as a libertarian, but I seem to be agreeing with everything she says except the third rail thing. I'll take the liberty of using her text to link to some of my own posts on related topics.

You can't elect a Pope on 51 votes, out of a college of Cardinals that has 100 members. It wouldn't fly. It would be so wrong, and so illigitimate, it would be like comparing a blessed event, with something that smells bad.

So IF Bush thinks he wins by shoving all republicans, or even letting five peel away, as a winning tactic, he's just WRONG. It will be the most costly mistake a president can make, short of touching the 3rd rail. In getting electrocuted only one guy dies. But if the GOP wants to throw out a majority of Americans from its tent (as it has already discarded the Libertarians); than Bush doesn't even understand a losing hand.

To gain legitimacy, what the GOP needs is 60 votes. AND, a mixture of votes from both sides of the room. When the senate votes.

Why's that?

Because it takes cooperation to get elected to a permanent, lifetime job. And, getting angry about this only hurts your own team.

While the democrats benefit. How's that? Well, right now, in the senate, Harry Reid understood he's up from the mat. As bad as things were for the democrats, since 2002. And, of course, 2004. The winds have changed.

Blowing against the GOP's growth.

Even if everyone still keeps yammering about Algore. And, Kerry. They're OUT OF THE GAME! You might as well root for Babe Ruth to hit a homer, t'marra. Past events aren't going to reappear. However.

And, in this breech the democrats have gained ground. While the pubbies are losing it.

Even if the 7 or 9 judicial appointees sail through the senate; it's on par with spit in the ocean. There are THOUSANDS of Federal judgeships. Maneuvering a few into place gains very little. Except headlines down the line. Which don't favor the minority. If the majority just scratches its head at all the lunacy.

To say nothing of how Bush doesn't have much left when he goes to replace Rehnquist. (It's probably gonna be with Scalia.) Not that being "chief" means much. Each of the 9 sit with equal powers. While the "newcomer" makes the coffee. In that room, where ALL of the nine must gather in Conference ... can't send in staff ... when they meet in secrecy, deciding what cases can be heard. And, what don't make it UP by Cert.) You didn't know that?

Then, there's a newcomer. They say that Bush will pick Alberto Gonzales. Keeping with the idea that Affirmative Action picks need to address the lack of a Latino on the High Court. We're a long way from what had been the great days of Supreme Court respect. (And, Bush doesn't have all that much room to maneuver, either.) Tight spot. He got himself into it. By not convincing a majority of Americans he was a president for ALL.

Can Bush win in the Mideast? Yup. I think he has! But it's up there with Reagan's win of tearing down the Berlin Wall. Good words. After he already left office. And, that's not the same thing as being there, in the present, weilding real powers! (FDR wielded real powers! In real time.) Big difference.

Posted by: Carol_Herman May 12, 2005 03:01 PM