The fact is that the Dems had already essentially filibustered a number of Bush judicial nominations, including Chris Cox and a few others who Bush didn't even try to nominate in the face of Dem opposition. Oh yeah, Daschle can't get credit for blocking Chris Cox because....why is that?
As for the bankruptcy bill, the opponents didn't have the votes for a filibuster, period. Wish they did, but they didn't. There are plenty of moderate to conservative Dems - there's no uniformity in the party on a lot of issues. But it's worth noting that the reason the bankruptcy bill hasn't yet become law is because Daschle et al have essentially been filibustering the appointment of conference committee members to this point. The bill will become law, unfortunately, but it will be more progressive in shape with the Senate conferees being appointed by Daschle rather than Trent Lott.
As the Dems bring up patient bill of rights, minimum wage, and prescription drug bills, I have no problem in awarding Daschle a big red start for forwarding progressive politics. He is far more conservative than Ralph Nader but he will end up doing far more than progressivism than a futile useless race that actually lost concrete power for progressives. The Left is allergic to strategy and organizing for power, so they love purist losers like Nader. Give me a moderate like Daschle who moves the ball in our direction any day.
-- Nathan Newman
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael McIntyre" <mmcintyr at wppost.depaul.edu> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 12:31 PM Subject: Re: fightin' Dems
Hmm...so the Dems are going to filibuster the judicial nominations the way they filibustered the bankruptcy bill? Come on, Nathan! You've just come off of a major party victory, you have a nominee before you whom you have reasons to hate for the most narrowly partisan reasons, and what do you do? Go for an immediate tangible victory for your party? Get the troops FEELING like a party to increase cohesion? Nah, you immediately roll over, bare your throat, and let the world know that your lapdog status is unchanged. Today, Olson, tomorrow the Federalist Society. Daschle deserves an award? Bah, humbug!
Michael McIntyre
>>> nathan at newman.org 05/25/01 10:30AM >>>
Yep- they don't actually have control yet- the GOP could filibuster, so a
filibuster at this point didn't make sense, especially with Zell Miller
making Jeffords-like noises himself.
As far as I am concerned, Daschle deserves an award for maneuvering to save the courts from the rightwing.
In the end, it really doesn't matter that much who gets appointed to administration positions- they take orders from Bush and will be as conservative or moderate as he decides on an issue. It's not like having Christie Todd Whitman at EPA makes a damn bit of difference.
So the Dem leadership have been smart as far as I'm concerned to save their filibusters for judicial nominations, especially since they now may be able to kill a lot of the worst in committee.
So go Dems! :)
Nathan
----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Henwood" <dhenwood at panix.com> To: "lbo-talk" <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2001 9:59 AM Subject: fightin' Dems
<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/25/politics/25OLSO.html>
New York Times - May 25, 2001
In Setting Priorities, Democrats Give Up Confirmation Battle By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, May 24 - The Senate voted today to confirm Theodore B. Olson as solicitor general by a narrow margin after Democrats, contemplating their imminent majority status, decided they did not want to defeat the nomination as the first exercise of their new power.
The defection this morning of Senator James M. Jeffords of Vermont from the Republican Party thus had the unpredicted result of helping Mr. Olson in his bitter confirmation battle, which Democrats on the Judiciary Committee had delayed and strenuously opposed.
Many senators had believed the defeat of the Olson nomination would be the first consequence of the profound shift in power in the Senate from Mr. Jeffords's defection.
Democrats had earlier considered trying to mount a campaign to defeat Mr. Olson's nomination on the basis of the major role he played over the last several years in a campaign of relentless criticism of President Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton. In addition, Mr. Olson was the object of great partisan resentment by the Democrats for his representation of George W. Bush in the Florida election case before the Supreme Court that resulted in Mr. Bush winning the presidency.
But at their private caucus today, Democratic leaders told members they would allow the Olson nomination to go to a vote as they regrouped and figured out how they wanted to reshape the Senate agenda.
[...]